PDA

View Full Version : Afghanestan is back in the news recently



TranceNRG
07-04-2005, 11:59 PM
have you guys noticed it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050705/ts_nm/afghan_dc;_ylt=ArIvIV135Q7CAZcMGUunz6is0NUE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 12:29 AM
have you guys noticed it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050705/ts_nm/afghan_dc;_ylt=ArIvIV135Q7CAZcMGUunz6is0NUE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Yes, and it's no surprise, they thought they had bin ladin pinned but bombed civilians, ****ING AMATEURS!

TranceNRG
07-05-2005, 12:38 AM
Yes, and it's no surprise, they thought they had bin ladin pinned but bombed civilians, ****ING AMATEURS!

Don't you know?
Everytime innocent civilians die due to inaccurate bombing or US's intentional bombing of a crowded area it's called collateral damage :D

;)

g'night swede

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 12:42 AM
Don't you know?
Everytime innocent civilians die due to inaccurate bombing or US's intentional bombing of a crowded area it's called collateral damage :D

;)

g'night swede

I know, arnie was pissed off about that once and i scre.... oh wait that was his movie, wasn't it...crap...

Anywayz, predicted collateral damage means that you expect to kill civilians, and they call the insurgents terrorists.

I would like to say that the soldiers in the US army are fine men though, i wish them the very best, they are in an unfortunat situation and if i was a praying man, i'd pray for them.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 12:43 AM
Don't you know?
Everytime innocent civilians die due to inaccurate bombing or US's intentional bombing of a crowded area it's called collateral damage :D

;)

g'night swede

Sweet dreams Trance. :)

wade1226
07-05-2005, 12:49 AM
I would like to say that the soldiers in the US army are fine men though, i wish them the very best, they are in an unfortunat situation and if i was a praying man, i'd pray for them.
I have to say that it's surprising to me to see this kind of empathy for the US soldiers from a Swedish guy, rather than the US citizens. Regardless of your stance on the war against terrorism, any reasonably intelligent person has to realize that these guys are just doing their job. It disgusts me to think that people think that perhaps these troops somehow "deserve it" for fighting an immoral war (which is the case of some of my acquaintences, including my best buddy's gf), and it infuriates me to think that some people say these guys deserve to die. Regardless of your point of view, any reasonable person has to see that these guys are just doing their job, and it's a pity that they have to be in such a situation.

Cliff notes - if you hate this war, hate our leaders, not our soldiers.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 12:56 AM
I have to say that it's surprising to me to see this kind of empathy for the US soldiers from a Swedish guy, rather than the US citizens. Regardless of your stance on the war against terrorism, any reasonably intelligent person has to realize that these guys are just doing their job. It disgusts me to think that people think that perhaps these troops somehow "deserve it" for fighting an immoral war (which is the case of some of my acquaintences, including my best buddy's gf), and it infuriates me to think that some people say these guys deserve to die. Regardless of your point of view, any reasonable person has to see that these guys are just doing their job, and it's a pity that they have to be in such a situation.

Cliff notes - if you hate this war, hate our leaders, not our soldiers.

I have been in a similar situation, i know that it is not easy and what many people fail to realize is that no one in their family can EVER understand or support them, in many cases, and in my case too, the family does not exist at all when you come home.

These brave men took it upon themselves to fight so that others may be safe, no man should ever trash them, especially if he doesn't know the meaning of their duty.

Every man who has earned the right, will refrain from doing so.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 01:40 AM
Yes, and it's no surprise, they thought they had bin ladin pinned but bombed civilians, ****ING AMATEURS!

Amateurs? I suppose we're not as great as the mighty Triple Croner. When was the last war you fought? If I recall it wasn't even in the 1900s. So until you have a war with planes, I really don't think a Swede has any place to comment on fighting a modern war nor the flaws of an airstrike.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 01:42 AM
These brave men took it upon themselves to fight so that others may be safe, no man should ever trash them, especially if he doesn't know the meaning of their duty.

Then why do you contradict yourself? Or does your hate for America cloud your judgement?

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 01:49 AM
Then why do you contradict yourself? Or does your hate for America cloud your judgement?

No you ignorant idiot, i have NOT contradicted myself, the WAR is illegal, what the soldiers are doing is brave, not that a partisan hack like you could EVER understand the difference.

I bet, if it was a liberal government you'd be trashing the soldiers for this war, however, not everyone is like you, some of us can see the difference between a meaningless war and the soldiers having to fight it.

Again, i pity you for being so simple minded.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 02:56 AM
I bet, if it was a liberal government you'd be trashing the soldiers for this war, however, not everyone is like you, some of us can see the difference between a meaningless war and the soldiers having to fight it.

Really? Because I didn't when it was Clinton, I don't about LBJ's war.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 02:57 AM
No you ignorant idiot, i have NOT contradicted myself, the WAR is illegal, what the soldiers are doing is brave, not that a partisan hack like you could EVER understand the difference.


Yes, and it's no surprise, they thought they had bin ladin pinned but bombed civilians, ****ING AMATEURS!

Hmm :rolleyes:

Diesel66
07-05-2005, 02:59 AM
No you ignorant idiot, i have NOT contradicted myself, the WAR is illegal, what the soldiers are doing is brave, not that a partisan hack like you could EVER understand the difference.

So attacking the people that attacked us is not legal in your world now ?

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 03:06 AM
No you ignorant idiot, i have NOT contradicted myself, the WAR is illegal

Apparantly you lack the ability to decipher the differences with wars. Operation Enduring Freedom is authorized by the UNSC and widley accepted war. Operation Iraqi Freedom was not authorized by the UNSC.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:16 AM
Hmm :rolleyes:

One was in Afghanistan the other was an agression war against Iraq, christ, you don't ever listen to anything but Rush and never watch anything but Fox, do you?

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:19 AM
So attacking the people that attacked us is not legal in your world now ?

Bombing civilians is attacking those who attacked you? It was in Afghanistan, unfortunantly there were NO ground troops anywhere near it, i wonder where they might be? And here in Sweden we're convinced that Bin Ladin had something to do with the terrorist attacks and Iraq didn't? Oh, it isn't just us you say? It is 98% of the american people (i'll allow for two percent to be stupid enough to buy the ties between al quaeda and Iraq) and pretty much the entire world?

Yay for... um, killing civilians?

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:20 AM
Apparantly you lack the ability to decipher the differences with wars. Operation Enduring Freedom is authorized by the UNSC and widley accepted war. Operation Iraqi Freedom was not authorized by the UNSC.

And neither of them had anything to do with the bomb attack on Afghani civilians....

*Sigh*

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:22 AM
another source...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050704/ap_on_re_as/afghan_us_bombing_1

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 03:25 AM
Have you heard about that one seal who made it out alive. The chopper that went down was going to rescue him. He was in the field for 4 days when they found him.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 03:25 AM
Bombing civilians is attacking those who attacked you?

That's not a war. Justify your statement of this is an "illegal war"

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:31 AM
That's not a war. Justify your statement of this is an "illegal war"

The aggresion war against Iraq was illegal and you know it, it's how this war in Iraq began, how it is forthcoming is not interesting at all since the war was illegal to begin with.

You may try to disprove that it was not, consider it a challenge but no more games, we both know that the agression war is what brought troops there, and that is what you need to justify if you are going to justify ANYTHING.

Unfortunantly the reasons stated have ALL been proven false, except in the minds of those who WANT to believe it.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:32 AM
Have you heard about that one seal who made it out alive. The chopper that went down was going to rescue him. He was in the field for 4 days when they found him.

No, got a link?

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 03:34 AM
No, got a link?
The U.S. military said Sunday that one member of the four-member team was found last week. He was in good enough health to provide the U.S. military with a report of how the long-range reconnaissance mission had gone awry, a senior Defense

The team, which called for help last Tuesday while on a mission to find Taliban fighters or other insurgents in Kunar Province, a rugged area in northeastern Afghanistan on the Pakistan border, was declared missing after a U.S. military helicopter sent to extract it crashed. The Chinook MH-47 helicopter, with special operations forces and navy commandos aboard, appeared to have been shot down. All 16 aboard were killed.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/news/afghan.php

Diesel66
07-05-2005, 03:34 AM
Bombing civilians is attacking those who attacked you? It was in Afghanistan, unfortunantly there were NO ground troops anywhere near it, i wonder where they might be? And here in Sweden we're convinced that Bin Ladin had something to do with the terrorist attacks and Iraq didn't? Oh, it isn't just us you say? It is 98% of the american people (i'll allow for two percent to be stupid enough to buy the ties between al quaeda and Iraq) and pretty much the entire world?

Yay for... um, killing civilians?
The article is about Afghanistan. So why the argument about Iraq ?


The U.S. military said on Monday it had killed an "unknown" number of militants and civilians in the strike on a militant compound and regretted the loss of innocent life.

Government spokesman Jawed Ludin said President Karzai was "saddened and distressed."

"There is no way, obviously, that the killings of civilians can be justified," Ludin said, adding that the incident showed the need to rethink strategy to target militant leaders, their networks and their support structures.

"We cannot explain to our own people why they should suffer in our fight against terrorism," he said. "Terrorists are killing them and they are also suffering from our operations -- that's a very sad situation."

Not the first time the Afghans (or Iraqis, Germans, Vietnamese, etc... for that matter) used civilians as cover. Not only does it tend to keep Americans from attacking, but when we do they can show pictures of dead civilians and the US is bashed around the world by people that think our Soldiers go out of the way to kill women and children.

Aaron_01
07-05-2005, 03:44 AM
The U.S. military said Sunday that one member of the four-member team was found last week. He was in good enough health to provide the U.S. military with a report of how the long-range reconnaissance mission had gone awry, a senior Defense

The team, which called for help last Tuesday while on a mission to find Taliban fighters or other insurgents in Kunar Province, a rugged area in northeastern Afghanistan on the Pakistan border, was declared missing after a U.S. military helicopter sent to extract it crashed. The Chinook MH-47 helicopter, with special operations forces and navy commandos aboard, appeared to have been shot down. All 16 aboard were killed.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/news/afghan.php

"Navy Commandos" doesn't mean SEALs. They could have been from EOD, they, along with AFPJs and AFCC get outsourced to all other SOCOM Units.

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 03:46 AM
"Navy Commandos" doesn't mean SEALs. They could have been from EOD, they, along with AFPJs and AFCC get outsourced to all other SOCOM Units.
sorry just assumed

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:54 AM
The U.S. military said Sunday that one member of the four-member team was found last week. He was in good enough health to provide the U.S. military with a report of how the long-range reconnaissance mission had gone awry, a senior Defense

The team, which called for help last Tuesday while on a mission to find Taliban fighters or other insurgents in Kunar Province, a rugged area in northeastern Afghanistan on the Pakistan border, was declared missing after a U.S. military helicopter sent to extract it crashed. The Chinook MH-47 helicopter, with special operations forces and navy commandos aboard, appeared to have been shot down. All 16 aboard were killed.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/news/afghan.php

A hero, good for him, good for his family.

Sad for the people and families of those who did not make it.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 03:58 AM
The article is about Afghanistan. So why the argument about Iraq ?

Not the first time the Afghans (or Iraqis, Germans, Vietnamese, etc... for that matter) used civilians as cover. Not only does it tend to keep Americans from attacking, but when we do they can show pictures of dead civilians and the US is bashed around the world by people that think our Soldiers go out of the way to kill women and children.

Hell YEAH, if i want you i'll bomb your neighbourhood, not the first time you hide civilians in a CIVILIAN AREA.

Collateral........................................ ..damage.............

You know, just like the WTC, they were really after troops but ooopsie, a few thousand civilians killed, collateral.............................damage..... ..

Oh, i forgot, it's terrorism when others do it, when the US does it it is justified and even if ALL 17 dead in a CIVILIAN NEIGHBOURHOOD that was KNOWN to be populated by CIVILIANS it is no biggie, i mean, towelheads, pffft, right? Not good Christian people so who cares? *shrugs*

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 04:08 AM
Hell YEAH, if i want you i'll bomb your neighbourhood, not the first time you hide civilians in a CIVILIAN AREA.

Collateral........................................ ..damage.............

You know, just like the WTC, they were really after troops but ooopsie, a few thousand civilians killed, collateral.............................damage..... ..

Oh, i forgot, it's terrorism when others do it, when the US does it it is justified and even if ALL 17 dead in a CIVILIAN NEIGHBOURHOOD that was KNOWN to be populated by CIVILIANS it is no biggie, i mean, towelheads, pffft, right? Not good Christian people so who cares? *shrugs*

Do you think we ment to kill civs?

Conduct of warfare
the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians

Bad things happen during war and I think the treaties reflect that understanding.

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 04:14 AM
Do you think we ment to kill civs?

Conduct of warfare
the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians

Bad things happen during war and I think the treaties reflect that understanding.

I believe that a civilian neighbourhood was attacked with complete disregard for the safety of the civilians within that neighbourhood.

I am well aware of missions gone wrong, i have seen it more than once and "cleaned" such areas.


It happens, but usually it is BY MISTAKE, in this case a civilian neirbourhood that was KNOWN to be populated by civilians got a strike, am i the ONLY one who have a REALLY hard time finding any justification for such actions?

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 04:20 AM
I believe that a civilian neighbourhood was attacked with complete disregard for the safety of the civilians within that neighbourhood.

I am well aware of missions gone wrong, i have seen it more than once and "cleaned" such areas.


It happens, but usually it is BY MISTAKE, in this case a civilian neirbourhood that was KNOWN to be populated by civilians got a strike, am i the ONLY one who have a REALLY hard time finding any justification for such actions?
No I think its sad, I hope the militay got their man but I am sorry for the price the civilains had to pay.

The bombing last Friday was in Kunar province, where an elite U.S. military team disappeared last week. U.S. officials at the time said the target was an "enemy compound" that "we deemed we had to hit immediately."

PowerSwede
07-05-2005, 04:26 AM
No I think its sad, I hope the militay got their man but I am sorry for the price the civilains had to pay.

The bombing last Friday was in Kunar province, where an elite U.S. military team disappeared last week. U.S. officials at the time said the target was an "enemy compound" that "we deemed we had to hit immediately."

Yet the Afghani officials refered to it as a Civilian neighbourhood without enemy combatants.

Something smells bad about it.

Either way, no confirmed enemy kills and 17 dead civilians means that the Afghani official knew his **** while US intelligence did not.

Let's not forget that not everyone is an enemy, even though they caused 16 peoples death you can't put your blinders on and go for revenge.

I believe this is an action that will create more hardship than progress.

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 04:30 AM
Yet the Afghani officials refered to it as a Civilian neighbourhood without enemy combatants.

Something smells bad about it.

Either way, no confirmed enemy kills and 17 dead civilians means that the Afghani official knew his **** while US intelligence did not.

Let's not forget that not everyone is an enemy, even though they caused 16 peoples death you can't put your blinders on and go for revenge.

I believe this is an action that will create more hardship than progress.
It didn't say in the artical if any enemy was kill or not the question was left unanswered.

"Seventeen civilians were killed during the bombing, including women and children," Kunar Gov. Asadullah Wafa told The Associated Press after leaving a mosque in the capital, Kabul.

(below)

He did not say whether any militants also were believed to be in the compound.

majortrepak
07-05-2005, 04:37 AM
We've already apolgized

"Coalition forces deeply regret the loss of innocent lives and are investigating the incident to prevent future occurrences," a US military statement said, without specifying the number of civilian deaths.

Still looks like there was bad guys there

The US statement said American forces struck a "terrorist compound in Kunar province with precision-guided munitions that resulted in the deaths of an unknown number of enemy terrorists and non-combatants.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=1&u=/afp/20050704/ts_afp/afghanistanusmilitary_050704142043