Pakistan Warns US Over Airspace . . . US Then Promptly Murders 8 Pakistanis in Drone Attack, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 04:14 PM by Yankee451

reply to post by Ev0lveUp

What do you suggest? For all our efforts exercising our voting rights- we get anti-abortion bills.

I appreciate your concern, and I share your frustration. It became clear to me years ago that ours is a violent system which I support through my labor. If I refuse to support the system, I will be arrested. If I resist arrest, I will be killed. I realized after 30 years of voting that I couldn't point to a single meaningful government policy that changed in my favor and it became clear that by voting I was giving my blessing and lending legitimacy to a corrupt institution which only exists to perpetuate itself. If no one voted, the criminals wouldn't have the guise of democracy to hide behind.

The choices are stark, but they should be clear. We can't fight a violent system with violence, all we can do is to do our best to support it minimally; make as little taxable income as possible, stop voting at least for national elections, and do whatever you can to help raise the awareness of your neighbors.

edit on 7-5-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 04:17 PM by ~Lucidity

Sorry, but wasn't this news yesterday with a thread here? Or did we do it again

In any event...that's a real slap in the face.

Who were we after now? The new number 1 seeing as Osama is dead?

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 04:17 PM by Yankee451

Originally posted by The Old American
This is going to be spectacular. And by "spectacular" I mean "Pakistan is going to nuke us if we don't leave them the [snip] alone".

/TOA

No one's going to be nuked; it's the fear of nukes that is sufficient. The only thing spectacular will be the level of fear mongering propaganda.

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 04:22 PM by Yankee451

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Sorry, but wasn't this news yesterday with a thread here? Or did we do it again

In any event...that's a real slap in the face.

Who were we after now? The new number 1 seeing as Osama is dead?

Sorry, must have missed it.

As far as who we're after, if you listen to Brzezniski (Obama does), the ultimate goals are China and Russia.

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 04:32 PM by NorthStargal52

Originally posted by TriForce
I cant, for the life of me, understand how these attacks on a sovereign Nation, arent considered acts of war.
The US is currently militarily active in 6 Middle Eastern countries (overtly at least) and Im not sure how much more the world will put up with before something is done

Triforce you make a good point and I am not clear on this ..so because we are military active in 6 Middle East countries that means we are allowed to fly and do stuff in those countries ?? We dont have that permission to do so in Pakistan is that correct? can anyone explain how this legally works ??

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 05:01 PM by ~Lucidity

reply to post by Yankee451

Ha. I may have dreamed it. Threads scroll away so fast now.

And yes. Sort of. The ultimate goal is to maintain some power in the game when China and India surpass the US economy and make their bid for hegemony. I'm not sure Russia is part of the ultimate goal, but they certainly are watching and hoping we fail as they did and are probably ready, either with or without China, to move if we do. If the CFR faction had its druthers we'd be more embroiled in Asia now (via N. Korea and the action there). They made that attempt while the neocon faction had the balance of power and didn't get anywhere, they made it again now that the CFR faction has the balance of power and didn't get anywhere, so so now they're now they're following a modified version of the plan. Ultimate goal is the same. And Pakistan is right on the path and is a big roadblock. As for the mock anger...I'm not sure it's entirely mock.

edit on 5/7/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-5-2011 @ 08:55 PM by aboutface

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

OF course Pakistan has to talk tough. They are deeply infiltrated by factions unfriendly to the US, and could easily fall victim to another ISI sponsored Mumbai bombing

Care to elaborate a little as to how Pakistan was a victim, since ISI is Pakistani and Mumbai is in India?
I'm afraid I just don't follow your point.

reply posted on 8-5-2011 @ 02:05 AM by Xcathdra

reply to post by Yankee451

I was under the impression the drone strikes were in the tribal regions of Pakistan and the Pakistani government was ok with those strikes in that area. I thought the warning about airspce violation goes with the raid on Osama Bin Laden.

reply posted on 8-5-2011 @ 08:59 AM by deltaboy

reply to post by Expat888

We should be like Libya. They are more civilized. Ignore what the news says, they have never harmed their own people.

reply posted on 8-5-2011 @ 09:05 AM by Decision

If you want your sovereignty honored, stop harboring/promoting/supporting terrorism.

It's a simple concept.

reply posted on 8-5-2011 @ 09:58 AM by Yankee451

Originally posted by Decision
If you want your sovereignty honored, stop harboring/promoting/supporting terrorism.

It's a simple concept.

It's only simple to folks who believe what they're told. "War" is a euphemism for mass murder, and according to the definition of terrorism, the US Military is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. The only difference between al Qaida and the Pentagon is their budgets.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change. —Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted. —Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience. —James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics. —Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. —FBI Definition
Categorizing Terrorism More Than One Nation Involved Yes No Government Controlled or Directed Yes Interstate State No International Source: The Terrorism Research Center

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d) (d) Definitions As used in this section—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

terrorism.about.com...

edit on 8-5-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-5-2011 @ 07:24 PM by TriForce

reply to post by NorthStargal52

I just asked myself this question. " What other country in this world has violated another sovereign nations airspace without a HUGE outcry of protests from the world community"? And off the top of my head, i cant answer it.

Not only that but hell, we actually sent in a formation of Choppers, loaded with 24 or so Elite Special force members and had contingency plans to actually fight it out with Pakistani forces if they were challenged by them.

Had this been done by any Nation, other than the US, against any other Nation it would have been considered an invasion.
I think Musharef got tired of being the US lapdog and thats why he was forced out.

reply posted on 22-5-2011 @ 10:45 AM by newcovenant

One man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary

The quote is another version of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" first written by Gerald Seymour in his 1975 book Harry's Game Read more: wiki.answers.com...'s_terrorist_is_another_man's_revolutionary#ixzz1N635G9R3

reply posted on 22-5-2011 @ 10:56 AM by Helious

Originally posted by OoohLaDeDa
There are beginning to be startling simmiliarities between present day USA and pre WW2 Germany.
Only problem is, this time, we are the bad guys.......Hows that make you feel?

"We" are not the bad guys, the United States government is. German civilians were only to blame for sticking there heads in the sand while the Nazi's took over. Thats exactly what our citizens are doing now.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^