It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Thank God for Bullet Proof Vests. Video!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:59 PM
As eerie as it is to see extremists quietly film themselves shooting a soldier from the shadows, knowing the soldier got up and took cover is great.


I thought that this video would be a eye-opener for those whose eyes are still closed. War is a nasty and uncertain thing, even when you think you're not in the fight.


posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:43 PM
Damn, its really bad when you don't see it comming, that is just wrong. The world was a better place when we fought with swords.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:04 PM
G@d damn that vid always gives me the goosebumps. Thank God that guy was wearing armor! It's too bad our leadership has put our brave men and women in such a position that we invade and occupy helpless 3rd world countries, but at least they have started to protect and supply our boys! When I was in the Army we had yet to be issued Armor carriers, only flak vests. I trained in the woods wearing left over Desert Storm flak vest. Like trying to hide Shaquille O'neal in a room full of high school cheerleaders

The thing we always feared most when I was in was snipers. Good thing that guy did not aim for the face. I guess IED's and snipers are the big danger. I am so glad I am not over there.

I have read that he actually ended up treating the same sniper that shot him after the ensuing firefight. Can anyone confirm?

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 12:40 PM

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:18 PM
This post above really scared me. Understand, before you react. Yes the surface video is horrible to watch. But they see US soldier as an oppressive enemy. If an oppressive enemy came into your town and murdered your family (blackwater, etc) with little to no accountability, how would you react?

Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Also remember, US called Bin Ladden a freedom fighter when we were training him to fight the soviets that invaded their land. We call him a terrorist now that he hates us for invading their land.

Think fairly, and the truth will surface.


[edit on 14-2-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:31 PM
actually you are right my previous post was a little bit over the top.

although I do believe that the only way to fight a terrorists is to out terrorize them. Fight fire with fire, cause water certainly ain't working to put out this fire. And also, maybe they are terrorists because they are pathological.

I think the actual motivation for the latest terrorisim stems back to the original request that we leave their land period. and not because they thought we were invaders but because our social philosophy and technology was concidered anathema to their culture and because they didn't want an outside force influencing all the people they already had under their oppresive control. The taliban didn't want us around because we take their leverage to be a holes away. we emasculated them. thats why they are pissed so much at the west and have begun terrorizing the world. I know it seems like I have a myopic explanation of terrorism, but in reality it's quite simple. the west emasculates the east with our more progressive culture and they don't like it. plain and simple.

PS freedom fighters don't use the people they are trying to free as human shields for global political gain. only crazy people do that.

ps I also wish to say sorry about my spelling along with my previous post.

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by BASSPLYR

True. You would like to think that freedom fighters would show dignity from their efforts. You have to draw the line somewhere when you are fighting for what you love. It is a touchy situation, and I fear that there is no real fix for it.

My fix, leave everyone alone, unless they are going to strike at us. Yes 9/11 was a strike, but not by iraq, or the iraqi civilians.


posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:51 PM
I agree that we have absolutely no business in Iraq. Thats George W being pathological. But terrorists are defending an idea that is just not valid to the west. they are being crazy for instigating the terrorism in the first place. I understand asymetrical warfare, can't spell it but I understand it.

There is no fix because they aren't willing to accept other beliefs either. so one view point must win out in the end. they can't coexist. So one must destroy thoroughly the other. so such a degree that there are no embers left burning. If they want to play really dirty. fine. I say we get so scary in their faces that they never want to play the terrorism game again. that calls for the stuff in my first erased post. which I can understand was erased for gratuity.

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

There is no fix because they aren't willing to accept other beliefs either. so one view point must win out in the end. they can't coexist. So one must destroy thoroughly the other. so such a degree that there are no embers left burning. If they want to play really dirty. fine. I say we get so scary in their faces that they never want to play the terrorism game again.

I bet that there are guys huddled in the desert over there saying the same thing about us in the west. In fact I am sure of it. We have been screwing with those people over there since the end of World War 1; assassinations, coups, using various government's troops to kill for oil company profits (don't believe me? look in to the history of BP). The Ottoman Empire was quite secular and religiously open even though it was a muslim Empire. Western interference is what radicalized those people. Before Saddam took over Bagdhad they called it the "Paris of the East". The CIA brought Saddam to power for the same reason they killed the President of the Congo in the 60's and keep Musharaff in power in Pakistan now.

How would you react if foreign powers had been controlling your polticians, murdering your leaders, stealing your land by force to supply oil companies with their product, giving weapons to neighboring countries to wage war against you, and ultimately reaping the spoils of the blood of you and your neighbours for nearly a hundred years?

And if you buy the idea that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 you are not paying attention. Since Bush the 1st we have been building bases in the middle east like crazy. That's the whole reason old Dick Cheney told Saddam that "war between Arab states does not intrest the United States" when Saddam made clear his inent to invade Kuwait. All part of the plan. Osama and the Iraqi "terrorists" are doing what they have always done, fighting foreign invaders trying to build Empire out of Muslim land. like the Russians, British, and French before us.

It is terrible that they wage war against their own civilians, some aspects of Religion are incomprehensible to me. History is full of people fighting occupation forces fighting amongst themselves and against the innocent. Just look at the Yugoslavian resistance during the Nazi occupation or the Russian revolution.

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by Tinhatman

You are spot-on with that. Seriously well put.

If we replay out the last 100 years of Middle East politics, but change the actors from Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. to Canada, the US, Mexico, etc., you'd understand why these folks are so damned pissed off. They've had foreign troops on their soil permanently for all this time, they've been played like puppets for someone else's gain, and they've had enough. If North Korea gave Canada a bunch of guns to attack the US, then turned up a few decades later to "help out", I doubt most Americans would sit on their hands and give them a chance. I'm sure they'd be doing exactly the same thing that these guys are doing.

The asymmetric nature of our modern armies against poverty-stricken insurgents means they have no choice but to level the playing field any way they can, which means hiding in civilian populations. Winston Churchill made plans for Britain to do just that - secret hides in the forrest where soldiers would hide up after the German invasion. They wouldn't wear uniforms, and they were ordered to kill anyone (British or German) who found out their hiding place or their real purpose. The hidden soldiers were ordered to do anything they could to harass the enemy. It's called "not surrendering", and it's an idea all countries, western, eastern, and in the middle, adhere to. Acting surprised that these guys hide from an M1 abrams tank in a mosque or a hospital is, well, bizarre, as it's exactly what we'd do. Take my previous "North Korean Aggression" scenario - if the US insurgents were out-gunned, would they stand in the open, far away from civilians, to fire on North Korean tanks with their M-16s, or would they do what they could to give themselves a fighting chance?

I'm not condoning violence - I believe when we pick up a weapon we've already lost, regardless of the outcome of the battle. Diplomacy and education are our greatest non-lethal weapons, and we seem to forget just how powerful they are.

Every lost life is a terrible thing. Everyone on both sides is a brother/father/husband/son or a sister/mother/wife/daughter, and they all leave behind families and friends, who will grieve long after we've forgotten the statistics.

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by dave420

Well said! I could not agre with you more. Any people will fight for their homes and land in any manner possible.

In fact, there was a great BBC movie about the secret forces of England in WW2. Do not remember the name but they were trained to be brutally efficient and to protect their secrecy at "all" costs.

new topics

top topics


log in