USA's message to Taliban

[across110thstreet]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/17/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

The United States also broadcast radio messages into Afghanistan from U.S. Air Force aircraft.
"Attention Taliban, you are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead," one translated message said, according to a Pentagon transcript. "Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows."

propaganda ROCKS

[Severe Rockets Fan]

Originally posted by across110thstreet
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/17/ret.afghan.attacks/index.html

The United States also broadcast radio messages into Afghanistan from U.S. Air Force aircraft.
"Attention Taliban, you are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead," one translated message said, according to a Pentagon transcript. "Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows."

propaganda ROCKS
coolness, peace...through superior firepower.

[boy]

thats why 4 un workers were killed?

thats why 200 civilians living in thier homes were killed?

propaganda is propaganda either side. and its crap for both sides.

[RocksMillenium]

Hey boy you seem to be conveniently forget the 6000 people Osama bin Laden killed. It's ok that he slaughtered 6000 people on purpose, the U.S. kills people by accident and it's "propaganda"? It's a war now, and the Taliban is bringing this on his own people. I don't want to see innocent people hurt but every time you talk about the 4 U.N. workers killed and the 200 civilians killed I'll ask you about the 6000 people killed in the WTC, the 600 or so killed in embassy bombings, the 200 killed in the Pentagon, all by Osama bin Laden and supported by the Taliban.

[across110thstreet]

this is real WAR propaganda, though, the kind that you hit the enemy with, such as in WWII, American planes dropped Anti-German and Anti-Japanese leaflets upon their enemies.
CNN even defines this as propaganda

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/17/ret.us.propaganda/index.html

U.S. propaganda to Taliban: 'You are condemned'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is sending radio broadcasts into Afghanistan telling the Taliban they are "condemned," and the messages seem to suggest that U.S. troops will eventually be on the ground in that country.

According to an English language translation posted on the Pentagon's Web site, one message gives the Taliban forces instructions how to surrender to U.S. troops.

"When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."

The Pentagon said the propaganda broadcasts began last weekend and originate from a flying radio station, a specially outfitted EC-130, known as "Commando Solo."

The broadcasts tout the deadly firepower of the U.S. military and tell the Taliban, "You have only one choice ... Surrender now."

"Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons," one radio script reads.

Here's a complete text of one broadcast: "Attention Taliban! You are condemned. Did you know that? The instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you sentenced yourselves to death. The Armed Forces of the United States are here to seek justice for our dead. Highly trained soldiers are coming to shut down once and for all Osama bin Laden's ring of terrorism, and the Taliban that supports them and their actions.

"Our forces are armed with state of the art military equipment. What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? Our helicopters will rain fire down upon your camps before you detect them on your radar. Our bombs are so accurate we can drop them right through your windows. Our infantry is trained for any climate and terrain on earth. United States soldiers fire with superior marksmanship and are armed with superior weapons.

"You have only one choice ... Surrender now and we will give you a second chance. We will let you live. If you surrender no harm will come to you. When you decide to surrender, approach United States forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your back muzzle towards the ground. Remove your magazine and expel any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."

[gr8-1]

boy = krikit. I was wondering what happened to him.

[Clutch]

Originally posted by across110thstreet
...What are you using, obsolete and ineffective weaponry? ...

LOL.... damn, taunting. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the Taliban has some serious trolls on their message boards.

[Behad]

Originally posted by Clutch


LOL.... damn, taunting. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the Taliban has some serious trolls on their message boards.


LOL!!

More proof that this site rules Clutch's life. Even world events are placed in BBS terms.

Hey Clutch, take a vacation!:D

[SAROONA]

Bush should let Tony Blair do the talking for real!

[VesceySux]

Originally posted by Behad



LOL!!

More proof that this site rules Clutch's life. Even world events are placed in BBS terms.

Hey Clutch, take a vacation!:D

A Taliban BBS (in a CC.net parallel universe) would be pretty funny, actually. I'll bet everyone would be eagerly awaiting any advance information about the raids from inside man Talipere...

[ROXRAN]

Talipere.....lol!

[Major]

<B>Hey boy you seem to be conveniently forget the 6000 people Osama bin Laden killed. It's ok that he slaughtered 6000 people on purpose</B>

Where did he say it's OK? I think he thinks both our killings and their killings are wrong.

<B>the U.S. kills people by accident and it's "propaganda"?</B>

Of course it's propaganda. Even the US says it's propaganda.

I could be wrong, but I think he was saying that if our bombs are so accurate that we could shoot them through their windows, we wouldn't have hit a big Red Cross building (huge a huge Red Cross X on the roof). Granted, it was most likely a target-finding error rather than a bomb error, but it still is ironic that our super-accurate bombs hit an international relief center.

<B>every time you talk about the 4 U.N. workers killed and the 200 civilians killed I'll ask you about the 6000 people killed in the WTC, the 600 or so killed in embassy bombings, the 200 killed in the Pentagon, all by Osama bin Laden and supported by the Taliban.</B>

And he'll say both were wrong. In terms of the ethical side, the "violence is bad" or "violence leads to more violence" philosophy is pretty easy to defend. It's very difficult to defend based on results, but the moral side is fairly straightforward. We're the only ones saying one killing of innocents is OK (we're at war) while the other is not (even though al Queda believes they are at war too).

[Ty_Webb]

>>>We're the only ones saying one killing of innocents is OK (we're at war) while the other is not (even though al Queda believes they are at war too).

Oh please! We are not INTENTIONALLY killing innocent people, THOSE sacks of craps in the middle east, deliberatly targeted defenseless civilians. They are not warriors, they are murders.

It is like someone getting in a car accident in which someone was killed. Does that make the driver a MURDERER if he didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t intend to kill someone? OF COURSE NOT. Now if someone takes that same car and drives it across the playground killing 30 little kids, THAT is a murderer, that is the Taliban.

[Major]

<B>Oh please! We are not INTENTIONALLY killing innocent people, THOSE sacks of craps in the middle east, deliberatly targeted defenseless civilians. They are not warriors, they are murders. </B>

Ty, I'm not justifying it. I agree that its a part of war. If you read the whole paragraph (and the section I quoted), my point was that boy was not saying that the WTC stuff was "ok". We're the only ones saying one is OK and the other is not. boy was saying both are bad.

[Ty_Webb]

"I think he thinks both our killings and their killings are wrong."

This is the point I have a problem with, How is the accidental killings of people during air strikes anymore "wrong" or "immoral" than a person losing control of his car and killing a person? If they are not done on purpose, how can you be at fault unless there is some sort of malicious incompetence.

The Taliban on the other hand has such a LOW regard for life and peoples rights that they will murder innocent people, to group together the horrific attacks on innocent people to the accidental deaths of people in the red cross building is ridiculous. It is those kind of erroneous analogies that allow the Osama's of the world to coerce the uneducated masses in the ME into believing that the US is the great Satan.

[Major]

<B>This is the point I have a problem with, How is the accidental killings of people during air strikes anymore "wrong" or "immoral" than a person losing control of his car and killing a person? If they are not done on purpose, how can you be at fault unless there is some sort of malicious incompetence. </B>

The basic argument is that violence is bad, no matter the reason. It could reasonably be inferred that our dropping bombs would result in killing some innocent civilians, even if not targetted. boy's whole thing is that we shouldn't be dropping bombs in the first place, i think.

[JuanValdez]

Where is boy to tell us what he means anyway? The deaths so far in Afghanistan are the result of the US decision to conduct the battle from a thousand miles away. The civilians dying in Afghanistan are being sacrificed by the US in order to avoid putting US troops and equipment if jeopardy of counterattack. We are essentially trading Afghan civilian lives for US military lives. That makes good military sense, but I don't see how you can characterize that as morally neutral. I'm not happy either with Afghan military deaths. Does it not seem cowardly to anyone else to attack an enemy in such a way that it can't fight back? And yet, there seems to be no other advisable action that can be taken. War is an ugly, ugly business.

[Ty_Webb]

>>The deaths so far in Afghanistan are the result of the US decision to conduct the battle from a thousand miles away.

They are the result of Osama MURDERING 6000+ INNOCENT civilians. NO bombs would have been dropped if OSAMA didn’t murder innocent people. This falls on the Talibans shoulders.

>>The civilians dying in Afghanistan are being sacrificed by the US in order to avoid putting US troops and equipment if jeopardy of counterattack. We are essentially trading Afghan civilian lives for US military lives.

WHAT? So you think if we sent in ground troops in that civilian people wouldn’t accidentally be killed? That is just a plain STUPID statement. MANY MANY MANY more people would be dead.

Also we are saving a LOT more lives with our humanitarian efforts than we are accidentally killing.

>>That makes good military sense, but I don't see how you can characterize that as morally neutral. I'm not happy either with Afghan military deaths. Does it not seem cowardly to anyone else to attack an enemy in such a way that it can't fight back?

So we shouldn’t attack people who murdered 6000 innocent people because they are not equipped to defend themselves?

So we should just let them be and continue to attack us? Or we should we trade in our cruise missiles, Tanks, and Jets, for some Camels and turbans so we can fight them on “equal terms.”

We have a right and an OBLIGATION to defend the free world from maniacs like this, by whatever means necessary.

[ROXRAN]

A lot of people in this thread don't understand the concept of WAR...let me tell you something: WAR is an inherently evil concept...you don't win a WAR, you survive a WAR. WAR is not and never will be pretty. To win a WAR, one takes advantage of every conceivable resource and advantage........innocent people will die...they always do.....think about it. Look at history regarding WAR. It is not cowardly to have a plan which minimizes ones losses Juan. There are several theories on WAR...The U.S. will have a ground assault...To do that certain progressions in desired goals must be met. To win, one must be smart, and I'm happy to believe the U.S. military is the smartest and strongest in the world. .......make no mistake....this is WAR.

[Major]

<B>>>The deaths so far in Afghanistan are the result of the US decision to conduct the battle from a thousand miles away.

They are the result of Osama MURDERING 6000+ INNOCENT civilians. NO bombs would have been dropped if OSAMA didn’t murder innocent people. This falls on the Talibans shoulders. </b>

This is the same logic that Bin Laden uses to justify his attacks. You could similarly say (if you were bin Laden) that there would not be any WTC bombing if the US wasn't politically involved in the Middle East, and thus that falls on US shoulders. We know that's not true, because at some point beyond the initial act, there is a decision made by someone that further leads to the final act. In my example, it is bin Laden going loony and deciding to go blow up the WTC. In the original scenario, it is the US determining how to conduct our response.

Attacking Afghanistran was a result of the WTC stuff, but how we choose to go about it is absolutely the choice of the US and the results of that choice are the responsibility of the US. If we're going to take credit for freeing Afghanistan, then we have to take responsibility for the loss of life as well. That said, a loss of life is an unfortunate part of war. Yes, the US is responsible for it, but that doesn't necessarily mean its a bad decision or something that shouldn't be done.

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by shanna
..Yes, the US is responsible for it, but that doesn't necessarily mean its a bad decision or something that shouldn't be done.

true.

[Ottomaton]

I would like, for just a second that the goal of any PSYOP mission is to shorten the conflict, and reduce casualties on both sides. You can kill the enemy, or you can convince the enemy to give up. You can visit the homepage of the Psychological Operations Veteran's Association here (http://www.psyop.com), and find out all about it.

Secondly, while I'm no master of philosophy, I think that if you go back historically and look at the great respected philosopers, and philosophical treatises, you will find very few arguments that violence unequivocably is never warrented. Most philosophies in some way account for at least 'less evil' times for violence. (The only noteable exception I can think of was Ghandi, who wanted the British to let the Germans invade and then resist non-violently. :eek: )

My opinion of most of the 'violence is never just... by either side.' people that I have seen on the news from Arab countries is that they are the types who alter their philosophy to suit their positon post-facto. In other words, if the US had randomly started carpet bombing Afghanistan, they'd have been the first group to stand up and declare that the US should be destroyed. Clearly not universally the case, but just my impression of the most vocal whom I have seen on TV and such.

[ROXRAN]

Furthermore, terrorists cannot be negotiated with...You also cannot compromise with the whims of terrorist...that is a given.

What do you have left when a network of terrorists decides to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people here in the U.S. and compromise the entire standard of living of every citizen of this great country?

Well 3 things:

1. Do nothing. I disagree with this mode because we will cleanse our hands of innocent blood, but will be exposed to more terror. When a crazy person wants to beat a dog, they will continue if the dog doesn't bite back. Why should they stop when they O, so enjoy beating on the dog? They will beat the dog to death. Unfortunately we will have to have a "maybe-they-will-stop" attitude. I don't know about you, but I don't think so!!!!!!

2. Be defensive. Again I disagree, because being defensive means you can cover everything and everywhere. This is impossible. You can't even completely and 100%ly safeguard the city of Houston with all the resources in the world! How can you do a whole country. The terrorist always, always, always has the advantage to this methodolgy because they dictate the time, the manner, and the place....plus they enjoy beating on the dog...so who is to stop them?

3. Be offensive. The only choice unless it is cool with you that thousands upon thousands of people will die and continue to die...hell think about your loved one, you might not see them again. You worry about your right to free speach...lol...if the terrorists have their way, all your rights will go down the toilet...including right-to-life. Listen folks, the terrorists have spoken with two loud booms at the WTC. Did you hear it? I hope so....you have 3 choices.

p.s. - remember, War is ugly, nasty and evil, but now it is what we must be prepared for.

[JuanValdez]

Originally posted by ROXRAN
A lot of people in this thread don't understand the concept of WAR...let me tell you something: WAR is an inherently evil concept...you don't win a WAR, you survive a WAR. WAR is not and never will be pretty. To win a WAR, one takes advantage of every conceivable resource and advantage........innocent people will die...they always do.....think about it. Look at history regarding WAR. It is not cowardly to have a plan which minimizes ones losses Juan. There are several theories on WAR...The U.S. will have a ground assault...To do that certain progressions in desired goals must be met. To win, one must be smart, and I'm happy to believe the U.S. military is the smartest and strongest in the world. .......make no mistake....this is WAR.

Not that I disagree with you Roxran, but with an approach like that, how can you be upset with the terrorists. They are fighting a war against the US and, unfortunately, in war civilians die.

TY:
1. Every time the 6,000 deaths are mentioned, it trivializes the event just a little bit more for me. The only way in which it is relevant is if you are trying to exact revenge for those deaths. I don't want that and I don't want my country to be striving for that. What we should be doing is dealing with a problem; the problem is a continuing threat from terrorists who would like to do the thing again. So, your decision-making must weigh the expenses you incur in money, death, and sin vs. what you gain in security from an attack. The 6,000 don't even figure in and I don't want to hear about them.

2. If there were ground troops in Afghanistan, many more people would die. But, it is a good deal less likely that an infantry unit would raid a Red Cross and slaughter everyone in it. And, if you had a mind to, you can more likely stay out of harm's way. Ground troops have to be at least somewhat close to you before they can hurt you. You can get hit by some faceless bomber anywhere in the country. And, finally, the ground war and the deaths that come with it are still to come. Bombing deaths are 'extra'.

3. How many lives have we saved with humanitarian efforts? Even a ballpark figure? I know we've dropped some food, but I have no idea how much of an effect these efforts have had. My ignorance on the subject aside, does saving one person justify you in killing another?

4. As I had alluded to in my previous post, I see that the war is a necessity. There would be some chivalry to fighting them camelback to camelback -- but I think that would also fall under a category of grossly negligent in protecting the lives of soldiers. I'm just lamenting the fact. Is lamenting sin unAmerican or something?

5. "We have a right and an OBLIGATION to defend the free world from maniacs like this, by whatever means necessary." Can we tone down the rhetoric a bit? This 'right' you speak of comes from where? God? U.N.? US Constitution? Is a mandated right or more of a contract theory, will of the people sort of right? Likewise on the obligation; what obliges us? I also have qualms about the term 'free world' but I'll leave it be. 'Maniacs' is the most annoying. I understand that you probably don't mean it in a clinical sense, but I think it is untrue to characterize terrorists in this way; and even more so for the Taliban; and even doubly, trebly so for the civilians we were talking about in the first place. They're maniacs for standing next to a US target?


Ottomaton: I think Immanual Kant would object on the basis of the categorical imparative. But, he never did make much sense, so I'm not sure he would. In his example, if an ax murderer asks you where your friend is so he can hack him up, it would be wrong of you to lie to him. So I assume he'd think there were no qualifying excuses for violence just as there are none for lying. But again, not sure.

[boy]

oh for those who think we haven't killed 6,000 people so who cares that the strikes are goig on...UN released numbers that around 300,000 kids will die over the winter due to lack of food. so that food argument is hogwash.

killing innocent people is wrong by every side no matter what. and if you do it you don't hide behind a bunch of political rhetoric and deny it by saying 'it has not been confirmed by independent sources'. don't say our bombs can go thru windows when they 'accidentally' hit a block of houses and kill 200 people there.

[NCSTATEFAN]

Originally posted by boy
oh for those who think we haven't killed 6,000 people so who cares that the strikes are goig on...UN released numbers that around 300,000 kids will die over the winter due to lack of food. so that food argument is hogwash.

killing innocent people is wrong by every side no matter what. and if you do it you don't hide behind a bunch of political rhetoric and deny it by saying 'it has not been confirmed by independent sources'. don't say our bombs can go thru windows when they 'accidentally' hit a block of houses and kill 200 people there.

Hey boy, the US is playing with their mind into hopefully a potential submission of the Taliban. If we can lie the Taliban into giving up then whats wrong with that? The sooner we get these guys to give up Bin Laden and end their terrorist operations, the quicker the innocent Afgans get get much needed food.

[HOOP-T]

A classified ad to place in your local paper, all in good fun......

For Sale:

One Taliban Military Assault Rifle
Never fired. Dropped once.

Asking $500.00

Negotiable

[ROXRAN]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JuanValdez


Not that I disagree with you Roxran, but with an approach like that, how can you be upset with the terrorists. They are fighting a war against the US and, unfortunately, in war civilians die.

yes true, but who chose this war we are now in? They did. They chose to make the unprecedented move by wiping out thousands and thousands of innocent people as their primary target...difference with us is that we don't make innocent people primary targets. There is a clear distinction here. We are forced into this state of war by those geeked into evil and terror. War is something that must be avoided but are in it now. Why am I upset? Why do you think I'm upset? As evil as war is, there can be morality in it. For example, it was morally right to stop Hitler before he could rule the world with evil and kill more innocent people. There is absolutely no moral ground whatsoever to target innocent civilians as primary targets in the course of war. Not only is this common sense, but is historically accurate in the course of war....I don't want war Juan, but war has been thrust upon our constitution and way of life. You have 3 choices and only 3.

TY:
1. Every time the 6,000 deaths are mentioned, it trivializes the event just a little bit more for me. The only way in which it is relevant is if you are trying to exact revenge for those deaths. I don't want that and I don't want my country to be striving for that. What we should be doing is dealing with a problem; the problem is a continuing threat from terrorists who would like to do the thing again. So, your decision-making must weigh the expenses you incur in money, death, and sin vs. what you gain in security from an attack. The 6,000 don't even figure in and I don't want to hear about them.

Juan, please think about this....you sound very ignorant by the above statement....the reason 6000 deaths are mentioned is because that is near-fact. It's sad but true. What is there to be trivial about? :confused:
As far as to solve the problem, pick one of 3 choices. I pick #3.


2. If there were ground troops in Afghanistan, many more people would die. But, it is a good deal less likely that an infantry unit would raid a Red Cross and slaughter everyone in it. And, if you had a mind to, you can more likely stay out of harm's way. Ground troops have to be at least somewhat close to you before they can hurt you. You can get hit by some faceless bomber anywhere in the country. And, finally, the ground war and the deaths that come with it are still to come. Bombing deaths are 'extra'.


Sounds like you question the merits of bombing to me. pssst, Juan it's called strategy (we're in a war ;) ). And unfortunately,..er fortunately we don't target innocent civilians as our primary target...sorry Juan, try as we might it won't be spic and span.


3. How many lives have we saved with humanitarian efforts? Even a ballpark figure? I know we've dropped some food, but I have no idea how much of an effect these efforts have had. My ignorance on the subject aside, does saving one person justify you in killing another?

We're trying to make it as nice and clean as possible Juan! ...sigh, Juan, please understand we don't have to drop ANY food, maybe its propaganda, but this gesture is a benefit to someone who is hungry and catches the food out of the air. To fully answer your question, maybe saving 1 innocent life really does make a difference. If you can save 1 innocent life, you can save the world....with that said, I hope all terrorist DIE, DIE, DIE!!!!! :mad:

4. As I had alluded to in my previous post, I see that the war is a necessity. There would be some chivalry to fighting them camelback to camelback -- but I think that would also fall under a category of grossly negligent in protecting the lives of soldiers. I'm just lamenting the fact. Is lamenting sin unAmerican or something?

chivalry aside, I'm all for minimizing soldiers lives in this war endeavor.

5. "We have a right and an OBLIGATION to defend the free world from maniacs like this, by whatever means necessary." Can we tone down the rhetoric a bit? This 'right' you speak of comes from where? God? U.N.? US Constitution? Is a mandated right or more of a contract theory, will of the people sort of right? Likewise on the obligation; what obliges us? I also have qualms about the term 'free world' but I'll leave it be. 'Maniacs' is the most annoying. I understand that you probably don't mean it in a clinical sense, but I think it is untrue to characterize terrorists in this way; and even more so for the Taliban; and even doubly, trebly so for the civilians we were talking about in the first place. They're maniacs for standing next to a US target?

So we should be isolationists then? I don't think so. Ask any WW2 veteran if isolationism is a cool idea. .....better yet ask the 6,000,000 holocaust victims if isolationism is cool! Sorry Juan, not trying to be trivial with the numbers :rolleyes: ... the lessons of history state it is not a cool idea. Ask South Korea. Ask France (we surrender!), Ask modern Germany (not East or West mind you). Ask England. If the United States and the U.N. allies ever decide to mind its own business, then Red cross slaughters will pail to the atrocities commited by people against people....

[NCSTATEFAN]

Hopefully other goverments that are harboring terrorist will be overturned by their innocent civilians, which will prevent future greater casualties of US retaliation. Civilians of these terrorist countries are totally accountable for the 6000 that died, especially if you are using liberal logic.

[ROXRAN]

Originally posted by boy
...UN released numbers that around 300,000 kids will die over the winter due to lack of food. so that food argument is hogwash.



maybe they should harbor food instead of terroists? :D huh? huh? ever thought about that?....

why was the U.S. the leading provider of food to the innocent people of Afghanistan before Sept. 11 ? Answer: we care about the kids, unlike the Taliban who have sealed there own children's demise. Sad to kill your own children isn't it?

How can the Afghan govt. stop the madness and subsequent deaths and disease of so many, poor innocent children and covered up women? Answer: Simple, don't harbor terrorists.

[boy]

yes its those evil afghanis who let the taliban stay in power. its their fault.

[SAROONA]

NCSTATEFAN
pleeeeease dont' tell meee you're serious! you think those starving illiterate civilians can overthrow a militant regime like Taliban or are even able to oppose them and not get killed by Taliban troops? Afghanistan isn't exactly a democracy you know! those poeple need maaaajor help from outside! (by the way they got majorly screwed by Pakistan and the CIA who through the 1980's supported Taliban in its war against the Soviets)


Peace all!