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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


So you believe that the IDF is less descriminate in its killing than Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO?




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


OK, don't try and tell me what my logic is or is not - you have no idea.

Dropping bombs, missiles and cluster munitions on known civilian area's is tantamount to targetting civilians - actually, forget tantamount, it IS targetting civilians, and while it's being done you have no case.

You seem to be under the illusion that our leaders actually give a toss about the civilian population in iraq - they care nothing for their own citizens, why would they care about a few more dead iraqi's?

Here is shown a small part of the reality of the way troops on the ground treat their ALLIES.

If you are not against the lies that bush spreads, then you are for them, and are an apologist, as you seek to minimize at every turn the harm being done to innocents.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


And yet the koran states repeatedly that jews, muslims and christians all pray to the same god.

It would be one thing if all sects/religions were saying different things, but they ALL pray to the same god.

FYI the koran is well known for saying that god has many names.



Re: what can i say?---you can find some snippets of truth in the koran and the rest is fairy tales---but it is not true that all the peoples of the earth worship the same G-D.if we all worshiped the one same G-D then supposedly we are all in agreement with one another and keep the same holytimes which we do not.

to state it simply those that fell away from the apostolic church keep sunday/those that follow allah use friday/those that are religious jews or follow the teachings of the apostolic church keep G-Ds 7th day shabbat.3 different G-Ds none of them the same One.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


OK, don't try and tell me what my logic is or is not - you have no idea.

Dropping bombs, missiles and cluster munitions on known civilian area's is tantamount to targetting civilians - actually, forget tantamount, it IS targetting civilians, and while it's being done you have no case.

You seem to be under the illusion that our leaders actually give a toss about the civilian population in iraq - they care nothing for their own citizens, why would they care about a few more dead iraqi's?

Here is shown a small part of the reality of the way troops on the ground treat their ALLIES.

If you are not against the lies that bush spreads, then you are for them, and are an apologist, as you seek to minimize at every turn the harm being done to innocents.




I've served in Iraq, and I know first hand you're dead wrong on that. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I won't have anyone spreading lies about the US military. Can you show me one war in the past where there've been zero attacks in urban areas? There's nothing new there, aside from the fact that we now have munitions accurate enough to target specific buildings/specific parts of buildings. Do things ever go wrong? Yes. Did we take precautions to minimize the effects on civilians. Damn right we did. You're operating on the notion that it's against the law to ever target sites in urban areas, and that's simply not the case. You're also aware that it is a war crime to use civilians as human shields, but I don't notice you ever mentioning that. You have a one sided complaint, and it's always against the US.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Actually - as I get tired of repeating - my stance is anti-bush, not anti US, my stance is also anti hypocrisy, something bush practices on a daily basis, along with blair, brown, cheney, rice, straw etc etc

Thats the problem with apologists - they try to turn everything into an anti-US rant and this clearly isn't the case.

The US and UK are signatories to the geneva convention - al'qaeda/taliban/whoever are not, but that doesn't mean that we should throw away the rules we signed up to abide by - if they hide in civilian area's why are these area's being bombed when we have snatch squads? And don't say it's because of the danger - if a soldier doesn't recognise the concept of danger in occupied territory he should not be taking the wages.

The answer?
Bush would rather kill a few more innocents than risk political criticism by exposing more troops in the illegal war he dragged us all into.

Our troops are fighting, killing and being killed on the alter of bushes ambition and greed, and so are hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Say whatever you like - my position will not change, bush is as much a murderer as pol pot, stalin or hitler and as much an extremist as OBL and should be tried for his war crimes along with blair.

I suppose you also think torture is OK and a mere necessity of war.

bah.



[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kangjia57
Reply to yahn goodney
These guys worship Allah (the creator of everything) and to die fighting as a martyr against the invading Jews is indeed a great honour for them.

Always remember Muslims die defending their lands and the Jews die extending their lands.


re:kanjia57----i cannot see what you send to me---check my profile----i have been warned previously by moderators not to reply to some other members when in their opinion i was "stepping out of bounds?"in order not to get myself banned or lose points it is best for me to proceed with caution for the time being.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Thats the problem with apologists - they try to turn everything into an anti-US rant and this clearly isn't the case.

The US and UK are signatories to the geneva convention - al'qaeda/taliban/whoever are not, but that doesn't mean that we should throw away the rules we signed up to abide by - if they hide in civilian area's why are these area's being bombed when we have snatch squads? And don't say it's because of the danger - if a soldier doesn't recognise the concept of danger in occupied territory he should not be taking the wages.


I suppose you also think torture is OK and a mere necessity of war.

bah.



[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]


On your first point- why do you never critique Al Qaeda and the Insurgents, only the US/UK military?

On your second point- it's apparent you've ignored everything I've said with regards to what the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare actually say. There are no rules that say you absolutely can't engage an enemy if any civilians are nearby, or that absolutely no civilians may be harmed in war. Read what the conventions and rules actually say, rather than just what your opinion of what they should say, is.

As for your third point. You told me not to imply what your thoughts were, yet you turn around and do just that. Have I said I'm pro torture in any response?

Your comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot are way off base. Saddam wasn't even quite in their league, though he was putting forth his best effort.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Reply to yahn goodey

in order not to get myself banned or lose points it is best for me to proceed with caution for the time being.

Hahaha Time being??

No what you mean is that I would absolutely Own you in a debate.I have got alot evidence on how the Jews what to extend their lands. The Muslims will never let the Jews extend no matter what their scriptures say.

Its our Holy land.We will fight till death till the very last breath But we will never let you take Al-Aqsa masjid and let you build what you like.We will never let you extend.We will stop the Merkavas like we did in lebanon.We will close in from where you want to extend.

Always keep that in mind matey.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


My critique is aimed at our "leaders", not our military - you keep repeating this charge, despite the fact it has no merit, in an obvious attempt to derail by making this about anti americanism.


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
5.a.
Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

1. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects

source

I generally don't acknowledge cherrypicked points anymore - it's known as trolling.

bush is responsible for mass murder - in that the comparison with pol pot, stalin and hitler is valid. It's about the principle, not the numbers - someone with as little conscience as bush is in the same category.

Let me clarify for you - the war is illegal, any killing of civilians in an illegal war is murder - could I possibly be any clearer

Now again - this is not anti-us or anti-military, it is anti bush/blair and anti-hypocrisy - again, could I possibly be any clearer

What you want is for me to back down and say bush is glorious and the saviour of the world - it ain't gonna happen.

Keep cherry picking and using your other troll tactics - I refute all your "claims"

edit to add - bold statements from the chandler bing school of emphasis




[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

The US and UK are signatories to the geneva convention - if a soldier doesn't recognise the concept of danger in occupied territory he should not be taking the wages.I suppose you also think torture is OK and a mere necessity of war.
bah.
[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]



Re:before i say anything else about how war should be conducted .G-D is going to resurrect all the dead at the end of Messiahs 1000 year reign of the kingdom of heaven on earth.
since the israelites insisted on fighting the enemy that G-D would have killed for them HE told the israelites when they entered the Holy land that they were to totally annhilate the occupiers of His land.this would have left no one there to continue on causing a problem and maintain a needless status quo.
the israelites disobeyed so created their own problems that continue to this day.if the usa had a real G-D fearing leader he would tell the people of iraq and afghanistan---give it up or you'll have to be put to sleep for 1000 years.same goes for israels leader it should be the same responce for all the occupiers of G-Ds holy land-----end of problem.
i realize this sounds harsh to all those that believe they are more righteous than the G-D of the bible so The Elohiym are going to let us continue down this path of "righteousness" our leaders have chosen till 1/3 -1/10 of us only are left alive when our enemies end up turning the tables on us which will bring about Messiahs return to save our remnents.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This should end the argument.

Death Tolls

Two things to note in this:

1) "But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000."

Now this article was written in Oct of 2004. So its been about 3 and half years since then.

2) "'Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.'"

Other noted topics:
NY Times Article
iraqbodycount.org is a non-governmental site that basis it's totals off of news media accounts. They are actually at the low end of the spectrum.

Johns Hopkins said 600,000 dead.

W.H.O says more likely 100,000 - 220,000 dead civilians since invasion.

So your argument about his source being bad was really poor research by you blueraja.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Now the other point about cluster bombs:

Cluster Bombs mainly kill civilians

Got a problem with the guardian? It's not really hard blueraja, go to google and search "cluster bombs civilians".

Ohh heres a good one:
Cluster bomb use sparks fear for Iraqi civilians

Cluster bomb victims overwhelmingly civilian

Israel fires cluster bombs into civilian areas

IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs

US cluster bombs for children?
There's a good one ^^

US cluster bombs kill 4 civilians in Dec 2003

BBC report of US Apache firing on a civilian crowd

Marines unprovoked in killing civilians?

More on the investigation

And still more

I didn't want to find this stuff. It just fell on my lap because I was tired of hearing the argument that "not that many civilians were dieing and it wasn't the fault of the US".

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Thanks for the figures - but does the number really matter (other than for trying to take us off topic lol) 10,000 or 1,000,000 or even 1 is too many.

We shouldn't be there.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


No, it doesn't. But with these kind of irrational thinkers - who basically lie to themselves - you have to provide facts.

Even with facts and sourcing, they'll still argue. They won't admit that we are in an illegal war (even though the secretary general of the UN says it is). They won't admit we went under false pretenses (even though everyone knows we went there for WMDS and terrorists).

They just won't concede anything. Not worth arguing really.

UN Secretary General calls Iraq war illegal

Again, this time with the BBC (good enough news source?)



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


I find support for the war in anyone strange to say the least.
Support for patriotic troops doing their duty (as they see it) is not something I would argue against - after all they are tiny cogs in a huge wheel that is turned by politicians with their own agenda.

I happen to believe that the agenda is wrong in every way.

I suspect that history (which is no konger just propaganda written by the winners) will judge those who instigated this war quite harshly - and rightly so.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Using some of your sources-

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Civilians main cluster bomb victims


· Toll could be 100,000, after study of 24 countries
· Controversial weapon still lethal after 30 years"


"More than 2,000 people in Iraq were confirmed casualties of cluster submunitions between 1991 and this year, according to the report, which says the figures are far from complete."

You're trying to use that article to show that American cluster bombs have been a large contributor to civilian casualties, but the stats are from 24 countries over 30 years, with a toll of maybe as high as 100,000. You and Budski(among others) are trying to say these 600,000-1million plus are because of indescriminate use of force, and that stat just doesn't support that claim. Why you bring up Israel, when your point was the amount of casualties caused by the US, is unclear.

space.newscientist.com...

"Keeping civilian casualties to an absolute minimum is politically crucial to the US and UK, who began their invasion to disarm Iraq in the face of substantial international opposition. Military spokespeople stress that cluster bombs will not be used in or near civilian areas."

www.hrw.org...

"As of November 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross had identified 127 civilian casualties to cluster bomb duds—a number it stressed was only a partial tally of the total killed and injured since many go unreported."

I'll cut some slack as there are some unreported cases as mentioned here.


hrw.org...

"Hundreds of civilian deaths in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq could have been prevented by abandoning two misguided military tactics, Human Rights Watch said in a comprehensive new report released today."

I hope you're seeing the trend here- none of these reports is saying hundreds of thousands/millions of deaths. I'm not trying to minimize civilians deaths, but you're trying to extrapolate huge numbers, that the facts just don't support. The vast majority of the civilian deaths are not as a result of US/UK forces(cluster bombs, attacking targets in civilian areas, etc...). They are from insurgent/terror attacks. You can still bash Bush/Blair, but be honest in who you're attributing the death tolls to.

You can link to isolated incidents and try to extrapolate, but it's unsound logically. You have to argue from the general to the specific, not the other way around.

www.cnn.com...

"We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force. We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful," Hagee will tell the Marines, according to a copy of his speech released by the Marine Corps. "This is the American way of war. We must regulate force and violence, we only damage property that must be damaged and we protect the non-combatants we find on the battlefield."

It's interesting that you use articles about Haditha from 2006, when the circumstance in that case have changed considerably, exhonerating the Marines. What it comes down to is who you find more credible, and that will show what the agenda is.

archive.newsmax.com...

archive.newsmax.com...

www.nctimes.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The US military takes great efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
(Not to mention save money, carpet bombing isn't very cost effective when you have PGM's)

They have to, because US political leaders have a hard time going more than a couple of years without bombing or invading someone...

So, knowing that some civilian casualties are inevitable in almost any military action, it can be said that while our military makes a great point of trying to spare civilians (and good for them!), our politicians don't seem to care how many swarthy foreigners we kill


IE: the US may try to act with restraint when it uses force, but we use force so often that it doesn't really matter, we're still the worlds bloodiest nation by far - nobody in the last half-century even comes close.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You can argue about numbers or scale as much as you like but here's the news:

It happens constantly that cluster munitions are used against civilian area's

It's an illegal war

Civilian deaths in an illegal war = MURDER by the people who instigated the war.

As for this;



"We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force. We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful," Hagee will tell the Marines, according to a copy of his speech released by the Marine Corps. "This is the American way of war. We must regulate force and violence, we only damage property that must be damaged and we protect the non-combatants we find on the battlefield."

well, this is truly laughable - warmongering propaganda at it's finest.

Your weak attempt to make it seem as though it doesn't matter bear all the hallmarks of the apologist/warmongerer. After all, what's a few more thousand dead in bush's quest for historical immortality.

BAH again


[edit on 15/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Reply to BlueRaja

What do you think the total civilian deaths can be in a country where 4000 US soldiers have been killed?

Vietnamese government in 1995 revealed that 5.1 million people died during Hanoi's conflict with the United States who lost about 58,209.

Ratio- 1 US soldier dead : 87 civilians dead

Remember more than 1500 civilians died in Mogadishu where a dozen US troops got killed.

Ratio-1 US soldier dead : 83 civilians dead

Now lets say 4000 US soldiers dead TIMES by 80 civilians(rounded off) dead per soldier.

4000 * 80 =320,000 civilians dead.

Those ratios taken above are only when the US troops is involved in combat
After adding what the sectarian,civilian,terrorist war/massacre has caused.

My conclusion is about around 1 Million Civilians Dead.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 


You've already tried to extrapolate figures from foreign wars, and it has been pointed out that you can't use previous figures to establish fact that way. Heck, in previous wars we lost 1,000s of killed per day, so can we say that their have been 5 million US soldiers killed?

You do realize that in high intensity combat, you're gonna have far more casualties than in low intensity combat(i.e. guerilla wars). Those figures you post are from high intensity fighting, where you have 2 large forces fighting, rather than sporadic ambushes and raids. Aside from the first few weeks of the war in 2003, and the retaking of Fallujah, and Mosul, there have been no large scale battles(i.e. Division size forces).



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join