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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   


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.


Seems wastefull to me when the dead were nothing more than civilians, and when this attack was carried out on intelligence that is already starting to become suspect and nothing more than to arrouse what little confidence the American and international community has in this administration.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz stated that not only did Pakistani Intelligence participate with American Intelligence operatives in this operation, but that "his country cannot accept a repetition of a US air strikes." It's only been how long and already are starting to see the U.S story start to crumble in on it's own nonsense; and the impunitive of the U.S refused to comment on this raid, and will more than likely refuse in the future and simply assert dogmatic claims of false intell which was gathered in mere days to kill one of the worlds most acclaimed members of a global terrorist organization who is quite blatantly better reserved a coffin than a prison so we can truely begin to fight this terrorist organization in a proper and logical fashion.




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


And exactly what does this prove? How many Senators believe that Saddam had ties with Al-Queda and was responsible for 9/11, and more importantly, had access to Nuclear Arms?

What the U.S has simply done is disregard Pakistani soveriengty for thier own self-interest and preconcieved conjecture to spoon feed the public to fall into their web of constant lies.

Luxifero




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

from intrepid
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.

The little emoticon implied levity. I'm well aware of the way the Brits add the u to many words.

That still doesn't explain their ignorance of the word, though.

No insult intended, you know that. If you want to see insults, look at the post that spliff4020 laid out. And, btw, I did answer the question put to me. Or did you miss that in your haste to sidetrack the debate?


[edit on 17-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Let us compare the reports of CNN from those of the Pakistani Prime Minister, and let us so who members will find posit veracity within;

Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead. Where as Prime Minister Aziz says His government is also insisting it did not share intelligence information with the US before Friday's attack; and "also said Western media reports that the bombing was carried out with assistance from Pakistani intelligence agencies were totally baseless. "

What's going on here?

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
jsobecky

I am not by any means attacking you, I am keeping the exchange civil.

This whole thing most have been so desperate for the US as to do what they did to get one top target AL-qaida second man.

Going into a village and targeting 3 houses was an over kill.

Taking in consideration that US has 17 thousand troops in the area along with 70 thousand Pakistani troops covering the border.

Now why such an over kill when it would have been better for PO to capture the terrorist.

I don't get it. BTW the only way into the area is not in trucks or cars is in Camels and donkeys.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

from Luxifero
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz stated that not only did Pakistani Intelligence participate with American Intelligence operatives in this operation, but that "his country cannot accept a repetition of a US air strikes."

I'm a bit confused. What you stated above implies that Pakistani and American intel worked together on this. Yet the source you give states otherwise:


His government is also insisting it did not share intelligence information with the US before Friday's attack.
news.bbc.co.uk...

I think you meant to say that Pakistan did not work with US intel on this. I'm just looking for clarification.


Seems wastefull to me when the dead were nothing more than civilians, and when this attack was carried out on intelligence that is already starting to become suspect

My point exactly, although I do disagree with the "the dead were nothing more than civilians" part.


And exactly what does this prove? How many Senators believe that Saddam had ties with Al-Queda and was responsible for 9/11, and more importantly, had access to Nuclear Arms?

It proves that intel is never 100% reliable. But we cannot wait until all intel is 100% verified, or we would lose about 90% of opportunities. Sometimes it is necessary to act first and verify later. Even our own gov't realizes that; look at the FISA act.


What the U.S has simply done is disregard Pakistani soveriengty for thier own self-interest

The Pakistan-American relationship is not what it appears to be on its face. The behind-the-scenes dance is much different than what is shown on the world stage. I believe that America acted with at least the implicit approval of Pakistan in this instance.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Well by the horses mouth on an interview with CNN, the ambassador of Pakistan was asked many times if he knew that US was going to target the area.

In his answers he said that they new about the information on the terrorist visiting the area.

But he was not specific about knowing if the US was going to do an air strike.

It seems that the communications between the embedded spies and the US were not updated and they didn't know that the intended target was going to be a no show.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
jsobecky

I am not by any means attacking you, I am keeping the exchange civil.

This whole thing most have been so desperate for the US as to do what they did to get one top target AL-qaida second man.

Going into a village and targeting 3 houses was an over kill.

Taking in consideration that US has 17 thousand troops in the area along with 70 thousand Pakistani troops covering the border.

Now why such an over kill when it would have been better for PO to capture the terrorist.

I don't get it. BTW the only way into the area is not in trucks or cars is in Camels and donkeys.


Then Marg you don't know how wars are fought then. In your view its an overkill, 10 missiles targeting 3 houses. Maybe big mud made houses. Can't be sure it one missile can take on 3 homes by itself.
We may be advance, but not that military technologically advance to the point where terrorists are killed only. And you know how long it takes to send soldiers into Pakistan from Afghanistan? Remember that Clinton attempted to kill Osama in 98 but Osama left and the cruise missiles were way far away and we missed him by hours. When you have the drones with missiles right there, you don't blow that chance. We spotted Bin Laden before but that was before somebody thought of drones armed with Hellfire missiles. Same thing for sending so many fighters to kill Isoruko Yamamoto during WW2. He was the most brilliant Admiral of the Japanese military who planned the surprise attack of Pearl Harbor, paralyzing the U.S. Pacific Fleet. And we sent I forgot how many, but it would in your view be an overkill to shoot down Yamamoto's plane. It it can shorten the war, then so be it. Same here in the present time to kill Al Zawahiri.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Then Marg you don't know how wars are fought then. In your view its an overkill, 10 missiles targeting 3 houses.


I guess not, because I had not idea that US was at war with pakistan.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

I guess not, because I had not idea that US was at war with pakistan.


We arent, otherwise the Pakistani President would be mad at us right now. If I remember correctly in one of his comments about the attack, he said dont support terrorists.
What kind of response would that be. Sounds more like a warning to the tribes not to support the terrorists.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
BH, what part did I not make clear? This is WAR! We didn't start this. If you recall, they flew the planes into us first. They will do that REGARDLESS!

What you might need to understand is that these people hate you. If you sit quietly, they will hate you. If you say you are sorry, they will see you as weak and hate you. They hate you. They hated the flight attendants and cut their throats, even though the attendants brought them a cup of coffee and a smile a few minutes earlier. It makes no difference.


I thought I could expect more insightful comments from a mod, but you ain't perfect and neither am I, so I guess I should not expect this.

But, really, how do you know that Iraq attacked us on 9/11? Because Bin Laden's Iraqi? No, wait, he's a Saudi Arabian.
Because Bin Laden ran with the Taliban once he left the CIA? Oh, they hail from Afghanistan.
Oh, it must have been Saddam; he was such a bad guy, even though we put him into power. Too bad there's no evidence of the latter.


TC, you should be mad at those that pulled off 9/11, because I am. Problem is, WAAY more evidence points to criminals in our govt than to Iraq. Come on, there's virtually NO evidence that Iraq did it; if it was them, why didn't we attack them first instead of Afghanistan?


As far as them hating us, I see that you have little knowledge on the history of Iraq. At one time, they were pro-west; this was when they were under Mossadegh. But of course, our govt had to get rid of him via terror attacks blamed on him and subsequently installed the Shah into power. And don't you DARE say our govt didn't do terror in the 50s in Iraq; I have heard TWO prominent CIA officials ADMIT this!

Even under Saddam, Christians lived without persecution in Iraq, many women were graduating from college, etc. I'm not saying Saddam was great, he was an insane dictator, but at least they had that kinda stuff in Iraq under him.

Pro-war neocon "Iraq hit us on 9/11!!! We gotta kill 'em all!!! Glass parking lot!!!"

Conspiracy theorist "Uh, actually, the govt did it. And if you don't believe that, it was the Saudis or the Afghanis before the Iraqis."

Pro-war neocon "Well, so what! All them damn towelheads look alike anyway! Kill all them damn Arabs, kill em all!!!"

America won't wake up until it's too late...oh, well. I told as many people as I could.




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

from truthseeka
TC, you should be mad at those that pulled off 9/11, because I am. Problem is, WAAY more evidence points to criminals in our govt than to Iraq. Come on, there's virtually NO evidence that Iraq did it; if it was them, why didn't we attack them first instead of Afghanistan?

This wasn't addressed to me, but let me ask: where did you see anyone here blaming Iraq for pulling off 9/11? Now, Iraq having ties to terrorism, that's another topic. For another thread.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
comeon people, they arent even done identifying these people, its only been a few days....



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by marg6043

I guess not, because I had not idea that US was at war with pakistan.


We arent, otherwise the Pakistani President would be mad at us right now. If I remember correctly in one of his comments about the attack, he said dont support terrorists.
What kind of response would that be. Sounds more like a warning to the tribes not to support the terrorists.


Sounds like a way to cover his arse. Musharraf is Prez because he pulled off a coup to prevent the (kinda) legally elected pro-Islamist government from taking power.

He's got to juggle the fact that the US (using the Northern Alliance) took down the Taliban in couple of months and put a new gov't in Kabul, the fact that he needs US support in his disputes with India, the fact that AQ Khan gave his country nukes and he doesn't want a bunch of Islamist loonies to get their hands on the big red button, the fact that thousands of pakis march in support of the Taliban, the fact that no ruler of Pakistan has ever effectively extended their rule ofer Baluchistan, Waziristan et al...

He's president of an Islamic country, he took power away from the popular choice of the people, he is fighting an insurgency and jumped into the War on Terror (tm) to get back the international recognition he lost when the Commonwealth gave him the boot.

Musharraf is telling the Islamists in his country that he is not responsible when Americans kill them.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The FACT is that 17 people died.
They were terrorists and those knowingly harboring terrorists.
Terrorists that have declared war on US. On YOU, Marg.


Uh-huh.

Tell me, how many Paki tribesmen in the border mountains do you think have the education to know

a) What the USA is.

b) The US' foreign policy in the Middle East since 1945.

c) Where the USA is.

d) What the US' definition of a terrorist is.

e) Why the US considers their (tribesmen's) cousins to be terrorists.

f) Who Osama Bin Laden really is.

g) How to speak English and therefore understand CNN or Fox.

h) Why their Imam may not be all that trustworthy when he preaches that some of the brothers did the work of Allah in smiting the Great Satan.

These people don't follow borders or national laws because they simply have no bearing on their lives. Surviving winter is more than enough to think about. The Pakistani army is just one more outside force, in a history thousands of years old of outside forces, trying to invade their land and disrupt their lives.

Those who do get satellite tv ask the reasonable question why do you send us aid and then kill us with missiles?

The US government is now conducting cross-border crimes in an attempt to distract the public from the fact that they have apprehended and convicted not one of the September 11 planners.

I can have any criminal I want in my house, you are not allowed to shoot my house before you warn me to surrender him into your lawful custody.

This is like the Pinkertons throwing a grenade into Jesse James' mother's house when he wasn't home.


Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Never let it be said the US learns from its mistakes




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
And they don't need to know any of that, either. All they need to know is that wherever their terrorist brothers and cousins go, a missile is sure to follow.

They can then decide for themselves whether they want to be on the receiving end of that missile.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
He's president of an Islamic country, he took power away from the popular choice of the people, he is fighting an insurgency and jumped into the War on Terror (tm) to get back the international recognition he lost when the Commonwealth gave him the boot.

Musharraf is telling the Islamists in his country that he is not responsible when Americans kill them.


And that is the whole point and thanks to bring it on.


He was actually telling the US that he is still their friends, but to his people he went public and condemn the US attack.

I guess you have to keep both sides happy. After all US is allowing him to have his nice arsenal of nuclear weapons.


As long as US have the rights to go into his country and bomb "Terrorist"

I wonder how long the people in Pakistan will tolerate all this before taking him out of power and getting their hands on the nuclear power.

Then what?

Another country in the list of the Axis of evil.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   


We have no idea if there would have been any more attacks if we had done things entirely differently. Most people fall for this defective logic (as you have) and that's one thing that keeps the war going strong.

I could hang garlic all around my house and claim that it keeps the bobcats away! Same logic.


Sorry... Off Topic:



So the logic about sitting on our poop-shoots while terrorists sit on theirs and plan out the next attack would have been better?
No BH:
Your logic of garlic with bobcats is simply a cheap ploy to try to make yourself sound literarily smart.

Being proactive in a war is not defective logic,..but EFFECTIVE logic. Better yet, EFFECTIVE tactics. If a stray dog keeps snatching and killing your chickens, do you just sit back and hope one day he jumps in your lap and says.."Im wrong, I give up" ?.......Or do you Proactively shoot at the dog and keep him on the run and out of your chicken pen? One day your neighbor's dog may be unfortunate enough to be with the culprit and gets shot as well. Its very terrible and unfortunate, however im sure it happens all the time during a farmer's war to protect his goods.

And as i said in my statement before. For the innocents caught up in this, it doesn't mean the US is free of not making an appology, It should send its condolences and try to compensate these families best it can. For the terrorists & extremists that were involved, well, they will not be involved in planning attacks that could kill hundreds or thousands of people any time soon. And Al Zawari will be busy cleaning out his shorts for while and watching over his head if he did survive.

Carburetor



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Already discussed. There were no bodies of women or
children. None. Why do you keep bringing this up?
It's a none issue. There weren't any.

Err... That is NOT True.


Associated Press: Terrorists Killed in U.S. Strike

Eighteen residents, including women and children, were also killed in the strike, the provincial government said Tuesday.


New York Times

Zaman, who said three of his children were killed when his home was destroyed, told AP he was a "law-abiding" laborer and had no ties to al-Zawahri or any other militants.

At another destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said 24 of his family members were killed and vowed he would "seek justice from God."



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
and the next thing you know becky, flyers fan and their CIA friends will wipe out an entire village of people somewhere in Kashmir just becouse there are supposedly two enemies hidden somewhere in the village.

4 or 5 foreign fighters and 18 civilians is the number on CNN.com, thats a really good ratio you guys, you should be proud, you just made more "friends" over there and basically made your families legitemate targets for your enemies. Hell if you can do it, they can do it too.

Yes, your family is harbouring terrorists as well, you two brainless wonders namely, its just too bad your enemies live in caves and have no airplanes to bomb the hell out of you (which is a bummer IMHO becouse you really need to taste your medicine) and your neighbours, who are guilty becouse they feed your dog when you are not at home.

seriously, why dont you two go chase Osama or something











[edit on 18-1-2006 by nukunuku]

[edit on 18-1-2006 by nukunuku]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The reason for the worldwide hatred for the US is precisely because of the attitudes expressed here that are reflected in the arrogant behaviour of the US administration. YOU are the reason for the terrorism NOT the children in Pakistan !

Read these official FBI documents:

www.fbi.gov...

If its OK to bomb people in Pakistan then its Ok to bomb thousands in the US for exactly the same "war on terror" excuse. Of course that would mean admitting that the US also has its fair share of extremists.

The US is the same as Ireland which is the same as Saudia Arabia which is the same as Afghanistan etc etc. All countries have extremists, the nature of the extremism changes over time. BUT the worst thing you can do is give these extremists a reason to coordinate their activity and a common cause to rally behind. Even worse is to treat non extremists in such a bad way that they see the extremist as their saviour. Unfortunately the US's behaviour towards citizens in far away countries is doing exactly that.

Did I mention Ireland? Presumably it would have been OK to bomb Dublin because of the IRA terrorists living there. Or how about right here in Scotland where I live because of the known IRA pubs and clubs (although the majority of Scots are protestant not catholic and so they are most certainly not in a million years IRA sympathisers). Oops I forgot the IRA got lots of money from the US so that means they were good guys doesn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join