Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Pakistan hit by US Air Strike

Bernie Gunther said:
From the article: "Using a false passport, Posada apparently snuck into the United States in late March and remains in hiding."
Click to expand...


This is what you call "harboring" terrorists? Sober up, hippie!
 
ViolentPanda said:
By this logic you'd be fine with the Guatemalan police tripping along to Miami and executing some of the rightwing death-squad suckwads your government gives safe harbour to, then?
Click to expand...

Or Switzerland bombing Guantánamo to prevent further torture :D

It's not even as if it were US territory...
 
rogue yam said:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15512,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Click to expand...
Well yes, we know the AEI doesn't like Castro. So what's the supposed relevance of this book review?

The accusations against Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada are supported by a whole bunch of declassified US government documents, to which I provided a link and presumably also by the record of the latter's trial.

A few sneers from the AEI at someone who mentioned them in her book don't make all those declassified FBI and CIA files go away.
 
TAE said:
WTF are you on? Pakistan is one of your allies - and your military has bombed a pakistan village.

The only wailing I hear is for the innocent men, women and children who were killed.

Let me get this straight, you are in favour of the US, without consulting the affected governments, bombing villages of non-hostile countries where AQ members are thought to be? I assume you'd be just as happy to bomb the english town of Luton, or the german town of Hamburg?

And you claim the US does not break any agreements or international law. What a joke.
Click to expand...


The Karzai govt in Afghanistan is friendly too, but there's lots of bombing going on in that country.
 
rogue yam said:
...Second, why assume that the Paki government was not consulted? Because they (the Pakis) are acting somewhat outraged over the raid?...
Click to expand...
Rogue yam might be interested in knowing that the term "pakis" is at best naive word to use and at worst an offensive and racist one. Why not try using "pakistanis"? I don't think you are trying to be racist or offensive so it would be wiser on a forum with lots of UK posters to avoid using that loaded term.

(apologises if people have already pointed this out - I haven't read the whole thread yet)
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The Karzai govt in Afghanistan is friendly too, but there's lots of bombing going on in that country.
Click to expand...
But the Afghan government has agreed that US troops can be there.
 
rogue yam said:
Castro is a dictator and a mass murderer. What's to like?
Click to expand...

Castro isn't perfect -- no govt is but I'd be interested if you could post up informaton comparing the number of deaths under Castro in comparison with those who died under the regimes of Pinochet in Chile and under the military Junta in Argentina. I can give you a figure for Argentina without even having to go to my book case -- it was 11,000 dead. Now these are nations that were backed by Pres. Ford Nixon and Reagan. Lets have some comparison figures.

Or are you going to chicken out again. Like with the other questions I nicely asked you?
 
KeyboardJockey said:
Lets have some comparison figures.
Click to expand...

Do your own homework. I'm not here on this board to do the insane and pointless bidding of some dimwitted leftie who wishes he was dictator.
 
rogue yam said:
Do your own homework. I'm not here on this board to do the insane and pointless bidding of some dimwitted leftie who wishes he was dictator.
Click to expand...

I have given you a number in relation to Argentina (want the reference because I can give that even if you can't) . Now give me number in relation to Cuba. I think that as you have refused to answer a previous reasonable question you are in no moral position to make demands on others.

Cut the fucking insults fool and start acting like a gentleman and start debating rather than handing out the verbal diaroreah.

Why are you on this board RY?
 
rogue yam said:
Who died and made you Castro? You want it, you get it..
Click to expand...

I have never said that I wished to be Castro or any other leader. And I think that I can call on others on this thread to confirm that. I did say that I have had extensive contact withthose who have visited Cuba for extended periods (12mths or more) and I can say that the effect of the US embargo on Cuba has had a greater negative affect on the average Cuban than many of the policies of the Cuban Govt.
rogue yam said:
To see what you all are made of.
Click to expand...

I've seen what your made of and I know that I wouldn't want to live in a world controlled by you just as I wouldn't want tolive ina world controlled by Josef Stalin.

I don't hate you I pity you.
 
KeyboardJockey said:
I noticed that he's using the word 'Paki' to describe the inhabitants of Pakistan. I wonder if he has bothered to inform himself of acceptable usages of words - or does he even care.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I noticed that too. :mad:
 
rogue yam said:
Who died and made you Castro? You want it, you get it.
Click to expand...

As far as insults go, this is quite poor...and a tad predictable but then when one has a clockwork mind (like you have), the knack of prediction becomes simplicity itself. :D
 
This attack either took place with the Pakistan government's knowledge and consent or without. If with, I can understand why they would want to portray it as without, for the purposes of preserving their own position. I can also see that the US government would understand that desire to deny knowledge.

But what I can't understand is why the US government, at best, carried out the act, with consent but totally failed to realise (or care about) the negative perceptions that it would engender. At worst, of course, they have carried out an attack on a friendly country which is in breach of international law.

If the US really wants it's "enemies" to stop attacking it and it's interests then there is only one thing it can do - stop them hating it so much that they want to. And, whichever way this happened, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Whilst the US is in this mood, I really do fear that they are dragging us all down the road to Armageddon.

Sorry to be back on the subject and all that! Please go back to your squabble now.
 
detective-boy said:
This attack either took place with the Pakistan government's knowledge and consent or without. If with, I can understand why they would want to portray it as without, for the purposes of preserving their own position. I can also see that the US government would understand that desire to deny knowledge.

But what I can't understand is why the US government, at best, carried out the act, with consent but totally failed to realise (or care about) the negative perceptions that it would engender. At worst, of course, they have carried out an attack on a friendly country which is in breach of international law.

If the US really wants it's "enemies" to stop attacking it and it's interests then there is only one thing it can do - stop them hating it so much that they want to. And, whichever way this happened, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
Click to expand...

Good point it is a very very shortsighted action and will play very well in the radical mosques throughout the middle east. I wonder how this will be seen bythe Wab'bbists in Saudi? Eventually there will come a time when the Saudi royals will not be able to hold the centre or buy off their population and then will come the reckoning.

detective-boy said:
Whilst the US is in this mood, I really do fear that they are dragging us all down the road to Armageddon.
Click to expand...

Sadly you may be correct -- the only winners in this are going to be that side of Islamthat brooks no other POV and the Chinese.
detective-boy said:
Sorry to be back on the subject and all that! Please go back to your squabble now.
Click to expand...

The squabble was the unfortunate outcome of a rogue bushbot doing his level best to make his great country seem like a nation ofpropagandised ignoramuses.
 
detective-boy said:
This attack either took place with the Pakistan government's knowledge and consent or without. If with, I can understand why they would want to portray it as without, for the purposes of preserving their own position. I can also see that the US government would understand that desire to deny knowledge.

But what I can't understand is why the US government, at best, carried out the act, with consent but totally failed to realise (or care about) the negative perceptions that it would engender. At worst, of course, they have carried out an attack on a friendly country which is in breach of international law.

If the US really wants it's "enemies" to stop attacking it and it's interests then there is only one thing it can do - stop them hating it so much that they want to. And, whichever way this happened, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. <snip>
Click to expand...
I think that's part of it, but another part of it is that they project moral weakness by doing this stuff.

What they're effectively saying is that while they have the most powerful weapons, they're afraid to land special forces to capture their target in case they tangle with a bunch of villagers and lose. So they'd rather bomb and kill some civilians on the off-chance that someone they're after is in there.

That projects moral weakness rather more strongly than it does military might.
 
rogue yam said:
This is war. We do what we can to avoid civilian casualties (more conscienciously and skillfully than any other country in human history) QUOTE]

that would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. so so wrong. have you no awareness of the amount of civilians indiscriminately killed by your forces? and since when was the US at war with a pakiSTANI village?
Click to expand...
 
would also like to ask all those who defend this 'military' action if they think that were an Al Qaida suspect hiding in an apartment block in NY it would be ok to air strike it?
 
Here's an interview with Martin Van Creveld where he's talking about the problem with this stuff (from an Israeli point of view in his case, but the principles he's talking about are fairly universal)
Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?

Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.

Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.

Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.
Click to expand...
source
 
detective-boy said:
This attack either took place with the Pakistan government's knowledge and consent or without. If with, I can understand why they would want to portray it as without, for the purposes of preserving their own position. I can also see that the US government would understand that desire to deny knowledge.

But what I can't understand is why the US government, at best, carried out the act, with consent but totally failed to realise (or care about) the negative perceptions that it would engender. At worst, of course, they have carried out an attack on a friendly country which is in breach of international law.

If the US really wants it's "enemies" to stop attacking it and it's interests then there is only one thing it can do - stop them hating it so much that they want to. And, whichever way this happened, this is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

Whilst the US is in this mood, I really do fear that they are dragging us all down the road to Armageddon.

Sorry to be back on the subject and all that! Please go back to your squabble now.
Click to expand...

Many Americans and American organizations are working in Pakistan to help the millions afflicted by the recent earth quake. The American Red Cross is an example of such an orginization.
http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_440_5060,00.html

American doctors treating the sick and American helicopters delivering supplies.

An interesting way of bringing the world to armageddon.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Don't play dumb.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps you really are that pigshit-thick.
Click to expand...

Don't let other people speak for you.

Who are these terrorist groups you refer to? Names or groups, names of people in the groups?

You should not rely on other to provide backup for your statements.
 
mears said:
Many Americans and American organizations are working in Pakistan to help the millions afflicted by the recent earth quake. The American Red Cross is an example of such an orginization.
http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_440_5060,00.html

American doctors treating the sick and American helicopters delivering supplies.

An interesting way of bringing the world to armageddon.
Click to expand...

Let's paint by numbers, shall we? :rolleyes: CIA drones fired missiles at a village in the NWFP, killing many civilians - that's a fact. The person whom they were targetting wasn't there - another fact. What this points to is both a combination of a lack of proper engagement (based upon the moral cowardice of the chief protagonist) and piss poor intelligence. This is also an example of a blind faith in technology.

The ARC and other NGOs may be providing relief assistance in Kashmir (please note this is a different province) but the US military apparatus continues to strike without thinking; and feels that it can transcend international law by conducting remote-controlled operations in a sovereign country without the permission of that country's government.

You can bleat "War on terror" as much as you like and sing praisesong to your "heroes" but they are mortals, flawed mortals and not gods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

donkyboy
India v Pakistan
Replies
7
Views
369
Flavour
Flavour
Bingoman
India and Pakistan tensions
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
tim
tim
Boris Sprinkler
Spain and Portugal hit by massive power outage. 28/04/25
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
197
Views
9K
elbows
elbows
breadandcircuse
Should the upcoming sporting events in the US be moved to another country?
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Pickman's model
Hundreds of hostages held on train in Pakistan 12.3.25
Replies
4
Views
264
petee
petee
Back
Top Bottom