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.

 

POLITICS: Rice Offers No Apology for Airstrike

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

from intrepid
What exactly do you mean by harbouring?


from Benevolent Heretic
Yes, what exactly is 'harboring'? Thanks intrepid, I've always wanted to know that.



har·bor
n.
A sheltered part of a body of water deep enough to provide anchorage for ships.
A place of shelter; a refuge.

tr.v. har·bored, har·bor·ing, har·bors
To give shelter to: harbor refugees; harbor a fugitive.
To provide a place, home, or habitat for:
a basement that harbors a maze of pipes; streams that harbor trout and bass.
To entertain or nourish (a specified thought or feeling): harbor a grudge.
dictionary.reference.com...


Over here in the states, students usually learn that level of word by middle school.
Of course, they spell it correctly also.




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
That was the most non-sensical counter argument I have ever faced in my years on this site. There is absolutely no evidence to give creedence to the fact that '17 bad guys' were killed; absolutely none; only your subjective conjecture.

Once again, I would like to understand why this man is better dead than alive. You're not giving me a rational answer due to the fact that you don't have one. You're no better than a troll; and in my eyes, you've always been as such.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
There are numerous lawless tribal members that have stated

LAWLESS .. yes .. like anyone could believe anything those
people said. LAWLESS. Pakistans government is so afraid
of these people that they can't even go into the area.
Sure... they are completely honest and believable ...


You're starting to sound like .....


blah blah blah ... nasty little comments get you nowhere.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Flyers I understand but so far all the reliable news including Fox are agreeing with the Pakistani news.

18 bodies in addition to the 4 or 5 that were killed and were known to be terrorist.

But now it seems that all the bodies has been taken away.

its getting creepy.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Over here in the states, students usually learn that level of word by middle school. Of course, they spell it correctly also.


Definitive as that was, I believe they spoke clearly in terms of context.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
Pathetic. Only an idiot could realize how irational this is.
Luxifero


blah blah blah. Starting to throw around a bunch of
personal insults. Grow up Luxifero.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by marg6043
First of all I don't see anything around that is bringing the
fact that they were all terrorist.


Do the math Marg - 17 dead people.

- At least 4 of them were confirmed terrorists.
- 10-12 of them were foreign extremist fighters (terrorists)

That just leaves one, two, or three people. Those were the
ones that invited the terrorists to begin with. Invited them
knowing who and what they were.

ALL guilty. No innocent people.


Actually I have yet to read that anywhere. Care to provide a link that will support your assertions? I am willing to look at any evidence that will support this, I just haven't seen it yet.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

from marg
If the government was so into getting the dirty scoundrels in Pakistan all they had to do was to target any convoy that was coming into the area.

It makes no sense.

Targetting every convoy is what makes no sense. Then you can be sure to kill innocents.:shk:



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
So you propose that we kill a couple of dozen till
we are done with them all?


You know I didn't. I was showing Marg that if we
wanted to wipe out an entire race, we wouldn't do
it in little 17 person segments. We'd drop a nuke.

Again - grow up Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   


LAWLESS .. yes .. like anyone could believe anything those
people said. LAWLESS. Pakistans government is so afraid
of these people that they can't even go into the area.
Sure... they are completely honest and believable ...


You're speaking to a man who has Pakistani blood in him, and with that in mind, tell me, do I sound the least bit Lawless? I believe not, and in fact, you have no way to prove that I am regardless. Lawlesness consitutes a withdrawal from a codified written document of Law, something which Pakistan does have, as do many other countries the world over; furthermore, you have no justification to even make these remarks being that you've nay touted any statistical data that would prove that these Pakistani peoples are persistently engaged in a continous declaration of lawlessness, bar your unsubstantiated claims of arbritraty members of these tribal societies harbouring arbritrary members of some suspect terrorist organization.

Luxifero.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Care to provide a link that will support your assertions?

I posted a link and a quote on the previous page.
From what it looks like, those are the figures.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It makes no sense
Targeting every convoy is what makes no sense. Then you can be sure to kill innocents.:shk:


Well no really jsobecky if you take in consideration that these people are poor people they will not be driving in cars or trucks.

Also if the Intel knew that they were going to be in the area coming from some where else during an specific time frame.

Don't you think it would have been some fair amount of movement around?

I think that they would have known if they were on the move or not.



[edit on 17-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
You're no better than a troll; and in my eyes, you've always been as such.


More personal blah blah blah attacks Luxifero.
Obviously you haven't got anything or you wouldn't
be dumping down to this level.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

from intrepid
What exactly do you mean by harbouring?


from Benevolent Heretic
Yes, what exactly is 'harboring'? Thanks intrepid, I've always wanted to know that.



har·bor
n.
A sheltered part of a body of water deep enough to provide anchorage for ships.
A place of shelter; a refuge.

tr.v. har·bored, har·bor·ing, har·bors
To give shelter to: harbor refugees; harbor a fugitive.
To provide a place, home, or habitat for:
a basement that harbors a maze of pipes; streams that harbor trout and bass.
To entertain or nourish (a specified thought or feeling): harbor a grudge.
dictionary.reference.com...


Over here in the states, students usually learn that level of word by middle school.
Of course, they spell it correctly also.


Well, thank you for the English lesson. Guess what mate, your shortsightedness is quite alarming. Check out the Cambridge dictionary:

harbour UK, US harbor.

Hmm, if you weren't too wrapped up in trying to insult people instead of answering the questions put to you, you didn't, you would realize that the US DIDN'T spawn the English language.

But hey(yeah I know, bad syntax), if that's all you've got.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   


More personal blah blah blah attacks Luxifero.
Obviously you haven't got anything or you wouldn't
be dumping down to this level.


My regards to your trollism is due to your entire dogmatic tangent of lawlessness in Pakistan and killing the bad guys so Marge can sleep at night far far away from those lawless tribal terrorists.

I would mind if you argued against my remarks that were not 'personal' -entirely your opinion - rather than these.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
You're speaking to a man who has Pakistani blood in him,

so what.

furthermore, you have no justification to even make these remarks being that you've nay touted any statistical data that would prove that these Pakistani peoples are persistently engaged in a continous declaration of lawlessness

Now I know you are a bean bag. Hey Luxifero ... here's
some info for you ... the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD refers
to that area of Pakistan a LAWLESS. There is a reason for
it. If you really were Pakistani .. you'd know that.

Troll.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intrepid
Care to provide a link that will support your assertions?

I posted a link and a quote on the previous page.
From what it looks like, those are the figures.


Well I went back 2 pages and didn't find this link. I must be blind, care to help me out?



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Now I know you are a bean bag. Hey Luxifero ... here's
some info for you ... the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD refers
to that area of Pakistan a LAWLESS. There is a reason for
it. If you really were Pakistani .. you'd know that.


Thank you, but this bean bag is educated and asute enough to realize that at one point the entire western world percieved the world to be round, so your argument here is defunct.

Exactly what constitutes legality in that region of the world in your opinion and exactly how do these tribal Pakistanis regress from this?

And, I do have Pakistani blood in me. Any of the old members who knew me as ZeroDeep would realize that I was Indian, who does happen to have relatives in Pakistan, and his own grandfather and father are from there.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

from marg
Well it actually make sense if the true intentions is to decimate an entire race.

Four missiles to kill 17 people in a remote village? Even the US can't afford to be so wasteful.

That alone should tell you that we were after a more highly-valued target, marg.

And what about this faulty intel? Even our Senators think it was solid. Who supplied the intel?

And no matter how many times people cry "The CHILDREN!", the fact remains that they were not the targets. Their elders were harboring the bad guys (there's that word again) so, I suggest that the next time The CHILDREN are nursing at their mother's breast, they clamp down good and hard to let them know that they should find better friends to invite to dinner.

So, please, enough with The CHLDREN! I was raised a Catholic so I'm well aware of how to play the guilt and shame game. It doesn't work on me anymore.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

from marg
Well no really jsobecky if you take in consideration that these people are poor people they will not be driving in cars or trucks.

And this is one reason why they are so damn hard to capture. You would expect them to be traveling by motorcade, so they blend in with the nomads and goatherders and travel on foot or on mule.

I suppose you want a link to that also?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join