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.

 

U.S. Troops handcuff, execute 8 Afghan children

page: 12
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Outrage?

To be honest with you, most of these folks probably care less about what happens to children as long as they have propaganda to use for their agenda.

It is apparent that they merely desire to condemn the US military over accusations that have yet, or like you said, may never be proven.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repost of my earlier post for those who missed it.

We can't win either way. You guys bring up that we are killing civilians and then they bring up we aren't doing enough protecting civilians from the Taliban.



UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday defended actions by international forces in Afghanistan, saying that insurgents were responsible for 78 per cent of civilian deaths. His comment followed a briefing by the UN Afghan mission's chief, Kai Eide, who earlier indicated that international troops were not doing enough to protect civilians in the conflict with Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.


www.earthtimes.org...

Population of Afghanistan about 28 Million

en.wikipedia.org...

Number of civilians death for Afghan covering first ten months of 2009.


Figures released to AFP by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) put civilian deaths in the Afghan war at 2,038 for the first 10 months of 2009, up from 1,838 for the same period of 2008 -- an increase of 10.8 percent.


Who is responsible for civilian deaths? Bold emphasis mine.


The UN calculations show the vast majority, or 1,404 civilians, were killed by insurgents fighting for the overthrow of Karzai's government and to eject Western troops.

UNAMA said 468 deaths were caused by pro-government forces, including NATO and US-led forces, and 166 by "other actors".

Civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces fuel distrust between the Afghan population, the government and US and NATO troops, even though most of the deaths are caused by insurgent tactics such as homemade bombs.


www.google.com...

So out of 28,000,0000 people, 468 civilian deaths are attributed to Pro-Government forces. Not Just US forces.

Yet, many of you want to use certain incidents to portray the military in a bad way.











[edit on 7-1-2010 by jam321]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
What is the old saying...# happens...

The OP's website is rather bias to say the least, and though it would be tragic if civilians (children or adults) were killed it seems many here want to run with the idea that American troops go from village to village murdering people as they go. So reading a post that children might have been killed in a firefight is a world different than rounding up 8 children and executing them. In both cases the children might have died, but one is the spin that many of you crave for.

I’m not sure how many of you know the ROE over here, but it was designed by the local government. To give you a taste of how it goes as example, if a person is seen putting a IED in the road by a drone and then walks away the troops cannot do a thing to him. He must be caught with it or actually in the process of planting it. If a person decided to fire off 2 full clips at our troops then put his gun down and goes back to working on his field he is no longer a target and our troops can't do a thing to him...

We all know that human shields were used routinely in Iraq and also here in Afghanistan the Taliban will use civilians as their cover whenever they can, and I don’t see our troops hiding behind the locals as they shoot back.

Yes, it is all screwed up…..yes, maybe we all just need to get the hell out and let the dust settle where it may, in either case of staying or leaving a lot of people will die.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Wow eight CIA Agents killed...

Eight children killed...

What a coincidence...

Enough said.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That explains the big bag of nitrogen in the pick with guy who had a beard. It was a young kid under cover with a fake beard working for the CIA I guess.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



To give you a taste of how it goes as example, if a person is seen putting a IED in the road by a drone and then walks away the troops cannot do a thing to him.


you are speaking of the Karzai 12

Karzai 12 Rules


The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.
• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid


www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
This one is for you STOVSA

Spin this 360




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Yeah because I am sure the kid was born with the Nitrogen, slept with it every night, took it to school every day, and danced with it at the home coming dance.

Of course the CIA has no access to nitrogen and would never stage a scene or plant anything on anyone.

And of course it should be against the law to have nitrogen in your own country when A FOREIGN ARMY IS OCCUPYING IT.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Jam321,

Yeah, we can't win either way...

You wanna know why?

I'll give you one guess.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Because we shouldn't be there in the first place.

Simply put, you cannot "win" an unjustifiable war.

PS - One good thing will come of these kinds of stories... Wanna' guess what that is?
One guess.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
HOORAH!!

They were probably going to grow up to be muslim radicals anyways. Terrorists. I say nuke the country!!!

oops I spoke my mind...heeeeeere we go.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Tick, tock, tick, tock...

The American people will eventually realize that we are in the wrong and will force our politicos to remove our troops.

We shouldn't be there to begin with.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by capgirl
 


Yeah, "here we go."

The only thing worse than your misguided, racist worldview, imo, is the fact that someone else agrees with it.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



Simply put, you cannot "win" an unjustifiable war.


My reason differs from yours but I am sure yours probably has legitimacy.

Unjustifiable in whose eyes?

Are you saying 9/11 wasn't a justifiable reason?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 




Nice game, good sir.

Obviously you realize that you can always call into question the legitimacy of good vs. evil and that is what you wish to play upon...

How about we call into question international law?


edit to add....

Is this thread in the 9-11 forum? If so I retract all statements as truth apparently does not apply in this forum.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by JayinAR]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 



How about we call into question international law?


Continue, Like to hear what you have to say.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Oh, pretty simple.
Under international law, you will find NO illustration of "terrorism" being labelled as an international war action. Also, therein, you will find NO link of Afghanistan to any international war action.

If you are to believe then FBI director Mueller and the, at the time, diretor of the CIA, they have no link to Afghanistan in the attacks. Yet, 15 of the supposed 19 hijackers of the flights on that day were from Saudi Arabia....

Things that make you go hmmm....

No war on Saudi Arabia. Instead, war on a country that apparently had nothing to do with the event under precendent not covered by international law.

But I digress, this is not a 9-11 forum... So this will be my last post on this matter.
The rest will be to simply laugh at your "patriotism".



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rainfall
 


This is an example of what happens when you push soldiers too far. Stuff like this should never happen to anyone no matter how wrong their family did you. This war needs to end with a quickness and hold the top brass accountable for what has transpired here.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


You were making some good points till you got to this


The rest will be to simply laugh at your "patriotism".



Laugh away.

Doesn't hurt me one bit.

Here, I'll throw in a few with you


As far as your point. Very valid indeed.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Oh, believe me, I'm finding myself laughing at your so called patiotism quite a lot lately.
And I suppose I will continue to do so.


Traitor.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Those things always happens in war - there are many black ops, secret missions or just incidents that never reaches the civilised world - remember In War, The First Victim Is The Truth...



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join