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.

 

Iraqis Apprehend US Soldiers Dressed as Arabs Trying to Detonate a car Bomb

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   


I seriously doubt we could get any sunnis to work for us, and for the record, yes that is IMHO.

I must disagree. Not every Sunni baathist was fiercely loyal to Saddam, they just had to pretend to be to save their own butts. Money talks, and evil people listen most attentively.



There are Sunni traitors, just as there are Shia traitors.

There are also SHIA BA"ATHISTS, just as there where SUNNI BA"ATHISTS.

Find it hard to belive?
The Ba'ath party was secular.

And finally, there are some former ba'athists now working for the americans.

I guess once a traitor, always a traitor.


But at the same time, there are shia heros just as there are sunni heros


[edit on 15-10-2005 by Syrian Sister]




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
So is anyone gonna bother showing proof they were soldiers, or are we just going to finally admit that the thread title was just to cause controversy and inflame people? Just curious, because I've been repeatedly asking for proof that they were actually soldiers and it's been repeatedly ignored.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So is anyone gonna bother showing proof they were soldiers, or are we just going to finally admit that the thread title was just to cause controversy and inflame people? Just curious, because I've been repeatedly asking for proof that they were actually soldiers and it's been repeatedly ignored.


That would be to easy and end the thread pretty quickly you know, and stop the flow of ats points..

Threads like this are ats point cows, you can keep milking it.. because there is never any evidence one way or another, so it can keep being argued...

[edit on 15-10-2005 by C0le]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Look at those two brits they captured, you really thing they where just regular soldiers?

Yet again, there is 0 proof they where bombing, they where caught with survialance gear.


SAS? I thought the SAS moved in groups of four atleast.

They do and thats the info I supplied you with BTW, but they do move aroun towns in groups less than 4 sometimes like when operating under 14th intel or SRR BUT there is always atleast 30 agents and helicopter support ready to help.

Yet again, any proof or just more flame war style headlines...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
For starters, coalition forces are not the established authority of Iraq. That was Saddam, remember? Iraq is now under occupation by a foreign power, that has installed it's own government, for the sole purpose of easing the occupation. I hardly think that can be considered as an "established authority"

There is no political party in Iraq to rebel against either, only the occupation. This is what makes them the resistance , and not insurgents


Talk about arguing semantics. You sure like to discount anything as non-existent if you disagree with any part of it. The definition said "an established authority", and said nothing about the legitimacy, or percieved legitimacy, of that establishment. Being called an insurgent is not an insult, like has been argued. Terrorist maybe, but not insurgent. The definitions of resistance and insurgent are very similar. The definition of insurgent said nothing about good or bad. That's interjected and opinionated.


Originally posted by Syrian Sister
If they where just there to "observe from a distance", why did they walk right up to them and shoot at them. Why where they dressed in civilian clothing. If you wanted to spy and infiltrate on your own puppet police force, then why not get one guy whome you really trust to join up and give you info, or even send in your own excellent spies to join up?

If they just wanted to observe, why did they have such an arsenal of weapons


Walk right up and shoot at them? That's completely illogical and pure fantasy. Why would the Brits send two members of their special forces to "walk up and shoot at" an entire police force, absolutely ensuring they would be captured or killed, and indentified? They did not have an "arsenal" of weapons, they had standard weapons and some communications gear. Nowhere near the amount of weapons or men needed to attack a police force. What you're saying is not even in the realm of possibilities.



LOL, isn't a "shia" government already in power in iraq? Sistani is Iran's man in Iraq, and he is Pro-American, not to mention the evil death squads the badr brigades. It's a complex story.


Sistani isn't Iran's only man in Iraq. And the last thing Iran wants is a pro-American government in Iraq, so America can have eyes next door to Iran at all times? C'mon.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
You guys already said what I was going to post, so I'll just do this.


You have voted Zaphod58 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more vote left for this month.



You have voted C0le for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join