good to know al-Qaida is equal oppurtunity murderers

even flow?

mammasan wrote:

First off I don't care how oppressed you are or may feel, purposely targeting civilians is un-fucking-acceptable. They may have a legitamate gripe against their government or even another foreign government but that by no means makes it OK to kill scores of innocent people.

Collateral Damage is the term when you have an intended target and miss I do believe.

Let us go over this shall we. They had already threatened what was going to happen and oh, my, it happened. Now I don't know about you or some other people on here. But I don't care who the hell it is and how much I like them. If I live in a rag tag country where there are problems and threats, I don't think I would be lining up to see my hero go by.

Is blowing up innocent people right? No. Collateral Damage baby!

Maybe the States should pass the secrets over to Pakistan on how to cordon off half a city to ensure there is no problems. ie: NYC

mammasan

even flow? wrote:

Collateral Damage is the term when you have an intended target and miss I do believe.

Let us go over this shall we. They had already threatened what was going to happen and oh, my, it happened. Now I don't know about you or some other people on here. But I don't care who the hell it is and how much I like them. If I live in a rag tag country where there are problems and threats, I don't think I would be lining up to see my hero go by.

Is blowing up innocent people right? No. Collateral Damage baby!

Maybe the States should pass the secrets over to Pakistan on how to cordon off half a city to ensure there is no problems. ie: NYC

Still doesn't make it right regardless of the forwarning.

I think the reason these people are blowing themselves up is because we already meddle too much in their affairs. So passing more secrets probably wouldn't be the best thing. Just my 2 cents.

darkcrow

Benazir Bhutto believes it was actually former military officals that carried out the attack rather than muslim extreamists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7052310.stm

she points to street lights that were turned off

she is also under scrutiny for actually causing the attack. she was warned that there would be attempts on her, and she should not have led a very slow procession along the streets of a crowded city.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

darkcrow wrote:

Benazir Bhutto believes it was actually former military officals that carried out the attack rather than muslim extreamists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7052310.stm

she points to street lights that were turned off

she is also under scrutiny for actually causing the attack. she was warned that there would be attempts on her, and she should not have led a very slow procession along the streets of a crowded city.

I was wondering about this. It could be possible, but probably not likely. She might just be using this to put more pressure on Musharaff

puremagic

Too damn convenient!! How can you state you had prior knowledge of planned attacks and do nothing? She could have prevented the needless death of her supporters by following a different proposed arrival plan. To immediately say these suicide bombers were Taliban and alQaida, [I guess the body parts had tribal tatoos] to me, gives a hint of an inside planned event to give her arrival more clout than it deserved.

She's back in Pakistan because the U.S. is unhappy with Musharraf. She knew this and accepted the consequences of her return; so what did she expect flower pedals lining the streets. I don't care about her or Musharraf they both could drop off the face of the earth. I'm just tried of the Bush Administration's new world order policies and I don't think this is the right time to create turmoil within another country in this region while supplying India with nuclear materials and technology; and while we, here at home are being stretched to the breaking point.

She was ousted in a coup, that should tell us something.

Thecure

even flow? wrote:

Collateral Damage is the term when you have an intended target and miss I do believe.

Let us go over this shall we. They had already threatened what was going to happen and oh, my, it happened. Now I don't know about you or some other people on here. But I don't care who the hell it is and how much I like them. If I live in a rag tag country where there are problems and threats, I don't think I would be lining up to see my hero go by.

Is blowing up innocent people right? No. Collateral Damage baby!

Maybe the States should pass the secrets over to Pakistan on how to cordon off half a city to ensure there is no problems. ie: NYC

first off, when you have a target should you be using a bomb or a gun? secondly, to the person that said that maybe she should have taken another route. a leader (women leader that is) has to show that she is not scared. hiding from the people is not a way to go when you are trying to lead them.

Thecure

puremagic wrote:

Too damn convenient!! How can you state you had prior knowledge of planned attacks and do nothing? She could have prevented the needless death of her supporters by following a different proposed arrival plan. To immediately say these suicide bombers were Taliban and alQaida, [I guess the body parts had tribal tatoos] to me, gives a hint of an inside planned event to give her arrival more clout than it deserved.

She's back in Pakistan because the U.S. is unhappy with Musharraf. She knew this and accepted the consequences of her return; so what did she expect flower pedals lining the streets. I don't care about her or Musharraf they both could drop off the face of the earth. I'm just tried of the Bush Administration's new world order policies and I don't think this is the right time to create turmoil within another country in this region while supplying India with nuclear materials and technology; and while we, here at home are being stretched to the breaking poi
She was ousted in a coup, that should tell us something.

what should that tell us, maybe she was ousted because she is a women. a hear that they have soem rules abotu women.

even flow?

Thecure wrote:

first off, when you have a target should you be using a bomb or a gun? secondly, to the person that said that maybe she should have taken another route. a leader (women leader that is) has to show that she is not scared. hiding from the people is not a way to go when you are trying to lead them.

Gun or bomb? I guess that depends on where you live and how big a statement you want to make.

She was advised to use a helicopter and decided on the truck. Is it just me who pays attention to when leaders or exleaders are in town the security that follows them? You know so if they want to get to the target that it may be troublesome or even impossible. Oh that's right Musharoff who has had attempts on his life and is the leader travels with a pack of security. So why didn't she. Did she think she was returning to Eden or Pakistan. That same Pakistan that is about two months from imploding on itself.

mammasan

even flow? wrote:

Gun or bomb? I guess that depends on where you live and how big a statement you want to make.

She was advised to use a helicopter and decided on the truck. Is it just me who pays attention to when leaders or exleaders are in town the security that follows them? You know so if they want to get to the target that it may be troublesome or even impossible. Oh that's right Musharoff who has had attempts on his life and is the leader travels with a pack of security. So why didn't she. Did she think she was returning to Eden or Pakistan. That same Pakistan that is about two months from imploding on itself.

Let's not forget that it is also the same Pakistan that has nuclear weapons. One assassin's bullet or car bomb away from being a Taliban like state.

puremagic

Thecure wrote:

what should that tell us, maybe she was ousted because she is a women. a hear that they have soem rules abotu women.

Seeing that she served as Pakistan's president on two separate occasions being a female doesn't seem to be the problem. Heard anything else?

puremagic

mammasan wrote:

Let's not forget that it is also the same Pakistan that has nuclear weapons. One assassin's bullet or car bomb away from being a Taliban like state.

Let's not forget that the countries in this region have history, dawn of time history. We keep thinking were setting up democracies, arming allies, making friends. They keep seeing it as tribal/sectular advantages.

This woman's dad was the leader of Pakistan for a long time before he was hung, she was about 14 or 15. Do you think she has forgotten that?

We just don't seem to learn. The enemy of our enemy is NOT always our friend.

mammasan

puremagic wrote:

Let's not forget that the countries in this region have history, dawn of time history. We keep thinking were setting up democracies, arming allies, making friends. They keep seeing it as tribal/sectular advantages.

This woman's dad was the leader of Pakistan for a long time before he was hung, she was about 14 or 15. Do you think she has forgotten that?

We just don't seem to learn. The enemy of our enemy is NOT always our friend.

We are like the retarded kid that keeps touching the hot stove no matter how many times we burn our hand.

Cosmo

MrSmith wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_re_as/pakistan

They don't like women in charge apparently. But they blow up just as good as anyone else.


[edit: ackkk on a side note i know the title is grammatically fucked up. oh well]

...
I'm not saying it isn't Al Qaeda... it probably is.... BUT, the thing you have to take into consideration... the source of the reports. Remember, Kiddies... this is Pakistan we're talking about, here. For all we know it was Musharraf's henchmen at work and blaming it on 'Terrorists' to keep power in his country. The greatest threat to his seat of power is Bhutto... or an assassin's bullet.
Bottom line... it's pakistan. Who knows what the truth is when the 'truth' is reported through government news services?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

puremagic wrote:

She's back in Pakistan because the U.S. is unhappy with Musharraf. She knew this and accepted the consequences of her return; so what did she expect flower pedals lining the streets. I don't care about her or Musharraf they both could drop off the face of the earth. I'm just tried of the Bush Administration's new world order policies and I don't think this is the right time to create turmoil within another country in this region while supplying India with nuclear materials and technology; and while we, here at home are being stretched to the breaking point.

I don't think this is a result of some kind of American nation building in this particular case. We just want to go into northern Pakistan and will support anyone who lets us. I don't think Bush cares who runs the country, as long as they let us attack Taliban rear bases.

Fuck, I can't even say that Bush even cares about going into Pakistan to eradicate al-Qaida. He will probably just send a couple of Blackwater employees in an old jeep to look around, while ordering up a few thousand more troops to go get shot at in Iraq. God, I hate that mother fucker. Constantly letting Osama's boys off the hook is good for his business.

Carlos D

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

If they are causing oppression, what is the US causing?

America aren't the ones deliberately slaughtering innocent people.

fuck

Carlos D wrote:

America aren't the ones deliberately slaughtering innocent people.

please explain the following instances to me:

Iraq
Palestine
Afghanistan

810wmb

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

please explain the following instances to me:

Iraq
Palestine
Afghanistan

if you haven't figured it out by now.....

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

please explain the following instances to me:

Iraq
Palestine
Afghanistan

I'm sorry, but we are DELIBERATELY targetting innocent civilians now? What tactical sense could this possibly make? Don't get me wrong, if you are a dead civilian killed in collateral damage, it probably doesn't mean shit to you if you were DELIBERATELY targetted or not, but it is a key difference nonetheless.

Its the Insurgents/terrorists/al-Qaida/Taliban/Ba'ath Party/Freedomfighters (whatever you want to call them) that DELIBERATELY target innocent civilians. They carefully plan and execute attacks on schools, marketplaces, mosques to kill the maximum number of INNOCENT CIVILIANS, not soldiers, leaders or combatants. To them this tactic makes some kind of perverse sense. They can't mount a serious threat to the military, so they attack innocent civilians on PURPOSE.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bombs for Allah

Bigger bombs from Jesus.

Wait till the other's chime in...

praise god?

fuck

MrSmith wrote:

I'm sorry, but we are DELIBERATELY targetting innocent civilians now? What tactical sense could this possibly make? Don't get me wrong, if you are a dead civilian killed in collateral damage, it probably doesn't mean shit to you if you were DELIBERATELY targetted or not, but it is a key difference nonetheless.

Yeah, we are deliberately targetting innocent civilians. Have you heard of Abu Ghraib?

In fact, how about you just read this article...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges

learn something new, huh...