It's supposed to be a war against terrorists

not against  Muslims many civilians die bcos

the Americans/NATO troops  don't carefully

eveluate targets.

The war on terror has killed more civilians than the

terrorists.

It's supposed to be a war against terrorists

Define terrorists, are they the troops who attack others inside their countries or are they the ones who are defending their countries and fight back?

not against  Muslims

But this is a Muslim country

 many civilians die bcos

the Americans/NATO troops  don't carefully

eveluate targets.

B.S…If the NATO & the Americans can not evaluate who can??

They simply DO NOT CARE because they are Afghani Muslims!

The war on terror has killed more civilians than the

terrorists.

Absolutely right.

Afghan's die because they've spent a LIFETIME under the thumb of Islamic domination.

Islam teaches them to HIDE and PROTECT these terrorist. If they don't, they die.

So, Taliban attack NATO troops, our surveillance drones track them into mud huts and NATO levels them.

There use to be a "code" of war that label such acts as "supporting the enemy", and thus becoming the enemy.

Islamic/Muslims have become very adept at twisting the truth and using the media (well, local media) to their benefit.

That's ok, it's all good.

NATO could turn Afghanistan into a parking lot if killing indiscriminately was what we were there to do.

Think about ..... if you can.

>>If you kill us can we kill you?<<

Well right off hand I don’t see why not.

Killing isn’t the way to solve problems but it is a sure way to start them. If someone is entering your house or country shooting at you I think it is perfectly reasonable to shoot back. Not only that but if you are armed it is your responsibility to defend your home or country by any means necessary. If the intruder wants to stop the killing they should leave. If the intruder stays then every death whether human or animal is blood on the hands of the invader just as it is from the beginning for launching the attacks.

The death of innocent persons during times of war have always been horrible and yet, unavoidable.

During the Normandy invasion of World War II, tens of thousands of French citizens were killed by the Allied preparatory bombing campaign and the inevitable street to street, house to house fighting that took place once the beach head was moved inland.

Throughout war, when innocent civilians are caught between the two egregious parties, it never bodes well for the civilians.

It doesn’t make it right, but that is the facts.

Asking survivors of such attacks (AFTER the conflicted ended), were the losses they suffered worth it? You’ll find many opinions.

First opinion is; “Of course not!!! I lost my mother, or my father in this war!”

Second opinion is; “If the greater good (victory of tyranny) was somehow served by the death of my family members, then I’m proud their death contributed”.

The responses to loved ones lost during conflict are widely varied.

In cases like Afghanistan, a nation that is filled with illiterate peasantry who subsist on the bare minimums of livelihood regardless of WHO’S in charge, I’m almost sure they’d respond that the loss of their family members WAS NOT WORTH IT.

When I see these accidents I get very angry. Mainly because the need for air power is based on the LACK of “boots on the ground”.

European forces in Afghanistan are not all pulling their fair share of the combat. Thousands of combat troops are in “safe zones” simply because their governments want to avoid combat causalities.

You can’t fight a war like that.

As a member of NATO, those nations have committed to a certain agreement that they currently aren’t meeting up too.

Until NATO has the forces available to respond throughout the country, air power will continue to play a major roll in the fighting. As long as air power is used, mistakes like this will continue to happen and NATO will continue to lose public support both at home and in the field.

Looking at the Afghan situation concerning some European country's staying in a safe part of Afghan. The main reason is the country's that sent them there do not beleive in being in Afghan in the first place. Why should they lose people in Afghan fighting a u.s. war. Like Iraq, the u.s. and brits started that war, then expect everyone else to run to there rescue. Whatever happened to the bush big talk. We will go it alone. Well, they should go it alone and stop dragging everyone else in the neo cons wars. I honestly think, this world would be would be much more peaceful, if country's like the u.s. and yes, brits also would stay out of other country's business and stop alway's calling for regime changes in other country's, so they can put in a leader that will cater to the west interests .In most cases it is against what the public in those country's want.  

That is my take on the whole mess.

Cheers,

Yack

To make this a simple answer, the NATO alliance is founded upon one simple principle; the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

Now seeing on how the US is a founding member of that organization and the US was attacked by terrorist organization protected by the THEN government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, THAT’S why the European armies are obligated to provide troops for the war.

Whether or not the socialist minded people of Europe like it or not isn’t really the point.

When the US saved their bacon (not once but twice), they certainly didn’t seem to mind it.

The least they could do is get on the bus and lets win this fight and go home.

When the US saved their bacon (not once but twice), they certainly didn’t seem to mind it.

 The u.s. saved there bacon? They stayed out of the war and sold military equipment. They did not come into ww2 untill later.

you said..

The least they could do is get on the bus and lets win this fight and go home.

Why should they?  The so called war between the u.s. and Afghan and probally Pakistan is  not there business... everyone is tired of fighting the neo cons u.s. wars. ALL OVER A PIPELINE THROUGH AFGHAN AND PAKISTAN.

The u.s. saved there bacon? They stayed out of the war and sold military equipment. They did not come into ww2 untill later.

Stop trying to muddy the waters Yack. The US didn't want to get involved in yet ANOTHER European war because of their ancestral habit of fighting over minor squabbles like the issue that created WW I.

President Roosevelt attempted to involve the US in WWII early but the lack of enthusiasm to get in yet another European conflict mad that hard. But once we were brought into the fight, it was the power of the US that won the day.

Why should they?  The so called war between the u.s. and Afghan and probally Pakistan is  not there business... everyone is tired of fighting the neo cons u.s. wars. ALL OVER A PIPELINE THROUGH AFGHAN AND PAKISTAN.

The should support the effort because THAT'S WHAT THE ALLIANCE is built on. I truly wish the US would disengage in both these wars simply so Islamic extremist could resume their attacks on Europe and THEN lets see what happens.

Define war! 

I guess wars happen between 2 countries or more, it’s 2 armies fighting each other like what was going on in WWI, WWII even the cold war between US and USSR, the war between Iran and Iraq…etc…  BUT when you come to occupy my country this is not a war, it’s an occupation and invasion. You’re killing my kids my family and my people. You came to fight me while I’m thousands of miles away; I’m not your next door neighboring country that attacked you!

I guess that gives me the right to treat you equally. If I come and attack you terrify your people then I’m only responding and avenging.

An eye for an eye.

I can say now that Taliban and al Qaeda are right, thanks for confirming my thought about them.

I started reading your reply with a bit of agreement but after completely reading the post I find your logic unreasonable bordering on absurd.

The last half of your letter sounds like a ‘Movietone News’ propaganda blurb we used to see between the cartoons and feature movie at the Saturday matinee.

>>When I see these accidents I get very angry. Mainly because the need for air power is based on the LACK of “boots on the ground”.<<

Are you saying that because there are not enough soldiers to kill the enemy quickly enough more civilian lives get lost?

Who in hell do you think the ‘enemy’ is; some military combat force to overcome perhaps an enemy combatant or perhaps the most often used word insurgent. Yes invading militaries always fight insurgents because insurgents are part of the civilian populations that are being militarily murdered. Soldiers are meat factory murder machines and you say that there are not enough of them; poppycock. By the way Hitler called the French Résistance insurgents.

>>European forces in Afghanistan are not all pulling their fair share of the combat. Thousands of combat troops are in “safe zones” simply because their governments want to avoid combat causalities.<<

So what you seem to imply is that the soldiers need to get off their orders and go get some. The generals are simply dragging their feet and until we can kill the ‘insurgents’ in hand to hand combat with our ‘army of one’ multiplied we will simply have to keep bombing civilians from the air. Doesn’t that sound a little sick?

>>Until NATO has the forces available to respond throughout the country, air power will continue to play a major roll in the fighting. As long as air power is used, mistakes like this will continue to happen and NATO will continue to lose public support both at home and in the field.<<

NATO will continue losing public support?

It’s the public that is getting the coalition out of this insane war and by doing so proves that it is the United States that is losing public support for the war both here and abroad. Electing Obama proves that Americans want out of this American war just as does every other human on this planet; if you want to know why the war continues then ask the non-humans that make profit off of it such as the Jewish bankers and Zionist arms manufacturers i.e. the humans from hell born of Cain the first murderer and his elk that have ruled finance from the beginning and the duped that follow them to their own deaths while singing  our imperialist songs about the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli and how those people will be better off if we kill them fighting for our honor that we never had and freedoms that we only think we have.

I started reading your reply with a bit of agreement but after completely reading the post I find your logic unreasonable bordering on absurd. Really? Interesting.

The last half of your letter sounds like a ‘Movietone News’ propaganda blurb we used to see between the cartoons and feature movie at the Saturday matinee. Obviously you’ve decided that my arguments aren’t worthy of your intellectual state of mind. I suppose if I don’t say what it is you want to hear, it becomes something less meaningful or trivial. Thus forming your opinion of sarcasm.  

>>When I see these accidents I get very angry. Mainly because the need for air power is based on the LACK of “boots on the ground”.<<

Are you saying that because there are not enough soldiers to kill the enemy quickly enough more civilian lives get lost? I’m a military man Media. I see the realities of the conflict, not the propaganda worth of a statement. More soldiers means flexibility. Flexibility means the ability to insert troops into multiple regions so a reaction force can go in and face the threat instead of relying on air power to equal the playing field.

Who in hell do you think the ‘enemy’ is; some military combat force to overcome perhaps an enemy combatant or perhaps the most often used word insurgent. Yes invading militaries always fight insurgents because insurgents are part of the civilian populations that are being militarily murdered. Soldiers are meat factory murder machines and you say that there are not enough of them; poppycock. By the way Hitler called the French Résistance insurgents. Insurgent is simply a word. A descriptive word. All resistant groups see them selves as “liberators” of their nation. One thing you seem to leave out is, most of these insurgents aren’t even Afghani. The Taliban see this as a fight against Islam, not Afghanistan. They see this as a fight or Jihad against non-Muslim forces who have invaded Muslim lands. It doesn’t matter to them WHERE that particular piece of Muslim real estate is located. Regular Afghanis simply want a life free of conflict. But they don’t want a return to Taliban rule. Though they’re no more happy with Karzi’s government than they are with a return to Taliban rule, they at least see a government not bent on shoving some archaic 7^th century doctrine down their throats. They simply want stability and a government that cares and gives them the freedom to choose their lives the way they want to live them. Some people call that democracy. What form of democracy is best for Afghanistan is where the major complication arises.  

>>European forces in Afghanistan are not all pulling their fair share of the combat. Thousands of combat troops are in “safe zones” simply because their governments want to avoid combat causalities.<<

So what you seem to imply is that the soldiers need to get off their orders and go get some. The generals are simply dragging their feet and until we can kill the ‘insurgents’ in hand to hand combat with our ‘army of one’ multiplied we will simply have to keep bombing civilians from the air. Doesn’t that sound a little sick? What I’m saying is you either commit to the fight or you don’t. War is a game of attrition. That’s the hard cold reality of war. Kill more of them than they kill of you. You may not agree with that, but that’s war. I would emplace strike units in strategic areas, up in the mountain passes that we know the Taliban is using to get back and forth from Pakistan. But we can’t do that with the limited troop strength we currently have. I would maintain a presence in towns and village we’ve secured. But we can’t do that with the limited troops at our disposal. So when we leave a village, the Taliban return and kill those they see as “sympathizers”, striking even more fear into the population and proving NATO can’t really protect them for the Taliban.

>>Until NATO has the forces available to respond throughout the country, air power will continue to play a major roll in the fighting. As long as air power is used, mistakes like this will continue to happen and NATO will continue to lose public support both at home and in the field.<<

NATO will continue losing public support?

It’s the public that is getting the coalition out of this insane war and by doing so proves that it is the United States that is losing public support for the war both here and abroad. Electing Obama proves that Americans want out of this American war just as does every other human on this planet; if you want to know why the war continues then ask the non-humans that make profit off of it such as the Jewish bankers and Zionist arms manufacturers i.e. the humans from hell born of Cain the first murderer and his elk that have ruled finance from the beginning and the duped that follow them to their own deaths while singing  our imperialist songs about the Halls of Montezuma and the Shores of Tripoli and how those people will be better off if we kill them fighting for our honor that we never had and freedoms that we only think we have. Talk about sounding like something right out of Islamic propaganda 101.
You’re correct that Obama was elect on a platform of change. You’re also correct that most American’s are tired of the wars and simply don’t see the local population really caring who wins or looses. As I’ve said before, if they don’t want to stand up and take on the mantle of freedom then leave them to their own misery.
In five years the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will look back at this war as a long hard lesson in freedom or cowardice.
They will say “thank Allah for a new chance on life”, or “Why have thou forsaken us oh Allah”.

I deleted it.

To AmGI:

I don’t question your intellect so quit saying that I do. What I question is your absurd ideology that somehow in order to achieve peace and eliminate threats there has to be a ramped up military response. Whatever happened to diplomacy or is the State Dept. simply an arm of the military? We used to negotiate with the enemy to eventually achieve peace i.e. the absence of war. Now war is the first response and peace is achieved through occupation murder and torture rather than negotiations. The answer to unwinnable wars is to withdraw troops not increase troop levels which result in not destroying the enemy fighters (more will come to replace them) but instead destroys the civilization in which the enemy resides; the civilians.

You say you see the realities of conflict and I have no doubt that you do. I see the realities of conflict as well. The difference is that you see it from a soldiers point of view and I see it from the civilians point and I can tell you one thing is for sure; if some bast-ards attacked my country and killed my friends and family you can count on it that I would become an insurgent and do everything in my power to repel the attackers and I’m pretty sure every other American would be doing the same and so why do we expect less from those whom we attack.

Using words like insurgent to describe the enemy as if the enemies are the people is really describing the resistance to the American implant that we call the government much like the Vichy government Nazi Germany had in France. Insurgent is probably a nobler cause than being a soldier because the insurgent is doing it for the love of his or her country and the soldier goes to battle because he is a wacked out ***** that believes everything his government tells him. To complete the thought; the word terrorist is now being used to describe those that rally in the streets to oppose the war and has lost all of its meaning to the point that the enemy is now us. If someone picks up a rock and throws it they are considered enemies of the state and therefore are deemed terrorist instead of just being someone mad enough to that pick up a rock. I suppose the domestic endgame for the military is to get Americans to look at protesters of the war as being un-American and therefore enemies of America. The ruling group mind in Washington think that the national security state (the US Military) is America and that to oppose the Security State is treason against America.

I used a phrase ‘the ruling group mind’ and offer a lecture from a Canadian intellectual (John McMurtry) that explains what the ruling group mind is. It is being broadcast from KPFA-FM radio archives and there is a two minute intro so please be patient.  http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/3921 I would encourage anyone that wants to know why America has taken the low road to listen. I think it will be an hour well spent.

>>They simply want stability and a government that cares and gives them the freedom to choose their lives the way they want to live them. Some people call that democracy. What form of democracy is best for Afghanistan is where the major complication arises.<<

A government that cares does not exist outside the realm of what it has to do in order to get re-elected. Re-election is the name of the game and that’s what democracy is all about i.e. casting a ballot with no real knowledge of the candidate but then that’s another subject.

I think we agree in principle that the people of the countries we have attacked in the name of Democracy want freedom as much as you and I but my question would be does our thoughts on freedom coincide with theirs. Here's what I’m getting at; a religionist believes that freedom is obedience to God’s word which is antithetical to what a person that doesn’t believe in God might call freedom. We cannot sit here and pontificate to them what freedom means based upon ours and not their cultures. I understand that the Taliban is a repressive ideology that is intolerable so I have to ask what happened to the Mujahedeen and the Northern Alliance that were our buddies; why hasn’t our allies kept the Taliban away. Could the answer be that the US has taken over all military operations and decided that our allies are our enemies? Dam it you can’t trust criminals or their agreements so why do our criminals in Washington DC trust the criminals in Kabul or Islamabad?

This entire war effort is baloney. War is a scam and the American public is the one being scammed by war. The very idea of sending our children to fight for a lie and for the liars that tell them is simply beyond my realm of comprehension. I envy you that it is all squared away in your mind but would like you to read a few excerpts from General Smedley Butler USMC. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

To AmGI:

I don’t question your intellect so quit saying that I do. What I question is your absurd ideology that somehow in order to achieve peace and eliminate threats there has to be a ramped up military response. When and where have I stated that Media White? I have stated many times that diplomacy should come first and war only when all factors have failed and it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a “Clear and Present Danger” threatens the national well being of the United States.

Whatever happened to diplomacy or is the State Dept. simply an arm of the military? No, its not and it should never be.

We used to negotiate with the enemy to eventually achieve peace i.e. the absence of war. Now war is the first response and peace is achieved through occupation murder and torture rather than negotiations. I can’t deny that the Bush regime acted in that manner. With hopes for the future, America finally replaced that mindset and hopefully the fruits of common sense and the integrity the US have always held as the hallmark of democracy has returned.

The answer to unwinnable wars is to withdraw troops not increase troop levels which result in not destroying the enemy fighters (more will come to replace them) but instead destroys the civilization in which the enemy resides; the civilians. I would say that depends on the nation in which one is fighting. At the end of World War II, Nazi insurgents continued fighting for some time. The Allied forces refused to leave and refused to give in. Germany turned out for the best because of that tenacity. Japan was managed differently and it took generations for Japan to come around. An “occupation” of sorts STILL exists in Germany and Japan some 70-years after the end of the war.
Now, do I believe the illiterate mind washed peasants of Afghanistan have any REAL hope of grasping the 21^st century and turn their backs on the religion that’s held them in the 7^th century??? No, I don’t. But Iraq might possibly have a chance since they aren’t cut from the same cotton cloth as Afghanis.   

You say you see the realities of conflict and I have no doubt that you do. I see the realities of conflict as well. The difference is that you see it from a soldiers point of view and I see it from the civilians point and I can tell you one thing is for sure; if some bast-ards attacked my country and killed my friends and family you can count on it that I would become an insurgent and do everything in my power to repel the attackers and I’m pretty sure every other American would be doing the same and so why do we expect less from those whom we attack. And you’d be right. That’s why the CAUSE and BELIEF in the fight have to carry weight amongst the people whose men and women are sent to fight it. As I’ve stated many times, America ISN’T on a war footing. Our forces have been fed piece mill into the conflict and our citizens go on with day to day life as if nothing is going on.
If the US REALLY believed in victory, then we’d be throwing everything we have at the enemy. We’re not.
So in short, since Afghanistan is the least most understood region and the least most understood people, our hopes of creating a just and fair society are very small. Iraq on the other hand could have been salvaged simply by re-establishing tribal boundaries.
That of course will occur as soon as US forces leave. It’s called “Civil War”.  

Using words like insurgent to describe the enemy as if the enemies are the people is really describing the resistance to the American implant that we call the government much like the Vichy government Nazi Germany had in France. I don’t know if I see it that way. I see the word “insurgent” in several different ways. From “freedom fighter” to self serving groups intent on taking over for their own agenda.

Insurgent is probably a nobler cause than being a soldier because the insurgent is doing it for the love of his or her country You forgot RELIGION and the soldier goes to battle because he is a wacked out ***** that believes everything his government tells him. That’s simply not true. Most soldiers join for two combined reasons. Patriotism and job security. They can be a good American and serve while also receiving a pay check. I wasn’t “wacked out” when I joined the Marine Corps and I certainly didn’t believe in waging war for no just cause. The battles I fought were founded in sound reasoning of the day. As a member of the military, you entrust your command to “do the right thing”. It doesn’t always happen that way, but without that system of trust, the US would be no better off than those third world nations who have military coups on a monthly basis.

To complete the thought; the word terrorist is now being used to describe those that rally in the streets to oppose the war and has lost all of its meaning to the point that the enemy is now us. A term used far too often and used to scare the American public.

If someone picks up a rock and throws it they are considered enemies of the state and therefore are deemed terrorist instead of just being someone mad enough to that pick up a rock. I think this statement if simply and over exaggeration.

I suppose the domestic endgame for the military is to get Americans to look at protesters of the war as being un-American and therefore enemies of America. Again you have the wrong impression. The US military isn’t in the streets of good old USofA breaking up anti-war protesters. These groups have the right to protest and express their beliefs and it’s the US military that guarantees those rights. Along with the Constitution.

The ruling group mind in Washington think that the national security state (the US Military) is America and that to oppose the Security State is treason against America. There’s a little law “The Posse Comitatus Act” of 1878 that strictly forbids the use of the US military as national law enforcement agents. (Don’t get confused by the use of National Guard units in this capacity). American citizens have no fear of federal troops leaving the barracks and enforcing policing powers upon them. And the average American citizen doesn’t see its military as a “ruling group” or a “supporter of a specific political regime”. Though most service members vote, and hold political affiliations, the US service member is a sworn defender of the US Constitution and the national security of the US. We also swear to obey those CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES (i.e. Commander-in-Chief… US President) placed in position commanding us. Therefore it is the responsibility of the C-in-C, elected by the US public, to utilize US forces in an appropriate manner.    

I used a phrase ‘the ruling group mind’ and offer a lecture from a Canadian intellectual (John McMurtry) that explains what the ruling group mind is. It is being broadcast from KPFA-FM radio archives and there is a two minute intro so please be patient.  http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/3921 I would encourage anyone that wants to know why America has taken the low road to listen. I think it will be an hour well spent. America took the “low road” as you call it because it was viciously attacked by Muslim extremist that found support within Muslim nations. But the rule of law that we cherish is quickly being re-established and it won’t be long before the Bush years are seen as a terrible reaction to the unknown.

>>They simply want stability and a government that cares and gives them the freedom to choose their lives the way they want to live them. Some people call that democracy. What form of democracy is best for Afghanistan is where the major complication arises.<<

A government that cares does not exist outside the realm of what it has to do in order to get re-elected. Re-election is the name of the game and that’s what democracy is all about i.e. casting a ballot with no real knowledge of the candidate but then that’s another subject. Of course. In that, the politico maintains the will of the people or they get voted out. That’s politics and democracy in a nut shell.

I think we agree in principle that the people of the countries we have attacked in the name of Democracy want freedom as much as you and I but my question would be does our thoughts on freedom coincide with theirs. I contend that the US never intended to establish “democratic values” in any Muslim nation. Only as evidence developed and the threats didn’t seem as fearful as they once were did the Bush regime change the “tone” of the war. Unfortunately, it took the American public several years to figure out the current tune was more of a “sour note” than the sweet song of freedom.

Here's what I’m getting at; a religionist believes that freedom is obedience to God’s word which is antithetical to what a person that doesn’t believe in God might call freedom. We cannot sit here and pontificate to them what freedom means based upon ours and not their cultures. I agree. And I also state that that works both ways. Unfortunately there are elements both Christian and Muslim that would disagree with you and would say God/Allah commands that they go forth and convert/subjugate or kill.

I understand that the Taliban is a repressive ideology that is intolerable so I have to ask what happened to the Mujahedeen and the Northern Alliance that were our buddies; why hasn’t our allies kept the Taliban away. Could the answer be that the US has taken over all military operations and decided that our allies are our enemies? Again, I’ve said; “No people can be truly free if it isn’t THEY THEMSELVES that shed blood for that freedom”.

Dam it you can’t trust criminals or their agreements so why do our criminals in Washington DC trust the criminals in Kabul or Islamabad? I don’t believe anyone in Washington truly trust their fellow leaders in Kabul or Islamabad. The US is using them to fight a common enemy. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Again, realism in the politico.  

This entire war effort is baloney. War effort in Iraq? Yes. War effort in Afghanistan? No. At least it wasn’t to begin with. I’m not so sure now.

War is a scam and the American public is the one being scammed by war. War is a necessary evil of mankind. Some wars MUST be fought. The only reason evil prevails is good men failed to do anything to stop it. There’s a world full of evil men out there. I don’t believe it’s the sole responsibility of the US to “police” the world and end the reign of these evil men. But I do believe when we are attacked, we have the right of self defense. As do all nations.

The very idea of sending our children to fight for a lie and for the liars that tell them is simply beyond my realm of comprehension. MINE TOO!

I envy you that it is all squared away in your mind but would like you to read a few excerpts from General Smedley Butler USMC. I never said “it was all squared away in my mind”. But I do accept the reality of the current situation and as long as our leaders continue to accept the status quos those men and women of our military will continue to wage war. It really doesn’t have to make sense; it’s simply the nature of the beast.
Loose the hounds of hell and reap the harvest of blood and carnage.

>>When and where have I stated that Media White? I have stated many times that diplomacy should come first and war only when all factors have failed and it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a “Clear and Present Danger” threatens the national well being of the United States.<<

Well now I’m dazed an confused that you deny sending in more troops to solve worldwide national concerns such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that has only a diplomatic solution; that is if we could only set aside the mindset that war solves world problems. So here is the statement I was addressing:

Mediawhite: Are you saying that because there are not enough soldiers to kill the enemy quickly enough more civilian lives get lost?

AmGI: I’m a military man Media. I see the realities of the conflict, not the propaganda worth of a statement. More soldiers means flexibility. Flexibility means the ability to insert troops into multiple regions so a reaction force can go in and face the threat instead of relying on air power to equal the playing field.

>>At the end of World War II, Nazi insurgents continued fighting for some time.<<

That’s really funny, I actually tried to find some history on Nazi insurgents and by God I came up empty handed. Perhaps you could link me to the matter. The only Nazis that could be considered Nazi insurgents I think would be the Hitler youth and the old men that fought to the end defending Berlin and areas roundabout the Bunker where Hitler took the easy way out along with his cowardly friend Goebbels’s. I don’t think anyone continued fighting for even a short time much less some time thereafter but I could be wrong I wouldn’t want to overstate my case.

>>As I’ve stated many times, America ISN’T on a war footing. Our forces have been fed piece mill into the conflict and our citizens go on with day to day life as if nothing is going on.

If the US REALLY believed in victory, then we’d be throwing everything we have at the enemy.<<

Victory, what would victory look like; would it be to bring Iraq into the sunum boonum of global market forces? What I don’t quite understand is why we are so concerned with bringing ‘democracy’ to a country that the US had sanctioned for twelve years causing the deaths of five hundred thousand children and untold destruction of their infrastructure such as water and sewage which is the main cause of death due to microbial infections. Why are we there and why at this particular time are we there? I for one cannot find justification for one more person dying in the name of globalization for the profits of the New York bankers. I can tell you why America is not committed to going on a war footing in Iraq; it would require reinstating the draft causing Americans to suddenly awaken to what those criminals in the Whitehouse are doing which would engender an immediate public response to end the war now.

>>I don’t know if I see it that way. I see the word “insurgent” in several different ways. From “freedom fighter” to self serving groups intent on taking over for their own agenda.<<

The dictionary definition of insurgent is one that is attacking their own government and here is where it gets tricky. If ones own government is made up of stooges of another government then what is being attacked by the insurgents is in fact foreign invaders that are in control of the local government. America has troops fighting eight thousand miles away to keep a stooge quisling government in power so that we can get total control of Iraqi resources and for that purpose only, it’s not quite what I would call a Lincoln Brigade we’ve got over there. I would equate our presence in Iraq as more in the way of Storm Troopers; remember ‘shock and awe’ and all that it entailed when the first thing we bombed was the water and sewage facilities along with the power supply; not exactly the way to win hearts and minds as if we care about their hearts and minds in any sense other than pacification for our own purposes. Our problem here in the US is that we have become convinced that a neo liberal globalized market is democracy itself and therefore globalizing Iraq’s economy is to bring them Iraqi freedom.

We are not in too much disagreement in the rest of your post so I’ll leave it at this point. Have a nice day.

Media White: That’s really funny, I actually tried to find some history on Nazi insurgents and by God I came up empty handed. Perhaps you could link me to the matter. The only Nazis that could be considered Nazi insurgents I think would be the Hitler youth and the old men that fought to the end defending Berlin and areas roundabout the Bunker where Hitler took the easy way out along with his cowardly friend Goebbels’s. I don’t think anyone continued fighting for even a short time much less some time thereafter but I could be wrong I wouldn’t want to overstate my case.

Well I would have thought you’d at least given me a challenge?

http://www.worldhistoryblog.com/2005/12/minutemen-of-third-reich-history-of.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/952253/posts

A case in point is the Nazi Werewolf guerrilla movement founded by Heinrich Himmler in 1944, which fought the occupying forces of Britain, America and Russia until at least 1947.

Though werewolf can’t be compared in reality with the Iraqi insurgency, one simply has to give reasonable comparison to then and now.

I said long ago that IF the United States made the decision to invade Iraq, they would have to do so along the level of the US landings in Normandy during World War II.

Germany was a broken nation. Total destruction. Nothing left to really grasp on too except the terms of unconditional surrender.

Divided up into 4 zones of occupation. On V-E Day, Eisenhower had sixty-one U.S. divisions, 1,622,000 men, in Germany, and a total force in Europe numbering 3,077,000.¹ When the shooting ended, the divisions in the field became the occupation troops, charged with maintaining law and order and establishing the Allied military presence in the defeated nation. This was the army-type occupation. A counterpart of the military government carpet, its object was to control the population and stifle resistance by putting troops into every nook and cranny. Divisions were spread out across the countryside, sometimes over great stretches of territory. The 78th Infantry Division, for instance, for a time after V - E Day was responsible for an area of 3,600 square miles, almost twice the size of the state of Delaware, and the 70th Infantry Division for 2,500 square miles. Battalions were deployed separately, and the company was widely viewed as the ideal unit for independent deployment because billets were easy to find and the hauls from the billets to guard posts and checkpoints would not be excessively long. Frequently single platoons and squads were deployed at substantial distances from their company headquarters.

The occupation troops manned border control stations, maintained checkpoints at road junctions and bridges, sent out roving patrols to apprehend curfew and circulation violators, and kept stationary guards at railroad bridges, Army installations, DP camps, jails, telephone exchanges, factories, and banks. In the first months troops were plentiful and almost everything of importance-and some not so important-was guarded.² In effect, the combat forces became military government security troops.

The army-type occupation was comprehensive and showed the Germans that they were defeated and their country occupied. This type of occupation was presumably capable of squelching incipient resistance since none was evident. On the other hand, it employed a much larger number of troops than would be available for the permanent occupation and did so at considerable cost in combat potential and discipline. The larger units lost their cohesiveness, and in the platoons and companies discipline weakened. Ironically, the supposed chief beneficiary, military government, concluded after two months' experience that the better plan would have been to form the occupational police battalions General Gullion had asked for and been refused in 1942. The tactical troops thought in terms of military security and therefore often followed different priorities

This is the kind of warfare that I’m talking about.

We didn’t and haven’t done this in Iraq.

Had we, I think we would have seen a different situation in Iraq.

Media White: Victory, what would victory look like; would it be to bring Iraq into the sunum boonum of global market forces? What I don’t quite understand is why we are so concerned with bringing ‘democracy’ to a country that the US had sanctioned for twelve years causing the deaths of five hundred thousand children and untold destruction of their infrastructure such as water and sewage which is the main cause of death due to microbial infections.

No one knows what “victory” and its aftermath would look like in post war Germany or Japan either. But the US enforced and instilled democratic values into nations that before. Were set in concrete to their nationalist ways.

Japan wasn’t a “Christian” nation. But in the end, converting Japan’s religion wasn’t what broke the back of nationalism. It’s was democratic ideals than lifted them out of the Shogun stranglehold.

Had the US taken the invasion of Iraq to the same lengths as it too WWII, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Why are we there and why at this particular time are we there? I for one cannot find justification for one more person dying in the name of globalization for the profits of the New York bankers.

I think I’ve said as much. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they have no intention of joining the world in a vision of peace and prosperity. I don’t think they’re even capable of doing so.
They also have no hopes of breaking their entrenched attitudes that place Islamist ideology above the needs of its people as a whole.

I can tell you why America is not committed to going on a war footing in Iraq; it would require reinstating the draft causing Americans to suddenly awaken to what those criminals in the Whitehouse are doing which would engender an immediate public response to end the war now.

I don’t believe that’s the whole story. I don’t believe the US would have to go back to the draft in order to totally defeat Iraq or the insurgents in Afghanistan.
I do believe the US would have to increase its total overall troop structure and increase it’s overall troop strength.

That’s what the American public isn’t willing to do.

They don’t see a threat from Iraq or Afghanistan. Not one that justifies such a costly increase in our military.

Victory at all cost is not the mantra of the current US conflicts.

That’s why we need to disengage from these third world pits and leave them to their own destruction.

If the need should arise to strike at terrorist cells, the US can do so without invasion.

The dictionary definition of insurgent is one that is attacking their own government and here is where it gets tricky. If ones own government is made up of stooges of another government then what is being attacked by the insurgents is in fact foreign invaders that are in control of the local government.

Iraqi citizens voted in a free and fair election. Though not perfect, it had the majority of citizens and reflected their voice.

Iraqi citizens as a whole don’t want the US to “up and leave” Iraq. The Iraqis don’t want Islamic fanatics running their nation and they don’t want tribal/religious warfare to break out in the streets. They do want the US out of Iraq, but only when Iraq itself is capable of enforcing the law and protecting itself from outside influence.

America has troops fighting eight thousand miles away to keep a stooge quisling government in power so that we can get total control of Iraqi resources and for that purpose only, it’s not quite what I would call a Lincoln Brigade we’ve got over there. I would equate our presence in Iraq as more in the way of Storm Troopers; remember ‘shock and awe’ and all that it entailed when the first thing we bombed was the water and sewage facilities along with the power supply; not exactly the way to win hearts and minds as if we care about their hearts and minds in any sense other than pacification for our own purposes.

Your absolutely wrong in targeting acquisition by US forces and wrong in claiming we have “Storm Troopers” (a Nazi euphemism).
It never fails that those who are most against certain actions take to belittling or propagandizing anything and everything that occurs. I’m not surprised that you’ve chosen to do so.

 Our problem here in the US is that we have become convinced that a neo liberal globalized market is democracy itself and therefore globalizing Iraq’s economy is to bring them Iraqi freedom.

Is bringing Iraq into the 21^st century such a bad thing?

General Butler was a Marines Marine. Recipient of our nation’s highest honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, not once, but twice. His first MoH was awarded for actions in Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1914 and again in Haiti in 1915.  A great warrior and an honorable man of character, this is a Marine who cared about his men, and he is remembered in history as a leader who wasn't afraid to demand from the powers to be, on their behalf.

In his speech, “War is a racket”, General Butler denounced the military industrial complex. Some years later, another great American General (President) Dwight David Eisenhower would also warn American’s against the power of the “military complex” .

But back to Smedley Butler’s speech.

The anti-war speech by the two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposed war profits that benefit few at the expense of many. It seems a mirror reflection of the perverse waste of American tax dollars that went to Haliburton under Bush and Cheney. But it was the era of big corporate America and her attempts at becoming a colonial power. Competing with Europe on a worldwide scale.

General Butler never spoke out publically while an active duty Marine. But after leaving the Marine Corps, he became an advocate against war profiteering. He commented that “Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." His comment showed the deep devotion he felt for his service and nation, and it was only the uncontrolled military complex run by civilian fat cats that brought him too such extremes.
He has never advocated overthrowing our system of democracy, but he has insisted that the “civilian” element of supplying our troops be brought under tighter constraint.

       Unless and until we address the root cause of the Western intervention in the affairs of other nations, the counter terrorism in small measures is likely to go on.

       Revenge unfortunately runs in the veins and vessels of humans.

       Western neo-imperialism and political domination of the world should come to an end and we have to accept social justice and fair distribution of the world’s wealth. 

       My enemy’s enemy is my friend, and my enemy’s friend is my enemy, is an immoral policy. Nevertheless too many countries follow this.

       Probably the US is an exception, as they are capable of RUNNING WITH THE HARE AND HUNTING WITH HOUNDS as we see them doing it in India and Pakistan and much more vividly in Iraq and Israel.

       The most horrendously fundamental and oppressive State is Saudis and at the same time, the best friend of the US. The rogue state in the ME is Israel, again the best friend of the US.

       Is it not the best definition of American  double standard and political expediency? STRATEGY is a  word  that the world hardly understands.

In my humble opinion, it is NEVER ok to kill anybody at all.

There's only one exception for me: killing out of self defence.  And self defence being: you are attacked by person X and having two possible outcomes: 1. you get severely injured or killed. 2. you fight back.

And even in self defence I believe that the first used for the counter attack should be somewhat proportional to what you are defending against.

So if someone comes at you unarmed (and thus simply trying to hit you with bare hands), I don't consider it ok to fire a bazooka as "self defence".

It's a thin line, I'll admit.  But it's pretty clear when it is going to far.

So, if someone (state or terrorist group, don't care) is that inhuman to detonate a bomb in a public place, killing innocent civilians.  It is not ok to do the same to the attacker's people.

The one who ordered and pushed the buttons is the one that needs to be punished.  Not the people who happen to live in the same country/region, who have nothing to do with the blast/attack/whatever...

But that's just me.  And what is the value of an atheist right?  I mean, it's not like we have morals ha?

(last paragraphe is heavily sarcastic, just in case you didn't get that)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/20095771939244767.html

You kill us, then we kill you and you kill us again and we kill you back...Is that what the west wants? To kill each other to death till there's nobody left?

<!-- /TOKEN -->

If it was the first time we would have said it is a mistake but this is the 101 times so how can they explain their negligen.ce and underestimating of human lives?? Is it because they are Afghans!!

If they were small armies from small countries we would've said they're igno.rant and stupid but they are the best equipped armies with the latest technology, so nothing can explain or convince anybody that they're nothing more than blood thirsty stupid war monger!

I wonder how could they sleep at night???

As-Salamu 'Alaykum:

 It is always the case that it is the victors, the winners, that write the history of the events that have transpired.

 FACT:

 THEY DO NOT NEED EVIDENCE WHEN THEY ATTACK SITES.

 IF SOMEONE IS LOADING SOMETHING ONTO THE BACK OF A SMALL TRUCK, THEY WILL FIRE MISSILES ON IT. THEY WILL THEN CLAIM THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST THAT WAS KILLED.

 REMEMBER GAZA, THERE WAS ONE EVENT WHERE PEOPLE LOADED CYLINDRICAL CONTAINERS ONTO SUV SIZED TRUCKS. THE ISRA'ILEEN FIRED ONTO THEM. IT WAS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THEY WERE LOADING PROPANE TANKS ONTO THAT SUV SIZED TRUCK.

 THE FACT IS THAT THEY ARE GIVEN A BLANK CHECK USING THE EXCUSE OF "PREVENTION OF ANOTHER ATTACK ON THE HOMELAND" TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WHERE THEY WANT AND TO WHOM THEY WANT IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFGHANISTAN.

 "WE THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE AL-QAIDA MILITANTS. WE'RE SORRY FOR THE PAIN AND TROUBLE WE CAUSED." AND NEITHER MONEY NOR JAIL TIME IS ASSIGNED TO THE ATTACKERS. THEY WILL GALDLY TORTURE US MUSLIMS FOR THE ACTION OF GOING TO THE MASJID. ACCORDING TO THEM GOING TO THE MASJID TO PRAY IS AN ACT OF TERRORIST INDOCTRINATION.

 WE ARE STUPID ****** AND DESERVE HELL FIRE.

 WE DESERVE TO ROAST IN HELL FOR THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT ORGANIZED, FOR THE FACT THAT WE SIT ON THE INTERNET INSTEAD OF GATHERING IN THE MASAJID TO PRESERVE THE RELIGION THAT WAS REVEALED TO ADAM(ALAYHIS SALATU WAS-SALAM).

 I BEAR WITNESS THAT WE DESERVE TO ROAST IN HELL, HAVE THE SKIN THAT COVERS US CHARRED TILL IT DISINTEGRATES AND THEN ANOTHER ONE PUT ON TO UNDERGO THE SAME ROASTING.

 I BEAR WITNESS THAT I ASK ALLAH TO SPARE US THIS DOOMED DECREE AND PUT IN PLACE OF IT THE DECREE THAT ALLAH COMMANDS THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO AID US IN THE JIHAD(STRUGGLE) OF PRESERVING THE RELIGION AND NEVER BEING DOMINATED BY ANY HUMAN OR ANY JINN. ALLAHUMMA 'AMEEN YA RUBBIL-'ALAMEEN.

Salam

The Knights Templar, reportedly, started as a group of Christian knights that were sent to protect the pilgrims that visited Christian sites in Jerusalem.
They then began digging underneath the Temple mount and, reportedly, started to find the Arc of the Covenant.
Whether this is true, Allahu 'Alam.

What is known about them is that they learned about the Jewish Cults and about Kabalah.
Knights Templar means "Knights of the temple of Solomon."

If we know anything about Sulayman(Alayhis salatu was-salam), we will remember that he was given the power to control the Jinn and use them as labour.
So the Templars were involved in invocation of Jinn.
Jinn will not interact with humanity, unless they are Shayateen.

So, the Knights Templar were involved with the Shayateen.

Jewish Kabaalah is also Satanism.
The premise of it is that the Rabbis of old would use intoxicants and interact with what they thought to be Angels.
The angels would give them secret knowledge about the Universe.

Kabalah is Satanism.

The description of the Freemasons is that they protect secret knowledge dating from the times of Firaun in Masr(Pharoh in Egypt).
The Firaun were idolatrous and invokers of Shayateen.

George Washington and all of the Presidents of the USA are and have been Freemasons.

Acually the American policy is Slaughter first then apologize. That is absolutely untrue. All American’s feel a sense of shock and dismay when terrible incidents like this happen. The TRUE shame is the Taliban’s continued use of the local population as human shields. Of course you’d never condemn that.

Of course why should they care they don't keep a body count as long as the dead are poor defenceless Muslims. Keeping a “body count” is something the US military did in Vietnam and it negatively influenced actions in the field and gave false impressions of success or failure. So the US military doesn’t do it any more especially since they’ve got the media and propagandist to do it for them.

Watching the live telecast of that b i t c h hillary apologizing to the two puppets sitting on both her side and the two crackpots nodding at her made my blood boil. So for you, no apology is worthy. What a shame. It’s that type of attitude that produces a more cold hearted realization of the situation. I personally don’t think an apology is necessary since it’s a war and innocents are going to die. I think the people that hide and support the Taliban are as much the enemy as the Taliban themselves. But I also realize the Taliban puts these people in a lose lose situation. Why don’t you condemn that?

Nobody believes she regrets it, these are just words. The shattered bodies of men, women and children speak so much more. When people of Farah protested angrily they were yelling for the Americans to quit their country and showering stones at government buildings. Who can blame them? I don’t blame them at all for resisting or protesting the conditions in their country. In fact I believe change comes from within and if the people of Afghanistan want the Taliban then let them have them. If they don’t want them they’ll fight them and kick them out.

Unfortunately this sort of terrible incident has happened so many times before. US forces seem incapable of fighting high tech wars in low tech countries. One reason is a 500lb bomb causes much more damage to a village of mud huts than it does to steel reinforced structures.

It happened in Vietnam then in Somalia and in Iraq. It is happening again now in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border where highly sophisticated armed drones have inflicted high civilian casualties though Americans keep lying that they are targeting the Taleban and Al Quaeda. The sacrifice of the few for the advancement of the many.

The technology is there in the form of satellites that can read auto number plates from far out in space and watching unmanned drones that can circle slowly for hours on end. Even if the insurgents try to disguise themselves, their weapons can be spotted by these flying cameras. As far as I know, we have no technology that can identify these individuals through solid mud or brick walls.

So if they have the means to target only the enemy why is it that the Americans continue to make so many deadly errors? With so much advanced equipment it only means an uncaring and undisciplined approach by the US forces I’ve said it before the US needs more boots on the ground and needs to surgically eliminate these enemy forces.

Acually the American policy is Slaughter first then apologize. That is absolutely untrue. All American’s feel a sense of shock and dismay when terrible incidents like this happen.

Americans look at muslims as a sub human form of life. They don't give a hoot over how many muslims they slaughter in other land's.

Omg...laughable... ALL americans feel shock and dismay...

  Come on man..get real..Tell the truth. You getting paid to post here or something???

Acually the American policy is  Slaughter first then apologize. That is absolutely untrue. All American’s feel a sense of shock and dismay when terrible incidents like this happen.

Americans look at muslims as a sub human form of life. They don't give a hoot over how many muslims they slaughter in other land's. Again you simply formulate what it is you thing the majority of the forum wants to hear. American’s don’t see Muslims as “sub-human”. They see them as confusing and un-relatable, but they don’t see them as less human. Most American’s can’t understand the affinity Muslims have for a 7^th century mindset in a 21^st century world. But that doesn’t mean most Americans see them as monkeys of something. Backwards and stubborn? Yes. Monkeys? No.

Omg...laughable... ALL americans feel shock and dismay...  Come on man..get real..Tell the truth. You getting paid to post here or something??? I really wish I were, it’d make dealing with people like you a lot more tolerable.

I don't even know why I bother talking to you. It is a bit pointless. You seem to follow whatever policy your President takes.  lol..I understand, suddenly americans care and feel bad when muslins get killed by u.s. bombs and so called ''mistakes'' Sure ok... We both know better than that. I honestly don't think they are mistake's. I think the u.s. policy in other lands that they invade is..try to strike fear in the population living there. As a marine stated after invading Iraq..quote..We want Iraqis to fear us. That was on the news when they interviewed a marine. Granted it toned down a bit after Obama got elected..But I think his policy is the same as Bush. He is just going about it in a diffrent way.

lol...No, I don't formulate what I think the forum wants to hear.  They don't need me to tell them right from wrong.

But..actually, as I am typing I can hear cheering...I stop and take a bow from time to time.  

I don't even know why I bother talking to you. It is a bit pointless. Last time I check, it was a little thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Something you can choose to use or not. Because of democratic governments YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT.

You seem to follow whatever policy your President takes.  lol. As anyone can tell, you don’t spend a lot of critical time reading my post. If you did, you wouldn’t have made such a ludicrous claim.

I understand, suddenly Americans care and feel bad when muslins get killed by U.S. bombs and so called ''mistakes'' Sure ok... We both know better than that. Obviously you don’t understand. People can feel sympathy or empathy with the conditions in Afghanistan and still be unable to change those facts. American’s voted in a President that is changing things. Just because it’s not meeting your time table really doesn’t mean much.

I honestly don't think they are mistake's. I think the US policy in other lands that they invade is try to strike fear in the population living there. Then you’d again be wrong.

As a marine stated after invading Ira, quote..We want Iraqis to fear us. If in fact A single Marine made that statement, I’m sure it was a statement relating to the enemy he was fighting, not the general population.

That was on the news when they interviewed a marine. By the way, young hard charging warriors don’t set policy, they implement it. Creating “fear” in your enemy is what all armies intend to do. Again, fear in the ENEMY, not in the general population. But a healthy respect from the population is needed to insure they don’t get any ideas to join forces with the insurgents you’re trying to defeat.

Granted it toned down a bit after Obama got elected..But I think his policy is the same as Bush. He is just going about it in a diffrent way. Then again you’d be wrong. Obama is actively reducing troop strength in Iraq as we speak. Thousands are coming through our bases in Kuwait to either re-deploy to Afghanistan or go home.

lol...No, I don't formulate what I think the forum wants to hear.  They don't need me to tell them right from wrong. From the manner in which you post, I think it’s questionable as to whether or not you actually know the difference between right and wrong. You think things are as simple as black and white. They’re not. But you aren’t really concerned with that as long as you can carry out your agenda of defamation of character against the US. What’s even more absurd is you do all this while enjoying the benefits of a Western life style. You could careless about the Iraqis or Afghanis as long as you’ve got plenty of negative material to stir controversy and mistrust.

But..actually, as I am typing I can hear cheering...I stop and take a bow from time to time.  You hear voices in your head?? That’s not at all surprising giving your own state of self gratification.

You really do need help.

You see problems as an opportunity to create discontent and disinformation.

I see problems that need solutions.

I understand that we're not a perfect nation, but with all the imperfections we still give a lot of positive things back to the world.

You see the few negative aspects of our current situation and build upon them so you can create a monster stomping threw the gardens of the world.

You're gardens are in Afghanistan and Iraq, as if these regions are full of innocent pious people that have nothing but love for all the rest of the world.

You're the one that needs help.

You need a dose of reality.

I have a daily dose of realtiy.

You're gardens are in Afghanistan and Iraq, as if these regions are full of innocent pious people that have nothing but love for all the rest of the world.

It is NOT your business or mine what those people have. Quit trying to force your opinions on the people  in other land's.  Who the hell died and made the u.s. the protector of the world.? You are simply here..Loving every minute of the attention you are getting. The u.s. a supposed''super power'' You this great marine..(or so you tell us..probably patroit) lapping up the attention.

They should have thought about that before allowing Muslim extremist to set up house and train terrorist.

You somehow think that the attacks of 9/11 were ok and that no one or no government should be held responsible?

I’m not going to sit here and rehash the obvious. Had the Taliban not allowed or supported extremist within their mist, the war in Afghanistan would have never occurred.

An ATTACK from elements SUPPORTED by that Taliban regime GIVES US THE RIGHT to respond in kind.

As for the rest of your comment, it’s not worth reply. Your insecurity and inept ability to travel outside your comfort zone and contribute to something BIGGER than yourself is all the proof needed to show your true intentions.

Those cheers he is hearing is probably from his alter ego cyberers - either that or his mother's TV.

I was referring to yacketyyack's comment: and your response...

Y:  'But..actually, as I am typing I can hear cheering...I stop and take a bow from time to time.'  

AMGI: You hear voices in your head?? That’s not at all surprising giving your own state of self gratification.

Funny, if I've got something to say, I usually just come out and say it.

The only "gratification" I find in it is exposing the propagandist that find it entertaining to lie about whatever it is they feel will make their own agenda sound credible.

All American’s feel a sense of shock and dismay when terrible incidents like this happen. The TRUE shame is the Taliban’s continued use of the local population as human shields. Of course you’d never condemn that.

America has deceived the whole world and nobody really believes what they say or do. They are super power and might is right here. There can be no argument that the US (Bush) has done some severe damage to our reputation. It’s a shame and something that will take years of positive meaningful work to rebuild. Palestine could be that issue that shows the world that the US hasn’t been by the Bush years. I don’t believe 8-years out of 225 will make or break the US. But I do believe the US has to reestablish itself as a world partner. We have to get back to listening to the problems of the world as a whole and targeting the good things that we can do to make things better. Military might cannot be our tool of diplomacy.

It is false to claim the men they are aiming at hide themselves amidst innocent civilians. Why? It’s not a false claim. It’s a proven fact. That is the argument the Israelis used to bully defenseless Palestinians in Gaza to the horror of the rest of the world. That too is a proven fact. Hamas fought from inside residential buildings and are well known for placing weapons in neighborhoods so if they are attacked, maximum damage will be caused to the civilian population. That’s their plan. Sacrifice innocent lives in ourder to create world outrage. It’s a good plan. In many cases it works. Insurgents cannot hide all the time in civilian communities. They must at some point break away to launch their attacks. It is then and only then that the US should be engaging them. These conflicts occur in the streets of major cities for the most. It’s not like the age of Empires when two opposing armies lined up on a vacant field and faced off. Urban warfare is the tool of the insurgent today, and as history shows, has been for a long time. In Afghanistan many villages are small and remote. In these cases the NATO forces should use air mobility (helicopters) and insert troops to enter the village and root out the insurgents. But when the surrounding area is void of vegetation and a house is the only form of cover to fight from, that’s were you go.

Good excuse Amgi or may be you think exactly like US General Tommy Franks "we don't do body counts" Why is that an excuse? It’s a proven fact. Body counts simply distort the real situation on the ground. Doesn’t really matter how many you kill if they still continue to resist.

"Imagine the US not investigating exactly who died on September 11 its unthinkable" Professor John Sloboda a co founder of Iraq Body Count. Who died in the World Trade Center is a simple matter of accounting for identification so their loved ones will know. You really mean to tell me you’re equating 9/11 with combat body counts?

What a shame that America keeps apologizing and at the same time continues slaughtering innocent Muslim civilian whether in Afghanistan Pakistan or Iraq. Yes, that is a shame. Of course it’s also a shame that the Taliban is killing hundreds of innocent Afghanis and you don’t seem willing to acknowledge that.

Taliban are ethnic Pashtun and citizens of Afghanistan they have every right to resist the invading forces so why should I condemn them. I’m not sure of the total make up, but many of the fighters in Afghanistan come from Pakistan. The Pashtun don’t recognize the borders between the two nations and see it as a whole territory of which they control. Hopefully the current Pakistani advance on Swat Valley will bring the reality of borders back to the Pashtun extremist. If the leadership in Washington and Pakistan had two operating brain cells, they’d take this opportunity to combine their efforts and crush the radical Islamic movement once and for all.

So you see its morally wrong to use such them. If America really wants to check the Taleban and facilitate a negotiated peace, it has to stop killing and start caring about ordinary Afghans. Slaughtering them and then apologizing is contemptible. I can’t agree more that the NATO units have to confront the Taliban in a more frontal approach and stop relying on high tech so much. These bombs are devastating and sometimes you simply have to march into town and take them on.

LOL........ I guess advancement from this life to the hereafter. I though Muslims prayed for the day they died so they could be in paradise?

Wrong your men are just exhausted and theres no goal left. Either they return home in one piece or get buried on foreign soil. I wouldn’t go that far. The US still has hundreds of thousands of service member not committed to the fight. The US hasn’t gone into a “war footing” since this all began. We haven’t focused on fighting a REAL war. Since the Taliban and Iraqis don’t pose an “international” ability to strike outside their own territory, the US hasn’t seen the need to formulate the large military forces once seen in World War II or Vietnam. To effectively fight, you have to commit at least a million men to the battle. Something the US isn’t going to do. So I agree with you that the US needs to disengage from these conflicts since we obviously aren’t willing to throw all our resources into the fight.

hindii wrote:

When Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai once again demanded a halt to Washington's airstrikes in his country following the lethal incident, US National Security Advisor General James Jones said in Washington on Sunday that such demand could hamper its forces' efforts battling the Taliban insurgents.

"We can't fight with one hand tied behind our back," General Jones said, arguing that President Karzai "understands that we have to have the full complement of our offensive military power when we need it." Jones told ABC news. 

woow, they need seven and half years to allegedly destroy Taliban and al-Qaeda and bring stability to the volatile region, but unfortunatly kill thoushands and thoushands of innocent civilians. 

You don't really "defeat" an insurgent movement. That's why insugenties last such a long time. Sri Lanka, Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan and many other nations that have fought or are fighting home grown insergencies know this.

Even a very small group can cause a lot of chaos and promote propaganda that leads others to believe their insurgency is larger than it actually is.

The Afghans are no different and the result will be know different. Foreign troops will leave and depending on how well they helped or hurt will depend on whether insurgents (Taliban) will be able to return to power. 

As if the US army hasn’t got enough of our blood in Afghanistan so it’s getting more in Pakistan now!!

Pakistan officials: US missile strike kills 6

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_pakistan_missile_strike

EXCLUSIVEList of 140 Afghan Killed In US Attack Includes 93 Children

By Reuters

KABUL (Reuters) – Ninety-three children and 25 adult women are among a list of 140 names of Afghans who villagers say were killed in a battle and U.S. air strikes last week, causing a crisis between Washington and its Afghan allies.

The list, obtained by Reuters, bears the endorsement of seven senior provincial and central government officials, including an Afghan two-star general who headed a task force dispatched by the government to investigate the incident.

Titled "list of the martyrs of the bombardment of Bala Boluk district of Farah Province", it includes the name, age and father's name of each alleged victim.

The youngest was listed as 8-day-old baby Sayed Musa, son of Sayed Adam. Fifty-three victims were girls under the age of 18, and 40 were boys. Only 22 were men 18 or older.

The U.S. military continues to dispute the toll and a military spokesman said some of the names could be fake.

The dispute over the number of dead has worsened tension between Washington and Kabul, despite apologies President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made during a visit to Washington by President Hamid Karzai last week.

The Afghan government has endorsed the list, and Karzai went on U.S. television to call for an end to all U.S. air strikes, only to be rebuffed by Washington. Afghan officials say the issue helps insurgents by turning the public against foreign forces.

Since last year, U.S. officials adopted new procedures for investigations of civilian casualties designed to ensure their statements agree with those of the Afghan government.

Nevertheless, Washington has continued to dispute the death toll. U.S. military spokesman Colonel Greg Julian said villagers had an incentive to invent names of dead relatives in the hope of collecting compensation.

The rest of the the details here http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22603.htm

The U.S. military continues to dispute the toll and a military spokesman said some of the names could be fake.

Sure, sure..Maybe some of the names concerning 9/11 were fake also.