Bin Lid is no more...

[imamartian]

Whether by design , omission of decent intelligence or likely because they dont really give a crap WHO goes up when they drop a cluster bomb on an ALLEGED target, western forces have literally bombed countries including women, children and innocent people in their thousands.


FFS next you will be telling me that HIROSHIMA was a targeted strike at the MILITARY!

I feel like reporting you for stupidity.

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations continually target civilians. Embassy bombings, 9/11, 7/7, Bali bombings to name just a few. The dead included men, women, children. Civilians were purposely targeted.

The United States, while not smelling of roses, don't make a habit of beheading aid workers or purposely targetting civilians. To bring up Hiroshima is a bit silly; in WWII everyone was bombing everyone. Are we Brits murderers for bombing Dresden?

War is a horrible thing, but whereas 60 years ago you knew who your enemy was, it's now impossible. The Taleban use women and children as human shields; do you see ISAF doing that? Do you see ISAF purposely targeting civilians? No. The likes of Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, don't set out to target the military. They blend in and murder innocent, unarmed civilians. If you need proof of this, I refer you to my earlier paragraph.

Whatever you think of the U.S., or Western forces in general, they don't set out to kill & maim as many people as possible. WWII was completely different to the current 'war on terror'.

very well put !! there are some complete idiots on here, and the Hiroshima comment was the most stupid i've seen in a long time !

 

[homes]

I repeat--

I would never believe what those dirty yanks tell us , I would'nt believe what you dirty lot say even.

 

[spacecat]

You honestly believe that the west is not capable of filthy acts because it fits in with your ridiculous misguided ideas that somehow the killing done by the west is somehow
More NOBLE and HONEST than that done by others yet when you actually ADD up the amount of innocent people killed the wests body count is thousands of times higher than the people who they and you describe as terrorists

because you justify these killings in your own minds as somehow being OK you focus on what are indeed awful acts but in reality only the tip of the iceberg compared to the actual losses inflicted on innocent populations by western forces.
If they weren't there this wouldn't happen would it

Why is hiroshima a Red Herring? Because even you realise what a terrible act it was to do as history has recorded it, the USA knew that thousands of innocents would die
Some instantly but others long drawn out painful deaths


Just because you murder from a distance be it a nuclear strike,carpet bombing and cluster bombing YOU are still killing INDISCRIMINATELY innocent people

The USA and the UK have been involved in the taking of innocent people off the street and locking them up for years at a time and subjecting them to torture


Look at all the torture of IRAQI civilians that came out with PHOTOGRAPHS you really believe thats all there was?


Your hypocrisy and that of our governments is plain to see.

Like I have always said LEAVE people alone and I'm sure they would do the same to us but know we cant help fighting imaginary wars on so called HUMANITARIAN grounds when the reality its its all about OIL.

The recent regime changes in the middle east shows that if you leave people alone eventually they sort out their own problems

 

[thatbloke]

Ive seen the british army using human shields before now , children too.
I was one of those children. I didnt hear the soldiers saying ''go away , I may be getting shot at'' it was more like ''gather round , do you smoke , have a ciggie''.


To say the uk and usa dont target civilians is nieve.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

Ive seen the british army using human shields before now , children too.
I was one of those children. I didnt hear the soldiers saying ''go away , I may be getting shot at'' it was more like ''gather round , do you smoke , have a ciggie''.
To say the uk and usa dont target civilians is nieve.

To say they do is so stupid I am lost for words. If you are talking about NI, I was also there and though we often attracted kids, even the IRA did not throw bombs or shoot at kids.

When trouble was brewing word went out and the kids disappeared along with the adults.

 

[thatbloke]

I've never experienced word getting out but then I'm sure you seen a different NI than I did. When kids did gather did you try to disperse them?
Dont take this the wrong way , I'm not accusing you in any way of deliberate human shielding.

When the US and UK target small Afghan villages for bombing raids with civilian people living in them they are deliberately targeting innocent people to get a result , you cant say afterwards ''we didn't know there would be civilians living in those villages''.

The ratio for civilian deaths to military deaths in Afghanistan and indeed Iraq is simply unacceptable.
I have no doubt the same thing would have happened in NI should it not have been so close to home.

 

[EngStudent]

Spacecat.

Tell me where anyone has suggested the deaths of innocent civilians is acceptable. Saying "If they weren't there this wouldn't happen would it" is like saying 'if 9/11 didn't happen we wouldn't be in Afghanistan', and then 'if Israel didn't exist 9/11 wouldn't have happened', followed by 'but the Jews were there first'. We could go on all day. The fact of the matter is that Al-Qaeda, the Taleban et al. use women and children as human shields. They recruit children as suicide bombers. bin Laden himself used his wife as a human shield before his death. Tell me, in what situation would you use your wife to try and prevent your own death?

thatbloke is inferring that the UK used human shields in NI. I can't comment on this as I know nothing about it, but from cumbriahandyman's comments it seems that children are naturally drawn to soldiers. I'm sure British soldiers have never grabbed a civilian to use as a shield while still firing at the enemy, knowing the enemy won't fire back. The same can't be said for the Taleban.

Hiroshima happened in a clear & open war; that is, you knew who your enemy were. Correct, innocent civilians were targeted, but the Japanese, Germans and the British did the same. Tit for tat, if you like, but I'm not excusing it. However, ISAF entered Afghanistan with one aim; to eliminate the Taleban and disrupt Al-Qaeda training camps. Knowing they were part of an inferior force, the Taleban have taken to using dirty tactics in an attempt to win. Often they're bombing their own people. Where's the logic in that?

You quite rightly refer to the torture of Iraqi civilians, however that was by a small minority of soldiers, some of whom have since been brought to justice. However, the Taleban and Al-Qaeda routeinly kidnap, torture and then behead individuals to strike fear into locals to gain their support. Countless Afghan and Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this way. Britions including Ken Bigley and the 4 security personnel have been executed in such a way. Tribal elders have been targeted and killed in Afghanistan for cooperating with ISAF forces. Do you still want to compare the two? I could go on for hours. I'll reiterate my point from an earlier post: blending in and purposely targetting innocent civilians - 9/11 and 7/7 being such examples - is not the same as invading/occupying a country, being easy to identify (soldiers are usually the guys dressed in camo gear with helmets, guns etc) and only targetting members of terrorist organisations.

I do wish you wouldn't bring up the regime changes in the middle east as an example of how people sort out their own problems. I refer you to the current situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain. I've seen a very graphic video on YouTube of protesters being shot at in Syria. A young man dies after being shot in the head. An older man is being carried away - he's still alive, but his lower jaw has been blown off by a bullet. I've seen beheading videos.

Maybe if you weren't so removed from the reality of war you'd think differently. "Syria: Scores die in protests across country" is the title of an article on the BBC News website. The headline in itself doesn't have much of an effect; we're so used to seeing that sort of thing that it's become just another story. Couple the article with videos of it actually happening and all of a sudden the headline has a whole new meaning.

 

[DP]

Americans made a HUGE mistake by partying like idiots, now they look just like all the images you see of people burning US flags in other countries

I don't condone that neither did I condone the muslims celebrateing when the towers were brought down. M Thatcher was not pleased either

 

[thatbloke]

Spacecat.

Tell me where anyone has suggested the deaths of innocent civilians is acceptable. Saying "If they weren't there this wouldn't happen would it" is like saying 'if 9/11 didn't happen we wouldn't be in Afghanistan', and then 'if Israel didn't exist 9/11 wouldn't have happened', followed by 'but the Jews were there first'. We could go on all day. The fact of the matter is that Al-Qaeda, the Taleban et al. use women and children as human shields. They recruit children as suicide bombers. bin Laden himself used his wife as a human shield before his death. Tell me, in what situation would you use your wife to try and prevent your own death?

thatbloke is inferring that the UK used human shields in NI. I can't comment on this as I know nothing about it, but from cumbriahandyman's comments it seems that the soldiers over there attracted children. I'm sure British soldiers have never grabbed a civilian to use as a shield while still firing at the enemy, knowing the enemy won't fire back. The same can't be said for the Taleban.

Hiroshima happened in a clear & open war; that is, you knew who your enemy were. Correct, innocent civilians were targeted, but the Japanese, Germans and the British did the same. Tit for tat, if you like, but I'm not excusing it. However, ISAF entered Afghanistan with one aim; to eliminate the Taleban and disrupt Al-Qaeda training camps. Knowing they were part of an inferior force, the Taleban have taken to using dirty tactics in an attempt to win. Often they're bombing their own people. Where's the logic in that?

You quite rightly refer to the torture of Iraqi civilians, however that was by a small minority of soldiers, some of whom have since been brought to justice. However, the Taleban and Al-Qaeda routeinly kidnap, torture and then behead individuals to strike fear into locals to gain their support. Countless Afghan and Iraqi civilians have been murdered in this way. Britions including Ken Bigley and the 4 security personnel have been executed in such a way. Tribal elders have been targeted and killed in Afghanistan for cooperating with ISAF forces. Do you still want to compare the two? I could go on for hours. I'll reiterate my point from an earlier post: blending in and purposely targetting innocent civilians - 9/11 and 7/7 being such examples - is not the same as invading/occupying a country, being easy to identify (soldiers are usually the guys dressed in camo gear with helmets, guns etc) and only targetting members of terrorist organisations.

I do wish you wouldn't bring up the regime changes in the middle east as an example of how people sort out their own problems. I refer you to the current situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain. I've seen a very graphic video on YouTube of protesters being shot at in Syria. A young man dies after being shot in the head. An older man is being carried away - he's still alive, but his lower jaw has been blown off by a bullet. I've seen beheading videos.

Maybe if you weren't so removed from the reality of war you'd think differently. "Syria: Scores die in protests across country" is the title of an article on the BBC News website. The headline in itself doesn't have much of an effect; we're so used to seeing that sort of thing that it's become just another story. Couple the article with videos of it actually happening and all of a sudden the headline has a whole new meaning.

Dude , thats a big long old post right there.

We didnt go into Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 , the invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before that, 26 days after 911 we attacked. For a start thats not long enough to plan a major operation such as the invasion of Afghanistan thousands of miles away.
We went into Afghanistan after we paid the Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government in order to secure the trans Afghan pipeline.

I do wish people would post the source of their information when debating things.

 

[obmcfc]

As someone who grew up amongst terrorists and terrorism and had friends murdered by terrorists I am glad he has been killed we must keep our ears and eyes open for the revenge attacks

 

[joinerjohn]

People on here go on and on and on about civilian casualties in war. Well there have been civvy casualties for thousands of years in thousands of wars. Man hasn't invented a weapon yet that can discriminate between civvy's and legitimate targets. The bloke that invents this will be a multi billionaire within a year.
Perhaps we should now re-draw the rules of engagement. All wars from now on, should be fought in the middle of deserts. No side is allowed to enter civilian areas etc. No side shall hide themselves amongst civilians. Sounds reasonable?
Nahh the Taliban, Popular Front for the Liberation of Hammersmith etc etc deliberately hide amongst civilians, knowing full well that in any attack launched against them, there will be civilian casualties. Knowing that the media will be available to film and photograph.
It's just another form of propaganda.
Suicide bombers have been shown to attack indiscriminately. It's not just soldiers that are targets, it's anything that moves. Including their own people.

 

[cumbriahandyman]

thatbloke is inferring that the UK used human shields in NI. I can't comment on this as I know nothing about it, but from cumbriahandyman's comments it seems that the soldiers over there attracted children.

I did not mean to infer that we attracted them deliberately. Just by being on a street corner in uniform with a rifle naturally attracted them. Kids (all over the world are like that.

 

[thatbloke]

Exactly, nor was I trying to say that the UK soldiers would grab a child and hold it up to shield them selves from enemy fire.

 

[thatbloke]

Its not a case of ''we have to kill civvies in war, its a war'' its a case of how many civvies is acceptable , the figures are vague to say the least but we are talking well over , well , you count it up,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili..._US_Forces-_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

And now we dont even need soldiers , how can a drone know who to kill? it cant.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425

In all fairness guys , if you lived in Afghanistan and the Afghan forces were indiscriminately bombing the **** out of the UK with this numbers of civilian deaths, possibly you own family or/and friends, I think you would be up in arms also.

This isn't a war against terrorism, this is the obliteration of an entire country, a vast majority of which is innocent and doesn't deserve the injustice inflicted upon them every day.

The Taliban could never in a thousand years kill this many people if we had not have invaded Afghanistan.

There will always be casualties of war? that's simply an unacceptable excuse for this amount of innocent people being murdered.

 

[EngStudent]

Dude , thats a big long old post right there.

We didnt go into Afghanistan as a result of 9/11 , the invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before that, 26 days after 911 we attacked. For a start thats not long enough to plan a major operation such as the invasion of Afghanistan thousands of miles away.
We went into Afghanistan after we paid the Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government in order to secure the trans Afghan pipeline.

I do wish people would post the source of their information when debating things.

Could you post the source of your information for the reasons why we attacked Afghanistan? I'm not disputing that we'd previously had interests in the country, but that alone was not the reason. The main reason was 9/11. Afghanistan was a training ground for terrorists, and a place people like bin Laden could hide out.

Also, 26 days is plenty of time to plan an invasion of a country so far away - militarily they were very weak, which can be seen by how quickly they fell; October 7th 2001, the first bombs were dropped. On December 21st 2001, the interim government was sworn in. Iraq fell quickly; March 20th 2003 the first bombs were dropped. On May 1st 2003, George Bush declared victory.

cumbriahandyman: My apologies, that was worded wrong. I meant to state that children are naturally attracted to soldiers. I'll edit that bit.