To find the language around the American bombings disgusting?

[msrisotto]

Trump isn't actually alone in this, but his words are 'the mother of all bombs' and that he is so proud of the military for what they did.

This is vile, no? Whatever your beliefs around whether they should have taken action, it is still a sad, awful thing to kill dozens of people, no? This language sounds celebratory and totally minimising the cost to life, peace etc.

According to the BBC, in the case of the MOAB, it wasn't an invasion. The action was done in full consultation with the Afghan government.

I think we have a large presence in Afghanistan, of armed forces and military personnnels who are terribly unwanted there by the local people completely traumatised by the decades of wars and mullahs inflicted by us on them. If you ask common afghanis, nearly every single one of them would tell you to fuck back off to your country. yes I have talked to people on the ground. A lot
Same goes for the mutants we made in Iraq, for our own purposes.
I don't care when there's it's one bomb or two or five. All I want is that MY money is spent on MY country, not to kill HUMAN beings without TRIALS anywhere in the world.
That's the safest, most human thing left to do now. Otherwise, things will keep going in circles and you know well it will never be Blair's son or Trump's daughter dying in the name of fighting terrorists.

It's what I got from that part of it!

I'm also struggling to find the tweet that seems to have inspired this thread. Can someone link it?

All I can find is the BBC version in which he says he is very proud of the military for another successful job. Obama said similar in 2014 at the time of the air strikes he authorised

"I think we have a large presence in Afghanistan, of armed forces and military personnnel"

It depends on how you define 'large' I suppose. The NATO support mission is about 13,000 (way, way lower than during earlier phases) and is there with the consent of the government. The means by which the locations they use were granted to them bears no relation whatsoever to how Da'esh deals with people it wants out of the way.

You can just bring up past misadventures, war crimes and weaknesses til the cows come home frankly. But that doesn't help the here and now.
Just? JUST?
You use "Misadventures and war crimes and weaknesses" in one sentence.
I strongly believe that once you realise we have caused immense damage there and that it will last generations, we get the fuck out, stop repeating the same things over and over again because they were, afterall, "war crimes and misadventures". (my business fails =misadventure, thousands of allied armed forces and in millions of foreign civilians killed/maimed/permanently displaced = war crime).
no one was attacking you until you went there and destroyed the fuck out of them.
Try posting this in Relationships.

is there with the consent of the government

You mean the government we installed there after attacking them because of 9/11 that was done by NO AFGHANI OR IRAQI but Saudis (who we are still chums with by the way), removing Taliban who we installed ourselves to fight Soviet ,(calling them Jihadis very affectionately when we needed them to die for us)?
Yeah I get your logic.

Why would I post in relationships?

I think Russia, Iran, Saudi and Pakistan have more blood on their hands than the UK. I marched against the UKs first involvement in Afghanistan and later against the war in Iraq.

But the question is - what now? It can't change the past but what about the future? It's really difficult to see a way forward and there is no way to be the 'good guy' in this.
And I don't think leaving an unstable country to implode and st the mercy of extremists is the right thing to do either.

Why don't you all war-loving, blood-thirsty morons apply for jobs in Trump's government? I am sure he can use every pair of hands that are ready to die for him and his plans but don't belong to his/his cronies' children.

You should post in Relationsjips because everyone there has a very clear idea of how human beings live over the centuries and how things don't get "cool" and dandy just because you wish for them to. And also because you need to be told how leopards don't change their spots, they only get bigger generally.
You say I think Russia, Iran, Saudi and Pakistan have more blood on their hands than the UK. Blimey, that's what the problem is: everyone is trying to feel happy about these air strikes by pretending we have hardly killed a few hundreds of thousands while others have done more.
The last time I checked, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq weren't bombing anyone, anywhere and certainly didn't have tens of thousands f their forces in foreign lands for the sole purpose of invading them and keeping a presence there (while all the time, terrorism like Daesh keeps on mutating, for which, none of the allied forces have offered any explanation ever).
You need to get your facts right.
The sooner we realise that we are the invaders even in the 21st century, the better it would be for all the millions things that need doing in our own country.

As for this And I don't think leaving an unstable country to implode and st the mercy of extremists is the right thing to do either

That's why I said you should post this in Relationships. The wise folks there will tell you how it should be done. They will tell you that NO ABUSED dies if the ABUSER leaves them alone. The abused survives so longn as the abuser is taken out of the situation.
I wouldn't give my GP another chance to make decisions on me if once I figure they are incompetent. Why in the world are you allowing the same people access to the buttons that do exactly the same thing to other countries that they have done before? Why?

I wish I could write more here. My personal experiences and all that I saw when I was working there. It will be massively outing.

Ok valentine2

The sad history of Afghanistan goes back further than 2000

But you don't seem to be interested in discussion.
I'm off to join Trump's beautiful government

And if you have really been working in Afghanistan then you will have a different insight and this could help people understand a little more.

Nope. I have no issue at all with dozens of members of ISIS being killed by a bomb. Do they care about the barbaric acts they have subjected the rest of the world to? Where they save the worse murders for their own people? What is the world supposed to do? Just sit back and watch them continually blowing up innocent people with no consequences? Killing people is never nice, but in these circumstances I can make an exception.

Will we ever really know whether civilians were killed or not?
Surely with such a huge bomb, many of the dead will have been so obliterated that there wont be a body to identify. Plus any dead bodies over the age of about 12 still identifiable as bodies will be assumed to be terrorists, simply because they were in the area.

The sad history of Afghanistan goes back further than 2000
That's a mere rephrasing of what I said up here. I pointed out General Zia of Pakistan and all his antics regarding the rampant jihadi culture he implemented and the thousands of madressas he installed (of course with the full military support, weapons and money from us and Saudis). That's exactly what I said. So what's your point? You have merely repeated what I said. And haven't replied to what I said.

I don't think you will find many people talking about their experiences in these countries (I did not work in Afghanistan. I don't feel like talking about any of that. Far too much and outing).

Livelovebehappy
That's very human of you. The very definition of war porn.

You didn't work in Afghanistan?

Anyway.

It looks like the 'mother of all bombs' resulted in the killing of 36 'militants' and utter terror for the civilian population.
This action seems to be more about Trump's ego than anything else I reckon. He is showing muscle in a 'safe' way politically by 'bombing Isis' which will play well at home and not cause too much political fallout internationally.

I loathe the language used. It reminds me of the bombing of Iraq. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians terrified on the ground, and the US broadcasts the bombing like it's a bloody fireworks show, upbeat triumphant music and and all.

War should be treated somberly. It's always regrettable and shameful that we got to that point, and the fact that specific actions are necessary once we have doesn't make it ok.

Valentine You are of course aware that ISAF was under the aegis of the UN Security Council? If the UN felt it justified, then presumably you can have no issue with it.

Fyi, my db served in Afghanistan, and he had no problems with why he was there. As to I dishonour them, hardly. You have a totally different point of view to me.

Boneyback No, they don't consider it a game at all. They are aware that it is people's lives they risk.

I agree that the language is very reminiscent of the Bush years (when the MOAB came in to service, incidentally and presumably was given both its name and nickname).

The actions though are pretty similar across all US administrations; even their doves are way more hawk-like than UK.

And this sort of thing does tend to follow any public call to 'do something' about a dire situation, rather than a call for a specific action likely to further a specific aim.

You are of course aware that ISAF was under the aegis of the UN Security Council? If the UN felt it justified, then presumably you can have no issue with it.
Really? How come?
Just because your brother served there and feels it's ok, doesn't make it right does it?
And you haven't still discussed any of my points regarding the legality Of these wars specially what the role of US and allies was during the soviet times.

This is vile, no? Whatever your beliefs around whether they should have taken action, it is still a sad, awful thing to kill dozens of people, no? This language sounds celebratory and totally minimising the cost to life, peace etc. KILLING TERRORIST ISN'T A COST TO PEACE ITS A GAIN TO PEACE YOU IDIOT

You mean the government we installed there after attacking them because of 9/11 that was done by NO AFGHANI OR IRAQI but Saudis no the democratically elected government of afghanistan more so than hamas which undoubtubly you support as well which is another terrorist orginazation

Valentine You are the one shouting the odds here. ISAF was NATO led under a UN Security Council Resolution. You may think that you know better than the UN, and all those NATO and non NATO nations that made up ISAF, but I don' think that you do. If you didn't know about the Securty Council resolution, then you are not as well informed as you would want us to believe.

Leaglaity of what? Dropping the MOAB. or ISAF? If the latter, then a UN Security Council resolution makes it legal and arguably, as the Afghan government are receiving help with reconstruction and stabilisation, the US did it with know;ledge of the Afghan govt.