So South Kora Goes To The Dogs...?
News1 min ago
Women & Child killers
94 Answers
http://www.independen...kandahar-1921248.html
I wonder how many on here will join me in condemning these "women and child killers" this time?
In the past there have been many criticising the NATO troops if they accidentally kill a few civilians in the war zone.
But how many of these are now prepared to stand up and be counted, into condemning these murderous Taliban, those who have more innocent blood on their hands than anybody?
I wonder how many on here will join me in condemning these "women and child killers" this time?
In the past there have been many criticising the NATO troops if they accidentally kill a few civilians in the war zone.
But how many of these are now prepared to stand up and be counted, into condemning these murderous Taliban, those who have more innocent blood on their hands than anybody?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
///Well it does not surprise me that once again most if not all who have posted have come up trumps and posted just the way I expected them to.
Although tongue in the cheek you almost go some way to criticise the Taliban, you are still not prepared to go the whole hog in your continuing quest at your digs at the West///
Are you reading the same thing that I am?
Who hasn't condemned the Taliban?
Why aren't we allowed to question the West's tactics? You seem to all the time.
Are you a patriot when you seem to disagree with a lot of the human rights laws and you also seem to disagree with a lot of policies by our democratically elected government.
Are you a patriot when you call for ministers to be jailed and not receive parliamentary privileged?
How dare you call people who question the government's / armed forces decisions unpatriotic.
Ironically enough, if you didn't question these decisions, you would be living in a 1984 scenario that you seem to dread happening.
Although tongue in the cheek you almost go some way to criticise the Taliban, you are still not prepared to go the whole hog in your continuing quest at your digs at the West///
Are you reading the same thing that I am?
Who hasn't condemned the Taliban?
Why aren't we allowed to question the West's tactics? You seem to all the time.
Are you a patriot when you seem to disagree with a lot of the human rights laws and you also seem to disagree with a lot of policies by our democratically elected government.
Are you a patriot when you call for ministers to be jailed and not receive parliamentary privileged?
How dare you call people who question the government's / armed forces decisions unpatriotic.
Ironically enough, if you didn't question these decisions, you would be living in a 1984 scenario that you seem to dread happening.
I cannot understand your analogies.
They maybe child molesters, benefit fraudsters, or liars but that doesn't automatically stop them from being patriots (although one would have to try and believe the later)
/// Johnson felt that patriotism was a valuable feeling, one which shouldn't be taken lightly. All scoundrels may resort to patriotism, but this doesn't mean that everyone who expresses patriotic sympathies are automatically scoundrels.///
They maybe child molesters, benefit fraudsters, or liars but that doesn't automatically stop them from being patriots (although one would have to try and believe the later)
/// Johnson felt that patriotism was a valuable feeling, one which shouldn't be taken lightly. All scoundrels may resort to patriotism, but this doesn't mean that everyone who expresses patriotic sympathies are automatically scoundrels.///
-- answer removed --
Oneeyedvic
One can still criticise one's Government and still be a patriot.
/// “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” ///
Mark Twain
/// Who hasn't condemned the Taliban? ///
Did I say no one has? Please read my post,
/// Although tongue in the cheek you almost go some way to criticise the Taliban, ///
One can still criticise one's Government and still be a patriot.
/// “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” ///
Mark Twain
/// Who hasn't condemned the Taliban? ///
Did I say no one has? Please read my post,
/// Although tongue in the cheek you almost go some way to criticise the Taliban, ///
Sherminator,
First of all in any conflict there is no such thing as a fair fight. You bring overwhelming firepower to bear on a target to end the firefight as quick as possible. All fair fights result in is lots of deaths on both sides.
I do enjoy reading the views of those who haven't a real idea about the situatoin and base their comments on what their section of society tells them. Try making your own minds up. This isn't just aimed at the left-wing types, but any group who follows a trend because thats what they see others doing.
With regards to civilian deaths in theatre, when we mistakenly target a civilian building, or a strike results in civpop casualties it is reported and comments made. I could, with 30secs of searching, find references to the fuel tanker hit by an airstrike, or any of the others that happen. That's because they are still, thankfully, rare. Even with the tons of ordinance dropped civpop deaths are still investigated and individuals brought to rights.
On the other hand, how many times do you here the media comment upon IED or minestrikes against civilian populations? Only when the death toll exceeds a certain point, there is something different about the attack, or the attack is carried out by ISAF do the media feel the need to report on it. Other than that if 2 people die in a marketplace bombing, or a tractor is destroyed by a Taliban IED it is unreported. Mainly because they are so common it's not newsworthy.
The figures that have been quoted are spurious at best. The idea of being able to differentiate between enemy of combatents and civilians is incredibly difficult, and the figures are based upon estimates from agencies. Which means they are subject to whatever bias is held by that agency. If you have a pro-peace, anti-military organisation then they are going to exagerate the estimates against NATO.
First of all in any conflict there is no such thing as a fair fight. You bring overwhelming firepower to bear on a target to end the firefight as quick as possible. All fair fights result in is lots of deaths on both sides.
I do enjoy reading the views of those who haven't a real idea about the situatoin and base their comments on what their section of society tells them. Try making your own minds up. This isn't just aimed at the left-wing types, but any group who follows a trend because thats what they see others doing.
With regards to civilian deaths in theatre, when we mistakenly target a civilian building, or a strike results in civpop casualties it is reported and comments made. I could, with 30secs of searching, find references to the fuel tanker hit by an airstrike, or any of the others that happen. That's because they are still, thankfully, rare. Even with the tons of ordinance dropped civpop deaths are still investigated and individuals brought to rights.
On the other hand, how many times do you here the media comment upon IED or minestrikes against civilian populations? Only when the death toll exceeds a certain point, there is something different about the attack, or the attack is carried out by ISAF do the media feel the need to report on it. Other than that if 2 people die in a marketplace bombing, or a tractor is destroyed by a Taliban IED it is unreported. Mainly because they are so common it's not newsworthy.
The figures that have been quoted are spurious at best. The idea of being able to differentiate between enemy of combatents and civilians is incredibly difficult, and the figures are based upon estimates from agencies. Which means they are subject to whatever bias is held by that agency. If you have a pro-peace, anti-military organisation then they are going to exagerate the estimates against NATO.
-- answer removed --
'First of all in any conflict there is no such thing as a fair fight. You bring overwhelming firepower to bear on a target to end the firefight as quick as possible. All fair fights result in is lots of deaths on both sides.'
Firstly when did I say it was a fair fight? please READ my post before responding.
My point is what was stated we clearly have every technologival advantage going when compared to our enemy so I just find it amusing when poeple say we are under equipped.
So what else have I intimated that was taken from 'other parts of society' (and as less than 1% of society have first hand expericence of the situation I think you 'll find most people get their views on the situation from 'other parts of society')
maybe you could quote something I or someone else has said before shouting your gob off at people?
Firstly when did I say it was a fair fight? please READ my post before responding.
My point is what was stated we clearly have every technologival advantage going when compared to our enemy so I just find it amusing when poeple say we are under equipped.
So what else have I intimated that was taken from 'other parts of society' (and as less than 1% of society have first hand expericence of the situation I think you 'll find most people get their views on the situation from 'other parts of society')
maybe you could quote something I or someone else has said before shouting your gob off at people?
-- answer removed --
bobjugs: ///On the other hand, how many times do you here the media comment upon IED or minestrikes against civilian populations? Only when the death toll exceeds a certain point, there is something different about the attack, or the attack is carried out by ISAF do the media feel the need to report on it. Other than that if 2 people die in a marketplace bombing, or a tractor is destroyed by a Taliban IED it is unreported. Mainly because they are so common it's not newsworthy.
The figures that have been quoted are spurious at best. The idea of being able to differentiate between enemy of combatents and civilians is incredibly difficult, and the figures are based upon estimates from agencies. Which means they are subject to whatever bias is held by that agency. If you have a pro-peace, anti-military organisation then they are going to exagerate the estimates against NATO. ///
So we can't believe any statistics or figures, but luckily, YOU know best and will tell us the truth. Well, thank Heaven for that.
I think that you will find a lot of people on here will actually look for their news from a variety of news sources - not just relying on one.
The figures that have been quoted are spurious at best. The idea of being able to differentiate between enemy of combatents and civilians is incredibly difficult, and the figures are based upon estimates from agencies. Which means they are subject to whatever bias is held by that agency. If you have a pro-peace, anti-military organisation then they are going to exagerate the estimates against NATO. ///
So we can't believe any statistics or figures, but luckily, YOU know best and will tell us the truth. Well, thank Heaven for that.
I think that you will find a lot of people on here will actually look for their news from a variety of news sources - not just relying on one.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.