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.

 

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I'm saying that if they're saying that official policy was targetting civilians and committing warcrimes, then they're liars. There is only one policy. It's not different for varying units, or locations in Iraq. I saw first hand how anal retentive the chain of command was about preventing any such thing. Is this to say that there weren't individuals, or groups of people that committed illegal acts- absolutely not. To say it's the official policy is BS. There's no arrogance on my part. I'm just telling it straight.




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'm not for anything that can/will kill bystanders. By that rational, a gang member trying to shoot a rival should be proclaimed innocent for any bystanders that suffer casualties. Or if a policeman fires rubber bullets at a protester who's taking things to far, but misses and kills a woman after striking her in the head. That's not acceptable either.

I understand war has those shady lines, and no one knows the boundry. We are no longer in a war, however. This is a conflict, at best. Occupation would be the better word. So there are no "shady lines". There is no excuse anymore for civilian casualties.

Edited to add:

I agree with you on conflicts. We need to stop with the Vietnam, one foot in, one foot out ideology of war. We either need to send all we got and end it ASAP, or pull out.

Sorry, edited one more time to ask:

How do you know they are liars? Just wondering if there is any more info on that.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



Civilian targets are being bombed at this very moment by the Great Satan Terrorist King George. I would be proud to be his enemy also.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I know exactly what you are saying.
You're saying that because you didn't see it, that it never happens.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Despite veterans who say it does.
Despite the huge body counts.
Despite that it has been widely reported - only mainstream covers it up.
Despite the use of arbitrary weapons.
Despite countless examples, testimony and investigations.

And let's not forget your insistence that the war was NOT illegal and that the raids on civilian territory were fine under the geneva convention

I suppose you still believe in WMD's and al'qaeda links?

Perhaps this denial is rooted in a false sense of patriotism - I don't know and frankly I don't care.

Until you can refute the evidence provided with anything more than "I was there" I think you're batting on a sticky wicket - i.e. you have no case, no evidence and no chance of refuting anything.
It kind of reminds me of a small child complaining they don't like the veg even though they haven't tasted them.

This constant assertion that "Iwas there, so I know" is not convincing - were you a high ranking officer? one who knew all aspects of the operations?

Didn't think so.

BAH




[edit on 23/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


It'd be nice if you'd make the distinction between civilian targets, and targets that are near civilians. I know that's too much to ask though.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I never said that individuals or groups of folks haven't violated rules.

I am saying that it's a lie that it was an official policy. I won't discuss what rank I am, or what my job is, as that's none of your business. I will say that I worked with very high level commands, and with access to a lot of information.

You're failing to distinguish between policy, and misbehavior. I'm not saying the latter hasn't occurred, so please stop beating that horse.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Ah yes, trying to turn the argument around and dictate the pattern on your terms.

Like re-visiting a thread that you hope had died in order to try and have the last word to "prove yourself right"

Sorry mate, you came to the wrong place for that - I WILL defend every assertion that I have made, regardless of "you being there"

Disinfo is NOT going to work, nor is fine tuning what you say.

Read back through the thread as I have done, and it's comical to see as the wriggle room you have for baseless denials have been reduced to none.

You're going to have to come up with something tangible or run the risk of losing any credibility.

And so far you have produced nothing tangible - just "I was there"





posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Can we at least agree that official policy may differ from what an individual may choose to do?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I just want evidence that those people are liars as he stated. Someone holding high rank in the military should certainly be able to provide evidence for a statement like that. If anyone is the position to prove his point, it would be this guy.

I don't disbelieve much of what he says. I bet we agree on a lot more than he believes also. Just the subject of "acceptable civilian casualties" and this fake-war are touchy subjects for me.

Plus, no one around me - in real life - will argue with me about anything. So I have to take all of my built up frustration out on this board



Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can we at least agree that official policy may differ from what an individual may choose to do?


Of course. The official policy has never been that. Even the article you called baloney said it wasn't official policy.

*Edited to add:

Oh, about the gunship thing raja. I searched everywhere and couldn't find an update on what was discovered. I'm assuming it was buried. If you can find anymore info that'd be great.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I don't think so, unless you have a high proportion of rogue pilots and artillery officers with no map reading skills in the US forces in Iraq.

The incidents were not isolated incidents - if they were, I might agree with you, but let's not forget that the lowest bodycount (from you) was approaching 100,000.

If your assertion is correct then there should be 100's (at the very least) of court martials for incompetance and murder.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Well, I disagree. I would say it was never "official" policy. That in no way means that it wasn't the policy, however.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


The only real hope is that you have an honest president when (if?) shrub leaves.

One who will tell the truth about this horrible campaign of occupation and mayhem and murder and will indite bush for war crimes - as CinC he has the ultimate responsibility.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


What percentage of 100,000 or 1,000,000 for that matter, do you believe are directly attributable to US forces vs. insurgent violence? According to the Law of Armed Conflict, what is the threshold for charging a crime? Is it based upon deliberate violations, or.....unintended casualties? Do you believe that each time an unintended casualty occurs, that war crimes trials need to be conducted, or do you believe that there needs to be evidence that the person(s) responsible deliberately violated the law?
What precedent in the history of warfare, has the necessity to prosecute every military member who inadvertantly caused civilian casualties been the standard? You prosecute deliberate crimes. If negligence was the cause, then there are different punishments for that.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


We've been over this already and it's been put to bed.

In an illegal war ALL civilian casualties are murder.

Read back through the thread and you'll see this has been my position all along.

Trying to cloud the issues will not gain you anything, except a loss of credibility.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


I will say that if any Brigade/Battalion/Company Commander decided to intentionally commit war crimes, they'd be fired and prosecuted. I saw first hand the amount of detail went into planning to avoid unnecessary casualties. I know this isn't enough evidence for Budski and others, but the ROE is very specific about what you can't do, and if you do violate it, you can expect negative repercussions. You'd be surprised how many military lawyers analyze every little detail of plans, to make sure folks stay out of trouble.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


No chance of that since this passed:

Bill passed to give Bush administration reverse immunity for war crimes

Clearly the administration has found a loophole around the fact that this an occupation and not a war. So even though you are correct in stating that it's not a war, it's really irrelevant unless someone can get the ball rolling against him.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible. Congress has shown it will not press any matters towards impeachment or investigating this administration. The federal judicial system has shown it will not accept any matters of unconstitutionality of this administration's actions and policies.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You still haven't answered my question - who at the UN has declared the war illegal? Was there a vote taken, and a unanimous conclusion arrived at, or was it some UN individuals that declared that. Where are the UN resolutions against the US if there's a consensus in the UN that we're violating a law?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I already posted that. I'll find it.

Ah, it was the UN Secretary General I believe. I didn't look.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


I'd love to see him in an international court, along with blair, brown, cheney and rice etc

Could you imagine them shouting that they "don't recognise the authority of this court"?
That would be a nice irony.

blueraja
I'm getting very tired of repeating myself - all the relevant information about the illegality of the war has been posted.
Show us the wmd's, show us the al'qaeda links - what's that, you can't?

[edit on 23/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
That doesnt mean he cant be tried for warcrimes out side of America,I dont think he will but we can live in hope.

someone should pay for this absurd war resulting in so may lifes destroyed and the credability of our nations sinking into the sewers



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join