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

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

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!

Cute, for starters take out the word "war" and implant the word "insurrection" or "guerrilla forces" in relation to how Pakistan's two timing behavior further elongates the necessity for American troops to be stationed in Afghanistan to keep order.
You over estimate "TPTB", by a lot. They are probably at a level of awareness and intellect not too dissimilar from yourself, which isn't saying much and explains why most of their conniving plans tend to blow up in their faces.

By creating a mythos of the ALL POWERFUL "powers that be", you actually increase their actual power. There are other things at stake, other angles in motion. If you fail to see them all that is not my problem.
If anything TPTB are more like leeches. Sure they use war for their ends, be they profit or political. But they also minimize those war's. No profit if everyone is dead. As a student of history I can appreciate that fact. If you want to look up a war without TPTB involved go look up the religious war's of Europe that happened only a few hundred years ago. Or how the Mongols wiped out a gigantic percentage of humans living on the planet.

You assume TPTB are the perfect puppeteers. They may be playing with fire but they don't hold all the pieces. Some countries and ideologies are our inherent enemies and if we forget that then we will be history.

Reality exists, I choose to accept that. You can live in your fantasy world with all powerful organizations; organizations composed of fallible people, but because they are such mighty organizations they have to be all powerful and infallible.

P.S Genius Einstein geezer, it just isn't a bunch of mountain folk. If anything a lot of the people in that region are held hostage by the situation. They fear for their lives and have lost many freedoms because of the Pakis two facing way's(Inconsequentially Pakistan is a close ally/dependent of China, adds in the whole "help America go broke" angle). The "New Taliban" is mostly composed of Muslim fighters across the world.

reply to post by zerbot565


so by that token are ya saying its OK if they do?

reply to post by zerbot565


Well two things are certain..

China makes the most homewares and the good ole USA makes the most weapons...
And the US are the peaceful guys..

reply to post by backinblack

Not to mention creating al-CIAduh out of thin air.

Al Qaeda means "the base" in Arabic. In the 80s, it was nothing more than a CIA database of fighters recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's also Arabic slang for "anus" or "the toilet."

Imagine how good you have to be to convince an entire nation to start two wars, bankrupt the country with trillions of dollars in defense spending and completely trash the Constitution and civil liberties with legislation called the "Patriot Act" all due to fear of the Toilet Gang!

pakistani what?

WE don't even have freakin journalists!

you people think they are journalists?

i got an e=mail from a nigerian prince needing money.

give me a break.

"DON'T DRONE ME BRO!"

reply to post by rightuos


please enlighten me on what do they do that differs from any other nuclear nation ?

i mean im all ears ,

edit

what is the question you ask ?

reply to post by zerbot565


Just getting it clear that so long as we gave em something they can use it however they want when it had rules bound y treaties when given to them but its ok to break those because I guess we do it too...

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by zerbot565

 

Well two things are certain..

China makes the most homewares and the good ole USA makes the most weapons...
And the US are the peaceful guys..

Hardly. I would rather have a weapon and not use it then not have it and need it. Besides, machines that can make metal-wares, plastic product's and automobiles can easily be retooled to make guns, planes, tanks and bombs in short order.

America may not be perfect, but it has been well over 60 years since the last major world war. People like to think there was a great lull between the war's of 1830's and the first world war but there wasn't. The Europeans just put their hatred of each other aside and focused on gobbling up the few portions of the world that alluded them(that the USA wouldn't go to war to defend).

Things will never be perfect, but they are far better than things could be if the US turned it's back on the world again.

TPTB are just instigators and deceivers. Make no mistake, you remove them from the equation and China would still be our rival/enemy. Islamic jihadist's would still want to conquer and enslave/kill us. They just hate us "just because", they are only using the current actions to justify an action they would take anyway.

reply to post by 11118


(Edited to add: This reply was meant for FARARCHER who attempted the absurd and impossible, which was to reconcile legitimate Scriptural and historical Christianity with bloodshed)

No, Cornelius the Roman soldier became a Christian when he was ALREADY a soldier. That doesn't mean that 1st century Christians thought it was OK to kill. In fact their refusal to fight was one of the reasons the Romans later set them ablaze or feed them to lions in the arenas.

Early Church writers made comments such as:

''Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians. —The Apology of Aristides 15 [8]

A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God. —Hippolytus of Rome [9]

Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service. —Disputation of Archelaus and Manes''

en.wikipedia.org...

They understood the absurdly simple concept presented by their Christ 'those who live by the sword shall die by the sword' and so they refused to kill, even in the face of their own death.

I guess they don't make Christians like they used to.

Double post

reply to post by rightuos


ill veto your question

hope it answers your question ,

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by backinblack

 

Not to mention creating al-CIAduh out of thin air.

Al Qaeda means "the base" in Arabic. In the 80s, it was nothing more than a CIA database of fighters recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's also Arabic slang for "anus" or "the toilet."

Imagine how good you have to be to convince an entire nation to start two wars, bankrupt the country with trillions of dollars in defense spending and completely trash the Constitution and civil liberties with legislation called the "Patriot Act" all due to fear of the Toilet Gang!

I really don't care. The fact is muslims exist, muslims want to spread islam across the globe, muslims wants to force sharia law on the West. If something like Al Qaeda is useful for waking people up so be it. It may or may not have existed(kind of hard to believe 93 Towers bombing, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings where faked), I doubt it exists anymore. That's why I said "Taliban" when referring to the people US forces are mostly fighting against or dealing with now.

But whatever, just don't forget to take your med's. Besides, one way or another the Government would find a way to waste the money.

reply to post by korathin

Since you're so concerned about Pakistani militants and want to "bomb Pakistan off the map", here's a quiz:

1) As leaked documents reveal, who's responsible for organizing the Taliban and Afghan insurgency?

2) Who funds the Pakistani ISI with hundreds of millions of dollars?

reply to post by korathin


ill quote jung a bit more

Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbors under the hypocritical cloak of Christian love or the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power (Jung, 1966:5).

I guess our friend korathin gave up, so here are the answers:

1) As leaked documents reveal, who's responsible for organizing the Taliban and Afghan insurgency?

Leaked documents claim Pakistan’s ISI directing Afghan insurgency

The United States on Sunday denounced the release of documents that allegedly show Pakistan's military spy service is guiding the Afghan insurgency, a White House official said.

"The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," National Security Advisor James Jones said in a statement.

"Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents -- the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted," Jones said.

"These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."

According to the New York Times, the documents "suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban."

2) Who funds the Pakistani ISI with hundreds of millions of dollars?

CIA funds ISI – ISI funds Taliban, Al Qaeda

Wikileaks’ War Logs Highlight Global Intelligence Facade Of ‘War On Terror'

Last November, the LA Times, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported that the CIA has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the ISI since 9/11, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agency’s annual budget, and that the funding, initiated covertly under Bush, has continued under Obama.

A major London School of Economics study, released last year, also highlighted the ongoing relationship between the ISI and the Taliban.

The Pakistani ISI is a CIA front and controls terror cells at the discretion of the highest levels of the U.S. military-industrial complex.

There is a great need to perpetuate the mythical war on terror in order to maintain the pretext for the geopolitical genocide currently being undertaken by globalist advances into the middle east “rogue” (independent) nations.

As our governments assert that they are doing everything in their power to dismantle the global terror network, the reality is the exact opposite. The criminal intelligence networks assembled it, they sponsored it and they continue to fund it using our tax dollars. As any good criminal should, they have a middleman to provide plausible deniability. That middleman is the ISI and the military dictatorship of Pakistan.

reply to post by korathin

I really don't care. The fact is muslims exist, muslims want to spread islam across the globe, muslims wants to force sharia law on the West. If something like Al Qaeda is useful for waking people up so be it. It may or may not have existed(kind of hard to believe 93 Towers bombing, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings where faked), I doubt it exists anymore. That's why I said "Taliban" when referring to the people US forces are mostly fighting against or dealing with now.

But whatever, just don't forget to take your med's. Besides, one way or another the Government would find a way to waste the money.

The point is the US invades foreign lands and US soldiers always end up dead fighting against an enemy previously funded and armed by the US..

It just ain't good sportsmanship..

And I disagree with the muslim angle..
They would have been happy where they were if westerners didn't invade and slaughter them

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by SirMike
]
Does it create 10 NATO troops?

No only NATO propaganda and defence spending can do that.

I love how defenders of the status quo are taking solace in equity with the Taliban, aren't we meant to be the good guys? Saving the women and children from "awful Muslim oppression".

Ok, so what happens then? If we create 10 more terrorists for every one we kill, what does the Taliban create every time they kill someone?

A puddle...
or a politician maybe...
Ooo I know - another excuse for the US to invade a country with resources they like.

Originally posted by FarArcher
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.

Apologies to mods for large quote ... justified in this case I believe.

Fararcher ... seriously man you have to be joking with a post like this.

There's various ways of taking somebody who gives such an answer.

We could say you are living in the past. By using texts from over 2000 years ago and applying it to the modern world you show that you are either desperate, clutching to any straw to justify your position, totally mad and need treatment, or some religious fanatic/zealot, like a fundamentalist Islamist .... just the sort we are targetting with drones.

Most people I know who attend church do not use old testaments to define how they live their lives. And just because a passage in the bible talks about some great slaughter somewhere does not give anyone the right to go around slaughtering people. There must be a few convicts in jail who would hire you as an attorney as you could probably get them off on religious grounds.

Do you see the complete hypocricy of your statement ?

On the one hand you condem some muslims in some far flung part of the world going about their business. You want them killed because they have political views and religious beliefs different to yours, and you justify it by spouting your own religious views to authorise your actions.

Do you think the Pope would come out and say kill all muslims because thats the way it was done in the past ?

No, and why, because civilisation has moved on. If you want to go back to living in cave thats your problem.

Modern, civilised, intellegent people do not behave like that anymore.

And I think you will find that modern church leaders do not condone indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians whether they are near to terrorists or not.

Seeing as how the USA has declared Julian Assange a terrorist, and he is living in South of England right now, I suppose you would have no problem if a drone was used to flatten the house he is in along with anyone else nearby.

Your answer to that no doubt will be no. So whats the difference between the people in England and those in Afghanistsan ?

I would say none, other than skin colour and possibly religious belief. And it is wrong to differentiate on those grounds unless you are a racist.

DRONE

This morning's brief glance over thread titles revealed the above word appearing at least 13 times.

Talk about a targeted subject! I mean, understanding that ATS is a place to discuss things of this nature but... 13 threads? This goes beyond the simple effort to debate the issue and rolls squarely into the corner of forced political propaganda.

Oh, and while all these ee-ville drones are darkening your mainpage, the standoff between China and the Phillippines... the latter trying desperately to defend its territory from the mega-monster of the east, doesn't get a peep. This could erupt anytime into a shooting war... probably with not a single drone to be seen.

But... never mind all that. The drones must drone on and on and on and on and on...