Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A moment of silence for all the dead Jihadists

page: 12
25
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Not crying just simply making a few points here and there, the men of the United States armed forces over there will make the rest of the points.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Good luck on that, time will tell, to pass time don't hesitate to read the suggestion box


Suggestion Box

Final Solution



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Here's some reading suguestions for you as well in good faith of course.
Suicide bomber kills 5 at UN office in Pakistan
Islamic leaders: Suicide bombers go to hell



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
the US yet still the western force in Afghanistan has still managed to kill more than one quarter of all civilian deaths since the start of 2008.




Taliban war machine - excluding suicide bombing, road side bombings etc etc

- AK47
- Rocket Propelled Grenade
- Soviet-era rockets
- Traditional afghani clothing
- Turbens


Which makes the 3/4 of all civilians deaths that they caused all the worse....

They plant road side bombs and IEDs in the hope it will kill Government or coalition troops. If civilians die from setting them off on their way to market or to work they could care less it's actually an inconvenience to them they have to go right back out there to plant a replacement in the hope that the next one will kill Government or coalition troops and occasionally they do. All the other weapons are for close quarters combat. Again they know who and when they are killing civilians.

Don't try to romanticize their actions.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
Just because someone brainwashes you via the media and says "Look There's Terrorists Wanting To Kill Us" and offers NO investigation at all, and you take their words for it, and go kill people thousands of miles over seas, then it's YOUR fault and YOU are held responsible.


What load of idealistic nonsense! Yeah it'd be nice to have leaders accountable, however there was never a functional society whereby every soldier conducts his own investigation (using ATS or clay tablets, depending on the epoch) about whether he should go to the battle or not.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



And have you compared the two forces? The advantages and disadvantages? For example wrong Intel bombs town and obliterates a town even though America has one of the best Intelligent agencies in the world.


Can you tell me which town they obliterated?

You constantly talk about the US having all of these high tech weapons and guided missiles.

How do they obliterate a town with such weapons?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism


- M16A2 Rifle
- M-4 Carbine
- M-24 Sniper Weapon
- M40A1 Sniper Rifle
- M-249 SAW
- M-240 Machine Gun
- M-2 Machine Gun
- M-9 Handgun
- M-1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun
- MP-5 Sub-Machine Gun
- Hand Grenades
- FIM-9 Stinger Missile
- M-252 Mortar
- M-224 Lightweight Mortar
- AT4 Anti-Armor Weapon
- Multi-Purpose Assault Weapon
- Dragon Weapon System
- TOW Missile System
- AN/PVS-14 Night Vision Device
- SINCGARS RT-1523E Radio
- Mollie Vest
- Flak Vest

- AK47
- Rocket Propelled Grenade
- Soviet-era rockets
- Traditional afghani clothing
- Turbens



You've been peeking in my closet.




Yeah, that's me. Don't laugh at the poodles, they know jiu-jitsu, and are sensitive to criticism


There's nothing wrong with asynchrynous warfare, per se. Sometimes that's all you have to work with. What I take issue with in the matter of the cowards known as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the fact that they intentionally target civilians.

That's not ANY kind of warfare. It's slaughter. Warfare would be AVOIDING civilian casualties, while carrying the battle to the enemy. In general, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are too cowardly to face their enemies, asynchrynous or not. They prefer by far killing those who can't kill them right back.

The mujahideen of the 80's were of a different character. They fought SOLDIERS.

Moment of silence for these "brave" modern-day jihadists? How 'bout if I reserve my opinion on that until after I poll their own people who have died at their hands. You know, the ones that weren't "innocents", since they don't believe exactly the same way as the thugs do. That's right, those 75% of civilian casualties that the jihadists killed up close and personal-like, simply for being on the wrong side of the Shia-Sunni fence, those who never bore arms, and only wanted to be left alone to get on with living.

On second thought, I don't need to poll anyone. These cowardly modern-day jihadists get all the silence they deserve, right after the big BOOOOOM! No trip to Al-Jannah, no 72 white grapes.

Just the screams of the damned that surround them in Jahannum.

[edit on 2009/10/5 by nenothtu]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


i find it funny to have an "off-topic" post removed with 3 stars attached.

and how was it off-topic?

i disagree with the OP.

jihadists dont deserve any moment of anything. let alone my prayers.

STOP BLOWING PEOPLE UP AND WE WONT HAVE A REASON TO INVADE YOUR COUNTRY! STOP BLOWING UP YOUR OWN PEOPLE, thats just.... DUMB!

I dont know who engineered 9/11. noone here does either. ive been pro for the fact that it was inside for so long, but i just dont know.

either way, walking into a market and blowing up women and children and killing yourself is the dumbest way to fight a war ive ever seen. not to mention you look like a chicken#$)*.

so i still say BOO. BOO TO THIS THREAD, and now BOO TO THE MOD THAT TOOK MY POST OFF



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism


Moment of silence for these "brave" modern-day jihadists? How 'bout if I reserve my opinion on that until after I poll their own people who have died at their hands. You know, the ones that weren't "innocents", since they don't believe exactly the same way as the thugs do. That's right, those 75% of civilian casualties that the jihadists killed up close and personal-like, simply for being on the wrong side of the Shia-Sunni fence, those who never bore arms, and only wanted to be left alone to get on with living.

On second thought, I don't need to poll anyone. These cowardly modern-day jihadists get all the silence they deserve, right after the big BOOOOOM! No trip to Al-Jannah, no 72 white grapes.

Just the screams of the damned that surround them in Jahannum.

[edit on 2009/10/5 by nenothtu]


how about the cowards that kill their own daughters for BEFRIENDING someone on the opposite fence????

Even if you try to make peace, they KILL YOU FOR THAT TOO!

real men treat their women like gold!

still like this, no matter what you think of carlos mencia



[edit on 10/6/2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
*Jihadists* is a very very loose term.There are many many many groups fighting,all have different interpretations of Islam,all have different views on shariah law,all have different reasons for fighting.For the vast majority they all have one thing in common,getting Americans and British out of their country.But im sure alot are simply bitter young men who have seen their whole families blown to bits and seek revenge in anyway possible.Alot of them are savage no doubt,suicide bombings in civilian areas etc but im sure many great freedom fighters have died for something anyone of us here would,to get a foreign occupier out of their country without resorting to barbarism.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
It would be difficult to establish an ungarnished appraisal by an objective subject audience , not in a forum with a relatively high proportion of american posters . In most western nations , a degree of doubt , a natural inclination to doubt the people that hold decision upon the general population is a factor that is commonplace throughout . In america , you are not allowed that privilege so much , you are taught to wave the flag , taught to utter the pledge. If you ever come to disagree with the established point of view , then you are treated as an outcasts to some degree. You do not support the troops , you are anti american , you should go live somewhere else etc . There is more pressure upon the americans to conform to the required paradigm than the europeans have to oblige by .

The question of the jihardi's is well within their no go zone , many would fall at the first hurdle of national propaganda . Only a select relatively enlightened few would even consider the question to be something to be addressed beyond the usual myopic dismissal of such a proposal in the face of the fabrications they are accustomed too . And they are certainly fooled by those fabrications. You would think they would have a better idea , by a cursory perusal of their recent history, to hold scant belief that they never target civilians intentionally. They are in a dream world , pie in the sky , naive . Deliberately feigning ignorance to try to obtain a position of moral integrity is also another factor.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Drexl]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Wow. Not many threads on ATS keep me reading until the 12th page anymore, much less taking the time to log in and reply.

First and foremost, to the OP, I disagree, and I think you'll find, in time, that circle gets the square. Now, I will admit, having read through the entirety and finding your argument to be cogent, but I cannot reward people for being weak-minded. It is not the 'freedom-fighting masterminds'(read: terrorist leaders) who are blowing themselves up so heroically(in their respective minds), but rather the impressionable, inexperienced young people that strong charisma attract. I pity these people for not having been awarded the opportunities a long life and broad education offer. I have pity for those that feel their families are so impoverished that only a singular act of martyrdom can bring honor to their name and food to their table, as if their family would not rather have them at the table. I hold a special place in my heart and mind for the cognitively disabled victims, unable to even give consent to being weaponized. Pity them as I may, I can not condone their actions and the actions of their superiors, and for me giving them a moment of my silence would be me representing as such.

A question the OP: From reading the thread it would appear that you are not a US citizen, but rather Afghan. Is this accurate?

As one who is currently serving, I'd like to give you all some of my impressions of the American Military, or rather the US Army, as it is the only branch I have served.

Drug use is not tolerated, apart from prescription drug use which is heavily monitored. There is rigorous drug screening, and infractions are dealt with severely. I mention this because a few pages back someone mentioned something about the US Military being brainwashed or on drugs. Some may be 'brainwashed' to a certain degree, but I think a better term is 'indoctrinated.' There are MANY mandatory inoculations that occur, including anthrax, and I'm sure there are many here who would say "I'm sure they TOLD you it was anthrax", but the idea of mind control via drugs just doesn't track with me. Why would you want to dull the senses of your fighting force? Anyway, take that as you will.

While obviously there is bias and prejudice in any random sampling of citizens, soldiers included, I find that US Army Officers are practically walking on eggshells when it comes to being perfectly politically correct at all times. I hear many more comments that could be interpreted as offensive coming out of the mouths of enlisted personnel, especially junior enlisted. Once again it seems that characteristics such as class and distinction are directly proportional to education and experience.

One last note about the service. I am a professional soldier, and as such I am compensated with money from the federal government for my service. This does not make me a mercenary. I have a chain of command that ends at the President of the United States, and as such any lawful orders I am given come with the authority of the President. Mercenaries do not report to a government, they report to a company. For me that is a clear distinction.

Oh yeah about orders. If I am issued an unlawful order from a superior, that is an order that would cause me to break the law, and I decide to follow that order I am fully culpable for the crime committed, as well as the issuing superior. Furthermore, it is my duty to report the issuance up the chain of command, to the President if need be, until formal action is taken or I am guilty by association.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Zelun]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Really? Getting Americans and British out of their countries? We are talking about Afghanistan and Iraq here, correct? Not Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the other nations the jihadists who are killed in Afghanistan and Iraq come from? Afghanistan and Iraq are their countries? Seems more as if they have been brainwashed into thinking they are defending Islam by attacking the infidel, rather than fighting for their homes.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Hey, Gus, I have a question: Since when does war have to be fair? I don't really give a crap what the insurgents are using, and that they may not be as well armed as US forces. They shoot at us, we kill them. Pretty freakin' simple, huh?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Yes but why would they tell everyone they want to kill civilians? That is the point, everyone rejects killing civilians, even Al-Qaeda has, that doesn't make you innocent since we don't know the intentions of any individual.


Oh, really? AQ rejects killing civilians? Then how come they seem to target them so often? Seems like they only thing they are good at is killing women and children.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by oozyism
the US yet still the western force in Afghanistan has still managed to kill more than one quarter of all civilian deaths since the start of 2008.




Which makes the 3/4 of all civilians deaths that they caused all the worse....

They plant road side bombs and IEDs in the hope it will kill Government or coalition troops. If civilians die from setting them off on their way to market or to work they could care less it's actually an inconvenience to them they have to go right back out there to plant a replacement in the hope that the next one will kill Government or coalition troops and occasionally they do. All the other weapons are for close quarters combat. Again they know who and when they are killing civilians.

Don't try to romanticize their actions.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

You are starting to pick a needle out of a haystack. Do you like it? Pick one point and start a debate on that point alone when this is suppose to be a discussion.




they know who and when they are killing civilians.

You gonna have to prove that, if they wanted to kill civilians wouldn't they go on a shooting spree like your sons in university massacres


How easy it is to debate don't you think? Add a little insults for flavor



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65


Oh, really? AQ rejects killing civilians? Then how come they seem to target them so often? Seems like they only thing they are good at is killing women and children.

Your talking about the civil war in Iraq? America as an occupying force let it happen
the blame is on America and on all those individuals who took part in the civil war. But the ultimate blame is the invasion.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I guess your media doesn't cover the homicide bombings?



CAIRO - A car bombing at a market near the western Iraqi city of Fallujah killed at least nine people Tuesday, al-Jazeera reported.


Officials in the town of Amiriya said at least 31 people were injured. The explosion also set several nearby cars on fire.

In a separate incident, an insurgent was killed in the western city of Ramadi as he tried to hide explosives in the city centre, Aswat al-Iraq news agency reported


link



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


So you are saying the Iraqis are savages who can't control themselves? Do they need a brutal dictator to keep from killing each other? We gave them freedom, and they killed each other. This is our fault?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


Ahh and the first thing that comes to your mind when you see these bombs explode is Al-Qaeda, why do you suppose that is?

Many believe the civil war was orchestrated between Sunnis and Shias by America. I mean how else are they gonna stay in Iraq if there is no violence lol.






top topics



 
25
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join