Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Souljah u believe dat the western media is downplaying the warcrimes true? remember CBS 60 minutes dat revealed the Abu Graib prison scandal in the first place. dat is an American news media. now u tell me if the U.S. media is downplayin the warcrimes wen i can linked many and i mean many American and British internet news dat would shed light on ani warcrime dat is revealed.




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Yes trodas this is an intelligence war....one question though...
Is this a simple one sided fight?

I pose this question to everyone..
This is a conspiricy board....that means we must look at all the angles...all the sides and all the evidence.

Is this a simple "Co-alition intelligence" vs "Alquida" conflict ?
Is it a "US conspiricy" where they create the enemy they are fighting?
Or...
Is this a multi sided fight?
Think about the players who would gain from chaos, anarchy, war, power and money.
Not just about the western oil barons or the eastern terrorists, but think about ALL the players...
Who is an ally and who is an enemy? Who is nethier?

Some call this paranioa and I agree it is bordering it...but.....what if its right?

I mean the title of this story itself is misleading and is a very good example of writing..
Playing on the readers ignorance and the readers knowledge, using the facts and hiding others. I believe majic said a similar thing in his information warfare podcast (Big ups for that one mate), this is not a simple "one sided" , "Two sided" or even "three sided" war....this is a multi front, multi pronged, multi headed and multi sided war.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
But, you people - the Jihadist Haters - do not even know what JIHAD is, yet you are so Smart about it. Here, let Uncle Souljah Teach you all a LESSON:

JIHAD or arabic جهاد (jihād), means "to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle" and has a Wide Range of Meanings. Jihad is MOST MISUNDERSTOOD aspect of Islamic Religion of the non-Muslims - they all belive, or KNOW, that Jihad is closely connected to Warfare. That could not be further from Truth about Jihad. It has several meanings, and two major forms:

- Greater Jihad; Jihad al-Akbar: internal struggle, struggle against ones soul
- Lesser Jihad; Jihad al-Asgar: external struggle, related to physical effort


Teach me a lesson?
Once again, you skip the important content and only go fo the material that suits your agenda. I visited your site of reference and found this one just for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is one of the many things you overlooked in your simplistic definition:

Muslim Lands; the First Obligation after Faith that:

"Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types: Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory) ... [and] Defensive Jihad. This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation on Muslim individuals], a compulsory duty upon all... "

"Where the Kuffar [infidels] are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya [religious obligation on Muslim society] with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. - And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. "

The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."


Originally posted by Souljah
Also you might want to read the Rules of War in Islam

Thank You,
Class Dismissed!

[edit on 11/11/05 by Souljah]


In the link you gave, it is funny that you missed some of the most important "rules" that concern prisoners of war.

"Generally, a prisoner of war could be freed, enslvaed for the purposes of labor, or enslaved as a concubine in the case of a female (prisoners of war who are enslaved as concubines are referred to as Ma malakat aymanukum in the Qur'an), or sold on the slave market, or ransomed to the enemy in exchange for money or prisoners, or the prisoner of war may have been executed in the case of an adult male prisoner, all at the discretion of the leader."

If we executed or sold into slavery any of our prisoners, you would call it a war crime. Much less use the women as concubines.

The only lesson you have taught us is that you do not do your homework.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by xman_in_blackx]

[edit on 12-11-2005 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   
So many people going on and on about what the word JIHAD means OMG!

Its means what ever it does to Islam but to the west it means War, good luck trying to change that, Blame the Terrorists they Hijacked the word along with the planes and it aint about to change.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
So many people going on and on about what the word JIHAD means OMG!

Its means what ever it does to Islam but to the west it means War, good luck trying to change that, Blame the Terrorists they Hijacked the word along with the planes and it aint about to change.


You're not seriously claiming that the definition of a word does not matter when it is said or written to western people ? lol WOW

Well, I personally believe it does. It's actually quite important. It helps people to understand things better


And yes all you all are doing is re-instating what souljah said about there being an offensive jihad "Jihad by the Sword (jihad bis saif)".


Originally posted by Souljah
There are also 5 Kinds of Jihad fi Sabilillah, struggle in the cause of God:

- Jihad of the Heart/Soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb)
- Jihad by the Tongue (jihad bil lisan)
- Jihad by the Pen/Knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)
- Jihad by the Hand (jihad bil yad)
- Jihad by the Sword (jihad bis saif)

So, guess which one of these Five is related to Armed Fighting.

[edit on 11/11/05 by Souljah]


So perhaps an explanation of what words mean is called for, maybe then people would possess the ability to interpret "Jihad" for what it is and can mean.

Sheesh, ya'll just like to try upset him don't U ?




[edit on 12-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
A word mean's what it has been popularily perceived as , so Jihad to a westerner is war despite its literal meaning to be so many different things.

What things literally mean and what they actually mean in English can be so different all the time, slang words are a perfect example.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Hello Class,

Yesterday we learned all types of Jihad - so do you still remember how many of them was? Yes, FIVE! And the Armed Jihad, or Jihad of the Sword, also has two types:

- DEFENSIVE Jihad:
In colonial times, Muslim populations often rose up against the colonial authorities under the banner of jihad (examples include Dagestan, Chechnya, the Indian Mutiny against Britain, and the Algerian War of Independence against France). In this sense, defensive jihad is no different from the right of armed resistance against occupation that is sanctioned under the UN and International Law.

- OFFENSIVE Jihad:
Offensive jihad is the waging of wars of aggression and conquest against non-Muslims in order to bring them and their territories under Islamic rule.

So, IF your country - lets say IRAQ - is Under attacks and is Invaded by Foreign Occupation Army - lets say the Coalition Forces - WHICH Jihad do you select?

OFFENSIVE or DEFENSIVE?

OK, Class let me help you a little: its the Kind of Jihad, that has NOTHING to do with CONQUEST of Non-Muslims and bringing their Terroitories under Islamic Rule, since the WEST has already done that!

I had a Question from one of you, about the Rules of War in Islam and the Definition - so let's go throught it Togather, shall we?

Islam expressly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, civilian women, children and the eldery, during war. The Quran states "make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Qur'an 47:4)

Lets also bear in mind, that these Rules are over 1000 Years Old and written in were written in that time.

Still, it does not take much for the Wester Propaganda Machine to Distort the Facts about Jihad and Selectively Name just a few of them to further approve their Sinister Intentions in the Middle East and to continue with this bloody Crusades.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I acknowledge and appreciate the differences but The western media isnt going to run around calling this Jihad an Offensive Jihad, lets just agree that Jihad is going to be loosely used to cover all bases.

Your quote from the Quran is interesting .....
Islam expressly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, civilian women, children and the eldery, during war. The Quran states "make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Qur'an 47:4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at the end of this Jihad the beleivers will let Civillians go as a "Favour", western culture would release these civillians as a matter of principle, if indeed it would arrest them in the first place.
So begs to be asked, what happens after release, i read the infidels get high tax, no voting, lesser rights.... ??
Im sure theres a passage in the Quran on that



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Actually the passage from the Quran that you have quoted specifically says that you may not kill women,children etc DURING war, shouldnt it say you can never ever do this, like never ever in peace or war? or does this assume an eternal war?Do terrorists take this passage literally when they kill innocents, like well the Quran only says i can never do this during war, but hell no war yet so its ok??

quote.

Islam expressly prohibits the killing of non-combatants, civilian women, children and the eldery, during war. The Quran states "make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates" (Qur'an 47:4)



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Where are the threads condeming the people who behead people while they are still alive or blow up car bombs next to groups of kids getting candy?



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Where are the threads condeming the people who behead people while they are still alive or blow up car bombs next to groups of kids getting candy?



Tell me about it Dronetek it seem 70pc of people here ignore or excuse the terrorists that are destroying our world, and try to blame the west for everything.

Its unbeleivable i guess this being a conspiracy themed site just attracts that crowd.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
So will my post be answered?


Or will the political fighting continue.....



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Before all of you get so worked up on the definition of Jihad, I'd like to add that the Quran in itself sometimes have contradictions. Well, if you read it you would probably notice one or two here and there in the texts. Furthermore, the passage about no killing women and children "during war time" also applies to during peace. The women and children are precious and the adam society are indeed obligated to protect them by whatever means neccessary.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
the US and UK use children and civilians as human shields, as well as the israelies. They have done it in Fallujah, and they also are doing it (by their own admition) in basrah. I'll bet your not suprised though


----------------------------------------



It is important to remember that while tragic, the fault for these civilian deaths lies squarely at the feet of the insurgents, and to a lesser degree, the civilians that house them.


So what you are saying is, it's iraqies fault that you murdered them, because they dared to fight back against your illegal invasion and occupation.

[edit on 12-11-2005 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Is this a simple one sided fight?

I pose this question to everyone..
This is a conspiricy board....that means we must look at all the angles...all the sides and all the evidence.

Is this a simple "Co-alition intelligence" vs "Alquida" conflict ?
Is it a "US conspiricy" where they create the enemy they are fighting?
Or...
Is this a multi sided fight?
Think about the players who would gain from chaos, anarchy, war, power and money.
Not just about the western oil barons or the eastern terrorists, but think about ALL the players...
Who is an ally and who is an enemy? Who is nethier?

Some call this paranioa and I agree it is bordering it...but.....what if its right?


devilwasp, I'll stand up and give you an applaud.

True. Most people just see the tip of the iceberg in this war. They don't really see the deep underground structures that made the iceberg possible in the first place. In my view, this war isn't really what it seems to be. I don't believe that this is really a good versus evil kind of war. All of this is just a charade put up by the major players of the world who will profit from these wars. I feel sorry that the human race is easily manipulated by elites.

Look at all this scenario this way:

1) Al Qaeda is against the West. Hence, Al Qaeda = aggressor, antagonist whereas U.S led Coalition = just defenders, protaganist.

2) Al Qaeda maybe the ones saying the truth all these while. U.S troops are actually used by the higher powers/elites to achieve their goals.

3) Both sides are puppets playing a charade controlled by the higher powers/elites.

4) The war on terrorism is a cover for war on freedom. Terrorism is used as a cover to limit the freedom of the human race.

5) All this is just a controlled reality and we are really living in matrix.

Now you take your pick which reality do you want to live in? 1? 2? your choice.

Call me a nut or whatever. Let all the possibility be set out neatly in the table before jumping to the gun.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The US and UK dont "murder" people ever period full stop.

If people are stupid enough to fight against the liberation of the fine country of Iraq, they die as enemy combatants, they are not murdered.

the only murderers are the Islamofascists that lurk this earth crashing planes, blowing up weddings, blowing themselves up near the women and children of iraq, blowing themselves up in tube stations in London, blowing people up in nightclubs in Bali.

But i guess that doesn't bother you so much??



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
the US and UK use children and civilians as human shields, as well as the israelies. They have done it in Fallujah, and they also are doing it (by their own admition) in basrah. I'll bet your not suprised though



UK troops do not use human shields, period.
If your going to make a post like this SS back it up.
I have never heard of british troops doing so, since I am from that country I am more likely to find out than another country.


Heartagram
Thank you, I have to applaud you to on your scenarios..
Many people forget the major players..
If I may, I have a suggstion for another scenario..this entire war is a charade. The US and the terrorists are being used...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
the US and UK use children and civilians as human shields, as well as the israelies. They have done it in Fallujah, and they also are doing it (by their own admition) in basrah. I'll bet your not suprised though


Ahem, just because you say so doesn't make it true. Hell, if believe what you say most of the time, we might as well say the world is flat






It is important to remember that while tragic, the fault for these civilian deaths lies squarely at the feet of the insurgents, and to a lesser degree, the civilians that house them.


So what you are saying is, it's iraqies fault that you murdered them, because they dared to fight back against your illegal invasion and occupation.


Umm no, the civilians don't want to fight, hence the word civilian
The Iraqi insurgent/terrorists use them as shields, as they know western morals will make coalition soldiers hesitate.
But what can we expect from an area which has bred barbarism for centuries if not millenia



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
devilwasp


UK troops do not use human shields, period.


HEh, You seem, so sure of yourselves.




www.guardian.co.uk...

UK's Iraq forces face Hizbullah-style roadside bombs

· Infra-red devices almost impossible to detect
· Weapons pierce vehicles' armoured protection

Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall
Thursday October 6, 2005
The Guardian

British forces have no answer to the sophisticated roadside bombs being used against them in Iraq. They are almost impossible to detect. They are triggered when a vehicle touches an invisible, infra-red beam. And they are almost impossible to stop. The explosives power a metal ball capable of penetrating most of the armour-plating used by the army.

The insurgent has to be able to see the British vehicle coming. If he or she was to set the infra-red beam too soon, the victims could be Iraqi civilians rather than British troops. Recently, British forces have tried to circumvent this by sticking nose to tail with Iraqi vehicles. This can work in busy, urban centres like Basra but is more difficult in the wide, nearly empty deserts that make up much of the south of the country.


So basically what the british are admitting to be doing, is that they are getting their vehicles as close to civilian vehicles as possible, so that the iraqi resistance cannot attack them using the new weapon. Basically admitting using iraqi civlians as human shields.




quote:

portland.indymedia.org...

US Forces Using Iraqi Children as Human Shields
author: IM
Resistance field commander saw American troops use women and children as human shields atop their tanks.
A field commander in the Iraqi Resistance disclosed to a correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam in al-Fallujah what he called the "tragedy of the street fighting" by which he meant the way that the invading American troops were using Iraqi women and children as human shields.

The commander said that the tragedy began last Tuesday. Before that he had never seen it before, where the Americans were using women and children to shield their tanks. The commander commented: "this state is living through a type of savagery that history has never known before."

The Resistance field commander said "we could hear the cries of the children and the women's calls for help from atop a column of tanks that was driving along ath-Tharthar street last Tuesday. Some of our fighters closed their eyes in pain and wept at the sight."







As Iraqi Resistance attacks in the city of al-Qa’im on the border with Syria increase, American troops in the city have taken to using Iraqi children as human shields. As a result, local people are keeping their children home from school.

The correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam in the city reported that every time American troops want to go on patrol in downtown al-Qa’im – something they are obliged to do by the orders they receive – the soldiers attract children to them using candy and presents. When the children approach to take the trinkets, the soldiers grab dozens of them and put them on the backs of their tanks and armored vehicles to prevent the Resistance from attacking them.




It's an israeli tactic as Trodas, has mentioned. I guess the US learns from it's allies.



www.msnbc.msn.com...

Mohammed Badwan, 13, was apparently grabbed by Israeli officers and tied by one arm to a screen covering the windshield of their armored vehicle. A photographer snapped a picture of the incident




-----------------------------------------------


The US and UK dont "murder" people ever period full stop.


Why, you don't consider iraqies human?


If people are stupid enough to fight against the liberation of the fine country of Iraq, they die as enemy combatants, they are not murdered.


LOL, you mean, if people are patriotic enough to fight against the illegal invasion of the fine country iraq.

You will kill them, and anyone that supports them.

Well FIY , IT'S THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!! and they have the right to fight against an invader, even if you belive yourself to be "liberating them" you have no stake or responsibility over the lives of iraqies, Your not their parent that knows what's good for them, and you have no right to meddle with them.

The only thing you seem to be liberating them from is their lives and their oil.

Hitler said he was "liberating" poland. History has a way of repeating, you so called liberators.

--------------


Umm no, the civilians don't want to fight, hence the word civilian The Iraqi insurgent/terrorists use them as shields, as they know western morals will make coalition soldiers hesitate.


LOL, civilians may not be fighting but they ofcource can help the resistance in a 1000 other ways.

The iraqi resistance could not exist without the iraqi people.

And we both know rogue, which side is using human shields, and which side has no qualms about burning children to death with chemical weapons.


But what can we expect from an area which has bred barbarism for centuries if not millenia


What a racist comment, If we are barberic, what are you? Barbarism is the British occupation of india, barbarism the American slaughter of 10 million native americans. Barbarism, is wiping out the aboriginals. Barbarism is the war on vietnamn and the war on iraq.

Barbarism is Agent orange, Napalm, white phospherous, and depleted Uranium.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
LMAO ^^^^^

Do you have any credible reports apart from some anonymous resistance commander

Come on, you'd hardly call any of this believable, where's the evidence. The resistance seems to have enough video cameras around filming their terrorism, but wait...not one bit of footage of US soldiers using kids as shields


Pull the other one





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join