William Ashley Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Agence France Presse. Not only can they write in English, but also French, Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, and German! Yes leave it to the French to report on a Muslim nation for an unbiased report. have you suffered a blow to the head recently? Do you sometimes smell burnt toast for no reason? How many fingers am I holding up? -k Who is the boxer. Edited March 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Yes leave it to the French to report on a Muslim nation for an unbiased report. Yes, those French, notorious for always supporting the Americans in everything they do. Freedom fries for all! We should get our news on this story from an unbiased source... like Iran's state-controlled news agency. This Nasir Jaffry who wrote that article is probably a real Muslim-hater. Who is the boxer. I box... yet you're the one who seems to be punch-drunk. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 No sense. Y'all suck for supporting the murder of women children and elders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) No sense. Y'all suck for supporting the murder of women children and elders. Since Pakistan itself supports the U.S. use of drones as long as they get the right people, does Pakistan support the murder of women children and elders too? After all, that's the intention of the U.S. To get the right people. They're on the same page there. The U.S. does not target civilians and regrets their death when it occurs. Civilians dying in war is a different matter from "murder." Murder is intentional. Edited March 19, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 No sense. Y'all suck for supporting the murder of women children and elders. I support the death of militant Talibanoids. Hopefully word gets around to the civilians that hanging out with the Taliban is a dangerous place to be. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 19, 2011 Report Share Posted March 19, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 Since Pakistan itself supports the U.S. use of drones as long as they get the right people, does Pakistan support the murder of women children and elders too? After all, that's the intention of the U.S. To get the right people. They're on the same page there. The U.S. does not target civilians and regrets their death when it occurs. Civilians dying in war is a different matter from "murder." Murder is intentional. That is why it's called collateral damage. This term is used to justify a strike on legit targets that happen to kill civilians at the same time. But in many cases, those civilians around the target are sometimes called sympathisers to the terrorists and such. Downplaying the act right from the start. Civilians are not targeted directly, but bombs make no distinction and does not care who and where the enemy is, the bomb blows and people die, terrorists and civilians. I would argue too that airstrikes kill as many civilians as the terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) The Taliban arnt terrorists. (They are muslim extremists but they arnt terrorists they were the "regular soilders" in the Emirate of Afghanistan) - a government, not terrorists.. see how the paint and misperception gets embedded when people try to convolute things to be something else. The Taliban is not al qaeda. Lets not confuse the two. It is important to reiterate they offered to extradite Osama to Pakistan. The US attacked anyway. It is important to note the US did not conform to the International Extradition Treaty Methods (Hauge Convention on Extradition) (so it was not a lawful extradition request following the correct channels for an extradition - and did not meet the guidelines for extradition including sufficient evidence and the right to a fair trial. The FBI determined that someone else was responible. It was George Tenet then director of the CIA who suggested that Osama was responsible because "it is something he would do". Meanwhile the actual people some who were not involved were actually US residents - from various places. They died in the crash. The actual attacks took very little money, and there was no clear directive between the monetary transfers from ISI/UKMI/USSFIC via the triple agent General that wired the funds to the accounts of individuals involved. We do not know what really happened, and there is NO credible evidence linking Usama directly to the attacks that I have seen. It actually links to a triple agent of the US/UK and Pakistan. --- THE US/UK and Pakistan's acting agent of State. The US funds state sponsered terrorism: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html This is in part concocted so that they can destabalize foregin states and legitimize war, and increase defence spending to reduce the economic capacities that are deadlocked in their own problems. The US trained the same JIhadists during the soviet era - the US has trained "revolutaries" / terrorists" for decades. For instance in Latin America. You have no moral standing point. The US would of needed to recognize the Taliban and establish official channels then follow extradition procedures. http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/iheid/shared/publicationsNEW/Cahiers/ePaper_2_Mitchell.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Ahmed ----- You have to know what actually happened to understand that the acts supposed were coordinated within America, not abroad. However some individuals may have been linked to various governments, the exact heirarchy is problematic because it involves British, American and Pakistani actors. So it could be said America, Britain and Pakistan Conspired in the act, and in all it did not involve Osama directly, nor did the Taliban have a direct role (although the Taliban were established by the ISI also. The Mujadeen themselves however were trained and equiped by the CIA.) The US lies and convolutes things, covers things up and alters documents and history to "press their cause", it doesn't remove the truth only creates a lie. Its hard to tell if Americans are dupes, or abetting the corruption. They simply beleive what they are told. Then people who disagree get branded a "issued weirdos" because they don't support the altered version of events. The exact same thing is happening in Libya. It is fog of war, and very corrupt practice. I applaud the Taliban for not giving in to US strong arm demands. The US could be respected if it acted respectfully. Sewing global discord globally and invasions of other sovereign states does not earn respect, it earns disgust and distrust. Edited March 20, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 The Taliban arnt terrorists. (They are muslim extremists but they arnt terrorists they were the "regular soilders" in the Emirate of Afghanistan) - a government, not terrorists.. see how the paint and misperception gets embedded when people try to convolute things to be something else. The Taliban is not al qaeda. Lets not confuse the two. So when the Taliban blow-up a market place killing dozens of shoppers it's not an act of terrorism....Insha'Allah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) So when the Taliban blow-up a market place killing dozens of shoppers it's not an act of terrorism....Insha'Allah. The US would do the same thing to make it look like they did. The US just blew up a court/council chamber? - is this reinforcing the US as a terrorist state - oh and in that case why wouldn't they blow up a bunch of Afghans, they've killed thousands already. They also just launched over 100 tomahawk missles killing civilians in Libya - is thi suddently "not an act of terrrorism?" Where is the evidence? And don't give it from a US source or agent. Or NATO since they are the ones occupying and at war with them, you can't get unbaised information from them. Since all embedded journalists are cleared by them, and the "investigations are likely done by them or their agents" They don't have moral scruples and would lie or alter evidence for purpose of the war. They are not above propagating propaganda. Edited March 20, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 They are not above propagating propaganda. And it seems neither are you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12779232 So the US killed another 40 civilians. Who needs suicide bombs when you can get robots to perform the acts of terrorism for you. I think we would know if we were living next to a terrorist state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 20, 2011 Report Share Posted March 20, 2011 And it seems neither are you! I hesitate to call William's posts propaganda. That would be a little too complimentary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 I think we would know if we were living next to a terrorist state. What is a "terrorist state"? Is it a state that intentionally involves itself, directly or through direct material support, in terrorism? I would suggest you are flatly mistaken. Hell, Canada's position is not so clear-cut, either, from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 And it seems neither are you! What propaganda have I Propagated. I'm sincere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 "Collateral damage", don't ya know? That term always reminded me of the new word for genocide. Ethnic "cleansing" - as if something was dirty and had to be washed away. Yes of course America is a terrorist state...all states use fear to control their own and others. Big deal....what else is new? Human beings are worth more than gold - so they are collateral I supose. No point in bombing a nation to the point were you have no one to enslave - hence the term collateral damage..It's a strange Orwellian term. If you look at a tall bank tower...it does not signify money...but PEOPLE. When you refere to people with a monetary phrase such as collateral...then you know who is ever using the term is up to no good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 I guess the USA is cleaning up other people's acts. If you can't prevent your citizens killing US soldiers then US will do it for you. I don't know the original source of the "30 killed" but if it was al Jizzera (sp) we all know that they would never post Anti American news if it wasn't 100% true. :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 That is why it's called collateral damage. This term is used to justify a strike on legit targets that happen to kill civilians at the same time. But in many cases, those civilians around the target are sometimes called sympathisers to the terrorists and such. Downplaying the act right from the start. Civilians are not targeted directly, but bombs make no distinction and does not care who and where the enemy is, the bomb blows and people die, terrorists and civilians. I would argue too that airstrikes kill as many civilians as the terrorists. The term could be used for the reason you stated or it could be used for the purpose of explaining civilian deaths on legitimate targets. Personally, I dislike the term. They are civilian deaths, no matter what term is used, and unfortunately civilian deaths are unavoidable in war; but suddenly it's as if the world at large thinks it should never happen, which is, I think, why the term came about; I think some felt it was almost necessary to come up with a term explaining civilian deaths, not justifying them. But for the record, sometimes civilians around the target are sympathizers. And you're right, bombs can't distinguish between terrorists and civilians, which is why civilian death is not totally unavoidable, especially when some terrorists put themselves in with civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Collateral damage is simply something you hit that you didn't plan on. During the dambuster raids, many bouncing bombs bounced right over the dams landing in forests beyond causing forest fires. This is collateral damage. It's not just so-called civilians gathered to yack it up with the regional Taliban honcho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) Collateral damage is simply something you hit that you didn't plan on. During the dambuster raids, many bouncing bombs bounced right over the dams landing in forests beyond causing forest fires. This is collateral damage. It's not just so-called civilians gathered to yack it up with the regional Taliban honcho. Right...there was collateral damage during WW2...and lots of it. Does that mean targets should not be bombed? It's called war for a reason. Today we have legal reviews of targeting packages! Edited April 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Right...there was collateral damage during WW2...and lots of it. Does that mean targets should not be bombed? It's called war for a reason. Today we have legal reviews of targeting packages! And to think LBJ picked targets in Viet-Nam over coffee with the Joint Chiefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 And to think LBJ picked targets in Viet-Nam over coffee with the Joint Chiefs. ...while watching college football on TV! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 ...while watching college football on TV! Obama still does that, at least. ...not that LBJ didn't have the flower power crowd breathing down his neck. The irony there being that once they got their wish w/ Nixon (USA outa Indochina) MILLIONS of civilians died in a collateral fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Obama still does that, at least. ...not that LBJ didn't have the flower power crowd breathing down his neck. The irony there being that once they got their wish w/ Nixon (USA outa Indochina) MILLIONS of civilians died in a collateral fashion. Perfect Nixon set up for my punchline....Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 Perfect Nixon set up for my punchline....Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II! Linebacker really upset the hippies...but they totally ignored the NVA's Year of the Rat Easter Offensive. Civilian casualties only matter if America (et al) does the whacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.