# US slaughter intensifies in Afghanistan



## JBeukema (Sep 27, 2010)

> The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistan&#8217;s second-largest city.
> The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an &#8220;engagement with enemy fighters&#8221; in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.


US slaughter intensifies in Afghanistan


And people wonder why all the world hates us...


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> > The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> > In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an engagement with enemy fighters in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> > On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.
> ...



The funny thing is once you take away their Guns, they all look like Civilians. Considering they do not wear a uniform.


----------



## Douger (Sep 28, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistan&#8217;s second-largest city.
> > The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> > In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an &#8220;engagement with enemy fighters&#8221; in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> > On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.
> ...


Awwwwwwwwwwwwww C'mon
Gawd Blass murka !
The greatest, most corrupt.and vile nation in the history of the world !
Go wave your flag and remember.
Palin 2012 !!!!


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Sep 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> ...



Even the women and children?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Sep 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> > The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> > In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an engagement with enemy fighters in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> > On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.
> ...




Sounds like Vietnam, big body counts and miraculously no civilian casualties...


----------



## Kalam (Sep 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> The funny thing is once you take away their Guns, they all look like Civilians. Considering they do not wear a uniform.



You invade their country and hang around for ten years, overthrow and replace their government, kill scores of civilians every week, and then complain when the vastly outnumbered and outgunned people fighting you don't "wear uniforms"? In what universe would it make sense for them to wear uniforms everywhere?


----------



## Adamo (Oct 1, 2010)

The thing I don't get is, why doesn't the US just nukes their butts? Why have a game changing weapon then not use it? And then fight hand to hand and get killed. Makes no bloody sense.


----------



## Ringel05 (Oct 1, 2010)

All Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. fighters are always innocent civilians.  Come on!  Get with the program.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 1, 2010)

Adamo said:


> The thing I don't get is, why doesn't the US just nukes their butts? Why have a game changing weapon then not use it? And then fight hand to hand and get killed. Makes no bloody sense.



That is because you lack the either the intelligence or the knowledge to understand it.


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 2, 2010)

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Have you seen "Rules of Engagement?"


----------



## Ozmar (Oct 2, 2010)

Kalam said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is once you take away their Guns, they all look like Civilians. Considering they do not wear a uniform.
> ...



What sense does it make for them to keep on fighting if they're outnumbered and outgunned fucking psychopaths?

And then of the fighting stops, they just go to the west and terrorize people in perpetuity, and the cycle repeats.


----------



## José (Oct 2, 2010)

> Originally posted by *Adamo*
> The thing I don't get is, why doesn't the US just nukes their butts? Why have a game changing weapon then not use it? And then fight hand to hand and get killed. Makes no bloody sense.



If I was the president of an arab state and heard cretinoid statements like this I would immediately declare the development of a nuclear deterrent against the West an *absolute, overriding national priority*.

I would be insane not to.


----------



## José (Oct 2, 2010)

What are the arab people waiting for to depose that bunch of inconsequent children that rule them and put in power serious, responsible leaders commited to protect the Middle East against military "retaliation"?


----------



## José (Oct 2, 2010)

Arab nuclear scientists addressing the arab league:

When do you think the nuclear deterrent against the West should be fully operational?

Arab leaders:

*Yesterday*.


----------



## Kalam (Oct 2, 2010)

Ozmar said:


> What sense does it make for them to keep on fighting if they're outnumbered and outgunned fucking psychopaths?



Dunno. 

Battle of Badr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of the Trench - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Chancellorsville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Outpost Harry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shatoy ambush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Adamo (Oct 3, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I don't get is, why doesn't the US just nukes their butts? Why have a game changing weapon then not use it? And then fight hand to hand and get killed. Makes no bloody sense.
> ...



Apparently, you lack the intelligence to explain it.


----------



## Adamo (Oct 3, 2010)

José;2798290 said:
			
		

> > Originally posted by *Adamo*
> > The thing I don't get is, why doesn't the US just nukes their butts? Why have a game changing weapon then not use it? And then fight hand to hand and get killed. Makes no bloody sense.
> 
> 
> ...



Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda is going to develop nukes?  Not once they get bombed back to the 12th century. No wait! Isn't that the century they're in now? 
if you can carpet bomb Germany, Irak and Viet Nam and nuke Japan, what's the difference with nuking Afghanistan? They tried to carpet bomb it with B-52s, but that didn't work, the country's too big. So either nuke it or go home. Or both.


----------



## José (Oct 3, 2010)

> Originally posted by *Adamo*
> Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda is going to develop nukes?



I was thinking more along the lines of a regional alliance between all major countries to develop a mutual defence system.

*Reasonable counter-argument*:

Too many regional political, cultural and religious differences for this plan ever to succeed.

*Reasonable reply*:

Problaby true... but anyway... wise political leaders should always keep in mind that:

*National survival trumps regional rivalries*.


----------



## Adamo (Oct 4, 2010)

Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.


----------



## José (Oct 4, 2010)

Adamo said:


> Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.



Ok then Adam... whatever floats your genocidal boat.


----------



## ekrem (Oct 4, 2010)

Adamo said:


> Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.



For most countries the ability of acquiring nukes is not a technical question, but a political decision. After that political decision has been made, funds are being canalized to the objective of acquiring nukes. Some countries will have the nukes in 1 year like Germany, others after 5 years. 

The use of nukes is not justifyable, especially not against Afghanistan. 
There comes no existential threat to USA from Afghanistan.
Talibans and Al-Qaeda are no existential threats to the USA.

Some countries will be joining the nuclear club in near future, if USA uses nukes on a country like Afghanistan it will be much more countries joining that nuclear club. 

You also seem to be very confident, that USA just nukes a country and no one will do anything against it. Nukeing a country is an extraordinary situation, you can not predict the reactions on such event. It is genocide with no acceptance for it in the world we live in. 
Even if there is no military answer to USA, you would be economically boycotted with the conviction manifesting itself that world has to take risks (cutting trade with USA) to accelerate your decline.


----------



## Adamo (Oct 4, 2010)

ekrem said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> > Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.
> ...



You're an idiot. The US doesn't attack countries with the bomb, that's why they want it.

So what happened to the US after they nuked Japan? Nothing.

Why carpet bomb the taliban when you can nuke them? Even Bush didn't discount using bunker busting nukes against osama.


----------



## ekrem (Oct 4, 2010)

Adamo said:


> You're an idiot. The US doesn't attack countries with the bomb, that's why they want it.
> 
> So what happened to the US after they nuked Japan? Nothing.
> 
> Why carpet bomb the taliban when you can nuke them? Even Bush didn't discount using bunker busting nukes against osama.



You can not mirror the Japan event into todays world. 
Everything has changed, especially on the level of International Reations. 
In no time of history International Relations were regulated this intense as in these days.

Who uses nukes, forfeits his claim to be taken as a serious partner.
You will be classified as a terrorist political system, and whatever economical liabilities there might arise, there will be momentum and enough pressure for the countries in the world to cut the relationships with you and isolate you.



Adamo said:


> You're an idiot.



I am realisitic. 
In you, I smell teen spirit.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 5, 2010)

Afghanistan deserves every bomb dropped on it.

Pakistan will deserve every nuke landing on it.

These terrorist bastard countries will soon enough get to know the meaning of revenge.

God bless the United Kingdom and its allies.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 5, 2010)

ekrem said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> > Who uses nukes, forfeits his claim to be taken as a serious partner.
> ...


----------



## Kalam (Oct 5, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Afghanistan deserves every bomb dropped on it.
> 
> Pakistan will deserve every nuke landing on it.
> 
> ...



Replace "Pakistan" with "America" and "terrorist bastard" with "infidel bastard" and you're prime recruitment material for al-Qa'idah. Your complimentary turban and box-cutter knife should arrive in the mail shortly.


----------



## Marc39 (Oct 13, 2010)

Kalam said:


> britishbulldog said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan deserves every bomb dropped on it.
> ...



Habib, your stinking pagan moon god, allah, is the prime recruitment material for al-Qaeda.  Jihad is the only thing backward Muslim losers excel at.

Quran 9:5...
Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 14, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> ...



Thank you George Bush.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 14, 2010)

Adamo said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> > Adamo said:
> ...



You're so incredibly ignorant that you've actually managed to make the regulars here look smarter by comparison which is a noteworthy accomplishment, congratulations.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 14, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Afghanistan deserves every bomb dropped on it.
> 
> Pakistan will deserve every nuke landing on it.
> 
> ...



Ah yes, the UK. The United Kingdom is the top of the list of has been imperialist scum that have long since lost their glory and faded into useless oblvion. Your degenerate state is ranked 5th on the worlds list of filthy police states with the likes of China and the DPRK. You limey bastards can't take a piss without it running down your leg without a camera filming the event and sending you a ticket in the post. No, God Damn the UK and your soon to be nonexistent culture, LOL.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 14, 2010)

Adamo said:


> Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.



Shouldn't you be down at the recruiter's office signing up for your college money? Oh wait, those entrance exams are going to be an obstacle aren't they? Cheer up friend, the U.S. can always use an another retarded bullet catcher in the war on terror. Maybe they'll give you a medal, posthumously is preferred of course.


----------



## Douger (Oct 14, 2010)

Kalam said:


> britishbulldog said:
> 
> 
> > Afghanistan deserves every bomb dropped on it.
> ...



That shows how "tough" murkins are. All you need to stand down 100 or more of them is a turban and a box cutter.........perhaps nail clippers would suffice.
You idiots actually believe the ' official" _story._


----------



## Adamo (Oct 14, 2010)

ekrem said:


> The use of nukes is not justifyable, especially not against Afghanistan.
> There comes no existential threat to USA from Afghanistan.
> Talibans and Al-Qaeda are no existential threats to the USA.



So there was an existential threat from Japan? Didn't realize that.


----------



## Adamo (Oct 14, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> > Jose, you fucking dumbass, who's going to attack the US if they nuke Afghanistan? Nobody, that's who.
> ...



RC, so if you had a kid in the military, you'd prefer them to send your kid into combat rather then drop some nukes? Nice. I guess carpet bombing and cruise missiles are out of the question then too, or is there a justifiable amount of explosive power that one can drop without being genocidal? Speaking of which, they'd be dropping them on sparsely populated strongholds in the mountains and in northern pakistan (where no one cares how many nukes you drop there.

PS I'm not even a merrucan, you dumb shyte.


----------



## Marc39 (Oct 14, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> The United Kingdom is the top of the list of has been imperialist scum



Imperialist Muslim scum who conquered once-Buddhist Afghanistan and once-Christian Iraq are right up there.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 14, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> > The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> > In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an engagement with enemy fighters in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> > On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.
> ...



Stupid thread.

100% of those executed hate Israel and the USA. They deserve to be bombed!!!!!!!


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 14, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > The United Kingdom is the top of the list of has been imperialist scum
> ...



Good point.

We in the UK are not imperialists. We are civilisers !!


----------



## ekrem (Oct 14, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> We in the UK are not imperialists. We are civilisers !!



In real world you're in deep debt, drowning in it. Nothing else.


----------



## Adamo (Oct 14, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



Your country doesn't even have enough teeth to go around.


----------



## ekrem (Oct 14, 2010)

Adamo said:


> Your country doesn't even have enough teeth to go around.



Britain's Army will can only move 16.000 combat troops in total to a conflict zone (including Afghanistan). 
Currently there are budget cuts and Army size will be decreased by 20%.
Britain tells US 'we cannot fight another Afghanistan' - Telegraph

Britain's path in near future is that of hiding behind nukes, and hoping that former Colonies (emerging countries) share the view that Brits were/are civilizers, like Britishdogbull put it so nicely.


----------



## Colin (Oct 14, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



How come you live there then?


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 17, 2010)

Colin said:


> britishbulldog said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...


Asking the same question about you? I am glad to be in the Asia-Pacific region, or likewise if I lived in the US I would be glad to live there. 

PS: The UK is turning Fascist (if it isn't already with the BNP holding EU seats), as I have said before, and your existence British bulldog proves it. I am glad I don't live in Europe, especially the UK.


----------



## Colin (Oct 17, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > britishbulldog said:
> ...



Reading too many tabloids again, huh. The feeling is mutual mate. I'm glad you don't live here too.


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 17, 2010)

Colin said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...


I am glad I don't live anywhere with fascist parties like the BNP elected, nor with Islamic sharia law:

*Revealed: UK&#8217;s first official sharia courts*

         Abul Taher    

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given  powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.  
  The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on  cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving  domestic violence. 
*Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the  full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. *
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece


----------



## Samson (Oct 17, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> And people wonder why all the world hates us...




Give Barak Hussein another 6 years: 


............................Then the rest of the world will feel sorry for us.


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 17, 2010)

It is a good thing that the people in Afganistan do not hold grudges like Bones does.


----------



## Samson (Oct 17, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



Yes.

There is actually much to be said positively for the openly capitalist imperialism of 19th century GB vs the mamby-pamby "democracy building" of 21st century America.


----------



## Samson (Oct 17, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> It is a good thing that the people in Afganistan do not hold grudges like Bones does.



I only hold grudges against those that grow their own lasagne.

How's your crop this year?


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > It is a good thing that the people in Afganistan do not hold grudges like Bones does.
> ...



I raised dental floss this year.  Price was good too.


----------



## Colin (Oct 17, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Colin said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Lol! As I suspected. Reading too many tabloids and out-of-date ones too! The BNP are a busted flush mate. Nick Griffin failed miserably in the general election in his attempt to become the BNP's first member of parliament. On top of that, they lost all twelve seats they previously held on the Barking and Dagenham local council. Oh yeh. We really are under the influence of the BNP! 

General Election 2010: BNP's Nick Griffin suffers crushing defeat in Barking - Telegraph

As for Sharia law, that applies only to local courts and civil cases pertaining to family law, divorce and business. They cannot try criminal cases. These are no different to the Jewish Beth Din courts that have existed in Britain for centuries. You talk of fascism, but it sounds very much to me as though YOU are the fascist!


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 17, 2010)

Stupid thread. Killing Taliban is a good thing. I am personally supportive of moves to deploy strategic nuclear devices on both Afghanistan and major population centres in Pakistan.



JBeukema said:


> > The US military claimed responsibility for killing scores of  insurgents over the weekend as it unleashed its long-awaited offensive  against Kandahar, Afghanistans second-largest city.
> > The  International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO umbrella  organization for the US-led occupation, reported the largest body counts  in two eastern regions of the country.
> > In eastern Laghman  Province, ISAF reported that a US-led air assault killed at least 30 in  an engagement with enemy fighters in the Alishing district. The report  claimed that there were no injuries to civilians in the area.
> > On  Saturday, however, several hundred Afghans demonstrated in the streets  of Mihtarlam, the provincial capital, to protest the slaughter of  unarmed civilians in the raid. The protesters chanted slogans condemning  the US-led occupation.
> ...


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 17, 2010)

Colin said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Colin said:
> ...


Read my sig and come back to me, describing how libertarians are 'fascist', further more how anarcho-capitalists are fascists. This should be good.


----------

