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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
*ATTENTION*

Let's all step back and take a deep breath.
Count to 10 or whatever you do to relax.

Attacking / uncivil posts in this thread will be removed and the user warned, with possible post bans.

Thank You.




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 




[edit on 11/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





There is a difference between a soldier and a killer and a killer and a murderer, and the only thing I think you have ever murdered besides your charachter and good name is maybe a fly or two by pulling off their wings.

They don't take section 8 material in the military son, at least not in the U.S. Military.


Totally uncalled for. Esp. the 'section 8' remark.


Let's keep it on topic, please.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by munkey66
 

munkey, you really need a course in reading comprehension.

At exactly what point did I suggest carpet bombing?

This bit.


War is killing your enemy in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can. When you kill enough, the other side quits.

Another way of stating this is that war is two sides killing each other until one side is incapable of killing further, or unwilling to die further.

Your enemy is a belief system, and as long as there are people with that belief system you will always have an enemy.
I repeat, the enemy isn't a political party or a country so who is meant to surrender?

your supposed enemy will die for their beliefs, they do not believe in Opium or strategic bases, they believe in their God, and the only way to defeat that belief is to kill them all, because you can change someones minds, but not their beliefs



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 

munkey, you don't have to carpet bomb to be efficient and effective in killing your enemy.

Get it?

And let me tell you one thing.

My enemies weren't some stupid, hypothetical belief system.

They had AK's and they knew how to use them. They actually bled real blood.

A belief system, to the best of my knowledge, just can't do that.

In fact, I never actually fought in mortal combat against a belief system.

These guys were real people.

They were doing their job, and I was doing mine.

And I took it real serious.


[edit on 11-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 



Originally posted by munkey66
Your enemy is a belief system, and as long as there are people with that belief system you will always have an enemy.
I repeat, the enemy isn't a political party or a country so who is meant to surrender?

your supposed enemy will die for their beliefs, they do not believe in Opium or strategic bases, they believe in their God, and the only way to defeat that belief is to kill them all, because you can change someones minds, but not their beliefs


One would think that this would strike up an appreciation for the difficulty that our troops encounter. It certainly is no reason to give up the battle.

And even conquered nations hang onto their beliefs. Surrender demands giving up the sword, not the mind.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I think what a lot of people are missing here is that the Taliban combatants actually HIDE AMONGST their civilians so that if the U.S. does attack there will be such a public outcry against the civilian casualities. It's an ingenious strategy, really. Totally reprehensible, yet ingenious.

If we wipe out the Taliban, we wipe out an even greater number of civilians and draw the ire of the rest of the world and are condemned for it.

If we pull back and stop attacking because we might kill innocent people then we might as leave the country because it proves to be a sound defense for the Taliban and they win.

Either way, it's a loss for the U.S.

If the civilians were smart, they would leave the war zone immediately for fear of having them and their families being used as meat-shields.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

If we wipe out the Taliban, we wipe out an even greater number of civilians and draw the ire of the rest of the world and are condemned for it.

If we pull back and stop attacking because we might kill innocent people then we might as leave the country because it proves to be a sound defense for the Taliban and they win.

Either way, it's a loss for the U.S.

If the civilians were smart, they would leave the war zone immediately for fear of having them and their families being used as meat-shields.


It's been a loss for the U.S. since the CIA first began arming the Mujahideen to rise up against the Soviets. We destabilized the region, and we should never have gone over there in the first place.

Civilians can't just leave their homes, most of them have no money; their homes have belonged to their families for generations. They can do nothing but watch as their houses are destroyed by U.S. bombs, until they eventually get fed up and join the resistance.

We are feeding the terrorism that we are fighting against.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
We really didn't use the CIA to "help" the Mooj.

We wanted to provide a little payback to the Soviet Union for their interference in Viet Nam.

Sure enough!

We got them back, and returning the favor was sweet enough.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper


"If you can strike the few with many, you will thus minimize the number of those with whom you do battle."

Start reading.



Well, you provided a further quote that also enforces the point I made. I didn't bother creating a catalogue of quotes for you to read through because frankly I don't have the time. The two I provided should have gotten the point across.

Anyone who isn't insane knows that the best way to go about international conflict is to minimize the losses on both sides. Diplomacy is always the preferable answer. I don't claim to be a military expert, but you seem to, so you should know this as well as anyone.

Exterminating your enemy is tantamount to genocide.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
You either have it, or you don't. You obviously don't. But to sit behind your fence and criticize efforts you know nothing about is complete foolishness.


By your own admission you should clearly not be criticising ProtoplasmicTraveler, should you? After all, you are a man of the field and it would be foolish of you to criticise something you know nothing about.

Anyway, I'm not sure if WP has been used illegally or not in this case. I'm inclined to think it wasn't at the moment due to no other reports of it surfacing, it could be an accident or even mistaken assumptions about the injuries themselves. I guess we'll have to wait and see if any more information is forthcoming.



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


The enemy hide behind civillians?
What does the coalition of the willing hide behind?
Liberty? freedom? equality for all?
they even hide behing the United Nations.

If you are worried about an enemy that hides behind civillians, GO HOME, leave them to look after themselves, If you are worried about another 9/11, build a big wall around your country.

Surely the enemy cannot get in anymore, what are they going to hijack a jet with this time?
are they going to throw sandles at the pilots door until he caves in to the pressure and lets them in?



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Diplomacy. With the Taliban. The same guys who are regularly beheading, stoning, shooting, and in general, just having a good old time?

Or how about al-Queda? Hey, these boys here are very accommodating. And so wise, thus given to reason.

Yeah.

Good luck with that.

I am truly stunned that folks with this thought process exist. Maybe you would like to go sit next to Chamberlain. His hesitation and desire for accommodation only cost Europe about 40,000,000 lives.

Yep.

Hesitation. Cowardice. Misunderstanding. A terms for "negotiation."

It's worked so very well in the past. All you do is postpone the game. Because the players are going to play. Eventually.

No wonder we're in the situation we're in today.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


You can't hide behind freedom and you can't hide behind security. But you can hide behind women and children. It's those women, kids, and old men that you can't see through.

Was that supposed to be some kind of analogy?

If so, try again.

That one really didn't work.

And don't get me wrong. I'm all for bringing every US soldier home, with all their equipment, and all our money, never again to assist anyone else.

We should fight our own battles and let the rest of the world fend for itself.

After all, all this trouble in the world is due entirely to the US.

We should have stayed home in 1917, and only engaged in the Pacific in 1941. Be a whole new neighborhood right now.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by dooper]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


But the US hasn't always been there to protect the world, in fact it took Pearl Harbour before moving, so this "we should have stayed home and not save the world" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

This battle is not about the Taliban or Al-queida, it is about Opium and a strategic military base, pure and simple.

lets look at a couple of facts.
Iraq is occupied by the coalition of the willing.
Afghanistan is also occupied.
Currently Pakistan is in a world of conflict with the same enemy.

Who sits right in the middle of all of this as far as location?
Only Israels most hated enemy "Iran"
What a suprise



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


I'll be damned. I thought WWI and US entry in 1917 was BEFORE Pearl Harbor!

Oddly, the US was supplying mega tons of equipment, food, munitions, and weapons long before Pearl Harbor. Destroyers to help with the antisubmarine warfare.

The US was mobilizing long before Pearl Harbor.

Just the same, maybe the US should emulate China and let the so-called democracies figure their own * out.

Within a decade, the Taliban/al-Queda type of Islam should be thoroughly spread all through Europe.

And we'll have to have a repeat of centuries past.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Harlequin gets easily confused and makes wild connections that are almost delusional.

Harlequin disagreed over the use of White Phosphorous, and I explained how handy and efficient it was for clearing underground tunnels and bunkers. I further related that we were able to clear some 88 bunkers or so, which included a field hospital within the tunnel system.

Delusional, Harlequin still doesn't understand that you clear first, and much later go in for verification.

We didn't know there was a field hospital within the bunker system until hours later. You see, when it goes off, it also burns all the oxygen inside, and to enter immediately, you will asphyxiate.

Harlequin would last about ten minutes before getting his/her head blown off.

Not that you would see me crying, but, what a waste.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





Within a decade, the Taliban/al-Queda type of Islam should be thoroughly spread all through Europe.


That would be a byproduct of those tasked with winning hearts and minds that are mindless and heartless in the task.

One minute you say that all civilians should leave their country because coming by actionable intelligence that actually allows soldiers to professionally attack enemy troop concentrations when they concentrate is apparently to difficult for our intelligence to do, and our soldiers to get there in concentrated numbers as they run an occupational force of purposefully insuffecient numbers to provide adequate rapid response to meet those enemy troop concentrations when they exist.

Having clearly idendtified a break down in effective intelligence, inaffective intelligence then exagerates 'supposed' troop concentrations spread out in not really concentrated numbers in civilian dwellings to justify the lack of actionable intelligence to meet a resurging force opposed to the occupation that has no trouble finding recruits because the occupation is poorly run.

Meanwhile refugees do flee the war zones, not to the next Islamic country as you might prefer but to Europe to use European Civilians "as human sheilds" hoping that by moving in to safe western cultures were the blatant and criminal indiscriminate killing of Muslims can't occur under the guise of ligitimate military opperations that they won't be savagely bombed and brutalized in their homes, since their home is now next to you!

So while your strategy clearly not only fails to win hearts and minds, it also sends people fleeing for safe haven that are just a wee bit resentful that they had too, but nonetheless live as peacable citizens into the Western Communities their greater wisdom tells them are safer for living a peacable existence since the United States of America and allies like Israel no longer manufacture anything of value to export but weapons and wars.

Winning hearts and minds in an occupation is what military strategy then becomes all about in occupations. You build infrastructure, increase education, health and welfare, improve sanitation, provide adequate security, freedom of movement and employment opportunities so that the civilians can create a stable economy that provides a more stable way of life than any guerilla movements or insurgency or reactionary political factions can.

We screwed that up in Vietnam where certain people that shall go unmentioned obviously smelled way to much Napalm in the morning that was unfortunately burning and killing those who were hopeful we could provide them stability and better opportunities but once again nitwits with hair trigger fingers, operating on incomplete, innacurate and faulty intelligence because they did not know the hearts and minds of the indigenous population to gain it simply turned it into a hut burning orgy of the very people we were supposedly trying to protect, who sought instead protection from our enemies.

The reality is my strategy challenged friend, occupational armies only succeed when the country wants to be occupied and they never want to be occupied by anyone who is not lovable and engaged in winning hearts and minds.

Your tactics and strategy is not just loosing the hearts and minds, but the war itself and you are driving the very people you hope to contain into the midsts of the poppulations you hope to constrain them from.

It is ideas like the ones you keep putting forth and things like this incident that resulted in the thread that is winning Islamic converts for Muslims, and driving the immigration of Muslims into Europe to get out of the range of indiscriminately fired American and Israeli munitions and short sighted policies formulated by people who read Von Clauzewitz "War is but a continuation of politics by other means" who are neither adept politicians, strategists or generals and it truly shows in the results they are achieving.





[edit on 11/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Proto, a noble effort to be sure.

And there's only one little assumption made that even many contemporary military leaders make that I would suggest are in error.

A military is never to be designed to be nation builders, police, statesmen, and are not to be concerned with winning the hearts and minds.

That's a very recent concept, one that appeals to intelligensia, and one that is completely at odds with proven military history.

A military is supposed to be a war machine. And that alone is a full plate. And that's been the reason for our Western failure in the ME.

Too many ancillary considerations and tasks attached to our military. Political and Social tags attached negate the military's effectiveness.

I assure you, if you really want their hearts and minds, you grab them by the tender bits, and their hearts, minds, and asses will follow.

Again, I never have said any of this is pleasant. It's not pleasant to think about, and it's certainly not pleasant to execute. That' just the nature of war.

And you either bite down and do it right, or you postpone the suffering, accelerate the suffering, and extend the suffering.

To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless. Counterintuitive, but it's the most basic truth of warfare.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join