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.

 

Behind the Steel Curtain: The Real Face of the Occupation

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
YOU, aape, want to accuse ME of ignorance???
You, sir, are the ignorant fool who just admitted that he would "Google" something and accept it as the gospel truth. You have no regard for the source, it's veracity nor it's validity - THAT, SIR IS THE EPITOME OF IGNORNACE!




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
haha aape, good words: live in ignorance, see if WE care.
dont blame us, blame your president...

[edit on 21-12-2005 by juube]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
ok kozmo, YOU find link where are lists of civilian protestors shot by us forces. YOU find a link about warcrimes that usa has done in iraq. It´s an illegal war for first. And killing civilians to save own troops is a war crime. And using napalm against civilian targets, thats a warcrime. But it isn´t my job to try to prove something to a man who doesn´t believe anything. Prove im wrong or go away.
-aape



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
ok kozmo, YOU find link where are lists of civilian protestors shot by us forces. YOU find a link about warcrimes that usa has done in iraq. It´s an illegal war for first. And killing civilians to save own troops is a war crime. And using napalm against civilian targets, thats a warcrime. But it isn´t my job to try to prove something to a man who doesn´t believe anything. Prove im wrong or go away.
-aape


I need to prove to you that something DIDN'T happen? This is getting ridiculous
I am not the one making the claims - YOU are. Ergo it is YOUR REPSONSIBILITY to PROVE that it DID occur. Got that? And you CANNOT rely on uncorroborated accounts, unproven speculation, third-person commentary etc... The burden of proof is placed upon YOU! Yes, that is a big responsibility. That is why RESPONSIBLE people are very careful about making responsible assertions - ones that can be corroborated and proven.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
OIH MY GOD!!!
You managed to find an Anti-US website for one article and uncorroborated, un-policed speculative commentary from another! WOWEE!!! Those are some seriously accurate websites, right???


Firstly - go Hijack another Thread, or yet better; create your own one and Poo inside, MMkeey?



www.pcmag.com...
blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com...
www.nashvillescene.com...
www.delawareonline.com.../20051221/OPINION11/512210350/1112/OPINION

Really Interesting.

From your Article:

But Wikipedia and its users were shaken recently by complaints about gross inaccuracies. One was out-and-out slander of a distinguished journalist, John Siegenthaler.

I think Herr John SIEGenthaler, pushed his buttons and payed some guys ove there in those Internet sites that he actually Owns, to create counter-Wikipedia propaganda, considering, that he did that in the Past:

I remember there were many debates about Wikipedia, not being a Reliable source for Information, especially since mister journalist John Seigenthaler has claimed that "Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."


BBC - Wikipedia survives research test

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Hmmm... let me see, who do I belive?

BBC News, or Delaware Science...

HMmmmmm....



I mean, come on... when are you going to end this charade... really...

My Thoughts Exactly.




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
ok kozmo, YOU find link where are lists of civilian protestors shot by us forces. YOU find a link about warcrimes that usa has done in iraq. It´s an illegal war for first. And killing civilians to save own troops is a war crime. And using napalm against civilian targets, thats a warcrime. But it isn´t my job to try to prove something to a man who doesn´t believe anything. Prove im wrong or go away.
-aape

So your job is to create unproved speculation and opinion with no basis and no proof, that is what you just said...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
...You pretty much summed it up. Silly, ain't it? I guess they're not really teaching Logic & Language in school anymore
Sadly, Souljah is quickly proving to belong to this same category of people. We are watching the slow death of ATS. I wonder if there might be some kind of intelligence test we can give people prior to awarding them a membership???



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
It's amazing how things change in different perspectives. In World War II, my grandfather whom lived in austria was a freedom fighter, defending against the nazi invasion: Germany called the group my grandfather fought with, terrorists.

Whats the line between fighting for your homeland and fighting to terrorize? Are the insurgents just terrorists, or are they really simply freedom fighters?


Yeah but did you Grandfather target and kill Austrian civilians?? If a bunch of Austrain civilians were in line for a job and your grandfather blew them up he would be a terrorist. If he was just killing NAZIs soldiers in his country he was a Insurgent/freedom fighter.

It you attack US troops in Iraq your a Insurgent If you attack Iraqi people going to the polls or waiting in line for jobs your a terrorist. Its a pretty clear difference IMHO.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
i gave you links but they weren´t enough.If wikipedia is faulty then find a link that says otherwise. Do you really think i could find a link from washingtonpost telling you how many people has been killed? www.iraqbodycount.net... says the same numbers, but i guess thats disinfo page aswell.
Well tell me some reliable wikipedia style internet dictionarys and i´ll try to find the same facts for you.
-aape



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
i gave you links but they weren´t enough.If wikipedia is faulty then find a link that says otherwise. Do you really think i could find a link from washingtonpost telling you how many people has been killed? www.iraqbodycount.net... says the same numbers, but i guess thats disinfo page aswell.
Well tell me some reliable wikipedia style internet dictionarys and i´ll try to find the same facts for you.
-aape

Mabye you'd rather answer the question instead of going on the defensive...or do you have something to hide?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
erm what question? Answer mine questions too if you want answers from me. But i really don´t know what question i should answer. And what possibly would a man in internet have to hide? IM OSAMA BIN LADEN!!! yeah..
here is a article what says wikipedia is as reliable as britannica encylopaedia.
www.cbc.ca...
-aape

[edit on 21-12-2005 by aape]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
i gave you links but they weren´t enough.If wikipedia is faulty then find a link that says otherwise. Do you really think i could find a link from washingtonpost telling you how many people has been killed? www.iraqbodycount.net... says the same numbers, but i guess thats disinfo page aswell.
Well tell me some reliable wikipedia style internet dictionarys and i´ll try to find the same facts for you.
-aape


You gave links to suspect web sites - sites with an agenda. There is no proof to back up any of these claims. I am to blindly accept them simply because you found them on the internet??? I think not.

Again, you make assertions, ergo it is up to YOU to provide the proof. Proof means that you have to have something that demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what you purport is accurate and factual. You have failed to provide proof. Your "links" hold no water here.

You live in a free country, right? You have a criminal court system, right? In your system is it not the job of the accuser or prosecutor to provide a foundation of proof that one is guilty of the crimes with which they are being charged? When you, or anyone else for that matter, wish to make accusations against the United States, isn't the burden of proof upon you to substantiate these claims? Would your court of law accept opinions, editorials and uncorroborated assertions as evidence? If so, then I think I will want to avoid visiting your country. Is any of this sinking in?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
erm what question? Answer mine questions too if you want answers from me. But i really don´t know what question i should answer. And what possibly would a man in internet have to hide? IM OSAMA BIN LADEN!!! yeah..
here is a article what says wikipedia is as reliable as britannica encylopaedia.
www.cbc.ca...
-aape

[edit on 21-12-2005 by aape]

The question I asked about you saying it was not your job to provide proof.
You then went onto explain how you did provide proof when infact that had nothing to do with the question asked.
I am not here to debate how good wipikidia is or not, take that fight somewhere else.
What questions do you want answered, I will endevour to answer them to the fullest.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by juube


man, you sold your soul to the devil. you think you know/learn something about war when you go to college? cmon dude, go to the frontline, only place to learn how to make some war, not love..

after that 12 years of studying, you end up in some office doing some bs paperwork. a true soldier? yeah.


What an $#@ clown....

Its 4 yers in college and then 8 years active duty as an officer in the US Army. Its called ROTC and you don't seem to understand the concept. Just because I'm getting an education before I serve doesn't make my sacrifice to this country less because I didn't get shipped straight out to the "front lines". And you clearly don't understand the war if you use the term "front lines" seeing as no matter where you are in Iraq you can suddenly be called upon to engage in combat regardless of your branch.

Get a grip man, there are plenty of cold war warriors who "sat at desks" protecting their country and you choose to spit on this?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Agent47
The U.S Army but I guess I know a little about the Imperial army as I was an avid fan of the original CCG by decipher. But thats neither here nor there.

Mister Cruise,
didn't you know that by joining the US Army you are now an Imperial Trooper?

And what GOOD Empire it is:

  • The U.S., in line with this doctrine, pulled out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, one of the corner stones to international peace and stability.

  • Other nations see the U.S. action as threatening and may be afraid, given the U.S.'s controversial Cold War history and actions, including supporting dictators and overthrowing popular leaders.

  • Throughout history, larger nations have been able to exert their desires more effectively than others. Military power has often been the final arbiter of law. We recall “gun boat diplomacy” tactics of various imperial powers in the past to ensure unwilling nations bent to their demands.

  • The U.S.'s political and military power is unrivalled today.

  • Furthermore, the actions of the more powerful nations in the international arena, away from home, have contributed to such resentment and hatred, that it is sometimes not recognized that their own policies could be contributing to these terrible acts and threats of terrorism.




[edit on 21/12/05 by Souljah]



I've really had it up to here with your trolling but for a momment I'm going to assume your just acting up some sort of carictature.

Half of what you posted is opinion and the other is historical sayings like "through history etc".

You really have a problem using facts and not rhetoric don't you?

I'm being honest can you really provide some sort of clear proof of a policy to target Iraqi civilians or are you going to just continue to post silly graphics and spout anti American hate mongering and ridicule my service to my country.

Oh and its Agent 47 Obi Wan....



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Ok..I will search info followed after this from human rights watch, if that isn´t "reliable" source then tell me what is, as it seems wikipedia and bbc ain´t reliable sources.
I haven´t yet even read what info there might be but i´m certain that i will find facts about us soldiers killing civilians without legimate reason.
ok found this hrw report from 2003.

www.hrw.org...

from summary of the report:


"The U.S. military keeps no statistics on civilian casualties, telling Human Rights Watch that it was “impossible for us to maintain an accurate account.” Such an attitude suggests that civilian casualties are not a paramount concern."


Here are your facts about killing:


"Based on interviews with witnesses and family members, Human Rights Watch confirmed the deaths of twenty Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in legally questionable circumstances between May 1 and September 30. Eighteen of these deaths are documented in this report. In addition, Human Rights Watch collected data on civilian deaths by U.S. forces from the Iraqi police, human rights organizations, Western media and U.S military statements on the topic. In total, Human Rights Watch estimates the U.S. military killed ninety-four civilians in questionable circumstances."

"As of October 1, 2003, the U.S. military had acknowledged completing only five investigations above the division level into alleged unlawful killings of civilians.
A sixth investigation is ongoing: the killing of eight Iraqi policemen and one Jordanian guard by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division in al-Falluja on September 12."

"In Baghdad, civilian deaths can be categorized in three basic incident groups. First are deaths that occur during U.S. military raids on homes in search of arms or resistance fighters. The U.S. military says it has begun using less aggressive tactics, and is increasingly taking Iraqi police with them on raids. But Baghdad residents still complained of aggressive and reckless behavior, physical abuse, and theft by U.S. troops. When U.S. soldiers encountered armed resistance from families who thought they were acting in self-defense against thieves, they sometimes resorted to overwhelming force, killing family members, neighbors or passers-by.Second are civilian deaths caused by U.S. soldiers who responded disproportionately and indiscriminately after they have come under attack at checkpoints or on the road. Human Rights Watch documented cases where, after an improvised explosive device detonated near a U.S. convoy, soldiers fired high caliber weapons in multiple directions, injuring and killing civilians who were nearby.
Third are killings at checkpoints when Iraqi civilians failed to stop. U.S. checkpoints constantly shift throughout Baghdad, and are sometimes not well marked, although sign visibility is improving. A dearth of Arabic interpreters and poor understanding of Iraqi hand gestures cause confusion, with results that are sometimes fatal for civilians. Soldiers sometimes shout conflicting instructions in English with their guns raised: “Stay in the car!” or “Get out of the car!”


oh man this is gonna be long post
hrw is doing lot better job that i knew of.


"In all of these scenarios, U.S. soldiers can be arrogant and abusive. They have been seen putting their feet on detained Iraqis’ heads—a highly insulting offense. Male soldiers sometimes touch or even search female Iraqis, also a culturally unacceptable act."


god bless those->

"Of course, not all soldiers behave in this way. Human Rights Watch met many U.S. military personnel who dealt respectfully with Iraqis and were working hard to train police, guard facilities and pursue criminals. Some of these soldiers expressed frustration at the lack of sensitivity shown by their colleagues. “It takes a while to get the Rambo stuff out,” one officer told Human Rights Watch."


PROBLEM:


"A central problem is the lack of accountability for U.S. soldiers and commanders in Iraq. According to CPA Regulation Number 17, Iraqi courts cannot prosecute coalition soldiers, so it is the responsibility of the participating coalition countries to investigate allegations of excessive force and unlawful killings, and to hold accountable soldiers and commanders found to have violated domestic military codes or international humanitarian law. The lack of timely and thorough investigations into many questionable incidents has created an atmosphere of impunity, in which many soldiers feel they can pull the trigger without coming under review."


Possible solutions to decrease civilian casualties:


"The rules of engagement are not made public due to security concerns. But Iraqi civilians have a right to know the guidelines for safe behavior. The coalition should mark all checkpoints clearly, for instance, and inform Iraqis through a public service campaign of how to approach checkpoints and how to behave during raids."

"Of central importance are prompt investigations of and punishment for all inappropriate or illegal use of force, as required under international law. U.S. soldiers at present operate with virtual impunity in Iraq. Knowledge that they will be held accountable will be an effective restraint on the excessive, indiscriminate, or reckless use of lethal force."


ok
..that was only from the summary section
..im gonna push post reply button now and let you chew on this. But I ain´t stopping yet and i apologize that this and next post will be pretty big ones. I encourage you to check out that human rights watch report yourself because i only paste parts of it. Read it fully if you can.
ps. thanks for the quote tip
somehow i forgot it completely.
-aape

[edit on 21-12-2005 by aape]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Yeah do me a favor and maybe use the quote function to show where your words stop and the HRW's begin?

I'm not trying to be mean just helpful.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
And ladys&gents..here comes snippets from the part "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CIVILIAN DEATHS":


"For the purposes of this report, a civilian casualty means an Iraqi not taking part in hostile acts against coalition forces who was killed by the U.S. military during a raid, at a checkpoint or after U.S. troops came under attack from a sniper, an ambush, or a road-side bomb. The database does not include those who died from unexploded ordinance from the war or from explosions caused when U.S. soldiers destroyed Iraqi arsenals. Likewise, civilians killed in traffic accidents with U.S. military vehicles are not included."

"Of the ninety-four reported civilian deaths, eight were of women. This reflects the fact that women in Iraq have led very private lives since the war, mostly due to the lack of public security."

"Iraqis rarely knew the unit of soldiers responsible for inflicting casualties. Through its own research or media reports, however, Human Rights Watch identified at least the military division, if not the specific unit, in eight incidents involving sixteen civilian deaths. Of these, the 82nd Airborne was involved in four incidents in which seven civilians were killed and the 1st Armored Division was involved in four incidents in which nine civilians were killed. Four civilians were killed in an operation by Task Force 20, a combined CIA-Army special forces team established to capture Iraq’s former rulers, but it is not clear if they were responsible for the shooting."


ok at this point i will skip the invidual studies of cases. You can read them by yourselves.
Now to the section of "HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW":


"Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the coalition led by the United States is the “Occupying Power” in Iraq. Its conduct as an occupying power is governed primarily by two major international instruments that relate to the treatment of civilians during war and in occupied territories: the 1907 Hague Regulations annexed to the Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."


after that there were some geneva laws about armed conflict or occupation etc about law enforcement rules. Read em if you want it´s very informative. Trying to keep this short
.


"The Geneva Conventions set less stringent conditions for resorting to lethal force when dealing with persons actively engaged in hostilities, but the basic principle remains the same: to protect civilians. Under international humanitarian law, the prohibition against firing on civilians remains absolute, and combatants must at all times distinguish between military and civilian targets. Indiscriminate or disproportionate military actions are strictly prohibited."


Equally bad from them:


"Guerilla fighters in Iraq do not have the treaty obligations of a state. They are, however, bound to conduct operations in an armed conflict situation in conformity with the basic humanitarian principles that prohibit under all circumstances targeting civilians or carrying out indiscriminate attacks, or attacks that disproportionately harm civilians. Suicide car and truck bombings like those against the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and the Imam `Alimosque in al-Najaf are war crimes that violate the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law"


that i cannot understand.But it´s different culture.Maybe un is same to them as usa, dunno. Suicide bombings are means for awful people who have lost all hope. I would never ever aprove such thing from anyone as my opinion is that suicide is as horrible deed as a murder. And suicide murdering innocent people is something too horrible for me to try putting words.
And last but not least: "ACCOUNTABILITY"

surprise:


"According to Coalition Provisional Authority Regulation Number 17, coalition personnel are “immune from local criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction and from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their parent states"


And this pisses me off


"Given the absence of Iraqi legal structures to hold coalition forces accountable, it is incumbent on the occupying powers of the participating countries to investigate all allegations of abuse, and to punish those found to have violated domestic military codes, international humanitarian law, or human rights standards. Both the laws of war and non-derogable human rights standards require the investigation of suspicious or apparently unlawful killings, even during times of armed conflict. As of mid-October 2003, the United States military was not fulfilling that obligation, thus creating an atmosphere of impunity for U.S. troops."

"Human Rights Watch is not aware of any criminal investigations into cases of alleged use of excessive or disproportionate force. As of October 1, the U.S. military said it had completed five administrative investigations above the division level, and all of them under the authority of the Deputy Commanding General in Iraq."


bad rummy


"Reuters responded angrily that it had not been informed directly of the investigation’s results. In a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Reuters chief executive Tom Glocer said, “I certainly don’t believe that my government intentionally targets Reuters or anyone else’s journalists but let’s just say protecting journalists isn’t high enough on the Pentagon’s priority list.”


finally:


"In addition to the six cases documented in this report that are not being investigated, one glaring absence from the list was the first major altercation in al-Falluja on April 28 and 30, when U.S. troops killed an estimated twenty Iraqis and wounded up to seventy others. Human Rights Watch conducted an in-depth investigation into those two incidents and presented its finding in a May 2003 report, Violent Response: The U.S. Army in al-Falluja. The report called on U.S. authorities to conduct a full, independent and impartial investigation to determine the circumstances that led to the shootings, and to hold accountable anyone found to have committed violations of international humanitarian law."


that´s it
i´m done. Going to help my gf to bake christmas cookies. There were also lots of info about us trying to make road check places more seeable etc a whole section called "RECOMMENDATIONS". I´m glad that people are trying to do better job. But still it´s only like carrying water to the well, it isn´t a solution that will work on future.Peace is only solution and i´m ranting this only because i support war only when you must defend your home country. And my nation feels the same way, that way our army is called a "defencive force" puolustusvoimat in finnish. I hope i haven´t pissed of anyone totally
.sorry if i have, i have too sharp tongue.
-aape

[edit on 21-12-2005 by aape]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
this guy aape gives you everything u asked, isnt it your turn to prove him wrong? but you cant do it, can you? cos hes giving you all the facts right there. read it and learn something about your all-mighty-superstate...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
Well juba kills us soldiers but how can you be sure he isn´t paid by same men that pays for soldiers?..For all i know israel could be in this plot with usa. Israel kills usa soldiers, usa soldiers get more pissed to "insurgents".


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Watch this Jihadist video.

www.break.com...

Here is the other link if that don't work. Sounds like Juba.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join