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.

 

Pakistan Now Officially At War!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


"Your comment shows a lack of historical prospective. "

So does yours. They INVENTED organized warfare in the Middle East. They've been at for thousands of years. And some of today's grudges there go back at least that far.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Yeah unfortunetly you are wrong my friend. You may be speaking of our current modern era of infighting and what not, but the ME has been at war with itself for THOUSANDS of years.

That's what the holy war is all about, about 2 thousands years of bloodshet. The crusades? I think that was "western" culture interfering long before to Ottomon Empire friend.

It's no different anywhere else, people have been at war with eachother since we first realize that if you throw a heavy thing at another human, he stops moving.

~Keeper



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


You miss the point, I never said the ME was peaceful.

All we're concerned with is the modern history of the ME and what lead to now, and that is the western intervention after the end of the Ottoman Empire.

All I'm saying is the west is not blameless, and the ME is not the evil it keeps getting painted as. Well at least no more evil then the west is and has been.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CityIndian
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


You miss the point, I never said the ME was peaceful.

All we're concerned with is the modern history of the ME and what lead to now, and that is the western intervention after the end of the Ottoman Empire.

All I'm saying is the west is not blameless, and the ME is not the evil it keeps getting painted as. Well at least no more evil then the west is and has been.


I was pointing out that the ME has never been peaceful, and an arbitrary "start point" of the problems is problematical at the least.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


That much I will agree with you on, you are right.

The ME is not the evil place it's made out to be and the West is to blame for mostly everything in the past 100 years that's gone wrong. Along with Europe ofcourse.

The ones they paint as terrorists are were created as a direct consequence of their actions for decades in opression nations and removing governments to put up their own.

The west and Europe have interfered where they should not have, and now they are paying the price.

Thats what terrorism really is, pay back.

~Keeper



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The ME is not the evil place it's made out to be and the West is to blame for mostly everything in the past 100 years that's gone wrong. Along with Europe of course.


Europe is the West.


That's what terrorism really is, pay back.


It's only what we would do in the same situation. How many people right now are saying we should have armed revolution against our own government because they raised taxes, not going to happen, but you can see we wouldn't stand another country physically imposing on our culture because they want a resource we have.

It has nothing to do with what happened before the west intervened, only that they are more radical than us and willing to put their lives at risk to maintain, or acquire, their autonomy.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I was pointing out that the ME has never been peaceful, and an arbitrary "start point" of the problems is problematical at the least.


I never said it was peaceful.

And yes there is a starting point, the dividing of the Ottoman Empire into regions by France and England in 1923.

The OE fell apart because of economics, like all the other capitalist empires have done, because production can't keep up with expansion and the cost of maintaining authority over it's regions.

Yes there has always been in-fighting in the ME, just like there is in all empires past and present.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN

War is never an answer - its always a bad option - your soldiers has failed in their most important duty - to prevent the war... Lets hope they will save you now.


War is sometimes the only answer. When the other guy is unreasonable, irrational and he only understands killing you then it is fight or stand there and die.

These terrorist, extremists or what ever you want to call them are inhuman animals. Negotiation and reason are not in their brains. You either capitulate to belief and worship of their "God" or die. Amazing how many people die over this imaginary character "God". Thank goodness we don't fight over belief in Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy.

Trying to make peace with these animals is like trying to make peace with a Starving Great White.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
A soldier's most important duty is to prevent war? That's an interesting concept. Care to elaborate on that? Explain to us how a soldier can prevent war?


Whom would you rather attack, a man protected by 10 soldiers or a man protected by no one?

And don't try to be coy and say you wouldn't attack either one, because the exercise is to put yourself in the mindset of someone that would attack, because that threat will always exist.

This is the world of duality after all.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I've always been under the impression that the government had to declare war. Not some media source. Oh well, one jihad is as good as another.


Wars are declared by countries, jihads are declared by Muslim terrorists.

I suspect, the US secretly told pakistan that they get it in gear, or the us will move and and take their nukes.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Sorry, maybe I'm slow, but who is declaring war against who here?

The northern Taliban vs Pakistan?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mrmonsoon
 


I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe this. I many how many nukes do we already own, compared to what they have; why in the world would we start another loud outspoken front on another ME nation? Just for a some weapons to throw in a storehouse somewhere. Maybe the beers talking out of me, but I'd steer clear of that thinking. However I won't be upset if you can shut me up with valid points. Like I said, damn beer.

I have no doubt that the US had some input on this decision by the Pakistani government. But I'm on the thought process that this is part of a bigger plan, for not just one countries weapons, or cooperation, but that of the whole ME.
I don't see it talked to much about on here, other than on a recent thread...(exposing a secret deal between Israeli and US governments), but I personally am on the lookout for a setup of peace over in that there region. And what better way than to band everyone together against the extremist?

eh?



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
I've always been under the impression that the government had to declare war. Not some media source. Oh well, one jihad is as good as another.


Wars are declared by countries, jihads are declared by Muslim terrorists.

I suspect, the US secretly told pakistan that they get it in gear, or the us will move and and take their nukes.


Somebody is the country is authorized to declare it at a state of war, and most people AREN'T authorized to do so, they can just state their opinion. So the "officially" in that piece is just Op-Ed, not an "official" declaration of war.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


And I will argue that yes soliders DO prevent wars, all the time. If I must reference the Canadian peace keepers again I will, for they have resolved many a conflict, and never fired a single shot.

As far as the soldiers not setting policy, there is another problem. A government and an army. FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Not for the people by your masters, that's ridiculous.

~Keeper


Your comments indicate a distinct disconnect with reality and I have no interest in debating unfounded fantasy.

In the case of the Canadian peace keepers to which you refer; tell me the circumstances under which they came to be in position to, as you put it, "prevent wars?" Did the Canadian military take up the position on their own? Did the Canadian people send them there by virtue of a referendum? Or did the UN send them?

Your belief that soldiers somehow can make policy is silly. In fact, the last thing this world needs are the various governments being run by military leaders.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
More life to be lost. More people to loose this one shot they have at experencing 'life'. It is so very pathetic, we are so very pathetic.

I wonder how many young men will walk into organized death, how many citizens will be blown up by bombs and how many women will come to know one of wars oldest institutions: mass kidnapping and rape.

The collective human experience will look back on these days, and all days like them, and shake with disgusted recognition.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Just to provide some clarity;

Soldiers are trained to kill.

Pakistan is not in the middle east.

The West is not responsible for all the violence and bloodshed in the world.

No nation/coalition has the right to dictate policy of another nation/coalition and as such, Pakistan and others, have every right to ignore 'advice' and reject interference.

Any nation with nuclear capability is a potential threat to world or regional stability.

Opinions that 'soldiers should' do this and that, rather be utilised for what they are, fighters, belong in cloud cuckoo land. Wake up and join the real world, where there is a reason why soldiers are trained to kill. Your views are not superior, they are misguided and dangerous.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


"Soldiers are trained to kill. "

Soldiers are trained to control a situation. If that requires killing it is a last resort. Unfortunately, soldiers are just human beings, so they don't always go with their training. There were times when I wished I could unpull a trigger.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
First of all...Soldiers are trained to kill...It's the only way to make sure the guy in the foxhole next to you will fire his weapon at another human being...a comforting thought when that human being is trying to kill you.

Second...they are trained to see killing as a last resort. This training seems to be less efective the younger the soldiers are. Young soldiers are way to impulsive to worry about ethics and other ways to keep control. If I had it my way, we would only send 80 year old soldiers overseas...I don't think a lot of innocent civilians would get killed by impulsive behavior of our troops.

@tothetenthpower: About Canadian peacekeepers not firing a single shot? There is a Somali family that would like to speak to you about something that happened on march 4th 1993.
Wikipedia - Canada in 1993
Please don't start about this being the only case in all these years. Any (ex-)soldier that was in a war or peacekeeping operation on ATS could give you examples of shootings that were never reported in the press. Canadian soldiers are no different than the rest of us.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by tothetenthpower


And I will argue that yes soliders DO prevent wars, all the time. If I must reference the Canadian peace keepers again I will, for they have resolved many a conflict, and never fired a single shot.

As far as the soldiers not setting policy, there is another problem. A government and an army. FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

Not for the people by your masters, that's ridiculous.

~Keeper


Your comments indicate a distinct disconnect with reality and I have no interest in debating unfounded fantasy.

In the case of the Canadian peace keepers to which you refer; tell me the circumstances under which they came to be in position to, as you put it, "prevent wars?" Did the Canadian military take up the position on their own? Did the Canadian people send them there by virtue of a referendum? Or did the UN send them?

Your belief that soldiers somehow can make policy is silly. In fact, the last thing this world needs are the various governments being run by military leaders.


Well firstly your opening line was uncalled for and childish. Simply because I disagree with your point of view does not mean that I am "disconnected" from reality friend.

I did not infer at all that military personnel should be the ones in charge. The People should be, the military is an extension of the people not the government, atleast that's the way it should be.

The Canadian peace keepers, and the term peacekeepers was coined by Canadian Lester B. Pearson, who won the nobel prize in 1957 for his efforts in global peacekeeping.

And yes we volunteered our services, and yes we still do it to this day. Mind you today it's controlled by the UN which makes it really a somewhat useless organization to what it use to be.

~Keeper



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Pakistan is not in the middle east.


The ME has no definitive boundaries, some maps do include Pakistan with the ME...

www.worldatlas.com...




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join