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.

 

Juba 2 Video: How 668 U.S soldiers were killed with Juba's Sniper Rifle

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Whatever the Iraqis have to do to drive out the invaders, they will do: and so would American citizens if their country were under occupation. All you gung-ho blowhards out there should ask yourselves whether, if your town were occupied by an invading army, you'd actually put on a uniform to mark yourself out as an insurgent. Would you even call yourself an insurgent? Don't think so. Did the French Resistance wear armbands or special helmets or badges when they were fighting the Nazis? No, but that's ok because the Nazis were the bad guys.


O really, it seems to me that the French knows who to kill and not to kill. They don't blow themselves up in churches or bomb markets in Paris equivalent to Iraq.


Well wake up! Because Americans (and, to my shame, the UK) are now the bad guys, it really is that simple. The US and UK invaded a country for no good reason and are really screwing the country up. Now you lot expect insurgents to wear red bandannas or similar BS so your boys know at whom to aim. Well, if you're going to invade another country, be prepared to look like war criminals and DON'T expect the locals to help you out on that one.


It seems to me that the insurgents, especially the Sunnis are the badguys. Seems to me that the Shiites would share our view of that by killing that many Sunnis compare to the U.S. military.



First, the US is not going to leave Iraq until they're kicked out; and Iraqis know that their government is a bunch of puppets who can't do anything but the bidding of their masters.


O yeah, millions of people voted for that govt. the people who called them puppets are the ones out of power.


Second, they're not targeting civilians? How do they know? When you're being shot at, doesn't everyone look like an insurgent?


Isn't that their plan? A fish to hide among the fishes?

www.youtube.com...





The soldiers are doing their best to kill the ones that are insurgents Rich23. They are human.


There are a lot of Iraqi civilians being killed, considering US forces are only targeting insurgents... remember the pregnant woman shot in the head as she was being driven to hosptial? The young teenager raped and her whole family killed? There are many, many more.


Personal reasons only, the soldier did it because he felt like doing it. Not because he was order to go terrorize the population like the insurgents do that terrorize those that don't resist against Amercans. I wonder why?


Ultimately, it boils down to this: the occupation forces shouldn't be there. The resistance has the right to drive them out any way they can. Even if that means my countrymen getting killed.

And if seeing Juba at work makes the Iraqis feel better, then so be it.


Killing Iraqis purposeful? Its understandable.




posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Whatever the Iraqis have to do to drive out the invaders, they will do: and so would American citizens if their country were under occupation. All you gung-ho blowhards out there should ask yourselves whether, if your town were occupied by an invading army, you'd actually put on a uniform to mark yourself out as an insurgent. Would you even call yourself an insurgent? Don't think so. Did the French Resistance wear armbands or special helmets or badges when they were fighting the Nazis? No, but that's ok because the Nazis were the bad guys.


You're damn right I would fight an invasion. But would I blow myself up in a crowd of mainstream Christians because I'm a Leonine? Never. And that is what's happening in the sand: one sect killing another and using this # occupation as an excuse to do it.

As to these "sniper" freedom fighters...it hurts to say it, but they are fighting as much of a war as they are able. The issue here isn't that the war is okay..my issue is how "sensitive" people denounce any and every middle-eastern death as some fault of the west, yet the same are so callous as to assign cute diatribe to the death of coalition soldiers, many if not most of whom don't want to be there in the first place but cannot just up and leave.


Well wake up! Because Americans (and, to my shame, the UK) are now the bad guys, it really is that simple. The US and UK invaded a country for no good reason and are really screwing the country up. Now you lot expect insurgents to wear red bandannas or similar BS so your boys know at whom to aim. Well, if you're going to invade another country, be prepared to look like war criminals and DON'T expect the locals to help you out on that one.


You're right, we have become the bad guys, and it puts a bad taste in my mouth to have been a tool. We never should have gone, that has been my position since joining ATS.


Astygia, I respect you, and you've been out there, so you ought to know... but I still think you're not really getting it when you say

But the coalition troops are not targeting civilians, they are after insurgents. Insurgency only gives this craptastic administration another excuse to stay.


First, the US is not going to leave Iraq until they're kicked out; and Iraqis know that their government is a bunch of puppets who can't do anything but the bidding of their masters. They can't renegotiate the Production Service Agreements that mean the oil is going to be profitable for US companies; they can't say to the US, stop building your MASSIVE embassy in Baghdad (using migrant workers in conditions reminiscent of indentured servitude), and we don't want you having massive bases in the desert either, thank you very much.


Firstly, I thank you for your acknowledgement.

Second, you're right, this administration will not leave of its own behest. This doesn't change the fact that, if the insurgency were to stop blowing each other up, this administration would have one less significant reason to stay. I'm glad we're finally beginning to pull out, never should have gone in the first place.

But it also doesn't change the fact that a few on these boards, not aimed at you, are hypocritical in their standards on the value of a life, which was the issue. I have never rejoiced in killing and never will. To rejoice in death makes you a pervert, nothing more. I've seen men that do that and its usually a cover for how sick they're feeling.


Second, they're not targeting civilians? How do they know? When you're being shot at, doesn't everyone look like an insurgent?


The guy with the gun looks like the insurgent; the people running like hell with a handful of groceries or their kids do not look like insurgents.

You generally don't see an insurgent; they like to start shooting while you're in a crowded place, and they're usually fifty feet or so away aiming from a window.

This is not to say that collateral damage doesn't happen. You don't have to show me pictures, I've seen plenty first hand. From both sides.


There are a lot of Iraqi civilians being killed, considering US forces are only targeting insurgents... remember the pregnant woman shot in the head as she was being driven to hosptial? The young teenager raped and her whole family killed? There are many, many more.


What, you trying to bait me by showing me acts of intentional monstrosity? How about the mobs of nameless folk that don't make the news every time some hadji detonates in a crowd? Our fault too, can't expect people to have self-control, right? It's good for your country to kill your own countrymen? That's a rhetorical question by the way, since there's no way that can be spun into anything other than the idiocy that it is.


Ultimately, it boils down to this: the occupation forces shouldn't be there. The resistance has the right to drive them out any way they can. Even if that means my countrymen getting killed.

And if seeing Juba at work makes the Iraqis feel better, then so be it.


No, we shouldn't be there. But don't expect anything but contradictory opinion when you've got people belittling the death of men because it fits their pseudo-cause. I know you somewhat, rich, and that wasn't directed at you. I believe some people make their comments with little or no knowledge of what some things are like.

To kill a man is to kill a part of yourself. The more you kill, the more of yourself dies. If you take pleasure in killing, you are sicker than me. Death has never been, and never will be funny. Those that make light of it should expect to hear this.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
fortunatly the " impresive " < sic > kill tallies claimed for juba are total fabrication

claimed kill tallies of 634 deat fot year 1426 claimed by " sniper brigade " is utter tripe .

casualty rates for that peroid do not add up - bad lying iraqis


total US KIA [ IRAQ - all causes ] FOR OCTOBER 2005 > PRESENT = 871

total US kia [ iraq - IED ONLY] nov 2005 to september 2006 =343

thats a maximum of 528 for all none ied deaths - sniper , RPG , accident everything

to be sure i got the lying iraqis hoisted by thier own figures - i deliberatly counted all deaths from 1st october 2005 to presant - and IED stats from nov 2005 to sept 2006 - just to be sure


but apart from iraqi lies this thread has nicely brough forth the hypocicy of certain ATS members who seem to revel in the gloating protrayal of US servicemens death .

now that you have nailed your colours to the mast and confirmed that you think showing people dying is ok - be sure to keep quiet next time islamists are killed

ok ?

APE OUT

[edits - for typo ]

[edit on 24-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Are yo saying that they can't control the urge to kill civilians?

Everyone has full control of their actions. If someone signed into the military after this war started, knowing that there was a heavy chance that they would be sent to Iraq, and be put in the situation in which they have no control.


It all depends on how you define the term "insurgent." I think you lose the classification as innocent or civilian if you are shooting at the very people that are trying to save you. That being said, of course I don't condone killing innocent civilians. But you better believe that if someone comes at me with a gun shooting at me here in the good ol' USofA I am going to shoot them in defense.


Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and the results of those actions. You kill people, other people will come back to kill you.


You allow that liberty for what you classify as "innocent civilians" so what about all the innocent military men who are attacked by insurgents while inspecting sites, or driving along the road? Unless you are willing to give up YOUR rights to defend yourself, you cannot suggest our military (or anyone on either side of this war for that matter) the right to do likewise. The civilians have a right to defend themselves if they feel they are being attacked. But again, these are not innocent civilians firing upon troops.

Note this is not to say that there have been no innocents killed, there have been innocents killed on each side. I would love to see the fighting end and everyone pull out. But as long as I have friends and family over there (who all signed up either BEFORE the war) I will support them.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
In my opinion this whole thread is chit chat about propaganda.

They say, we say. In the real world it has nothing to do with what is actually happening.

Dirty tricks are being pulled by both sides. It's war, I would think that anything less would be a shirking of duty.

The bad guys (choose a side here) are killing innocent people and blaming it on the other side. The other side gets blamed and are therefore the terrorists/insurgents/invaders/infidels/etc,etc ad naseum....

There is nothing pretty about what is happening in Iraq. Buying into the propaganda isn't going to make anything clear on the matter either.

I have a son-in-law that is in Iraq and a daughter that may be deployed soon.

It's a mess. An honest to God mess.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Right on Mrwumpy. We are all arm chair quarterbacking here. (even me.)


I see a lot of political and religous idealogy.

Instead of sports trash talking, we are war trash talking.


I think the Iraqi invasion was b.s.

I think Bush is an idiot.

I think 99% of the American troops are fighting honorably.

I think many muslim fighters are using there mosques to hide weapon and thereselves.

I the vast vast vast majority of the civilan deaths are muslim on muslim. Say a loser putting a car bomb in a market.

Bush created the problem, but Iran is helping by supplying weapons to the other side.

I don't wish any one dead, like a few of the previous posters. (who need a serious freaking humanity overhall, and get away from your simple minded hate.)

So what is the solution? None of us know, but we think we do.

Yep, I'm still arm chair quarterbacking.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Astygia, thoughtful reply. I think we have a lot in common on the issues, and I'm glad you noticed that I'm not glorifying any deaths.

As for the suicide bombing issue, well, it is an unfortunate fact that Islam has a real thing about martyrdom. But so, if you look way back, did Christianity; and I think it has to do with how much power you have. If your religion has political dominance, martyrdom becomes less of an issue. If, on the other hand, the options you have are more limited, then people are going to look to religion to justify the tactics they have at their disposal.

The most important thing, however, is that the sectarian violence was sown in a dirty tricks campaign by the coalition after the summer of 2003, when Sunnis and Shias were uniting to drive out the coalition. There's enough eyewitness testimony - for example of the UK soldiers arrested in Arab dress with a car full of explosives, who had to be broken out of jail by their own forces - to know that a deliberate campaign was waged to drive a wedge between the two factions. I also think that sectarian death squads were deliberately formed by a small, dirty-tricks-minded faction of the occupation forces who operate clandestinely. So when people say "what about the Iraqis killing each other?" my response is, well, without us in there stirring things up, they wouldn't be doing that.

Saddam, like it or not, had managed to keep a lid on the sectarian divide: we went in there and deliberately opened it up again. And there are people on the opposing side who are in a position where they feel they have to be extremely ruthless about civilian casualties in exactly the same way that coalition forces are. They look on policemen, for example, or members of the government, as tools of the occupying forcesGreat progress...[/sarcasm]

So now we have a situation in which there are many armed forces, all with different agendas, running amok in Iraq. And we, quite deliberately, caused this situation because we thought it would be better to have them fighting each other than united against the occupation forces.

There is also evidence that a "free-fire" policy was tacitly encouraged for a while. You've been there, I haven't. I have, however, seen plenty of testimony from Iraq Vets Against the War, in which people say repeatedly that they kept AKs in their vehicle so that if they killed a civilian they could go and take photos of the body with an AK beside it, thus proving they had killed an "insurgent". And it's a historical fact that there were free-fire zones in Vietnam. Should we be surprised that history is repeating itself? It's that whole "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" mentality all over again. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it won't work in Iraq.

But yes, troops are only human, and I acknowledge that. You give someone a gun and put them in a dangerous situation... that gun's gonna get used, and not necessarily with discrimination. And I recognise the pressures on individuals to toe the line in that situation, but ultimately, we all have a choice to say, no, I won't do this, even if the personal consequences are severe. It's what makes us individual human beings rather than cogs in a machine.

And I'm not trying to bait anyone by giving the examples that I gave. I'm just trying to demonstrate that, even with the best intentions, (and, let's face it, not all of the coalition troops are as humanitarian as yourself in outlook, right?) things are going to go badly wrong as sure as night follows day. There are many, many examples of this and I gave only a few of the colourful ones. And saying "we're just targeting insurgents", while mostly true as a matter of intent, (as I say, I think there are some pretty callous troops out there, hence the word "mostly") is perhaps less than clear-eyed when it comes to the results of that intention.

As for deltaboy... we have some pictures that seem to defy the rules about posting here (I know that if I posted pictures of Iraqi infants killed, they'd be taken down immediately, likewise pictures of the hideous birth defects due to DU pollution), the last of which appears to show a dead Iraqi with no weapon or anything to show that he was an insurgent. Your video wouldn't play for me, but one of the comments on the page was


Where is the evidence in this video that they killed a "suicide bomber"? For all the viewer can see, they could have exploded an errant rodent... Also, creepy that these kids sound like they just won a video game


And the French didn't have the kind of sectarian division for the Nazis to exploit that the Iraqis have. They were also pretty unpopular among the "go along to get along" section of the population because their actions would cause vicious reprisals from the occupying forces. So their actions caused civilian deaths, no doubt about it, and they were pretty sanguine about that fact.

Here's testimony from someone in Iraq about aspects of the sectarian violence. The link is below:


The day before yesterday was catastrophic. The day began with news of the killings in Jihad Quarter. According to people who live there, black-clad militiamen drove in mid-morning and opened fire on people in the streets and even in houses. They began pulling people off the street and checking their ID cards to see if they had Sunni names or Shia names and then the Sunnis were driven away and killed. Some were executed right there in the area. The media is playing it down and claiming 37 dead but the people in the area say the number is nearer 60.

The horrific thing about the killings is that the area had been cut off for nearly two weeks by Ministry of Interior security forces and Americans. Last week, a car bomb was set off in front of a 'Sunni' mosque people in the area visit. The night before the massacre, a car bomb exploded in front of a Shia husseiniya in the same area. The next day was full of screaming and shooting and death for the people in the area. No one is quite sure why the Americans and the Ministry of Interior didn't respond immediately. They just sat by, on the outskirts of the area, and let the massacre happen.


And as I've said, it's a complicated situation with many different factions, all of them armed and indifferent to collateral damage. You'd like to look at it as a nice, simple, black-and-white thing with the US being the good guys. Astygia has the wit to see that the US is doing the WRONG THING, but I doubt that you ever will.

From Baghdad Burning.

As for ape, relying on US figures:


For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.

Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…


If people want to know what a young, westernised Iraqi woman thinks of what has happened to her country under occupation, they should spend some time reading this blog. It's well-written and well-observed, and the book compiled from it won a UK award, deservedly so IMO. She's pretty caustic about the puppet government too.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
Found the Russias snipers name: Vassili Zaitzev
Anyway the Russian army was fighting to repel the German Army and they couldnt, lack of resources. So instead they trained sniper battalions to go out and hunt down German officers to destroy enemy moral and it DID. One sniper was notified for his abilities and his name was Vassili Grigoryevich Zaitzev (Russian: Васи́лий Григо́рьевич За́йцев). He to had a special rifle he used just as Juba which was a Russian WW2 model sniper rifle there is a picture of it here:
en.wikipedia.org...:Vasily.Zaitsev.jpg
Its now in a museum in Moscow last time I checked, the guy has over 12 medals for his fighting and was noted for his training of sniper battalions AFTER Stalingrad. Anyway he had OVER 114 kills in Stalingrad alone, and they claim he killed over 400 people in the long run, with 11 enemy snipers dead as well. So this guy was your up... get the .......................picture?


Just wanted to say that Vassili Zaitzev is overrated...
Check www.snipercentral.com... and see that there are a couple russians ahead off him....and one Finn that took out those russian snipers =)
1-shot kills at 500 meters with just plain ironsights... without optics.
just google best sniper in ww2 and U find out that zaitsev wasnt nearly the best...

and juba ( whatever ) is doing just the same thing I would be doing if another country would occupy my country.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by finallianstallion]

[edit on 25-10-2006 by finallianstallion]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

As for the suicide bombing issue, well, it is an unfortunate fact that Islam has a real thing about martyrdom. But so, if you look way back, did Christianity; and I think it has to do with how much power you have.l....


I see what you're saying, but to one who actually has the best inentions in mind, looking back doesn't matter, and a religion which glorifies or romantasizes death doesn't matter. This is why I'm no mainstream Christian, because out of sheer principle I refuse to let anyone take my head, because it's using your head that matters.

Further, whether we're there to stir the # or not, well...we talking about people here, or starving rats? If someone invades my country, I'm not gonna kill everyone I see.


There is also evidence that a "free-fire" policy was tacitly encouraged for a while. You've been there, I haven't. I have, however, seen plenty of testimony from Iraq Vets Against the War, in which people say repeatedly that they kept AKs in their vehicle so that if they killed a civilian they could go and take photos of the body with an AK beside it, thus proving they had killed an "insurgent".


Everything else you've said we are pretty much in agreement on, or at least seeing the same page, except this above post.

I cannot articulate how angry that makes me. I have not watched the "war tapes" or "shockumentaries" about Iraq because I just want to forget it, so if that's where you're getting it from I am not qualified (and never will be) to debate the context those statements may have been used it. I cannot say what you're saying has never been done, but I will tell you this. When combat orders come down, they tend to come from a fairly high level, which has come from a higher level, and so on. If any superior officer had informed, ordered, asked, or hinted that I do such a thing, I'd have walked/swam back to Texas. And there are more like me who've been in the hurricane and would have done the same.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I remember when some insurgant group was claiming it wiped out an entire battalion of US troops in Fallujiah. Now that was funny, when you read the piece. Its a friggin joke.

I mean, the propoganda and lies in our media are pretty good, in the fact they are doctored enough to be believable. Give credit where credit is due.

However, the insurgent propoganada like thus Juba crap is really pathetic. Only the most simple minded and guillable would buy it. Youd think they would get some media savy and learn how to actually put out believable propoganda. It might get them more widespread play and respect.

They got a long way to go.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
thats it?

A mythical sniper?
Pathetic. But I guess it works for the uneducated/ignorant masses.

If that all you have, you go with it.

I notice on the website, you can support the Idea of Juba, by posting this on blogs, discussion boards etc..
Kinda like the original poster did, who, by the way, hasn't posted since.

ahem, make sure you leave a nice message for Juba, the link is on the left side of the main page.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
The "WAR IN IRAQ" is a GUERILLA WAR just like it vietnam where they will sit back and use long range attacks rather than up close and personal attacks. They know they cannot hope to take on an army of tanks, helicopters, infantry, APC's, humvees, artillery, missiles, and jets so they will kill you the slow and effective way: one at a time or with an IED at the side of a road. Its not called being a coward, its called being SMART.
The reason the use of a SAW would be called barbaric is due to how its used, the "insurgents" wouldnt show themselves and never have in such a manner so if it was a picture of "insurgents" getting mowed down I would HIGHLY doubt they really are, you would be mowing down IRAQI CITIZENS since they are the only ones who show themselves THAT openly.
[edit on 23-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


it's called extreme cowardice in light of light of surviving.

the only reason civilians are ever killed are because either they refuse to do as the soldiers tell them to (marking them as a potential threat), or because the 'insurgents' are hiding among their own people.

blame the soldiers all you want, you're the biggest coward around.

i agree with you on your views on our administration, but your being proud of american soldiers dying...i'd gladly go back to jail to break several of your bones for that.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   
RICH23 wrote :


As for ape, relying on US figures:


no i am not relying on US figures

my source database is a third party rescource which collates and verifies figures from multiple sources , and is independant

please do not attempt to change the subject either .

to stick to the crux of this disagreement " are US miltary fatalities in iraq , as reported in my sources accurate "

here is a challenge - falsify them .

please provide one name - thats all you need - one single name of an serving american military personel who was killed on active duty in iraq betwen 05 October 2005 30th september 2006 .

if such a name exists - the soldiers funeral / death / obituary / a memorial blog by the family or some verifiable details of his / her existance and demise must exist .

so please cite it -- all you need is one name

go for it

i have shown that the juba clauims do not match published stats for iraq fatalities - so if you wish to challenge that analysis .

just cite one name - and give a credible source

every dead american soldier / sailor / marine / airman - was some ones son / daughter / brother / father / husband

surely if the death of a loved one had gone ignored - some one would have raised holy hell

just look at the furore surrounding sheenan - the anti war movement would have a feild day if they had a genuine bereaved family member whoes loved one had died in iraq unreported .

cite one name that does not appear on my data base - a simple challenge



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
In reference to not wearing uniforms.

Originally posted by 25cents
it's called extreme cowardice in light of light of surviving.


That's a rather silly statement.

Surviving is the goal is it not?

An American military uniform comes with body armor, better weapons, tanks, and other stuff. If the 'insurgents' put on a their best, most well armored uniform it still wouldn't be a fair fight. Cowardice doesn't enter into it.

Once again, the subject of the French Resistance is brought up. How many of them do you think would wear a uniform?

(Someone will say: "but they weren't blowing up civilians")

But that has nothing to do with the Uniform issue.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
i didn't mention anything about uniforms either.

i was referring to their using their own people as shields.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Sorry, thought you were referring to this part.

Originally posted by Vekar
They know they cannot hope to take on an army of tanks, helicopters, infantry, APC's, humvees, artillery, missiles, and jets so they will kill you the slow and effective way: one at a time or with an IED at the side of a road. Its not called being a coward, its called being SMART....
the "insurgents" wouldnt show themselves and never have in such a manner so if it was a picture of "insurgents" getting mowed down I would HIGHLY doubt they really are, you would be mowing down IRAQI CITIZENS since they are the only ones who show themselves THAT openly.


Your response seemed to say that the insurgents were cowards because they didn't openly identify themselves as such.

Nevertheless, for anyone else that would make an argument similar to what I thought I responded to.....there you go.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
openly identifying themselves is equivalent to seperating themselves from the civilian public in my eyes. every civilian killed in the crossfire is blood on THEIR hands, not americans.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Tell that to the French resistance. The Nazis would round up people and kill them because they could have been in the resistance. Do you blame the resistance, or te people killing?



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Vekar
Long live the Iraq Resistance! May they bash the bushiites out of Iraq!



I have sent a link to this thread to a freind at the local US Marshalls office. He is passing it along to the Homeland Security folks. Have a nice life.
Strap on a bomb and prove them right.


mod edit, spelling

[edit on 23-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


LOL, you are to funny ... so, just because this person is telling something wich is makeing sense you are passing this info to some guy with a badge LOL, yes, that's gonna change things LOL. What are you 13 years old? Can you even point out Iraq on a world map?

But oh wait, the US Marshall are gonna set this straight LOL ... come on, what are they gonna do, jail him for speaking his mind ... he has his right you know ... oh right, no he hasn't ... he last his BILL OF RIGHTS cos of Patriot Act I, II, ... yeah, America, land of the free LOL it's a freaking prison over there ... and there's too much fat people over there in case you haven't noticed ...



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
different circumstances. the nazis were taking over the country for themselves, and butchering millions of people. we're attempting to remove a dictator and his supporters from the area so that they can have at least a semi-autonomous government (whether it's us or the surrounding countries, they're likely to be pushed around for a long time).

also - if the nazis were actively seeking and killing people based on suspicion, that's a million miles from what the US is doing in iraq. if we seek out insurgents, we don't kill them, or massacre groups - we look for evidence, and then imprison them if they aren't an immediate threat.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join