Human shields

**Jesus Jones** · 19-02-2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Antsy, what would you call it if the cops called you and said that you wife and kids was down to the San Sai wet market buying some shit for your supper and some Islamic Thai had came up from Yala and came in and torched off a vest load of simtex and she and the kids were blown into little pieces and the only way they could inentify them was your wifes wallet had survived complete distruction.

Would you call that terrorism or colateral damage??

The thing is to remember that colateral damage is accidental altho it is known some will take place sometimes.
But when one walks into a crowded area with the intent of blowing up a bunch of people that are milling around buying mickey Mouse toys for the kid or setting behind a bunch of women or kids or firing from a school with a bunch of kids inside then That is, in my book Terrorism, I do not know what you would call it.

Try putting the "shoe on the other foot" for a change!

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Antsy, what would you call it if the cops called you and said that you wife and kids was down to the San Sai wet market buying some shit for your supper and some Islamic Thai had came up from Yala and came in and torched off a vest load of simtex and she and the kids were blown into little pieces and the only way they could inentify them was your wifes wallet had survived complete distruction.

Would you call that terrorism or colateral damage??

The point is it doesn't matter what it's called; suicide bomber or dropped bomb, they'd still be dead.

The thing is to remember that colateral damage is accidental altho it is known some will take place sometimes.

If it's known then by very definition it can't be accidental.

**Wallalai** · 19-02-2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Everywhere the Islamic fighters are it is the same, no matter who they are fighting.

Everywhere the muslims are it is the same, shit coming. These people are the scum of the earth, we shouldn't allow them to migrate to the west.

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 12:18 PM

If it's known then by very definition it can't be accidental.

Maybe you should find out what words mean before using them in arguments.
From Webster

Main Entry: collateral damage
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation

When a Drone bombing goes wrong, it is colateral damage,, when it is a vest on a suicide terrorist then he is looking at the people he is going to kill and there is no callateral damage from that because it was his intent.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Try putting the "shoe on the other foot" for a change!

Now what is meant by this statement.

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

If it's known then by very definition it can't be accidental.

Maybe you should find out what words mean before using them in arguments.
From Webster

Main Entry: collateral damage
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation

When a Drone bombing goes wrong, it is colateral damage,, when it is a vest on a suicide terrorist then he is looking at the people he is going to kill and there is no callateral damage from that because it was his intent.

Who is saying the drone bombings are going wrong?
They most certainly always hit their intended targets, -- which usually happen to be houses "suspected" of holding "suspected" militants. Of course they usually also hold women and kids. The innocents being murdered by the CIA are not accidental casualties by any means. It has come to light that around two thirds of the casualties from drone strikes are non-combatant innocent civilians including a large proportion of women and kids. The other third are "suspected militants". Very occasionally, they even manage to kill a "confirmed" enemy combatant.

Its a scatter gun approach with no regard for the lives of innocents. And certainly a form of terrorism designed to terrorize the civilian population who may willingly, or through coercion give shelter to Taliban fighters.
Hence the reason why the CIA is so secretive about taking credit for their dirty work.

**AntRobertson** · 19-02-2010, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

If it's known then by very definition it can't be accidental.

Maybe you should find out what words mean before using them in arguments.
From Webster

Main Entry: collateral damage
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: injury inflicted on something other than an intended target; specifically : civilian casualties of a military operation

First off the word was "accidental". Secondly I didn't use it you did. Thirdly the definition you've posted doesn't have any bearing on the issue in any event, 'injury inflicted on something other than an intended target' if it's known is still not accidental.

**panama hat** · 19-02-2010, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Hence the reason why the CIA is so secretive about taking credit for their dirty work.

And then the shouts of woe and 'unfair' when some CIA goons get whacked. Amazing hypocrisy

**Mr R Sole** · 19-02-2010, 01:25 PM

Some nasty pictures below, nothing too gruesome but be advised.
Lost it with the sanctimonious crap.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Taliban fighters placing women and children on the roofs of buildings and firing from behind them.

That's so nice of them to martyr people like that for Allah.

Originally Posted by Aguda

The Taliban is getting more and more desperate. They are going to loose the support of the Afgan people using tactics like that.

Don't really think that they had it in the first place, many Afgans have been brutally murdered by these gits.

Originally Posted by BobR

Either that or this is a preemptory PR move by the American Military and Government because they know they are going to be killing more civilians.

What like they did the other day..it was on the TV and everything...

Originally Posted by Panda

Wont do em any good hiding behind women and children. The Yanks will bomb the lot of them anyway.

just like they do to their allies...useless gits these soldiers. They even blow us to smithereens from the air..remember not so long ago a US pilot bombed and load of Brits in Allied marked trucks....not even supposed to be able to do that...but they managed.!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

the world blames the Yanks for killing the womenfolk and kids.

But they do though...so what's your point?????

Originally Posted by panama hat

So, a guerrilla war - very much like the US war for independence - is abhorrent, but bombing the shit out of civilians while sitting in a comfy office 5000 miles away is a good thing and honourable . . . that's the front line.

Oh PH, that's good. Most of what was bandied about at the time was rank propaganda...the British were killing babies...what tosh...and there are records to prove it...Land of the free...indeed!!

Bloody brainwashed more like.

Originally Posted by blackgang

I know of no civilians as the Brits considered everyone there as an enemy and did shell the shit out of towns.

No they didn't...where do you get this...the 'history of America' written by guess who, Americans with a vested interest..

Originally Posted by blackgang

But civilization and weaponry now is such that whole citys do not need to be decimated, but with accuracy to take out 1 or 2 houses in a city is possible there fore saving considerable civilian lives and property

Oh god please stop...right here goes..

=

Before only a few hated you. Now it's a whole nation...Saddam was probably a safer bet..

Originally Posted by Another Farang

Its all about the poppys

Making a killing out of fake flowers..love it....

Stop the wars and the dying wil stop too...

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

And then the shouts of woe and 'unfair' when some CIA goons get whacked. Amazing hypocrisy

Who said that, Where and when? Link please.
I don't know what you are talking about,,do you?

**Takeovers** · 19-02-2010, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers It is always the americans who are blamed.

Originally Posted by Aguda

I wasn't aware I was blaming the Americans, or are you being sarcastic?

I did not say you are blaming them. The world will and just look at this thread. And I was sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Takeovers The tactic of the poor overpowered Taliban is excusable in the eyes of the world.

Originally Posted by Aguda

Most of the civilized world would condemn their actions.

Again see this thread. It is always the americans who are blamed.

Originally Posted by corned dog

I'd stand behind women an children if some twat from the cia was playing at war games from his play station console 5000 miles away God bless the good old usa And keep the oil flowing Look out Iran

See?

**Jesus Jones** · 19-02-2010, 01:56 PM

News CENTRAL/S. ASIA Afghan deaths in 'friendly fire'
A Nato air strike has mistakenly killed at least seven Afghan policemen and wounded two others in Imam Sahib district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan.
Al Jazeera’s James Bays reporting from Afghanistan, said the deaths on Thursday seemed to be the result of a "friendly fire" incident.
"We have been told by the Afghan interior ministry that this was a friendly fire incident," Bays said.
"Afghan police were running a joint patrol with Nato forces in Imam Sahib district. They then encountered the Taliban. They called in air support, but instead of bombing Taliban, the Nato planes bombed the Afghan police who were some two to three hundred metres away from the Nato troops."

[at] Afghan deaths in 'friendly fire': : Information Clearing House -[at] ICH

5 more Afghan civilians killed by NATO bombs

Tag cloud: News, Society, World, Afghanistan, NATO

Feb 17, 2010 19:13 Moscow Time

Afghanistan. Photo: EPA
Twenty five people are known dead and many injured in a NATO air raid on a target in Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan. According to the local government, the fatalities include 5 civilians. The five-day-old American-led offensive on the Taliban in the southern Helmand Province is known to have taken as many as 19 civilian lives. Six of these dead are children. Mounting civilian casualties in the war create widespread resentment and alienation among the Afghan people.

Brown skinned collateral damage, no problem!!

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 02:03 PM

It has come to light that around two thirds of the casualties from drone strikes are non-combatant innocent civilians including a large proportion of women and kids. The other third are "suspected militants". Very occasionally, they even manage to kill a "confirmed" enemy combatant.

This is all I will quote of your stupid post Panda,, it is all bullshit anyway even tho you do admit to 1/3 bad guys, and I know that you were a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and pobly retired with 4 maybe 5 stars, but to even consider a military crossing a few hundrted miles of territory with an attack force strong enough to fight in and back out without killing more than a few people in a couple of houses and killing 1/3 of all dead as bad dudes then something is wrong with your thinking,, and even if it wern't where is that in the OP,, I would say that your whole posting on this thread is off topic.
This has nothing to do with the drones in Pakistan,, this OP is about the Taliban in Afghan using women and kids as shields when in a fire fight with UN troops.

**panama hat** · 19-02-2010, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

The world will and just look at this thread.

I'm looking

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Again see this thread. It is always the americans who are blamed.

Where?

Originally Posted by Takeovers

See

Nope.

What I see, Takeovers, is a bunch of cretins trying to justify human deaths as 'collateral damage' when killed by the US.

No-one is saying anything positive about the Taleban.

You say 'see' quite often . . . perhaps you should try and read

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

News CENTRAL/S. ASIA Afghan deaths in 'friendly fire' A Nato air strike has mistakenly killed at least seven Afghan policemen and wounded two others in Imam Sahib district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan.

Why was this news put in this thread,, this thread is about using women and kids as shields in a firefight with UN troops, not about friendly fire or dropping bombs on allies, which would pobly not happen if the spotters were being understood with co-ords or marker panels or some such,, I am not there so you will have to get more experienced hands than me, ask Panda or Panama Hat,, they seem to understand what is happening more than most of us.

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Nope. What I see, Takeovers, is a bunch of cretins trying to justify human deaths as 'collateral damage' when killed by the US. No-one is saying anything positive about the Taleban. You say 'see' quite often . . . perhaps you should try and read

What I do see is that if you took your own advise and read, then you would have understood that this thread is about Tali Ban using civilian as shields and you and others are trying to turn the thread into a American baby killer thread and take it off track and into another US INVASION OF IRAQ thread.

**Norton** · 19-02-2010, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

this thread is about using women and kids as shields in a firefight with UN troops

Your OP is indeed. I don't see any posts condoning this. Many point out the tactic of using innocents as human shields is not much different than killing "innocent" civilians using NATO weaponry.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

This was inevitable in Afghanistan, as the US has stated in every forum available that its intent is to avoid deaths of Afghan civilians at all costs. Since we gave them our game plan well in advance, they would simply be foolish not to take advantage of it.

Exactly. Taliban and NATO are using the weapons and tactics they have at their disposal. Taliban, hit and run scirmishes, small arms, IEDs and fighting from populated areas to protect themselves from a full on assault by superior NATO forces. NATO, high tech weapons, superior fire power and man power to defeat and occupy areas held by the Taliban.

In both cases, as in all wars, civilians will be killed either purposefully or accidentally. Such is the nature of war.

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

I would say that your whole posting on this thread is off topic.
This has nothing to do with the drones in Pakistan,, this OP is about the Taliban in Afghan using women and kids as shields when in a fire fight with UN troops.

Actually, my only post on this thread was in reply to your comments about US drone strikes. Here it is again since you seem to have forgotten what you posted,---
"When a Drone bombing goes wrong, it is colateral damage,, when it is a vest on a suicide terrorist then he is looking at the people he is going to kill and there is no callateral damage from that because it was his intent."

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

In both cases, as in all wars, civilians will be killed either purposefully or accidentally. Such is the nature of war.

Civilians do get killed in war. Thats just a fact of life unfortunately.
But "purposefully" and knowingly killing civilians, including women and kids in order to get at the enemy is immoral and indeed criminal. And this is exactly what is happening with these CIA drone strikes, and occasionally in the ground battles.
The US is quite happy to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians as a matter of convenience.

These poor innocent people are but disposable pawns in the war of political ideals, coerced into submission by what ever happens to be the occupying military force on the day. But they are human beings with the same feelings as you and me. Their lives should be held in no less value than those of our own, or our own family and friends.

Killing civilians as a means to attain a military objective (and indeed a political objective back in USA), is not just "regrettable" as we so often hear it passed off in the western media clips, -- it is downright immoral and criminal!

**panama hat** · 19-02-2010, 03:15 PM

Oh dear . . . I'm glad he is on ignore . . . more self-destruction on the old fella's part

**Norton** · 19-02-2010, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

But "purposefully" and knowingly killing civilians, including women and kids in order to get at the enemy is immoral and indeed criminal.

It is.

Taliban's use of human shields fits well within the immoral and criminal category as well.

**blackgang** · 19-02-2010, 03:31 PM

Actually, my only post on this thread was in reply to your comments about US drone strikes. Here it is again since you seem to have forgotten what you posted,---
"When a Drone bombing goes wrong, it is colateral damage,, when it is a vest on a suicide terrorist then he is looking at the people he is going to kill and there is no callateral damage from that because it was his intent."

And I made that post in answer to ant trying to derail the thread about about the difference between collateral and suicide bombers and intentional killing of civilians.

But since both you and he are on ignore and I thought I should answer you as to the advantage of drones again the advance of armys across a country and the lives saved by doing it that way and you are to thick to understand the difference even with all your warzone experience, I will cease to answer you or the insect.

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

But since both you and he are on ignore and I thought I should answer you

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we start telling fibs.

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Panda

But "purposefully" and knowingly killing civilians, including women and kids in order to get at the enemy is immoral and indeed criminal.

It is.

Taliban's use of human shields fits well within the immoral and criminal category as well.

Totally agree with you there Norton. Its a despicable act. As is hitting them with rockets to minimize the risk to US soldiers for political purposes back home.

The US and NATO are taking the high moral ground in this war. They have an overwhelming numerical, technical and financial advantage, so the least we could expect of them is to act within the highest moral standards, even if it does slow the advance and cost a few more allied soldiers lives. Those soldiers signed up to fight and kill or be killed. The Afghan civilians caught in the middle of this didnt.

**Panda** · 19-02-2010, 04:11 PM

[quote=blackgang;1328945]

I will cease to answer you or the insect.

Probably not a bad idea for you.

**barbaro** · 19-02-2010, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Aguda

The Taliban is getting more and more desperate. They are going to loose the support of the Afgan people using tactics like that. The sooner the Taliban and Al Queda are wiped from the face of the earth the better.

Remember, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are separate things.

As for the Taliban, they won't be wiped from the Earth ever, IMO.

Because the Pushtans are sympathetic to them. 12 million Pushtans in Afghanistan and millions in Pakistan.

Thread: Human shields

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions