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 Mdv2
Originally posted by nephyx
In a time of war, it probably isnt a good idea to stand around burnt out humvees and celebrate. seems like common sense parenting to me.
So basically you say that particular American soldier did rightfully kill the kid because he was celebrating the death of his ''enemy''? Sorry to say, but I find your ideology pretty ridiculous.
Remember this picture?
Imagine a Hezbollah militant shooting the kid. Would you have also said ''Their parents should have prevented them from writing on the shells''
Children cannot be held responsible for what they are being taught by their parents, descent doesn't matter. Kids, especially in the Middle East, including Israel are being raised with hate towards others. In no way there's any justification for killing children or keeping them responsible for what they are being taught by others.
You are from Germany, in the [once occupied] country I live people have been deeply hating Germans for a very long time. Many Germans, but also non Germans including me, are of opinion that children of Nazi-Germany's soldiers and war criminals cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by their ancestors during World War II.
However, when applying your theory on this particular matter they should be held responsible, shouldn't they?
[edit on 11-9-2006 by Mdv2]
Originally posted by nephyx
You are going a bit overboard. If children are playing next to a blown up humvee they are putting themselves in a military zone which leaves no room for excuse. The parents should be the ones that keep their children from playing in the middle of a warzone (Hence at home where its more safe).
Originally posted by nephyx
People dying is the last thing that should be celebrated.
Originally posted by nephyx
because I understand why the americans killed those people in Iraq.
Originally posted by nephyx
Dont you think that this hatred comes from a long tradition of anti american sentiment?
The U.S. military may be prepared to walk away from a strategically critical area of Iraq: The Al-Anbar province.
The area, which is surrounded by the Kurdish-controlled area to the north and the Shiite-controlled area to the south, has seen the fiercest fighting and the highest death toll of the war,
Despite that, the U.S. has never controlled the area since the war began.
But one top secret report by a Marine intelligence officer said there is no chance the U.S. military can end the insurgent violence or that a viable government can be set up in the area.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top US commander denied the US military had written off Al-Anbar province in
Iraq and defended a shift of US forces to Baghdad despite intelligence depicting the situation in the west as dire.
The militia headed by the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr yesterday took over the southern Iraqi city of Amarah, recently vacated by British forces, after a day of heavy fighting which left dozens killed, almost 100 injured and widespread damage to buildings.
In what is being seen as a symbolic flexing of muscle, heavily armed Mahdi Army fighters in black uniforms stormed and took over the three main police stations and flattened them with explosives.
As Iraqi leaders try to diversify the ethnic and religious backgrounds of their security forces, the department's opinion analysis said that Arab Sunnis may be particularly hard to recruit.
In Arab Sunni areas, "confidence in the Iraqi army and police is low, and majorities oppose enlisting in either force," the analysis said. "Even recruitment in Arab Shia areas could present challenges as sizable numbers of local youth express support" for local militias, "thus clouding the issue of loyalty to national forces."
...
Yet in its assessment of the broader picture for Iraq, which includes Kurds and Arab Shiites, there were pieces of good news: A majority of young Iraqis would be willing to join the security forces or support a family member who did, the survey found.
The Foreign Office is conducting a review in tandem with Mr Baker. UK officials said the Foreign Office was "beavering away" on about half a dozen options, roughly the same as those considered by the ISG. One official said discussions were proceeding at "a high tempo".
Among the changes the ISG is expected to recommend is the opening of talks on Iraq's future with Syria and Iran, countries the White House has sought to isolate.
"The failure of the Baghdad initiative is convincing evidence that a military solution is not going to work," said Larry Diamond, a former adviser to the US-led occupation authority in Baghdad who also advised the ISG. "We should be talking to neighbouring Arab states and we think we should be talking to Iran - to broker the compromises which might save the situation," Mr Diamond told the Guardian.
Other options being considered are a redeployment of forces to "super-bases" in Iraq or bases outside the country, pressuring the Baghdad government to find a fairer way of sharing Iraq's oil wealth to give Sunnis a better deal, and even the partitioning of the country into autonomous Kurdish, Sunni and Shia regions - an idea the White House has dismissed as a "non-starter".
You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.