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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
TrueLies:

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


No, you know exactly what I mean.

And if you measure the United States level of cruelty to Saddam, OF COURSE the USA is going to come out ahead. Why not compare the Occupation of Iraq with Nazi Germany? The genocide in Rwanda? Pol Pot in Cambodia?

If you start comparing your country with the most murderous evil regimes in history, then yes, you will come out ahead.

Nice metric to use. At least they're not fictional, but I'm waiting for someone to pull that one out.

"Hey, maybe we are not the best, but we're not as bad as the Harkonnens were in Dune."


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.


Tool is an excellent band, yes.

What about reservists who signed up for "one weekend a month", "two weeks a year" and end up in Iraq for 18 months, dingleberry?

In the next post you compare the US with such paragons of justice as Rwanda, China, the Soviet Union, East Germany and North Korea. Nice list, try a non-communist or non-fascist regime and see how you stack up. Because it'll be badly, but then you probably know that already, which is why you compare your country with the WORST because that way it's am easy win.

Hamburglar:

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.


He killed a family and feels bad about it, that it was unnecessary, and yet you try SO hard to justify it. Maybe you would make a better murderer than this soldier. Maybe you would just put it out of your mind, and forget about the unarmed civilians you took the lives of. Maybe you would try to justify everything in 5 laughable points.

You don't know why the man didn't stop. You don't. Neither do I. What I do know is he had no weapons. He and his family were unarmed, and for not stopping IN TIME at an Army checkpoint he and his family were wiped off the face of this planet by heavily armed soldiers.

And when one of the soldiers expresses remorse you try to justify it.

Notice my liberal use of the word "try".

Cypher:

How is it possible, that you can call someone who is pro-war, a coward for not joining the military?"


Scroll up, I did it twice. If you believe so strongly that this war is just, then go to Iraq and put your money where your mouth is. If you are happy to let others die while you "support" them from home, and you are capable of fighting, then you are a coward who lacks the ability or guts to follow his or her convictions.

Saddle up and get out there if you believe that this war is necessary, because you're not helping any soldiers in Iraq by hanging around here.


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?


Because one is justifying the killing of thousands of innocents and the other is saying that it's wrong. I don't believe anyone should be losing their life in Iraq because it's wrong. And by ANYONE I include myself.

Logic. Look it up.


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. Donít kid yourself that it is the average Iraqi citizen that is taking up arms against the U.S. and its allies.


Reality doesn't agree with your stance here. It is NOT large numbers of radical Muslim fighters from outside Iraq. It's IRAQIS. Regular, normal Iraqis who want to kill U.S. soldiers because they themselves have suffered under the Occupation. And save your laughable polls for another site.

Here's a quote from the link to that ABC News poll.


As many Iraqis say the war "humiliated" Iraq as say it "liberated" the country; more oppose than support the presence of coalition forces there now (although most also say they should stay for the time being); and relatively few express confidence in those forces, in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, or in the Iraqi Governing Council.


More oppose than support. That sound you hear is your argument running out of air.


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.


Whether or not THEY THEMSELVES think of themselves that way, too, according to your argument, which seems strange, doesn't it?




posted on May, 28 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
What about reservists who signed up for "one weekend a month", "two weeks a year" and end up in Iraq for 18 months, dingleberry?


That is part of what they sign up for. Everyone who signs up for the Reserves are made well aware of that fact when they sign on the dotted line.

There is no draft for the Reserves.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
He killed a family and feels bad about it, that it was unnecessary, and yet you try SO hard to justify it. Maybe you would make a better murderer than this soldier. Maybe you would just put it out of your mind, and forget about the unarmed civilians you took the lives of. Maybe you would try to justify everything in 5 laughable points.


I'm sure, like most reasonable human beings, I would feel bad that I killed someone. I wuold feel worse had I killed innocent victims, but in this case, I wouldn't have. At least now you have stopped calling them innocent and just started referring to them as UNARMED CIVILIANS. Perhaps you are making progress. Or perhaps you have realized the fundamental asininity of calling them innocent.


Originally posted by Jakomo
You don't know why the man didn't stop. You don't. Neither do I.

Exactly, neither did the soldier. All he knew was that they weren't stopping, and were possibly armed. He did, just like every other soldier there, exactly what he thought he needed to do to protect himself and his fellow soldiers.


Originally posted by Jakomo
What I do know is he had no weapons. He and his family were unarmed

Ahh, the monday-morning quarterback rears his ugly head. You know that NOW! So too did the soldier learn after the fact that the vehicle contained no weapons. Too late to do anything but feel remorse, which is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is twisting his remorse into an accusation of atrocities by US Soldiers, which is precisely what you and the reporter are trying to do.


Originally posted by Jakomo
and for not stopping IN TIME

Do you read your own posts? The soldier clearly states that they didn't even slow down! If they had slowed down, but were fired on anyway, I would probably be agreeing with you. But, since that didn't happen, I 'll just have to continue trying to get this through to you.

As for his remorse, that's natural and expected. I hope our soldiers aren't inhuman monsters who kill for thrills. I know enough from my line of work to know that I am safe in that hope. Nobody here has a problem with him feeling bad. The only problem here is that you and this reporter (and perhaps the soldier) want to make this PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED, however tragic, shooting into something more than it is. You want to turn these soldiers into monsters. You want to turn this action into an atrocity. Your muddle thinking and half-baked emotional pleas are the problem, not this soldier's remorse.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I've yet to read all the responses to this topic. I just read the "article".

I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps., and I can tell you this "artical" is fake.

This was written by someone that doesn't know, and hasn't talked to a Marine enough to know the speech we pick up in the Corps. Also the stuff that is clamied is just not real.

BTW I will tell you all why I know it's fake if you want.

but I just also found this on him, dustinthelight.timshelarts.com...

This guy is so full of # it's not funny. I'm going to find more about him through some contacts.
[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Darktalon]

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Darktalon]



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Sorry for the delay, but I had to run this pst some Marine friends, just to make sure the Marines were the same as the Army.

There are no platoons that consist of machine gunners and missile men. When I asked, I was looked at as if I had hit my head, as they knew I should know better. I assured them tha tmy head was fine, it was just that I prefer to make sure I am correct before I open my big, stupid mouth.

Now, considering the fictional platoon was created by a fiction writer who is trying to fabricate fictional scenarios so that people will discuss them as if it is non-fiction, why is it fiction is being discussed in such a a manner?

While you are contemplating that, please think of another thing. If the U.S. military was such a monstrous thing, would Iraq still be populated? Would there be people who'd be trying stunts as the insurgents try? Would the news be concerned with inmates having their underwear worn on their heads and other fraternity-style stupidity, or would it immediately home in on such mass-civilian death atrocities so that it could pin it on Bush and his administration? The obvious truth is not with this shameful fictitional farce!




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join