BF2S Forums U.S. military threatens Afghan village.

rammunition wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

rammunition wrote:

by reading some of these replies, these scum soldiers deserve to die.

so a whole village, full of innocent people will be killed if these scum are not released because a few people took them???

the true American mindset is shown here.

Savages the lot of them!

Not sure if you are just looking for a reaction here dude, but you shouuld read Kmarions post. Dont jump to your own conclusion.

remember the Haditha massacre???

If you make the assumption that the entire US military has psychotic and sociopathic tendencies because of the actions of a few then you are as bad as any person who assumes all Muslims are of the crazy Wahhabi variety.

Kmarion wrote:

Obviously this is directed towards the people who took the soldier (The words If you do not release should have clued you in).  If anything this is a warning to prevent innocents from getting hurt.

If men with guns came and passed out a flyer in your neighbourhood saying that "you" would be targeted if their pal wasn't returned, you'd be scared shitless. Collective punishment isn't precisely uncommon in this part of the world, especially after their experience with the Soviet forces. It was wholly predictable that this sort of language would make the people in that region nervous.

Kmarion wrote:

People need to learn to read beyond the headlines... and what kind of news story ends with "The question is, will its stern message help win the missing soldier's freedom, or just antagonize the local people who could help, or hurt, that effort."? Consider this with the misleading title and it's clear that the author has an agenda beyond reporting the news.

How on Earth is that not a reasonable question to pose?

Flecco wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Flecco wrote:

If you make the assumption that the entire US military has psychotic and sociopathic tendencies because of the actions of a few then you are as bad as any person who assumes all Muslims are of the crazy Wahhabi variety.

well haven't the US sent convicted rapitsts, murderers, thieves etc. to fight in iraq/afghanistan???

Has nothing to do with my argument.

so you are in denial that convicted rapists, murders, thieves etc. are sent to iraq/afghanistan???

Funny, where were all of you anti-afgahnistan war people 3 or 4 or 5 years ago when instead of fixing the fuckin problems we went invaded an entirely different rogue country?

Rammunition, your reading comprehension is on par with the illiterate. Just leave. Your points are completely invalid due to your inability to conduct a conversation without screaming, "z0mg AMERICANS BAD BAD BAD z0MG !!111 Kill111!1111."

You clearly have no accurate view of American society, despite living in a country that is our most prominent ally. Might I remind you the Americans aren't the only ones in Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor the only ones searching for the soldier.

Nobody denied that felons have been sent. In accordance with Europe, felons can be rehabilitated and be functioning members of society, right?

Nobody said the villages will be killed. Stop sensationalizing.

Nobody is unaware of the Haditha incident, although you seem to be unaware of the outcome of the investigation.

Nobody is interested in your oblivious views. Stop posting.

Last edited by Ghandi767 (2009-07-17 06:06:58)

Thats the only option to fight mujahadeen, glad US Army finally realises it. A common expression since Afghan war 1979-1989 - "Aghani might smile to you and pretend to be cooperative in day time, but when night comes he digs out his AK burried in sand and kills soldiers that he invited to his house and asked to share his meal into the day time."

I bet half of that villages' men population are mujahadeen.

Last edited by Longbow (2009-07-17 09:41:06)

rammunition wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

rammunition wrote:

by reading some of these replies, these scum soldiers deserve to die.

so a whole village, full of innocent people will be killed if these scum are not released because a few people took them???

the true American mindset is shown here.

Savages the lot of them!

Not sure if you are just looking for a reaction here dude, but you shouuld read Kmarions post. Dont jump to your own conclusion.

remember the Haditha massacre???

Are talking about the people that were put to trial and acquitted?

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Obviously this is directed towards the people who took the soldier (The words If you do not release should have clued you in).  If anything this is a warning to prevent innocents from getting hurt.

If men with guns came and passed out a flyer in your neighbourhood saying that "you" would be targeted if their pal wasn't returned, you'd be scared shitless. Collective punishment isn't precisely uncommon in this part of the world, especially after their experience with the Soviet forces. It was wholly predictable that this sort of language would make the people in that region nervous.

Kmarion wrote:

People need to learn to read beyond the headlines... and what kind of news story ends with "The question is, will its stern message help win the missing soldier's freedom, or just antagonize the local people who could help, or hurt, that effort."? Consider this with the misleading title and it's clear that the author has an agenda beyond reporting the news.

How on Earth is that not a reasonable question to pose?

1) Read the entire sentence.. it's short, should be too hard.

2) The job is to report the news. If this is an op'ed piece then fine, just identify it as so.

Oh, I see what you did there. Clever adding an insult instead of giving an answer. You're obviously cynical about this, and your cynical interpretation is what I'm questioning. Replying to my question with the premise that I accept the interpretation that I just questioned isn't very smart.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

1) Read the entire sentence.. it's short, should be too hard.

2) The job is to report the news. If this is an op'ed be then fine, just identify it as so.

Oh, I see what you did there. Clever adding an insult instead of giving an answer. You're obviously cynical about this, and your cynical interpretation is what I'm questioning. Replying to my question with the premise that I accept the interpretation that I just questioned isn't very smart.

It boggles my mind how you can selectively pick things out of context. THAT is a symptom of being cynical.

Selectively pick what out of context? I've asked you one question regarding the totality of your conclusion, and you've yet to answer me. I don't see how questioning your entire post is selective in any way.

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It boggles my mind how you can selectively pick things out of context. THAT is a symptom of being cynical.

Selectively pick what out of context? I've asked you one question regarding the totality of your conclusion, and you've yet to answer me. I don't see how questioning your entire post is selective in any way.

You asked me one questions: How on Earth is that not a reasonable question to pose?

I answered it. You don't ask questions when reporting the news. Your job is to deliver the facts.

That entire article reported nothing but statements from seemingly everyone the journalists who worked on it could find to ask, all the way down to the very last paragraph, where the article is boiled down to a simple analysis, as is the custom in almost all news media other than wire services nowadays. It's not the finest of journalism, but if you're going to dismiss the journalist and his work as having an ulterior motive and a biased agenda because you interpret the addition of common journalistic techniques as being subjective, then I think you're overreacting a tad.

Kmarion wrote:

You are being selective in interpreting the message on the pamphlet. Consider everything it said.

What gives you the impression that I'm not?

Last edited by mikkel (2009-07-17 10:21:32)

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Selectively pick what out of context? I've asked you one question regarding the totality of your conclusion, and you've yet to answer me. I don't see how questioning your entire post is selective in any way.

You asked me one questions: How on Earth is that not a reasonable question to pose?

I answered it. You don't ask questions when reporting the news. Your job is to deliver the facts.

That entire article reported nothing but statements from seemingly everyone the journalists who worked on it could find to ask, all the way down to the very last paragraph, where the article is boiled down to a simple analysis, as is the custom in almost all news media other than wire services nowadays. It's not the finest of journalism, but if you're going to dismiss the journalist and his work as having an ulterior motive and a biased agenda because you interpret the addition of common journalistic techniques as being subjective, then I think you're overreacting a tad.

I'm not overreacting. I am not dismissing the information contained in the article, I simply believe the same thing you just admitted, "It's not the finest of journalism". Maybe you were overreacting with my response of the author having an agenda beyond reporting the news. A credible news outlet does question the reader. The job is very simple. When you present questions you plant ideas in the readers head. Analysis should be left completely up to the reader. It is not the custom of most wire services to ask the reader what they think. I'm sure it happens, but is not the norm. Reporting the news is best left at reporting. We've got plenty of talking heads to fill in the rest... and to propose questions.

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are being selective in interpreting the message on the pamphlet. Consider everything it said.

What gives you the impression that I'm not?

Either you are ignoring the intended audience, the people who have taken the soldier, or you underestimate the ability of afghans to comprehend a simple message. This idea of collective punishment at the hands of US soldiers is a stretch. Yes there has been collateral damage, given the typical way we have conducted ourselves it seems obvious to me that this is a warning, trying to prevent innocents from being hurt. The intent here is not collective punishment. This was also stated in the article.

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

That entire article reported nothing but statements from seemingly everyone the journalists who worked on it could find to ask, all the way down to the very last paragraph, where the article is boiled down to a simple analysis, as is the custom in almost all news media other than wire services nowadays. It's not the finest of journalism, but if you're going to dismiss the journalist and his work as having an ulterior motive and a biased agenda because you interpret the addition of common journalistic techniques as being subjective, then I think you're overreacting a tad.

I'm not overreacting. I am not dismissing the information contained in the article, I simply believe the same thing you just admitted, "It's not the finest of journalism". Maybe you were overreacting with my response of the author having an agenda beyond reporting the news.

There's a very long way between second rate journalism and having an agenda when writing articles. I don't see why you're trying to imply that there isn't.

It begs the question why. It's only logical

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

A credible news outlet does question the reader. The job is very simple. When you present questions you plant ideas in the readers head. Analysis should be left completely up to the reader. It is not the custom of most wire services to ask the reader what they think. I'm sure it happens, but is not the norm. Reporting the news is best left at reporting. We've got plenty of talking heads to fill in the rest... and to propose questions.

I specifically said that analysis of news is the custom for most all news media but wire services.

The question you refer to didn't at all seem to be a question posed by the journalist, rather it seemed to be part of the analysis which suggested that the situation itself raises the question. Big difference.

News media? If you are being all inclusive in your definition sure. However there is a difference between an op'ed piece and a news report. You are failing to understand this. It is not restricted to syndicated media.

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

What gives you the impression that I'm not?

Either you are ignoring the intended audience, the people who have taken the soldier, or you underestimate the ability of afghans to comprehend a simple message.

The last time these Afghans were in a situation of foreign occupation, they experienced Soviet collective punishment. Their villages were carpet bombed and razed to the ground for the mere suspicion that insurgents were present. Now coalition troops are distributing these ambiguous warnings to entire communities, and you expect them to ignore their past experiences without scepticism? No, I'm not underestimating the Afghans one bit.

They have been interacting with Americans for almost eight years now, much of it has been positive (building schools together, providing medical care and clean drinking water). There are key differences between what we are doing and what the soviets did (or didn't do).

mikkel wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This idea of collective punishment at the hands of US soldiers is a stretch. Yes there has been collateral damage, given the typical way we have conducted ourselves it seems obvious to me that this is a warning, trying to prevent innocents from being hurt. The intent here is not collective punishment. This was also stated in the article.

I'm having trouble finding any post in this thread where I even as much as hint at the possibility that US troops will dispense collective punishment. The very notion is absurd.

You've implied that the afghans are going to assume collective punishment. I do not think this is the case. I give them more credit and feel they understand who the "targets" are.