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.

 

US Air Strike Kills Iraqi Family of 12

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
If Iranian Air Force would drop a 1000 pound bomb on some Innocent Civilans, that were Suspected American Sympathisers - would you say that they performed an act of Terrorism?


if the iranian air force INTENTIONALLY dropped that bomb on some innocents, yes. Or, rather I would say it was an intentional attack (a bombing of that magnitude is beyond terrorism)

if the Iranian Air Force was practicing maneuvers and inadvertantly dropped a bomb killing 1000 innocent individuals, I would call it a tragedy.

let me restate that using the family of 12 so that perhaps you can understand it better.

1. US military bombs a house they THINK is housing insurgents and kill a family of 12 in the process - this is a tragedy. It is one of the awful, horrible realities of war.

2. US Military plane is flying over a town and the pilot drops a bomb on a house for no reason other than to blow up that house and kill the inhabitants. that would be terror.

The situation you have been ranting about clearly falls under item 1. so, it was an accident and a tragedy but no, it was not an act of terror.




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Does that Matter to the Dead Civilans?

Does it matter to civilians if the insurgents are killing for thier own reasons or for freedom?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Listen - they are not by Buddies, can you please cut that Bud-dy-CRAP?



What is the difference by definition a Buddy/friend/comrade are all one and the same. Keep in mind your header says Freedom Lover
Guerrilla Field Marshal not mine.




And when You start to ACKNOWLEDGE that US Forces ALSO do acts of TERRORISM, then maybe we can talk.


US forces are not terrorizing anyone they are fighting a war. You do not see them driving cars laden with bombs into innocent civilians do you?


[edit on 1/5/2006 by shots]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Show me where the US has ever condoned terrorism. Show me some examples of this. I am somewhat of a history buff and I am not aware of any instances throughout the US history where the goverment backed the use of terrorism by any of it's citizens / military or the use of terrorism by any other nation.
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence or the threat of such. This definately does not cover accidents of accidents that are caused by bad intel.
Can the insurgents say the same?

Terrorism is the calculated threat or use of violence with the aim of intimidating and provoking fear and damage in order to achieve political, religious, ideological and other goals, typically directed against civilian populations.


The United States is a Leading Terrorist State

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “Low–intensity Warfare.” If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same.


Now lets check the List of Countries, on which USA did perform acts of Terrorism according to the definition above, taken from the US Code:

  • Nicaragua
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica
  • Honduras
  • Argentina
  • Columbia
  • Vietnam
  • Laos
  • Cambodia

To mention some of the Few Names from the Past.

And it was ALWAYS like this:


Noam Chomsky

"This is the first time the guns have been pointed the other way. For hundreds of years, Europeans have been slaughtering each other and slaughtering people all over the world. But the Congo didn't attack Belgium. India didn't attack England. Algeria didn't attack France. The world looks very different depending on whether you're holding the lash or being whipped by it."

"It's a pretty impressive feat for a propaganda system to carry this off in a free society. The United States can contribute to millions of deaths around the world because of the silence or servility of the educated classes who could easily find out about this."

It's Pretty Simple.

When America perpetrates violence, that is called Counter-Terrorism or War on Terrorism - but everything else IS Terrorism.

"If something is a crime when it's committed against us, it's a crime when we commit it against others. If there is a simpler moral truism than that, I'd like to hear it."

Do you Understand my Point of View now?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Of couse I understand your point of view, it is a fairly simple one after all, the west bad, everyone else good
. Disagree somewhat violently with you, but what the hey. It's a free board and up to a point we can say what we think needs to be said.
Mostly its your rabid refusal to realize the moral difference between a tragic accident of war, and the deliberate act of terrorism, and I am not neccessarily addressing this particular incident, though it certainly qualifies.
Tragic accidents are a fact of war, not to mention life, and are by their very nature unforseeable, deliberate acts are well...you get the drift of my argument.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Wait, souljah are you trying to say that the US should be charge with crimes a government over 30 years ago commited?
If so then what is the date that we stop charging people?

Should I charge your country for helping in WW1 and helping the murder of millions of soldiers?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
All I can say there Souljah is WOW!

That last post was realy good!
You destroyed my argument.
Wait a second.... you are basing your off of postings and statements of Noam Chomsky. Let me see here.... Noam Chomsky is a celebrated Linguist not a miliatry or political expert. Noam Chomsky is a self proclaimed libertarian socialist as well as a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism anarcho-syndicalism
hmmmm he is calling the US a terristic state..... an anarchist..... hmmmm
Your last post you try to provide evidence showing that the US supports terrorism, yet you use the musings of a Linguistic anarchist to prove your point? Now if Mr. Chomsky had somekind of a political or military or a strategist background his words may then actually hold water. Unfortunately, he is not an expert, he is an anarchist. In a court of law he could not could not be called an expert witness in anything other than in the field of liguistics,

Now lets examine your supposition that the “Low–intensity Warfare.” that the US uses is a form of terrorism.
Here is the definition that you have asked me to examine



US Army Field Manual
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (as promulgated in the US Army Field Manual 100-20) as:
... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.


Now here is the definition of terrorism from the same wiki site that you have offered up.



Terrorism is not defined. According to one of the many working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).
"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".

You state that the definitions above are almost the same.... well I guess. They are both in the English language. Other than that there is no similiarities. So what is your point.

Now you state categorically that the US has performed terroristic acts in the following countries
* Nicaragua
* Chile
* Costa Rica
* Honduras
* Argentina
* Columbia
* Vietnam
* Laos
* Cambodia
Yet of course, you provide no proof or evidence. Are you trying to refer to the Vietnam War? The same war that you have accused others of always falling back on? Hmmm. I would have expected better of you. Please provide evidence to support your contention that the US has supported terrorism or have performed terroristic acts in these countries. Show me where the UN, or the World Court have accused and convicted the US of this. I would be very interested in the read. Thanks ahead of time



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Wait, souljah are you trying to say that the US should be charge with crimes a government over 30 years ago commited?
If so then what is the date that we stop charging people?

Should I charge your country for helping in WW1 and helping the murder of millions of soldiers?

Of course not! It would not fit his agenda



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Now you state categorically that the US has performed terroristic acts in the following countries
* Nicaragua
* Chile
* Costa Rica
* Honduras
* Argentina
* Columbia
* Vietnam
* Laos
* Cambodia
Yet of course, you provide no proof or evidence. Are you trying to refer to the Vietnam War? The same war that you have accused others of always falling back on? Hmmm. I would have expected better of you. Please provide evidence to support your contention that the US has supported terrorism or have performed terroristic acts in these countries. Show me where the UN, or the World Court have accused and convicted the US of this. I would be very interested in the read. Thanks ahead of time


are you trying to tell me that you have absolutely no knowledge of what went on in the mentioned countries and US involvement in it, yet you are trying to sell your point to us?

now thats a real tragedy...



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
do you have a link to a world court ruling of finding or charge of this? how about the un findings?
if you noticed that is what i have requested. I am very interested in reading this as I stated.
My friend offered this up yet on provides a less than credible source for his supposition.So you are saying that it is sad that I request the supporting documentation? How is that?
I can say the sky is falling. Does that mean that it is true? Does it mean that it is true if 100 common / normal non-expert people say that the sky is falling? I think not. In a debate, a person must provide evidence in order to support their statements. Without the supporting documentation any statments that eh debator makes is only supposition, hypothesis, and solely personal opinion.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
all im saying theres plenty of info on it even on www.abovetopsecret.com, let alone google, or perhaps you should hit the library, plenty of books on the subject, although in USA you might get labbeled a terrorist if you read them. "CIA and 911" is pretty good


As for your question, im not sure if USA has ever been punished for it, whos gonna punish it anyway???? When your governments contractors are caught in human slave trafficking, your own government punishes them with a slap on the wrist and let them continue, sorry, the correct term is "put them in penalty box", which means be more carefull next time so you dont get caught.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Wait a second.... you are basing your off of postings and statements of Noam Chomsky. Let me see here.... Noam Chomsky is a celebrated Linguist not a miliatry or political expert. Noam Chomsky is a self proclaimed libertarian socialist as well as a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism anarcho-syndicalism

Professor Noam Chomsky is a Pain in the A** for all the Pro-War Crowds outhere - you Included. And I completly Understand why you and others like you, do not like his words, nor his numerous statements and quotes, which have proved to be True numerous times. And you do not like what he says, for his Numerous criticism to the United States Goverment. You do not like him for statements such as;


Superpowers try to organize the world around themselves using military and economic means.

"The Bush Administration do have moral values. Their moral values are very explicit: shine the boots of the rich and the powerful, kick everybody else in the face, and let your grandchildren pay for it. That simple principle predicts almost everything that's happening."

"Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of peace?"

"Somebody's paying the corporations that destroyed Iraq and the corporations that are rebuilding it. They're getting paid by the American taxpayer in both cases. So we pay them to destroy the country, and then we pay them to rebuild it."


Is any of them NOT True?

You do not like him, because he is Opposed to "corporate state capitalism", where the United States are the Leading Country.

Mister Chomsky has been around for a Long time, and I think that he Saw and Observed many Acts of Terrorism performed by the US.

I don't think this is the Place for me to go into Terrorist Acts of United States in the South America and Indo-China in the 70s and 80s, but if you really want to know, I am sure that Chomsky Archive is full of Information about that for you.

[edit on 6/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Umm ok, so now your saying the US should be punished for something that old men did several decades ago?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I don't think this is the Place for me to go into Terrorist Acts of United States in the South America and Indo-China in the 70s and 80s, but if you really want to know, I am sure that Chomsky Archive is full of Information about that for you.
[edit on 6/1/06 by Souljah]

Yet again, are you seriosly suggesting that we punish the US for acts that one government several DECADES ago commited?

If so are you willing to stand in court for your country while its tried?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
nukunuku,
I am well aware of the various operations that the US has performed in each of those countries. At least those that came to light back then as well as those that are still coming to the media today.
None of these operations to date have ever caused the UN nor the World Court to even point the accusation of terrorism at the US.
When you take into account Souljah's deffinitions for Low Intensity Warfare along with the definition of Terrorism, the operations in the countries that he has used for examples do not fit the category of being called terrorism.
Thank you for reminding me of the Haliburton fiasco with the sex slave trade. I was actually putting together a thread on this. Unfortunately, this is a goverment contractor not the US goverment or it's military nor the US officials that are doing this. The crimes of one person or group cannot be credited to the goverment.
Let me give you an example. I hate supporting Walmart but they provide a good example for this case. On numerous occassions Walmart has been accused of the hiring of Illegal immigrants. None of these charges have held due to the fact that the illegal immigrants were hired and were working for contractors that had been performing jobs for Walmart.
Again though the Haliburton fiasco does not support the supposition that the US is performing has performed, or is supporting terroristic acts.
Back to the topic of this thread though, The bombing of the farm house that killed the family due to inaccurate information provided by ground forces as well as Iraqi police, does not add up to the US performing a terroritic act. As I posted in an earlier post on this thread, By definition, a terroristic act is one that is planned and performed to target non-combatants instead of enemy combatants. This episode is a tragic accident / mistake and I feel for the family and would do what I could to help them. But is it terrorism, Was it a planned attack against this family or any other non-combatant.... the answer is no.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet again, are you seriosly suggesting that we punish the US for acts that one government several DECADES ago commited?

Well, Saddam Hussein was Punished for Crimes that he Commited against Humanity 10-15 Years ago, wasn't he? And EVERYBODY today has alot to say about what an Evil Dictator he was in the 80's and 90's, but rarely there is a voice saying, that at that time US was a big Ally of Saddam and provided him with the majority of the military technology needed.



If so are you willing to stand in court for your country while its tried?

OK, lets start - will you do the Honors?

[edit on 6/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
People seem to be forgeting that the Iraqi people did not ask to be liberated, the US decided theywanted to go in taking there coalition with them.

I have a friend who is serving with the Royal Marines, and when they went to Iraq the first thing their Commander told them, when they went on there first mission, was 'When we land you will be under hevy opposition and US fire' I found this quite funny as the Americans have a obismal 'frendly fire' record.

I do belive that the US has too much of a 'gung ho' attitude, which works against them. I think the UK has a much better relationship with the people of Basra, due to the way we interact with them. Remember were are supose to be there to help them not rule them.

The sad thing about this is that i belive this will turn out to be another Vietnam for the US, best to get out now and save face.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, Saddam Hussein was Punished for Crimes that he Commited against Humanity 10-15 Years ago, wasn't he?

The diffrence is that mr saddam is one person and STILL ALIVE.



And EVERYBODY today has alot to say about what an Evil Dictator he was in the 80's and 90's, but rarely there is a voice saying, that at that time US was a big Ally of Saddam and provided him with the majority of the military technology needed.

Do you know exsactly who gave him what?
Hell the UK had its hands in the ME well before the US was invented.
We actually do have a lot to say, mr saddam WAS the same regime in 2003 as he was in 1980's.



OK, lets start - will you do the Honors?
[edit on 6/1/06 by Souljah]

Your country took part in WW1 namely breaking the UN convention law against chemical weapons.
Your country also took part in WW2, which helped take part in the genocide of over 3 million people.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh
People seem to be forgeting that the Iraqi people did not ask to be liberated, the US decided theywanted to go in taking there coalition with them.

Oh they didnt?
Who said this?


I have a friend who is serving with the Royal Marines, and when they went to Iraq the first thing their Commander told them, when they went on there first mission, was 'When we land you will be under hevy opposition and US fire' I found this quite funny as the Americans have a obismal 'frendly fire' record.

I have 2 friends and a close friend/ family (now) member in the RM, you would expect them to be under heavy oposition from the iraqi army if I am not correct was the third largest in the world!


I do belive that the US has too much of a 'gung ho' attitude, which works against them.

And the UK doesnt?
Ever heard of the FF incident in the falklands between our 2 elite forces?


I think the UK has a much better relationship with the people of Basra, due to the way we interact with them. Remember were are supose to be there to help them not rule them.

We learned from NI, the americans dont have the experience we have but they do try hard.


The sad thing about this is that i belive this will turn out to be another Vietnam for the US, best to get out now and save face.

No, if it was then it would be very worse.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   


Professor Noam Chomsky is a Pain in the A** for all the Pro-War Crowds outhere - you Included. And I completly Understand why you and others like you, do not like his words, nor his numerous statements and quotes, which have proved to be True numerous times. And you do not like what he says, for his Numerous criticism to the United States Goverment. You do not like him for statements such as;

Why thank you Souljah! I did not know that I was a Pro-War advocate. Hmmm. that is news to me! This is another case of where you take that great big paint brush and paint everything and everyone the same. You have once again forgotten my history and background that I have given to you before. Do I need to remind you?
Where I have ever said that I was? If you will take the time and read through all my various posts on this subject, you will notice that I support our troops that are out in the field. I hate war. Always did and always will. But I will always support the troops who have to go fight.
As for Mr. Chomsky, as I stated earlier, he is just a celebrated linguist. His thoughts and opinions hold as much water as my own or a movie actor. Is he a pain to me, I really do not care what he says.



I don't think this is the Place for me to go into Terrorist Acts of United States in the South America and Indo-China in the 70s and 80s, but if you really want to know, I am sure that Chomsky Archive is full of Information about that for you.

As per normal, Souljah. you make an unsupported statment and then skip and run. You stated categorically that the US has commited Terrorism in those countries. I ask for proof of such such as the World Court rullings or from the UN. Instead you once again offer up the thoughts, musings and rants of a linguist




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join