Updates from Afghanistan

yoshitosser · Post by **yoshitosser** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:59 am

M. Bréqs wrote: I hope you don't sleep well, you fucking ingrate.

Temper, temper.

Let's hope you never get given control of a gun. Oh wait........shit.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:02 am

Machinesworking wrote:Again, you and your "side" can have it both ways, you can assume to take the moral high road, ( Taliban is the enemy of western culture etc. ), then say that you're being pragmatic when you need to be. Yet if the opposing side does the exact same thing you call them out as waging mental gymnastics.

You cannot have it both ways, period. Your logic is flawed here, and no 25¢ word or mental gymnastics on your part can back you out of this corner you put yourself in. Good job! :wink:

...and yes, it shows how weak the argument for your position has become that I don't even have to argue the ethics etc. of the actual conflict, when you can't even keep your own attacks against your political "foes" from obvious hypocrisy.

Geez, I thought you were smart enough to understand, but obviously I have to try harder and simplify this.

My argument = a two stage logical process. "First is it practical? Second, if it is practical, is it moral?"

The anti-war argument = a series of absolute statements that when they fail logical testing are sequentially abandoned. "That's immoral! Uh, we're not convincing anybody... Time to change tactics; We'll never win, it's impractical!"

Do you get it now, or is your dogma still blinding you to a simple concept?

Ahh, fuck it. You're boring me. I need a challenging debater to keep my interest. I'm outta here for now.

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:03 am

M. Bréqs wrote: ...you fucking ingrate.

I wouldn't take his words to heart - someone told me a long time ago he was dropped on his head as a baby by an Afghani dj

(doh!)

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:13 am

M. Bréqs wrote: Our collateral damage is almost nil! I can think of only one incident where a local national was wounded by a stray bullet in a firefight (and that guy's up on his feet again, thanks to our medical support), but I admit there may be another which I am not aware of. Regardless, it's fucking RARE.

You are fighting a "terrorist organization", it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to figure out that they have no uniform, no identifiable markings etc. They don't necessarily congregate in anything more than farms and people's houses. There is no way in hell that any military action against insurgents/taliban could possibly be done without collateral damage, and it's amazing the kind of self aggrandizing you military types do faking that the bombs just happen to only hit the men between the ages of 18 and 45 when they're dropped.

One single general had it right, "Don't come attacking the military when we are in battle and women and children die, it's what we do, we kill people." This modern soldier line of crap about not killing anybody but the enemy in a war where the enemy doesn't even have a uniform per say.... come on!

TL;DR Almost nil my ass! I'm sure that at the very least 1 in 5 people killed as insurgents and taliban were neither. That would be a good number in a typical war with soldiers in uniform on one side etc.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:16 am

M. Bréqs wrote:
popslut wrote:And, by definition, you've killed a lot of babies too.

Bullshit. Our Task Force has done no such thing. We don't target babies you ignorant twit.

your role in the Task Force is the same as your Task Force's role in the wars in the middle east. enablers.

news flash. war sucks.

keep your wits about you Breqs, shit happens.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:32 am

M. Bréqs wrote:
Machinesworking wrote:Again, you and your "side" can have it both ways, you can assume to take the moral high road, ( Taliban is the enemy of western culture etc. ), then say that you're being pragmatic when you need to be. Yet if the opposing side does the exact same thing you call them out as waging mental gymnastics.

You cannot have it both ways, period. Your logic is flawed here, and no 25¢ word or mental gymnastics on your part can back you out of this corner you put yourself in. Good job!

...and yes, it shows how weak the argument for your position has become that I don't even have to argue the ethics etc. of the actual conflict, when you can't even keep your own attacks against your political "foes" from obvious hypocrisy.
Geez, I thought you were smart enough to understand, but obviously I have to try harder and simplify this.

My argument = a two stage logical process. "First is it practical? Second, if it is practical, is it moral?"

The anti-war argument = a series of absolute statements that when they fail logical testing are sequentially abandoned. "That's immoral! Uh, we're not convincing anybody... Time to change tactics; We'll never win, it's impractical!"

Do you get it now, or is your dogma still blinding you to a simple concept?

Ahh, fuck it. You're boring me. I need a challenging debater to keep my interest. I'm outta here for now.

Right, the antiwar movement cannot possibly think it's both immoral and impractical could they? jesus man, you're backing yourself further and further in a corner.

Simple answer, I have always held it both immoral and impractical to invade a sovereign nation with no real exit strategy. That has always been, in any "left wing articlle" I've read since the very beginning the position.

You build yourself this imaginary image of the enemy, then try to hold the rest of us to your version of the truth. It's garbage logic, and you're doing nothing more than making yourself look bad by not seeing that. Notice one thing very clearly, I have not attacked your position, or the validity of thinking that you should look at both the moral and practical implications of war etc. What I have attacked is your position that the left does not get the ability to do this. You seem to think the left should take either a moral or a pragmatic stance, and if they take both, then they are wrong or "flip flopping" (yawn). Yet you feel it OK and within your position to do just that. It's hypocritical but since you believe your position to be right, you don't seem to be able to see that.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:49 am

This is half of what the troops are in Afghanistan to protect.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/a ... my_www.pdf

The other half is under the ground.. or runs through pipes.

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:02 am

M. Bréqs wrote:We don't target babies you ignorant twit.

You don't need to target them to do them damage you mendacious fuckwit.

You just need to be careless with your stray cluster bombs or maybe execute an aerial bombardment on a village and mistake fleeing villagers for "enemy combatants"...

On, say, June 30th 2007

The New York Times wrote: Haji Zahir, a tribal elder who said he had been in touch with residents of effected villages, said: “People tried to escape from the area with their cars, trucks and tractors, and the coalition airplanes bombed them because they thought they were the enemy fleeing. They told me that they had buried 170 bodies so far.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/world ... trike.html

Our collateral damage is almost nil!

Almost?

I can think of only one incident where a local national was wounded by a stray bullet in a firefight (and that guy's up on his feet again, thanks to our medical support), but I admit there may be another which I am not aware of.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that, since 2002, total civilian casualties in Afghanistan amount to ONE MAN INJURED BY A STRAY BULLET??

On June 23, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan accused the United States military and its NATO allies of carrying out “careless operations.” He said, “Afghan life is not cheap and should not be treated as such.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/world ... trike.html

And you have the temerity to accuse us of "intellectual gymnastics"?

You're remarkable, for all the wrong reasons.

minimal · Post by **minimal** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:03 am

[quote="M. Bréqs] of our Rules of Engagement.[/quote]

it would be nice if one of these rules would be "do not flood the music forums with your fascist shit, just leave the place clean, as it was before you"

fucktard

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:07 am

Must be nice to take a break from the war to come to this forum to fight another war

Oh Canada...

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:13 am

hoffman2k wrote:Must be nice to take a break from the war to come to this forum to fight another war

Oh Canada...

maybe he would benefit from smoking some of their harvest.

grok · Post by **grok** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:50 am

@ M. Bréqs
Respect for the fact that you stand up and take the heat, you defend your point off view in a good non agressive way. The reply of the people against your point of view are more verbaly agressive than you , the soldier. Strange.... You also are proof that military can be intellegent and peacekeeping people. Do I love the military? No, but it would be rather hypocrit to assume that we dont need the military. There is good and evil (its not allways clear who's who) in this world and you need good forces to fight evil forces. I do consider Taliban as evil, no doubt about it. In the teachings of Tao they say you are part of the problem or you are part of the solution. So I have one question to all of you who started attacking M. Bréqs; are you part of the solution or part of the problem. I must admit that I'me part of the problem, because there is nothing that I've done to help the people off Afghanistan or kick Taliban butt

greetz
Grok

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:55 am

grok wrote:... kick Taliban butt
...

see that right there strips you of a lot of credibility

grok · Post by **grok** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 pm

forge wrote:
grok wrote:... kick Taliban butt
...
see that right there strips you of a lot of credibility

True.................. but if that is the only remark, I can live with that

ThrowAway · Post by **ThrowAway** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:07 pm

posted from another post that m breqs never acknowledged:

"oh and mbreqs before you go on your speech about how the afghans and the iraqis approve of the war efforts by the outsiders, stop and think what there alternatives are.. If the decide to fight against the invaders they face certain death. and by invaders i mean the us and canada and the whole lot. Really what other choice do they have? fight with left over tech from the cold war era? you guys out gun them by far. Im sure they are glad hussein is out of power but they didnt want it to be this way. You might fight for good reasons but war was waged for a far different reason and they know that. what side would you "pick" if you were a citizen and had a family to protect? probably the side whos has the best chance of winning, period. Politics take a back seat to survival."

My reasoning for being anti-war was never nor ever will be because we cant win. This war was bullshit from the get go. Iraq and the middle east was far more stable before the war and it was easily predictable that this situation would develop(many us generals will atest). hussein was never a threat to the us or canada. your being used. your rational is a coping mechinism so you dont go insane unless your a sociopath. youve been duped by an idiot into being a murderer. how many "insurgents" became so because their families were slughtered after the first gulf war? Do you relise they know they were used for political manuevering by Bush Sr and then left to hang in the wind? no collateral damage? fuck you.