**IF** the Taliban really leave Kandahar, should kill 'em while their leaving?

[Cyberian]

halik -
You have gone from 'don't kill the Taliban' to 'there were no Afghanis in the WTC' to 'the news showed WWII Newsreels' to 'stop the bombing' to 'let the new government handle it' to ..........
What, exactly, are you trying to say?

 

[CTho9305]

<< what is your problem, people? I guess its the american way to shoot someone in the back.
Seriously some of you have really strange morals >>



if you kill someone, they're dead regardless of what angle you shoot them from. and if your shooting them in the back, less risk to you. what benefits are there to "honorable" killing?

 

[damien6]

I say kill them all and as for shooting anyone in the back arguement, I don't have any problems w/kicking them over to shoot them in the face as well. (Whether dead or alive) If US don't want to get directly involved w/ going against Geneva convention or bad "PR", I don't see any problem letting NA loose to do some dirty work. Of course after they're finished, we could tell them what they did was wrong and give them couple millions to educate their soldiers, so that they don't repeat such "offenses" anytime soon and we'll have a happier world.

 

[juiio]

THey're not running in a track meet. They're running so they can fight again later in another location. This isn't a touch football game. This is war.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I don't know if this theory has been stated, but what if the NA planned the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, in hopes of gaining a powerfull ally against the Taliban.

Just a thought. Don't flame me, please.

 

[damien6]

Yeah, "what if": the world was flat, terrorists never existed, there was no crime of any kind, no ugly people in the world, no venereal diseases, lawyers never lied, politician kept their promises, world peace, no global warming, etc... A lots of (if)s but that doesn't mean that's what we'll got.

 

[Looney]

How about this - why dont we let the alliance people handle it. As soon as they have the goverment under the control, let them fight their war.

Why should the US let them? This is a US war if you didn't realize it or not. That's like saying the US should have let France finish the war once the US liberated them.

no i was talking about the bombing of afghanistan. We've never seen any damaga and what exactly is going on down there. Like in wtc they showed people jumping and waving from the building. And all the pople hurt on the street. Recently i saw some general talking about the bomb that explodees in the air andburns all the pople on the gournd. If they show pictures of what that does, maybe people would change their minds on how they support the war campain

Are you really this stupid? Or are you just acting it for attention? Do you think there are cameramen located in hundreds of places with cameras on hoping to catch some killing in action? The reason why the WTC was caught on camera is because a good proportion of New Yorkers HAVE cameras, and all the attacks were done in one location. Why do you think there were no footage of the crash into the Pentagon or the 4th plane crashed into the ground? If you want footage, maybe you should write a letter to your local representation and tell them to get the military to give out their bombing locations ahead of time, so that people can get their cameras ready.

oh yeah about the alliance thing. I know a kid thats from pakistan and he says the alliance is no better that the taliban. Supposedly theyre just "bunch of radical thugs".

Oh yeah, i'm going to believe some moron posting on a board that says he's got a friend that's from Pakistan and that knowns the alliance and how bad they are. Dumbass.


Better yet: if they run, leave em. if they run AND shoot, they chose their fate

That's the ticket... let them run and regroup out in some caves and plan some more terrorist attacks. HELL, this is an AWESOME plan. Somebody contact the Pentagon, halik is on to something.

 

[Antoneo]

<< you know manhunt or large scale can also be called a genocide. >>


Then an attack against a country (or in this case a group of "Islamic" extremists) that has attacked US the US first is genocide right? By going after the Germans during WWII was genocide as well? War is manhunt on a large scale but if the US goes after the Taliban, its not genocide, its called delivering justice and quelling a possible threat.

 

[Antoneo]

<< well if you wanna lower to their level, go for it. >>


Uh... the United States is not the one aiming airplanes at buildings full of civilians. By attacking the Taliban we are not at their level, in fact no where close to it. Halik, you live in the US, who's side are you on?

 

[circlek]

How can you reason with anyone who has no conscience....

 

[Dood]

I just saw Rumsfeld on CNN...if they don't surrender, we kill 'em. This **IS** war. This is the only appropriate policy.

 

[Cyberian]

<< How can you reason with anyone who has no conscience.... >>


And your point is?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It's certainly easy to talk like a big man about killing people from behind a computer screen...

 

[Helpless]

Halik, you live in the US, who's side are you on?


..not a native-born citizen, so maybe his priorities are different....