Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens

[#juan]

If you think that no combat should be engaged if there is even the slightest chance of killing civilians --- if you can't see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing them then you are quite beyond help and far too naive and delicate to responsibly discuss this.

In fact I think it's really quite disingenuous on your part to act like you don't see the difference.

Listen Claudius, you are walking on thin ice.

Nowhere did I say anything that you are impying. Telling me that I'm too naive is not helping your cause, Don't do it again.

What is in question here is the negligent killing of civilians. That some civilians are going to be killed and injured is a given. When a houseful of civilians is bombed because it is suspected that an insurgent might be inside, it is pure crap and it helps nothing. The survivors will be future "terrorists". How many "terrorists" have been created in just that way?

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

Coalition forces----------discharge weapons directed at civilian targets=dead civilians

So called terrorist forces------discharge weapons directed at
civilian targets=dead civilians

the difference is=0

anyone who argues that the weapons can discriminate between terrorist and civilian is an idiot, the civilian houses were targeted on purpose therefore the civilians in those houses were targeted on purpose.
Conclusion either both sides are terrorists or terrorism dosn't exist.

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

Bitwhys

its not a loaded question

was the bombing justified yes or no?

You've lost this discussion. I answered your question already, you seem afraid to answer mine and now you play the "why Daddy?" game.

I answered your question. You also do not have the right or the authority to decide whether or not the question needs to be answered 'yes' or 'no'...even though I did answer yes or no and you still sit there dribbling out demands to answer the question.


You sound like those talking heads on Fox News ...."Anser yes or no....answer yes or no". I answered it plain and simple and your rhetorical juvenile games are only making you look stupid. discuss this

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

Dark beaver:

Coalition forces----------discharge weapons directed at civilian targets=dead civilians

So called terrorist forces------discharge weapons directed at
civilian targets=dead civilians

the difference is=0

What can I say? There's no arguing with a childs' logic. Yes, palnning an attack on civilians just to try and kill as many as possible is exactly the same as civilan casualties that came about from the purposeful attacking of the enemy.

No one can fight a childs argument....you win.


.

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

Jaun

Listen Claudius, you are walking on thin ice.

Nowhere did I say anything that you are impying. Telling me that I'm too naive is not helping your cause, Don't do it again.

lol.

What? I'm not even talking to you so nothing I said was directed at you and so yes, nowhere did you say anything that I am implying. Jaun your article seemed interesting but I have yet to get to reading it. But I have yet to address you so, like, chill out.

The quote of mine that you use was not directed towards you and was intended for a different poster (BitWhys) as indicated by the quote of his I had there.


Don't do it again? I didn't do it at all.


.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

Claudius, if there is a difference between coalition murder and taliban murder would you explain it to us.

You cannot see the difference between purposely planing an attack on civilians with the sole purpose of killing them and fighting Taliban and incurring civilian casualties in the act?

If not I really can't help you.


It's mind boggling hilarious really. I can see Rwanda right now....turn history around and pretend we had a decent armed response in Rwanda.....We would have to kill civilians ...in fact civilians were the ones doing the killing. Had we been able to shoot some of them we would've been able to escort the 500000 or more killed to safe refuge. We would've probably had to shoot a few people for them to simply get the idea we were willing to shoot ---which was half the problem with the UN detachment, everyone knew they wouldn't shoot which was disastrous---and all we'd be left with is people like you screaming about the innocent civilians and "how do you tell the civilians form the mob" and how do you justify it...etc.etc....and there would be no defence from that accusation because there would not be the 500000 bodies to point at that were prevented.



.

You seem to be having a problem pukeing up a difference between the piles of dead civilians. It's only obvious to the brainwashed and the braindead. It's hilarious, I for one am going to enjoy having you arround. the moral majority produces good stand-up comedy. :lol:

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

anyone who argues that the weapons can discriminate between terrorist and civilian is an idiot, the civilian houses were targeted on purpose therefore the civilians in those houses were targeted on purpose.

You're right. Weapons don't discriminate, but the people using them do....so there's no one else to blame when the Taliban purposely attack civilians is there? Anyone who can't see that is an idiot....or a liar.


/

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

You seem to be having a problem pukeing up a difference between the piles of dead civilians. It's only obvious to the brainwashed and the braindead. It's hilarious, I for one am going to enjoy having you arround. the moral majority produces good stand-up comedy.

Is that statement supposed to make sense?.... if that's what consitutes a rebuttle around here I'm going to have a lot of fun.....

Yes stand-up comedy is an area you're probably better suited for.


.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

Bitwhys

its not a loaded question

was the bombing justified yes or no?

You've lost this discussion. I answered your question already, you seem afraid to answer mine and now you play the "why Daddy?" game.

I answered your question. You also do not have the right or the authority to decide whether or not the question needs to be answered 'yes' or 'no'...even though I did answer yes or no and you still sit there dribbling out demands to answer the question.


You sound like those talking heads on Fox News ...."Anser yes or no....answer yes or no". I answered it plain and simple and your rhetorical juvenile games are only making you look stupid. discuss this

that's funny because I can answer it.

no

it was not justified.

how about that? I answered it and didn't even have to beat my wife to do it.

your turn.

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

(sigh) more childish games from Bitwhys


Too bad THIS was the question:

Do you see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing as many of them as possible?

Answer yes or no.

So hard to tell when you're just being dumb or acting dumb.


.

 

[BitWhys]

So hard to tell when you're just being dumb or acting dumb..

so hard to tell if your cowardice is geniune or simply convenient.

on edit: dag nab page flips

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: Afghan occupation - C

Dark beaver:

Coalition forces----------discharge weapons directed at civilian targets=dead civilians

So called terrorist forces------discharge weapons directed at
civilian targets=dead civilians

the difference is=0

What can I say? There's no arguing with a childs' logic. Yes, palnning an attack on civilians just to try and kill as many as possible is exactly the same as civilan casualties that came about from the purposeful attacking of the enemy.

No one can fight a childs argument....you win.


.

You remind me of an x military person we had arround here a while ago, same style of argument, same petty little playground insults. Better to have the logic of a child than none. :lol:

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

so hard to tell if your cowardice is geniune or simply convenient.

on edit: dag nab page flips

LOL. Look if I wanted some quality comeback from you I'd just wipe it off your chin, ok?

Here is the question again if you're not too cowardly to answer it:

Do you see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing as many of them as possible?

You remind me of an x military person we had arround here a while ago, same style of argument, same petty little playground insults.

I'm sorry but it is you who is slinging childish playground insults. both you and bitwhys seem to believe that raw childish emotion and anger = a complelling argument. They don't and childish screaming seems to be all you have.

At least Juan had a point to make.

Neither you or Bitwhys seems to have the intellect or the sincerity to answer this question because you all know it destroys your 'argument'.

.

 

[BitWhys]

I asked my question first but if it'll get you to crawl out from under you rock, although I doubt it, what the hell...

yeah I do see the difference. It doesn't make what happened right though. non sequitur.

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

I asked my question first but if it'll get you to crawl out from under you rock, although I doubt it, what the hell...

yeah I do see the difference. It doesn't make what happened right though.

That wasn't so hard. Now if we can maybe calm down a bit (me too) do you think we can discuss this calmly? Without insults? I'm really not the nazi you wish I was.....I don't have any assumptions about you.

To elaborate on your question of me earlier....no I do not approve of this air strike. I thought it was a bad idea. I thought it was a really bad idea and I think it could adversely affect (specifically) the Canadian mission in the area. As I pointed out I was simply providing the alternative scenario which points out an ugly truth: If we did this with boots-on-the-ground, we would've still would've had likely the same result with regards to the number of civilians dead.

Do you feel we should not attack if there are any civilians present at all? Answer that honestly and I promise that on my end I will endeavour to respect your opinion regardless of your answer and treat you with respect. Of course if that doesn't matter to you and you're happy slinging mud that's fine too....

'cept I don't really understand how that would make you worthy of discussing a subject that is directly connected with getting along with each other and discussing opinions and showing respect for one another (you know...'give peace a chance' and all that?)



.

 

[BitWhys]

"Do you feel we should not attack if there are any civilians present at all?"

That's a fair question and here's what I think about what happened this time. From all accounts the Taliban were contained. I think there was plenty of time and resources to lock the town down and contain the threat to our forces. The situation was the result of battle, not planning. The action was rash.

That would have created a hostage situation of the TALIBAN'S making, not ours. I think the Afghan's would have understood that. Having locked down we could have sought direction from the government of the day. It sounds cruel to leave the civilians hanging like that but bombing them wasn't really much of an alternative.

Bombing the hell out villages like that does nobody any good.

 

[Karlin]

Ya, thanks for getting back on track after the personal insults. They don't help.

The air strike was called in after just three hours of ground fight. To me, thats not nearly long enough, the USA troops should have kept after them for ahwile. Of course, it might have been getting close to darkness, where they could just escape. S

I wasn't there, but to me it seems a bit cowardly to call in such heavy bombing for 30 or so suspected Taliban. They had not been charged, but were given a death sentence. I suppose thats fair in war for those who were shooting back.

Its an even worse and more cowardice tactic to hide behind children, utterly disgusting.

When the Taliban are fighting a 'holy war' where they hide behind children who then get killed - thats even worse hypocracy than Bush's christian pretendings. But its not a reason to bomb those same children. Its the children wer are there to protect in the first place, its not wirth killing them just to get some Talibaners.

Its just so messed up, on both sides, I am really hoping they all just go to hell.

Who would take part in this kinds of massacres, on both/either sides? I would have to refuse to take part, better off dead than killing kids that cowards are hiding behind, and on top of it my side uses cowardly bombs. And I would not hide behind kids.

Its just so msessed up. Each act messes it up worse as the other side catches up to the treachery. This got way too ugly, its better to cut and run than to stay and bomb kids. Messed up and ugly beyond anything we had imagined, this incident will chill Canadians to the core as our role in it become clearer.

did the Canadians who are now running the show call in the strike?
We have to get these answers NOW - Didja hear anything more today about it?

Karlin

 

[BitWhys]

I figure if they can lock down Fallujah they can keep anyone from slipping out of Hockeyville without at least making them think twice about it.

 

[Claudius]

RE: Afghan occupation - C

From all accounts the Taliban were contained. I think there was plenty of time and resources to lock the town down and contain the threat to our forces.

I don't really agree with this assessment but it's kind of beside the point because I would be forced to admit neither of us can be sure of that, ALSO it would be beside the point because I do agree with this:

The action was rash.

To continue,

That would have created a hostage situation of the TALIBAN'S making, not ours. I think the Afghan's would have understood that. Having locked down we could have sought direction from the government of the day. It sounds cruel to leave the civilians hanging like that but bombing them wasn't really much of an alternative.

I'm sorry but there is a misunderstanding about the Talibans presence in this town. They are always there to one degree or another....which make our meeting with the elders even harder. This "80 Taliban militants" would've represented a 'build up' or 'grouping' of them for the supposed purpose of organizing a large attack. In other words the 'hostage' situation is already occurring in practically every village. Just about every town has 'suspected' Taliban militants and we are sure there are more we don't know about or can't identify. So they are already there and have already been responsible for murders of people who were brave enough to work with the coalition or on any non-military reconstruction initiatives. This can be thought of quite accurately, imo, and as you point out, as a 'hostage' situation for most of these towns, as in there are Taliban militants present or nearby who are holding the town hostage ("Work with the coalition and we will make an example of you....participate in any Western reconstruction initiative and we will get you....build a school and we will come and burn it down and kill school children when we do it" --- http://tinyurl.com/rhmf5 )

It sounds cruel to leave the civilians hanging like that but bombing them wasn't really much of an alternative.

Bombing the hell out villages like that does nobody any good.

I am inclined to agree for the most part, depending on the circumstances, and insofar as this specific example is concerned I especially agree.


.

 

[BitWhys]

The Taliban were in that town in such large numbers because they ran there from battle elsewhere, not from some slow build-up. afa ongoing presence goes we were gaining momentum in that villagers, not necessarily these villagers, were tipping off Canadians about what was going on, who where and when. That's what led up to last week's conflict.

this latest episode is a HUGE step in the wrong direction. HUGE. It doesn't matter which set of troops did it. They really do all look alike and with good reason. You only get to break a trust like that once even if someone else does it for you.