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.

 

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 24
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I know people die in wars but I don't like when some are paid by how many they kill..
Especially when they are only paid for the un-uniformed kills..


That's a place we differ. Incentive pay can get the job done quicker, because it provides... incentive.



We know there are bad mercenaries so what's to stop them killing innocents and claiming the bounty??
I would gaurentee it's happened and also creates more enemies..
What a great racket..


Yes, there are some bad ones, "cowboys" I call 'em. I know of at least one case where one bad one was left laying with most of the top of his head missing because he got caught with his hand in the wrong cookie jar during an op (he was attempting a rape when he ought to have been watching some backs), then had the gall to threaten the sergeant who caught him and knocked him on his ass. We've been known to police our own. "Combat deaths" y'know?

The thing about bounties is that there has to be some evidence for the bounty to be paid. Minimizing abuse of that system is all in the selection of what is acceptable as "evidence". You can probably figure out what would indicate a kill of a grown man with a weapon.



But this guy is a US soldier who took an oath..
Pathetic. Killing for a new house and car.


Yes, he took an oath to defend from all enemies, foreign and domestic. He did that. He only collected incentive pay for some of that defense, which he would have been doing any how. I personally don't have a problem with that, and I understand that you do.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I forget is Leviticus the New Testament? If you go to learn about American Jewish folks and their cultural ways, make sure to skip the new tesy.


Actually Leviticus is just specifically a way to reference what it would be like to identify an entire geographic region's population by how less than 1% of them interpret their specific holy book. That is what Leviticus is.


I did not know this... Well then there is a lot of Leviticusing going on lately. Misrepresentation by government is going strong nowadays



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
I did not know this... Well then there is a lot of Leviticusing going on lately. Misrepresentation by government is going strong nowadays


There certainly is. When a poster tries to tell me that we need to invade any country because all them folks adhere to some extreme form of a religion that not even all the people there even practice and then laughs at the notion of learning about Islam from Muslims it is all I can do. If everyone in Iraq believes in Wahabbi myths then I guess everyone in America believes in Abrahamic myths.

That logic does not follow for me.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Salamandy
 

Now your responses are starting to make more sense.

Now two of your references are from movies or movie characters.

Holy crap.


Totally! I can see how the movies I talked about are right up your ally. Platoon, The Rock. Rambos another one right? Are these your role models?

I get the feeling youre going a little too far with the new Call of Duty video game. Its fun on the game but in real life, its extremely unnatural and flat out wrong.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Salamandy
I did not know this... Well then there is a lot of Leviticusing going on lately. Misrepresentation by government is going strong nowadays


There certainly is. When a poster tries to tell me that we need to invade any country because all them folks adhere to some extreme form of a religion that not even all the people there even practice and then laughs at the notion of learning about Islam from Muslims it is all I can do. If everyone in Iraq believes in Wahabbi myths then I guess everyone in America believes in Abrahamic myths.

That logic does not follow for me.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


Yea I never quite understood the logic behind the generalization of any large mass of people. The variables are just too many. Nothing, especially religion or ideals can some up 1 nation.
When people start to realize the stupidity of man made borders and we begin to remove them, we are on the road to forward progress.
A nation that creates man made islands such as Dubai for example is the exact OPPOSITE of human progress.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Salamandy because: bad transitional word in there



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

BackinBlack, if it will make you feel any better, we also did some free work that no one paid us for.

We had come upon a small village maybe 45 minutes to an hour after the massacre. I recall two or three survivors who were away from the village or hid very well when it was taken and every living thing killed. Men, women, and children.

We were scheduled for our pickup, but since the tracks were fresh, we followed as quickly as we dared. Crossed into another nation, a serious violation of our orders, and caught up with them. They had no uniforms, and were nothing more than a gang of bandits/rapists/murderers/looters.

There were no survivors.

Missed our pickup by three days. Got our butts chewed by every SOB starting with the First Sergeant, and then the officers got in line. Threatened to be Courts Martialed (like the twentieth time), jailed, busted in rank, on and on.

That was the official version, and they let us know it was what they had to do. Then, off the record, they said they understood, but to try to refrain from creating possible international incidents in the future. We said we'd be good boys, well, as much as we could.

But as we already knew, we were so short-handed that they just fined us a month's jump pay and put us back to work.

You see, there are some things that are just plain wrong. And if you allow bad things like that to continue - then you're no better than them, and are in fact contributing to their future murderous deeds.

Anyone with any balls would shoot a rabid dog threatening the neighborhood.

This world is bad. Really, really bad.

But every time you puff a murdering bastard, you make it a bit better.

And I don't apologize for any of it.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



The thing about bounties is that there has to be some evidence for the bounty to be paid. Minimizing abuse of that system is all in the selection of what is acceptable as "evidence". You can probably figure out what would indicate a kill of a grown man with a weapon.


Yep, kill 10 innocents, cut off their manhood, chuck in 10 readily available AK's and proceed to the cashiers counter...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

BackinBlack, if it will make you feel any better, we also did some free work that no one paid us for.

We had come upon a small village maybe 45 minutes to an hour after the massacre. I recall two or three survivors who were away from the village or hid very well when it was taken and every living thing killed. Men, women, and children.

We were scheduled for our pickup, but since the tracks were fresh, we followed as quickly as we dared. Crossed into another nation, a serious violation of our orders, and caught up with them. They had no uniforms, and were nothing more than a gang of bandits/rapists/murderers/looters.

There were no survivors.

Missed our pickup by three days. Got our butts chewed by every SOB starting with the First Sergeant, and then the officers got in line. Threatened to be Courts Martialed (like the twentieth time), jailed, busted in rank, on and on.

That was the official version, and they let us know it was what they had to do. Then, off the record, they said they understood, but to try to refrain from creating possible international incidents in the future. We said we'd be good boys, well, as much as we could.

But as we already knew, we were so short-handed that they just fined us a month's jump pay and put us back to work.

You see, there are some things that are just plain wrong. And if you allow bad things like that to continue - then you're no better than them, and are in fact contributing to their future murderous deeds.

Anyone with any balls would shoot a rabid dog threatening the neighborhood.

This world is bad. Really, really bad.

But every time you puff a murdering bastard, you make it a bit better.

And I don't apologize for any of it.




You were in a position to help and did so to the best of your ability. That is commendable. You acted in the now in self defense. A lot different then a situation where you are given orders to shoot at a cluster of people who are not raping anyone.

Im not saying its wrong to join, or to be flown into to the area, but when you pull that trigger or swing that sword you are acting immorally. You have crossed that line. The fact that you had tons of pressure should easy the pain for you but killing innocents is wrong



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


I stared that post..

Of course I know killing is neccessary in some circumstances..

But in honesty, would more people be alive in Iraq and Afghanistan if the US never invaded?
It's a debatable issue...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Back, I'd give my eye teeth if we'd left Iraq alone.

I'd give a couple molars if we pulled back in Afghanistan into a remote area of the desert and utilized Islam-irritating methods to bring the fanatics to us.

I'd give a week's paycheck if we didn't have dumbass Conventional generals in charge who don't know their business, and instead promoted a Major or even Captain who knew his business.

But I can't.

It's done.

We're there, and it sucks, but I cannot stand by and allow many of the skewed, unsubstantiated, unrealistic, impossible claims by those who either have a hard on for the US, or whatever agenda they have.

This too, will pass.

Hopefully, with lessons learned.

No one really minds fighting when its called on.

But we need to fight smart for a change.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by christina-66
 


Thank you for that, it is refreshing to see someone use facts rather than opinions to set things straight. It seems a lot of people have forgotten that fact trumps opinion every time.


Yeah, it is.

Yeah, they do.

Half-facts, not so much.

touche' well played. Your emotions are easy to read, don't let them interfere with the message you are trying to convey. And I agree with you, half truths can be more dangerous than a misguided opinion. My apologies.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
LMAO!!!
Really? Sorry but this is too funny!
"We are the US and we have the biggest, baddest military on Earth. We have the technology, the supplies, the manpower, and the training. We are the US and we are better than anyone
but.....

The enemy is really good at hiding."


Really? I said that? Please, go back and find the exact quote where I said just that. That the US is better than anyone, etc, etc, etc.

Geez, once again, your lack of experience with the military, especially the US military, is showing. You really need to stay in your lane.

The enemy isn't "really good at hiding". We know where they are. They are hiding behind women and children. If US Forces harm a single hair on a civilian, everyone one ATS gets their panties in a bunch.

Yet, the funny thing is that no one here seems to find the insurgents hiding in with the civilian population to be wrong. Or when an insurgents decides to "strike back against the infidel" by blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market place, killing innocent women and children.

Once again, try to stay in your lane; you're skylining yourself.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


See, we do agree on many things..
War is hell and it creates a lot of evil..

If you are not one of them evil ones then I salute you..
I am simply not in favour of bounties as it creates a ready market for the (hopefully) few evil ones..

And I'm sure even you could not look me in the eyes and tell me no bounty money has been collected on an innocent...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

I can look you right in the eye and guarantee you none of mine were anything but armed non-uniformed guerrillas or uniformed enemies. They got paid for those too.

That was another side reason they wanted me along. To verify that the weapons and the proofs came from legitimate targets.

I don't hold with murder of any kind, anywhere.

I don't hold with rape, or even hurting a child.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy

Yes we agreed as a society what Dahmer was doing needed to be stopped and had men with guns show up to cart him off. I have no problem with that. He was murdering and he should be stopped. This thread was created at least in part to point out the innocent deaths as a result of US occupation and the "war on terror".


I think the focus on Iraq has sort of thrown a wrench in it, because even in MY twisted mind, there is a disconnect from the inception of the Iraq war and the war on terror. That's why I keep stressing that it was "ill timed" to me. As it turned out, it became prime hunting ground for terrorists, but that's not how it started.

There were innocent deaths in Iraq before we went in (remember the mass graves they found after the invasion?) and there will be innocent deaths after we leave. What people are reacting to here is not the abstract notion that the occupation resulted in innocent deaths, they are reacting to the insinuation that US soldiers are killing innocents themselves, intentionally and actively. They are not - apart from a psychopath here and there, who often meet their own "battlefield death" sooner rather than later, no detail of the mechanism needed.



Nobody in their right mind would want to kill innocent people. There should never be a reason for this to occur and the people that kill the innocents cannot be justified.


Correct. The insinuation that the average American soldier has done so is a personal affront to him. He's there to PREVENT that.



Dahmer was a ctach we could make that would A) put an end to more innocent deaths and B) NOT create more innocent death along the way. This is why we allow our men in uniform to use force at times. We must moved towards ending the political BS


Sometimes, it's just not possible to put an end to more innocent deaths without creating others. The monsters tend to stack the cards that way. Then it becomes a choice, and a hard one. Either way, an innocent may die, and it's nearly impossible to forecast the averages involved. The only thing certain is that if they are not stopped, more innocents WILL die.

How would you choose? Let him go on his merry, murderous way, or end him at a possible cost?



edit on 2011/1/6 by nenothtu because: I misspelled "Detail" as "Derail". See how that could read wrong?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

I can look you right in the eye and guarantee you none of mine were anything but armed non-uniformed guerrillas or uniformed enemies. They got paid for those too.

That was another side reason they wanted me along. To verify that the weapons and the proofs came from legitimate targets.

I don't hold with murder of any kind, anywhere.

I don't hold with rape, or even hurting a child.

Good to hear though not exactly what I asked

Yes, my blood boils when I hear about attacks on women..
Attacks on children and I'd happily crucify the culprit...

Though we dissagree on some points, I wish you well and hope you remain safe..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 



The thing about bounties is that there has to be some evidence for the bounty to be paid. Minimizing abuse of that system is all in the selection of what is acceptable as "evidence". You can probably figure out what would indicate a kill of a grown man with a weapon.


Yep, kill 10 innocents, cut off their manhood, chuck in 10 readily available AK's and proceed to the cashiers counter...



If I'm the cashier, and a man brings back 10 AKs for 10 kills, that man is gonna get watched like a hawk. Improper weapons mix.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Neno, I don't think some folks fully appreciate one of the things you said, and likely thought that it was BS.

The part where psychotic murderers are taken care of by fellow soldiers.

You see, no one, and I mean no one wants anyone around them in combat they can't rely on to the end, and when you realize that one of you has snapped his string, then you can't afford to turn your back on them.

When every man is armed, it's a very polite society. And those who go kill crazy can't be trusted to know when to stop.

So that's taken care of . . . within the ranks . . . judiciously.

Soldiers don't like murderers.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
No doubt there's a parcel of folks who don't care for us. Most ambitious folks are that way when they see you standing in their way, our own politicians included.

I've heard the "we should have attacked the Saudis" argument hundreds of times, and I just can't see it. The attacker weren't acting on behalf of the Saudis, they were acting on behalf of al Qaida. Iraq would likely have to have been dealt with at some point - not because of Saddam, but because of Baghdad - but as I've said dozens of times, the time they went in wasn't the time for it.


I did not put forward any "we should have attacked the Saudis" argument at all. Like you said, they were not acting on behalf of Saudis, or Iraqis, or Afghannis so...


Focus should have been on Afghanistan, specifically al Qaida and their Taliban protectors, and the areas they controlled. Most folks don't realize there was already a war going on there, and the Taliban only claimed to be the government. In reality they controlled no more than 60 % of the country.


So to clarify, war should have been declared on Afghanistan?


Oh, no doubt. It' pretty hard to find an impartial observer, though. Most folks are highly partisan on the issue. It's very polarized.


Maybe that is because when one pops up other people on the board import then impart their own emotions, leaving them with little left to respond to in reality which results in an empty stream of invectives that does very little to encourage more impartial opining and leads to a defensive stance that is often called a word rhyming with "itchy" thus discourse devolves into what it we have hear. Maybe that can change.


To be honest, and this is just me, I don't much care about WMDs. I think anyne who wants one should have one of their own. Use is a different matter. I think those who toss them outside their own borders as a first strike should be immediately erased.


But as appreciated as your honest and personal opinion on that matter is, it does not matter. Unless you can go back in time and get Powell and Rumsfeld to present your argument on tv for months and months, what matters is what happened and what has been said in order to justify.


We are. it's a tough fight though. Thy just won't stand still where we can see them and fight. When they aren't terrorizing or indoctrination the local civilians, they're hiding amongst them. To be very honest, though, as I've said in other threads there is a much better way to prosecute this war. Massed troops is so 20th century, and doesn't work well at all against small dispersed units of insurgents - what they've taken to calling what we used to call "guerrillas". They will NEVER win against guerrillas like that. Conventional Generals are a strange bunch. Unconventional warfare finds them a day late and a dollar short, and still they forge onward like bulls in a china shop, floundering around because they don't know any other way. All they know is that they want their share of the "glory" (as if there's any such thing to be found in a war) and they only know one way to pursue it.

The WRONG way.


None of that explains invading Iraq. Please, remember. I am on the outside watching our elected officials make their case and then go to action. When I ask why we do not just go after our attackers, saying we are goes a long way to ignore that the invasion of Iraq was seen as good by the people because our leaders told us they had something to do with 9/11.


As distasteful as many of "BackinBlack's" posts are, he's right about one thing - the only way they'll get it done is to send in unconventional hunter-killer teams, small units to fix and fry the enemy, and use somewhat larger reaction forces and air power when those enemies are fixed. All the while, the conventional forces are best served sealing the borders to let the unconventional forces do their job without fresh interference filtering in from the outside.


I am curious why you two are not running things then? No disrespect but internet opinion are just that, even mine. Maybe he is right about that, maybe not. Either way I am discussing what is happening and what has been put forth by the people in charge with regard. Internet strategists are great and all but do little to address anything I have found myself concerned with in this topic.


I've often asked myself the same thing, going all the way back to the late 90's. Most African troops are a joke, with the exception of the South Africans and the old Rhodesian RLI before Mugabe took over and wrecked the country. A boy scout troop with pocket knives ought to be able to take over the whole damned continent between South Africa and the Sahara.


You see where that leads though, right? Either we invade places to save the people or we do not. Otherwise there is obviously at least one more reason why we pick which people we worry about and which ones we do not. So now that we can toss the "for the good of those people" argument out the window, you see where my questions come in?


Of course, they probably wouldn't have to put up with the ridiculous RoE that we had to abide by in Somalia, and which have plagued the military stemming from those same conventional generals I mentioned above, who think they can fight a "gentleman's war" because they have numbers.


Seems to me you are missing a rather viable option.


I'm all for sending a Ranger company against the Janjaweed. I'll take point, so that they can drop me first - if they can. I've no respect at all for grown men who make war on women and kids, and don't fear 'em in the least. They've shown their colors.


It is going to be a long long day cleaning up that list don't you think? Meanwhile children and women are raped here at home.


Unfortunately, neither you nor I set foreign policy for them. Until they get serious about fighting these wars as if they really meant to win, and let the rest of the world sit around and wring their hands over it, we will have just what we have.


So I should not be able to address anyone that not only willingly, but eagerly volunteers to help them uphold that crappy foreign policy? In my book that makes one no less than an accessory with prior knowledge.


The main problem, as I see it, is trying to fight an unconventional war conventionally. It's not in the identification of the enemy, it's in the employment of the troops, and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the generals and the politicians, who give every outward appearance of being completely inept. They're fighting guerrillas as if they were fighting a nation, and that will NEVER work. An unfortunate side effect of that is the misapprehension by the rest of the world, including a lot of those at home, that it IS a war against a nation, when it's not.


So we agree that the US is not exactly the biggest, baddest, toughest, smartest gang trolling the streets?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
Really? I said that? Please, go back and find the exact quote where I said just that. That the US is better than anyone, etc, etc, etc.


Really? I said you said that? Please, go back and find the exact quote where I said you said just that. THe US is better than anyone etc. etc. etc.
I am not sure what it says on your screen but just lookin at the quote in your post it says "posted by Sinnthia"
That is my name.
I am Sinnthia.
That is me.
Sinnthia.
I wrote that.
That is why it says it was posted by me.




Geez, once again, your lack of experience with the military, especially the US military, is showing. You really need to stay in your lane.


Really? I claimed to have military experience? Please, go back and find any quote where I said anything like that. We can play this game alllll day.


The enemy isn't "really good at hiding". We know where they are. They are hiding behind women and children. If US Forces harm a single hair on a civilian, everyone one ATS gets their panties in a bunch.


Sounds like you just said they are pretty good at hiding. If they hide behind anything that makes them safe from you, they are good at it.




Yet, the funny thing is that no one here seems to find the insurgents hiding in with the civilian population to be wrong.


Really? Anyone said that? Please, go back and find the quote where anyone said that.

Tell you what, I will do you one better, either that or the first insurgent you find that blows up a bunch of civillians and claims he did it in my name, to protect my freedom, for the sake of America, for the moral good of the people, asks for a parade and a holiday - get back to me.



Or when an insurgents decides to "strike back against the infidel" by blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market place, killing innocent women and children.


I guess I am missing all the posts of Americans cheeering on the insurgents or even condoning their actions. Find me some or put your argument back in your pocket where it belongs.



Once again, try to stay in your lane; you're skylining yourself.


All those headlights coming your way and nothing but taillights over here. Swatting make believe flies eventually bruises your hand.
edit on 6-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join