• 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!

US troops fire on Afghan bus, killing at least 5 civilians

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ok, boo.... Your starting to bore me again with your ambiguity and strawman, take care now, you hear! :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps if you addressed something actually said you wouldn't be so bored. But I can see where your silliness would get old. Later. :2wave:
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, perhaps if you addressed something actually said you wouldn't be so bored. But I can see where your silliness would get old. Later. :2wave:
Click to expand...
,




hmm... "i know you are but what am I"? That's some good retorts there.


Seriously, what have you said the last 3 pages other than sneak in that whole "affecting them" nonsense? :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
,




hmm... "i know you are but what am I"? That's some good retorts there.


Seriously, what have you said the last 3 pages other than sneak in that whole "affecting them" nonsense? :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, to you nothing as you missed every single part of the discussion I was having with Kelzie. You and VanceMack interjected yourselves without actually addressing what was said. The discussion was about the line between support and criticism. The two of you jump over in silly misunderstanding land, getting everything completely wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, to you nothing as you missed every single part of the discussion I was having with Kelzie. You and VanceMack interjected yourselves without actually addressing what was said. The discussion was about the line between support and criticism. The two of you jump over in silly misunderstanding land, getting everything completely wrong.
Click to expand...




This is a lie on your part. But whatever keeps you going, I don't care. we interacted before Kelzie, and she agrees with my sentiments for the most part.


What thread are you reading? :doh
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This is a lie on your part. But whatever keeps you going, I don't care. we interacted before Kelzie, and she agrees with my sentiments for the most part.


What thread are you reading? :doh
Click to expand...

No, there is no lie. Go back and read, this while trying to understand.

And yes, Kelzie agrees with you sentiments, but does a much better job of actually reading hat has been said and responding appropriately.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, there is no lie. Go back and read, this while trying to understand.

And yes, Kelzie agrees with you sentiments, but does a much better job of actually reading hat has been said and responding appropriately.
Click to expand...




so your reduced to sly personal attacks, it's ok Boo, I understand, I'd resort to increasing my nonsense too, if that's all I had to offer. :shrug:
 
You both are intelligent and can explain what you mean, from what I can tell. At least...when you want to! :mrgreen: Obviously my sentiments are more in line with Rev's.
 
Kelzie said:
You both are intelligent and can explain what you mean, from what I can tell. At least...when you want to! :mrgreen: Obviously my sentiments are more in line with Rev's.
Click to expand...





:lol: we disagree for once. But I'll be a nice guy and not tell you where. :pimpdaddy:
 
Kelzie said:
You both are intelligent and can explain what you mean, from what I can tell. At least...when you want to! :mrgreen: Obviously my sentiments are more in line with Rev's.
Click to expand...

Never said they weren't. ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
so your reduced to sly personal attacks, it's ok Boo, I understand, I'd resort to increasing my nonsense too, if that's all I had to offer. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:roll:

No, just pointing out a difference. I would like you to see and respond positively.
 
Kelzie said:
Is it possible to engage in any war without killing civilians? I mean, it's hardly a requirement of war, it's just something nice if it happens. Much like it would be nice if I found $100 bill while grocery shopping. I'll appreciate it, but I won't expect it as part of my grocery shopping experience. Civillian deaths are to be expected from war.
Click to expand...

Civilian deaths should never be 'expected'. what a blase attitude to take, on something that should be avoided at all costs. If 'Rules of engagement' procedures are followed correctly, it can keep incidents to a minimum and civilian casualties should be unexpected.

Paul
 
gunner said:
Civilian deaths should never be 'expected'. what a blase attitude to take, on something that should be avoided at all costs. If 'Rules of engagement' procedures are followed correctly, it can keep incidents to a minimum and civilian casualties should be unexpected.

Paul
Click to expand...

Probably more realistic than blase. And no one is saying they shouldn't be avoided, though at all costs is a little extreme. Anyone who thinks war can be conducted without civilian causalties is ignoring history.
 
Moon said:
So you think our soldiers are just mass murderers? Just want to be clear on this.
Click to expand...

Not at all, only when there's possible danger. Not being able to distinguish friend from foe, even women and teenagers could they potentional bombers or shooters, in revenge for those friends or relatives who were killed earlier. It's Always better to be safe than sorry.

ricksfolly
 
WillRockwell said:
I am apalled by the cavalier disregard of the majority of contributors to this thread, who feel that in the interest of "better be safe than sorry", it is permissable to light up an entire bus full of passengers. If that is the continuing opinion of the veterans on this board, then your service was not honorable. This nation is better than that, and I believe our servicemen and women are not served by your attempts to associate with them.
Click to expand...

Idiot...:roll:

How do you KNOW it's a bus full of passengers? Are you a psychic or something? Do you have x-ray vision?

Take that naive little attitude of your's to a combat zone and you'll come back in a flag-draped coffin...

Like my LT always used to say, it's better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
 
Kelzie said:
Probably more realistic than blase. And no one is saying they shouldn't be avoided, though at all costs is a little extreme. Anyone who thinks war can be conducted without civilian causalties is ignoring history.
Click to expand...

Suggesting civilian casualties are to be 'expected' is blase. Suggesting there is a possibility of incidents involving civilians is more in-line with procedure. There is a difference.

Paul
 
ricksfolly said:
Not at all, only when there's possible danger. Not being able to distinguish friend from foe, even women and teenagers could they potentional bombers or shooters, in revenge for those friends or relatives who were killed earlier. It's Always better to be safe than sorry.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

I'm not following you at all. Could you clarify your position, please?
 
gunner said:
Suggesting civilian casualties are to be 'expected' is blase. Suggesting there is a possibility of incidents involving civilians is more in-line with procedure. There is a difference.

Paul
Click to expand...

Do you happen to know how many wars have been fought without civilian casualties? I initially thought Desert Storm since we had so few casulaties ourselves, but there was actually 3500 directly from the war. So, every war in human history has civilian casualties. A realistic person would say civilian deaths are to be expected in any future wars based on that information. A blase person would say cilivian deaths don't matter. I think that's an important distintion.
 
Yes ever war has civilian casualties, which is good reason to avoid them if possible (I know, we've touch on this before).

But it still goes back to the mission. If the mission was just defeat the enemy and take land, collateral damage makes more sense (though I hate the term as it is too PC to accurately reflect what is happening). However, the mission requires winning hearts and minds, and that is hard to do if civilians are killed too regularly.

As I have said, I have no reason to doubt the soldiers at this time, and they likely behaved within the rules. But the mission suffers from these events and that is also true.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes ever war has civilian casualties, which is good reason to avoid them if possible (I know, we've touch on this before).

But it still goes back to the mission. If the mission was just defeat the enemy and take land, collateral damage makes more sense (though I hate the term as it is too PC to accurately reflect what is happening). However, the mission requires winning hearts and minds, and that is hard to do if civilians are killed too regularly.

As I have said, I have no reason to doubt the soldiers at this time, and they likely behaved within the rules. But the mission suffers from these events and that is also true.
Click to expand...





You said this before? I missed it. But good to see you coming to your senses. :thumbs:
 
Kelzie said:
Do you happen to know how many wars have been fought without civilian casualties? I initially thought Desert Storm since we had so few casulaties ourselves, but there was actually 3500 directly from the war. So, every war in human history has civilian casualties. A realistic person would say civilian deaths are to be expected in any future wars based on that information. A blase person would say cilivian deaths don't matter. I think that's an important distintion.
Click to expand...

I can see why you would think that. Would it surprise you to know the British lost more too friendly fire [from American pilots] than from the Iraqi forces.

A very important distinction.

It may just be a difference between American and British attitudes. For one, our 'Rules of engagement' have generally been far more defined, with less room for ambiguity.

Paul
 
Last edited:
gunner said:
Civilian deaths should never be 'expected'. what a blase attitude to take, on something that should be avoided at all costs. If 'Rules of engagement' procedures are followed correctly, it can keep incidents to a minimum and civilian casualties should be unexpected.

Paul
Click to expand...

You are playing a semantics game. History and the realities of the situation make it so they are "expected". We can guess safely they will happen. We do work as hard as possible to make them as unlikely as possible, within the framework of the mission.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes ever war has civilian casualties, which is good reason to avoid them if possible (I know, we've touch on this before).

But it still goes back to the mission. If the mission was just defeat the enemy and take land, collateral damage makes more sense (though I hate the term as it is too PC to accurately reflect what is happening). However, the mission requires winning hearts and minds, and that is hard to do if civilians are killed too regularly.

As I have said, I have no reason to doubt the soldiers at this time, and they likely behaved within the rules. But the mission suffers from these events and that is also true.
Click to expand...

Well sure the mission is going to affect how many casualties are acceptable. Aside from the fact that I think "hearts and mind" is just a PR campaign, it's not as though the civilian population is making it any easier for us. And realistically, they're killing far more of each other than we're killing of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom