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.

 

Taliban using human shields in Afghanistan

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
So what you are saying is it's alright to bomb the # out of these civilians just because some fleeing Taliban took refuge in and around their homes? Killing little girls, mothers, brothers, and fathers... People who are probably absolutely nothing to do with this pigging War should be bombed to death by the Coalition just to 'teach the Taliban a lesson'? I'm absolutely speechless at how sinister that statement is, the insane thing is, you were actually being serious! I guess next you will be saying it's ok for suicide bombers to kill us just to get at some of our troops. What the hell, they're only killing the enemy wherever they find them, right? No harm done. Of course, any Civilians who died would be blood on the hands of the Coalition, who were obviously using them as 'Human shields'. Indeed.



No its not all right to kill civilians, theres a difference between killing the enemy and killing civilians, thats why terrorists intentional go after civilians even if no Americans around. Its unrealistic to say you can fight a war where civilians are never hurt, on a planet filled with over 6 billion people and the fighting thats global. Not to mention why we call it collateral damage where terrorists call it Allah's will. I love to see the civilians out of the way, but thats just unrealistic, I understand your view that innocents should never die, but fighting an enemy that hides among the population, you got yourself a problem, a moral problem.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
No its not all right to kill civilians, theres a difference between killing the enemy and killing civilians,


You're right, no it's not, and yes there is.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Its unrealistic to say you can fight a war where civilians are never hurt, on a planet filled with over 6 billion people and the fighting thats global.


Of course it's unrealistic, but you could certainly reduces the odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, whether insurgents have ran in them or not. Make sense to you?


Originally posted by deltaboy
Not to mention why we call it collateral damage where terrorists call it Allah's will.


Ahh right, so we can just slap a collateral damage label on this and everything is fine, right? Tell that to the kid with the invisible family.


Originally posted by deltaboy
I love to see the civilians out of the way, but thats just unrealistic, I understand your view that innocents should never die, but fighting an enemy that hides among the population, you got yourself a problem, a moral problem.


Kid, they're not hiding amongst the population, they are the population! Whose country do you think we're in? What you said earlier was disgracefull, and I hope you get torn apart on here for it.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The west causes civilian deaths via unfortunate accidents and the terrorists cause civilian deaths as a purposeful tactic.


I guess that makes us the lesser of 2 evils.
And this shows their general lack of respect for life.
Very distrubing....



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The west causes civilian deaths via unfortunate accidents and the terrorists cause civilian deaths as a purposeful tactic.


How can you even say this when we deliberatly called in Aistrikes on Civilian homes? You don't even spin Skippy, you just lie.


Originally posted by zerotolerance
I guess that makes us the lesser of 2 evils.
And this shows their general lack of respect for life.
Very distrubing....


Are you out of your mind? The lesser of two evils? We just bombed residential areas on purpose, how does that make us any better than some guy strapped to a bomb? Yeah, because 'They' are are the only ones displaying a general lack of respect for life... give me a break.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster

Of course it's unrealistic, but you could certainly reduces the odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, whether insurgents have ran in them or not. Make sense to you?


Makes sense to me if you have men on the ground that can do the same job, but instead we have just fighter bombers only that were present to commit this action. Make sense to you?



Ahh right, so we can just slap a collateral damage label on this and everything is fine, right? Tell that to the kid with the invisible family.


Again you just seem to be narrow minded that civlians will never get killed. An innocent losses his or her life or his or her family was blown to bits, that just war. If you can't except the realities of war then thats just too bad. You should be glad we don't do bombings equivalent to WW2 on Japan's mainland.



Kid, they're not hiding amongst the population, they are the population! Whose country do you think we're in? What you said earlier was disgracefull, and I hope you get torn apart on here for it.


They are the population? You should remember that the Taliban comprises of Afghans as well as Arabs. Where you think the Taliban created from? You be suprised. And the talk of I hope you get torn apart, shows how amateur you are. Old man.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Communication_Monster

Of course it's unrealistic, but you could certainly reduces the odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, whether insurgents have ran in them or not. Make sense to you?


Makes sense to me if you have men on the ground that can do the same job, but instead we have just fighter bombers only that were present to commit this action. Make sense to you?


I thought there were troops there who called in the Airstrike on the civilian homes?
Basically what you're saying is, you didn't have the little plastic bit to properly tune in your television, so you just smashed the entire thing to pieces with a Mallet, right? That's sound logic if ever I saw it.


Originally posted by deltaboy

Ahh right, so we can just slap a collateral damage label on this and everything is fine, right? Tell that to the kid with the invisible family.


Again you just seem to be narrow minded that civlians will never get killed. An innocent losses his or her life or his or her family was blown to bits, that just war.


Don't even lie, or twist things. I've just aknowledged in my last post that civilians do get killed in Wars. I also went onto say we could reduce those odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, did I not? How the # am I 'so narrow minded that civilians never get killed in war'?


Originally posted by deltaboy
If you can't except the realities of war then thats just too bad. You should be glad we don't do bombings equivalent to WW2 on Japan's mainland.


If you can't accept the reality that this whole thing is totally wrong, and that we shouldn't be bombing civilian homes, then that's just to bad. After what you've said here today, you should be taken out the back and shot in the face, to be honest.


Originally posted by deltaboy

Kid, they're not hiding amongst the population, they are the population! Whose country do you think we're in? What you said earlier was disgracefull, and I hope you get torn apart on here for it.


They are the population? You should remember that the Taliban comprises of Afghans as well as Arabs. Where you think the Taliban created from? You be suprised. And the talk of I hope you get torn apart, shows how amateur you are. Old man.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by deltaboy]


Do you realise how stupid and confused you sound? Are there no Arabs, or Afghans in Afghanistan?


www.afghanistan.org...

Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.

Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan


Haha, who did you call an Amateur?






[edit on 23-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Do you realise how stupid and confused you sound? Are there no Arabs, or Afghans in Afghanistan?


www.afghanistan.org...

Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.

Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan


Haha, who did you call an Amateur?



Reread your post as well as my post. You say they as the Taliban hidden among the population are the population. I say that the Taliban is not the population, that the Taliban comprised of of Afghans as well as Arabs and do not serve the Afghan people. Look up on the history of the Taliban. Calling a person stupid is showing how ignorant you are. Anyways name calling don't do crap to me. And also finally you seem to change my words on the question, no where do I say Afghans and Arabs are not in Afghanistan. Unless somehow you don't know how to type a sentence or you don't understand what I am saying.


Do you realise how stupid and confused you sound? Are there no Arabs, or Afghans in Afghanistan?


This is what you say.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I don’t hate Muslims, I just hate the ones that want to kill me and my fellow Americans. Which unfortunately by my estimates is quite a few, a lot more than other faiths for certain.

I don’t hate the Muslim Pakistani family that live next door to me, in fact I let them use some of my garden in exchange for some traditional Halal cooking from time to time. I played cricket with their kids yesterday in fact. I like them, and I should also note they haven’t tried to kill me (yet). But if/when they do decide its time to kill me; I will most certainly stop liking them then.

And it’s too bad some of you are incapable of telling the difference between talking about something and hate for something. You know, making sweeping assumptions about things is a form stereotyping, and stereotyping is a form of racism. I see a trend…



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I don’t hate Muslims, I just hate the ones that want to kill me and my fellow Americans. Which unfortunately by my estimates is quite a few, a lot more than other faiths for certain.

Hey, do you think that WAR ON TERROR is increasing the number of people, that want to kill your fellow Americans or DE-creasing?

Ask yourself that question - possibly more times a Week.



I don’t hate the Muslim Pakistani family that live next door to me, in fact I let them use some of my garden in exchange for some traditional Halal cooking from time to time. I played cricket with their kids yesterday in fact. I like them, and I should also note they haven’t tried to kill me (yet). But if/when they do decide its time to kill me; I will most certainly stop liking them then.



You always use your "Paki Neighbours" to Proove how you LIKE Muslims.

I just remember THIS THREAD and I immediatly see what kind of Loving and Caring person you are.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Reread your post as well as my post. You say they as the Taliban hidden among the population are the population. I say that the Taliban is not the population, that the Taliban comprised of of Afghans as well as Arabs and do not serve the Afghan people.


I'm sorry, what? The Taliban aren't part of Afghanistans population? Were they not in charge for a little while? Do they not live there, also? Just what exactly do you have to do to be part of the population then, in your mind?


Originally posted by Communication_Monster

www.afghanistan.org...

Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.

Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan




Originally posted by deltaboy
Look up on the history of the Taliban.


I'm well aware of it, thanks.


Originally posted by deltaboy
no where do I say Afghans and Arabs are not in Afghanistan. Unless somehow you don't know how to type a sentence or you don't understand what I am saying.


So just what the hell are you saying then? The Taliban consists of Arabs who migrated there during the 80's from places like Saudi Arabia (now called Afghan Arabs), and Afghans. Now, you keep trying to tell me the Taliban aren't part of the population, so that's why I asked 'Are you saying there are no Afghan Arabs or Afghans in Afghanistan.' Come on, it's not difficult to get your head round, I'm sure you can figure out what I meant.

The Taliban are obviously part of the Afghan population. Why the hell am I even wasting my time sitting here arguing with you about this? God damn. There are much more important issues here.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Its simple...they do not represent the Afghan population because the Taliban was created by Pakistan. You say they are part of the population, how can it be part of the population when the Afghan people did not create this organization, not to mention the Taliban endangering the people of Afghanistan by allying with the Al Qaeda, now what tells you that, that the Taliban you say is part of the population which you mean it represents the Afghan people, allied with Al Qaeda a very well known enemy of the U.S. Did the Taliban do it in the interests of the Afghan people? Or its interest of Al Qaeda which is also comprised of Arabs and Pakistanis.
If I remember, Mullah Omar the leader of the Taliban and supposedly the leader of the Afghan people, arranged a marriage with one of his daughters to Osama Bin Laden, in strengthening the alliance. What does that tell you about the Taliban?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its simple...they do not represent the Afghan population because the Taliban was created by Pakistan. You say they are part of the population, how can it be part of the population when the Afghan people did not create this organization, not to mention the Taliban endangering the people of Afghanistan by allying with the Al Qaeda, now what tells you that, that the Taliban you say is part of the population which you mean it represents the Afghan people, allied with Al Qaeda a very well known enemy of the U.S. Did the Taliban do it in the interests of the Afghan people? Or its interest of Al Qaeda which is also comprised of Arabs and Pakistanis.
If I remember, Mullah Omar the leader of the Taliban and supposedly the leader of the Afghan people, arranged a marriage with one of his daughters to Osama Bin Laden, in strengthening the alliance. What does that tell you about the Taliban?

Hmmmmmmmmm...

If I remember correctly, the USA had a Big role in creating Afgani Resistance during the Soviet Invasion - and among those "Freedom Fighters, as president Reagan called them, were also members of Taliban. And after the war, everybody LEFT Afganistan to themselves - so naturally the Fight for Power happened:


Rise to Power

After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force capable of bringing order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies, their relative hegemony reduced the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society.

They were mainly supported by the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia - ALL of them Big USA Allies.

And thats not all.


Previosu Western Links

The Taliban have had negotiations with U.S. and Argentinian petroleum companies. In 1997, a delegation from the Taliban went to Texas for talks about the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. The Taliban spent several days in Sugar Land, Texas at UNOCAL's company headquarters. In spite of the civil war in Afghanistan at the time, both Unocal and Argentinian Bridas were in competition to construct the pipeline. In 1998, the Taliban were in discussion with UNOCAL in the USA and with Bridas in Argentina in an attempt to agree the building of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

You might also want to check this out:

An obituary of King Fahd
Understanding The Reasons For Taliban Defiance
Brother, can you spare a tear for Taliban
Who is responsible for the Taliban



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its simple...they do not represent the Afghan population because the Taliban was created by Pakistan.


Well no it wasn't created just by Pakistan, the governments of several other countries also contributed by sending people there in the 80's.


transcripts.cnn.com...

In the 1980s, thousands of Arab men left their countries for Afghanistan, often with assistance from their governments, to help a fellow Muslim nation fight against Soviet intruders.

At the end of the Afghan-Soviet war, thousands of the so-called Afghan Arabs chose to remain. "Maybe about half an original 7,000 stayed and settled there," says Mohamed Salah. "They became part of the environment and took Afghan wives. And when the strict Islamic government of the Taliban came, the Afghan Arabs felt it was in accordance with their beliefs."



Originally posted by deltaboy
that the Taliban you say is part of the population which you mean it represents the Afghan people


No I don't mean they represent the people, I just said they are part of the population. I'm part of the English population; do you see me up there on the centre stage representing the people?


Originally posted by deltaboy
Did the Taliban do it in the interests of the Afghan people? Or its interest of Al Qaeda which is also comprised of Arabs and Pakistanis.


Irrelevant.


Originally posted by deltaboy
If I remember, Mullah Omar the leader of the Taliban and supposedly the leader of the Afghan people, arranged a marriage with one of his daughters to Osama Bin Laden, in strengthening the alliance.

What does that tell you about the Taliban?


Urm, so what? If I had all year I'd sit here and list all the American connections with Bin Laden and Al quada. Stop sidetracking the issue.

Bombing residential areas with families in them on purpose is wrong.

End of god forsaken story. Thank you.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Yes the U.S. had support the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, the Taliban was created in 94 which was 5 years after the Soviets pulled out. And President Clinton hoped to open up the Taliban and the Taliban was eager to be recognized especially the U.S as a legitamate govt. However negotiations have failed because of Taliban's protection of Osama and not to mention the destruction of the Budda statues. Plain simple. And also after 9/11 those U.S. allies have cut themselves from the Taliban.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Alright, Shots, alright, maybe that was a bad analogy.


yeah it sure was




You can't just fall back on that to try and justify this, though. Civilian areas have been deliberatly hit with Airstrikes, that's just not acceptable.



It is very easy to justify when some civilians were believed to harbor and support the insurgents. Hell they even buried them. Would you go out and bury someone that was responsible for your families death? I know I wouldn't :shk:



Canada.com

Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.

U.S. commander Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry told the AP on Monday that the military was ''looking into'' reports of civilian deaths. Other coalition officials said they were confident they had hit a Taliban compound.





posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I never said you hated muslims Skippy, but sometimes you make it easy for some to assume that you do.


Originally posted by Souljah
You always use your "Paki Neighbours" to Proove how you LIKE Muslims.


That's kind of comical though, reminds me of Stephen Colbert's black friend pictures....




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
It is very easy to justify when some civilians were believed to harbor and support the insurgents. Hell they even buried them. Would you go out and bury someone that was responsible for your families death? I know I wouldn't :shk:



Canada.com

Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.


Did the Taliban bomb kill their families? The Coalition did as far as I see it. I don't buy this crap you guys are coming out with for one second. Sorry. Obviously they hold the Coalition responsible for the death of their families. Who cares if they dug graves for the dead? Are they going to just leave them there rotting? Talk about a desperate grasp at the rack of non-issue straws, shots.



Originally posted by shots

U.S. commander Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry told the AP on Monday that the military was ''looking into'' reports of civilian deaths. Other coalition officials said they were confident they had hit a Taliban compound.




Oh well, If the Military are 'looking into' 'reports' of civilian deaths, and if other Coalition officials are confident they hit a Taliban compound then that's alright then. These people always tell the truth, and I trust them without question. Thanks for putting my mind at ease, shots!

(I read your recent thread about the British UFO report)








[edit on 23-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah



  • Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.





I do believe the buildings were defended by the taliban you loose on that one.






Aerial area bombardment and international law
  • Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.



  • It was an assault you loose again.





  • Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.




  • All of which become legal targets when the enemy infiltrates them.


    That is three for three you are out.


    Also why don't you explain why you always expect Americans and British to abide by the very same rules that the Insergents repeatedly do not?


    Militants have repeatedly targetedaid workers, including doctors and teachers. Last month, gunmen stormed a medical clinic in a northwestern province and killed five doctors and nurses. Source


    :shk:

    [edit on 5/23/2006 by shots]



    posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:56 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by shots
    I do believe the buildings were defended by the taliban you loose on that one.

    Your belif is based on reports presetend to you by the US armed forces - meaning, that they will ofcourse protect their name and their actions, no matter what the outcome was. And none of us was there in the first place, so none of us can claim that they are right.



    All of which become legal targets when the enemy infiltrates them.

    IF "The Enemy" Inflitrated them.

    Still - does that mean Airstrikes upon Residental Areas have a Green Light?

    It is very easy for you to say, that since you do not live in those Residental areas.

    Actually I have a feeling that you do not feel any Remorse whatsoever for any fallen Civilan casualties in those kind of attacks. Its just "Collateral Damage" - hey, it happens, right? Good thing Your Boys did not get injured. That would be terrible!



    I find the following facts interesting tho:


    Fourth Geneva Convention

    The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.

    • Article 3 covers internal armed conflict and it provides similar protections to the population as those described in the rest of this document for a Protected person. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.

    • Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.


    Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the Administration of the USA's interpretation of unlawful combatants.


    Protocol I

    It has not been adopted by several nations, including the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is thus not universally applicable. The U.S. objection is on the basis that it would extend Geneva Conventions protection to some unlawful combatants.


    GOOD LUCK AND GOOD NIGHT!




    posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Souljah
    And none of us was there in the first place, so none of us can claim that they are right.



    You are right we were not. So how can be that positive it happened your way?



    IF "The Enemy" Inflitrated them.


    Yes that is correct and according to the reports those buildings were Infiltrated therefore they were legal targets.



    Actually I have a feeling that you do not feel any Remorse whatsoever for any fallen Civilan casualties in those kind of attacks.


    Kindly do not put words in my mouth I have never said any thing of the kind.

    It would appear your post and my edit crossed so please answer this.

    Why don't you explain why it is OK in your book for insurgents to break the rules?


    Militants have repeatedly targetedaid workers, including doctors and teachers. Last month, gunmen stormed a medical clinic in a northwestern province and killed five doctors and nurses. Source



    Seems to be an awful lot of that going on including using civilians as shield, yet you never speak out against the insurgents when they do it and I want to know why you do not object to that horrid behavior?????

    :shk:


    Now as for the last part I snipped out, you know darned well the Geneva convention only applies to humane treatment when it comes to insurgents because they do not wear uniforms so using it over and over to defend them only makes you look foolish.

    Or are you a mind reader that can tell a civilian from and insurgent just by looking at them


    [edit on 5/23/2006 by shots]



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join