Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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.

jp400 wrote:

Stole!

Fafnir wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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+.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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.

The groups in question are willing to be patient? Are we talking about the middle eaast still?

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...

Frazzled wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Stole!

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.

CT GAMER wrote:

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.

Agreed.

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.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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...

Cheers lads! Have one on me!

I wonder if there is gun cam footage on youtube yet.

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

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...

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.

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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

DickBandit wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

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.

Horrible thing to happen.

But I guarantee it won't be the last time.

DickBandit wrote:
Nah, I just don't care about people in general. I

Given the above quote and the previous one in which you stated you find children dying to be funy I'm gonna assume one of two things:

1. You are twelve (physically or mentally) and think the internet roxxors!!

2. We will be seeing you on the news someday as the police escort you out of an apartment full of body parts

Congrats either way.

Ulver wrote:

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.

CT GAMER wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
Nah, I just don't care about people in general. I

Given the above quote and the previous one in which you stated you find children dying to be funy I'm gonna assume one of two things:

1. You are twelve (physically or mentally) and think the internet roxxors!!

2. We will be seeing you on the news someday as the police escort you out of an apartment full of body parts

Congrats either way.

Given the above quote and the previous one in which you stated you did not find children dying to be funny, I'm gonna assume one of two things:

1. You are 50 (physically or mentally) and think the kids need to turn their music down!!

2. We will not be seeing you on the news someday as nothing interesting will ever happen.

Congrats either way.



(Disclaimer: just joshing )

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...

warspawned wrote:No Cavalry....

Stopped reading right about here.

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.