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.

 

Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Hey jakomo....

Is the " I killed Innocent people for our government" statement referring to Iraqi military killing innocent civilians because they didn't agree with Hussein???

For example the Acid baths the Fedayeen gave to innocent civilians because they didn't agree w/ Hussein, or the chopping off of fingers and genitals? What about the boilers people were put into as well as the wood chippers??

Is this what your talking about???

I sure hope so because American troops signed up for the Army, they weren't forced to sign up.
So as they voluntarily signed up for the army which trains for WARS they have a duty to serve the country.

Tool.


**edited** no twisting of names/name calling


[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
junglejake: I don't think the US is the Great Satan. I just think U.S. foreign policy is the source for so much killing and suffering in the world.



Yeah and Rwanda's leader was sweet as pie and had nothing to do with racial religious murders.

And Hussein had nothing to do with killing his people if they didn't agree w/ him or even if he just felt like killing.

And China's communist government didn't have anything to do with the unfair murders at Tienamen Square because those people didn't want to live under a dictatorship, and wanted true freedom/ democracy.

And the Soviet Union didn't kill it's own people, and threaten any other country who didn't turn communist.

And East Germany didn't kill people trying to get to west germany by jumping over the berlin wall to get to freedom..

and North Korea's government doesn't kill it's own people if they oppose communism...


But AMERICA IS THE TRUE EVIL OF THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY """""""""""""""'FIGHT"""""""""""" FOR FREEDOM....
Yeah your right, their foreign policy blows because they get involved in countries that oppress people... And because they are the only country who truly possess the technology and experience they shouldn't get in the way...

Give your head a shake....



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
US the big satan?

Just look at the countries where the US military fought in the last 50 years and won - Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Kuwait, Panama.
And look at the countries where Americans lost : Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea.
You see the difference? For me it looks like the US brought prosperity, demokracy, and human rights everwhere they won. And their oponents brought nothing but dictatorship, even more dead and poverty. So is the US really a big Satan?



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
War turns people into murderers, and the people who yell for war, that it's necessary, are the lowest of the low. War-mongerers are vile human filth.
Comments?
I've read the interview and found it very informative. This person who served as a Marine believed in what he was doing, but obviously it just wasn't working for him anymore. He turned around from what he was doing because he realized the truth. He is courageous to express his feelings against what he believes to be wrong actions by those in Washington, D.C.

This ex-Marine is a humanitarian and one of the pioneer's of a warless world.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

said by Jakomo:
Okay, then name me one concurrent 12 month period in the last 50 years that the U.S. hasn't been involved in a war. Mainstream (Vietnam, Korea) or covert (Cambodia).


I went looking for information on that and found an interesting site showing US military actions abroad:
www.history.navy.mil...

I wasn't aware of a lot of them, like the military action in Libya even before the Lockerbie incident.


[Edited on 18-5-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

I went looking for information on that and found an interesting site showing US military actions abroad:
www.history.navy.mil...

I wasn't aware of a lot of them, like the military action in Libya even before the Lockerbie incident.


[Edited on 18-5-2004 by AceOfBase]


Many of this described military actions looks strange, for example
" Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American military personnel were killed while in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea for the purpose of cutting down a tree." It looks like more like a troop transfer than a military action.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I have every right to call them whatever I want to. I've been called far worse for my anti-war views, so live with it.

I can respect someone who backs up their position. If you're against the war, you protest and you try to educate people and you try to help people (donations, letters, etc).

If you're pro-war then go to war. Otherwise you're either a hypocrite or yellow. If you feel so strongly about it, put YOUR life on the line instead of someone else's.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by Jakomo]


You can say anything you want, I'm just pointing out that you only hurt yourself by using generalizations about people who don't agree with you. There are many facts that point to the nobility of our troops, and the acts of kindness they have done for the Iraqi people. There are also complicated and valid strategic resons why this war was nessesary, including reshaping the middle east in order to remove the breeding ground for the radical Islamic threat we face.

Second our leaders are for the most part too old to join the military, so you can't just expect them to put on a uniform and fight. The fighting is always left to the young. Not everyone can fight, and most do not have the physical endurance, and emotional strength to go through military training and be effective soldiers. That does not bar anyone from supporting a position, and it does not make them a coward for not going to war themselves. People who join the military know what they are getting into, it was their choice. No one is being sent anywhere against their will, part of being in the military is the possibility of getting deployed to combat.

Finaly I do feel strongly about this war and I did join the military. I put my money where my mouth is, and if called I will go to Iraq and play my part in this war. Be careful about throwing around words like coward, because someday it might be your turn to face the line of fire.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by TheEXone]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
...before OTHER reporters decided to "slant it" to their likes. This seems a little more realistic - plus, it's his home-town newspaper.

link: www.themountaineer.com...



The high price of war leaves one man broken
by JEFF SCHMERKER

Staff writer

When Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey joined the Marines, he thought he had found his niche. Trained as a sharpshooter, Massey admits he became “the ultimate war machine — all blood and guts.”

One day, that came to an abrupt halt. Stationed in Kuwait several months before the attack in Iraq occurred, Massey saw events unfold in Operation Iraqi Freedom from day one.

Massey did his part to secure the country and faced the minimal opposition he said U.S. forces encountered during the early days.

But, after just a few weeks in combat, Massey said he came to the realization he could no longer be an effective Marine. He was haunted by the knowledge that U.S. forces, himself included, were killing civilians, not terrorists.

On the border

Massey flew from California to Kuwait the day before President George Bush gave his 2002 State of the Union address. Massey landed in Kuwait City and was shipped to LSA-7, a Marine base set in Kuwait’s stark brown desert 50 miles shy of the Iraqi border.



**edited** do not post entire articles.



[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Just look at the countries where the US military fought in the last 50 years and won - Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Kuwait, Panama.


WW2 was well over 50 years ago. The US never won the Korean War, otherwise there would be no North or South Korea, just Korea. The 1990 Gulf War was so two-faced I'm not even going to go into it, but suffice to say it encompassed more than just Kuwait...and if the US won then why are we having a 2nd Gulf War a decade later?



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Natas, thanks for what is likely the original article. It appears, at first, to bring the same message, however with close reading, certain things stand out that did not stand out in the article presented by Jakomo.

For instance, Jakomo's article tries repeatedly to make the civilians innocent. Natas's article, while discussing the civilian casualties, at no point tries to assign them the label innocent. Instead, the true message of this piece is that the marine is confused because he believes that in war, the enemy should be clearly defined (wearing a military uniform, holding a machine gun, charging with a platoon of fellow soldiers). It is difficult for a soldier (and very taxing to the psyche) when he doesn't know at a glance whether a person is "the enemy" or just an innocent civilian. Our Vietnam veterans probably recall having just such feelings during their tours.

The important thing to note here is that war, like weaponry, has evolved. Vietnam taught us that an armed guerilla force could be quite effective. Just as the so-called "insurgents" sometimes are effective. Sometimes in "modern warfare" the enemy is not as clearly defined as he once was. He doesn't always run around with a big Kaiser spike sticking from the top of his helmet. Instead, he often looks like everyone else. And, that is difficult for some soldiers to deal with. It shouldn't come as a shock that some cannot or will not deal with it.

Does he say the war is wrong, that soldiers are wrong, that the civilians are innocent? No. He made a choice to leave what he found to be a very confusing situation.

Nothing more.

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Hamburglar]



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by longbow
Just look at the countries where the US military fought in the last 50 years and won - Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Kuwait, Panama.


WW2 was well over 50 years ago. The US never won the Korean War, otherwise there would be no North or South Korea, just Korea. The 1990 Gulf War was so two-faced I'm not even going to go into it, but suffice to say it encompassed more than just Kuwait...and if the US won then why are we having a 2nd Gulf War a decade later?


I tried to say all regions where US waged a war and were able to control this regions after the end of this war are in much better shape (including economy, democracy, human rights) than those countries where enemies took control.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
TheEXone: "Finaly I do feel strongly about this war and I did join the military. I put my money where my mouth is, and if called I will go to Iraq and play my part in this war. Be careful about throwing around words like coward, because someday it might be your turn to face the line of fire. "

Good for you. I feel so strongly against this war that I attended 8 anti-war protests, I wrote many letters to my government and did a piece in my local paper about it. I may not support the pro-war movement, but if you have the cojones to back up your beliefs with action, then you have my respect at the very least.

I will continue to call the people who support the war but are not willing to fight it cowards. Because that's what they are. If you're willing to let others fight for your "freedom" but aren't willing to do it yourself, you don't deserve to be an American.

That of course brings up the laughable "Fighting for Freedom".

Can you bring Freedom and Democracy to people by bombing them? Freedom through the muzzle of a gun?

This has never worked, and it never will.

Guess who's ACTUALLY "Fighting for Freedom"? The Iraqis. Freedom from US oppression and occupation. The US Army is fighting to keep Iraq under their control, nothing more.




And when you kill a CIVILIAN you are killing an innocent. Warning shot or no. If they don't stop and you fill the car with bullets, it's still murder. They are non-combatants and they have no weapons.

Let me ask you, if you were driving toward a roadblock at 30mph and suddenly a shot rings out, are you automatically going to know where it came from and what it's for? Might you not believe that you're under attack by the US troops (just as has happened dozens of times) and PANIC? Why would a family not stop after a warning shot is fired? Did they even hear it?

Well we won't ever know because now they're corpses.

Go Freedom!



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
If the unit was given intel the convoy was full of suicide bombers and it didn't stop after warning shots were fired then the unit leader had no choice but to take out the convoy.

Suppose the intel was correct and the cars reached their destination and hundreds of Iraqi and American lives were lost. This is not murder. Unfortunately mistakes happen in war and this is just one of the costs of war. That's life get over it and thank God you are not living in a country that is ravaged by war.

From people I know who are in the US military serving in Iraq I also know a small percentage of US soldiers have been very unprofessional and commited war crimes against Iraqi civilians and unfortunately this must also be expected. This doesn't make the US satan though. It is simply human nature and these crimes happen in every country (whether at war or not) everyday.

It would be nice for this world to live in peace but unfortunately this is not in our genes and we wouldn't be where we are today if it were (we probably would be have been extinct a long long time ago). All we can do is our best and ask God to forgive our sins. Peace.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
you do forget some true facts:
-bin laden travels dressed like a woman
-bin laden visits weddings at civilian premises
-bin laden sleeps within civilian families when traveling

-weapons are stocked in civilian houses
-civilian cars are used to transport weapons


and about marines:
you don't get a "sissy" training when you have signed on to be a marine and you know for sur if you go to actual wartheatre what to do and what to expect.

if it is the duty of a marine to guard than you guard !
the ones that desobey the commands of the marine guarding have to bear the consequences !

and last...marines have signed a contract telling them also not to speak or make any comments on operations they have done to non-military persons.

in my opnion the marine's explanation here is a hoax and just made up for media propaganda against the USA.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
And when you kill a CIVILIAN you are killing an innocent. Warning shot or no. If they don't stop and you fill the car with bullets, it's still murder. They are non-combatants and they have no weapons.
Let me ask you, if you were driving toward a roadblock at 30mph and suddenly a shot rings out, are you automatically going to know where it came from and what it's for? Might you not believe that you're under attack by the US troops (just as has happened dozens of times) and PANIC? Why would a family not stop after a warning shot is fired? Did they even hear it?


Ahhh... No wonder you can consider them innocent, you clearly consider all civilians innocent. What a ridiculous notion. A civilian is simply an individual who is not in the emply of an armed service (which can include military and police forces) The Beltway-area snipers, because they are not in an armed service, would be considered civilians. Now, accoriding to your logic:


And when you kill a CIVILIAN you are killing an innocent.

those beltway snipers are innocent.

Now, I know what you're saying. "I specifically said 'unarmed' and 'non-combatants.'"

Of course you did, but the mind-numbingly ludicrous logic of your argument still remains. You could simply substitute the CEO of Enron for the Beltway Snipers. He was unarmed, he is a civilian, according to your logic, that makes him an innocent.

That is just plain silly.

As to your question, again, I must point out your flawed argument. You are simply not thinking your points through. Allow me to demonstrate.

1. Assume that driver is a reasonable (rational, average intelligence, etc.) individual.

2. When driving toward a roadblock he would not have to wonder about where a
shot originated. It would be quite obvious. Why? Because in driving toward the roadblock, he would be looking right at the shooters. To think otherwise would require a blanket denial of REASON.

3. 30 mph, according to the "one car length for each ten mph" stopping rule-of-thumb, would require less than 30 feet for a COMPLETE STOP. The marine you love to laud says they didn't even slow down.

4. This alone is enough to negate the "confusion of the shot origin/not hearing a shot" argument.

5. Finally, would they think they were under attack? Highly suspect as an argument. You would have to account for signs and markers in their own language telling them what to do. In the absence of signs, they would still have troops waving them off, using relatively universal hand signals to get them to slow down.

That ought to be enough instruction. Hopefully you will consider it before shooting off (no pun intended) another pointless, ill-concieved rant that does nothing to further your case. If you have a good argument, please, make it. But make it good.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
I feel so strongly against this war that I attended 8 anti-war protests, I wrote many letters to my government and did a piece in my local paper about it…I will continue to call the people who support the war but are not willing to fight it cowards. Because that's what they are. If you're willing to let others fight for your "freedom" but aren't willing to do it yourself, you don't deserve to be an American.


Jakomo,
Once again, we find ourselves on opposite sides of this issue, and once again your logic, or lack there, of astounds me. How is it possible, that you can call someone who is pro-war, a coward for not joining the military? Did you go to Iraq before the war to be a human shield? No? Are you planning on going to Iraq to take up arms against the “Oppression” of the Iraqi people by American forces? No? You’re a pacifist? Okay. Well then, do you at least plan on going to Iraq to help the innocent Iraqi people dig bomb shelters? No, not that either huh? I guess if I used your logic, then I could call you a coward for not fighting for your beliefs huh? Oh but you went to 8 anti-war protests, and wrote some letters! Way to put your life on the line for your beliefs there Jakaomo!

Do you now see how inane your argument really is? Like I said before in our earlier debate, I fully respect your right to your opinions. But, if you’re going to argue them here, you better be willing and able to back them up with logic and facts. And calling someone who believes in the goals of the U.S. and their allies regarding Iraq, a coward because they are not over there fighting themselves, is not logical at all. How is it logical to require someone who believes in the aims and goals of the war in Iraq to lay their lives on the line, while you get to write letters and protest on the safe streets of a western city? Shouldn’t those of you who disagree with the war effort be expected to support your beliefs in the same way, and to the same extent?

In the real world, people have to take other things into consideration when making a choice to fight for their beliefs. Those who choose not to enlist are no more cowardly, than those who do. They just weigh their responsiblities differently.


Guess who's ACTUALLY "Fighting for Freedom"? The Iraqis. Freedom from US oppression and occupation. The US Army is fighting to keep Iraq under their control, nothing more.

Here, you are right and wrong. Actually, the Iraqi people ARE fighting for freedom, but they are doing it with the HELP of the American military. And yes, the U.S. is fighting to keep Iraq under control. However, what you fail to note, is that they are fighting to keep it under control for the Iraqi people. The U.S. and coalition forces are fighting only a SMALL portion of the Iraqi citizenry that is in league with larger numbers of radical Muslim extremists from outside of Iraq. Don’t kid yourself that it is the average Iraqi citizen that is taking up arms against the U.S. and its allies. Even Muqtada al-Sadr is only supported by a less than 1% of the 14 million Shias in Iraq. Most Shias follow the patience counseled by the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. If you recall from our last debate, this poll here, was the poll that showed that only 15% of Iraqis thought that the American forces should leave immediately. BUT, almost 75% wanted the Americans to stay at least for a few more months, with the majority saying they would like the Americans to stay until the new government is formed or until the country is at least more stable. Doesn’t sound like the Iraqi people feel too “oppressed” by the U.S. troops to me.


And when you kill a CIVILIAN you are killing an innocent. Warning shot or no. If they don't stop and you fill the car with bullets, it's still murder. They are non-combatants and they have no weapons.


Jakomo, it is NOT murder. It is a horrible accident, in which both parties are to blame. You see, what you fail to consider is intent, and the difference between murder and manslaughter and an accident is intent. Murder is the “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another human being” Thus, without the intent to kill an “innocent” person it is an accident, not murder. The soldier in question has NO way of knowing whether the person or persons in the car means them harm. Unfortunately in war zone, a soldier must assume that the individual, who doesn’t respond to repeated warnings to stop, is intent on harming or killing him and must respond with deadly force. If he does not, he will very likely die himself. He responds out of self defense, and not out of maliciousness. Therefore it is an accident brought on as much by the actions of the driver, as by the actions of the soldier.

There may be an argument to be made that in the beginning of the occupation, when these types of incidents were more common, that the military's SOPs for road blocks were poorly thought out. That would be more of a valid constructive criticism. However, calling soldiers who are only trying to stay alive "murderers" is not only wrong, it is partisan B.S. and has no place in a valid debate.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'll read posts later, by my comment on this is... well, I can't really say one or two things. I have always been agains war... especially BUSH wars. I don't see any reason that we couldn't have just sent a bunch of troops to iraq to back the people up, andlet them oust their own damned leader!

If anyone I know dies in war, there's gonna be hell to pay... even more than what I would love to unleash at this moment! Think one person can't change the world? Think again... precise control and direction of anger is one of the best and most lethal motivators in existence... why we have wars in the first place.

I encourage everyone... use the master's tools to dismantle his house!

*EDIT: Just to clear things up, how many people truely joined the military so they could go kill innocent people? That's what I thought... now, how many joined to PROTECT our country? Yep... That's what I said too... And now for the kicker! How many joined up because it's a guaranteed, steady paycheck with room for advancement, and they get their little school fund? Yep... I'd have to say well over half, too. Most people I know think they are gonna get in, work locally for 4 years, and get out without having to do the 'nasty'. Some got into the navy so they could travel. People that are truly human don't join the military so they can kill people, but rather protect, and have a decent government job.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by Earthscum]



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Umm the Iraqi people were not fighting for their freedom this was a case of the US and allies wanting to remove Saddam. I still don't know why and I don't really care anymore. The damage has been done now its time to setup any type of Iraqi "government" we can and leave as quickly as possible.

Who's next on the hitlist I wonder. Surely Bush cannot go for too long not blowing trillions of dollars on something inane. Time to change the law and get Arnold into power and get this country back into shape financially. Oh how far we have fallen. Hell if I wanted our future mortgaged to the hilt I would have voted for Gore.....Bush a republican my a$$!!!!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
This is a complicated situation. Many Iraqi's don't have television, or any other means of getting information other than from their neighbors. Even if they do, most of the news stations tell a distorted view of the facts. When Iraqi's see soldiers (US or otherwise), there's no telling what they think. If they are not fighting for Saddam (who for all they know, may still be alive and come back to power - like in 1994), they might just be defending themselves from the "invaders". I haven't heard this on the news, but even in America, people don't have a clue whats going on. Yeah, some of us watch the news, and stay informed, but many just don't give a crap. Other Iraqi's fight for religious reasons, usually following some extremists leader, or particular group.

Its hard to know what the right thing is, so we all have to make that descion for ourselves. I would love for everyone to be logical and just get along without killing eachother, but hey, when's the last time anything made sense?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
The incidents of civilians not stopping at roadblocks, even after warning shots have been fired, brings to mind something that occurred recently in, I believe, Baghdad.

An Iraqi woman was arrested at a building entry checkpoint because she refused to allow the soldiers to examine her purse. She was full of righteous indignation and condemnation of the soldiers.

Now, was she within her rights to refuse the search? More importantly, was it the wise thing to do?

Were the soldiers within their rights to insist that they inspect her purse?





top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join