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.

 

Iraqi Sniper Released From Prison After Just 5-Years For Killing Two Marines

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xemplar

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Xemplar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Prisoners of war should stay imprisoned untill the war (Fighting) is done. Or killed imidiately, they lost get over it.
edit on 23-8-2011 by Xemplar because: (no reason given)


Garbage. If american snipers were being detained, there would be a massive movement to get them released. If we are going to jail snipers, we need to jail ALL snipers.



I truly do not understand your logic, American snipers that are detained are slain on camera. Like I said before this is the most polite occupation in the history of man kind. Americans have defeated the iraqi republican guard, they lost. Do you understand that, now the fighting is mostly done with foreignors from outside of iraq which is irrelevant because the only reason a millitary detains someone is to not kill them.
Listen american snipers dont get detained they win, now you're saying some sort of catch 22 which is detain them let the iraqi gub handle their own, fail at doing so and keep fighting with these guys over and over, oh and also tie our troops hands behind their back so they cant do what's neccisary to protect their own.
Hypocrite at the fullest form because you think your insane logic allows you to call others that.

In short: When we win we choose the fate of the loser, this man's fate was to live it was a bad call because now he is released while americans are still targetable.
When they win they can imprison our snipers, and give america the option to release it's own, but they will probbably just cut their heads off on camera.




America invaded Iraq. There will ALWAYS be those who will fight against it. Just because you look at it as 'they lost, get over it' does not mean that those in the country are not still fighting for their freedom from invading armies.

If a country invaded america, would you throw up your hands and say 'we lost. Im over it"? I sure wouldnt.

And the argument that 'american snipers dont get caught, they win' is a perfect example of the arrogance which I am speaking about. You are ok with it, because this guy is not american. If he was, you would feel different.

There is more to the world that what is inside american borders. There are more interests in the world than just american interests.

No wonder this world is falling apart....




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xemplar
 


Or how about get out the iraq? why are we there? it isnt our country, we no longer have a reason to be there if we"won" our target was WMD's and saddam, one never even existed and the other is long gone. Oh yes, forgot oil. It sure is worth our soldiers lives eh?

We are all losing. I guess noone sees that.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The only arrogant thing I said was about the occupation. For the most part Iraqis do not fight, and do not want the fighting to continue.
The fact is when you capture someone they should stay captured or used to barter thats it. I don't need to defend this idea, that's how it's been done for thousands of years.
And americans snipers or troops in generaly for the most part win, it's not a matter of arrogance that's what happened.
Now you guys want to detain our forces for doing their job or, let the POW go because that's what's fair.
What's fair is he's alive he can stay imprisoned indefienently. That's what's fair now if this man kills 2 more americans youll probbably still defend him because hes just a warrior right?
He's a POW he was probbably used for back room barter anyway so Im done here.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by David291
 


Because America occupies it because the former leader USED weapons of mass destruction, tried to sell oil without the dollar standard, and because it's of strategic value and because it's passed 1984 and as we all know the ptb need to keep a constant flow of conflict.

That's not relevant though what's relevant is that a POW was released for some insane political reason commited 2 or so years ago when he was detained. And it shouldnt happen again.
edit on 23-8-2011 by Xemplar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Wow, some of you guys should research the Genever Conventions and why they were enacted.
I guess your oceans kept you safe way too long.
Pray that your descendants will never have to face the inheritance you leave behind.
What goes around comes around.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
At least we take prisoners and give them fair trial. They don't take prisoners or if they do, they'll kill them without hesitation.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
this news leaves me speechless, I am furious why was this sniper let go from prison? it makes me wonder why were these soldiers even there if we are just letting terrorist snipers back out into the fight?



Shortly before the fifth anniversary of their sons death, the parents of Captain John McKenna and Lance Corporal Michael Glover found the man who killed their sons was released from an Iraqi prison.

According to The Daily News, Muhammad Awwad Ahmad was paroled in November of last year after Iraqi officials promised he'd never be freed before American troops withdrew from Iraq.

The U.S. military was assured the sniper would see "proper justice" after the 2006 killings when he shot Glover as the Marine crossed a Fallujah street and then shot McKenna as he pulled Glover to safety.Source




I hope something gets done about this. what can we do? write letters organize protests ?
that's unlikely as we are all over here living/working trying to pay our Gov. for our freedom while our youngest adults go to fight and die for what>? to use our money to go make more war?

I'm sure we are tracking him. He will die the way those soldiers did. With a bullet through the head or chest.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
tl;dr
I came in to this thread thinking the OP must be disabled. Now I'm convinced it's a troll.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Make no mistake about it. Every US soldiers death in Iraq and Afganistan is on Bush and now Obama's hands.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by loneranger26
reply to post by Connman
 


Yeah that is a war crime. If a man surrenders, you cannot just shoot him dead. He is a POW.


Where is it written that a men surrendered?? The second just went to get his buddy. The shooter saw another american soldier and shot him. War is war as they say.

If everyone that had killed someone during a war has been jailed for life, there will be no veterans left outside prisons.

You go to war, you may get killed. If you don't know that, then you're a fool!

Peace out.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xemplar
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


That's what's fair now if this man kills 2 more americans youll probbably still defend him because hes just a warrior right?
He's a POW he was probbably used for back room barter anyway so Im done here.



Damn right he's just a warrior! What would you say if every soldier of US that killed someone was in prison?

What makes you believe that American lives worth more than others??

Peace out.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Victor03
 


So, tell us, how many people did you killed? Were they invading YOUR country or threatening your family? Guess what, you were probably the one that did those 2 things.

I hope you did'nt killed anyone because this will make you a murderer and murderes must go to jail for life! Or get sentenced to death. Whoever they killed doesnt matter. That's right? Even if they killed a soldier invading another country?

I'm really sick of army pawns that have been brainwashed so good that they think 90% of the population are fools to think the way they do. Wake up, you are the ones that are wrong on this story.

Peace out.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xemplar
 


Now that is a real counterpoint. None of that whiny "But he's a terrorist!" rubbish. I hope people take note of this, not only was it well thought out, but it was politely presented too.

Honestly though, with American bases closing down now, and our presence in the country coming to a close, the "war" there is pretty much done. Of course we'll have our "advisers" and such around for a while, but most servicemembers are hitting the road.

They probably could have waited a bit to let him out still, but when we turned over control we lost our say in the matter. That's the way the biscuit crumbles. Most likely, he'll have some eyes on him for a good while, however.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I wonder, for how long do you think we should jail American snipers for doing their job? Longer than someone defending their land from foreign invaders, or shorter?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Using the OP's logic, let's charge all surviivng WW2 resitance fighters for having the balls to fight against a brutal occupation.


edit on 23/8/2011 by diamount because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xemplar
 

Yes, PoWs should be released after mayor combat operations or the conflict itself ended, so they cant just pick up where they left off - legit point.
But all this "When we win we choose the fate of the loser"-tone is realy dangerous.
War is Hell as it is, its cruel enough already and this one was no more "polite" than any other.


Originally posted by Xemplar
[...]This is a symptom of the west's attempt at fighting in a civil mannor with chivalry and honor.[...]

And how did they get there? Centuries of bloodshed led to these rules of engagement, because they learned from the horrors we are capable of.

Imagine your Grandson to be a prisoner of future wars and to be treated by modern US standards:
Tortured ("enhanced interrogated" according to G.W.Bush), held indefinitely whithout a Trial (Gitmo), or shot in the face after surrendering.
Be careful how you treat your enemies, cause like I said before, what goes around comes around.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 


That's the problem with the citizens living in the most violent prideful and militarily strongest nations.
They feel as if they have the right to police the world yet they can't see Nazi propaganda when it's been crammed in their head since birth



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I know what we could do, I suppose we could count the number of deaths from terrorist attacks around the world and then compare it to the amount of people dead by US/UK hands in all the countries we are currently in.

Which would out weigh the other I wonder?


Edit to add: By that I am not saying it's ok to let terrorist attacks continue, by that I'm saying the way our goverments are dealing with it, is completely wrong.
edit on 24/8/11 by David291 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGod
Thanks, I try. I suppose I was just one of those that was raised to realize that Americans aren't the only ones that are Human Beings. Probably helps that I also come from American Indian stock.


I suppose travelling around the world helps you see that people are no different than you.

I think the people that think US lives are worth more than others or the US can do no wrong are the ones whove never been outside their country.

I always try to look at it from the other side like you and I bet everyone thats posted here would take the same shot if their country was invaded.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by diamount
Using the OP's logic, let's charge all surviivng WW2 resitance fighters for having the balls to fight against a brutal occupation.


So you think that insurgents in Iraq are "resistant fighters"?

Tell me, when one of these "resistance fighters" blow up a marketplace with women and children, how is that "freeing your country from oppression"?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join