cancel2 2022
Canceled
When you contrast the use of drones with the way the US used white phosphorus and cluster bombs in Fallujah.
America's Drones - The Justification for Terrorism and 9/11
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
When you contrast the use of drones with the way the US used white phosphorus and cluster bombs in Fallujah.
source please for your accusations
also, the rules/laws for fighting a war against terrorists have yet to be defined
additionally, what is your opinion of terrorists that use hidden bombs and suicide bombers that kill indiscriminately?
i admit that i am not any happier about civilian casualties than you are, but once more how do you fight a war against terrorists
personally, i think we should get out of afghanistan as soon as possible and let the afghans sort out their own problems, except for what is being done to females and which will only get worse after we leave, but i suspect that no matter how long we stay in the area crimes against females will continue - the afghan power structure will not stand for breaking traditions that have lasted for centuries
of course there are all those rare metals that are just begging for some country or countries to exploit...
oh well
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He hasn't got a source other than www.makingupshit.com What dismays me is that so many people seem to think that Afghanistan was always like this, that's why the Russians went there in the first place to stop the radical Islam from taking over. Afghanistan used to be part of the hippy trail to Nepal if it was so dangerous they wouldn't have been able to do that.
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Ignore the limey colonialist.
I always back up what I claim.
America's deadly double tap drone attacks are 'killing 49 people for every known terrorist in Pakistan'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html#ixzz2M6R7pU6h
Drones killing 49 innocent people for every known terrorist in Pakistan
http://www.defence.pk/forums/war-ag...y-known-terrorist-pakistan.html#ixzz2M6RdniLn
New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama's drones
New research shows the terrorizing impact of drones in Pakistan, false statements from US officials, and how it increases the terror threat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says
http://www.news.com.au/world/afghan...ghan-expert-says/story-fndir2ev-1226482961066
As for the Afghanistan minerals .. the Chinese have already got that locked up.
China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/14/china-us-afghanistan-mineral-mining/
Chinese Takeout - Afghanistan's mineral riches
Cold economic realities dictate that China is going to be the big player in the new Afghan gold rush
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/15/chinese_takeout
Question for you .. what have we gained in the longest war in American history .. but before you answer that question ..
US Concedes Claims of Taliban Attack Decrease Were False
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/26/us-concedes-claims-of-taliban-attack-decrease-were-false/
Obviously the limey is a liar.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Reminder again .. I recognize that you don't live here .. so it must come as quite a surprise to you that black people in America can speak for themselves.
Not too bright are ya'?
Last edited:
we never should have invaded iraq
the resources that we used in iraq should have been used in afghanistan
when we killed bin laden we should have left afghanistan as that was our excuse for going in in the first place
what we are doing with our drones is barely a fraction of what we did during wwii to civilian populations...anybody remember dresden...
however, as long as we are going to fight terrorists, we should use drones, just with much better intelligence...war sucks
what you did not reply to was my question about what rules/laws should be used regarding terrorists around the world
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
How about the rule of law Don? If you accept the notion that we must "fight terrorists" then you are accepting never-ending war. I think human beings can do better, do you?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
And Don, after asking for back up, and then receiving it, you have not commented on the double-tap tactic. Can you?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Isn't it just a little ironic how so many of the hardened lefties on here disparage the Daily Mail yet here you are using it as evidence. I have no doubt that there are civilian casualties but it is nigh on impossible to get accurate figures, so I will take that report with a huge pinch of salt.
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
First, at some point you may have to wake up to the reality that we create our own boogeymen. How else is the MIC going to milk Americans unless it keeps them in fear"
Secondly, the real question isn't the weapon as much as it is on how we use it. Dresden references aside, killing innocent people on purpose to kill guys that can be replaced in 20 minutes is not the answer. Obviously, the military is not the answer.
IMO, the answer is exactly what the Rand Corporation described years ago.
Fight Terrorism With Intelligence, Not Might
excerpts --
Much emphasis in the fight against terrorism has been placed on military capabilities. We have come to expect that planes, tanks, helicopters, and heavily armed soldiers will be used to protect America and defeat our enemies.
But calling out the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines in full battle gear to combat terrorism on a day-to-day basis is rarely a successful strategy at home or abroad. There's no question America has the military might to crush an enemy on the battlefield - but in fighting terrorism, the primary challenge is finding the enemy on a battlefield that has no boundaries.
---
In some cases, the individuals involved in the attacks are unknown to local police - Al Qaeda often seeks out anonymous individuals. But in other cases, the individuals responsible for attacks are known to the police in the areas where they operate and have a history of terrorist activity. Al Qaeda relies on these more experienced operatives to pull off a successful attack.
This is where the local police can play the most crucial role in preventing future attacks. In most cases, the police are already aware of the activities of local extremist groups with established records of advocating and carrying out violent acts, and often know the players involved because of their past participation in terrorist activity.
Monitoring the activities of local extremists in individual countries - such as travel in and out of the country and involvement in criminal enterprises - can be carried out through physical surveillance and other methods of monitoring permissible under legal boundaries. This can give local police the upper hand.
By doing this, law-enforcement agents will not be able to prevent every terrorist attack, but they will make terrorists' job a lot harder by dismantling networks and fostering a hostile operating environment. We know from past experience that faced with this situation, terrorists will either cease conducting attacks in that location and restrategize, or move their operations completely.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2003/12/26/CSM.html
How Terrorist Groups End
Implications for Countering al Qa'ida
excerpts
Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.
In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases. The authors found that militaries tended to be most effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in insurgencies in which the groups were large, well armed, and well organized. But against most terrorist groups, military force was usually too blunt an instrument.
Obviously there is a more intelligent and effective way of fighting terrorism than killing babies and becomind the terrorists ourselves.
You didn't answer the question of what have we gained.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Be honest. It's just not a number that concerns you.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You're a liar.
I always back up what I claim .. and all one has to do is to view this or anyother thread I've posted in to validate that. Yet you chose to lie and make up some bullshit about "make shit up" .. now your dumb ass is talking about the Daily mail as if that's the only source posted.
If you had a brain .. you would post evidence that counters what I'm saying and backing up instead of making shit up.
You didn't challenge anything in that post. You came back asking what is ironic. :0)
If only you had a brain.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
As I said before it really surprises me that you have to start pulling race cards, I would say that is beneath you.
I have been to the US several times have you ever been to England?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
All you have to do is google double-tap drone strikes. There are tons of articles about it. here is one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes
BTW, the UK is also implicated and that is most likely part of why Tom is lying about it. Don't forget where Jingoism originated! It is him to a "T".
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
No desire to visit England.
Perhaps you can explain your penchant to rush in and speak for me. That's twice you've done that now.
You'll have to pardon me if I smell a bit of 'better than' in your posts.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
This is the Cliff Claven style of posting. Just post nonsense having nothing to do with anything. Who gives a crap if he's been to England? I have, what of it? And btw, Top is right about the teeth there sorry! (how is that for off-topic bullshit? good? Want more?) Try addressing the topic!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I was already well aware of that report citing a 49:1 civilian casualty rate, I just wanted you to post it. As for my own evidence there is plenty of that out there. How about the study that just came out that said there were no civilian casualties in 2012. I don't know if I belive that either but I bet it is a lot closer than the stats you claim which almost undoubtedly originated from the Pakistani ISI and their bought and paid for journalists.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/drone_strikes_and_civilian_casualties_only_one_statistic_matters/
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/report-claims-no-pakistani-civilian-deaths-from-drones-in-2012/
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Here is a more rational discussion of drones and the propaganda surrounding them by Christine Fair.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/...m-drone-usage-in-pakistan-what-we-can’t-know/
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Jesus. You are the most entitled person I think on this entire board. Just post that you don't give a shit about non-white deaths already! That's what all your posts say.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I believe that the double-tap in particular constitutes a war crime, and I will be very interested to see the UN findings: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/w...o-investigate-rise-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
But we will have to wait until the fall for those. I am sure they will be dismissed by people who share Colin Powell's feelings about civilian causalities "frankly that's just not a number that interests me".
It's interesting that Tom is arguing that you can't prove there are civilian deaths because western (WHITE) media outlets can't get in there. So it's just those bloody lying pakis and we know how they are! It's interesting because this is the exact argument American righties used to deny or downplay civilian causalities in Iraq for so long. Proving to me, once again, a war whore is a war whore is a war whore.
But we will have to wait until the fall for those. I am sure they will be dismissed by people who share Colin Powell's feelings about civilian causalities "frankly that's just not a number that interests me".
It's interesting that Tom is arguing that you can't prove there are civilian deaths because western (WHITE) media outlets can't get in there. So it's just those bloody lying pakis and we know how they are! It's interesting because this is the exact argument American righties used to deny or downplay civilian causalities in Iraq for so long. Proving to me, once again, a war whore is a war whore is a war whore.