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.

 

Iraqi insurgents caused millions of dollars damage to US (with pictures)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Humster is called "disable in place" most of those Abrahms that were destroyed were done so by our own equipment, usually after a road side bomb blows apart the carriage assembly. Some rather large roadside bombs are capable of destroying an Abrahms though most of the damage came from our forces destroying the equipment so that they could be of no use to enemy forces. Sabot holes are from other abrahms destroying the downed tank.


Forgive my ignorance but, from what I know, vechicals are destroyed, so they have no use for enemy forces on the battlefield.

But would it be a little more economical, to secure the area and transport those, still repairable Tanks back, rather then to destroy them. Its more of a Hit and Run, ambush type of warfare now in Iraq, not open field warfare a few years back.




posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   


Spacedoubtm, it’s called democracy, freedom of speech, etc. Exactly what we are trying to “share” with Iraqis.


We are a Republic and freedom of speech is restricted under Mill's harm principle. Thus, if these pictures have the potentiality to cause harm to other Americans (I.e. soldier’s families) then they can be censored. However, in my opinion, Americans do need to see the nature of war but from a non partisan standpoint; the media should not limit themselves to showing pictures of only wounded coalition soldiers because that implies defeat despite the numerous good accomplishments.



Definition of victory -“The successful transfer of security operations to Iraqi troops and the switching of coalition forces to an inferior roll.”

Wrong, that’s just another phase of civil war, or armed conflict between various indigenous factions, and it’s exactly what is happening in Iraq.


When we get the Iraqi troops trained well enough to insure the Iraqi governments self sustained existence we will have obtained victory. Regardless, we will not pull out completely; instead, we will occupy them similar to the way we have occupied Germany. We will always be nearby to insure stability and deter the radicals if called upon.

I don’t see how the current fighting equates to civil war as the majority of fighters are foreign or ex Saddam loyalists and in no way represent the significant portion of the population.



Stop making me laugh. The Killing of Kurds was done with the very WMD that WE have sold him, for use on Iran. Kurds were gassed because WE sponsored and trained them against Saddam. When he found out, we as usually cut our losses and RAN, while Saddam retaliated against innocent people. Currently WE are the ones using WMD on civilians.


This is classic liberalism. You concede my points; instead of refutation you use the opportunity to bash your own country. According to your statement America is guilty of the deaths of the Kurds. According to this same logic every gun dealer in the world must be responsible for homicides that some of their customers commit. Do you see the logical fallacy?

White Phosphorus was used in the battle of Fallujah after all of the civilians were told to leave. Therefore, you cannot argue that it was specifically used to target civilians. Do you think Saddam warned the Kurds?

Furthermore, white phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a participant. However, Iraqs use of WMD was banned by many U.N resolutions.



Jesus man, open up a history book. The amount of our taxes spent on assassinations, covert operations, regime over throws, drug running, etc, pale in comparison

Gee, I guess everyone is a terrorist by your thought process. Let us review the definition of terrorism to see if your thesis proves correct:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

Nope, your suggestions fail to apply. Open a dictionary.




We are right NOW, torturing people around the world against ALL laws, conventions, treaties, and trying to LEGALIZE it, so quit trying to be holier then thou.

Unlike Saddam's situation these are not civilians we are dealing with; they are terrorists. Saddam raped, killed, gassed, removed limbs, and committed various other atrocities to civilian women and children.

American soldiers putting panties on someone’s head hardly qualifies as torture.





All the quotes you got there are the FALSE intelligence PLANTED by the interested parties, and it’s under INVESTIGATION right now. At least turn on C-SPAN or something, man.

These quotes are actual sayings from the hypocritical Democratic Party before a Republican was in the oval office.


How long have you been an inhabitant of your dream world?


I’m wasting my time with this anyway, because it simply doesn’t matter what anybody says to you, you’ll be this thick to the end of your days, but if you try to boldly venture out into the field of economical factoids again, just an advice, don’t, ‘cause I’ll be here for that one.


Likewise



[edit on 8-12-2005 by killirl]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   


I think it corroborates FlyersFan statement more than your own.


Not really.
First of all it's a promo to a History Channel documentary, not exactly a very informative source.

Second and most importantly, the question is not whether the Werwolves existed, they clearly did. But did they continue an insurgency after the surrender, in any way comparable to the insurgency that exists in Iraq today, years after the end of the war's combat phase? The answer appears to be that they didn't. All their major actions occured while the war was still going on. I can't find any evidence that they did anything after VE day.

Just trying to get the factual information down



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by killirl

Unlike Saddam's situation these are not civilians we are dealing with; they are terrorists. Saddam raped, killed, gassed, removed limbs, and committed various other atrocities to civilian women and children.

American soldiers putting panties on someone’s head hardly qualifies as torture.


you are so sadly ignorant of the realy facts that you believe such rubbish yourself.

Civlians ARE being tortured , raped , killed and multiple other atrocities , not only in Iraq but in quantanomo bay as well

Its a sad day for the world that the usa has fallen so far.


So , just because the usa hasn`t signed up to teh treaties over the use of WP makes using it ok?


by that *wonderful* ethos , Iraq did nothing wrong when it used the gas sold to them by the usa to kill the kurds.

you are a fool if you believe such diabtribe.


[Mod Edit - Formatting]

[edit on 9/12/05 by JAK]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
“You should always consider the implications.”

The implication of this post is the reality of war in Iraq, and it is our media that’s using the “personal filter”, which I know about first hand from my professional experience in broadcasting.

“We are a Republic and freedom of speech is restricted under Mill's harm principle. Thus, if these pictures have the potentiality to cause harm to other Americans (I.e. soldier’s families) then they can be censored.”

Killirl you know nothing about journalism, I do, been there.

“However, in my opinion, Americans do need to see the nature of war but from a non partisan standpoint; the media should not limit themselves to showing pictures of only wounded coalition soldiers because that implies defeat despite the numerous good accomplishments.”


“I don’t see how the current fighting equates to civil war as the majority of fighters are foreign or ex Saddam loyalists and in no way represent the significant portion of the population.”

Your current speculations show your limited understanding of the situation in Iraq, which is obviously based on information provided by mainly FOX . That can be helped by reading and education you’re self on the topic.

“This is classic liberalism.”
Yeas my dear fried it is,
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Where your loyalties lie? American values or special interests?

I strongly persuade you to look into your freedoms of “exercising rights to education, free speech, the pursuit of happiness, and liberty and justice for all.”

“White Phosphorus was used in the battle of Fallujah after all of the civilians were told to leave. Therefore, you cannot argue that it was specifically used to target civilians. Do you think Saddam warned the Kurds?

Furthermore, white phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a participant. However, Iraqs use of WMD was banned by many U.N resolutions.”

From here I can honestly and being guilt free state that you’re an ignorant man, or a man with criminal mentality. Not my personal opinion, but phyc profiling 101. Double standards and disregard for law and so on.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).”

Exactly like dumping phosphorus on civilians.

Why am I wasting my time?

Killirl, keep doing what you’re doing, because since even this forum is based on the American values you apparently will never understand, I have a choice of blocking out your posts, so take care of your self my friend



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


Not really.
First of all it's a promo to a History Channel documentary, not exactly a very informative source.

Second and most importantly, the question is not whether the Werwolves existed, they clearly did. But did they continue an insurgency after the surrender, in any way comparable to the insurgency that exists in Iraq today, years after the end of the war's combat phase? The answer appears to be that they didn't. All their major actions occured while the war was still going on. I can't find any evidence that they did anything after VE day.

Just trying to get the factual information down




So lets see, the “history” channel is not an informative source of information? Every article I read regarding the SS-Werewolves shows they continued terrorizing post WWII for a while. Unless you can prove other wise I have to take the history channel documentary as well as other sources I can provide links to over your “word”. Unless you wanna keep dismissing this based on your opinion.




Hitler's SS "Werewolves" continued to kill American occupation soldiers and those who cooperated with them for three years after the end of the war.

link






long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers."

"Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German `collaborators' or `defeatists'. They damaged Germany's economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands."

link



Please feel free to correct the factual information...



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I have spent a short time thinking about this and have come to a rather startling conclusion :

killirl is neither a Republican nor is he a Democrat


he is a Fanatic


Republicans and Democrats can have rational (yet heated) discussions on relevant values , yet they listen and take onboard what other (parties) say.

Fanatics do not


Which makes him , unfortunately as bad as a terrorist .


BTW - stop calling the insurgents *terrorists* - they are fighting the us army the way they know - did anyone shout terrorist in vietnam when the VC were fighting? no. And they are doing the same thing in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
BTW - stop calling the insurgents *terrorists* - they are fighting the us army the way they know -


Right, and by setting off bombs at hospitals, shopping centers, and coffee shops they hope to kill as many U.S. soldiers as possible.
Yes they are terrorist, and they know they'd be squashed like the roaches that they are in real combat. That's why they resort to targeting civilians.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Same as the VC did when they kicked the USA out of south east asia then


yet no one is calling them `terrorists`.

the VC did the same things AND they tortured to death any troops they caught.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   


Please feel free to correct the factual information..


A link to an opinion piece on WND provides absolutely nothing useful.
If there were attacks post surrender, why doesn't he list one?

As for the second link, you should read the whole thing, one of the responses explains it better than I could:



Yes, I already wrote that they killed the mayor of Aachen; prior to the May 7, 1945 surrender - in fact he was ordered murdered by Himmler. But that's not a post-occupation killing, there was a war still on - he was killed on March 25, 1945.

And to be frank, the official US military history of the period states what I have already said ( SEE The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946) - that for the most part, occupied Germany was a rather docile place. And it states that the death of the mayor of Aachen was the major achievement of the "werewolves." No if their major achievement comes in March of 1945, what can you say of the rest of the movement?

Your own Secretary Rumsfeld on the ABC news morning program stated that the level of deaths of US soldiers in Iraq far exceeds the number killed up to this point at the same period in occupied Germany.

The so-called "werewolves" were often made up of no more than teenage boys; the bunkers that they hid in when discovered tend to have less than two weeks worth of rations, and generally speaking when discovered they had very low esprit and put up very little resistance.




"SS officers - called 'werewolves' - engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them, much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a speech Monday.

But historians and military analysts take issue with that comparison.

"The werewolves existed more in the idea or the fantasy stage than ever as a real phenomenon," said Lt. Col. Kevin Farrell, a historian at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

The werewolves were founded in September 1944 by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who saw them as a special force that would work behind U.S. lines to sabotage equipment and kill U.S. troops. About 5,000 SS officers were trained as werewolves.

But according to Perry Biddiscombe, a historian of postwar Germany who wrote a 1998 book on the werewolves, the force was designed only to assist the German army in winning the war. It was not created to be an underground movement after a German defeat.

As a result, Biddiscombe said, Rice is correct that the SS's werewolves did attack U.S. troops - but the only documented attacks took place before the Nazis capitulated on May 7, 1945.


Perhaps before providing links to make your case, you should actually read them in their entirety to make sure they actually make your point, instead of proving you wrong?

Condoleeza Rice (who should know better) was the first to bring up the "Werewolves" analogy, raising a chorus of objections from competent professional historians. Yet the myth keeps getting repeated over and over by people who want to pretend Iraq is some monumental, clearly defined struggle like WW2. The comparison, like the comparison between the "Werewolves" and the Iraq insurgency, simply doesn't hold true. Links to opinion pieces in far-right propaganda rags and blog posts by the uninformed don't make your case very well.

Documenting one signifigant Werewolf attack after the German surrender might help make your case, but that's probably not going to happen, since it appears there weren't any.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by killirl

Originally posted by Kasra
You've already destroyed the country yourself. I don't recall dozens of suicide bombings killing countless civillians every day.

[edit on 7-12-2005 by Kasra]


I recall Saddam killing thousands of Kurds (men, women, and children) a day with weapons of mass destruction.

I also remember Saddam's payment of 25,000 dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Not to mention the thousands of men women and children being tortured in his jails.

The moral argument for the war is one the liberals cannot win.


If Saddam was killing thousands of kurds a day, and you can prove this why is he being charged with the murder of only 148 Shia in a village after an assassination attemp on his life. More american lies there, the kurds he used CWs on were rebelling against him with force, thats a big difference then him killing thousands daily?

Im not defending him, i just cant see how the US and its policies are any better, the US has thousands in prisons around the globe, hundreds being tortured each year, he sees the Palestinians as victims, so what is wrong with him helping the families of dead when he considers jews as enemies. Maybe the Israel bombing him and causing Gulf war 1 is the reason he supported Palestinian bombers.


[edit on 9-12-2005 by HiddenReality]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Right-on Harlequin, glad to see that common sense still lives on.

“killirl is neither a Republican nor is he a Democrat


he is a Fanatic”


“Right, and by setting off bombs at hospitals, shopping centers, and coffee shops the hope to kill as many U.S. soldiers as possible. Yes they are terrorist, and they know they'd be squashed like the roaches that they are in real combat. That's why they resort to targeting civilians.”

Dbates, since my good old advice on reading is simply a mute point these days, I can steer you toward a movie with Robin Williams, called “Good morning Vietnam!”

Vietnam, just as any armed conflict is synonymous with sabotage, bombings and targeting of civilians, with the only difference of how the superior power decides to call the resistance.

Do you by any chance remember what the British used to call our militia during the “American Revolutionary War”? Look it up.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This is simply worth re-posting. Love that common sense, yes I do.

“If Saddam was killing thousands of kurds a day, and you can prove this why is he being charged with the murder of only 148 Shia in a village after an assassination attemp on his life. More american lies there, the kurds he used CWs on were rebelling against him with force, thats a big difference then him killing thousands daily?

Im not defending him, i just cant see how the US and its policies are any better, the US has thousands in prisons around the globe, hundreds being tortured each year, he sees the Palestinians as victims, so what is wrong with him helping the families of dead when he considers jews as enemies. Maybe the Israel bombing him and causing Gulf war 1 is the reason he supported Palestinian bombers.”



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I am not making a case for a full on comparison between post war WWII and the insurgency in Iraq. I am simply stating that from what I’ve read Guerrilla-style attacks did take place against U.S. soldiers POST WWII.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   


you are so sadly ignorant of the realy facts that you believe such rubbish yourself.

Civlians ARE being tortured , raped , killed and multiple other atrocities , not only in Iraq but in quantanomo bay as well

Where is the proof? All you have are pictures of men with panties on their heads.


Its a sad day for the world that the usa has fallen so far.

Spare me the melodramatics. The USA is the same on the issue as it always has been.



So , just because the usa hasn`t signed up to teh treaties over the use of WP makes using it ok?

by that *wonderful* ethos , Iraq did nothing wrong when it used the gas sold to them by the usa to kill the kurds.


There is a difference between killing your own people in peace time and killing the enemy in wartime. You cannot say the USA targeted civilians; they were given amble time to evacuate. Saddam purposely targeted civilians and ended up killing 75% women and children.

Regardless, you are admitting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which means that the war was justified and your only argument is that America is somehow the greater evil.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Killirl, judging by your tone, your jungle stumper pict, etc, you seem like a warrior yearning for a fight, so what are doing here talking to us sobbing liberals and democrats? Join up at your local recruitment office and walk the walk. We’ll be here for a while, and when you come back (if) you’ll have something to share with all of us first hand, tough guy.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
There you go;

news.yahoo.com...

“WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland was the heart of the CIA's secret detention network in Europe until recently, an analyst of the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch organization was quoted as telling a Polish newspaper. Reports of the CIA operating secret jails in Poland and Romania as part of its war on terrorism have caused controversy on both sides of the Atlantic and dogged U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's European trip this week.”

“The U.N. human rights ombudsman in Kosovo, Marek Nowicki, accused the U.S. army of running a secret prison at Camp Bondsteel in the U.N.-administered Serbian province. The U.S. military has said the Bondsteel prison has been closed and no prisoners held there since at least February of this year.
Nowicki said in an interview with Germany's Berliner Zeitung newspaper that he visited the facility in 2000 and 2001. "In the prison, it looked like the pictures we know from Guantanamo," he said, referring to the U.S. detention center in Cuba for "enemy combatants" in the war on terrorism.
He said there was no external control over Camp Bondsteel. "In reality we have no idea what's going on there."



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Careful, Human Rights Watch is already backing off of their statements.



Clarification on CIA Prisons
(New York, December 9, 2005)—An article today in the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza quotes a Human Rights Watch researcher concerning alleged CIA interrogations in Poland and Romania. Human Rights Watch has not reached final conclusions about CIA operations in eastern Europe. Human Rights Watch has collected information that CIA airplanes traveling from Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004 made direct flights to remote airfields in Poland and Romania. We are continuing to investigate the issue and are cooperating with ongoing Council of Europe investigations. We urge all governments and agencies to do the same.

Human Rights Watch

You will also note that near the bottom of your article, the only person that is making this statment from the Human Rights Watch group is Garlasco who has not yet produced the notes showing proof of his statments nor has he identified any of his sources. Oh... by the way.... he is unavailable for comment as he is traveling from Europe to the US.
Let's se what the man produces when he arrives in the US. Heck his own group is no longer backing his claims!



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

There is a difference between killing your own people in peace time and killing the enemy in wartime. You cannot say the USA targeted civilians; they were given amble time to evacuate. Saddam purposely targeted civilians and ended up killing 75% women and children.



ROFL - then why is he charged with *only* 148 deaths? that is the extent of the charges against him - the so called `crimes against humanity` is 148.

on that count , bush is due to be charged for the 50,000+ killed in fullajah.

and that WAS in peace time (fullajah) remember that major hostilities have been declared `over` - the war is over in iraq (administraion words).

so thats peace and 50,000+ people died when WP was blanketed across fullajah (and other chemicals used as well)

the proof? watch the live video of it happening- or i guess a fanatic like you thinks its all faked for tv.


Regardless, you are admitting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which means that the war was justified and your only argument is that America is somehow the greater evil.



And you would actually READ what others have allready said: he used the chemicals that were sold to him by the CIA (remember the picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld? - read THIS link about them being best of friends.

And that was all he had - enough for a handful of projectiles - the amount of gas has allready been said MANY times on this forum - you look for how little it was.


HAD - the administration knew how little he had and when he used it - you really think if they thought he still had any , then they would have sent in the troops? get real.


[edit on 9-12-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Sure, as soon as Stanfield Turner (CIA director 1977 to 1981) backs down then I’ll give it a second though.

Google it.

All this is coming to light not because it’s unheard of, or outrageous, this kind of crap has been going on for a long, long time. It’s because Bush and his boys are trying to take much bigger bite then they can handle.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join