boyfriday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Yep, Western forces occasionally accidentally kill civilians, whilst the Taliban deliberately target their own civilians, women and children. Thats like walking thro McDonalds with a live grenade that goes off and saying customers shouldn't be angry about their dead children because it was an accident. Carpet bombing and using unmanned drones is a hazardous enterprise, being cavalier about they're implementation is likely to lead to lots of 'accidents', if one of your children was the victim of one, I dont think you be simply shrugging it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 But you cant understand why an Afghan would be angered by the death of one of their children at the hands of the UK/USA forces? So perhaps they shouldn't give a toss about the murder of Lee Rigby either? I didn't say they that. And I don't expect them to give a toss about the death of Lee Rigby. ---------- Post added 09-11-2013 at 22:36 ---------- Thats like walking thro McDonalds with a live grenade that goes off and saying customers shouldn't be angry about their dead children because it was an accident. No it isn't. Carpet bombing and using unmanned drones is a hazardous enterprise, being cavalier about they're implementation is likely to lead to lots of 'accidents', if one of your children was the victim of one, I dont think you be simply shrugging it off. War is a messy business, one expects some civilian casualties, and whilst we keep the fight over their, there are less civilian casualties over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullerboY Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I have just been watching a film on tv about the Somme where British soldiers shot surrendering German soldiers with there hands up,did anyone get prosecuted for this,likewise when the British arrived at Belsen they shot guards in cold blood I have never seen any prosecutions for this either.Would the appeasers on here not shoot their enemy when they have seen their friends killed and mutilated.I would think some of you would have been conscientious objectors and been held in scorn by your neighbours and friends.Prisoners in war are an obstruction to your objective ,and why not kill them when after all their intention was to kill you.I will side with the soldier who shot him after all he may have gone on to kill more of our troops,he only got what he expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I didn't say they that. And I don't expect them to give a toss about the death of Lee Rigby. That's why we have these problems, until we start caring and sharing empathy for each others dead then there will always be conflicts in war. No it isn't. Could you explain why not? War is a messy business, one expects some civilian casualties, and whilst we keep the fight over their, there are less civilian casualties over here. Are you thick? To the parents of dead children, the Afghan and Lee Rigby's parents they're not collateral damage. ---------- Post added 09-11-2013 at 22:44 ---------- I have just been watching a film on tv about the Somme where British soldiers shot surrendering German soldiers with there hands up,did anyone get prosecuted for this,likewise when the British arrived at Belsen they shot guards in cold blood I have never seen any prosecutions for this either.Would the appeasers on here not shoot their enemy when they have seen their friends killed and mutilated.I would think some of you would have been conscientious objectors and been held in scorn by your neighbours and friends.Prisoners in war are an obstruction to your objective ,and why not kill them when after all their intention was to kill you.I will side with the soldier who shot him after all he may have gone on to kill more of our troops,he only got what he expected. The problem is there are rules of engagement that soldiers are expected to follow, if they feel unable to they shouldn't be serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Thats like walking thro McDonalds with a live grenade that goes off and saying customers shouldn't be angry about their dead children because it was an accident. Carpet bombing and using unmanned drones is a hazardous enterprise, being cavalier about they're implementation is likely to lead to lots of 'accidents', if one of your children was the victim of one, I dont think you be simply shrugging it off. Unmanned drones have cameras on them which I believe gives real time images back to the states. It's almost like you're there isn't it? I'm not sure how fast air would reduce casualties really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Unmanned drones have cameras on them which I believe gives real time images back to the states. It's almost like you're there isn't it? I'm not sure how fast air would reduce casualties really. Watch this, it's a film produced by Jemima Khan http://unmanned.warcosts.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 That's why we have these problems, until we start caring and sharing empathy for each others dead then there will always be conflicts in war.There will always be dead people in war no matter how much you care, and there will always be wars. Could you explain why not?Its obvious why your scenario is nothing like war. There is no need to walk through McDonalds with a live grenade, whilst there is a need for them in wars. Are you thick? Thick skinned, yes. To the parents of dead children, the Afghan and Lee Rigby's parents they're not collateral damage.Simply by definition they are collateral damage. The problem is there are rules of engagement that soldiers are expected to follow, if they feel unable to they shouldn't be serving. Easy to say whilst sat in your nice safe house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I have just been watching a film on tv about the Somme where British soldiers shot surrendering German soldiers with there hands up,did anyone get prosecuted for this,likewise when the British arrived at Belsen they shot guards in cold blood I have never seen any prosecutions for this either.Would the appeasers on here not shoot their enemy when they have seen their friends killed and mutilated.I would think some of you would have been conscientious objectors and been held in scorn by your neighbours and friends.Prisoners in war are an obstruction to your objective ,and why not kill them when after all their intention was to kill you.I will side with the soldier who shot him after all he may have gone on to kill more of our troops,he only got what he expected. We took thousands of POWs in WW2 even the soviets took nazis prisoner (although didn't give a lot back) but we did, as did the Americans. The Germans took a lot of British POWs and by most accounts treated them fairly. We signed the geneva convention and by and large stuck to it. I don't want indescrimiate killers in our armed forces thanks, and on the whole we haven't got any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 There will always be dead people in war no matter how much you care, and there will always be wars. Time to get creative then, the poor get poorer (and die) during times of war and the rich prosper. Its obvious why your scenario is nothing like war. There is no need to walk through McDonalds with a live grenade, whilst there is a need for them in wars. It was an analogy, to show that reckless behaviour resulting in death by accident, will not be welcomed by the victims of that accident. Simply by definition they are collateral damage. Well shall we stop mourning their loss then? Easy to say whilst sat in your nice safe house.Paying their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 It was the West who stupidly invaded Afghanistan and Iraq when non-military options would have avoided political vacuums created by the invasions being filled by an armed resistance. They should have called you before they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. You could have created a revolution on the intenet and had Saddam and the Taliban overthrown. Why oh why didn't they do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.