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.

 

US accused of using 'illegal' white phosphorus in chemical attack that killed Afghan civilians

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Other nations, such as Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and every other industrial nation in existence has White Phosphorous in their inventory.

You can't be that innocent and unknowing.

One other thing. Innocents get killed in war. Always have, always will. Wishing it away isn't going to change anything.

It's just the cost of doing business.

War business.

And I truly am reaching the point that I don't give a tinker's damn what happens to others.

I just as soon we come home, tell everyone that wishes to get busy killing each other, but don't anyone, ever again, call on the US for food, money, military assistance, and especially American soldiers.

The countries that bitch about the US should be the ones to turn to. And while we're at it, close down the UN and tell them to have their meetings somewhere else. Save us from having to fund the damned thing.




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR

The difference is that in Russia or china they wouldn't have people complaining about it or they would be hunted down and killed.


Yes but surely you would speak against it, that was my point.


Originally posted by whoshotJR
It sucks the little girl died because well... she is just a little girl. Does it change the story if that little girls dad was planning an attack to kill thousands of people and had the bombs in the house?


Did you see any proof that the man was planning an attack? We have intelligence, they should have known there were children in the house before they bombed it. If they knew he was planning something they could have raided the house. The deaths of civilians are inexcusable when we are doing the bombing.


Originally posted by whoshotJR
Why isn't it the militants fault for mixing their troops in with a civilian area?


Because they weren't committing war crimes by dropping illegal munitions.


Originally posted by whoshotJR
The people we are fighting would have no problem killing 100% civilians and they wouldn't care if they needed to strap the bomb to that little girl in the first place.

War is not pretty and people die. That's the reality of the situation.


This is the biggest misconception, and the weakest argument used by people to defend war crimes. Not all middle easterners are terrorists, in fact it is a small minority that actually ascribe to suicide bombings. Most of the people we kill are just trying to get by like you and me. The only difference is they are constantly being bombed and attacked because a few members of their society are trying to kick out their invaders.

And despite this, just because they kill civilians doesn't mean we should. How does causing more senseless death rectify anything?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I don't care if you read the Constitution every hour of every day.

It DOESN'T apply overseas.

It DOESN'T apply to our military in war.

You may wish it does, you may dream that it does, and you may even believe it does - but it doesn't!

Immoral war?

Who in hell ever said war was moral? Not me! Because I've been there, and done that, and I can tell you that there is no place on the battlefield for morality. Morality will not allow you to get the job done.

Morality will not enable you to break the will, heart, and mind of your enemy.

Morality will not let you put your boot on the back of your enemy's neck and suffocate him face down in the dust.

Get serious!

You're just pulling my leg . . . because no one would ever consider under the most ideal and pristine justification environment that war is somehow . . . moral.

Good God.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


If there ever were a genuine threat like WW2 was, im sure the people would be under the mindset you want.
If the threat is real and the consequences to hard to swallow ,then the people will do what needs to be done.

But, when the war is doing nothing but killing people for money and natural resources, how can you expect the people to just jump on board with that?

'' Hey we slaughtered 200 kids and women today, thankgod we got the oil corporations setup pumping Iraq's OIL ,otherwise that would seem rather unjustified ''

If China struck the US and sent troops to the western world, the US and its allies would be prepared to carpet bomb them until they surrendered.

So wake up to reality and join the proper side for the western world.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 

drwizard, your knowledge of combat is appalling.

Let me assist, if I may?

Combat is not the most seamless endeavor of human existence. Combat is quite frequently a pattern of reaction. In fact, reaction is generally the rule of the day.

There's two types of reaction in combat. Slow, and then there's the fast.

Slow, and you're dead.

Fast, and your chances increase.

Opportunities are few and fleeting. Fleeting, meaning of short duration. You see a gunman or gunmen enter a structure, and they really step up the fire, you can ignore them, or if you are doing your job, you'll not ignore them and take them the hell out.

Here's the tricky part.

They don't allow you to knock on the door, inspect the premises for non-combatants, and in fact, they are generally very uncooperative.

Which leads to another problem.

Your very concept is why they elect to hide among civilians, and in turn get them killed.

They learned in the past, that Americans are reluctant to fire when civilians are present. SOOOOO, where do they go?

Here's the hard part. Once they figure out that we won't hesitate - because in war to hesitate is to get dead - to blow the building they run into, they won't be so anxious to continue their errant way.

Why don't you use your intellectual approach, write the Taliban and Al-Queda, and share with them your concerns.

I'm sure your impeccable intellect will sway them over to see your side of the problem, and we can get this out of the way in no time.

The enemies I fought didn't give a damn about civilians either. They intentionally targeted them at times.

Nothing new. Ruthless men do ruthless things. And your idealism is about as useful as tits on a tomcat.

It doesn't work in the real world.

Tell the truth. Are you academia?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I believe this is just propaganda by the taliban.

If there was a civil war in the US the first thing i would do is build a few devices that looked like a exploding WP weapon going off.

These would be based on a movie pyrotechnic device that is used to simulate a WP grenade going off.

I would film a group of them going off and spread copies of the films as propaganda against the government.

With any insurgent group like the taliban you have to have a supply source for ammo and weapons.

So far they have not run out of ammo so someone is supplying them and i will guess they have also supplied the taliban with WP grenades.

I am guessing a country like Iran or China is the supplier and both would do anything to make the US look bad.


Both would like there enemies disarmed of certain weapons by international treaties that they would ignore.

The only reason the VC were able to survive in Vietnam was because Russia was supplying there weapons.

actdcmetro.wordpress.com...
www.democraticunderground.com...
blogs.abcnews.com...

After all the flack that Israel caught for using WP my guess is Iran supplied the taliban with WP for them to use on civilians to make the US look bad.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

Agit, I want to apologize bone deep.

I did jump too soon, with no reason, on the wrong person.

I sincerely ask you to pardon my stupidity.

Dooper



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Earth to Dooper, Earth to Dooper, come in Dooper, Dooper come in.

We need you to stand down Dooper, we aren't talking about how to fight the war, we are talking about why we shouldn't have declared war so hastily and be fighting it.

You need some R & R son, a good bit of it. This singular focus of battle and destruction in out of the way corners of the world with no beaches or strip clubs thing you got going on here is a little bit frightening.

You keep pretending your Rambo and I will keep being thankful you aren't out there with a gun in your hand instead.

You have managed to avoid every last little question I have asked you to keep glorifying blood lust, death and destruction with nary a thought to the debate put to you.

I like to think your in Tel Aviv personally, it comforts me to imagine your not in a U.S. Military Uniform.

Wow!



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


All good man!


I jump the gun more than most around here.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Yeah wouldnt surprise me.
Depleted Uranium used (against mandate of Geneva Convention), unsubstantiated resons (apart from economics), for entering Iraq; no WMD's found and also CS gas used on American citizens, by ATF (Waco).



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I am not suggesting it is straight forward. The only way to deal with it though, is to appeal to the many many moderates within Pakistan and Afghanistan to confront the fundementalists and at the same time try and improve the lot of their people, through our help to prevent more from veering towards radicalism.

As for your we lost thousands on 9-11 playlist, you sound just like Mr Bush, when will enough be enough. Clearly many many more Muslims have now died as a result of Us operations in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan than any terrorist could ever dream of achieving. There are always going to be risks that an attack may slip through the net such as in Spain and the U.K, but it does not mean can go around bombing everyone back!

But really the possibility of being killed by a terrorist attack, in particular in the U.S.A is so low its ridiculous. You have more chance in being killed by an un-skilled co-employee at work or though the malpractice of companies, where the rules are not enforced by Government. Trust me your government is far more dangerous to you than any would be terrorist

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I really don't know if you are a paid disinfo agent or if you actually believe what you say.
War is a battle where the aim is to force the opposition to give in to your requests.

What request is it that has been put on the Afghans?
How does an idea or a belief surrender?
no matter if every Afghan walked out with their hands up and waving white flags, they would still be seen as the enemy.

The use of White phosphurous is not only illegal, but also inhumane, but what do we now expect from the liberators?

How can you blow up civillians and then say that you are liberating them from being oppressed?

we all know this is all about Opium and strategic bases in the ME, but hey, you got to keep food on the table.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Dick Cheney has spoken and claims that Obama's policies are dangerous.

If we continue to use such harsh tactics in Afghanistan I, for the first, time am inclined to agree with the former VP.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Why is it the death of innocent civilians is always an attrocious terrorist act when they do it and 'collateral damage' when we do it?

Do you people that think that innocent civilians dying is acceptable collateral damage not see how hypocritical that is?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
This is the latest news, since this is a conspiracy community, and if you have read this thread then I'm sure this news will speak for itself.

U.S.: Afghan militants using white phosphorous


www.msnbc.msn.com...

KABUL - The U.S. military said Monday that it has documented 44 cases where militants in Afghanistan have used white phosphorus in attacks or where the weapons have been found in caches.

The announcement came a day after Afghan doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said it was investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.

The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians.


Well there you have it, the enemy is using it not us.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


No offence Dooper but you sound like you almost enjoy the deaths of Afghan civilians. Like it's all some big game to you, like the lives of innocent Afghanistans do not matter to you... and that the lives of Americans are somehow worth much more than an Afghan.

Or maybe your time in the military broke your soul more than you care to admit.


[edit on 11-5-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


War happens for the same reasons every single time. Money, religion, resources, territory, or any combination of the afore mentioned. All past wars, all present wars, and all future wars all hinge on those reasons.

It matters not how the war started. We are there, and the quickest way to get our boys back home is to end the thing as quickly as possible.

It will not happen, though, seeing how our troops are over there acting as a police force instead of an overwhelming state of the art war machine, because of the bleeding hearts in America.



Originally posted by Nammu
Why is it the death of innocent civilians is always an attrocious terrorist act when they do it and 'collateral damage' when we do it?

Do you people that think that innocent civilians dying is acceptable collateral damage not see how hypocritical that is?



Simple. We do not target civilians . . . they do.

There is a difference between actively going out targeting and trying to kill civilians and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I just don't get the way people casually discuss murder of innocents! Is it that you men are still stuck back in the days of the little green army men and tanks? It seems that this is all a game to some of the war mongers on here, how sad that human life means so little to you. Shame on all of you.


Given the fact that the US shipped WP to the Israeli's just before the Gaza debacle this should not surprise any of us. I don't remember the thread but that was discussed during the crisis in Gaza.

If there are ET's and they do pay any attention to the behavior and attitudes of mankind then we are screwed. If I were an alien species and saw the blatant killing our species does to itself, destruction may seem kind! I just hope they can tell who is whom, I am not a murder and never condone that crap.

Before you tell me I don't understand killing and war and all that crap, I do. I have had family members murdered and not one time did the thought of having those responsible face the death penalty. Taking a life is taking a life, we are NO BETTER than terrorists if we continue to kill innocents. It is all perspective, every bit.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx


Originally posted by Nammu
Why is it the death of innocent civilians is always an attrocious terrorist act when they do it and 'collateral damage' when we do it?

Do you people that think that innocent civilians dying is acceptable collateral damage not see how hypocritical that is?



Simple. We do not target civilians . . . they do.

There is a difference between actively going out targeting and trying to kill civilians and civilians getting caught in the crossfire.


Indeed. And there's a difference between getting caught in the crossfire and performing regular aerial strikes on civilian targets as part of your regular tactics. Murder is murder regardless of how we sugar coat it to sleep better at night. So it's ok to murder civilians if they're getting in the way?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nammu
 


Yes . . . because our Army paints civilians as the prime target all the time




[edit on 11/5/2009 by xxpigxx]




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join