Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... llage.html

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... llage.html

You mean the women and children that OUR troops raped and killed? You arsehole.

guess using drones to bomb ppl makes you feel powerful, strong and proud of yourself.

NOT!

Well RB, better to use drones than avoid casualties. REally don't have much of a concept of the advances in technical warfare do you

Bora Bora wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... llage.html

You mean the women and children that OUR troops raped and killed? You arsehole.

Bora, I will never ever defend this chevalier arsehole, but I hope that surely it's just a tiny minority of soldiers guilty of these acts, which happen in all wars. It's one of the terrible consequences of people of low intelligence being released from the constraints of civilised society. Don't blanket the whole armed forces with this awful thing though.

Not meaning to offend!

Chocoholic wrote:Well RB, better to use drones than avoid casualties. REally don't have much of a concept of the advances in technical warfare do you

Yep it's strange, When unmanned rocket bombs were first used in WWII by Germany against the UK, it was thought of as a dirty way to fight. Now it's quite accepted, as each side is terrified of having more casualties due to media pressure (loss of life doesn't worry governments as much as headlines do).

Bora Bora wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... llage.html

You mean the women and children that OUR troops raped and killed? You arsehole.

You "Islamofag" collaborator there was no ref; to women and children that OUR troops raped and killed in the “nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07”

They (UAV) are good as a weapon of intimidation as RB is so anxious.

Most modern warfare is completely unethical. Nukes, cluster bombs, drones, unclear affiliations with a particular "army" - it is all crap! The best way was the old way... Get two armies in a field and they fight it out. No one flying over and dropping bombs, and no one hiding out with civilians and putting them in the middle of the danger...

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

chevaliers-de-sion wrote:Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... llage.html

You mean the women and children that OUR troops raped and killed? You arsehole.

You "Islamofag" collaborator there was no ref; to women and children that OUR troops raped and killed in the “nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07”

So if its not in the Daily News Rag, then it didn't happen? You need to upgrade your reading material.

And Al Gharib never happened?

Chocoholic wrote:Well RB, better to use drones than avoid casualties. REally don't have much of a concept of the advances in technical warfare do you

chocs yes its an advance technology.

but when they are bombing a house are they able to detect children and women in the neighbouring house and make sure that those children and women arent hurt? i guess they cant otherwise there wouldnt be civil cassualties. They can avoid it by sending in their troops and do a door search. but i guess they are scared that their forces might suffer loses. so hey we will play cow boys, sit on a computer system and blow the whole damn neighbour hood down, paying no care for HUMAN lifes. I guess these UAV arent weapons of mass destruction and guess what ONLY USA is allowed to have it

yes laptops and mobile phones are all advances in technology but guess what later on they all fail.

Drones or NASA space shuttles they all fail now and then

There are always glitches in technology (nothing is perfect) so i guess if the UAV bomb the wrong house, it surely is an advance in technology .

hmmm I am suprised the americans cant use their brains and money to come up with technology to save lives .

kanelli wrote:Most modern warfare is completely unethical. Nukes, cluster bombs, drones, unclear affiliations with a particular "army" - it is all crap! The best way was the old way... Get two armies in a field and they fight it out. No one flying over and dropping bombs, and no one hiding out with civilians and putting them in the middle of the danger...

Unethical?

You rather prefer going back to the Middle Ages where your head was chopped off because someone thought that might be appropriate or because you just were not part of the religion?

The whole issues of modern warfare is to eliminate the strategic technological threats without causing an entire population get wiped out like those sword clashes (battles) in the Middle Ages presented us.

I wonder, have you ever seen 100k troops clash into another group of savages with swords?

Talking about unethical

[quote="chevaliers-de-sion"]Afghan fighters dress in burqas to slip away from Marines in Afghan village.
Why should this surprise anyone. After all, these are the same cowardly focks that shoot at our soldiers while they hide behind women and children



Try having some greedy ppl invading ur house in the name of democracy, you would justify any means to kill them, wouldn't u?

Old warfare with two armies facing off on a battlefield is more ethical because 1) With such a huge loss of life of the male population people would thing twice about having a war unless it was necessary. 2) Only the army is fighting and innocent civilians don't have to live in a war zone every day. 3) There is no contamination of people or the environment, or long-term hazards in these kinds of wars (no chemical weapons, no nukes, no bio-weapons, no cluster bombs, no mines). 4) Countries' govts can't over-extend themselves or have their hands in too many pies if they can't physically get a large army on the ground to engage in various battles, so that could help make the world a more peaceful place.

kanelli wrote:Old warfare with two armies facing off on a battlefield is more ethical because 1) With such a huge loss of life of the male population people would thing twice about having a war unless it was necessary. 2) Only the army is fighting and innocent civilians don't have to live in a war zone every day. 3) There is no contamination of people or the environment, or long-term hazards in these kinds of wars (no chemical weapons, no nukes, no bio-weapons, no cluster bombs, no mines). 4) Countries' govts can't over-extend themselves or have their hands in too many pies if they can't physically get a large army on the ground to engage in various battles, so that could help make the world a more peaceful place.

i agree with kanelli. having advance weapons does have an edge over your enemy. I guess thats why USA thinks it can attack any country it likes. USA knows with a click of a button it can cause major destruction where its enemy and civilians of a certain country will suffer a huge loss, whereas its forces wont. fair battle? dont think so. cowards? yes.

kanelli wrote:Old warfare with two armies facing off on a battlefield is more ethical because 1) With such a huge loss of life of the male population people would thing twice about having a war unless it was necessary. 2) Only the army is fighting and innocent civilians don't have to live in a war zone every day. 3) There is no contamination of people or the environment, or long-term hazards in these kinds of wars (no chemical weapons, no nukes, no bio-weapons, no cluster bombs, no mines). 4) Countries' govts can't over-extend themselves or have their hands in too many pies if they can't physically get a large army on the ground to engage in various battles, so that could help make the world a more peaceful place.

I see.

Tell me, what world do you live in actually?
Seems like its a jungle with bushmen or something. Are you in PNG perhaps?

I know this isn't realistic, it is just what I think is a better option to modern warfare where the idea of the game is to attack from a distance with something really deadly. They don't want to lose any of their soldiers but don't care how much "collateral damage" they cause.

kanelli wrote:I know this isn't realistic, it is just what I think is a better option to modern warfare where the idea of the game is to attack from a distance with something really deadly. They don't want to lose any of their soldiers but don't care how much "collateral damage" they cause.

I think the Generals should just sit on the floor and play 'Magic: The Gathering' to see who wins, then go home.

Speedhump wrote:

kanelli wrote:I know this isn't realistic, it is just what I think is a better option to modern warfare where the idea of the game is to attack from a distance with something really deadly. They don't want to lose any of their soldiers but don't care how much "collateral damage" they cause.

I think the Generals should just sit on the floor and play 'Magic: The Gathering' to see who wins, then go home.

Yeah might be the answer.
What about the board game: Axis and Allies

Too many rules for most warmongers! Let's go for Pokemon instead?

Speedhump wrote:Too many rules for most warmongers! Let's go for Pokemon instead?

Nah, too childish.

Lets do a running contest. See who's got the best endurance.