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.

 

Ted Turner on Iraq Insurgents: ‘I Think That They’re Patriots’

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma
 



Sorry Naboo, don't mean to push your buttons... I just get sick of being lumped into the "murder, rape and pillage" wagon. I didn't do that, nor see it happening. I am sure that, being human, there were individuals who had errors in judgement.

I have always tried to avoid comparing the growing anti-war movement to that of the Vietnam era, but when people shift the focus from the Governments that got us into the war to the marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen, it's kind of difficult.

I have been home for years, I am sure that the situation has changed tremendously in that time... To the point where I wouldn't even know the "game" anymore. I am merely trying to point out that the media (as you know) doesn't tell what really goes on over there. The public gets a "sanitized" version.

I'm sticking by my guns on this one- If your boots haven't hit the sand, you have no room to comment on the situation IMHO.

Again, I apologize if I stepped on your toes Naboo.




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by cbianchi513
 


Thanks for the apology. I automatically gloss over the comments about soldiers' conduct because I don't want to give them oxygen that they don't deserve, but I agree it is infuriating when those without military experience comment on such matters or use their loathing for the war as an excuse to abuse soldiers. Ironically the situation in Iraq was probably much more straightforward when you were there - the number of factions and splinter groups nowadays is mind boggling.

Don't support the war? Do support our soldiers.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I've always believed that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For every heinous crime against one group, there is always another group that can justify it.

As Ben Kenobi wisely said: you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Truer words were never spoken.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Master_Wii
Where do I start?

Mr. Turner I think you mistake patriotism with HATRED.


No, he didn't. He's right. You are obviously the one that's emotionally distraught over this.

If someone invaded our country, I would be shooting at them, too! Common sense! Not hatred for the US specifically, though, people do hate us all around the world!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
Don't support the war? Do support our soldiers.


Theoretically I agree with that statement, but realistically Joe citizen stops supporting soldiers not out of contempt for the soldier, but out of contempt for the inept government. That government uses and abuses the soldiers, why can't the taxpaying citizen??

Peace



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


GEE I wonder why it is that they hate us. Really I cant think of any why, can you??
/sarcasm

Just to add to his post.

[edit on 4/3/2008 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, he didn't. He's right. You are obviously the one that's emotionally distraught over this.

If someone invaded our country, I would be shooting at them, too! Common sense! Not hatred for the US specifically, though, people do hate us all around the world!


Im glad some people will admit to that, say the Chinese invaded, you might fight them but there would be ignorant hicks going after anyone with slanted eyes, Japanese, Thais, Koreans etc.

Exactly whats going on in Iraq with westerners being killed that have nothing to do with the invasion.

It would be exactly the same. I cant believe people are too stupid to think any different.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Ah yes BI Jane, his significant other, who turned over the small notes from vietanam mia's


I'm sorry, but I have to step in on this. This part of the "Hanoi Jane" story has been heavily fact-checked and it never happened. NO POW's were beaten to death as a result of any kind of "note-passing". I assume your belief in this comes from the 1999 Hanoi Jane e-mail? It has been largely debunked. Part of it is true--the fact she went there, and did some really stupid things, and that one man was beaten for promising his captors he would tell her how bad things really were--but the "note-passing" never happened.

Source:

"Hanoi Jane" Fact-Check

Just wanted to point that out. She's no innocent, that's for Damn sure. But the severity of the crimes she's accused of needs to be addressed.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
First off, I'd like to say thank you for your service.


Originally posted by cbianchi513
I have always tried to avoid comparing the growing anti-war movement to that of the Vietnam era, but when people shift the focus from the Governments that got us into the war to the marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen, it's kind of difficult.


Perfectly understandable. Soldiers follow orders; they're not trained to look at the "big picture" or spend time researching the history of the place they're sent and the political ramifications of their deployment. But, when generals are taking early retirement to protest the way things are going and saying the military is stretched too thin, something must be going horribly wrong.


I have been home for years, I am sure that the situation has changed tremendously in that time... To the point where I wouldn't even know the "game" anymore. I am merely trying to point out that the media (as you know) doesn't tell what really goes on over there. The public gets a "sanitized" version.


They tell some, but certainly not enough. Most of what I find comes from international sources, where the media isn't owned by the very military contractors making billions off the occupation. That, and IAVA--Paul Reickoff has some very interesting things to say about how things are going, and he has been there.


I'm sticking by my guns on this one- If your boots haven't hit the sand, you have no room to comment on the situation IMHO.


I disagree. That's the beauty of being an American--I have as much right to comment on something as you do, regardless of whether my "boots have hit the sand".

This war was a bad idea from the start. The only people it benefits are military contractors, oil companies, and mercenary (I'm sorry, "professional security") outfits like Blackwater. While they make outrageous amounts of money, our men and women in uniform get killed and maimed. There's no call for the public to sacrifice, like in WW2--instead Bush tells us to "Spend, Spend, Spend!" Stop-loss is forcing people back for, sometimes, 5 tours of duty. And there's no end in sight. It doesn't take first-hand experience as a soldier on the ground to realize that this place was already a mess, and that by getting involved, we just made it worse. The fact people are actually profiting by it disgusts me. In WW2 Roosevelt said there would be "no new millionaires while our soldiers were in harm's way". Now profiteering is practically cheered like a sporting event.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



I agree with you on this one, like it or not... We live in the "Land of the free", and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees free speech. I and many others have fought to defend this and other rights, many have died doing so.

My main beef is with folks who "KNOW" exactly what is going on, and make their comments based on an assumption that they have all (or even most) of the facts.

On another note: Part of the definition of treason is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy." Is Turner not committing treason by merely offering verbal support (comfort) to the very people that are killing American, English, Austrailian, and other "friendly" countries' troops on a daily basis? I personally don't think it could get any more "black and white" than this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that peaceful organized protest (while it won't make even a lick of difference) is a crime, nor should it be. This is certainly protected under the First Amendment.

Ask yourself this: Do the majority of protestors root for the enemy, or are they shouting stuff like "bring the troops home"? Therin lies the fundamental, simple, and obvious difference.

"Captain Planet" Turner is a d-bag that should be charged with treason for the statements he made. I am certain that the cannibalism part of his statement was intentionally thrown in to cast doubt on his sanity, and the veracity of his overall statement. Engineered, if you like- he's no idiot, or he would not be in the position he is in.

I just don't want to see anybody coming home to hostile crowds like what happened to the troops returning from Vietnam. People watched the news then too, in a lot more graphic form than what we see today mind you.

Reacting to the pap that is force fed to us by the MSM is playing into the hands of TPTB.

If you want real information, ask a combat vet. After you thank them for risking their hide for your sake, that is.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cbianchi513
I agree with you on this one, like it or not... We live in the "Land of the free", and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees free speech. I and many others have fought to defend this and other rights, many have died doing so.

My main beef is with folks who "KNOW" exactly what is going on, and make their comments based on an assumption that they have all (or even most) of the facts.


The facts in evidence exist and are easy to find if one is willing to look.


On another note: Part of the definition of treason is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy." Is Turner not committing treason by merely offering verbal support (comfort) to the very people that are killing American, English, Austrailian, and other "friendly" countries' troops on a daily basis? I personally don't think it could get any more "black and white" than this.


Don't give me that Mann Coulter B.S. Making a statement that happens to be true is not treason. His opinion is based on the incontrovertible fact that many, many people we're currently fighting are indeed Iraqis who just want us to leave. We're talking about tribes that have harbored hatred for each other since before Mohammed was born. The only people they hate more than each other are outsiders who occupy their land. It doesn't matter if the occupiers are American, German, French or Martian. They will put aside their differences to kill occupiers and then they will again turn on each other. It's been that way for a hundred generations and it will be that way for hundreds of generations to come. It's not personal. It has nothing to do with "hating our freedoms". We are outsiders occupying their land and interfering in their political processes. Ergo, we are the enemy. And since it is their country and we are occupying it, and did so without their consent (the puppet government doesn't count), that technically happens to make them patriots. Anyone who would fight unwanted foreign occupiers on their land would be.

Now if Ted had gone bat-sh#t, bought millions of dollars' worth of high-quality arms and equipment and shipped it directly to a known Al-Quaeda operative, then he'd have committed treason, and I'd be right with you on charging him. Only United States Presidents like Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush get to sell weapons to our enemies to finance other illegal operations and get away with it.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think that peaceful organized protest (while it won't make even a lick of difference) is a crime, nor should it be. This is certainly protected under the First Amendment.

Ask yourself this: Do the majority of protestors root for the enemy, or are they shouting stuff like "bring the troops home"? Therin lies the fundamental, simple, and obvious difference.


What do you consider "rooting for the enemy"? What Ted did is clearly not that. Of course if you listen to the right-wing noise machine wanting the troops to come home now, alive and safe, and hold the war profiteers accountable for their crimes is tantamount to treason. But, they're all getting paid by their bosses in the MIC, which owns most of the media outlets spewing the right-wingers' filth.


"Captain Planet" Turner is a d-bag that should be charged with treason for the statements he made.


If you can successfully argue that in court, with irrefutable evidence that every single person who shoots an American in Iraq is a member of Al-Quaeda, then fine. Otherwise Ted gets a pass on this one.


I just don't want to see anybody coming home to hostile crowds like what happened to the troops returning from Vietnam. People watched the news then too, in a lot more graphic form than what we see today mind you.


The only people who jeer soldiers now are people like that Phelps guy whose whacko Christian sect protests at military funerals. Usually I see soldiers in uniform being approached by people thanking them for their service.


Reacting to the pap that is force fed to us by the MSM is playing into the hands of TPTB.


Nooooooo!! Really? Not the same MSM that's owned by the very same military contractors who are making massive profits off this occupation! They're such upstanding fellows!!


If you want real information, ask a combat vet. After you thank them for risking their hide for your sake, that is.


More and more combat vets are coming around to decide this conflict is incredibly stupid and unwinnable. Generals are quitting right and left because as soldiers themselves, they can't buck the "Commander in Chief" so taking early retirement is the only form of proper protest they have. That should tell you something.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cbianchi513
If you want real information, ask a combat vet. After you thank them for risking their hide for your sake, that is.


OK Then.

Could you tell me what the strategic political goal was in the US invading a country over 4,000 miles away from it that presented no clear threat to any sovereign US territory, and had no means of actually attacking it - at all - even though it was painted out to be that way by the leaders of the US, UK and Australia, and has subsequently turned out to be completely inaccurate?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Sure, this one is simple: OIL (security of supply), and on a secondary note, empire building.

I see no other motivation that would even make any sense at all. The PTB have rationalized us all into a big hole... let's see if we can successfully dig our way out.

I don't agree with the war, or any of the reasons we're still there. I would describe myself as an isolationist. Let the world solve it's own problems- Lord knows we have plenty of our own.

You don't even want to know what I would do with this country if I were in a position of power, like Greenspan.

Let's just say that Africa would starve and die of AIDS, the middle east would be in a major civil war, and the borders would be secure.

It's time to "F" the rest of the world, and worry about our major problems domestically.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cbianchi513
Sure, this one is simple: OIL (security of supply), and on a secondary note, empire building.


OK, so you've confirmed what I already knew, and put to bed the myth that only ex-soldiers have any kind of clue about this all in one go


So we're thanking combat vets for securing oil, lining corporate pockets and furthering US interests are we??

Not what I'd call a noble cause really


You can see why some folks might get a bit upset about it - after all the bombing/fighting is being done in the name of the good 'ol USA, when in real terms its actually corporate greed thats running the show.

Is it ethical for professional soldiers to invade another country that never posed a threat to their homeland for corporate interests and the natural resources there?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You're forgetting: When we went to Afghanistan initially, the average American was whipped into a nationalistic frenzy over the 9/11 incident(s). Right or wrong, this was the hand we were dealt. I know I was fooled, shame on me.

When we went into Iraq, we had "evidence" of WMD's there, and were tasked with finding these as well as usurping a despot. I know, fooled again.

The average troop can only make decisions based on the information at hand. This was what we had at the time.

In no way will I argue for or against the morals/ethics of this war. I think I've stated my position quite neatly. Would I go again? Bet your ass- but not for the corporations that are profiting from all of this.

I still have brothers there, and if they ask for me, I'm there.

Like I said before, I haven't had boots in the sand for almost two years- the situation in country has changed vastly since then. I simply don't feel that I can even comment on what the actual atmosphere is in the war zone at this time. I've personally been out of touch too long.

By imploring you to "ask a vet", I'm just saying that is the best way to get a true perspective on the actual situation on the ground. Just for goodness sake, don't take the media's word for anything... But I don't have to preach that in here, do I?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join