Afghan Massacre: Convey of Death

[Rooster]

"There is always someone willing to die for a cause. "

And the correct way to deal with them is to kill them before they have a chance to kill you.

[RiddalinJunkie08]

the correct way to deal with them is to kill them before they have a chance to kill you.

right there is the reason Rome rose to power so fast. They adopted a "defensive" philosophy of "get them before they can get you." That way, you take care of tomorrows enemy today.
-Mark

[Kitheril]

Deadeye,

According to what I understood from watching the documentary, Afghan workers that drove the trucks that contained the prisoners came forward. There were also other witness or those that had knowledge about it. According to the producers, some of those witnesses have been killed.

I highly doubt there was any "dramatic license" involved. I can think of other stories that would bring more controversy then this.

[1stdeadeye]

Deadeye,

According to what I understood from watching the documentary, Afghan workers that drove the trucks that contained the prisoners came forward. There were also other witness or those that had knowledge about it. According to the producers, some of those witnesses have been killed.

I highly doubt there was any "dramatic license" involved. I can think of other stories that would bring more controversy then this.

So shouldn't those driver's have tried to stop it? Also how would they know what happened INSIDE the trucks? As they drove the trucks does that make them accomplaces(sp?)?

The story has holes in it that could have only been filled by "dramatic license"! According to your link, the prisoners were carted into the trucks, machine gunned, unloaded and shot. Then they didn't have the chance to tell their story to anyone did they? Hence Dramatic License!

Can you see where I am coming from on this?

[Ov3rmind]

"There is always someone willing to die for a cause. "

And the correct way to deal with them is to kill them before they have a chance to kill you.

You'll never be able to get them 100% of the time. The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable. Why would you want to fight an unwinnable war?

Honestly, that one video is not enough to judge the event. I'm not saying it's false or true, or how much responsibility America has in it. Throughout this little crusade in the Middle East we've done our fair share of sketchy and shady things, and we've also been the victim of propaganda. It's really too hard to pass judgement on these smaller events (that is, unless you were there).

[1stdeadeye]

You'll never be able to get them 100% of the time. The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable. Why would you want to fight an unwinnable war?

You are wrong. Any war is winnable. It is all about the will to win.

We could nuke them all. Hunt down every last Muslim in the world and exterminate them. We could ensure their bloodlines end with this generation. It takes a callous and hard will to do it though. (Mind you I am not advocating this, but just demonstrating that it is possible to win it unquestionably.)

Failing this, we would need to adopt a doctrine of absolute warfare like we used on Germany and Japan in WWII. Force them into an unconditional surrender and then rebuild them in our image ala Japan and Germany. Restraint needs to go out the window though. These terrorists only understand violence and so must be met with a greater level of violence to demonstrate that we have a tougher will!

[Ov3rmind]

You are wrong. Any war is winnable. It is all about the will to win.

We could nuke them all. Hunt down every last Muslim in the world and exterminate them. We could ensure their bloodlines end with this generation. It takes a callous and hard will to do it though. (Mind you I am not advocating this, but just demonstrating that it is possible to win it unquestionably.)

We would still lose. Before we nuked most of the countries on the planet (which would be the only way to get them all), we would get nuked in return. That's not to mention the ones already in our own country, and the many that event would create.

Failing this, we would need to adopt a doctrine of absolute warfare like we used on Germany and Japan in WWII. Force them into an unconditional surrender and then rebuild them in our image ala Japan and Germany. Restraint needs to go out the window though. These terrorists only understand violence and so must be met with a greater level of violence to demonstrate that we have a tougher will!

Realistically, it just wont happen.

[1stdeadeye]

We would still lose. Before we nuked most of the countries on the planet (which would be the only way to get them all), we would get nuked in return. That's not to mention the ones already in our own country, and the many that event would create.

You assume we nuke the world. No, you nuke the Axis of Evil. You then expel every Muslim in America, destroy every mosque and ban Islam in areas under our control.

Realistically, it just wont happen.

Realistic, maybe not. Theoretically, maybe!

[Kitheril]

Terrorism cannot be beaten, even undergoing methods used effectively centuries before us.
Despite the undeniable power of America, do you truly think countries around the world would tolerate what effectively can be described as genocide? I don't.
What your doing is targeting specific races or religions. I would throw my wealth on the fact that in doing this, we would have World War III.

Remember, even Rome fell to what was "just a bunch of barbarians."

I think you misunderstand what the video was saying. The drivers knew what their cargo consisted of. I do not see where the holes lie, and although every story has its faults, I do not see large ones.

[Ov3rmind]

You assume we nuke the world. No, you nuke the Axis of Evil. You then expel every Muslim in America, destroy every mosque and ban Islam in areas under our control.

Then the world destroys us. There is no way we would get away with that.

Realistic, maybe not. Theoretically, maybe!

That's a big maybe!

I guess I'm just trying to make the point that this war on terrorism is not going to be won (similar to the war on drugs). The argument we've been arguing is somewhat pointless (but fun, none the less).

[1stdeadeye]

First, the world does not destroy us. We allow the Russians to nuke Chechnya and the Chinese to Nuke Taiwan. So it's all back room dealing. The rest of Europe doesn't have the stomach to stand up and stop us so, it is possible. Hell the French and Spanish aren't too happy with the number of Muslims they have in their countries now.

The holes in the story lie in the graphic details that no one could possibly now. Hence they had to be made up or conjecture. If that is fabricated, the rest of the story is suspicious too! Maybe the Americans were directing traffic and the Story was embellished to say the americans were directing the slaughter caravan!

As for Rome, they ruled the know world for how many centuries? They did not fall to a superior force, the fell to decadence and lethargy. The barbarians simply mopped up.

Finally, no intellectual debate is pointless. It is fun and spirited so long as it does not degrade into name calling!

The Early Roman techiques ensured their domination for hundreds of years! They had the ultimate will to do it.

[Kitheril]

I believe the Romans, without knowing, poisoned themselves through the use of lead kitchen supplies (may have been previously stated). Any nation within power too long soon becomes ingulfed in pleasures of life, as history surely shows again and again.

Back room dealing may have the desired effect of warding away potential warring countries, but I highly doubt it would stop terrorism. By slaughtering religious groups or specific racial groups, there is no doubt it would cause more terrorism. That, and it would make Americans no better than the Nazis and other examples that don't come to mind at the moment.

And who's to say that Americans within their own country would not rage against the government in protest of wholesale slaughter and deportation?

[1stdeadeye]

I did not say it was practical or a good thing. I only said it could be done.

Granted it would take a Naziesque mindset to do it, but it could be done. If it was done, the terrorism would last only as long as the group your hunting down does. So it is indeed possible to win the war on terror, just as it is to win the war on drugs. Send cropdusters to poison all of the fields were drugs are grown. Kill them at the source and their will be no more drugs! Again, you would kill many people wontonly spraying poison, but it could work.

Again here we are talking theoreticals, not my opinions or preferences!

[PyRo]

We do send cropdusters, and what do they do? Grow new fields. Or just bribe them to not notice there field. We are officially at war with the FARC in columbia arn't we?

[FactsOfLife]

No Americans fired a shot. But standing by and NOT intervening is clearly the same as pulling the trigger.

Failing to notice until it was too late? Hardly. Please. The Americans were commanding the Afghans. They would not have been able to commence such an operation without Americans knowing or consenting to it. Think about it.

You reap what you sow? Then America has a lot coming doesn't it? As does many other nations.

unreal. dropped on your head a lot as a child?