Operation Cluster****: US Strike Kills 90 Civilians In Afghanistan, 15 Wounded

[BackFlow]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BackFlow

it sucks civilians are dying, but war isn't flowers and singing songs. People die. And when the enemy hides within areas packed with civilians

Some call them terrorist, some call them resistance, and others call them freedom fighters.

I'm not sure as to which we should call the people that we are killing at the moment, but they seems to be treated as lesser human being than us.

It might produce better result if we shake people hand with out pointing a gun at them.

And, maybe Saudi Arabian lives worth a lot more than Afghan/Iraqis therefore we are sparring them and their terrorist.

Using your logic we should be shooting up Saudis that are sheltering thar terrarists.

I'm sure if we offered the guy who is strapped with a body vest of explosives a hug instead of a bullet, he wouldn't push the button.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard or read many stories regarding Saudis 'pushing the button' in Saudi Arabia while hugging us.

 

[Lemon law]

Sadly the this is war argument will not fly anymore, this is an occupation on the cheap, and when it makes negative progress after six years, it becomes unacceptable for everyone to have this kind of incompetence and disregard of civilian human life becoming perpetual.

 

[benzylic]

So when terrorists blow up a school, or a mosque, or a hotel. Do you complain about that? Or when that happens do you laugh, because then you can say the war in Afghanistan isnt doing anything.

Its a sad deal, but civilians die in wars, its a grim reality, and there is almost no way around it. Its not like the intelligence officers, or the pilots woke up one morning, and said "hey, you know what would be funny......."

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: BackFlow

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: BackFlow

it sucks civilians are dying, but war isn't flowers and singing songs. People die. And when the enemy hides within areas packed with civilians

Some call them terrorist, some call them resistance, and others call them freedom fighters.

I'm not sure as to which we should call the people that we are killing at the moment, but they seems to be treated as lesser human being than us.

It might produce better result if we shake people hand with out pointing a gun at them.

And, maybe Saudi Arabian lives worth a lot more than Afghan/Iraqis therefore we are sparring them and their terrorist.

Using your logic we should be shooting up Saudis that are sheltering thar terrarists.

I'm sure if we offered the guy who is strapped with a body vest of explosives a hug instead of a bullet, he wouldn't push the button.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard or read many stories regarding Saudis 'pushing the button' in Saudi Arabia while hugging us.

Saudi Arabia has an extremly low crime rate. Though I mean this is the same as me saying "wow I went to southern france and didn't get my head cut off, there must be no terrorism!"

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Clinton bombed Afghanistan. Did you complain about civilian casualties then, or is it ok when a Democrat is killing civilians?

Can you quote the part of my OP where I blamed the Bush administration or the GOP for this fuckup?

So it's confirmed, your hatred of the military goes beyond the adminstration it serves under.

It confirms there is a high level of incompetence in our military at every level, from top to bottom.

Well you're a smart guy, why don't you join up and show them all how things ought to be done?

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Nice!!! Fear mongering ftw, i mean look what its got us in the last 8 years. Give up EVERYTHING for fear of losing it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Nice!!! Fear mongering ftw, i mean look what its got us in the last 8 years. Give up EVERYTHING for fear of losing it.

There are types of freedom. Freedom too and freedom from. Don't underestimate the latter.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly the this is war argument will not fly anymore, this is an occupation on the cheap, and when it makes negative progress after six years, it becomes unacceptable for everyone to have this kind of incompetence and disregard of civilian human life becoming perpetual.

So stop accepting it. What are you gonna do about it? Move from providing moral support to the enemy on to providing material support to them?

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Well, it sucks civilians are dying, but war isn't flowers and singing songs. People die. And when the enemy hides within areas packed with civilians, it's more likely to happen. And of course civilians are going to b1tch when they are getting killed, they don't want to be fighting - and it will do one of two things: push those civilians to help rat out the terrorists hiding in the villages or push the civilians to start helping the terrorists fight against the NATO forces. I would think they would push for fighting the terrorists as they can't drop hundreds of bombs into an area that would lead to more accidental civilian deaths.

Third option. Fly airplanes into crowded buildings in America.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Our government would hunt down and kill the members of a terrorist group operating within our borders ? a foreign power wouldn?t be necessary. Any population who allows their fighters to hide behind the women and children while waging war should expect atrocities such as this.

Your question is misguided, and wtf did you bring color into it for?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Well, it sucks civilians are dying, but war isn't flowers and singing songs. People die. And when the enemy hides within areas packed with civilians, it's more likely to happen. And of course civilians are going to b1tch when they are getting killed, they don't want to be fighting - and it will do one of two things: push those civilians to help rat out the terrorists hiding in the villages or push the civilians to start helping the terrorists fight against the NATO forces. I would think they would push for fighting the terrorists as they can't drop hundreds of bombs into an area that would lead to more accidental civilian deaths.

Third option. Fly airplanes into crowded buildings in America.

HA! I'd like to see them try.

 

[GrGr]

This is another war the US is losing. Shrugging disasters like this away is not going to help.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Thats what happened with 9/11. The towers were viable military targets as was the pentagon. Luckily, we have the power to respond, which we did. This sadly is the result of that, war.

YES.... they killed apporox 3000... we have killed +or are repsonsible for the deaths OF AT LEAST 50,000

HOORAYYYY ...

 

[lupi]

Lol, the idiot hacks in this thread are strong young paddawan.

 

[jackschmittusa]

War? I thought the war was over and we were providing a security service, you know, like cops. So, let's have a show of hands for those that think it's OK to blow up innocent people who just happen to be in the vicinity of bad guys.

And do you think it is Ok to just assume that these people were "harboring" the bad guys? Many were apparently from out of town and may not know some of the locals as bad guys. And some of the locals who may have known may have been scared to death to do anything for fear of retribution against themselves or their families. So glad that so many of you have a place in your personal moral codes that includes "guilt by proximity". How disgusting.

 

[biggestmuff]

They were human shields.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Thats what happened with 9/11. The towers were viable military targets as was the pentagon. Luckily, we have the power to respond, which we did. This sadly is the result of that, war.

YES.... they killed apporox 3000... we have killed +or are repsonsible for the deaths OF AT LEAST 50,000

HOORAYYYY ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to cast doubt on the danunan post, but the numbers cited just don't add up.

We lost less than 3000 civilians during 911, but directly or indirectly the numbers killed are 150,000 in Iraq alone, by the most low ball estimates. Real numbers may approach a million and that does not count the at least 2 million who have been exiled.

And the dahanan failed to mention the 4000+ US troop lives also pissed away, throwing good lives after those tragically lost. Or the 40,000 or so US personnel who will emerge from these occupations with permanent and life time lasting disabilities thus far.

And as Afghan US troop deaths now exceed pre surge Iraqi US troops deaths, the butcher bills counter of lost lives keeps going up and up on all sides.

 

[Throckmorton]

Accepting civilian deaths so you can kill a few terrorists completely defeats the purpose. If you defend it, you are missing the point.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Exactly.

I don't know why jpeyton's b1tching about Afghanistan. It was the only country that we've invaded in the last 8 years that we had a legitimate beef with.

Exactly. Jpeyton is being a whiny bitch. Those 50 kids, fvck them, they are just collateral. I hope I can have my kids killed by an airstrike someday. As long as it's in a war it will be ok, because hey that's war.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

It's war with a unidentified entity that the gov calls terrorism but really can't point it out.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Accepting civilian deaths so you can kill a few terrorists completely defeats the purpose. If you defend it, you are missing the point.

Doood... Collateral Damage.. pfft.. If it was my family.. CD would not be the name.. I would call it Murder

These idiots in here with the "either with us or against us" mentality... are just like Nazis...

These deaths only create peace and flowers and chocolates and hugs

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Will the military still be evil under Obama when they strike targets in Afghanistan?

This will happen whenever there is war. Nice troll attempt though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: alchemize
Will the military still be evil under Obama when they strike targets in Afghanistan?

This will happen whenever there is war. Nice troll attempt though.

THe troll is by the OP. It's already been explained in this thread but apparently some still fail to get it.

 

[bbdub333]

I love how the partisan idiots jump on this and assume that everything they read is exactly as they want to read it. Jpeyton, Lemon Law, Dave, and others, you are all of the same breed of ignorant, partisan hacks, as much as you enjoy painting yourselves as the exact opposites (Except Dave, of course).

My point:

The coalition confirmed it carried out an operation that included air strikes in the western province of Herat but said 30 Taliban rebels were killed only and said it knew of no civilian deaths.

killed 76 civilians, including 50 children and 19 women, the Afghan interior ministry said.

The Afghan defence ministry meanwhile gave yet another toll -- five civilians and 25 rebels dead.

But the coalition said 30 insurgents were killed in clashes and air strikes that followed an ambush on Afghan National Army (ANA) and coalition troops as they were going to arrest a Taliban commander.

So... we have 3 different entities giving 3 vastly different accounts of dead, and we have a description of the conflict, which is nowhere near the picture that you hacks painted.

You seem to have it in your mind that a crowd of civilians gathered in a damn street and then we dropped a big bomb on them to kill one man... whereas the story describes an ambush on AFGHAN forces followed by skirmishes and air strikes.

So really, Jpeyton, Lemon Law (et al), it's about time you dropped the pseudo-sophisticated attitude and realize that you are just as biased and ignorant as those you claim are wrong.

Will you apologize if this story is confirmed inaccurate? Or will you simply choose to ignore it and continue about in your daydream called life?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: bdude
That's war.

Will that be your response when the atrocity is in your backyard? When the dead kids are white Americans?

Nice!!! Fear mongering ftw, i mean look what its got us in the last 8 years. Give up EVERYTHING for fear of losing it.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that was not bamacre's point at all.