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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


what else would they be...were not at war with them...its murder plain and simple




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoverBoy
reply to post by zerbot565
 

At the same time sometimes you have to kill to stop a killer.

Not to be confrontational, but did it ever occur to you that's exactly what the Iraqi and Afghani insurgents are trying to do? Almost everyone there has lost either a friend or family member and they rightly hold America responsible for what they consider an illegal and immoral occupation that's led to numerous civilian deaths -- probably way more than most Americans can imagine. U.S. troops are focused on protecting each other and getting out alive, so they err on the side of caution, which is why everyone keeps an AK-47 "drop weapon" in their vehicles. Both sides feel their actions are justified.

I'm telling ya, go see "The Eagle". It addresses this issue beautifully.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I don't need to see a movie, I fought in Iraq twice. Obviously you haven't read all of my replies or you would see where I stand. I don't agree with either war. At the same time your friends need to keep the AK 47's at home because that's how the majority of them get shot. I can see you over 1200 yards away. If your coming at one of my men your going into the ground before you know what the hell hit you. Realistically I know this wont happen because we are in THEIR country. I can't say I blame them. Your idea of carrying around AK 47's is only going to get them killed quicker. This isn't hollywood, this isn't the eagle. They are out manned, out trained, out equipped, so if they want to walk around with an assault rifle on them...more power to you, but your not going to see tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:39 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)



Slaughtering/Murdering/Injuring anyone out of aggression is never justified, ever.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 

You misread my post. Most Iraqis know better than to carry AK-47s around. It's the U.S. troops who frequently carry AK-47 "drop weapons" in their vehicles just in case there are any civilian "mishaps."

I'm simply responding to your assertion that sometimes you have to kill to stop killers. If you're referring to serial murderers, well, that's not the topic of this thread. If you're referring to Iraqi or Afghan insurgents or justifying drones, that's the fuel that feeds a never-ending cycle of terrorism and insurgencies. Both sides feel justified and neither can feel the other side's outrage.

Not your fault, but it's like the U.S. didn't learn a single lesson from Vietnam. Or more likely, the neocons knew exactly what they were doing.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I apologize for misreading what you stated. He left the remark about killing, quite open. He did not specify whether it was Iraqi's or not. If you read his next reply, you can see where his statement validates his opinion on killing in general. We are all entitled our own opinions here and I will not disrespect someone for that. At the same time I try to see both sides, but with that statement I clearly don't. That's ok though. Like I said I don't agree with either war anymore, but drones are a part of war, and to win a war effectively with minimal casualties, you need collateral damage. Drones are very effective whether we agree with them or not, they are excellent killing machines.


Sirmike....just from personal experience on getting to view this, you would be quite surprised who actually controls those drones.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 

My apologies, Bigyun for not answering your question you posed. It's sometimes difficult to cut through the BS and get to your points.

Besides, I thought is was more of a rhetorical question.

My apologies to other members and the Mods, but the man hinted at my pagan existence, and I feel an obligation to answer.

Yes, actually I attend church, and actually stay awake during all the sermons. In Christianity, we have the New Testament, wherein a Roman Centurion was a Christian - a Centurion required to do difficult things in the Roman army. So, the killing that goes with being a soldier doesn't seem to affect the Christianity part. The Apostles were also told when they traveled to carry a sword. (Pretty sure it wasn't for picking their teeth.)

We also have the Old Testament as a pattern, and I find it curious that Alexander the Great followed the following text to the letter: "If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it." Deuteronomy 20:12.

Now THAT'S how you win a war, and prevent many, many others.

Remember, you asked me to answer your question!

We're also taught that God is never changing - the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

As we can see, it seems that the killing part is not prohibited entirely by the Almighty, especially when it comes to dealing with contrary folks. And if you want some more, consider the city of Ai.

"When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day - all the people in Ai." Joshua 8:24-25.

That included the women and children that remained in the city after luring the men into chasing the Israelites.

Back to the topic.

Terrorism is generally a tactic designed to create terror in one's enemies.

The Taliban/Afghan/Al-Queda/ Muslim whatever, are not particular in who they kill - they just like killing in large numbers.

The difference with the US is that we're trying to zero in on those responsible for the more messy, mass killings.

BUT! If the drones and their weapons create terror in the minds of their targets - then it's ALL GOOD.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by all answers exist
great post OP, I like that you provided the addition information, on those surveyed, very relevant

on topic: how can flying remotely controlled robots that deal death to a different country's citizens from above while controlled by a person behind a screen completely safe and disconnected from the actual location be seen as terrorism [end sarcasm]



It is either that or we bomb Pakistan off the face of the Earth. Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghanistan war, a war which would be done with if it wasn't for Pakistan giving safe harbor to the Taliban.

Even if 9/11 was an inside job it doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda committed many acts of war against the US in the 90's and the coward Clinton did nothing because he was too busy hunting Serbians(who committed no acts of aggression against America at all). And it doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan's totalitarian government the Taliban gave Al Qaeda safe harbor and decided to go to war against America.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Terrorism is any act intended to create fear among civilian population.


If you support a terrorist group (be it USA or Taliban); you have no right to complain about terrorism.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
terror
- 5 dictionary results
ter·ror
   /ˈtɛrər/ Show Spelled[ter-er] Show IPA
–noun
1.intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2.an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3.any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4.violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
5.Informal . a person or thing that is especially annoying or unpleasant.

Yes, I would have to agree with the Pakistani journalists.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by atomicn
 


But that's the great thing about living in the USA, we do have a right to.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



We also have the Old Testament as a pattern, and I find it curious that Alexander the Great followed the following text to the letter: "If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it." Deuteronomy 20:12.

Now THAT'S how you win a war, and prevent many, many others.


Yeah great...
You forget we are NOT at war with Iraq or Afghanistan..
We are supposed to be freeing them from oppressive regimes...

But your answer is to "kill them all"..???

Well I guess that would surely free them..



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Good post!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Interesting,truth or lies who know's


Interviews with people from Waziristan
Between November 2008 and January 2009 Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy conducted a survey of the public opinion about the drone strikes in Federally Administered Tribal Areas. 5 teams of 5 researchers each interviewed a total of 550 people from all walks of life. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants.[307] In an analysis published in Daily Times (Pakistan) on January 2, 2010 Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy discussed the issue of drone attacks with hundreds of people of Waziristan. She claims that they see the US drone attacks as their liberators from the clutches of Islamist militiants into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them. She claims that estimates about civilian casualties in the US and Pakistani media are wrong because after every attack Islamist militiants cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, is allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, bury the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians. However, according to the people of Waziristan, the only civilians who have been killed so far in the drone attacks are women or children of the militants in whose houses/compounds they hold meetings. But that used to happen in the past and now they don’t hold meetings at places where women and children of the militants reside. In one case when the funeral procession of an Islamist commander was hit and some civilians were killed. But after the attack people got the excuse of not attending the funeral of slain militants or offering them food. Farhat Taj claims that locals usually appreciate drone attacks when they compare it with the Pakistan Army’s attacks, which always result in collateral damage. People said that when a drone would hover over the skies, they wouldn’t be disturbed and would carry on their usual business because they would be sure that it does not target the civilians, but the same people would run for shelter when a Pakistani jet would appear in the skies because of its indiscriminate firing. They say that even in the same compound only the exact room — where a high value target (HVT) is present — is targeted and others in the same compound are spared.[347] In response to this analysis Irfan Husain writing in Dawn agreed with Farhat Taj's assessment and called for more drone attacks. He wrote: "We need to wake up to the reality that the enemy has grown very strong in the years we temporized and tried to do deals with them. Clearly, we need allies in this fight. Howling at the moon is not going to get us the cooperation we so desperately need. A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 


Yeah, who knows what fact they are given..
It's also a very small poll, 550 people, and is 2 years old..
The US has seriously ramped up drone attacks since then and targeted further inside Pakistan..



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 


yes one can but wonder where the truth lies , notch notch

truth , lies , ok bad pun

jokes aside , what is funnie is that a presidential candidate in pakistan is assasinated a short while after she sais that bin laden is dead and has been for quite a while ,

and one government insists on still flying things into buildings ,

ironic isnt it , almost like a badly drawn MAD strip



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
It is either that or we bomb Pakistan off the face of the Earth. Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghanistan war, a war which would be done with if it wasn't for Pakistan giving safe harbor to the Taliban.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. It's not enough that the U.S. has started two highly questionable trillion-dollar wars that have killed over a million civilians in Iraq alone? You actually think the war would be over if it weren't for some mountain tribes on the Afghan-Pakistani border? Seriously? Are you old enough to remember the massive bombing campaigns against Cambodia and Laos and how much good that did?


Originally posted by korathin
Even if 9/11 was an inside job it doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda committed many acts of war against the US in the 90's and the coward Clinton did nothing because he was too busy hunting Serbians(who committed no acts of aggression against America at all).

Wow. Just wow.

I guess it's official. America has now gotten to the point where even the fluoridated Fox News warmongers admit 9/11 was an inside job, but they STILL WANT MORE WAR because of the equally mythical al-CIAduh boogeymen.

We should all be proud that the U.S. military/industrial complex brainwashing techniques are still the best in the world!



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I get in argument with the neighbor, 2 of the 3 kids agrees with the parents just because... the 3rd likes to hang out with my youngest and doesn't agree with her parents...

pointless poll is pointless



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghanistan war,


I wonder if some posters are too young to remember that the US has done the same..

We armed both Saddam and the Taliban...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghanistan war,


I wonder if some posters are too young to remember that the US has done the same..

We armed both Saddam and the Taliban...


thats to only mention a few , i bet most if not all "insurgent" groups have been founded in one way or an other

heck even rumsfeld sat at the board of directors who sold iran the centrifuges in the first place and now they are nagging that its wrong what they do , ....




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join