Updates from Afghanistan

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:23 pm

popslut wrote:
Grifter wrote:stuff
It's just a suggestion but if you stop posting like a naughty 15 year-old, people will stop treating you like one.

I mean, I post some shite but even by my standards your posts are little more than noise.

Try talking like the grown-ups a bit. Swear, by all means, but just try to be funny or entertaining or even just a bit blunt.

Right now you're coming across like Beavis and Butthead's annoying little brother.

Hope this helps.

It will only help in this little Ableton world Circle Jerk... you know that I know that.. I never bought ableton for a consent.

Check my work:

http://www.youtube.com/user/dimentagon

Firing at me with the "14yo" comment is about as intelligent as M-fuck and his determination to justify HIS war.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:25 pm

rasputin wrote: How many more times are you going to repeat yourself before you realize how ridiculous you appear? Why don't you give up until the unlikely event you have something of substance to contribute?

Unless you're attempting some kind of satire.

Oh yay!

hey fellahs, make room in the circle-jerk for rasputin. He's awesome. He's on your side! You can count on his +1's and -1's ! Go team!

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:30 pm

...not that "he started it" is much of a defence, but as far as the name-calling goes, I think that over 14 pages of posts over 6+ months, I've been awfully patient with the shit treatment I've been given here pretty much consistently for the entire go of it.

I'm pressed for time, we get limited access to the internet. But, Machinesworking has a point, ad hominem attacks don't win arguments. But they do make one feel smug, that's for sure!

Anyways, I stand by two things I've already.

1. We go to INCREDIBLE lengths to avoid civilian casualties. We are denied opportunities to decisively engage an insurgent or group of insurgents, even with positive identification (PID) more often than we are granted permission. And I'm not talking about a 51% / 49% ratio here, it's more like five to one. When we're denied, it's pretty much always because of the fear of injuring civilians or destroying critical / sensitive infrastructure. I stand by my claim that my task force has caused almost no civilian casualties.

2. The actions of our allies are indeed an implication on ourselves; we're part of a broader coalition it's true. However, even then our allies go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. We know that popular support is critical to defeating the Taliban. To be haphazard with civilian deaths is self-defeating and stupid. I assure you all, that's not the case from what I see here.

popslut et al are highlighting some of the few gross mistakes that have been made. OK, you've established a biased, non-representative, anectodal benchmark. Good for you.

Since so many of you guys are so fixated on the numbers of innocent lives lost, fair enough. I'll write in terms that you'll understand. The thrust of my recent update remains valid; By intervening here in Afghanstan, even if we were to kill and maim twice as many civilians as we do today, would still be worth it considering the violence and chaos that would come if we failed to respond. We have preserved deterrence. We have preserved more life by acting decisively.

The Taliban are a spent, used up force. What moral outrages, murdering and suffering would they and their allies in Al Qaeda have accomplished had we sat back and obsequiously apologized after 9/11 for being "imperialist", instead of responding with force to their harbouring our attackers?

Every civilian death, and every soldier's death is regrettable. But there is very little steam in the theory that life would have been roses and honey had we not invaded.

I stand by my statements that we have prevented more deaths and improved more lives by invading than had we done nothing.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:34 pm

b0unce wrote:'Debate' just seems like verbal masturbation, with no outcome, just perpetuating a status quo and wasting obscene amounts of keystrokes & time in the process. There's no debate left to be had (here), it's impotent and ineffective. Semantics allow for this circle-jerk to go on forever. Plus wasting time on debate only serves the aggressors. imo, of course.

interesting. thread's dead.

You're the type of guy who 'supports the troops but not the war' , so it's no surprise you don't gel too smoothly with folks who verbalise their absolute disdain for the moronic & self-delusional cabbages who are running amok in foreign lands. Infact you criticise them for not sitting down, and writing essays over and over and over and over....

let's do the agree to disagree thing on the soldiers/war argument. we've each said our parts, we don't agree. I am NOT and have not argued against the side of being anti-war and questioning Breqs on why he's there. a page or so ago I criticized Breqs on the 'baby killer routine'. I haven't really even been in this thread.

I'm getting a lot of labels put on me by you guys. I'm sure some people would love to pin me as being pro war, I understand, but that's ridiculous. with all this infighting on this forum it's totally FUCKED because we all have more in common than most people in our REAL lives, it's a vastly liberal group of people, yet we look for ways to pick each other apart. mankind is destined to destroy itself.

on the other hand..
alot of people love that kind of shit and can masturbate incessantly, with no end in sight. So be it. But, more the fool you for criticising the 'fuck off and DIE, asshole' contributions to this heinous thread.

imo.

PS, die in a ditch Monty.

OK, get it now, thread's dead but Breqs posts his war blogs and there's not much more debate to be had. I didn't see it like that, but it's not for me to say.

hopefully you can understand I'm not interested in debating this on the internet.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:36 pm

It becomes Asswipes ruling asswipes here..and as soon as Tone Fuck speaks they all back off like he is some Deity.

Look at them all defending M-Fuck, and his nonced brained comments.

Fucking wankers... you all deserve no more intelligence than that.

My Youtube speaks for itself... Fucking Ditto.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:36 pm

sweetjesus wrote:the world and society i live in is now suffering as a result of the gross mismanagement by the coalition.

paramedics in australia are dealing with a sharp dramatic increase in heroin overdoses thanks to the liberty loving actions of your fellow comrades.

...And as far as Heroin in Australia goes; Supply versus demand my friend. The war on drugs has never been a success. If you want to stop drugs, stop the demand; trying to interdict and discourage supply never works.

Because even if we had left the Taliban unmolested for the last 6.5 years, and they actually continued their ban on opium production, an unfed demand would have simply raised the price to the point where it would be once again profitable for Burma / Myanmar, Cambodia, or Pakistan to fill that gap.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:39 pm

Fuck you both... there is no intelligent comment on WAR...

You are both wankers.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:40 pm

Grifter wrote:It becomes Asswipes ruling asswipes here..and as soon as Tone Fuck speaks they all back off like he is some Deity.

Look at them all defending M-Fuck, and his nonced brained comments.

Fucking wankers... you all deserve no more intelligence than that.

My Youtube speaks for itself... Fucking Ditto.

c'mon, chill... nobody has defended MBreq's position. walk away for an hour and see how you feel then.

myself and the guys above have gone 'round and 'round in countless arguments and rivers of shit and are tired of it. I think we all want to avoid the retarded shit we've done in the past. I will listen to them and stfu when they call me out, I've totally deserved it in the past.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:41 pm

Grifter wrote:It becomes Asswipes ruling asswipes here..and as soon as Tone Fuck speaks they all back off like he is some Deity.

Look at them all defending M-Fuck, and his nonced brained comments.

Fucking wankers... you all deserve no more intelligence than that.

My Youtube speaks for itself... Fucking Ditto.

who are 'they' & 'them' ? ... there isn't all that many people posting here, so uh, no need to be so vague. So address the people you refer to by NAME please, I'd rather not be tarred with that brush...even vaguely.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:43 pm

Tone Deft, you're right about this thread being dead.
I was just about to suggest to those with a penchant for verbal masturbation to wrap it up. I've got a hunch this thread will be fairly unreadable around the 20 page mark.

earthloop · Post by **earthloop** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:46 pm

M. Bréqs wrote:...not that "he started it" is much of a defence, but as far as the name-calling goes, I think that over 14 pages of posts over 6+ months, I've been awfully patient with the shit treatment I've been given here pretty much consistently for the entire go of it.

I'm pressed for time, we get limited access to the internet. But, Machinesworking has a point, ad hominem attacks don't win arguments. But they do make one feel smug, that's for sure!

Anyways, I stand by two things I've already.

1. We go to INCREDIBLE lengths to avoid civilian casualties. We are denied opportunities to decisively engage an insurgent or group of insurgents, even with positive identification (PID) more often than we are granted permission. And I'm not talking about a 51% / 49% ratio here, it's more like five to one. When we're denied, it's pretty much always because of the fear of injuring civilians or destroying critical / sensitive infrastructure. I stand by my claim that my task force has caused almost no civilian casualties.

2. The actions of our allies are indeed an implication on ourselves; we're part of a broader coalition it's true. However, even then our allies go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. We know that popular support is critical to defeating the Taliban. To be haphazard with civilian deaths is self-defeating and stupid. I assure you all, that's not the case from what I see here.

popslut et al are highlighting some of the few gross mistakes that have been made. OK, you've established a biased, non-representative, anectodal benchmark. Good for you.

Since so many of you guys are so fixated on the numbers of innocent lives lost, fair enough. I'll write in terms that you'll understand. The thrust of my recent update remains valid; By intervening here in Afghanstan, even if we were to kill and maim twice as many civilians as we do today, would still be worth it considering the violence and chaos that would come if we failed to respond. We have preserved deterrence. We have preserved more life by acting decisively.

The Taliban are a spent, used up force. What moral outrages, murdering and suffering would they and their allies in Al Qaeda have accomplished had we sat back and obsequiously apologized after 9/11 for being "imperialist"?

Every civilian death, and every soldier's death is regrettable. But there is very little steam in the theory that life would have been roses and honey had we not invaded.

I stand by my statements that we have prevented more deaths and improved more lives by invading than had we done nothing.

I agree with most of what you say M. Breqs! I would like to add, however, that Iraq is the big mistake which is muddying the Afghanistan situation!

And I also support the Sea Shepherd, just for the record! I met the Captain and a couple of the crew in Fremantle, and I donated to the cause!

So there...one can have a broader view of events in the world!

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:51 pm

Tone and b0unce will you please stop feeding the troll.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:58 pm

popslut wrote:Tone and b0unce will you please stop feeding the troll.

I know, I know....I can't help it.
When you stop feeding Mbreqs, I'll stop feeding...whoever it is you want me to stop feeding.

Grifter · Post by **Grifter** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:04 pm

The only person I'm applying the tar brush with is M-Fuck.

For people on Ableton to support such a wank cause is about as weak as voting Bush, Howard or Blair...

I gave up on the for-mentioned cause a long time ago, placing pressure in the right spots works like a charm mateys.

Even now watch money rule Death of the oceans... regardless of governement.

Rock on...

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:07 pm

M. Bréqs wrote: The Taliban are a spent, used up force. What moral outrages, murdering and suffering would they and their allies in Al Qaeda have accomplished had we sat back and obsequiously apologized after 9/11 for being "imperialist", instead of responding with force to their harbouring our attackers?

I've absolutely no idea and neither do you.

By the way, do you know if there are any plans afoot to invade Saudi Arabia and impose democracy there?

I only ask because their human rights record is pretty abysmal too and they treat their women just as badly as the Taliban, if the news agencies are to be believed.

More to the point, I was under the impression that the alleged 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi nationals. It strikes me that there is an equal if not more pressing need to tackle them as well while you're out there.

...even if we were to kill and maim twice as many civilians as we do today, would still be worth it...

To whom, exactly? I think if you were to ask those who had lost loved ones to NATO munitions you might find them at variance with your assertion.

I'm getting the distinct impression you regard them as little more than ignorant savages whose only role in all this is to impede your objectives.

I think their opinion might differ regarding the above quote and it is, after all, their country.

We have preserved more life by acting decisively.

Pure conjecture. Opinion. Unprovable. No basis in fact whatsoever.

Certainly not sufficient to justify even one civilian casualty, let alone a million.