Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'US kills civilians to intimidate people'

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I have been saying this for a long time, it is good to hear it come out of someone else's mouth:



"There have been many, many thousands of Afghan civilians, men, women and children deliberately targeted, deliberately killed to intimidate the population," Stephen Lendman told Press TV on Thursday.

"Things go back, I believe, to World War II, to intimidate the opposition. We did it ruthlessly in Vietnam, and the most well-known Operation Phoenix, with the estimated number of civilians that we killed, numbered maybe 80,000. The number could have been doubled," he added.

He said the United States military presences in Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to war crime.

www.presstv.ir...

I wouldn't call it intimidation, rather terrorism.

They simply terrorize the public in to submission.

This is backed by the fact that over 500 Afghan elders (who were against the occupation) have been killed/died in suspicious circumstances:



At least 500 Afghan tribal leaders, who were against the invasion of the country by US-led forces, have been suspiciously killed in Kandahar in the past eight years.

According to a list received by Press TV's correspondent in Afghanistan, more than 500 tribal leaders in the southern provinces of Afghanistan especially Kandahar have been killed in suspicious manners after the US invasion of the country in 2001.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What do you guys think?

Thoughts..




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


You either comply with the Beast or the Beast will take you out. Someone once stated we are all just pawns in the elites game to control us. I do not think that the troops have an order to kill civilians, I think it is the method in which actions and objectives in the war are made. It is easy to control people when they are just following orders and the orders make sense, although have unintended consequences that seem to not be avoided.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by oozyism
 


You either comply with the Beast or the Beast will take you out. Someone once stated we are all just pawns in the elites game to control us. I do not think that the troops have an order to kill civilians, I think it is the method in which actions and objectives in the war are made. It is easy to control people when they are just following orders and the orders make sense, although have unintended consequences that seem to not be avoided.


There is a reason why the US always calls for air strikes in villages filled with civilians, that is the intimidation.

The reason why they do that has much to do with the fact that the villagers show some form of sympathy towards the resistance, therefore everyone is killed, or at least the whole village is punished under the pretext of collateral damage.

Perfect excuse for every murder of the innocent.

Are you suggesting the world's most powerful and strongest army (I don't know if that is true anymore), can't kill a bunch of insurgents who don't have body armor, who don't have helmets, who most of the time don't even have machine guns, just AK47s and RPGs, pistol and maybe some grenades, sometimes they add a little accessory and call it a sniper, which is just an AK.

These insurgents haven't even been through the training the US soldiers have been through, so it is BS to say they can't take them out, rather it is intentional to call air strikes every time, because it is a form of punishment, and at the same time can get away with it by labeling it as collateral damage.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
This is sad. It is the ways of wars. This goes on in every war that has ever been. Institutions feel nothing while the leaders are far from the front. It is a shame that these young soldiers are sacrificed, and these innocent people are casually murdered by strategy. We are obviously winning the hearts and minds. How can anyone vote for either party when they are totally complicit in such affairs.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by oozyism
 


You either comply with the Beast or the Beast will take you out. Someone once stated we are all just pawns in the elites game to control us. I do not think that the troops have an order to kill civilians, I think it is the method in which actions and objectives in the war are made. It is easy to control people when they are just following orders and the orders make sense, although have unintended consequences that seem to not be avoided.


There is a reason why the US always calls for air strikes in villages filled with civilians, that is the intimidation.

The reason why they do that has much to do with the fact that the villagers show some form of sympathy towards the resistance, therefore everyone is killed, or at least the whole village is punished under the pretext of collateral damage.

Perfect excuse for every murder of the innocent.

Are you suggesting the world's most powerful and strongest army (I don't know if that is true anymore), can't kill a bunch of insurgents who don't have body armor, who don't have helmets, who most of the time don't even have machine guns, just AK47s and RPGs, pistol and maybe some grenades, sometimes they add a little accessory and call it a sniper, which is just an AK.

These insurgents haven't even been through the training the US soldiers have been through, so it is BS to say they can't take them out, rather it is intentional to call air strikes every time, because it is a form of punishment, and at the same time can get away with it by labeling it as collateral damage.


you just a USA basher arnt you? Air Strikes saves US lives on the ground. those civilians should not be hanging out with people that want to kill american soilders. they are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. we dont target them.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I do not have proof that the acts of killing civilians are intentional...although I agree it could appear that way. One thing I found interesting with the Afghanistan wikileaks logs is that very few if any Al-Qaeda were KIA. Taliban is the biggest loser in Afghanistan and I wonder just why we are fighting Taliban when they supposedly were neutral during 9/11. Where did all the Al-Qeada go to? This information if true, could support your assertion that they are directly targeting civilians to produce fear. Ironically, even if that isn't their intention, they are doing exactly that anyway.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
There is a reason why the US always calls for air strikes in villages filled with civilians, that is the intimidation.

Perfect excuse for every murder of the innocent.



Hold on Oooz, let me check the manual.



Nope, nothing about bombing villages for the intimidation factor. There is a widely known but often ignored reality of the Taliban using villages to hide in and fight from though.

Pretty interesting stuff when you take the blinders off.




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They live there dummie, you shouldn't be there.

They are living in their villages, why do you bomb innocent women and children?

Yup, blame collateral damage.

Terrorism is terrorism.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Heard of Special ops?

The manuals are good PR isn't it? Even the Taliban has one.

And when fighters are amongst innocent people, does the manual orders the soldiers to kill everyone? Including the little kids and women, and old men?

Is it the same in the US, if someone is held hostage, do Americans usually kill everyone to prove a point



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They live there dummie, you shouldn't be there.

They are living in their villages, why do you bomb innocent women and children?

Yup, blame collateral damage.

Terrorism is terrorism.


lol yeah collateral damage! you got it right! sad but true. now go BASH some other countery that might care



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Yup as I thought, you been watching too much Hollywood action ^^

You know you can call 9/11 collateral damage also?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Well you aint there to hand out roses and chocolates are you...

2nd



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
Well you aint there to hand out roses and chocolates are you...

2nd


Me or the occupying forces?

My mom is there right now handing out roses and chocolates



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Well it's one thing to have civilians get caught in the crossfire. It's a whole other ball game when they set road side bombs and blow school children up simply because "little girls" want to get an education which the brave Taliban are so fearful of them getting.

pfft



[edit on 12-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
While I don't believe that the US or the Allies are intentionally targeting innocent civilians, there is a strategy of sorts with regards to the CIA dealing with Taliban leaders - at least, this is the claim...


"Well, in a very crude way, it would be a carrot and a stick. The carrot would be 'If you come cooperate with us, we will reward you and your people.' The stick was 'If you do not cooperate, the chances of your survival are greatly diminished.' And we would prove this by attacking Taliban leaders who had rejected our overtures," Crumpton explained.

"Killing them?" Logan asked.



"Yes. And the next day, we'd talk to the tribal leader that was next door. We would make him the same offer. Given the incentive that we had set the previous day, he was much more amenable to negotiations in our favor," Crumpton replied.

"Because he heard the guy that wouldn't cooperate was killed yesterday?" Logan asked.

"Or in some cases, he saw that his fellow commander, his tribal ally was killed," Crumpton said.


ex-CIA Operative Comes Out of the Shadows - 60 mins

[edit on 12-8-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 




My mom is there right now handing out roses and chocolates
Touche, and good on her. I was talking about the US military forces though.

EDIT: I just realized a may have jumped to a slightly sexist conclusion...your Mom isn't part of the military is she?

[edit on 12/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
The manuals are good PR isn't it? Even the Taliban has one.


Yeah, and the Taliban doesn't follow it. How many were on that civilian medical team that the Taliban murdered??


Originally posted by oozyism
And when fighters are amongst innocent people, does the manual orders the soldiers to kill everyone? Including the little kids and women, and old men?


Taliban has a history of using human shields. And they are also known to go into villages and do a little intimidation themselves. Read "Lone Survivor".



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It is one thing to plant road side bombs which unintentionally kills the innocent and another thing to blow up a whole village in to smithereens especially knowing that innocent people are in those villages.


www.youtube.com...

That is children for you/
www.youtube.com...

This one is a whole village for you:


KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN - U.S. planes bombed a village in central Afghanistan on Monday after the U.S. military said American forces came under fire. Afghans said villagers were celebrating a wedding and that scores were killed and injured, including women and children.


There is many many examples, not to mention the special ops, private protection companies which are operating in Afghanistan etc etc.

[size = 40]When you know there are civilians and innocent people in a village, and you call for an air strike, you are intentionally targeting the innocent, no matter what you say



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
I wouldn't call it intimidation, rather terrorism.

They simply terrorize the public in to submission.


Here's a little terror for you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmmm.....didn't see you chiming in on that thread. Bunch of Western civilian out there on a medical mission. Taliban rolled them up and butchered them.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65


Yeah, and the Taliban doesn't follow it. How many were on that civilian medical team that the Taliban murdered??

(The Taliban denied responsibility
)
Edit to ADD: I think they did accept responsibility.

By the way, what makes you think Americans follow their manuals? That deserves a LOL




Taliban has a history of using human shields. And they are also known to go into villages and do a little intimidation themselves. Read "Lone Survivor".


Human shields? That is what you said about Hamas, and it ended up being the opposite, it was actually the IDF who was taking Palestinians as human shields lol.

Are you making the same mistake again?

Any evidence of your claim?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by oozyism]





new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join