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.
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
I read this thread.
This is a good post.
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...
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/04 09:01:13
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
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?
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.
I agree. This is surely a sign the rest of the day is going to be interesting indeed.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/04 13:30:40
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
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.
This is a discussion forum right?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/03/04 13:41:52
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
It isn't. It just doesn't bother me very much.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
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?
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
All my point is, is that most people are saying "I don't care very much"
That's a lot different to "this is funny" because it really isn't.
Third rock from the sun IS funny however.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
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...
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
)
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?
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
