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.

 

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 27
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by nenothtu
 


With all due respect I find it hard to see where your answer actually addressing what it was I was asking. It seems close but slightly shifted. While your answers seem well thought out and nicely put, going back 4 posts now to what I was asking, I cannot see how it fits together. How about thanks anyway but I will just move on until it becomes relevant again.


I'll try to reconstruct it in one post, to see if I can follow the flow. Maybe then I can figure out what the question is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From this post:


Originally posted by Sinnthia

...

I did not put forward any "we should have attacked the Saudis" argument at all. Like you said, they were not acting on behalf of Saudis, or Iraqis, or Afghannis so...


Focus should have been on Afghanistan, specifically al Qaida and their Taliban protectors, and the areas they controlled. Most folks don't realize there was already a war going on there, and the Taliban only claimed to be the government. In reality they controlled no more than 60 % of the country.


So to clarify, war should have been declared on Afghanistan?

...


From that I understand the question to be "Should we have declared war on Afghanistan" as a response to my comment the the focus should have been on Afghanistan, which it appears to me that you took as a claim that WAR should have been declared on the entire country, and were seeking clarification to be sure that you understood what I meant. Is that about right?

IF that's the case, then I can see how my long, rambling explanation lost you in the twists and turns. Perhaps a better answer would have been "No, not declare war on AFGHANISTAN, declare war on the Taliban and AQ usurpers - but focus on Afghanistan because that is where they are gathered up and have most of their targetable facilities."

The Taliban and AQ are not "Afghanistan" any more than the CAIR is the US. They were IN Afghanistan, but they weren't "Afghanistan".




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yes it was a fact from 1996 to 2001. Three major battles took place way North of Kabul in the very early stages of this war. In three separate Villages. This drove the Taliban south and then east to Tora, and then from there into Pakistan.

Many locals cleaned up the rest by executing Taliban collaborators. I can not speak on what took place in the southern part of Afghanistan. I know there was two major battles with the real Taliban in two Villages way south of Tora.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So, your thoughts are that the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake..
Obviously the many people of Iraq and Afghanistan probably agree and see it as it is, an invasion by a foreign entity with no justification.
Many have needlessly died.
In Iraq many were killid in the initial Shock & Awe bombings that started the invasion...

So what I DON'T understand is if you agree with all of the above, or even most of it, why do you still refer to all the opposing forces as "terrorists".??
Surely some have the RIGHT to be considered Freedom Fighters..



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Forget about Freedom Fighters, Forget about Terrorists..

I just wonder how many people hated the West before these wars. opposed to how many hate the West now..?
Are they justified in hating the West for their actions.?

The answers would show if the "so called" war on terror is a success...
I highly doubt it....


I have difficulties with the term "the West". It's fairly vague and nebulous, and takes in a lot of turf with several internal squabbles, rather than being a monolithic entity. In order to attempt to answer this question, I'll need clarification on what you mean by "the West". Everything that's not Islam? Everything that's not Oriental ("the East")? Everything stemming from the earlier Roman Empire? Just the Western Hemisphere (all of North and South America)? Or just the US?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I have difficulties with the term "the West". It's fairly vague and nebulous, and takes in a lot of turf with several internal squabbles, rather than being a monolithic entity. In order to attempt to answer this question, I'll need clarification on what you mean by "the West". Everything that's not Islam? Everything that's not Oriental ("the East")? Everything stemming from the earlier Roman Empire? Just the Western Hemisphere (all of North and South America)? Or just the US?


Usually if you just say the US you get flamed...
But no, I mean the allied forces which include our good Aussie boys..

BTW, I think you understood what I meant..
It certainly didn't include Nero.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephi1337
 

Let me see if I understand this.

Your 30-year old friend cries and has nightmares because he was FORCED to fire on a field of kids?

BS.

Another question was posed by someone who asked why these terrorists hide among the civilians - and another question was why the Afghan/Iraqi civilians would permit them to?

It's a characteristic of human nature.

You cannot fear both sides equally. You'll fear one side more than another side.

Hiding among civilians is a form of cover as well as a form of camouflage. This is done to inhibit opposing forces from taking direct action by playing on their moral dilemma of risking civilians.

The civilians are more terrified of those among them than of American forces, thus they can't really change that fact, and thus, they are locked in to a bad situation.

So when civilian casualties ARE taken, the Americans take full blame.

Top Taliban operatives will hold meetings in locations that may be occupied. The drone follows them in, and launches. All inside are killed, and you got your targets, but now you catch hell because you also killed civilians.

Civilians who in fact were put at risk by either choice or compelled to be present.

Driving civilians in front of them as a screen is another tactic that has been used. Personally speaking, I'd try to be accurate and pick apart those who are doing the driving of the women and children in front of them, but at the end of the day, when they start getting too close, then I'll choose life.

Mine.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Thanks for the second grade history lesson.

Do you have a point?


How does that acknowledge the fact that the majority of the Taliban are not afghans?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by christina-66

Afghanistan was no better;

’ Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Cook's Entire Article



I have fought this particular "the CIA made al-Qaida" lie all across ATS. At one point I was posting at least twice a week against it, presenting the facts of the matter complete with timelines and everything, yet it keeps coming.

It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I'm tired of fighting a lie that just won't die. Point goes to you. I'm going fishing. Enjoy your new world.



edit on 2011/1/6 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Well then you tell me who are Al-Qaida? What does it mean?

Robin Cook was regarded by politicians of all parties as being the best mind in parliament. He was foreign secretary for many years and in that capacity he was privy to information that was unavailable to you or I. He resigned due to the invasion of Iraq. You missed out the more relevant paragraph of the quote I posted which is,

'The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.'

I'll repost 'The Power Of Nightmares - Shadows In The Cave' again, simply because it gives the entire history of the creation of Al-Qaida.


Google Video Link


This has been a mutually beneficial situation; however, without willing participants like yourself they would be unable to sustain it.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by spy66
 


Thanks for the second grade history lesson.

Do you have a point?


How does that acknowledge the fact that the majority of the Taliban are not afghans?


They are in Afghanistan, their home country. The USA interfered with Afghanistan in the 1970s. The democratically elected government was improving education for both boys and girls, and bringing in other social reforms. So the US supplied weapons to some gangs. The government asked Russia for help and Russia did so. The US supplied high tech weapons in exchange for drugs. The Russians moved out.


About sums it up..Another US funded creation, the Taliban.......



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 

With all respect to Robin Cook, that always works.

When fanatics attack you, just don't do a damned thing, and hope your inaction will be a sign of goodwill.

BS.

It worked so many times in the past, didn't it?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nephi1337
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


forgive me for i faild to read the rest of your constant quoting , simply put you cant prove that the freedom fighters are the cause of most of the deaths in the war ! stop and thing for a second


OK I'll stop and thing. I quote to add something to my posts that are lacking in yours. "Collaborating info" It's one thing to shoot your mouth off with innuendo and half baked baseless opinions and another to post and contribute supportive links and facts.


, i can sit here and post plenty of videos of U.S solders being very reckless when it comes to a shootout , in-fact i have heard plenty of storys regarding the constant slaying going on over their SLAYER!


I'll rely on my sons first hand experiences in Iraq and my two nephews now in country in the Stan over your third party "Heard of" stories online.. Thank you very much.



one testimony if from my brother , who is a 3 time war vet and hes only 30 years old ... ever heard of winter solder ? google it! .. also i can think back a time or two ago when my bro was so gung ho .like most of you solders on here



Good for your brother. Thank him for his service for me. As for you keep spewing your ignorance online.



.. oh but how his life has changed ! OH how i get calls in the middle of the night because of his nightmares ....oh how i listen to him cry because he was forced to shoot a group of kids playing foot ball



I call BS. AND If true. Your brother is a criminal.


... so dont sit here and tell me most of the death is cause by the freedom fighters ,


I'm not, they are caused by the Taliban. There was hardly ANY freedom in Afghanistan while they were in power. MAYBE that's why before we got there they were in the middle of a civil war.


can you provide info that freedom fighters are causing more death ? and i dont want some survey ,i want hard core testimony , can you provide this ?


Translation I wont accept anything that will conflict with my narrow perception.

Why don't you disprove they are not afghans? We can split hairs all day long. Are you denying the fact that the Taliban are made up of mostly non Afghans?

Just once answer the question.

edit on 6-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

They are in Afghanistan, their home country. The USA interfered with Afghanistan in the 1970s. The democratically elected government was improving education for both boys and girls, and bringing in other social reforms. So the US supplied weapons to some gangs. The government asked Russia for help and Russia did so. The US supplied high tech weapons in exchange for drugs. The Russians moved out.


About sums it up..Another US funded creation, the Taliban.......



Don't be moronic.....

We supplied the mujaheddin during their fight with the Soviets. The Taliban came a few years after the Soviets left and we stopped funding the muj....



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by christina-66
 

With all respect to Robin Cook, that always works.

When fanatics attack you, just don't do a damned thing, and hope your inaction will be a sign of goodwill.

BS.

It worked so many times in the past, didn't it?


Well obviously after 10 years in Afghanistan we can declare that tactic a roaring success.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Are you denying the fact that the Taliban are made up of mostly non Afghans?


Then maybe it's NOT the Taliban we are fighting..
It's just a usefull collective term for anyone fighting against the allies...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Who gives rite to US to "liberate" countries across the world ?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Taliban is merely a title given to a group later..

Is anyone that dissagrees with your opinion moronic Slayer??
Thats a very narrow view of debate...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I couldn't care less about those haterz in the middle-east. As far as I am concerned, we should get the Hell out, dump several loads of guns, grenades and lots of ammo over the fence, duck with out fingers in our ears, and look over the fence to ascertain who's still standing when the smoke clears. I am sick&tired of their mindset. Either let them be at each other's throat, or change that whole darned hellhole into a giant glass parking lot. (We even might get the russkies on board, they are still a bit miffed by the bloody nose they got in Afghanistan)


And don't worry, oil-pipelines anchor nicely in burnt slag...


They are stuck in a hate-the-other mindset that looks and sounds suspiciously like the European religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants in the days of yore.... They "WANT their war" (to paraphrase Captain Hook)

Let them duke it out. Quarreling has been a people's sport for centuries over there. No need to get our boys&girls in harm's way.

If the Gov. wants to use mercenaries, they can test our latest toys to kill people..let them, so the Government(or we, ourselves, when we get some of the money saved by NOT being in Iraq and Afghanistan) can fix the problems overhere, on the home-front.(Yeah..rrriiight...they'll do that...eventually...maybe..one day...when pigs learn to fly)

Afghanistan, Iraq..they are in a perpetual state of tribal warfare. No use intervening there. Heck, Europe took centuries to get some kind of civility amongst the religions, and only after a fair amount of bloody conflicts, did they learn to live next to one another.

We have bigger problems to fix overhere. We do NOT need those pricey, cost-ineffective wars.


/rant
edit on 1/6/2011 by diakrite because: missed typo's due to anger.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by diakrite
 



Have you ever read your own signature?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by diakrite
 


But if you go out who will suck the oil ? where military industrial complex will test their weapons? where will be US leearn long term effect of depleted uranium ?where the war budget will go ? Obama recently signed biggest defence budget in history .
edit on 6-1-2011 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Taliban is merely a title given to a group later..

Is anyone that dissagrees with your opinion moronic Slayer??
Thats a very narrow view of debate...



There is no "View or Debate" people tend to blur facts with opinions.

That's where the problem lies.
The "Taliban" are not just a "Name" And don't get your nose bent out of joint if you can't handle the fact that the Afghans themselves don't want the Taliban back in power with their twisted view of Islam.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join