Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped on Afghanistan

[Born To Slay 10,996]

8 hours ago, PartySick said:

Same. I'm not fighting for a country that constantly creates its own problems.

They (the government, military powers, and higher ups) created ISIS by taking the U.S. into places it shouldn't be. They can put their own boots on the ground and fight the war they started. Count me out.

Yeah, it seems to me that the war on terror has really been more of a war for our corporate interests. There's a reason we leave Saudi Arabia alone. 

Im not fighting for ****ing oil

[Luiz 4,253]

sorry if AP but this is a vid of the bomb

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aab_1492171759

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Update: 36 ISIS Militants and No Civilians Killed In U.S. Blast, Afghan Officials Say -- The Hill

@Cocaine Heart Let's wait for the facts before calling the US terrorists and saying that "innocent people live there". 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

Yeah, it seems to me that the war on terror has really been more of a war for our corporate interests. There's a reason we leave Saudi Arabia alone. 

Im not fighting for ****ing oil

What? We never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because of the oil.... those wars cost our economy billions of dollars......

How could we do it for corporate interests if we lost most on the wars? That literally makes no sense you're just making that up lol. We have WAY more oil in the US/Canada than they do in poor Mid East countries 

The reason we don't invade Saudi Arabia is about they're rich as hell and have a massive standing army... Please stop making things up 

[lego 44,165]

4 hours ago, LG said:

You guys  ZERO civilians were affected by this bomb. Half the people in this thread have no idea the consequences of letting terrorism fester, whoever created the group does not matter at this point, stopping them does.

im so glad the government doesn't pay attention to internet warriors

 

 

Affected? Are you on the field searching and talking to locals? There's no even independent investigation. Media is not interested.

So the bomb vaporized everything within a mile radius yet no civilians killed & US knows exactly how many terrorist killed? You needed 21000 pound bomb to kill 36 people? Wow, you really showed them. 

 

Those terrorists were also all barren and in celibacy so there's no way any women or children were hurt, right? 

Yes the members who are against airstrikes are "internet warriors", so funny. Is it fair to say that other half is bunch of war mongers, who are always so glad when their government bombs places like it's a video game, but then they wonder why terrorists hate us and trying to harm us, maybe we should ban all immigration.  

 

About no civilians being affected...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lego 44,165]

“The earth felt like a boat in a storm,” Shahzadah said. “I thought my house was being bombed. Last year a drone strike targeted a house next to mine, but this time it felt like the heavens were falling. The children and women were very scared.”

The bomb was dropped in the mountains close to Moman village in an area called Asadkhel. About 1.5 miles away, in Shaddle Bazar where Shahzadah lives, the impact was palpable.

“My ears were deaf for a while. My windows and doors are broken. There are cracks in the walls,” he said.

“We don’t know who was killed yesterday or this morning. But there is confusion and fear in the radio chats we are intercepting. There is limited communication among Isis fighters,” he said.

Some observers, however, questioned the necessity of deploying a weapon of that scale against a group whose estimated 600 to 800 fighters pose only a limited threat to the Afghan state.

“There is no doubt that Isis are brutal and that they have committed atrocities against our people. But I don’t see why the bomb was dropped,” said the mayor of Achin, Naweed Shinwari. “It terrorised our people. My relatives thought the end of the world had come. Every day fighter jets, helicopters and drones are in the area.”

The US had sustained an air campaign to eradicate Isis in eastern Afghanistan for more than a year, and according to Borhan Osman, an Isis expert with the Afghanistan Analysts Network, it had already been effective.

“Isis was on the brink of losing their stronghold. It didn’t seem like there was a need for such a dramatic military measure,” he said.

If the intention was to “shock and awe” Isis fighters and deter recruitment, Osman said he doubted it would be effective.

“Making such big news out of a small organisation, and countering this threat with such a huge measure could indeed make them look more attractive. One of the grounds on which Isis is building its recruitment drive is to say they are fighting the big enemy, the Americans.

“The more it can drive them to the battle, the more successful they are in recruiting anti-western radicals,” he said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/it-felt-like-the-heavens-were-falling-afghans-reel-from-moabs-impact?CMP=twt_gu

 

 

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

9 minutes ago, lego said:

Yes the members who are against airstrikes are "internet warriors", so funny. Is it fair to say that other half is bunch of war mongers, who are always so glad when their government bombs places like it's a video game, but then they wonder why terrorists hate us and trying to harm us, maybe we should ban all immigration.  

About no civilians being affected...

If/When the civilian numbers are reported then the next excuse will be but it's a small number people or compared to abc attack carried out it's an acceptable number, as we have seen in previous threads. 

 

[lego 44,165]

55 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

What? We never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because of the oil.... those wars cost our economy billions of dollars......

How could we do it for corporate interests if we lost most on the wars? That literally makes no sense you're just making that up lol. We have WAY more oil in the US/Canada than they do in poor Mid East countries 

The reason we don't invade Saudi Arabia is about they're rich as hell and have a massive standing army... Please stop making things up 

 

 

Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

 

Iraq is one of the largest oil exporters to the US, and has plans to raise its overall crude oil exports to 3.3m barrels per day (bpd) next year, compared with their target of 3m bpd this year, according to Assim Jihad, spokesman for Iraq's ministry of oil.

Jihad told Al Jazeera that Iraq has a goal of raising its oil production capacity to 12m bpd by 2017, which would place it in the top echelon of global producers.

According to Jihad, Iraq's 2013 production goal is 4.5m bpd, and in 2014 it is 5m bpd. The 2017 goal is ambitious, given that Iraq did not meet its 2011 goal, and many officials say 8m bpd capacity is more realistic for 2017.

Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100bn barrels, and Iraq's production costs are among the lowest in the world.

To date, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with roughly one million wells in Texas alone.

 

---

US and Britain wrangled over Iraq's oil in aftermath of war, Chilcot shows

The US and British governments fought bitterly over control of Iraq’s oil following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Chilcot papers show. Tony Blair seemed more concerned than the Americans about any invasion being seen by critics as a war for oil, telling them it would be very damaging if the two countries were seen to “grab Iraq’s oil”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/us-and-britain-wrangled-over-iraqs-oil-in-aftermath-of-war-chilcot-shows

[venusfly 17,885]

32 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

Affected? Are you on the field searching and talking to locals? There's no even independent investigation. Media is not interested.

So the bomb vaporized everything within a mile radius yet no civilians killed & US knows exactly how many terrorist killed? You needed 21000 pound bomb to kill 36 people? Wow, you really showed them. 

 

Those terrorists were also all barren and in celibacy so there's no way any women or children were hurt, right? 

Yes the members who are against airstrikes are "internet warriors", so funny. Is it fair to say that other half is bunch of war mongers, who are always so glad when their government bombs places like it's a video game, but then they wonder why terrorists hate us and trying to harm us, maybe we should ban all immigration.  

 

About no civilians being affected...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The large bomb was needed because it's a bunker buster.. it was designed to blow inwards to the ground to get rid of the underground bases rather than damage the area surrounding it.. the bomb did what it was designed for in the situation it was needed in..

what is your alternative to bombing IS? Walking out of the Middle East and letting them recapture the mass amount of land they were holding prior to them being countered? Their numbers are so slow right now BECAUSE of the action taken against them..

The civilians you're worried about are tortured and killed by IS either way, regardless of if bombs fall. The attacks on IS are proportional and appropriate to protecting the lives of the world in general. 

You're making ideological arguments about the origins of the conflict when they're not relevant at all and only serve to distract from the prevention of terrorism, the group you're so desperately trying to defend would kill you or torture you on sight if given the chance.. their ultimate goal is to wipe out life in the western world which is an achievable goal if they're allowed to fester to sizes that threaten the governance of countries they're in, which is incredibly easily in the disrupted middle east

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

I have mixed feelings on this. It was made already so it is not like we just payed $300 million yesterday, it was made years ago. It also targeted ISIS Underground Passageways and killed ISIS members. If we have it already why not use it on ISIS?  

[lego 44,165]

4 minutes ago, LG said:

The large bomb was needed because it's a bunker buster.. it was designed to blow inwards to the ground to get rid of the underground bases rather than damage the area surrounding it.. the bomb did what it was designed for in the situation it was needed in..

what is your alternative to bombing IS? Walking out of the Middle East and letting them recapture the mass amount of land they were holding prior to them being countered? Their numbers are so slow right now BECAUSE of the action taken against them..

The civilians you're worried about are tortured and killed by IS either way, regardless of if bombs fall. The attacks on IS are proportional and appropriate to protecting the lives of the world in general. 

 

 

You should work for Trump administration. 

"The civilians you're worried about are tortured and killed by IS anyway" is one of the worst excuses and idk how you see your bombs more civilized and humane. 

😐

 

[venusfly 17,885]

5 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

You should work for Trump administration. 

"The civilians you're worried about are tortured and killed by IS anyway" is one of the worst excuses and idk how you see your bombs more civilized and humane. 

😐

 

I'm a liberal lol. It's all fair enough if you object to the US bombing a country for political means and intervening in other countries for political reasons but it's entirely unjustifiable to condemn the bombing of terrorists that have the means to destabilise the entire world, especially when the country that owns the bombed land confirmed no civilian deaths. It's completely insane how you think allowing IS to grow and take over countries and have bombing capability is the better option. 

[lego 44,165]

Just now, LG said:

I'm a liberal lol. It's all fair enough if you object to the US bombing a country for political means and intervening in other countries for political reasons but it's entirely unjustifiable to condemn the bombing of terrorists that have the means to destabilise the entire world, especially when the country that owns the bombed land confirmed no civilian deaths. It's completely insane how you think allowing IS to grow and take over countries and have bombing capability is the better option. How insane do you have to be??

 

You sure make excuses like typical Trump supporter. You think dropping of "biggest non-nuclear bomb" was not done for political reasons?  Trump has a complex, he was just praised by the media for bombing Syria, he's a narcissist in need of more praise and adoration and he needs to distract everyone from talk about impeachment and RussiaGate.

Thanks for calling me insane btw, that surely straightened your argument.

If the bomb was designed to vaporize everything within mile, how is it possible to identify anything or anyone, let alone know exact number of the dead? Where is the independent investigation?

The number of terrorists was even lower than I thought, how on earth you think 800 people can take over a country like Afghanistan? Congrats tho, this bombing gave them more recruits, so you achieved nothing. Your big bomb allowed them to grow, maybe one day you'll understand that. 

 

[venusfly 17,885]

1 minute ago, lego said:

 

You sure make excuses like typical Trump supporter. You think dropping of "biggest non-nuclear bomb" was not done for political reasons?  Trump has a complex, he was just praised by the media for bombing Syria, he's a narcissist in need of more praise and adoration and he needs to distract everyone from talk about impeachment and RussiaGate.

Thanks for calling me insane btw, that surely straightened your argument.

If the bomb was designed to vaporize everything within mile, how is it possible to identify anything or anyone, let alone know exact number of the dead? Where is the independent investigation?

The number of terrorists was even lower than I thought, how on earth you think 800 people can take over a country like Afghanistan? Congrats tho, this bombing gave them more recruits, so you achieved nothing. Your big bomb allowed them to grow, maybe one day you'll understand that. 

 

I'm still waiting on you to give a better alternative than to let them just run their course through the country murdering everyone who bats an eye to them, real humane dude. 

Bombing IS resulting in more recruitment is a complete myth and has not been able to translate into actual statistics, recruitment of IS members overall has actually dwindled since the US began regular strikes on them.

Youre over exaggerating the power of the bomb, it doesn't vaporise things in the same way a nuclear bomb would. It's actually easy to estimate civilian deaths in events such as this, you don't get full bodies but you do get human 'material' to examine - this is investigated almost instantly after the bomb has passed so the country can evaluate the damage and report it, there has been no evidence that any civilians were harmed and it's been said time and time again the area was not even residential and had little to no civilians within harms distance anyway. You keep pushing these essential facts away like they're worth nothing or fake based on no credible counter information than 'there must have been something close !'

The specific bomb was used because this was its specific use case, to blow up deep underground structures, this is what it was built for and it just happens to be their most powerful non nuclear bomb, the media liked that term because it's more shocking.

Please enlighten me if you think IS killing masses of civilians throughout the Middle East and in the western world without any country intervening or doing anything to halt them from growing further is a better idea than doing strikes on areas guaranteed to weaken their group (and it has been proven time and time again that it works) with the least damage done to civilians as possible. However as I said in my previous posts in this thread IS interweave themselves into civilian areas to stop people from bombing them because they know that causes scandal and turns people like you against their own government. 

Nobody disagrees that the death of civilians is extremely upsetting and should be avoided at all costs but sometimes it is not avoidable, however this time it was avoided and you're still upset based on no valuable info.

[lego 44,165]

39 minutes ago, LG said:

You're making ideological arguments about the origins of the conflict when they're not relevant at all and only serve to distract from the prevention of terrorism, the group you're so desperately trying to defend would kill you or torture you on sight if given the chance.. their ultimate goal is to wipe out life in the western world which is an achievable goal if they're allowed to fester to sizes that threaten the governance of countries they're in, which is incredibly easily in the disrupted middle east

 

 

About this new edit.... Why is it not relevant who and what created this group? Because it doesn't suit your agenda? Because 15 years of "war on terror" created more WW terror and you don't want to admit the ugly truth? Being against airstrikes in the Middle East doesn't make a person defender of the terrorists, that is incredibly unfair and inaccurate. I care about the civilians in ME who are trapped under regime's, Russian and American bombs, while also being unwanted as refugees everywhere. 

You are the one justifying civilians deaths, as long as they are not Western and because "IS would torture them anyway" so the Western bombings are merciful? You are the one who said there won't be retaliation when it's clear to anyone who studied about radicalization why terror attacks happen in first place.