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.
Originally posted by budski
When you have the decency to answer my question then I'll answer yours.
Until such time as you can back up your argument and answer the questions posed instead of making a series of beligerrent soundbites I see no need to answer any of your questions.
Originally posted by budski
So no - it's your fight, you fight it.
Originally posted by budski
They are all internal problems - even russia if you count the break up of the ussr as such - but I'll repeat, it only became a global problem when the US got hit. Before that you just didn't care.
As for the bombing of civilian targets in afghanistan - it's another abomination - these people have very little to do with al'qaeda.
And when by the way are the US going to invade or bomb pakistan?
or are you going to avoid the question again?
Originally posted by budski
OK, when were you hit on US soil that justifies bombing innocent civilians of a sovereign nation unproven to have any terrorist links?
Originally posted by budski
OK, when were you hit on US soil that justifies bombing innocent civilians of a sovereign nation unproven to have any terrorist links?
Pakistan has as many al qaeda and terrorist training bases as afghanistan - maybe even more. Or is it just that pakistan is able to fight back and is a nuclear power?
Bit like the playground bully who won't pick on kids his own size or who might fight back.
There's no justification ever, for bombing innocents who have done nothing wrong, have committed no terrorist acts and who have barely heard of al qaeda.
Want to bomb someone? bomb saudi who are well known sponsors of terrorism - oh that's right, not gonna happen because bush can make some money out of them.
The hypocrisy is sickening.
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by deltaboy
I think you are deliberately skirting the issue, because there is no justification for bombing civilians - none whatsoever. Especially when the US should not be in Iraq in the first place - a question which I put to you which you couldn't answer.
In true bush style you'll use any excuse for barbaric acts against people who have done absolutely nothing to the US, apart from be in the way.
As you sow, so shall you reap - don't start whinging when there's another 911.
Originally posted by budski
Read the article - the US government is doing exactly that.
They are fully aware of the increase in civilian deaths, but choose to ignore it.
If that's not deliberate, then I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
This one is easy. Convince the Terrorists to stop hiding behind women and children, put on a uniform and stop acting like cowards.
The U.S. military is increasingly relying on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians.
According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead.
These assaults are part of what may be the best kept secret of the Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts: an enormous intensification of US bombardments in these and other countries in the region, the increasing number of civilian casualties such a strategy entails, and the growing role of pilot-less killers in the conflict.
According to Associated Press, there has been a five-fold increase in the number of bombs dropped on Iraq during the first six months of 2007 over the same period in 2006. More than 30 tons of those have been cluster weapons, which take an especially heavy toll on civilians.
Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.