Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

moodymonster · Jun 20, 2006, 07:00 AM

TALEBAN fighters used women and children as human shields as they tried to escape into the mountains of Afghanistan, British troops claimed yesterday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...233426,00.html

real brave, taking advantage of your enemy's predilection not to attack women and children. Scum.

So it's not really about dying for a cause, but dying for rewards in the afterlife?

yakkiebah · Jun 20, 2006, 08:01 AM

America pushed them into doing this. The Taliban used to be all about women rights. We should send them money instead because that's the only thing that would stop them from doing stuff like this. They can't help themselves man.

Kevin · Jun 20, 2006, 08:13 AM

And when they do fire on them,"THEY ARE KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!"

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 20, 2006, 08:53 AM

Ya well in the 60's the US used black people. Tomato tamato.

cybergoober · Jun 20, 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

America pushed them into doing this. The Taliban used to be all about women rights. We should send them money instead because that's the only thing that would stop them from doing stuff like this. They can't help themselves man.

Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument. They can't help themselves? Puh-lease...

typoon · Jun 20, 2006, 09:06 AM

We are surprised by this? They are using children because they KNOW we are weak and won't kill a child in order to KILL them. If it was reversed they wouldn't hesitate to do differently.

Y3a · Jun 20, 2006, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Ya well in the 60's the US used black people. Tomato tamato.

NO they didn't ! I LIVE IN THE DC AREA - home to lots of political violence and riots in the 60's and you are just repeating more urban ledgends.

Dakar · Jun 20, 2006, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by typoon

We are surprised by this? They are using children because they KNOW we are weak and won't kill a child in order to KILL them. If it was reversed they wouldn't hesitate to do differently.

We're weak because we won't kill children in order to kill them? How about not irresponsible?

Edit: They're weak They need children for protection!

moodymonster · Jun 20, 2006, 10:59 AM

not shooting at women and children is very far from weakness. Fighting with integrity is much harder than fighting without.

Didn't stop the Paras and Gurkhas anyway.

“The second time they were firing through a building with women and children inside. My guys had to go around the left and right to get them.”

typoon · Jun 20, 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

We're weak because we won't kill children in order to kill them? How about not irresponsible?

Edit: They're weak They need children for protection!

No that's just cowardly.

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating that we kill the children, but if a terrorist is holding a child and using them as a shield what are you supposed to do? Let the terroris get away so he CAN KILL YOU Next time? or will you END HIS LIFE before he can come back to END yours? I'm sorry but this IS war and in wars collateral damage WILL and DOES happen. If there is no other way to kill the terrorist and if the unfortunate option of being that in order to KILL the terrorist shooting at you that you HAVE TO kill the child or hostage in order to do so then unfortuately you have to do that. If you can do it without killing the hostage then that would be the best option.

Yes we are weak because we won't kill a child in order to kill them and they KNOW IT.

Dakar · Jun 20, 2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by typoon

No that's just cowardly.

Weak and cowardly are synonyms.

Originally Posted by typoon

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating that we kill the children, but if a terrorist is holding a child and using them as a shield what are you supposed to do?

Make a judgement call, like most likely have been doing?

Originally Posted by typoon

Yes we are weak because we won't kill a child in order to kill them and they KNOW IT.

Things aren't that absolute. And, uh, that scandal sort of said that we were willing.

Big Mac · Jun 20, 2006, 11:46 AM

I would not call it weak, typhoon. We have higher standards. We subscribe to particular ideals in warfare, and they do not. Whether or not our decision to remain committed to those standards is prudent from a tactical standpoint is a different story. In America's War of Independence we fought a British army that felt it necessary to line its troops up in rows because the British subscribed to a very high standard of noble warfare. That was obviously not a good choice from a tactical standpoint, since we did not feel compelled to fight such a noble war with the British. I personally believe American ideals concerning warfare are just. We should avoid collateral damage to whatever extent possible, although I agree that strategic goals in warfare do at times need to override concerns over collateral damage.

Dakar · Jun 20, 2006, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We have higher standards. We subscribe to particular ideals in warfare, and they do not.

Bingo.

moodymonster · Jun 20, 2006, 12:07 PM

don't mistake compassion for weakness

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 20, 2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We subscribe to particular ideals in warfare, and they do not.

Kevin · Jun 20, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Ya well in the 60's the US used black people. Tomato tamato.

*sigh*

von Wrangell · Jun 20, 2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

We are surprised by this? They are using children because they KNOW we are weak and won't kill a child in order to KILL them. If it was reversed they wouldn't hesitate to do differently.

You are "weak" because you won't kill innocent children?! WTF!?

von Wrangell · Jun 20, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

No that's just cowardly.

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating that we kill the children, but if a terrorist is holding a child and using them as a shield what are you supposed to do? Let the terroris get away so he CAN KILL YOU Next time? or will you END HIS LIFE before he can come back to END yours? I'm sorry but this IS war and in wars collateral damage WILL and DOES happen. If there is no other way to kill the terrorist and if the unfortunate option of being that in order to KILL the terrorist shooting at you that you HAVE TO kill the child or hostage in order to do so then unfortuately you have to do that. If you can do it without killing the hostage then that would be the best option.

Yes we are weak because we won't kill a child in order to kill them and they KNOW IT.

It's comments like this one that make me wish you will soon have a war inside your own territory. Maybe that would make you realise what a complete ....... you are.

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 20, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You are "weak" because you won't kill innocent children?! WTF!?

Just to be fair there are children in terrorist training camps and placing bombs.

von Wrangell · Jun 20, 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I would not call it weak, typhoon. We have higher standards. We subscribe to particular ideals in warfare, and they do not. Whether or not our decision to remain committed to those standards is prudent from a tactical standpoint is a different story. In America's War of Independence we fought a British army that felt it necessary to line its troops up in rows because the British subscribed to a very high standard of noble warfare. That was obviously not a good choice from a tactical standpoint, since we did not feel compelled to fight such a noble war with the British. I personally believe American ideals concerning warfare are just. We should avoid collateral damage to whatever extent possible, ...snip....

(On the presumption that US "ideals" are what the US military says)

olePigeon · Jun 20, 2006, 12:59 PM

Would you PLEASE stop using apostrophes in plural words?

von Wrangell · Jun 20, 2006, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Just to be fair there are children in terrorist training camps and placing bombs.

Which is why I said "innocent children".

RAILhead · Jun 20, 2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

OH NOZ!!11! DOGZ BARKING AT MEH AN PANTIES ON MEH HEAD!!11!!1

:sigh:

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 20, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Which is why I said "innocent children".

How do you know they were?

yakkiebah · Jun 20, 2006, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by cybergoober

Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument. They can't help themselves? Puh-lease...

It was sarcasm.

Kerrigan · Jun 20, 2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

OH NOZ!!11! DOGZ BARKING AT MEH AN PANTIES ON MEH HEAD!!11!!1

:sigh:

typoon · 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

It's comments like this one that make me wish you will soon have a war inside your own territory. Maybe that would make you realise what a complete ....... you are.

First off I'm NOT advocating killing innocent children. Secondly, if you were in a war zone and you had to make a choice. What would you do? If the ONLY way to kill the terroist is to unfortunately kill the child he is hold or using as a sheild or the terroist IS going to kill you or IS going to get away so he can come back another day to KILL you or your comrades what are you going to do?

I'm sorry but in a WAR Sh!t like this IS going to happen. Is it unfortunate? YES. If you think it makes me an ...... for wanting to protecting lives then fine I'll be an ....... Like I've said this IS war. Unfortunately it happens.

typoon · Jun 21, 2006, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I would not call it weak, typhoon. We have higher standards. We subscribe to particular ideals in warfare, and they do not. Whether or not our decision to remain committed to those standards is prudent from a tactical standpoint is a different story. In America's War of Independence we fought a British army that felt it necessary to line its troops up in rows because the British subscribed to a very high standard of noble warfare. That was obviously not a good choice from a tactical standpoint, since we did not feel compelled to fight such a noble war with the British. I personally believe American ideals concerning warfare are just. We should avoid collateral damage to whatever extent possible, although I agree that strategic goals in warfare do at times need to override concerns over collateral damage.

I agree with that. We DO have higher standards. Sometimes it's our "standards" that are getting us Killed. Should we still adhere to them? definitely. I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid collateral damage IF we can. It's a war and collateral damage IS going to happen. Unfortunately the terrorists know that we are going to go out of our way to try and not allow collateral damage that is one of the reasons why they are using "innocent" children as human shields.

People seem to think I'm advocating killing innocent children. I'M NOT! We are in a war unfortunately innocents will get killed. Should we try and avoid it? Yes and almost any cost.

demograph68 · Jun 21, 2006, 05:29 AM

I'd use an adult instead since they'd offer more cover.

cybergoober · Jun 21, 2006, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

It was sarcasm.

Sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes.

Kerrigan · Jun 21, 2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

If the ONLY way to kill the oppressed freedom fighter is to unfortunately kill the child he is hold or using as a sheild or the oppressed freedom fighter IS going to kill you

.

Fixed. I made your post more palatable for any fundamentalists who happen to be reading this thread.

Big Mac · Jun 21, 2006, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

(On the presumption that US "ideals" are what the US military says)

It's important to note that this is, by my count, the second time in history that von Wrangell and I have agreed on a topic.

typoon · Jun 21, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

.

Fixed. I made your post more palatable for any fundamentalists who happen to be reading this thread.

LOL Thanks Kerrigan.