Wikileaks founder has classified footage of a US airstrike killing 140 Afghans.

Awh... you got me. Very nice trollin ur doin thar Bianca.

Sure, sure... ;) Whatever presumption serves your argument, let's go with that. Whatever presumption doesn't, let's argue against it. You're such a beautiful snowflake, LJ. :)BiancaDK

Not that I condone the act of civilian casualties being called "collateral damage" but 140 isn't really anything.Millions of civilians were killed in bombing raids during the Second World War... and that was a just war.

Awh... you got me. Very nice trollin ur doin thar Bianca.

Mystic-G

I don't know why you guys are still debating this. Arguing with a troll is like trolling yourself. This thread hasn't gotten anywhere and should be locked due to the assumptions and slandering statements.

Not that I condone the act of civilian casualties being called "collateral damage" but 140 isn't really anything.Millions of civilians were killed in bombing raids during the Second World War... and that was a just war.

foxhound_fox

Wow... I didn't think I'd have to break that down for someone.

A person who thinks the military is bad would most likely back down from a lot of conflicts. You have two preliminary choices in war, bring the war to them or let them bring it to you. If we back down because our military is evil then they will bring the war to us. If they do that then this country won't last too much longer without having to fear of frequent terrorist attacks.

Mystic-G

You had to break it down for me because it was a terribly vague statement. Regrettably, I can't interpret something you put out in part instead of in full where I can see it. Blame yourself, chap.

Well, firstly, that seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. I believe you'd have the option of negotiating with the enemy in a war. You aren't always faced with striking first or be struck.

Secondly, are terrorist attacks and terrorist groups waging warfare on America? I mean this in definitional terms, could war not something that a terrorist group can initiate? If you take it by one definition, then war can only be waged by one sovereign state (which Al-Qaeda is not) onto another sovereign state. I've heard the Afghanistan and the earlier Iraq conflict being referred to as occupations, rather than war.

Also, how would living in "fear of terrorist" attacks turn the mighty USA, economic heart of the world, into a third world country? You'd have to have terrorist attacks nearly daily on production centres, financial centres and whatnot. I don't think Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups have the industrial capacity to take up such a campaign whilst defending in Afghanistan.

:lol: I don't hold this individual with an agenda in high esteem...but then it's your agenda as well..isn't it?

LJS9502_basic

:oops: mebbeh. :oops:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

:lol: I don't hold this individual with an agenda in high esteem...but then it's your agenda as well..isn't it?

BiancaDK

:oops: mebbeh. :oops:

Great news in it's own sad way, but looking forward to seeing more evidence of war crimes committed by the U.S military. =) Hopefully international public support will take a dive after this.

BiancaDK

How does that make it less wrong?ZuluEcho14

While it annoys me that Wikileaks edits their videos. I think its important to stress how war in the past century continues to show a huge increase in civilian deaths, not only is it incredibly disturbing but grossly counter-productive when victory relies on local public support.Sajo7

People are still surprised and outraged by stuff like this? Really?

Well, firstly, that seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. I believe you'd have the option of negotiating with the enemy in a war. You aren't always faced with striking first or be struck.

stanley_baldwin

Yes, let's negotiate with them. I'm sure that'll work. I wonder what their demands are.

Osama Bin Laden tells US to convert to Islam

oh right... there's always that as an option.

Secondly, are terrorist attacks and terrorist groups waging warfare on America? I mean this in definitional terms, could war not something that a terrorist group can initiate? If you take it by one definition, then war can only be waged by one sovereign state (which Al-Qaeda is not) onto another sovereign state. I've heard the Afghanistan and the earlier Iraq conflict being referred to as occupations, rather than war.stanley_baldwin

War is war, just because you can call a duck a goose doesn't make it a goose.

Also, how would living in "fear of terrorist" attacks turn the mighty USA, economic heart of the world, into a third world country? You'd have to have terrorist attacks nearly daily on production centres, financial centres and whatnot. I don't think Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups have the industrial capacity to take up such a campaign whilst defending in Afghanistan.

stanley_baldwin

Lemme check... what happened on 9/11? Oh right they ran planes into the World Trade Center. That has nothing to do with economy at all and it didn't affect the economy at all.

When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1933, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ("DJIA") stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920

Ooooh riight

"When one dies, it is a tragedy. When a million die, it is a statistic."

Suddenstriker52

[QUOTE="ZuluEcho14"]How does that make it less wrong?foxhound_fox

140 isn't really anything.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]While it annoys me that Wikileaks edits their videos. I think its important to stress how war in the past century continues to show a huge increase in civilian deaths, not only is it incredibly disturbing but grossly counter-productive when victory relies on local public support.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]While it annoys me that Wikileaks edits their videos. I think its important to stress how war in the past century continues to show a huge increase in civilian deaths, not only is it incredibly disturbing but grossly counter-productive when victory relies on local public support.Sajo7

Don't be coy with me....I know you better than that.:oops:LJS9502_basic

*twirls my hair around finger innocently*

It's something, more then it should have ever been. You can't just dismiss it because it isn't something else.

ZuluEcho14

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sajo7"] WW2 and Afghanistan are not comparable. We weren't trying to provide Berlin with a stable government AND fighting Nazis.Sajo7

Yes, let's negotiate with them. I'm sure that'll work. I wonder what their demands are.

Osama Bin Laden tells US to convert to Islam

oh right... there's always that as an option.

You do know that negotiation =/= giving into demands. It's about compromise. I admit it would be odd as hell for the US and Al-Qaeda to actually deal (and I'd never support it), but the option was available to negotiate.

War is war, just because you can call a duck a goose doesn't make it a goose.

Yes, because that answer totally convinces me that this in fact, is a war and not merely a military occupation. What are your grounds for saying it is a war?

Lemme check... what happened on 9/11? Oh right they ran planes into the World Trade Center. That has nothing to do with economy at all and it didn't affect the economy at all.

[quote=""]When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1933, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ("DJIA") stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920Mystic-G

Ooooh riight

Yes, that turned American into a third world country? It irreversibly damaged the US economy so much that you're now third world? The stock exchange never recovered? Besides, way to ignore basically, most of my point was that the terrorist groups lack resources to defend and then attack a couple of thousand miles, over an ocean, where security is quite tight. You'd undoubtedly need prolonged attacking to turn the US into a third world country.

Sure, your original point is that you would be a third world country not that terrorism damages the economic state of a country, which is rather obvious. If you can't face the reality that your assertion was utterly hyperbolic, then that's your own problem.

No where did I say "it is nothing." foxhound_fox

140 isn't anything.foxhound_fox

What's something that isn't anything?

The rest of your post isn't worth replying to soo..

Yes, that turned American into a third world country? It irreversibly damaged the US economy so much that you're now third world? The stock exchange never recovered? Besides, way to ignore basically, most of my point was that the terrorist groups lack resources to defend and then attack a couple of thousand miles, over an ocean, where security is quite tight. You'd undoubtedly need prolonged attacking to turn the US into a third world country.

Sure, your original point is that you would be a third world country not that terrorism damages the economic state of a country, which is rather obvious. If you can't face the reality that your assertion was utterly hyperbolic, then that's your own problem.stanley_baldwin

I don't see what you're saying. My point is frequent terrorism attacks would put fear in many aspects of this country, running it into the ground. You're in denial if you think otherwise. We're doing what has to be done, whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Don't be coy with me....I know you better than that.:oops:BiancaDK

*twirls my hair around finger innocently*

And to the dude with the blue font....love blue but it's hard to read on the dark background.

LJS9502_basic: Apologies, it seems to show up fine in my monitor, I will change the colour so others can find it readable.

I don't see what you're saying. My point is frequent terrorism attacks would put fear in many aspects of this country, running it into the ground. You're in denial if you think otherwise. We're doing what has to be done, whether you like it or not.Mystic-G

Forget it, this isn't worth the trouble of repeating what's in my quote yet again: Al-Qaeda does not have the resources or the industrial capacity to undertake a campaign of constant, focused attacks on the US and the US, would not be turned into a third world country* unless the infrastructure was irreversibly damage by said attacks. Your country is far more durable than you seem to think.

( *asterisk indicates what your assertion clearly said, and what I'm arguing against)

Oh, and I'm supportive of the Afghanistan campaign, as was most of my political party. I have no idea how you drew that inference.

I think people kinda of forgot that civilians die in war.

Jfisch93

IT becomes hard to swallow when this is a war of choice, and not neccesity.. The US hasn't been in a real war of defence since World War 2.

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

I think people kinda of forgot that civilians die in war.

sSubZerOo

IT becomes hard to swallow when this is a war of choice, and not neccesity.. The US hasn't been in a real war of defence since World War 2.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

I think people kinda of forgot that civilians die in war.

LJS9502_basic

IT becomes hard to swallow when this is a war of choice, and not neccesity.. The US hasn't been in a real war of defence since World War 2.

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

IT becomes hard to swallow when this is a war of choice, and not neccesity.. The US hasn't been in a real war of defence since World War 2.

sSubZerOo

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]

[QUOTE="Jaybird36"]

We don't even know the circumstances of the video. For all we knowthe plane's navigation might have failed or the information was mixed up. Why would you assume we had poor justification without knowing anything about what happened.

mattisgod01

Why would I assume the U.S had good justification without knowing anything about what happened?

I choose to assume people are innocent until proven guilty. I do not believe the US Military would intentionally kill civilians. Why are you so adamant they did?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But the terrorists are based in Afghanistan that attacked....much like we engaged the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. It's not like Japan would have come back. I'm seeing similarities TBH.....LJS9502_basic

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

sSubZerOo

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Same principle....we fight because we are attacked.

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

l4dak47

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

.. Uh huh because CLEARLY thats the only other option. :roll:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

sSubZerOo

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Same principle....we fight because we are attacked.

Afghanistan =/= Iraq.

LJS9502_basic

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

Uh huh just like how the Vietnam war wasn't fighting the region, we were fighting the Vietcong.. Man that sure worked out well..

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

sSubZerOo

.. Uh huh because CLEARLY thats the only other option. :roll:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........................ The group that attacked us is a international extremist organization.. Are you going to want to start invading the entire region now?

sSubZerOo

Uh huh just like how the Vietnam war wasn't fighting the region, we were fighting the Vietcong.. Man that sure worked out well..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] No, you're right, let's just sit back and not try to minimize the issue.l4dak47

.. Uh huh because CLEARLY thats the only other option. :roll:

Has it ever occured to you that many of these terrorist groups are the direct response for 30 years of US policies within the region? That its still causing anger through out the region for things like unquestioningly supporting Israel.. Or that we still support religious extremist governments, such as the Saudi Arabian Monarch..

Lets not forget that we destroyed one of the biggest enemies to religious extremists within the region.. Saddam.. The greater problem is the US is also treating it like a conventional war, which is leading to collateral damage.. Which not only is not productive, but it only creates more hatred towards the United States.. There are many things the US can do within the region, trying to play wack a mole does not work for small groups.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

IT becomes hard to swallow when this is a war of choice, and not neccesity.. The US hasn't been in a real war of defence since World War 2.

sSubZerOo

The terrorist organization is a small group of men and women.. The Japanese Empire WAS an entire nation and military.. Not to mention they actually rivaled the US during the time.. Not a good example.. Not to mention this callousness leads to hypocrisy when we think that events like 9/11 were extremely tragic and sad.. But when you see that in places like Iraq many times over civilians have died.. But Hey thats WAR right?

1. When we invaded the terrorist organization was running their government. We installed a democracy. 2. Yes but they both made random attacks on our soil. 3. I already explained this. 9/11 was completely random.It was not in a time of war.It had no reason other than terrorism. The But hey thats war right doesn't work there.4. In Iraq we save more civilian lives than we cost. The force there is a peacekeeping force. Most civilian casualties are caused by IEDs planted by insurgents. We're the ones treating the wounded civilians.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Uh huh because CLEARLY thats the only other option. :roll:

sSubZerOo

Has it ever occured to you that many of these terrorist groups are the direct response for 30 years of US policies within the region? That its still causing anger through out the region for things like unquestioningly supporting Israel.. Or that we still support religious extremist governments, such as the Saudi Arabian Monarch..

Lets not forget that we destroyed one of the biggest enemies to religious extremists within the region.. Saddam.. The greater problem is the US is also treating it like a conventional war, which is leading to collateral damage.. Which not only is not productive, but it only creates more hatred towards the United States.. There are many things the US can do within the region, trying to play wack a mole does not work for small groups.

No the problem is we're restricted from treating it like a conventional war. This is causinfg all of our casualties. Insurgents are able to attack and get away because of very strict rules of engagement.Plus the biggest extremist is still out there, Bin Laden.

What's something that isn't anything?

ZuluEcho14

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Uh huh because CLEARLY thats the only other option. :roll:

sSubZerOo

Has it ever occured to you that many of these terrorist groups are the direct response for 30 years of US policies within the region? That its still causing anger through out the region for things like unquestioningly supporting Israel.. Or that we still support religious extremist governments, such as the Saudi Arabian Monarch..

Lets not forget that we destroyed one of the biggest enemies to religious extremists within the region.. Saddam.. The greater problem is the US is also treating it like a conventional war, which is leading to collateral damage.. Which not only is not productive, but it only creates more hatred towards the United States.. There are many things the US can do within the region, trying to play wack a mole does not work for small groups.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Dude, It finally Happened. I have my own little group of followers(People that don't like me and make it known)! Yay! :P

(Look at "Liberal...Thread")

LJS9502_basic

Im not suprised. This is probably just tip of the iceberg of damage of what the army has done.