Nato attacks Pakistan army, Pakistan cuts off U.S. supply lines

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
Actually special forces are far more in tune with their surroundings in life than what you or who ever feels. To knowingly place yourself in a life and death situation requires an internal silence and acceptance of what you are and what your place is within this dimensional world is. Others have spiritual awakening others have a higher calling, so i would not say they are simple robots. They are far from that and heed the warning when and if ever you cross the path of such a person on a mission or otherwise.

Psst...quick hint...I was being sarcastic.

reply to post by MaximosPoena


"Pakistan's ISI is not helping any phantom army. They are helping the Taliban. They want to have greater control over Afghanistan. "

Strangers on corporate TV / news propaganda... designed for american opinion shaping & consumption.. might call this guy a taliban, that guy an insurgent and some other dude isi.. but maybe they see each-other as neighbors? and don't care about monikers from cnn / shill media.

The average afpakistan dude has exactly zero personal reasons to support DC mafioso policies / designs, and fewer reasons to support goals of armed foreign troops... making it common sense for local patriots to rally together in common cause against foreign aggression / traitors.

reply to post by Aim64C


All I can say is it seems you have completely missed my point and taken my words out of context, go back, read again, as well as some of my other comments... Then try again. Its funny that I keep getting accused of making this a theological debate when I am neither religious nor the one making the thread theological, just responding in the way I see fit to the argument put forward to me.

reply to post by OneManArmy

All I can say is it seems you have completely missed my point and taken my words out of context, go back, read again, as well as some of my other comments...

Child, I am not so easy to fool. If you had a point or context, you would not have been spouting nonsense for me to disagree with.

Its funny that I keep getting accused of making this a theological debate when I am neither religious nor the one making the thread theological, just responding in the way I see fit to the argument put forward to me.

You, obviously, do not understand the sacred ritual of communication.

Let us review the first post in this thread:

"This is the second post Ive seen of yours now, and wow, just wow. I have to seriously wonder where your head is at? Now you are making assumptions of what happened without even waiting for such a thing as FACTS."

This was in response to a post that had mentioned a history of events to support the standpoint that it was Pakistan who likely fired first.

That's clear speculation on the part of milkyway12 - but to turn around and attack someone for speculating on events that have few discernible facts about them is ... dumb.

"But dont let such a simple thing as facts get in the way. By your avatar Id guess youre used to denying facts. "

At this point in your post, you come to terms with the fact you have nothing to actually contribute to the conversation regarding middle-east issues, and decide to resort to ad-hominem. Which just so happens to reference the winged crucifix that comprises the member's avatar.

The crucifix is generally regarded as a religious symbol, and it is a fairly safe bet by your comment - the first to make such an issue - that you are making an attack on the religion affiliated with that symbol.

No?

Just in case there's any doubt, you continue:

"But remember one thing "Thou Shalt Not Kill". What problem does Iran have? They wont bow down to US imperialism? Thats not a problem, thats honourable. By the way you express yourself with words I can only say, you are no christian at all, blinded by hate for other people that you dont understand, because I wonder if you ever let facts guide your opinion on anything."

You base your criticism around your feeble understanding of christian concepts and then resort to more ad-hominem (presumably linked in to religious affiliation).

Originally posted by Aim64C

If the common soldier, the workhorse of the entire war effort, realized that their war has nothing about democracy and everything about exploitation, then they would not fight to win.

Perhaps you could explain this allegation of exploitation.

I've never, once, seen any argument for there being exploitation... just the assumption that, because we are in some other country, it is automatically about exploitation and anyone who believes otherwise is a dimwit.

If you can't see that the invasion is all about controlling the resources of the region, than perhaps you are as you label.

My own nation's military specifically avoids recruiting anyone who is there for the sake of nationalism, because such notions are dangerous when the fight is not true and when we are fighting not for the defense of our nation, but for the interest of our current leaders.

More baseless allegations. "You are all mindless slaves to serve the dogs in office!"

But, I like how you spin the age-old ploy: "Anyone who disagrees with me is a complete and total idiot, incapable of thinking on their own!"

Come on, be honest, like me - and just let people know you think they are only slightly above pond-scum in terms of intelligence. By comparison to me, almost all human beings are woefully inadequate. You should take comfort in the fact you have people you can at least come to accept as your equal - those who accept what you say as truth.

Now, I shall go fetch you some Leninade while you rant about how retarded soldiers must be due to their participation in something you have never been a part of or witnessed, but presume to know all about.

The only person calling soldiers "retarded" is you. I never stated that at all.

All I said was the enlisted soldiers are enlisted because they care more about the benefits of the job, while not knowing or caring about the point of why they are fighting. The officer class (the brass, that is) knows what it is all about. This is even recorded. Back in 2001, high-ranking US officers came to brief Canadian brass on the Afghanistan operation. They specifically started the meeting by saying don't listen to the nonsense in the media about democracy building, and then continued the briefing with maps of resources in the region that were to be captured.

Canada was basically forced into supporting this resource accumulation strategy this (long story short) because of our commitments to the US machine with things like NAFTA. Any rise in the price of oil means we lose more and more to the American market because we cannot legally charge the US more for oil than we sell in our own country, as per NAFTA's rules (meaning we don't profit from oil sales to the US). Considering most of our oil goes to the US, we are forced to fight alongside Americans to secure our own market.

It's written in the book "Holding the Bully's Coat - Canada and the US Empire", written by Linda McQuaig, chapter 2, page 67-110. The book is published non-fiction, meaning that the facts have been checked by lawyers and thus this is authentic information. If you really want to learn the bigger picture, I will tell you this now: YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT BY LOOKING AT THE CORE. The truth exposes itself in the peripheries. Look at the discussions between the military brass of the involved nations to learn what it is really all about.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All I said was the enlisted soldiers are enlisted because they care more about the benefits of the job, while not knowing or caring about the point of why they are fighting.

Well, there's a huge load of BS in that statement.

You've obviously never served. Sure, everyone (officer and enlisted) care about the benefits, but it's a lot more than that.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


And what resources does Afghanistan and/or Iraq have?

And where is the evidence that we are now in control of them?

All I said was the enlisted soldiers are enlisted because they care more about the benefits of the job, while not knowing or caring about the point of why they are fighting.

Once again, you've not had much interaction with the military. This is blatantly false. The reason education benefits and the like are so good and cheap in the military is due to the fact that so few in the military use them while everyone pays into them.

The officer class (the brass, that is) knows what it is all about.

Hate to break it to you, but there's little difference between the officers and enlisted these days. Back in Napoleonic days, sure - but the differences today are pretty much limited to what the paper says your part is, and who you trump.

This is even recorded. Back in 2001, high-ranking US officers came to brief Canadian brass on the Afghanistan operation. They specifically started the meeting by saying don't listen to the nonsense in the media about democracy building, and then continued the briefing with maps of resources in the region that were to be captured.

This baloney is a little dry and could use some sauce. (I call bluff - show source).

It's written in the book "Holding the Bully's Coat - Canada and the US Empire", written by Linda McQuaig, chapter 2, page 67-110. The book is published non-fiction, meaning that the facts have been checked by lawyers and thus this is authentic information.

No, that's not what "Non-Fiction" means. It is not analyzed by lawyers or given any kind of a quality-assurance check afforded to any other authored work (fiction or non). Publishing companies leave a mark on the book that says: "The views expressed in this book are those of the author and not sponsored or endorsed by the publisher." If someone ever takes the author to court for libel, the Publisher is off the hook and has no legal responsibility to the accuracy of its contents.

If you really want to learn the bigger picture, I will tell you this now: YOU WILL NEVER FIND IT BY LOOKING AT THE CORE. The truth exposes itself in the peripheries. Look at the discussions between the military brass of the involved nations to learn what it is really all about.

*yawn*

The discussion has been over what, exactly, it really is all about. The goals and campaign have changed considerably with each administration, and there is often a disconnect between the goals of politicians and the methods recommended by the military chain of command.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All I said was the enlisted soldiers are enlisted because they care more about the benefits of the job, while not knowing or caring about the point of why they are fighting.

Well, there's a huge load of BS in that statement.

You've obviously never served. Sure, everyone (officer and enlisted) care about the benefits, but it's a lot more than that.

Is it now? And you're a Canadian who is currently serving in the Canadian Forces? Because I'm not talking about your US military experience. Different countries, different cultures, different perceptions of war.

Aim64c-
And what resources does Afghanistan and/or Iraq have?

And where is the evidence that we are now in control of them?

If not for resources, then why do you think this situation even exists? To bring democracy to the less fortunate by bombing them?

And the evidence is so extensive that if you don't see it by now, then I don't think anything I show you will pursuade your opinion.

Trillions of dollars in Afghan rare earth minerals, of which China owns 90% of the world market of. The mineral deposits were discovered by the Soviets in the 80s so the US knew that they were there, despite their lies in the media about just discovering them (when the story originally broke). And guess who got dibs of these mining contracts? Nations who took part in the Afghan invasion, including my own. Oh, and there's also oil pipeline prospects that require Afghan consent to place oil pipelines across Afghanistan, to which the Taliban refused in the 90s.

And do I really need to explain Iraqs resources? Because it's not a big surprise: OIL.

And quite honestly, I've already seen more than enough evidence that this whole "war on terror" was nothing but a pre-planned invasion by neoconservatives who gained power after Bush took office. Do yourself a favor and research "Project for a New American Century". It was signed/written by many top Bush officials, specifically Dick Cheney, back in 1997. It outlined a "new century" for the US maintaining its global power status, and in order to do so it must invade the middle east, take control of the resources there, and replace dissident states with compliant leaders. Even back in 1998, PNAC members were begging president Clinton to invade Iraq.

Do you seriously believe that the Afghan occupation and Iraq invasion were in retaliation, or even directly related to 9/11? It's all BS and propaganda. The general plan was laid out before Bush even took office, and the strategies were being determined before 9/11 even happened.

Do you even know that for several months before the US invaded Iraq, during the US-impose disarmament of their defensive weapon systems, that the US and UK were conducting airstrikes on Iraqi defensive systems such as AA sites? The media simply refused to report it until the invasion was done with.

There's a bigger picture here, and the whole propagated story of "fighting terrorists" and "democracy building" is so far from reality that only sheeple could buy it.

PS: By the way, when I say "control resources", I don't mean that the US and friends are taking the resources from the countries that they invade. What I mean is that they are dictating who gets these resources. We still live in an age of competing empires- USA, EU, Russia, China- and this is the American strategy to stay on top. The EU has allied with the US on these terms, in order to counter any geostrategic threat by Russia or China (and the fact that NATO dominates the EU is a major factor too).

No, that's not what "Non-Fiction" means. It is not analyzed by lawyers or given any kind of a quality-assurance check afforded to any other authored work (fiction or non). Publishing companies leave a mark on the book that says: "The views expressed in this book are those of the author and not sponsored or endorsed by the publisher." If someone ever takes the author to court for libel, the Publisher is off the hook and has no legal responsibility to the accuracy of its contents.

Ah, so in one line you ask for a source, which I already provided, and you post this drivel about how my source isn't legitimate enough for your standards. I don't know about you, but that source was required reading for my academic studies on contemporary Canadian affairs (on top of that, the author is an investigative journalist). I don't think it would have been assigned to me if it was fiction

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

If not for resources, then why do you think this situation even exists?

It tends to turn heads when skyscrapers fall in the middle of cities.

And the evidence is so extensive that if you don't see it by now, then I don't think anything I show you will pursuade your opinion.

*yawn* "The proof is all around you, if you can't see it, you're dumb and not enlightened, like me!"

Could you suck yourself off any harder?

Trillions of dollars in Afghan rare earth minerals, of which China owns 90% of the world market of. The mineral deposits were discovered by the Soviets in the 80s so the US knew that they were there, despite their lies in the media about just discovering them (when the story originally broke). And guess who got dibs of these mining contracts? Nations who took part in the Afghan invasion, including my own.

Don't just tell me about it. Source it.

Though it should stand to reason that when a nation was once not friendly to industrialization suddenly becomes open to industrialization and its interests, that it will see a lot of investment in developing what resources it does have.

Oh, and there's also oil pipeline prospects that require Afghan consent to place oil pipelines across Afghanistan, to which the Taliban refused in the 90s.

It's been ten #ing years. Why do many of the local gas stations around town still have claim to my first born child?

And do I really need to explain Iraqs resources? Because it's not a big surprise: OIL.

See above. Though it's only been about eight in their case.

And quite honestly, I've already seen more than enough evidence that this whole "war on terror" was nothing but a pre-planned invasion by neoconservatives who gained power after Bush took office.

Doesn't take much to win you over, does it?

There are plenty of contingencies and plans out there. I will cede that Iraq was more of a strategic move than it was any kind of retribution.

However, you're contradicting yourself. Before, it wasn't about "nation building" and "bringing democracy" - but the entire goal of what you reference would be to establish friendly governments and societies in those regions to expand the economic and military capabilities of the U.S.

Do you seriously believe that the Afghan occupation and Iraq invasion were in retaliation, or even directly related to 9/11? It's all BS and propaganda. The general plan was laid out before Bush even took office, and the strategies were being determined before 9/11 even happened.

Then their strategist sucks. Control of Iraq would have made initial entry into Afghanistan far simpler and easier, as well as issues of providing air support.

Do you even know that for several months before the US invaded Iraq, during the US-impose disarmament of their defensive weapon systems, that the US and UK were conducting airstrikes on Iraqi defensive systems such as AA sites? The media simply refused to report it until the invasion was done with.

*yawn*

You act upset about what is standard procedure.

Ah, so in one line you ask for a source, which I already provided, and you post this drivel about how my source isn't legitimate enough for your standards.

Basically.

I don't know about you, but that source was required reading for my academic studies on contemporary Canadian affairs (on top of that, the author is an investigative journalist). I don't think it would have been assigned to me if it was fiction

I really couldn't care less. I'm in a percentile well above your instructor.

I presume this investigative journalist retrieved his material from public record of some kind? Or was he simply conducting interviews with anonymous insiders?

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

If not for resources, then why do you think this situation even exists?

It tends to turn heads when skyscrapers fall in the middle of cities.

Yeah, especially when the US has been committed to covert operations and coups in their favor within the middle east leading to the deaths and torture and destruction of liberty for millions for 50 years. Your ~2500 dead Americans on 9/11 pales in comparison to the death and pestilence that your country has rained on the middle east both before and after the event. And you do realize that the target buildings were not exactly civilian, right?

Afghans say commando unit was attacked before airstrike was called on Pakistan

The latest U.S.-Pakistan crisis threatened Monday to undo months of efforts to mend an increasingly frayed relationship and to undermine the Obama administration’s strategy for gradually ending the war in Afghanistan.

Administration officials did not respond to Pakistani demands for an apology for the cross-border U.S. airstrike that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers early Saturday. Instead, they expressed condolences for the loss of life while saying that the facts about what happened were under investigation.

............................

A senior Pakistani defense official acknowledged that Pakistani troops fired first, sending a flare, followed by mortar and machine-gun fire, toward what he said was “suspicious activity” in the brush-covered area below their high-altitude outpost barely 500 yards from the border.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Is it now? And you're a Canadian who is currently serving in the Canadian Forces? Because I'm not talking about your US military experience. Different countries, different cultures, different perceptions of war.

No, but I just got thru serving alongside Canadian troops about 30 days ago. I worked with them day to day, officer and enlisted and got to know them pretty well.

And you're basing your opinion on how long you actually were a serving member of the Canadian military?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Do you even know that for several months before the US invaded Iraq, during the US-impose disarmament of their defensive weapon systems, that the US and UK were conducting airstrikes on Iraqi defensive systems such as AA sites? The media simply refused to report it until the invasion was done with.

Really? When did that happen, besides when Coalition forces would strike Iraqi targets that were violating the no fly zone rules?

reply to post by acroagogue


Military analysts think that taking into account Russian threat to cut the ground supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan war field can become a deadly trap for NATO.