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.
Originally posted by Souljah
So, if you are not positive what actually happened, how can you defend one side?
Originally posted by shots
Kindly show me where I defended anyone in this thread. You can't because I have not done it. Again I ask you not to put words in my mouth. :shk:
Originally posted by Souljah
Errr - Dude, you are defending US armed forces from the beginning of this debate - and not just in this thread.
Originally posted by shots
Second we are not talking about other threads we are talking about this thread.
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Note Souljah did say this thread, as well as other threads. I saw you defending the Coalition in this thread (and others) from the beggining too, just as Souljah did, but you seem to be going around in circles trying to avoid that fact for some reason. It doesn't really make a difference which thread we are talking about anyway, as both in question are of the exact same topic, and nature.
Originally posted by shots
I know what he said and I also know I did not defend them in this thread.
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:
Originally posted by shots
If this happened here or in lets say the UK the situation would be completely different. The insurgents/terrorists would not have 1, two three or a thousand others to back them up so we could surround the building until they could capture or disable them. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here the two situations are not the same.
Originally posted by shots
Please pay attention in the future
Originally posted by shots
BTW Love your two medals keep up the good work
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
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:
it (¹t) pron. 1. Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; or an abstraction: polished the table until it shone; couldn't find out who it was; opened the meeting by calling it to order.
Source American Heritage Dictionary
Originally posted by shots
If this happened here or in lets say the UK the situation would be completely different. The insurgents/terrorists would not have 1, two three or a thousand others to back them up so we could surround the building until they could capture or disable them. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here the two situations are not the same.
What's that?
Originally posted by shots
First I am not a dude so kindly refrain from calling me one now and in the future.
Second we are not talking about other threads we are talking about this thread.
Originally posted by Souljah
Originally posted by shots
In your eyes US/UK forces can not and did not do anything wrong - ever!
So you admit they did "something wrong"?
Originally posted by Souljah
Second - could you please answer my question from ....
So - do you?
And if you are not Defending the US/UK armed forces - you will say:
"YES! They did something wrong!"
Originally posted by shots
Note I did not say them/they meaning us or uk forces I said it.
Originally posted by shots
The second one is not relevant just as I said in the quoted section I clearly stated you were comparing apples to oranges as you are doing now. You even replied to that one with something along the line of that was a bad scenario to use and I replied it sure was Short memory
Again please do pay attention.
[edit on 5/25/2006 by shots]
You have added shots to your Ignore List. Refresh the current page to remove their posts from the thread.
Originally posted by shots
No No Souljah I am not about to make a blanket yes or no statement as you want.
Have they made mistakes? (I am not talking about this instance) Of course they have however they have also been right just as well.
Originally posted by Souljah
A mission is not accomplished if Innocent People die in daily basis.
But you must remember, that US forces attacked and invaded Afghanistan in the first place
Originally posted by shots
And just who is it that are killing the MAJORITY of the civilians? You can bet your biffy it is not Americans.
Iraq Body Count project
Who did the killing?
- US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
- Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
- Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
- Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry?
- Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
- Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
- Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
No we did not attack Afghanistan first, the Taliban attacked the US first with a sneak attack on NY just like Japan did at Pearl Harbor. They also made similar attempts with minimal results at WTC bombing one, the attack on the US Cole and the barracks attack in Beirut and other various attacks. Short Memory ot deliberate loss of memory. I would bet on the later.
Originally posted by Souljah
Well I don't have the figures for Afganistan - but Iraq numbers speak for themselves:
Iraq Body Count project
You are kidding right??? Any fool knows that you, I or anyone can change the figures on Wiki if we wanted. Also the IBC is run by a bunch of amateurs who do not know their head from their you know what, yet you consider them to be a good source??? I do not think so. :shk: :shk: :shk: :shk:
Now if you really want to get a true picture from many sources resulting in 15,200.000 hits on google Click Here
Originally posted by shots
You are kidding right??? Any fool knows that you, I or anyone can change the figures on Wiki if we wanted. Also the IBC is run by a bunch of amateurs who do not know their head from their you know what, yet you consider them to be a good source??? I do not think so. :shk: :shk: :shk: :shk:
THE IRAQ BODY COUNT PROJECT
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).
It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention.
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.
Now if you really want to get a true picture from many sources resulting in 15,200.000 hits on google Click Here
Originally posted by Souljah
Man, you typed the Correct 3 words in Google, which ofcourse give you sooo many hits - but does that mean anything? It just popped out all the articles related to those 3 words: Suicide, Bomb, Iraq. And that is Your Argument?
Well, check my Google Search that has 19,200,000 hits - what does that mean?
Originally posted by shots
Obviously you did not check them out. Had you done so you would found many with deaths in excess of 50 actual and dozens with over 100 for each instance. As for my argument I think the result spoke for itself, but if you are not satisfied that is not my problem.
I do not know what the devil you are talking about the link worked just fine here for before posting and after posting. If you do not know how it works use common senense and type in the words serparated by commas then search google DUH!!!!!!
Originally posted by Souljah
You are hanging to straws here..
I am talking about writing the 2 "Correct" words in Google, which is supposed to be an Argument. Well, my search has ended up with more hits then yours; does that mean it is True?
Originally posted by shots
Odd I do not think so considering the number of stories that relate to suicide bombings that ended with deaths of innocent civilians.
Ah the good old when you are loosing lets pick on the oppositions grammar trick huh? Nice try but even you know google catches any typos. and your results ending in more hits only further bolsters by point. BTW I was not the one who misspelled any words that would be you google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-24,GGLD:en&q=suicide+bomb+iraq
# US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
# Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.