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.

 

Terrified US soldiers are still killing civilians with impunity, while the dead go uncounted

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   


No way in heck Americans would target other Americans to "repel" an occupier.


Then I think you are somewhat naive, no personal offense intended.

Were we invaded by a foreign enemy, personally I don't think I would have any moral qualms about targeting collaborators, Americans or not. Discouraging Quislings is an essential component of any successful resistance strategy.

Not that I think the Iraq insurgency is a real resistance anymore. I think it has fragmented, with the players becoming parties in a civil war.

I believe this is due to Sunni fanatics like Zarquawi, locals as well as the "foreign fighters" contingent, who see Iraq not only as a chance to attack the US, but as an opportunity to fight the hated Shiites, who they see as apostates.

dirk d,
I think you are right on the money.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by xmotex]




posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
To xmotex: Im thinkin this idea of a civil war is great. The problem here is that we(CIA) started this war in the 60s. Its no serect how we supported Turkey and Saddam to kill Kurds. Second the whole Sunni support right up to today. We(CIA) cant have a large pouplar #e movement in Iraq. PS there is a very very small terror cell(Sunni) in Iraq now. Its pulls off most of the mass bombings. The attacks on US force arent fund by them. US attacks are still dont most by #e(Iran supported) small local groups. The real killing however is being done by gangs and hijackers out for a buck.h

Interesting "idea" or theory - anyway you speak as we(CIA), and you said you are working in Iraq in Intel. Are you trying to tell me you are a CIA agent on Above Top Secret forum, that is currently working in Iraq, and you are telling us all this stuff?

I dont think so.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by skippytjc
No way in heck Americans would target other Americans to "repel" an occupier. I just cant even imagine it. Its just not the culture. And this isnt a "proud American" statement, I just beleive this to the core of my being that it woudlnt happen. I still cannot even believe Iraqis are doing it!!

The Americans have done it before.

American Civil War 1861–1865


Apples and oranges. Civil war is a civil war. These people are killing thier own in an attempt to throw out an occupier, please dont confuse the two.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I thought he just meant "we" in terms of "we Americans", I don't think he was claiming to be a CIA agent



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Apples and oranges. Civil war is a civil war. These people are killing thier own in an attempt to throw out an occupier, please dont confuse the two.

But Iraq is in a state of instability, dangerously close the definition of Civil War.

For example if tomorrow all US soldiers left Iraq, what do you think it would happen? Would there be Peace in Iraq?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
We is you and me and all people that can vote.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
To skippytjc: Civil War is a good way to look at whats going on but thats just a overview. Iraq isnt a civil nation on two sides fighting and the people arent just killing to make us leave. That would be what the media would like yo to think. The Sunnis are killing so there is a reason for us to stay. They are driving a war between parties. They know if they are going to get any power in the new government they need US backing.

PS Im a NBC NCO in the army and Im not telling you anything you cant read in the press just not the US press



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Then I think you are somewhat naive, no personal offense intended.

Were we invaded by a foreign enemy, personally I don't think I would have any moral qualms about targeting collaborators, Americans or not. Discouraging Quislings is an essential component of any successful resistance strategy.

Not that I think the Iraq insurgency is a real resistance anymore. I think it has fragmented, with the players becoming parties in a civil war.

I believe this is due to Sunni fanatics like Zarquawi, locals as well as the "foreign fighters" contingent, who see Iraq not only as a chance to attack the US, but as an opportunity to fight the hated Shiites, who they see as apostates.

dirk d,
I think you are right on the money.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by xmotex]


Are you kidding me? Biker Eddie’s very own son saw a little 9 year old girl HUNG TO DEATH because she took candy from him. That’s not a news story, this actually happened to the son of a popular poster on these very boards. Why did they hang that little girl? As a message as not to collaborate as you call it.

No Americans could act in that fashion, would you? Are you saying that if the US was occupied you would hang little girls as retaliation?

You sir, are naive if you think Americans would kill other Americans just to get a message to an occupying force.

There is a whole other mindset over there, they are willing to kill little childeren to send messages, I dont think for a second that any American would do the same, you are a savage if you would.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I think there are some people here that would do it, no doubt.
I am not one of them.

We don't seem to have a problem killing children now by dropping cluster bombs on their houses though, do we?

Anyway, besides the nice attempt at a strawman, you don't seem to be saying anything to counter my argument. Or make any point at all. I don't deny that some of the insurgents are murderous thugs, but it's beside the point.

Killing collaborators is a standard practice in any resistance movement.
I don't think a 9 year old who takes candy would qualify as a "collaborator" to most of them though.



[edit on 29-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


No way in heck Americans would target other Americans to "repel" an occupier.


Then I think you are somewhat naive, no personal offense intended.

Were we invaded by a foreign enemy, personally I don't think I would have any moral qualms about targeting collaborators, Americans or not. Discouraging Quislings is an essential component of any successful resistance strategy.

Not that I think the Iraq insurgency is a real resistance anymore. I think it has fragmented, with the players becoming parties in a civil war.

I believe this is due to Sunni fanatics like Zarquawi, locals as well as the "foreign fighters" contingent, who see Iraq not only as a chance to attack the US, but as an opportunity to fight the hated Shiites, who they see as apostates.

dirk d,
I think you are right on the money.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by xmotex]




Im sure I would work against collaborators too!! To make it far to simple just watch FOX. If you don't follow the pro war support our troops joke you should be shoot for not being a collaborators for the "war on terror" We forget this is a war at all. Iraq has not seen freedom as we know it ever!! The 50s where start but that was soon killed by the US. People are rule by fear here. Rightnow gangs have bought off most local police and the gun rules. Its not a "civil war" for the everyday Iraqi it is more like the wild west. Look, the US will hope to setup a new Saddam in the near future, that work to keep the power and oil money flowing out of Iraq. The "people" of Iraq would much reather be part of or working with Iran for many reasons. The US cant have that. Plus the Kirds hope to have a some what free state and that would help the goal of the beat down Kirds in Trukey and the US can have that either.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
PS Im a NBC NCO in the army and Im not telling you anything you cant read in the press just not the US press


Dirk d,

First off, thank you for your service. Keep your head down and come home safe.

Second, there are many here who agree with you. The people who flame you here would rather play the blame game instead of trying to find real world solutions. They only use facts which perpetuate their hatred/admiration and ignore the rest. He must pontificate rather than debate. It is strange that WMDs are always at the top of arguments here when it is very old news.

Some things to ponder:
1) Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD's so that he could keep his power. He actually thought that the US would never invade over WMD's. You might say that everyone was afraid to disagree with him. Those that did, usually ended up on TV in a pool of their own blood having been shot in front of their family. "The Emperor's New Clothes" so to speak. If he is telling people he has them, and kicking inspectors out for wanting to see them, what were we to think? It is like someone who is telling a cop that he has a gun but really doesn't. The cop will eventually try to search him. If he refuses, he is going down. End of story. "Yeah but he didn't have a gun and the cop was wrong. It is the cop's fault!" Actually, it is the fault of the intellectual who told the cop he had a gun.

2) Iraq is now a battleground for power, not peace. The insurgency is comprised of members of the former regime (who have been outlawed from participating in their new government) and those who follow them. Most everyone else has realized after the election that it really could work. It is those who were left out who are still making the mess and taking lives. Is there a better way to fight them? I am sure there is, but the only suggestions coming from the other side is "just leave." Our leaving may cost more blood than staying. Which brings us to point 3.

3) We have a moral responsibility to make sure that Iraqis form their own government. We put them in this mess, so we are obligated to help them in any way we can. We can no longer abandon them. We abandoned them once already after the gulf war and it cost them heavily in blood. Iraq's neighbors want nothing more than the US to leave them in a power vacuum. THEY are the ones who want to steal their resources. (cough.. Syria! Ask some people in Lebanon about that one.) Once the insurgency is halted, we will help them rebuild. It is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is usually the hardest thing to do.

The sad part is that no matter what we do. Even if it is the right thing and they vote for their new government and Iraq prospers like never before, there are those who will call them "puppets of the west" because they hate everything that the west represents.

Everyone says that the US stereotypes other countries, but I read a lot of "Americans are warmongers, arrogant, and unintelligent."(or st00pid as souljah like to point out)

Interesting, indeed.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Fight Fire with Fire?

First mistake in Fighting Terrorism - to fight back with same or worse ammount of Fear and Bullets.

OK lets take a look at the situation from the beginning.

What are US soldiers doing in Iraq? Why were they sent to Iraq in the first place?

Are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Was Saddam linked to Al-Qaeda?

Was Saddem nesting international terrorists in Baghdad?

Is their presence in Iraq decreasing or increasing world wide terrorism?

So lets say, that Bush admninistration is fighting terrorism with attacks on Afganistan and Iraq. Well I guess everybody now forgot all about Afganistan and how US forces bombed one of worlds poorest countries to stone age. Did they eliminate the terrorist threat and the leader of infamous Al-Qaeda network OBL? Did they stop the opression in Afganistan? Did US forces bring peace and stability to this region? Did they feed the hungry and help the sick?

Afganistan was a pure failure of Bush administration, in the way of fighting terrorism. So what Bush needed next, to show his people and the world that HE is in charge of the situation? Another Scapegoat - this time Saddam. OK, I agree that Saddam was no Angel, but did you know that there are around 30 tyrannts around the wolrd at this time, killing their own people, torturing them - are they not supporters of International Terrorism? Why is Saddam any different? First USA adored him - now he is in prison. First he was on CIA help list - then on CIA hitlist; just like OBL.

And by Invading Iraq, without any international support (except Great Britain and PM Blair), US forces started to destabilize the region of Middle East even more then it was before they arrived. How many insurgent attacks were there before the Iraqi War? The numbers are saying that International Terrorism TRIPPLED in the past year - and the attacks in Iraq have not just trippled - there are NINE TIMES many attacks that before in Iraq alone, which makes Baghdad the most Dangerous place on Earth. Peace and stability does not come wrapped in armour and helmets - killing only brings more killing. Thats the oldest stroy in the book! If the Bush administration REALLY wanted to get rid of world wide terrorism, they should use other ways - not invading countries that are "supposed to support them". As I said before, when IRA detonates a bomb in London, british airplanes do not go and bomb Belfast or the entire North Ireland - they go and find the ones responisble and arrest them! That is the CIVILIZED WAY of dealing with terrorism. Or what would happen if Cops killed the entire family of a murderer instead of arresting him and putting him in prison or giving him a death sentance in Court of Law. You cant always fight Fire with Fire - because sooner or later EVERYTHING will be ON FIRE! And that is not good, not good at all.

But its too late for that now - what is done cant be undone. US troops are now in Iraq, conducting the role of Iraqi Police, trying their best to keep the country togather, when it is falling apart by the minute. Yes there are innocent people dying everyday, either by a US bullets and bombs or by insurgets attacks and suicide bombers. Somebody mentioned that US troops dont target civilians - take a look at the city of Fallujah and then say that again.

Anyway, what diffrence does it make to the dead and the injured if they were hit by US bombs and bullets or by insurgents? Or to their families? Bottom line is that there is still a war going on in Iraq - it might not be a standard type of war, but it is still a war, since people die on everyday basis.

So, do you think that American Forces are in Iraq Protecting Humanity or are they only Protecting their Global Interests in Iraq?

Is USA really the Sensitive World Police that protects Truth and Rights?

With so many resources at disposal I belive in American that would really Help the World, that would really feed the hungry and help the ones in need. I see American soldiers in Africa, hunting down evil warlords, that slaughter, rape and kill thousands of people a day. I see American soldiers helping to build bridges, not destroy them. But today in the world of Geopolitics it does not matter if you are hungry and poor. Every fifth human on this World lives with less than 1 USD a day, and goes to his bed hungry (that is around 800 million people!). One Third of the enitre World Population is currently at war. More than 70% of the World Population has never heard the sound of the telephone. Americans every year spend 10 billion dollars on pornography - the same ammount USA offers as international help (and ofcourse Isreal gets most of that money - not the 800 million hungry).

So I ask you, where is Justice?

The ONLY way to stop Terrorism is to stop participating in it - and War against Terrorism is terrorism by itself (War = Terrorism). But I guess that wil not happen, since for the year 2006 USA military budget has reached the Record number of 487 BILLION DOLLARS!

So, how is that going to help us get rid of International Terrorism that threatens the Free World exactly?

More Fire to fight the Fire?


The answer to your first question - What are US soldiers doing in Iraq? Why were they sent to Iraq in the first place?

Iraq continued to break numerous UN security council resolutions
www.casi.org.uk...

If you are following the political debate in the UK the war had more lawful justification than the conflicts in Bosnia and Afghanistan whereby there was international cooperation.

Your 3 subsequent questions are irrelevant - the war was justified without WMD's, terrorist links or whether Saddam was harbouring terrorists.

Question 5. I don’t know - any comment would be rather subjective given any attempt to answer a question would be unsupported. It would be difficult to draw a correlation between the coalition presence and already growing examples of global terror. What i can say is that Iraq was making a mockery of the United Nations - by the US invading sent a signal to other nations such as Iran, Syria and North Korea to comply with the international communities commands.

Your subsequent questions are rather philosophical - in effect its much easier to ask such questions than rather deal with them. This is the general them of your posts - the easy side of the argument followed by the self defeating diatribe. The western world is a dominate force that exploits their position in every way possible - deal with it.

Fallujah - Civilians had a week to get out of there
480 Billion - great boost to the domestic high tech economy

Fire with Fire – hell yeah – progress through conflict – weakness is never appreciated.

[edit on 29-4-2005 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Your subsequent questions are rather philosophical - in effect its much easier to ask such questions than rather deal with them. This is the general them of your posts - the easy side of the argument followed by the self defeating diatribe. The western world is a dominate force that exploits their position in every way possible - deal with it.

...weakness is never appreciated.
[edit on 29-4-2005 by Vanguard]


Vanguard,

You should be running for office. Maybe we could get some things done in this world. You have my vote already.


I will buy the beer if you are ever in my neighborhood!



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
To xman_in_blackx:

All three points well on point. Not to dissmiss any of that we should move to a larger picture. You say that we should rebuild and yes we should. Thats not what we are doing now. Most army projects are building up bases for the future regional control of oil. We bombed this place to the ground and have done nothing but spend taxes dollar bidding out that rebuilding work to companies. If Iraq is to be free it needs a future and it own economy. The real problems is thats going to take away all Bushs gains. The right answer is for Iraq to use oil money for growth right? Well the new government in Iraq(as it stands) doesnt have the power or will to take that money back from the major oil supplier. Plus it needs outside companies to rebuild all of it power water and such plants we bombed rightnow. In a since Iraq is dependent on us and we get their oil in return as most Iraqi have to worry not about this new "freedom" or bommbers but how to feed there kids. Is a fun that the only thing we didnt bomb is the pipeline and pumping stations. Iraqs army didnt really put up a fight at the begining because they didnt want to fight for Saddam. So what do we do with these men? We take their guns and let them starve for the next one and half years and then recuit them now in the new NG to protect these pipelines. Why didnt we use them in the begining? Because now they are dependent on us as before it was their choice to help. Most Iraqis I talk to dont really care about us being here. They just want a job and dinner. So long as we keep them that way we can take there oil. You are very right, the Iraq could and should have a government of thier own. Im not sure how the US could help in that all.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
For example if tomorrow all US soldiers left Iraq, what do you think it would happen? Would there be Peace in Iraq?


That is my point exactly.

You can sit arround wailing and moaning about us going over there all you want. Hell I WAS AGAINST us going over there.

But the problem is we went over there and we broke it.

We can just walk out and do you think flowers would blossom all over the country and these three groups of people who hate each other and all the foreign fighters would lay down their arms and go skipping through the flowers?

I really dont see it happening.

Do you HONESTLY think we would just leave?

Do you HONESTLY believe we SHOULD just pack up and leave?

Like it or not the best solution that I can see is for them to stop and start at least trying to work through the Government.

They can always go back to beheading old women and hanging 9 year old girls.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Have you ever started a thread decrying the US Troops Murder of Innocents?


No but I have condemned it where I thought it deserved being condemned. In other words not in the BS Jahidunspun articles you place so much faith in.

Also if a group is hiding in amoung a bunch of women and children which is worse those that shoot back or the brave heros that hide behind women and children to begin with?...lol

If I we are shooting at each other and you run and hide under your grandmas bed whose fault is it if she gets shot?


But you are right a lot of innocent people die in war, a fact I have seen with my own two eyes much to my regret.

The answer is to end it as quickly as possible wouldnt you think?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Amuk,

We should help Iraq. We cant do it with out the UN or other major support networks. If we leave it up to the statsquo nothings is going to happen. Moreover, if you want to help please stop this Western idea of a bunch of baby hanging people junk. Have some repect for people. Iraqis are no different then you. People in the US do ungodly things too and we vote for them. Iraq needs to learn how to walk on its own and untill someone besides the US is here they cant. Iraq will get it right. How did we do? These people can live just fine without us. They have since the begining of time, the craddle of life? Understand the soldiers are doing the best they can as humans but try and say that about the oil companies and contractor making millions off tax dollars? We(US army) are the only real force here now, true but Iraqi police and an Iraqi government can do all this without 130.000 US troops on the ground.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dirk d
Amuk,

We should help Iraq.


Agreed




We cant do it with out the UN or other major support networks.


I agree again but if the UN refuses to get involved what do we have left?



Moreover, if you want to help please stop this Western idea of a bunch of baby hanging people junk.



LOL...its a "western idea" that the insurgents are beheading people? I wonder where we come up with a silly idea like that.....give me a break



Have some repect for people. Iraqis are no different then you.


Show me where I have showed any disrespect for the comman Iraqis? Am I the one cheering those that TARGET civilians? Am I the one cheering for those that fight an invasian by MURDERING their own?

I feel for the Iraqis and wish them a better life as soon as possible. Do you think car bombs going off in crowds of innocent people are the way to achive it? If the insurgents gave a flying # about the lives of their fellow countrymen they would stop and at least TRY to work through the government.




People in the US do ungodly things too and we vote for them.



not me I voted Libertarian.



Iraq needs to learn how to walk on its own and untill someone besides the US is here they cant.


And where are these wonderful people just begging for a chance to come in and help but the mean old Americans wont let them? What countries are we stopping from coming in to help? For that matter what countries have OFFERED?




Iraq will get it right. How did we do? These people can live just fine without us. They have since the begining of time, the craddle of life? Understand the soldiers are doing the best they can as humans but try and say that about the oil companies and contractor making millions off tax dollars? We(US army) are the only real force here now, true but Iraqi police and an Iraqi government can do all this without 130.000 US troops on the ground.


So are you saying we should just pack up and leave tommorow?


For those hard of understanding I will repeat

I did not agree with gooing in to Iraq. I think we were lied too and manipulated into it and I think Bush and a handful of compinies are making a bundle off of it.

But how does that change the fact that if we just pack up and leave before the right time it will just make a bad thing worse?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Amuk,

My bad, much clearer there. I guess the idea Im getting at is this. We cant fix the problem as much as we would like to. If moneys is in the deal in anyway, then count the US out. The UN many not work for sure. So whats left? Well just the Iraqi poeple and their own will to power right? We killed Iraq but thats all we(US) ever does. Unions, local groups, people rebuild not companies and armies. We have learned over the many fine years of schooling that government most do something to solve all problems. Thats not the truth and we know it. Ask anyone what they think of Congress. The the answers are for those who live here now, not the US. We want to help give Iraq back.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
The answer to your first question - What are US soldiers doing in Iraq? Why were they sent to Iraq in the first place?

Iraq continued to break numerous UN security council resolutions
www.casi.org.uk...

Wow, now that made me shiver. Who does today listen to UN anyway? The USA? I am sure that there are far more dangerous men in the world than Saddam ever was - despite "breaking numerous UN resolutions".



If you are following the political debate in the UK the war had more lawful justification than the conflicts in Bosnia and Afghanistan whereby there was international cooperation.

OK, you can keep beliving that pro-war propaganda, hell you can protect it if you want to - but know that you are protecting greedy Corporations that make money out of War, and they earn Big Bucks while American and Iraqi people die on daily basis. Legitimate or not, its still HIGHLY and UTTERLY STUPID!



Your 3 subsequent questions are irrelevant - the war was justified without WMD's, terrorist links or whether Saddam was harbouring terrorists.

If you follow any of my previous posts, you can find out that the Main International Terrorist Sponsor is actually good ol' US of A. Sure, you can harbour terrorists - but the real problem is the guys that FUND THEM, the guys that GIVE THEM MONEY and WEAPONS. Guess who does that best? Iraq? Iran? Syria? North Korea? I dont think so1



Question 5. I don’t know - any comment would be rather subjective given any attempt to answer a question would be unsupported. It would be difficult to draw a correlation between the coalition presence and already growing examples of global terror. What i can say is that Iraq was making a mockery of the United Nations - by the US invading sent a signal to other nations such as Iran, Syria and North Korea to comply with the international communities commands.

FACTS are that International Terrorism tripled in the year 2004 - around the globe. And in Iraq the terrorist attacks the multiplied NINE TIMES. So how effective Bushes War against Terror really is, is a simple problem of mathematics - count them and compare to last year. Numbers speak pretty much for themselves.



Your subsequent questions are rather philosophical - in effect its much easier to ask such questions than rather deal with them. This is the general them of your posts - the easy side of the argument followed by the self defeating diatribe. The western world is a dominate force that exploits their position in every way possible - deal with it.

Fallujah - Civilians had a week to get out of there
480 Billion - great boost to the domestic high tech economy

Fire with Fire – hell yeah – progress through conflict – weakness is never appreciated.

Now I wont DEAL WITH IT! I wont just stand and watch people die, because Western Corporative World piles Money in their Banks and take opportunity in other peoples Despair. Geopolitics work - for a short time. But sooner or later the Empire always crumbles into dust. Sooner or later every Babilon tower falls. So please do, support you current goverment plans to EXTERMINATE terrorism with 480 billion dollars worth of military equipment. Please support your insease corporations that earn money by selling Death. Please Fight Fire with Fire - and in the end the entire World will be Inflames? Is that what you guys call PEACE?

The ONLY way to stop Terrorism is to STOP participating IN IT!

Read that. And then read it again. And again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join