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.

 

Afghanistan 'friendly fire ' may have killed soldier

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I would love to see you explain, err better yet demonstrate the proper technique for room-clearing in a hostage situation. We'll see who's incompetent and fit to judge such matters.




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Neotiating?
That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day! Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

I bet you think we should be inviting the Taliban in for lunch and Dove bars for dessert, right?


How is this funny? Yes, so hilarious to maybe avoid conflict with an enemy by COMMUNICATING with them, as opposed to bloodshed. The Taliban have always called for negotiations, and all throughout history negotiating parties have always been an integral part of all sides.

But where are the American negotiations? Americans don't negotiate with terrorists. Or rather, Americans don't negotiate with rebels who stand in the way of their agendas. Bill Clinton said the Taliban was America's friend in the 90s, even had them for meetings at the White House where I am sure they enjoyed lots of lunch and dessert paid for by the American taxpayer (which I assume you are).

The US changed its tune when the Taliban refused to have Afghan land bastardized by a large, international oil pipeline that would fair the Americans so well. Ever since, no negotiations with the Taliban, only missiles, bombs and assassination squads.

Over a hundred of my own Canadian soldiers have died fighting for your arrogant American interests. I'm not impressed by how you think it is so funny to negotiate with the Taliban. I didn't see the Soviets negotiating with the Mujahide'en and look what happened there: it lead to massacre, just like this war has resulted to. All because the Americans refuse to communicate with anyone but themselves.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gainsayer
 


Google flashbang, using a live grenade to clear a room with a hostage in has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
edit on 8/12/10 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
That is a well known, recent story, US troops threw a grenade into the room when the hostage was sat there, she was killed. Yet another notch on the post of incompetency.


Read the investigation report yet, or just making an assumption?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


I don't understand what you are asking, it is a FACT she was killed by a grenade thrown by a US soldier.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Bill Clinton said the Taliban was America's friend in the 90s, even had them for meetings at the White House where I am sure they enjoyed lots of lunch and dessert paid for by the American taxpayer (which I assume you are).


And your point is what? At one time, the US was wasting Japanese soldiers by the car load. Now, they are our allies. Things change.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Over a hundred of my own Canadian soldiers have died fighting for your arrogant American interests. I'm not impressed by how you think it is so funny to negotiate with the Taliban. I didn't see the Soviets negotiating with the Mujahide'en and look what happened there: it lead to massacre, just like this war has resulted to. All because the Americans refuse to communicate with anyone but themselves


It's resulted to a massacre, huh? Could you point out where US troops were massacred? I think when I was in A-stan, I must have missed that.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by signal2noise
 


I don't understand what you are asking, it is a FACT she was killed by a grenade thrown by a US soldier.


And this is fact that's been published in a completed investigation conducted by US Forces? Or just something you read in some news article? That's what I'm asking......



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


It's a published fact, after a long investigation by both the UK and US military.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Thanks for the link. Just found it myself.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65


And are you 100% sure that the Brit wasn't in the place he was suppose to be?


Just to clear it up, he wasn't a Brit, he was a Kiwi.

Sad state of affairs when we mourn the loss of one life over the loss of many.

War is nasty and people always get hurt. Let's not give this more time than has already been spent on it.

My final words: Soldiers know that they are in a high-risk job. Death is one of the consequences of fighting war. It happens. I'm not overly sympathetic, as I don't think soldiers should be mourned or respected just as a matter of course. That would be as bad as mindless flag waving and patriotism.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
Sad state of affairs when we mourn the loss of one life over the loss of many.


I'm sure that his family will be glad to hear that.


Originally posted by aorAki
War is nasty and people always get hurt. Let's not give this more time than has already been spent on it.


Sorry, I didn't know that there was a shelf life or "freshness date" on the mourning of a dead Soldier.


Originally posted by aorAki
My final words: Soldiers know that they are in a high-risk job. Death is one of the consequences of fighting war. It happens. I'm not overly sympathetic, as I don't think soldiers should be mourned or respected just as a matter of course. That would be as bad as mindless flag waving and patriotism.


Well, glad those were your final words. How about this: Soldiers know that they might be killed, but none of us want to die dumb. That's why investigations are done when a blue-on-blue occurs. That way, it (hopefully) won't happen again.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Bill Clinton said the Taliban was America's friend in the 90s, even had them for meetings at the White House where I am sure they enjoyed lots of lunch and dessert paid for by the American taxpayer (which I assume you are).


And your point is what? At one time, the US was wasting Japanese soldiers by the car load. Now, they are our allies. Things change.


Japan has nothing to do with this. The US created the mujahideen via the CIA, along with the ISI. Taliban was formed out of the mujahideen. The US still saw the Taliban as its asset in Afghanistan during the 90s until the Taliban said they would not give in to American interests, and soon after they were targets for American tomahawks.


It's resulted to a massacre, huh? Could you point out where US troops were massacred? I think when I was in A-stan, I must have missed that.


Your arrogance of the situation is most astounding. I was talking about the massacre of Afghans by American soldiers, which is exactly what the Soviets started doing later on in their campaign out of frustration.

You do not consider it a massacre when the US drops a bomb on a house, killing 16 civilians and 2 insurgents? Or how about when a train carrying prisoners is stopped in the middle of nowhere and CIA and Afghan Army troops open fire on prisoners locked in the rail cars? Or how about when mercenaries open fire on a crowd of Afghans who just happen to be danger close to the wrong vehicle? Or how about when a CIA drone bombs three men scavenging scrap metal on the side of a mountain, because the drone operators rationalized that one of the men was the same height as Bin Laden?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
You're displaying your ignorance, I'm afraid.

US troops aren't slicing the throats of children, disemboweling pregnant women, raping or pillaging the populace like the Russians were. For you to insinuate the two situations are the same, is absolutely silly.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gainsayer
You're displaying your ignorance, I'm afraid.

US troops aren't slicing the throats of children, disemboweling pregnant women, raping or pillaging the populace like the Russians were. For you to insinuate the two situations are the same, is absolutely silly.


Yes, they are:

4 more soldiers accused of rape, murder in Iraq

GIs describe comrades killing blindfolded Iraqis

Pictures contradict Marine account Slain Iraqis were unarmed, officials say

Lots more links here:

Iraq War Atrocities



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Besides that ridiculous website and it's "sources", there is still no comparison. Isolated cases with the US compared to widespread policy with the Russians....right.

The vast majority of Afghan's still don't support any attacks on NATO troops. 64% if you take recent surveys. Clearly, your attempts to blow things out of proportion have no foundation.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gainsayer
 


That website links to credible sources, the situation is already blown out out of proportion, I'm just highlighting the crimes commited by these individuals.

And yes they are individuals, but these acts of barbarism are still being commited. The US army needs to get a grip of the situation before they are made to look even more like the savages they are supposed to be stopping.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gainsayer
Besides that ridiculous website and it's "sources", there is still no comparison. Isolated cases with the US compared to widespread policy with the Russians....right.

The vast majority of Afghan's still don't support any attacks on NATO troops. 64% if you take recent surveys. Clearly, your attempts to blow things out of proportion have no foundation.


I've seen so many cases of American atrocities in Iraq that it is beyond question now. I've also seen videos of American soldiers in Iraq winging puppies off of cliffs and strafing herds of sheep with 40mm grenades just for fun.

Surveys? Surveys mean nothing, especially if you look at the actual ground situation. Why do you think the Taliban is still so prevalent? They don't just walk into cities ripe with AA and NATO patrols and assume command; they have the civilian support because if you've missed it, the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan that the Americans attacked.

And your assessment of "Soviet atrocities" is not entirely correct. Did the Soviets commit atrocities? You're damn right they did. However, the atrocities started to mount near the end of the conflict when the will to fight was all but lost. "The first casualties of war are justice and love", this leads to massacre. Near the end, Spetsnaz were copying mujahideen tactics and were able to assault remote villages; the heart of mujahideen country. They committed massacre as a show of force, because Russians understand that effective counter-terrorism is to commit terrorism against the terrorists.

And make no mistake, the mujahideen were equally as brutal. There are reports of captured Spetsnaz being skinned alive (because they would not talk). Mujahideen also like to make propaganda videos of their executions to strike fear into the hearts of Russian soldiers.

I'm telling you right now that the Soviets left before it got worse, which was the best decision they made for the entire conflict. The Americans are now at the same point, and whatever you believe from your media is BS. Afghanistan will always be a hellhole for foreign invaders, and not even the hardest Ranger would last long with a smile on his face in the hands of tribal rebels, especially after the Americans prove to be just as or more brutal than the Soviets.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Yes, they are:

4 more soldiers accused of rape, murder in Iraq

GIs describe comrades killing blindfolded Iraqis

Pictures contradict Marine account Slain Iraqis were unarmed, officials say



Hmmm....interesting. A lot of links from 2006.


How many US troops have been in the Iraq AOR since the war started? How many of those troops have been convicted of "war crimes", etc??


Originally posted by woogleuk
Lots more links here:

Iraq War Atrocities


Yeah, nothing biased there. No agenda going on.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Surveys? Surveys mean nothing, especially if you look at the actual ground situation.


Surveys don't mean anything to you if they don't back up your BS opinions.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Near the end, Spetsnaz were copying mujahideen tactics and were able to assault remote villages; the heart of mujahideen country. They committed massacre as a show of force, because Russians understand that effective counter-terrorism is to commit terrorism against the terrorists.


So are you agreeing with their actions or disagreeing?


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm telling you right now that the Soviets left before it got worse, which was the best decision they made for the entire conflict. The Americans are now at the same point, and whatever you believe from your media is BS.


Sorry, not seeing this. And I've been in A-stan; how about you?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
You do not consider it a massacre when the US drops a bomb on a house, killing 16 civilians and 2 insurgents?


Well, look at it this way: You have insurgents that are hiding with the civilian population. They are using women and children as human shields. Where's your outrage over that?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join