|
why people hate america... (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DuMonde TrAnCeR |
| quote: | | else why would they strike at economic targets. |
because theyre jelous?! hahahahaha no.
its about the value of the targets to the americans, if i was old bin laden and had a choice between wiping out the whitehouse and the twin towers, i know which one id do, it may sound twisted, but its just common sense. |
|
|
| Izzy |
great post ABTsportsline!
i was going to say about half of what you said on there but you went and doubled it. the part about the letter was nice and i especially wanted to say what you said about "innocent civilians" that died in afgan. how can you differentiate a civilian from a taliban member when the taliban doesnt wear any military uniform.... and your other examples... and also what i say time and time agian, we are at a higher moral ground because, unlike the terrorist, we do not INTENTANIALY target the civilian population.
i dont understand all this anti-american sentiments around the world, it just doesnt make any logical sense. the stem of the problem is, and lets face the truth, the extreme islamic view of the western values (freedom, secularism... etc). the result of this is terrorism. and furthermore, in my opinion, even if america did not have military bases in the 'holy land' (saudi and kuwaiti as ABT said, as well as more in the region) there would still be acts of terrorism agianst the free world by those religious fanatics. now excuse me for being all gun-ho but do you actually want to bring your selves down to a level of actually negotating with a terrorist, how about a nice roundtable discussion with ossama? you cant, there is no other way to deal with a terrorist. instead you go out and put forth a strong hand say "this is wrong" and deal with the terrorist where you can until the threat is non-exsistant. since iraq is a serious threat, they are on the scope as well. whats so hard to see in all of this? |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
well, nice post ABT. I respect your opinion on this, having been there and all. and this is getting off topic.
however, i have a few things i'd like to point out.
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
First off, that article that was posted saying how americans locked 60-something taliban in a school and bombed them is a false report - keep in mind, the NORTHERN ALLIANCE did most of the fighting - we simply gathered intelligence. We only had one combat controller squadron out there! The Northern Alliance are an interesting group of people.... they absolutely HATE the taliban (more than we do i believe, and it probably has to do with years of oppression), and they were doing VERY inhumane acts towards POWs and the enemy... things that we would NEVER do. But for some reason, the US gets labeled as having performed these acts.
....
As far as the US bombings, they did occur, but only on Taliban and Al-Qaeda bases... where they train for, harbor, and plan death missions and house terrorists.... as well as stock weapons depots.
|
one combat controller squadron? I'm not very versed in miltary terminiology, but could you tell me just how many planes that is?
I know that there was EXTENSIVE bombing of afghanistan, certainly more than military targets. I'm not going to list then all here, please read my article i wrote in feburary 2002
Many non-military targets have been hit. These include:
a hospital (link removed)
a school http://sydney.indymedia.org:8081/fr...7&group=webcast
several villages
(link removed)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=108209
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiap...afghan.village/
(link removed) a mosque http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1024-05.htm
a truckload of supporters for the interim govt.http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanist...,625230,00.html It should be noted that the US insists that these people were not supporters of the interim government, but rather militant islamic fundamentalists. I suppose the truth will never be known about who these people were, but the fact remains that 65 people died that day from an american bomb. Here is another story about the same event, from another source. http://www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm
Here you will find a rather long description of some of the atrocities committed in afghanistan http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm and here you will find a chart of the bare facts of some of these attacks http://eha.darktech.org/eHa/117
the above is from my site, some of the links have been removed, but if you search for them, i'm sure you will find them.
Some people, view this as "Collateral damage" as an unfortunate side effect to a justified military action. Some people are unaware that these targets have even been hit. Some people are unaware that there is still bombing going on, still a large military presence in afghanistan, of mainly US soldiers. Some people are unaware that while the official deathtoll for the WTC attacks continues to drop, the civilian casualties in afghanistan continue to rise. Official estimate for the number dead in new york city now resides just under 3,000 while reports vary in afghanistan, some as low as 2,000 some as high as 5,000.
As for the actions of the Northern Alliance, the americans were blamed for that, because they were in direct support of the northern alliance. there was even a PR campaign to make them look good, i remember them being portrayed as freedom fighters. when really, they are every bit as brutal as the taliban, if not more so. True the NA did the fighting, but they were supported by the americans, that's why they get the blame. the NA simply took the hard job of groundfighting, while the americans provided backup with aerial bombings.
I am not an american hater, nor a propaganda spewer, i hope you don't hate me for expressing my views on this.
BTW, nice to see you back izzy. I can't wait for the politics forum. :) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| johnsmith, i think you missed one of the points ABT brought up in that these guys, as hard as it is to belive, use hospitals schools and mosques as sanctionaries for weapons and fugitives. this has been well documented by the IDF in southern lebonan as well as in the territories (and no i dont want to bring the israel-palestinian element into this). so which side holds higher ground, those who commit the acts of using hospitals, schools and mosques as battle fortresses or those who seek to make sure it doesnt happen? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
BTW, nice to see you back izzy. I can't wait for the politics forum. :) |
i cant wait either, its always a pleasure john :) |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
johnsmith, i think you missed one of the points ABT brought up in that these guys, as hard as it is to belive, use hospitals schools and mosques as sanctionaries for weapons and fugitives. this has been well documented by the IDF in southern lebonan as well as in the territories (and no i dont want to bring the israel-palestinian element into this). so which side holds higher ground, those who commit the acts of using hospitals, schools and mosques as battle fortresses or those who seek to make sure it doesnt happen? |
yeah, i saw the point.. it's a tough question.
putting your soldiers and tanks near civilian targets is a pretty cowardly way to fight.
but what choice do they have? if they are out in the open, they will be bombed mercilessly(note, i am not saying that excuses their actions, it only explains them), if they even vaguely remember anything military.
in fact the definition of military targets also includes media outlets, power stations, and other public infrastructure elements, such as sources of water distribution. hitting these targets, significantly hurt civilian populations indirectly, as there is no way to communicate, or get fresh water disease and sickness runs rampant, and it's very hard to get medical attention.
these are tried and tested war tactics, but, i think they are especially brutal considering the nature of afghanistan, and the intended target.
the only thing they even think twice about bombing are things that will get them bad publicity, such as mosques and schools etc. and it's my opinion, that bad publicity plays a much larger role in thinking twice than caring about innocent lives.
and, after thinking twice, they drop the bombs anyway!
it doesn't matter much, afghanistan is all but over, iraq will be the new war it looks like bush is not going to listen to anybody and is going to attack no matter what. |
|
|
| Tranzlucent |
| If there wasn't a thing called religion, we wouldn't be sittng here debating who is right and who is wrong. Religion divides the entire world. If there wasn't religion, would there be so much hate? It all starts with knowledge, or in this case lack of. I never believed in religion... and the world today is a perfect example of why not to believe in it. People hate whole entire cultures/countries because of their religion. Now how stupid is that? This whole thing is ed up now... I'm just hoping we drop bombs before they do. |
|
|
| djRyan Jonathon |
| The main reason america is hated is because the majority's attitude is "we are better", and its true...... |
|
|
| djRyan Jonathon |
| true in a sense that, that is there attitude |
|
|
| Seventh City |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vanilla
People hate america because they are the policemen of the world. American has a way of getting involved in other countries affairs. |
how can u represent everyone in a country and think they say that, its just the government heads, most of the residents dont think like this |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
ATB, I gotta say, even though I don't always agree with you (but that doesn't mean that I never do), I really enjoy reading your posts on these topics simply because you're one of the VERY few people that can speak in a truly intelligent, non-offensive, reasonable way :)
I myself usually stay out of these arguements and keep my mouth shut, simply cause I don't have the sources to make an true, hard arguement. Reading TIME and the National Post, watching CNN and CBC or BBC isn't good enough. One part of the media, the American one, will usually have a one-sided, patriotic view, whereas National Post (Toronto-based newspaper), CBC (Canadian-based newstation) and BBC (British, as most of us know) will all have a point of view that will usually differ from the one which CNN and TIME would talk about. This is one of the reasons why the hatred for America stems in other countries. The media in other countries will report something negative about the USA 90% of the time.
Yes, the American government is full of (But then again, which government isn't?) and Bush is a dumbass and unfortunately represents the "voice of America" to the rest of the world. If only the rest of the world would realize that not everyone agree's with what he's doing...and more people in America need to smarten up as well (I'm not referring to everyone).
Anywho, I must cut this post short...gotta go eat. |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
As for the actions of the Northern Alliance, the americans were blamed for that, because they were in direct support of the northern alliance. there was even a PR campaign to make them look good, i remember them being portrayed as freedom fighters. when really, they are every bit as brutal as the taliban, if not more so. True the NA did the fighting, but they were supported by the americans, that's why they get the blame. the NA simply took the hard job of groundfighting, while the americans provided backup with aerial bombings.
|
sorry John but i don't understand this.... we gathered the intelligence where they kept their munitions, where the certain webs of the Al Qaeda were located - we did not tell them to shoot upon surrender! We did not tell them how to treat their POW's... Its not like a child with a parent - we are not responsible for their actions!
and thank you Izzy for understanding what i was saying, and yes JohnSmith originally missed my point about the "innocent" casualties... i don't always find them too innocent if they're trying to kill you first... But again, for some reason the media doesn't report that part of it. They sugar-coat it for everyone's consumption down here...
And finally, the last thing that everyone forgets about, you NEVER hear published (b/c its GOOD stuff that the USA does...) is the food and relief drops... We send hundreds of military doctors over there to take care of the citizens of Afghanistan (non-Taliban supporters obviously), have had food drops of well over one million pounds of food already, and airmen who distribute this food to all of the families there, and all the smiles on all the (in many cases) toothless-faces. These parts are great, but for some reason you never hear about them....
To this day we are STILL sending drops in certain areas in the former Yugoslavia...
If we found the cure for AIDS that would be overshadowed b/c ten militia in civilian attire were killed.... casualties of war are sad, no doubt, but they always happen, regardless of WHO is fighting the war...
FYI the air strikes in Afghanistan were being organized and run by the U.N. - remember this was an operation that was approved and organized by them... granted, the US supplied about 85% of the hardware.... i distinctly remember walking down the flightline and seeing all different flags on the side of the fighters... i remember seeing a LOT of U.K., some German, and some French (believe it or not) .... there is no "I" in team! A whole lot of us worked together on that battle - yet no one attacks the U.N. or the other countries involved... its back to what i'm saying - the U.S. is an easy press target.
:disbelief <---and what the hell is that lol |
|
|
|
|
