Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

It's well known that the CIA funded Al-Qaeda at the beginning...

"Well known"?

It's not even true.

Do you believe other "well known" lies, too?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Doesn't matter. It matters not at all what era - it's been done in all of them, and will continue to be done in all that come.

By warmongers and Barbarians and conquerers.

If that's the way you see it, that's fine with me. As they say, it takes all kinds. Enjoy your slavery. I'll keep fighting to keep mine at bay.

Conquerors are not "conquerors" unless someone grows a pair and opposes them.

Close with and destroy the enemy. that's the name of the game.

Game? War is not a game. But the US has yet to take as much as it has given. When our cities are rubble and everyone we know is missing or dead, then tell me the name of the game.

Ah. I see you have trouble comprehending figures of speech. When war comes to America, and you can be sure it will - no where is immune, given human nature and proclivities - I don't imagine it'll be all that different than any other war zone.

Cities in rubble really don't bother me all that much. I've never been too fond of urban sprawl anyhow, On the other hand, the conquerors won't reduce them to rubble unless someone grows a pair and opposes them. No need to destroy anything then, and they'll need somewhere to house all you slaves who won't stand your ground because it's too "warlike" or "barbaric".

I won't know if everyone I know is missing or dead, since I'll be dead myself. I sure as hell won't live on my knees at the feet of your conquerors like that.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

It's well known that the CIA funded Al-Qaeda at the beginning...

"Well known"?

It's not even true.

Do you believe other "well known" lies, too?

The thing is, i don't believe or disbelieve in anything. I look at what makes sense and make my own decisions. I do not believe anything i am told in the same way that you may.

Tell me you _have_ heard of the mujahid movement.
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
Quoted from the above link:

Experts debate whether or not the al-Qaeda attacks were blowback from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan mujahideen. Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

It doesn't matter what name you give them, a jihad is a jihad. Put it how you like... but the fact is, CIA funded the islamic mujahideen movement, typically radicals armed with weapons. Which also fits the description of western media's view of a "terrorist".

Terrorism:

ter·ror·ism
noun /ˈterəˌrizəm/ 
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

The USA backed the mujahideen with training and ammunitions. Was this also a pursuit for political purposes using violence and intimidation towards the russians? I don't think i need to answer that question.

Now at least give me a link to some credible source saying "this isn't true"
Maybe you just do not want to accept that it probably is true.

You are far from the truth by simply stating, "not true".

reply to post by SLAYER69

And they keep starring your posts anyways

That most likely means they took the time to read the report and realize that your claims of the information in my source being incorrect are unjust. I don't care about the stars anyways, I just gave you a star

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I don't think he's denying that US drone strikes have killed thousands of Pakistani's.

I think what he IS trying to say is that US Drone strikes have only killed, at most, 2586 Pakistanis in the span of almost 7 years, whereas Pakistan have killed 6,329 civilians in only the span of ONE year while trying to fight the same enemy the US has been trying to fight.

*Shrug*

Two thousand civilian deaths is non excusable, even if you try to justify it by claiming it was worth it for the long term benefits. The same report that you're referring to explains that the official amount of deaths caused by drone strikes is much higher than what is admitted and that 10 civilians are killed for each militant. That itself is a solid indication that they need to change their game plan.

Pakistani security forces are savages, and kill lots of civilians, I never denied this! That being said, it doesn't give the Americans/NATO the right to act like murderous savages as well. Surely you can see the flaw in this logic the lot of you are using as your reasoning.

I'm honestly quite baffled that I was required to point it out, it's comparable to an elephant in the room.

reply to post by Babbleman
Spoken like a true muslim who just came to ATS to shill. I read some of your other posts and I see where you are comeing from now.I would agree that the US should leave the muslim world to there own demise and leave the Arab area compleatly.Muslim's have been in civil war for a thousnad years + and should be allowed to continue on tell the last person standing.

The only diagram I would have for you is the one you have been protecting for those thousand+ years........................you know the one of death and hate.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind

The thing is, i don't believe or disbelieve in anything. I look at what makes sense and make my own decisions. I do not believe anything i am told in the same way that you may.

Back in the day, there was no internet. In those days before the internet, there was something known as "ground truth", which was the truth as it existed on the ground, independent of reports received and independent of internet pop culture. When reports came in, it required someone to go check them out on the ground. Unless you were there, or know someone who was, you are operating on "belief", regardless.

Whether you choose to believe in a wiki page or what I say on the internet, it's STILL on the internet, not "ground truth". It is belief.

Tell me you _have_ heard of the mujahid movement.
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm very familiar with "the mujahid movement". You are confusing "pan-jihadism" with a jihad to liberate a specific place when you confuse al-Qaida with the Afghan muj of the Soviet War era. They are in no way the same thing. One is offensive in nature, along the lines of a conquest, and the other is defensive in nature, geared towards liberation of a specific homeland - in this case Afghanistan.

Did you bother with reading your own link, or just find it somewhere and post it? I ask because there is no "Islamic_mujahid_movement" section there. That link is a redirect from a "Islamic_mujahid_movement" wiki page, which exists only to redirect to the page it gives, on "Jihadism", and had you read that page, you would know the difference.

en.wikipedia.org...
Quoted from the above link:

Experts debate whether or not the al-Qaeda attacks were blowback from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan mujahideen. Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

You evidently don't speak Arabic, and so fall for whatever is told. Al-Quaida doesn't mean "the computer database". It means "the base", i.e. a base of operations, a camp.

It doesn't matter what name you give them, a jihad is a jihad. Put it how you like... but the fact is, CIA funded the islamic mujahideen movement, typically radicals armed with weapons. Which also fits the description of western media's view of a "terrorist".

"Jihad" has a variety of meanings. "Jihad" is not necessarily "jihad" as you understand it. That's why there was such confusion over the term right after the war started. At it's most basic, "jihad" means "struggle". What form that takes or what it is directed against has many permutations from spiritual to revolutionary.

It takes more than mere "radicals with weapons" to make a terrorist. Your definition is flawed, contrived,and cherry-picked to support an insupportable point.

Terrorism:

ter·ror·ism
noun /ˈterəˌrizəm/ 
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

That's a pretty wide open definition, as evidently most are these days. Words apparently don't mean what they say any more. That covers everything from a school yard bully to a nuclear exchange - and everything in between, including a mere armed robbery. Congrats, you have bought into your government's propaganda. Everyone is a "terrorist".

The USA backed the mujahideen with training and ammunitions. Was this also a pursuit for political purposes using violence and intimidation towards the russians? I don't think i need to answer that question.

Yes, we did. The answer to your question of whether it was pursuit of a political purpose is probably yes. The same answer covers the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cuban and Soviet involvement in Nicaragua, the NATO defense of the Fulda Gap, and ANY other activity in which people carry guns in the face of any other people. It covers World War II, World War I, and all war-like actions going back to ancient Sumeria, and onward into the future. According to your definition, ALL war is "terrorism", defensive or not.

According to your definition, OWS is terrorism - it has political goals, and has been anything but "peaceful" as it was advertised.

Voting is terrorism. It used the threat of a vote to achieve political ends.

Now at least give me a link to some credible source saying "this isn't true"

Maybe you just do not want to accept that it probably is true.

You want me to "prove" a negative?

OK, I'll give it a shot. You want a "credible source" saying that it ISN'T true, and you will accept that as proof?

Sure thing. Your OWN link: Alleged CIA involvement in Afghan Muj from the same WIKI page

A variety of sources—CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro—deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the foreign mujahideen or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them.

This runs counter to the account of Milton Bearden, the CIA Field Officer for Afghanistan from 1985 to 1989, who distinctly recalls the unease he used to feel when meeting the Jihadi fighters: "The only times that I ran into any real trouble in Afghanistan was when I ran into 'these guys' – You know there'd be kind of a 'moment' or two that would look a little bit like the bar scene in Star Wars, ya know. Each group kinda jockeying around and finally somebody has to diffuse [sic] the situation."[267]

But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight;[268] that foreign mujahideen themselves had no need for American funds since they received several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans.

According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ...[is] a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."[269] But as Bergen himself admitted, in one "strange incident" the CIA did appear to give visa help to mujahideen-recruiter Omar Abdel-Rahman.[270]

That was immediately below the little snippet you quoted above as "support", in the same article, so I quote it as "refutation". Therefore, it carries every bit as much weight, and there's a lot more of it.

You are far from the truth by simply stating, "not true".

As well, you are far from the truth by simply stating "was so! ".

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I'm reading through the full report, and must ask to be certain that you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you want to use this report as the basis for the discussion before we launch into it.

ARE YOU POSTIVE?

Think about that and get back to me. We can launch this debate before long if you are SURE you want to use that report as the basis.

ETA: That was a funny video you posted on my profile page. I laughed my ass off. Thanks! I think I'll leave it there, since it's so comical - Obama says "please, pretty please, can we have our toy back?"

reply to post by nenothtu


Well, i'm sorry to burst your bubble, i honestly do not know where you got half of those ideas from, and well done for pointing the obvious at the beggining... clap clap. I find it typical that you put a spin on my words and twisted them in just about every quote.

Sure, Jihad can mean many things... but in terms to what i was actually referring to... if you read my post correctly... you would have understood and not needed to go googling for out of context "documentation".

Can i just say i am not trying to prove anything and was meerly making a point, so i have no idea why you are so defensive to claim my assumption is false, hoax, lies, debunked... or whatever you are trying to achieve.


Also to say something is false, because a lack of evidence does not mean it is un-true. Look at all the famous house-hold name conspiracies. If anyone can suggest a credible explanation for something, after tying all of the pieces together when there is a suspicious lack of "evidence"... it becomes the more believable option for most people that have the ability to question authority.

We could be wrong however, but then this makes us ask the question 'Why do we think this way about _____?' We think this way because its what we have seen, heard, watched, and witnessed... in process of adding up the pieces.

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm reading through the full report, and must ask to be certain that you are ABSOLUTELY SURE you want to use this report as the basis for the discussion before we launch into it.

I'm not using this report as the basis of the discussion. As the topic of this discussion is "Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down".

I'm actually using this report in response to a side debate that started when projectvxn claimed that the loss of civilian life due to American drone strikes was minimal, sorry that was many pages back and I cannot exact his exact words, feel free to read up if you missed it.

I actually provided various sources that indicate mass loss of civilian life due to American drone strikes. This report certainly supports that part of my argument. I have already pointed out that the report also describes a large amount of life lost due to Pakistani security forces, so please don't use that argument to justify the loss of civilian life, and please also do not try to say that the report does not indicate massive loss of civilian life due to American drone strikes because it certainly does point this out.

The report is very detailed and describes many aspects and variables of the conflict. There is a very detailed section that specifically describes the loss of civilian deaths by the dates and regions accompanies with charts. So yes, I stand behind my decision to use that source as part of my argument for the side debate that we have since dabbled into.

I have a feeling that you are under the impression you have stumbled upon some information in the article that throws my argument out the window, I will check back to see what you got to say.

And yes, that Obama video is classic. That's going to go viral

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


IMO, ANY loss of civilian life in the prosecution of a war is "too much", which is why I take exception with those attempting to inflate figures or impart their own "reasons" beyond what can be plainly stated and shown. Still, it happens - which I have never denied - however lamentable it may be. To inflate the numbers actually diminishes the impact of reality, as far as I'm concerned. To say "thousands and thousands" of deaths over a 10 year course of war, while technically accurate ("Thousands" would be two or more thousand, say, for instance, 2500, eh?) is an intentional misuse of vague numbers in order to attempt to create a greater impact than really exists.

The impact, however, for the families of the dead is much more immediate. This is why it's "too much" for even a single one. "Thousands" do not matter to that family - just the one - or however many members were in that line of fire.

In the context of the thread, I don't think numbers of civilians matter at all. The incident that started this pissing contest didn't involve "innocents" - it involved people shooting across a border to damage US and Afghan soldiers. Fire was returned, including a drone strike called in on the miscreants, and they seem to have taken exception to having been fired up. As it turned out, when the dust settled it was found that Taliban were not the ONLY people in that knot trying to shoot our guys. Pakistan got caught with their pants around their ankles on that one, and predictably started flinging hubris and accusations in order to try to cover it up and misdirect attention.

NOW "civilian" deaths are being abused and misused in an effort to redirect and redefine the discussion at hand into something it was not. Their memories are being trampled in the stampede to tar the US over this single event, and sweep the Pakistani culpability under the rug, where it seems it is hoped that no one will notice it.

Has no one asked themselves where the Pak outrage was when it really WAS civilians getting fired up? Has no one asked themselves why it seems that the Paks don't care who kills their civilians - whether it's themselves, Taliban, or US, but let a military crew get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, doing what they aren't supposed to be, and all hell breaks loose?

Where were the Pakistani border closures and threats to shoot down drone overflights when these alleged "wedding parties" were getting blasted? NOW everyone wants to run on about how Pakistani sovereignty is being "violated". Where was that when honest "collateral damage" was being created? Where is the Pakistani effort to root out the bad guys themselves, and put them on the run from their civilians?

That probably got lost somewhere in the Pakistani effort to aid and support the Taliban. Now they want to cry "foul"? Here's a tip - do it yourselves, or someone else will do it for you, whether you're happy with the outcome or not.

The report is interesting, and seems fairly balanced. Picking and choosing "support" from it for either side of the debate is, however, too easy a thing to do - especially if no one calls the picker on it. Sure, there is support for your "side" in it, just as there is for my "side". None of that support exists in a vacuum without being tempered, however, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Qemyst
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

I don't think he's denying that US drone strikes have killed thousands of Pakistani's.

I think what he IS trying to say is that US Drone strikes have only killed, at most, 2586 Pakistanis in the span of almost 7 years, whereas Pakistan have killed 6,329 civilians in only the span of ONE year while trying to fight the same enemy the US has been trying to fight.

*Shrug*

Two thousand civilian deaths is non excusable, even if you try to justify it by claiming it was worth it for the long term benefits. The same report that you're referring to explains that the official amount of deaths caused by drone strikes is much higher than what is admitted and that 10 civilians are killed for each militant. That itself is a solid indication that they need to change their game plan.

Pakistani security forces are savages, and kill lots of civilians, I never denied this! That being said, it doesn't give the Americans/NATO the right to act like murderous savages as well. Surely you can see the flaw in this logic the lot of you are using as your reasoning.

I'm honestly quite baffled that I was required to point it out, it's comparable to an elephant in the room.

Correct. 2000 civ deaths from NATO is bad, even if it is FAR better than the casualties caused by Pakistan. I would like to believe that with the technology NATO has at its' disposal they would be able to be a little bit more....surgical and accurate. Even 10 civilian deaths from drone strikes would be bad. Even if Pakistan did ask for NATO's help. If the situation was reversed, and America was harboring terrorists which posed a threat to Pakistan, and America said "hey, Pakistan. Help us with these terrorists." and they did, but ended up killing a bunch of American civilians, even if it was FAR less civilians killed than by America itself, Americans would be pissed. So, Pakistan has every right to want NATO out, but the fact is that war sucks for everyone. Pakistan asked NATO to help, and this is what happened, and I'm sure they knew that it could end up messy, just like any war, anywhere can end up messy. That's the nature of war.

To answer the OP though, and other posts, I think America and NATO do have a right to retaliate against proven terrorists who intend to cause them harm, so long as they can keep civilian and other unrelated casualties at 0. If the sovereign nation doesn't want to be careful about the endeavor, then so be it.. it's their country. As soon as 1 civilian is killed by the outside aid though, everything should change.

-Cheers

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by John0Doe

 

Invading China? DO u....and i mean realisticly ever think of things u say,or just comes out of your mouth as a result of watching too much of FOX News???

Do you just not fully comprehend what you read before you start spouting off insults?

No one is actually suggesting the US could invade China.

US,France,UK,Germany,and all other Europe stand together no chance in war with China. On paper they got 10mill soldiers...but off record? How do u know how many nuklear war heads CHina has??? U talk nonsense!

In a face to face conflict China has one major disadvantage, they have NEVER been tested in all out conflict. Period. The last war they had was in the 50s. They cannot project power beyond their immediate region. And the use of nuclear arms would result in everyone losing. You can't win wars like that.

U forgot the fact that in every country in world there is chinese....what do u think is reason for so big migration? Anyway,i think world has no chance winning wae against china!

reply to post by nenothtu

Your right. I takes bravery to fight. It takes even more to walk away. Try it sometime. Like this...

reply to post by John0Doe

U forgot the fact that in every country in world there is chinese....what do u think is reason for so big migration?

So your asinine conspiracy theory is that Chinese people are moving out of a communist nation in order to invade the nation that they migrated to instead of seeking greater economic opportunities and freedoms?

*Facepalm*

Anyway,i think world has no chance winning wae against china!

You overestimate the capabilities of their military and you only do so because of the sheer size of it.

You neglect very important factors like the ability to project military power beyond their borders, their technological capabilities, and the fact that their troops and military leaders have simply NOT been tested in battle at all. The bulk of their military forces are inexperienced and have never fired a shot outside of the range or life fire exercises.

Originally posted by Qemyst

To answer the OP though, and other posts, I think America and NATO do have a right to retaliate against proven terrorists who intend to cause them harm, so long as they can keep civilian and other unrelated casualties at 0. If the sovereign nation doesn't want to be careful about the endeavor, then so be it.. it's their country. As soon as 1 civilian is killed by the outside aid though, everything should change.

-Cheers

I agree with you in the main. For this last paragraph to happen, however, there will have to be some sort of paradigm shift in the conduct of asymmetrical warfare. In guerrilla warfare, as Mao said, the guerrilla is among the people as a fish in the sea. It has been that way forever, ever since there have been guerrillas. Previously, civilian casualties could be kept to a smaller minimum given the nature of the weapons used. Now, sending a missile in after a guerrilla or guerrilla enclave tends to erase everyone in the blast radius, and since the guerrillas are hiding among the populace, the populace suffers for it,

There are potential remedies for this, but none likely to be pursued. One would be for the populace itself to eject the guerrillas and not provide a shield for them. That would be in their own self-interest, but isn't likely to happen. Part of a guerrilla campaign is a psychological campaign geared towards winning the support of the populace, precisely so that the guerrillas have a refuge to lose themselves in.

Another would be to stop using missiles altogether, and clear houses and such the old fashioned way - with boots on the ground rather than drones in the air. That's not likely to happen, either, as it would involve yet another invasion, and undue risk to the soldiers.

My personal favorite would be to draw the guerrillas out, away from the populace, then lower the boom on them in any way possible. That would be rather involved and intricate, and would require a serious restructuring to eliminate the majority of the conventional forces from the battlefield, so it's not likely to happen, either. Conventional officers get all sorts of bent out of shape when they get disinvited to the party. That's how conventional forces got into the Afghan War to begin with - conventional generals felt left out, and so invited themselves in and marginalized the Special Operators.

I'm sure there are other methods that would work to maximize guerrilla kills and minimize collateral damages that I've not covered. Be creative in your thinking.

The fact remains that it can be done, but WILL it? I doubt it .

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

No we arnt.

The USA is killing the Terrorist that are hiding in the mountains. The US Military should not reconize borders of a nation who lets attacks be used against other nations. So according to my logic. We are in the right.

We should have operated a full scale bombing campaign imo.

Pakistan should also be attacked if they dispute our right to security as a nation and attack our military. We asked them to attack the Terrorist operating in their country , and they cut deals and attack the ones that are the weakest.

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

What about rights of 100s of thousands of Iraqi's killed as a result of US invasion in 2003 based on the false reports of WMDs production. There are dozens of such examples of poking noses in the affairs or other nations. Direct or indirect actions, set ups, conspiracies and cunning games of US government, CIA, US Military etc. results in 100s of thousands of common struggling people in third world getting killed or displaced. Should all the countries that think are on the black list of the US and allies, get together and attack the 'Real Axis of Evil' and atleast destroy its ability to poke its evil nose in the affairs of tiny defensless nations. I strongly think time is ripe to do so otherwise AngloSaxon Evil Axis will start getting too low in terms of morality and human respect.

Also, do not pull any slick moves on Pakistan as it is one country that has both the variables: a) nuclear weapons b) no fear of using them.

Pakistan will also start retailing the nukes to Syria, Iran, Libya, Venezuela if any more pressure is applied on its political and military set up. So Yankees should suck up and increase the price per gallon of oil from $400 to $800 otherwise its troops will be sitting in powerful machines which are sitting like ducks in the hard sand.

"We should have operated a full scale bombing campaign"

And potentially light the fuse to the next great war? Pakistan has every right to shoot down anything that violates their airspace and should be considered an act of defense just the same as it would be over any other countries airspace. A full scale bombing campaign would solve nothing but the question of how the elite are going to depopulate the world.

reply to post by buster2010


They knowingly harbor our enemy and will not allow us to enage our enemy