It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jakyll
US Justifies Syrian & Pakistan Raids.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
You might if there were no such thing as cops or law and you were much much stronger than those people.
So,you don't need concrete evidence you just need to consider a country a haven of terrorists and you can attack it.
You will admit there are religious fundamentalists over in that region of the world who conspire against US interests right?
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 & Pakistan.They trained & armed people like bin Laden.Their meddling,along with the British,allowed the Taliban to get into power in Afghani...
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..France..
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
Really? What about Serbia, a European Christian nation, which the US bombed to protect a bunch of vicious ungrateful Islamic Kosovars-Albanians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [benazir] 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.'
You would also expect at least one of these countries to start a conflict against a non-Muslim country,but that ain't happened.
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
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.
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?
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 u believed her?!!! And that's ur proof that she was against terrorism ?! LMAO
They have & the continue to try. It is YOU who needs to do some research.
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?
Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
reply to post by AlienChaser
If the guy down the block hated me and had a plan and the
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?
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 ...