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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll

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)



Ya my neighbor could possibly kill me I guess I better do it first. Someone could possibly steal my wallet, I better kill them first.




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
You might if there were no such thing as cops or law and you were much much stronger than those people.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 




You might if there were no such thing as cops or law and you were much much stronger than those people.


There is such a thing as international law,i'm sure you've heard of it,and the US government keeps breaking it.Why hold one law 'sacred' and the other not??



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
International Law is not universally enforced by anyone. It's only enforced when the interests of enforcing it actually mirror the interests of those able to enforce it.

It's a highly tautological argument and no one is going to follow those.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Well,if no one enforces it how can it be enforced by those who have an interest in it being enforced,if it isn't universally enforced by anyone



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
That's exactly the point. Such constructs, like the entire concept of collective security, is flawed because it assumes that every member nation (which should be all nations, so that's the first hurdle) will respond to the same threats in the same fashion and degree, no matter where in the world it is, no matter how peripheral to it's own interests it is.

History has shown, very clearly, that this is not the case. Nations do not work as nonprofit charity organizations, no matter how much some wish that they would.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 




So,you don't need concrete evidence you just need to consider a country a haven of terrorists and you can attack it.


What about the pakastani scientist who gave nukes to possible nutcases?

There's no way to get the job done in afghanistan without the help of pakistan. We can't wait for the pakistani gov't to get the job done so sometimes we have to do it ourselves.

You will admit there are religious fundamentalists over in that region of the world who conspire against US interests right?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 




You will admit there are religious fundamentalists over in that region of the world who conspire against US interests right?


I admit that there are fundamentalist's in these areas,of course.

But i would say that,in the case of Afghanistan,it is the US that has conspired against them.There has never been any proof that the Taliban were involved with 9/11,but bin Laden was a guest there,and when the U.S. demanded bin Laden be handed over,the Taliban refused as he was a guest and national hero who was wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle.The Taliban offered to send bin Laden to an international tribunal once the U.S.presented evidence of his involvement.Washington refused and invaded,blaming the Taliban for 9/11.

As for Syria,the terrorists there are focused mainly on Israel,not America.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by
jakyll

 

Rspnse to Jakyll:


1)Pakistan does not sponsor terrorism.Political factions within Pakistan do.

How the H--L would u know? do u read & speak urdu? Do u know abt Pakistan's internal setup? Have u read the exposes of the pakistani media or the testimony of ex-pak army officers who were involved, where they ADMIT openly that their government funds trains & controls the terrorist groups targeted at Indian Kashmir (Mujaheed) & at afghanistan (the Taliban)?U might be surprised to learn that the so-called secular, feminist westernized darling of the british liberal media, Benazir Bhutto, was the main sponsor & creator of the Taliban & Islamic terrorist movements in kashmir while she was Prime Minister of Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan has & still does support Islamic terrorism not just individual factions.


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 & Pakistan.They trained & armed people like bin Laden.Their meddling,along with the British,allowed the Taliban to get into power in Afghani...

Fine part of what u say is true, the US, UK & Saudi did Islamize Afghanistan, specifically that criminal racist Zbigniew Brezinski (a bilderberger, trilat, cfr, & a supporter of POL POT & part of the evil left-wing carter administration) proudly admitted this. However, the talibanization, colonization & slaughter of afghanistan (after the soviets left) was an entirely pakistani job.


3)Irish Americans sponsored the IRA.Yet the UK didn't bomb America,we didn't even threaten to do so

This comparison is practically blasphemous, the IRA, whatever its faults was not BARBARIC enough to wantonly slit women's throats, dismember little children (taliban, 1996-7, 6000 hazara boys @ mazir-i-sharif), etc. etc. The IRA would call in their bomb threats so that UK police would have a chance to evacuate civilians. The IRA had a clear, justifiable political objective, not some wacko theological one; something the UK gov. understood (internally). The US gov. did not fund the IRA, private individuals in the US supplied funds, many were arrested by the US gov. So even if the UK could bomb the USA without being erased off the earth & turned into radioactive rubble by the USA; they wouldn't have; the IRA situation is not comparable


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..France..

Really? What about Serbia, a European Christian nation, which the US bombed to protect a bunch of vicious ungrateful Islamic Kosovars-Albanians.

Now I seen some of the most IGNORANT, yet well-meaning, perhaps idealist and naive, Anti-American comments posted here about the US military. I saddens me that some of seem to have knee-jerk attitude lets blame the USA for all the worlds evils & lets blind ourselves to the reality that the theology of much of the Islamic world is based on the glorification of the violent conquest & subjugation of all non-islamic cultures. I can understand why some might have lost trust in what the US gov. says, lets face it, they have lied in many situations, there have been several 'gulf of tonkin' type false-flag operations to suck america into a war. HOWEVER, just like the boy who cried wolf the 3rd time (when there actually was a wolf), US gov.'s characterization of Islamic terrorism is actually accurate. (specifically afghanistan & pakistan; AND NOT Iraq). It would be very unfortunate for anyone to ignore the actual threat; it is real, the islamic terrorists kill for religious reasons, Pakistan is treacherous & duplicitous, so is the Syrian regime (although the Syrian regime is not islamic, but secular)

The US is right & their airstrikes are a GOOD THING!




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LokiAsgardian
 




This comparison is practically blasphemous, the IRA, whatever its faults was not BARBARIC enough to wantonly slit women's throats, dismember little children (taliban, 1996-7, 6000 hazara boys @ mazir-i-sharif), etc. etc. The IRA would call in their bomb threats so that UK police would have a chance to evacuate civilians. The IRA had a clear, justifiable political objective, not some wacko theological one; something the UK gov. understood (internally). The US gov. did not fund the IRA, private individuals in the US supplied funds, many were arrested by the US gov. So even if the UK could bomb the USA without being erased off the earth & turned into radioactive rubble by the USA; they wouldn't have; the IRA situation is not comparable


Then you have to do some more research.While they may have not killed children one on one they have killed many in their bombing activities.They have also tortured and murdered many men,and women.

And they didn't always ring in the bomb location,this actually only became part of their campaign in the 1990's.The IRA have killed more British people through terrorist activities than the Taliban or al-Qaeda have.



Really? What about Serbia, a European Christian nation, which the US bombed to protect a bunch of vicious ungrateful Islamic Kosovars-Albanians.


You mean a war that you were asked to get involved in.
The US military didn't just barge there way in and start bombing at will,they were part of a large scale international operation.Unlike with Syria and Pakistan were you haven't been invited to attack.



U might be surprised to learn that the so-called secular, feminist westernized darling of the british liberal media, Benazir Bhutto, was the main sponsor & creator of the Taliban & Islamic terrorist movements in kashmir while she was Prime Minister of Pakistan. Therefore, Pakistan has & still does support Islamic terrorism not just individual factions.


And you might be surprised to know that she,like many many other people,believed that the Taliban could stabilise Afghanistan and then allow economic access to trade with Central Asian republics.She provided military and financial support for the Taliban.As did the UK,the US and Saudi Arabia.She openly condemned terrorist activity.

In 2002 President Musharraf gave a landmark speech against Islamic extremism where he unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself.
In a 2004 speech he denounced terrorism and opened the door to relationships between Pakistan and Israel,as well as between the Muslim world and Jews worldwideAlthough he didn't believe in military tactics in fighting the Taliban,he pledged to help in the 'war on terror.'

As for Pakistans current President.

Mr Zardari has been more forthright on combating terrorism than his deeply ambivalent predecessor, General Pervez Musharraf. Much of the military effort has been focused on the tribal area of Bajaur, where another major offensive is apparently being prepared.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2008/10/17/dl1702.xml

The US want to be able to bomb who they want when they want and when someone stands up to them they throw their toys out the pram and start more propaganda in hopes to win people to their side.



I saddens me that some of seem to have knee-jerk attitude lets blame the USA for all the worlds evils & lets blind ourselves to the reality that the theology of much of the Islamic world is based on the glorification of the violent conquest & subjugation of all non-islamic cultures.


And accusing them of trying to spread the war throughout the ME isn't blaming them for all the worlds evil,talk about knee jerk reaction.And if all these countries wanted to conquer non-Muslim countries then first of all they would have to unify together in some way,otherwise it'd be chaos,but that ain't ever gonna happen.You would also expect at least one of these countries to start a conflict against a non-Muslim country,but that ain't happened.They're too busy ruling their own countries with an iron rod and bickering with their closest neighbours.





[edit on 4-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   


While they may have not killed children one on one they have killed many in their bombing activities.... murdered many men,and women. ....The IRA have killed more British people through terrorist activities than the Taliban or al-Qaeda have.

Really? and so they are comparable to Taliban? who SLAUGHTERED thousands one-on-one using medieval methods like sharp blades, throat slitting, decapitation, hanging, burning alive, skinning alive, flogging to death, stoning to death of accused adulteresses, deliberate starvation of villagers, deliberate mass rocketing of kabul, Shooting women in the head in a public soccer fields

Or is your premise a racist one, where you equate the IRA's killing of a handful of British AngloSaxons as being the moral equivalent of the Taliban slaughtering thousands of Afghans using medievil butcherous methods AND enslaving an entire nation? Just wondering.




You mean a war that you were asked to get involved in.
The US military didn't just barge there way in and start bombing at will,they were part of a large scale international operation.

U know '___' can damage a persons brain, it can also lead to utterly bizarre & incredible delusions. So.. Britain was "invited" by the Nato sponsored terrorist front organization of the KLA to slaughter innocent Serb civilians IN BELGRADE and that makes it alright? Like Hitler was 'invited' into czeckslovakia by the Sutenden ethnic Germans. As far I know, no Serb had killed any British citizens, so what moral justification did Britain have in taking part in the cowardly bombing of Belgrade? Is this the best you can do to defend ur position?



And you might be surprised to know that she,like many many other people,believed that the Taliban could stabilise Afghanistan and then allow economic access to trade with Central Asian republics.She provided military and financial support for the Taliban.As did the UK,the US and Saudi Arabia.

RIGHT.... I see the Benazir-the-butcher sponsered Taliban 'helped' 'stabilize' Afghanistan by slaughtering all opposition and imposing a medieval totalitarian theocratic regime? I see ur starting to sound saner and saner to me. Gee, thats the kind of 'stability' Stalin brought to the Soviet Union when he deliberately massacred and gulagged thousands of dissidents to Siberia. I suppose by ur reasoning, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Genghis Khan were great 'stabilizers' too?!!!



She [benazir] openly condemned terrorist activity.

And u believed her?!!! And that's ur proof that she was against terrorism ?! LMAO




In 2002 President Musharraf gave a landmark speech against Islamic extremism where he unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself.
In a 2004 speech he denounced terrorism and opened the door to relationships between Pakistan and Israel,as well as between the Muslim world and Jews worldwideAlthough he didn't believe in military tactics in fighting the Taliban,he pledged to help in the 'war on terror.'

And u believed him?!!! And that's ur proof that he was against terrorism ?! LMAO

Can I interest you in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? It been in family for generations; Really! It's only slightly used, I could part with it for lets say... $50, what do you say?




You would also expect at least one of these countries to start a conflict against a non-Muslim country,but that ain't happened.

They have & the continue to try. It is YOU who needs to do some research.



And if all these countries wanted to conquer non-Muslim countries then first of all they would have to unify together in some way,otherwise it'd be chaos,but that ain't ever gonna happen.They're too busy ruling their own countries with an iron rod & bickering with their closest neighbours

Ur confusing incompetence with intention. Why am I not surprised Mr 1 star.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LokiAsgardian
 




Really? and so they are comparable to Taliban? who SLAUGHTERED thousands one-on-one using medieval methods like sharp blades, throat slitting, decapitation, hanging, burning alive, skinning alive, flogging to death, stoning to death of accused adulteresses, deliberate starvation of villagers, deliberate mass rocketing of kabul, Shooting women in the head in a public soccer fields


Did i say they were?
You said that the IRA are not like the Taliban,i've shown that in some ways they were similar.I never said they were exactly the same,so don't try and imply that i did.



Or is your premise a racist one, where you equate the IRA's killing of a handful of British AngloSaxons as being the moral equivalent of the Taliban slaughtering thousands of Afghans using medievil butcherous methods AND enslaving an entire nation? Just wondering.


Between 1970-2005 the IRA killed over 2000 people in Northern Ireland and Britain.But terrorism is terrorism.Its the brutal killing of innocent people that matters,not just the figures.And how am i being racist





U know '___' can damage a persons brain, it can also lead to utterly bizarre & incredible delusions. So.. Britain was "invited" by the Nato sponsored terrorist front organization of the KLA to slaughter innocent Serb civilians IN BELGRADE and that makes it alright? Like Hitler was 'invited' into czeckslovakia by the Sutenden ethnic Germans. As far I know, no Serb had killed any British citizens, so what moral justification did Britain have in taking part in the cowardly bombing of Belgrade? Is this the best you can do to defend ur position?


I was talking about NATO going into the Balkans after the conflicts started in the 1990's.Its quite obvious i did not mean they supported the KLA.And NATO bombed Belgrade and i believe the US is a part of that organization so don't try to the blame only on Britain.




RIGHT.... I see the Benazir-the-butcher sponsered Taliban 'helped' 'stabilize' Afghanistan by slaughtering all opposition and imposing a medieval totalitarian theocratic regime? I see ur starting to sound saner and saner to me. Gee, thats the kind of 'stability' Stalin brought to the Soviet Union when he deliberately massacred and gulagged thousands of dissidents to Siberia. I suppose by ur reasoning, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Genghis Khan were great 'stabilizers' too?!!!


And i see you left out the part where the UK,the US and Saudi Arabia thought the same thing as her,and also aided the Taliban.Why do they escape your condemnation??




And u believed her?!!! And that's ur proof that she was against terrorism ?! LMAO


Bush said Saddam had WMD,and people believed him even there wasn't a shred of proof.
Such hypocrisy.He also said the Taliban were behind 9/11 even though there wasn't a shread of proof.
Again,hypocrisy.




They have & the continue to try. It is YOU who needs to do some research.


Name one.But make sure you have evidence,not BS propaganda.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Oh jackyll, crusader of morality. Governments don't work like that, give it up.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Oh superviking,my very own stalker,not a chance!



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Just like you stalk governments doing normal governmental business and try to portray it as morally wrong when that never comes into the equation. Is a lion morally wrong?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 




Just like you stalk governments doing normal governmental business and try to portray it as morally wrong when that never comes into the equation. Is a lion morally wrong?




Awww,bless you.Its sweet that you can make me laugh like that.

Is a lion morally wrong....hmmmm....well,first we would have to establish that a lion has morals or even knows what morals are,but i have many doubts for both cases.....so i guess what your saying is,the American government is like a lion,it doesn't have morals because it doesn't know what morals are....



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Why do you think that's particular to the American government? Jesus, you're EXTREMELY naive.

What was your background in international relations, security, or history again? I keep missing your answer.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by SuperViking]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar



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?



But we elect leaders and appoint military to make the hard decisions the rest of us either don't know how to make, or have no stomach to make.

What's your solution, direct popular vote on all foreign policy and military questions?

It would be easier just to surrender ...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
What's your solution, direct popular vote on all foreign policy and military questions?

It would be easier just to surrender ...


No #. I'd hate to have everyday people making decisions about education, transportation or the economy, to say nothing of international relations.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Oooh,you wanna know my background.

Ok,well i'm an Aries,my fave food is chicken,i have 4 bachelor (major) degrees in philosophy,psychology,theology and ancient history.When i was 20 i joined the Royal Military Police TA and served for 6yrs until a knee injury forced me into having to be honorably discharged.I then worked for the government in a difference capacity by joining London council crime prevention offices,where i rubbed shoulders with politicians on a daily basis and,to my total shock and horror,i discovered that some of these politicians had morals and they would fight for certain causes because it was 'their moral duty.'




[edit on 4-11-2008 by jakyll]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join