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.

 

67% of Pakistani journalists say US drones attacks are acts of terrorism: survey

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 

Johnszzz or whatever, why don't you contact a Mod and have them remove the star you gave me.

We all make mistakes, and I don't want you feeling badly for starring me.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Soshh
 

Terrorism is more a crime to me than an act of war, and in many cases, that crime happens to be murder. As such, I believe it is more a law enforcement issue—and a national one at that, with international cooperation—and a border issue, rather something you can attack with the military.


I agree with you to a point, I believe that arresting terrorists is more efficient than killing them but police rarely if ever have the capability to effectively combat terrorism alone, certainly large and highly organised groups. Some military elements should be used in especially hostile environments, mainly in the background but in some rare circumstances military force is the most sensible option. I would deem that preferable to making unacceptable changes to the way that police operate and are trained. What do you make of the "Troubles" model (taking lessons learned along the way into account)?


Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Soshh
 


So if somebody in America shot somebody then ran away and ended up in somebody elses house, it would be ok by you if we just bombed the entire house and everyone in it.

Ok I've got it now


No you haven’t, my answer to that is “no”. What in my post suggested that I would be ok with that?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 

Bigyin, if such posts as mine make you sad, then when you see a post by FarArcher, just pass it by and don't even bother.

I'm beyond understanding why anyone would be bothered by a means of taking out value targets that previously were unreachable.

It MUST keep them from sleeping very well at night.

Terrorism is just a tactic used by those too cowardly or too weak to fight by conventional means.

So the best way to fight terrorists is to out-terrorize them.

Nothing like a missile out of the darkness to put the fear of God in urass.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Nothing like a missile out of the darkness to put the fear of God in urass.


And put the hatred of foreign occupiers in your heart. How many innocents being killed would you consider to be too many?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 




"Terrorism is only terrorism when it happens in/to the west though... "

Don't forget Israel, however take a step into the Gaza strip and that whole terrorism concept goes out the window...
We all know Palestinians and Arabs aren't capable of being terrorized. Only dumb white greedy people are capable of being terrorized... to everyone else it is just another attack...
Excuse this post... After work stress relieving rant.
Be glad I didn't keep going.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Do they not use the same logic? just reverse provoke... then draw them out. Us North americans send over thousands of our guys...into territory they have never experienced. A plane being hijacked is almost like taking POW's accept the hijacker 'usually' plans on killing them... Then again a lot POW's have been killed. (Accept good ol McCain) The deaths from the explosion are the same as someone firing a missile into a place with tons of civilian, the only difference is one has people aboard the missile.
If terrorism really exists, than it has always existed. (I've read about the zealots and assassins from thousands of years ago). The only difference is now people love life and are never confronted with the harsh conditions that developed our minds (over generations). If you live in Canada, chances are you live a GOOD life, yet people still complain about the small things. However, in a place like Ethiopia or Haiti, you would be happy and satisfied with a good meal ( I know same old stuff).

Terrorism is a word used by sensitive people, to overdress a simple issue.
The text book difference would be the state conducting the crime would be considered attacking or pulling off SPEC OPs stuff. Yet if YOU DO IT! OR I DO IT! OR HOMER SIMPSON DOES IT! OR HARJOT ASAM DOES IT! It would be considered terrorism.

Personally I believe a snake killing a rabbit.
Is nothing more than a snake killing a rabbit... Unless of course that snake is friends with lots of rats.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

You almost choked on your coffee?

If only.


I suppose wishing another ATS member dead suits your style..

Kinda sad and I wish it was an instant ban for you..
I certainly think ATS can do without your type of posting..



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 

Well, Johnny, let me ask you the same question.

How many innocents do you allow these Muslim fundamentalists to kill before you start your own bug hunt?

Do you also count women and children?

Since you asked me a question, I feel it was an honest question that deserves an answer.

How many do I feel are justified? Well, I'm kind of a Leviticus type mindset.

Look. This term terrorism. Terrorism is just a type of indirect tactic. Indirect tactics are as numerous as there are stars in the sky.

If you don't have the numbers, the balls, the weapons, the courage, the means, the ingress/egress, the supply, the moral superiority to fight against your enemy, you use forms of "terrorism," or tactics of surprise and indiscriminate killing to "strike terror" in the hearts of your enemy.

The problem with using terrorist tactics is that eventually, folks get irritated and lose patience. There are times it's perfectly logical to use a fist on a mosquito. A sledgehammer on a cockroach.

When the irritant becomes an ongoing problem, then extermination becomes the most logical solution. You get a cockroach infestation, they are constantly bothering you, I assure you, you will not give a tinker's damn which roaches were the more irritating - you'll fumigate and exterminate them all the moment you lose patience, or their behavior gets out of hand.

It's a function of human nature.

Take WWII. At first, no one even THOUGHT about bombing cities.

But as time went on, the total numbers of deaths began building, as sensitivities began to dull when it came to the killing, as frustration increased with each week, as the desire to "win" became more and more desperately desired, and as the war became increasingly irritating, then the bombing of civilians - or "enemy enablers" - became more and more palatable.

We literally smoked entire cities. Some would say we killed lots of innocents. Some would decry that practice.

But I guarantee you, not one single person who would decry such action had their butts on the line, exposed to their personal death each moment of each day.

Those who would decry such an effort always seem to do so far removed from the danger, in the comfort of their home or classroom, often decades removed.

So when I hear someone decry "innocents" being killed on occasion during the prosecution of a conflict, let me tell you so you'll never forget.

In war, in battle, in mortal struggle - innocents die.

Always have.

Always will.

Now. Better your innocents?

Or theirs?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

backinblack, don't be sad that I wasn't instantly banned. You might go into a depression, vapor-lock, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

The topic is about US drone attacks, and I was wondering if you have anything constructive to say, or do you just get your feelings hurt and go running to the mods when you do?

I personally don't disagree that the drones are acts of terrorism.

Once you get the definition of terrorism down pat.

A high technology counter-tactic to a well used tactic. Most effective.

Causes lost sleep. Alters travel patterns.

Prevents large congregations. Discourages risky associations.

Terrorism.

The tactic of choice.

By our enemies.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


You don't even warrant a respose..
What could I possible say that would alter the opinion of a Deranged Psychopath hell bent on killing anyone for any made up reason??

No more replies to you, you make me sick....



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


terrorism is big business.

so ask, why would we create more holebutts? makes more sense that they do it themselves.

america, coming to your country soon! lol.

btw; it ain't that big for us.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by backinblack
 


terrorism is big business.
so ask, why would we create more holebutts? makes more sense that they do it themselves.
america, coming to your country soon! lol.
btw; it ain't that big for us.


Yep, the war on terror is a HUGE business..
They just extended the Patriot Act today..
Expect a TSA station at your local Mall soon...



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

67% of Pakistani journalists say US drones attacks are acts of terrorism: survey


www.rawstory.com

WASHINGTON – Two out of three Pakistani journalists view United States drone strikes in the region as acts of terrorism, according to a new study conducted by Washington State University and Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Only 27 percent of Pakistani journalists said the US drone attacks did not constitute acts of terrorism. Six percent did not know. The study surveyed 395 Pakistani journalists and was supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

(visit the link for the full news article)



imagine that!! wow, breaking news and i'm sure to change my opinion!

i just made a killing betting on that little "fact"

when they lord the killer of a governor, for whatever the hell you call it, i wish they carried nukes.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I like to look at both sides of the story. I think one issue is people tend to put Iraq and Afghanistan in the same bracket, when they are entirely different situations.

I don't think using a drone is an act of terrorism. In war, their are no rules. To beat a savage you must be a savage. Why is it we must play by rules that nobody else seems to play by? If our govt let us play by our own rules, we would have the Taliban on their knees. I will say this also. When our own government is supplying a group we are trying to....contain.....with weapons, then what is the point? We put them in power, and we are supplying them with weapons now. Wtf must we lose thousands of men for THIS?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
never bite the hand that feeds you,

as they say.


play nice or you get your eye poked out.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 



I like to look at both sides of the story. I think one issue is people tend to put Iraq and Afghanistan in the same bracket, when they are entirely different situations.


Although true, this thread is actually about drone attacks in Pakistan..

I mean, how many countries are the US going to attack??
I'm tipping Yemen is next..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Yeah, Pakistan.

The areas where these guerrillas retreat to, where they resupply, where they live, where they hide out.

If you want llamas, you go to where llamas are found. You want Cape Buffalo, you go to where the Cape Buffalo are.

You want Afghan/Arab guerrillas, you go where the Afghan/Arab guerrillas are.

Which seems to have concentrations in northwestern Pakistan.

Crazy, huh?

What nations are invading or threatening to invade the US? Such an ingenious question.

The thing is, these dumbass Muslims are dying (literally) to kill infidels, especially American infidels - which HAPPEN to be in the neighborhood.

That means, the American forces there draw jihadists like crap draws flies. (Kind of draws all their attention, and keeps them busy.)

I see that many on this thread would much rather these guys be fought here in the States or in Europe, on home turf.

Rather than on THEIR land.

Brilliant!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I do not trust the numbers.

Fantastic question to be asking to see who is who and the doors to be kicking down come the next revolution. The likely source is the best source to silence pre-emptively ~or~ the best source to give propoganda informations to make the possible revolution, now tell me who's preaching to the choir?




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

I would argue that it fits one of its definitions: "the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization."

Whats not debateable is that these are war crimes and crimes against humanity. It goes without question that our government is to blame but so is the Pakistani government for allowing a foreign power to randomly kill its people, which is why so many Pakistanis resent their government.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
The one thing that's clear is that these events are not war crimes, nor are they debatable.

They're just finessing our technologies, our flying, our search patterns, our detection devices, our optics, and our ground intelligence.

No one else in the WORLD has this level of expertise on hunting down guerrillas.

These guys deserve a lot of credit for the outstanding hardware and software adaptations they've accomplished, mating with warheads and missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join