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.

 

US Army 'kill team' in Afghanistan posed with photos of murdered civilians

page: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
Why are we still over there? I don't know. We eliminated their leader and decimated almost all resistance.

Excuse me? Please point me in the direction where any intel even suggests that Mullah Omar has been eliminated? (Infact he is very much alive)

The Taliban are smarter than what you give them credit for. More capable fighters than what they are given credit for. I think a lot of people forget that, acts such as the one stated in the OP could have been avoided. If the U.S. instead of invading Afghanistan. Had attempted to communicate with people such as Omar, they may have been able to have Bin Laden handed over to them on a silver platter. Thats if you really believe he was back in Afghanistan at the time of the U.S.'s invasion of Afghanistan.

I understand that this would have been questionable to do. Yet I have not been aware of any attempts in any case by the U.S. or U.N. to communicate with the Taliban and find a agreeable solution to all this. As far as the warfare side, the U.S. can not and will not conquer Afghanistan. Russia was not able to do so. I think it foolish for anyone to walk into a nation such as that. A land that has known more of warfare than what the U.S. has in its time as a nation.

Now getting back on topic. There have been more acts such as this than has been reported. Some more minor than others. Yet these men should be trialled and get the sentence that they deserve for such acts. If anything, this reflects that these men have been poorly trained and not thoroughly monitored during their tour of duty.




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Who the hell is Mullah Omar?

I thought the coalition officially went to Afghanistan with their enemy commanders being Osama bin-Ladin and Al Zwahiri.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Supposedly that is the leader of the taliban.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Who the hell is Mullah Omar?

I thought the coalition officially went to Afghanistan with their enemy commanders being Osama bin-Ladin and Al Zwahiri.

Yes, but we are referring to the Taliban in the OP. Mullah Omar is their leader and the bulk of who the international forces over there will/do encounter. Don't make the mistake in believing that Bin Laden is the primary target. If you do your research on the history on the Afghan Taliban. You will understand why they would be considered a threat. They are also the men that the CIA was aiding in arming to fight against the Russian invasion back in the 80's.

The Taliban just didn't pop up over night when the U.S. were coming in. To summarise their original purpose, it was simply bringing stability to their country. As some of the Mujahideen after the fighting with the Russian's, were starting to cause trouble across the country. I could give you a more detailed version. Though basically they had really only just effectively taken the country when the U.S. came in. Im not saying at the time of their prominence they were doing everything right. Though I think many people would be surprised to what they really stood for originally.

I need to make another thing clear. Do not compare or speak of them in tangent with the Pakistani Taliban. They are their own off-shoot. Omar is only concerned with the future of his country first and fore most. If I had to say offer a book that would give you a better insight from a Western point of view. Try James Fergusson's book "Taliban". Think you'd find it an eye opener.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Supposedly that is the leader of the taliban.

Can I ask, who did you believe the leader to be before now?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
You can't cherry coat murder.


I think you mean either sugar coat or cherry pick. Come on man, it's not rocket surgery.


The actions of this rogue unit were dispicable, for sure. They did not serve with honor, they obviously could not deal with the pressures of the job they signed up for, and snapped. Now, their lives are ruined, and they brought that on themselves. That said, our politicians that serve corporate interests, instead of the people of the U.S., have been misusing our military by sending them to secure corporate interests. Our soldiers are conditioned to believe the people they are fighting are not human, and are hell bent on attacking our families and our freedoms. They have to be, in order to do what the elitists want them to do. These recent wars are not the fault of our soldiers. A military made up of free willed individuals who can pick and choose when they serve would be worthless. It's our faults, the people of the U.S., for allowing our leaders to blatantly disregard our will and serve their ultra rich handlers in exchange for "campaign contributions". They send our soldiers to die, and place them under the extreme stress of multiple deployments away from their families and in harms way constantly. I'm surprised more don't lose it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mandelbrot2012
There are no picture .....None look for yourself Whats the reason they arent providing a few as proof to the public ....Believe me if these pictures existed they would be all over the net already....This is just another smoke screen meant to distract us from the real issues at hand.


There were pictures of abu graib that were never released that were reviewed by a Federal Judge. Those photos exist but were never released because the President argued they would spur anti-American backlash. Just because something is not on the internet, does not mean it doesn't exist. Before wikileaks leaked those cables, did they simply not exist? Of course they existed - they were just classified. You need to work on your capacity for rational thought.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


I am quite aware of the history of the Taliban and the CIA backing of the mujahideen against the Soviets.

Ever since the Pentagon admitted to fabricating the boogeyman Al-Zarqari in Iraq, I no longer believe their bullsh!t stories of boogeymen that they are supposedly hunting.

Are also aware of Karzai's history? He was a Northern Alliance commander, a group just as bad as the Taliban, but still US-aligned.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Nobody really. But does it really matter? We get one leader, there are always other people ready to step up to the rank of leader. It is like that in all organizations, always people in line to be the next leader.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Who the hell is Mullah Omar?

I thought the coalition officially went to Afghanistan with their enemy commanders being Osama bin-Ladin and Al Zwahiri.



he looks like a pirate.

johnny depp wanna be.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Good to hear. Well personally I was never satisfied with 9/11 being the premise for them to send an invading force to capture set targets and eradicate a organisation who's numbers were estimated in 2001 to be roughly 250-1000 members. Since being in Afghanistan, the U.S. have mainly faced off with Afghan Taliban fighters. People seem to have this gross misunderstanding that Al-Qaida is this flourishing force. That is not the case.

The Taliban were honestly a good movement to begin with. In fact Omar was asked to be leader, because of the man he is. Though like all movements and one that took such a hold within the nation. It has the ability to become tainted by a select few. I feel they have been grossly misjudged. I feel the label that "Taliban" has become is too loosely thrown around. For example within Pakistan its used loosely among gangs to add a sense of notoriety.

To your second point. As I have just implied U.S. intel I have found unsatisfactory at times. Like Iraq for example. Publicly we were getting told they were in there to depose Hussein and seize suspected WMD's. Then through the course of the campaign i've had words passed on through servicemen over there that isn't entirely the case. Like transporting sumerian related artifacts out of the country, without the Iraq government being informed of any of it. Might seem meaningless to some people. Though can't disagree it isn't peculiar.

As for Karzai, well most of that part of his past isn't too openly spoken of. No surprise there. The actions the United Front took are only pushed to be perceived as those of good intention, because of the U.S. backing. They only succeeded as such due to the Taliban's being unorganised at the time. I do believe they could take back Afghanistan even now. Yet from the intel I get from sources in Quetta. I believe they are waiting for the right time to strike, if necessary.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Does it matter. To the general populace, i'd say No. In my opinion, Yes. Without leadership, they could become something they never intended the movement to be.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


That's because the Russians thought of Pirate's of the Carribean first, but the American's decided to steal their thunder, and that's why Mullah Omar chose to lead the Taliban, due to breach of royalty payments.


And yes, I am aware of the lead-up, and creation of the Taliban. Especially considering I have just finished reading 4 seperate books on the subject, 1 nicely entitled Taliban



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
This kind of display by our soldiers does not come as a surprise. An incident like this was bound to happen sooner or later. Some of you U.S citizens’ don’t act so naive either. I don’t see any people these days writing their U.S Representatives on these re-deployments. You just go on with your happy life watching American Idol and just turn the other cheek. Now incidents like this is only when you people speak out, yet only to say put them in front of firing squad. What do think your mental state would be like after 3 or 4 deployments?

That fact remains when does this re-deploying stop for our soldiers? The mental effects of deploying up to 4 times or more will take it toll on you. There is a mental anguish that also soldiers go though with each and every deployment. No deployment is ever the same. Our Military cannot keep sending our troops over and over again, because this is what happens. You become a person that no one will recognize upon returning from numerous deployments or you end up in prison.

Well, I have some news for you sitting there reading this. I’m not going to beat around the bush on this either. This very well will be the incident that sparks a military draft. I kid you not. As a former officer this question has been on the backburner of our Elected Officials, Commanders and the Pentagon for some time now. They know these re-deployments are taking such a toll on our troops mental state, to the point where there might be no return mentally for them. Now this incident comes to surface. With it, it will bring up this very question too our Commanders, and Elected officials in a very serious forum that can no longer be ignored. Should we start the Draft? I guarantee you this is being disused now at the pentagon, make no mistake about it.

This is the breaking point for current re-deployments practices. We people have the power to end this war, just speak up that's all you need to do to stop this blood shed or become a draftee. It's up to you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Um, hate to tell you, but the numbers were higher than that in 2001. Especially considering the Taliban, if the book I just finished reading (titled Taliban, strangely enough about the Taliban), claims that the Taliban formed in late1997, early 1998, and within 2 months of forming, had over 2000 members. From memory (can't remember where I have the book, maybe in my car), when they first formed, they had just over 400 members, when they set up a checkpoint in order to extract payments from freight haulers along the major highway. Within 3 months they had taken almost half the country, and had gained several warring factions within their fold.

So please explain to me, how in 3 years, they had gone from a several thousand person membership, DOWN to only 1000 max? Sure, I understand that factions were still warring with each other (especially the Northern Alliance and the Taliban), but history has shown numerous times in Afghanistan, that loyalties are very fragile, and tribal groups will tend to side with the stronger factions. So if the Taliban were strong enough to take over half the country at least, it would mean they would have been the strongest faction within the country, hence, they would have more people siding with them. So tell me again, how would they only have 1000 max members within 3 years of their creation, and taking over of the country?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TerribleTeam2
 


You didn't read my post correctly. I was referring to the said numbers of Al-Qaida at that time (Numbers were said to be 250-1000 in 2001). Not the Taliban. The Taliban has more than even the numbers you are currently quoting at the time. I could have made this more clear but I was responding to a previous members post. I think you also meant in regards to the checkpoint. That the Taliban set up their own checkpoint, in which they allowed the drivers to pass through without paying the rediculous tolls. They then proceeded to clear the other checkpoints, where the drivers were basically forced at gun point to pay up to proceed on (These checkpoints at that time were not under Taliban control, but by former Mujahideen fighters under their commanders orders).

It was crippling the industry at that time. The Taliban was praised for clearing these checkpoints.

edit on 21-3-2011 by Amdusias because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Amdusias because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Amdusias
 


My bad, wasn't paying attention.

And as for the checkpoints, correct, they cleared a 2 mile stretch in 1 day, from the checkpoint that they had set up. And that's what set them down the path of taking so much of the country. But again, they did take money paid by the drivers, for allowing them to pass. But thats semantics at the end of the day. Because at the end of the day, the money they paid to the Taliban was a hell of alot less than what they were paying the other Militia's.

Again, my bad for not paying attention.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Amdusias
 


Who the hell is Mullah Omar?

I thought the coalition officially went to Afghanistan with their enemy commanders being Osama bin-Ladin and Al Zwahiri.






Mullah Omar was the head of the Afghan Government when he acknowledged Osama bin-Ladin and his crowd were in Afghanistan training to go out into the world and do bad things. He became famous for saying he was powerless to reign in Osama because he was Mullah Omar's guest and as a good muslim host he could not control or evict his guest.

We solve that problem and sent them both on the run but unfortuantely we did not capture either one of these men.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
anyone wondering who the putz was omar,


get out more.

i still don't by the bs of kill pics with civi's.

i suggest a trolling going on.

it just occurred to me how these idiots get away with posting some of the crap i see here and i get slapped for responding to that crap.

i will make a thread.




edit on 22-3-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

edit on 22-3-2011 by aboutface because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join