AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Attacks in Afghanistan

94 20572
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

This
article states that Taliban attacked on various locations in Afghanistan and killed 11 soldiers bearing 39 causalities of their own (Ofcourse official figures of both sides cannot be trusted as each side will exaggerate opponent causalities we will have to wait for Taliban figures and then an approximate figure b/w both extremes can be found)
In my opinion it is beginning of the end in Afghanistan and there will be more attacks coming. What is your opinion?

  • 94 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

No i am not implying that but this claim seems to be exaggerated


Exaggerating that the Taliban kills people? It is not necessary to exaggerate such a claim.

ever heared of strafing run?


Yes. That is what people do to not get hit in video games.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Circlestrafing_animation.gif

Not sure if it works with animations.

Otherwise, one says three civilians are dead. Once says five civilians are dead. It is a difference of two. Such lack of accuracy is to be expected with such a subject. They don't even agree on how many insurgents where killed, which is to be expected. Three civilians- four civilians- five civilians, in any case the Taliban shot and murdered civilians.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

Otherwise, one says three civilians are dead. Once says five civilians are dead. It is a difference of two. Such lack of accuracy is to be expected with such a subject. They don't even agree on how many insurgents where killed, which is to be expected. Three civilians- four civilians- five civilians, in any case the Taliban shot and murdered civilians.

I am talking about Helicopter strafing run
and there is no reason for Taliban to kill Civilians on purpose
More over they could've been shot in cross fire.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I am talking about Helicopter strafing run


Then why did you link the article to the words "Strafing Run"? Neither of the articles suggest that a helicopter was used, and there is nothing suggesting that there was even a helicopter there.

and there is no reason for Taliban to kill Civilians on purpose
More over they could've been shot in cross fire.


There could be a reason. It would be unlikely for them to be shot in the cross fire, considering that both sides had tried to get rid of all civilians in the battle zone beforehand, and there were some instances where there was not any crossfire to kill anyone (Like the cook and the apartment building in the NYT article). It would be difficult for that many civilians to be shot on accident, considering the small amount of insurgents and security forces killed, they would have had to hit their target literally only half the time and have the other half hit a random civilian. I can't begin to assume why the insane terrorists would kill innocent civilians, and all the facts tell us is that they did.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

Then why did you link the article to the words "Strafing Run"? Neither of the articles suggest that a helicopter was used, and there is nothing suggesting that there was even a helicopter there.

Read second article again
There could be a reason. It would be unlikely for them to be shot in the cross fire, considering that both sides had tried to get rid of all civilians in the battle zone beforehand, and there were some instances where there was not any crossfire to kill anyone (Like the cook and the apartment building in the NYT article). It would be difficult for that many civilians to be shot on accident, considering the small amount of insurgents and security forces killed, they would have had to hit their target literally only half the time and have the other half hit a random civilian. I can't begin to assume why the insane terrorists would kill innocent civilians, and all the facts tell us is that they did.

It says he was in the building with talibans so it is quite possible he was caught in crossfire
and only one of them had an explosive belt
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Read second article again


*Opens*
*Searches "Helicopter. No results after He*
*Searches "Strafing run". No results*
*Reads again*

Nothing involving a helicopter whatsoever. Could you bring the quote?

It says he was in the building with talibans so it is quite possible he was caught in crossfire
and only one of them had an explosive belt


Only one of them had an explosive belt. So what? They injured thirty civilians. Two dozen injured, five killed. Compared to the amount of security forces and insurgence injured, the amount of civilians is comparable to their injuries. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to get that on accident, especially since the NYC article goes out of its way to mention that great care was taken to evacuate everyone. Even by the Taliban. So how in hell did thirty civilians get injured when that many insurgents and security forces got killed? Did no one ever use a gun in their life?
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

My bad here is the article
http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/afghan-capital-hit-blasts-gun-attacks-094536879.html

Only one of them had an explosive belt. So what? They injured thirty civilians. Two dozen injured, five killed. Compared to the amount of security forces and insurgence injured, the amount of civilians is comparable to their injuries. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to get that on accident, especially since the NYC article goes out of its way to mention that great care was taken to evacuate everyone. Even by the Taliban. So how in hell did thirty civilians get injured when that many insurgents and security forces got killed? Did no one ever use a gun in their life?

U can't simply put the whole blame on them
Also it was not a single attack, we are talking about province wide attack streak here
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

U can't simply put the whole blame on them
Also it was not a single attack, we are talking about province wide attack streak here


And why not? They where the ones attacking civilian locations. They where the ones using grenade launchers and other wide-area weapons. Really the whole thing was their fault. How is it not the fault of the terrorist? Even if it was 100% crossfire, who is more likely to hit innocents: The government forces who are well-armed and well trained and can hit the targets they aim for, or the insane suicide mission Taliban terrorist who have little training and are armed with things like grenade launchers?

My bad here is the article
http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/afghan-capital-hit-blasts-gun-attacks-094536879.html


Ah. Have you noticed how the first two didn't even mention the copter? It was done later, after the other attacks, and only around the NATO embassies. All three articles mention that the majority of the fighting took place between the insurgents and the Afghan governmental forces, and the one that mentions the helicopter attack only puts a paragraph in. To compare, all three of the articles mention the scaffold move that the Afghan soldiers did. The work of the NATO helicopters could hardly cause that much difference in the amount of civilians injured, considering that they arrived later is was likely any civilians left with the insane insurgents where probably gunned down or out by then.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

And why not? They where the ones attacking civilian locations. They where the ones using grenade launchers and other wide-area weapons. Really the whole thing was their fault. How is it not the fault of the terrorist? Even if it was 100% crossfire, who is more likely to hit innocents: The government forces who are well-armed and well trained and can hit the targets they aim for, or the insane suicide mission Taliban terrorist who have little training and are armed with things like grenade launchers?

actually government forces who used gunships and who are admittedly incompetent
Ah. Have you noticed how the first two didn't even mention the copter? It was done later, after the other attacks, and only around the NATO embassies. All three articles mention that the majority of the fighting took place between the insurgents and the Afghan governmental forces, and the one that mentions the helicopter attack only puts a paragraph in. To compare, all three of the articles mention the scaffold move that the Afghan soldiers did. The work of the NATO helicopters could hardly cause that much difference in the amount of civilians injured, considering that they arrived later is was likely any civilians left with the insane insurgents where probably gunned down or out by then.

actually first article states about choppers too and nowhere in the articles it is explictly written that taliban killed em
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

actually government forces who used gunships and who are admittedly incompetent


It is likely that there are one or two who can't shoot sniper skilled, but the differences they are trained far better than the Taliban, who are all incompetent and have less stock in if the civilians live or die. And, once again, are using grenade launchers and suicide vests, so it isn't like they care about collateral damage.

actually first article states about choppers too and nowhere in the articles it is explictly written that taliban killed em


I guess it did. It literally put one word in. In fact, here is its exact words:

The Afghans managed the response on Sunday almost entirely on their own, with Western support limited to a small number of embedded training teams and helicopter support, Western and Afghan officials said.

If anything, that would suggest that the helicopters had little to do with the actual attack. As I said, it was mostly the Afghan government against the Taliban terrorist losers.

It also doesn't state who killed the Taliban terrorist extremist, so am I to assume that they all had a heart attack in the middle of the fire fight? The government tried to evacuate everyone they could. It is unlikely that the government would kill any of its own citizens purposely. The Taliban kicked out many of the civilians, but continued to open fire on the building next to them, filled with civilians, and that it DOES say. So unless the civilians had heart attacks as well, then yes, it does state that the Taliban killed civilians.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

It is likely that there are one or two who can't shoot sniper skilled, but the differences they are trained far better than the Taliban, who are all incompetent and have less stock in if the civilians live or die.

u r funny gorilla warfare is not possible without civilian support
I guess it did. It literally put one word in. In fact, here is its exact words:

The Afghans managed the response on Sunday almost entirely on their own, with Western support limited to a small number of embedded training teams and helicopter support, Western and Afghan officials said.

If anything, that would suggest that the helicopters had little to do with the actual attack. As I said, it was mostly the Afghan government against the Taliban terrorist losers.

It also doesn't state who killed the Taliban terrorist extremist, so am I to assume that they all had a heart attack in the middle of the fire fight? The government tried to evacuate everyone they could. It is unlikely that the government would kill any of its own citizens purposely. The Taliban kicked out many of the civilians, but continued to open fire on the building next to them, filled with civilians, and that it DOES say. So unless the civilians had heart attacks as well, then yes, it does state that the Taliban killed civilians.

It also says about helicopter strafing so, heli could have hit em too.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

it's not like usa is only good tho.

remember this?

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

u r funny gorilla warfare is not possible without civilian support


As I have said. In almost all of my posts.

The Taliban do have a reason not to kill civilians, since they do need popular support (Which with all the scandals going on with the American military, isn't to hard to hold at the moment). The government, on the other hand, wants to protect the citizens because that is it's job. The Taliban obviously isn't caring about collateral damage as much as it should if it is arming its men with explosive weaponry.

It also says about helicopter strafing so, heli could have hit em too.


The NATO helicopter was barely a factor, as all the sources say. Now let me ask you something, out of the thirty some civilians wounded, only five where killed. The medical teams could obviously get the ones the Taliban had shot a little bit easier, like when they opened fire on the building for no apparent reason.

But the NATO helicopter was firing on the roof. Which meant that any medical team who wanted to recover civilians would have to get past the Taliban first. That, combined with the fact that the helicopter was probably using high caliber weaponry, means that anything the helicopter would hit would die. Since only 5 men died in the largest estimate in the NYC article, that means the most that the helicopter could have hit would have been five men. And that would be assuming that everyone else caught in the crossfire had managed to be saved. Of course it may be possible for someone who had been hit just by shrapnel to survive, or possibly a bullet if it was a handgun fire from the helicopter for some reason, all three sources state that the helicopter was basically just there for moral support and hardly did as much as the troops, not even telling us what weaponry it had.

And, even if somehow the helicopter missed the building entirely and just strafed a random street, wouldn't those kills still be attributed to the Taliban? It is, after all, the Taliban who decided to attack a civilian location, several civilian locations, and the entire fault being placed on them?

it's not like usa is only good tho.

remember this?



Completely irrelevant. Or are you trying to say that the only U.S involvement in this fight, and that is pretty vague, the NATO helicopter did all the damage? In a crowded street? That would be insane. The U.S needs better public opinion than the insurgents, which would make guerrilla warfare in the desert impossible.

Or are you trying to say that the U.S specifically trained the Afghan troops to fire on civilians? Otherwise you are being completely irrelevant. This was a fight between the Afghan army and police forces and the Taliban, the U.S was barely involved, if it had any involvement.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

those 30 were overall causalities of civilians dammit!
in 3 or 4 attacks

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Completely irrelevant.


what ive seen you write is all defending usa and that the usa only does good.
that is compleet bull****.

see that video. thats normal day-to-day how it go's.

it's kinda the same as shooting every1 american dead because he has a gun. thats the only reason the usa soldiers need to kill people.
and thats supposed to be good?
hell no, you sucky americans are just as bad as the taliban.
killing just as many innocents. atleast the taliban say they kill innocents but the usa always try to cover it. wich doesn't change the fact that they also kill innocent people.

so it might be irrelevent to where you guys are iwhit your discusion. but it isn't irelevent to the bigger pics. usa is the same as taliban in being good or bad.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

it's kinda the same as shooting every1 american dead because he has a gun. thats the only reason the usa soldiers need to kill people.
and thats supposed to be good?
hell no, you sucky americans are just as bad as the taliban.
killing just as many innocents. atleast the taliban say they kill innocents but the usa always try to cover it. wich doesn't change the fact that they also kill innocent people.

so it might be irrelevent to where you guys are iwhit your discusion. but it isn't irelevent to the bigger pics. usa is the same as taliban in being good or bad.

that's exactly what i am trying to say that All the causalities can't be blamed on Taliban
Showing 31-45 of 94