God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.
Many countries also supported invading Iraq, including the UK who provided troops as well. what's your point? Most of the Arab world was NOT in favor of the invasion, and those were who we needed to engage in talks with the most.
Not to mention the fact that France, Germany, and the UK are also countries aligned with the US in pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran.
Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!
This is what is ironic to me:
You guys say if we "focus" on Afghanistan more, there will be less civilian casualties, right?
You also say that we have been too busy "focusing" on Iraq, right?
well, there are currently 1 million casualties thanks to us "focusing" on Iraq... what the fuck would happen if we were "focusing" this entire war on Afghanistan?!
not surprisingly, you guys have missed my entire point all along. "it's just collateral damage ... but yeah, we can do better to avoid civilian casualties."
what the fuck does that even mean? if we KNOW civilians are living in an area, and we KNOW if we drop a bomb there, it will kill them, how does that make it justified? we KNOWINGLY killed civilians. that's the bottom line, and you guys can't justify it. so far, I'm more than certain that more civilians have died in Afghanistan than died in 9/11, so how does this make us better than the terrorists? In fact, we are also continually oppressing many people all over the world, in addition to Afghanis.
To quote Howard Zinn: "The so-called 'war on terror'... is itself an act of terrorism..."
Not every German was executing Jews or lobbing bombs at Britain, but that doesn't mean we should have never dropped bombs on them because some might have killed civilians.
oh, careful. comparing any war to World War II is a terrible thing to do...
...oh wait, that's just if you compare Israel's actions to World War II... but if you justify anything the Israelis/US do by using WWII, then it's fine...
God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.
Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!
the ENTIRE international community? surely you dont mean every nation on earth.
i am very well aware of the howard governments brown nosing the bush administration. it was like a big almighty cons suckfest here. and the invasion of afghanistan was not supported by the entirety of the australian population. and you should know that despite massive worldwide demonstrations, these democratic governments who supposedly represent their people, ignored the will of those people with an almighty fuck you were going in anyway. as an australian i am fully aware of the relationship between my government and that of the united states. and that supporting anything the united states does is based on far more than, in this case, an agreeance that afghanistan was in the wrong in its support of al quaeda and therefore should be punished with the full force of arms.
picking up the slack? are you kidding me? perhaps other nations have realised what an abortion afghanistan has become and have made decisions for the best interests of their armed forces and countries. if the job isnt done in afghanstamn its because the US government fucked up by NOT staying the course, to paraphrase your illustrious leader. pretending that iraq has something to do with al qaeda was a monumental error in intelligence and judgement and it should be rectified by those who made it, not other nations.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Iraq has a death count of 1 million, Afghanistan- no one really knows, but it's definitely well into the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
any proof?
I want to see your sources. you've gone from "hundreds of thousands" of dead Afghanis, to now "tens of thousands". you are making shit up off the top of your head, and it's quite funny.
the first link is blocked at my work due to "political activist site". that tells me about all I need to know on that one.
the second link has "A Coward's War" in the headline dated 3 months after more than 3000 innocent US citizens were murdered. that tells me that any number they could come up with is going to be bullshit.
I want to see your sources. you've gone from "hundreds of thousands" of dead Afghanis, to now "tens of thousands".
you take everything out of context. first of all, I said "well into thousands, if not tens of thousands" which is a big difference.
second of all:
"According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion."
In 2006 alone, more than 1000 civilians were killed. In 2007, about 2000 civilians were killed by bombs. So far in 2008, almost 1000 civilians have been killed.
your death toll of 3000 civilians was only the first few months of the war. you are way off.
the first link is blocked at my work due to "political activist site". that tells me about all I need to know on that one.
the second link has "A Coward's War" in the headline dated 3 months after more than 3000 innocent US citizens were murdered. that tells me that any number they could come up with is going to be bullshit.
political activist site?
ok, your dismissing of all this tells me all I need to know about you. thanks for playing.
can you come up with a LEGITIMATE source?
you mean one that supports your bullshit? sorry, not happening.
edit: it's really hilarious how you are trying to prove a (wrong) claim and straying off from the actual issue.
ok, your dismissing of all this tells me all I need to know about you. thanks for playing.
you mean one that supports your bullshit? sorry, not happening.
edit: it's really hilarious how you are trying to prove a (wrong) claim and straying off from the actual issue.
what's hilarious is that I put your own words up, which you claimed that you didn't say. and now, I'm taking your words "out of context" when it's clear that your opinion on this doesn't even matter because you can't get the number of INNOCENT dead right from between a few thousand to "hundreds of thousands". you're just making shit up and it's really made you look quite dumb throughout this whole thread. and no, I don't put faith in "political activist" sites or a site that was calling the war in Afghanistan a "coward's war" three months after 9/11.
what's hilarious is that I put your own words up, which you claimed that you didn't say. and now, I'm taking your words "out of context" when it's clear that your opinion on this doesn't even matter because you can't get the number of INNOCENT dead right from between a few thousand to "hundreds of thousands". you're just making shit up and it's really made you look quite dumb throughout this whole thread. and no, I don't put faith in "political activist" sites or a site that was calling the war in Afghanistan a "coward's war" three months after 9/11.
lol, so you ignore the previous post. I already explained before about the innocents dying because I was including Iraq as well, but you think you can somehow justify the war if only 3000 innocents died (which is bullshit).
and the only thing that looks dumb is you dismissing websites which don't agree with you.
go ahead though. you guys can bitch and moan about 9/11 but when it comes to civilians dying in other countries, it's just "collateral damage." hypocrites.
80 bazillion dead Afghans -- or whatever number you're going with today -- agree.
yep, whatever number that dies, it doesn't even matter to you people. as long as you can label all the deaths with two easy words that simplify it all, and of course as long as it's just a couple abdul's, then who the fuck cares.
lol, so you ignore the previous post. I already explained before about the innocents dying because I was including Iraq as well, but you think you can somehow justify the war if only 3000 innocents died (which is bullshit).
no, you didn't "explain" anything. I want to see you say......"I said on 4 different posts that hundreds of thousands of Afghanis have been killed. I was wrong, and I stand corrected."
until you can admit that you were wrong, there's nothing you can say to make your argument look right imo.
no, you didn't "explain" anything. I want to see you say......"I said on 4 different posts that hundreds of thousands of Afghanis have been killed. I was wrong, and I stand corrected."
until you can admit that you were wrong, there's nothing you can say to make your argument look right imo.
there's an earlier quote which you ignored completely, not surprisingly:
1. I only specifically mention Afghanis in two of those quotes, and it's probably just me getting mixed up by my main points.
2. you are straying away from the actual issue just to try to score some points for yourself.
in which I said "I got mixed up" and it was 2 posts, not 4.
where is this new generation of blacks and latinos?? the young blacks and latinos I see are mostly concerned with creating out-of-wedlock babies, killing each other in the street, and dropping out of school. is there a secret society of blacks and latinos hiding in the batcave with Batman?
wow...
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
lol, so you ignore the previous post. I already explained before about the innocents dying because I was including Iraq as well, but you think you can somehow justify the war if only 3000 innocents died (which is bullshit).
The number of innocents who die has exactly zero bearing on whether or not a war was justified or not.
Name any justified war in the history of mankind, and I guarantee you innoncent people died. It's just a fact of war. Which means, when you enter into a war, you better make sure damn sure it's justified.
The Taliban = worth it. It doesn't matter what your number is.
All I've determined from this thread is that you are a giant blowhard. You don't care what the facts are (two or two hundred thousand, what's the difference?) ... you have your agenda and you're going to stick to it no matter what the facts say.
That's not a character flaw. There are plenty of blowhards on the Internet, and you are not even close to being the most egregious. But it makes your agruments futile and suspect.
I mean, it's hard to discuss a subject with someone who can't admit there's a helluva a lot of difference between 3 and 3 hundred thousand.
It doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you a bad discussion partner.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The number of innocents who die has exactly zero bearing on whether or not a war was justified or not.
It should be taken into consideration; meaning will this war be worth it if we happen to kill thousands of innocent people.
The Taliban = worth it. It doesn't matter what your number is.
That's your opinion, I won't argue it any further, but answer me this: if we overthrew the Taliban in 2001, why are we still there?
All I've determined from this thread is that you are a giant blowhard. You don't care what the facts are (two or two hundred thousand, what's the difference?) ... you have your agenda and you're going to stick to it no matter what the facts say.
and what is my agenda? please enlighten me.
do you deny the fact that we are currently occupying Afghanistan? do you deny the fact that we are currently terrorizing the Afghan people?
I mean, it's hard to discuss a subject with someone who can't admit there's a helluva a lot of difference between 3 and 3 hundred thousand.
where did I say that?
It doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you a bad discussion partner.
Zach needs to realise that, however good his intentions are, he sounds like a naive moron.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
" That there is a generation of young black and latino brothers and sisters that are gonna force everyone in this country to make a decision very soon about what side they're going to stand on. And they're a generation of kids who don't give a fuck about national politics. They care about bread. They care about water. They care about housing and they care about justice. And they ain't gonna fucking stand for any of that shit.
Zack and RATM are a huge voice of that next generation. My 9 yr old son's favorite song is "Killing in the Name Of" My 3 yr old daughter's is Pink Floyd's "The Wall"
Both songs -"fuck you I won't do what you told me" ...."we don't need no thought control" ....speak volumes.
The next generation after the X-ers...oh yeah, they totally get it. They also know they're the ones who'll be left with this mess.
When I saw RATM the entire Tacoma Dome sang/yelled every word along with Zack. The upper levels literally shook. It was freaking crazy the power his words have. I sang along too.
Zack and RATM are a huge voice of that next generation. My 9 yr old son's favorite song is "Killing in the Name Of" My 3 yr old daughter's is Pink Floyd's "The Wall"
Both songs -"fuck you I won't do what you told me" ...."we don't need no thought control" ....speak volumes.
The next generation after the X-ers...oh yeah, they totally get it. They also know they're the ones who'll be left with this mess.
When I saw RATM the entire Tacoma Dome sang/yelled every word along with Zack. The upper levels literally shook. It was freaking crazy the power his words have. I sang along too.
I have sang along to every RATM song, and if I saw them live I would too, that doesn't mean I support what they're saying. I just like the song. Plus, how many people do you think Rage lyrics go over their head and they just like the music. I would say a decent chunk.
I love RATM and agree with 90% of what they have to say, but this is a bit much.
When this country needed a LOUD VOICE over the past 8 years, he was nowhere to be found.
I am not on board with this black and latino making "everyone" and offer they cannot refuse bullshit. The way to put it may have been there is a generation of haves and have nots, and the have nots are going to make an offer the haves cannot refuse.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
Zack and RATM are a huge voice of that next generation. My 9 yr old son's favorite song is "Killing in the Name Of" My 3 yr old daughter's is Pink Floyd's "The Wall"
Both songs -"fuck you I won't do what you told me" ...."we don't need no thought control" ....speak volumes.
ahh, i can see the fun you'll have during the teenage years
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
America should not be in afghanistan. If they want to end terrorism, a brutal occupation and bombing weddings is not gonna solve the problem.
It's sad to see so many people still supporting the american war of terror.
America needs to make sure it's own people have jobs, food to eat and a high standard of living. That's the fight america should be fighting, not many miles away dropping bombs from above.
Completely sums my opinon up. A war on terror is a war of terror. And we've fucking with them for much, much longer than since 9-11.
Comments
Not to mention the fact that France, Germany, and the UK are also countries aligned with the US in pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran.
This is what is ironic to me:
You guys say if we "focus" on Afghanistan more, there will be less civilian casualties, right?
You also say that we have been too busy "focusing" on Iraq, right?
well, there are currently 1 million casualties thanks to us "focusing" on Iraq... what the fuck would happen if we were "focusing" this entire war on Afghanistan?!
not surprisingly, you guys have missed my entire point all along. "it's just collateral damage ... but yeah, we can do better to avoid civilian casualties."
what the fuck does that even mean? if we KNOW civilians are living in an area, and we KNOW if we drop a bomb there, it will kill them, how does that make it justified? we KNOWINGLY killed civilians. that's the bottom line, and you guys can't justify it. so far, I'm more than certain that more civilians have died in Afghanistan than died in 9/11, so how does this make us better than the terrorists? In fact, we are also continually oppressing many people all over the world, in addition to Afghanis.
To quote Howard Zinn: "The so-called 'war on terror'... is itself an act of terrorism..."
...oh wait, that's just if you compare Israel's actions to World War II... but if you justify anything the Israelis/US do by using WWII, then it's fine...
the ENTIRE international community? surely you dont mean every nation on earth.
i am very well aware of the howard governments brown nosing the bush administration. it was like a big almighty cons suckfest here. and the invasion of afghanistan was not supported by the entirety of the australian population. and you should know that despite massive worldwide demonstrations, these democratic governments who supposedly represent their people, ignored the will of those people with an almighty fuck you were going in anyway. as an australian i am fully aware of the relationship between my government and that of the united states. and that supporting anything the united states does is based on far more than, in this case, an agreeance that afghanistan was in the wrong in its support of al quaeda and therefore should be punished with the full force of arms.
picking up the slack? are you kidding me? perhaps other nations have realised what an abortion afghanistan has become and have made decisions for the best interests of their armed forces and countries. if the job isnt done in afghanstamn its because the US government fucked up by NOT staying the course, to paraphrase your illustrious leader. pretending that iraq has something to do with al qaeda was a monumental error in intelligence and judgement and it should be rectified by those who made it, not other nations.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I want to see your sources. you've gone from "hundreds of thousands" of dead Afghanis, to now "tens of thousands". you are making shit up off the top of your head, and it's quite funny.
the first link is blocked at my work due to "political activist site". that tells me about all I need to know on that one.
the second link has "A Coward's War" in the headline dated 3 months after more than 3000 innocent US citizens were murdered. that tells me that any number they could come up with is going to be bullshit.
can you come up with a LEGITIMATE source?
second of all:
"According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion."
In 2006 alone, more than 1000 civilians were killed. In 2007, about 2000 civilians were killed by bombs. So far in 2008, almost 1000 civilians have been killed.
your death toll of 3000 civilians was only the first few months of the war. you are way off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Total_casualties_.282001-2002.29
ok, your dismissing of all this tells me all I need to know about you. thanks for playing. you mean one that supports your bullshit? sorry, not happening.
edit: it's really hilarious how you are trying to prove a (wrong) claim and straying off from the actual issue.
what's hilarious is that I put your own words up, which you claimed that you didn't say. and now, I'm taking your words "out of context" when it's clear that your opinion on this doesn't even matter because you can't get the number of INNOCENT dead right from between a few thousand to "hundreds of thousands". you're just making shit up and it's really made you look quite dumb throughout this whole thread. and no, I don't put faith in "political activist" sites or a site that was calling the war in Afghanistan a "coward's war" three months after 9/11.
80 bazillion dead Afghans -- or whatever number you're going with today -- agree.
for the least they could possibly do
and the only thing that looks dumb is you dismissing websites which don't agree with you.
go ahead though. you guys can bitch and moan about 9/11 but when it comes to civilians dying in other countries, it's just "collateral damage." hypocrites.
no, you didn't "explain" anything. I want to see you say......"I said on 4 different posts that hundreds of thousands of Afghanis have been killed. I was wrong, and I stand corrected."
until you can admit that you were wrong, there's nothing you can say to make your argument look right imo.
Oh, and I suggest you read #2 in that quote.
wow...
The number of innocents who die has exactly zero bearing on whether or not a war was justified or not.
Name any justified war in the history of mankind, and I guarantee you innoncent people died. It's just a fact of war. Which means, when you enter into a war, you better make sure damn sure it's justified.
The Taliban = worth it. It doesn't matter what your number is.
All I've determined from this thread is that you are a giant blowhard. You don't care what the facts are (two or two hundred thousand, what's the difference?) ... you have your agenda and you're going to stick to it no matter what the facts say.
That's not a character flaw. There are plenty of blowhards on the Internet, and you are not even close to being the most egregious. But it makes your agruments futile and suspect.
I mean, it's hard to discuss a subject with someone who can't admit there's a helluva a lot of difference between 3 and 3 hundred thousand.
It doesn't make you a bad person. It just makes you a bad discussion partner.
for the least they could possibly do
do you deny the fact that we are currently occupying Afghanistan? do you deny the fact that we are currently terrorizing the Afghan people? where did I say that? I won't waste my time insulting you.
you use the word enlighten WAY too much... and all its various forms
Zack and RATM are a huge voice of that next generation. My 9 yr old son's favorite song is "Killing in the Name Of" My 3 yr old daughter's is Pink Floyd's "The Wall"
Both songs -"fuck you I won't do what you told me" ...."we don't need no thought control" ....speak volumes.
The next generation after the X-ers...oh yeah, they totally get it. They also know they're the ones who'll be left with this mess.
When I saw RATM the entire Tacoma Dome sang/yelled every word along with Zack. The upper levels literally shook. It was freaking crazy the power his words have. I sang along too.
I have sang along to every RATM song, and if I saw them live I would too, that doesn't mean I support what they're saying. I just like the song. Plus, how many people do you think Rage lyrics go over their head and they just like the music. I would say a decent chunk.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
When this country needed a LOUD VOICE over the past 8 years, he was nowhere to be found.
I am not on board with this black and latino making "everyone" and offer they cannot refuse bullshit. The way to put it may have been there is a generation of haves and have nots, and the have nots are going to make an offer the haves cannot refuse.
ahh, i can see the fun you'll have during the teenage years
If these kids are a sign of things to come, it'll be a blast.
Completely sums my opinon up. A war on terror is a war of terror. And we've fucking with them for much, much longer than since 9-11.