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.

 

Two white Britons 'killed fighting for Al Qaeda' in U.S. drone attack in Pakistan Read more: htt

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


What are you going on about??
Can you post something understandable?




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
So how do you figure they weren't Muslim extremist converts? Wouldn't be the first time.

Does anyone have anymore information on this that is not speculative?
edit on 16-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Is that what they say when the Americans friendly fire us now?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
So how do you figure they weren't Muslim extremist converts? Wouldn't be the first time.


In the same sense, it wouldn't be the first time US has killed journalists to stop the other side of the story, from gaining any attention.

Either could be true, I'm just trying to balance it out. I don't want people to believe US just because their is no one arguing otherwise.




Does anyone have anymore information on this that is not speculative?

You can't find any independent sources for such incidents anymore, because as I said previously, US threatens, arrests, tortures and even murders journalists, just to keep the propaganda on their own side.

If it was independently confirmable, I would be all for it.

Let's not forget, USSR had the same exact policies. USSR didn't allow any journalists to propagate, or even investigate the other side of the story (except their own), but some did non the less.


edit on 16-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Assuming they were journalists:

True, they had to know the risks when they started off on this though. From what I understand if they do not convert to Islam on the spot any of the extremist factions would sell them as hostages and/or kill them. If the Muslim higher ups get word of it they usually don't like them to be killed if they convert.

Even if they were journalists, that's not to say that the US intentionally fired to kill them. They could have been just taking a pot shot at the enemy vehicle they were riding in, a hellfire is a close range opportunity weapon of sorts, its not like a cruise missile.
edit on 16-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by oozyism
 


Assuming they were journalists:

True, they had to know the risks when they started off on this though. From what I understand if they do not convert to Islam on the spot any of the extremist factions would sell them as hostages and/or kill them. If the Muslim higher ups get word of it they usually don't like them to be killed if they convert.

That's the propaganda I'm talking about, that they want to convert everyone to Islam by force.



Even if they were journalists, that's not to say that the US intentionally fired to kill them. They could have been just taking a pot shot at the enemy vehicle they were riding in, a hellfire is a close range opportunity weapon of sorts, its not like a cruise missile.
edit on 16-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Iran never kills anyone intentionally, duuh, those who died under US torture, was not intentionally killed, they just wanted to torture them until they died from their wounds, therefore US didn't kill them, it was their wounds which kill them.

Once again, when one side of the story is propagated without any challenge, it doesn't just brainwash people, it also sounds ridiculous as times pass.

I mean think about the ridiculous claim that "they want to attack us because of our freedom". Thank GOD the other side of the story came forward, or this BS would have continued.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
[That's the propaganda I'm talking about, that they want to convert everyone to Islam by force.


How is that propaganda? Seeing as they would kill them otherwise? Or is that propaganda too, what do you think Muslim extremists do when they capture westerners, sit down and have tea together and discuss Allah?


Originally posted by oozyism
Iran never kills anyone intentionally, duuh, those who died under US torture, was not intentionally killed, they just wanted to torture them until they died from their wounds, therefore US didn't kill them, it was their wounds which kill them.

Once again, when one side of the story is propagated without any challenge, it doesn't just brainwash people, it also sounds ridiculous as times pass.

I mean think about the ridiculous claim that "they want to attack us because of our freedom". Thank GOD the other side of the story came forward, or this BS would have continued.


I am not interested in your anti-US babble, I am merely asking about this particular story.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


"Well one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. I call terrorist, so not a fact!"

When were they convicted of "terrorism" related crimes? by who?.. open court?, was tortured evidence allowed?.. was the sentence "death by drone"?

"Terrorist" is a euphemism, a word 'officials' & politicians use to justify killing strangers extra-judicially... however like you alluded to, one mans this is another mans that.. to "them" you're a "radicalized" sub human infidel-occupier-terrorist who deserves to be summarily blasted into pablum as "payback".

You cheer their death, they'll cheer yours.. not because of anything personal, and nothing to do with facts you saw thus know to be 100% true.. but because politicians used words like "terrorist" that some super model news tart parroted after reading it.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
It amazes me how this post started out with as a discussion in regards to two Britons being "killed fighting for Al Qaeda", and seemed to go right into a discussion about America invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean just a cursory reading of some of the Replies to this OP, if I didn't know better, would make me think that the US is the only country that has ever been in a war. Yes we have been in some wars, but we are not even close to some Countries as a waring nation. For example Great Briton is probably the most waring nation that has been on the Earth.

Roman conquest of Britain (AD43)

Viking invasions (793 1066)

Norman Conquest of England (1066)

Rebellion of 1088 - civil war

Revolt of 1173-1174 - civil war

Third Crusade (1189-1192)

Richard I's war in France (?)

Welsh uprising of 1211

Henry III's war in France (?)

Edward I's war in France (?)

The First War of Scottish Independence (1296 1328)

Edward II's war in France (?)

The Second War of Scottish Independence (1332 1357)

Hundred Years' War (1337 to 1453) against France

Wars of the Roses (1455 1485)

Italian Wars (1494 1559)

Cornish Rebellion (1497)

Anglo-Scottish Wars (1513; 1544-1551)

Third Cornish Uprising (1549)

Anglo-Spanish War (1585-1604)

Nine Years War (1594 1603)

Eighty Years' War (1568 1648)

First Anglo-Powhatan War (160 1613) - North America

Second Anglo-Powhatan War (1622) - North America

Anglo-Spanish War (1625-1630)

Anglo-French War (1626-1629)

Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639 1651) - civil war

Third Anglo-Powhatan War (1644) - North America

First Anglo-Dutch War (1652 1654)

Anglo-Spanish War (1654 1660)

Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665 1667)

War of Devolution (1667 1668)

third Anglo-Dutch War (1672 1674)

King Philip's War (1675 1676) - North America

Virginia Rebellion (1676)

Nine Years War (1688 1697) - England, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Holland v France

Jacobite Rebellions (1689-91; 1715-16; 1719; 1745-46) - Civil War

War of the Spanish Succession (1702 1713)

War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718 1720) - Great Britain, France, Austria and Holland v Italy and Spain

War of Jenkins' Ear (1739 1742) - Great Britain v Spain

War of the Austrian Succession (1742 1748) - Great Britain, Austria and Holland v France and Germany

Seven Years' War (1756 1763) - the first "world war"

Pontiac's Rebellion (1763 1766) - North America

First Anglo-Mysore War (1766 1769) - India

American War of Independence (1775 1783) - North America, civil war

First Anglo-Maratha War (1775 1782) - India

Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780 1784)

Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780 1784) - India

Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789 1792) - India

French Revolutionary Wars (1793 1802) - Great Britain, Austria, Spain, Russia, Germany v France

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1798 1799) - India

Irish Rebellion (1798)

Napoleonic Wars (1803 1815) - United Kingdom, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, Spain and Russia v France

First Kandian War (1803 1804) - Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803 1805) - India

Vellore Mutiny (1806) - India

Anglo-Dutch Java War (1810 1811)

War of 1812 (1812 1815)

Anglo-Nepalese War (1814 1816)

Second Kandian War (1815) - Sri Lanka (Ceylon)

Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817 1818) - India

First Anglo-Burmese War (1823 1826)

Upper Canada Rebellion (1837)

Lower Canada Rebellion (1837)

First Anglo-Afghan War (1839 1842)

First Opium War (1839 1842) - United Kingdom v China

First Anglo-Sikh War (1845 1846) - India

New Zealand Wars (1845 1872)

Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848 1849) - India

Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852)

Crimean War (1854 1856) - United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and Piedmont-Sardinia v Russia

Second Opium War (1856 1860) - United Kingdom and France v China

Anglo-Persian War (1856 1857) - United Kingdom and Persia

Indian Rebellion (1857)

Pig War (1859) - United Kingdom v USA

Anglo-Bhutanese War (1865)

Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880)

Anglo-Zulu War (1879)

First Boer War (1880 1881)

Gun War (1880 1881)

Mahdist War (1881 1899)

Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885 1887)

Anglo-Zanzibar War (1896)

Second Boer War (1899 1902)

Anglo-Aro war (1901-1902) - Nigeria

World War I (1914 1918)

Easter Rising (1916) - Ireland

Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919)

Irish War of Independence (1919 1921)

World War II (1939 1945)

Malayan Emergency (1948 1960)

Korean War (1950 1953)

Mau Mau Uprising (1952 1960)

Cyprus Emergency (1955 1959)


Suez Crisis (1956)

Brunei Revolt (1962)

Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (1962 1966)

Aden Emergency (1963 1967)

Northern Ireland Troubles (1969-2007)

Falklands War (1982)

The First Gulf War (1990 1991)

The Bosnian War (1995 1996)

The Kosovo War (1999)

Sierra Leone Civil War (2000)

The Afghanistan War (2001 Present)

Iraq War and Iraqi insurgency (2003 Present)

Is someone going to seriously argue that innocent people weren't killed in any of these conflicts?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Fair call, can see your logic but I really don't care what they think about me!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by oozyism
[That's the propaganda I'm talking about, that they want to convert everyone to Islam by force.


How is that propaganda? Seeing as they would kill them otherwise? Or is that propaganda too, what do you think Muslim extremists do when they capture westerners, sit down and have tea together and discuss Allah?

Capturing Westerners who they deem as spies is very much different than journalists who want to hear their side of the story.

Last I checked, US tortures those who it deems to be connected with the resistance, and at times torture to death.




Originally posted by oozyism
US never kills anyone intentionally, duuh, those who died under US torture, was not intentionally killed, they just wanted to torture them until they died from their wounds, therefore US didn't kill them, it was their wounds which kill them.

Once again, when one side of the story is propagated without any challenge, it doesn't just brainwash people, it also sounds ridiculous as times pass.

I mean think about the ridiculous claim that "they want to attack us because of our freedom". Thank GOD the other side of the story came forward, or this BS would have continued.


I am not interested in your anti-US babble, I am merely asking about this particular story.


Yes I know you don't wan't to hear it, if you do, it might effect the little Universe which you have wrapped around your head. The little Universe where most of the world population has a "US can't do no wrong" disease.

I'm getting better at this

edit on 16-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


"How is that propaganda? Seeing as they would kill them otherwise? Or is that propaganda too, what do you think Muslim extremists do when they capture westerners, sit down and have tea together and discuss Allah? "

Seriously, "they" who?.. that US Army dude, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, in the Taliban videos isn't being marched around blind folded in chains wearing an orange jumpsuit... and I have yet to see photos of him enduring donald rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation"... cuffed into a naked pretzel, panties in mouth with a K-9 chomping at his junk like a horny TSA agent.

However others captured, indeed.. have been beheaded or otherwise brutalized. Seems to me some people fighting for freedom from republicans & democrats do cruel horrible things, while other don't.

Could it be that people are different?.. some like Sushi and some don't?.. I don't know what a "Muslim extremists" is, never met any... but I do know one doesn't have to be extreme, Muslim or "radicalized" to be a sociopath, a murderer, or to pick up a gun and fight off armed uninvited occupiers.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Drug dealers, looking for a cheaper sorce in the heroin trade?

We'll never know?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VeniVidi
 


That is a lot of wars!

I knew we have had a lot of battles over the years, but from looking at that list, it looks like we have never been out of war.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePeopleParty
 



No wonder we all ways get ripped off by foreign referee's at foot ball



Ment to Edit my last post to add that comment, sorry.
edit on 16-12-2010 by ThePeopleParty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

I'm getting better at this


you really really arent. You're still spouting the same trash from the same worthless sources and still blindly jumping to the same ridiculous assumptions that anyone who disagrees with you is a BRAINWASHED AMERICAN ZIONIST JEW BABY MURDERER

Maybe when you stop crying that everyone who disagerees is a jew and/or american your posts will be "better"



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Fair call, can see your logic but I really don't care what they think about me!


Yeah, and they don't care about you..

Unless it's personal, IMO it's kinda silly for strangers to lack empathy for each-other based on "interests" of professional liars called "politicians" and elitist scumbags.

So called "terrorists" are people just like us with opinions, culture, religions, wants, needs, desires, families. ALSO like us, they have their sheeple.. brainwashed crap-wits easily fooled into following some smooth talking bullpoop artist used donkey sales-men... like (some of) us, they too have lots of folks dumb enough to follow some retard "leader" off a cliff, if so ordered.

So where does it end?.. IMO it ends when you, and "them", give no more credibility to known liars and make up your own minds based on personal experiences in life. If the Taliban come to your neighborhood and threw a mofo on your peeps.. by all means, F their poop up defending you & yours... until then, eh.. disliking strangers because you think they want to kill you is a bit paranoid huh?

I see no reason to consider another man, or nation of people, my "enemy" absent PERSONAL negative experience. Nor do I consider a stranger "crazy", guilty of "terrorism", good, bad or evil based on words belched by the agenda driven bottom-feeding "powers that be" in DC / MSM.

If you, or most of you "pro-war" / "America F yeah!!" types, gave it serious thought: if wearing Iraqi / Afghani shoes/sandals.. you'd be doing the exact same thing if your neighborhood were violently occupied, if your friends & family were subjected to "shock & awe", Abu Ghraib, kidnapped, er I mean "rendered" then tortured.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Doesn't matter how you explain the geopolitical mumbo jumbo. All of them are related to fighting against Islamists for decades. Let me ask you this, why has Russia not won the war even in their own soil? They bomb the crap out of the Chechens and still have not contained the attacks on Russia for example trains, planes, schools even theaters. All those attacks would have been enough to go to war against Islamic terrorists, but it seems the Russians are giving up.


Chechen separatists are not fighting for Islam, they are fighting for autonomy. They are allied with Islamic factions, they do not fight for the same goal or jihad.

Why do the rebels still persist in Russia?

Let me tell you a little story. Back in the 90s, some people in the regions in Southern Russia, specifically in the Caucasus area, wanted autonomy during the aftermath of the end of the USSR. This would lose vital strategic territory for the Russians.

Remember those bombings of Russian apartment buildings in the 90s, killing hundreds of Russians? The Kremlin blamed Chechen separatists, but a lot of people believe that it was the FSB for good reason. Quickly after, Russian forces mobilized and assaulted Groznygrad. They didn't march straight into the city though, they waited for the rebels to mine the streets and garrison. Then the Russians bombarded Groznygrad; they lit up the whole city, even targeted the political buildings.

Then after the Russian firestorm charred the city, they moved in. They chased the rebels and forced them to run over their own minefields, killing many of their top commanders. The Russians killed many, and tried to completely annihilate the rebels, and almost succeeded.

Then the rebels ran into the mountains. They needed friends, and allied with Islamic terrorist organizations who are usually supplied by the CIA anyways. The rebuilt their forces and organized. Then they started conducting real terrorist attacks in Russia starting in the early 2000s. The Russians went back into Chechnya (called the Second Chechen War). This time the Russians improved their counter-terror tactics. How so? Spetsnaz play a major role, a brutal role, showing the rebels how brutal the Russian government will be in order to squash them. Spetsnaz has hunted down many rebel commanders. They went to where the rebels hid, and ripped them to pieces.

All of this bullsh*t about the American "war on terror"? They've done nothing but copy Russian tactics BUT they are not fighting the terrorists to defend themselves; the Americans are fighting to acquire and secure resources under the piss-poor guise of terrorism being a threat to them. The Americans copied the apartment bombing tactics by conducting 9/11 to use as an excuse for war. The Americans assaulted the Middle East. The rebels rose up against the imperialist invasion and the Americans have now resulted to brutal tactics to kill them all, NO NEGOTIATIONS.

All of this crap about bombings and assassin squads? That's Russian counter-insurgency 101. The only difference is that Russia had a legitimate threat to their territory while the Americans are picking the fight. Anyone who believes that Americans invading two countries on the other side of the world as a legitimate counter-terrorist mission is truly disillusioned, and have obviously not studied the less-spoken example of the brutal Chechen conflict that American commanders have studied all to well (especially since they support the Chechen rebels with weapons and funding, and the Russians have adapted to it).

Also note what part of the Russian army invaded Georgia; it wasn't the high-tech groups guarding Moscow, it was the battle-hardened veterans of wars in the Caucasus. That's why they put Georgia down in under a week, to the shagrin of the West who expected Georgia to stand its ground (considering they had American training and backing).

Do you understand what I am saying?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Ok that's cool. That's your philosophy. Good luck to you!



If you, or most of you "pro-war" / "America F yeah!!"


I support whatever the coalition troops or our Allies are doing. If that changes & they pull the pin then I am with that at as well! That's my philosophy!.

Your statement above is very judgmental & clearly wrong but it's your opinion I don't care! Your entitled. Whatever floats your boat or helps you sleep at night! But I stand by everything as it sits now. Tomorrow maybe not!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mackey1224uk
reply to post by oozyism
 


Drug dealers, looking for a cheaper sorce in the heroin trade?

We'll never know?


Exactly !!

Thanks for using your brain and coming up with a new scenario which is also plausible.

I'm sick of people just eating, actually just swallowing, not even chewing, what ever thrown at them by US, the good ol US, which is a proven liar.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join