BF2S Forums The War on Terror or the terrors of war?

Parker wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

rammunition wrote:

The U.S has bitten more than it could chew and now is in financial difficulty

you still have yet to explain why you hate us. you just go on about your crackpot conspiracy theories that we're trying to take over the world, and wish for the downfall of the US. again, I ask: what the hell did I or any other of the Americans on BF2s do to you?

hes jealous.

of................being in a recession

and no, i won't be affected, may have to pay a few quid more but am more than capable

rammunition wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

rammunition wrote:

i can go into detail but it could be made into a thread tbh.

feel free to

i'll make a thread on why i "hate" america tommorow, its 11pm and am tired after a hard days work, so will post it tomorrow

You might have been dominated by then.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

So did you not read it all?  Or did you merely ignore that part.

I did read it all.  I guess you missed the BBC title which says "US killed 47 Afghan civilians", and I didn't consider it appropriate, so don't point your finger at me just because I didn't quote the whole article.  I didn't use the BBC title either.

So what was your goal when you posted this?  You don't agree with the title?  Civilian casualties suck?

You should ask Gunslinger The Queen, it seems he's got all the answers apparently.  Anyway, no, I don't like civilian casualties, but I considered the title somehow not appropriate, you know, they titled "the US killed..." and I don't think they killed those people knowing they were civilians, but it still sucks big time.

sergeriver wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I did read it all.  I guess you missed the BBC title which says "US killed 47 Afghan civilians", and I didn't consider it appropriate, so don't point your finger at me just because I didn't quote the whole article.  I didn't use the BBC title either.

So what was your goal when you posted this?  You don't agree with the title?  Civilian casualties suck?

You should ask Gunslinger The Queen, it seems he's got all the answers apparently.  Anyway, no, I don't like civilian casualties, but I considered the title somehow not appropriate, you know, they titled "the US killed..." and I don't think they killed those people knowing they were civilians, but it still sucks big time.

What?  "God Save the Queen" is Gunslinger?

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Nuh, it duzn't count coz it woz an accident.

seriously is it only me who think that bombing weddings seem to be waaaaaaaaaaaay to much of a coincidence to be an 'accident'.  Is it some sort of initiation for the fly boyz?

Just how can you mistake an afghan weeding for a bunch of rpg totting nutjobs?! I've been to a Pakistani wedding in Kashmir of which i would expect to be simialar and there is no way it could be mistaken for a terrorist ganbang.

High altitude. From up there, a gathering of people looks like a gathering of people. There would have been some reason why the area was designated to be hit though, they wouldn't just look for a group of wedding guest to drop a 500 pounder on.

You must also take into account that, in that part of the world, it is very common for lots of people celebrating to fire AKs into the air, tracers and all; I have seen it a few times in Iraq too.  From the air, all they can see is tracers flying into the sky at them.  Group of people firing at a plane gets a bomb for their trouble.

Do I think they were trying to shoot the plane down? No.  Should the pilot (and the command structure) have realized by now that the people they are flying over use rifles as noise-makers at celebrations?  Yes.  Was it a stupid mistake?  Most likely.