just a few days ago the same dalit was relentlessly abusing me for two days in post after post. reporting and tagging mods had no response. in-fact a mod even tried to placate him after dalit accused mods of favoring me (just because I had 3 days earlier thanked the mod for banning an indian for a year (which also was reversed after a few day).
moral of the story is: no point in complaining, you either stay or go but stop complaining about the unfairness (I used to complain a lot too when I believed it to be what it claims to be). it is business not a social service nor the justice league of some sort
ok, i think this is a clear case of people objecting to the max when insults are thrown to them in their own house. it also shows clear determination to critisize to the point of regularly insulting parties like NATO over the loss of innocence life during their vital security operations in muslim countries and elsewhere.
i've given this matter some thought over the past 2 days, and i'm now of the opinion that i'll stay and endure the bad vibes towards my NATO team, and continue my efforts to provide a western but also objective view of (recent) military operations in the world.
i was wrong to call
@Dalit a traitor, in hindsight. i thought he was, towards all peaceloving people world-wide, but even that thinking was flawed and thrown out in semi-frustrated anger during one of my many encounters here on the forum with
@Dalit, and i hereby apologize for that choice of wording.
it is also true, as others have indicated, that anti-terror operations should happen with sufficient but also only just-enough force.
however, the idea of targeting a terror plotter / leader with snipers, is a bit inpractical i think, and also too dangerous for the offensive troops involved.
you all should know that i've long been of the opinion that minimal force should be used against terrorists, to limit civilians casualties, and i've written about this topic to my email list which goes directly to the editorial staffs of world-wide mass-media companies, political parties, and intel agencies (world-wide, btw).
i've strongly advised the CIA and mossad in the past about toning down the firepower in bombs and missiles used against terror groups.
i can confirm with certainty, that the US military has since been using drone missiles with a kill radius of 3 meters instead of the previous 10 meters.
and the Israeli military has moved from using terror-tech like white phosphorous bombs all the way to using just-enough-explosive-power tech and announcing a lot of their strikes to the people in the buildings that are about to get striked.
so progress can be made, by politely pointing out the benefits and the risks and rewards of certain ways of getting military jobs done, to a list of parties that you think should receive such information.
however, one has to ask themselves : the people near to a terror group leader / captain / soldier, aren't they providing vital material and emotional support with which the actual terrorist then goes out to strike against the innocent (elsewhere)?
terrorists thrive on casualty counts, in their view making casualties is a sign of victory and hardens their resolve to do more harm to others in the future.
by limiting the risk our own militarizes have to take (whether that be NATO, India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, China or whomever else "wants to play"),
and killing a number of the close associates and offspring of terrorists,
we show terrorists that their efforts are futile and very dangerous to themselves and their loved ones.
so i'm happy with the current status quo. warriors in all kinds of factions have to get used to these new circumstances (as i just described), and from there they can move to political activism rather than terrorism, to get what they want for themselves and the people in their native regions.
with terrorism made utterly and publicly futile (and mark my words : NATO *will* go back to Afghanistan if terror threats against their homelands or those of their allies arise from regions like that),
the ones that remain engaged in it are either violent psychopaths or dangerous secretive military-political sociopaths, usually in the disguise of a twisted violently-oppressive version of an old religion or creed.
they and all those that provide significant support to them must be eliminated, preferably just before they strike another innocent freedom loving target.
Imram Khan may think he is doing what his followers want him to do, but i'm asking the Pakistani govenment to reconsider allowing NATO drones to monitor and possibly operate against the taliban.
to that vast majority of actually decent muslims world wide (a group that i now see
@Dalit as part of afterall), i say this : aren't you deceived by the terrorists who **make sure** some of the innocent die ("as martyrs") when they are killed by groups like NATO? and are those innocents not *also* deceived by the terrorists, to end up near them? would the terrorists be able to function as an army without the material support of those innocents? and if that's the case, then aren't those innocents not in part *responsible* for the deaths created by the terrorists?
a church or religion doesn't get to overthrow a government or use force.
it's been this way just about everywhere on Earth for centuries now.
if he is anti-war or pacifist... why he has to be only a 'traitor'.. May be he wishes well for NL by not mangling NATO in Afghanistan and in US war.. !!
Anyway, rules are rules. You can't accuse anyone, unless its you who award NL nationality and revoke.
What will you do in hostage situation? Will you open fire on a terrorist hiding behind white women/children? Ask yourself.
in *that* scenario, i'd hope my troops are able to give the terrorist(s) headshots.
if not, we'll have to lure them into a trap by pretending to negotiate with them.
Anyway, there is a UN law of proportionality and human rights. It is the responsibility of the free/sensible world to eliminate only the threat by using adequate amount of lethal power. If a a terrorist is hiding in a locality, then you can't use 400lb bomb by drone and kill 100s for a single terrorist. That is what basically CIA did. The 'free world' must use sniper or anything like that.
@PeaceGen
@doorstar
you don't expose snipers and the drop-off / pickup troops to that kinda risk.
they'd be alone and deep into enemy territory.
insult is different and perspective dependent.. Swearing can be a cliche or normal or free speech. But declaring one traitor is plain wrong.
in hindsight, i was wrong (this time) to call
@Dalit a traitor.
but he *was* pulling the blood from underneath my fingernails with his over-the-top cricitism of NATO.