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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So, if you are not positive what actually happened, how can you defend one side?




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:




posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

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:

Errr - Dude, you are defending US armed forces from the beginning of this debate - and not just in this thread.

Do you want your words scrolled back to you again?




posted on May, 25 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Errr - Dude, you are defending US armed forces from the beginning of this debate - and not just in this thread.




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.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Second we are not talking about other threads we are talking about this thread.


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.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

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.


I know what he said and I also know I did not defend them in this thread. Please pay attention in the future

BTW Love your two medals keep up the good work



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I know what he said and I also know I did not defend them in this thread.


Well that's just an outright lie. Either that or you obviously don't know what your saying at all. Allow me to demonstrate for you:


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.


What's that?


Originally posted by shots
Please pay attention in the future


I think you will find I have been.



Originally posted by shots
BTW Love your two medals keep up the good work


No comment.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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:


Note I did not say them/they meaning us or uk forces I said it.


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?



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]

[edit on 5/25/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

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.

OK - firstly let me humbly appologise for using the word "Dude". It will not happen again.

Second - could you please answer my question from Page 3 of this Debate, which goes?


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"?

So - do you?

And if you are not Defending the US/UK armed forces - you will say:

"YES! They did something wrong!"

But you keep avoiding the question(s).

Thirdly, IMHO you are supporting US and UK and other Coalition troops in Afganistan and Iraq, no matter what they do.

But that is just My Humble Opinion, which I am entitled to have.




posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

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!"



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.






[edit on 5/25/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Note I did not say them/they meaning us or uk forces I said it.


Oh my God! Urm, Yeah... and who carried it out? My goodness, get a clue please, woman!


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]


Again, oh my God! I didn't say that your reply to my bad analogy was a "bad scenerio to use". I said that on a previous page several days before this current argument had ever even taken place, how could I have possibly have been talking about today’s argument? 'Please do pay attention'? You've got to be kidding, right? I know exactly what you're trying to do. You have seen that I'm on two warnings and you are trying to aggravate me into getting myself banned. Well it's not going to work this time, I'm afraid.




You have added shots to your Ignore List. Refresh the current page to remove their posts from the thread.


You won't be using me as a vehicle to discredit the movement, or to reduce threads about important issues to stupid arguments about who said what when you have absolutely no basis for an argument, at all, in the first place.

Good Bye.



[edit on 25-5-2006 by Communication_Monster]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
No No Souljah I am not about to make a blanket yes or no statement as you want.

Okey, Okey....





Have they made mistakes? (I am not talking about this instance) Of course they have however they have also been right just as well.

Ofcourse they made mistakes - they are only Human.

And let's not forget, that it is a War outhere - no matter, if "somebody" declared a Mission Accomplished.

A mission is not accomplished if Innocent People die in daily basis.

At least not for PEACE-Keepers.

But you must remember, that US forces attacked and invaded Afganistan in the first place - which means they are Still an Occupying army in eyes of Some poeple.

And the story is the same in Iraq.

Problem Solved?

Or Business as Usual?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
A mission is not accomplished if Innocent People die in daily basis.


And just who is it that are killing the MAJORITY of the civilians? You can bet your biffy it is not Americans.



But you must remember, that US forces attacked and invaded Afghanistan in the first place


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.





[edit on 5/26/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

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.

Well I don't have the figures for Afganistan - but Iraq numbers speak for themselves:


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).


To me it looks like the MAJORITY of Civilans Casualties are actually killed by the US and other Coalition troops in Iraq.

Oh, and let's not forget the following statement by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks:

WE DONT DO BODYCOUNTS!

On Iraq Civilans ofcourse that is



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.


See this is where we completly part our Paths. I do not belive that TALIBAN attacked US in the first place, so it does not really make any sense to me. See, the Man who is supposed to "Responsible" for these Terrorist Attacks is a Man named Osama, which is just rarely appearing in the News lately. And how come that the Great, Powerful and most of all, ALLSEEING American "Intelligence" has not found him yet? Don't you find that weird? He just always appears, when the US president (Bush or Clinton) need him, to further affirm their Foreign Policy. A Tool he is - but whos Tool? Tool of the Taliban? I seriously DOUBT that. Do you have any ideas, what Greater good would it help the Taliban regime in Afganistan, which ruled prior 9-11 2001 to attack USA, so that they can be Carpet bombed to Stone Age?

Yep - makes PERFECT SENSE; if you belive in Santa!




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   



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:

Well, if the Occupying Army does not do Bodyo#s, Another bunch of People must start to gather that kind of info? And I am not kidding at all. Just because you do not accept their Informations released as "Reliable" it does not mean it is. They are Gatheing their numbers from all sorts of different sources. Oh yes I see where is the problem - you simply don't like them, since they are a bunch of Anti-War-Bush-Bashing-Liberals, right?


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.

So AMATEUR.





Now if you really want to get a true picture from many sources resulting in 15,200.000 hits on google Click Here

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: Sucidie, Bomb, Iraq. And that is Your Argument?

Well, check my Google Search that has 19,200,000 hits - what does that mean?



[edit on 26/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

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?


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.




Well, check my Google Search that has 19,200,000 hits - what does that mean?


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!!!!!!



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

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.

Have you even read the percentages written above - or you just discredit them, since they are USArmy-Bashing type?

And not to mention, that there are hundreds of news articles linked to that search, which cover one same story from Iraq.

You are hanging to straws here...



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!!!!!!

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?




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

You are hanging to straws here..


Odd I do not think so considering the number of stories that relate to suicide bombings that ended with deaths of innocent civilians.




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?



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









[edit on 5/26/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

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.

And what number would that be exactly? You mean your argument with google search is supposed to convince people - well maybe some are, but I am still skeptic about it. Since US and UK Corporate Media are in working on decreasing the reports about warcrimes commited in Iraq and other theaters of war. And that is why you do not know about it - since the Armed forces always take care of themselves; and we have established before that none of us really KNOWS what happened at all!



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

I do not follow you at all - what misspelling are you talking about?




posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

# US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
# Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.


You've got to be kidding me. Not a day goes by that I dont hear about a terrorist car bomb killing 10, 20, 30 people. This is complete horsecrap.




Wasnt Iraqi Body count discredited anyway?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join