- 268
Tell that to the guys burning US flags in the street - no concept of good / bad Americans. To them, you are all the same; you are all bad guys and you all hate Muslims.
It's all ignorance mate. It's not right, but that's the way it is.
Is Bombing Afghanistan a Bad Idea?
- Thread starter TAFJonathan
- 167 comments
- 5,149 views
Tell that to the guys burning US flags in the street - no concept of good / bad Americans. To them, you are all the same; you are all bad guys and you all hate Muslims.
It's all ignorance mate. It's not right, but that's the way it is.
- 268
what do you mean?
- 543
is this event even current anymore????
- 543
how is anyone, anyone in the entire world, innocent?
for some reason, most likely because it's late, i thought we stopped bombing then.
where are we bombing, does anyone know what kind of targets we are going after? are we even bombing in cities?
for some reason, most likely because it's late, i thought we stopped bombing then.
where are we bombing, does anyone know what kind of targets we are going after? are we even bombing in cities?
- 543
for some reason i thought we were just bombing the countryside, blowing up al queda stuff, linked with osama......
Well, there really isn't much in the way of suburbia there - it's pretty much all small villages except around Kabul and a couple of the towns along the trading routes.
There's certainly not bombing at Kabul, but quite a few villages are getting hit pretty regularly.
There's certainly not bombing at Kabul, but quite a few villages are getting hit pretty regularly.
- 543
well then i guess you see my insignificant point,
if we aren't bombing in the high populated areas, only small little villages that our intelligence says, something, that makes us bomb there, are we really killing these innocent people? or are they al queda or terrorists?
the media twists everything to make headlines and to get people to read it. so, could we suppose some of these terrorists are getting portrayed as innocent people to sell some papes?
if we aren't bombing in the high populated areas, only small little villages that our intelligence says, something, that makes us bomb there, are we really killing these innocent people? or are they al queda or terrorists?
the media twists everything to make headlines and to get people to read it. so, could we suppose some of these terrorists are getting portrayed as innocent people to sell some papes?
Well, the talk I've been hearing from some friends in administration in the Australian military is that it's actually a lot worse than what is getting reported. Afghan civilian casualties since the start of the campaign are apparently well over 3,000. I know the Red Cross were estimating pretty close to the 4,000 mark, and that was a couple of months ago - this isn't including Al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters.
That's why bombing was a bad idea, and ground troops (as distasteful as Allied casualties were going to be) needed to go in.
But apparently it was deemed acceptable that 'collateral damage' would be inflicted, even with 'smart' weapons.
I guess I find it a little sad that these people's lives are considered expendable.
But apparently it was deemed acceptable that 'collateral damage' would be inflicted, even with 'smart' weapons.
I guess I find it a little sad that these people's lives are considered expendable.
- 10,081
- WFG9
Did Bush do much of the strategy?
- 12,825
I'm truly irritated, and maybe even slightly offended by people whom don't even bother to know what exactly is going on in their country concerning important events such as these and then just put on their patriotic blindfolds and make the strangest and most extreme suggestions.
*sigh*
*sigh*
Let me tell you what I hate (WATCH OUT THIS WILL OFFEND DO NOT TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY -the good part of me).
I hate how the Aussies (represented here by vat_man) and the Europeans (represented here by Snoop) always portray the God damned innocent role. Innocent, are we? Hey Snoop, how about we destroy some of Europe's most famous landmarks using Europe's OWN PEOPLE and Europe's OWN PLANES.
Or, vat_man, how about we take down the Opera House or the Harbour Bridge or another landmark and manage to kill 3500 people DOING IT! Now see how you feel!
These attacks DID NOT happen to you, and if you're going to CRITICISE, I think you should completely understand what you're criticising.
CLEARLY the biggest problem for the widely pacifist Aussies and Hollanders (well, all Europe) to understand is how a SUPERPOWER MUST REACT to problems such as this. Holland is not a superpower. AUSTRALIA is not a superpower. BY THIS MEANS, this is why HOLLAND AND AUSTRALIA were NOT attacked!
Now, listen, Vat and Snoop: Pretend yourr country (Holland or Australia) was a superpower (i.e. in this case, had double the defence budget of the nearest country) and was attacked. Now pretend that the attackers (most of whom come from Saudi Arabia) ALL belong to a group that is located in Afghanistan. Not only is the group located there but nearly EVERY member of that group lives there. Tell me, what country would you go after and why?
Hey - no fair! Did you read the comment made by viperguy?
If you read through what I said, my issue here is that the Allies went in with a full bombing campaign (which is to a lesser degree still continuing), even beyond the point that it became evident that doing so was killing Afghanistanis and not assisting in tracking down Al Qaeda. There was a friggin' wedding blown up for crying out loud.
I understand why we had to go in there - I have no issue with that. My beef is with the conduct of the campaign - the Bush administration is so concerned about the public opinion aspect of a ground campaign that it's needlessly costing Afghani lives, and I believe actually compromised the pursuit of the Al Qaeda leadership in north eastern Afghanistan.
If you read through what I said, my issue here is that the Allies went in with a full bombing campaign (which is to a lesser degree still continuing), even beyond the point that it became evident that doing so was killing Afghanistanis and not assisting in tracking down Al Qaeda. There was a friggin' wedding blown up for crying out loud.
I understand why we had to go in there - I have no issue with that. My beef is with the conduct of the campaign - the Bush administration is so concerned about the public opinion aspect of a ground campaign that it's needlessly costing Afghani lives, and I believe actually compromised the pursuit of the Al Qaeda leadership in north eastern Afghanistan.
I know, I know. I went overboard. 
Okay, here's the problem!!!
You say (and I say 'you say' because I don't know how to use quote
) that it was "killing Afghanis" (not Afghanistanis, by the way! 
) and that we blew up a wedding, but what do you expect when these losers were putting their operation bases in the middle of neighborhoods? Also, civillian casualties occur in all wars; it's hardly something to fret over.
Not assisting in tracking down al~Qaeda?! Ha! The only people we didn't catch were Osama and Mohammed Omar - we basically captured everyone else - I consider it an overwhelming success, especially based on the fact that Afghanistan was so damn hilly and these al~Qaeda losers have everywhere to hide!
Okay, here's the problem!!!
You say (and I say 'you say' because I don't know how to use quote
) that it was "killing Afghanis" (not Afghanistanis, by the way! ) and that we blew up a wedding, but what do you expect when these losers were putting their operation bases in the middle of neighborhoods? Also, civillian casualties occur in all wars; it's hardly something to fret over. Not assisting in tracking down al~Qaeda?! Ha! The only people we didn't catch were Osama and Mohammed Omar - we basically captured everyone else - I consider it an overwhelming success, especially based on the fact that Afghanistan was so damn hilly and these al~Qaeda losers have everywhere to hide!
Yeah - but Omar was the guy you really needed. I mean - you REALLY needed to get that guy.
And the wedding - there was some celebratory gunfire at the wedding (pretty stupid thing to do in any country at any time I concede) which was taken to be anti-aircraft fire. This provoked a bombing run.
When the US trumpets its smart warfare, and the minimisation of harm to civilians, 4000 Afghan civilian lives are something to fret over - if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is.
And the wedding - there was some celebratory gunfire at the wedding (pretty stupid thing to do in any country at any time I concede) which was taken to be anti-aircraft fire. This provoked a bombing run.
When the US trumpets its smart warfare, and the minimisation of harm to civilians, 4000 Afghan civilian lives are something to fret over - if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is.
Why Omar? He was the Taliban leader. If we needed anyone, we needed Osama bin Smoking. In fact, Omar wouldn't have known too much about al~Qaeda's structure; he wouldn't have been much of a help.
Well who the hell fires guns into the air when there's US warplanes planes flying over? What crazies!
Four-thousand civilian lives? No way! Show me a credible report saying it was four-thousand lives. Also, I personally thing 'smart warfare' is an oxymoron at the present time, though with technology developing maybe it won't be in the future.
Well who the hell fires guns into the air when there's US warplanes planes flying over? What crazies!
Four-thousand civilian lives? No way! Show me a credible report saying it was four-thousand lives. Also, I personally thing 'smart warfare' is an oxymoron at the present time, though with technology developing maybe it won't be in the future.
Similar threads
