Protesting Air Strikes
-
Alsvha wrote:
but doing so by breading more terrorisme
Well, fine, I am wide open to suggestions. How do you deal with the problem without breeding more terrorists? How would you handle it? "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Air strikes are faster, and with the weapns they use, they are much more capable of the benefit of a surprise visit. The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building. And for the clueless out there, everyone in that country knows that if they harbor terrorists, they may share the same inevitable fate as said terrorists. So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
How would you handle it?
Stan, you can not hope to get an answer to this question. Contructive opinions/ideas are not part of the make-up of this board.
Oh, I am all to well aware of that. Beyond the inane platitudes these people can only tell us what we are not supposed to do, but nothing as to what we are supposed to do. The endless refrain of "they don't wear uniforms" is so monotonous. Too bad Hitler didn't think of that. Apparently, if he has just dressed all those storm troopers up as Berlin beer miesters and Alpine ski instructors Denmark would have been toast. Nothing could have been done to save them or the rest of Europe. And the "you're only making them angrier and breeding more terrorism" is so brain dead that it trully makes me question the rationality of those who use it. How carefully would we have to tread to ensure that we never piss off people who actually believe they get to deflower virgins in paradise as a reward for mass murder? The only thing that is more insane then that is the notion that you can effectively deal with any of it in a rationale way. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alsvha wrote:
but doing so by breading more terrorisme
Well, fine, I am wide open to suggestions. How do you deal with the problem without breeding more terrorists? How would you handle it? "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Alsvha wrote:
Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries.
A lot of words, but the only thing that I could pull from it is that you think that we should sit down and talk to the terrorists. First, who should we talk to? Second, what should we concede?
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Alsvha wrote:
Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries.
You have to be kidding me... Is that why Gaza is now overrun with Hammas bring in arms from Egypt? Giving up Gaza has only made it easier for terrorists to sumggle arms in. They have no desire for peace until Israel is destroyed. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Adnan Siddiqi wrote: don`t try to be clever ass wid me while you can`t..
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Now that you told us what these people, who have a lot more information than you, are doing wrong. Please give us your answer of what the world should do to capture and kill the terrorist that would do so many innocent people harm. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Adnan Siddiqi wrote: don`t try to be clever ass wid me while you can`t..
-
Well - you could start by looking at the other "hot-zones" in the world. Isreal tried the same strategy as the US is currently employing for years. Bombing out the terrorisme. Where did that get them? How much did they achive with this? Only brought more terrorisme and more bombings. Now that Isreal has taken another road, conceeding more to the palenstines and giving up settlesments and with more negotiations with the Palenstines - there is now hope of some stability for these two countries. However, as everybody (sensible) would know - nothing is fixed over night. Northen Ireland is another area where terorrisme have been rampant for years. Granted these were more "civilized" by giving warning to their bombings, the strategy which defused the situation was negotiations and showing respect for each other. There is no quick fix for situations as this, and thinking you can achive peace by killing off every single terrorist and support of such - including the ones brewing in your own country I'd wager - is rather insane, and only the worst dictators in the world has ever contemplated such genocide. It takes time - long time. Mock it all that you want, I don't mind - your intentions are extreemely clear to me after having followed a number of threads in this forum, and I doubt peace is actually on your mind and what you wish to achive. You can also mock the "they don't wear uniforms" argument all you like, however that is a very valid one. And the reason you mock it is likely that you fail to understand it (just upfront dismiss it more likely). How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them? Kill everybody alltogether? Well that seems to be the path you are advocating, and that genocide is rather madmansdream. There is no army to bomb, there is no country to occupy. You can not use conventional military strategy to fight an enemy you can't see.... least you actually carpet bomb and try to perform genocide on all who thinks different from you and "yours". The common definiton of a terrorist is one that targets civilians with the aim to spread, well.. terror. How is that different from what you advocate and support by support bombings of houses where *suspected* terrorists live, you do so to punish the ones who harbor terrorists, and who cares if some innocents falls along the line - they could just throw out every terrorist from their country. The utopic end is the justifications for killing off terrorists. However - did it ever occur to you that the ones that flew into
Thats what I thought.
Alsvha wrote:
no quick solution to this problem
Especially if you don't have any solutions to apply. You merely redefine the problem. We all know what the problem is and I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that the behavior of my own country has contributed to it. But the problem exists regardless of what caused it. I would be more than happy to work with a less violent solution if you had one to offer. Diplomacy is a wonderful idea but who exactly do you do it with? The unidentifiable terrorists? Unfortunantly, I sort of like most of what my country and society is. I am only so willing to start tossing major parts of it overboard to try to ease an anger that doesn't appear to be even remotely rooted in a sane view of reality.
Alsvha wrote:
How do you plan on killing off every terrorist if you can't identify them?
That is the entire point. If you can't identify them, you have to trace them to a common source from where they are being produced. There are easily identifiable commonalites that they collectively share. And that is where you confront them. If Islam is that common base, and it is, that is where you deal with them. If you have some clue as to how to do that in a peaceful, dimplomatic way, then by all means, lets hear it. For my part, I am convinced that you must get in the very face of Islam and leave no doubt in their collective mind that you are precisely as fiercely convicted to your values as they are to theirs that you will track their terrorist element to the very heart of its source and kill it where it is being born. You leave the choice of peace vs. war to them. Let them decide. The Islamic world could end this terrorism tomorrow if it really wished to. If there is anything a lunatic respects its a bigger, meaner lunatic. To be under attack by swarms of Islamic fundamentalists and to utterly ignore that a major portion of the human population, and government, is committed to that very same theological orientation, to completely refuse to connect that line, to characterize any effort to hold the one responsible for the other as racism and any effort to compel change by means of force as genocide is sheer, blantant insanity - a form of insanity as profound as that of the terrorists themselves.
Alsvha wrote:
There are also with all given likelyhood terrorists or/and peop
-
Air strikes are faster, and with the weapns they use, they are much more capable of the benefit of a surprise visit. The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building. And for the clueless out there, everyone in that country knows that if they harbor terrorists, they may share the same inevitable fate as said terrorists. So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building.
Reminds me of the WMDs they "knew" were in Iraq. History shows us to be careful when citing "reasonable intelligence". Steve
-
Are you trying to give us a laugh?if you had read ,i did make a point that some could be done INTENTIALLY Air strikes are faster,but are they precise?whether its GulfWarI or iraq war,americans really MISSED many targets during air strikes and targetted civilian areas,do you want me to make a search on google for you?you may do that yourself for sure,for sake of making my point,i found these two on first page of google 1)Air Strike in Iraq kill family ----------------------------------- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle\_east/4577578.stm 2)Air strike in Afghanistan and civilian casualties --------------------------------------------------- http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian\_deaths.htm http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/afgh-j20.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0720-09.htm http://www.robincmiller.com/afghan1.htm so how would you hold the claim that these *FASTER* air strikes were precise?these are links which i found in just 2 searches,if i spend 20-30 mins,i would find many similar instances.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
(I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to revie
haha, WTF,yeah they were not stupid ,that was not CIA but aljazeera who gave info that there are WMDs in iraq? make some sense daydreamer,many ppl just don`t watch FOXNEWS,there is a world outside of America as well.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that.
yep,many people here are smarter than those idiot americans who believe that BUSH is doing RIGHT for his country people,regarding thread,you guys invaded country after country just for sake of that 9/11 and yet you guys have been whining about it and killed thousands for sake of 5,000 people only and yet blood thirsty.Get a life
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
I think you should loosen your towel. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Funny you should say that, seeing as Denmark is one of the few other countries ouside the US and the UK with troops in both Iraq and Afganistan, and likely still sending fresh troops to both locations. Also funny seeing as the danish government backed the US actions in Iraq, and have had terrorist threats towards us for doing so as well. Perhaps the general population doesn't support the actions, and increasing discontent towards it, however, the government in control still does support the US - although they face increasingly preassure due to the actions concerning general disregard for the human rights they so desperately try to portray as wanting to save. Especially after the no-WMD facade, tortures, and bombing of civilians because the "intelligence" agencies sais there might be something there. Many many reports are of terrorists hiding in Saudi Arabia, however - I don't see news of Airstrikes killing off civlians there. Egypt? Come on and pull your head out for once and actually start thinking. Terrorisme is a terrible thing - however - after the Cold War this is how warfare is moving towards. Much should indeed be done to limit it, however, bombing random civlians will not limit it - on the contrary. Such arronge and disregard for other human beings will only add to it. You don't win a war on terrorisme by killing off or alianating your allies. Especially when terrorisme is withouth borders in a global world. No wonder the general population sees the US as arrogant with morons (like some does here) expressing as if they actually knew something of the world, other then the propaganda which would make even the strongest dictatorships jealous. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
Hey, I added Lego and C++ to my list of significant items. I don't understand where all this hostility coems from... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Christian Graus wrote:
While I understand why you're upset, I'm sure they don't believe 'just any info'. It's obvious tho that in chasing an enemy that hides in houses, and shields itself behind women and children, that women and children will die, and not every attack will hit the target it was aiming for.
US strikes were not precise,it has happened in pakistan now,lots of civlilans have been killed in iraq and afghanistan due to such air strikes
Christian Graus wrote:
The answer to this question is in part people who blindly believe anti US propoganda, and reject anything that paints the US in a positive light.
nobody on earth can deny the services of american for mankind and it covers every field of life,i wont go in past,recent inventions by Americans are help for millions, for instance The Internet, Computers,Google etc etc,but it should also keep in mind that who is ruining the image?the US govt or outsiders? its not others mistake,US govt itself has screwed up US image so much that even their latest attempt to improve it for example a little aid for pakistani earth quake victims and tsunami victims is not heping them out, US officials themselves admitted that they all doing for sake of improving uS image in muslim counteries. its wrong perception among americans that muslims or any other anti-us country hate America as a country or its citizens,if someone claims this,hes a fucking hypocrite,when ppl say HATE AMERICA,they refer nothing but US govt and this is the fact.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
its wrong perception among americans that muslims or any other anti-us country hate America as a country or its citizens,if someone claims this,hes a f***ing hypocrite,when ppl say HATE AMERICA,they refer nothing but US govt and this is the fact.
I see now - I thought you were angry, but you're only stupid. Osama (and all of his butt-buddies) even said that the American people were complicit in the actions of their government. If you're gonna spew, at least add a moderate helping of facts... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
I think you should loosen your towel. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
its wrong perception among americans that muslims or any other anti-us country hate America as a country or its citizens,if someone claims this,hes a f***ing hypocrite,when ppl say HATE AMERICA,they refer nothing but US govt and this is the fact.
I see now - I thought you were angry, but you're only stupid. Osama (and all of his butt-buddies) even said that the American people were complicit in the actions of their government. If you're gonna spew, at least add a moderate helping of facts... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I see now - I thought you were angry, but you're only stupid. Osama (and all of his butt-buddies) even said that the American people were complicit in the actions of their government. If you're gonna spew, at least add a moderate helping of facts...
did osama screw you in past that his words are so worthy for you?get a life
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
I've never felt it was a good idea to make terrorism an issue about a handful of individuals such as Osama. As we saw again in yet another incident, it is virtually impossible to track them down over such vast regions where they enjoy so much support. Yet, while I do not entirely agree with every decision my government makes, I nonetheless support it. For all of its many mistakes, the US has always been a force for good in the world. We still are. I certainly do not believe that President Bush is the best leader we could have wished for to manage this situtation. But regardless of who held that office now, these kinds of mistakes would still be occuring. There is simply no way to avoid them. The future of the Islamic world is entirely up to the people of Islam. But the US is simple no longer going to tolerate the notion that your civilization can blithfully disregard the existence of mass murderers, that it feels free to generate them and spew them around the world. We will deal with that threat in what ever manner we deem most appropriate. The very last thing we should concern ourselves with is who we are making angry and why. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 7:24 Monday 16th January, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
I certainly do not believe that President Bush is the best leader we could have wished for to manage this situtation. But regardless of who held that office now, these kinds of mistakes would still be occuring. There is simply no way to
you guys have fear to see the other part of coin ,thatswhy most of americans including you trust in his words blindly,he dont have charismatic personality that everyone gets fooled by him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The future of the Islamic world is entirely up to the people of Islam
alas,i wish your words were true,present and past of islamic counteries were in hands of puppets,controlled by US,who looked towards America as they had to seek help from God, i again say that its stupidity to abuse US and ignoring what muslims rulers have done to fuck muslim citzens around the globe,outside can`t do anything unless someone from home help him out and yes many locals(govt ppl) have been helping america since long,these leaders were already supported by US,that is supporting the dictatorship,look at the history of muslim rules around the country and their tenure,recenltly king of kuwait died and he ruled for God damn 21 years,same for UAE,KSA,Oman etc,pakistan dont have kingdom but same agenda is followed that is "Kiss up america",unless ppl get educated,they would keep suffering and americans also know this fact the current generation of muslim extreemist was supported 25 years back at time of USSR war,they have become spoilt brats now they dont listen to others,if they were not given chance to do anything at tht time,we wouldn`t have seen this situation,today`s rascals were darling of USA in past.
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Show some sympathy, admit the mistake and move on.
No, I won't do that. The Pakistanis would not need to concern themselves with American mistakes if thier population did not general support the terrorism inflicted upon us. Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him. And he, one would assume, is a person of education and intelligence. That part is not our fault at all, and the kind of mistakes made in this instance are inevitable. I have no problem admiting the mistakes the US has made. But I also do not believe in making excuses for the people of the Islamic world. They have a responsibility which they are making no effort at all to fulfil. They are a freer, healthier, more independent people today than they have ever been due primarily to the existence of the US. For all of our mistakes, we have done far more good than harm around the world, including the middle east. It seems we might be forgiven for being a bit less than perfect from time to time. If the first priority of the US is to never make any one angry, than we will simply never be able to defend ourselves. Frankly, I think Pakistan should have been either invaded or largely carpet bombed long ago. In the long run, I see no other way to deal successfully with terrorism than taking out all of its bases of support by direct, brute force. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Read Adnan's posts. It is entirely hopeless trying to get through to him. And he, one would assume, is a person of education and intelligence. That part is not our fault at all, and the kind of mistakes made in this instance are inevitable.
what made you to make such comment about me?would yo like to elaborate??just coz i am not following your theory?
http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan | kadnan.blogspot.com | AJAX based Contact Form for Blogger or any other website
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Why not just send in soldiers?
Because Pakistan wouldn't have let them in? Just guessing.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist:laugh: Jeremy Falcon
-
Air strikes are faster, and with the weapns they use, they are much more capable of the benefit of a surprise visit. The U.S. would not intentionally target a civilian building (I mean c'mon, the US military ain't stupid and they know that everything they do is subject to review) unless they had reasonable intelligence to suggest that a high-value target was in the building. And for the clueless out there, everyone in that country knows that if they harbor terrorists, they may share the same inevitable fate as said terrorists. So why has this thread gone as far as it has? I thought most of you were smarter than that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
The debate was if the intelligence was accurate and the US acting too quickly. On one hand I agree with you, on the other, look at how we fucked up with Iraq and that reason to go to war. Kinda hard to believe in intelligence right now. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Right, we're the only country in the world that attacks places.
No, you're not...But sadly you're near the top of the list. Steve
Well, right now yeah. It's kinda known that we're trying to "remove terrorists". I'm just having mixed feelings. I don't like it when innocent people die ya know. Jeremy Falcon
