Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Half of US drone strikes in Pakistan were against people who pose no threat to the US or our forces

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by ollncasino
 





instead of demanding that other people get killed trying to do so.



I think the poster is saying War is a stupid excuse to justify murder.

Meaning US troops firing on people that are labeled as militant, funny you put that definition up, how do they define who is a militant and not? What background do they gather on a person in a battle to define one as such?

Is anyone that opposes the US a militant? It seems so, I would be If anyone came to me and tried changing my way of life.


Its actually not that hard to set up intellingence networks that can trace things such as the flow of weapons or money in a particular region if you have years to do it. We established a fairly good history with the tribes when we created the Northern Alliance. It was they who actually did most of the fighting with the Taliban in the mountains out there. Even though they fight against each other, they all equally hated the Taliban.

Anyways, they know their country well and I'm sure we have set up communications to get an idea of who's doing what around there. When someone pops up on the radar he will probably be labeled a militant for supplying, whatever terrorist group he is.

Think of it like being in high school and someone starts a horrible rumor about you. Through establishing contacts, talking with your friends, maybe even through bribery it wouldn't take you that long to figure out who started the rumor would it?

Same principle applies here.




posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Is anyone that opposes the US a militant?


Militants are by definition militant. Militant opponents of the USA are by definition militant opponents of the USA.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 





Anyways, they know their country well and I'm sure we have set up communications to get an idea of who's doing what around there. When someone pops up on the radar he will probably be labeled a militant for supplying, whatever terrorist group he is.



Precisely, which brings me to your post on page 1 which I stared as it rings very true to my ears.




The situation over there is beyond complicated even for people who research it so oftentimes all your going to get is information about a particular person and where they are and what they are doing. Its often impossible to tell exactly what their affiliation to any group is.



They will be allies one second and militants the next. Tribes have been at war there for many centuries, the lame excuse to capture Bin Laden is just that, lame. That was 2001, Are the US going to stay for many centuries more as the tribes will continue fighting amongst themselves no matter if the US is there or not.

How is the War on Terror justified in the minds of millions when the one that defined the term is the one creating the most terror.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Is anyone that opposes the US a militant?


Militants are by definition militant. Militant opponents of the USA are by definition militant opponents of the USA.







Yes and that definition allows in wartime for those defined as such to be killed with no worries about legal repercussions.
Due to this thread being about Pakistan and that region, I say with an ignorant figure that 90% of those classed as militant and justified to be killed there are just people protecting their way of life from and occupying force.


We just call them militant or terrorists and let the gadgets do the bombings.


God bless The mighty US of A



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


I agree that the War on Terror is nothing but an ignorant response to an attack. Anyone who knows even the smallest amount about terrorism knows that you can never win it. To label it as a war is setting yourself up for failure.

It obviously was a propaganda term used by the US government to further power grab power for their intelligence services with things like the Patriot Act, as well as to secure additional funding for their many "black" projects the Executive Branch loves to operate.

Ever since WWII we have seen a consistent power shift from Congress to the Executive Branch, even to the point where it is no longer required to declare war, and this War on Terror is nothing but the latest attempt to consolidate power.

Just look at the authority the President has gained since Bush rolled this out? Its absolutely crazy and 100% planned. Not the attack on 9/11 of course but the response by Bush and Obama afterwards certainly is.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





How is the War on Terror justified in the minds of millions when the one that defined the term is the one creating the most terror.


Ok honestly, Terrorism has been on my mind since the 70's. Go back and look at all the attacks that have happen to the U.S and other countries. The war on terrorism is not the war against al-Qaeda, it is a war against TERRORISM. I find it hard to believe that the younger generation has no sense of history. That they have no memory of the past attacks that have been going on for the last 40+ years.

There has been over 40 years of slaughter by Radical Islamist against mostly unarmed civilian targets. I wish moderate muslims would have policed there radicals but they haven't. How long should the world have lived in fear of radical Islam.

This has been going on long before the circumstances that led to phrases like CIA- al-Qaeda, or war for oil.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
My big issue with drone warfare is it makes it too damn easy and is outright cowardly.

In the olden days, there was some honor in the military profession as the soldiers were expected to put their lives on the line in service to their country and in defense of their brothers in arms. Most soldiers justified what they did because they were put in a position of kill or be killed. To most people, killing does not come naturally and it is only when one is forced to defend their own life and the lives of their brothers in arms were they able to overcome their natural aversion and do what needed to be done to survive. Unfortunately, the guys on the other side were in the exact same position, being forced to kill their opponents on the orders of their political leaders.

Back then, the political leaders had to weigh the cost of sending the nations sons and daughters into harms way against any potential gains that could come from bringing their nation to war. With people's lives in the balance, you could be sure that war would be used as only the last option, after all political options had been used up and the country was left with no other choice.

Today, we can go to war without having to put our sons and daughters at risk on the battlefield and can send our drones into countries who we are not even at war with to kill our supposed enemies. The drones are operated from the other side of the world and sent in to kill people who the drone operator will never encounter face to face. The closest any US forces come to engaging the enemy is the people who launch the drones and they usually operate from the safety of a Navy ship or a secured base in a neighboring, friendly country. This all makes it far too easy to engage all manner of "enemies" all over the globe over the slightest of offenses and with little or no provocation. The politicians only need to figure the cost of the fuel to fly the drones and the cost of the armaments to be used in the killings.

The drone operators sit in a comfortable control room in the suburbs in America, controlling the drones like some type of video game and feel no more remorse for the human lives lost on the other side of the world than they would for the zombies they blast away on their home gaming console. They are never put at risk and never have to come face to face with the consequences of their actions. For all of this, they are now eligible to receive medals of valor for their cold-blooded killings.

Now we find out that our troops are getting their kill orders from foreign intelligence agencies, just as likely to target political opponents as they are to use them in the fight against "terrorism".

This whole thing makes me sick. Drone killing takes all of the risk and the honor out of warfare and makes it far to easy for our politicians to spread our reign of terror wherever they see fit.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



Instead, many of the attacks are aimed at suspected low-level tribal militants, who may pose no direct danger to the United States – and for many there appears to be little evidence to justify the assassinations.


The "low level tribal militants" are basically fighting who they see as invaders and aggressors. Some people don't like seem to like the idea of an indigenous population fighting off foreign invaders. I guess they would be OK with Soviet or Chinese choppers flying over their towns and cities, bombing areas suspected to be held by those who call themselves "freedom fighters"...
a la Red Dawn.

edit on 12-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 





The war on terrorism is not the war against al-Qaeda, it is a war against TERRORISM.


If it was a war against Al-Qaeda that would be reasonable, but a War on Terror is a slap in every ones face.

Do fire fighters get to the burning building and attempt to extinguish the flames with Flame throwers?



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





If it was a war against Al-Qaeda that would be reasonable, but a War on Terror is a slap in every ones face


I don't think it is a slap in the face, to people of all nations who have lost loved ones to terrorism in the last 40+ years.

So what should be done? Should we reward them for all the past terrorist acts of the last 40+ years. I see you pulled one sentence out of my post. Do you remember things like the Greek or Rome airport attacks?



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





If it was a war against Al-Qaeda that would be reasonable, but a War on Terror is a slap in every ones face


I don't think it is a slap in the face, to people of all nations who have lost loved ones to terrorism in the last 40+ years.

So what should be done? Should we reward them for all the past terrorist acts of the last 40+ years. I see you pulled one sentence out of my post. Do you remember things like the Greek or Rome airport attacks?



I remember a lot more.

How is remembering atrocities an OK to do your own or support your country doing them all in the name of freedom?

Funny you say the last 40 years, you haven't fallen for the Hollywood propaganda machine that's been running for roughly the same amount of time?





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join