Good Job America

[RGacky3]

TaDE2pqPUXQ

Welcome to tommorows terrorists, Good job US military, seriously, your doing a great job destroying villiges for the wonderful cause of ..... anyway, wonderful.

[Goatpie]

Im sure these people are really "free" now

[danyboy27]

Moral issues aside, this is so unproductive and stupid.

an afghan roadside bomb cost 30 buck to manifacture and little skill.

a hellfire missile cost thousand of dollars, the drone itself must receive intense maintenance and is usually remote controlled from a special compond that is worth a fews million dollars.

all this stupid effort and those civilians killed in order to get 1, maybe 2 militants.

[RGacky3]

the most sickening part of it was the commander called an afghani man compaining about his home, livelyhood EVERYTHING being destroyed "theatrics," what a cocksucker.

[Dean]

Its important that America stop Afghanis from having any kind of home-grown organization or society. Its for their best interests.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse, the way to rescue the Afhanis is to destroy their homes and livelyhoods, clearly, now they should pay for their liberation, ungrateful bastards.

[Hexen]

There is no "war" but only big game hunting mass murdering of innocent people and the people defending themselves.

[psgchisolm]

this is the individual commanders fault. Obviously if ther was a large amount of IEDs then it could be detrimential in the long run if they randomly explode. Ordering an ENTIRE village to be destroyed because you don't have the patience to get mine sweepers to clear paths in and out are two different things. He should be put in an "administrative" position. Somewhere where the only things he can do is twidle his thumbs and other organs.

[RGacky3]

When the top general praises him, and says this is a good thing, its then the generals responsibility

[danyboy27]

it might sound strange like that, but this conflict is mainly a conflict driven by moral issues.

the initial invasion of afghanistan was an attept to arrest and punish those who comitted the attack of 9/11.

when they realised what kind of mess they created by doing so, they couldnt leave, not before the threat being completely elimited and the ''evil doer'' all killed.

small problem: the number of attacker and attack are constantly increasing, due to the bad methods used.

the only thing that make them stay in afghanistan is this whole judeo-christian guilt trip about not letting ''the forces of evil'' succeed.

The number of civilian killed dosnt really matter for them beccause even tho those death are horribles, leaving the forces of evil alive behind them would be more evil.

Morality is verry often the justification of the most horribles crimes that happened to this world.

[psgchisolm]

When the top general praises him, and says this is a good thing, its then the generals responsibility
The general wasn't there when the decision was made. Any reports after this can be blamed wholeheartedly on the general through. As much as I hate why this happened blame must be placed where blame is due.

[RGacky3]

Patreaus commended this guy and encouraged (publically) other commanders to take the same approach, so yeah, I'm blaiming Patreaus.

[danyboy27]

Patreaus commended this guy and encouraged (publically) other commanders to take the same approach, so yeah, I'm blaiming Patreaus.

its a systemic problem, blaming peoples shouldnt be a reason to overlook that fact.

i am not saying we should not blame that general, but lets face it, any other general would have ordered the same kind of order.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

what a cocksucker.
Homophobe.

[RGacky3]

Quote:
what a cocksucker.
Homophobe.


Nope

[balaclava]

I was on a Muslim forum some time back when the subject of the use of drones by the US in Pakistan came up and I was asked to condemn their use as they often kill ‘innocent’ civilians. This thread and their questions suggests that there is some ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use weapons not available to the weaker army. Is that the correct, do we think that when fighting a war against people with primitive weapons we (the west) should restrict our choice of weaponry?

[Jimmie Higgins]

the most sickening part of it was the commander called an afghani man compaining about his home, livelyhood EVERYTHING being destroyed "theatrics," what a cocksucker.Oh yeah, the US really did stop Taliban's mistreatment of women in this village... by destroying it and any women in it. "We had to burn women in order to save their rights."


Homophobe.I agree that we shouldn't say "cocksucker" on this site because it is either homophobic or sexist and a divisive term (and I also don't like it because it implies that sucking cock is a bad thing when really, oral sex should be encouraged:lol:) but let's not call each-other names either. I think we can bring up use of some kind of questionable terms in a more comradely way unless you think the poster is actually a homophobe.

[#FF0000]

I was on a Muslim forum some time back when the subject of the use of drones by the US in Pakistan came up and I was asked to condemn their use as they often kill ‘innocent’ civilians. This thread and their questions suggests that there is some ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use weapons not available to the weaker army. Is that the correct, do we think that when fighting a war against people with primitive weapons we (the west) should restrict our choice of weaponry?

The problem is that they are wiping out civilians and their homes.

[#FF0000]

Nope

Yeah actually. If you don't want to be called a homophobe then dont' throw around homophobic slurs. Not a difficult concept.

[RGacky3]

Yeah actually. If you don't want to be called a homophobe then dont' throw around homophobic slurs. Not a difficult concept.

Context buddy, but if it bothers you I'll refrain from using it.

[Dean]

I was on a Muslim forum some time back when the subject of the use of drones by the US in Pakistan came up and I was asked to condemn their use as they often kill ‘innocent’ civilians. This thread and their questions suggests that there is some ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use weapons not available to the weaker army. Is that the correct, do we think that when fighting a war against people with primitive weapons we (the west) should restrict our choice of weaponry?

This shit doesn't even make sense. The drones could be used in a manner so as to keep from killing civilians, but they aren't. If the people you were speaking to thought it was a systemic issue (like it IS with cluster bombs and nuclear arms) they were simply wrong.

US usage of the drones should be condemned, for obvious reasons.

[Lt. Ferret]

they are already used in a way that limits civilian casualties. terrorists and militant suspects like to hang out in crowded areas. smart bombs lower the death rate to about as minimal as it can be, and it will only get better as we get smarter bombs.

[Lt. Ferret]

also post more biased retard bullshit videos please.

[#FF0000]

they are already used in a way that limits civilian casualties. terrorists and militant suspects like to hang out in crowded areas. smart bombs lower the death rate to about as minimal as it can be, and it will only get better as we get smarter bombs.

Until then:

Deal with it, collateral :cool:

[Lt. Ferret]

its war. also, stay away from militants. duh.

[#FF0000]

also weddings

[psgchisolm]

This shit doesn't even make sense. The drones could be used in a manner so as to keep from killing civilians, but they aren't. If the people you were speaking to thought it was a systemic issue (like it IS with cluster bombs and nuclear arms) they were simply wrong.

US usage of the drones should be condemned, for obvious reasons.
It's obvious. You see a guy with an AK or an RPG around. Get the fuck away. Out in the Rural areas through. You can't get away. So the U.S. Army takes fire. They look around find where the firing is coming from. If you don't see civilians shoot. The problem is, the taliban put the civialians on the roofs because they know they will follow the ROE to avoid civialian casualties. So when they go in and tell them hey gtfo we're gonna have an operation. It means GTFO they will probably bomb shoot the shit out of the village. Of course to the taliban it's Let's get in let them bomb the village so everyone hates them. Or the U.S. bombs the village and the taliban take away all the weapons and have the villagers say the U.S. killed innocent civialians

[#FF0000]

It's obvious. You see a guy with an AK or an RPG around. Get the fuck away. Out in the Rural areas through. You can't get away. So the U.S. Army takes fire. They look around find where the firing is coming from. If you don't see civilians shoot. The problem is, the taliban put the civialians on the roofs because they know they will follow the ROE to avoid civialian casualties. So when they go in and tell them hey gtfo we're gonna have an operation. It means GTFO they will probably bomb shoot the shit out of the village. Of course to the taliban it's Let's get in let them bomb the village so everyone hates them. Or the U.S. bombs the village and the taliban take away all the weapons and have the villagers say the U.S. killed innocent civialians [/QUOTE]

How about Plan C: Get the hell out of Afghanistan?

Also, in Pakistan most of this shit is carried out via Predator drone strike.

[danyboy27]

This shit doesn't even make sense. The drones could be used in a manner so as to keep from killing civilians, but they aren't. If the people you were speaking to thought it was a systemic issue (like it IS with cluster bombs and nuclear arms) they were simply wrong.

US usage of the drones should be condemned, for obvious reasons.

There is no way you can use a drone equipped with hellfire missile and do precision work in an urban environnement with it, especially in afghanistan where house are litterally build with mud.

the best course of action would be to send boots on the ground to retake these kind of objective, but that would mean paperwork, logistics, possible american death.

Its somehow more simple to blow up this town to pieces and get rid of the threat.

But politicly, those incidents are fuelling more and more extremist to enlist to the taleban and blow up american humvee with bomb made of 30 dollars worth of scrap metal.

Its a catch-22, either the us troop go there and loose men to control a worthless objective like this town, or they go for the option 2 and send drone blowing shit up, motivating the population to join the taleban who will blow up humvee with IED , killing more american soldier.

Bottom line, they created a mess, they are fucked, and they should just leave, it would be better for everyone.

[Lt. Ferret]

"everyone" i would assume doesn't include women, children, intellectuals, and anyone who's collaborated with american troops, or anyone who isn't an islamic reactionary fuckhead.


the real solution here is generally work with the town elders and mayor or police chief and build a working relationship, where they themselves rid the town of the taliban.

[#FF0000]

"everyone" i would assume doesn't include women, children, intellectuals, and anyone who's collaborated with american troops, or anyone who isn't an islamic reactionary fuckhead

Yeah we know how great the past decade's been for them under the Americans. :mellow:

[Lt. Ferret]

you can keep up the completely retarded smug comments if you want. it sure wasnt fucking pixies and roses when the taliban was murdering people and beating women to death because part of their face was revealed while trying to carry a young child and groceries at the same time.


stop being apologists for theocratic reactionaries. its goddamn sickening.

[#FF0000]

you can keep up the completely retarded smug comments if you want. it sure wasnt fucking pixies and roses when the taliban was murdering people and beating women to death because part of their face was revealed while trying to carry a young child and groceries at the same time.

Oh yeah I remember how all of that happened. Right after America tried to help out about 30 years ago, yeah?


stop being apologists for theocratic reactionaries. its goddamn sickening.I'm definitely not. Theocratic reactionaries on one side, imperialist reactionaries on the other, and in the middle, a lot of villagers and young American kids stuck fighting and dying (in the case of the villagers, mostly dying) in a war that is literally unwinnable for the Americans.

[danyboy27]

"everyone" i would assume doesn't include women, children, intellectuals, and anyone who's collaborated with american troops, or anyone who isn't an islamic reactionary fuckhead.
the real solution here is generally work with the town elders and mayor or police chief and build a working relationship, where they themselves rid the town of the taliban.

Has i said, its a catch-22. Right now, the us governement could either continue to try to eliminate the taleban, kill a shitload of civilian in the process, or leave and let the governement being purged by the taleban, something that will happen anyway.

Peoples dies, regime change, that society, and interfering in such complicated ecosystem is always bound to backfire.

the ''job'' of the us governement is to look after its citizens, not playing the international policeman.

The taleban could have collapsed by themselves long time ago if it wasnt for all the interference many major powers in the region for the last decades.

[Lt. Ferret]

well it wont end and they dont live in a vacuum and when we leave pakistan and iran will slam into the region and do their thing.

acting like america is the bad guy here and not that basically every conceivable faction in the scenario are also bad guys is ridiculous and stupid.

[#FF0000]

well it wont end and they dont live in a vacuum and when we leave pakistan and iran will slam into the region and do their thing. That wouldn't happen. Iran's not gonna do anything because Saddam Hussein and Iraq- oh wait

Are you noticing a pattern here?

[Lt. Ferret]

besides you failing at being smug every single post you make? no.

[danyboy27]

well it wont end and they dont live in a vacuum and when we leave pakistan and iran will slam into the region and do their thing.

acting like america is the bad guy here and not that basically every conceivable faction in the scenario are also bad guys is ridiculous and stupid.
hey, its not a question who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

and if Iran invade (its highly improbable) afghanistan then what? they will be killed by the taleban has well.

and what about pakistan? a country who have already enough shit on their plate with their domestic problems to actually care.

Really, i just think that america have enough shit on their plate like that.
It would be innovative for a superpower to mind its own buisness and fix their own problem rather than trying to spread their own brand of democracy and morality.

[Lt. Ferret]

they dont need to invade with troops, they influence the region like they did before the taliban got there, during the talibans rule, and are attempting to do now.


and i can pull the neo-con card and be like "america WAS minding its own business until 9/11" or i can pull the card where i blame the soviet union for trying to install a puppet government there and destabilizing the whole region.

or maybe britain trying to gain influence in the region the last 100 years prior to the soviet invasion. or the afghan warlords in the late 1700s forming a cohesive state and attacking its neighbors.

history is no vacuum.

[#FF0000]

besides you failing at being smug every single post you make? no.

k it's really simple lemme explain

every time america gets involved with another tiny country's shit, things get worse.

It gave us the Mujihideen. It gave us Saddam Hussein. It gave us an autocratic Iranian govenment.

And since 2001, it's gotten the U.S. involved in a war that the army flat out can't win on a battlefield that is literally the graveyard of empires. It's destabilized the entire region, disrupting the balance of power between Iraq and Iran, which itself brings on a whole host of problems.

This is my point. American intervention, no matter what the intention, has lead to nothing good, and to suggest that MORE intervention is a good thing is ludicrous.

[Lt. Ferret]

democracy > saddamism.

democracy > taliban rule.

the kinks need to be worked out. unfortunately, the only people to elect are dictators, warlords, drug lords, and other reactionaries.

[#FF0000]

they dont need to invade with troops, they influence the region like they did before the taliban got there, during the talibans rule, and are attempting to do now.

Yeah. They could. But (I'm gonna stop being smug now) I don't see how this is feasible at any point. I mean, the U.S. has committed foot soldiers here. It's a war. If America leaves Afghanistan, wouldn't that make it hard to do much of anything considering how tremendous of a propaganda defeat that would be?


democracy > saddamism.

democracy > taliban rule.

the kinks need to be worked out. unfortunately, the only people to elect are dictators, warlords, drug lords, and other reactionaries.
Yeah but see, I don't think what we establish will be any better. To be honest I can't see how we can avoid ending up with something just as bad or worse. Historically, that's usually how it ends.

[danyboy27]

they dont need to invade with troops, they influence the region like they did before the taliban got there, during the talibans rule, and are attempting to do now.


and i can pull the neo-con card and be like "america WAS minding its own business until 9/11" or i can pull the card where i blame the soviet union for trying to install a puppet government there and destabilizing the whole region.

or maybe britain trying to gain influence in the region the last 100 years prior to the soviet invasion. or the afghan warlords in the late 1700s forming a cohesive state and attacking its neighbors.

history is no vacuum.

even if iran would ''influence'' afghanistan, how such thing would affect the security of the united state? what would Iran win in ''influencing'' a basicly dry and devasted country?

If you really seek the security of the united state, better bring you guy home and take care of your own problems. There is just so much shit to fix in north america right now, you folks will be busy for a good 100 year.

In the meanwhile, the world will continue to move just like it used to do before, some big power will influence smaller state, people will be killed in the process, progressive governement will topple reactionaries, or the other way around.

[Lt. Ferret]

iran is influencing iraq all the time and we have boots on the ground there.

[#FF0000]

iran is influencing iraq all the time and we have boots on the ground there.

Yeah I don't doubt that but unless I'm wrong, Iraq and Iran were sort of keeping each other in check before the US invaded Iraq.

[danyboy27]

iran is influencing iraq all the time and we have boots on the ground there.


see? its worthless.

what the worst that could happen if iran would control the world Oil reserve seriously?

if you dont want to have problem with those who posses a ressource you want, work out a deal or find an alternative source of energy.

[RGacky3]

the kinks need to be worked out. unfortunately, the only people to elect are dictators, warlords, drug lords, and other reactionaries.

You talking about the US here?

I don't think Americans are anyone to preach about Democracy.



iran is influencing iraq all the time and we have boots on the ground there.


How?


democracy > saddamism.

democracy > taliban rule.


What happened to that formula when we put Saddam and the Taliban IN power?


stop being apologists for theocratic reactionaries. its goddamn sickening.

Look at history, American military interventionism never helps the people, this is'nt about defending theocratic reactionaries.

Americans are responsible for what Americans do.

[PhoenixAsh]

this one isn't half bad either>: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7Wut8OOjow&feature=related)

[balaclava]

Yeah, all that but I asked a question, one which I’ve wondered about for sometime and I believe it is appropriate to ask it here as I believe there are more idealists on this forum than elsewhere.

This thread starts with an image showing overwhelming force and infers that is wrong. It appears that there is some unwritten ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use all and any of the weapononry available to it because the weaker army doesn’t have it. For the past x thousand years wars have settled issues on the basis of the strongest killing off the weakest. Is it the case that because the opposition don’t wear uniforms (or some other reason) our soldiers must become policemen? The enemy consider themselves to be fighting a war, they are using whatever they can to win that war. Why do some of you feel that the enemy should be treated as a criminal and given all the rights and privileges of a criminal (capture and trial etc) rather than be destroyed as an enemy army?

[RGacky3]

It appears that there is some unwritten ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use all and any of the weapononry available to it because the weaker army doesn’t have it.

Thats not the issue at all, destroying a village is the issue, this is'nt idealism.


Is it the case that because the opposition don’t wear uniforms (or some other reason) our soldiers must become policemen? The enemy consider themselves to be fighting a war, they are using whatever they can to win that war. Why do some of you feel that the enemy should be treated as a criminal and given all the rights and privileges of a criminal (capture and trial etc) rather than be destroyed as an enemy army?

Who is the enemy? Were the civilians living in that village the "enemy?" Who is this "enemy?"

Why the hell are we there? Who are we fighting?

[balaclava]

Why the hell are we there? Who are we fighting?

Why are we there? I know why we’re there and I don’t know why we are there. I know we are there because the country was/is being used to train people to kill me. I don’t know why we are there, getting our young men killed when we could settle to problem by pressing a button on a nuclear sub. Of course that is an outrageous suggestion but I want to now why it is an unacceptable option. And, if that option is unacceptable, how about carpet bombing – ooops sorry also unacceptable! So is it the case that the only acceptable options is to let them carry on training suicide bombers and exporting them to kill me and my family and hope that we can catch them before they do it and put them on trial before we grant them citizenship and pay for them an income to pump out a football team sized family of future killers?

[balaclava]

Who is the enemy? Were the civilians living in that village the "enemy?" Who is this "enemy?"


Innocent civilians – are there degrees of ‘innocence?’ Are the women and children who support the soldiers as innocent as the people at their desks in the Twin Towers or on the London tube? Why don’t the Taliban wear a uniform (like every other army) so that everybody can know who to kill and more importantly who to avoid killing? Why don’t they store their weapons and hide themselves inside houses containing women and children? Why they teach their women and children that they should all seek martyrdom as prescribed in the Qur’an.

[RGacky3]

I know we are there because the country was/is being used to train people to kill me. I don’t know why we are there, getting our young men killed when we could settle to problem by pressing a button on a nuclear sub.

You mean a gang of thugs were living in a country, and after 911 the taliban asked for evidence before turning them over which is INTERNATIONAL LAW, the US refused and bombed the hell out of the country. Al Queda is'nt even there any more, it woud be like bombing italy to get the Mafia, except that would be more rational because the Mafia is actually italian.

As far as the nuclear Sub, well, I'll leave that alone :).


So is it the case that the only acceptable options is to let them carry on training suicide bombers and exporting them to kill me and my family and hope that we can catch them before they do it and put them on trial before we grant them citizenship and pay for them an income to pump out a football team sized family of future killers?

There are many options, one follow international law when it comes to international crime, two, get out of the middle east and stop giving people a legitimate reason to support these groups, and many more.

But I guess if the ONLY way in your brain to deal with crime is mass murder, hell maybe we should bomb your town too, probably the UK, I've heard they beat people up at foodball matches.

BTW: Your arguments stand by them self really, in showing what type of moron you are, I almost don't need to type anything.


Innocent civilians – are there degrees of ‘innocence?’ Are the women and children who support the soldiers as innocent as the people at their desks in the Twin Towers or on the London tube?

Most of these people hav'nt even heard of 911, thats a fact, a large majority of them have not. Also, even if they did, yes, they are still innocent.

But if your argument is "terrorists kill civilians so, I guess so can I," then stick with that argument, then really ... your no more civilized THAN the terrorists, except maybe a bit more cowardly.


Why they teach their women and children that they should all seek martyrdom as prescribed in the Qur’an.

Do you really think anyone in afghanistan would care about us if we wern't there?

[Dean]

they are already used in a way that limits civilian casualties. terrorists and militant suspects like to hang out in crowded areas. smart bombs lower the death rate to about as minimal as it can be, and it will only get better as we get smarter bombs.
Neither the technology nor the usage thereof have been shifted to reduce civilian deaths. The militants live with their families because they are dfending themselves from a foreign occupier. Just because the Taliban doesn't have drones over US soil doesn't any more - or - less justify Marines returning home.

Its a bizarre and irrelevant point to complain about "terrorists and militants" living with the population. The same is true for any target of an imperial regime, and it doesn't justify civilian deaths.

[#FF0000]

Innocent civilians – are there degrees of ‘innocence?’ Are the women and children who support the soldiers as innocent as the people at their desks in the Twin Towers or on the London tube? Why don’t the Taliban wear a uniform (like every other army) so that everybody can know who to kill and more importantly who to avoid killing? Why don’t they store their weapons and hide themselves inside houses containing women and children? Why they teach their women and children that they should all seek martyrdom as prescribed in the Qur’an.

What, is there some ethical code written that a weaker army needs to face a stronger and more organized one head on?

Also, coincidentally, your "degrees of innocence" idea here is the same thinking that terrorists who bomb civilians use.


Why are we there? I know why we’re there and I don’t know why we are there. I know we are there because the country was/is being used to train people to kill me. I don’t know why we are there, getting our young men killed when we could settle to problem by pressing a button on a nuclear sub. Of course that is an outrageous suggestion but I want to now why it is an unacceptable option.

Because it is wrong to kill civilians and nuking a country like you suggested would give them (read: everyone on the planet) every right in the world to bomb the shit out of America, pass a whole ton of sanctions...etc.


And, if that option is unacceptable, how about carpet bombing – ooops sorry also unacceptable!

Yeah, I know it might be shocking to you but the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is 1) illegal and 2) morally reprehensible anyway.


So is it the case that the only acceptable options is to let them carry on training suicide bombers and exporting them to kill me and my family and hope that we can catch them before they do it and put them on trial...

Except here is the thing. They are training suicide bombers because we are there (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupation_stupid?page=0,0). Us having combat troops in the region is destabilizing it further, and if anything, has made us far less safe by giving everyone in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, a reason to hate the West.


...before we grant them citizenship and pay for them an income to pump out a football team sized family of future killers?

:mellow:

[Dean]

Yeah, all that but I asked a question, one which I’ve wondered about for sometime and I believe it is appropriate to ask it here as I believe there are more idealists on this forum than elsewhere.

This thread starts with an image showing overwhelming force and infers that is wrong. It appears that there is some unwritten ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use all and any of the weapononry available to it because the weaker army doesn’t have it. For the past x thousand years wars have settled issues on the basis of the strongest killing off the weakest. Is it the case that because the opposition don’t wear uniforms (or some other reason) our soldiers must become policemen? The enemy consider themselves to be fighting a war, they are using whatever they can to win that war. Why do some of you feel that the enemy should be treated as a criminal and given all the rights and privileges of a criminal (capture and trial etc) rather than be destroyed as an enemy army?

This is not what is being inferred. He's saying that we should be destroying an entire village since it appears to be a strategic blunder (and has moral issues).

Not sure where the fuck you're getting this "don't use superior technology" bit. I didn't hear the man complain about our superior rifles or vehicles, just the specific act which targeted civilian structures.

You're arguing against something nobody ever said.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

He might as well have written ''what a faggot''. The meaning is exactly the same.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think what we can learn from this whole debate and the ample historic evidence is that change from above will not lead to desired results and will often backfire.

In fact I maintain that the only way liberation can be achieved is through empowerment from below within a cultural or ethnic community with respect for the cultural and ethnical differences within a class struggle. In otherwords...each group must have political direction towards freedom and establish that freedom itself.

If it is imposed it will not last, it will become unpredictable and it will backfire.

[PhoenixAsh]

He might as well have written ''what a faggot''. The meaning is exactly the same.

I do not understand this contribution. Could you explain? Is this about the strange page one remark? Perhaps a quote to what you are refering to would be handy in the future.

[PhoenixAsh]

Innocent civilians – are there degrees of ‘innocence?’ Are the women and children who support the soldiers as innocent as the people at their desks in the Twin Towers or on the London tube? Why don’t the Taliban wear a uniform (like every other army) so that everybody can know who to kill and more importantly who to avoid killing? Why don’t they store their weapons and hide themselves inside houses containing women and children? Why they teach their women and children that they should all seek martyrdom as prescribed in the Qur’an.

Because...as you suggested...one fights with the weapons they have. And wearing uniforms would make them easy targets against the ultimate superior fighting power.

Now unless you want to maintain that civilians are a legitimate target in which case you can not and should not balk at the twin towers... Or perhaps are you advocating that crimes are justified because the other side
committed them also...in which case yo again do not get to balk about the twin towers seeing as they would be a ligitimate target given the fact of military support the US has given directly and indirectly to forces that also targetted civilians.

[Lt. Ferret]

no but hiding amongst civilians and then being shocked that civilians die in conflict is beyond asinine.

[L.A.P.]

you can keep up the completely retarded smug comments if you want. it sure wasnt fucking pixies and roses when the taliban was murdering people and beating women to death because part of their face was revealed while trying to carry a young child and groceries at the same time.
stop being apologists for theocratic reactionaries. its goddamn sickening.

Oh the Taliban? Do you mean the same Taliban that was put into power by the United States?


also post more biased retard bullshit videos please.

I would like to know what part of the video was biased; the factual quotes or the images? Do people in the military seem to have trouble with the concept that if your village is destroyed you have a right to be a bit upset or does it go completely over your head?


That wouldn't happen. Iran's not gonna do anything because Saddam Hussein and Iraq- oh wait

Are you noticing a pattern here?

Did they have some greedy but awesome bourgeois plan for going after their best friend in the Middle East or did the US government just decide to be backstabbers because they felt like it?

[Ele'ill]

no but hiding amongst civilians and then being shocked that civilians die in conflict is beyond asinine.

Perhaps the US should not be there to begin with. The US is occupying points in cities and such- when there's an atrocious attack against a base you hear how many civilians were killed- which is horrible- but when you have the US engage in identical operations it's justified as war- collateral damage- it happens- and not 'hiding amongst civilians'. It's a mentality that "Oh but we're US soldiers' so even if we mess up it's still sort of doing a lot of good' which is absolute bullshit.

[Lt. Ferret]

Oh the Taliban? Do you mean the same Taliban that was put into power by the United States?

stop being apologists for theocratic reactionaries. its goddamn sickening.


I would like to know what part of the video was biased; the factual quotes or the images? Do people in the military seem to have trouble with the concept that if your village is destroyed you have a right to be a bit upset or does it go completely over your head?


the taliban wasn't put into power by the united states.



Meanwhile southern Afghanistan was neither under the control of foreign-backed militias nor the government in Kabul, but was ruled by local leaders such as Gul Agha Sherzai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gul_Agha_Sherzai) and their militias. In 1994, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamiat_Ulema-e-Islam)-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force, reportedly in opposition to the tyranny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny) of the local governor.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Matinuddin.2C_Kamal_1999_pp.25-33) Mullah Omar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Omar) started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassah) students in his hometown of Kandahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar).[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#cite_note-Matinuddin.2C_Kamal_1999_pp.25-33) The most credible and often-repeated story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994, neighbors in Singesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singesar) told him that the local governor had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a camp where they were raped repeatedly. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank. Later that year, two militia commanders killed civilians while fighting for the right to sodomize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomize) a young boy. The Taliban freed him.

[Lt. Ferret]

Perhaps the US should not be there to begin with. The US is occupying points in cities and such- when there's an atrocious attack against a base you hear how many civilians were killed- which is horrible- but when you have the US engage in identical operations it's justified as war- collateral damage- it happens- and 'hiding amongst civilians'. It's a mentality that "Oh but we're US soldiers' so even if we mess up it's still sort of doing a lot of good' which is absolute bullshit.


the taliban attack markets, they kill women, they attack completely nonmilitary targets, they engage in kidnapping and murder and extortion.

US forces follow ROE and EOF which is rather stringent. American war crimes are the exception, taliban war crimes are the rule.

and why is "hiding amongst civilians" somehow justifiable? its not. never was. never is.

and if you arent going to follow the generally recognized rules of war then yeah, fuck you, no special treatment, kill everyone who has harbored villianous scum as you. sorry. put on a unit patch. using your family as a moral bargaining chip in order to attack other people trying to go to market marks you for death. fuck them a million times over.

[L.A.P.]

the taliban wasn't put into power by the united states.

They did put the Mujahideen into power which isn't a far cry from the Taliban and the US did give the Taliban a lot of money and weapons.

[Lt. Ferret]

"they did something which resembles something that someone did later on that kind of sort of connected somewhere"

[L.A.P.]

"they did something which resembles something that someone did later on that kind of sort of connected somewhere"

Because giving the Taliban money and weapons is such an indirect thing that the government shouldn't even be blamed for it.

[Lt. Ferret]

They did not give the Taliban money or weapons. only three countries ever recognized the taliban, saudi arabia, UAE, and pakistan. iran was prepared to invade and destroy the taliban several times.

giving afghans weapons in the 80s to fight against their puppet communist dictatorship does not mean that the US gave them weapons in the mid 90s. it means they kept their weapons and used them later on when all of them joined whatever faction they felt loyal to. some joined the taliban. most didnt.

[Ele'ill]

the taliban attack markets, they kill women, they attack completely nonmilitary targets, they engage in kidnapping and murder and extortion.

US forces follow ROE and EOF which is rather stringent. American war crimes are the exception, taliban war crimes are the rule.

and why is "hiding amongst civilians" somehow justifiable? its not. never was. never is.

and if you arent going to follow the generally recognized rules of war then yeah, fuck you, no special treatment, kill everyone who has harbored villianous scum as you. sorry. put on a unit patch. using your family as a moral bargaining chip in order to attack other people trying to go to market marks you for death. fuck them a million times over.

We're not discussing intentional attacks against civilians- we're discussing the acceptance of 'collateral damage' and this weird notion that the US isn't some how embedded in cities and villages 'hiding amongst civilians' in the same manner that a lot of militants are. The difference is that the US is an occupying force involved in a highly questionable war.

[Lt. Ferret]

also

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-responsible-76-deaths-afghanistan-un

the taliban are killing civilians, not US troops. 76% of all civilian deaths in afghanistan in 2009 were from the taliban

[Lt. Ferret]

We're not discussing intentional attacks against civilians- we're discussing the acceptance of 'collateral damage' and this weird notion that the US isn't some how embedded in cities and villages 'hiding amongst civilians' in the same manner that a lot of militants are. The difference is that the US is an occupying force involved in a highly questionable war.


US FOB's and COB's are usually a fair distance away from population centers, and have a fair distance between their defensive perimeter and the soldiers or infrastructure themselves. it would be a stupid idea to embed them inside of a city or village.

[psgchisolm]

We're not discussing intentional attacks against civilians- we're discussing the acceptance of 'collateral damage' and this weird notion that the US isn't some how embedded in cities and villages 'hiding amongst civilians' in the same manner that a lot of militants are. The difference is that the US is an occupying force involved in a highly questionable war.Collateral Damage happens. We try to avoid it but it we can't stop it. Yeah the U.S. isn't embedded in cities or villages. They live on Military bases. FOBs or COPs. Read below quote. Pretty sure they don't "Hide amongst civilians" You might want to look up what a go to google pictures and look up Foward Operating Base and Combat Outpost. If anything they are TARGETS away from the civilians


US FOB's and COB's are usually a fair distance away from population centers, and have a fair distance between their defensive perimeter and the soldiers or infrastructure themselves. it would be a stupid idea to embed them inside of a city or village.

Ty the only times soldiers are kept in a village are when they are fighting with the ANA or ANP and that's in itself is rare.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

no but hiding amongst civilians and then being shocked that civilians die in conflict is beyond asinine.
I think it's more along the lines that they live amongst civilians, not that they hide amongst them.

[#FF0000]

How many civilians have died from 2001 til today compared to 1990 until 2001?

[psgchisolm]

I think it's more along the lines that they live amongst civilians, not that they hide amongst them.
Mostly because they ARE the so called civilians.

How many civilians have died from 2001 til today compared to 1990 until 2001?
How long were those conflicts compared to todays?

[Ele'ill]

US FOB's and COB's are usually a fair distance away from population centers, and have a fair distance between their defensive perimeter and the soldiers or infrastructure themselves. it would be a stupid idea to embed them inside of a city or village.

Ok, then perhaps there were markets near the bases because various reports showed a lot of civilian deaths when the bases were attacked. There are videos of attacks showing what appear to be bases in a fairly building dense area. There also are temporarily occupied buildings as street fighting gets underway- the militants were 'hiding amongst civilians' to no greater degree than the US troops were. The difference is again a weird idea that the troops are some how justified and exempt of this critique 'because they're heroes'.

[#FF0000]

How long were those conflicts compared to todays?

Well what I'm asking is if people died nearly as often under the Taliban from when the last war in Afghanistan ended, until the invasion in 2001/2002 whenever. 'Cause if people are dying a lot more often now than they were before, then regardless of whose bombs and bullets are making people dead, it's a result of our invasion.

I'm not making excuses for the Taliban or apologizing for them. They're one small, especially brutal faction of the ruling class fighting against another faction of the ruling class. What I'm saying is that American intervention is not the right way to get rid of folks like the Taliban. This is especially evident when you take a look at history and notice that whenever the U.S. (or any country) invades a smaller country, it, as a general rule, doesn't make anything better for the people that are being "liberated".

EDIT: Not to mention that America losing in Afghanistan is p. much a foregone conclusion.

[psgchisolm]

Ok, then perhaps there were markets near the bases because various reports showed a lot of civilian deaths when the bases were attacked. There are videos of attacks showing what appear to be bases in a fairly building dense area. There also are temporarily occupied buildings as street fighting gets underway- the militants were 'hiding amongst civilians' to no greater degree than the US troops were. The difference is again a weird idea that the troops are some how justified and exempt of this critique 'because they're heroes'.
So just where to do you expect the soldiers to be during a firefight? If you got shot at you would get in the first building you can. Not because you are "hiding" but because you aren't dumb enough to stay out in the street where there's little to no protection. It's not like they pick where they want to fight. They get Ambushed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambushed
Obviously the attacking force. Ex Anti-Coalition forces know exactly where they are at and that Coalition troops need to pay more attention to the ROE. They could give less of a damn about the person running across the street to their mom. They don't "hide" they take cover. They tell the inhabitants to go to a safer location inside the house if possible. Then first chance they get they leave and attack anti-coalition troops. If you had to choose between a field and a house I bet you would get in the house when bullets and RPGs are flying your way.


Well what I'm asking is if people died nearly as often under the Taliban from when the last war in Afghanistan ended, until the invasion in 2001/2002 whenever. 'Cause if people are dying a lot more often now than they were before, then regardless of whose bombs and bullets are making people dead, it's a result of our invasion.

I'm not making excuses for the Taliban or apologizing for them. They're one small, especially brutal faction of the ruling class fighting against another faction of the ruling class. What I'm saying is that American intervention is not the right way to get rid of folks like the Taliban. This is especially evident when you take a look at history and notice that whenever the U.S. (or any country) invades a smaller country, it, as a general rule, doesn't make anything better for the people that are being "liberated".

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that America losing in Afghanistan is p. much a foregone conclusion.
How many people die from IEDs and Roadside bombs planted by the taliban today? There's a reason why no one "knows" anything about the taliban. because they know if they tell the coalition troops anything they won't be around next time the coalition troops come to the village. What intervention would there be? We all know how effective the U.N. is:laugh:. Maybe there is a reason why the taliban don't control any major areas? I'm just saying. The taliban are the major reason why civialians die and died in afghanistan before and after the invasion. Before they could do their killings in public. Now they have to hide it like the cowards they are. IF they can do them at all.

[#FF0000]

How many people die from IEDs and Roadside bombs planted by the taliban today? There's a reason why no one "knows" anything about the taliban. because they know if they tell the coalition troops anything they won't be around next time the coalition troops come to the village. What intervention would there be? We all know how effective the U.N. is:laugh:. Maybe there is a reason why the taliban don't control any major areas? I'm just saying. The taliban are the major reason why civialians die and died in afghanistan before and after the invasion. Before they could do their killings in public. Now they have to hide it like the cowards they are. IF they can do them at all.

You're missing my point. I am saying that life is worse and more dangerous now as a result of the U.S. invasion. I'm well aware that the Taliban kills and blows up civilians all the time. But they wouldn't be planting IEDs if the U.S. Army wasn't there in the first place. And of course the Taliban killed people before, but they'd be hard-pressed to keep it from the world if they were killing civilians at the rate that they're dying in Afghanistan now.

And, er, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'd ever support the U.N. I'm a communist, you realize?


. If you had to choose between a field and a house I bet you would get in the house when bullets and RPGs are flying your way.Probably. But I'd also choose to not fight and die for some suit with a government contract in the first place.

[Ele'ill]

So just where to do you expect the soldiers to be during a firefight? If you got shot at you would get in the first building you can. Not because you are "hiding" but because you aren't dumb enough to stay out in the street where there's little to no protection. It's not like they pick where they want to fight. They get Ambushed Obviously the attacking force. Ex Anti-Coalition forces know exactly where they are at and that Coalition troops need to pay more attention to the ROE. They could give less of a damn about the person running across the street to their mom. They don't "hide" they take cover. They tell the inhabitants to go to a safer location inside the house if possible. Then first chance they get they leave and attack anti-coalition troops. If you had to choose between a field and a house I bet you would get in the house when bullets and RPGs are flying your way.

Thanks for demonstrating both of my points.

[PhoenixAsh]

also

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-responsible-76-deaths-afghanistan-un

the taliban are killing civilians, not US troops. 76% of all civilian deaths in afghanistan in 2009 were from the taliban


You realize thuogh don't you this would not have happened if the US wasn't there in the first place now do you?

Effect and causality...


and stop being so selective in your wiki quotes:



The issue of civilian casualties is recognized as a problem at the highest levels of ISAF command. In a September 2009 report, Gen. Stanley McChrystal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_McChrystal) wrote "Civilian casualties and collateral damage to homes and property resulting from an over-reliance on firepower and force protection have severely damaged ISAF's legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people." [292] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-291)




In 2000, the Taliban had issued a ban on opium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium) production, which led to reductions in Pashtun Mafia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun_Mafia) opium production by as much as 90%.[295] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-www_unodc_org21-294) Soon after the 2001 U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, however, opium production increased markedly.[296] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-abcnews_go_com22-295) By 2005, Afghanistan had regained its position as the world’s #1 opium producer and was producing 90% of the world’s opium, most of which is processed into heroin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin) and sold in Europe and Russia.[297] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-www_csmonitor_com23-296) Afghan opium kills 100,000 people every year worldwide.[298] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-297)
While U.S. and allied efforts to combat the drug trade have been stepped up, the effort is hampered by the fact that many suspected drug traffickers are now top officials in the Karzai government.[297] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-www_csmonitor_com23-296) In fact, recent estimates by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNODC)) estimate that 52% of the nation's GDP, amounting to $2.7 billion annually, is generated by the drug trade.[299] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-www_msnbc_msn_com25-298) The rise in production has been linked to the deteriorating security situation, as production is markedly lower in areas with stable security.[300] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-www_unodc_org26-299)


Women and girls today in Afghanistan suffer high levels of violence and discrimination and have poor access to justice and education, Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) concluded in a December, 2009 report.[307] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-306) One recent nationwide survey of levels of violence against Afghan women found that 52 percent of respondents experienced physical violence, and 17 percent reported sexual violence. Yet because of social and legal obstacles to accessing justice, few women and girls report violence to the authorities. These barriers are particularly formidable in rape cases.[308] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-307) UNICEF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF) estimates that more than 80 percent of females lack access to education centers.[309] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-chicagotribune.com-308) Female literacy is 10%.[309] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-chicagotribune.com-308)

[psgchisolm]

Thanks for demonstrating both of my points.
how did I demonstrate your points? I said they weren't hiding. When you get ambushed you get your bearings. Then counter-attack. Whic his what htey do. Hiding is getting behind something and staying there and NOT fighting. Perhaps you should look up the work hide. Or at least get familiar with military strategy before trying to critique it and pull bullshit out of your "knowledge of teh military" lulz. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

how did I demonstrate your points? I said they weren't hiding. When you get ambushed you get your bearings. Then counter-attack. Whic his what htey do. Hiding is getting behind something and staying there and NOT fighting. Perhaps you should look up the work hide. Or at least get familiar with military strategy before trying to critique it and pull bullshit out of your "knowledge of teh military" lulz. :rolleyes:

So if American soldiers go for cover in a dense, urban environment, it's military strategy but if Taliban do it, they're hiding amongst civilians oh no!

Given how you've missed points all over this thread do you think you could tone down the condescension? :mellow:

[PhoenixAsh]

the taliban wasn't put into power by the united states.

O..bull.

The Taliban come from the Maddrasses in Pakistan. Omar was a simultanious situation that later joined forces with the Taliban. Omars group consisted of a handful of individuals.

The CIA trained and armed the Mujahadeen. In doing so they worked closesly with the Pakistani ISI....who got most ofmthei funds directly from teh CIA. From 84-92 they permitted the ISI to recruit fundamentalist Muslim from within these Maddrasses. The CIA payed for this along with the UK and Saudi Arabia. They encouraged the creation of the Taliban in the Maddrasses and supported the aid given by Pakistan in their attacks on Kabul in 1994.

Remember Glyn Davis? Saw no objections in the Taliban imposing strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan.

[Ele'ill]

how did I demonstrate your points? I said they weren't hiding. When you get ambushed you get your bearings. Then counter-attack. Whic his what htey do. Hiding is getting behind something and staying there and NOT fighting. Perhaps you should look up the work hide. Or at least get familiar with military strategy before trying to critique it and pull bullshit out of your "knowledge of teh military" lulz. :rolleyes:

What you illustrated was an occupying force engaging in the same tactics that the militants who actually live there are- but there's the weird notion that heroes don't hide they take cover- militants don't take cover (or live there :rolleyes:) they 'hide amongst the civilian population.'

[psgchisolm]

So if American soldiers go for cover in a dense, urban environment, it's military strategy but if Taliban do it, they're hiding amongst civilians oh no!

Given how you've missed points all over this thread do you think you could tone down the condescension? :mellow:
Goodjob taking what I said out of context.
The Anti-coalition troops.
1. Live in urban enviroments when ever they aren't ambushing coalition troops.
2. Hide among civilians and use them in ways they know that Coalition troops won't fire on them.
3. Careless for anybody in their way of them.

Coalition troops
1. Live on bases or outposts where the ACM(Anti-coalition militia) know where they are.
2. They go out on patrols LOOKING for the ACM. So how exactly is that "hiding"?
3. They take cover wherever cover is around them. Wether it's behind a wall, a small mound, or in a small field if they need too.

I saw a video where the taliban FORCED the people living in the building they had taken to go on the roof while they fired out the windows at the americans outpost. Of course the Americans didn't fire on the building because of ROE. I've yet to hear anything where Americans chose to hide in a house BECAUSE there were civilians in it and they thought the ACM wouldn't fire on it. I'm not saying ACM hide in all instances, but in a majority of instances now that's what they certainly do.

[#FF0000]

3. They take cover wherever cover is around them. Wether it's behind a wall, a small mound, or in a small field if they need too.

Whiiich might include dense urban areas which is what we are saying.

But this entire tangent is kind of missing the point. Could you respond to what I posted on the other page?

[Lt. Ferret]

You realize thuogh don't you this would not have happened if the US wasn't there in the first place now do you?

Effect and causality...


and stop being so selective in your wiki quotes:







Women and girls today in Afghanistan suffer high levels of violence and discrimination and have poor access to justice and education, Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) concluded in a December, 2009 report.[307] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-306) One recent nationwide survey of levels of violence against Afghan women found that 52 percent of respondents experienced physical violence, and 17 percent reported sexual violence. Yet because of social and legal obstacles to accessing justice, few women and girls report violence to the authorities. These barriers are particularly formidable in rape cases.[308] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-307) UNICEF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF) estimates that more than 80 percent of females lack access to education centers.[309] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-chicagotribune.com-308) Female literacy is 10%.[309] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-chicagotribune.com-308)



youre telling me the taliban regime was giving females better access to education and healthcare than the united states? get. the. fuck. out. of. here.

you're telling me under the taliban that there wasn't fighting between warlords (the northern alliance) and their theocratic opponents?

if the US wasn't there in the first place it would be a disgusting hellhole like it is now, but there would still be terror camps and warlordism running rampant. youre an apologist for theocratic reactionaries.

[Lt. Ferret]

O..bull.

The Taliban come from the Maddrasses in Pakistan. Omar was a simultanious situation that later joined forces with the Taliban. Omars group consisted of a handful of individuals.

The CIA trained and armed the Mujahadeen. In doing so they worked closesly with the Pakistani ISI....who got most ofmthei funds directly from teh CIA. From 84-92 they permitted the ISI to recruit fundamentalist Muslim from within these Maddrasses. The CIA payed for this along with the UK and Saudi Arabia. They encouraged the creation of the Taliban in the Maddrasses and supported the aid given by Pakistan in their attacks on Kabul in 1994.

Remember Glyn Davis? Saw no objections in the Taliban imposing strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan.


the fighters of the mujahadeen joined every single group, cause, and warlord that they could, or just blended back into the countryside after the soviets were ousted.

saying that they supported the taliban is the same as saying they supported any other group you can possibly name in afghanistan. its all by proxy.

its like saying that france is responsible for the american civil war because they gave weapons to america when they were fighting the british. its nonsense.

[psgchisolm]

What you illustrated was an occupying force engaging in the same tactics that the militants who actually live there are- but there's the weird notion that heroes don't hide they take cover- militants don't take cover (or live there :rolleyes:) they 'hide amongst the civilian population.'
So taking cover is the samething as hiding? Wierd I always figured taking cover was finding a place where you wouldn't have as likely a chance to take a 7.62 or larger sized bullet without any discretion. Which differs from the ACM form of "taking cover" by using civilians as bait and intentionally hiding around them so they won't take fire all the while firing away at coalition troops.

[psgchisolm]

Whiiich might include dense urban areas which is what we are saying.

But this entire tangent is kind of missing the point. Could you respond to what I posted on the other page?
I'm talking about when they are hiding in crowds and firing out at coalition troops. In dense urban areas where they aren't using the population as cover that's not hiding. Using the population as cover is what I consider hiding.

[#FF0000]

I'm just going to repost what I said cause I really want a response on it.


How many people die from IEDs and Roadside bombs planted by the taliban today? There's a reason why no one "knows" anything about the taliban. because they know if they tell the coalition troops anything they won't be around next time the coalition troops come to the village. What intervention would there be? We all know how effective the U.N. ishttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif. Maybe there is a reason why the taliban don't control any major areas? I'm just saying. The taliban are the major reason why civialians die and died in afghanistan before and after the invasion. Before they could do their killings in public. Now they have to hide it like the cowards they are. IF they can do them at all.

You're missing my point. I am saying that life is worse and more dangerous now as a result of the U.S. invasion. I'm well aware that the Taliban kills and blows up civilians all the time. But they wouldn't be planting IEDs if the U.S. Army wasn't there in the first place. And of course the Taliban killed people before, but they'd be hard-pressed to keep it from the world if they were killing civilians at the rate that they're dying in Afghanistan now.

And, er, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'd ever support the U.N. I'm a communist, you realize?


. If you had to choose between a field and a house I bet you would get in the house when bullets and RPGs are flying your way.Probably. But I'd also choose to not fight and die for some suit with a government contract in the first place.

Also:


saying that they supported the taliban is the same as saying they supported any other group you can possibly name in afghanistan. its all by proxy.

its like saying that france is responsible for the american civil war because they gave weapons to america when they were fighting the british. its nonsense. Yeah but now you're saying that we supported a bunch of Tribal Warlords against what was (before the Soviets invaded) an independent country with a Communist part independent from Moscow in power. That is not much better.

Not to mention the US government's been involved here and there with the Taliban in the 90s anyway over an oil pipeline that was supposed to be built.

EDIT: Also the majority of Taliban are Pashtun anyway, which is the second largest tribal group in Afghanistan. How involved were the Pashtun in the Mujahideen?

[#FF0000]

'm talking about when they are hiding in crowds and firing out at coalition troops. In dense urban areas where they aren't using the population as cover that's not hiding. Using the population as cover is what I consider hiding.

Well that's fine but my point is American soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place.

[red cat]

What else could we expect from the biggest terrorist group ever ? These are standard methods used by them to terrorize the whole colonial population into submission.

[psgchisolm]

I'm just going to repost what I said cause I really want a response on it.



You're missing my point. I am saying that life is worse and more dangerous now as a result of the U.S. invasion. I'm well aware that the Taliban kills and blows up civilians all the time. But they wouldn't be planting IEDs if the U.S. Army wasn't there in the first place. And of course the Taliban killed people before, but they'd be hard-pressed to keep it from the world if they were killing civilians at the rate that they're dying in Afghanistan now.

And, er, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'd ever support the U.N. I'm a communist, you realize?

Probably. But I'd also choose to not fight and die for some suit with a government contract in the first place.

Also:



Yeah but now you're saying that we supported a bunch of Tribal Warlords against what was (before the Soviets invaded) an independent country with a Communist part independent from Moscow in power. That is not much better.

Not to mention the US government's been involved here and there with the Taliban in the 90s anyway over an oil pipeline that was supposed to be built.
I know I was just stating that the U.N wouldn't do anything to stop it. If we left the ACM would still plant IEDS and such to fight the ANA and ANP. Chances are they would also probably have firefights in the streets in midday innocent civilians or not. They wouldn't be hardpressed to keep it from the world if they control what news comes in and out right? That and being that most of Afghanistan outside of the major cities is rural and they are mostly controlled by what warlord is in power then.


Well that's fine but my point is American soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place.
Now no. Back when Osama was known to be hidng there yeah. Either way we are finially starting plans to pull out. Wether it's for the better or worse we'll have to see.

[Lt. Ferret]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12292917

woman stoned to death for adultery. taliban.

keep being apologists, theyd kill you too and they spent the better part of a decade killing soviets for sport.

[Ele'ill]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12292917

woman stoned to death for adultery. taliban.

keep being apologists, theyd kill you too and they spent the better part of a decade killing soviets for sport.

I don't support atrocious acts. Your line of argument is a weak one- attempting to deflect responsibility that some have been taught a uniform and rank make up for.

http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1811269.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53F3C520090416

[Lt. Ferret]

2 things you linked are crimes under american law.

the 1 thing i linked is justice under taliban law.


anymore dumbass links you want to throw my way?

[#FF0000]

Now no. Back when Osama was known to be hidng there yeah. Either way we are finially starting plans to pull out.

But our intelligence was always that Bin Laden was in Pakistan.


Wether it's for the better or worse we'll have to see.

I have a feeling that the U.S. getting involved made things worse off to begin with, if it changed things for anyone at all.There is no "right" thing to do in this situation. Getting involved in the first place was wrong. Getting involved and supporting the mujahideen was wrong.

You have to understand that under capitalism, there is no such thing as a war the working class ought to get involved in. The U.S. vs. the Taliban is one faction of the ruling class against another, with workers and peasants on both sides getting thrown into a meatgrinder. It's been the same story in America for the entire 20th century from the Banana Wars to Vietnam to Iraq.

[Lt. Ferret]

what intelligence stated he was always in pakistan? i think you get most of your info from conspiracy theory websites.

[#FF0000]

the 1 thing i linked is justice under taliban law.

You know we supported these guys, right. I know, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan was a big-tent sort of organization, but the folks who ended up making up the Taliban were preeeetty numerous.


what intelligence stated he was always in pakistan? i think you get most of your info from conspiracy theory websites. lol nope.

But yeah I am pretty sure the story was always "Either Kandahar or Pakistan".

Pakistan being an entire country, Kandahar being a region that is on the Pakistan border. So we invade all of Afghanistan, for some reason. v:mellow:v I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong because it doesn't make sense to me. Then again, neither does ousting Saddam Hussein and being schocked -SHOCKED- that suddenly Iran is a problem.

[Ele'ill]

2 things you linked are crimes under american law.

the 1 thing i linked is justice under taliban law.


I'm not on the side of the taliban and never have been. As mentioned a couple times in this thread- given the history of US support to horrific bodies of people I think you have a great chance of one day fighting along side these types. I think those links speak volumes.

[Lt. Ferret]

those links dont speak for shit. i know in my unit a guy has been making sexual slurs against one of our female soldiers and if hes not outright kicked out of the military hes at least going to lose half his pay for two months and do extra duty for 60 days and probably be kicked out of our battery. rape is unfortunate but i know the military isnt a rape factory.

[red cat]

But our intelligence was always that Bin Laden was in Pakistan.



I have a feeling that the U.S. getting involved made things worse off to begin with, if it changed things for anyone at all.There is no "right" thing to do in this situation. Getting involved in the first place was wrong. Getting involved and supporting the mujahideen was wrong.

You have to understand that under capitalism, there is no such thing as a war the working class ought to get involved in. The U.S. vs. the Taliban is one faction of the ruling class against another, with workers and peasants on both sides getting thrown into a meatgrinder. It's been the same story in America for the entire 20th century from the Banana Wars to Vietnam to Iraq.

Given that the US has transformed Afghanistan into a direct colony and made the situation much worse, shouldn't we support the acts of resistance of the Taliban against the invaders ? Though the Taliban is culturally feudal, nowadays it is mainly composed of the common anti-imperialist fighters. In this case, applying the sandwich argument and equating the invading and resisting forces would be reactionary and opposed to the interests of the Afghan people.

[Lt. Ferret]

its that bullshit thinking that will lead you to being thrown into a rail car furnace by those very same. with your patronizing shit about their feudal culture.

[#FF0000]

those links dont speak for shit. i know in my unit a guy has been making sexual slurs against one of our female soldiers and if hes not outright kicked out of the military hes at least going to lose half his pay for two months and do extra duty for 60 days and probably be kicked out of our battery. rape is unfortunate but i know the military isnt a rape factory.

I hear different things from different people, all in the military. I hear a lot of folks don't care about gay people in the military, I hear that women don't have problems that often, and then I hear horror stories in direct opposition to that, so.

[#FF0000]

Given that the US has transformed Afghanistan into a direct colony and made the situation much worse, shouldn't we support the acts of resistance of the Taliban against the invaders ? Though the Taliban is culturally feudal, nowadays it is mainly composed of the common anti-imperialist fighters. In this case, applying the sandwich argument and equating the invading and resisting forces would be reactionary and opposed to the interests of the Afghan people.

No because if things played out slightly differently the US and the Taliban would be just as buddy-buddy as the US and Saudi Arabia. I say it a lot, but the Taliban are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

Also, generally speaking (which is hella hard in Afghanistan) the average person hates the shit out of America and the Taliban.

[Ele'ill]

those links dont speak for shit. i know in my unit a guy has been making sexual slurs against one of our female soldiers and if hes not outright kicked out of the military hes at least going to lose half his pay for two months and do extra duty for 60 days and probably be kicked out of our battery. rape is unfortunate but i know the military isnt a rape factory.

The people supposedly fighting against atrocity are simultaneously engaging in it.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/421/index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/12/2010122182546344551.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844570

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/ (NPR citation)

http://www.katiehalper.com/do-rape-don039t-tell-women-us-army-more-likely-get-raped-killed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html

http://www.stopmilitaryrape.org/reports.html

[Ele'ill]

By the way, this isn't a personal attack against you (Ferret) or anything.

I'm only familiar with a few of those sites but the reoccurring theme is evident.

[red cat]

No because if things played out slightly differently the US and the Taliban would be just as buddy-buddy as the US and Saudi Arabia. I say it a lot, but the Taliban are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

Also, generally speaking (which is hella hard in Afghanistan) the average person hates the shit out of America and the Taliban.

I am not sure about what you say about the average Afghan. Before the invasion they surely used to hate the Taliban. But Taliban is said to have gained a lot of popularity ever since due to their anti-US stand.

Of course, if there was a widespread genuine socialist movement, the Taliban would most probably join the US in oppressing the masses. But as of now their stand is progressive compared to the supporters of the invasion. Your line of denouncing both the US and the Taliban will be the correct one when such socialist movements arise, or a militant communist party in Afghanistan principally denounces the Taliban. But at present our line should be to uphold the Taliban's resistance to the US invasion and denounce its acts of feudal atrocities.

[#FF0000]

Your line of denouncing both the US and the Taliban will be the correct one when such socialist movements arise, or a militant communist party in Afghanistan principally denounces the Taliban.

There's nothing the working class or any party can do if they're just playing along with the realpolitik of the bourgeoisie. United Fronts with the ruling class against whatever enemy (fascists, imperialists, whoever) generally end the same way. With Communists and workers dead in ditches.


But at present our line should be to uphold the Taliban's resistance to the US invasion and denounce its acts of feudal atrocities.

US or Taliban, the workers aren't much better off either way.

Further it's pointless to support anyone in this because 1) The US is going to lose either way, and 2) There is so much denouncing to be done for the Taliban that you might as well be against them.

[red cat]

There's nothing the working class or any party can do if they're just playing along with the realpolitik of the bourgeoisie. United Fronts with the ruling class against whatever enemy (fascists, imperialists, whoever) generally end the same way. With Communists and workers dead in ditches.

Even if we assume that to be true, shouldn't we go for that option which is a lesser evil for the masses, when at least at present there is no visible third option ? There have been many anti-imperialist and liberation struggles even before communism or anarchism came into existence as ideologies. Don't you support those ?


US or Taliban, the workers aren't much better off either way.

Further it's pointless to support anyone in this because 1) The US is going to lose either way, and 2) There is so much denouncing to be done for the Taliban that you might as well be against them.

What the US is doing in Afghanistan leads me to think that even the old regime of the Taliban was better than this. In terms of the murders and rapes committed at least. And I don't think that the US is going to lose there very easily.

[Revolution starts with U]

Given that the US has transformed Afghanistan into a direct colony and made the situation much worse, shouldn't we support the acts of resistance of the Taliban against the invaders ?
You should always support the empowerment of the people.
You should always oppose the oppression of the masses.
Fuck the taliban, the US, the IRA, the Communist Party, the Peaceful Revolutionaries for a Democratic World because they are all irrelevant.

Though the Taliban is culturally feudal, nowadays it is mainly composed of the common anti-imperialist fighters. In this case, applying the sandwich argument and equating the invading and resisting forces would be reactionary and opposed to the interests of the Afghan people.
What should be done is active resistance against the forces of tyranny.
What should not be done is to be the friend of one's enemy merely because it is one's enemy.
Damn Obama, or Mugabe, or Marx, Ghandi, Mark, John, Sally, or Theresa because they are all irrelevant.

Even if we assume that to be true, shouldn't we go for that option which is a lesser evil for the masses, when at least at present there is no visible third option ? There have been many anti-imperialist and liberation struggles even before communism or anarchism came into existence as ideologies. Don't you support those ?
support self-determination.
oppose heirarchy.
Forget yourself, you're irrelevant.

[red cat]

You should always support the empowerment of the people.
You should always oppose the oppression of the masses.
Fuck the taliban, the US, the IRA, the Communist Party, the Peaceful Revolutionaries for a Democratic World because they are all irrelevant.

What should be done is active resistance against the forces of tyranny.
What should not be done is to be the friend of one's enemy merely because it is one's enemy.
Damn Obama, or Mugabe, or Marx, Ghandi, Mark, John, Sally, or Theresa because they are all irrelevant.

support self-determination.
oppose heirarchy.
Forget yourself, you're irrelevant.

In other words, let us all preach almost in a religious tone, pretending as if we are ultra-left battle hardened revolutionaries, and denounce all the real resistances in Afghanistan, thereby helping US imperialism.

[RGacky3]

woman stoned to death for adultery. taliban.

keep being apologists, theyd kill you too and they spent the better part of a decade killing soviets for sport.

Do you advocate the invasion of Saudi Arabia? NO??? Are you an apologist for all of their crimes against humanity??? Hypocrite.

Unless you call for hte invastion of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Colombia, Eygpt, Trukey, indonesia, and so on and so and so on, then your a hypocrite.

[Revolution starts with U]

In other words, let us all preach almost in a religious tone, pretending as if we are ultra-left battle hardened revolutionaries, and denounce all the real resistances in Afghanistan, thereby helping US imperialism.

No, then you're supporting tyranny...
If afghanis are supporting the empowerment of their people as a whole, you support that. If they are supporting tyranny you oppose that. Take the identity out of the equation and support the cause.

Or you could just engage in knee-jerk anti-americanism... because that's been really helpful to the left over the past few decades.

[red cat]

No, then you're supporting tyranny...
If afghanis are supporting the empowerment of their people as a whole, you support that. If they are supporting tyranny you oppose that. Take the identity out of the equation and support the cause.

You are no one to decide what is tyranny for the Afghan people. If they are supporting the resistance of the Taliban then either you side with US imperialism or you side with the Afghan people's choice, until you actually implement something better in Afghanistan.


Or you could just engage in knee-jerk anti-americanism... because that's been really helpful to the left over the past few decades.Yes it has. America is the biggest imperialist power now and most of the advanced communist movements of today are fighting against American imperialism.

[Lt. Ferret]

Do you advocate the invasion of Saudi Arabia? NO??? Are you an apologist for all of their crimes against humanity??? Hypocrite.

Unless you call for hte invastion of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Colombia, Eygpt, Trukey, indonesia, and so on and so and so on, then your a hypocrite.


i do.

[Lt. Ferret]

You are no one to decide what is tyranny for the Afghan people. If they are supporting the resistance of the Taliban then either you side with US imperialism or you side with the Afghan people's choice, until you actually implement something better in Afghanistan.

Yes it has. America is the biggest imperialist power now and most of the advanced communist movements of today are fighting against American imperialism.


its not the "afghans peoples choice" if you support the taliban. the taliban is simply the most vicious, organized faction in afghanistan fighting against america and the afghan national government. theyre a glorified klu klux klan who are legitimized in their rule by terror.

[danyboy27]

i do.
You do know what kind of impossible logistical and humanitarian nightmare such things would create?

[Rafiq]

We talk as if they have the right to be there in the first place

[PhoenixAsh]

youre telling me the taliban regime was giving females better access to education and healthcare than the united states? get. the. fuck. out. of. here.

you're telling me under the taliban that there wasn't fighting between warlords (the northern alliance) and their theocratic opponents?

if the US wasn't there in the first place it would be a disgusting hellhole like it is now, but there would still be terror camps and warlordism running rampant. youre an apologist for theocratic reactionaries.

No...what I am saying is that all the US intervention boils down to is revene.

And yes...under Taliban women were treated as secondrate...perhaps third rate citizens. But hey...at the very least they were save. And all US posturing aside...their position hasn't really changed in the last 10 years now has it???

Drugs were ousted. and warlordism in Taliban controlled area's was at a minium.

Get with the programm...the US intervention is a farce...imperialism at its very worst. And its wrapped in a blanket of human rights, womens rights and democracy....

And you are a tool for thinking otherwise

[RGacky3]

i do.

Good, now everyone knows, your batshit insane.

I also take it you'd support amsterdam invading the US to spread real freedom?

[PhoenixAsh]

the fighters of the mujahadeen joined every single group, cause, and warlord that they could, or just blended back into the countryside after the soviets were ousted.

saying that they supported the taliban is the same as saying they supported any other group you can possibly name in afghanistan. its all by proxy.

its like saying that france is responsible for the american civil war because they gave weapons to america when they were fighting the british. its nonsense.


Read again...the CIA and ISI specifically recruiter fundamentalist muslims from the Maddrasses which they set up...late in the war. They are not like other Mujahadeen (who originally were warlords and tribes from within Afghanistan)...these were fundamentalist muslims who were gtrained in CIA/ISI set up institutions to become more radical...they came from OUTSIDE Afghanistan.

Taliban religious views are foreign to Afghanistan. They were introduced by these students from teh Maddrassess and both ISI and CIA knew very, very well what they wanted and believed.

Now...your analogy would be much better if you would state that the French would have traied the American revolutionary soldiers with the specific aim in mind to oust the British.

And yes...then they would have been repsonsible for teh American Revolution.

And that is exactly what happened here.

FYI:

everybody who is worth anything knows that the Dutch Republic financed your revolution and supplied it with weapons from Mauritius. Which was called the armory of the revolution by the revolutionary leaders. ;-)

Just saying.

[Lt. Ferret]

You do know what kind of impossible logistical and humanitarian nightmare such things would create?


yes quite. which is why its mostly just a theory. this site is wrapped up in a bow tie of theory i dont know why my aspiration is suddenyl crazy.

[danyboy27]

yes quite. which is why its mostly just a theory. this site is wrapped up in a bow tie of theory i dont know why my aspiration is suddenyl crazy.

Your aspiration are not creazy, but your theory is.

Basicly, you believe in democracy and would like that everyone on this earth should live under such system where human right would be respected.


What is insane is your belief that by bombing the shit out of the middle east and dirrectly confronting every dictatorship there the end result would be your original aspiration of a better world.

Look at Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Iran.

You dont need to intervene, those regimes will ultimately collapse by themselves beccause of their imcompetence, cruelty and cronyism.

[RGacky3]

Basicly, you believe in democracy and would like that everyone on this earth should live under such system where human right would be respected.


I really doubt thats what he believes in.


yes quite. which is why its mostly just a theory. this site is wrapped up in a bow tie of theory i dont know why my aspiration is suddenyl crazy.

Except our theory, if put in practice would result in something positive, yours, its pretty much wanton slaughter.

[Lt. Ferret]

hahaha we've seen your bullshit theory put into practice across the globe and it resulted in massive economic failure and genocide. you are the very definition of failure.



i want to kill off reactionary theocrats who burn women to death and lead to economic and moral stagnation of the highest order.

[Ele'ill]

hahaha we've seen your bullshit theory put into practice across the globe and it resulted in massive economic failure and genocide. you are the very definition of failure.

The systems you're fighting for right now have yielded a far greater death toll for profit.




i want to kill off reactionary theocrats who burn women to death and lead to economic and moral stagnation of the highest order.

Very altruistic but your government doesn't give a shit about women being burned to death and have used economic and moral stagnation to their advantage quite frequently. You're in the wrong business. :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

youre a direct supporter of capitalist imperialism through your job just as much if not more than me. :thumbup1:

[Ele'ill]

youre a direct supporter of capitalist imperialism through your job just as much if not more than me. :thumbup1:

We had this conversation about six months ago where you got completely ruined. Do you want to engage in it again?

Every job available supports capitalism under capitalism- you fight to preserve and maintain capitalism- you engage in violent occupations to make sure the status quo isn't disrupted. You make it so that working class people all over the world do not have another choice. The global police. :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

youre a direct supporter of capitalist imperialism through your job just as much if not more than me. :thumbup1:

yeah i mean the military is just the balled fist of the state and by extension of the ruling class. i guess slaves are direct supporters of plantation owners too.

also the guys you work for have been best buds with those reactionary theocrats for the better part of the last century and will continue to do so for as long as it rakes in beaucoup bucks. So while folks like me are "supporting theocrats" by saying "the taliban is bad and the us military is bad", you are working for people who will arm people like that when it suits them.

[Lt. Ferret]

didnt arm the taliban. offered no proof. youre a liar and a fraud. move on to the next batch of bullshit please.

[Ele'ill]

didnt arm the taliban. offered no proof. youre a liar and a fraud. move on to the next batch of bullshit please.


There are already several batches of what you refer to as bullshit waiting for your reply.

The US - Taliban relationship doesn't need to be used as an example for the point to still be extremely valid. The US arms and trains 'bad people' to engage in dirty wars all of the time.

[ChrisK]

I was on a Muslim forum some time back when the subject of the use of drones by the US in Pakistan came up and I was asked to condemn their use as they often kill ‘innocent’ civilians. This thread and their questions suggests that there is some ethical code somewhere which states that the stronger army should not use weapons not available to the weaker army. Is that the correct, do we think that when fighting a war against people with primitive weapons we (the west) should restrict our choice of weaponry?

Thats not the point. The point is that we deliberately use these tactics which kill people who wanted nothing to do with this to begin with. They did not ask for war or to be attacked. Its irrational that we should do something so extreme. Further, these tactics just create more so-called "terrorists" who are angry because we just blew the fuck out of their homes and killed their families. This just makes any problems worse.

[ChrisK]

i want to kill off reactionary theocrats who burn women to death and lead to economic and moral stagnation of the highest order.

Americans?

[Lt. Ferret]

:rolleyes: some of you are so naive it makes my head spin.

[ChrisK]

Some people don't get smart assery.

[Lt. Ferret]

i work more in deadpan.

[#FF0000]

didnt arm the taliban. offered no proof. youre a liar and a fraud. move on to the next batch of bullshit please.

But we did. The people who made up the Taliban were preeettty numerous in the Mujahideen.

And even if you don't count the Taliban there are plenty of other theocrats and autocrats we supported, propped up, and put in power.

[PhoenixAsh]

didnt arm the taliban. offered no proof. youre a liar and a fraud. move on to the next batch of bullshit please.

no proof only means that you are good in hiding the facts. NOT that it didn't happen, nor taht there is no proof.

However...the proof is in the files of the ISI. Which are known but have been rejected by US supporters as being credible...eventhuogh they are a US ally...so much for proof...proof is seemingly everything that confirms preconceived ideas and everything that undermines those believes is not credible.

So..why dont you disprove taht the US supported ISI, taht teh CIA helped set up Maddrasses, and that teh CIA helped recruit fundamentalist muslims in the period I mentioned?

[RGacky3]

hahaha we've seen your bullshit theory put into practice across the globe and it resulted in massive economic failure and genocide. you are the very definition of failure.


When/Where was that?



i want to kill off reactionary theocrats who burn women to death and lead to economic and moral stagnation of the highest order.

Does that include guatemala? Guam? Nigeragua, Vietnam? El Salvador? Does it include Panama?

OH and the Taliban would'nt have been in power had it not been for the United States support of them.

WHatever you want to do is irrelivent, your a tool, a tool of US imperialism, much like the soviet soldiers in the 80s who thought they were bringing liberation to the afghanis too.


:rolleyes: some of you are so naive it makes my head spin.

Hahahahah, really are we Capitan America?

[Lt. Ferret]

holy fuck.


supporting an organization in the 80s that splintered off into 100 different ones and were absorbed as well by existing organizations in that time period DOES NOT equal supporting one of those regimes 15 years later when it defeated several of the others in battle and took control.


holy. fucking. shit.

its like saying france was responsible for the american civil war because it supplied the US during the revolutionary war.

[#FF0000]

holy fuck.


supporting an organization in the 80s that splintered off into 100 different ones and were absorbed as well by existing organizations in that time period DOES NOT equal supporting one of those regimes 15 years later when it defeated several of the others in battle and took control.


holy. fucking. shit.

its like saying france was responsible for the american civil war because it supplied the US during the revolutionary war.

You focus a lot on the Taliban and Mujahideen. There are a ton of other people who we supported too.

btw the folks that made up the Taliban made up a big, big chunk of the Mujahideen.

[RGacky3]

supporting an organization in the 80s that splintered off into 100 different ones and were absorbed as well by existing organizations in that time period DOES NOT equal supporting one of those regimes 15 years later when it defeated several of the others in battle and took control.


The groups were supported post Soviet invasion as well, and the Taliban was the same in nature back then as it is now.


its like saying france was responsible for the american civil war because it supplied the US during the revolutionary war.

No its not because in the Talibans case ITS THE SAME PEOPLE, literally.


holy fuck.


Don't piss your pants big guy.

[Ele'ill]

holy fuck.

Good start.



supporting an organization in the 80s that splintered off into 100 different ones and were absorbed as well by existing organizations in that time period DOES NOT equal supporting one of those regimes 15 years later when it defeated several of the others in battle and took control.

The US supports all kinds of atrocious groups. What are your thoughts on SOA? You make is sound as if the US intelligence agencies are just getting started as fledglings and in the 'learning phase' where they're just starting to understand that arming and training militants in an unstable environment could lead to unforeseen problems down the road. They know exactly what they're doing and are relatively unconcerned with future consequences- usually because most of the fallout is elsewhere.



holy. fucking. shit.


This was worthwhile too.

[#FF0000]

SOA

Oh yeah I forgot all about this and how the United States literally trained Latin American death squads.

And now a lot of them are the worst sort of drug runners. Hm!

[PhoenixAsh]

holy fuck.


supporting an organization in the 80s that splintered off into 100 different ones and were absorbed as well by existing organizations in that time period DOES NOT equal supporting one of those regimes 15 years later when it defeated several of the others in battle and took control.


holy. fucking. shit.

its like saying france was responsible for the american civil war because it supplied the US during the revolutionary war.

Again...everybody who knows what they are talking about...the Dutch Republic financed the American Revolution. They also were the main supplier of weapons from their colonies in St. Eustacius.

Do you have any understanding what the ISI is? and what Madrassa are?

Maddrassa are Islamic schools. The CIA and ISI founded those schools within Pakistan and recruited the most fundamentalist and militant muslims to be trained there to become part of the Mujahadeen. Now the MUjahadeen were up until that point mostly Afghans....these muslims were from all over the world. The CIA and ISI both knew exactly what the believes were of these people. This was during the lagte 80's early 90's.

Guess where the Taliban comes from...right...from those fighters, like Mulla Omar, that were trained by the CIA and ISI in the Madrassa.

Ask Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Now remember resolution 1333 that denounces the Taliban? The Russians wanted to place sanctions into that resolution to be able to enforce it. However...guess who opposed that? Right...you guessed correctly: The US.

Why? Because way into the late 90's the CIA financed the ISI and helped train fundamentalist Muslims and remained to do support ISI who were then known to still backing the Taliban (see wikileaks transcripts).

Now this should not be news to you...it has been mentioned several times on US newsagencies.

[Lt. Ferret]

a madrassa is an islamic schools. most schools in non-secular muslim countries are madrassas. the word means nothing in of itself.


the CIA was not supporting anyone in the 90s, especially not the taliban. the taliban was mainly composed of younger students, and might have had muhajadeen fighters in its ranks but it was a very small organization when it started.

i understand the CIA has its fingers in many pies but you use it as a boogeyman at this point.

[RGacky3]

Lt. Ferret you were just presented with checkable facts, and yet your still gonna hold your ground here, in the face of evidence and logic your still on team America.

[Lt. Ferret]

havent seen any facts.

[#FF0000]

Why are you still bringing up the Taliban when we are saying the US supported a ton of other people you hate, Lt.

[Lt. Ferret]

especially not any at all that the taliban was formed or financed by the US government.

[Lt. Ferret]

Why are you still bringing up the Taliban when we are saying the US supported a ton of other people you hate, Lt.


because were talking about the taliban, not pinochet.

[Ele'ill]

especially not any at all that the talibd;aifh;oaihf;aoidhf;okahsd;gkjhas;dkghfas;jgl afkjgh'ldskjf'dklajf;laksjd;flkahdsg;ojhasd;kgjhas d;lgk'jasdlgjk'dl';sdajg.

a;ildhf;alkjsgiha'dpg45135111111!$***~

You will likely fight in wars for the US that support really bad groups of people.

[RGacky3]

havent seen any facts.


Again...everybody who knows what they are talking about...the Dutch Republic financed the American Revolution. They also were the main supplier of weapons from their colonies in St. Eustacius.

Do you have any understanding what the ISI is? and what Madrassa are?

Maddrassa are Islamic schools. The CIA and ISI founded those schools within Pakistan and recruited the most fundamentalist and militant muslims to be trained there to become part of the Mujahadeen. Now the MUjahadeen were up until that point mostly Afghans....these muslims were from all over the world. The CIA and ISI both knew exactly what the believes were of these people. This was during the lagte 80's early 90's.

Guess where the Taliban comes from...right...from those fighters, like Mulla Omar, that were trained by the CIA and ISI in the Madrassa.

Ask Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Now remember resolution 1333 that denounces the Taliban? The Russians wanted to place sanctions into that resolution to be able to enforce it. However...guess who opposed that? Right...you guessed correctly: The US.

Why? Because way into the late 90's the CIA financed the ISI and helped train fundamentalist Muslims and remained to do support ISI who were then known to still backing the Taliban (see wikileaks transcripts).

Now this should not be news to you...it has been mentioned several times on US newsagencies.

You still gonna fight this?


You will likely fight in wars for the US that support really bad groups of people.

Which is the saddest thing about this guy.

[Lt. Ferret]

a;ildhf;alkjsgiha'dpg45135111111!$***~

You will likely fight in wars for the US that support really bad groups of people.


and you will never fight, and if you did fight, you would fight for even more horrendous people than i would ever fight for.


and then you'd be lined against the wall.

[Lt. Ferret]

You still gonna fight this?



Which is the saddest thing about this guy.


those arent facts, for one thing, and most of it is assumptions and conjecture.

[#FF0000]

and you will never fight, and if you did fight, you would fight for even more horrendous people than i would ever fight for.


and then you'd be lined against the wall.

Except that Mari3l and myself don't agree with people who support nationalists out of vague "anti-imperialist" sentiment and so this response it a complete nonsequitur.

btw you fight for the people who put these bad people in power.

[RGacky3]

those arent facts, for one thing, and most of it is assumptions and conjecture.

Do you really want the information to be looked up and posted, are you that much a glutton for punishment. Do you really want to embarrass yourself further.

[Lt. Ferret]

you have no fucking proof, you dont know what a madrassa is, youre ignorant of both history and islamic culture, youre an embarassment, you post ridiculous slogans and takling points from groups that have no legitimacy.

fact. the US did not fund or support the taliban.

[Ele'ill]

and you will never fight, and if you did fight, you would fight for even more horrendous people than i would ever fight for.

I've 'fought' along side working class people from my community. You've fought for the ruling class.



and then you'd be lined against the wall.

Most likely by you, or some group you've trained.

[Lt. Ferret]

actually most people i fight with are from the working class.

[#FF0000]

actually most people i fight with are from the working class.

What shock. I mean it's not like we say "war is a gun with a worker on either side".

But no you work for the ruling class is the point.

[Lt. Ferret]

so do you, and youre proud of it, you wont even detach yourself from their materialistic capitalist product lines.

im gonna make the assumption you have some sort of iphone.

[Ele'ill]

I'm going to script a bot (I'm not really going to but I think this would be funny) that identifies the topic of conversation in OI threads and just auto replies based on a timer- because the avoiding of issues and changing of subjects that have already been explained thousands of times before is predictable down to the second.

[#FF0000]

im gonna make the assumption you have some sort of iphone.

Nope. My family didn't pay for their phones anyway.

are slaves supporters of plantation owners btw i don't think you answered this.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm going to script a bot (I'm not really going to but I think this would be funny) that identifies the topic of conversation in OI threads and just auto replies based on a timer- because the avoiding of issues and changing of subjects that have already been explained thousands of times before is predictable down to the second.

Why stop at OI--do it for all of RevLeft. It will be exactly the same. :D

[Lt. Ferret]

in the most draconian sense, yes. you should always attempt to run away or kill the slave owner then flee west into the wild blue yonder.

in the realistic sense, no.

but to compare yourself to a fucking plantation slave is both insulting to those who lived under slavery and a gigantic revealing of how fucking useless you are in changing yourself or your surroundings.

youre no slave. youre just a leech.

[#FF0000]

youre no slave. youre just a leech.

Hahah. Okay. I will remember this while I am at my interview for the second minimum wage job I am hoping to land for this semester.

[Lt. Ferret]

not my fault youre unskilled labor.

[RGacky3]

fact. the US did not fund or support the taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/news/26iht-stinger_ed3_.html
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/102232.html

Not only that they were supported by the ISI, which was supported by the US.


ALso even if you were right, there are dozens of other exapmles of the US supporting brutal regiems, so even if you were correct it does'nt prove a thing, your still a tool.


you have no fucking proof, you dont know what a madrassa is, youre ignorant of both history and islamic culture, youre an embarassment, you post ridiculous slogans and takling points from groups that have no legitimacy.


Some one did'nt get there desert.

[RGacky3]

but to compare yourself to a fucking plantation slave is both insulting to those who lived under slavery and a gigantic revealing of how fucking useless you are in changing yourself or your surroundings.

youre no slave. youre just a leech.

Its funny that many former slaves compared the brutality of capitalism to slavery.

As for your last sentance, just take a nap dude, it'll be better.

[Ele'ill]

not my fault youre unskilled labor.

What a joke you are talking about leeches mr toysRus thug.

[Lt. Ferret]

Its funny that many former slaves compared the brutality of capitalism to slavery.

As for your last sentance, just take a nap dude, it'll be better.


learn to be a plumber and stop *****ing.

[Bud Struggle]

What a joke you are talking about leeches mr toysRus thug.

But it's true. If you do things to improve yourself you can always make more money. (I could tell you [again] who's making $100 an hour right now playing here cello--that she learned ihow to play in her PUBLIC school.)

You just have to be smart about it.

[Ele'ill]

But it's true. If you do things to improve yourself you can always make more money. (I could tell you [again] who's making $100 an hour right now playing here cello--that she learned ihow to play in her PUBLIC school.)

I could post the link to this conversation where you were completely refuted on every issue you brought up. :rolleyes:

[Che a chara]

Is Lt. Ferret seriously trying to take the moral high-ground here ? :lol: you're in no position to do so dude. It seems like the US terrorist military have sent you online to spread damage limitation propaganda.

[Lt. Ferret]

well its true, their record isnt as clean as say...the Red Army.

[danyboy27]

well its true, their record isnt as clean as say...the Red Army.

i hate to break your balls here but the atrocities comitted by the american forces against the native indian, mexican and chinese make the red army atrocities look like child playground.

[Lt. Ferret]

lol what? especially on the mexican and chinese.


the red army raped 3 million german women alone. not even counting every other goddamn thing they ever did.

[danyboy27]

lol what? especially on the mexican and chinese.


the red army raped 3 million german women alone. not even counting every other goddamn thing they ever did.

the red army didnt wiped out an entire ethnic group for the sake of controlling their land.


the number of rape was dirrectly linked with the poor number of NCO and their bad training.

When the army realized the problem they executed a fews rapist on spot and threatened people with martial court.

[Lt. Ferret]

the US army maybe killed 50,000 indians over 200 years. the red army raped and killed 3 million women in a few years. they exterminated ethnic groups within the soviet union, and dislocated them as well (ever heard of the volga germans?) how many german pow's do you think ever saw their homeland again after the war? wasn't many.

[#FF0000]

itt people realize that "ethical" and "army" are mutually exclusive.

[danyboy27]

the US army maybe killed 50,000 indians over 200 years. the red army raped and killed 3 million women in a few years. they exterminated ethnic groups within the soviet union, and dislocated them as well (ever heard of the volga germans?) how many german pow's do you think ever saw their homeland again after the war? wasn't many.

how do you know 50 000 indian where raped , displaced and killed by us forces trought history?

i already explain why rape occured, it was more a technical failure than something that was ordered by the soviet union.

then again i am not looking for a moral higher ground, the army is the army, rape and atrocities are part of warfare.

Just pointing out that beccause your army is existing for a while now, they necessarly have more blood on their hand than the russian army does.

[Ele'ill]

the US army maybe killed 50,000 indians over 200 years.

lol

[PhoenixAsh]

a madrassa is an islamic schools. most schools in non-secular muslim countries are madrassas. the word means nothing in of itself.

the CIA was not supporting anyone in the 90s, especially not the taliban. the taliban was mainly composed of younger students, and might have had muhajadeen fighters in its ranks but it was a very small organization when it started.

i understand the CIA has its fingers in many pies but you use it as a boogeyman at this point.

from 1985 the CIA and US are becomming frustrated with the Mujahadeen and their constant in fighting. THey begin to recruit fundamentalist Muslims in other countries. They set up madrassa to teach funademantalist Islam to them. A University of Nebraska academic named Thomas Gouttierre leads a textbook program of very explicit radical islamic texts which are send to Afghanistan. Journalist Robert Dreyfuss will later reveal that although funding for Gouttierre’s work went through USAID, it was actually paid for by the CIA Casey has admitted this. You know...the CIA director. This support was done in cooperation with ISI, MI6 and SAS...you know the ones who also tell this story. Operations lasted from 1985 to 1992... funding for ISI went on a little longer.

Here...a nice start. It has sources in there:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076522/centerforcoop-20


You know...when Casey, SAS and ISI all say this happened you can shout at the top of your lungs that it didn't happen. But you might as well argue that humand don't need oxygen to live.

[PhoenixAsh]

you have no fucking proof, you dont know what a madrassa is, youre ignorant of both history and islamic culture, youre an embarassment, you post ridiculous slogans and takling points from groups that have no legitimacy.

fact. the US did not fund or support the taliban.

Well...I have shown you several people from several branches, like the CIA, members of congress and the SAS who say you are wrong. I suggest you start visiting the libraries...preferably a good one. To do some research of your own.

Name calling however is a true sign you have no real arguments.



so do you, and youre proud of it, you wont even detach yourself from their materialistic capitalist product lines.

im gonna make the assumption you have some sort of iphone.

So you can't own an iphone without being working class and still being exploited?



lol what? especially on the mexican and chinese.

the red army raped 3 million german women alone. not even counting every other goddamn thing they ever did.

And how exactly is that relevant?



the US army maybe killed 50,000 indians over 200 years. the red army raped and killed 3 million women in a few years. they exterminated ethnic groups within the soviet union, and dislocated them as well (ever heard of the volga germans?) how many german pow's do you think ever saw their homeland again after the war? wasn't many.

I am sorry? 50.000? Where the hell do you get your facts???

The US government study itself assesed the number to be around 4 million. Independent studies estimated the number to be around 100.000 million over the course of that time period.

sources:
Stannard; American Holocaust

Grenke: God, Greed and Genocide

Perhaps you should also look into Cesarani's work.

[Ele'ill]

I liked 'A People's History ..'

[ChrisK]

you have no fucking proof, you dont know what a madrassa is, youre ignorant of both history and islamic culture, youre an embarassment, you post ridiculous slogans and takling points from groups that have no legitimacy.

fact. the US did not fund or support the taliban.


But you've got to remember that of American policy, we put the Taliban there...We funded the Taliban through the Pakistanis, and all that money -- we could have cut off that money and stopped what was going on. We knew what was going on there. All we wanted was a stable, quiet Afghanistan so we could put a pipeline down through there. That's really what we were up to.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/10/cf.00.html

[danyboy27]

I liked 'A People's History ..'

i got that book, havnt read it yet. gosh so much thing to read in that world, so little time.

[RGacky3]

the US army maybe killed 50,000 indians over 200 years. the red army raped and killed 3 million women in a few years. they exterminated ethnic groups within the soviet union, and dislocated them as well (ever heard of the volga germans?) how many german pow's do you think ever saw their homeland again after the war? wasn't many.

Who here supports the red army? Who are you arguing against? Almost no one here supports leninist regeims. Also forget that, no one here is a member of the red army, you are a member of the US military.


learn to be a plumber and stop *****ing.

Learn to be a plumber?

Stop *****ing? You talking about people pointing out that you have no arguments?


But it's true. If you do things to improve yourself you can always make more money. (I could tell you [again] who's making $100 an hour right now playing here cello--that she learned ihow to play in her PUBLIC school.)

You just have to be smart about it.

Bud I suggest you visit poor places, its not a matter of just improving yourself (although most definately that is always positivte), unemployment, poverty and the such are SYSTEMIC problems.

You can't just say to people struggling to survive (which is a LOT of people) "just try harder," which is isulting and frankly kind of ignorant.

[balaclava]

What do you think will happen if (and when) the US etc moves out of Afghanistan? Here are the possibilities:

1. Free and fair elections are held to elect a competent and corruption free government and the Islamists all return to their home and farming.

2. The Islamists take over the government and direct the fighter towards the next target, the Islamic control of Kashmir; that causes a war between India and Pakistan. India (with more land, more people and more bombs do the maths and) nuke Pakistan. The Muslims world comes to the aid of Pakistan and India seeks support from the ‘west.’

[RGacky3]

THere are more possibilities, one, no central government, but strong local governments.

Anyway you tell me what the benefit of staying in Afghanistan is?


2. The Islamists take over the government and direct the fighter towards the next target, the Islamic control of Kashmir; that causes a war between India and Pakistan. India (with more land, more people and more bombs do the maths and) nuke Pakistan. The Muslims world comes to the aid of Pakistan and India seeks support from the ‘west.’

Why did'nt that happen before 911? hmmm, could it be that people from the middle east are just as reasonable as people from the west?

This attitude from right wingers is that EVERYONE except for the US and Europe are wild irational savages that need to be held back by the west (because thats the only thing that stops violence against the west, the very thing that the people that cause the violence say they do it for).

before Afghanistan was messed with they had a pretty secular government.

[danyboy27]

Who here supports the red army? Who are you arguing against? Almost no one here supports leninist regeims. Also forget that, no one here is a member of the red army, you are a member of the US military.



Learn to be a plumber?

Stop *****ing? You talking about people pointing out that you have no arguments?



Bud I suggest you visit poor places, its not a matter of just improving yourself (although most definately that is always positivte), unemployment, poverty and the such are SYSTEMIC problems.

You can't just say to people struggling to survive (which is a LOT of people) "just try harder," which is isulting and frankly kind of ignorant.

harr you have to pull yourself by your own bootstraps!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWn5ZeIqc7E

focus on 6:26

[balaclava]

before Afghanistan was messed with they had a pretty secular government.

Do you mean the monarchy? OK, it shouldn't be too much trouble to find the heir to the throne, pop him on there and everything will then be tickety boo!

[#FF0000]

Do you mean the monarchy? OK, it shouldn't be too much trouble to find the heir to the throne, pop him on there and everything will then be tickety boo!

Er, no. Afghanistan had a secular socialist government that was independent of Moscow and the Comintern until the Mujahideen became a huge problem and the Soviets invaded.

[Lt. Ferret]

Well...I have shown you several people from several branches, like the CIA, members of congress and the SAS who say you are wrong. I suggest you start visiting the libraries...preferably a good one. To do some research of your own.

Name calling however is a true sign you have no real arguments.




So you can't own an iphone without being working class and still being exploited?




And how exactly is that relevant?




I am sorry? 50.000? Where the hell do you get your facts???

The US government study itself assesed the number to be around 4 million. Independent studies estimated the number to be around 100.000 million over the course of that time period.

sources:
Stannard; American Holocaust

Grenke: God, Greed and Genocide
Perhaps you should also look into Cesarani's work.


the population of the americas was never even 100 million people before europeans got there, let alone 100 million in north america for the american army to try to kill.


and yeah if you have an iphone its a pretty good indicator youre very comfortable and supportive of contemporary capitalist consumer culture.

[Blackscare]

Are we forgetting American genocide in the Philippines? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War#American_atrocities)

[balaclava]

Er, no. Afghanistan had a secular socialist government that was independent of Moscow and the Comintern until the Mujahideen became a huge problem and the Soviets invaded.

Rubbish - there's been no stable government, democratic or otherwise, since the monarchy.

[balaclava]

Do any of you have thought processes that go past then end of your nose? It’s easy to say “get out” and it’s easy to say “shouldn’t be in” but has anyone thought about what happens next, what ‘IS’ the problem and what is the solution? We have a lot of idealists here with a lot of ideals which don’t add up to solutions.

[PhoenixAsh]

the population of the americas was never even 100 million people before europeans got there, let alone 100 million in north america for the american army to try to kill.


and yeah if you have an iphone its a pretty good indicator youre very comfortable and supportive of contemporary capitalist consumer culture.

You are talking about over a 200 year period there Einstein....and we are not only talking about the army...but the whole of US policy.

Estimates for 1492 in North-Amrica (present US) was 24 million. you do the math...(source: In The Hands Of The Great Spirit by Page 2003)



We are born in capitalist consumer culture...so what is your point exactly? Are you arguing we all have to live in some sort of farming commune in the woods?

[PhoenixAsh]

Do any of you have thought processes that go past then end of your nose? It’s easy to say “get out” and it’s easy to say “shouldn’t be in” but has anyone thought about what happens next, what ‘IS’ the problem and what is the solution? We have a lot of idealists here with a lot of ideals which don’t add up to solutions.


well...here is a thought for you. Daily people are defecting from teh US colaition tarined forceds to the Taliban. Which is a clear indication that whatever you are doing...you are doing something very, very wrong.

The Taliban is in virtual controll of most of the country...having a permanent presence in 80% of the country.

In 10 years time neither the US nor the Afghan puppet regime have mannaged to do anything about it. Billions of dollars have been poured into the country and there is virtually no real progress made since the Taliban came to power.

The Afghan puppet regime you put in place is in fact just as bad as any other government the Afghans ever had...being corrupt, dictatorial and has a human rights record that is something that makes your fists itch. ...with the real distinction that it wouldn't have survived without US aid.

Pakistan, one of US allies, is widely supporting the Taliban....and the dictator there, who is only kept in place with US aid, is as corrupt as his Afghan counter part.

Yeah...pretty much the only option you have before you exhaust your own economy is pulling out and learning your f***ing lesson for the UMPTH time. The emergence of the Taliban has not led to war in the past in the region...not between India and Pakistan (where you have
democratic reforms impossible...and alianated the people...making them more and more militant)

When you pull out...you will be able to repair your own economy. Not have to spend billions of tax dollars at a rate of 37 billion each year..

http://costofwar.com/en/


Or you stay...and pretty much suffer the same faith as the Russians :D

[Lt. Ferret]

You are talking about over a 200 year period there Einstein....and we are not only talking about the army...but the whole of US policy.

Estimates for 1492 in North-Amrica (present US) was 24 million. you do the math...(source: In The Hands Of The Great Spirit by Page 2003)



We are born in capitalist consumer culture...so what is your point exactly? Are you arguing we all have to live in some sort of farming commune in the woods?


im seeing a sourceo f 18 million for north america. disease wiped out most indians. thats not US policy. there is no conceivable way that american policy wiped out 100 million indians, or anywhere close to it.

also, The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832 was an early attempt at alleviating indian exposure to diseases, especially for smallpox, which was the greatest killer.





and yes, i expect you to hold in disdain capitalist consumer culture and to avoid it when possible, i would hold you to the standard of being self sufficient, if not on some mountain farm commune, but i know that you guys arent real communists and you just play them on command & conquer generals.


how many nepalese maoists buy consumer products, especially luxury goods?

why would you even be a communist if you buy into capitalist leisure products?

[Lt. Ferret]

well...here is a thought for you. Daily people are defecting from teh US colaition tarined forceds to the Taliban. Which is a clear indication that whatever you are doing...you are doing something very, very wrong.

The Taliban is in virtual controll of most of the country...having a permanent presence in 80% of the country.

In 10 years time neither the US nor the Afghan puppet regime have mannaged to do anything about it. Billions of dollars have been poured into the country and there is virtually no real progress made since the Taliban came to power.

The Afghan puppet regime you put in place is in fact just as bad as any other government the Afghans ever had...being corrupt, dictatorial and has a human rights record that is something that makes your fists itch. ...with the real distinction that it wouldn't have survived without US aid.

Pakistan, one of US allies, is widely supporting the Taliban....and the dictator there, who is only kept in place with US aid, is as corrupt as his Afghan counter part.

Yeah...pretty much the only option you have before you exhaust your own economy is pulling out and learning your f***ing lesson for the UMPTH time. The emergence of the Taliban has not led to war in the past in the region...not between India and Pakistan (where you have
democratic reforms impossible...and alianated the people...making them more and more militant)

When you pull out...you will be able to repair your own economy. Not have to spend billions of tax dollars at a rate of 37 billion each year..

http://costofwar.com/en/


Or you stay...and pretty much suffer the same faith as the Russians :D



so youre okay with extreme sharia law and theocratic reactionaries? just say it if you are.

[#FF0000]

so youre okay with extreme sharia law and theocratic reactionaries? just say it if you are.

You either support the war or you love the shit out of theocratic reactionaries is what you are saying. This is a fallacy.

btw you are a tremendous hypocrite because the people you work for fund and support the Sauds. I mean if workers can't be communists because by being exploited they are "helping the bourgeoisie", then, well. Just saying.

[#FF0000]

Do any of you have thought processes that go past then end of your nose? It’s easy to say “get out” and it’s easy to say “shouldn’t be in” but has anyone thought about what happens next, what ‘IS’ the problem and what is the solution? We have a lot of idealists here with a lot of ideals which don’t add up to solutions.

Well here is the thing. The United States literally cannot win in Afghanistan. So even if U.S. intervention of almost any kind was a good thing (which would contradict all of history), it isn't doing anything but making a lot more craters and piling up a lot more bodies.

[PhoenixAsh]

im seeing a sourceo f 18 million for north america. disease wiped out most indians. thats not US policy. there is no conceivable way that american policy wiped out 100 million indians, or anywhere close to it.

also, The Indian Vaccination Act of 1832 was an early attempt at alleviating indian exposure to diseases, especially for smallpox, which was the greatest killer.


18-24 million...does not really matter. Again...do the math...we are talking about a 450 year period.

I am sure you were all very civilised to the natives...thats why from that 18 million there were only 250.000 or so left at the end of the 19th century. ;)

naturally you would prefer to focus on the forced relocation of USSR ethnic groups but conveniently forget to overlook the Trail of Tears
There are also detailed descriptions of intentional small pox infections caused deliberately...either by trading hospital blankes from small pox victims on june 20th 1837 at fort clarck....couple of 100.000 died...so this isn't offcourse real significant ;)




and yes, i expect you to hold in disdain capitalist consumer culture and to avoid it when possible, i would hold you to the standard of being self sufficient, if not on some mountain farm commune, but i know that you guys arent real communists and you just play them on command & conquer generals.

how many nepalese maoists buy consumer products, especially luxury goods?

why would you even be a communist if you buy into capitalist leisure products?

What a dumb notion...however did you come up with that argument? How many people of Nepal buy luxury goods at all? Seeing as the avarage income is somewhere around €12 a month. I am beginning to think you are just trolling for the sake of it.

Why would I be a communist? Because the capitalist economy make sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And most people do not get to buy very many of these luxury goods if at all. (And FYI...a mobile phone is not a leisure product. Look up the definition).

And yes...we are all raised and grown in a capitalist society...so we are all accustomed to it. Communism has nothing to do with living in poverty or growing your own crops. Communism has to do with making sure the people get an equal share which they deserve and ways of production are fair...and making live better for everybody (well..fair is fair...I do think the current top 10% of the popullation who make about 90% of the money (explain that one) will be a lot worse off...bet hey...no worse than the rest of us).

Now please explain how it is that you can spend 200.000 dollars per second...PER SECOND...on wars around the world....and still have people who need to eat cat and dog food in the US? 17% of the US population live below the poverty line....explain that one please...:confused:

[PhoenixAsh]

so youre okay with extreme sharia law and theocratic reactionaries? just say it if you are.


Following your logic you are ok with dictatorship, torture, exploitation and slavery, human rights abuses, summary executions, death squads and rape as punishment?

Also note...that if the US had not supported and radicalised the Afghan people...we wouldn't have to worry about it now did we? I would like to suggest that it is than YOU who are clearly more in favor of Sharia law and theocratic reactionaries because you funded, trained and educated them. Instead of them you could have had a nice, logical and statecapitalist government...but nooooo.....you had to intervene, get involed, and stop those pesky little reds. well...those pesky little reds would not have flown two plains into your empire state building. Those reds would never blow themselves up in subway stations. And those reds would not think it would be "70 virgins after the bombs drop so why not risk nuclear war"

But you just had to meddle....well...now its biting you in the ass. Thumbs up!

[Bud Struggle]

Well here is the thing. The United States literally cannot win in Afghanistan. So even if U.S. intervention of almost any kind was a good thing (which would contradict all of history), it isn't doing anything but making a lot more craters and piling up a lot more bodies.

FWIW: the US doesn't need to "win" anything in Afghanistan. All it has to do is stabalize the country so they can do business there. We didn't have a "win" in a place like the Mubarak Egypt. It was pretty corrupt and there wasn't any democracy--nothing where Americans could point to and say we are fostering a good way of life, but it was pretty good for American interests anyway.

Same with Iraq. If the Shites kill the Sunnis, that really isn't our concern. As long as American interests aren't threatened.

[#FF0000]

FWIW: the US doesn't need to "win" anything in Afghanistan. All it has to do is stabalize the country so they can do business there

That's what I mean when I say win, more or less.

[Bud Struggle]

That's what I mean when I say win, more or less.

Then I think we could stabilize the situation over there. All you have to do is keep them occupied fighting over which relation of the Profit (all peace and blessing be upon him) is his rightful heir.

[Lt. Ferret]

18-24 million...does not really matter. Again...do the math...we are talking about a 450 year period.

I am sure you were all very civilised to the natives...thats why from that 18 million there were only 250.000 or so left at the end of the 19th century. ;)

naturally you would prefer to focus on the forced relocation of USSR ethnic groups but conveniently forget to overlook the Trail of Tears
There are also detailed descriptions of intentional small pox infections caused deliberately...either by trading hospital blankes from small pox victims on june 20th 1837 at fort clarck....couple of 100.000 died...so this isn't offcourse real significant ;)



The United States has been a country for about 240 years. Previously, that would be British, French, or Spanish who were mainly dicks to the native tribes.

Like I said, natural disease killed off most of the Natives when explorers got here, unintentionally. It's unfortunate, but it wasn't intentional.


The famous blanket incident occured in 1763 by the British, who were never proven to actually have done it. It was described as a plan in a letter, and although the Indians had smallpox by spring, everyone had it that year, so if it was their plan, it was stupid and they got caught with it as well. If not, these blankets were probably in British possession either way and by coincidence had smallpox.



The june 1837 incident you're referring to I had to look up. It said nothing about purposefully giving blankets or anything to the Indians. A ship was infected with smallpox, and stopped at fort clark to trade. The captain told the indians to stay away from the boat, which they didn't do, and the fort got a smallpox epidemic, which the indians also got. and it didn't have a death toll of a couple hundred thousand, it had a death toll of less than 1600, which was the population of the manday indian villages.


the trail of tears was pretty awful, but the soviets repeated that kind of task, in the modern area, in even more draconian terms.

[camKing]

lol whoa.. i think im going to like these forums..

[Palingenisis]

the trail of tears was pretty awful, but the soviets repeated that kind of task, in the modern area, in even more draconian terms.

Shite...Comrade Stalin showed development could happen without exploitation and the USA was founded on genocide...You can tell yourself all the fairytales you like but reality is reality.

[Lt. Ferret]

Shite...Comrade Stalin showed development could happen without exploitation and the USA was founded on genocide...You can tell yourself all the fairytales you like but reality is reality.


Stalin provide that in soviet society the only progress could be made by exploiting everyone equally.


the USA was founded religious toleration and mercantilism. not genocide.

stop spouting slogans you saw on maoist websites.

[Palingenisis]

the USA was founded religious toleration and mercantilism. not genocide.



LOL....bTqV1pnQoos

[Lt. Ferret]

A factual counterpoint.

[hatzel]

Wrong, Ferret, just plain wrong. The Soviet Union wasn't based on exploiting all people equally, it was based on the perfectly legitimate Russification of the Siberian minorities, so that they too might be civilised westerners. And to the gulag with you if (and only if) you refuse to be free. All hail Comrade Stalin! :drool:

[Che a chara]

http://i51.tinypic.com/k3xcgn.jpg

[Palingenisis]

A factual counterpoint.

Another factual counter point is that USA beside being based on the genocide and land theft of the first nations was based on the slave labour of the Black nation.

[Palingenisis]

Wrong, Ferret, just plain wrong. The Soviet Union wasn't based on exploiting all people equally, it was based on the perfectly legitimate Russification of the Siberian minorities, so that they too might be civilised westerners. And to the gulag with you if (and only if) you refuse to be free. All hail Comrade Stalin! :drool:

A zionist appealing to morality? Whatever next? :laugh:

[hatzel]

What is morality, and where am I appealing to it (in that post, at least)?

[PhoenixAsh]

The United States has been a country for about 240 years. Previously, that would be British, French, or Spanish who were mainly dicks to the native tribes.

Yes. However I was refering to populatuion growth and replenishment from that number....its not stagnant you know ;)




The june 1837 incident you're referring to I had to look up. It said nothing about purposefully giving blankets or anything to the Indians. A ship was infected with smallpox, and stopped at fort clark to trade. The captain told the indians to stay away from the boat, which they didn't do, and the fort got a smallpox epidemic, which the indians also got. and it didn't have a death toll of a couple hundred thousand, it had a death toll of less than 1600, which was the population of the manday indian villages.



Ah...yes, I just reread the book...it was indeed furtraders in 1837...by Bernard Pratte Jr., captain of the St. Peter's. Plus that sick man invested with small pox that the captain held on board insistantly port after port after port in the holding with the load of the ship knowing this was at the time illeal...probbaly did not help much either. The epidemic fortunately wiped out the middle man in the fur trading leading to increased profits...what do you know...how lucky for Pratte...;)

there is no evidence the captain told people to stay away from the boat. Instead he proceeded with unloading his cargo...something he could not do when he had warned anybody...now would he?




the trail of tears was pretty awful, but the soviets repeated that kind of task, in the modern area, in even more draconian terms.

Yes...but in percentages the trail of tears was much, much more draconian. I am not here to debate the draconian difference here between a few thousand more or less people who died...I am pretty sure the Indians will think it was pretty fucked up... Not to mention the fact that they weren't punished like those groups in the USSR for actively cooperating with an enemy who sought the anihilation of the Slavic people (not that that makes it ok...but it puts it into perspective for you)... but were forcibly removed for gain.

The fact remains you seem to have the tendency to blame other nations for crimes the US itself has committed over, and over and over again. It seems to be a huge blind spot in your arguments.

[Lt. Ferret]

Well, the Seminole tribes were dicks. And that whole thing was mostly the brain plan of Andrew Jackson, who was our first man who we can attempt to label a presidential dictator.

my tactless joke about the trail of tears was half those tribes were nomadic anyways so what were they even *****ing about having to walk somewhere?:closedeyes:

[Palingenisis]

Delete

[PhoenixAsh]

Stalin provide that in soviet society the only progress could be made by exploiting everyone equally.


the USA was founded religious toleration and mercantilism. not genocide.

stop spouting slogans you saw on maoist websites.


O...I am very sorry...but some of your original settlers lived in Leyden in Holland. Old text from these settlers all speak of going to the new world. NOT because of intolerance but because the climate in Holland did not agree with them.

What climate do you ask? Not the weather surely? No indeed it wasn't the weather. apperently their kids started to learn the dutch language and started to date with Dutch men and women....and started to take their religious problems to the Dutch churches....instead of to tehir own elders.

So much for your religious tolerance idea.

Come visit our archives. Will be very enlightening for you.


Now as for the revolution and the constitution...and religious tolerance....do you know your continental army targetted churches in loyalist villages and towns? ;) Tolerant as long as you believe what we believe ;)

And how the hell do you think you "won" the west? Sticking roses in the asses of the original inhabitants? that was an extremely violent episode in your history. but hey...it was all mercantilism wasn't it? The believe that the pie would end sometimes and that you needed big armies and use them to expand your piece of it ;)

[Palingenisis]

Well, the Seminole tribes were dicks. And that whole thing was mostly the brain plan of Andrew Jackson, who was our first man who we can attempt to label a presidential dictator.

my tactless joke about the trail of tears was half those tribes were nomadic anyways so what were they even *****ing about having to walk somewhere?:closedeyes:

Great we can racist towards the First Nations and Palestinians here.

Good to know.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, the Seminole tribes were dicks. And that whole thing was mostly the brain plan of Andrew Jackson, who was our first man who we can attempt to label a presidential dictator.

my tactless joke about the trail of tears was half those tribes were nomadic anyways so what were they even *****ing about having to walk somewhere?:closedeyes:


it wasn't so much the walk...it was the concentration camps without hygiene, food, medical attention and abuse that pretty much did it for them. 80% died there...

[Lt. Ferret]

O...I am very sorry...but some of your original settlers lived in Leyden in Holland. Old text from these settlers all speak of going to the new world. NOT because of intolerance but because the climate in Holland did not agree with them.

What climate do you ask? Not the weather surely? No indeed it wasn't the weather. apperently their kids started to learn the dutch language and started to date with Dutch men and women....and started to take their religious problems to the Dutch churches....instead of to tehir own elders.

So much for your religious tolerance idea.

Come visit our archives. Will be very enlightening for you.


Now as for the revolution and the constitution...and religious tolerance....do you know your continental army targetted churches in loyalist villages and towns? ;) Tolerant as long as you believe what we believe ;)

And how the hell do you think you "won" the west? Sticking roses in the asses of the original inhabitants? that was an extremely violent episode in your history. but hey...it was all mercantilism wasn't it? The believe that the pie would end sometimes and that you needed big armies and use them to expand your piece of it ;)


what does the west have to do with the founding of the country on the east coast? and there was a large debate on expanding the territory, even when jefferson bought the louisiana territory from france.


and i mispoke, the reason for the original colonists to come to america were closer to mercantalism and religious toleration (not all, some just wanted to own land and europe was filled up)

the country of the united states was founded on enlightenment principles and constitutional republican government.

[danyboy27]

Its useless to try to claim that the U.S army have the moral ground for killing less people than other.

If you are truly a moral person, you will aknoledge that killing 1 innocent or killing 10 dosnt matter, you are guilty anyway.

fallowing that reasoning, the U.S forces are guilty at the same level the red army is guilty of its own crimes.

Of course i guess you could just shrug it all off by claiming that those crimes where comitted according to various circumstances, it was a long time ago etc etc.

But if this kind of reasoning can be applied to the U.S army, it can surely be applied to the Red army has well.

IF you where put in the same material condition than the soviet where, you would be surprised of what kind of man you would have become.

Whole town burned down, families executed, starved, humiliated, tortured and raped.
Those factor combined with the lack of NCO created many problems.

Moral dosnt mean shit in war, not when you lost 6 relatives and your town have been burned to the ground by the heizengruppen troops.

[PhoenixAsh]

what does the west have to do with the founding of the country on the east coast? and there was a large debate on expanding the territory, even when jefferson bought the louisiana territory from france.


and i mispoke, the reason for the original colonists to come to america were closer to mercantalism and religious toleration (not all, some just wanted to own land and europe was filled up)

the country of the united states was founded on enlightenment principles and constitutional republican government.

Its called preemptive argument....as well as couteracting the founding of your country on other things than genocide.

1). you either acknowledge that the country was founded by the very same settlers who committed attrocities
2). you are going to overlook that fact by arguing that they appeared suddenly out of nowhere...in which case I point out that the west was won over the dead bodies of several million natives.

Either way your argument is void.

But we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt. That the original number of natives killed is far, far greater than the original number you named. Given that you acknowledged the numbers of 18 million and 250.000...even acknowledging that 80% was killed (most agreed upon % by scholars) by disease leaves several million people killed by violence...quite a feat of perseverance considering they lacked the modern means the USSR and Nazi's did. Meaning they must have been really, really determined ;) whatever was left they relocated by force. You can argue till you're blue in the face...but thats genocide.

debate or not...we all know how it ended up ;)


Now...please adress the other point I made about Nepal and Iphones.

[psgchisolm]

Its useless to try to claim that the U.S army have the moral ground for killing less people than other.

If you are truly a moral person, you will aknoledge that killing 1 innocent or killing 10 dosnt matter, you are guilty anyway.

fallowing that reasoning, the U.S forces are guilty at the same level the red army is guilty of its own crimes.

Of course i guess you could just shrug it all off by claiming that those crimes where comitted according to various circumstances, it was a long time ago etc etc.

But if this kind of reasoning can be applied to the U.S army, it can surely be applied to the Red army has well.

IF you where put in the same material condition than the soviet where, you would be surprised of what kind of man you would have become.

Whole town burned down, families executed, starved, humiliated, tortured and raped.
Those factor combined with the lack of NCO created many problems.

Moral dosnt mean shit in war, not when you lost 6 relatives and your town have been burned to the ground by the heizengruppen troops.
The soviets lack of NCOs and other experienced soldiers was from a paranoid leader who thought everone was out to get him. This is one of the downfalls of conscription. When you force anyone in your military you get the nutjobs along with everyone else. Trying to justify anything that happens after this is bs. It's the reason why the U.S. army puts so much importance on the mental health of their soldiers now. They try to prevent any unnecessary accidents that happen. That's what all the screening is for and all the mental check-ups. Will stuff like this still happen. Yes, will it happen less if you work on preventing it. Hopefully.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7n1WnhX17GkC&pg=PT151&lpg=PT151&dq=what+was+the+definition+of+cowardice+in+the+red +army&source=bl&ots=zwc2iY08NX&sig=myeDvxMGup3w3dZVDYn4ooGFos4&hl=en&ei=TT5GTfaTHcL78AagxL38AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=what%20was%20the%20definition%20of%20cowardice%2 0in%20the%20red%20army&f=false
I think this is a good explanition of what happened in the red army version of "cowardice" you could get executed for anything.

[RGacky3]

Well, the Seminole tribes were dicks

my tactless joke about the trail of tears was half those tribes were nomadic anyways so what were they even *****ing about having to walk somewhere?http://www.revleft.com/vb/good-job-america-t148640/revleft/smilies2/closedeyes.gif

I bet a lot of people in the twin towers were dicks too.

The fact that you are so blindly patriotic that your defending the genocide of the native americans shows that your not to be taken seriously in discussions about the United States.


the reason for the original colonists to come to america were closer to mercantalism and religious toleration (not all, some just wanted to own land and europe was filled up)


Where are you getting mercantalism from?


the USA was founded religious toleration and mercantilism. not genocide.


Nope it was genocide, slavery. The US would still be little colonies on hte east cost not doing much had it not been for genocide, and slavery.

[psgchisolm]

Where are you getting mercantalism from?



Nope it was genocide, slavery. The US would still be little colonies on hte east cost not doing much had it not been for genocide, and slavery.
He got it from the europeans trying to find a route to india to trade for their spices.

No. Louisiana purchase. Mexican American war. We did violate a peace treaty where we could only go as far as the appalachian mountains.

[Leninster]

Less than 50 Al Quaeda members left in Afghanistan? That seems very doubtful, does anyone have another source on that?

[psgchisolm]

Less than 50 Al Quaeda members left in Afghanistan? That seems very doubtful, does anyone have another source on that?
They think that only The Taliban and other ACM(Anti-Coalition Militia) are left in afghanistan. They think most of Al Quaeda left.

[RGacky3]

He got it from the europeans trying to find a route to india to trade for their spices.


That was'nt the founding of the United States.

[psgchisolm]

That was'nt the founding of the United States.
Depending on who you speak to. They'll say it certainly laid the foundation :laugh:.

[RGacky3]

Christopher Columbus laid the foundation of the US??? Anyway I doubt he meant that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Probably not :-)

But Mercantilism of the European settlers in the North and the imperialist govenments certainly played a big part in shaping the political and economics ideas behind the revolution.

However you look at it...if mercantilism shaped the founding of the US you have to admit the actions of the colonists are just as much part of US history. Settlers and colonists in the revolution did not appear out of nowhere and the Brittish intervention was, in general, because the colonists were to seperate from the empire.

[Che a chara]

doysINElMw0

Even in the initial stages of contact between European Christians and Native Indian people, the stage was set for ethnocentrism, and the attitude towards the Indians was that of Christian superiority. The Indians were read a proclamation in Spanish which they had no hope of understanding. They had no hope of understanding the death sentence they were being read, and it went something like this.

"We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and superior of the whole world, and the high priest called pope, and in his name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and children and your lands free without servitude. But if you do not submit, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you. We shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make slaves of them, and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the harm and damage we can."

2,000 years ago we were all tribal.
Then came the missionaries with their fucking bible.
1492 began the termination.
The holocaust of our Indian nation.

Yeah
2,000 years ago we were all tribal.
Then came the missionaries with their fucking bible.
1492 began the termination.
The holocaust of our Indian nation.

Yeah
With Christian love and a moral authority,
They killed our medicine men and stole our country.
I never claimed this shit was poetry,
it's just the fucking lies of Christianity.

You will pray to the lord and get down on your knees.
Here's a cross for your back and the coughing disease.
Though you helped us survive we will laugh while you bleed,
Then deny what we did, and write our own history.
We will kidnap your children and cut off their hair.
Silence their language and outlaw their prayers.
Beat them blind until they believe
In the blood of Jesus Christ our king.

Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.

Columbus murdered children and now we have a holiday.
Still you want to deny your history?
Look to the sky for your god to justify,
As you commit cultural genocide.
Christians came and the natives they did hang
13 at a time for Jesus and his gang.
We are the ones you had to dehumanize,
So your murder and greed could be justified.

The belly of the church is full
With the blood of all those heathen fools.
Who would not receive the gift of Christ.
So we burned them as a sacrifice.
To our baby killing god above,
To our mother church and all her love,
We will steal their gods and subjugate.
Those who don't believe we'll annihilate.

"The Spaniards made bets as to who would slit a man in two or cut off his head in one blow. They tore the babies from their mother's breast by their feet and dashed their head against the rocks. They hanged Indians by thirteen in honor and reverence for their redeemer and their twelve apostles. They put wood underneath and with fire burned the Indians alive."

Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.

Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.

We believe in the earth, the sky and dreams.
The universe and the creator who gave us these.
The sacred gift of life and human beings.
That makes you perpetrate the hate to annihilate.
So here I am, the savage civilized.
Voice of the dead and my ancestor's cries.
And like the ghosts of this land you can't erase,
I see blood on the hand's of the master race.

500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of resistance to the enemy.

500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of manifest destiny.
500 years of resistance to the enemy.

You have faith in the rivers, the mountains, the trees.
We've a murdering god to replace all of these.
With the blood of forgiveness you too can be free.
Or the wrath of Jehovah you're sure to receive.
We will baptize you in the blood of the lamb.
With the sword and the gospel we will conquer your land.
You will join our church and be glad to be saved.
Or we'll slaughter your children and women we'll rape.

Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.

Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.
Christians murdered Indians.

I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...
I see blood on the hands of the master race...

[danyboy27]

The soviets lack of NCOs and other experienced soldiers was from a paranoid leader who thought everone was out to get him. This is one of the downfalls of conscription. When you force anyone in your military you get the nutjobs along with everyone else. Trying to justify anything that happens after this is bs. It's the reason why the U.S. army puts so much importance on the mental health of their soldiers now. They try to prevent any unnecessary accidents that happen. That's what all the screening is for and all the mental check-ups. Will stuff like this still happen. Yes, will it happen less if you work on preventing it. Hopefully.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7n1WnhX17GkC&pg=PT151&lpg=PT151&dq=what+was+the+definition+of+cowardice+in+the+red +army&source=bl&ots=zwc2iY08NX&sig=myeDvxMGup3w3dZVDYn4ooGFos4&hl=en&ei=TT5GTfaTHcL78AagxL38AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=what%20was%20the%20definition%20of%20cowardice%2 0in%20the%20red%20army&f=false
I think this is a good explanition of what happened in the red army version of "cowardice" you could get executed for anything.

or maybe, i dont know, the number of good officier killed during the first initial assault of the german have something to do with it? Stalin was paranoid about high ranking officiers, not about the corporal or sargents, i was refering to those kind of NCO btw.

the low ranking officier, or the lack of it after year of conflict with germany had a deep impact on how these men who went trought hell acted in many circumstances.

another factor that is important to consider is the constant increase of number of soldier from various country trough the couter-attack against occupied territory.

with a dramatic increase of the number of footsoldier in their rank, it was basicly impossible to keep up and deliver an acceptable amount of experimented Low ranking nco,

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps the 12 million civilian deaths teh Germans caused on occupied and
front civilians...played a small role in it.

something Lt. Ferret seems to conveniantly overlook.

[psgchisolm]

or maybe, i dont know, the number of good officier killed during the first initial assault of the german have something to do with it? Stalin was paranoid about high ranking officiers, not about the corporal or sargents, i was refering to those kind of NCO btw.

the low ranking officier, or the lack of it after year of conflict with germany had a deep impact on how these men who went trought hell acted in many circumstances.

another factor that is important to consider is the constant increase of number of soldier from various country trough the couter-attack against occupied territory.

with a dramatic increase of the number of footsoldier in their rank, it was basicly impossible to keep up and deliver an acceptable amount of experimented Low ranking nco,
The majority of Officers and NCOs from top to bottom were killed. From Generals to Corporals. What few experienced Officers and NCOs left were killed in the initial invasion or captured. Had they had experienced NCOs and Officers they might have stop the Germans before they reached anywhere near Moscow or Stalingrad or Leningrad. It's impossible to produce any amount of experienced NCOs Officers or enlisted because it requires "EXPERIENCE". You can't give Corporals a Senior NCO spot and expect everything to work just fine. Same with Officers. The Red Army hadn't even fully recovered from the effects of the Executions when the invasion happened. Besides that most conscripts had as minimum amount of training as could be afforded in the beginning months of the invasion. Same with officers. It was probably more difficult to be an officer because if you didn't get the expected results you would be shot and replaced.

[#FF0000]

This thread has really, really run its course.

and btw Historians nowadays don't really take the position anymore that the purge of the Red Army as such a horrible thing that made things so much worse for Russia when Germany invaded. At least, it's considered a contentious point, nowadays.

[psgchisolm]

This thread has really, really run its course.

and btw Historians nowadays don't really take the position anymore that the purge of the Red Army as such a horrible thing that made things so much worse for Russia when Germany invaded. At least, it's considered a contentious point, nowadays.
Yes because lack of proper leadership and army training certainly wasn't the cause for thousands of soldiers being surrounded, overrun, killed, wounded, captured, and the majority of counterattacks failing.

[#FF0000]

Yes because lack of proper leadership and army training certainly wasn't the cause for thousands of soldiers being surrounded, overrun, killed, wounded, captured, and the majority of counterattacks failing.

Take it up with modern historians I guess. v:mellow:v The gist of what I know about this new perspective (which isn't much) is that it wouldn't have mattered a hell of a lot either way and things were going to be awful for the Russians no matter what.

[danyboy27]

The majority of Officers and NCOs from top to bottom were killed. From Generals to Corporals. What few experienced Officers and NCOs left were killed in the initial invasion or captured. Had they had experienced NCOs and Officers they might have stop the Germans before they reached anywhere near Moscow or Stalingrad or Leningrad. It's impossible to produce any amount of experienced NCOs Officers or enlisted because it requires "EXPERIENCE". You can't give Corporals a Senior NCO spot and expect everything to work just fine. Same with Officers. The Red Army hadn't even fully recovered from the effects of the Executions when the invasion happened. Besides that most conscripts had as minimum amount of training as could be afforded in the beginning months of the invasion. Same with officers. It was probably more difficult to be an officer because if you didn't get the expected results you would be shot and replaced.
military school exist for a reason.

Still you cant blame the red army for being purged by its own governement.