It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:01 PM

I feel so silly and here I thought it was unconscionable for human beings to target innocent men, women and children to further their political and religious agendas

Really? Then we're on the same page.

when in fact, terror is just another unavoidable, acceptable risk of living, like disease, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

Terrorism is quite a lot harder to remediate and protect against, compared to earthquakes, disease, or hurricanes, or hunger for that matter. Fighting terrorism is only possible when you culture values diametrically opposed to those of terrorists. It takes generations, and bombs won't speed up the process. In fact, they slow it down.

Hurricanes can be prepared for, and on the cheap in most cases. The problem, of course, is when people are distracted by illusions, they slip and fall in the real world. Offshore platforms are another matter, but since they're increasingly unmanned, at least more and more of that damage is in dollars and not lives, eh? Concrete dome homes are cheaper and practically indestructible compared to traditional homes. People resist them because of aesthetics. They wanna die for beauty, let 'em.

Earthquakes cause almost no deaths in Japan, and yet they have some of the worst in the world. The way they defeat the threat is with MONEY and ATTENTION. It's possible to focus on things like protecting your citizens from danger when that's the actual goal.

I've been so concerned for the lives of the innocent since 9/11 and for what?

I lost a friend in NY, and I very nearly lost my mother. You think I'm not concerned with lives? What the Hell have I been talking about all this time? If we want to protect innocent lives, there are a million ways to do it that don't involve creating more victims.

I think I'll just run over to I-40 and drop a few baseball-size rocks off the overpass and if someone gets mad, I'll just remind them of how many people die on the interstate without my help. That'll show 'em.

I don't know where you got that idea from. I said nothing of the sort, nothing about attacking random passers by. You're gonna have to explain your logic for me.

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:21 PM
this happened twice and it makes a big fuss, to me it sounds like a few guys randomly thought up a quick plan in a pinch and not some widespread plan used daily across iraq.

and anyways this tactic violates no treaty of war.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:25 AM

from WyrdeOne
Can't you just feel the brotherly love? Nobody condones terrorism here, not that a little thing like the truth matters anymore.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Terrorists are absolutely condoned by some here, as long as they are called Freedom Fighters.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:40 PM
I'll leave my views on the war in general out of this post, because that isn't the topic. Besides, we're there. I can't change that.

The question is one of threshold. What is the point at which the tactics employed become unacceptable? Is the temporary incarceration of potentially innocent civilians against their will an acceptable sacrifice to make in exchange for the opportunity to capture an agent of a brutal insurgency?

For me, the answer to that question depends upon details we don't necessarily know at this point. Were they made aware of why they were being abducted? Were they well-treated? If the intended target never showed up, did they release them? How long were they held? Does the spread of the awareness of this tactic's use among Iraqis and others help or hurt the war effort ultimately? Will it incite a greater reprisal than the anticipated gain we were hoping to achieve by using it? There was reportedly an instance where a nursing mother was detained. Were her children cared for? Did they know she was nursing? If so, did they disregard that, and if so, is that standard practice or personal prerogative on the part of the soldier(s)?

If we can answer those questions, or have them answered for us, we will be able to determine for ourselves - on a person to person and differing basis, of course - whether or not this exceeds our ethical thresholds.

Another question we might ask is whether we would react more sharply if this tactic were used here at home.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by AceWombat04]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:23 PM
And I repeat......

This is really getting to me. Seeing the once proud and noble Americans be herded like sheep into the tyranny pen. Very sad indeed.

Bush insider says WTC story is ''bogus''

You sheeple need to wake up.....Drone, Grady, Westpoint, im lookin at you.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in