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.

 

new wikileaks Report, Shock and Horror, u.s. troops assassinated children

page: 6
49
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
My idea of utopia is a society where everyone is as happy and as healthy as a human can be. Sometimes one person's happiness encroaches on others. That is not healthy. Therefore, there may be a sacrifice.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 





It was an illegal invasion by the US.


Oh really? Our invastion of Iraq, was NOT illegal. Saddam Hussein was given specific instructions as a result of the Gulf War CEASE FIRE....not armistice, not surrender....a cease fire. In other legalistic words, it means if he doesnt abide by those instructions then the war is ON again. He failed to do so, and we had a President that was tired of screwing around with the issue.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Who's propaganda is this anyway?

"We don't believe the MSM" says the people of ATS.....But we believe someone else


Can we get some proven facts presented?

I saw the charges given to the soldiers......Were they real(the charges)?

Liejunkie just does not know what to believe????



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FoosM

No its not a war.


You seem to have an odd idea of what constitutes war to me. Having at least two bunches of guys shooting at each other with automatic weapons and blowing stuff up is enough for me.



It was an illegal invasion by the US.
Its a war crime.


Support your case. Cite chapter and verse of the law which makes the invasion "illegal". make sure it's a "law", which has been broken - otherwise, nothing "illegal" about it.



Iraq did not declare war on the US.
It did not show any signs of aggression towards the US.
And Iraq was in negotiations with the UN.
So the US by sending troops into that country committed a war crime.
The US was not defending itself and had no need to defend itself.


Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.



Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense.



notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council. Thus, many claim, there is currently no legal justification for using force against Iraq in self-defense.



Bush also stated the war was over


Broadcast: 16/04/2003
Bush declares Iraq war over
US President George Bush says the war is over and a new era in Iraq can begin. Those comments came as delegates met in southern Iraq to begin reshaping the country's political future. In Baghdad, order is slowly returning the streets.


So who are all those US soldiers killing?
Obviously the general population.


Nations at war are required to follow the law of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as customary international law, the law of war regulates military operations in an attempt to protect civilians from the devastation of war.


Sorry dude, but the USGOV and its citizens have innocent blood on their hands.

www.worldpress.org...
www.abc.net.au...
www.hrcr.org...



edit on 9-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by FoosM
 





It was an illegal invasion by the US.


Oh really? Our invastion of Iraq, was NOT illegal. Saddam Hussein was given specific instructions as a result of the Gulf War CEASE FIRE....not armistice, not surrender....a cease fire. In other legalistic words, it means if he doesnt abide by those instructions then the war is ON again. He failed to do so, and we had a President that was tired of screwing around with the issue.


It was not only immoral, but very much illegal, and actually Iraq had every right to have invaded the US for its imminent threats of invasion towards it. You warmongers want to twist the laws only when it suits you best. Thats cowardly. Stealing other nation's resources while rolling over their children with tanks. Thats disgusting. Pure evil.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by nusnus
 


That's deep. I don't know what to think. I guess he didn't have time to think in that situation.

How obvious is it if they have a bomb? If he saw her green eyes, could he not see if she had a bomb or not? Or was the bomb usually somewhere else?
edit on 8-9-2011 by _Phoenix_ because: (no reason given)


The bombs are roadside bombs - the kids don't actually carry them. Instead, the kids are used to stop the convoys in the kill zone so the roadside bombs can have greater effect. They do that because they learned early on that US soldiers, many of them just kids themselves, have a heart, and are reluctant to just mow kids down.

They use their own kids as bait, put 'em on the hook and drop 'em in the grease. Then the US soldiers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Diabolical, eh?



As diabolical as making the whole thing up just to demonize the local population in order to breakdown a soldier's barrier to killing innocent civilians. I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops. Yes, thats right, to keep the fighting going you attack your own people. Its psychopathic I know, but the US military is full of psychopaths.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


So then, what you are saying is that you can't find a law to cite which has been broken, so you'll fall back on the UN Charter, which is NOT law?

No laws broken = no "illegal" acts.

The claims of "innocent blood" are an entirely different issue. If an individual prosecutes his part of a general war in a way inconsistent with the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention, and/or the various maritime Warfare laws, THEN a "war crime" can be charged.

Nothing "illegal" about the invasion.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,



"Immoral" is subjective, and depends on your religion. That's why "law" doesn't deal in "morality", it deals in law. So far, you have utterly failed to produce a broken law to make it "illegal".



and actually Iraq had every right to have invaded the US for its imminent threats of invasion towards it.


True, Iraq had every right to invade the US. There is NO law against it, threat or not.



You warmongers want to twist the laws only when it suits you best. Thats cowardly.


You misapprehend me. I am against the Iraq War. Trying to claim a non-existent "illegality" is, however, extremely counterproductive. It's pissin' up the wrong rope.



Stealing other nation's resources while rolling over their children with tanks. Thats disgusting. Pure evil.


There have been no resources "stolen". If they want their kids NOT to be run over by tanks, it's generally accepted as a good idea not to let them play in tank-traffic, much less stand them in traffic on purpose!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

As diabolical as making the whole thing up just to demonize the local population in order to breakdown a soldier's barrier to killing innocent civilians.


Yeah.

"Making things up".

Let's roll with that, shall we?

Here's YOUR go at making things up:



I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.


Pretty good. Whole cloth, not even a hint of evidence. Let me try again.

Maybe they are being cloned in bio labs aboard the mother ship by Grey Reptilian Zeta Clones, and aren't human children at all.

How's that? It's no less speculative than what you just wrote.



Yes, thats right, to keep the fighting going you attack your own people. Its psychopathic I know, but the US military is full of psychopaths.


The US general population, and as a matter of fact the population of the entire world, is loaded down with psychopaths as well. Start your cleanup within arm's reach.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The invasion was 100% illegal! It was a war of aggression that walked into another's country, supposedly to catch a villian. It had no right to ever be done.

And don't bring up the "laws" that are crimes in this world, as proof.

The real "law" or rather virtues are in our hearts.

Period.

Sparta? The two renegades fighting amongst themselves, and walking over this world to do it, and everyone in it, with their talons. Not interested in this either.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by FoosM
 


So then, what you are saying is that you can't find a law to cite which has been broken, so you'll fall back on the UN Charter, which is NOT law?

The UN Charter was properly signed and ratified, so it is US law under Article VI of the Constitution. It is not some kind of super law constraining the sovereign United States from enacting contrary laws, but we would do so at our peril. Fortunately for us, the Authorization for Use of Force did not violate the UN Charter. It was written to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The invasion was 100% illegal! It was a war of aggression that walked into another's country, supposedly to catch a villian. It had no right to ever be done.


Absolutely not. I make you the same offer - produce the law that was broken to make it "illegal".



And don't bring up the "laws" that are crimes in this world, as proof.


How do you propose to discuss the legality or illegality of an undertaking with bringing up, you know, LAW?



The real "law" or rather virtues are in our hearts.

Period.


Glad you cleared that up - your "law" is pretty much "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". By that yardstick it was STILL not illegal, since that is quite obviously not what was in the heart of the invaders. Can I rob a local bank now and not go to jail? I mean, you know, the only thing that counts is what is in my heart, not what written into the... law...



Sparta? The two renegades fighting amongst themselves, and walking over this world to do it, and everyone in it, with their talons. Not interested in this either.


Say what? been drinking?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


What twisted logic gives a CHARTER, authorizing an organization, the force of law in contravention of national sovereignty?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


" Oh really? Our invastion of Iraq, was NOT illegal"

Yawn.. the nazis made all their nazi activity "legal" too.. "just following orders" was an argument rejected by the US / international courts.. every troop/politician has a moral obligation above all else.

imo every single person who ignores their moral obligation to humanity to follow "legal" yet clearly amoral orders.. is a war criminal. Period... regardless of the colored cloth on a stick they gleefully jerk about.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FoosM

It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,



"Immoral" is subjective, and depends on your religion. That's why "law" doesn't deal in "morality", it deals in law.

Were do you think laws come from? They are codified morals of society. Some societies take it too far and codify the most mundane acts.





So far, you have utterly failed to produce a broken law to make it "illegal".



and actually Iraq had every right to have invaded the US for its imminent threats of invasion towards it.


True, Iraq had every right to invade the US. There is NO law against it, threat or not.



Of course there is.
When I go travel to other countries, am I simply allowed to cross the border willy nilly or do I have to bring my passport? An official document to allow me to pass through the port onto another country?

And if I dont have a passport, am I in that country legally? Of course not, I would be labelled as an ILLEGAL immigrant, and summarily thrown out of the country or jailed.

If a person broke into my house, without my consent, are they there legally? Can they be arrested? Do I have a right to kill them if I feel threatened? Of course. Its called a home INVASION.


Home invasion is the act of illegally burgling or entering a private and occupied dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime (such as robbery, assault, rape...


Now, would you call your country your home? Would anybody call their country their home? Do Iraqis call Iraq their home? Did the US invade their home? Yes. The very nature of INVASION is an illegal act. Thats why its considered an act of war. In other words, the legal occupiers of a nation, go to war to dispel the invaders of their nation.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I have a friend who served in Iraq. He told me a story of how the troops would throw drinks and candy to the kids at the roadside as they went by in their convoy of humvees. Some would deliberately throw them behind the vehicle so the kids would be run ove r by the vehicle behind.

Sick



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FoosM

As diabolical as making the whole thing up just to demonize the local population in order to breakdown a soldier's barrier to killing innocent civilians.


Yeah.

"Making things up".

Let's roll with that, shall we?

Here's YOUR go at making things up:



I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.


Pretty good. Whole cloth, not even a hint of evidence.


How so not even a hint of evidence?
Are you suggesting that, in this case, western nations have never use false flag operations to begin conflicts/wars or prolong a conflict or war?


Iraqis angered by the violence questioned how anyone managed to plant bombs in an area where the government had deployed an additional 30,000 security forces and brought in the use of bomb-sniffing dogs and other intelligence and surveillance equipment.





As reported in The Guardian:
Britain allowed “IRA informers to organise ‘human bomb’ attacks,” a tactic which “involved forcing civilians to drive vehicles laden with explosives into army checkpoints.”

The Times reported:
“MI5 arranged a weapons-buying trip to America” where detonators were obtained, “later used by terrorists to murder soldiers and police officers,”

“British intelligence co-operated with the FBI to ensure ['Fulton's] trip to New York in the 1990s went ahead without incident so that his cover would not be blown.” Further, “the technology he obtained has been used in Northern Ireland and copied by terrorists in Iraq in roadside bombs that have killed British troops.”

Sinn Féin has also had close ties to British Intelligence.

In 2006 it was revealed that Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator Martin McGuinness was accused of being a British spy by former Army intelligence officer Martin Ingram, who identified Belfast republican Freddie Scappaticci as a double agent 2 years before that. [8]





Let me try again.

Maybe they are being cloned in bio labs aboard the mother ship by Grey Reptilian Zeta Clones, and aren't human children at all.

How's that? It's no less speculative than what you just wrote.


Oh yes it is. Mine is based on historical precedence.
Its a plausible scenario.
Yours, well... what can I say, it says a lot about where your mind is at



wideshut.co.uk...
www.smdailyjournal.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FoosM

It was not only immoral, but very much illegal,



"Immoral" is subjective, and depends on your religion. That's why "law" doesn't deal in "morality", it deals in law.

Were do you think laws come from? They are codified morals of society. Some societies take it too far and codify the most mundane acts.


Laws come from legislation, not Ms Manners Big Book O' Morals. Therefore, THAT'S where I think laws come from. Furthermore, until they are made "law" via that codification by legislation, they are NOT law. "Morality" and "Law" are not the same thing - not even close. If you would rather society be ruled by "morals" than by "laws", which groups morals should we run it by?




True, Iraq had every right to invade the US. There is NO law against it, threat or not.


Of course there is.
When I go travel to other countries, am I simply allowed to cross the border willy nilly or do I have to bring my passport? An official document to allow me to pass through the port onto another country?

And if I dont have a passport, am I in that country legally? Of course not, I would be labelled as an ILLEGAL immigrant, and summarily thrown out of the country or jailed.

If a person broke into my house, without my consent, are they there legally? Can they be arrested? Do I have a right to kill them if I feel threatened? Of course. Its called a home INVASION.


Home invasion is the act of illegally burgling or entering a private and occupied dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime (such as robbery, assault, rape...


Now, would you call your country your home? Would anybody call their country their home? Do Iraqis call Iraq their home? Did the US invade their home? Yes. The very nature of INVASION is an illegal act. Thats why its considered an act of war. In other words, the legal occupiers of a nation, go to war to dispel the invaders of their nation.


You seem to be fairly confused about "law". In the above instance, you confuse and conflate law and morals, and here you confuse and conflate international law with intranational law. In matters between nations, international law applies. In matters entirely contained within a single nation, the laws of that nation apply. Monarchies and acceptance of titles of royalty are illegal in the US, but other nations seem not to have a problem with them. Since there is no international law in the matter, intranational law applies within individual nations regarding monarchy.

Intranational matters, such as immigration, are ruled by the laws of that nation. War is not an "immigration", and unless a civil war, is between nations, and so governed by international law. Developing your scenario of a home invasion, we'll consider that a "young war", between individuals rather than nations. It is not the individual law of the house that governs, it is the law of the state or municipality that house is in which governs, and which you cite. Both your actions and those of the intruder will be evaluated by an external court in your state, not an internal court in your house. Now, the law you lay down in your house may coincide with the state's law, or it may not. In the case of a discrepancy, guess which law - yours or the state's - wins out.

In the absence of external laws in a matter, only internal laws matter. In international affairs, there is law in place governing the conduct of war. If those laws are not broken, then there is no "illegal" activity. There is external law governing whether or not people are allowed to kick in my door and kill me in my own home with impunity, which is a cognate to the international law of war on an individual household level vs a state level. There is no internal law governing how I arrange my own furniture within my own home, which is cognate to the international laws on immigration within a country, which are also practically non-existent.

So then, if an individual Iraqi kicks my door in and shoots at me, and is NOT acting on behalf of a nation, then my own state or national laws apply to the situation. If, however, he is acting on behalf of Iraq in an act of war, international law applies, since that takes the action to the level of a conflict between nations. This is why your analogy is flawed, and breaks completely down.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu

Here's YOUR go at making things up:



I doubt any Iraqi mother or father would be doing that to their own children. I can imagine though there are special black ops, or any one of the many mercenaries groups there, who would gladly kidnap kids, put them out in the middle of the street to conduct these false flag ops.


Pretty good. Whole cloth, not even a hint of evidence.


How so not even a hint of evidence?
Are you suggesting that, in this case, western nations have never use false flag operations to begin conflicts/wars or prolong a conflict or war?


A "false flag" is an extraordinarily broad and generalized term, which covers a great many potetential scenarios. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very, very specific, and so can be tested by the evidence presented. You contend below that it is based upon "precedent". I'm open to being educated in the matter, and so await your evidence that there is a precendent for the scenario you present: i.e. special "Black Ops" and/or "mercenary" groups are kidnapping kids and somehow convincing them to stand in traffic solely to be run over. That is a testable hypothesis - all you have to do is present the instances where that precedent has been set. So far, although claiming at one point that there is "precedent" for such action, and at another saying "I imagine" in relation to the scenario, no evidence to back the very specifically worded statement up has been presented whatsoever.

THAT is "how so no evidence".

-------------------------------

For brevity's sake, I deleted the lengthy list of references you give, but I note that they are irrelevant - not a SINGLE ONE of them involved "special Black Ops teams" or "mercenaries" who "kidnap children" and stand them in traffic to stop said traffic for an assault in the kill zone. I further note that in the original account, the children in question were not themselves driving bomb laden vehicles into checkpoints. I further note that in not a single one of your examples were "special Black Ops", "mercenaries" or "children" even mentioned at all.

It may be worth noting that an earlier example given in the thread, from another war, DID involve children carrying explosives, but I have to assume you passed on mentioning that one, since it in fact supports the claim that insurgents ARE using children, rather than "special Black Ops teams" or "mercenaries" doing so.

I am forced to consider that you may be reading too many spy novels and thrillers involving "special Black Ops teams" and/or "mercenaries", or perhaps watching too many movies involving such, since you seem to be sublimely unaware as to how those sorts of agencies carry on business.

-----------------------------




Let me try again.

Maybe they are being cloned in bio labs aboard the mother ship by Grey Reptilian Zeta Clones, and aren't human children at all.

How's that? It's no less speculative than what you just wrote.


Oh yes it is. Mine is based on historical precedence.
Its a plausible scenario.
Yours, well... what can I say, it says a lot about where your mind is at



wideshut.co.uk...
www.smdailyjournal.com...


I left this in because it is where you make the bold claim of "historical precedent" in the matters of which you speculate. I'll wait right here while you gather some evidence of that "historical precedent".

I'll ignore the attempted dig as to "where my mind is at", since it amuses me that you had no more than that.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


Laws come from legislation, not Ms Manners Big Book O' Morals. Therefore, THAT'S where I think laws come from. Furthermore, until they are made "law" via that codification by legislation, they are NOT law. "Morality" and "Law" are not the same thing - not even close. If you would rather society be ruled by "morals" than by "laws", which groups morals should we run it by?



Oh so only countries, or peoples, that use a legislative body can make laws.
I guess you would say that the 10 commandments were not laws.
They were what, advice?
And I guess legislative bodies just make up laws, and they are not based on any moral or ethical situations of the people.







 
49
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join