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.

 

Death at a Distance: The Secret U.S. Air War in Afghanistan and Iraq

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
yes I have thought about it, and researched it, and no I don't believe anything the papers say unless I can verify it from another neutral source.

If you want to paint bush as some kind of hero, who's whiter than white that's your choice - some people know better though.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

When you have the decency to answer my question then I'll answer yours.
Until such time as you can back up your argument and answer the questions posed instead of making a series of beligerrent soundbites I see no need to answer any of your questions.



You seem to just concentrate on Iraq, but not on Afghanistan. Since the bombings include both Iraq and Afghanistan I thought it might be interesting what is your view of the invasion of Afghanistan as well. It could be that you may also not support it since the Afghans had nothing to do with it, however many Al Qaeda members were there. But thats just my view.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Fair enough,
as a UK citizen I have no argument with afghanistan - for humanitarian reasons then it was, perhaps, justified - but that's only a maybe. There's also training camps in Pakistan - and I don't see us going there: could this possibly be because they are able to defend themselves?
The reason we've had terrorist attacks in the UK is because of our support of the US - and I see no reason to support the US.
During the 30+ years that the IRA were bombing the UK, the US allowed them to raise funds on US soil, and to buy arms - then the US gets hit and all of a sudden it's a global war on terror, which blair the lapdog led us into.

So no - it's your fight, you fight it.



[edit on 14/9/2007 by budski]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski


So no - it's your fight, you fight it.


We're not the only ones fighting Islamic terrorists groups here. Guess you need to look at India, Russia, Phillipines, etc.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


They are all internal problems - even russia if you count the break up of the ussr as such - but I'll repeat, it only became a global problem when the US got hit. Before that you just didn't care.

As for the bombing of civilian targets in afghanistan - it's another abomination - these people have very little to do with al'qaeda.

And when by the way are the US going to invade or bomb pakistan?
or are you going to avoid the question again?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
OK The U.S. is realizing that they are doing the maybe the right thing but it is not EFFECTIVE.

So what now ?

I will tell you what now it will ne ver happen but if it did it would solve everything.

Take everyone in the country ... of Iran/Iraq/Afg rent them out cancun mexico for a couple months. Put numbers on all of them/ID CARDS that all of them will have to use to do anything that is being given to them. Insert some chips in thier arms that will work also serperately as tarcking devices. Bomb the ever living hell out of thier three home countries ... Killing anyone that was not willing to cooperate ... I.E. The Terrorists or whoever .... Then rebuild the towns one at a time using the money that is spent feeding us .. and what not .. and Send worlds contractors over to do the best job possible. BAM ... BODA BING .. BODA BAM .... The issues fixed ... ok maybe not cancun mexico .. But is anyone getting the point ??
this is what we shoulda done a long time ago .. Now are war costs are far out wieghing this option that we should have taken the first days within deployment.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
They are all internal problems - even russia if you count the break up of the ussr as such - but I'll repeat, it only became a global problem when the US got hit. Before that you just didn't care.


We've been hit many times before, but the U.S. govt. pretty much didn't do crap. This adminstration did something.


As for the bombing of civilian targets in afghanistan - it's another abomination - these people have very little to do with al'qaeda.


Go figure. Tell the terrorists to fight us in the middle of the desert.


And when by the way are the US going to invade or bomb pakistan?
or are you going to avoid the question again?


Invade any ally that is lead by a leader which many Muslims considered a traitor against the Taliban and Al Qaeda?




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I like the cut of your gist!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


OK, when were you hit on US soil that justifies bombing innocent civilians of a sovereign nation unproven to have any terrorist links?

Pakistan has as many al qaeda and terrorist training bases as afghanistan - maybe even more. Or is it just that pakistan is able to fight back and is a nuclear power?
Bit like the playground bully who won't pick on kids his own size or who might fight back.

There's no justification ever, for bombing innocents who have done nothing wrong, have committed no terrorist acts and who have barely heard of al qaeda.
Want to bomb someone? bomb saudi who are well known sponsors of terrorism - oh that's right, not gonna happen because bush can make some money out of them.

The hypocrisy is sickening.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
OK, when were you hit on US soil that justifies bombing innocent civilians of a sovereign nation unproven to have any terrorist links?


Where to begin?
First of all, your initial premise is faulty. Are you suggesting that the U.S. is intentionally killing civilians like the terrorists do? I hope NOT!
So were you against WWI and WWII? I mean innocent civilians were killed in those wars also.


Secondly, why do you believe the only thing that matters is IF we were hit on U.S. soil? We had 9/11 which of course was on U.S. soil and don't forget about the first time the towers were bombed. There have been plenty of other attacks against the U.S. that have not been on U.S. soil like the USS Cole bombing, the barracks in Saudi etc.....



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

OK, when were you hit on US soil that justifies bombing innocent civilians of a sovereign nation unproven to have any terrorist links?


Nor was the justification of Japanese civilians, but as you said before it was an exception at the time...whatever that means. Not to mention you pretty much don't have the concept of war where civilians are living in the same place as wars are fighting at. You think its easy that only military ones can be killed?


Pakistan has as many al qaeda and terrorist training bases as afghanistan - maybe even more. Or is it just that pakistan is able to fight back and is a nuclear power?
Bit like the playground bully who won't pick on kids his own size or who might fight back.


Doesn't matter if Pakistan as nuclear weapons or not, we being hitting Al Qaeda with Predator drones and the Pakistani govt. takes claim for it. Not exactly what you expect from the govt. that has its soil being bombed.


There's no justification ever, for bombing innocents who have done nothing wrong, have committed no terrorist acts and who have barely heard of al qaeda.


Again if you can invent a bomb that can discriminate between civilians and military, I'm all ears.



Want to bomb someone? bomb saudi who are well known sponsors of terrorism - oh that's right, not gonna happen because bush can make some money out of them.
The hypocrisy is sickening.


So we should attacked Lebanon, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc. When the hijackers attacked us, were they all one national? Or more than one?


Maybe we should attacked the UK since the shoebomber is from there as well.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I think you are deliberately skirting the issue, because there is no justification for bombing civilians - none whatsoever. Especially when the US should not be in Iraq in the first place - a question which I put to you which you couldn't answer.

In true bush style you'll use any excuse for barbaric acts against people who have done absolutely nothing to the US, apart from be in the way.

As you sow, so shall you reap - don't start whinging when there's another 911.

The US government has been killing innocents for years - guess you kind of get used to it eh?

Nothing against US citizens - I have some good friends from the states - but the government sucks even more than the UK government does, and that's not something I say lightly.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Read the article - the US government is doing exactly that.
They are fully aware of the increase in civilian deaths, but choose to ignore it.
If that's not deliberate, then I don't know what is.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I think you are deliberately skirting the issue, because there is no justification for bombing civilians - none whatsoever. Especially when the US should not be in Iraq in the first place - a question which I put to you which you couldn't answer.

In true bush style you'll use any excuse for barbaric acts against people who have done absolutely nothing to the US, apart from be in the way.

As you sow, so shall you reap - don't start whinging when there's another 911.


We didn't whine about terrorists attacking the U.S. we bombed the hell out of them. And to say we justified attacking civilians, well then you must be surprised there are any still living beings in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I guess you won't admit to that.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
You know in hindsight, Saddam should have been left in power rearmed and kicked Iran's ass.

In hindsight, I totally agree with you.

I have mixed emotions about the entire thing. I supported the war at the beginning but I am wavering as far as Iraq is concerned (Afghanistan is an entirely different situation for me)

I think we need to get out of Iraq asap. It sickens me to hear about our soldiers dying but I just don't have an answer as far as what happens if we do pull them out.
As far as any political solutions, I think we're (the U.S.) screwed at this point. If we stay, we're going to keep losing soldiers on a regular basis, if we leave, the rest of the world will have an even worse opinion of us than they do now since it will be looked at as abandoning a country in a turmoil that we created.

I think our government needs to get off it's rear and start securing America's borders. We keep hearing about fighting the terrorists overseas so we wont have to fight them here but how much longer do we really think that's going to last? Eventually, the United States will be the 3rd front in the war on terror and i'm not really looking forward to that.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



This one is easy. Convince the Terrorists to stop hiding behind women and children, put on a uniform and stop acting like cowards.

Do you hate Americans so much that you feel it is necessary to imply our Soldiers are killing civilians on purpose when it is in fact the other side who is doing that? Do you condemn the Terrorists and Insurgents for hiding behind women and children? If not why not?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Read the article - the US government is doing exactly that.
They are fully aware of the increase in civilian deaths, but choose to ignore it.
If that's not deliberate, then I don't know what is.



I guess you don't comprehend what you read because the article does NOT say the U.S. intentionally kills civilians. Unfortunately that is YOUR wishful thinking and its very sad. To say the military intentionally is killing innocent people is absurd and ludicrous!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This one is easy. Convince the Terrorists to stop hiding behind women and children, put on a uniform and stop acting like cowards.

They would lose. Very quickly.

They aren't terrorists as much as revolutionaries.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
From the article in question:

The U.S. military is increasingly relying on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians.


and

According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead.
These assaults are part of what may be the best kept secret of the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts: an enormous intensification of US bombardments in these and other countries in the region, the increasing number of civilian casualties such a strategy entails, and the growing role of pilot-less killers in the conflict.

According to Associated Press, there has been a five-fold increase in the number of bombs dropped on Iraq during the first six months of 2007 over the same period in 2006. More than 30 tons of those have been cluster weapons, which take an especially heavy toll on civilians.

Source

So if you know you are killing a lot of civilians through increased air strikes and use of cluster munitions, and you don't stop, then it follows that you are doing it intentionally and just don't care about the civilian casualties - people who have done nothing wrong - innocents.

Geneva convention article 48:

Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


and article 50

Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Source

So basically you guys are trying to justify the murder of civilians that your government has committed - and it is murder.

[edit on 15/9/2007 by budski]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


If you read the whole thread you'll see that I have nothing against americans and have a fair few friends from the states. Your government on the other hand is authorising and continuing the use of heavy bombing, KNOWING that there are massive civilian caualties, yet they continue to do it. I don't like the US government very much, but then I don't like my own government very much either.
I also never said anything about soldiers killing civilians - I have highlighted the increased use of bombing and the use of cluster munitions that are taking a very heavy toll on the civilian populations.
Try reading and getting your facts straight before making baseless accusations



[edit on 15/9/2007 by budski]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join