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.

 

Hearts and Minds ~ America Bombs Eight Bridges Over Iraq´s Euphrates River

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

as posted by ArchAngel
America will not get out until revolution is at hand at home just like with Vietnam.

Implying what?
Are you implying that the revolution was "at hand" in the US during the Vietnam War?

Historical revisionism?




seekerof




posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by ArchAngel
America will not get out until revolution is at hand at home just like with Vietnam.

Implying what?
Are you implying that the revolution was "at hand" in the US during the Vietnam War?


It was closer than it had ever been since the Civil War.

If you think different maybe you need to start a new thread.

Another example where the leaders lied to us and started a war where we were the supposed liberators, and fled in shame after killing hundreds of thousands of people who were no threat to us.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It was closer than it had ever been since the Civil War.

No it was not.
Back it with historical sourcings and documentation rather than opinionated speculation.



If you think different maybe you need to start a new thread.

Actually, I'll invite you to do such; might prove educational for you.
I am merely confronting your continued propaganda agenda of planting misinformation and historical inaccuracies and analogies to further your topics.



Another example where the leaders lied to us and started a war where we were the supposed liberators, and fled in shame after killing hundreds of thousands of people who were no threat to us.

More mis-guided propaganda filled factoids from those historical revisionism files of ArchAngel?





seekerof



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by ArchAngel
It was closer than it had ever been since the Civil War.

No it was not.
Back it with historical sourcings and documentation rather than opinionated speculation.


There is no historical documentation for a time in America between the Civil war and the Vietnam war where we were closer to a revolution.

Were you to measure by the size of protests in DC we are close to that level of resistance now.




If you think different maybe you need to start a new thread.

Actually, I'll invite you to do such; might prove educational for you.
I am merely confronting your continued propaganda agenda of planting misinformation and historical inaccuracies and analogies to further your topics.


Vietnam is of little interest to posters here other than to compare with the occupation of Iraq.

I prefer to focus on current events so I'll leave that to you.



Another example where the leaders lied to us and started a war where we were the supposed liberators, and fled in shame after killing hundreds of thousands of people who were no threat to us.

More mis-guided propaganda filled factoids from those historical revisionism files of ArchAngel?


Since you failed to be clear I suppose you are refering to the part where we started a war based on lies.

If you insist on sources there are plenty.

Gulf of Tonkin Hoax

Or should we jump right to the supposed 'reputable' sources that you yourself are known to employ such as Wikipedia:


The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was presented to the American public as two unprovoked attacks by North Vietnamese gunboats against two American destroyers (the USS Maddox and the USS C. Turner Joy) in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. According to the Pentagon Papers and various researchers, the attacks were virtually fabricated by President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration. The US-supported South Vietnamese regime had been attacking oil processing facilities in North Vietnam, with planning and support from the CIA, to provide a pretext for the direct engagement of US forces in the conflict.


I stand by all of my statements!

Please stay on topic, or start a new thread.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet again, how is it a violation?


Because it was not absolutely required.

It is also a violation of Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)


Art. 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.


Note that there is no exception here....



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Since when are bridges "institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences" in which Art. 56. deals with???

Why did you quote Art 56 in a thread dealing with bridges?



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Since when are bridges "institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences" in which Art. 56. deals with???

Why did you quote Art 56 in a thread dealing with bridges?


The bridges are The property of municipalities.

Note that it is set off with a commas and can stand alone as "The property of municipalities, even when State property, shall be treated as private property."

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Art 56 is very clear on what "property of the communes" is protected under it and that is that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science.

Bridges just does not fit into that group

Art 56 was designed to protect churches,schools, museums and the like

If you think that article bars the destruction of bridges in war that have a huge tactical advantage you are wrong.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Since when are bridges "institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences" in which Art. 56. deals with???


It includes that, and "The property of municipalities".


If you think that article bars the destruction of bridges in war that have a huge tactical advantage you are wrong.


SECTION III deals with occupation, not war.

The STATE of Iraq was defeated, and the nation occupied.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by ArchAngel]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Its plain as day which are protected that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property.

The rest of the article makes it even clearer

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.





[edit on 9-10-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
If not a violation of 56 it must be a violation of 55.


Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.


or even 50 because they claimed to do it to deny Insurgents mobility.


Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Now you're just grasping at straws Arch Angel...

ShadowXIX shot down your entire argument based on Art. 56, so now you're just citing whatever articles you can to make this so much more worse than it really is.

You seem to have forgotten this part from your source... despite the fact that its the next line down.



"We took out portions of these bridges to deny terrorists, foreign fighters and insurgents the capability to cross north to south or south to north across the Euphrates River."

He explained that the missing sections of bridges could be repaired with pontoons.


Taking out portions of bridges is not "destroying" them in the sense you're using the word. I know I'm arguing semantics here, but you honestly make it seem that the bridges have been totally demolished, and are never able to be repaired again. When called upon, military engineers can provide "temporary", yet sturdy (Ie. Safe) fixes for the bridge until proper repairs can be made.


Also, I believe article 50 has nothing to do with the destruction of bridges. The word "penalty" is being used in the monetary sense, for example; "you'll pay a penalty for late payments on your bills". The reason I feel this way is due to the grouping of the words "penalty, pecuniary, or otherwise"... as well as the preceding articles 49, and 48. Both of which have to do with the taxation, and dues of the occupied state.

[edit on 10/9/05 by microcosm]



posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

ShadowXIX shot down your entire argument based on Art. 56, so now you're just citing whatever articles you can to make this so much more worse than it really is.


One or the other, either 55 or 56 covers bridges depending on how you want to interpret, and maybe many others.

You are trying to say that the destruction of public works is not a warcrime.

How could you even begin to consider that?

Imagine if it was bridges where you live....

And regardless of the extent of the destruction they are not now usable.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
You throw the word War Crime around as if you just found out the meaning of it last week.

As your article mentions; insurgents mean to launch a new wave of attacks in Baghdad ahead of the October 15 referendum on the draft constitution. Now consider this:

In terms of foreign fighters entering Iraq, Syria poses the largest problem; so consider this as "target hardening".

Prior to these bridges being rendered useless; there were 12 points across the Euphrates river between Syria, and Ramadi. Now thanks to the precision strikes theres only 4 points across the river. It's much more easier for coalition forces to guard 4 points, as opposed to 12, and it makes it that much harder for Syrians to get to Baghdad North of Ramadi.

Allthough it makes it unconvienent for those Iraqis in the area to travel, life will go on. They still have 4 bridges to use if needed. Ignoring the huge size difference, talk to anyone who's lived in Manhattan, and commutes regularly. Bridge/tunnel closures are a DAILY thing, and we rely on them to get over/under the east river, and Hudson river... when the bridges/tunnels are down for whatever reason you don't die, or self combust... you find the next way across, and you hope to god that a taxi doesn't kill you before you make it there.

Also, once again, consider the fact that we didn't completely destroy the bridges. A huge difference exists in between taking a section of a bridge out, and making a bridge into nothing more than gravel. We live in an era where a bunch of engineers, and a few chinook helicopters can move any mountain, stop any river, or bridge any gap... if for some reason a bridge needs to be up tommorow, I'm sure one can be put up. Aside from Pontoon bridges, truss bridges, and bridge laying tanks, many new methods can be used.

At most this is an inconvienence to the Iraqi people... not a crime against humanity, violation of convention XYZ, or anything else you may want to call it. I'm sure data like "the bridge most traveled", as well as "distance between points" was taken into account before doing this aswell. You have to remember that for every bridge the coalition strikes, THEY can't use that bridge either.

All in all... it's much more easier for the coalition to bring back the bridges, than bring back those who were killed from a car bomb, or suicide bomber. Will 4 bridges as opposed to 12 stop the attacks? Probably not. Does it make it more difficult to happen? Yes, when you consider that Syrians are among the largest groups of foreign fighters entering Iraq...



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Because it was not absolutely required.
[
Says you, you are not a military comander in the Co-alition nor are you head of allied forces, therefore its not up to you.
I am not familiar with the artilce you provided, I asked about UN law not this law.
I will research it.


[edit]
After a quick research I pulled up some veryinteresting things..
Such as Article 1 of the convention...that luckily defined what was "cultural property" and I notice that the bridge did not hold any monuments, was not a monument and was essential to any monuments...
Thank you and good night...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join