Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

USA Caught Commiting War Crimes (Yet Again)

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:23 AM
Sounds like the terrorists are sending women and children into a battle, so that they can claim the US is the terrorist.

The Taliban and their kind regularly use women and children as shields. That is how low down and dirty these people are.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:35 AM
It's a freakin war! I don't understand why so many people have an issue with the first wiki leaks video. To me it looks like a successfully run op.

War is hell and crap is gonna happen. Yes it is sad some children got shot but there is nothing you can do about it.

I wish the war would end and the troops would come home, but since it is not why don't we stop micromanaging our soldiers about the "political uncorrectness" that is going on.

There is nothing politically correct about war.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by ArnoldNonymous

There is nothing politically correct about war, no. However, SOME standards and rules in the broadest sense must be followed on it...or we might as well just go flat out obliteration from the word go. Why not? No limits of decency or rules in war....and the object is winning right? Well... 20 Megatons over Tehran and another 10 over Qom and the war wide in about 5 minutes. Done.. Over....

And may God have mercy on our souls...all 330 million such an action was done in the name of....because no other force on Heaven or Earth will.

It's not about the enemy following the basic lines of NOT deliberately running a secondary blast to murder the medical and first responders teams. We know the terrorists use that tactic. That is what MAKES THEM TERRORISTS.

So...what's it make us to put forward the argument that because terrorists do it in urban civilian bombings.....we have every right to target and wipe out their medical or first response teams?

It''s bad enough that 'aggressive interrogation' has almost certainly crossed the lines into the worst torture we'd imagine while still getting useful material out of a prisoner.....but can there be any lines this Government doesn't cross into the immoral and unethical? Apparently...not.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by TheMindWar

When people fear their government and their police who are being paid by tax payer's money, something is wrong, very wrong.

When a super power disregards it's very own Constitution (and rewrites it secretly behind the people's back) something is very wrong.

When the police can break down a law abiding citizen's door (and this now isn't one or two cases here and there it is becoming a very frequent event) something is wrong.

When you are scanned naked with no privacy or dignity, treated like cattle, touched and groped by strangers in the name of "Homeland Security" when 911 was a false flag operation anyway - something is wrong.

When the majority of people COMPLY QUIETLY with above said treatment............something is very wrong.

It will only get worse UNTIL enough people gather their courage and rebel against this unjust global tyranny.

You've all been warned now for 20-30 years this was coming and yet most people are either in denial or simply comply like lambs being led to slaughter.

Read the Georgia Guide Stones.....................about 95% of us are going to "disappear".

The other 4% will serve and the 1% elite will rule over the New World Order.

Again, I have no sympathy for the majority of have all been warned again and again and those that have tried to sound the warning alarm have been imprisoned, branded as traitors, murdered and ridiculed.

That blue pill is a twitch to swallow but to take the red pill and remain asleep is assured extermination or slavery.
edit on 22-8-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by MDDoxs

I hope I am right but dont have information to support what I am about to say. The military is not in control of the drones making strikes inside Pakistan....The CIA and other Agencies are I said I don't know for sure but have a pretty good idea its not the military....and it is wrong

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Kastogere
reply to post by FoosM

WORD ...would be the word.......geez, your kinda touchy aren't you......Ya hello security.....I need some security! Cause Im kinda insecure!

What word did you think I meant?

We're doomed as a planet and your worried about racial deflection.....well someone has to do it..

I dont get you. What word are you talking about?
Is it country specific?

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Kastogere
And people wonder why the outside view of America is slanted.....hmmm

America is that alcoholic father who berates the kids for not being good enough, and then America sits on the couch and gets drunk and watches wrestling making the kids get him a beer from the fridge when ole joe boo needs a refill.

America...the great role model.....and Im from America so I can say that.....

kinda like black people and that word they use....its ok...cause they own it. just like America....I own it...

lol i have the same picture as your avatar as my desktop background

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

Aww! Don't harden your heart against those who embrace ignorance, lest you become like them!

Being aware of the very real danger that exists to our fundamental freedoms as human beings does in no way prepare us for dealing with such disempowerment in our every day lives. Many feel helpless and impotent in the face of such truths that America is the largest, best funded terrorist organisation in the world.

Impersonal killing via drone attack is cowardly and dishonest and the military people who carry out the attacks are as guilty as the commanders who issue the orders who are as guilty as the chiefs who commission them. In the very moment the innocent died, everyone involved had taken the decision to wilfully destroy life.

When we hear of the deaths of innocents, we can, in the privacy of our own hearts, only mourn.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by PrimitiveWorld
The "soldiers" killing these people have forgotten their humanity. I dont care what country they are from. Its all part of the worst we can do to each other. Humans where empathy has been programmed away.

I honestly cant understand humans like this. Its like they are part of another species.

It's easy to lose your humanity when you consider the type of fight they encounter.

Put yourself in their shoes. (And let's not have the argument "I wouldn't join the imperial US army" stuff.)

You go into battle. You cannot distinguish an enemy from a local friendly. You can never let your guard down. If you do and start to be nice to some seemingly innocent kid or woman, boom; your friends are meat jell-o. You encounter situations where even the dead bodies of your comrades or the enemy are potential weapons. The people you are training to take over security of their own nation, turn the gun you just handed them towards you. You head out to bring medical aid to some small village, your convoy gets hit by IEDs, and your group caught in an ambush. If you happen to make it to the village, you have buddies getting picked off by snipers, when the medics go do help them, they get hit too.

There is nothing clearly defining the good guys from the bad guys. The guy who you shared a tent or an MRE with the day before, today wants to stick a grenade up your @$$. The woman teaching in the school you helped build, now wants to take out you and your squad.

The event happening here is a sad thing for humanity, but a fact of this type of war for the US and its allies. We cannot condone bad behavior but we can understand it and lessen our hatred of the individuals who are forced to deal with it. If one side tries to play by rules, and the other is unrestricted, morals or not, guess who wins? Certainly not the side with its hands tied.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by gravitational
reply to post by FoosM

Show me a proof they were given orders to Deliberately kill non-combatants,
Then show me proof that they complied by Deliberately killing non-combatants.

Really? So you subscribe to the Nuremberg defense?

Let me ask you this? When the United States government dropped the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was that a deliberate order to kill non-combatants? If it wasn't then I suppose it was ok? I'm curious though, when the order WAS given by Truman, are you saying he didn't think non-combatants would be killed? If he knew, then wouldn't it be a war crime?

I have to admit that I really don't understand your logic.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by MDDoxs
A terrible practice in my opinion. However i would like to point out, which was mentioned in the article, the these terror groups utilize the same tactic of employing secondary strikes.

I know there is a difference, but would you be as inclined not to use a tactic that your enemy uses to their full advantage?

yes, because this is what sets civilized countries apart from barbarians.

Wars are the ultima ratio of politics and their use to achieve well-defined political aims can only be justified if every effort is made to prevent unnecessary harm and destruction to non-combatants in any way possible.

As soon as you give up on that maxim you will find that it becomes impossible to contain wars, that your own people will stop supporting your troops and that in the long-term your military will only consist of the mentally insane.

Every rule we (*) subject ourselves to - don't use biological or chemical weapons, don't use anti-personnel mines, don't use fire bombs near any centre of civilian population, don't use cluster munitions, don't target medical personnel and facilities, treat the injured based on severity of the wound and not based on nationality, take responsibility for the well-being of POWs and the population in occupied areas, avoid targeting cultural properties, accept surrender, ... - is paid for in blood.
If we can't step up to a mother and tell her with a straight face that her son died a death that could have been avoided but that breaking any of these rules to save his life would have invalidated everything we as a nation stand for, then we have to consider ourselves hypocritical barbarians.

These rules make it possible to conduct wars in a limited fashion in order to achieve political goals and to find mutual peace once these goals have been accomplished (as opposed to wars that rage on until annihilation).
These rules make it possible to get soldiers to fight wars for you - without them you could only attract slaughtering madmen and mercenaries.
And these rules only have value if you are fiercely committed to stand by them even if the other side does not feel bound by the same rules - once you start abandoning them on "special occasions" you only provoke an escalation of ruthlessness and destruction.

The only sort of person who could reasonably be in favor of waging wars without rules would be a pacifist.

The 20th century was on the one hand a century in which the rules of war finally went from being a matter of a soldier's honor to being codified international law.
On the other hand it was also the stage for WW2 in which Axis powers and Allies alike fought a war of annihilation throwing out any pretense of civilization and honor as they pleased (frequently using "but they did it first" as justification for the next escalation of senseless violence).

I am no military historian but my personal impression is that the experience of the second world war, the refusal of its winners to reflect critically on their own actions in the years following it and the anticipation of another global war has lead to a situation where we have unlearned how to lead wars that are limited in methods and goals (which had been the "normal" kind of war for hundreds of years).
These days the US and their allies try to fight political wars (which should be extremely limited in nature) in ways that would be more suited for wars which can only end in complete victory or complete devastation - and act surprised if they can't find peace once the political objectives have been accomplished.

(*) I am not from the US, some of these restrictions are not fully accepted by the US military.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:02 PM
Terrorism agreed..This type of warfare is akin to shooting fish in a barrel imo,drone operators could easily annihilate an entire village while gobbling down a cheese burger meal..
Are people riding donkeys in the desert too much of a threat? imo they should NOT be using this weapon this way,complete overkill and complete lack of IFF(identify friend or foe)..also crazy know how much hellfires cost?!
This ranks up there with landmines,and chemical warfare to me.
Flip it on it's head,just imagine..imagine if this was happening in your country..
edit on 22-8-2012 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:21 PM
First of all I have not read the whole thread, but I have skimmed it.

Not sure about the OP's motives here as the title seems to be a dig at the US.

Having said that, I am appalled at the videos I have seen of American drones targetiing and killing people on the ground (presumably terrorists), then when other people (could be family members including women and childen for all we know), try and help the victim, they target them as well.

Deliberately targetting non-combatments sounds like a war crime to me in the same way Hitler, Al Queda, the IRA, ETA, LRA etc have done in the past.

Oh... I forgot Hiroshima didnt I. (That's not a dig at the US, because ANY country that uses nuclear bombs to kill non-combatants would be guilty of a war crime,)

I fear we have already gone too far down the road of de-sensitising war crimes

edit on 22-8-2012 by Ratman because: spelling mistake
edit on 22-8-2012 by Ratman because: and another spelling mistake

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by MDDoxs
To be honest i do not place to much fault of the citizens or even those in the military. This is all controlled by the upper echelons of military, government and business.

Governments act through the permission of their people. Presuming you elect them (the perception is so) all citizens are responsible for the actions of their government.

In addition, joining the military does not remove the responsibilities of the individual and place responsibility on a senior officer. Every serving military person on the planet is responsible for their own morality and their own choices.

Would we accept a Nazi death camp soldier saying he was "just following orders"?

Military personnel have a responsibility to their people, and Humanity as a whole. They do not sign over their morality to a government.

Every member of the military who has seen an unjust death carried out by a colleague is morally responsible, and they are guilty of covering that crime up if they neglect to report it.

No single Human on the planet can EVER sign ANYTHING that removes their own responsibility and morality. It's not possible, and it would not stand up in an international court.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:17 PM
Well, if you add up my deployments, I've spent a few years "over there." Our ROE were very, very restrictive and a lot of effort was put in to avoid collateral damage and innocent lives lost. The problem is, AQ would push for civilian casualties. For example, they would force or bribe an unarmed civilian to drive striaght at a checkpoint. The soldier or Marine there could not know wether the van vehicle was unarmed or yet ANOTHER car bomb or not, so he follows the ROE (rules of engagement). Flash lights, red flare, warning burst, then, if it was still coming, shoot to kill. If it was a car bomb, you just saved your life and those around you, if it was a family of 4, the terrorists just got themselves another example of American "war crimes" and tested our defenses. Perhaps the next attack kills some guys because they learned from the "dry run."

War is a horrible thing.

This drone attack issue is a bit of a twist. I wonder if the same people who called Bush a war criminal because of civilian casualties will also call Obama a war criminal because of civilian casualties. I can recall many, many times that said about Bush, but not about Obama. Is this an example of selective outrage?

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by FoosM

The word I was speaking of would be the coveted "N" word.....and it may very well be country specific. It was originally a poor attempt at colorful humor..nothing more....a comment to augment my original comment within the comment.

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by glen200376
Totally agree,we all say it first hand in the collateral damage video.It seems it is more common than we are led to believe.
Pure evil.

Do you mean the video of the US justifiably engaging a group of armed insurgents who happen to have an imbedded team of journalists with them?

The one analyzed here?

If so it’s a poor example since that engagement was totally within the ROE.

Don't want to die in the line of duty as a journalist then don't travel with armed terrorists - it’s dangerous to one's health....

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:01 PM

Originally posted by MDDoxs


To reiterate my opinion, no it is not justified.

It is hard to determine hostile from neutral through a drone camera

To what enemy are you referring?

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by MDDoxs


To reiterate my opinion, no it is not justified.

It is hard to determine hostile from neutral through a drone camera

No no no. The government has spun this as some type of "moral" struggle, yet they do not take the high road. A "war" on terrorism is not a war, because "terrorism" isn't a country...That's how I see it, and all of the US troops who have died have done so for a behind the scenes agenda, at the whim of a tyrannical government. It's sad, but it's the truth.

Anyway, just because your enemy uses a tactic, doesn't mean you have to utilize it as well, especially when it is unnecessary. The US military has far better logistics and firepower, and doesn't have to resort to BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW to achieve their "goals." What the US should have done from the start is work on improving diplomatic relations, instead of trampling on and interfering with the rights of other sovereign nations.

You don't invade a country because some terrorists blew up buildings, no matter how many people it killed, when those terrorists aren't a part of the government/military machine of another country. What you do is work with the other country to apprehend the suspects, not go into their country assuming everyone is a terrorist, pissing the population off. And if that country won't support a joint POLICE effort, then you impose DIPLOMATIC sanctions on them, while subsequently strengthening your borders. The government should have thwarted 9/11, if indeed it had happened the way they claim, and it just shows ineffectiveness.

It is another thing however if a country really wants another country to come and help overcome a military problem. But if that is not the case, just because one nation can walk all over another does not mean that nation should do so. We all know that the government acts without proof all the time, and they do so because they have another agenda that the public does not know about, for the most part. Why is it okay to violate the rights of citizens in other countries?

Why is it okay for American soldiers to storm innocent peoples' houses? What if a terrorist group was hiding out and operating from within the US, and attacked another country? Would the US allow them to move an army onto its soil to start a campaign of terror against the populace? These people hate us because of our own actions, and this would not be the case had the US not attempted to impose its will on them, starting decades ago. This tension is nothing new, and has been happening since before 9/11. That was the excuse the government needed, and despite the evidence against them, that fact alone is enough for many to suspect that it was a false flag attack, as the government needed something big, that would kill many Americans.

And there are people who still say that the government would never do that to its citizens. If you are one of those people, get your head out of your butt. There are declassified documents ADMITTING as much, dating back to the 60's or so...probably even before then. The government has murdered people in cold blood many times. There are even cases that can be proven, although most cannot, since they attempt to cover their tracks, and are relatively untouchable because they claim national security is at stake. Just look at how they murdered the leaders of the black panther party back in the day. And those they didn't kill they got locked up for life. There are still some of those people who are known to be innocent that are still serving prison time...They've been there for decades. So tell me again how the US government is morally superior to any nation?

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:36 PM
I agree… What a fudged-up story! I am an American, and if I had control of our Gov., I would do something about the atrocities. Unfortunately, I can’t. Just don’t run around blaming Americans. Most of us don’t want this..

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in