VIDEO: Thousands flee as battle for Mosul rages

[webfact]

 

[bark]

Don't cry for them. Let them stand up for themselves.

All the men ran away from their own country. Sad.

[phantomfiddler]

Will this senseless killing never stop ? :)

[Docno]

1 hour ago, bark said:

Don't cry for them. Let them stand up for themselves.

All the men ran away from their own country. Sad.

And the women and children... ? Let them pay the price?

[oldrunner]

In case you're wondering, I'm sure glad I live in Thailand.

[Stargeezr]

I feel sorry for the people of Mosul who were too poor to leave.  The old men, women and the young children,

are all in great danger now as these ISIL dogs will not treat them as humans,  only as shields to hide behind.

  I do hope that all of the IS fighters, especially the foreign ones are killed off before this battle has ended.

Geezer

[jaidam]

 Next time Clinton wants to attack a foreign country, can she please keep it a secret. I believe the military jargon is to apply "stealth". Her foreign policy is akin to a cat with a bell on its collar chasing a rodent. Can hear it coming a mile away and get prepared. Is it going too far to ask that due to her warnings to the terrorists that her boys are on the way, that she is charged for murder of each deceased in this Mosul operation? Mind you all the crimes stacking up against her, this latest charge might have to wait a bit.

[Credo]

1 hour ago, jaidam said:

 Next time Clinton wants to attack a foreign country, can she please keep it a secret. I believe the military jargon is to apply "stealth". Her foreign policy is akin to a cat with a bell on its collar chasing a rodent. Can hear it coming a mile away and get prepared. Is it going too far to ask that due to her warnings to the terrorists that her boys are on the way, that she is charged for murder of each deceased in this Mosul operation? Mind you all the crimes stacking up against her, this latest charge might have to wait a bit.

More nonsense from the anti-Muslim, arm chair generals.   

 

First of all, Clinton has nothing to do with Mosul.   She is not a member of the Obama administration.   

 

Second, the fight is against ISIS, which is in a major city with tens of thousands of civilians.   They need to take any opportunity they can to flee.   

 

Third, the offensive involves other countries  (most notably the Iraqis).   You really don't think ISIS will notice the troops amassing in their vicinity?

[bark]

17 hours ago, Docno said:

And the women and children... ? Let them pay the price?

Why should American soldier die , when their countries men run away and leave the women and children ?

[vogie]

[Docno]

On ‎28‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 11:04 AM, bark said:

Why should American soldier die , when their countries men run away and leave the women and children ?

American soldiers are not on the front line ... you've swallowed the propaganda pill that says that all the US does is sacrifice itself for other countries. Now, if you were a Kurd, I might listen to you ... they're doing the real sacrificing over there. Not American soldiers.

 

Oh, and while we're at it... if the US hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place on the basis of bad (or falsified) intelligence, in all likelihood this battle wouldn't even be happening. So the women and children who are at risk of losing their lives in this attack can arguably blame the US. You mess up a country with your own invasion/occupation, gut its standing army, then place all the blame on the new army that you've constructed and trained.  

[bark]

On 29/10/2559 at 0:58 PM, Docno said:

American soldiers are not on the front line ... you've swallowed the propaganda pill that says that all the US does is sacrifice itself for other countries. Now, if you were a Kurd, I might listen to you ... they're doing the real sacrificing over there. Not American soldiers.

 

Oh, and while we're at it... if the US hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place on the basis of bad (or falsified) intelligence, in all likelihood this battle wouldn't even be happening. So the women and children who are at risk of losing their lives in this attack can arguably blame the US. You mess up a country with your own invasion/occupation, gut its standing army, then place all the blame on the new army that you've constructed and trained.  

Not sure your home country; but if not for the Good Old USA, you would be speaking German or Russian now.

 

[Docno]

Just now, bark said:

Not sure your home country; but if not for the Good Old USA, you would be speaking German or Russian now.

 

Wow - you've apparently double dosed on those propaganda pills. I come from one of those countries that fought the good fight for over two years before you guys entered the war and then decided you'd won it alone. Before you take credit for the outcome, do the world a favour and read about the Eastern Front....

[bark]

Just now, Docno said:

Wow - you've apparently double dosed on those propaganda pills. I come from one of those countries that fought the good fight for over two years before you guys entered the war and then decided you'd won it alone. Before you take credit for the outcome, do the world a favour and read about the Eastern Front....

You cannot fight without, bullets, bombs, tanks, etc etc. USA provided all. You put up a good fight; but you would have lost

if it wasn't for the USA. And they entered the war, to help the Allies. If not, enjoy the German food.

[BoonToong]

On 29/10/2016 at 0:58 PM, Docno said:

if the US hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place on the basis of bad (or falsified) intelligence, in all likelihood this battle wouldn't even be happening. So the women and children who are at risk of losing their lives in this attack can arguably blame the US. You mess up a country with your own invasion/occupation, gut its standing army, then place all the blame on the new army that you've constructed and trained.

 

Oh, I think regular, widespread and frequent genocide was already going on for hundreds of years, long before the US 'invaded' 

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by BoonToong

[BoonToong]

10 minutes ago, bark said:

Not sure your home country; but if not for the Good Old USA, you would be speaking German or Russian now

 

Not the UK mate, we would never have been conquered 

[bark]

Just now, BoonToong said:

 

Not the UK mate, we would never have been conquered 

You put up a good fight. But remember you also had 1 million Canadians helping.

Churchill was the person who was happy after Pearl Harbor.

[Docno]

2 minutes ago, bark said:

You cannot fight without, bullets, bombs, tanks, etc etc. USA provided all. You put up a good fight; but you would have lost

if it wasn't for the USA. And they entered the war, to help the Allies. If not, enjoy the German food.

 

Wow - you gave money/resources while your (later-to-be) allies shed blood, and only entered the war when you were yourself attacked. Did you know that Britain made its last repayment just 10 years ago? Thanks for your 'service'...

 

Now let me give you a parable to help you understand your nation's contribution. A little guy stands up to a big bully on a playground. It's a nasty fight. You stand on the sidelines and cheer on the little guy who's your friend. But that's all you really do. The fight goes on, with both of them getting more and more exhausted. 30 minutes after it's started, you decide to join the fight because the bully does something to offend you personally. With you now in the fight, the tide changes and the bully ultimately loses another 30 minutes later. You do a victory lap because, in your mind, you won the fight... ignoring the first half where your friend grinded the bully down at great sacrifice to himself. Not very graceful.   

  

[bark]

1 minute ago, Docno said:

 

Wow - you gave money/resources while your (later-to-be) allies shed blood, and only entered the war when you were yourself attacked. Did you know that Britain made its last repayment just 10 years ago? Thanks for your 'service'...

 

Now let me give you a parable to help you understand your nation's contribution. A little guy stands up to a big bully on a playground. It's a nasty fight. You stand on the sidelines and cheer on the little guy who's your friend. But that's all you really do. The fight goes on, with both of them getting more and more exhausted. 30 minutes after it's started, you decide to join the fight because the bully does something to offend you personally. With you now in the fight, the tide changes and the bully ultimately loses another 30 minutes later. You do a victory lap because, in your mind, you won the fight... ignoring the first half where your friend grinded the bully down at great sacrifice to himself. Not very graceful.   

  

England, France, Canada, Aussie, New Zealand, Poland,Spain,India, vs Germany. 

Same as 8 Thai men vs 1 Farang.

 

[Docno]

14 minutes ago, BoonToong said:

 

Oh, I think regular, widespread and frequent genocide was already going on for hundreds of years, long before the US 'invaded' 

 

If you're North American, like I am, you may want to tread softly with those genocide arguments ... or at least first sit down and have a conversation with a native American. Anyway, I'm not sure what genocide has to do with this... can you explain?

[Docno]

3 minutes ago, bark said:

England, France, Canada, Aussie, New Zealand, Poland,Spain,India, vs Germany. 

Same as 8 Thai men vs 1 Farang.

 

Wow - you really do need to learn your history! Spain was neutral, but provided materiel to the Nazis (you do know the Nazis helped Franco in the civil war, right?); they certainly weren't on the side of the Allies!  Poland and France were taken out of action in the first months of the war -- they were not really a factor (though their soldiers made honorable contributions).  Australia and Canada had small populations, but punched above their weight. Finally, the Germans were not alone... that's why it was called the Axis.  

[bark]

2 minutes ago, Docno said:

Wow - you really do need to learn your history! Spain was neutral, but provided materiel to the Nazis (you do know the Nazis helped Franco in the civil war, right?); they certainly weren't on the side of the Allies!  Poland and France were taken out of action in the first months of the war -- they were not really a factor (though their soldiers made honorable contributions).  Australia and Canada had small populations, but punched above their weight. Finally, the Germans were not alone... that's why it was called the Axis.  

Italy the same as France, nothing.

Canada sent 1 million guys !

Japan, fought China, and the States.

The USA fought on two fronts. Europe and the Pacific; and won them both.

After, VE Day how many Allies went to help the States  defeat Japan ?

Listen, you tried your best, but it would only be a matter of time; before you would have surrendered.

Then you would have had to fight underground; hit and run missions.

Churchill should have been American. Tough as nails. Cuban cigars.

 

[BoonToong]

9 hours ago, Docno said:

If you're North American, like I am, you may want to tread softly with those genocide arguments ... or at least first sit down and have a conversation with a native American. Anyway, I'm not sure what genocide has to do with this... can you explain?

 

Kurds in Northern Iraq in the 80's immediately springs to mind.

[BoonToong]

9 hours ago, bark said:

England, France, Canada, Aussie, New Zealand, Poland,Spain,India, vs Germany. 

Same as 8 Thai men vs 1 Farang.

 

 

I think there were a few Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, West Indians, Africans, Arabs (yes, Arabs), Singaporeans, Tibetans and Malaysians who served alongside those brave Englishmen. 

 

I believe Russia also entered the war before the US did, helping soften the German axis before the US got involved.

[bark]

11 hours ago, Docno said:

Wow - you really do need to learn your history! Spain was neutral, but provided materiel to the Nazis (you do know the Nazis helped Franco in the civil war, right?); they certainly weren't on the side of the Allies!  Poland and France were taken out of action in the first months of the war -- they were not really a factor (though their soldiers made honorable contributions).  Australia and Canada had small populations, but punched above their weight. Finally, the Germans were not alone... that's why it was called the Axis.  

uSa usA usa Usa USa USA.

[Docno]

2 hours ago, bark said:

uSa usA usa Usa USa USA.

Geez - there's no Trump rally near your high school where you can get that out of your system?

[Docno]

13 hours ago, bark said:

Italy the same as France, nothing.

Canada sent 1 million guys !

Japan, fought China, and the States.

The USA fought on two fronts. Europe and the Pacific; and won them both.

After, VE Day how many Allies went to help the States  defeat Japan ?

Listen, you tried your best, but it would only be a matter of time; before you would have surrendered.

Then you would have had to fight underground; hit and run missions.

Churchill should have been American. Tough as nails. Cuban cigars.

 

Your reading assignment for December:

• British battles against the Japanese in Burma
• Australian battles against the Japanese in Papua

So no, the US was not the only combatant to fight two enemies on two fronts. But yes, it was the last major combatant to enter the war, and it's homeland was safe from attack. This last point is a huge advantage other countries didn't have. Imagine trying to prosecute a war when the enemy can blast your factories to hell every night...

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.