Wow, Just Wow...
-
You really need to get over the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist", just look into things and stop thinking I wear a tinfoil hat and think aliens are out to get me. :rolleyes:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You really need to get over the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist"
To be fair, you're not a conspiracy theorist. You're not bright enough to formulate a theory. You're a conspiracy theory dupe. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well?
Why not? It's not like the Pentagon routinely covers up stuff like that. No, it's the bad stuff that gets covered up all the time and the American people are the losers.
RichardM1 wrote:
n your mind, can there ever be a 'good' outcome to a war that is happening now?
In fantasy or reality? What is your definition of a good outcome? And at what cost - in American and US Iraqi casualties and money? Do you think killing civilians and covering up will help bring about a good outcome?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:08 PM
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well?
Why not? It's not like the Pentagon routinely covers up stuff like that.
No, it is more like the MSM does (not intentionally, I don't think, but Good news makes bad reporting).
Carbon12 wrote:
No, it's the bad stuff that gets covered up all the time and the American people are the losers.
We both agree on that - a cover up only makes things worse.
Carbon12 wrote:
In fantasy or reality? What is your definition of a good outcome? And at what cost - in American and US casualties and money?
Since I gave you the opportunity to define what what a good outcome was, I will take it that you don't believe there can ever be a good outcome when money is being spent, and people are dying, now.
Carbon12 wrote:
Do you think killing civilians and covering up will help bring about a good outcome?
Where have I defended either of those? From my first post on this, I stated a cover up only makes things worse. Civilians dying is bad However, there is a war going on, and people die Uniformed combatants die. Civilians die. And not enough of the fucking insurgents who hide amongst the civilians, and don't use uniforms, die Unfortunately, since we can't tell armed civilians from armed insurgents, we kill the wrong armed people. When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
If you'd like, Richard, I'll sponsor you to go out to Afghanistan and Iraq so you can tell us, first hand, how good it all is. Mind you, I'd be doing this in the cheapest way possible - so no bodyguards or protection, the rudest accommodation possible and about as far away from western military forces as it's possible to be in those regions. You'd be on your own, alone, in a hostile country with only your sense of how good it all is to keep you company. Let me know - I can make it happen.
martin_hughes wrote:
If you'd like, Richard, I'll sponsor you to go out to Afghanistan and Iraq so you can tell us, first hand, how good it all is.
Sure, just as soon as I can get the money together to ship you back to pre-9/11 Taliban controlled Afghanistan. I suspect if you went to Iraq, back then, you could have stayed with Sean Penn, so it would not have been like reality. :rolleyes: I never said it was good there, I said we are only hearing the worst. Do you get the difference? Really, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
democracies
More like evil fascistic oligarchies.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
And this is why I generally don't get directly involved with arguing with you. Find a better place to live, that will put up with the paranoid crap you spew, and go live there. Having a hard time finding one? Or are you on the no fly list? I suffer from major clinical depression and minor bipolar. I know other people with mental health problems who overly self medicated when they were younger (and older). A lot of them have ended up like you. Paranoid. Thinking the government is capable of stuff it is not. Paranoia is the highest form of conceit. Except when you get on line, most of the rest of the world does not even know you exist. Nobody is plotting against you. Laughing at you, yes. Plotting against you, no. You are sick. I'm not putting you down, you are sick. You really need to get psychiatric care. It can vastly improve the quality of your life. I know this from experience, both my own, and from people I know. If you don't have insurance that covers it, I could set up a way to make sure you don't have to pay any money, that it would all be taken care of. But please, seek psychiatric care.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well?
Why not? It's not like the Pentagon routinely covers up stuff like that.
No, it is more like the MSM does (not intentionally, I don't think, but Good news makes bad reporting).
Carbon12 wrote:
No, it's the bad stuff that gets covered up all the time and the American people are the losers.
We both agree on that - a cover up only makes things worse.
Carbon12 wrote:
In fantasy or reality? What is your definition of a good outcome? And at what cost - in American and US casualties and money?
Since I gave you the opportunity to define what what a good outcome was, I will take it that you don't believe there can ever be a good outcome when money is being spent, and people are dying, now.
Carbon12 wrote:
Do you think killing civilians and covering up will help bring about a good outcome?
Where have I defended either of those? From my first post on this, I stated a cover up only makes things worse. Civilians dying is bad However, there is a war going on, and people die Uniformed combatants die. Civilians die. And not enough of the fucking insurgents who hide amongst the civilians, and don't use uniforms, die Unfortunately, since we can't tell armed civilians from armed insurgents, we kill the wrong armed people. When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I will take it that you don't believe there can ever be a good outcome when money is being spent, and people are dying, now
No, I simply don't know what that good outcome could be, do you?
RichardM1 wrote:
Where have I defended either of those?
Well you have been very clear that killing civilians is OK.
RichardM1 wrote:
Civilians dying is bad
that doesn't mean much when you excuse the killing of civilians simply because insurgents don't wear uniforms.
RichardM1 wrote:
When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
What the fuck is that suppose to mean?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I will take it that you don't believe there can ever be a good outcome when money is being spent, and people are dying, now
No, I simply don't know what that good outcome could be, do you?
RichardM1 wrote:
Where have I defended either of those?
Well you have been very clear that killing civilians is OK.
RichardM1 wrote:
Civilians dying is bad
that doesn't mean much when you excuse the killing of civilians simply because insurgents don't wear uniforms.
RichardM1 wrote:
When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
What the fuck is that suppose to mean?
Carbon12 wrote:
No, I simply don't know what that good outcome could be, do you?
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
Carbon12 wrote:
Well you have been very clear that killing civilians is OK.
I'm sorry you read it that way. I was being very clear that civilians dying in war happens, not that it was OK. I have been very clear that it happens a hell of a lot more when the enemy does not follow the GC, and soldiers can't tell if someone is an enemy soldier or a civilian. Throw in civilians running around armed, which some of these guys were, and it is more likely to happen.
Carbon12 wrote:
that doesn't mean much when you excuse the killing of civilians simply because insurgents don't wear uniforms.
You can read what you want, or you can read what I wrote. "it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
What the f*** is that suppose to mean?
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed, but I have not seen you condemn the insurgents running around in civilian clothes, breaking the GC, causing our troops to think that someone in civilian clothes holding a gun might be a bad guy. So, I said civilians dying is bad, now you say the insurgents are bad.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes.
And you think this will help win a counter insurgency?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is why the Geneva Convention require that to be a protected combatant, you must:...
And how does any of that excuse killing innocent civilians? I'll answer that for you - it doesn't.
So go on, you can now quote me as saying this was Indiscriminate and wanton murder, and that I'm all for it. :rolleyes:
Carbon12 wrote:
And you think this will help win a counter insurgency?
Where did I say it helped anything? You mistake my understanding how something happened with my thinking it was the right thing to happen. I mistake(?) you unwillingness to realize that for being blinded by your politics, or something.
Carbon12 wrote:
And how does any of that excuse killing innocent civilians? I'll answer that for you - it doesn't.
You don't have to answer it for me, I answered that in a number of previous posts. It does not excuse it. It causes it. See the difference? Again, I go back to the beginning - you have armed people in the street, pointing what could have been an RPG around the corner at a friendly patrol. The chopper knew there weere no friendly troops at that intersection. Who can believe they might shoot?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
No, I simply don't know what that good outcome could be, do you?
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
Carbon12 wrote:
Well you have been very clear that killing civilians is OK.
I'm sorry you read it that way. I was being very clear that civilians dying in war happens, not that it was OK. I have been very clear that it happens a hell of a lot more when the enemy does not follow the GC, and soldiers can't tell if someone is an enemy soldier or a civilian. Throw in civilians running around armed, which some of these guys were, and it is more likely to happen.
Carbon12 wrote:
that doesn't mean much when you excuse the killing of civilians simply because insurgents don't wear uniforms.
You can read what you want, or you can read what I wrote. "it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
When did you last complain to your local AQ representative about that, lately?
What the f*** is that suppose to mean?
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed, but I have not seen you condemn the insurgents running around in civilian clothes, breaking the GC, causing our troops to think that someone in civilian clothes holding a gun might be a bad guy. So, I said civilians dying is bad, now you say the insurgents are bad.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
That's a nice fantasy, but how do you think that's going to happen? We've been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and it's no where close to happening. And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building? When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
RichardM1 wrote:
"it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
yeah it is when you use it to excuse any and all civilian deaths. While avoiding all civilian deaths in impossible, it's not impossible to avoid some of them. Reasonable people can disagree about the first shooting, but not the van. And refusing the send the wounded children to a US hospital is inexcusable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed
You think this is bitching? You think killing innocent children civilians has no consequences? If you do, you're wrong. US soldiers die because of it.
RichardM1 wrote:
the insurgents are bad.
Are they? All of them? Why are people fighting to free their country of foreign occupiers - occupiers who kill the friends and family - bad?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:13 PM
-
So go on, you can now quote me as saying this was Indiscriminate and wanton murder, and that I'm all for it. :rolleyes:
Carbon12 wrote:
And you think this will help win a counter insurgency?
Where did I say it helped anything? You mistake my understanding how something happened with my thinking it was the right thing to happen. I mistake(?) you unwillingness to realize that for being blinded by your politics, or something.
Carbon12 wrote:
And how does any of that excuse killing innocent civilians? I'll answer that for you - it doesn't.
You don't have to answer it for me, I answered that in a number of previous posts. It does not excuse it. It causes it. See the difference? Again, I go back to the beginning - you have armed people in the street, pointing what could have been an RPG around the corner at a friendly patrol. The chopper knew there weere no friendly troops at that intersection. Who can believe they might shoot?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
It does not excuse it. It causes it.
No, it doesn't. This isn't some binary cause and effect. We can make choices - change the rules of engagement, for example. We can even choose to leave the country. You posited a very nice end to all of this, but how do you think we can possibly get to that result if we machine gun every civilian that might be a threat?
-
And this is why I generally don't get directly involved with arguing with you. Find a better place to live, that will put up with the paranoid crap you spew, and go live there. Having a hard time finding one? Or are you on the no fly list? I suffer from major clinical depression and minor bipolar. I know other people with mental health problems who overly self medicated when they were younger (and older). A lot of them have ended up like you. Paranoid. Thinking the government is capable of stuff it is not. Paranoia is the highest form of conceit. Except when you get on line, most of the rest of the world does not even know you exist. Nobody is plotting against you. Laughing at you, yes. Plotting against you, no. You are sick. I'm not putting you down, you are sick. You really need to get psychiatric care. It can vastly improve the quality of your life. I know this from experience, both my own, and from people I know. If you don't have insurance that covers it, I could set up a way to make sure you don't have to pay any money, that it would all be taken care of. But please, seek psychiatric care.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
that will put up with the paranoid crap you spew
And what paranoid crap would that be, specifically?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
And this is why I generally don't get directly involved with arguing with you. Find a better place to live, that will put up with the paranoid crap you spew, and go live there. Having a hard time finding one? Or are you on the no fly list? I suffer from major clinical depression and minor bipolar. I know other people with mental health problems who overly self medicated when they were younger (and older). A lot of them have ended up like you. Paranoid. Thinking the government is capable of stuff it is not. Paranoia is the highest form of conceit. Except when you get on line, most of the rest of the world does not even know you exist. Nobody is plotting against you. Laughing at you, yes. Plotting against you, no. You are sick. I'm not putting you down, you are sick. You really need to get psychiatric care. It can vastly improve the quality of your life. I know this from experience, both my own, and from people I know. If you don't have insurance that covers it, I could set up a way to make sure you don't have to pay any money, that it would all be taken care of. But please, seek psychiatric care.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I suffer from major clinical depression and minor bip
You are mentally ill.
RichardM1 wrote:
Thinking the government is capable of stuff it is not.
Like genocide? The Chinese government killed 80 million Chinese in a cultural revolution in the later half of the 20th century, and now they practically own us. Don't give me any shit about how people with the means and the will won't kill, destroy, and enslave. Ever read the MIAC report about how patriots, gun owners, veterans are a threat to the government. Millions of Americans on no fly lists and other lists no judge no jury. Warrentless wiretapping, illegal arrests, torture, CIA drug trafficking, forced drugging in the water supply, GMO crops...
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
RichardM1 wrote:
You believe this based on what?
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” Read about the recent murder of 5 Afghans including 2 pregnant women.
RichardM1 wrote:
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war? Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
The guys in the chopper were told there were no friendly troops at the intersection. If you decide not to understand what that meant, we will be speaking different languages. So, armed men in a war zone, pointing something at a patrol, how is that indiscriminate?
Carbon12 wrote:
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.”
TPMmuckraker wrote:
TPMmuckraker has obtained a fuller transcript of the comments, which were first reported by the New York Times last week. The Times' Richard Oppel noted that since last summer U.S. and NATO troops killed 30 and wounded 80 Afghans in convoy and checkpoint shootings.
I don't know how you get from 30 people killed to it being 'the norm' for all operations. That is 30 out of over 2400 civilians killed, and out of almost 600 killed by the allied forces. You aren't just reading a quote and tying to use it out of context, are you? 30 civilians killed is too many, but you are either uninformed or lying when you call it the norm.
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war?
Me saying "a cover up just makes things worse" means I think it will kill support for the war? Everything I say is bad, right? I can't possibly think that something becomes worse because it is *worse*? You are so blind. So fucking blind. A cover up makes things worse. You know, the whole "good' 'bad' thing? If something bad happens and it is covered up, it is worse. Period.
Carbon12 wrote:
Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
Civilians getting killed is worse.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You really need to get over the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist"
To be fair, you're not a conspiracy theorist. You're not bright enough to formulate a theory. You're a conspiracy theory dupe. :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
And these Iraqis didn't.
RichardM1 wrote:
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there?
Yes, they did. It's in the video.
RichardM1 wrote:
facts be damned.
Which facts would those be? The ones you invent to support your biases?
RichardM1 wrote:
If they knew civilians were there, they should have gone ahead and driven through it, right?
No, seems pretty silly that you think killing all civiians or driving into potential ambushes are the only options you can come up with.
RichardM1 wrote:
You've never spend much thought on how to survive in a kill-zone, or even a war-zone, have you?
Don't have to to know that indescriminate murder of civilian is counter productive to a counter-insurgency.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
And these Iraqis didn't.
You can play stupid, if you want, but I can't believe you are that stupid. At 4:10[^] the guy looking around the corner is lifting something. It sure isn't an AK, and an RPG fits what you see.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there?
Yes, they did. It's in the video.
When? I watched, and from the beginning until the first rounds go down range, at around 4:50, there is no one paying attention to it.
Carbon12 wrote:
The ones you invent to support your biases?
Point out some of the 'facts' I invented. Quote me.
Carbon12 wrote:
seems pretty silly that you think killing all civiians or driving into potential ambushes are the only options you can come up with.
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy.
Carbon12 wrote:
Don't have to to know that indescriminate murder of civilian is counter productive to a counter-insurgency.
Bad = bad. Repeat many times. Pretend I don't agree. Repeat many times. I don't believe everything you do, exactly like you do, so I'm bad. Since I'm bad I must think civilian deaths are good, right?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
It does not excuse it. It causes it.
No, it doesn't. This isn't some binary cause and effect. We can make choices - change the rules of engagement, for example. We can even choose to leave the country. You posited a very nice end to all of this, but how do you think we can possibly get to that result if we machine gun every civilian that might be a threat?
Carbon12 wrote:
No, it doesn't. This isn't some binary cause and effect. We can make choices - change the rules of engagement, for example. We can even choose to leave the country. You posited a very nice end to all of this, but how do you think we can possibly get to that result if we machine gun every civilian that might be a threat?
Machine gun every civilian that could be a threat? What are you smoking? You draw generalizations and make outlandish claims because you can't support what you say. This goes right back to the "30 killed" making it the norm. It is an amazingly high number of civilians to us, but it is just one suicide bomb for them. And they do it on purpose. Killing civilians is bad. Killing civilians does not help our goal of a just outcome. Giving up kills any chance of a just outcome.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
That's a nice fantasy, but how do you think that's going to happen? We've been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and it's no where close to happening. And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building? When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
RichardM1 wrote:
"it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
yeah it is when you use it to excuse any and all civilian deaths. While avoiding all civilian deaths in impossible, it's not impossible to avoid some of them. Reasonable people can disagree about the first shooting, but not the van. And refusing the send the wounded children to a US hospital is inexcusable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed
You think this is bitching? You think killing innocent children civilians has no consequences? If you do, you're wrong. US soldiers die because of it.
RichardM1 wrote:
the insurgents are bad.
Are they? All of them? Why are people fighting to free their country of foreign occupiers - occupiers who kill the friends and family - bad?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:13 PM
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
the insurgents are bad.
Are they? All of them? Why are people fighting to free their country of foreign occupiers - occupiers who kill the friends and family - bad?
No, if someone invaded my country, I pray that I would be right out there fighting. In a fucking uniform so I didn't get my friends and family killed 'by mistake'. And I wouldn't be popping off bombs in a fucking market place, killing my friends and family. Or sniping out of a church and saying how bad they are for shooting back See? That is all the shit that makes them 'bad'. I really hope you can see the difference.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
That's a nice fantasy, but how do you think that's going to happen? We've been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and it's no where close to happening. And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building? When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
RichardM1 wrote:
"it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
yeah it is when you use it to excuse any and all civilian deaths. While avoiding all civilian deaths in impossible, it's not impossible to avoid some of them. Reasonable people can disagree about the first shooting, but not the van. And refusing the send the wounded children to a US hospital is inexcusable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed
You think this is bitching? You think killing innocent children civilians has no consequences? If you do, you're wrong. US soldiers die because of it.
RichardM1 wrote:
the insurgents are bad.
Are they? All of them? Why are people fighting to free their country of foreign occupiers - occupiers who kill the friends and family - bad?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:13 PM
Excuse me but these insurgents are more often than not of foreign origin, by all account less than 5% are Iraqi (i believe it goes up to about 20% in afganistan) You also seem to overlook the civilian deaths caused DIRECTLY by insurgents, often these killing are delibrate and planned - not the cockups,mistakes and stupidity of the allies caused deaths. I will admit that the US miltary does have a big problem in covering up mistakes, They even refused to allow the british inquest to question a US pilot responsible for the deaths of british service men, despite given assurances that he would not be charged with anything
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes, the place become peaceful, controlled by it's own civilian population, in charge of it's own resources, protected from it's enemies, willing to allow dissent and opposition, not having a government that resorts to torture and murder, people feeling safe in their towns and homes, able to freely engage in commerce, politics and whatever else they want.
That's a nice fantasy, but how do you think that's going to happen? We've been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and it's no where close to happening. And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building? When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
RichardM1 wrote:
"it happens and here is why" is not the same as "it's ok that it happens, and here is why".
yeah it is when you use it to excuse any and all civilian deaths. While avoiding all civilian deaths in impossible, it's not impossible to avoid some of them. Reasonable people can disagree about the first shooting, but not the van. And refusing the send the wounded children to a US hospital is inexcusable.
RichardM1 wrote:
I hear you bitching about the civilians getting killed
You think this is bitching? You think killing innocent children civilians has no consequences? If you do, you're wrong. US soldiers die because of it.
RichardM1 wrote:
the insurgents are bad.
Are they? All of them? Why are people fighting to free their country of foreign occupiers - occupiers who kill the friends and family - bad?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:13 PM
Carbon12 wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but how do you think that's going to happen? We've been in Afghanistan for over 8 years and it's no where close to happening. And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building? When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
Yup, it's no closer than it was a while ago. But now that we have totally failed in Iraq and have to dump our troops somewhere, so they don't come home and kill our civilians, maybe we can start making a difference. Or maybe this IS the best time to cut and run, before you get embarrassed by anything like success?
Carbon12 wrote:
And when did it become the job of American soldiers to die for nation building?
The job of the US soldier is to do what their elected and politically appointed civilian leaders tell them to do, and even Obama doesn't want to cut and run.
Carbon12 wrote:
When did it become the job of the rest of us to spend billions of dollars for that?
Oh, well, shit! Say no more. If you had appealed to how much money it cost, I'd have said you won hours ago! :rolleyes: What are you, a conservative? I thought this was about civilian deaths.
Carbon12 wrote:
Reasonable people can disagree about the first shooting, but not the van. And refusing the send the wounded children to a US hospital is inexcusable.
I know, read my first post. :rolleyes:
Carbon12 wrote:
You think this is bitching? You think killing innocent children civilians has no consequences? If you do, you're wrong. US soldiers die because of it.
Yes, I think you are bitching. Not 'bitchen'. You bitch and bitch about US caused civilian deaths, and think nothing of what the insurgents do. They kill civilians on purpose, we don't. Every time it has come up I have agreed with you that killing civilians gets our troops killed. Every post you claim I don't believe it. Piss off. Drop it. You are beating your head against a brick wall that does not exist. So, say that the insurgents are bad for killing civilians. Or do you think they are doing the right thing? Does our invasion absolve them of all their sins?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I suffer from major clinical depression and minor bip
You are mentally ill.
RichardM1 wrote:
Thinking the government is capable of stuff it is not.
Like genocide? The Chinese government killed 80 million Chinese in a cultural revolution in the later half of the 20th century, and now they practically own us. Don't give me any shit about how people with the means and the will won't kill, destroy, and enslave. Ever read the MIAC report about how patriots, gun owners, veterans are a threat to the government. Millions of Americans on no fly lists and other lists no judge no jury. Warrentless wiretapping, illegal arrests, torture, CIA drug trafficking, forced drugging in the water supply, GMO crops...
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
I am mentally ill. I am treating it. You are mentally ill. You do not appear to be treating it. You don't even appear to realize it. I can identify when my depression is worse or better. I can identify when your paranoia is worse. Or better. I'm not sure I've seen a better case. I will try and help you get help for your mental illness. I am not mentally ill enough to try and challenge your fantasies.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
And these Iraqis didn't.
You can play stupid, if you want, but I can't believe you are that stupid. At 4:10[^] the guy looking around the corner is lifting something. It sure isn't an AK, and an RPG fits what you see.
Carbon12 wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there?
Yes, they did. It's in the video.
When? I watched, and from the beginning until the first rounds go down range, at around 4:50, there is no one paying attention to it.
Carbon12 wrote:
The ones you invent to support your biases?
Point out some of the 'facts' I invented. Quote me.
Carbon12 wrote:
seems pretty silly that you think killing all civiians or driving into potential ambushes are the only options you can come up with.
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy.
Carbon12 wrote:
Don't have to to know that indescriminate murder of civilian is counter productive to a counter-insurgency.
Bad = bad. Repeat many times. Pretend I don't agree. Repeat many times. I don't believe everything you do, exactly like you do, so I'm bad. Since I'm bad I must think civilian deaths are good, right?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
there is no one paying attention to it.
then you're not paying attention. And if you really believe that they don't know 2 helicopters are circling the neighborhood you're not being honest with yourself.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think guys with guns in a war zone are not the enemy
In a Baghdad neighborhood 4 years after the invasion it is not a warzone, and it is not silly to think they weren't the enemy. After all, they weren't.
RichardM1 wrote:
Seems pretty silly that you think a patrol in a war zone is not supposed to kill the enemy
They didn't kill the enemy, they kill a dozen civilians.