'US missiles' hit Pakistan school

reply to post by SuperViking

So legal means 'just' or 'right', to you? Okay.

Legal means that which is lawful.
Now,if you break the law are you in the right or in the wrong?

I understand that its a difficult concept for you to grasp,but i'm sure if you try you'll get it....eventually.

reply to post by jakyll


We make sure that the terrorists like Osama Bin Laden is caught. We have been known to catch and arrest the terrorists whenever possible. Pakistan is allowing it to happen with no disregard for Afghan security. Think about it.

Perhaps the Pakistanis are just too scare to take on the Taliban after what the Taliban and AQ has been doing to Pakistan. So we are just helping them what they just won't do.

reply to post by deltaboy

terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.

Name one terrorist like him who has been caught.

Small fry terrorists have been caught,and i use the word terrorist loosely because many who have been caught by the US have been spirited away to places like Guantanamo Bay,and little evidence is given as proof.

Pakistan is allowing it to happen with no disregard for Afghan security.

Allowing what to happen? Terrorist activity?
Britain (amongst others) has allowed known militants and supporters of terrorism to dwell in this country,should we be attacked too?


Pakistan is in a precarious position.There are many supporters of the Taliban and the fight against the west in the country,if the President declared all out war or allowed the US to do so then there could be a rebellion and possible civil war in Pakistan.Its understandable that the President wants to avoid this.

reply to post by jakyll


Well lets see the most important that we got was Mohammed Atef who was killed along with two of his wives unfortunately but thats life. However none of the Al Qaeda leaders have yet to be caught in the U.S. for some reason.

reply to post by jakyll


They are in a precarious position with the U.S. as it is. Which one do they prefer? A war with the U.S. or with the Taliban and AQ? Perhaps we should implement the same tactics that Taliban and the AQ is using just to give them a nudge.

reply to post by deltaboy

They are in a precarious position with the U.S. as it is. Which one do they prefer? A war with the U.S. or with the Taliban and AQ? Perhaps we should implement the same tactics that Taliban and the AQ is using just to give them a nudge.

Do you even realize what you are saying here?

America has no right to attack every country who doesn't support their bulls**t war on terrorism.No country would risk civil war to appease the bloodthirsty ambitions of another.


There is also one very important thing you are forgetting;Pakistan is again a member of the Commonwealth,the British Commonwealth.Which means you would come into conflict your biggest ally.And,as the US is rapidly losing friends,i don't think they could afford such a move.

reply to post by jakyll


The Pakistanis may be part of the commonwealth, but it seems nobody is helping Pakistan at the moment for some reason. Perhaps they just don't like what Pakistan is doing. Based on past experience of proxy wars whether it be America or Pakistan, I would say "no right" is invalid. Think about Pakistans support of the militants against India before you say such crap.

news.yahoo.com...

GAUHATI, India – A series of coordinated blasts tore through northeast India on Thursday, killing at least 61 people and sending police scrambling to find any unexploded bombs in a province troubled by years of separatist violence and ethnic tensions.

At least 300 people were injured in the 13 blasts, most caused by bombs and at least one from a hand grenade, said said Subhash Das, a senior official in Assam state's Home Ministry. Das said at least 31 people lost their lives in five explosions in the state capital, Gauhati.

The largest bomb exploded near the secretariat — the office of the Assam state's top government official — leaving bodies and mangled cars and motorcycles strewn across the road. Bystanders dragged the wounded and dead to cars that took them to hospitals. Police officers covered the burned remains of the dead with white sheets, leaving them in the street.

reply to post by deltaboy

Think about Pakistans support of the militants against India before you say such crap.

Should i also think about the fact that it was Britian and America's meddling in Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to get in power?

Should i also think of the fact that it was the US who trained and armed people like bin Laden?


Maybe i should also think of the 'Irish' Americans who supported the IRA and their terrorist tactics.Then again,with this,maybe i shouldn't.Because not all Americans supported them just as all of Pakistan doesn't support the Taliban.

I would say "no right" is invalid.

But only when its America,right?
I'm sure you would have a very different opinion if it was someone doing it to you.

Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.
Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops....

But his comments have deeply angered many Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns, who consider the Taliban as pariahs and a negation of Pashtun values. Gen Orakzai is the mastermind of "peace deals" between the army and the heavily Talibanised Pashtun tribes on the Pakistani side of the border, but these agreements have failed because they continue to allow the Taliban to attack Nato forces inside Afghanistan and leave the Taliban in place, free to run a mini-Islamic state.

www.telegraph.co.uk...




[edit on 30-10-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by SuperViking

 

So legal means 'just' or 'right', to you? Okay.

Legal means that which is lawful.
Now,if you break the law are you in the right or in the wrong?

NEITHER.

You're doing something unlawful. The UN's blessing doesn't make something 'right' or 'wrong'.

Talk about sheeple...

Originally posted by jakyll
Name one terrorist like him [Osama bin Laden] who has been caught.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, for one -- older cnn link

Though that was back in the "good ol' days" when the US and Pakistan were more clearly working together.

But as you say, Pakistan is in a very precarious spot at the moment. We aren't happy with them, and they aren't happy with us. I can't help think that they want us to negotiate with the Taliban, in part, just to get them outta Pakistan.

And there's been another missile strike today (10/31) in Pakistan...BBC breaking news is located here.

As with before, the US says an al-Qaeda leader was the target while Pakistan says it was a tribesman's house. It seems unlikely that we'll know, definitively, one way or the other.

reply to post by SuperViking

You're doing something unlawful. The UN's blessing doesn't make something 'right' or 'wrong'.

Definition.
Unlawful:not lawful;contrary to law;illegal./not morally right or permissible.

Purpose of the UN.
To facilitate cooperation in international law,international security,economic development,social progress,human rights,and achieving world peace.


People like you are the reason governments can get away with murder.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by SuperViking

 

You're doing something unlawful. The UN's blessing doesn't make something 'right' or 'wrong'.

Definition.
Unlawful:not lawful;contrary to law;illegal./not morally right or permissible.

Purpose of the UN.
To facilitate cooperation in international law,international security,economic development,social progress,human rights,and achieving world peace.


People like you are the reason governments can get away with murder.

Your definition is BS. Illegal doesn't mean immoral. Is it immoral to cross a street without using a crosswalk? Be serious.

The UN is a political organization. Study IR and get back to me, because the security council approves and vetoes things based upon political implications, not about some moral "right" and "wrong", because no governments give a # about those things. Wilsonianism died at the end of WWII, give it up. We're not going back in time.

I can't believe that someone seriously argued that something done without the consent of the UN is "wrong". What are you, 14?

reply to post by SuperViking

Your definition is BS. Illegal doesn't mean immoral. Is it immoral to cross a street without using a crosswalk? Be serious.

Its not my definition,its the dictionaries.(Oxford's,Cambridges,American Heritage and Websters.to name a few)

I can't believe that someone seriously argued that something done without the consent of the UN is "wrong".

If the consent of the UN wasn't important,why did Bush seek it?
And when he didn't get (or that of Congress) why did he change American law to say that an act of terrorism can now be regarded as an act of war?

The UN is a political organization. Study IR and get back to me, because the security council approves and vetoes things based upon political implications, not about some moral "right" and "wrong", because no governments give a # about those things.

The UN was founded in 1945 to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue.It replaced the League of Nations.The League's goals included disarmament,preventing war through collective security,settling disputes between countries through negotiation,diplomacy and improving global quality of life.Such things are based on morals just as much as politics.Morality is a code of conduct.The UN has such a code.
If you don't believe me then think on this;is it just politically wrong for Zimbabwe police to rape,torture and murder prisoners,or is it also morally wrong??

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by SuperViking

 

Your definition is BS. Illegal doesn't mean immoral. Is it immoral to cross a street without using a crosswalk? Be serious.

Its not my definition,its the dictionaries.(Oxford's,Cambridges,American Heritage and Websters.to name a few)

Now you're lying. Give me a link that says that. Again- is it immoral to cross the street outside a crosswalk? Of course not.

This is so simple a child could understand- illegal doesn't mean immoral.

I can't believe that someone seriously argued that something done without the consent of the UN is "wrong".

If the consent of the UN wasn't important,why did Bush seek it?

Because of it's POLTICAL power.

And when he didn't get (or that of Congress) why did he change American law to say that an act of terrorism can now be regarded as an act of war?

What does that have to do with anything?

The UN is a political organization. Study IR and get back to me, because the security council approves and vetoes things based upon political implications, not about some moral "right" and "wrong", because no governments give a # about those things.

The UN was founded in 1945 to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue.It replaced the League of Nations.The League's goals included disarmament,preventing war through collective security,settling disputes between countries through negotiation,diplomacy and improving global quality of life.Such things are based on morals just as much as politics.Morality is a code of conduct.The UN has such a code.

But UNSC members don't vote upon 'right' or 'wrong', they vote upon political considerations.

If you don't believe me then think on this;is it just politically wrong for Zimbabwe police to rape,torture and murder prisoners,or is it also morally wrong??

What does that have to do with the UN?

You're all over the board. If you honestly think the UN decides things based upon 'morality' there's no use even having a conversation with you. Your argumentation is ridiculously simplistic. The world doesn't work that way. I mean, the UN green lit the first Gulf War, does that make it right? What the UN agrees or doesn't agree with doesn't dictate something's "rightness" or "wrongness" whatever that even means.

Further, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's 'immoral' (see: not using a crosswalk).

But most important, national affairs don't need to be 'moral' anyway- when they try to be it fails (see: League of Nations, interwar period, etc). Richelieu said man is immortal and nations are not; man must be moral, nations need not (deeply paraphrased). I think I'm gonna go with him when considering IR over a guy that thinks something is right if the UN says it is.