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.

 

Iraqi Vets Testify to War Atrocities, Vow to Fight and Resist Bush Policy (Update)

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Iraqi Vets Testify to War Atrocities, Vow to Fight and Resist Bush Policy


www.alternet.org

"I was ordered multiple times by commissioned officers and noncommissioned officers to shoot unarmed civilians if their presence made me feel uncomfortable," Sgt. Jason Lemieux told a panel of lawmakers last Thursday in a packed public hearing on Capitol Hill.
stories that were just "the tip of the iceberg," as Lemieux put it, but which nevertheless offered a frightening range of accounts: violent house raids, the killings of innocent people, "drop weapons" used to make dead civilians look like insurgents, racism in the ranks, and their own process of dehumanization as they became inured to the humanity of those who they were supposedly sent to "liberate."
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 22-5-2008 by MemoryShock]




posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
More and more veterans are coming forwards to speak of atrocities in iraq.

The latest revelations involve soldiers being ordered to shoot innocent civilians, and the use of "drop weapons"

So who is responsible for this policy?

Do people think that on the ground commanders and officers made up their own ROE, or were the orders direct from the whitehouse.

We have 2 scenarios here - either bush&co are incompetent and don't know (or care) what's REALLY going on, and being done in their names, OR they approved the policy and are guilty of war crimes.

My opinion is the latter - they know what's going on, they approved the policy and they think they are above the law.

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


CX

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
In any other business we hear about where there has been wrongdoings on a scale as seriouse as this, it's usualy the guy at the top that either stands down or is fired.

Any bets on whether this would hapen in this case?


Nah, i think the guys who carried out the crimes will be punished, as will the next lot that do it, and the hiearchy that ok'd this sort of thing will live to balls up another day.

Very sad.

CX.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


As always the people in charge will walk away, when in reality they should be the ones charged.

These troops are the loyal ones, standing up to protect the constitution - instead of trampling all over it like the ones who give the orders.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


"In a style remenisant of Ghengis Khan..."

Oh brother, you guys need a hobby.

Let me guess, you believe that the soldiers need to wait for the bullets to fly to fire back?

189,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilians die in war.

Death does not equal "atrocity."



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by crmanager
 


Perhaps you didn't read the article properly - that would be a mistake.

We are not the ones saying that atrocities have been committed, armed forces personnel are testifying to having been ordered to shoot and kill innocents.

If that's OK with you then maybe you should think of yourself in that position - having soldiers fire upon you for no reason.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I feel the real story here is going to be how little this will be talked about...from both sides of the aisle. Let us all watch together as it is mentioned, given some talk time and then politely buried in the ground.


A pastor said what?
A singer is having a baby?
Can you believe she took those pictures?

How much time will actual news get?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Let me guess, you believe that the soldiers need to wait for the bullets to fly to fire back?


Well, if they are going to be firing back then...yea.

But seriously: I believe that the soldiers should not be there, should not be getting shot at and should not be shooting back.

Gee, our troops could not be dieing to advance those few who profit politically and economically from war. Innocent civilians could not become 'collateral damage'. And we could use all that money we have wasted on death to help further our own country.


Originally posted by crmanager
189,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilians die in war.

Death does not equal "atrocity."


That is bull#.

edit: I can't spell.

[edit on 5/20/0808 by spines]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
If this article is true, then I'm glad to see people from the services talking about this sort of experiences.

Our military is tired, these guys are on edge, yes we did sign up for the military but in a age that information spread fast is no wonder why many in the service don't want to go to this hell hole to day for lies.

I went once to Iraq, and the basic idea that I got was that the Iraqis don't want to help themselves, plus they don't want our help, why we there then?

I sign up, and probably go back if ask not for me, not for the Iraqis but for my comrades that at the end of the day are those at your side.


[edit on 20-5-2008 by Bunch]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by budski
 


"In a style remenisant of Ghengis Khan..."

Oh brother, you guys need a hobby.

Let me guess, you believe that the soldiers need to wait for the bullets to fly to fire back?

189,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilians die in war.

Death does not equal "atrocity."


Deny, deflect, deny, deflect, insert flippant insult against liberals as needed, repeat ad nauseum. Do you ever actually read articles or is this just a "bash the hippie" game to you?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Problem is, I'm not a liberal, as such - I hold views from both sides of the fence.

But when I see this sort of thing happening, I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend it's all for the common good.

Those of us with open eyes have always known that this "war" was wrong - and it says a lot when loyal citizens (soldiers in the case of the article) are castigated for coming forwards and exposing the lies and hypocrisy.

Those that support this illegal war are the real traitors, regardless of what country they come from.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
It is the same situation as with the revelation of torture at Abu Girab.
Remember how they denied it was happening and when it was obvious that it had happened they were quick to blame the soldiers for "breaking the law". Remember the "few bad apples" theory? The soldiers were charged, convicted and punished. The real perps walked away...

I commend the soldiers for coming forward to expose the traitors within our midst. This is policy... not an abberation by some "bad apples".



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I always hear about these atrocious things that happen, yet why haven't I seen them with my own eyes? Maybe...just maybe that the three times I was there, which altogether eaquals about two years, isn't enough time for me to see the horrors that we are forced into. Worst I saw was people being shot and blown up, BUT THAT'S WAR! These veterans are most likely the ones who weren't cut out for the military but still made it through the cracks and now they have the perfect chance to bad mouth it. Bunch of turds if you ask me.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
Worst I saw was people being shot and blown up, BUT THAT'S WAR!





Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
These veterans are most likely the ones who weren't cut out for the military but still made it through the cracks and now they have the perfect chance to bad mouth it. Bunch of turds if you ask me.


Maybe they have the sense of mind to look beyond themselves and realize that, regardless of nation of origin, they have no right to take a single life; to take many innocent ones at that.

The life of an American is of equal value to the rest of the world. Have we forgotten that?

[edit on 5/21/0808 by spines]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
I always hear about these atrocious things that happen, yet why haven't I seen them with my own eyes? Maybe...just maybe that the three times I was there, which altogether eaquals about two years, isn't enough time for me to see the horrors that we are forced into. Worst I saw was people being shot and blown up, BUT THAT'S WAR! These veterans are most likely the ones who weren't cut out for the military but still made it through the cracks and now they have the perfect chance to bad mouth it. Bunch of turds if you ask me.


Or maybe they're just sick of the lies and hypocrisy, and are TRUE patriots who see everything that the US is supposed to stand for being trampled on by those with a get rich quick agenda.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I understand the sentiment and agree that the soldier is right to testify in congress.

However where does one draw the line between desertion and independent thought?

What if this soldier had refused to fight on the basis that he saw many of the Iraqi army as "innocents".

In war, a soldier is expected to do or die. He is not expected to put orders through a legal, ethical and health and safety check.

He can report orders which contravene the Geneva convention and refuse to follow them, but to "fight against Bush's policy" in-toto seems to be desertion to me, regardless of how wrong those orders are. Democracy installed Bush into power as supreme commander, orders were thus issued on a democratic basis and must be followed.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by budski
 


I understand the sentiment and agree that the soldier is right to testify in congress.

However where does one draw the line between desertion and independent thought?


Actually the line is pretty well-defined. Outright refusing to go is desertion. Refusal to follow legal orders is desertion. Running from combat is desertion. Following your orders when you're in the mix, and then later relating your experiences to higher public authorities in hopes of changing questionable policies is right and proper and the measure of a true Patriot. Remember, Soldiers are also Citizens, and when the fighting is done and it's time to come home they have to live with the things they've done. Some people have no conscience, no compassion, and no soul, and are quick to see the "Enemy" and happy to kill on command with no second thoughts. I don't know about You, but I don't want that kind of soldier serving in our military. I want soldiers to have a shred or two of human decency and the ability to determine right from wrong.


What if this soldier had refused to fight on the basis that he saw many of the Iraqi army as "innocents".


"What if" matters not in this situation. "What HAPPENED" is what counts.


a soldier is expected to do or die. He is not expected to put orders through a legal, ethical and health and safety check.

He can report orders which contravene the Geneva convention and refuse to follow them,


Determining whether orders contravene the Geneva Conventions is putting them through a legal and ethical check.


against Bush's policy" in-toto seems to be desertion to me, regardless of how wrong those orders are. Democracy installed Bush into power as supreme commander, orders were thus issued on a democratic basis and must be followed.


No, Bush was NOT democratically elected. He was chosen illegally by the Supreme Court (Article 2 of the US Constitution forbids the US Supreme Court from intervening in state-run elections, including an individual state's electoral process for Federal positions such as President). Gore won the popular vote. In 2004 the voting was rigged, largely by Diebold (run by a hard-right-winger and major Republican supporter, who incidentally made a statement before the election guaranteeing Bush would win), who made the electronic voting machines; and through dirty tricks such as voter caging (challenging and nullifying votes by challenging the residency of voters in the district where they vote). There are people in Ohio who voted for Kerry, put their card in the Diebold machine, and literally watched the machine change their vote to Bush right before their eyes. Sadly Kerry, spineless worm that he is, refused to make a challenge on this--whether he refused because he was under a false impression it would be against "decorum" or whether it was because he'd have to get down and dirty against a fellow Skull & Bones member we'll never know. Point is, Bush's presidency is less than legitimate.

And soldiers aren't the only ones making bones about shady orders and policies. Many, many generals have been quitting and taking early retirement under Bush's watch, because they feel it's the only appropriate way they can protest his actions. Would you consider them guilty of "desertion"?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Dear God...

The way that soldier described such atrocities..

The violence..

The Dehumanization..

The horrors!

You would ALMOST think he had gone to war!!



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by budski
 


Dear God...

The way that soldier described such atrocities..

The violence..

The Dehumanization..

The horrors!

You would ALMOST think he had gone to war!!


Ummmm...

War's over. The "Decider" said so after he changed out of the flight suit he soiled landing on that carrier. The carrier that was almost in port but was turned back around and had to add an extra day to its return home just for the "Decider's" photo op.

What we have now is an Occupation. One the "Decider" chose not to listen to his Generals, the Experts, on carrying out because it would require a politically-suicidal Draft.

Why do you enjoy war, Rockpuck? Why do you hate peace and freedom?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
LOL.. why do you call George Bush "the decider" .. it's very.. cliche ya know?

But anyways..

The war is not over. If the war where over, we would no longer be fighting would we? .. Just because some oaf says "I won!" does not mean it actually ended.

The reference in which he was talking of was the official victory over the established government which, we all knew, wouldn't last a few months.

But top say the war is over was stupid, as it was not over..

Is not over.

And to say "omg I had to shoot people who made me feel as if I where in dangeR!!!" or anyother nonsense says to me "coward".

This is not even a war. We have lost 4 thousand and some men and women.. that was a few hours worth of fighting in WWII, Vietnam, Korea ..

It's an occupation. But it is still combat. So to see "soldiers" crying that they had to experience combat .. frik .. I almost say take all the money we gave them to sign up, give it to the other soldiers and ship that weak arse coward to Canada! ..

If his "complaints" where more along the lines of "the officers made us line up innocent civilians, rape them, and behead them with dull rusty blades!" then I would be seriously concerned. But what he is describing is very basic consequences of war.

IMO. He is politically motivated.

It's a stupid war, it's a pointless war and it's a waste of resources but my mind is already made up on that. I don't need some whimp of soldier telling me "oh the officers where so mean to me" to get me to think anything else.

I am sorry.

But I hold no reserve for a soldier who is paid to go to war and serve his country, and comes back bitching that he had to go to war!

ESPECIALLY when it's something as stupid and petty as this!

And I don't "like" war. I just have a very stoic philosophy.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join