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.

 

4 Americans Shot in the Back of Head After Copter Crashes

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Terrorists and Islamofacists love pacifism.
Makes things easier for them.

My best to the families of those who were shot in the back of the head, instead of being taken prisoner, like Americans would do a captured insurgent, under similar circumstances.
Not unexpected though, when fighting a culture of death.

They risked their lives, and they knew the consquences. There will be more to fill their shoes.


Is it only me? Can I possibly be the only one who believes that you should not under any circumstances take prisoners? It makes more sense to leave your enemies dead on the battlefield. Close down Gitmo and just kill em all where they stand on the field of battle.


The problem with a take no prisoners policy, is that it encourages one's opponent to fight harder if he knows he's gonna die. You also lose valuable intel opportunities.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
SO the Mercs were already dead BEFORE they got shot.
That means that this story is pure US propaganda.
Do we hear of every blackwater death? I dont think so.

Forgive my callousness, but as a veteran I have no love for mercs.


Remember what happened last time they gave us some propaganda like this?
Does Faluja ring a bell?
Four mercs strung up from a bridge, the far rights screams 'barbarians', the media screams 'butchers' and Faluja is gutted.
House to house until not one resident remained in the city.

Edit to add ..
The thread title is misleading.
It is a ploy to foster patriotic feelings amoung Americans.
A more accurate title would be '4 gunslingers shot it head', or 'Hired guns get shot in head', or even better, "CHOPPER CRASH KILLS MERCENARIES"
But those titles dont fill the proper propaganda requirements.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by 11Bravo]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
That's the spirit, eye for an eye who cares if they're innocent. Its comments like yours that give birth control merit.


brill


Oh please, dont try to come off with some sort of arrogant superior morality. If these Iraqi civilians who had been shot in this matter than their would be calls for crucifixion.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
"The thread title is misleading.
It is a ploy to foster patriotic feelings amoung Americans.
A more accurate title would be '4 gunslingers shot it head', or 'Hired guns get shot in head', or even better, "CHOPPER CRASH KILLS MERCENARIES"
But those titles dont fill the proper propaganda requirements. "



Actually those titles would still meet the propaganda requirements, only from a different perspective. Perhaps rather than dehumanizing them as "mercs," one might look at it as- 4 of my countrymen died in a helicopter crash today, there bodies were then subsequently desecrated. They probably left some families behind who'll be getting the news very soon and perhaps seeing the pictures.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by GT100FV]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by pugachev

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by VoXiSo
More barbaric acts, when will it stop..




So if a foreign force invaded your country to steal your oil; how barbaric would you be?


Prove that someone is stealing the oil...


Here ya go pugachev.......
I don't expect you to believe it though....
I don't even think you will read it.

news.independent.co.uk...


Okay, this is what I got from the article. Tell me if I miss something important. The Iraqis drafted a resolution that would give Western (not just US) corporations a 30 year contract to construct the infrastructure necessary to drill the oil. In exchange for the construction, the companies receive a share of the profits. Where's the evil sinister plot here? Tell me if I missed something.

A little further down it explained how US companies, particularly Haliburton, won most of the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Does this come as a surprise? Or even the wrong thing to do? Can you name me a company that could do the job better?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by brill
That's the spirit, eye for an eye who cares if they're innocent. Its comments like yours that give birth control merit.


brill


Oh please, dont try to come off with some sort of arrogant superior morality. If these Iraqi civilians who had been shot in this matter than their would be calls for crucifixion.


You stated:



there will just be several Iraqi civilians that turn up shot. You dont think these types of things go on without retailiation do you? several Iraqis will die for this and hopefully the ones that did this.


It sounds to me like your endorsing some sort of vigilantism. I have no problem with getting the ones who did this. Your attitude is such that someone will pay for this and it "hopefully" will be the ones that committed the act. That sounds desperate and self-serving.

brill

[edit on 24-1-2007 by brill]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by brill
That's the spirit, eye for an eye who cares if they're innocent. Its comments like yours that give birth control merit.


brill


Oh please, dont try to come off with some sort of arrogant superior morality. If these Iraqi civilians who had been shot in this matter than their would be calls for crucifixion.


Extra! Extra! Spiritually defunked person right over here! Come see the freak show!

Yea, the hell with them innocents, they dont matter. All that matters is OUR innocents that died on 911, which oh by the way, our government was responsible for, ooh a lil slip of the tongue, my bad.

But even if it was some arab terrorists, which it wasnt, what then? They come kill our innocents, so lets go into their land and kill theirs!, Doesnt matter if the world doesnt like it, who cares? We live in the land of the free, and home of the brave, and only America matters anyways.

The muslim people are evil, they want to take over the world and destroy our way of life, because they hate freedom. Who in their right mind would hate freedom, I dont know, but it seems that question isnt important to Americans because their government says this is how it is, and they wouldnt lie to us, even though theyve done it a thousand times before, so Ill just stick my head in the sand, while my ass sticks high in the air for the NWO to kick.

Real smart. I think Im starting to understand the mindset of these so-called "patriots" who believe whatever theyre spoonfed, even if it doesnt make a shred of sense, because we have a free press, therefore, it must be true, because a free press wouldnt lie now would they??


kix

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The U.S.A.is an economy of war...needs war to survive.

BTW if Gas goes 10 a gallon.... You hummer fans are toast...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Execution style death is not barbaric when you are a mercenary that opens fire on civilians at will as it has been reported, someone on here once posted a YOUTUBE video of it. Not sure where.
4 more terrorists down, that much closer to kicking out the occupation and mercenary forces.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoXiSo

BAGHDAD — Four of the five Americans killed when a U.S. security company's helicopter crashed in a dangerous Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad were shot execution-style in the back the head, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Wednesday. Read More


More barbaric acts, when will it stop..




Those Americans killed, they worked for Blackwater, so I have heard. This is the same Blackwater who are a mercanary company, who are armed, paid well, and whose members it is widely reported on the net went around shooting Iraqi civillians indiscriminately a couple of years ago in Fallujah, before the angry Iraqis got weapons, cornered them, shot them, set fire to their bodies, before dismembering their bodies and hanging from a bridge, leading to a US Marine Assault on Fallujah.

These American 'civillians' are armed guns for hire, in it for the money. They can't even argue they are fighting for their country.

They want to even have that arguement as even credible? Join the military, or rather, rejoin the military.

They lived by the gun, and they died by it, killed by people who resent cowboys messing around in their country, in for a quick buck paid by their occupiers to go around carrying and shooting their guns, unrestrained in their country that has been occupied.

Barbaric deaths? Yes. But those mercanaries knew the risks, if they were not greedy enough for the buck not to even consider it. You swim with sharks, you better bring a first aid kit.

If the militants are 'unlawful combatants' for not belonging to a country's military, and not wearing uniform, so are the mercanaries.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
First off, the video that went around was a British security team if I'm not mistaken. Second, they are not "mercenaries". They are a security team. Their job is to protect certain people and buildings.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So because some contractors and soldiers have acted reprehensibly, it's ok to treat any of them barbarically? Is this the justification I'm hearing?
It's BS to use blanket statements that every contractor is commiting atrocities so screw them, they had it coming. As for them rejoining the military- even if they were in the military, the military doesn't want to focus on PSD assignments, convoy escorts for every civilian convoy, facility security. There are plenty of other tasks that the military has to worry about, so whenever there's a work around solution, that's preferable. They certainly don't want to waste SOF assets for these tasks, when there are limited quantities of SOF units available.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Dying from one shot to the back of the head is in no way barbaric, why? Just look at what bushes army is doing to the people of Iraq, they aer dying slowly, painfully, and indiscriminately. These people WERE (now because they are dead, thank goodness) mecenaries, as someone said: hired guns. After what they have done, I have no quams about the Iraqis shooting them on sight, they have every right to do so.
I will say it again: one bullet to the back of the head is not barbaric, it is a QUICK, and PAINLESS death vs. the USAF bombing civilians and tearing off their limbs and letting them live. I say the USAF and Marines, as well as their mercenary army is beyond barbaric in how they act and fight. The Iraqis are not, they shot them once in the head, they did NOT torture them, they just shot them. Besides, why would any sane fighter allow the enemy to get their people back when they are fighters as well? Just add to enemy numbers, when you could just shoot the four and know that is four less to deal with on a later date.
The Iraqis did the LOGICAL thing, because the USAF is going to bomb that area to the ground ANYWAY now, that or the Marines are going to go in and shoot civilians for the next two weeks, which is extreme barbarism.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
Dying from one shot to the back of the head is in no way barbaric, why? Just look at what bushes army is doing to the people of Iraq, they aer dying slowly, painfully, and indiscriminately. These people WERE (now because they are dead, thank goodness) mecenaries, as someone said: hired guns. After what they have done, I have no quams about the Iraqis shooting them on sight, they have every right to do so.
I will say it again: one bullet to the back of the head is not barbaric, it is a QUICK, and PAINLESS death vs. the USAF bombing civilians and tearing off their limbs and letting them live. I say the USAF and Marines, as well as their mercenary army is beyond barbaric in how they act and fight. The Iraqis are not, they shot them once in the head, they did NOT torture them, they just shot them. Besides, why would any sane fighter allow the enemy to get their people back when they are fighters as well? Just add to enemy numbers, when you could just shoot the four and know that is four less to deal with on a later date.
The Iraqis did the LOGICAL thing, because the USAF is going to bomb that area to the ground ANYWAY now, that or the Marines are going to go in and shoot civilians for the next two weeks, which is extreme barbarism.


lol, this was sarcastic right? By that logic, lets kill everyone in Gitmo and every other insurgent we pick up. I mean, it is the LOGICAL thing to do, right? Less enemies to deal with.
How pathetic...

[edit on 1/25/07 by pugachev]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Mercineries are not protected under the geneva conventions.

The resistance showed the documents they took from their bodies. They where mercs pure and simple, unlike enemy soldiers they deserved not one ounce of sympathy.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by marcopolo
First off I want to say the posts at the beginning by Dock6 and Johnlear are bang on.

The Iraqi people suffer this kind of treatment everyday, fact is the media aint gonna educate you on it because that wouldnt be "Patriotic".

Anyone seen Fahrenheit 9/11? remember the part where they film in Iraq, interviewing some marines and Iraqi civilians, do you remember the dead child being put in the back of a truck, remember the anger and sadness in the mans eyes as he shouted, the marines talked about how they "napalmed" a suburban area (I was genuinely surprised as I didnt know weapons like this were still being used). The injuries that napalm causes is without a doubt one of the most inhumane weapons you could possibly use in a war, the storm kicked up about how Saddam used chemicals against his victims was as I remember one which caused universal disgust, so what exempts the US military forces from this, in certain cases you could say it was necessary force...but the fact that this was targeted at a suburban area, an area which is likely to be containing the homes of many innocents families, would it be unreasonable to suggest that the Generals in charge might have thought,

"hmm? wait wont napalming that are that do alot more harm than good", would it be unreasonable to suggest that he might have said, "Men tell you what, due to the fact that this area is densely populated with civilians a sheet of napalm approach wont be a good idea so we'll go in on the ground instead."

heres a link to the full fahrenheit 9/11 video if anyones interested,

Fahrenheit 9/11


Have you ever seen Fahrenhype 9/11? have you ever seen the interviews with folks who Michael Moore mischaracterized/misquoted, or used things out of context and are pissed off at him? Fahrenheit 9/11 is nothing but BS.



Have you ever seen Fahrenhype 9/11?


Yeah, I thought that might have seemed obvious.




have you ever seen the interviews with folks who Michael Moore mischaracterized/misquoted, or used things out of context and are pissed off at him


Nope, I was unaware that Michael Moore took the words of interviewees, "out of context" and had "mischaracterized/misquoted" the people, because of this I would appreciate you showing me how he done that.


Until then I will continue to believe that Fahrenheit 9/11 was indeed a very intelligient and educating documentary on US politics.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
Mercineries are not protected under the geneva conventions.

The resistance showed the documents they took from their bodies. They where mercs pure and simple, unlike enemy soldiers they deserved not one ounce of sympathy.



I'm confused, so now the resistance follows the Geneva convention? How come they execute Iraqi and US soldiers? Now you say US soldiers deserve sympathy, little contradictory to some of your past statements, don't ya think? Also, since we're talking about the "Geneva conventions", according to your logic, we can execute "resistance fighters" freely since they are not covered under the Geneva accords.

[edit on 1/25/07 by pugachev]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

How come they execute Iraqi and US soldiers?


Iraqi puppet "soldiers" are traitors and should be executed accordingly. Or hung, whatever time permits ofcource.


Now you say US soldiers deserve sympathy, little contradictory to some of your past statements, don't ya think?


No i don't think it's contradictory.. And don't be confused as to the degree of sympathy that i'm offering.


Also, since we're talking about the "Geneva conventions", according to your logic, we can execute "resistance fighters" freely since they are not covered under the Geneva accords.


Actually, they are, Have you even read the geneva conventions?


As to Iraq, the U.S. government has recognized from the outset that the Geneva Conventions apply by law and all Iraqi detainees are covered by them. All Iraqi military detainees have had POW status

usinfo.state.gov...


even your friend bush admited it applied to iraqies.

Let me educate you on how the genva conventions apply to resistance movements. Go read Article 4 of the third convention.



-----------

Anyway

That's exactly how you should shoot a mercinary. one bullet back of the head.

not that the SCUM blackwater mercinaries deserve such a painless death, but it's just more honourable this way don't you think?

It's stuff like this that makes me appretiate the resistance so

Unlike members of a regular army, mercinaries are under no obligation to follow the geneva convention. If you saw what they do, you'd know they got of lightly.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
denbeste.nu...


The provision regarding lack of uniforms is one of the more important exceptions. The basic idea of requiring formal insignia for combatants is to make it so that the soldiers of each side can differentiate enemy combatants from enemy non-combatants. If the soldiers of one side cannot easily determine whether someone on the other side is soldier or civilian, then there's a much greater likelihood that civilians will be killed. One of the things that those who composed the treaty wanted to try to do was to reduce the slaughter of civilians in war.

Therefore, if an enemy combatant is captured and is not wearing any recognizable insignia or uniform, he is not entitled to any protection at all under the Geneva Convention. He can be executed on the spot without trial, for instance. He is considered to be committing a war crime by fighting without any such insignia, but if he's executed then those who order the execution and those who carry it out are not committing a war crime.

That provision regarding combatants without insignia applies to three major cases: to insurgents (such as to guerrilla action in occupied areas), to soldiers trying to hide among civilians during formal combat, and to spies. The argument for not rewarding each of these cases is the same and is valid; if you grant them protection anyway, you will encourage more of all three with tragic consequences.


Syrian Sister is right. These contractors are not part of the military and don't wear any insignia, are pretty much executed by insurgents. Same thing is to be applied on Iraqi insurgents that should be executed when captured.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by deltaboy]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
it's got nothing to do with the uniform sweety. It's to do with the fact that they are payed killers and the geneva conventions clearly states mercinaries are not covered.

However resistance movements are covered by it, like i said article 4 third convention. And for your information deltaboy, they have uniforms. each faction has its own insignia.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Syrian Sister]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join