Wish I new how to put a box round this...
(EDIT I did you for-Frazzled. Just put it in quotes)
"We are deeply sorry for this tragedy and apologize to the members of the Afghan government, the people of Afghanistan and, most importantly, the surviving family members of those killed by our actions," Petraeus said in a statement. "These deaths should have never happened."
Petraeus' swift apology Wednesday came hours after Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the deaths were the result of a "ruthless attack." He warned that the fight against "terrorism in Afghan villages" would never succeed if civilians continue "to suffer in the unjustifiable operations and bombings carried out by NATO and ISAF [the International Security Assistance Force]."
Western military officials told The Washington Post that Tuesday's attack began when insurgents launched rockets at Forward Operating Base Blessing, an isolated U.S. camp in the eastern province of Kunar. One local contractor was slightly injured in that attack, and U.S. forces called in aerial support and artillery strikes to take out the insurgents.
But the apology suggests that the helicopter gunship pilots mistakenly identified the children -- ages 7 to 12 -- as the militants who had attacked the base. "Regrettably, there appears to have been an error in the handoff between identifying the location of the insurgents and the attack helicopters that carried out subsequent operations," the ISAF said in the statement.
Another coalition official in Afghanistan also told The Wall Street Journal that a miscommunication between troops and aircrew was to blame. "What seemed to have happened was that there was an error between what the people on the ground were passing up and what the helicopters got," said the official, who asked not to be identified.
The children's deaths are the latest in a decade-long series of botched attacks that have killed civilians rather than militants and undermined efforts to win over the support of ordinary Afghans. While about three-quarters of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by militants rather than coalition forces, deaths such as these can fuel hatred toward U.S.-led forces and produce new recruits for the Taliban.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Petraeus has ordered that all attack helicopter crews and NATO commanders "be re-briefed on the tactical directive, reinforcing the need to be sure we protect the lives of innocent Afghans as we pursue a ruthless enemy."
"Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause," Petraeus said in a directive in August. "If we use excessive force or operate contrary to our counterinsurgency principles, tactical victories may prove to be strategic setbacks."
I simply don't understand how things like this can continue to happen; you'd think that after nearly a decade our military would have a better handle on the situation.
biased news person wrote:
The children's deaths are the latest in a decade-long series of botched attacks that have killed civilians rather than militants and undermined efforts to win over the support of ordinary Afghans. While about three-quarters of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by militants rather than coalition forces, deaths such as these can fuel hatred toward U.S.-led forces and produce new recruits for the Taliban.
this strikes me as a bit biased.
Decades of Botches? BS. there are plenty of operations that happen that aren't botched
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's 9 fewer tax breaks, so now their government is that much closer to being on budget. There are hidden blessings all around.
Personally, I think Karzai has a bloody cheek. If his arsehole of a country could get it's gak together, then there wouldn't be a need for foreign military involvement. To use the language he's using is ridiculous considering that he owes his position to the US - he's 'biting the hand that feeds' somewhat.
But even if they did would it matter? Half the people here seem to think it hilarious anyways, so what would it matter?
Some kids accidentally died in a warzone, emphasis on warzone. Chances are the guys in the chopper are beating themselves up over it although I would want to see what they were shooting at because I doubt the pilots saw nine kids on the ground and said "Hey Derp, lets kill those kids.".
But even if they did would it matter? Half the people here seem to think it hilarious anyways, so what would it matter?
Some kids accidentally died in a warzone, emphasis on warzone. Chances are the guys in the chopper are beating themselves up over it although I would want to see what they were shooting at because I doubt the pilots saw nine kids on the ground and said "Hey Derp, lets kill those kids.".
I already stated that they obviously Did NOT do it on purpose. I was referring to the rather flippant nature of some of the comments in this thread regarding the death of children...
I think it's just that most people are sick to the back teeth of Afghanistan, the Afghan people and their 'plight', and that presumptuous ingrate (and tinpot dictator in the making) Hamid Karzai. But mostly I think they're sick of their countrymen being sent off to the armpit of the world with the best intentions of doing their country proud, only to have know-nothing internet snipers decrying every single mistake they make.
I'm sure no-one feels worse about this incident than the servicemen involved, so the crocodile tears for a bunch of people from the third world that you will never meet, and probably wouldn't want to sit next to on the bus, is unbecoming.
But even if they did would it matter? Half the people here seem to think it hilarious anyways, so what would it matter?
Some kids accidentally died in a warzone, emphasis on warzone. Chances are the guys in the chopper are beating themselves up over it although I would want to see what they were shooting at because I doubt the pilots saw nine kids on the ground and said "Hey Derp, lets kill those kids.".
I already stated that they obviously Did NOT do it on purpose. I was referring to the rather flip nature of some of the comments in this thread regarding the death of children...
Oh they meant to kill them, they just didn't know they were children.
Which is the crux of the problem, why where they so bad at identifying their targets?
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
biased news person wrote:
The children's deaths are the latest in a decade-long series of botched attacks that have killed civilians rather than militants and undermined efforts to win over the support of ordinary Afghans. While about three-quarters of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by militants rather than coalition forces, deaths such as these can fuel hatred toward U.S.-led forces and produce new recruits for the Taliban.
this strikes me as a bit biased.
Decades of Botches? BS. there are plenty of operations that happen that aren't botched
The ordinary Afghani civvo doesn#t care how many operations go right. It's the ones that go wrong and kill children and wedding parties that get noticed.
Obviously this sort of thing is going to happen in battles like Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't mean we can shrug it off.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
Tounge and cheek aside I don't disagree. You can't let people like that fly planes into your buildings or bomb your commuter trains. But still very sad.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
A bullet of love! (is it just me, or does that sound like the title of a bad pop song in the making?)
The ordinary Afghani civvo doesn#t care how many operations go right. It's the ones that go wrong and kill children and wedding parties that get noticed.
If shoe was on other foot and foreign soldiers stationed in my country killed my kids or my neighbor's kids i think i would "take notice" as well...
The bigger question is what is really being accomplished there other then slowly bleeding out our soldiers, helping the extremists recruit, and perpetuating bad press for the US? Oh and spending millions in the process...
The ordinary Afghani civvo doesn#t care how many operations go right. It's the ones that go wrong and kill children and wedding parties that get noticed.
If shoe was on other foot and foreign soldiers stationed in my country killed my kids or my neighbor's kids i think i would "take notice" as well...
The bigger question is what is really being accomplished there other then slowly bleeding out our soldiers, helping the extremists recruit, and perpetuating bad press for the US? Oh and spending millions in the process...
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
A bullet of love! (is it just me, or does that sound like the title of a bad pop song in the making?)
CT GAMER wrote:The bigger question is what is really being accomplished there other then slowly bleeding out our soldiers, helping the extremists recruit, and perpetuating bad press for the US? Oh and spending millions in the process...
Before we showed up they brutally oppressed their women, killed minorities, activitely funded groups that killed thousands of our civilians and service men at home and abroad. The crazies still try all of those things but their ability to actually execute has been squashed. Worth every penny in my opinion. Keep it up boys!
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
A bullet of love! (is it just me, or does that sound like the title of a bad pop song in the making?)
I'm all over it.
Knowing you, you'd probably make a quality song out of it, and there's no fun in that.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
You could always put a pre-emptive bullet in his hateful heart.
A bullet of love! (is it just me, or does that sound like the title of a bad pop song in the making?)
I'm all over it.
Knowing you, you'd probably make a quality song out of it, and there's no fun in that.
I actually wrote a song called "Heart-Shaped Bullets" and was considering it as a future band name...
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Oh they meant to kill them, they just didn't know they were children.
Which is the crux of the problem, why where they so bad at identifying their targets?
I had a friend in Iraq whose squad used to prank children. One of his favorite stories was when they were on a "humanitarian mission" and were basically throwing water bottles and candy bars out of the back of a speeding jeep to the crowds of kids running after them. One little boy picked up a whole bunch of them then his sister shoulder-tackled him and took them herself. They thought it was so funny that they stopped and gave her extra. He said he hated going on those missions and didn't half the time when they were instructed to because they would still get shot at and he didn't feel like it was important enough.
And to keep the train rolling, going to ground would have at least given them a 6+.
CT GAMER wrote:The bigger question is what is really being accomplished there other then slowly bleeding out our soldiers, helping the extremists recruit, and perpetuating bad press for the US? Oh and spending millions in the process...
Before we showed up they brutally oppressed their women, killed minorities, activitely funded groups that killed thousands of our civilians and service men at home and abroad. The crazies still try all of those things but their ability to actually execute has been squashed. Worth every penny in my opinion. Keep it up boys!
I'm pretty sure much of what you cite would and will resume as soon as we leave.
So you are proposing indefinite.permanent occupation? We don't seem to be making much progress setting up anything that resembles an effective local authority or government.
Just because there has not been another 9/11 level attack does not man that anything we have done in Iraq or Afghan. has had anything o do with it. Correlation does not equal causation with 100% certainty.
If history has shown anything it is that the group(s) in question are willing to be very patient and work on there own timetable.
Your statement reads more like a justification then fact.
I can't be the only one who is starting to care less and less about deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq etc.
Sure it's a bit sad, but collateral damage or accidental loss of life has to be accepted as something that is going to happen; we are only human, and humans make mistakes; when you shove a lot of humans in one place, there are going to be more mistakes made.
Their deaths are just the latest mistake to me, and there will be more mistakes made; I don't see the point in getting all teary-eyed over something as commonplace as deaths in a war every time they're reported. It happens; it's a bit sad; but life goes on.
halonachos wrote:The groups in question are willing to be patient? Are we talking about the middle eaast still?
9/11 wasn't planned, prepared for and implemented over a 3 day weekend...
Our invasion wasn't either, although some argue that it was. They didn't think it through though, last time I checked Bin Laden is hiding and not celebrating victory.
CT GAMER wrote: I'm pretty sure much of what you cite would and will resume as soon as we leave.
Possibly. I'm for staying around until we know the government we leave behind isn't going to help people who are trying to kill us, which is exactly what we are doing.
CT GAMER wrote: Just because there has not been another 9/11 level attack does not man that anything we have done in Iraq or Afghan. has had anything o do with it. Correlation does not equal causation with 100% certainty.
I'm sorry but that's a silly statement. Find a servicemen and see what he has to say about it.
CT GAMER wrote:Your statement reads more like a justification then fact.
You asked what it all had been for, I'm giving you a justification for all the blood and money our nation has spent. Maybe you think we would have been better off keeping the money, and with soldiers back home, and just taking random embassy bombings, or boat explosions, or collapsing high rises every few years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess. No one said it had to be a good one.
People act like this is the first time kids have died in a war. Hate to break it to you all, but this isn't the first time and will NOT be the last time kids get killed.
CT GAMER wrote: I'm pretty sure much of what you cite would and will resume as soon as we leave.
Possibly. I'm for staying around until we know the government we leave behind isn't going to help people who are trying to kill us, which is exactly what we are doing.
CT GAMER wrote: Just because there has not been another 9/11 level attack does not man that anything we have done in Iraq or Afghan. has had anything o do with it. Correlation does not equal causation with 100% certainty.
I'm sorry but that's a silly statement. Find a servicemen and see what he has to say about it.
CT GAMER wrote:Your statement reads more like a justification then fact.
You asked what it all had been for. I'm giveing you a justification for all the blood and money our nation has spent. Maybe you think we would have been better off keeping the money, and with soldiers back home, and just taking random embassy bombings, or boat explosions, or collapsing high rises every few years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion I guess. No one said it had to be a good one.
How many batteries does your crystal ball take to run?
Considering how many missles they gotta shoot off over there, you have to expect a few miss the target or inadvertantly hit some civvies. gak happens.
The USAF saved my life and I would like to thank them for their sterling efforts so far. This thread about them rocketbombing kids seems as good as any...
jp400 wrote:People act like this is the first time kids have died in a war.
So it's better to act like it's OK that it happens all the time?
It's tragic that it happened at all, it's tragic that it's created more hate against the West, it's tragic that we're all so desensitised to death that we place no value on life any more.
CT GAMER wrote:
Really? Children dying are funny to you?
It is to me.
Um... is it just me or did people forget that Afghanistan is a war zone. WAR zone. People tend to die in war zones. Oh wait, I forgot, civilians think the war is a game of Call of Duty where bullets are magical and don't kill good guys...
DickBandit wrote:Um... is it just me or did people forget that Afghanistan is a war zone. WAR zone. People tend to die in war zones. Oh wait, I forgot, civilians think the war is a game of Call of Duty where bullets are magical and don't kill good guys...
No I don't think people have forgotten that. But that doesn't mean it's ok to boast about how little we or care or laugh, typical internet tough guy stuff. If people are so bored of Afghanistan why post repeatedly in the thread to say so? Children have died and families will be devastated by it, of course it's tragic. The helicopter pilots will have to live with this mistake, it probably wasn't their fault but the reasons given of poor communication between the ground and air will be little comfort to the pilots or the families that have to live with it.
We're supposed to be supporting the legitimate government in Afghanistan, we're supposed to protect the people not kill crowds of them. Sure accidents happen, but loudly pointing out that it's a warzone doesn't exonerate us of responsibility or wash our hands clean. People don't need to blub over it, but a bit of empathy wouldn't go amiss either.
It doesn't help that incidents like this fuel hate against western forces, especially if people make a big display of how little they give a damn about the those dying. It's in our interests to treat the Afghanistan people with some respect not just as collateral damage to clean up. If this was some hypothetical war in a main European country I don't think you would see so many people quick to shrug off or laugh at civilian deaths, I guess when you're an entirely different culture on the other side of the world it doesn't matter.
It doesn't help that incidents like this fuel hate against western forces, especially if people make a big display of how little they give a damn about the those dying. It's in our interests to treat the Afghanistan people with some respect not just as collateral damage to clean up. If this was some hypothetical war in a main European country I don't think you would see so many people quick to shrug off or laugh at civilian deaths, I guess when you're an entirely different culture on the other side of the world it doesn't matter.
Nah, I just don't care about people in general. In fact I'm working on my Skynet project right now. It should be finished in a couple years or so.
The soldiers hate themselves for it? Maybe. They are inundated with ideals like Fighting For Freedom. Just part of the job. They can always be handled, like the whole situation, by the Armed Forces Patriotic Duty and Rationalization Corps.
When you drop bombs on people, they die. Don't like it? Don't drop bombs on people.
It doesn't help that incidents like this fuel hate against western forces, especially if people make a big display of how little they give a damn about the those dying. It's in our interests to treat the Afghanistan people with some respect not just as collateral damage to clean up. If this was some hypothetical war in a main European country I don't think you would see so many people quick to shrug off or laugh at civilian deaths, I guess when you're an entirely different culture on the other side of the world it doesn't matter.
Nah, I just don't care about people in general. In fact I'm working on my Skynet project right now. It should be finished in a couple years or so.
Somebody once said. Be equal, hate everyone. Oh wait that was me.
There are more civilians killed there every single day by IED's. IED's with a pressure switch just kill the first thing to come by that weights enough. The Taliban bury enough explosives to toss an up armored HMMWV you should see what they do to a 30yr old VW hauling someones family.
CT GAMER wrote:The bigger question is what is really being accomplished there other then slowly bleeding out our soldiers, helping the extremists recruit, and perpetuating bad press for the US? Oh and spending millions in the process...
Before we showed up they brutally oppressed their women, killed minorities, activitely funded groups that killed thousands of our civilians and service men at home and abroad. The crazies still try all of those things but their ability to actually execute has been squashed. Worth every penny in my opinion. Keep it up boys!
Yes, I have to agree.
I have always said that the main reason to support the western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was that it was our interference and aid for the Taleban and Saddam that maintained them in power. It was largely our fault they got so powerful and became such gaks, so it is our job to sort them out. Without our support they would probably have been overthrown long ago.
I am sure the death of some children is a price worth paying to liberate some children from the oppression and misery our policies helped to bring to their country.
If we could concentrate on killing Afghani men, it would advance the cause of women's lib a great deal, I think. If we can kill enough of them, their wives might get to a situation where they can have an abortion without one of their relatives being legally allowed to murder the doctor.
We've managed to eradicate that sort of behaviour from civilised countries, after all, and that proves that military occupation and continuous low level combat operations are an effective method of enforcing democracy whether people want it or not.
jp400 wrote:People act like this is the first time kids have died in a war.
So it's better to act like it's OK that it happens all the time?
It's tragic that it happened at all, it's tragic that it's created more hate against the West, it's tragic that we're all so desensitised to death that we place no value on life any more.
Still, does you good to laugh
I only laugh when the bodies cartwheel through the air.
See this is the problem with humanity. I agree that this is always going to happen in war and, in view of the casualties from the 2nd World War/Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan pales in comparison. However if only we could be "man" enough to do war how it should be done.
I'd like to make it clear I don't have anything against any armed-forces personel, or in fact anyone willing to die for a cause they believe in no matter how wayward, volatile or irrational, as that's the ultimate mortal price any one of us could pay for an ideal that is beyond us. However...
Imagine no planes. No tanks. No bombs. No guns. No Cavalry. None of that BS and wasteful damage/effort (what did the horses ever do to deserve death? Part of my base Philosophy - if you kill it, eat it - humans aside unless you agree with some of the cannibalistic tribes who ate their beloved dead because: "Better in the belly of a warm friend than in the cold earth). I say why fire a thousand bullets when you can swing an axe once?
I say pick a large open space, like a desert. Arrange to meet the opposing 'army'' via Facebook, or whatever. Everyone gets to pick an axe, a hammer or a sword (or duel-wield if they're fancy enough) and go at it. If only Soldier's (of all kinds) could stare into the eyes of their enemy while they were dying a brutal, painful death to see their soul sucked away before them, then they'd realise more completely the full consequence of taking another human's life and they wouldn't kill any little kids in the process.
This way it would be cheaper (in lives and money) and people wouldn't have to die if they didn't want to. Done.
I know this is a ridiculous view, and I know warfare has been, ironically, the pre-dominating factor to the building of technologies and of bringing the world closer together through conquest, but...would it not be a little bit more civil/humane to do it like I just suggested? We could even have League Tables?! "The Taliban have been relegated to the 2nd Division, that extremist ideology took a pounding this weekend"...see? And so on until all that remained was calm, deductive reason and the peaceful pursuit of a better humanity within each individual on Earth.
But if E.T arrives with an Uzi, a million firends and a bad temper? THEN we break out the tanks and guns and throw the beatdown of all beatdown's as ONE. Oo-ra!
warspawned wrote:Imagine no planes. No tanks. No bombs. No guns. No Cavalry. None of that BS and wasteful damage/effort (what did the horses ever do to deserve death? Part of my base Philosophy - if you kill it, eat it - humans aside unless you agree with some of the cannibalistic tribes who ate their beloved dead because: "Better in the belly of a warm friend than in the cold earth). I say why fire a thousand bullets when you can swing an axe once?
I say pick a large open space, like a desert. Arrange to meet the opposing 'army'' via Facebook, or whatever. Everyone gets to pick an axe, a hammer or a sword (or duel-wield if they're fancy enough) and go at it. If only Soldier's (of all kinds) could stare into the eyes of their enemy while they were dying a brutal, painful death to see their soul sucked away before them, then they'd realise more completely the full consequence of taking another human's life and they wouldn't kill any little kids in the process.
This way it would be cheaper (in lives and money) and people wouldn't have to die if they didn't want to. Done.
Tried it.
Then someone found out that if you had shields and the other guy had a sword, you could kill him better.
Then someone else found out that if you have horses and the other guy is on the ground, you could kill him better.
Then someone else found out that if you have bows, you could kill the other guys better.
Then someone figured out all you really needed was a hollow tube, an explosive powder, and a projectile.
The idea of unilateral disarmament works fine until someone realizes that no one else has any weapons.
warspawned wrote:See this is the problem with humanity. I agree that this is always going to happen in war and, in view of the casualties from the 2nd World War/Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan pales in comparison. However if only we could be "man" enough to do war how it should be done.
I'd like to make it clear I don't have anything against any armed-forces personel, or in fact anyone willing to die for a cause they believe in no matter how wayward, volatile or irrational, as that's the ultimate mortal price any one of us could pay for an ideal that is beyond us. However...
Imagine no planes. No tanks. No bombs. No guns. No Cavalry. None of that BS and wasteful damage/effort (what did the horses ever do to deserve death? Part of my base Philosophy - if you kill it, eat it - humans aside unless you agree with some of the cannibalistic tribes who ate their beloved dead because: "Better in the belly of a warm friend than in the cold earth). I say why fire a thousand bullets when you can swing an axe once?
I say pick a large open space, like a desert. Arrange to meet the opposing 'army'' via Facebook, or whatever. Everyone gets to pick an axe, a hammer or a sword (or duel-wield if they're fancy enough) and go at it. If only Soldier's (of all kinds) could stare into the eyes of their enemy while they were dying a brutal, painful death to see their soul sucked away before them, then they'd realise more completely the full consequence of taking another human's life and they wouldn't kill any little kids in the process.
This way it would be cheaper (in lives and money) and people wouldn't have to die if they didn't want to. Done.
I know this is a ridiculous view, and I know warfare has been, ironically, the pre-dominating factor to the building of technologies and of bringing the world closer together through conquest, but...would it not be a little bit more civil/humane to do it like I just suggested? We could even have League Tables?! "The Taliban have been relegated to the 2nd Division, that extremist ideology took a pounding this weekend"...see? And so on until all that remained was calm, deductive reason and the peaceful pursuit of a better humanity within each individual on Earth.
But if E.T arrives with an Uzi, a million firends and a bad temper? THEN we break out the tanks and guns and throw the beatdown of all beatdown's as ONE. Oo-ra!
But this is just me...
On topic: Depressing lack of humanity being displayed by some people in this thread.
jp400 wrote:People act like this is the first time kids have died in a war.
So it's better to act like it's OK that it happens all the time?
It's tragic that it happened at all, it's tragic that it's created more hate against the West, it's tragic that we're all so desensitized to death that we place no value on life any more.
I don't think that is what is happening at all. Recognition of a reality isn't the same thing as promoting it. No one has been cheering that these kids were killed but there is also that the truth that it is essentially a war zone and that bad things happen there. If every unfortunate death lead to the gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloth all we would be doing as humans would be gnashing our teeth and tearing cloth while starving to death since there would be no time to eat. This article really isn't about the children anyway, it is about making the US look like a bunch of evil jerks who don't care if we kill children, which is frankly a load of crap. Would we be happier if the Taliban had purposefully killed these kids?
You look at what happened, you figure out the mistakes that were made, and try to avoid making it again. That is the best that can be done. Pretending to that it isn't a reality of war while engaged in the war is public theater and won't bring the kids back. Would it be better if there were never any civilian casualties? Of course, and our forces try to do that more often than not.
warspawned wrote:See this is the problem with humanity. I agree that this is always going to happen in war and, in view of the casualties from the 2nd World War/Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan pales in comparison. However if only we could be "man" enough to do war how it should be done.
I'd like to make it clear I don't have anything against any armed-forces personel, or in fact anyone willing to die for a cause they believe in no matter how wayward, volatile or irrational, as that's the ultimate mortal price any one of us could pay for an ideal that is beyond us. However...
Imagine no planes. No tanks. No bombs. No guns. No Cavalry. None of that BS and wasteful damage/effort (what did the horses ever do to deserve death? Part of my base Philosophy - if you kill it, eat it - humans aside unless you agree with some of the cannibalistic tribes who ate their beloved dead because: "Better in the belly of a warm friend than in the cold earth). I say why fire a thousand bullets when you can swing an axe once?
I say pick a large open space, like a desert. Arrange to meet the opposing 'army'' via Facebook, or whatever. Everyone gets to pick an axe, a hammer or a sword (or duel-wield if they're fancy enough) and go at it. If only Soldier's (of all kinds) could stare into the eyes of their enemy while they were dying a brutal, painful death to see their soul sucked away before them, then they'd realise more completely the full consequence of taking another human's life and they wouldn't kill any little kids in the process.
This way it would be cheaper (in lives and money) and people wouldn't have to die if they didn't want to. Done.
I know this is a ridiculous view, and I know warfare has been, ironically, the pre-dominating factor to the building of technologies and of bringing the world closer together through conquest, but...would it not be a little bit more civil/humane to do it like I just suggested? We could even have League Tables?! "The Taliban have been relegated to the 2nd Division, that extremist ideology took a pounding this weekend"...see? And so on until all that remained was calm, deductive reason and the peaceful pursuit of a better humanity within each individual on Earth.
But if E.T arrives with an Uzi, a million firends and a bad temper? THEN we break out the tanks and guns and throw the beatdown of all beatdown's as ONE. Oo-ra!
But this is just me...
Well, the thing is...when we did this humans were even MORE violent and cruel. Siege of Jericho, the Mongol conquests...these were some of the most bloody battles and wars in human history, with whole populations of men, women, and children put to the sword, and it was all done on purpose. It wasn't a mistake, they were deliberately killing everyone they could get their hands on. Sure, some things could be settled by honourable hand to hand combat between two champions, but those were much rarer as opposed to battles where armies, cities and whole nations were killed.
I'm one of those who believe in the nuclear peace...that modern warfare has grown so destructive that no one wants to engage in it. Sure if you get rid of everything, war will be cheaper, and be more personal...but it'd be back to the days when you could 'win' a major war between two great powers. And that's just going to encourage more agressive actions. Right now, and during the Cold War, you couldn't afford to be agressive. If you're too agressive, someone on the other side will freak out and press the launch button. In a world without modern weaponry, that kind of deterrence is gone.
halonachos wrote:
Our invasion wasn't either, although some argue that it was. They didn't think it through though, last time I checked Bin Laden is hiding and not celebrating victory.
The announced purpose of 9/11, and really all of Al Qaeda's missions in general, was to draw the United States into a war of attrition.
He basically achieved that objective as soon as Afghanistan was invaded.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
I'm sorry but that's a silly statement. Find a servicemen and see what he has to say about it.
I'm not sure generic servicemen are the people most qualified to determine whether or not the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have made the United States more secure. They might have some strongly held opinions about the matter, but that doesn't mean anything other than that they likely have an emotional connection to the issue.
Karon wrote:A shame, for the kids, the people who knew the kids, and the soldiers who killed them.
I'm sure the soldiers hate themselves for it.
This is a bad post. A very bad post. Dakka I am dissapoint.
DickBandit wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Really? Children dying are funny to you?
It is to me.
Um... is it just me or did people forget that Afghanistan is a war zone. WAR zone. People tend to die in war zones. Oh wait, I forgot, civilians think the war is a game of Call of Duty where bullets are magical and don't kill good guys...
jp400 wrote:People act like this is the first time kids have died in a war.
So it's better to act like it's OK that it happens all the time?
It's tragic that it happened at all, it's tragic that it's created more hate against the West, it's tragic that we're all so desensitized to death that we place no value on life any more.
I don't think that is what is happening at all. Recognition of a reality isn't the same thing as promoting it. No one has been cheering that these kids were killed but there is also that the truth that it is essentially a war zone and that bad things happen there. If every unfortunate death lead to the gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloth all we would be doing as humans would be gnashing our teeth and tearing cloth while starving to death since there would be no time to eat. This article really isn't about the children anyway, it is about making the US look like a bunch of evil jerks who don't care if we kill children, which is frankly a load of crap. Would we be happier if the Taliban had purposefully killed these kids?
You look at what happened, you figure out the mistakes that were made, and try to avoid making it again. That is the best that can be done. Pretending to that it isn't a reality of war while engaged in the war is public theater and won't bring the kids back. Would it be better if there were never any civilian casualties? Of course, and our forces try to do that more often than not.
Erm, what? Promoting? Cheering? I don't understand where you're getting this from?
DickBandit wrote:Um... is it just me or did people forget that Afghanistan is a war zone. WAR zone. People tend to die in war zones. Oh wait, I forgot, civilians think the war is a game of Call of Duty where bullets are magical and don't kill good guys...
It's a warzone to you, because it's all the way over there and full of brown people you don't know.
To the people who live their it's their cities, their towns and their villages. That was has come to their homes doesn't change that.
So when nine kids are killed in their village, it's as sad as nine kids dying anywhere else in the world.
At least it should be. If it isn't, then you've let some kind of political bs get in the way of what should be a very straight forward human emotion. And that's something you and every other person who posted proudly of their indifference should take a long time to think about.
As always Sebster I disagree with your black-and-white statement, your entitled to your opinion, but its not an I am right you are wrong situation.
Another point I would make is that the more someone crows on about their honour the less likely they are to have any, words are just air. If you want to be a moral bastion, crack on. I don't see why you feel the need to wax lyrical about it. Case in point, would you rather the lovable rogue from the pub minds your kids, or the local priest who harps on about how "special" children are?
I don't think getting emotional about random deaths in a war is sensible. In this information age, I think hardening your heart is sensible. Watch the news, I'm sure worse things happened today. People kill kids all the time, I take solace in the fact that I know that these kids weren't killed on purpose, it was an accident. Send a Taliban fighter into a British orphanage, he will stab the kids on purpose. This incident is no Beslan that's for sure.
I really don't care. I care about people I actually know and like and no fether else. gak happens. I bet I'm less prone to depression or suicide than some pinko who gets upset everytime they pick up a paper.
Its 2011, I think being a proper bastard is the eminently sensible decision!
Well done again to the US airforce, that fact that this incident is relatively rare despite the huge amount of engagements they take part in is a testament to their dedication and professionalism.
I understand that war brought an escalation in the technology of weapons. I'm just saying that if we looked beyond what we, technologically speaking, have, then the aim is the same, so why not bring it down to its most simple and base level? I understand we cannot 'rewind' technology - why would we want to? You could perhaps argue that technology has played a role in disconnecting our humanity but that's another thing, which I personally doubt.
All I'm saying is that if we continue to use warfare/direct conflict to implement/influence our ideologies upon others then I'd rather it took place in a large open space between people who were truly willing to die and kill for their ideology/country then you wouldn't get the additional 'collateral damage' like those poor children and the roiling emotions of the soldiers who killed them or of the the parent's/cousin's/sister's/brother's/friends, the entire village and beyond...for haven't we been involved in their deaths at an emotional and intellectual level also? No matter how base/compassionate/unsympathetic or ridiculous our views? This leaves what to do when such a battle/skirmish is over, which again leads us to an absurdity. Do we count the kills on either side to determine which ideology should rule a Nation? The idea is absurd - I don't believe direct warfare will bring any positive change to a nation's ideology anymore, I think it's up to the people of a nation to realise themsleves and what they want out of living in their country - like what's happening in the Middle East/Europe right now with the protests/riots/revolutions against dictators/the banks/governments - all of which are positive. In Matrix terms, it seems people are waking up.
I recognise the idea I gave to be absurd, if not stupid and juvenile, but so is modern warfare itself, with the world more connected than ever and with the exchange of ideas, views and information drastically changing peoples mentality and altering the global human unconscience/conscience at an unprecednted rate. To me modern warfare/invasions have become an absurdity that will always inflict more damage upon the civilians of a nation for the reasons that ChrisWWII gives - I only hope he's right and that some insane ruler/movement doesn't press those buttons.
To me warfare, no matter how inhumane, cruel or barabaric, has been a necessity for our social/cultural/technological evolution as a species. Without warfare and its consequence who's to say where humanity would be right now? Not playing themed wargames, that's for sure. Now I feel this kind of warfare is only detrimental to the progress of humanity. Any change has to come from within ourselves.
I wish I didn't think/type the original post as I can see I didn't make my feelings/thought clear enough. I apologise. Basically I should have just posted the following:
Anyway I'm the kind of guy who can't stop thinking unless I'm engaged in some superfluous action, like painting small models. I'm sorry those kids died, I'm sorry that as I type there are people all over the world dying in numerous, perhaps even violent ways, whose bodies may never be discovered and for all the pain/emotional distress those people are in before death releases them - this upsets me to the point of tears whenever I think about it too long Empathy - who'd have it?
Its 2011, I think being a proper bastard is the eminently sensible decision!
Apparently a good portion of Dakka agrees with you.
I just want to point out that if/when someone on this forum states that someone has died that they know and myself or someone else says "good I hate fu*Kers like that" or laughs about it, or whatever that everyone is gonna be cool with that right? I mean If I don't know them who cares...
Its 2011, I think being a proper bastard is the eminently sensible decision!
Apparently a good portion of Dakka agrees with you.
I just want to point out that if/when someone on this forum states that someone has died that they know and myself or someone else says "good I hate fu*Kers like that" or laughs about it, or whatever that everyone is gonna be cool with that right? I mean If I don't know them who cares...
Do you give a fig about everyone in the world? If so congratulations, you've just reached the status of saint and you're a better boy than me. But unless you immediately implode in a black hole of grief at everything that happened in the world that immediate second you're lying. But when someone close or known falls people recognize and are more concerned.
Its 2011, I think being a proper bastard is the eminently sensible decision!
Apparently a good portion of Dakka agrees with you.
I just want to point out that if/when someone on this forum states that someone has died that they know and myself or someone else says "good I hate fu*Kers like that" or laughs about it, or whatever that everyone is gonna be cool with that right? I mean If I don't know them who cares...
Frazzled gets it mate. My point was that people who make a big show of how emotionally wonderful they are.. well.. Lets just say I dont believe them.
I dont think that its good if kids die, far from it. Has anyone here every said anything otherwise? I just said I dont really care if I dont know them. Its true, and anyone who says otherwise is either going to worry themselves into an early grave or is lying. People are hypocrites, and im a relatively moral bloke, Im just honest enough to tell it how it is. I wouldnt hurt a child, but I dont get upset about it if some kid I never met gets fragged, such is life.
In a nutshell, If I know a bloke who endlessly harps on and on and on about the sanctity of marriage instead of just getting on with his life, Im willing to bet hes the guy fething his best mates wife.
Oh yeah, and regards your comment, well, i wouldnt gloat over someone who did that, because thats just plain bad manners, but also.. well.. your a bit of a sad bastard if you come on dakka to tell everyone. I saw it a few months back, I just ignored the post. I thought "hmm.. bit sad, maybe he is an attention whore or something?" and ignored it. Thats what people like me do, but if you secretly desire to gloat in peoples faces about it.. well.. that says alot more about you than me. And its you that are on your pedastal saying how much of a nicer person you are than me.
Its 2011, I think being a proper bastard is the eminently sensible decision!
Apparently a good portion of Dakka agrees with you.
I just want to point out that if/when someone on this forum states that someone has died that they know and myself or someone else says "good I hate fu*Kers like that" or laughs about it, or whatever that everyone is gonna be cool with that right? I mean If I don't know them who cares...
Do you give a fig about everyone in the world? If so congratulations, you've just reached the status of saint and you're a better boy than me. But unless you immediately implode in a black hole of grief at everything that happened in the world that immediate second you're lying. But when someone close or known falls people recognize and are more concerned.
Some people see value in trying to have some basic level of restraint, respect, common sense and decency.
It has nothing to do with being a saint, just in trying to be sensible enough to not purposely present yourself as an utter tool...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
My point was that people who make a big show of how emotionally wonderful they are.. well.. Lets just say I dont believe them.
Calling somebody on a direct statement they made that kids dying is funny is "putting on a big show"?
No, it's calling an a**hole an a**hole...
We aren't talking about big philosophical stances, we are talking about specific personal actions in this thread and what people have posted (some by mods no less).
If people want to post disgusting comments like children dying is funny (and the mods ignore or even encourage/support it), then yes I will respond.
Have any of you ever felt empathy for anything other than people/animals/nature? If you have at all?
It's interesting to me that, at times I can hear a piece of music or watch a scene in a film that causes an emotional response, either through my own memories or through some instinct, I guess. Not that this happens all the time but its interesting how many people feel about works of fiction in particular. I've never understood Soap Opera's in Britain and how to a great many people the lives they watch on TV are more real or as valuable as their own, for they hold entire converstaions about them and read about them in their magazines and talk as if these people actually existed
It's not that I weep whenever I hear somebody died, far from it. If the person that died was, in my view, a complete c***, then I might feel absolutely nothing. Other times I say to myself 'no surpise' or 'typical' and carry on with my day not caring. Sometimes I just get p***ed off and imagine the total destruction of everything around me, the whole planet, everything, in numerous 'block-buster' ways. I think it's fair to say we've all done things or said things to stranger's, even friends, without regarding their humanity, especially if they show little, if any, regard for our own. If you've ever worked in retail, then you'll know
It can't be physically impossible for us to care for a set amount of people, otherwise people like Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi wouldn't have achieved what they did because they simply wouldn't have gived a f*** in the first place. Likewise Jesus would never have existed, either in body or as a metaphor/lie depending on your point of view or personal belief (I'm more of a metaphor guy). Yes we care for certain people over others, but that doesn't mean we're incapable of potentially caring for more. To say that one cannot care for humanity, in its broadest sense, because they believe in a concept like the 'Monkeysphere' (thanks to ChrisWWII for putting me onto that, although I'm sure I've come across it before) is to do their potential for humanity/evolution a discredit. To rationalise, convincing as the argument sounds, why you don't, or even should, care for over a set amount of people is like giving youself a limit on the amount of women/men you can potentially love in your lifetime
It's not about being a Saint, it's about how you view the world/universe and your connection with everything within it. Some feel more connected than others, that's all. I'm not saying I'm a better person than anyone who's posted here, again, far from it, I agree with many of the statements made, even the harsher ones.
I'm seriously regretting posting on here to begin with
No says its not and be my guest in making fun of people laughing at children dying. But don't extrapolate that that means thats the sentiment on the board. We aren't as concerned as the people starving in Botswana becuase frankly they are in Botswana and the compassion capacity for most people can't reach that high day in and day out.
Who said kids dying is funny? I have never heard anyone say such a thing. Nor anyone that thinks its an acceptable thing to say.
All I said was some have a bar higher than others. War gets upset easily, that's fine, he might be a nice guy, he might be sensitive. I don't, and I'm not. I didnt say it was good or nice or funny.
Albatross wrote:I think it's just that most people are sick to the back teeth of Afghanistan, the Afghan people and their 'plight', and that presumptuous ingrate (and tinpot dictator in the making) Hamid Karzai. But mostly I think they're sick of their countrymen being sent off to the armpit of the world with the best intentions of doing their country proud, only to have know-nothing internet snipers decrying every single mistake they make.
I'm sure no-one feels worse about this incident than the servicemen involved, so the crocodile tears for a bunch of people from the third world that you will never meet, and probably wouldn't want to sit next to on the bus, is unbecoming.
Pretty much that right there.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Oh they meant to kill them, they just didn't know they were children.
Which is the crux of the problem, why where they so bad at identifying their targets?
Stop and actually think about it for half a second and you'll know why.
1) They're in a helicopter, a moving vehicle not noted for it's whisper smooth ride. More than likely they're trying to identify these targets from more than a kilometer away and doing it while moving quickly to take up a firing position before the insurgents got away.
2) Speed, they were responding to an attack. They had to get in and hit the target as quickly as possible or the enemy would slip away.
3) Likely using thermal imaging which doesn't really do a lot for making people easy to identify individually.
4) They were pointed to that location by guys on the ground.
All that taken into account it's not hard to see how this mistake can get made. It's tragic and unfortunate but when you're fighting an enemy that has no problem fighting from within the civilian population it's actually a miracle the civvies don't get caught in the crossfire more often.
I mean feth, anyone remember when we (the US, Great Britain, and Germany) used to carpet bomb entire cities into flaming rubble and we weren't always doing it to hit a strategic target, sometimes we just did it intentionally to maximize casualties to beat the other guy into submission.
I guess my biggest question is where's the hatred of the Taliban? Ok, this attack killed these kids. I can't really even fault the one brother for deciding to grab an AK and try to go kill Americans. I don't like it but I can't really judge him. That said, if the Taliban really is responsible for far more Afghan deaths than the US then where are the legionis of Afghans lining up to enlist for a chance to go kill the Taliban?
Tyyr wrote:
I guess my biggest question is where's the hatred of the Taliban? Ok, this attack killed these kids. I can't really even fault the one brother for deciding to grab an AK and try to go kill Americans. I don't like it but I can't really judge him. That said, if the Taliban really is responsible for far more Afghan deaths than the US then where are the legions of Afghans lining up to enlist for a chance to go kill the Taliban?
I would imagine that plenty of Afghans hate/fear them, but are sort of a victim of their reality/circumstances: they may not be able to afford to leave, are afraid to be killed for objecting, afraid of discrimination/alienation by their communities, etc.
What happens when the US cuts tail (which many expect the US to do eventually) and you as an Afghan that supported the US or took up arms with them are left there with no security? What if you have a wife and children and family you are worried for as well?
People in circumstances like that might make actual choices different then those commenting from the safety of the interwebz...
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
Half the ANA are there for revenge mate, one at camp phoenix in Kabul told me his wife and kids were killed by the Taliban. Their culture is all about revenge.
That's why we are specificically trained to try to minimise civvie casualties, as I said, we don't do this gak on purpose.
If people want to post disgusting comments like children dying is funny (and the mods ignore or even encourage/support it), then yes I will respond.
This is a discussion forum right?
Some people treat it more like a trolling forum.
many do.
It is the internet after all.
Funny thing is you don't usually expect mods to actively be a part of it and/or encouraging it...
Who's encouraging it? Have I said any statements making light of it? No. So you best step back.
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
Now wait just a god damn minute here. So just because someone has the mod tag suddenly they are not allowed to have an opinion? And if they disagree with you they are suddenly "trolling?"
Frazzled wrote:I'm just not taking the wrap for not being pro-active. I mean to be properly pro-active one would have to ban bad posters...
Well, there was that one time where a certain user who shall not be named FINIALLY got themselves a ban for their stupidity. So technically you could be called pro-active.
jp400 wrote:
Now wait just a god damn minute here. So just because someone has the mod tag suddenly they are not allowed to have an opinion?
I would question the ability to fairly and objectively moderate when one is often knee-deep in the most heated and charged threads.
Most mods on most forums don't actively start, perpetuate or direct the discussion of hot-button topics.
I think it is safe to say that Frazzled has a rather opinionated stance on most hot-button issues (politics in particular) (most people do). However it makes for a rather interesting minefield when the guy who can decide what stays and what goes, what will be sanctioned and what won't be is regularly in the middle of the action as a key player.
that is a rather unusual practice in my experience, as mods usually try to detach themselves so they can act as impartially as possible.
It also seems to be the norm here and i don't expect it to change, but it is worth noting.
jp400 wrote:
Now wait just a god damn minute here. So just because someone has the mod tag suddenly they are not allowed to have an opinion?
I would question the ability to fairly and objectively moderate when one is often knee-deep in the most heated and charged threads.
Most mods on most forums don't actively start, perpetuate or direct the discussion of hot-button topics.
I think it is safe to say that Frazzled has a rather opinionated stance on most hot-button issues (politics in particular) (most people do). However it makes for a rather interesting minefield when the guy who can decide what stays and what goes, what will be sanctioned and what won't be is regularly in the middle of the action as a key player.
that is a rather unusual practice in my experience, as mods usually try to detach themselves so they can act as impartially as possible.
It also seems to be the norm here and i don't expect it to change, but it is worth noting.
I could debate you why you are wrong, and post several links to threads proving my case in point... but I just don't have the time or the energy today. (Plus I seriously doubt any of it will stick)
So I will just boil it down to this: You are more then welcome to PM Yakface if you think someone is in abuse of their mod powers. Bitching about it publicly won't get you anywhere, espically if you have taken NO steps to try to resolve said "problem".
jp400 wrote:
Now wait just a god damn minute here. So just because someone has the mod tag suddenly they are not allowed to have an opinion?
I would question the ability to fairly and objectively moderate when one is often knee-deep in the most heated and charged threads.
Most mods on most forums don't actively start, perpetuate or direct the discussion of hot-button topics.
I think it is safe to say that Frazzled has a rather opinionated stance on most hot-button issues (politics in particular) (most people do). However it makes for a rather interesting minefield when the guy who can decide what stays and what goes, what will be sanctioned and what won't be is regularly in the middle of the action as a key player.
that is a rather unusual practice in my experience, as mods usually try to detach themselves so they can act as impartially as possible.
It also seems to be the norm here and i don't expect it to change, but it is worth noting.
I could debate you why you are wrong, and post several links to threads proving my case in point... but I just don't have the time or the energy today. (Plus I seriously doubt any of it will stick)
So I will just boil it down to this: You are more then welcome to PM Yakface if you think someone is in abuse of their mod powers. Bitching about it publicly won't get you anywhere, espically if you have taken NO steps to try to resolve said "problem".
I wasn't trying to "get anywhere" nor bitching unsolicited. You quoted me and posted something addressing me and I responded.
See how that works (I doubt it will stick, but whatever)?
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
Oddly enough, very few threads on the BoLS are actually closed or deleted last I checked. Mind you, I ignore the lbog, so maybe yo'ure referring to that? All blog comments are trainwrecks, it doesn't matter where said conversations are. Blogs are anti-community forming.
I would question the ability to fairly and objectively moderate when one is often knee-deep in the most heated and charged threads.
***And do you see me modding on this? No, just you screaming I should be. Pick a position already, the hypocrasy is making everything all blurry like.
Most mods on most forums don't actively start, perpetuate or direct the discussion of hot-button topics.
***Most forums don't permit the OT board either, a concept I'll admit about half the mods would like to press to this board.
I think it is safe to say that Frazzled has a rather opinionated stance on most hot-button issues (politics in particular) (most people do). However it makes for a rather interesting minefield when the guy who can decide what stays and what goes, what will be sanctioned and what won't be is regularly in the middle of the action as a key player.
***You're inferring I've attacked others fr their positions against me, yet my most vocal opponents are still on the board, including you.
that is a rather unusual practice in my experience, as mods usually try to detach themselves so they can act as impartially as possible.
***Again, you're arguing for a generally higher standard of mod control than we have here. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
It also seems to be the norm here and i don't expect it to change, but it is worth noting.
****Its also wortht noting, is no one is forcing you to post here.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
Frazzled wrote:I'm just not taking the wrap for not being pro-active. I mean to be properly pro-active one would have to ban bad posters...
Well, there was that one time where a certain user who shall not be named FINIALLY got themselves a ban for their stupidity. So technically you could be called pro-active.
Well thats because their monthly donation to the Frazzled's weiner dog chocolate and dog bone fund didn't come through, so it was instant SHUTUPYOU! time.
jp400 wrote:
Now wait just a god damn minute here. So just because someone has the mod tag suddenly they are not allowed to have an opinion?
I would question the ability to fairly and objectively moderate when one is often knee-deep in the most heated and charged threads.
Most mods on most forums don't actively start, perpetuate or direct the discussion of hot-button topics.
I think it is safe to say that Frazzled has a rather opinionated stance on most hot-button issues (politics in particular) (most people do). However it makes for a rather interesting minefield when the guy who can decide what stays and what goes, what will be sanctioned and what won't be is regularly in the middle of the action as a key player.
that is a rather unusual practice in my experience, as mods usually try to detach themselves so they can act as impartially as possible.
It also seems to be the norm here and i don't expect it to change, but it is worth noting.
I could debate you why you are wrong, and post several links to threads proving my case in point... but I just don't have the time or the energy today. (Plus I seriously doubt any of it will stick)
So I will just boil it down to this: You are more then welcome to PM Yakface if you think someone is in abuse of their mod powers. Bitching about it publicly won't get you anywhere, espically if you have taken NO steps to try to resolve said "problem".
A debate with factual information and links coming from you would be something never before seen on this forum.
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
Oddly enough, very few threads on the BoLS are actually closed or deleted last I checked. Mind you, I ignore the lbog, so maybe yo'ure referring to that? All blog comments are trainwrecks, it doesn't matter where said conversations are. Blogs are anti-community forming.
Sorry, I am sure you're right. I just remember getting on BOLS and almost getting instantly warned, which is when I quit posting. I think that all occurred in the space of an hour...
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
Frazzled wrote:Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
Oddly enough, very few threads on the BoLS are actually closed or deleted last I checked. Mind you, I ignore the lbog, so maybe yo'ure referring to that? All blog comments are trainwrecks, it doesn't matter where said conversations are. Blogs are anti-community forming.
Sorry, I am sure you're right. I just remember getting on BOLS and almost getting instantly warned, which is when I quit posting. I think that all occurred in the space of an hour...
Dunno, I haven't ever been banned from the BoLS, their enforcement is a bit lighter than here. What exactly did you do?
As a side note, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Every forum has a different feel to it, and what works in one wouldn't work in another.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
@Nobody Imparticular: The 'ignore' function exists for a reason, as does the freedom to simply not read whatever it is.
Just because it's the internet doesn't mean that you have to reply to every single thing and then moan when the replies you get aren't in keeping with your own morals or opinions.
I'd like to take credit for derailing the thread from the get-go. I'd also like to thank my adoring fan base (MagickalMemories, MeanGreenStompa, CT Gamer and most likely Manchu amongst other ) for making this all possible. Perhaps greater than all else:
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
I was suspended for trolling about a month ago when I wasn't trolling. That was in the videogame section though.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
Blow me troll.
OK lets keep it polite JP. I'm not modding but other mods may come on board later and neither you or Shuma should get zapped.
Yeah I agree with fraz most the time, but I think its obvious to everyone he is terribly bias and not very professional with regards to his modding, but he's funny with it at the same time, its part if his crack! This ain't a democracy, what's the point in moaning about it? Delete your account if your not happy with it.
Back on topic, I don't care when Afghan kids get fragged by mistake as long as our air support keeps coming, those A-10s are the reason Matty is still breathing!
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
I was suspended for trolling about a month ago when I wasn't trolling. That was in the videogame section though.
Oh wow, there's a videogame section? Cool! I'm off to talk about Pong!
Frazzled wrote: Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them. ***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse? ***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck? ***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
I was suspended for trolling about a month ago when I wasn't trolling. That was in the videogame section though.
Oh wow, there's a videogame section? Cool! I'm off to talk about Pong!
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
I was suspended for trolling about a month ago when I wasn't trolling. That was in the videogame section though.
Oh wow, there's a videogame section? Cool! I'm off to talk about Pong!
Pong sucks. Only losers like Pong. You probably suck at Pong and don't even like it that much and just lie about it on the internet.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
Blow me troll.
OK lets keep it polite JP. I'm not modding but other mods may come on board later and neither you or Shuma should get zapped.
With all due respect.. he had it coming and is damn lucky I didn't go further with it.
At any rate, he is now on my ignore list. Lets see if that solves anything.
Frazzled wrote:
Silence IS encouragement, especially when you wear a MOD tag and the offenders see you arguing against those objecting to them.
***bs. It doesn't work in law and it doesn't work here.
Isn't your role as a MOD to "step in" and address such behavior and statements and to enforce some level of appropriate discourse?
***No. Moderators enforce a very limited standard of conduct. If you desire more, perhaps to the level of the remainder of the board, most posts in the OT would not exist, including most of both yours and mine.
Why wait until a thread is a trainwreck?
***Its not my job. If you want that go to BOLS, but don't discuss OT.
It does work here Fraz, you're always silent when you like a thread thats full of trolling because it strikes your political fancy. You're also incredibly quick to censure or ban in threads that you dislike for the same reason. What is and isn't your job has rarely been what guided how you did it, a thread chock full of jokes about dying children is a damn good time for you to do your job.
You're just annoyed because you haven't been suspended for trolling recently. In the words fo the immortal bard: sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me?
I was suspended for trolling about a month ago when I wasn't trolling. That was in the videogame section though.
Oh wow, there's a videogame section? Cool! I'm off to talk about Pong!
Pong sucks. Only losers like Pong. You probably suck at Pong and don't even like it that much and just lie about it on the internet.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
Blow me troll.
OK lets keep it polite JP. I'm not modding but other mods may come on board later and neither you or Shuma should get zapped.
With all due respect.. he had it coming and is damn lucky I didn't go further with it.
At any rate, he is now on my ignore list. Lets see if that solves anything.
I just wanted to express how I laughed a lot at this post. A lot. Not trying to insult you or anything, JP, just have to break this down.
With all due respect.. he had it coming and is damn lucky I didn't go further with it.
How will anyone ever live with themselves if they were broken down with lots of swear words and false assumptions of their personal life? Quite lucky he didn't have to read more scary words.
At any rate, he is now on my ignore list. Lets see if that solves anything.
Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, told the Journal he didn't care about Petraeus' apology. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight," he said.
Man, I think this is the saddest part of the article. A young man with no future and a heart full of hate. I don't know what can be done for someone like that.
That describes JP400 and half this thread too. It's quite the conundrum.
Blow me troll.
OK lets keep it polite JP. I'm not modding but other mods may come on board later and neither you or Shuma should get zapped.
With all due respect.. he had it coming and is damn lucky I didn't go further with it.
At any rate, he is now on my ignore list. Lets see if that solves anything.
I just wanted to express how I laughed a lot at this post. A lot. Not trying to insult you or anything, JP, just have to break this down.
With all due respect.. he had it coming and is damn lucky I didn't go further with it.
How will anyone ever live with themselves if they were broken down with lots of swear words and false assumptions of their personal life? Quite lucky he didn't have to read more scary words.
At any rate, he is now on my ignore list. Lets see if that solves anything.
This should solve the problem, indeed.
----------------------
For the record, I love you Shuma.
What has been most amusing is that despite the obvious: Frazzled being a grizzled veteran who can spar with the best of them and fight his own battles, that JP felt this burning desire to come riding in like a white Knight all hot and bothered to put us bad people in our place in defense of someone who didn't ask to be defended.
Good thing he "didn't go further with it" (whatever that means), it sounds scary.
If i didn't know any better I'd think he has a crush on Frazzled...
I dunno, man. The whole 'I'm so tough, I give my nightmares nightmares. I must get on the internet and tell wooooorld!' thing is turbo-lame, as far as I'm concerned.
Monster Rain wrote:JP400 has won this thread in his own mind at least twice.
Fixed that for you.
Nope, he told some people exactly what they required telling. The only thing missing, and I apologize for not supplying it, was a heartfelt "oh snap!"
Personally I believe the comment Shuma directed at JP was completely deserving of Jps reply...
However...I don't see what any of this has to do with the Topic at hand.
I'm not joking around or trying to be clever. I'm stating facts from someone who read this travesty of a thread from beginning to end.
Thank god you stepped in to clarify and sum it all up for us...
Edit: What should we discuss? An awful mistake happened. Some people found it funny and/or expressed their indifference. Some people objected to the callousness. Then it turned into a popularity contest.
What else is there to discuss about the original topic? Feel free to offer something to bring us back on topic...
It's always a shame when civilians end up as casualties...however it's an unfortunate reality of any military conflict.
Sadly that's true.
I suppose the most logical answer would be to stop fighting in these places to stop this sort of thing from happening, but then the Taliban is going to take back over and we are right back where we started.
)
as I can see I didn't make my feelings/thought clear enough. I apologise. Basically I should have just posted the following:
Empathy - who'd have it?
