It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TA-ATTACKS: Blast at US Mosul base kills 22

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Bastards ruined their chowtime...




posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Well, it is war and in war you die. It was a military base, therefore a potential target for the resistance.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It's sad and disturbing. Imagining 22 people wiped out from a rocket attack infront of you. Just like that cam footage of the US pilot targetting 30 Iraqis walking on the road and obliterating them with a rocket.

This just hits home for people because the victims are like you. While I wish this never happened, I do agree that it was a legitimate military target. No civilians massacred by a suicide bomber, no unarmed and hog tied contractors beheaded. Straight up attack on a military compound. Sad, but this is war I guess.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Can we fight a REAL war now, or not?
Big guns, Big Bombs, Big planes. Get it over with..
No more politically correct warfare.
Don't let these anti-democracy terrorist jerks ruin it for everybody.
Follow the Geneva Convention (if it applies, some cases, it does NOT).
And just friggin DO IT!

BOOM BOOM, dead terrorists..
Then, we can move on, and finish off Iran, Syria..etc....



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
War has few rules, and this type of war has less than usual. You can't blame the resistance for an attack like this. Put yourself in their position and you would do it too.

Who can you blame? How about a military that has had over 30 attacks like this so far and has been unable to stop them?

They are playing russian roulette with their soldiers lives. But then again, by sending men to war in unarmoured trucks they are doing the same thing, maybe you balance the cost against the risk and take a gamble.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt


Can we fight a REAL war now, or not?
Big guns, Big Bombs, Big planes. Get it over with..
No more politically correct warfare.
Don't let these anti-democracy terrorist jerks ruin it for everybody.
Follow the Geneva Convention (if it applies, some cases, it does NOT).
And just friggin DO IT!

BOOM BOOM, dead terrorists..
Then, we can move on, and finish off Iran, Syria..etc....



Spacedoubt, you must be either in space or in doubt, because that's a pretty nonsensical post. They do have big bombs and big planes. There hasn't been too much political correctness in leveling Falluja.

"BOOM BOOM, dead terrorists" can be expected frin a 3 year old.

And you want to "finish off" Syria (boy, what a mucho language) for what? Have they attacked the US? Or the comlete planet is just a US backyard?

Visions of grandeur from a spaced out armchair warrior.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Can we fight a REAL war now, or not?
Big guns, Big Bombs, Big planes. Get it over with..


They already did that in Fallujah.
They destroyed the city but it didn't stop the insurgency.
The fatalities for the month of the Fallujah assault and the month after the Fallujah assault are higher the the months before the assault.

Big guns and big bombs don't always solve the problems.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Death toll is rising: 26.

Has anyone defined adequately for ATS what an "insurgent" is? It was asked a while back.

Is the growth rate in numbers of US-hating terrorists higher than the rate of growth of US-hating insurgents? Does the homicidal attitude displayed by certain writers on this thread offer some real solution, or just an escalation of the problem?

I was not in the US in the 60s, but there came a point when intelligent people said "enough is enough" and took the government to task over its mess in Vietnam. The incumbent government of 2004 is more corrupt and more inept than its counterparts of four decades ago. All they rely on is lies amid the fear and loathing generated by the third in the neo-cons' "trifecta": the staged attacks of 9/11.

Yes, this is heavily political, and discussed widely at ATS as such, including whether the letters sent to the families of the soldiers amongst the dead will be signed by the incompetent who wrote them or whether the signature is fake.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Rumsfeld or somebody should be fired,the forces are obviously under trooped and under equiped ,it's just going to get worse not better ....it's makes me sad and it also makes me very angry and I'm canadian, I can't imagine how you americans feel. You have my sympathies.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   

as posted by MaskedAvatar
Has anyone defined adequately for ATS what an "insurgent" is? It was asked a while back.


This is a very good topic and one that should have a topic thread of its own. Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster Online describes a terrorist in relation with terrorism:


Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

M-W: terrorism

And an insurgent:


Main Entry: 1insurgent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

M-W: insurgent

Found a decent article discussing this:
What's an Insurgent? What's a Terrorist?


In another article located, On The Difference Between Murderers And Freedom Fighters, it is mentioned:


"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

There is no basis in law for this especially facile and shallow expression. The issue here is not one of subjective interpretation. On the contrary, there do exist precise and settled criteria that are readily available to distinguish the terrorist from the freedom fighter.

According to international law, any insurgent who intentionally causes the explosive incineration of men, women and children at lunch or at prayer or at a wedding ceremony or on a bus is a terrorist. Period.


and this:


The ends can never justify the means in international law. Never. Where the insurgent group resorts to unjust means, as in the case of exploding a public bus, its actions are unambiguously terroristic.

How shall we know precisely when insurgent means are just or unjust?

The determinable standards that must be applied in judgment are known in law as JUST CAUSE and JUST MEANS.

These standards, and these standards alone, allow us to differentiate lawful insurgency from terrorism.





seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thank you for your responses, and your insults. I expected that.

I guess I know what side you are on now.
You act as if we will be done, when Iraq is under some form of self control.
Iraq is a BATTLE, Afganistan was a BATTLE, in a bigger war.
That was SPELLED OUT for you, a couple of years ago, by the Twice elected president. Remember that? When we DO go into Syria, and Iran, will you be surprised and outraged then? Probably..



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Thank you for your responses, and your insults. I expected that.


Thank you. You are being reasonable in that.



I guess I know what side you are on now.


And what that would be?



You act as if we will be done, when Iraq is under some form of self control.


You see, if it is indeed self control, as opposed to some puppet regime, the US won't be allowed to stay there...



Iraq is a BATTLE, Afganistan was a BATTLE, in a bigger war.


You are dropping a heavy hint that it's the war against terror, I see. Tying Syria with Osama would be probably impossible... Can I bother you to invent a pretext for such attack? Oh, I guess the administration will just have to pile up even more lies... But I guess people will finally wake up.



That was SPELLED OUT for you, a couple of years ago, by the Twice elected president. Remember that?



I don't remember Dubya reading out the hit list.

Obviously, the American public starts wising up. Look at the Rummy ratings. At some point the patience will come to an end and the adventure will be over.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
Rumsfeld or somebody should be fired,the forces are obviously under trooped and under equiped ,it's just going to get worse not better ....it's makes me sad and it also makes me very angry and I'm canadian, I can't imagine how you americans feel. You have my sympathies.




the person responsible for an UNDEREQUIPPED military, is no longer a government employee. He did, HOWEVER, just open up a new library in Arkansas. If blame is to be thrown around, lets throw it in the right (or left) direction..



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
the person responsible for an UNDEREQUIPPED military, is no longer a government employee. He did, HOWEVER, just open up a new library in Arkansas. If blame is to be thrown around, lets throw it in the right (or left) direction..



Oh my sweet Lord... As much as I dislike Mr.Clinton, the allegation in the present context is ridiculous. There has been plenty of time for Rummy to plan. He went against his officer corps when he decided on the numbers and composition of troops, which we now know were insifficient.

Likewise, there was plenty of time to armour up the humvees.

Clinton doesn't have anything to do with these managerial and military planing failures.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   
"dubya's" hit list, simply put:
Nations that sponsor terrorism.

Not all terrorism is tied to Osama, BTW..
It's not called the War against Osama.

aye, I'm getting off topic...

Let's just say that we disagree on the semantics of this..
Which I think, is one of the reasons there is such a verbal conflict that
runs parallel to the ACTUAL war..
And it is causing us to fight this thing in a way that tries to answer
to both of those sides.
We need to fight, to WIN. not to please the detractors.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by spacedoubt
the person responsible for an UNDEREQUIPPED military, is no longer a government employee. He did, HOWEVER, just open up a new library in Arkansas. If blame is to be thrown around, lets throw it in the right (or left) direction..



Oh my sweet Lord... As much as I dislike Mr.Clinton, the allegation in the present context is ridiculous. There has been plenty of time for Rummy to plan. He went against his officer corps when he decided on the numbers and composition of troops, which we now know were insifficient.

Likewise, there was plenty of time to armour up the humvees.

Clinton doesn't have anything to do with these managerial and military planing failures.


Other than leaving a "bare cupboard" I guess you are right. Clinton preferred to have NOTHING to do with the Military.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
"dubya's" hit list, simply put:
Nations that sponsor terrorism.


That's a little vague. When was the last time Syrian sponsored groups wreaked havoc in the Western hemisphere?



Not all terrorism is tied to Osama, BTW..
It's not called the War against Osama.


But it is. I agree with you that it's not tied to OBL, but -- to sell a war to public Dubya needs a drama, and a face. And that's OBL's face. Not many Americans even know who the prez is in Syria, much less what he's up to.



We need to fight, to WIN. not to please the detractors.


The US cannot possibly pacify the totality of the Middle East with its vast population. OBL should hang, but at the same time the reasons for fostering terror should be addressed. Seriously, a 400k strong occupying force cannot remain there forever. That's lunacy.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
"dubya's" hit list, simply put:
Nations that sponsor terrorism.



So, when the truth is out, does Bush put the USA on his hit list?

The treason to come is no better or worse than the treason that has already transpired.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Your logic is ridiculous space doubt. This is Bush's 2nd term. 2nd!! And you are still trying to blame Clinton. Get over it kiddo. That's all you know how to do is pass the blame. Sure, use it during Bush's 1st term maybe, as it follows Clinton's exit. But this is Bush's 2nd friggin term. Take some responsibility for the current incompetence in the here and the now. Jeezuz...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
cargo,

We are attacked in 2001, we went to war, the same year.
I supose we should have waited until everything with the military was "just right"..Is that what you are saying?
when would that be? How would you know that things were just right?

Logic in your rearview mirror, otherwise known as hindsight.
Talk about logic, or lack thereof..!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join