Taliban flee battle using children as shields: NATO

[S.A.M.]

i personally havent, care to explain that sam? or are you judging me for the actions of others?

Hardly

ha hebron. i have "nice" memories from that city.
when we first entered that city with tanks all the children in the city(and only them) came out starting to throw stones on our tanks:bugeye:
my crazy officer left the turret shelf semi open and lots of stones and glass fragments fell on my head-good thing i had a helmet
in the end i fired a few shots to a wall and all the kids fled and the stones stopped.
ha ... the memories.

 

[Prince_James]

Nickelodeon:

So how do you decide which ones you've killed are helping the Taliban, and which ones you killed were not?

Generally the villages which one sees the Taliban running to for assistance or are firing out of...

Or you know, gathered from intelligence.

SamCDKey:

50 civilian deaths in a war is hardly a matter of "not caring". If the US was purposefully negligent, she'd be using no precision weapons, and if malicious, gunning down the exodus.

On the other hand, taking human shield hostages of children is a purposeful act from the Taliban, in violation of the Geneva Convention, and a war crime.

 

[Mr.Spock]

Hardly

sam you brain twit were did i wrote i was firing at children? i was firing on a wall not to hurt them!

 

[S.A.M.]

Nickelodeon:



Generally the villages which one sees the Taliban running to for assistance or are firing out of...

Or you know, gathered from intelligence.

SamCDKey:

50 civilian deaths in a war is hardly a matter of "not caring". If the US was purposefully negligent, she'd be using no precision weapons, and if malicious, gunning down the exodus.

On the other hand, taking human shield hostages of children is a purposeful act from the Taliban, in violation of the Geneva Convention, and a war crime.

And based entirely on the word of NATO troops who are killing civilians and refusing to acknowledge the fact. Blaming the enemy is hardly a new war tactic.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam you brain twit were did i wrote i was firing at children? i was firing on a wall not to hurt them!

Anything behind that wall? Like people? Including other children?

 

[Mr.Spock]

And based entirely on the word of NATO troops who are killing civilians and refusing to acknowledge the fact. Blaming the enemy is hardly a new war tactic.

thats interesting. you accept the reports of palestinians who acknowledges they are firing on civilians due to occupation.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Of course, they are the "infidels."

 

[S.A.M.]

thats interesting. you accept the reports of palestinians who acknowledges they are firing on civilians due to occupation.

Thats hilarious.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

 

[Nickelodeon]

Generally the villages which one sees the Taliban running to for assistance or are firing out of...

Or you know, gathered from intelligence.

Did you even read my post?

 

[Mr.Spock]

Anything behind that wall? Like people? Including other children?

it was a concrete wall, and i fired only automatic weapons not the canon. i fired on a spot were there were no children, and even if there were they wouldnt have got hurt. if fired only a short burst, and everyone fled. so the answer is no. so the only tactic you can use is deflect the argument away from you, instead of simply admit you dont care for civilians, the fact that your response to buffalo was a picture of a idf soldier with a captive, and to misrepresent something i said. good job sam keep it up.

 

[S.A.M.]

it was a concrete wall, and i fired only automatic weapons not the canon. i fired on a spot were there were no children, and even if there were they wouldnt have got hurt. if fired only a short burst, and everyone fled. so the answer is no. so the only tactic you can use is deflect the argument away from you, instead of simply admit you dont care for civilians, the fact that your response to buffalo was a picture of a idf soldier with a captive, and to misrepresent something i said. good job sam keep it up.

Yeah I heard IDF soldiers always have good "cover" stories.

 

[Mr.Spock]

Thats hilarious.

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2006.html

hilarious? you only proved my point by that response!

 

[Mr.Spock]

Yeah I heard IDF soldiers always have good "cover" stories.

so you are accusing me of killing children?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Nickelodeon,

Prove a negative? Can you prove, for sure, that there are not 4,000 terrorists in Dallas right now preparing an attack? Oh then it must be true!

Yes I can as Dallas is not a war zone, and there is not intelligence information showing that there are 4000 terrorist in Dallas right now, if there was operations would be in motion right now to remove the threat, Your reply has nothing to do with what is going on in Afghanistan and is nothing but a distraction from the discussion. The question is not asking you to prove a negative, I ask for proof that you can show that the Taliban weren't involved, which you can't because you weren't there personally, and you are going on information provided by news agency's 2nd hand and don't have access to all the material that was used to make the decision on the strike.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nickelodeon,



Yes I can as Dallas is not a war zone, and there is not intelligence information showing that there are 4000 terrorist in Dallas right now, if there was operations would be in motion right now to remove the threat, Your reply has nothing to do with what is going on in Afghanistan and is nothing but a distraction from the discussion. The question is not asking you to prove a negative, I ask for proof that you can show that the Taliban weren't involved, which you can't because you weren't there personally, and you are going on information provided by news agency's 2nd hand and don't have access to all the material that was used to make the decision on the strike.

What BS. Even the Pentagon knows when to shut up.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Yes I can as Dallas is not a war zone, and there is not intelligence information showing that there are 4000 terrorist in Dallas right now, if there was operations would be in motion right now to remove the threat, Your reply has nothing to do with what is going on in Afghanistan and is nothing but a distraction from the discussion. The question is not asking you to prove a negative, I ask for proof that you can show that the Taliban weren't involved, which you can't because you weren't there personally, and you are going on information provided by news agency's 2nd hand and don't have access to all the material that was used to make the decision on the strike.

You are continuing to insist that the bombing of the wedding party was probably justified becasue there were terrorists there. Prove it. Prove there were actually terrorrist at that particular wedding.

there is not intelligence information showing that there are 4000 terrorist in Dallas right now,

So there WAS intelligence that there were terrorist at that wedding party? Where?

 

[S.A.M.]

so you are accusing me of killing children?

Did I? I accused you of firing at children throwing stones, by your own admission.

If you killed any, thats between you and the children.

 

[Mr.Spock]

Did I? I accused you of firing at children throwing stones, by your own admission.

If you killed any, thats between you and the children.

i wasnt firing on them , now you're lying, i never said that. thats the only way you can debate? ill bet you think you're very smart.

 

[S.A.M.]

i wasnt firing on them , now you're lying, i never said that. thats the only way you can debate? ill bet you think you're very smart.

Let me guess. The children were in front of the tank and you fired at the wall behind the tank.

 

[Mr.Spock]

Let me guess. The children were in front of the tank and you fired at the wall behind the tank.

no i fired on the wall on the side were there were no children, to scare them off.
like i said before.