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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Oh no ... we are zeros in Proto's eyes! Anything but that!

Spend a couple of months in Afghanistan, or 20 like I did, and then tell me we are on the wrong side of history here.


The history that displays Afghanistan is the grave yard of empires?

Oh boy, someone hasn't been paying attention to what goes on, on planet earth again.

Not only are you on the wrong side of history, but a thankless and stupid side of it too.

Evolution is something that occurs at it's own pace, your posts are proof positive of that!



Let me see here ... so because a poorly led British expeditionary force and a ham handed Soviet force were defeated by afghans, this makes it a “graveyard of empires” …. I see. So that would explain the Greeks, Persians, Mongols, and Indian who all ruled Afghanistan for over a thousand years collectively as well as the Brits, who just a few years later annihilated the local Afghans and stayed what … another 60 years, right?

Sounds more like the Doormat of empires if you ask me. But you cling tight to those bumper sticker beliefs of yours.

Man oh man … with edumacated folks like you it’s a wonder why I haven’t been convert into seeing the light.

Come back to me when you have spent some time there.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


I don’t think that’s a good comparison. My understanding of drone ROE’s are as follows: how important is the target, how sure are you that this is the target, how many opportunities like this are you likely to have again, how many non combatants might be injured or killed.

After weighing all this, the lawyers gather round and make a decision on whether or not a strong legal justification can be made to engage the suspect.

To say these decisions are made lightly or with little forethought to the consequences is based on willful ignorance or malicious deception because its not like this information is hidden.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


ive had several friends tour over there, heck even i could have been one of them , as firemen, nurses and police

the one thing that they where really pissed about was that first comes the carpet bombings then the "yanks" come in , make a "big fuzz" and then they leave and then my friends had to go to the same places and explain to the locals that they where not "yanks" just in order to get along with em , after contact had been established and the place was cleaned up and put in to some sort of working order they where ship to some other place and the same scenario would unfold over and over and over and over again,

yes sure their standard of living is not the same as in rural Detroit but it makes you really wonder what the pourpus of it all was ,

id say a blood waste of time



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


What I said was "share a degree of responsibility". If shifting the blame away from the people firing the missiles is the same as distributing it amongst everyone directly involved in a non-biased fashion, then yes that is exactly what I was doing.

Similar to how in your hostage situation scenario, both the man who took those people hostage and the relevant authorities would share the blame for any deaths if a disastrous rescue attempt was made. I wasn't saying that the militants are the only ones at fault or that they are more at fault than the CIA or vice-versa.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 





Greeks, Persians, Mongols


Yet amazingly Afghanistan is neither part of Greece, Persia or Mongolia, wow that's just amazing, and such modern examples you are relying on too!



I can see why some people are suited for a career as 'cannon fodder'.

The war has gone so quickly and smoothly and the invaders so beloved too! What was I thinking...

Que...lousy generals won't let us kill everyone in sight response and other familiar excuses when a independent minded people resist occupiers to the bitter end of the occupation.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by bigyin
 


I don’t think that’s a good comparison. My understanding of drone ROE’s are as follows: how important is the target, how sure are you that this is the target, how many opportunities like this are you likely to have again, how many non combatants might be injured or killed.

After weighing all this, the lawyers gather round and make a decision on whether or not a strong legal justification can be made to engage the suspect.

To say these decisions are made lightly or with little forethought to the consequences is based on willful ignorance or malicious deception because its not like this information is hidden.


I can't comment because I wasn't aware that lawyers were invloved in deciding whether to shoot or not. I find it incredible if that is the case and I will need to look into it a bit more to find out.

Anyway although the thread is about drones, I think any attack from a distance could be looked at the same way, bombs from planes, missles launched form distance and even gunrounds from helicopters, such as the event shown to us by wikileaks. That was in Iraq, but even children were shot up by a bunch of cheering cowboys. I didn't hear any lawyers on the radio making decisions about the legality of the situation. It took the operator 2 seconds to give the go ahead.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
In answer to your question OP: No, these are not acts of Terrorism

They are brutal acts of murder and stupidity.

One of the real problems that confronts us are the word games involved since World War II.

Terrorists, Enemy Combatants, Detainees, Insugregents etc, are all just ways to try to draw out and lead to a personal view of the act through the word(s).

Freedom fighters, liberators, preemptive war, coalition, more words meant to draw a conclusion.

It would seem we have become either to dumb, or to fightened to call a rose by it's name any more, in a never ending attempt by Government and media to get the populace to draw certain conclusions.

No this is not terrorism, the goal is not a political one. It's a business goal. Murder, Inc. is simply doing what it does best, murder and kill people in our name, with our money to steal and secure opium, oil and minerals, and force people into a world dominated by corporate outlets, distribution systems and control.

Because we no longer call a spade a spade, people can reject it when ever it's directed at them.

It's a little harder to claim that the U.S. Drones are not murdering people left and right all over the world.

It's a little harder to say it's not stupid and bankrupting America and making us far more enemies than friends.

So no it's not terrorism, it's just murder and stupidity, with murder almost always stupid, if your backs not up against the wall in a corner and you have no other choice.

Ours certainly isn't, but our government's policies are designed to eventually put us all back up against the wall in a corner.



One powerful comment there PT.....I can fully agree with this and am just amazed that the majority of the folks don't see the whole picture. Maybe they do but stay mute? . Anyways your statement above is a real keeper at least in my head.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by bigyin
 

I don’t think that’s a good comparison. My understanding of drone ROE’s are as follows: how important is the target, how sure are you that this is the target, how many opportunities like this are you likely to have again, how many non combatants might be injured or killed.
After weighing all this, the lawyers gather round and make a decision on whether or not a strong legal justification can be made to engage the suspect.
To say these decisions are made lightly or with little forethought to the consequences is based on willful ignorance or malicious deception because its not like this information is hidden.


So if the Canadians knew there were some terrorists just south of their border
you'd be OK with them sending in a drone strike?
And if they accidently took out a few US citizens you'd be OK with that?

Seems to me that so many on ATS consider anyone outside of the West something less than human..



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 





One powerful comment there PT.....I can fully agree with this and am just amazed that the majority of the folks don't see the whole picture. Maybe they do but stay mute? . Anyways your statement above is a real keeper at least in my head.


Thanks my friend, I am not really sure what's to blame, whether it's poor reasoning and social skills, flouride in the water, chemical imbalances by eating too many foods laced with pesticides and hormones, or frustrations from leading a disadvantaged life from a playing field of rules stacked against the average person from enjoying much success in their endeavors and a quality of life.

Or all of the above.

The brainwashing and propaganda sure does have a real and powerful effect on people.

Can it eventually be short circuited?

I hope so, more and more people are waking up to the hypocracies and lies, and frauds of the system, and speaking out against them.

Today Egypt, tomorrow the U.S.A. who knows, when things reach the tipping point anything can happen.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by bigyin
 

I don’t think that’s a good comparison. My understanding of drone ROE’s are as follows: how important is the target, how sure are you that this is the target, how many opportunities like this are you likely to have again, how many non combatants might be injured or killed.
After weighing all this, the lawyers gather round and make a decision on whether or not a strong legal justification can be made to engage the suspect.
To say these decisions are made lightly or with little forethought to the consequences is based on willful ignorance or malicious deception because its not like this information is hidden.


So if the Canadians knew there were some terrorists just south of their border
you'd be OK with them sending in a drone strike?
And if they accidently took out a few US citizens you'd be OK with that?

Seems to me that so many on ATS consider anyone outside of the West something less than human..





Great stuff Backinblack, I am waiting here for a reply and I'm sure it will be a spin city one for sure.
Attack anyone but by golly don't get attacked yourself.

Incredible logic, Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Seems to be the norm around here lately. And what's more, where the heck are these stars coming from on some of these posts.. oh ya, this site is getting extremely diluted



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by bigyin
 

I don’t think that’s a good comparison. My understanding of drone ROE’s are as follows: how important is the target, how sure are you that this is the target, how many opportunities like this are you likely to have again, how many non combatants might be injured or killed.
After weighing all this, the lawyers gather round and make a decision on whether or not a strong legal justification can be made to engage the suspect.
To say these decisions are made lightly or with little forethought to the consequences is based on willful ignorance or malicious deception because its not like this information is hidden.


So if the Canadians knew there were some terrorists just south of their border
you'd be OK with them sending in a drone strike?
And if they accidently took out a few US citizens you'd be OK with that?

Seems to me that so many on ATS consider anyone outside of the West something less than human..


So true. Racism and egotistic attitudes enable war imho. But hey there's a colored president it's all good!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dl2one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Seems to be the norm around here lately. And what's more, where the heck are these stars coming from on some of these posts.. oh ya, this site is getting extremely diluted


I don't follow your statement above? Sometimes you have got to knock me on the head a few times to get the info in so if your still here please pound away. :-)

I have no idea of what your post has to do with the OP.
No offense intended here.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by dl2one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Seems to be the norm around here lately. And what's more, where the heck are these stars coming from on some of these posts.. oh ya, this site is getting extremely diluted


I don't follow your statement above? Sometimes you have got to knock me on the head a few times to get the info in so if your still here please pound away. :-)

I have no idea of what your post has to do with the OP.
No offense intended here.
Regards, Iwinder


I directed my statement at nobody. I'm merely pointing out an obvious fact that this site is getting diluted with so many ignorant and personal attack comments, reinforced by stars for some.
edit on 15-2-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dl2one

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by dl2one
reply to post by backinblack
 


Seems to be the norm around here lately. And what's more, where the heck are these stars coming from on some of these posts.. oh ya, this site is getting extremely diluted


I don't follow your statement above? Sometimes you have got to knock me on the head a few times to get the info in so if your still here please pound away. :-)

I have no idea of what your post has to do with the OP.
No offense intended here.
Regards, Iwinder


I directed my statement at nobody. I'm merely pointing out an obvious fact that this site is getting diluted with so many ignorant and personal attack comments, reinforced by stars for some.
edit on 15-2-2011 by dl2one because: (no reason given)


Thank you for clarifying that for me.......I do appreciate it and I do stand by my last post that this is totally off topic.........back on topic I fully agree with your earlier post on the matter.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


I did two tours over there, maybe you misunderstood where I stand. I do not agree with these wars either to an extent. Why fight a battle when our own govt is arming them?

At the same time sometimes you have to kill to stop a killer. That isn't always wrong which isn't what i perceived from your post. We put Ted Bundy to death, killed him. Was that wrong? I guess we could have let him murder another hundred people. Some killers wont stop until you kill them.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

I must imagine, should the proverbial shoe lie on the other foot, we would likely draw the same conclusion here...

Hey DD, you're right as usual. I've been saying this for a long time.

And speaking of 'shoe on the other foot', you've got to see "The Eagle" if you haven't already.

Very thought-provoking and one of the best flicks I've seen in a while...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


my opinion regarding serial killers getting the death penalty is just giving them the easy way out ,
which in return just encourages them in the first place to do what they did/do , ..
while its an "easy" solution its no better then what the final solution was during the second world war or any other "final solution" under any regime be it u.s or Uganda ,

its just as silly as sentencing someone to solitary confinement for having diabetes or cancer



It is under all circumstances an advantage to be in full possession of one's personality, otherwise the repressed elements will only crop up as a hindrance elsewhere, not just at some unimportant point, but at the very spot where we are most sensitive. If people can be educated to see the shadow-side of their nature clearly, it may be hoped that they will also learn to understand and love their fellow men better. A little less hypocrisy and a little more self-knowledge can only have good results in respect for our neighbor; for we are all too prone to transfer to our fellows the injustice and violence we inflict upon our own natures (Jung, 1966:par. 28)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


Gotcha....I think we we can agree to disagree then



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I watched a really revealing documentary, please watch this documentary on the below link if you get a chance

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

it really highlights the issue with mainstream embedded media, and how independant journalists risk their lives to uncover the real truths. Its all propoganda from mainstream media/military.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join