You certainly make a good point.And he's not putting the U.S down or anything,and he's not trying to give credit to the terrorists,but what he's saying makes sense.UON wrote:
Since you missed my point, I hardly think you are qualified to make that judgement. But I'll humour you and explain further whilst addressing some of the points you made.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
Well, at least the terrorists have a target. That is what he is getting at. They may not be able to fire at the planes dropping the bombs, but there are certainly ground troops for them to target. Meanwhile, they run around in civilian clothing and hide until someone comes by. Now if the US and its allies were fighting like them, they would never have a target, now would they??UON wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6537545.stm
Right, because dropping bombs from planes is much less cowardly than spending a few hours digging up roads directly on the patrol route of your enemy with a high chance of detection?
It's a tragedy, of course, but that doesn't mean that it is any more or less tragic than the death of any soldiers killed in combat.
Your point is officially meaningless.
"Civilian clothes" is an absolutely meaningless term, since when the Taleban were in control they wore exactly the same get-up. And anyway, they aren't particularly well known for "hiding among civilians", since they've got huge mountain ranges which are quite effective at "hiding" their position. And there are targets for the troops fighting the Taleban, and it may come as a suprise to you that there are actual battles where the Taleban has tried to storm positions with conventional weapons. They always lose, because NATO just calls in air support and chews them up with attack choppers. But they still try and attack military positions anyway, and their sole aim is idential to the NATO forces. And that is simply to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible.
Mining roads is a well established tactic which has been used frequently by many of the NATO players in the past and all this talk that it is somehow more cowardly than any other method of killing is patently ridiculous. The point I was trying to make is that if you consider it cowardly to use pre-planted anti-vehicle weapons, whether pressure or manually operated, then you must also consider precision airstrikes cowardly. I didn't say, nor do I believe, that either are; my comment was to state that if you have a problem with one, then you should have a problem with both.
What he is saying doesn't make sense. He is saying that terrorists are just as justified blowing shit up as a country declaring war on the military and then targeting military targets. Blowing shit up at random (could have been an Afgany patrol or a UN food convoy for all they know) IS cowardly. Again another example of someone siding with the enemy.shadowkila wrote:
You certainly make a good point.And he's not putting the U.S down or anything,and he's not trying to give credit to the terrorists,but what he's saying makes sense.UON wrote:
Since you missed my point, I hardly think you are qualified to make that judgement. But I'll humour you and explain further whilst addressing some of the points you made.Mr.Pieeater wrote:
Well, at least the terrorists have a target. That is what he is getting at. They may not be able to fire at the planes dropping the bombs, but there are certainly ground troops for them to target. Meanwhile, they run around in civilian clothing and hide until someone comes by. Now if the US and its allies were fighting like them, they would never have a target, now would they??
Your point is officially meaningless.
"Civilian clothes" is an absolutely meaningless term, since when the Taleban were in control they wore exactly the same get-up. And anyway, they aren't particularly well known for "hiding among civilians", since they've got huge mountain ranges which are quite effective at "hiding" their position. And there are targets for the troops fighting the Taleban, and it may come as a suprise to you that there are actual battles where the Taleban has tried to storm positions with conventional weapons. They always lose, because NATO just calls in air support and chews them up with attack choppers. But they still try and attack military positions anyway, and their sole aim is idential to the NATO forces. And that is simply to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible.
Mining roads is a well established tactic which has been used frequently by many of the NATO players in the past and all this talk that it is somehow more cowardly than any other method of killing is patently ridiculous. The point I was trying to make is that if you consider it cowardly to use pre-planted anti-vehicle weapons, whether pressure or manually operated, then you must also consider precision airstrikes cowardly. I didn't say, nor do I believe, that either are; my comment was to state that if you have a problem with one, then you should have a problem with both.
A teenage muj, sure.Toxicseagull wrote:
Karbin, i doubt that they would be aware of such things. we are all seen as either Americans or their allies, which are all the same anyway. these are people with little classical education.
its such a shame this happened at all, let alone on Easter Sunday.
But, most of the leadership has received some education in the west.
There fore...."A Targeted Attack" in timing.
As a side note.
The re dedication of the Vimy Memorial, on Monday, was fantastic.
At one point, a kids group sang a song, the result, not a dry eye in the place.
Had never heard it before. Was about going home. Very sad but, very good too.
Even the politicians stayed it in line with the event and didn't go over the top.
Last edited by Karbin (2007-04-10 03:05:53)