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.

 

304 U.S. soldiers ordered killed by Pentagon in Iraq ???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



why wouldnt a army official remove an unwanted hassle..


They don't kill the unwanted hassle, they reassign them or discharge them, much easier than trying to cover up a boatload of murders.


... the point of removing a hassle is so they cant speak up, if u force someone to resign, or leave the army they would probably leave with even MORE a grudge to speak out about whats happening.

And the point of it is, they wont have to COVER up a boat load of murders.. just say hey its a tragedy of war

[edit on 8-4-2005 by GlobalDisorder]




posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I saw the headline of this thread and blinked- (over a million 400 thousand Google hits on this story!)

I read the story and twisted it a bit- 'sent home to their families' well, that's true enough. As pointed out by others the helo crashes and the like.

Then I put on my tin-foil hat.

Would this be the first time the U.S. Military killed its own soldiers? IF this happened would it be the first time?

    WWII and immediately after, N-tests tests in New Mexico and Nevada, military were used to test effects!

    Add some of these together (4 + 18 allies) friendly fire

    700 Americans killed in Britain (WW II)

    Observer The accounts of those present that day indicate that, as thousands of GIs swarmed ashore from landing craft, they were cut down by bullets fired by comrades playing the role of German defenders, who had for some reason been given live ammunition.


    Master of deception, Gen Tony Franks

    BBC
    The disclosure was part of a report released by the Pentagon into 10 cases of possible "friendly fire" incidents, civilian casualties and damage to property since US troops invaded Afghanistan nearly six months ago

This is a brief list only. Friendly fire? Troublemakers? Maybe if all were added up since the beginning of the Afghan war it might surpass 300.

Let us not forget the convoy that mutineed:
MSNBC
Time
Positaria

How many of those and like soldiers 'caught one' before going stateside?
.

.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Once again i read with disbelief that the army has killed MORE of its own troops.....so whats the suprise..in whatever war where the usa has involment they always kill more of their own then the enemy..and if not their own they kill their allies...anyone recall the incident in which a us helicopter pilot killed 57 british infantry after MISTAKING their 2 personal carriers for iraqi in the first war for oil in 91 !!!!!....who gave this man a licence to fly....he deserves to drive a #ing combat byclcle MAYBE!!



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972
...anyone recall the incident in which a us helicopter pilot killed 57 british infantry after MISTAKING their 2 personal carriers for iraqi in the first war for oil in 91 !!!!!....who gave this man a licence to fly....he deserves to drive a #ing combat byclcle MAYBE!!


They think they are playing a videogame.



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Exaggerated, for sure. Out of the question? No way. The US Government is prepared to go to great lengths to protect its interests against all foes, foreign and domestic, wherever they are. It is a shame that they can't be trusted not to sanction one of their own in such a manner.

There are always perceived traitors, and malingerers in the mix. It is a matter of honor (or dishonor) how they are handled. Some, and I think Pat Tillman may have been one of these, are free thinkers who simply don't agree and won't go along with what they see happening over there and in Afghanistan. They can't be formally charged or transferred, and they must be silenced to protect the cause.

Going public with every instance of failure to perform to spec would be an embarrassment to the effort, and could end up further eroding support in a nation already skeptical of its government's motives in Iraq, and a President with the lowest approval rating of any second termer ever.

You think the people responsible for implementing the plan aren't feeling the pressure at the Pentagon? You think there aren't some senior officers in the field who care more about their men than they do about some pencil-pushing desk jockey with a questionable agenda at the Pentagon? You think there aren't Iranian information officers waiting to jump on (or make up) and exploit any potential chink in the armor of the coalition, which they think has them next in their sights? This is a conflict on many levels, with good and evil interspersed on both sides. Everyone eventually will have to make up their own mind as to which side they're on.






posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I wanted to hit the depression/post traumatic stress disorder / mental illness angle for a second.

But first:

Why would that be sufficient motivation?

I know of at least NCOs who have expressed distaste with things they saw/did in Iraq. Got transferred home and have gone public stating their dissatisfaction with some things.

They were not silenced.


Why would the pentagon, if this article were true; why would they allow any voices of dissent to make it out alive?

That doesn't add up to me personally.



On the other issue, I think we should look at this from an economical perspective as well. Wars create vast numbers of depression and disorders related directly to negative experiences that are a common part of battle.

The cost of the U.S. Military to ensure the proper care and treatment of these individuals is rather high. Depending on the length of service, rank, and severity of the person's condition, much money can be spent on treatment for depression, PTSD, and other related illness.

I'm not saying this alone would be sufficient motivation, I'm simply saying that in some strange way, it could be advantageous to not have people with disorders around.

I had an Uncle with PTSD when I was a kid. Truly screwed up guy. They don't always last long on their own, however. He ended up eating a 12 ga. shotgun slug when I was a boy.

Sad what happens to some folks because of what they've seen or done.

Regardless of this article being true or not, let us not forget how many people come back from war zones with lives that are forever changed. Not just the vet you see missing an arm or a leg. There are scars that are carried that you can't see upon first glance.

I hope they get the care they deserve when all is said and done...


X



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join