Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

reply to post by Sinnthia

So we agree that the US is not exactly the biggest, baddest, toughest, smartest gang trolling the streets?

I think the US is playing it exactly as planned..
Despite our brave soldiers dying for what they think is a worthy cause there are many corporations and private citizens getting richer by the day...
There's also the free flow of oil and drugs...

What I do notice is the many complaints about the "cowardly" enemy that hides amongst the innocent citizens..
That begs the question, why are the citizens allowing them to hide amongst them?
Is it that they agree with these fighters and wish the US would leave.?

So if the US is ONLY there to help the people but the people are siding more and more with the "so called" enemy, then who is trully the enemy of the Afghani people.???

reply to post by backinblack


Why do the enemy live among the civilians Afghanistan?

First of, many of them ain't terrorists in the sense we think or imagine them to be. They are terrorists in our point of view, because our propaganda. We are being told what they are. And many people dont think beyond that, especially not common soldiers. They have orders to fallow.

Many of the fighters are Afghans citizens who travel between Villages. And do propaganda for their view on our objectives. They want to build and keep a resistance against our objectives. That is terrorism in our point of view. But is it really terrorism? In a sense it is because their cause is not our cause.

Remember we are not just fighting these people we are also forcing our rules and regulations on them as we go along. Many of the citizens cant fight back even if they wanted to. We have taken their guns away. Those are some of our main objectives "remember". Keep that in mind when you ask your self: Why they dont resist. They can't resist.

If they resist or show disrespect for their cause by being informant for our cause. They will be killed for treason. We call that terrorism. But is it terrorism? No you would face strict charges to if you changes sides and fought for their cause.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by backinblack

 

Why do the enemy live among the civilians Afghanistan?

First of, many of them ain't terrorists in the sense we think or imagine them to be. They are terrorists in our point of view, because our propaganda. We are being told what they are. And many people dont think beyond that, especially not common soldiers. They have orders to fallow.

Many of the fighters are Afghans citizens who travel between Villages. And do propaganda for their view on our objectives. They want to build and keep a resistance against our objectives. That is terrorism in our point of view. But is it really terrorism? In a sense it is because their cause is not our cause.

Remember we are not just fighting these people we are also forcing our rules and regulations on them as we go along. Many of the citizens cant fight back even if they wanted to. We have taken their guns away. Those are some of our main objectives "remember". Keep that in mind when you ask your self: Why they dont resist. They can't resist.

If they resist or show disrespect for their cause by being informant for our cause. They will be killed for treason. We call that terrorism. But is it terrorism? No you would face strict charges to if you changes sides and fought for their cause.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Mate you are preaching to the choir.
The problem is like you say, we are fighting for "our" cause when we are supposed to be fighting for "their" cause..
And we all know the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Originally posted by backinblack
And we all know the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Taliban Kills 14 Children

reply to post by SLAYER69


True. But was it intentional to kill the 14 kids?

When we kill 50 to a 100 civilians with our operations, do we call that intentional as well. Or a unfortunate mistake?

reply to post by SLAYER69

Two years ago a Predator fired a missile into a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing at least 30 civilians, including children.

We could exchange news reports and see who runs out first if you wish.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Two years ago a Predator fired a missile into a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing at least 30 civilians, including children.

We could exchange news reports and see who runs out first if you wish.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

True. But was it intentional to kill the 14 kids?

When we kill 50 to a 100 civilians with our operations, do we call that intentional as well. Or a unfortunate mistake?

Ahh so you are justifying their killing now eh? Because that wasn't the intended target.

Oh brother that's rich.

So a drone kills some innocents as well and that's not justifiable.

You two are pathetic

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by backinblack
And we all know the old saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Taliban Kills 14 Children

I took that video frame by frame..A little odd how it cuts...

reply to post by SLAYER69

Ahh so you are justifying their killing now eh? Because that wasn't the intended target.

Oh brother that's rich.

So a drone kills some innocents as well and that's not justifiable.

You two are pathetic

Pathetic is a little extreme Slayer..
I'd say shooting unarmed men from a chopper is pathetic..
Do I need to show that vid.??

BTW, your vid looks fake

reply to post by SLAYER69


Wat is pathetic is that we view their mistakes a s intentional. And our own as civilians being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or that we justify civilian casualties on a high value target.

reply to post by SLAYER69

So a drone kills some innocents as well and that's not justifiable.

What's REALLY pathetic is your laugh after talking about killing 30 innocents at a wedding including women and children..

BTW, I made no excuses for the Taliban kills..

DO NOT group me with another posters comments..!!!

reply to post by backinblack


Well the explosives are mounted on the Jeep. So this killing is intentional. The kids where at the wrong place at the wrong time. The target was the people at the check point not the kids.

reply to post by SLAYER69


your sick for posting that , just to prove your point you would post somthing like this ? that is the first video where i have seen a streaming security cam ,, like that .. it almost look like who ever was recording knew it was going to happen , let me be sick like you ... i think it was a set up for propaganda .. wait let me post a smile too





i see you like to go above and beyond the call of duty eh slayer ?

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by backinblack

 

Well the explosives are mounted on the Jeep. So this killing is intentional. The kids where at the wrong place at the wrong time. The target was the people at the check point not the kids.

The film looks odd at the end..The frame of the explosion looks....off....

BTW, when the US kills civilians it's collateral damage.
When the Taliban does, it's deliberate..

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Focus should have been on Afghanistan, specifically al Qaida and their Taliban protectors, and the areas they controlled. Most folks don't realize there was already a war going on there, and the Taliban only claimed to be the government. In reality they controlled no more than 60 % of the country.

So to clarify, war should have been declared on Afghanistan?

No, war was already being waged on "Afghanistan" by Afghans. The Taliban were foreign usurpers (from Pakistani madrasas with the support of Pakistani ISI) who claimed to be the Afghan government. Afghans in general REALLY don't like foreigners who come in to take over (part of our problem there is that view being fostered) and that was the cause of the Northern Alliance (Afghans) being at odds with, and at war with, the Taliban (usurpers). When we went in, using just SF personnel and CIA operators, combined with US air support, there was a trail of Taliban and AQ bodies all along the way to Kabul who had money stuffed into their mouths. That's an Afghan custom to show contempt for foreigners fighting there. The message is "they got their pay - a bullet and a buck". Anyhow, when the Taliban was routed from Kabul, I think it was something like 10 days into the war, and we did it with something less than 300 US personnel on the ground - the NA did most of the heavy lifting, backed by US "advisors" who did most of the coordination, and US air support. That's as it should be - Afghans liberating their OWN country from the Taliban. The problem was that then the conventional generals got to feeling all left out, and started massing US conventional troops in the country. That sent the wrong signal, but the generals didn't give a tinkers damn about that - they just wanted to sideline the unconventional forces and grab their own "glory". That rubbed the Afghan noses in the dirt, which was another boneheaded move.

I give this background so that you'll hopefully understand when I say that we should NOT have declared war on Afghanistan which is what we effectively did, but that we should have declared war on the TALIBAN instead.

To be honest, and this is just me, I don't much care about WMDs. I think anyne who wants one should have one of their own. Use is a different matter. I think those who toss them outside their own borders as a first strike should be immediately erased.

But as appreciated as your honest and personal opinion on that matter is, it does not matter. Unless you can go back in time and get Powell and Rumsfeld to present your argument on tv for months and months, what matters is what happened and what has been said in order to justify.

I just can't stress enough that i don't think we should have invaded Iraq at ALL at that point, WMD accusations or no. I screamed at the TV (and wrote letters and such that were roundly ignored I suppose) then, and I think the same thing now. I couldn't justify it then, and I can't now, and won't even try. As you say, though, what's done is done, and we have to deal with what we have.

I have less than NO respect for Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld, and damn little for Cheney, because of the things that occurred over that time period. They are what finally prompted me to abandon a Republican Party that had obviously abandoned ME for some time prior.

We are. it's a tough fight though. Thy just won't stand still where we can see them and fight. When they aren't terrorizing or indoctrination the local civilians, they're hiding amongst them. To be very honest, though, as I've said in other threads there is a much better way to prosecute this war. Massed troops is so 20th century, and doesn't work well at all against small dispersed units of insurgents - what they've taken to calling what we used to call "guerrillas". They will NEVER win against guerrillas like that. Conventional Generals are a strange bunch. Unconventional warfare finds them a day late and a dollar short, and still they forge onward like bulls in a china shop, floundering around because they don't know any other way. All they know is that they want their share of the "glory" (as if there's any such thing to be found in a war) and they only know one way to pursue it.

The WRONG way.

None of that explains invading Iraq. Please, remember. I am on the outside watching our elected officials make their case and then go to action. When I ask why we do not just go after our attackers, saying we are goes a long way to ignore that the invasion of Iraq was seen as good by the people because our leaders told us they had something to do with 9/11.

I can't explain or condone the invasion of Iraq. However, the initial discussion was about going after "the bad guys", not "our attackers". They aren't necessarily the same. There are lots of bad guys around who weren't on a plane on 9/11, and a lot of THOSE found their way into Iraq after the invasion. The sectarian violence in Iraq was exacerbated by foreigners pouring in, just as foreigners mucked up the works in Afghanistan.

What I was discussing there is my opinion of how to deal with what IS, since I can't do anything about what WAS.

I don't recall 9/11 factoring into the Iraq invasion in anything more than a peripheral, coat-tail sort of way. As I recall, the issue with Iraq was WMDs and UN inspections, not AQ - although there was a small AQ contingent up in the Zagros mountains who were trying to negotiate with Saddam, who, as I recall, told them to go to hell, he had enough problems already.

As distasteful as many of "BackinBlack's" posts are, he's right about one thing - the only way they'll get it done is to send in unconventional hunter-killer teams, small units to fix and fry the enemy, and use somewhat larger reaction forces and air power when those enemies are fixed. All the while, the conventional forces are best served sealing the borders to let the unconventional forces do their job without fresh interference filtering in from the outside.

I am curious why you two are not running things then?

Because they don't have enough money to pay us to take over the headaches they've created. Well, that and the fact that if the conventional generals are jealous of the SF officers, they sure as hell won't let any unconventional outsiders in!

No disrespect but internet opinion are just that, even mine. Maybe he is right about that, maybe not. Either way I am discussing what is happening and what has been put forth by the people in charge with regard. Internet strategists are great and all but do little to address anything I have found myself concerned with in this topic.

I can't answer for the people in charge. Haven't they mucked up enough already? All I can do is answer for myself, and give my own opinion of how it "ought" to be done. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that they'll be listening to ME! I don't disagree with the basic premise that "the bad guys" need to be dealt with, I just disagree with the way it's being done (or NOT done, in most cases), and quite likely WHO the bad guys are. On that last point, who the bad guys are, I'm probably in disagreement with all sides, the "people in charge" AND those who rail against them most loudly.

I've often asked myself the same thing, going all the way back to the late 90's. Most African troops are a joke, with the exception of the South Africans and the old Rhodesian RLI before Mugabe took over and wrecked the country. A boy scout troop with pocket knives ought to be able to take over the whole damned continent between South Africa and the Sahara.

You see where that leads though, right? Either we invade places to save the people or we do not. Otherwise there is obviously at least one more reason why we pick which people we worry about and which ones we do not. So now that we can toss the "for the good of those people" argument out the window, you see where my questions come in?

In the case of Afghanistan, elements there declared war on US - AQ and the Taliban (via their support of AQ). In Africa, the Janjaweed have not, and are tearing up their own little patch of hell. It makes sense to me to go after the sworn enemy first, so you don't have to watch your back for them when you decide to save the rest of the world. I'm being facetious - there is no way we can save the whole world. Choices have to be made concerning which people we worry about, because resources and manpower are limited. When those sorts of choices have to be made, it's not primarily for the good of "those people", it's primarily for the good of OUR people, and the good "those" people accrue is value-added.

I'd still like to take a long weekend and erase the Janjaweed, though. They're very offensive to my delicate sensibilities. There are literally dozens of other places deserving of attention, though, and there is no way we can cover them all.

Of course, they probably wouldn't have to put up with the ridiculous RoE that we had to abide by in Somalia, and which have plagued the military stemming from those same conventional generals I mentioned above, who think they can fight a "gentleman's war" because they have numbers.

Seems to me you are missing a rather viable option.

I'm not above asking folks to point out thing I've missed, and for advice. So what am I missing?

I'm all for sending a Ranger company against the Janjaweed. I'll take point, so that they can drop me first - if they can. I've no respect at all for grown men who make war on women and kids, and don't fear 'em in the least. They've shown their colors.

It is going to be a long long day cleaning up that list don't you think? Meanwhile children and women are raped here at home.

Like I said above, you can't save the whole world. You have to be selective with that list to get the most bang for the buck. As far as the victims here go, I thought we were discussing the war on terror over there. What's needful here is another thread, but I'm not opposed to jumping into that thread, too. I have unpopular opinions on nearly everything.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I set foreign policy for them. Until they get serious about fighting these wars as if they really meant to win, and let the rest of the world sit around and wring their hands over it, we will have just what we have.

So I should not be able to address anyone that not only willingly, but eagerly volunteers to help them uphold that crappy foreign policy? In my book that makes one no less than an accessory with prior knowledge.

No, you should be able to address anyone you like. I'm not any happier than you with that policy, but probably for different reasons, with a different rationale.

The main problem, as I see it, is trying to fight an unconventional war conventionally. It's not in the identification of the enemy, it's in the employment of the troops, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the generals and the politicians, who give every outward appearance of being completely inept. They're fighting guerrillas as if they were fighting a nation, and that will NEVER work. An unfortunate side effect of that is the misapprehension by the rest of the world, including a lot of those at home, that it IS a war against a nation, when it's not.

So we agree that the US is not exactly the biggest, baddest, toughest, smartest gang trolling the streets?

I don't know about that. They're pretty big, bad, and tough, but I think they are being misused or misemployed by an inept leadership. What I'm saying there is that we could get the job done, and get it done handily, if that leadership had the 'nads to do it, and less pride.

Enough less pride to let the professionals handle it, and quit worrying about their own ribbons and shiny badges.

reply to post by backinblack


I never justified to any of the killings either. The Afghans view our killings as intentional. We view their killings of civilians as intentional. That is what i wanted to point out. And Slayer is a good example of just that.

reply to post by nenothtu

I can't explain or condone the invasion of Iraq. However, the initial discussion was about going after "the bad guys", not "our attackers". They aren't necessarily the same. There are lots of bad guys around who weren't on a plane on 9/11, and a lot of THOSE found their way into Iraq after the invasion. The sectarian violence in Iraq was exacerbated by foreigners pouring in, just as foreigners mucked up the works in Afghanistan.

What I was discussing there is my opinion of how to deal with what IS, since I can't do anything about what WAS.

I don't recall 9/11 factoring into the Iraq invasion in anything more than a peripheral, coat-tail sort of way. As I recall, the issue with Iraq was WMDs and UN inspections, not AQ - although there was a small AQ contingent up in the Zagros mountains who were trying to negotiate with Saddam, who, as I recall, told them to go to hell, he had enough problems already.

’ What I was discussing there is my opinion of how to deal with what IS, since I can't do anything about what WAS.’ We can deal with ‘what IS’ - there is more than one way to skin a cat....we don’t simply have to deal with the hornet’s nest they stirred up. (Which they were advised is precisely what would happen by their own analysts.) This administration lied to take their nation to war! No WMD’s - and weapons inspectors who advised strenuously that ‘there was NO smoking gun.’

I cannot think of a more serious crime. We can hold them accountable.

Afghanistan was no better;

’ Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.’
Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons 2001-2003 and Foreign Secretary 1997-2001.

Cook's Entire Article (Article authored 8 July 2005. Cook died on a Scottish hill 6 August 2005)

Al-Qaida is no more an organisation than ‘Anonymous’ is. Any bampot anywhere, with ‘issues’ can commit, or attempt to commit, an atrocity and shout afterwards ‘Al-Qaida ya’ bas!’ And our authorities will point and yell ‘See, they’re everywhere. Give us more money to fight ‘em for ya’. ‘Money’ being the operative word.

The vid below 'The Power Of Nightmares - The Shadows In The Cave' is worth a watch as a reminder of the disinformation and fantasy used by tptb to justify these crimes.



9/11 was a CRIME not an act of war and should have been handled as such. Hold the clowns who created this mess responsible.

I'm sorry, could you get a better map......yours seems to have smallpox, it's hard to see te map itself.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Sinnthia

So to clarify, war should have been declared on Afghanistan?

No, war was already being waged on "Afghanistan" by Afghans.

I mean no disrespect but as I tried to say before, from the outside looking in, things are very different. Many of your responses feel slightly deflective to me but not in an intentional way. I feel like the dialouge has gotten just lengthy enough that when I ask what you think 2 + 2 is, you respond with 2, 2, and some algebra.

Let me try and slow this down a bit. I asked if we should have declared war on Afghanistan. That was in response to what you had said. We were discussing the US, not the Afghanis. I would like to ask if maybe you lost track of the conversation or might want to reread that last post. I feel like I asked if you wanted Chocolate ice cream or not -yes or no? and you answered, yes I want strawberry.

Just to put cost of war
tick tick tick
costofwar.com...