America's Drones - The Justification for Terrorism and 9/11

blackascoal said:
Amazing how many democratic warmongers there are these days .. many of whom were the same people protesting the Bush foreign policy when Bush was doing it.

Must be magic dust or something.
Click to expand...

My point is, "crap or get off the pot". Stop all this "a little war here and a little war there nonsense." Otherwise, there are troops all over the world draining money that should be used for the citizens at home. Stop the damn game. That's my point. Look at the mess with Afghanistan and Iraq. As Aoxomoxoa noted as soon as we leave Afghanistan the Taliban/AQ will return. What was the point of destroying the infrastructure and then taking money from US citizens, citizens who can't afford health care, then use that money to rebuild what we destroyed? It's insanity.

Bush's foreign policy was much different. Besides him being belligerent it's a hell of a lot more expensive to invade a country than it is to use drones. If the US is going to be the Policemen of the world act like Policemen. The Police do not invade/ransack entire neighborhoods looking for someone. They target the individual. War/terrorism requires a different approach. As you correctly noted the US will not start a boots on the ground war with Pakistan. That doesn't stop the US from getting the terrorists. Drone the suckers!
 
apple0154 said:
My point is, "crap or get off the pot". Stop all this "a little war here and a little war there nonsense." Otherwise, there are troops all over the world draining money that should be used for the citizens at home. Stop the damn game. That's my point. Look at the mess with Afghanistan and Iraq. As Aoxomoxoa noted as soon as we leave Afghanistan the Taliban/AQ will return. What was the point of destroying the infrastructure and then taking money from US citizens, citizens who can't afford health care, then use that money to rebuild what we destroyed? It's insanity.

Bush's foreign policy was much different. Besides him being belligerent it's a hell of a lot more expensive to invade a country than it is to use drones. If the US is going to be the Policemen of the world act like Policemen. The Police do not invade/ransack entire neighborhoods looking for someone. They target the individual. War/terrorism requires a different approach. As you correctly noted the US will not start a boots on the ground war with Pakistan. That doesn't stop the US from getting the terrorists. Drone the suckers!
Click to expand...

It is apposite to point out that even though Pakistan's government publicly condemns drone attacks, they secretly share intelligence with the United States and also allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until April 2011.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/world/asia/12drone.html?_r=0
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Isn't Pakistan also fighting the Taliban in North West Pakistan especially Swat province? Why are they bothering as according to you it is a total waste of time. Would you be happy if the Taliban became the government in Pakistan?
Click to expand...

Whatever happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan is up to the people who live there.

Obviously unknown to you brother is that the Taliban will STILL be in control in Afghanistan once the US leaves.

The longest war in American history and all we've accomplished is another Saigon moment.

After droning the fuck out of the Pakistani people with our own brand of terrorism, I have no clue why you think the west should have ANY authority or input into what happens in Pakistan.

Our foreign policy is moronic.
 
blackascoal said:
Whatever happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan is up to the people who live there.

Obviously unknown to you brother is that the Taliban will STILL be in control in Afghanistan once the US leaves.

The longest war in American history and all we've accomplished is another Saigon moment.

After droning the fuck out of the Pakistani people with our own brand of terrorism, I have no clue why you think the west should have ANY authority or input into what happens in Pakistan. The only reason they stopped was because 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed and it is fairly certain that missions ar ebeing flown from othe airbases.

Our foreign policy is moronic.
Click to expand...

Still haven't answered the question, would you be happy if the Taliban took over in Pakistan and gained control of the country's nuclear weapons? Anyway the Pakistan government had been allowing drones to fly from Shamsi airfield in Pakistan for many years until the end of 2011 so what does that tell you? It is very much in Pakistan's interest to target Taliban commanders and you'll be surprised to know they don't really care about your opinion. There are persistent rumours that they have developed their own drone which they will use in the near future. I suggest that you read this debate from PBS which is a hell of a lot more informative and smarter than most of the stuff on here. Another question for you? How do you know what the civilian attrition rate is from drone attacks? The answer is you don't but that doesn't stop you claiming fantastic figures which people have just made up. I will leave it to Christine Fair to explain.

CF: The question is- is there proof that civilians have been killed. This may seem at first blush to be jarring. However, NONE of the allegations that civilians have been killed by drones have been verified. Reasons for skepticism include that international journalist cannot go to the tribal areas, very few journalists have bothered sending stringers out to confirm burials and funerals. In Pakistan, as in other places, it is easy to fabricate deaths for media consumption because there are often no birth certificates- much less death certificates. Even on the cases of alleged injury, no one has bothered to bring forensic analysis to determine whether the kind of injury sustained is consistent with munitions used by drones. None of these questions can be addressed comprehensively without the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI (the premier intelligence agency of the State of Pakistan) allowing transparency into drone attacks. Both of which have their own reasons for objecting. See the piece I wrote on this issue: The Problems with Studying Civilian Casualties from Drone Usage in Pakistan: What We Can’t Know
Click to expand...

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncategorized/ask-the-experts-drones/14813/

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/...m-drone-usage-in-pakistan-what-we-can’t-know/
 
Last edited:
dont-drone-me-bro.jpg
 
apple0154 said:
My point is, "crap or get off the pot". Stop all this "a little war here and a little war there nonsense." Otherwise, there are troops all over the world draining money that should be used for the citizens at home. Stop the damn game. That's my point. Look at the mess with Afghanistan and Iraq. As Aoxomoxoa noted as soon as we leave Afghanistan the Taliban/AQ will return. What was the point of destroying the infrastructure and then taking money from US citizens, citizens who can't afford health care, then use that money to rebuild what we destroyed? It's insanity.

Bush's foreign policy was much different. Besides him being belligerent it's a hell of a lot more expensive to invade a country than it is to use drones. If the US is going to be the Policemen of the world act like Policemen. The Police do not invade/ransack entire neighborhoods looking for someone. They target the individual. War/terrorism requires a different approach. As you correctly noted the US will not start a boots on the ground war with Pakistan. That doesn't stop the US from getting the terrorists. Drone the suckers!
Click to expand...

Much of what you've said makes a lot of sense .. but then you counter your own argument.

What has been accomplished in Afghanistan? The Taliban will still be in control .. so what was the point of all the waste of treasure and lives? The MIC was the point. US/NATO domination of a region was the point. Profit is always the point.

You completely miss that Obama is the Bush foreign policy on steroids. It's the same foreign policy that was the invasion of Iraq as it was the invasion of Libya. Are you aware that the US is now involved in MORE wars than when Bush was in office .. with bigger ones on the horizon?

Drone the suckers?

CHILDREN?

Are you aware the CHILDREN and innocent people are being blown apart for some SUSPECTED terrorist who can be replaced quickly?

Fighting terrorism is best suited for the police, not the military -- the Rand Corporation.

"Drone the suckers" sounds like it comes right out of the right-wing.

An absolutely amazing transformation.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Still haven't answered the question, would you be happy if the Taliban took over in Pakistan and gained control of the country's nuclear weapons? Anyway the Pakistan government had been allowing drones to fly from Shamsi airfield in Pakistan for many years until the end of 2011 so what does that tell you?
Click to expand...

I answered .. you're not listening.

Whatever happens in Pakistan is up to the Pakistani people .. not me or some guy typing on a keyboard somewhere in England.

Our moronic foreign policy has moved the Pakistani people about as far away from western influence as it can possibly get.

If you were concerned about the Taliban taking control in Pakistan and it's nuclear weapons it sure isn't evident with your support of the moronic.
 
I'm curious, BAC. You're president on 9/11/01. What do you do to establish justice and protect the US from further al-Queda attack?
 
blackascoal said:
I answered .. you're not listening.

Whatever happens in Pakistan is up to the Pakistani people .. not me or some guy typing on a keyboard somewhere in England.

Our moronic foreign policy has moved the Pakistani people about as far away from western influence as it can possibly get.

If you were concerned about the Taliban taking control in Pakistan and it's nuclear weapons it sure isn't evident with your support of the moronic.
Click to expand...

If you are so worried about civilian casualties then how many do you think have died from the Pakistani military intervention in Swat province and Waziristan? A shedload more than drones I'll wager. Your answer to everything seems to be to just do nothing and hope it all goes away. I think the policy of basing drones in Pakistan with the tacit permission of the Pakistanis is the right policy. It is every much in their interest to kill the Taliban leaders rather than losing many of their own men.
 
Threedee said:
I'm curious, BAC. You're president on 9/11/01. What do you do to establish justice and protect the US from further al-Queda attack?
Click to expand...

Tighten security, investigate the flaws, engage and promote global pollce and intelligence action.

How Terrorist Groups End
Implications for Countering al Qa'ida

A recent RAND research effort sheds light on this issue by investigating how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force. Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29.html

What has been accomplished by the military beyond creating more terrorists?
 
blackascoal said:
Black people in the US are capable of speaking for themselves.

That must come as quite a surprise for you.
Click to expand...

You have already spoken on the issue, have you changed your mind in the interim? Actually you surprise me as I would have thought you were the last one to start pulling out race cards.
 
Karzai Orders U.S. Forces Out of Afghan Province

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president on Sunday ordered all U.S. special forces to leave a strategically important eastern province within two weeks because of allegations that Afghans working with them are torturing and abusing other Afghans.

The decision seems to have caught the coalition and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, a separate command, by surprise. Americans have frequently drawn anger from the Afghan public over issues ranging from Qurans burned at a U.S. base to allegations of civilian killings.

"We take all allegations of misconduct seriously and go to great lengths to determine the facts surrounding them," the U.S. forces said in a statement.

Also Sunday, a series of attacks in eastern Afghanistan showed insurgents remain on the offensive even as U.S. and other international forces prepare to end their combat mission by the end of 2014.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/23/world/asia/ap-as-afghanistan.html?hp

Obama, Karzai endorse 'Taliban office,' agree to speed military transition
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-meet-to-discuss-ending-war/#ixzz2LqKeVFsX

What a dumb way to fight a war.
 
blackascoal said:
Karzai Orders U.S. Forces Out of Afghan Province

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president on Sunday ordered all U.S. special forces to leave a strategically important eastern province within two weeks because of allegations that Afghans working with them are torturing and abusing other Afghans.

The decision seems to have caught the coalition and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, a separate command, by surprise. Americans have frequently drawn anger from the Afghan public over issues ranging from Qurans burned at a U.S. base to allegations of civilian killings.

"We take all allegations of misconduct seriously and go to great lengths to determine the facts surrounding them," the U.S. forces said in a statement.

Also Sunday, a series of attacks in eastern Afghanistan showed insurgents remain on the offensive even as U.S. and other international forces prepare to end their combat mission by the end of 2014.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/23/world/asia/ap-as-afghanistan.html?hp

Obama, Karzai endorse 'Taliban office,' agree to speed military transition
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-meet-to-discuss-ending-war/#ixzz2LqKeVFsX

What a dumb way to fight a war.
Click to expand...

It has been poorly executed from the beginning.
 
blackascoal said:
Karzai Orders U.S. Forces Out of Afghan Province

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's president on Sunday ordered all U.S. special forces to leave a strategically important eastern province within two weeks because of allegations that Afghans working with them are torturing and abusing other Afghans.

The decision seems to have caught the coalition and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, a separate command, by surprise. Americans have frequently drawn anger from the Afghan public over issues ranging from Qurans burned at a U.S. base to allegations of civilian killings.

"We take all allegations of misconduct seriously and go to great lengths to determine the facts surrounding them," the U.S. forces said in a statement.

Also Sunday, a series of attacks in eastern Afghanistan showed insurgents remain on the offensive even as U.S. and other international forces prepare to end their combat mission by the end of 2014.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/23/world/asia/ap-as-afghanistan.html?hp

Obama, Karzai endorse 'Taliban office,' agree to speed military transition
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-to-meet-to-discuss-ending-war/#ixzz2LqKeVFsX

What a dumb way to fight a war.
Click to expand...

I suppose that the Taliban beheading women or shooting teenage girls for having the temerity to want to go to school is OK as it is part of their culture.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
It may not be ok, but it certainly isn't our problem.
Click to expand...

Yet the number of times I have heard Americans accuse Britain of walking away from Palestine and India after WW2 and causing the problems today. Anyway it is your problem whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Who was it that tried to build a load of dams in the '50s which raised the water table and destroyed the soil so that only opium poppies would grow? Who was it that armed the Mujahadeen, the precursors of the Taliban, to fight the Russians? Who was it that allowed a fool of a president to attack Iraq when it had nothing to do with 9/11?
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Much of what you've said makes a lot of sense .. but then you counter your own argument.

What has been accomplished in Afghanistan? The Taliban will still be in control .. so what was the point of all the waste of treasure and lives? The MIC was the point. US/NATO domination of a region was the point. Profit is always the point.

You completely miss that Obama is the Bush foreign policy on steroids. It's the same foreign policy that was the invasion of Iraq as it was the invasion of Libya. Are you aware that the US is now involved in MORE wars than when Bush was in office .. with bigger ones on the horizon?

Drone the suckers?

CHILDREN?

Are you aware the CHILDREN and innocent people are being blown apart for some SUSPECTED terrorist who can be replaced quickly?

Fighting terrorism is best suited for the police, not the military -- the Rand Corporation.

"Drone the suckers" sounds like it comes right out of the right-wing.

An absolutely amazing transformation.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan is the perfect example. Take out the govenment and training camps with drones. Today, with satellite surveillance we can get a good view of things. I'm sure drones would have cost less than the invasion of Afghanistan if they were available at the time. But the bottom line is get the people involved. It is their responsibility to keep their government in check assuming their govrnment is a threat to us.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
(Originally Posted by Aoxomoxoa) I suppose that the Taliban beheading women or shooting teenage girls for having the temerity to want to go to school is OK as it is part of their culture.
Click to expand...

It may not be ok, but it certainly isn't our problem.
Click to expand...

That's what many people are unable to grasp. If Holland invaded the US and gave everyone convicted of a marijauna crime a "get out of jail free" card or if France invaded and allowed women to go around topless would the majority of the population agreeably go along? Sure, there would be many people celebrating like we see in those countries the West have invaded but we don't see the majority of the population.

People can't understand that while the citizens in those countries may object to some actions of the Taliban they agree with a lot more than they disagree with. It is their culture to live by those rules regardless of what we think of them and it's not our business anyway. And when it comes to drones the drones target a specific type/group of people. When armies invade they bring along their culture which is natural. It's their music playing on their radio. It's their type of clothing they're wearing. They are considered polluting the culture.

If women can walk around with their hair and arms uncovered why not their breasts uncovered? Is there something dirty about how a child is fed? I wonder what would have happened if a woman breastfed in public here in 1950. I wonder how that would have gone over if an invading power suddenly allowed beastfeeding in public in 1950.

We have to let those countries advance at their own rate or we'll never make friends with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top