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.

 

Footage shows US troops burning Taliban corpses in Afghanistan

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Very good point seeker, very good point in deed.




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Probably feel the same way it felt for the families and loved ones of those mercs in Iraq who were beat to death, shot, half-burnt, and then hung from bridges, G_o_l_d_y, eh?


[edit on 20-10-2005 by Seekerof]


That is a sort of ABC tactics from guerilla warfare. I’m sure they would much rather occupate USA because of the WMD and brought Bush to the court of law.

But lets face it. With all the “glory” around USA… at least they should put a example of how civilized modern world reacts.

I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire. That is a dead end street which pisses even more people off.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y



[edit on 20-10-2005 by Seekerof]



I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire. That is a dead end street which pisses even more people off.


We were getting our asses kicked by the japanese until we became as ruthless as they were. This is war and war is hell in every sense of the word. I cant beleive you people are rining your hands over a burning corpse.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   


Probably feel the same way it felt for the families and loved ones of those mercs in Iraq who were beat to death, shot, half-burnt, and then hung from bridges, G_o_l_d_y, eh?


This, Blackbeard, is a pathetic and tautologous point that holds no merit other than in the school yard. You are, by virture, not exempt to disregard conventional morality. These soldiers blatantly disregarded simply common sense and it's obvious that they were not properly trained in regards to the sociological implications such an act would have on Muslims world wide.

Seekerof seems to not understand this and never will, this is his generic response to such issues; "Timmy hit me mommy, thats' why I hit him back."

We're not in elementry anymore.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Is that the best you can retort with, Luxifero?
Come now.
Try a bit harder next time, k?


Being ex-military, let me inform of you this:
I fight to win, and if it means I have to fight fire with fire, then so be it.
You people and your excuses of "civilized" and "conventional" moral high ground....get a grip on reality, k? There are no civilities and morals in war.





seekerof

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
muslims desecrate muslims daily with suicide bombs, and any modern military action in any muslim nation involving bombs desecrate too.

why suddenly is burning such an atrocity here? its no more inhuman than a bombing is.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by G_o_l_d_y

I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire. That is a dead end street which pisses even more people off.


youre not on any battlefield either, are you?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luxiferoobvious that they were not properly trained in regards to the sociological implications such an act would have on Muslims world wide.

Seekerof seems to not understand this and never will, this is his generic response to such issues; "Timmy hit me mommy, thats' why I hit him back."

We're not in elementry anymore.

Luxifero


war is about destroyin your enemy, not appeasment of people who are involved by religious affiliation, war isnt daily civilian life where morality serves a purpose.
you cant expect morality to be constant with death, pain, suffering and extreme violence around daily, war is about killing or be killed, you'd be a saint to not get caught up in primal reactions like revenge, hate, etc.
people place moral concepts which are impossible to sustain in warzones.
especially when that war drags on with heavy losses or when the enemy uses guerilla warfare, any war is easy to be moral during if you are winning by an amazing margin with barely any losses with knowledge of every attack plan against you and all enemy positions.
the gulf war was probably the only war with moral sustainability by us, likely during the start of combat in this war too, but against guerilla warfare.... im sure this goes on daily without cameras to see it, on both sides.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   


Is that the best you can retort with, Luxifero?
Come now.
Try a bit harder next time, k?

Being ex-military, let me inform of you this:
I fight to win, and if it means I have to fight fire with fire, then so be it.
You people and your excuses of "civilized" and "conventional" moral high ground....get a grip on reality, k? There are no civilities and morals in war.



Seekerof,

No, that was not the best I can do, though I will say your counterattempt was even more fruitfull.

Being the ex-military man you are, you should be well aware that the enemy will not hark well with extreme pacifists, nor will they with extreme aggressors whose sole purpose is to eradicate and demoralize it's enemy; what was missing though in this war is quite aparant: a interlocutor; quite simply, one who facilitates dialouge with the enemy. You're entire operation in Afghanistan was plauged by abnormalities of intelligence and concoctions therein, not only has 'Osama Bin Laden' been allowed to traverse throughout this region of the world, and 3 times under the watchfull eye of the Clinton Administration, but you allowed the Taliban to carry out it's carefull sociological regression of society even whence you installed 'democracy' viz coercon, and herein, a democratic government which is still run by a corrupt Muslim hierarchy. You did not destroy the Taliban, the Taliban was a dogmatic social engineering process that conceptualy habituated it's regional members of society for decades before U.S. forces attempted to quell it ignorantly with a show of military agression.

Your ex military service does certainly not facilitate any sense of superiority towards a man who may very well have his own military experience, in one sense or another, certainly one you would not understand. There are those who chose to fight wars, and there are certainly those chosen to fight wars. You may have fought in wars, but what we see in Afganistan can certainly by no stretch of the immagination be considered a war, instead military aggression against a regime which was once supported by the United States government and served as a regional middle ground during thier 'war' against the communist advancment of the Soviets. However, this is not a discourse on war ligitamacy nor is it on pretexts, but on ethics and morality that lay within and the inherent responsibility to carry out an ethical war.

Seekerof, I do have a grip on reality, and I have seen the missplaced limbs of war more often than any man should, and I too understand your sentiment that war must be one, however, conditions also apply when fighting war, and quite simply, fighting fire with fire in wars over triviality and spurious accords don't quite facilitate your rethoric. World WAR 11 has gone, and so has it's precentories that spout your opinion of how war should be won you are not fighting Nazi Germany, and you are certainly not fighting a Hitler whose armies have prosucuted and savaged millions and commited genocide on scale unsurpasses in history. Deontologicaly speaking, the war in Iraq was to persecute a dictator whose very acts against humanity were abetted not only by the U.S. government, but disregarded when he commited them with weapons provided by western governments which now, some of which that is, spoke out against the war, or have joined against.

A further deontological discourse can be stated in a condensible stated here:


Author John T. Flynn noted in his 1944 survey of fascism that one of the essential elements of that ideology was the portrayal of aggressive warfare as a morally regenerative mechanism for society. Flynn summed up fascist aggression — whether Nazi, Italian, or American — as justified in the following pseudo-moralistic tone: "We are the trustees of the world's progress and the guardians of its righteous peace [and] are chosen as God's missionaries to bring freedom and civilization and three square meals a day to all lands everywhere."

If that doesn't sound like Mr. Clinton's fellow war hawks on the Kosovo war, then consider the April 1st Wall Street Journal. The op-ed page ran an opinion piece by its features editor, Max Boot, under the appropriate headline, "When War Is an Act of Charity." The article described the un-declared war by Mr. Clinton against Yugoslavia — blasting the nearly defenseless country to kingdom come — as an act of charity. "The F-16s and B-2s, in short, are being used in an act of international charity on a grand scale." This lends an entirely new meaning to the phrase "giving until it hurts."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer (CFR) picked up on this phenomenon in a column in which he criticized the Clinton Administration's tactics in the war. Krauthammer argued that the Clinton Administration has avoided the low-flying campaign needed to attack directly the Serb forces engaged in the so-called "ethnic cleansing" in an effort to minimize American servicemen casualties. As a result, the high-altitude bombing campaign has led to accidental civilian massacres by the allies and left the depredations of Milosevic's police state apparatus largely untouched. "This is cynicism," wrote Krauthammer, "fighting not to win, not even to save, but to feel righteous."


I'm sure your chap Godwin has a lot to say about in regards to above, it seems to be your only counter-argument.

What you seem to not understand is that you have gone to this country to create a 'moral' society with democratic reforms and an ethical basis to treat it's members of society, not to demoralize the enemy by persecuting thier religious affiliation which has severe implications against American serving abroad in Muslim countries. Tell me, my good soldier freind, how astute does one have to be to realize that dehumanizing and commiting acts of aggression which persist in detracting ones faith help win a war against a foe who seems to be adamant in destroying your prescence within thier countries? Not very. Children learn this early on, why can't you?

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Excellent Post Luxifero!



I stand behind you 110%!



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

You have voted Luxifero for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Cudos, luxifero.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero


Is that the best you can retort with, Luxifero?
Come now.
Try a bit harder next time, k?

Being ex-military, let me inform of you this:
I fight to win, and if it means I have to fight fire with fire, then so be it.
You people and your excuses of "civilized" and "conventional" moral high ground....get a grip on reality, k? There are no civilities and morals in war.



Seekerof,

No, that was not the best I can do, though I will say your counterattempt was even more fruitfull.

Being the ex-military man you are, you should be well aware that the enemy will not hark well with extreme pacifists, nor will they with extreme aggressors whose sole purpose is to eradicate and demoralize it's enemy; what was missing though in this war is quite aparant: a interlocutor; quite simply, one who facilitates dialouge with the enemy. You're entire operation in Afghanistan was plauged by abnormalities of intelligence and concoctions therein, not only has 'Osama Bin Laden' been allowed to traverse throughout this region of the world, and 3 times under the watchfull eye of the Clinton Administration, but you allowed the Taliban to carry out it's carefull sociological regression of society even whence you installed 'democracy' viz coercon, and herein, a democratic government which is still run by a corrupt Muslim hierarchy. You did not destroy the Taliban, the Taliban was a dogmatic social engineering process that conceptualy habituated it's regional members of society for decades before U.S. forces attempted to quell it ignorantly with a show of military agression.

Your ex military service does certainly not facilitate any sense of superiority towards a man who may very well have his own military experience, in one sense or another, certainly one you would not understand. There are those who chose to fight wars, and there are certainly those chosen to fight wars. You may have fought in wars, but what we see in Afganistan can certainly by no stretch of the immagination be considered a war, instead military aggression against a regime which was once supported by the United States government and served as a regional middle ground during thier 'war' against the communist advancment of the Soviets. However, this is not a discourse on war ligitamacy nor is it on pretexts, but on ethics and morality that lay within and the inherent responsibility to carry out an ethical war.

Seekerof, I do have a grip on reality, and I have seen the missplaced limbs of war more often than any man should, and I too understand your sentiment that war must be one, however, conditions also apply when fighting war, and quite simply, fighting fire with fire in wars over triviality and spurious accords don't quite facilitate your rethoric. World WAR 11 has gone, and so has it's precentories that spout your opinion of how war should be won you are not fighting Nazi Germany, and you are certainly not fighting a Hitler whose armies have prosucuted and savaged millions and commited genocide on scale unsurpasses in history. Deontologicaly speaking, the war in Iraq was to persecute a dictator whose very acts against humanity were abetted not only by the U.S. government, but disregarded when he commited them with weapons provided by western governments which now, some of which that is, spoke out against the war, or have joined against.

A further deontological discourse can be stated in a condensible stated here:


Author John T. Flynn noted in his 1944 survey of fascism that one of the essential elements of that ideology was the portrayal of aggressive warfare as a morally regenerative mechanism for society. Flynn summed up fascist aggression — whether Nazi, Italian, or American — as justified in the following pseudo-moralistic tone: "We are the trustees of the world's progress and the guardians of its righteous peace [and] are chosen as God's missionaries to bring freedom and civilization and three square meals a day to all lands everywhere."

If that doesn't sound like Mr. Clinton's fellow war hawks on the Kosovo war, then consider the April 1st Wall Street Journal. The op-ed page ran an opinion piece by its features editor, Max Boot, under the appropriate headline, "When War Is an Act of Charity." The article described the un-declared war by Mr. Clinton against Yugoslavia — blasting the nearly defenseless country to kingdom come — as an act of charity. "The F-16s and B-2s, in short, are being used in an act of international charity on a grand scale." This lends an entirely new meaning to the phrase "giving until it hurts."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer (CFR) picked up on this phenomenon in a column in which he criticized the Clinton Administration's tactics in the war. Krauthammer argued that the Clinton Administration has avoided the low-flying campaign needed to attack directly the Serb forces engaged in the so-called "ethnic cleansing" in an effort to minimize American servicemen casualties. As a result, the high-altitude bombing campaign has led to accidental civilian massacres by the allies and left the depredations of Milosevic's police state apparatus largely untouched. "This is cynicism," wrote Krauthammer, "fighting not to win, not even to save, but to feel righteous."


I'm sure your chap Godwin has a lot to say about in regards to above, it seems to be your only counter-argument.

What you seem to not understand is that you have gone to this country to create a 'moral' society with democratic reforms and an ethical basis to treat it's members of society, not to demoralize the enemy by persecuting thier religious affiliation which has severe implications against American serving abroad in Muslim countries. Tell me, my good soldier freind, how astute does one have to be to realize that dehumanizing and commiting acts of aggression which persist in detracting ones faith help win a war against a foe who seems to be adamant in destroying your prescence within thier countries? Not very. Children learn this early on, why can't you?

Luxifero







Yeah. I'm sure all of this is going through the minds of soldiers who have to eat, sleep and poo war. Everyday there are people trying to kill them and every day they have to kill people. If only we could get them a portable version of this argument. Im sure it would make a difference.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero



Probably feel the same way it felt for the families and loved ones of those mercs in Iraq who were beat to death, shot, half-burnt, and then hung from bridges, G_o_l_d_y, eh?


This, Blackbeard, is a pathetic and tautologous point that holds no merit other than in the school yard. You are, by virture, not exempt to disregard conventional morality. These soldiers blatantly disregarded simply common sense and it's obvious that they were not properly trained in regards to the sociological implications such an act would have on Muslims world wide.

Seekerof seems to not understand this and never will, this is his generic response to such issues; "Timmy hit me mommy, thats' why I hit him back."

We're not in elementry anymore.

Luxifero


I think you miss understood what I meant seeing as how there was a question as to how WE would feel if that was done to one of our loved ones. Seeker pointed out that we would feel the same way that the families of those Security Personnel that was shown on CNN and every where else.

Now you show me any where in this thread where I condoned what these "possible" US soldiers did to those bodies.

I say possible because for all we know it could have been CIA Operatives embedded with the US troops. That does happen quite a bit over there you know.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I understand why some people would be appalled at the actions of these soldiers. they are desensitized to the elements of war. "oh, it's OK that those guys were murdered but look how you disposed of all the dead flesh you left laying around'? they KILLED those people before they burned them. they didn't burn them alive or torture them. war is about killing. I'm sure those taliban guys didn't mind because they ARE DEAD. I can't imagine anything worse happening to me than being killed. once I die I have the choice of being burned to ashes, or being eaten by bugs and bacteria.

why don't people figure out that it's not how a body is disposed of. it's how that body became a "body" rather than a living human being.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
What you seem to not understand is that you have gone to this country to create a 'moral' society with democratic reforms and an ethical basis to treat it's members of society, not to demoralize the enemy by persecuting thier religious affiliation which has severe implications against American serving abroad in Muslim countries. Tell me, my good soldier freind, how astute does one have to be to realize that dehumanizing and commiting acts of aggression which persist in detracting ones faith help win a war against a foe who seems to be adamant in destroying your prescence within thier countries? Not very. Children learn this early on, why can't you?

Luxifero


OMG. Do you actually believe in this drivel? First of all, who the hell ever said we went into Afghanistan with the sole intention to "create a 'moral' society with democratic reforms and an ethical basis to treat it's members of society"? We went into Afghanistan with the intention of eliminating the Taliban, destroying their autocratic form of government, and prevent the country of Afghanistan from being used as a safe haven for international terrorists. Plain and simple. Anything else given as a reason is political rhetorical and feel-good spin doctoring. Afghanistan had been transformed into a cesspool of terrorism and oppression, and we saw fit to go in, flip on the lights, and stomp on a few thousand roaches. We are leaving the lights on and staying in the kitchen until the roaches are gone, or at least under control.

Did you actually try to make the point that "dehumanizing" our enemies and "committing acts of aggression" is counter to our efforts to win this war? Did you? I find that to be completely ludicrous. Dehumanizing your enemy and commiting acts of aggression agains them are the prime factors in waging war gainst an enemy. This concept was ancient in the time of Sun Tzu. Maybe you think we should hit them with pillows, or shout naughty words at them from a tree? These people cannot be reasoned with. They live in a cult of death and oppression. Their very actions and belief systems only validate the pressing need to deal with them in using the only methodology that they seem to understand.

They do not fight us openly. The purposely kill women and children and the innocent to inspire terror. They hide in the night like theives and muderers. They should b treated as such.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Dehumanizing your enemy and commiting acts of aggression agains them are the prime factors in waging war gainst an enemy.

So you are saying, that the Bodies of US Contractors hanging from the Bridge in Fallujah were A-OK, since "Dehumanizing" is a prime factor in waging a war against the enemy?



These people cannot be reasoned with. They live in a cult of death and oppression. Their very actions and belief systems only validate the pressing need to deal with them in using the only methodology that they seem to understand.

I think that goes for your President.

If you did now know, he is in a Cult of Death - a Cult that goes to the WWII Nazi SS "Death Squads": Skull & Bones.



Can you find your President on that Picture?



Recognize this Logo in the Middle?

Geee, I wonder WHO is the Occult Cult of Death Worshiper here and how many Taliban are having Occult Rituals, as the Satanic ritual that occurs once a Year in the Bohemian Grove.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

So you are saying, that the Bodies of US Contractors hanging from the Bridge in Fallujah were A-OK, since "Dehumanizing" is a prime factor in waging a war against the enemy?


well contractors are civilians, taliban are not, they arent even an organised army, big difference.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero instead military aggression against a regime which was once supported by the United States government and served as a regional middle ground during thier 'war' against the communist advancment of the Soviets.


supported? what? they took power long after we left, during a civil war between various mujadeen factions, their power grab was not aided by us in any way what-so-ever, the only support was after, the UN thought the taliban would bring peace so no one bothered them untill al queda was invited in in 1994 and they started abusing their people, then we put sanctions on them, bombed al queda camps every so often and severed diplomatic ties with the taliban.

we didnt invade and occupy afghanistan for 20 years, dont be obsurd claiming it was our war, our aiding mujadeen was in support of pakistan, jordan and saudi arabia who were there months before us aiding the mujadeen with little success, they were fighting for their people, dont marginalise their resistance to soviet occupation, it was not a proxy war like you imply.

the taliban/al queda fighters dont represent afghans and they abused afghans, why should we not treat them like dirt? and funny thing is, not many afghans seem to care looking at the lack of reaction coming from them.


D

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I missed the documentary that showed the whole incident, but if they show it again I'll try to record and upload it somewhere.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by D
I missed the documentary that showed the whole incident, but if they show it again I'll try to record and upload it somewhere.


the documentary shows soldiers of the airborne and the Army special forces killing two taliban fighters and decided to burn them for hygiene purposes as the repoter stated and later on to use the bodies for propaganda purposes. shows the burning bodies and the soldiers just standing or sitting and staring at the bodies like somthings goin to happen, later on tells anibody who supports the Taliban would be killed. the end.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join