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: 28
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Taliban is merely a title given to a group later..

Is anyone that dissagrees with your opinion moronic Slayer??
Thats a very narrow view of debate...



There is no "View or Debate" people tend to blur facts with opinions.

That's where the problem lies.
The "Taliban" are not just a "Name" And don't get your nose bent out of joint if you can't handle the fact that the Afghans themselves don't want the Taliban back in power with their twisted view of Islam.


The Taliban IS an Afghani group..If they are not from Afghanistan then they are not Taliban..
It's estimated there are around 45000 so called Taliban..
Around 14000 are Afghani..

Oh I wont get my nose out of joint if you don't when you consider a good many Afghanis don't want the US there either..




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So, your thoughts are that the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake..
Obviously the many people of Iraq and Afghanistan probably agree and see it as it is, an invasion by a foreign entity with no justification.
Many have needlessly died.
In Iraq many were killid in the initial Shock & Awe bombings that started the invasion...

So what I DON'T understand is if you agree with all of the above, or even most of it, why do you still refer to all the opposing forces as "terrorists".??
Surely some have the RIGHT to be considered Freedom Fighters..


For the life of me, I can't lump both of the wars together. They are two entirely different critters in my mind, so I will field them separately.

Iraq

I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq at the time it was conducted at all. Not even a little bit. That said, since it DID happen anyway, a hornet's nest has been stirred up.

Some insurgent are Sunni, some Shia, and they focus on each other, rather than the "foreigners". The US is, or was, one big monolithic faction of "foreigners", AQ infiltrated another bunch of "foreigners" because they could fight Americans there. To make it even more convoluted, some of the local factions banded together in loose and transitory coalitions, AQ recruited some locals so that it wasn't all foreigners any more, and "al Qaida in Iraq" was formed as a loose coalition of some of the Sunni factions, some coming in, some leaving. at any one time, it was a fluid thing, hard to pin down. Some tried to simplify it by grouping all the Shia together under Iran, and the Sunni together under Saudi, but in truth it was never that simple. Some tried to simplify it even more, as "us" vs "them", grouping ALL the islamists together. That was not only over-simplified, it was disastrous.

No wonder it's such a confusing thing. The only constant is the Iraqis with no dog in that fight in the middle, getting pulled both ways.

For those who allied themselves with AQ, or AQ in Iraq, they're just straight out terrorists in my book. They allied themselves with an identified enemy, thus making themselves enemies as well. The Sadr Militia, because it allied itself with Iran, is also a straight out bunch of terrorists in my book. "Freedom Fighters" fight for their own country, not in the interests of another AGAINST their own. All of the factions attacking other religious sects rather than US troops, the ones bombing mosques and markets, killing civilians just because those civilians are of a different sect, are ALSO terrorists in my book. They pretty much follow the textbook definition of "terrorist".

That doesn't leave very many fighters with the potential to be classed as "freedom fighters".

Afghanistan

I don't disagree with the Afghan invasion per se, I disagree with the way the war has been conducted AFTER the invasion. The initial "invasion", consisting solely of Special Operators who were only there to assist and direct the Northern Alliance and call in the air power, is the way it should have gone for it's entirety I think. Without the massive invasion of conventional troops, all because one general or another wanted another ribbon and was jealous of the SF types, was where it went to hell in a handbasket.

Up to that point, the Northern Alliance, and even local villagers, were x-ing out Taliban and AQ fighters left and right, and were damned happy to get the support that allowed that. The SpecOps were seen as "liberators", "allies", and "helpful". When the Taliban was routed from Kabul, the SF had it all under control, and if left alone could have cleaned the whole nest out - thus setting the stage for humanitarian assistance that would have really helped in stabilizing the country. ASSISTANCE, not FORCED DEMOCRATIZATION.

When the conventional generals came strolling in to what was a stabilizing situation, they figured they had a free ride to a chest full of ribbons for their retirement kitties. They thought wrong. That massive influx, which I suppose could be viewed as "the invasion", created a ripple of "WTF?" moments. Afghans, especially older ones who fought the Russians and remembered THAT invasion, got uneasy. Uneasy elders in Afghanistan are a tinderbox, because elders are looked up to for advice there. The unease spread, and folks were a bit confused. Some started allying themselves with the Taliban for one reason or another, and some still kept killing Taliban.

Even Gulbuddin Hekmatyar allied himself to the Taliban in a fit of pique. He's never been the sharpest tool in the shed anyhow. He fought against the Russians, he was a "warlord" between foreign wars, and he was in the Northern Alliance during the first phase of this war, fighting AGAINST the Taliban. He's a dangerous, unstable man whose loyalties follow with whichever side he thinks will give him the most power. That's the only thing that appears to motivate him - power. He's Taliban now.

AQ has been mostly erased from Afghanistan, having fled for warmer parts or having been killed off. The Taliban is still active there, and based back in Pakistan again now, where they came from to begin with. I'm not aware of any muj factions that are NOT allied with the Taliban, but can't say that such don't exist just because I'm not aware they do. If anyone can offer evidence that they're there, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm working on the notion that the Taliban and allied factions are the actors, and so again I call them ALL terrorists, because of those affiliations.

Even after all that, as you and I have both said across these boards, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". I'd have an easier time seeing them as "freedom fighters" if they'd just quit terrorizing the population of civilians, and targeting them. It's one thing to accidentally or incidentally kill a civilian in the course of fighting the enemy, but it's quite another to intentionally target them to bring them around to your way of thinking through fear. That's something the Taliban has ALWAYS dfone, even before we went in, and they continue to do it to this very day.

Terrorize.

I ramble too much. Perhaps I ought to just sit back and read for a while.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Nice detailed post..
As you know, I agree with this bit..

Up to that point, the Northern Alliance, and even local villagers, were x-ing out Taliban and AQ fighters left and right, and were damned happy to get the support that allowed that. The SpecOps were seen as "liberators", "allies", and "helpful". When the Taliban was routed from Kabul, the SF had it all under control, and if left alone could have cleaned the whole nest out - thus setting the stage for humanitarian assistance that would have really helped in stabilizing the country. ASSISTANCE, not FORCED DEMOCRATIZATION.


Where we disagree is with the reasons for a full blown invasion/occupation..

You say it was Ribbons for the Generals..
I say it was Oil.Resources and drugs for the few to make money..
Along with keeping the Military Industry churning out weapons/profits...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

The Taliban IS an Afghani group..If they are not from Afghanistan then they are not Taliban..
It's estimated there are around 45000 so called Taliban..
Around 14000 are Afghani..



Verifiable source for those figures please.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It was Wikipedia quoting a US official source..
I'll have to search again for it...But must go earn a dollar first..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


To day the majority of the fighting insurgents are Afghans. We cal them Taliban and terrorists for some reason?

Before the war broke out. The Taliban was a group of different fractions. One of these fractions supported a extreme view we today call terrorism. The fraction supported a very strict law.

In 2001 this fraction was dealt with by us and locals. The locals killed everyone who collaborated with these fractions of Taliban. The locals killed them in anger and for treason. And the rest was chased to the hills and into Pakistan.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66

Well then you tell me who are Al-Qaida? What does it mean?


Al-Qaida means "the base", as in "the camp", not "the database" as was claimed. There was no "computer file" listing muj recruits. There was no "database".



Robin Cook was regarded by politicians of all parties as being the best mind in parliament. He was foreign secretary for many years and in that capacity he was privy to information that was unavailable to you or I. He resigned due to the invasion of Iraq.


I could care less who Robin Cook was. He was just another politician to me. He wasn't there. He may have been privy to information unavailable to YOU. I note that if he was, he failed to employ it in that little monologue of his.



You missed out the more relevant paragraph of the quote I posted which is,

'The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.'


I didn't miss it, I deleted it. It's complete hogwash, but what one would expect from a politician. He displays the fact that he doesn't have a very firm grasp on "the Muslim world" here, and it's probably for the best that he quit parliament. Lots of others should have followed suit.



I'll repost 'The Power Of Nightmares - Shadows In The Cave' again, simply because it gives the entire history of the creation of Al-Qaida.


I didn't waste my time watching the video. I've seen and countered all of the propaganda before, and based on your insistence that the CIA had something to do with the formation of AQ and the Taliban, I can guess what's in it. That's 6 minutes or so of my life that I won't have to demand back.

Now I'm done with this line of questioning. I've said it ALL before, multiple times, right here at ATS. It fell on deaf ears then, and I've no reason to think this time would be different. All of the posts are still there. I don't need to rehash it over and over and over again. Do not expect another response on the same thing.

Enjoy your world.



edit on 2011/1/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You've told me who they're not....now tell me who they are.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


To day the majority of the fighting insurgents are Afghans. We cal them Taliban and terrorists for some reason?


For the record I don't call them "Terrorists" or "freedom fighters" they are the Taliban. We didn't go there to wage war on them but to get at Al-Qaeda. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. So we supported the Northern Alliance in their battle with them.


Before the war broke out. The Taliban was a group of different fractions. One of these fractions supported a extreme view we today call terrorism. The fraction supported a very strict law.


Again with the "Name Calling" those are your words not mine.


In 2001 this fraction was dealt with by us and locals. The locals killed everyone who collaborated with these fractions of Taliban. The locals killed them in anger and for treason. And the rest was chased to the hills and into Pakistan.


Agreed and now they have a majority who are not pashtun Afghans but Muslims from all over who are there for their "Jihad"


ETA: back in black is closing in on that info. If and when they reply with their sources [ I have an idea where from] it will show what I've been saying is true...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 6-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The only thing you got right is that we used the Tadsjikiske Opposition to fight Taliban in the Northern part of Afghanistan. To get controll over Mazar-e Sharif and two other major Villages to the east. After that is was Kabul.

Some Al qaeda "non Afghans" got way with the help of Taliban, and was tracked heading south towards Kabul, but was forced to turn east. They went through two different provinces towards Tora/Pakistan.

The extreme Taliban fraction we all talk about was actually supported by the Al Qaeda. Not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Tell me something I don't already know. it seems to me you're the one reading up on the topic finally.
Good to see.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well it is very important to know who is who. Because it tells us what fractions we where fighting initially in 2001 - 2002, and what fraction of the Afghan people we are fighting at present time.

At present time in Afghanistan, we are not fighting the same fraction of Taliban and Al Qaeda as we where doing in 2001 and 2002. But we speak as if they are related to each other or the same cause.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

The extreme Taliban fraction we all talk about was actually supported by the Al Qaeda. Not the other way around.



I think it was more a "mutual support society" with sometimes one or the other taking the lead in supporting. For example, AQ supported the Taliban in their initial takeover attempt of Afghanistan, and in turn AQ was supported by the Taliban when they were seeking refuge from the US.

AQ also supported the Taliban just days before the initial US attack when they sent suicide bombers to assassinate Masud, who was one of the Taliban's main opponents, and who would have been a definite asset in the US supported NA assault.

Looks like "best buds" or "partners in crime" from where I sit.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well not entirely true. The Taliban controlled almost all of Afghanistan from the late 1980s to 2001. The Taliban changed a lot in the early 1990s because of a increased Al Qaeda influence. The Afghan Taliban fraction started to break up into different fractions around 1994. One of these fractions are very well known to us. Because they started to enforce a very strict religious law.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban we knew from when CIA was involved have nothing to do with what happen in Afghanistan in the 1990s.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


lol, who are you to tell me my story was BS? so my brother is lying ? and where do you get your info ? so thats how they do drone strikes eh ? thanks for the info their slick .......btw BS



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephi1337
lol, who are you to tell me my story was BS? so my brother is lying ? and where do you get your info ? so thats how they do drone strikes eh ? thanks for the info their slick .......btw BS


I read that post of yours and thought, "BS", too. Sorry, slick, but if someone fired up a soccer field full of kids, there would have been an investigation. It would be all over every anti-war site on the intardweb.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

What?? Most of the deaths occured AFTER the initial war..
Saddam and the Iraq army are well gone..

So why still so many civilian deaths.??
It's like the US doesn't care who they kill with their "precision" bombs...

The WAR is over..Let them live and get the hell out US...


And obviously people like you haven't been reading the fact that the ones killing civilians the most happen to be the "freedom fighters" some people call...

We have seen that even Iraqi civilians have taken arms against the "insurgents", and most tribes in a large section of Iraq are fighting these same insurgents and have been ALLYING THEMSELVES WITH THE U.S. AND OTHER ALLIES TO FIGHT INSURGENTS....


Most Tribes in Anbar Agree to Unite Against Insurgents

BAGHDAD, Sept. 17 — Nearly all the tribes from Iraq’s volatile Sunni-dominated Anbar Province have agreed to join forces and fight Al Qaeda insurgents and other foreign-backed “terrorists,” an influential tribal leader said Sunday. Iraqi government leaders encouraged the movement.

Twenty-five of about 31 tribes in Anbar, a vast, mostly desert region that stretches westward from Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, have united against insurgents and gangs that are “killing people for no reason,” said the tribal leader, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi.
....

www.nytimes.com...

BTW, just search online and see who "suicide bombers" and "insurgents" target the most and you will see that most civilian deaths are caused by INSURGENTS...

Perhaps people should be more interested in learning the truth than in trying to lie through their teeth because they want to hate the U.S...

edit on 7-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nephi1337

my question is how come their are so many deaths by IED ? seems like a perfect excuse , because you know people stand roadside when big tanks are headed in their direction , also note that most IED videos posted on the internet ,and their are alot , hardly show civilian around when the explosions go off


Just a question since you were the one claiming all Iraqi deaths are being caused by the U.S...

Who in the world do you think put those IEDs? Not allied forces since allied forces are also dying from them... It is the insurgents, and who some people call "freedom fighters" who have been killing most Iraqi civilians... But of course people like you love to ignore facts and instead want to blame it all on the U.S....


Are you trying to claim the insurgent terrorists don't kill civilians?...

Watch the following video, the "insurgents/suicide bombers" even attacked hospitals and have murdered most of the civilians that "some people" love to claim have died because of the U.S...



32 Killed in Iraq Suicide Bomb
www.youtube.com...




Four people killed and17 wounded in a suicide bombing in Iraq Baghdad : Iraq | Dec 13, 2010
By Mohamed Abd el Fattah

Four people were killed and 17 wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up near a group of Shiites in a town northeast of Baghdad on Monday, ahead days of Ashura.

The source said police and security operations center in Diyala province, said the attacker detonated his explosives belt after police prevented him from approaching the visitors in the Balad Ruz, 90 kilometers northeast of the Iraqi capital.
...

www.allvoices.com...



Suicide bomber in Iraq kills 3 civilians
The attacker, wearing an Iraqi army uniform, strikes a U.S. military delegation visiting the mayor. At least 8 American soldiers are injured.

April 21, 2009|Associated Press
BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber wearing an Iraqi army uniform struck a U.S. military delegation visiting the mayor of violence-racked Baqubah on Monday, injuring at least eight American soldiers and killing three Iraqi civilians.

Police officials said the attacker was disguised as a soldier -- a tactic used before to pass through checkpoints -- but U.S. forces have faced attacks from actual members of the security forces as well.

articles.latimes.com...


Just try an experiment and goggle "Iraq suicide bomber" or "Iraq/Baghdad bomb" and see who and how many "IRAQIS" have died by the hands of suicide bombers/insurgents...

Get over your hatred of the U.S. and learn some facts...
edit on 7-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



BTW, just search online and see who "suicide bombers" and "insurgents" target the most and you will see that most civilian deaths are caused by INSURGENTS...

Perhaps people should be more interested in learning the truth than in trying to lie through their teeth because they want to hate the U.S...


Most INSURGENTS are there to fight the US..
Would they come if the US hadn't invaded.?
Probably not...I don't need to lie to see what's going on...
The US creates the enemy simply by being there in force..

Maybe it's you that needs a dose of truth..



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Most INSURGENTS are there to fight the US..
Would they come if the US hadn't invaded.?
Probably not...I don't need to lie to see what's going on...
The US creates the enemy simply by being there in force..

Maybe it's you that needs a dose of truth..


WOW, so you want to claim that there were no deaths in Iraq before the U.S. and allies arrived?... Now I know you are brainwashed and ignorant of the truth as to what has been happening in Iraq...


Political Oppression:
Hussein openly idolized the former Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, a man notable as much for his paranoia-induced execution sprees as anything else. In July 1978, he had his government issue a memorandum decreeing that anyone whose ideas came into conflict with those of the Baath Party leadership would be subject to summary execution. Most, but certainly not all, of Husseins targets were ethnic Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

Ethnic Cleansing:
The two dominant ethnicities of Iraq have traditionally been Arabs in south and central Iraq, and Kurds in the north and northeast, particularly along the Iranian border. Hussein long viewed ethnic Kurds as a long-term threat to Iraq's survival, and the oppression and extermination of the Kurds was one of his administration's highest priorities.
Religious Persecution:
The Baath Party was dominated by Sunni Muslims, who made up only about one-third of Iraq's general population; the other two-thirds was made up of Shiite Muslims, Shiism also happening to be the official religion of Iran. Throughout Hussein's tenure, and especially during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), he saw the marginalization and eventual elimination of Shiism as a necessary goal in the Arabization process, by which Iraq would purge itself of all perceived Iranian influence.
The Dujail Massacre of 1982:
In July of 1982, several Shiite militants attempted to assassinate Saddam Hussein while he was riding through the city. Hussein responded by ordering the slaughter of some 148 residents, including dozens of children. This is the only war crime on which Hussein has been charged, and he will almost certainly be executed before any other charges go to trial.
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983:
Masoud Barzani led the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an ethnic Kurdish revolutionary group fighting Baathist oppression. After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq.
The al-Anfal Campaign:
The worst human rights abuses of Hussein's tenure took place during the genocidal al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989), in which Hussein's administration called for the extermination of every living thing--human or animal--in certain regions of the Kurdish north. All told, some 182,000 people--men, women, and children--were slaughtered, many through use of chemical weapons. The Halabja poison gas massacre of 1988 alone killed over 5,000 people. Hussein later blamed the attacks on the Iranians, and the Reagan administration, which supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, helped promote this cover story.
The Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs:
Hussein did not limit his genocide to identifiably Kurdish groups; he also targeted the predominantly Shiite Marsh Arabs of southeastern Iraq, the direct descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians. By destroying more than 95% of the region's marshes, he effectively depleted its food supply and destroyed the entire millennia-old culture, reducing the number of Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to approximately 30,000. It is unknown how much of this population drop can be attributed to direct starvation and how much to migration, but the human cost was unquestionably high.
The Post-Uprising Massacres of 1991:
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.

The Riddle of Saddam Hussein:
Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more.
...

civilliberty.about.com...

Not to mention the deaths of Iraqis who were not receiving the help they were supposed to receive under the OFF (Oil For Food) program, instead Saddam was exchanging oil for military weapons and equipment for the most part which led to the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 because of malnutrition.

Oh and BTW, Saddam's Baath party was socialist of course...
edit on 7-1-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join