i just don't get it

[Kamikaze]

i thought the u.s. was involved in a war against terror, not a war in creating it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ike/index.html


since when have they become so callous in such an indiscriminate attack where in their own words the people they were trying to kill were "in the vicinity" and "They stress they are not sure who was killed in the strike". since when was it ok to call in an air strike without even bothering to visually confirm? were they so pressed for time that a tactical nuclear strike was out of the question, i mean if the people in question were in "the vicinity" why leave it up to chance, the missiles might not be enough when your not even sure if they are even in a hundred mile radius of the building filled with civilians you demolished.

[TrongaMonga]

More important than that, is the meaning of colateral damage during the invansion of Iraq.

I can understand killing the militars. I mean, most of them are there because they want to, and know their risks. But, being careless about the fortune of the civilians 'in the vicinity' of military targets is just absurd.

[AZN_FLEA]

USA does have some problems with the current pres. the ****er even threatened to bomb the news station saying that it was adding to the insurgency or something.

bush is stupid.

[Bret]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

More important than that, is the meaning of colateral damage during the invansion of Iraq.

I can understand killing the militars. I mean, most of them are there because they want to, and know their risks. But, being careless about the fortune of the civilians 'in the vicinity' of military targets is just absurd.

Come now, the coalition (except those who back down because of threats, or bombings) try DAMN hard NOT to kill anyone else but militars. The world should know this. The coalition at least TRIES to aim their bullets. And then you have rules of war which, guess again, they do follow.

[TrongaMonga]

Yes, and the news this thread is about really show that.

Trying is not enough when there are innocent human lives on the stake. And don't come saying terrorists don't do that, because the coalition isn't made of terrorists yet.

And most collateral damage was made by both airplane bombs and off-shore missiles. Bullets? Nothing compared to that.

[Krovvy]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

Yes, and the news this thread is about really show that.

Trying is not enough when there are innocent human lives on the stake. And don't come saying terrorists don't do that, because the coalition isn't made of terrorists yet.

And most collateral damage was made by both airplane bombs and off-shore missiles. Bullets? Nothing compared to that.

It's war, what did you expect? I'm not saying that I agree with bombing a 'dinner gathering', but it happens. It is 'colateral damage' and happens in every war. In this one though we have a hidden enemy and they use guirilla tactics.

Hey, but lets forget about the tons of innocent people that the terrorists have killed, and continue to kill every day in their own countries. It's war and it will happen again, there isn't much we can do about it.

[TrongaMonga]

Collateral damage in an islamic country by American Forces is very dangerous. Why? Each casualtie generates a new wave of islamic zealots ready to do Jihad on America and the Western World.

The innocents may get to be not so innocent if you destroy their world.

[Laharl]

All I can say is that the Americans are their own worst enemies. They appear to be in the business of making terrorists, then complain about being hated.

America deserves almost all the hatred directed towards it, and they are far from innocent.

[Krovvy]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

Collateral damage in an islamic country by American Forces is very dangerous. Why? Each casualtie generates a new wave of islamic zealots ready to do Jihad on America and the Western World.

The innocents may get to be not so innocent if you destroy their world.

Exactly, but what are we suppose to do? I'll be upfront and say I do not support the Iraq war, but I do support the one in Afghanistan. Although I don't support the war in Iraq I realise that it would be bad thing if we take our soldiers out now without finishing the job. Though are you making the argument that we shouldn't have started a war in Afghanistan or try to defeat the terrorists?

Originally Posted by Big-Fat-Homo

All I can say is that the Americans are their own worst enemies. They appear to be in the business of making terrorists, then complain about being hated.

America deserves almost all the hatred directed towards it, and they are far from innocent.

Don't generalise Americans. Most of us do not want a war, and agree that there is no reason we should be in Iraq.

[TrongaMonga]

My only argument is that bombs and missiles in civilian areas should be either forbidden or strictly controled. They're too dangerous, and don't really do the job a good platoon could do.

[TheJanitor]

Ooooh, that contributes a lot to this discussion! What an intelligent flame!

Somewhat hypocritical?

i thought the u.s. was involved in a war against terror, not a war in creating it.

All I can say is that the Americans are their own worst enemies. They appear to be in the business of making terrorists, then complain about being hated.

It's agreeing with kam. If he was flaming Russia then you wouldn't of said that.

My only argument is that bombs and missiles in civilian areas should be either forbidden or strictly controled. They're too dangerous, and don't really do the job a good platoon could do.

They bombed a dinner party? Sure they thought it was some kind of top secret evil plan against america but why didn't they just send a team in there seize everyone and ask questions later?

I think Bush doesn't want to risk any more men, (Americans anyway) the death toll already looks bad on him.