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

Look as This Man Gets HIT!

Why does it make you mad?
 
Andalublue said:
SOLDIER FIGHTING WAR IS SHOT IN LEG. I'm guessing this isn't going to sell many papers. I hope the guy who took the round is fully recovered and that the unit got back to base safely. I'm just wondering what there is in there to get VERY FREAKIN MAD about.
Click to expand...

Only the baddy soldiers are allowed to be shot in war.
 
bicycleman said:
What makes me mad is that the video didn't have any footage of the Muslim terrorists being blown to smithereens.
Click to expand...

Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist? Isn't that what you'd be doing if someone invaded your country? I hate those woman-stoning, head-hacking, brainless religio-nutters as much as the next person, but if they're Afghans fighting foreigners in Afghanistan, I'd think twice about using the language of the WoT. It's just a war there, isn't it?
 
Andalublue said:
Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist? Isn't that what you'd be doing if someone invaded your country? I hate those woman-stoning, head-hacking, brainless religio-nutters as much as the next person, but if they're Afghans fighting foreigners in Afghanistan, I'd think twice about using the language of the WoT. It's just a war there, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, taliban = terrorist

most of the Afghans who are shooting at US/UK troops are terrorist turds. The average Afghani doesn't give two ****s about the US/UK being there. They like us better than they like the warlords who were abusing them before we showed up. The big concern is what will happen when we leave.
 
OscarB63 said:
Yes, taliban = terrorist

most of the Afghans who are shooting at US/UK troops are terrorist turds. The average Afghani doesn't give two ****s about the US/UK being there. They like us better than they like the warlords who were abusing them before we showed up. The big concern is what will happen when we leave.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the majority of ordinary Afghans would prefer a freer country, based on a (slightly) more liberal version of Islam. The fact is, that's not what they seem to be getting from Karzai and hence (in their reasoning, I guess) from the Allies. I'm not attacking the Allied troops at all, but I do question whether the regime they are fighting to shore-up in power is one that will be that much of an improvement on the Taliban; no Shari'a but massive corruption and subborning of the rule of law by regional warlords.
 
OscarB63 said:
The average Afghani doesn't give two ****s about the US/UK being there.
Click to expand...
Erm...yes, yes they do. We may have settled things down a little bit but we've killed thousands of Afghan civilians and the situation still is not contained
 
OscarB63 said:
Yes, taliban = terrorist

most of the Afghans who are shooting at US/UK troops are terrorist turds. The average Afghani doesn't give two ****s about the US/UK being there. They like us better than they like the warlords who were abusing them before we showed up. The big concern is what will happen when we leave.
Click to expand...

i have to say, as long as they leave us alone, i don't much give a **** anymore what happens when we leave.
 
liblady said:
i have to say, as long as they leave us alone, i don't much give a **** anymore what happens when we leave.
Click to expand...

well...that's always the tricky part now isn't it?
 
Memo: War is ugly. People get hurt and killed, often in "unfair ways", on both sides.


Having said that, I will add: when it is "us" versus "them", I prefer to see lots of dead "them" and few or no dead "us". I'm peculiar that way.
 
Andalublue said:
Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist?
Click to expand...

Dunno. But by the Geneva Conventions, which everyone loves to invoke when bashing US policy, he's a war criminal.
 
Harshaw said:
Dunno. But by the Geneva Conventions, which everyone loves to invoke when bashing US policy, he's a war criminal.
Click to expand...

Soldiers on a battlefield are legitimate targets of war. Shooting at them is not terrorism, which is what the discussion was about.
 
Andalublue said:
Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist? Isn't that what you'd be doing if someone invaded your country? I hate those woman-stoning, head-hacking, brainless religio-nutters as much as the next person, but if they're Afghans fighting foreigners in Afghanistan, I'd think twice about using the language of the WoT. It's just a war there, isn't it?
Click to expand...

It's kind of like how combatants are called "insurgents" in the media. The language spin is really interesting.
 
OscarB63 said:
Yes, taliban = terrorist

most of the Afghans who are shooting at US/UK troops are terrorist turds.
Click to expand...

One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter, I don't think you can class your average Taliban grunt as a terrorist, I don't know about you, but right or wrong, I'd take up arms if my country was invaded by another.
 
I would argue that a Taliban fighter who moves and engages as a soldier against other soldiers, as well as wears distinctive markings which are shared among his comrades, is NOT a terrorist in a legal sense. He may be guilty of association, conspiracy, support, etc but I'd treat him as a POW.
 
Andalublue said:
Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist? Isn't that what you'd be doing if someone invaded your country? I hate those woman-stoning, head-hacking, brainless religio-nutters as much as the next person, but if they're Afghans fighting foreigners in Afghanistan, I'd think twice about using the language of the WoT. It's just a war there, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, I meant that I would like to see the Afghan fighters fighting for their country against the American oppressors be blown to smithereens by those American oppressors. YEAH!!!!!
 
Deuce said:
Soldiers on a battlefield are legitimate targets of war. Shooting at them is not terrorism, which is what the discussion was about.
Click to expand...

Sure.

By uniformed members of a nation's military.

If you engage in combat against troops with no uniform, you're a war criminal.

Sorry, but the Geneva Conventions aren't just a "bash the United States" license, though they're frequently used as such.
 
Harshaw said:
If you engage in combat against troops with no uniform, you're a war criminal.
Click to expand...

No, guerrilla warfare is a recognised mode of warfare under the Geneva convention, and as long as the Taliban carries arms openly before and during an attack, they are not in violation of the Geneva convention.

The Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions

The Protocol requires combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. What is more, in particular instances (occupied territories, so-called asymetric conflicts setting regular armed forces against guerrilla fighters), it suffices for guerrilla fighters to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by carrying their arms openly (i.e. visibly) during military engagements and before launching an attack.
Click to expand...
 
spud_meister said:
No, guerrilla warfare is a recognised mode of warfare under the Geneva convention, and as long as the Taliban carries arms openly before and during an attack, they are not in violation of the Geneva convention.

The Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions
Click to expand...

They also must have a recognizable, fixed, and distinctive sign of who they are, recognizable at a distance. As well as an established chain of command.
 
Deuce said:
Soldiers on a battlefield are legitimate targets of war. Shooting at them is not terrorism, which is what the discussion was about.
Click to expand...

In fact, you must respect a man whos willing to die for his cause. Whether or not you agree with it, the real men are out there fighting it out in the warzone. I have great respect for both the American soldier and the man who shot him. Why? Because its war, and both people are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. That's pretty noble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom