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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
A US official justifies raids on Syria and Pakistan,saying any country should be allowed to attack states it considers terrorist havens.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff late Thursday described the US raids as measures of self-defense demanding international acceptance for warding off possible threats abroad.
The really sad part is, it will become unpatriotic to question this fascist nonsense.
Many will ignorantly accept the "We should be allowed to do this" as gospel.
reply to post by AlienChaser
If the guy down the block hated me and had a plan and the
"every year the pakistani government manages to infiltrate into Indian kashmir 5000 'jihadis', and every year the Indian army manages to kill each and everyone them. Pakistan should come to terms with futility of its current actions"
Guess what. He never planned to do it. You can't prove he did. And if in fact he didn't, YOU are the aggressor. You can't preemptively punish someone for something that is in YOUR mind. Governments shouldn't either.
An innocent person may have died in these raids. It may not matter to you, but it matters to that person's family.
any country should be allowed to attack states it considers terrorist havens
Originally posted by SuperViking
You could, but could your nation deal with the consequences? That's kind of the point.
The US could attack China, sure, but the consequences would be unsustainable at this point. Syria? Not so much.
The tribal regions are autonomous with the taliban and both
hate america, if it takes a raid into soveriegn territory to do something
that territories government wont do for the protection of US interests,
then so be it.
I believe America, while certainly not always right, sometimes gets
The really sad part is, it will become unpatriotic to question this fascist nonsense. Many will ignorantly accept the "We should be allowed to do this" as gospel.
The US is completely justified in launching raids with pakistan, because Pakistan is one of the worst state sponsors of terrorism in the world.
The pakistani have some of the most hateful and vicious islamist terrorists you will ever have the misfortune of knowing about. Some of these guys enjoy slaughtering children and old men, they've massacred whole families just to make a point in various villages (in Afghanistan, Pakistan & India).
The rage soldiers feel after a roadside bomb explodes, killing or maiming their comrades, is one that is easily directed over time to innocent civilians who are seen to support the insurgents. It is a short psychological leap, but a massive moral leap. It is a leap from killing -- the shooting of someone who has the capacity to do you harm -- to murder -- the deadly assault against someone who cannot harm you. The war in Iraq is now primarily about murder. There is very little killing.
After four years of war, American Marines and soldiers have become socialized to atrocity. The American killing project is not described in these terms to a distant public. The politicians still speak in the abstract terms of glory, honor, and heroism, in the necessity of improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue. The campaign to rid the world of terror is expressed with this rhetoric, as if once all terrorists are destroyed evil itself will vanish.
In December 2003 a woman prisoner at Abu Ghraib smuggled out a note. "The note claimed that U.S. guards had been raping women detainees… Several of the women were now pregnant, it added. The women had been forced to strip naked in front of men, it said. The note urged the Iraqi resistance to bomb the jail to spare the women further shame." Female lawyers of women detainees discovered that this was true not only at Abu Ghraib but that the same thing was "happening all across Iraq." (This and subsequent quotes from the UK Guardian, 20 March 2004)
The Guardian continued, "Astonishingly, the secret inquiry launched by the U.S. military in January 2005, headed by Major General Antonio Taguba, has confirmed that the letter smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a woman known only as ‘Noor’ was entirely and devastatingly accurate."
US-led occupation forces have committed numerous atrocities in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Haditha, Hamandiya, Sadr City, Samarra and Ishaqi have become synonymous with murder, rape and the multiple killing of civilians.
Originally posted by johnsky
Originally posted by SuperViking
You could, but could your nation deal with the consequences? That's kind of the point.
The US could attack China, sure, but the consequences would be unsustainable at this point. Syria? Not so much.
Exactly.
The point here is the US thinks it can attack anyone, because they spend more on their military. No need for moral justification, no need for moral thoughts at all... we bought the bigger guns, we can shoot whoever we want.
Using "terrorism" as a cop out, is well... a cop out... have any of you READ the definition of terrorism? I'll give you a hint, the United States fits the definition.
As does anyone who picks up a weapon.
Basically what the US has claimed here is, " We can kill anyone we want, wherever we want, because everyone can be called a terrorist. "
The proof of the US 'justification' will be if all those currently in support of the US's actions accept it when another nation attacks the US.
It's fine sitting back and playing armchair general when the fight is 'over there' in some 'foreign' place
But it won't feel quite the same when it's US towns and cities which are being evaporated