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.

 

us planes unleash 40,000 pounds of bombs

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I feel sorry for brainwashed people that see war as a video game or a movie you'd find at Blockbuster. Why don't you actually watch some videos of the soldiers over there, why don't you do the study to see how effected most of these foot soldiers are once back home? Do you seriously believe people gain happiness from this business of death?

watchZEITGEISTnow




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
WARS HAVE NO RULES.
It's a free-for-all.
Screw the Geneva Convention, I read an article the other day about them banning the use of "blinding" weaponry.
Since when did war had to be regulated? "Omg, you can't use that weapon, it'll blind them"
40000lb of bombs is not a lot considering the fact that 1 B-2 can carry 40000lb of payload.
But on the contrary, 40000lb of bombs and the fuel needed is pretty expensive, I'd rather steal that much money and buy me a house, an airstrip, and pay off my college debt.
hrw.org...
All we have to prevent is a nuclear strike.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


I think Adolf Hitler thought the same way as you. What a charming man he was.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

I feel sorry for brainwashed people that see war as a video game or a movie you'd find at Blockbuster. Why don't you actually watch some videos of the soldiers over there, why don't you do the study to see how effected most of these foot soldiers are once back home? Do you seriously believe people gain happiness from this business of death?


Well, I thought that quote was especially fitting for that statement. I bet it brought a chuckle to some that are reading this thread.

Hmmm...watch videos of Soldiers over there? Is that how you're getting your view of the war? Interesting.

You see, I don't have to watch videos. I get all expense paid tours of that region all the time. I get to spend a few months evening out my tan, living in a tent, cleaning sand out of my food and jockeyshorts, and, if I'm lucky, get to put paid to any boogereater that happens to be a threat to US troops.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Perhaps you should see human life as significant, not something to be killed for amusement.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Perhaps you should see human life as significant, not something to be killed for amusement.


Nah, if you kill for fun, you're a sadist.

If you kill for money, a mercenary.

If you kill for both, Special Forces. (At least I read that on a t-shirt once.)



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
What gets me is the original post stated they bombed "Al-Qaeda Civilians".
So, what is that? A civilian who is either protected by or related to Al-Qaeda?

If they're not combatants, you don't bomb them. Plain and simple.

In a war on terror, the VERY LAST thing you want to do is kill civilians. All you're doing is making your enemy stronger. The more civilians you kill the more people you piss off enough to join the enemy.

Way to go... anyone who thinks this was a good idea clearly has no idea how terrorism works.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
People seem to forget that these so called insurgents are simply pissed off civilians. America invades their country without any justification or reason other than greed, kills their entire family, destroys their entire town and forever changes their lives. That somehow makes them the bad guys?

To all who laugh at the sight of death, remember this, death does not discriminate and it does not rest, it will come for you eventually. All great empires come to an end and it is almost never a peaceful or blood free end. Sooner or later a new empire will be born, one just as ruthless and greedy as the last. This time you could be at the receiving end of the bombs, just pray you your death is swift.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Just another question for you? If you are a soldier, representing the US people, why did the Iraq war start? Also do people of that country have a right to fight against another country that has illegally invaded it and killed many of its citizens, who have done NOTHING to you or your fellow country? One more question, you do understand how to brainwash people to do terrible things? Hell one last question, in say 20 years when you are no longer in war (and hopefully still alive) do you seriously think you will be able to be content with your own conciousness in understanding what that war is/was about and how the US Administration at that time lead you and your fellow soldiers?

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by interestedalways
 


Go ahead and turn the other cheek if you want to. I would just remind you that you only have two, and so do the people in your family ...


[edit on 1/10/2008 by centurion1211]


What exactly are you trying to say here centurian? What does my family have to do with this?


Simple. Pure, naive, pacifism in the face of people that want to do nothing but kill you and those you love and care about will accomplish nothing except getting the lot of you killed. You might try looking at the effects on our family and the rest of the bigger picture when you dream your pacifist dreams.

Simply wishing away war will not make it happen. Blaming all war on the U.S. will not make it go away. Having the U.S. unilaterally disarm will not make war go away, it will only bring it to your house much faster, etc. etc.


[edit on 1/10/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


Hey democracy has to be pounded on those Iraqis that do not understand the meaning of the word.

I say lets use 60 pound bombs, I'm sure they will finally get it.


The irony, when democracy becomes such a painful endeavor



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Another thing everyone fails to realize about the so-called faulty intelligence is.....the bunkers that were suppose to have chemical weapons in them.....did after shield/storm have chemical weapons in them and were inspected and sealed by UN weapons inspectors.....they did have it....the question we should be asking as a world community is not did they have chemical weapons (that is already known) but where did those weapons go.........This argument about Iraq not even having WMD was never about Nuclear, it was always the fact that Chemicals weapons WERE used against its own populace and the kurds, and were sealed in bunkers after shield/storm. Those are facts. The other fact is that they are not where they were left.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 


Do you mean the chemical weapons the US government sold them in the 1st place? Why sell them chemical weapons? So years later they could use this as the excuse to invade them?

watchZEITGEISTnow

[edit on 10-1-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 


www.youtube.com...



I ask you to listen to this excellent presentation disputing what you say, from the US Administrations lips...

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


No is no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The Bush administration said that we do not use weapon of mass destruction against our enemies we just bomb the heck out of them.


Remember we have to recite this phrase allllllllll the time, We trust our government they are the good people, the rest of the world specially the middle east is our enemy.

With the exception of our Arabs friends that sell us the oil.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DraconianKing
 


You try to make some nice points here

The insurgents are mostly from other Countries that have not been directly affected by the war and have come to fight. ie the word INSURGENT

The displaced fighters are another story all together. They are another result of poor planning by military commanders that should have reinstituted the military under new Iraqi leadership. If you are trained to be in the military and that is your job and then it is taken from you what do you do?

What makes me laugh here is the people posting based on their soooooo strong feelings but yet they do not have a clue about what they are posting. I have seen this before and tried to educate but it does not work.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


Yes I saw that also, but the link from that source was taken and replace with another link that mention the bombs but no that is against Al-qaida Civilians.

It may have been a mistake, but hey we all know that a death insurgent or a death Iraqi civilian can not tell their story so they all Al-qaida supporters.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
It's a war, bombs are going to be dropped. The whole Iraq invasion and rebuilding plan was a half ass operation anyway.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 


I think that you have the meaning of insurgency mix with Terrorist


According to United States Department of Defense Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, an insurgency is defined as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.

An insurgency differs from a resistance both in its political overtones and in the nature of the conflict: an insurgency connotes an internal struggle against a standing, established government, whereas a resistance connotates a struggle against invading or occupying foreign forces and their collaborators.


en.wikipedia.org...

Insurgency most often is the results of an invasion of a country by foreing forces.

But as you can see our government has redefine the meaning to suit their agenda The bush administration uses the words terrorist and insurgency but you never see our government using the word resistance in the iraqi conflict.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
[more

I was there were you?

Did they use Chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran Iraq war? Yes

Did they use Chemical weapons against the Kurds? Yes

Did Saddam use Chemical weapons against his own people? Yes

Did the UN house the Chemical weapons and seal them in bunkers after the Shield Storm? Yes

So these weapons never existed. Iraq did not have them, even though it repeatedly used them in every transnational and internal conflict it had....I can take snips from most any interview and cut it how I want and then listen to some liberal talk show host put their spin on it ...that does not mean anything to me and further more it does not prove facts.

I am not defending donny Rumsfeld, his mismanagement is why we are where we are today. Of course they were jumping through hoops trying to find where the weapons went, because that is one of the platforms they used for approval.. I cant help that. The point is they were there...maybe more importantly we should be asking where those chemical weapons went... to me that seems like more of an intelligence problem than sayint they did have wmd chemical weapon which we knew they did have...and used....in military ops....and against civilians....

You can have your view all you want but till youve served in the sand all you can do is watch tv and speculate.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join