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.

 

Iraqi general killed by US at checkpoint.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Don' think that I understand how folks can make such derogatory and ill-informed pronouncements like those from OOPS and a few others. If you haven't been there, I don't understand how you can come across in such an asinine manner...

If you have been there, I don't understand how you can come across in such an asinine manner.

Might be interesting to get the facts.

But then, that might be denying ignorance, in some fashion, and some of us wouldn't like that, in all probablility.




posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepesI have respected your discussions and post in other topics, but please refrain from making such silly opinions that are prone to offend certain people.


I see your point, I'll tone it down eh...

Uh yah my Aunt is in the guard and she isn't a brainwashed killer. I guess most of the brainwashed killers go into covert operation units huh...
They are out there though...Brits got them too. The cut off the male genetils of they war dead and stick them in the mouth then write grose epithats on their body with their knives...Oh, they were taught this, hence 'brainwashed'...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

They are out there though...Brits got them too. The cut off the male genetils of they war dead and stick them in the mouth then write grose epithats on their body with their knives...Oh, they were taught this, hence 'brainwashed'...



Not sure this is ever TAUGHT. It's normally a rare occurrence. It's a partly understandable reaction to being shot at, seeing lots of blood & gore. After a bit such actions don't seem so extreme. When these incidents happen those involved are often shocked afterwards they were ever involved. So not taught.

Sometimes it's done for a reason (counter-insurgency etc.) but it's usually counter-productive as it breeds retaliation

Where it's allowed and passes without comment (Vietnam etc) it is indicative of a poorly-led army who have forgotten the rules of war and haven't awarded the enemy soldier the basic respect a fellow soldier deserves.

It happens in all armies. It's the extent & frequency of it happening that's the issue. All armies denegrate their opponents prior to training. Once they're no longer a threat they become, again, human beings.

Armies where such abuse is widely tolerated tend to be poor in the field.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
From a related story, CNN reported this afternoon that 4 Iraqi soldiers were killed at a checkpoint by a suicide (homicide) bomber. No link yet; there may never be, it is such a common experience.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
ctid56092:
In response to your comment about the american army being piss poor and how the british military would have an investigation and conviction after an incident like this; the U.S. Army would do the same thing. Believe me just because you don't hear about it doesnt mean it didnt happen. If you only knew the amount of punishment handed down for a simple incident such as bending the door on a shelter on the back of a humvee then you wouldnt say such comments. Have you ever served in the United States military? I dont understand how ppl on this site pass judgement off on ppl and situations when you arent close enough to the situation. Also OOPs I joined the military to serve my country not Bush. I disagree with some of Bush's policies and other ideas but that has nothing to do with my service. I choose to serve to keep the country safe and strong. And before you say how are you keeping the country safe by invading an innocent country i say this: just by enlisting i am keeping the country safe and doing my part.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
No I haven't. And luckily I've never been on the end of your inhuman tactics - no effort, no risk but excessive fire-power - with resulting civilian 'collateral damage'. I've seen your troops in the field though and they're crap. Pre-GW1 your generals admitted it wasn't safe to conduct live-fire exercises as your small unit tactics / fire discipline weren't good enough to prevent loads of blue on blue casualties.

Interesting I talk about killing innocent people, and you talk about damaging Uncle Sam's property. Are you sure your priorities are correct?

As the Aussies showed in Vietnam, and the Brits are showing in Iraq your army are weak in technique, effort and leadership.

It's not the fault of your individual troops - poor buggers - they're just part of a very poor army.

Never mind the SS/IDF rate your way of doing things - they can't afford not to.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
ctid can you cite one war where there wasnt civilian casualties, to my recollection there isnt so why do you insist on making the current number of casualties out to seem like it is a rarity? If youll notice a good number of the civilian casualties in Iraq are not caused by the u.s. military instead look no farther then the numerous suicide bombings. But then again that would be too easy of an answer. im not saying that the united states hasnt caused casualities.
About the comment you made regarding the military equipment over lives if you look at the context in which i posed my comment you would realize i wasnt putting the equipment over the lives of anyone.....civilian or military. I made it regarding your comment that the u.s. doesnt bring action against those who deserve it. Please read my comments and understand them before asking me a question about my priorities.
I love the comment about the British and Aussies being better then the u.s army since i didnt anything about us being better but ok ill address it. I disagree wholeheartedly. You appearently underestimate the power and ability of the us military. Can you get this understanding from the current war in Iraq hell no! How can you judge the true ability of military force on ability to counter guerilla warfare? Can we say that the british army was a poor war in the war on independence when portions of it were handled by guerilla warfare? No i dont think so. I have nothing against the British military as a matter of fact i have nothing but the utmost respect for them. They are doing a hell of a job in the Middle East.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
TTIP - No I can't. Casualties, military and civilian, are an inevitable by-product of war. That's why it should only be the last resort option. Once you decide to go to war it should be fought as efficiently, quickly, violently, yet humanely as possible.

I'm not happy about people killed during the invasion phase but it's inevitable when you're fighting an army opponent - no excuse for inhumanity though.

There is a common thread in US wars - an over-reliance on fire-power & tech, poor tactics, unwillingness to 'get out on your boots', shoot first - think later. This happened in WW2, Vietnam, GW1 and GW2.
US killed more British Soldiers in GW1 than the Iraqis. ANG mainly but still US forces - this tends to make us cynical. It's a combination of poor navigation, poor tactics, poor leadership and a lack of repect for your opponent.

Like I said I've served in the British Army, seen the US army in the field so I can make a direct comparison and it isn't favourable. You have great kit, some great troops and I don't think they're psychotic killers (see my response to 00PS' thread). Man for man I'm not critising their bravery or their self-belief - just your military system.

But everytime your guys kill an Iraqi (friendly) soldier / policeman, a Bulgarian soldier , a Brit soldier / airman it's NEVER their fault. They're cleared of all blame within 12/24 hrs - I can only assume there hasn't been a proper investigation and therefore assume it's not important to your Govt.

I'm sure bending a door is taken seriously (it is in the British Army too). I appreciate Iraqis don't cost anything but we'd take a deliberate / unwarranted killing of a non-threat civvy / surrendering opposition soldier very, very seriously (you show it on TV - in slo-mo); much more so than a door and would never come to such a rapid conclusion as your Army does.

The world sees your TV, hears your generals says killing is fun and draws its own conclusions.

re Redcoats - irrelevant

Re insurgent bombers - no they're not nice people obviously. You should aim to be better than them not less-bad



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
We still need more facts yall. Still it sounds like the dude should have known much better. A simple phone call "hey Im working late and Ill be through after curfew". Why he and the Italians just automatically presumed we knew it was them is beyond me. Of course we lit em up and were going to continue to do so. I know it sounds cold but its Iraq for chrissakes.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
CTID your nuts. Im not even going to argue. Youve gone off topic and are going out of your way to insult someone who seems to really be trying to have an intellegent conversation. Notice the black band yet? Youre not helping. Somehow defending yourself against suicide bombers translates into cutting off their ...... and shoving it in their mouths. Im pretty offended. We are on a public board. If the topic was about such disgusting acts itd be different but were not.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
You can call iraqis insurgents all you want but the fact is that they are a RESISTANCE to an occupation.And that resistance is growing.Maybe the censorship in america is so strong that you still think they like you.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonofSpy
CTID your nuts. Im not even going to argue. Youve gone off topic and are going out of your way to insult someone who seems to really be trying to have an intellegent conversation. Notice the black band yet? Youre not helping. Somehow defending yourself against suicide bombers translates into cutting off their ...... and shoving it in their mouths. Im pretty offended. We are on a public board. If the topic was about such disgusting acts itd be different but were not.



Please point out where I mentioned "into cutting off their ...... and shoving it in their mouths" that wasn't me.

If you're (your) going to argue with me at least make it relevant.
I haven't insulted anyone - just pointed out your army is a. poor b. given a free rein c. never ever expected to show some restraint.
If your (you're) mind is so closed that any criticism of US forces is taken as a personal insult then you're going to get very upset over the coming months.

The post's about poor fire discipline, shooting your allies, blue on blue - please re-read it.

All the points I've made are related to that subject.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
SonOfSpy

"Its Iraq, of course we shoot at everything"

We've noticed



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
In order to keep the reports at a minimum let's only report stuff that makes it THROUGH a US check point... like that Italian Journalist!



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pretorian03
You can call iraqis insurgents all you want but the fact is that they are a RESISTANCE to an occupation.And that resistance is growing.Maybe the censorship in america is so strong that you still think they like you.

The "insurgency" must include all outside elements killing innocent civilians in Iraq. And what is al Qaeda's vested interest in Iraq? They regulary claim responsibility for murdering civilians. Maybe someone can explain that one to me.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The "insurgency" must include all outside elements killing innocent civilians in Iraq. And what is al Qaeda's vested interest in Iraq? They regulary claim responsibility for murdering civilians. Maybe someone can explain that one to me.

Insurgency consists of outside and inside resistance elements. It is a tribal war. The history of power struggle between Sunni and Shi'a goes back into the 9 century AD. That is nothing new. Brother is killing His Brother almost from the beginning of time. That is our glorious Human Nature we can not escape. And wars are a big part of it. A power struggle. And in all wars the people who suffer the most are: the innocent civilians.

So, please enlighten me, why is it when US troops kill innocent civilians that is called friendly fire? Or an accident? Or an isolated incident? Or collateral damage? Or a mistake?

And never a murder?

[edit on 20/3/05 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
If it is intentional and unprovoked, it is a murder. I never said it wasn't. Now answer my question: what vested interest does al Qaeda have in murdering innocent civilians in Iraq? Remember, they proudly claim responsibility for it.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
If it is intentional and unprovoked, it is a murder. I never said it wasn't. Now answer my question: what vested interest does al Qaeda have in murdering innocent civilians in Iraq? Remember, they proudly claim responsibility for it.

Thats a good question.

What really IS Al Qaeda?

I have some more:

Where are their leaders?

Why are not they caught yet, since they were "responsible" for the 9-11?


Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims. In the mid-1980s, Osama bin Laden became the prime financier for an organization that recruited Muslims from mosques around the world. These "Afghan Arab" mujahideen, which numbered in the thousands, were helped by the CIA, and were crucial in defeating Soviet forces.


"There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas and who will use the techniques of mass terror — the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organization waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy."



Al Qaeda is just Bush's boogey-man. You cant hunt IT down. You cant destroy IT. You cant fight IT.

You can start wars fighting it, and wars are good for money. Just like Cold War. Its all about two things: Money and Business. The Cold War was great for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan. War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people.

So to answer your question,
What vested interest does al Qaeda have in murdering innocent civilians in Iraq?

Same interest as the US have.
I am sorry to tell you, but you are the Same as the enemy you are chasing.
Both sides kill civilians. Call it murder, accident, mistake, whatever. Both sought to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power.

Who is Right and who is Wrong here?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The quote was by oops not you and I apologize. I got pretty hot when he brought it up and you seemed to be agreeing. I still havnt heard much more on the incident. OOPS if you read this Im still pretty offended. So many US/coalition troops have been killed at checkpoints Im suprised the "accidental death" number isnt ten times higher. CTID I have nothing but respect for the British military. The combination of US/British troops makes the most effective combat units on earth.
Still lets try to remember that a car approaching a checkpoint after curfew and apparently not stopping does not translate into cutting off ones ...... and shoving it in their mouths. Way to rant and way to go waaay off topic...



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I would think logically that a real suicide bomber would be as careful as possible and obey the checkpoint rules for one simple reason....what good is a bomb if you can't get near the checkpoint? it would seem to be common knowledge that if you speed recklessly towards a checkpoint, you won't even get close in most cases....i'm not sure if they keep those kinds of stats but I would imagine them to indicate that a good majority of the suicide bombers followed protocol until the last minute so as to maximize the lethality of the bomb and its range....just my opinion, not trying to offend anyone



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join