Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the Afghans have the right to kills American soldiers?

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Absolutely, without a single shred of doubt, Afghans do have a right to mow down coalition soldiers. If a far superior invading force was occupying California, I would go through unimaginable lengths to fight back. I would take guerrilla warfare to a new level, since playing "fair" against a highly superior force is plain stupid. Any invading force should be chopped down without mercy.

edit on 26-9-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


A Gibson.....you have a Gibson avatar.....wow that explains alot, Fender all the way........
I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading America, let alone wanting to occupy California, except maybe mexico. We need to just finish the job and come home.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Of course they have the right to defend their country. To not fight back in some way, shape or form would amount to high treason.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Do Afghans have the right to kill American soldiers?

I think first you have to answer some fundamental questions...

1. Is America at war with Afghanistan?

Answer: No...The military action undertaken in Afghanistan is not a declared war.

2. What is the goal of this military action?

Answer: The initial military objectives of "Operation Enduring Freedom" as
articulated by President George W. Bush, include the destruction of terrorist
training camps within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the
cessation of terrorist activities in the region.

__________________________________


So our first undertaking should be to take the term "war" out of the lexicon.
It is a misnomer. The operation in Afghanistan is a military action, not a war,
and it should not be referred to as war.

I propose we refer to it as OEF, "Operation Enduring Freedom."

Another appropriate acronym would be OEIFTMIC.

"Operation Enduring Income For The Military Industrial Complex."

Either of these would would be a more appropriate name for this
military action.

So now to the question should Afghans have the right to kill American
soldiers.

I think Afghans should only have the right to kill American soldiers
if American soldiers can be shown to have (1). occupied any portion of
their country, (2). engaged in hostile actions against their citizens,
(3) caused death, or loss of liberty for any of their citizens, or, (4).
stuck their thumbs in their ears while waving their fingers and
shouting "Nanee Nanee Booo Booo."

So, to answer this RIDICULOUS question.

Of course they have the right. The right to defend yourself against
aggression is FUNDAMENTAL. You don't need permission from any
government or entity...you are endowed with it when you are born!



edit on 26-9-2010 by rival because: my laxative kicked in while typing



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Let me just say this...and ask this question.

Hypothetically speaking lets say Russia invaded the U.S. because it was said that a rogue group of Americans crashed a plane into there building. As well they know Obama has Nukes so they feel the need to step in.

Now lets say your sitting at home, bombs and explosions are going off all around you. They are storming in to your house, going threw your personal belongings, treating you like 3rd. class citizens...
Tell me it wouldn't get under your skin, and at least give you in the incentive to want to take matters into your own hands.

Not saying violence is right or the answer....but i can say "i understand".



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
They have all the right

and its due to this



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
They have all the right

and its due to this



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
They have all the right

and its due to this



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
If you had a military invading your country killing off militants and many civilians as well, what would do you?

Also, this isn't new for Afghanistan. They have had many invaders in history...all they know how to do is fight.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I am so sorry about that, i didnt mean to post multiples.

Forgive me



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Yes, that's what the US government calles 'helping' a country, and 'establishing democracy'.......thanks but absolutely no thanks.

I don't believe in war, but what options do these poor people have? The Zionist/US killing machine is there in full swing. Killing people, and killing everything that's good.

If I were Afghan, I would not hesitate.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading America, let alone wanting to occupy California

The chances certainly aren't decreasing by having these wars based on dubious legal arguments, unconvincing "evidence" and ill-defined mission objectives.


We need to just finish the job and come home.

What constitutes "finishing the job"? Getting rid of "terrorists"? "Pacifying" Afghanistan? The first is an absurd and unrealistic notion, and the latter -- assuming it's even possible -- wasn't the reason why we went in there.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Another hate America thread, oh goody, not sure how I'd start my day without one. We should either pull out, or just go ahead and let the air force do it's job. Showing propoganda films of someone saying what he said....hmmmm did he say that, or was he describing what he does with his goat, maybe he was describing dinner, maybe he was describing how he choked his wife out for not having dinner ready....who knows.All in all, just more anti anything other than the U.S. propoganda...very poorly done, not evern cleverly worded......


Propaganda film?

Truth hurt a bit too much?

So go back to your business as usual and bury your offended head in more inane diversions rather than have the balls to recognize reality and say or do something to correct the offenses.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
The United States is taking advantage of a situation in which "war" and "terrorism" and the rules respecting the legal entailments of engaging in or responding to each are combined. Many people detained at Guantanamo Bay are (or were) not terrorists, but they were swept up in the effort to detain terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is going to happen. Unfortunately the situation lends itself to abuse when the American military justice system does not deal with these cases expiditiously. Such failures to deal with prisoners in compliance with the norms of civilized behavior as spelled out in various international agreements, notably the Geneva Convention, and in the American legal system itself, leads to questions about the role of the US in these wars.

Just who is the terrorist here?

Does anyone remember the Abraham Lincoln Brigade from the Spanish Civil War? They were volunteers fighting fascism in Spain, but who came from America. These people were mostly repatriated before the war actually ended, when it looked like the republican forces were going to be defeated. I don't know for sure about this but I don't believe any of them were interned as terrorists or combatants of a "special category".

I'm wondering if this whole trend of special handling for prisoners who are "foreign volunteers", including prosecution of them under terrorism legislation is not a bogus legal charade similar to the laws the Nazis invoked against the Jews, in the sense that they criminalize activities hitherto considered normal.

It would be very typical of the Americans in their new fascist legal wardrobe to indulge in this sort of puppet show.

A young Canadian volunteer is currently on trial in Guantanamo for throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier during a firefight in Afghanistan. This is an absurd abuse of law. The volunteer, family name Khadri, was 15 years old I believe, at the time of the incident. He was not seen doing it. It was inferred that he must have been the one who threw the grenade. Even if he was the one, the American contention seems to be that voulunteering from overseas to defend the integrity of a country under attack constitutes terrorism. I think that is stretching the assumptions that most people have accepted up to now.

Under current laws, the members of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who fought against Franco's fascists (supported by the Nazi Condor Legion) in Spain would be regarded as terrorists and put on trial.

In this world might makes right.

Afghans of course have the right to defend their country to the utmost, until they are caught and put on trial by the Americans. At that point their rights cease.

Volunteers from anywhere have the right to asist them, until they are taken prisoner by the Americans. At that point their rights cease.

America is becoming the new "Lands End" of human rights.


edit on 26-9-2010 by ipsedixit because: Stylistic refinement.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


It comes down to who is attributing what to whom and who has the motive and ability to spread misinformation to promote their objectives.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

Why just americans last time I checked NATO was there to or are you that bias against AMERICANS.

To answer your question yes and they do dont you watch the News.

Now my question have you ever been shoot at under fire taking fire because if not then you have no frame of reference to declare how is right and who is wrong. Our ROE are not to fire unless fired upon their ROE Ill kill you first.


edit on 26-9-2010 by hillbilly4rent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Good post ipsedixit!


Originally posted by ipsedixit
Unfortunately the situation lends itself to abuse when the American military justice system does not deal with these cases expiditiously.

The case, I'm afraid, is even more dire than that. It wasn't an inability of the justice system to deal with these cases, it seems there was actually no desire or will to deal with the cases, because it's now obvious there was no evidence to convict most of these people being held in Guantanamo.

More, I would dare to say that just by the fact that the US purposely and specifically held these people in Guantanamo and argued it was some magical place in legal limbo shows that US officials had a different idea about justice being applied.

Even under the Obama administration US officials have admitted they have no evidence on the majority of the prisoners but still don't want to let people go. This is a serious violation of, not only, international human rights, but domestic as well.



I'm wondering if this whole trend of special handling for prisoners who are "foreign volunteers", including prosecution of them under terrorism legislation is not a bogus legal charade similar to the laws the Nazis invoked against the Jews, in the sense that they criminalize activities hitherto considered normal.

As far as I'm aware there is no distinction in international law between someone who participates in the hostilities in a country they were born in and a "foreign volunteer".

Even if there was some doubt as to the status of some of the people captured by US forces, international law is explicit in that until a determination can be made -- by a competent court -- a person apprehended during hostilities has to be given the rights of a lawful prison of war.

Just by the mere fact that the US has deported people from the countries in which it's engaged in armed conflict is a breach of the Geneva conventions, as it constitutes unlawful deportation or transfer.

edit on 26-9-2010 by KerbDune because: spelling



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Do Afghans have a legitimate right to fight, kill any and all American soldiers in Afghanistan?

I do think they have the right to fight back, Of course they do! Do American Soldiers have a legitimate right to fight or kill any and all Afghans???

No i dont!!



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by DrChuck
 


A Gibson.....you have a Gibson avatar.....wow that explains alot, Fender all the way........
I don't think there is any chance of anyone invading America, let alone wanting to occupy California, except maybe mexico. We need to just finish the job and come home.



A Fender.....you have a Fender avatar.....wow that explains jack squat, brand loyalty all the way........pathetic.
I know America has no chance of being invaded, it was a hypothetical situation. We don't have a job to do there, should have never gone there in the first place.

edit on 26-9-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   


Do Afghans have a legitimate right to fight, kill any and all American soldiers in Afghanistan?

No, sir, they do not. Any attempt at fighting or killing any and all American nationals will be punished most severely due to lack of suggested right.

I am able to summon plenty of evidence which indicates that Afghans were denied to proceed with actions described in suggested right.

I hope this answers the question.

PS. I am most certain that US troops consult Geneva Convention treaties and protocols every time they engage in combat against Afghan nationals in order to confirm whether Afghans have or do not have rights to kill them.

edit on 26/9/2010 by SassyCat because: added further clarification





new topics




 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join