U.S. Troops Discover And Rescue Orphan Boys Left Starving, Chained To Beds

If a terrorist hides behind civilian during a military action or kills a civilians that is wrong and unacceptable but just because a terrorist is in a school or a shop, it doesn't make the shop or school a military target. In the same way that the presence of military personal in world trade center didn't make those buildings a military target.

 

I'll give you the shop or school.

Your nearly there, what happens if a terrorist does what lorien said:

Hamas soldier hides behinds some kids and starts gunning down israeli soldiers. Israeli soldiers fires back and kills the soldier and maybe kills the kids.

Would that be the terrorists fault for hiding behind them, or the soldier for shooting back?

It's pretty nice to say "i don't like any kids being killed" but not everything is black & white.

 

What a moron, I have already said that is a combat situation and self defense. Every soldier has the right to kill in self defense, the same way that a police officer has that right and even a civilian has that right.
This is not the same situation as there is no present danger but a soldier decides to bomb and kill civilians in hope of killing an enemy, that is war crime.

It is very black & white when some one decides to kill people when there is no present danger that justifies self defense, it is called murder.

 

That's honrable of you to admit in this situtaion:

"Hamas soldier hides behinds some kids and starts gunning down israeli soldiers. Israeli soldiers fires back and kills the soldier and maybe kills the kids."

The IDF soldier would not be in the wrong, although it's tragic.

Or it's called taking your chance whilst you've got it, because these people can't stand up & fight face to face instead they just hide & come out when they want like rats.

 

You must be obtuse or something. Hides behind, surrounds himself with - Substitute the appropriate phrase. You seem to be a little confused as well. This is not a "hope that he might be there" You know he's there and you have only a short time to get him or he's never seen again, probably. What do you do? Military commanders make the decision all the time. You take the risk if the assessment is right. You can't just say "Nope. Never. Not gonna do it" Because, as I've repeatedly said, by doing this you encourage the behavior whereas, by trying to defend civilians, you are putting more of them in the crossfire. Can you not see this?

If you have a set policy - "I will not fire upon the enemy if they are surrounded by innocents" then you give them the window they need to say "hey, let's surround ourselves with innocents" - which is exactly what happens all the time these days.

All you have to do is look at Israel/Lebanon recently to see this in action. Israel fought for self defense. Hamas fought behind houses/schools/neighborhoods/hospitals and Israel got blamed for the civilian deaths. Read the threads during the conflict.

More recently, you see people throw about the casualties in Iraq (you do this, I believe), but forget to mention who is doing the killing. Who are blowing up cars in malls, cars in hospitals, etc and using retarded kids as bombs. Then the US gets blamed saying - watch out for civilian casualties. Who's responsible for that again?

And, like you do, who is getting blamed for it? The people who are acting in defense. You might live in some cartoon world where this guy in the training camp just "happens" to be surrounded by innocents, but if you do not think its a plan; you are fooling yourself. Or on some planet where OBL is gonna wander into the local market.

They are trainining and surrounding themselves with people that they know will get the sympathy. And what are you doing? Giving them sympathy. Congratulations, once again. Keep encouraging the behavior.

It is a big problem for our military and its debated over here all the time. But having a policy "nope, never" is a sure way to ensure defeat.

 

So you support terrorists as long as they blow up buildings and kill civilians where there is some military personal present in that building. I am surprised that you support the 9/11 terrorists attacking the world trade center since according to your logic they were just attacking military targets or may be you just support killing of civilians by American military while you are against other side using the same tactics.

 

That's pretty weak even, for you, gworld.

Let's define some very basic differences here.

The area that was attacked is a combat zone; known to house taliban, al qaeda, bin laden, etc. This particular camp (unless you can show me something to the contrary) is a terrorist training area. A high up al qaeda guy was killed during the bombing as well. You can ignore this if you want; that's fine, but it's reality.

I believe, according to Geneva conventions, that is their responsibility keep innocents out of the line of fire. That is not our responsibility. If they keep innocents in a legitimate target; it is their fault, not ours. Do you disagree with this? Is anyone claiming any sort of geneva convention violation here? From what I can tell, you are the only one crying over dead terrorists and future terrorists here.

Now; let's approach your sad WTC analogy. The WTC attack was not done by people in uniform, it was done by people without any military dress at all (unless you'd like to consider muslim clothing military garb. would you like to do that?) It also used civilian vehicles and the people within them as weapons - this is against the geneva conventions. do you realize this? I hope so. Maybe you don't care - your analogy is more important.

The attack also purposefully struck a civilian target. A building. Not a military base, not a group of soldiers. A civilian target. This purposeful targeting of civilians is also against the geneva conventions.

Now, would you like to continue this sad WTC analogy? I think its pretty sad of you that you are crapping on the memory of the people who died there by comparing the two incidents.

And would you like to continue not understanding the difference between military targets and random targeting of civilians like the people who blow up schools, hospitals, markets and actually -intend- to cause civilian casualties.

 

The attack was against a place that had school and mosque, are school and mosque military targets?

So you see Afghan children independent of age as future terrorists and the question is why you pretend to be happy about saving Iraqis children, aren't they future terrorists also?
How about terrorists start killing American children because they can be future soldiers? You just dig yourself deeper and deeper, trying to defend something that according to Gtech source even American military is ashamed of and is trying to deny responsibility.

The simple truth is that people like you and Gtech don't give a damn about children and you will just see them as a propaganda tool when it is useful and cheer their death and murder when it serves your purpose. People like you who justify murder of innocent women and children are disgrace to human race.

 

I see you've given up on the pathetic WTC analogy. That's a good start.

Nope; I see people inside terrorist camps as future terrorists. I do not see dying Iraqi kids dying in an orphanage, where the only they did was being born as equals. Do you see them as identical? One is practicing putting a bomb around their waist; the other is living in waste. Are they the same in your eyes?

Do you disagree with this being a terrorist camp. If so, where is your evidence to support this?

Repeat after me, gworld. Al Qaeda leader. Training terrorists. You keep harping on school and mosque but ignore the actual reality of what the place was. Please, do, tell me why. That a mosque is there is part and parcel of the whole deal, isn't it? So is it your contention that if there is a mosque next to a training facility, that the facility is no longer a valid target? Is this your point?

Once again, it is the responsibility of the people inside the camp, knowing they are a military target, to safeguard the civilians. Why are you blaming US; when the responsbility falls upon them to ensure safety of the innocents, if indeed they are innocents inside a training facility.

I agree gworld. It is, indeed pathetic that you claim that people who died during the WTC attacks are roughtly equivalent to those that were killed during this missile attack. Truly disgraceful.

 

Ya'll'd have a bitchfest if I was the world leader right now. I'd be using alternative methods, like stink bombs en masse, dropping Michael Moor's excrement on terrorist targets, playing Rush 24/7/365 from giant loudspeakers, dropping in rubrics cubes and whack-its, along with porn magazines that look appealing on the outside - but then have gay porn on the inside, and I am talking old Russian males. Not to mention I'd be dropping burritos and tacos from Taco Bell from a year ago, left to ferment in the sun for a while. And we wouldn't stop until they got down on their knees and begged us, after turning in all their weapons.

 

You've already been trumped. They play the voice of jeanine garafolo to detainees. I can't imagine a worse fate

 

Oh yeah? How about a never ending replay of Ozzie Osbourne's child?

 

which one? the fat chick?

 

Yes. The fat chick who bitched all the time on the show and literally made be ban the channel for a year.

 

Now; that'd be a tough choice. I bet some sort of duet between them would definitely cross the line though.

 

Slap in Elton John and his "wife" for a quartet.

 

Here's a classic AGS joke for ya:

What has hit more balls than David Beckhams right boot?

Elton Johns chin.