Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iraqi soldier “Caesar” killed three American soldiers as they kicked , beat a pregnant woman

page: 27
13
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Let's watch the replies to this one ^^^ stack up.

"Your husband is ignorant" ?? I guess he knows the man personally, to be making such judgements...




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0
 


Correct on WMDs: there were none.


None found, would be a more accurate response to v01i0.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TyrannyofAmerica

Insulting? Deny Ignorance? Your husband is ignorant. Defending a country which uses his good gesture of defending it so rightiously as nothing more than charity. He's just a tool to occupy in the middle east in hopes of one day having it become part of the european or soon to be african union, Which also means american will be free to set its oil prices.


It's pretty ignorant making absurd and baseless assertions too. I suppose when your delusional predictions don't come true, you're unquestionable integrity will compel you to retract such statements? I can think of few things more noble than the self sacrifice involved in defending one's country, which has given its citizens many blessings. Only those who take their freedoms and priveleges for granted, would make such a thoughtless remark.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
contrary to this article i read in a uk national newspaper he attacked us forces unprovoked which is true and why?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0
 

You said it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.


Oh come on, quit placing words into my mouth. I have never said that "it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.". You have to draw quite far fetched conclusions to end up saying that I think so.


Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by v01i0
 


452,031 dead? What method did you use to arrive at that number?
655,000 dead, 1.2 million dead, etc... are some other wild speculations that have been asserted. Of these 3 figures, how many of these dead can be verified by hard facts versus completely subjective wild speculation?


My method? Wild speculation or intuition based on some kind of wild sythesis and somewhat a joke, could be wrong as well hehe




Heh, my prediction(452,031 dead iraqis) above wasn't that insane after all:


Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Original Source: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey; Burnham et al. Click here for full article.


PS.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
[...]the self sacrifice involved in defending one's country[...]


Self sacrifice my rear! When you kill people and get paid for it, there's nothing about self sacrifice there! Instead go feeding some hungry people at your own expense; or go teaching ignorant people at your own time! There's some self sacrifice. It is one very worn nonsense rhyme that your military men are there for "self sacrifice". Keep telling yourself so to keep up with sanity and you're painting white with black.

[edit: added post script]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by v01i0]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
reply to post by v01i0
 

You said it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.


Oh come on, quit placing words into my mouth. I have never said that "it had been proven that Saddam did not kill innocent civilians.". You have to draw quite far fetched conclusions to end up saying that I think so.


Whose placing words in mouths? I'm quoting you, read again.


Originally posted by v01i0
Above is an example of same type scenario which took place with Iraq occupation. First Saddam was blamed of having MWD's, then he was accused of harbouring terrorist, then he was accused of killing innocent civilians and when the "justifications" all came to proven wrong, there wasn't anything else left that Allied brought up liberty and freedom, but instead of that, they managed to create chaos and misery. To me, they appear as guilty as is the criminal in preceding example.


So, where did I put words in your mouth and how do I have to draw far-fetched conclusions?

You said Saddam was accused of killing innocent civilians as a justification for invasion and that all justifications were proven untrue, ("wrong" being your exact word). You typed it, not me.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Whose placing words in mouths? I'm quoting you, read again.


Originally posted by v01i0
Above is an example of same type scenario which took place with Iraq occupation. First Saddam was blamed of having MWD's, then he was accused of harbouring terrorist, then he was accused of killing innocent civilians and when the "justifications" all came to proven wrong, there wasn't anything else left that Allied brought up liberty and freedom, but instead of that, they managed to create chaos and misery. To me, they appear as guilty as is the criminal in preceding example.


So, where did I put words in your mouth and how do I have to draw far-fetched conclusions?

You said Saddam was accused of killing innocent civilians as a justification for invasion and that all justifications were proven untrue, ("wrong" being your exact word). You typed it, not me.


You got me there, Howie. I indeed claimed so. Sorry for flaming you for nothing. Reason I flamed was because I thought I've never said something I don't believe in myself; what I said before in this post you quoted was an lapsus - error made in rush while answering to the people. Good job exposing the truth, Sherlock


Anyhow, let me correct myself by saying that most of the excuses in order to justify the invasion were proven wrong.

And I'm not sure which has killed more civilians, Saddam's regime or Iraq invasion.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


I'm not so sure which is responsible for more civilian deaths, either.

and, to make it quite clear, I find the whole "omelette/eggs" argument to be a contemptible cop-out. I can only hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future we can look at a stable, democratic Iraq, where services work and the government serves the people and say "it cost too much to get here, but now that it's bought and paid for, let's protect and invest in it" and the Iraqi people will share the same view.

I also hope that history will shortly begin to ignore the "war on terror", "confronting terror" and neo-con posturing and begin to assign responsibility for the mess in Iraq in stark terms. I don't believe there is a reputation outside the SecState and Ass'SecState c.'03 that will survive such a process.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV
 


Yeah, what is done cannot be undone - You kinda made me think how pointless it is to argue about the justification of the invasion, or whether the story 'marines kicking pregnant woman', is true - Because all that matters now, when all the mistakes have been made, and when most of the cards have been played, is that the people would work together towards the Iraq that is comfortable to live in.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0

PS.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
[...]the self sacrifice involved in defending one's country[...]


Self sacrifice my rear! When you kill people and get paid for it, there's nothing about self sacrifice there! Instead go feeding some hungry people at your own expense; or go teaching ignorant people at your own time! There's some self sacrifice. It is one very worn nonsense rhyme that your military men are there for "self sacrifice". Keep telling yourself so to keep up with sanity and you're painting white with black.

[edit: added post script]

[edit on 20-1-2008 by v01i0]


Self-Sacrifice=Certain ideals are worth more than one's personal comfort or safety. Spending much time away from home and family/friends, under austere conditions. Missing birthdays, holidays, anniversaries, weddings, funerals, births, your children learning to walk/speak. Working long hours/working unpredictable hours, on comparitively low wages. Risk of death/serious injury. Etc....


As for the casualty figures- they are still based upon computations and estimates, rather than observation/corroboration. You still have to account for the events that caused these casualties, who policed up the dead/wounded, who buried the dead, how many families reported a dead loved one.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
Why is it so hard for you Americans to belive that your footsoljiers are capable of evil things?

Anything is possible. Anywhere you go in the world you will encounter good people and bad people; as well as smart people and dumb people. Those who claim one race or nationality is more good or bad than an another project ignorance.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Self-Sacrifice=Certain ideals are worth more than one's personal comfort or safety. Spending much time away from home and family/friends, under austere conditions. Missing birthdays, holidays, anniversaries, weddings, funerals, births, your children learning to walk/speak. Working long hours/working unpredictable hours, on comparitively low wages. Risk of death/serious injury. Etc....



Okay, if you define this as self sacrifice, let's see how your definition applies...

Let's take an example of some wage worker: Imagine a worker - no matter what profession - taking a contract that includes travelling abroad. His working conditions may be dangerous, he might miss the important days in his life, he might have to work in unpredictable times. By your definition, we can glue this definition in almost every profession that includes mentioned properties, yet in reality, we rarely consider them to be self sacrificial.

In my opinion, self sacrifice is something where you do something without any reasonable expectations for any personal gain. It is true that people rarely behave in truly self sacrificing way, but that doesn't mean that we will have to degrade the definition to include broader categories.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


So unless Soldiers are unpaid, you don't see them making any personal sacrifices? That's a pretty narrow definition. How about a willingness to lay down their life for someone they don't know, to protect them from harm, and so that person might have a chance at a better life?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Well yeah, I accept that some of the soldiers may be there for that reason. Some. But even they are, in my opinion they are seriously mislead.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Well yeah, I accept that some of the soldiers may be there for that reason. Some. But even they are, in my opinion they are seriously mislead.


You may disagree with them, but I guarantee you they believe in what they're doing. You don't put yourself in harm's way if you're ambivalent.
The type of individual that joins the military, police, fire department accepts the fact that they may have to put themselves in danger of death/dismemberment, to save a friend or stranger.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You may disagree with them, but I guarantee you they believe in what they're doing.


Yeah, absolutely they do believe in what they are doing. Or they want to believe, and when they stop believing in it, mental disorder will emerge - I believe


Some people have this trouble: It was reported that quite a bit of the veterans have some kind of mental disorders:

Nearly a third of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who received care from Veterans Affairs between 2001 and 2005 were diagnosed with mental health or psychosocial ills, a new study concludes [...]

[...]Of the total, 32,010 (31 percent) were diagnosed with mental health and/or psychosocial problems, including 25,658 who received mental health diagnoses. More than half (56 percent) were diagnosed with two or more disorders.

Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common disorder, with the 13,205 veterans who got the diagnosis accounting for more than half (52 percent) of mental health diagnoses.

CNN news...

My theory regarding the matter is that those who continue to believe in the system after active serving, shall continue with "healthy" mentality, and those who are there just for the kicks(sadistic people that want to kill, torture, rape or otherwise mutilate, or infant people that just want to shoot and/or pilot fancy equipment), will also preserve their mental stability, except perhaps the infant ones after they've seen the horrors of war.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


The problem with your argument is that only those who disagree with your views are "believers" and "misled," (whereas sensible people would naturally agree with you?) Do you see how that could come across to someone not sharing your views? If I were to assert that I was the sole proprietor on truth and reason, and everyone else was wrong/idiots/criminals, would you think me perhaps arrogant(fill in adjective)? The horrors of war affect people differently, and it has nothing to do with their opinions, political affiliation, socio-economic status. Personally, someone that wasn't a "believer" I would think would have a much more adverse reaction, than someone that believed they were doing something worthwhile, good, or noble.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

The problem with your argument is that only those who disagree with your views are "believers" and "misled," (whereas sensible people would naturally agree with you?) Do you see how that could come across to someone not sharing your views?


No no no, I admit that I might be misled as well. I speak only for myself and the aspect I have achieved, how could I do otherwise? I perfectly accept that people may disagree with me yet be sensitive. I must emphasize I speak about my opinion here. Actually it is quite irrelevant what I say, because all we do we talk about symptoms of an 'disease'. The disease is there and I see it's outcome this way and you see it your way.

What was the original issue of the post again?


I have nothing more to say on it, so perhaps I should just shut up



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


That's cool. I can respect an honest difference of opinion.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
reply to post by GT100FV
 


www.yaqen.net...




You seem awfully anxious at the prospect that Americans may have been killed- thanks for your objectivity.


nah, waiting to see when americans learn to stop killing others


Don't you mean, when people stop killing other people? What an ignorant statement.






top topics



 
13
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join