Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in world dropped on Afghanistan

Dubh Linn

Yourself isit wrote: »

It was bigger than hiroshima

I strongly doubt that he, the governor, ever saw Hiroshima.

It really should be Damascus that Trump should be bombing, like when the missiles hit Baghdad in 2003, toppling Saddam Hussein's bloody regime and plunging the country into even more chaos.

And there was me thinking that the US were over and done with in terms of Afghanistan...

Sofiztikated

ilkhanid wrote: »

You do know that the Coalition forces are working with the Afghan authorities, so that comparison is bonkers? For all we know the local Afgan people may be delighted to see IS blown up with such ferocity. Even the Taliban, of all people. are fighting with them. If IS are behaving the way they behave everywhere else, them they have the local population terrorised.

The Taliban condemned the use of the bomb, saying in a statement, "Using this massive bomb cannot be justified and will leave a material and psychological impact on our people."

Apparently killed 36 combatants. Out of an estimated 600-800 in Afghanistan.

Dubh Linn

Yes, the Taliban either can't stand ISIS's brutality or they just want their territory back.

In a place like Nangarhar province, where the strike on the cave system happened, which is near the Afghan-Pakistani border, fighting would be rife and the tensions would be very high all the time. Infighting between local tribes, Taliban or IS.

The BBC is now reporting that 'dozens' of people are now dead in the airstrike.

ilkhanid

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The Taliban condemned the use of the bomb, saying in a statement, "Using this massive bomb cannot be justified and will leave a material and psychological impact on our people."

Apparently killed 36 combatants. Out of an estimated 600-800 in Afghanistan.

The Taliban condemned it :eek:. You'd have to listen to reputable people like them. And what hypocrites! What about the impact their terror has had on the people of Afghanistan over decades? It's laughable that a group that once murdered 5-6 thousand people and shot women in the head before crowds of people is suddenly squeamish about the loss of life.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Yeah I don't like isis either. Although the US seem OK with them in Syria. However I don't think that bombs of this magnitude can differentiate between civilians and isis

OK? Is that the same Syria where US-backed Kurdish forces are preparing to attack IS-held Raqqa? And where the USAF constantly bombs Islamic state?
Are you posting from some alternate Universe?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Isn't this kind of bomb no different - except in magnitude - to barrel bombs? Effectively unguided munitions. If assad drops barrel bombs on areas riddled with Al nusra, Al Queda, or isis he's accuses of bombing his own people, the US is heroic when it does it.

Assad drops barrel bombs in towns. This took place in a cave complex in the countryside. Very likely it was discharged in such a way as to impact inside the complex.

Dubh Linn

This latest airstrike just exposes that IS holds more territory than you think.

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

It's your hypocrisy that's on display. Assad bombs civilian areas to get terrorists = evil. The US does it = good.

Assad uses chemical weapons gets cheered by randomer's on the internet,
Then cry when America stops them

Mickeroo

Yourself isit wrote: »

It was bigger than hiroshima

Anything I've seen says it was over 1000 times less powerful (not that I know much about bomb outputs)

Yourself isit

ilkhanid wrote: »

The Taliban condemned it :eek:. You'd have to listen to reputable people like them.



OK? Is that the same Syria where US-backed Kurdish forces are preparing to attack IS-held Raqqa? And where the USAF constantly bombs Islamic state?
Are you posting from some alternate Universe?

Isis grew to its size in Syria under the US air shield. It was Russian intervention that started their decline. And to a certain extent public opinion in the West. The US remains allied with Al nusra - which is basically Al Queda.

Assad drops barrel bombs in towns. This took place in a cave complex in the countryside. Very likely it was discharged in such a way as to impact inside the complex.

Sure because the Americans are so extremely moral. I wonder though what if a dictator or Russia had used the exact same bomb in the exact area. What woukd the reaction be? Probably regime change.

Gatling

The current odd situation in Afghanistan is Iran and russia trying to sit down with the Taliban , like russia didn't do enough damage in Afghanistan for those with short memories or are to young to remember

keeponhurling

Dubh Linn wrote: »

The governor of the province said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.

If he actually said that he had seen bigger, I'd be very curious to know where and when

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

Assad uses chemical weapons gets cheered by randomer's on the internet,
Then cry when America stops them

We doubt that he did it. Keep mispresening my posts and I will report you.

And we are all randomers on the Internet. You more than most since, unlike me, you seem to have all day to post.

The fact is you are happy with bombs that kill civilians provided the yanks do the killings. Team America.

Gatling

keeponhurling wrote: »

If he actually said that he had seen bigger, I'd be very curious to know where and when

Probably the nuke that was set off in Yemen been discussed at one point

soups05

keeponhurling wrote: »

If he actually said that he had seen bigger, I'd be very curious to know where and when

here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC1Qob27sM&ab_channel=PerfectCode

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

We

There is no we in I





(Unless )

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

The current odd situation in Afghanistan is Iran and russia trying to sit down with the Taliban , like russia didn't do enough damage in Afghanistan for those with short memories or are to young to remember

The Russians did that damage decades ago. The US is in the 16th year of a war there. Oh and it was US involvement in the support of Islamic "freedom fighters" that help ignite the Islamist craze. This is a method of operation they have applied to this day as they fund "moderate" (in reality extreme Islamist) rebels in Syria.

XsApollo

Gatling wrote: »

The current odd situation in Afghanistan is Iran and russia trying to sit down with the Taliban , like russia didn't do enough damage in Afghanistan for those with short memories or are to young to remember

And what exactly did the US do when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, or have you forgotten.
They armed ,trained and funded the mujahedeen who then turned into the taliban.

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

There is no we in I





(Unless )

We meaning the posters opposed to your Team America **** Yeh position.

Gatling

XsApollo wrote: »

They armed ,trained and funded the mujahedeen who then turned into the taliban.

The Mujaheddin didn't​ turn into the Taliban badly misinformed ,
The Taliban is a totally separate group most of the Mujaheddin became the northern alliance.

What's next America trained bin laden

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

We.

I






Anyway your spoiling a happy thread

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

The Mujaheddin didn't​ turn into the Taliban badly misinformed ,
The Taliban is a totally separate group most of the Mujaheddin became the northern alliance.

What's next America trained bin laden

Eh. They funded Osama bin laden. He was one of their main guys. In fact that's when the US Saudi alliance began.

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

I






Anyway your spoiling a happy thread

Can you try make some kind of sense?

Gatling

Yourself isit wrote: »

Eh. They funded Osama bin laden. He was one of their main guys. In fact

Bahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhhaaaa


Stop lol

ilkhanid

Yourself isit wrote: »

Isis grew to its size in Syria under the US air shield. It was Russian intervention that started their decline. And to a certain extent public opinion in the West. The US remains allied with Al nusra - which is basically Al Queda.

More conspiraloon BS. I remember that any time the USAF bombed in Syria, there were people moaning about the infringement of Syria's sovereignty. Can't have it both ways. Bomb-whinge. Don't bomb-whinge.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sure because the Americans are so extremely moral. I wonder though what if a dictator or Russia had used the exact same bomb in the exact area. What would the reaction be? Probably regime change.

They wouldn't have to very moral to be more moral than Putin.

XsApollo wrote: »

And what exactly did the US do when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, or have you forgotten.
They armed ,trained and funded the mujahedeen who then turned into the taliban.

How many times does this canard have to be stamped on? The Americans funded many groups, but it was the Pakistanis that oversaw the disbursement of the funds and they made sure most of the money went to groups that controlled (or thought they controlled).
There was no direct line of sucession from any resistance group to the Taliban. They were a group of ..ah, "religious students" that fled to Pakistan in the chaos after the Soviet departure and were trained by the Pakistanis to be their puppet in Afghanistan.

mikeoneilly wrote: »

More will take their place

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

...hardly merits a bomb like this surely. Something that will live on in ISIL lore, something that will recruit thousands.

Can we knock this sloppy nonsense on the head. please? You'd think we were dealing with the Alien:
" It’s got a wonderful defense mechanism: you don’t dare kill it."
We keep hearing this stuff about how if you kill them more will be inspired to take their place. In Syria and Iraq, before the fightback started,there were thousands of eager recruits rushing to join Daesh from scores of countries all over the world, even Ireland. So don't kill them-loads of recruits; kill them-loads of recruits. In fact since IS began to lose ground recruitment has slowed to a trickle. Many of those who were'nt killed have returned home. In reality, as they say "Nothing succeeds like sucess". The failure of the supposed Caliphate has disillusioned and discouraged many would-be recruits. If they fail in Afghanistan, like they failed in Libya and are failing in Syria and Iraq,their prestige and attractiveness will be damaged.

XsApollo

Gatling wrote: »

The Mujaheddin didn't​ turn into the Taliban badly misinformed ,
The Taliban is a totally separate group most of the Mujaheddin became the northern alliance.

What's next America trained bin laden

The guy who formed the taliban was a mujahideen.
Was trained and funded by the US.
There's no misinformation.

Gatling

XsApollo wrote: »

The guy who formed the taliban was a mujahideen.

And he wasn't funded or trained by the US

XsApollo

Gatling wrote: »

And he wasn't funded or trained by the US

Yes he was

Elmer Blooker

Yourself isit wrote: »

Sure because the Americans are so extremely moral. I wonder though what if a dictator or Russia had used the exact same bomb in the exact area. What woukd the reaction be? Probably regime change.

Sanctions, more sanctions, even more sanctions.
Pictures of babies, calls for a UN Security Council meeting, a UN SC meeting with pictures of babies, an indiscriminate terror bomb, even more pictures of babies, pictures of selfless aid workers with babies of course, "doctors" interviewed on RTE every five minutes, Guardian journalists interviewed on RTE every five minutes.... did I mention pictures of babies?

Gatling

XsApollo wrote: »

Yes he was

Sorry your wrong ,

Mullah Omar who founded the Taliban wasn't trained or funded by the US ,he wasn't even credited with fighting the Soviets , what was the claim ohh yeah he single handedly destroyed hundreds of Soviets tanks with a WW1 /2 bolt action rifle .

Comically

The_Valeyard

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry your wrong ,

Mullah Omar who founded the Taliban wasn't trained or funded by the US ,he wasn't even credited with fighting the Soviets , what was the claim ohh yeah he single handedly destroyed hundreds of Soviets tanks with a WW1 /2 bolt action rifle .

Comically

I also liked Rambo 3.

ilkhanid

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Sanctions, more sanctions, even more sanctions.
Pictures of babies, calls for a UN Security Council meeting, a UN SC meeting with pictures of babies, an indiscriminate terror bomb, even more pictures of babies, pictures of selfless aid workers with babies of course, "doctors" interviewed on RTE every five minutes, Guardian journalists interviewed on RTE every five minutes.... did I mention pictures of babies?

Are there likely to be babies in IS-controlled caves?
In the unlilely eventuality there are, then it's because IS combatants brough their own families into the caves. In that case their deaths are on them.

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is ture....but I'd you start saying 5 or 6 innocents is ok
Next is 10-20...where do you stop?

I understand your point,but this isn't a problem unique to Afghanistan, it's one that is present in all wars everywhere and there are no easy answers or simple solutions (like many on Boards seem to think). It really comes down to a matter of judgement. How many innocents have to be sacrificed to win a righteous conflict? At some point the numbers become so appaling that people might think that the game isn't worth the candle. On the other hand, if one were to believe that no civilians can ever die, then no war or military enterprise could be even contemplated.
To use an obvious example how could the D-Day landings have been achieved without factoring in the deaths of a large number of French civilians? It couldn't. The fact is, most combatants give thought to this, weighing different factors in the balance. If the party is of a more ruthless type and is less aware of the value of human life, they will be more heedless of the human cost. Every party sees themselves as Good Guys who try to prevent needless loss of life. Take one party. the United States:they like to present themselves as a combatant that is scrupulous about civilian life to a high degree. (An example is the film "Eye in the sky") But the reality is doubtless different. Even if some are scrupulous, others are not:careless, indifferent, callous. On the other hand we get posters like yourself isit that represent the US as composed of bloodthirsty sociopaths that don't give a curse about the deaths of civilians and probably chuckle when they see destruction. Equally far from the truth.
On balance, it's reasonable to assert that states with a history of devaluing human life or a history of brutal-and brutalising-wars for their very existence,like Russia, China and Israel will be less careful, and democracies with a free press will be more so.

Gringo180 wrote: »

But its only the sub human Afghanistan civilians that will be murdered.

See above. 800 civilians died in the battle for Caen in 1944. Do you imagine that the Allies (that included French forces too, remember) saw the people of Caen as "sub-human". Were they "murdered"?