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.

 

US Justifies Syrian & Pakistan Raids.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

US Justifies Syrian & Pakistan Raids.


www.presstv.ir

A US official justifies raids on Syria and Pakistan,saying any country should be allowed to attack states it considers terrorist havens.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff late Thursday described the US raids as measures of self-defense demanding international acceptance for warding off possible threats abroad.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
So,you don't need concrete evidence you just need to consider a country a haven of terrorists and you can attack it.

I guess Saudi Arabia still isn't considered that even though bin Laden is from there,the country has the largest percentage of AQ members and 15 of the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were also from there.

Theres only one thing worst than this attitude,and thats the countries that stand by and let the US get away with it.



www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Syria and Pakistan Are Havens

and yes I do not feel that the US needs permition to go after
known enemies. Dont think that by saying that I condone it.

My girlfriend is from Pakistan and she goes to visit every year,
about 4 months ago this year, and she said it is worse than ever,
The tribal regions are autonomous with the taliban and both
hate america, if it takes a raid into soveriegn territory to do something
that territories government wont do for the protection of US interests,
then so be it.

In fact in some cases this is preferred to say, declaring war on a government that clearly is complacent or clandestinly supports the
anti American sentiment.

I believe America, while certainly not always right, sometimes gets
an over-exaggerated negative reaction every time they do things like
this.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


The really sad part is, it will become unpatriotic to question this fascist nonsense.

Many will ignorantly accept the "We should be allowed to do this" as gospel.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




The really sad part is, it will become unpatriotic to question this fascist nonsense.


It has nothing to do with fascism.
The fascism Americans have to worry about is in our backyards.




Many will ignorantly accept the "We should be allowed to do this" as gospel.


Not gospel, and certainly not blindly accepting.
In this world sometimes actions should be taken.
If the guy down the block hated me and had a plan and the
means to damage me I would do something about it.

It is not any easy situation, I just dont think it should be all
about America bashing.

Why do others get to freely hate and plot to hurt America yet
we are not supposed to retaliate, Why??



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


What makes it fascistic is that the people of this nation, who the deciders are sworn to "faithfully" represent and "serve" do whatever they want, and couldn't be stopped from doing it - even if we all said "no."

What makes it ignorant is this.

You found out that you're neighbor is going to kill your dog tonight while you sleep. The dog stays in your yard always. So what are you gong to do about it? Protect the dog? No, you're going to go over there and kick his butt. Or maybe call the police and tell them - then they go over and kick his butt.

Guess what. He never planned to do it. You can't prove he did. And if in fact he didn't, YOU are the aggressor. You can't preemptively punish someone for something that is in YOUR mind. Governments shouldn't either.

An innocent person may have died in these raids. It may not matter to you, but it matters to that person's family. Or are you declaring the Executive branch is right when it contends that its our ruler (Bush said that HE is the decider of these things.) And the people's will (as expressed via their representatives) is just so much nonsense and useless noise. Like that G-Damned piece of paper, the Conflagration or whatever you call it.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   


If the guy down the block hated me and had a plan and the
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


Problem is, these people aren't just down the block, therefore you have no way of knowing what their motives are. Except what your Government tells you. In other words, If you had been born into their country, would you view what we're doing the same way?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The US is completely justified in launching raids with pakistan, because Pakistan is one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world. Actually, the country is a sort of pseudo anarchy with several centers of power (almost all of them BAD or criminal); i.e. their military, their 'intelligence'/subversion agency known as the ISI (created & designed by the CIA under reagan), their parliament (made of feudal warlords, islamists, & feudal industrialists), the 4-5 MAFIA families that control the economy & populate the previous 3 institutions, Tribal leaders, and finally the wacko islamist organizations that run jihad-terrorist producing factories known as MADrassas. Each one of these power centers operates independently of each other; all of them (except for a few corrupt parliamentarians & feudal industrialists who can be see profit in a peaceful stable environment & can be paid off) HATE America, HATE the Indians and HATE Russia (while they love China & Saudi Arabia & OBL).

You see when you have an Islamist Anarchy with competing power centers, and an ISI & military that actively shields taliban terrorists the run to pakistani territory to escape American/Nato retaliation, you cannot blame US forces for launching airstrikes within pakistan. The pakistani have some of the most hateful and vicious islamist terrorists you will ever have the misfortune of knowing about. Some of these guys enjoy slaughtering children and old men, they've massacred whole families just to make a point in various villages (in Afghanistan, Pakistan & India). Even the Hamas and Iraqi insurgents consider these guys to be barbaric; Hell even the Iranians consider these guys to be medieval. They're responsible for at 60,000 civilian deaths in Indian Kashmir since 1990. They systematically drove the native Kashmiri Hindu minority out of their homeland (Central Kashmir) in the 1990s by carrying a campaign of rape, torture and murder against young hindu women, and prominent families in Srinagar. As well, they threatened forced conversion of all non-muslims to islam if they didn't leave Kashmir by a given deadline; this forced over 400,000 kashmiri Hindus to flee to refugee camps since 1990.

Even muslim owned Lebanese papers admit that pakistan helps terrorists; accord the lebanese newspaper As-Safir,


"every year the pakistani government manages to infiltrate into Indian kashmir 5000 'jihadis', and every year the Indian army manages to kill each and everyone them. Pakistan should come to terms with futility of its current actions"

Man, imagine how bad the pakistanis have to be that even a Lebanese paper would go on record to criticize them for supporting terror.

Imagine being a US soldier in Afghanistan and u come under an ambush from taliban terrorists, some of your guys get badly wound or killed. You now chase after them (most insurgent attacks are hit & run types) and these killers hi-tail it to the pakistan border, once across the border, in the past, they've been safe because ur not allowed to cross; this can be very frustrating & demoralizing, watching these guys jeering & cheering on the other side (while pakistani border guards grin in you face). Worse, this arrangement allows these cowardly butchers a chance to regroup, and re-supply.

In fact, the above scenerio has happened many times, UNTIL the whitehouse gave US forces the go ahead to cross the border (ground troops) 2 months back. As US troops approached the pakistani border while chasing taliban attackers, pakistani army border troops opened fire on the Americans giving the taliban cover to get thru the border. Well this time the US troops called in an airstrike on the pakistani army border post; the airstrike killed/wounded about 20 pakistani troops; US ground forces then proceeded to finish off the taliban they were chasing within pakistani territory. That is perfectly justifiable and a GOOD thing.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by LokiAsgardian]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Thank you Loki. It is good to see someone who knows what they are talking about.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LokiAsgardian
 

The Pakis and Syrians are onside with these terrorists. Sooner we recolonise these bastions of terror the better.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Guess what. He never planned to do it. You can't prove he did. And if in fact he didn't, YOU are the aggressor. You can't preemptively punish someone for something that is in YOUR mind. Governments shouldn't either.


Since we're using metaphors.

Would it be enough proof for you if that guy down the street
stood in his yard with a megaphone and shouted to the whole block that he was going to kill me and anyone related to me,
while he waived a gun around?

If he announced that he hated me because I had bushes in my yard and he thought that trees were the only plants that should be in any yard and anyone with bushes was somehow evil?

Then I see him with a can of gas and a lighter leering at me
just before I go to bed, at what point would it be acceptable to you that protective, even pre-emptive, action be taken?



An innocent person may have died in these raids. It may not matter to you, but it matters to that person's family.


Innocent people died on 9/11 and I'm quite sure that it mattered very much to their families. I was lucky enough not to have known anyone who died that day, but it still mattered very much to me..

Violence is negative and hurts the elevation of humanity, Still there are times when action needs to be taken in the interest of self preservation.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Raison d'etat. Look it up, people.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   


any country should be allowed to attack states it considers terrorist havens


You mean... we can start bombing the United States now?

... and nobody will retaliate?

Sweet deal. First we'll start with those "Storm Front" guys, next the CIA, then the KKK, mmm pretty much ALL of Arkansas...

Man, it's gonna be a good news day isn't it...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
You could, but could your nation deal with the consequences? That's kind of the point.

The US could attack China, sure, but the consequences would be unsustainable at this point. Syria? Not so much.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
You could, but could your nation deal with the consequences? That's kind of the point.

The US could attack China, sure, but the consequences would be unsustainable at this point. Syria? Not so much.


Exactly.

The point here is the US thinks it can attack anyone, because they spend more on their military. No need for moral justification, no need for moral thoughts at all... we bought the bigger guns, we can shoot whoever we want.

Using "terrorism" as a cop out, is well... a cop out... have any of you READ the definition of terrorism? I'll give you a hint, the United States fits the definition.
As does anyone who picks up a weapon.

Basically what the US has claimed here is, " We can kill anyone we want, wherever we want, because everyone can be called a terrorist. "



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
AlienChaser



The tribal regions are autonomous with the taliban and both
hate america, if it takes a raid into soveriegn territory to do something
that territories government wont do for the protection of US interests,
then so be it.


Pakistan has had trouble with this region since the countries creation,and the US has never seen it fit to intervene and help Pakistan out.
To see such behaviour as protecting US interests is to show that you believe in the BS that has been spouted about terrorism.

There is still no concrete evidence on just who was behind 9/11,but there's a helluva lot of anomalies and controversies that point at the US government being in the know and part of it all.



I believe America, while certainly not always right, sometimes gets


In these circumstances bombing another country should never get a positive reaction.But this is nothing new to the US,during the Vietnam war they bombed Laos and Cambodia at will.

If you look at what i said on another thread you will see that prior to the invasion Iraq was complying with the UN resolutions.The Bush administration has lied and fed the masses nothing but propaganda just so they can get what they want.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=jakyll




Maxmars



The really sad part is, it will become unpatriotic to question this fascist nonsense. Many will ignorantly accept the "We should be allowed to do this" as gospel.


Too many people already do.Thats how they can get away with such things.





LokiAsgardian



The US is completely justified in launching raids with pakistan, because Pakistan is one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world.


1)Pakistan does not sponsor terrorism.Political factions within Pakistan do.
2)The US is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world.They have sold weapons to countries such as Syria,Lebanon,Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.They trained and armed people like bin Laden.Their meddling,along with the British,allowed the Taliban to get into power in Afghanistan.(the day of 9/11 PM Blair had been at an arms deal with Syrian officials)
3)Irish Americans sponsored the IRA.Yet the UK didn't bomb America,we didn't even threaten to do so.

The US are bombing Pakistan because they think they can get away with it because it has an Islamic regime.It would be very different if it was the UK or France or Greece.(for example)




The pakistani have some of the most hateful and vicious islamist terrorists you will ever have the misfortune of knowing about. Some of these guys enjoy slaughtering children and old men, they've massacred whole families just to make a point in various villages (in Afghanistan, Pakistan & India).


Very true.
But the soldiers in Iraq are no better than these people.


The rage soldiers feel after a roadside bomb explodes, killing or maiming their comrades, is one that is easily directed over time to innocent civilians who are seen to support the insurgents. It is a short psychological leap, but a massive moral leap. It is a leap from killing -- the shooting of someone who has the capacity to do you harm -- to murder -- the deadly assault against someone who cannot harm you. The war in Iraq is now primarily about murder. There is very little killing.
After four years of war, American Marines and soldiers have become socialized to atrocity. The American killing project is not described in these terms to a distant public. The politicians still speak in the abstract terms of glory, honor, and heroism, in the necessity of improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue. The campaign to rid the world of terror is expressed with this rhetoric, as if once all terrorists are destroyed evil itself will vanish.

www.alternet.org...


In December 2003 a woman prisoner at Abu Ghraib smuggled out a note. "The note claimed that U.S. guards had been raping women detainees… Several of the women were now pregnant, it added. The women had been forced to strip naked in front of men, it said. The note urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further shame." Female lawyers of women detainees discovered that this was true not only at Abu Ghraib but that the same thing was "happening all across Iraq." (This and subsequent quotes from the UK Guardian, 20 March 2004)
The Guardian continued, "Astonishingly, the secret inquiry launched by the U.S. military in January 2005, headed by Major General Antonio Taguba, has confirmed that the letter smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a woman known only as ‘Noor’ was entirely and devastatingly accurate."

www.revcom.us...



US-led occupation forces have committed numerous atrocities in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Haditha, Hamandiya, Sadr City, Samarra and Ishaqi have become synonymous with murder, rape and the multiple killing of civilians.

www.globalpolicy.org...


PLEASE BE WARNED.THE BELOW LINKS CONTAIN GRAPHIC IMAGES.
www.antiwar.com...
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
www.thememoryhole.org...


When you look at such things its hard to believe that this is about freedom and the 'saving' of people from tyranny.The US must not be allowed to take their 'war of ambition' to other countries.The fact that more people have died since the invasion than under Saddam means that seeds have been sown for future hatred and violence.



Pictures of propaganda.
ustorture.blogspot.com...
bremerblog.blogspot.com...




[edit on 1-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

Originally posted by SuperViking
You could, but could your nation deal with the consequences? That's kind of the point.

The US could attack China, sure, but the consequences would be unsustainable at this point. Syria? Not so much.


Exactly.

The point here is the US thinks it can attack anyone, because they spend more on their military. No need for moral justification, no need for moral thoughts at all... we bought the bigger guns, we can shoot whoever we want.

Using "terrorism" as a cop out, is well... a cop out... have any of you READ the definition of terrorism? I'll give you a hint, the United States fits the definition.
As does anyone who picks up a weapon.

Basically what the US has claimed here is, " We can kill anyone we want, wherever we want, because everyone can be called a terrorist. "


Why insert morals into international relations? They don't fit there. Nations need to do what they have to do in order to protect their interests. What's right for some nations is wrong for others and vice versa- there's no point in even trying to put morality in there.

It's a uniquely American thing (although WWI spread it to Western Europe), but thank god it's usually particular to American citizens and not the politicians, or the nation would be much worse off.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The proof of the US 'justification' will be if all those currently in support of the US's actions accept it when another nation attacks the US.

And it's something all those in support of US aggression need to consider right now. Don't procrastinate or you could be too late.

Because the US is stirring up hornet's nests all over the globe.

The US is itching to ignite global warfare.

Well .. either it's the US or Israel.

If it's the US, then the US will have no room to whine when the pendulum swings.

There's no room for complacency

The next war may well be on US soil

But you knew that, didn't you ?



I mean, Americans have had a really good ride

but all good rides come to an end


It's fine sitting back and playing armchair general when the fight is 'over there' in some 'foreign' place

But it won't feel quite the same when it's US towns and cities which are being evaporated

Then all today's blowhards will be cowering in their shelters and dug-outs, their white-knuckled fingers clutching their guns and the sweat of fear dripping down their faces.

Seems many Americans are completely ignorant of the fact that the US comprises only 5% of the world's population.

5%

not much, is it

and all the while, the US is continually riling the other 95%

Yes, keep poking that stick in the hornet's nest .. see what happens



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Rather ignorant to accuse the US of "poking a hornet's nest" when the whole world is comprised of various nations with clashing interests.

In fact, it sounds like someone who doesn't really pay too much attention to world affairs but wants to sound smart and rebelling "The Man". I mean, to presume that everyone else is getting along fine and the big bad evil Americans are ruining it for them all is just laughable. I'm guessing you weren't a history or foreign affairs major?



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Dock6



The proof of the US 'justification' will be if all those currently in support of the US's actions accept it when another nation attacks the US.


They wouldn't accept it,even if it was,for example,India attacking Pakistan or Iran attacking Israel.(never mind America) Its do as we say not as we do.




It's fine sitting back and playing armchair general when the fight is 'over there' in some 'foreign' place
But it won't feel quite the same when it's US towns and cities which are being evaporated


Very very true.
America's greatest strength during war is its isolation.It hasn't experienced a (modern) war that rages on for years or experienced the systamatic bombing from enemy aircraft.A good example is the London Blitz during WW2.At one stage the city was bombed for 80 nights straight! Then there's the obliteration of the German city Dresden at the hands of the Allies.(a war crime that still hasn't been accounted for) The dropping of nuclear bombs on Japanese cities.

I'm sure if those who support their governments wars of aggression had to go through those kinda things and everything else that war brings then their attitude would be very different indeed.



new topics




 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join