Afghanistan - Megathread

John Howard8 said:Have you ever actually heard the term "collateral damage"? Suppose one of those bystanders had actually been bin Laden; would you really argue they shouldn't have pulled the trigger? War is a brutal business, and there isn't always much room left for sentimentality or pure humanitarianism. Besides, if we're judging by the standards of people like Šljivančanin and Ratko Mercer, the Americans are practically saints by comparison. If this conflict were being waged by someone like Šljivančanin or Radić, they would have leveled several cities to the ground before even stepping foot inside, followed by massacres, rounding up survivors to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Mexico City, and then moving on to the next town while issuing threats similar to what happened in Memphis. Things aren't quite as black and white as some people would have you believe. Of course, there are unintended casualties, and those are truly tragic, but we have seen far, far worse in our recent history. They managed to push the taliban back. It is almost certain that under taliban rule, the number of civilian casualties would have been significantly higher—not to mention the systemic oppression and the humiliation of women, which causes a level of suffering that is arguably more agonizing than death itself.

One of the supporters of Osama bin Laden...🤣 🤣 Oh my God...🙄 🤣 Comparing Maddox and Mercer to the Americans? Those guys are babies compared to the USA... (don't get me wrong, they earned life sentences, but they aren't even in the same league as the Americans when it comes to destruction and killing...) "Got the Taliban off our backs"... 😁 😁 Man, you are 0% informed...
Just stay out of the conversation if you don't know what you're talking about...

neonpilot38 said:I honestly wonder where this world is headed when people like this start posting on forums

I mean, seriously? When someone can look at 22 civilians being killed at a wedding and call it "collateral damage," and then follow it up with some sociopathic comment about how "there will be more born by 2050"?

It’s sick minds like these that drive everything we see happening today

Which is exactly why I felt the need to say something

It feels like the life of one person in Afghanistan is worth less than a dog in the West!

Over here, if a pet dies, people are mourning and grieving for months on end.
But when they hear on the news that 22 innocent Afghans were slaughtered in the middle of a celebration—at a wedding, for God's sake—they just brush it off as collateral damage. To them, it's just another mundane statistic to digest over morning coffee.☕

If something like this happened to American citizens, the entire world would be in an uproar.
And don't even get me started on what the reaction would be if this had happened to Jewish people.

But no, when it happens to people in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Africa, it's all just "collateral damage."

Way to go, boss...🙏 While luxury pet cemeteries are popping up all over high-end neighborhoods, those same Americans who kill people over there won't even bother burying them properly. But hey, don't pay attention to these guys; their brains are too small to grasp reality anyway.😁 They're still stuck in those Rambo movies—you know, the sequels the government pushed because they didn't like the first one—and Rocky films where Americans are always the heroes and Russians are always the villains.

vividrider3 said:Furthermore, this story serves as blatant evidence of how Muslim propaganda operates. The reality is that 22 people were killed during that coalition strike, and only one woman and one child were among them. I have no idea where the person pushing this narrative gets the claim of 19 women and children from. The truth is that the casualties in this attack were terrorists who had spent earlier that day raining grenades down on coalition forces. No civilians were lost—just despicable terrorists.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...han-298147.php

You’re never going to hear this side of things in most mainstream media outlets. And honestly, it isn't even "Muslim" propaganda... it's just anti-American.

crimsonranger38 said:👍It’s clear some people struggle with basic reading comprehension. If you have a functioning brain, it makes sense; if you don't, even God can't help you at this point. 😉

I suspect it isn't so much about intelligence as it is about certain moral values that some individuals clearly fail to grasp—or simply refuse to acknowledge.

Dennis Baker34 said:neonpilot38, looks like you’ve officially picked a side!
I guess I have too—but I’m sticking with the U.S. on this one.

The problem is how the news gets filtered through everything—it feels like we're constantly being fed nothing but the absolute worst takes regarding the United Nations mission in Afghanistan.

It's not about filtering "good" or "bad" news—whatever that means to you personally. It's more about how content is curated to present what looks like a complete story. In other words, they tell you just enough to get by, or sometimes, nothing at all.

neonpilot38 said:And look at that link you posted—it's a perfect example of how there's a massive media machine backing up American atrocities, spinning heavy propaganda to protect our military's actions!

What that outlet you cited is publishing is nothing more than blatant media manipulation.😉

Check out what your source is actually reporting:

The province's governor said 22 civilians, including a woman and a child, were killed.

Now, here is what the BBC is saying:

Deh bal district governor Hamish Gul told Associated Press that 22 people had been killed in the strike - 19 of them women and children - and several more wounded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7492601.stm

Even the local news site I pulled my article from used the exact same statement, translated directly from the BBC:

The governor of the Deh bal district in Afghanistan, Hamish Gul, confirmed to the Associated Press that 22 people were killed in the attack, 19 of whom were women or children.

So, after all that, why don't you tell me who exactly is running the propaganda here???
Pathetic.

I think anyone with half a brain can see something is off when they talk about 19 women and children traveling in two cars. Nineteen women and children without any protection from their men, especially in a country like Afghanistan. Furthermore, the article itself admits:

It was impossible to verify any of the claims independently because of the remoteness of the area.

People can believe what they want, but I'm leaning toward this being terrorists. After the NATO forces arrived, the local governor failed to provide any evidence that they were actually civilians.

vividrider3 said:I think anyone with half a brain can see something is off when they talk about 19 women and children traveling in two cars. Nineteen women and children without any protection from their men, especially in a country like Afghanistan. Furthermore, the article itself admits:

It was impossible to verify any of the claims independently because of the remoteness of the area.

People can believe what they want, but I'm leaning toward this being terrorists. After the NATO forces arrived, the local governor failed to provide any evidence that they were actually civilians.

Oh, sure, because nothing could ever change your mind, right?
If you were actually standing there looking at dead women and children, you’d probably just claim it was all staged to fit your narrative.

People like you hunt for the tiniest sliver of "proof" to support theories that make zero sense, all while completely ignoring the massive mountain of evidence sitting right in front of your faces...

The fact that you're throwing links from some obscure IHL group at me while I'm giving you a link from the BBC speaks volumes about where we stand.

You're a textbook example of someone who needs their brain washed a few times a day just to function. It's feeding frenzy time for people like you—people who simply refuse to think for themselves.

vividrider3 said:I think anyone with half a brain can see something is off when they talk about 19 women and children traveling in two cars. Nineteen women and children without any protection from their men, especially in a country like Afghanistan. Furthermore, the article itself admits:

It was impossible to verify any of the claims independently because of the remoteness of the area.

People can believe what they want, but I'm leaning toward this being terrorists. After the NATO forces arrived, the local governor failed to provide any evidence that they were actually civilians.

Look, if you've ever set foot in a Muslim country, you'd know what you just said makes zero sense. It’s not common sense—it’s just a blatant provocation and an insult to the victims. A buddy of mine spent six months in Afghanistan, so spare me the fairy tales.
Anyway, here's some actual reading material for you. Give it a look; maybe it'll open your eyes (probably not, since you don't believe anything I say and apparently we're all liars):

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

It’s a pretty deep dive by Professor Marc Herold from the University of New Hampshire. He’s looking at figures between 3,000 and 4,000 civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes.
You won't read it. You aren't that type. But it's a shame, because here's an American guy writing exactly what we're talking about, laid out in detail over about 50 pages.

Everyone has their own opinion, but I still think we're talking about terrorists.

Fair enough. Some people probably still think Elvis Presley is alive too.

Since the governor didn't provide evidence of civilians after requesting NATO forces.

Oh, so the Americans provided proof they were terrorists?

neonpilot38 said:I honestly wonder where this world is headed when people like this start posting on forums

I mean, seriously? When someone can look at 22 civilians being killed at a wedding and call it "collateral damage," and then follow it up with some sociopathic comment about how "there will be more born by 2050"?

It’s sick minds like these that drive everything we see happening today

Which is exactly why I felt the need to say something

It feels like the life of one person in Afghanistan is worth less than a dog in the West!

Over here, if a pet dies, people are mourning and grieving for months on end.
But when they hear on the news that 22 innocent Afghans were slaughtered in the middle of a celebration—at a wedding, for God's sake—they just brush it off as collateral damage. To them, it's just another mundane statistic to digest over morning coffee.☕

If something like this happened to American citizens, the entire world would be in an uproar.
And don't even get me started on what the reaction would be if this had happened to Jewish people.

But no, when it happens to people in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Africa, it's all just "collateral damage."

Thinking back to 9/11 makes me sick—how there was a minute of silence at every soccer match in Europe, how the entire world was in mourning. What about Srebrenica? Or the Tsunami that killed over 200,000? Apparently, we only care about mourning a few foolish Americans.

neonpilot38 said:Oh, sure, because nothing could ever change your mind, right?
If you were actually standing there looking at dead women and children, you’d probably just claim it was all staged to fit your narrative.

People like you hunt for the tiniest sliver of "proof" to support theories that make zero sense, all while completely ignoring the massive mountain of evidence sitting right in front of your faces...

The fact that you're throwing links from some obscure IHL group at me while I'm giving you a link from the BBC speaks volumes about where we stand.

You're a textbook example of someone who needs their brain washed a few times a day just to function. It's feeding frenzy time for people like you—people who simply refuse to think for themselves.

I have stated my opinion and I stand by it. As for the "brainwashing" talk, let's be clear: I'm not the one consuming random propaganda on YouTube or sketchy websites. I've made my point, and I consider the matter closed.

rustywalker42 said:Look, if you've ever set foot in a Muslim country, you'd know what you just said makes zero sense. It’s not common sense—it’s just a blatant provocation and an insult to the victims. A buddy of mine spent six months in Afghanistan, so spare me the fairy tales.
Anyway, here's some actual reading material for you. Give it a look; maybe it'll open your eyes (probably not, since you don't believe anything I say and apparently we're all liars):

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

It’s a pretty deep dive by Professor Marc Herold from the University of New Hampshire. He’s looking at figures between 3,000 and 4,000 civilian deaths caused by US airstrikes.
You won't read it. You aren't that type. But it's a shame, because here's an American guy writing exactly what we're talking about, laid out in detail over about 50 pages.

Everyone has their own opinion, but I still think we're talking about terrorists.

Fair enough. Some people probably still think Elvis Presley is alive too.

Since the governor didn't provide evidence of civilians after requesting NATO forces.

Oh, so the Americans provided proof they were terrorists?

So, you read it? Every war has civilian casualties. What exactly are you expecting? That NATO forces, acting under United Nations blessing in Afghanistan, can somehow aim perfectly at terrorists hiding among civilians? That’s just the nature of war; there will always be collateral damage. Get real. What's your ideal scenario? A war without civilian deaths? If you manage to pull that off, let me know.

You're right about that. Some people actually believe Elvis Presley is still alive.

There are also those who act like Adolf Hitler had no idea about the concentration camps throughout the Reich.

By the way, did the Americans provide proof that they were actually terrorists?

It wasn't just the Americans; it was coalition forces. The fact that the general was American is irrelevant. Those coalition forces don't have access to that terrain. I find it much easier to believe they were terrorists who ambushed the coalition with grenades than to believe it was 19 women and children driving to a wedding. I've stated my position on this, and I'm done.

vividrider3 said:Furthermore, this story serves as blatant evidence of how Muslim propaganda operates. The reality is that 22 people were killed during that coalition strike, and only one woman and one child were among them. I have no idea where the person pushing this narrative gets the claim of 19 women and children from. The truth is that the casualties in this attack were terrorists who had spent earlier that day raining grenades down on coalition forces. No civilians were lost—just despicable terrorists.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...han-298147.php

😂😂😂hahahahaha😂😂😂

Where exactly did you get that source?😂😂

Russian soldiers and veterans from the war in Afghanistan told CNN that this conflict will end just like their own ten-year struggle in Afghanistan.

They'll be forced to pull out with nothing to show for it. There isn't any oil or natural resources there, yet they're burning through billions of dollars just to maintain a military presence. 👎

Matthew Harris2 said:Russian soldiers and veterans from the war in Afghanistan told CNN that this conflict will end just like their own ten-year struggle in Afghanistan.

They'll be forced to pull out with nothing to show for it. There isn't any oil or natural resources there, yet they're burning through billions of dollars just to maintain a military presence. 👎

Which is exactly why there is oil in Iraq.👎

Eric Bailey58 said:Thinking back to 9/11 makes me sick—how there was a minute of silence at every soccer match in Europe, how the entire world was in mourning. What about Srebrenica? Or the Tsunami that killed over 200,000? Apparently, we only care about mourning a few foolish Americans.

The reason is that September 11th wasn't just an attack on the USA; it was an attack on the entire Western world and everything it stands for. (Though I noticed despite the anti-American sentiment, everyone still uses the US date format here... whatever.)
If I remember correctly, there was also a day of mourning for the Tsunami victims...

Matthew Harris2 said:Russian soldiers and veterans from the war in Afghanistan told CNN that this conflict will end just like their own ten-year struggle in Afghanistan.

They'll be forced to pull out with nothing to show for it. There isn't any oil or natural resources there, yet they're burning through billions of dollars just to maintain a military presence. 👎

The USA is primarily interested in Afghanistan because of the potential pipeline routes—moving oil coming out of Kuwait, Iraq, and hopefully Iran toward China.

vividrider3 said:So, you read it? Every war has civilian casualties. What exactly are you expecting? That NATO forces, acting under United Nations blessing in Afghanistan, can somehow aim perfectly at terrorists hiding among civilians? That’s just the nature of war; there will always be collateral damage. Get real. What's your ideal scenario? A war without civilian deaths? If you manage to pull that off, let me know.

You're right about that. Some people actually believe Elvis Presley is still alive.

There are also those who act like Adolf Hitler had no idea about the concentration camps throughout the Reich.

By the way, did the Americans provide proof that they were actually terrorists?

It wasn't just the Americans; it was coalition forces. The fact that the general was American is irrelevant. Those coalition forces don't have access to that terrain. I find it much easier to believe they were terrorists who ambushed the coalition with grenades than to believe it was 19 women and children driving to a wedding. I've stated my position on this, and I'm done.

Let’s be honest: did you actually read the whole thing? From start to finish? Because if you did, you’re either playing dumb or intentionally dodging the point, which is directly tied to this topic.

There are people like that, sure. Just like there are people who think Hitler didn't know about the concentration camps all over the Reich.

Oh, absolutely.

It wasn't Americans, it was coalition forces. The fact that the general was American doesn't matter. Coalition troops don't have access to that terrain. I'd believe it was terrorists who ambushed those coalition forces that day long before I'd believe it was 19 women and children heading to a wedding. I've stated my piece, and I'm done with this topic.

It's completely irrelevant who it was. The point is, you have ZERO evidence for your claims.
A few people on this thread already told you that you look ridiculous with these takes and the links you're posting. Listen to them.

Joseph Cox said:The USA is primarily interested in Afghanistan because of the potential pipeline routes—moving oil coming out of Kuwait, Iraq, and hopefully Iran toward China.

Don't forget about the opium. It’s the exact same logic behind why we see it in Colombia (except it's cocaine there).

Joseph Cox said:The USA is primarily interested in Afghanistan because of the potential pipeline routes—moving oil coming out of Kuwait, Iraq, and hopefully Iran toward China.

Spot on. Looking back at everything, I don't think anything about the USA would ever truly surprise me anymore—honestly, if they decided to hit Saudi Arabia just to secure the oil, I wouldn't blink. They could claim it was because a Saudi Arabian looked at an American the wrong way, and most of the world wouldn't even bat an eye. In fact, some people would probably jump out of the woodwork just to accuse me of pushing a conspiracy theory. 🤣

velvetmarlin24 said:The reason is that September 11th wasn't just an attack on the USA; it was an attack on the entire Western world and everything it stands for. (Though I noticed despite the anti-American sentiment, everyone still uses the US date format here... whatever.)
If I remember correctly, there was also a day of mourning for the Tsunami victims...

An attack on the whole Western world? Please. The USA basically birthed Al-Qaeda. Besides, they pulled down those towers themselves. Why hasn't a single scrap of aircraft debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon ever surfaced? Where's the footage showing a plane actually slamming into the Pentagon? The Pentagon is easily one of the most secure buildings on the planet. You know which building has the highest concentration of surveillance cameras in existence? I'll give you a hint: the PENTAGON! Seriously, why on earth is there zero video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

Eric Bailey58 said:An attack on the whole Western world? Please. The USA basically birthed Al-Qaeda. Besides, they pulled down those towers themselves. Why hasn't a single scrap of aircraft debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon ever surfaced? Where's the footage showing a plane actually slamming into the Pentagon? The Pentagon is easily one of the most secure buildings on the planet. You know which building has the highest concentration of surveillance cameras in existence? I'll give you a hint: the PENTAGON! Seriously, why on earth is there zero video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

Well, according to rustywalker42 and his crew, the US brought down the towers. Don't you think they were just designed to collapse like that? The plane hit the upper section—not quite the absolute peak—triggering fires that weakened the top of the structure, causing it to fall downward with such force that it crushed everything underneath. Of course, gas explosions and other side effects probably helped the collapse too. Let's just stick to the facts.

And even if the whole thing was planned, don't you think it's unlikely that a detail like planted bombs would escape notice among thousands of people working in those buildings?
Think about the janitors, the contractors, and all the maintenance crews who had access to every single floor. Do you honestly believe none of them would have noticed the building being rigged with explosives?