Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

Originally posted by awshucksme

1. Indiscriminant bombings of civilian populations are being undertaken by counterinsurgency groups under aegis of CIA/MI6/Allied SpecOps/Mossad...

got proof of that, i dont believe, nor will i ever believe that a CIA or Mossad operative who gets a car and ram into a group of civilians in a bakery shop, mosque or schools. never seen a CIA operative commiting suicide in the name of U.S. of A.

Can you please elaborate? Seems to me Seekerof did his best work on this thread so, please tell us why your support for another?

Dallas

Another condemnation on insurgents blatantly targeting innocent civlains, from none other than Amnesty International:

Armed groups opposed to the US-led multinational force and Iraq's government are showing utter disdain for the lives of Iraqi civilians and others, continuing a pattern of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.
At the end of one of the most deadly months since the beginning of the war in Iraq in March 2003, Amnesty International denounced the armed groups' failure to abide by even the most basic standards of humanitarian law and said there can be no valid justification for deliberate killings of civilians, hostage-taking, and torture and killing of defenseless prisoners.

"Those who order or commit such atrocities place themselves totally beyond the pale of acceptable behavior," said Amnesty International. "There is no honor nor heroism in blowing up people going to pray or murdering a terrified hostage. Those carrying out such acts are criminals, nothing less, whose actions undermine any claim they may have to be pursuing a legitimate cause."

In its 56-page report, Iraq, In Cold Blood: Abuses by Armed Groups, Amnesty International recognizes that many Iraqis oppose the continuing presence of US and allied forces in their country, and that these forces have themselves committed grave violations, including killings of civilians and torture of prisoners.

"But abuses committed by one side do not and can not justify abuses by another," said Amnesty International. "This is all the more the case when the principal victims are ordinary Iraqi men, women and children attempting peacefully to go about their everyday lives. All sides to the ongoing conflict have a fundamental obligation to respect the rights of civilians or of those who are rendered defenseless. Those who breach this obligation, on which ever side they stand, must be made to stop and they must be held to account."

Armed Groups in Iraq Show Utter Disdain for Basic Principles of Humanity, AI Says in New Report






seekerof

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Proof?

Lets see. In recent memory...CIA deathsquads established and run - Honduras (I believe), Shayler Affair (Brit SAS/MI posing and bombing as IRA), MI6 bombing Brit civi's in Saudi Arabia, false flag terrorism in the USA (OK City, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Twin towers I & II), Mossad fake Al Qaeda cell in Palestine, establishing at least one middle eastern terror organization, and unanswered questions regarding their role in 9/11.

Other than that, it has been sop since the dawn of warfare. In 'modern' warfare Kitchener almost got caught with his pants down using Breaker Morant and the boys against Boer commandos and their families in the Boer War. But Kitchener caught a break and wasn't charged as there was no papar trail.

They (counterinsurgency techniques) are not terribly effective tactics, but they give the occupying forces something to cling to.

Originally posted by awshucksme
Proof?

Shayler Affair (Brit SAS/MI posing and bombing as IRA), MI6 bombing Brit civi's in Saudi Arabia.

o yeah thats really good proof.

www.five.org.uk...

David Shayler joined MI5 in Oct/1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in Jan/1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. The book gives a lot of detail about MI5's offices at Thames House which cost £265M to refurbish (well over budget), its computer systems (project Grant, MI5's integrated IT system was scrapped at an estimated cost of £25M), and organisational structure (appendix 1 gives a detailed listing of MI5 departments). The book makes much of the Security Service's "inefficiency" and "old-fashioned" methods, with "arrogant managers" and "demoralised and demotivated staff". But it also gives a great deal of detail on such topics as vetting, surveillance of perceived subversives, the extent of telephone tapping and files on often blameless people, and MI5's occasionally successful but sometimes not operations against the IRA - such as the Bishopsgate bomb in April 1993 which Shayler says MI5 should have prevented.

sorry but something about SAS or MI5 members posing as IRA and bombing innocents doesnt strike me as the real thing.

Sympathy For The Souljah

Originally posted by Dallas
Can you please elaborate? Seems to me Seekerof did his best work on this thread so, please tell us why your support for another?

Souljah is a classic devil's advocate, which is a typically under-appreciated but valuable role.

I disagree with Souljah on God-only-knows-how-many things, but I respect the value of differing opinions.

I'm not implying that Souljah is right about everything -- or even anything, necessarily -- but that I do (finally) appreciate the value of a career dissenter in a place like ATS.

If we were to become a community of uncritical cultists who march in ideological lockstep on every issue, I'm oughtta here.

As it is, I personally happen to agree with Seekerof on just about everything -- to an almost frightening degree.

I'm just saying that I appreciate that those who hold different viewpoints are not necessarily trolls, but simply people who hold differing viewpoints, and I respect that.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.upi.com...

cryptome.org...

www.fantompowa.net...

and Shayler was gagged from releasing some of the more damning ties of Brit Intel with ME 'terror' groups, yet some of it still found it s way to the 'Net'.

www.propagandamatrix.com...

Probably one of the best WOT threads I've ever read.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question: For those within the ATS community that condone [ie: approve of, sanction, agree with, etc.] the use of suicide bombers by the insurgency and foreign fighters, ...

So by posting here I'm labelling myself as condoning suicide bombers?

If so I don't think you'll find many true takers around here. The idea of strapping explosives to your body and blowing yourself up in a crowd is unfathomable to most (but evidently not everyone).

I do not condone it.
I understand it.

There's a big difference.

I'm glad you cited the sources you did to support your point. It tells me that you have a certain level of respect for the contribution of those groups to the public commons and I can assume you lend an equal amount of respect and credence for their findings on other issues of the day.

But before you can go and apply a principle of international law to what essentially amounts to a criminal organisation without nationhood, you have to be ready to accept to live by those principles. You know, "The Rule of Law" and all that, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, or was it Hammurabi 's code?

Some people still confuse cause and effect.

Those that claim the London bombings are not linked to the illegal war and occupation in Iraq are deluded or in denial or maybe too busy cheering for their team.

Same goes for September 11, 2001 and 50+ years of meddling.

No matter. Cause and effect become meaningless when trapped in a vicious cycle.

Breaking such a cycle takes the moral courage and fortitude being claimed by phoney "leaders" on all sides and the true meaning of the words they use never seem to manifest themselves.

So you want me to admit that the legal definition of war crimes applies here?

I have no problem with that.

When's the impeachment?
.

P.S. Seekerof.
Glad to see you didn't leave ATS altogether.

The man does his thing in his own way. From what I can tell Sekerof is certainly here still contributing to ATS.

But when he posts, seems to me he posts the hard subjects and listens to others points of view and then answers accordingly. The man does his best and does it from the Get-Go. Not just a comment to someone else's thread.

Dallas

I think that people need to understand that you cannot classify the west as "christian". While the vast majority may claim to be presbyterian or catholic, it is most commonly lip service, and I have yet to hear a U.S. soldier charge at the enemy shouting, "GOD IS GREAT!".

Also, the ten commandments "thou shalt not kill" referred only to killings within the tribe. If you read the old testament, there is a fair amount of killing, rape, murder and generally not nice things that are quite well sanctioned by god.

And to Souljah: I may disagree with everything you say, but without you, this forum would be a lot more boring. Keep up the posts.

Originally posted by Gools
Those that claim the London bombings are not linked to the illegal war and occupation in Iraq are deluded or in denial or maybe too busy cheering for their team.

maybe u can explain the terror attacks on countries that are neutral or even oppose the Iraq invasion

Same goes for September 11, 2001 and 50+ years of meddling.

i doubt Osama will try to get a really good excuse, maybe he can explain why he try to kill the Pope back in the 90s, since he aint American and has nothing to do with foreign policy, bombing of Shiites, destruction of Budda statues, allying with the Taliban and marrying Mullah Omar's daughter to cement ties, the Taliban who oppressed Hindus

No matter. Cause and effect become meaningless when trapped in a vicious cycle.

thats like saying African Americans provoked the KKK to attacked them for a good reason.

Breaking such a cycle takes the moral courage and fortitude being claimed by phoney "leaders" on all sides and the true meaning of the words they use never seem to manifest themselves.

im sure u wish we could all escape from this, but this is reality.

Originally posted by Souljah
Source of Terror in Iraq and Re-Birth of Internatinal Terrorism:

The obvious reason for invading Iraq is still conspicuously evaded: establishing the first secure US military bases in a client state at the heart of the world’s major energy resources.

The war in Iraq incited terror worldwide. In November 2003, Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it "simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11." Iraq itself became a "terrorist haven" for the first time, and suffered its first suicide attacks since the 13th century CK assassins.

Great Job Mister Bush - and Great Performance of the alleged "War on Terror".

Furthermore,

How can More Violence Solve this "Caues of Violence and Terror"?


The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

— Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



www.chomsky.info...

www.globalissues.org...

Violence has solved more things than peace has, full stop.
I dont believe in it but sometimes its necessary.
Hers a qoute for terrorists...
He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Originally posted by deltaboy
sorry but something about SAS or MI5 members posing as IRA and bombing innocents doesnt strike me as the real thing.

So, DB...as a writer you should have had ample time to review the info. Any comment?

'Terrorism' is a Gov't tool used to force their own populations (or allied populations) to accept agenda's they normally would not...

Firstly the word "insurgents" dosnt apply to this case IMO, as the situation in Iraq is a civil war. And in a civil war civilians fight civilians.

Secondly its not just "insurgents" that must stop attacking civilinans, everyone should.

Especially the US and Israel who use terror (sorry "counterinsurgency") tactics and target civilians, whenever they feel like it, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HAVE THE IDEOLOGIACAL TOOLS TO GET AWAY WITH IT, BY USING VALUE LADEN TERMS IN THEIR MEDIA SO THEIR PEOLE EITHER DONT CARE OR DONT GET IT.

[edit on 27/7/2005 by Corinthas]

Seeker of

I have read your posts for years and please dont stop...but you come off as a very pompus person...no offence

Folks, as a friendly reminder...

Debating points brought up by other members is a great practice.

Criticism personally directed at a single member does not belong in a public thread.

It would be like me taking out an ad in the New York Times announcing that I dislike my neighbor's new haircut.

It's not nice.

Originally posted by Vampcrow
Seeker of

I have read your posts for years and please dont stop...but you come off as a very pompus person...no offence

Welcome and greetings, Vampcrow.
And I welcome your criticism.
Seems to go along well with a number of other members interpretations of me.
I tend to consider myself upfront, candid, self-confident, straightforward, and vividly frank.




seekerof

[edit on 27-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by awshucksme

Originally posted by deltaboy
sorry but something about SAS or MI5 members posing as IRA and bombing innocents doesnt strike me as the real thing.

So, DB...as a writer you should have had ample time to review the info. Any comment?

'Terrorism' is a Gov't tool used to force their own populations (or allied populations) to accept agenda's they normally would not...

give me more time, im busy with exams and this is alot of information. like for example this..www.fantompowa.net...

where im checking the endnotes. after all gotta make sure.

www.virtualsalt.com...

Indicators of Lack of Credibility You can sometimes tell by the tone, style, or competence of the writing whether or not the information is suspect. Here are a few clues:
Anonymity
Lack of Quality Control
Negative Metainformation. If all the reviews are critical, be careful.
Bad grammar or misspelled words. Most educated people use grammar fairly well and check their work for spelling errors. An occasional split infinitive or comma in the wrong place is not unusual, but more than two or three spelling or grammar errors is cause for caution, at least. Whether the errors come from carelessness or ignorance, neither puts the information or the writer in a favorable light.

Accuracy The goal of the accuracy test is to assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive. For example, even though a very credible writer said something that was correct twenty years ago, it may not be correct today. Similarly, a reputable source might be giving up-to-date information, but the information may be only partial, and not give the full story. Here are some concepts related to accuracy:

lets try that again...

DB...I would expect nothing less than thoughtful examination. Best of luck with finals.

Circumstance Included At No Additional Cost

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Vampcrow
I have read your posts for years and please dont stop...but you come off as a very pompus person...no offence

Seems to go along well with a number of other members interpretations of me.

Did someone say “pompous”? My ears are burning.

Speaking as something of a Forum Subject Matter Expert on Pomposity (also referred to in academic circles as Emotionology), I find that Seekerof tends to register rather modestly on the Pomp-O-Meter®.

C'mon, admit it! When you think of “pompous”, is Seekerof really the person who comes to mind around here?

Please pardon my poking my head through the door on this, but when I sense a threat to my reputation, it is imperative that I thump my chest indignantly, launch into grand, classical, stentorian oratory and do what I can to turn the subject away from whatever it was people were talking about and squarely toward me, instead.

The Grandeur Of Candor

Originally posted by Seekerof
I tend to consider myself upfront, candid, self-confident, straightforward, and vividly frank.

In other words, pompous. Go ahead, admit it.

Heck, we could be twins, bro. Is that a compliment?

You decide.




Um, yes, for those wondering, I am playfully razzing my homeboy.