Poll: sympathy for the devil

[Raven's Nest]

Mindless killing does not reap vengeance on a faceless murderer. Your quarrel lies with the pilot, NOT the nation. Too often are nation-states blamed for the heinous acts of some of their soldiers, who do not represent the majority of their army or their nation.

You mean the officers who give the pilots orders? Or the generals who order the officers? Or the politicians who order the generals? Or the nations of people who vote for the politicians? Or the people of the nation who become pilots?

It's a truly viscious blame circle isn't it?

OT: If that's the way it went down in my village, of course I'd be angry and I'd take up arms. But when it came down to it. I wouldn't be able to think of a good enough reason to kill someone I don't know or I have never met...

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Important also to remember that the Taliban does take care of it's members (the ones they don't send to blow themselves up) yet another reason why many join. I think this quote (though I forget who by) sums it up pretty well "I don't support war, I support the men who fight them" it's in CoD4 and Gibbs says it in an episode of NCIS, it pretty much sums up my position, to these people dragged out from the slums they have nowhere else to go and I feel no personal anger for them, however their superiors at the Taliban who order the killing and capture of innocent people yeah they can go burn in hell.

 

[Raven's Nest]

snip

I may not share your views Max, and although I don't presume to, I'm pretty sure I understand them. I'd be willing to give my life for a complete stranger, for no reason other than I felt it was the right thing to do... I'm not sure why, it must be the Jedi within... The only thing I'd fear about my death, is if it was in vain, or otherwise had no meaning. By the same token, I value my life probably as high as you do. I certainly wouldn't throw my life away as I believe it's the most precious gift I can give. It is only by aknowledging that it is a gift, do we become aware of how important it is. So I'm sure I understand why you hold your life with more importance than anything else.

Now waiting for the opportunity to make the perfect sacrifice might not be your idea of a good life but I believe I can understand the extent of your unwillingness to risk your life without good cause by drawing a parallel with myself.

I don't see you as a coward because I believe you have calculated the risks and made a logical decision and have done so by removing the element of emotion, which in this situation, is highly likely to result in your death... You sir, are a Vulcan! Feelings of right and wrong simply don't enter the equation for you. Although this is where you and I differentiate, the only real difference in reality is that you are far more likely to live longer than I. Which doesn't really bother me as i'd be okay with dying in the next five minutes as long as there was a good enough reason.

None of us should have to prove anything to anyone but ourselves. I believe this is why you are being misunderstood in this thread (or in general by the looks of it). Let me know if that was in any way accurate.

 

[Seanchaidh]

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.

In that scenario "Afghanistan" loses badly. Truthfully, Afghanistan has never won a war. Why? Because all they've ever been left with is fucking Afghanistan. If that's winning, what's losing? It's sort of like the Special Olympics. The Taliban could well win, but that's not the same as Afghanistan winning. When foreign forces invade Afghanistan and are repulsed, everybody loses but the foreign puppetmasters, and sometimes they don't even avoid losing (see for instance the bitter outcome of the United States' relationship to the Afghan Mujahideen.) Seeing the rise to power of a bunch of totalitarian assholes does not constitute a win for Afghanistan.

 

[BonsaiK]

Although obviously using biased language, the OP has hit the nail on the head when it comes to the emotions that play out in types of battles that the US is currently fighting. Sometimes people in conflict situations do view the Taliban as the lesser of the two evils somply because the US is the invading, foreign force. The war in Afghanistan is as much of a public relations war as anything else, the US will never win in Afghanistan decisively unless they can broadly win over the hearts and minds of regular people and that's a tough call for any invading army, anywhere in the world.

Having said that I would like to think that the scenario described by the OP is very rare. US troops are no doubt as conscious as anybody else of the negative effect that civilian casualties has on their public image, because they have to bear the brunt of counter-attacks when friends and relatives of those pissed-off civilians join or co-operate with the Taliban forces. I don't think that indiscriminate bombing, or "bombing on suspicion" would be a common scenario, because it would create more of a groundswell of anti-US support which would feed the Taliban's aims. The troops don't actually WANT to be hated by the average civilian, it makes their jobs a lot harder.

 

[Sevre]

I love the way the OP will be obsolete after 2012.

 

[scotth266]

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.

I would like to take a moment to say that all of those incidents occurred during the initial invasion. As in, the time when things were the most hectic, and thus the most friendly fire is likely to occur. They probably didn't have a lot of time to check targets during the initial invasion, and since a lot of these incidents were cross-army (aka, US on Brit, Brit on Iraqi, etc) I'm going to assume that they were due more to breakdowns in communication than being neglectful.

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Rolling Stones version!

Oh wait... Nevermind.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

No it isn't. Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else. Nobody held a gun to Americas head and said "You will liberate the shit out of Afghanistan until nobody is left alive".

 

[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.

I would like to take a moment to say that all of those incidents occurred during the initial invasion. As in, the time when things were the most hectic, and thus the most friendly fire is likely to occur. They probably didn't have a lot of time to check targets during the initial invasion, and since a lot of these incidents were cross-army (aka, US on Brit, Brit on Iraqi, etc) I'm going to assume that they were due more to breakdowns in communication than being neglectful.

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

I suppose that's fair, but then there's these three cases [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-1945_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_with_British_victims#War_in_Afghanistan] which, as I'm sure you can tell, are decidedly not from anywhere near the start of the War in Afghanistan.

 

[scotth266]

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.

I would like to take a moment to say that all of those incidents occurred during the initial invasion. As in, the time when things were the most hectic, and thus the most friendly fire is likely to occur. They probably didn't have a lot of time to check targets during the initial invasion, and since a lot of these incidents were cross-army (aka, US on Brit, Brit on Iraqi, etc) I'm going to assume that they were due more to breakdowns in communication than being neglectful.

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

I suppose that's fair, but then there's these three cases [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-1945_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_with_British_victims#War_in_Afghanistan] which, as I'm sure you can tell, are decidedly not from anywhere near the start of the War in Afghanistan.

Only three cases, over the course of four years. That's a pretty low number if you ask me. That would seem to attest to the idea that they're careful.

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

There are terrorist groups in Belfast, are the British allowed to just nuke the city?

 

[Arrers]

And there was little old me, thinking this would be about The Rolling Stones.

 

[scotth266]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

There are terrorist groups in Belfast, are the British allowed to just nuke the city?

That depends. Are they in an open war scenario with the city of Belfast? Do they have reasonable intelligence as to where the enemies are? How many civilian casualties would be inflicted? What dangers do the Belfastians pose?

War is never so simple as "nuke the city" or "do not nuke the city."

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

There are terrorist groups in Belfast, are the British allowed to just nuke the city?

That depends. Are they in an open war scenario with the city of Belfast? Do they have reasonable intelligence as to where the enemies are? How many civilian casualties would be inflicted? What dangers do the Belfastians pose?

War is never so simple as "nuke the city" or "do not nuke the city."

Drop the word "nuke" then.

We know that there are terrorists in Belfast. Is is acceptable to fly over Belfast with F-22 raptors and drop millions of dollars worth of bombs on the place? And if not, why is it more acceptable in Afghanistan than in Belfast?

 

[Amnestic]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

There are terrorist groups in Belfast, are the British allowed to just nuke the city?

That depends. Are they in an open war scenario with the city of Belfast? Do they have reasonable intelligence as to where the enemies are? How many civilian casualties would be inflicted? What dangers do the Belfastians pose?

War is never so simple as "nuke the city" or "do not nuke the city."

Last I checked, you're not in an open war scenario with the government of Afghanistan, so that first question is fairly irrelevant, don't you think? As I recall, Congress never signed off on the 'War with Afghanistan' so they're just tactical maneuvers or extended strategic strikes or some other technical term which means you're at War without being at War.

 

[scotth266]

I personally wouldn't fight back: I'd actually join up with the Americans. It's the damn Taliban's fault that they're bombing my village in the first place.

Whoever bombs your village is responsible for bombing your village, nobody else.

I would see the bombing of my village as an horrific tragedy, but I would place the blame for the bombing on the Taliban, for their presence is what led to the bombing. Beforehand, the Americans probably didn't really care much about my village, or were helping me. They only bombed my village because their enemies were there.

There are terrorist groups in Belfast, are the British allowed to just nuke the city?

That depends. Are they in an open war scenario with the city of Belfast? Do they have reasonable intelligence as to where the enemies are? How many civilian casualties would be inflicted? What dangers do the Belfastians pose?

War is never so simple as "nuke the city" or "do not nuke the city."

Drop the word "nuke" then.

We know that there are terrorists in Belfast. Is is acceptable to fly over Belfast with F-22 raptors and drop millions of dollars worth of bombs on the place? And if not, why is it more acceptable in Afghanistan than in Belfast?

Copy previous response.

Besides, it's not as though they're routinely carpet-bombing entire villages. Most of the bombings conducted by the Air Force are precision strikes, to my knowledge: they're essentially attempts at remote assassinations. Yes, there have been civilian casualties: but the bombings are conducted under the premise that the target, if eliminated, is worth the trade-off in civilian lives.

Say that one of these Belfast terrorist cells is uncovered through a trusted informant. You need to choose to either wipe them out, or let them escape. The terrorists could kill hundreds of people if they get away, while if you choose to attack them now, only a handful of people will die by comparison.

 

[scotth266]

Last I checked, you're not in an open war scenario with the government of Afghanistan, so that first question is fairly irrelevant, don't you think?

I was asking a question directed at the example. He was asking me if I would nuke Belfast: naturally, my first question would be what my current status with Belfast is.

I mean, if Belfast seceded, and the Belfastian militia was going to take over a nuclear weapons facility...

(Please note that I know nothing about Belfast.)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes, there have been civilian casualties: but the bombings are conducted under the premise that the target, if eliminated, is worth the trade-off in civilian lives.

This is were we part company. The entire premise of the invasion of Afghanistan was to prevent the loss of civilian lives after 9/11. To go there and kill vastly more civilian lives in the process makes the entire thing utterly reprehensible.

Saying that it is the fault, not of the Americans, but the Afghans is absolutely stupid. It is a bit like blaming the Palestinians for the Israelis bombing the shit out of their country, in fact it is exactly the same.