Poll: sympathy for the devil

[Mr.Black]

But that's retarded. The United States doesn't bomb villages, and they have to confirm targets at least ten times before firing. It's the Taliban who use the citizens as meat shields. The citizens know this.

You know, I don't think that's quite the case. According to this, there's been quite a few 'mishaps' with Friendly fire incidents [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq], they clearly don't need to confirm the target that much or they wouldn't be bombing their own troops/friendly troops.

People make mistakes.

When you're supposedly checking a target at least 10 times, I don't think you make a mistake like bombing your allies.

Sure, I bet they just wanted to bomb friendlies!

 

[Amnestic]

But that's retarded. The United States doesn't bomb villages, and they have to confirm targets at least ten times before firing. It's the Taliban who use the citizens as meat shields. The citizens know this.

You know, I don't think that's quite the case. According to this, there's been quite a few 'mishaps' with Friendly fire incidents [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq], they clearly don't need to confirm the target that much or they wouldn't be bombing their own troops/friendly troops.

People make mistakes.

When you're supposedly checking a target at least 10 times, I don't think you make a mistake like bombing your allies.

Sure, I bet they just wanted to bomb friendlies!

No, I'm saying they're not that careful and they blatantly don't check 10 times, every time.

Odin's Spear, I shouldn't have to spell this out

 

[Doctor_Insano]

attacking a country with a bomb vest on is... how shall i put this: stupid. revenge is all fine and good, but get revenge on who actually did it, i.e. the pilot, attacking a country because they attacked you, no matter how misguided is guaranteed to fail, and justify their actions.

 

[rokkolpo]

What about the taliban thats killing innocents as well?
What paints them as such a great alternative to Americans?
Do you ignore bringing water and schools and other things that American forces have done?

yes in this thread it is ignored, youre talking about a different topic.
right now where somewhere different.

 

[Kurokami]

So, my question to the Escapist is this- if you were an Afghani citizen who's neighbors, friends and families had just been slaughtered by U.S. forces- can you honestly say that you wouldn't join the insurgency?

Being in that situation I suppose I'd imagine killing any of them would be damn nice, of course this will only lead to more death and revenge seeking so I will become part of the problem. frankly its probably better to be thorough in your destruction, burn the anger out rather then fuel it.

attacking a country with a bomb vest on is... how shall i put this: stupid. revenge is all fine and good, but get revenge on who actually did it, i.e. the pilot, attacking a country because they attacked you, no matter how misguided is guaranteed to fail, and justify their actions.

The pilot following orders, how fair, just even to go after the trigger finger of the person who killed them. I doubt they would think rationally, or even know much of anything about who they're going up against. If they're promised revenge then why wouldn't they pick it up, unless they're rational enough to stay away, of course.

But that's retarded. The United States doesn't bomb villages, and they have to confirm targets at least ten times before firing. It's the Taliban who use the citizens as meat shields. The citizens know this.

You know, I don't think that's quite the case. According to this, there's been quite a few 'mishaps' with Friendly fire incidents [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#2003_invasion_of_Iraq], they clearly don't need to confirm the target that much or they wouldn't be bombing their own troops/friendly troops.

People make mistakes.

When you're supposedly checking a target at least 10 times, I don't think you make a mistake like bombing your allies.

Sure, I bet they just wanted to bomb friendlies!

I think he's just proving that they clearly don't check '10 times' before firing or they're ability to distinguish between friends and foes would be less then 10%. (please don't take this as a measure to criticize) Though I fully agree with you that people make mistakes, and in the army its even more easy to do so. (believe it or not guys, when in war your HUD doesn't tell you where the next objective is, or have a green X pop up when you're looking at friendlies. (though I'll admit I still shoot my share, AI are morons, =[))

Nope.

I wouldn't hate the Americans.
Wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't hate them.

I'd think they were a bunch of cunts who have no right to do what they did, but again: That's not hatred.

I'd just leave the country.

Then you're a coward. Someone just killed people you care about....and you do nothing. Sorry Max, but that's nothing but cowardice.

Actually I'd say he's right, my agreement to join the Taliban was under the argument that I was in their position, not suddenly teleported there feeling a connection to dead people. If my suburb was destroyed today with people I care about etc I wouldn't join a terrorist force looking to go on a suicide mission, I would get the fuck away, sure I'd probably become a serial killer or something, but I wouldn't die for the sole purpose of expressing my position against these people. I don't think that makes me a coward, I think that makes me rational.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Then you're a coward. Someone just killed people you care about....and you do nothing. Sorry Max, but that's nothing but cowardice.

No, it's called intelligence.

So they died - so who gives a fuck?
I'm supposed to gleefully follow them into the dark?
For what reason?

To make them feel better?
Newsflash: They're corpses.
They sure aren't going to be around to chastise me about not getting myself killed.

There's no logical reason to undertake a suicide mission against a massively superior force in this situation.
Nothing - nobody - is worth my life, and the hell with you if you disagree.

If you care so much for my so-called loved ones, you go die for them.
I have better shit to do.

Semantics Max. It is cowardly, but then cowardly can be considered intelligent in some circumstances.

There is a good reason to understake suicide missions against superior invading armies, you still hurt them. Afghanistan could well win this war of theirs if they keep on plugging away and keep on killing enough US/UK troops to make people back home demand that we withdraw them.

Thunders point is that when someone you love has been hurt by an invading army you feel a bit miffed. That might override your sense of self-preservation somewhat.

 

[ace_of_something]

I was hoping this would be about the Rolling Stones. I am disappointed. I abstain on the grounds of disappointment.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Then you're a coward. Someone just killed people you care about....and you do nothing. Sorry Max, but that's nothing but cowardice.

No, it's called intelligence.

So they died - so who gives a fuck?
I'm supposed to gleefully follow them into the dark?
For what reason?

To make them feel better?
Newsflash: They're corpses.
They sure aren't going to be around to chastise me about not getting myself killed.

There's no logical reason to undertake a suicide mission against a massively superior force in this situation.
Nothing - nobody - is worth my life, and the hell with you if you disagree.

If you care so much for my so-called loved ones, you go die for them.
I have better shit to do.

Great. So, in essence, you're saying that assuming I've got more friends and guns that you, I can basically kill your family with impunity. Personally, I'd never do this, but in a hypothetical....you'd never strike back against a superior foe? Newsflash, Max - logic dictated that Britain surrender to Germany in 1940. It dictated also dictated that Germany could never have defeated France in 1940. But it did. Why?

Because sheer, raw force dosen't matter. It dosen't come down to a matter of 'I has more guns that you'. A man can have all the advanced weapons in the world, and they'll be useless if you stab him through the heart with a dagger. Or something like that.

For your loved ones? Fuck no. I probably killed them, for a start. Mine? Hell, fucking, yes.

Basically, you're saying there's nothing you'll fight for. Okay. Nothing you care about enough for revenge. Sure. Enjoy that long, loveless life of yours.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Semantics Max. It is cowardly, but then cowardly can be considered intelligent in some circumstances.

There is a good reason to understake suicide missions against superior invading armies, you still hurt them. Afghanistan could well win this war of theirs if they keep on plugging away and keep on killing enough US/UK troops to make people back home demand that we withdraw them.

Thunders point is that when someone you love has been hurt by an invading army you feel a bit miffed. That might override your sense of self-preservation somewhat.

It isn't cowardly, because I'm not refusing to fight out of fear.
I'm refusing to fight because it's not worth my time or effort to do so.

Yes, you do hurt them - but what's the point?
They're just a bunch of people doing their jobs - admittedly, the majority are probably a bunch of dicks, but that can be said of the majority of any group.

The point is you hurt them. You hurt them enough to make them leave.

Nothing overrides self-preservation.
Nothing.

That is the part that I think Rolling Thunder is calling cowardly. In his case (and mine too to be fair) love would override self-preservation.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I would join, and kill all the american infidels! But if I were myself? No. I know what they did was wrong, but whatever. But as an Afghani man who just lost his family? Fucking kill all americans.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Semantics Max. It is cowardly, but then cowardly can be considered intelligent in some circumstances.

There is a good reason to understake suicide missions against superior invading armies, you still hurt them. Afghanistan could well win this war of theirs if they keep on plugging away and keep on killing enough US/UK troops to make people back home demand that we withdraw them.

Thunders point is that when someone you love has been hurt by an invading army you feel a bit miffed. That might override your sense of self-preservation somewhat.

It isn't cowardly, because I'm not refusing to fight out of fear.
I'm refusing to fight because it's not worth my time or effort to do so.

Yes, you do hurt them - but what's the point?
They're just a bunch of people doing their jobs - admittedly, the majority are probably a bunch of dicks, but that can be said of the majority of any group.

The point is you hurt them. You hurt them enough to make them leave.

Nothing overrides self-preservation.
Nothing.

That is the part that I think Rolling Thunder is calling cowardly. In his case (and mine too to be fair) love would override self-preservation.

The most repulsive moral cowardice I have seen since the last Conservative Party conference, I must say. While I see nothing wrong with physical cowardice, it is moral cowardice I find so unsettling.

I can understand not going to certain death, but Max seems to be so risk-averse that he's afraid of even the possibility of death. Of course, the question of how to cross the road comes into mind, for nothing is truly riskless.

Also, Max, I'm pretty sure you would. Assuming it was a deliberate attack, I doubt even your faux-cooled teenaged soul could not want revenge.

 

[Player 2]

Nope.

I wouldn't hate the Americans.
Wouldn't like them, but I wouldn't hate them.

I'd think they were a bunch of cunts who have no right to do what they did, but again: That's not hatred.

I'd just leave the country.

If you were an Afghani villager you wouldn't be able to afford to leave the country. That's the whole point.

 

[Robert632]

under these cicumstances i'd fight my own people if someone gave me a gun and told me to shoot a certain group of people.

 

[G1eet]

What about the taliban thats killing innocents as well?
What paints them as such a great alternative to Americans?
Do you ignore bringing water and schools and other things that American forces have done?

Agreed. My own history teacher just got back from a term with the National Guard, and he said from firsthand experience that the Taliban are killing more Afghans than they are occupying forces, and that most of the Afghans that he had met with don't like it one bit. He even brought in a slideshow chronicling what happened over there; what suicide bombers had done to separate villages (along with the occasional goofy picture of Guardsmen racing Afghan policemen up goat paths).

 

[BigEaZyE]

I don't know if I'd fight and try and kill Americans, seeing as I'm not a fan of killing, but I have never had people I know/loved get killed in that manner so I don't know.

I can say that I can totally understand however how some people would want to kill after having that happen to them, especially after looking at this site

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

I realise a lot of that number is from suicide bombers and such as well, but a lot are from direct actions that coalition forces have taken, and that's terrible.

 

[Nova5]

No matter what nation I was in, if there was an invading force slaughtering innocents, then I'd be joining a resistance group. Not just any group, though - if the resistance is just as morally bankrupt, that's not solving a damn thing. You know, like the whole Israel-Palestine bullshit.

 

[Chipperz]

The most repulsive moral cowardice I have seen since the last Conservative Party conference, I must say. While I see nothing wrong with physical cowardice, it is moral cowardice I find so unsettling.

I can understand not going to certain death, but Max seems to be so risk-averse that he's afraid of even the possibility of death. Of course, the question of how to cross the road comes into mind, for nothing is truly riskless.

Also, Max, I'm pretty sure you would. Assuming it was a deliberate attack, I doubt even your faux-cooled teenaged soul could not want revenge.

Leave him alone, Max is a teenager who clearly thinks pretending not to give a shit is cool. If he genuinely thinks like that, then noone will give a shit about him either, and this problem will never occur. If he doesn't, then ignoring him and letting him have his little posts is the best solution anyway!

On that note, kill my friends, I will come for you. Kill my family, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that it will not be quick and clean if I get to you. I will probably die in the process, but if I get a chance, I WILL make it hurt. So yeah, I'd join for revenge.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

What about the taliban thats killing innocents as well?
What paints them as such a great alternative to Americans?
Do you ignore bringing water and schools and other things that American forces have done?

Very important difference - the Taliban are natives to the country, the Americans are invaders. Simply because the Americans could do a better job doesn't give them the right to be there.

Water to schools? Ohh you mean like this soldier taunting kids with a bottle of water?