• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation

Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained? There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.

I know, let's pull out althogether and let al Qaeda and the Taliban run the show.
 
I know, let's pull out althogether and let al Qaeda and the Taliban run the show.

Yes, that's the only other possible option! :roll:

Obviously you are not interested in an honest discussion. Continue your trolling elsewhere.
 
... That is the point I am making. The event in question is related to air strikes on a small village(s) in Ghaziabad. In what way did NATO make sure that there were no civilians close enough to the air strikes? If the OP is true (or even slightly exaggerated), then there is no possible way they could have said there were no civilians present before committing to operations.

What are they supposed to do, go have a look around and then launch the airstrike?
 
Yes, that's the only other possible option! :roll:

Obviously you are not interested in an honest discussion. Continue your trolling elsewhere.

Ok, tell us how we kill the enemy and prevent civilian casualties.
 
Ok, tell us how we kill the enemy and prevent civilian casualties.

Tell me how killing the enemy is helping at all.

You've been "Killing the enemy" for almost 10 years now and it doesn't seem to be working.

You're not fighting a conventional land army, you can kill as many as you want, but I think the greatest challenge you face is, what is victory? Is it when you've brought Taliban and Al Queada numbers to 0?

Do you think that goal is actually achievable?

Is it creating a functioning democracy?

I mean what does "Winning The Afghan War" Actually mean.

I'm still curious on that one.
 
Tell me how killing the enemy is helping at all.

Then, what are we supposed to do? Roll over and just absorb the terrorist attacks?

You've been "Killing the enemy" for almost 10 years now and it doesn't seem to be working.

When we can only kill a few at time, it's going to take more time than say, WW2, where we killed tens of thousands at a time.

You're not fighting a conventional land army, you can kill as many as you want, but I think the greatest challenge you face is, what is victory? Is it when you've brought Taliban and Al Queada numbers to 0?

Victory is when the terrorist movement becomes as insignificant as the National Socialists.

Do you think that goal is actually achievable?

Is it creating a functioning democracy?

yes, the goal is achievable. It doesn't really matter what kind of government they have, just as long as they leave us alone.

I mean what does "Winning The Afghan War" Actually mean.

I'm still curious on that one.

Defeatism isn't the key to victory. That's for sure.
 
Yes, that's the only other possible option! :roll:

Obviously you are not interested in an honest discussion. Continue your trolling elsewhere.

Anyone who expects us to KNOW the outcome before the mission is unrealistic. Do you think they aren't trying to avoid civilians casualties?
 
Then, what are we supposed to do? Roll over and just absorb the terrorist attacks?

Yes because if you left Afghanistan, suddenly the terrorist have a portal into downtown New York...

When we can only kill a few at time, it's going to take more time than say, WW2, where we killed tens of thousands at a time.

Stop with the WW2 crap, dude it's not that way at all. WW2 is a different kind of war, fighting a conventional land army and fighting an insurgency are two different things, I don't know how many times I Have to drill that into your head, but it appears I'll have to keep doing it.

Insurgents hide in the mountains, they hide among people, they are difficult to spot and they strike when they have the advantage, now unless you're intending to destroy mountains, burn whole villages to destroy their cover and slaughter the entire population of Afghanistan to get rid of their source of fighters, you may wanna reconsider your rediculous statement.

Victory is when the terrorist movement becomes as insignificant as the National Socialists.

See that's rather interesting because most german soldiers you faced on the battlefield were not national socialists, they were drafted men just like their opponents were. In WW2 what you were actually bringing down was a government, and an entire governmental system which had in the end really subjugated their own people. Remember there was such a thing as the "German Resistance".

All insurgents you face on the ground are of their orders whether Taliban or Al Queada and various other groups.

yes, the goal is achievable. It doesn't really matter what kind of government they have, just as long as they leave us alone.

Wait, you're telling me in no uncertain terms, that you can bring the number of Taliban Fighters and Al Qeada fighters down to 0 forever.

Defeatism isn't the key to victory. That's for sure.

Who said anything about Defeat? There is more then the one dimension apdst, come into the light!
 
Anyone who expects us to KNOW the outcome before the mission is unrealistic. Do you think they aren't trying to avoid civilians casualties?

It's in your best interests to do so.

Not just for "PR".

But because killing civillians only turns the local populace against you, making it far easier for the Taliban and other groups to operate within them.

If you were poor and had nothing, and the US Air Force killed your son with a rocket, would your first thought be "Well at least they're trying to give me a corrupt democracy, I should be grateful".

When you get past "what people should think about us" and accept the reality, you might find that there is more to the world then "we gotta win USA #1 Woooo hoo!"
 
Stop with the WW2 crap, dude it's not that way at all. WW2 is a different kind of war, fighting a conventional land army and fighting an insurgency are two different things, I don't know how many times I Have to drill that into your head, but it appears I'll have to keep doing it.

There's no difference. The principle of warfare, which is to basically destroy the enemy's will to make war, just because you're fighting a different style of enemy.

Insurgents hide in the mountains, they hide among people, they are difficult to spot and they strike when they have the advantage, now unless you're intending to destroy mountains, burn whole villages to destroy their cover and slaughter the entire population of Afghanistan to get rid of their source of fighters, you may wanna reconsider your rediculous statement.

We just gotta go in and hunt them down. If they hide among civilians, then it's the terrorists fault that the civilians get killed. You almost sound like you're taking up for the bad guys.



See that's rather interesting because most german soldiers you faced on the battlefield were not national socialists, they were drafted men just like their opponents were. In WW2 what you were actually bringing down was a government, and an entire governmental system which had in the end really subjugated their own people. Remember there was such a thing as the "German Resistance".

All insurgents you face on the ground are of their orders whether Taliban or Al Queada and various other groups.

All German soldiers swore an oath to the fuehrer.



Wait, you're telling me in no uncertain terms, that you can bring the number of Taliban Fighters and Al Qeada fighters down to 0 forever.

Nope, I said we should make them as insignificant as the national socialists. There are still national socialists hanging around and they're largely ignored by most people.



Who said anything about Defeat? There is more then the one dimension apdst, come into the light!

Tell allllllllllll about it, jet. You never have before, so now's your time to shine, bro.
 
It's in your best interests to do so.

Not just for "PR".

But because killing civillians only turns the local populace against you, making it far easier for the Taliban and other groups to operate within them.

If you were poor and had nothing, and the US Air Force killed your son with a rocket, would your first thought be "Well at least they're trying to give me a corrupt democracy, I should be grateful".

When you get past "what people should think about us" and accept the reality, you might find that there is more to the world then "we gotta win USA #1 Woooo hoo!"

Then more of them are going to die. That is the reality, vice waging a war where only the bad guys get killed. After enough civilians get killed, they'll realize that it has more to do with terrorists hiding among them, than American ordnance being dropped upon them. If they don't figure that out, then tough **** for'em. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

If you were poor and had nothing, and the US Air Force killed your son with a rocket, would your first thought be "Well at least they're trying to give me a corrupt democracy, I should be grateful".

The first thing I would do, is run those scumbag jihadis out of my hood, then see if the airtrikes stop. If they stopped, I would have enough sense to know that if the jihadis stayed away, so would the bombs.
 
Last edited:
Then more of them are going to die. That is the reality, vice waging a war where only the bad guys get killed. After enough civilians get killed, they'll realize that it has more to do with terrorists hiding among them, than American ordnance being dropped upon them. If they don't figure that out, then tough **** for'em. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.



The first thing I would do, is run those scumbag jihadis out of my hood, then see if the airtrikes stop. If they stopped, I would have enough sense to know that if the jihadis stayed away, so would the bombs.

If you have a goal, it is often best to seek the best way to achieve that goal. Anything counter productive should be reconsidered. This is just beiong smart. You may not like it, but it is better to be smart than stupid. Our military leaders, as quoted above seem to know this, so perhaps it is worth all of us reconsidering.
 
In that case, you've already surrendered to the bad guys.





There are also laws that prohibit using non-combatants as human shields.

No. We would be surrendering to the innocent. NOT the bad guys. I see no armies of people marching against the US. ZERO threat of invasion from another countries army. We are at war while noone is at war with us. Just the people we chose to pick on.
 
it's better to be smart than stupid---another golden gem of reasoning from the comedy central quoting anti-data-and-research crowd

hey, don't eat BREAD
 
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.

It absolutely matters if jihadis are using innocent civilians as human shields.

They fight and hide behind innocent women and children then blame their deaths on NATO forces to "hurt our cause".

Islamic jihadis don't "care about those killed" because of their actions and in fact deliberately target innocent civilians.
 
It absolutely matters if jihadis are using innocent civilians as human shields.

They fight and hide behind innocent women and children then blame their deaths on NATO forces to "hurt our cause".

Islamic jihadis don't "care about those killed" because of their actions and in fact deliberately target innocent civilians.

Whether they care or not, or what their motives are, it doesn't matter if their strategy is effective. No matter how we feel about it, if it is effective, a smart stratigist would change strategies.
 
Whether they care or not, or what their motives are, it doesn't matter if their strategy is effective. No matter how we feel about it, if it is effective, a smart stratigist would change strategies.



How? Please provide said strategy.....
 
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.

Millions upon millions of civilians died in World War II.

It's called war for a reason. People die and crap gets blown up. When you try to strategically kill only certain people, wars last forever. When you go in all out, it's over a lot quicker.

It's not a video game, unfortuntely. You don't get to hit "play again".
 
Millions upon millions of civilians died in World War II.

It's called war for a reason. People die and crap gets blown up. When you try to strategically kill only certain people, wars last forever. When you go in all out, it's over a lot quicker.

It's not a video game, unfortuntely. You don't get to hit "play again".

Oh christ forget it, I'm no loger going to argue with the "Well this is how we did it in WW2" crowd.

It's not that "easy". It's not that "simple".
 
Millions upon millions of civilians died in World War II.

It's called war for a reason. People die and crap gets blown up. When you try to strategically kill only certain people, wars last forever. When you go in all out, it's over a lot quicker.

It's not a video game, unfortuntely. You don't get to hit "play again".

A certain General named Petraeus would disagree.
 
Whether they care or not, or what their motives are, it doesn't matter if their strategy is effective.

Of course it matters if their methods are effective. If their methods were ineffective we wouldn't be talking about it or have to develop an effective strategery to counter it.

No matter how we feel about it, if it is effective, a smart stratigist would change strategies.

What strategery do you use against an enemy who straps children to their chests in an effort to blame their deaths on NATO or US forces?

We have no choice but to fight and defeat them.
 
Back
Top Bottom