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.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
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.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
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.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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?
BULLSHIT. Do you even know the definition of deliberate?
Abu Ghraib is fucking bullshit and should not exist, but the people sent their are at least suspected insurgents/terrorists. Once again, not a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent Iraqi civilians. try again.
And what the fuck did that article prove? That US soldiers under stress of an IED reacted by spraying bullets everywhere? is it wrong? yes. is it unprofessional? yes. Is it murderous? yes. Is it a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent civilians? no. In most of the cases stated its a very stupid and sloppy way of defending oneself in a FUCKING WARZONE and cracking under pressure. There are also isolated cases of soldiers straight up raping and murdering innocent civilians, but there is no logical, stretegic reason this would be official American military doctrine as this would go directly against the goals they are trying to achieve.
Contrast the above with Al-qaida. They deliberately plan and execute attacks on civilians without regard for American or Gov't presence in the area. These TERRORIST actions are fully supported by Al-Qaida hierarchy, and the main goal of these attacks are to inflict the maximum number of INNOCENT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
Any logical person can see that there is no comparison.
Look at the situation from a logical, objective viewpoint, not someone who has swallowed up piles of internet propaganda. I can't believe some people can recognize mass media such as FOX news as conservative propaganda, and then walk straight into the buzzsaw of leftist propaganda without ever doubting it. Sheep with different sheopards. Be sensible.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Funny that there's no one praising Geroge Bush for increasing sanctions on the Burmese government this week or sticking it to the Chinese by awarding the Dalai Lama the Congressional medal.I'm not suggesting in any way that Bush is a great leader but he does do some good.
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Freedom to live in the place you grew up in. Imposing personal beliefs on others is seldom noble.
How you don't see the irony of this statement in cunjunction with implying its acceptable because "one mans terrorism is another man's freedom fighter" is scary and hilarious at the same time.
Is he not "imposing personal beliefs" when he blows up someone because they don't live life the way he wants??
Some women in those countries aren't too happy with "the place they grew up in" and want change. But them getting blown up by a nutjob is somehow not the nutjob's fault. Strange view.
BULLSHIT. Do you even know the definition of deliberate?
Abu Ghraib is fucking bullshit and should not exist, but the people sent their are at least suspected insurgents/terrorists. Once again, not a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent Iraqi civilians. try again.
And what the fuck did that article prove? That US soldiers under stress of an IED reacted by spraying bullets everywhere? is it wrong? yes. is it unprofessional? yes. Is it murderous? yes. Is it a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent civilians? no. In most of the cases stated its a very stupid and sloppy way of defending oneself in a FUCKING WARZONE and cracking under pressure. There are also isolated cases of soldiers straight up raping and murdering innocent civilians, but there is no logical, stretegic reason this would be official American military doctrine as this would go directly against the goals they are trying to achieve.
Contrast the above with Al-qaida. They deliberately plan and execute attacks on civilians without regard for American or Gov't presence in the area. These TERRORIST actions are fully supported by Al-Qaida hierarchy, and the main goal of these attacks are to inflict the maximum number of INNOCENT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
Any logical person can see that there is no comparison.
Look at the situation from a logical, objective viewpoint, not someone who has swallowed up piles of internet propaganda. I can't believe some people can recognize mass media such as FOX news as conservative propaganda, and then walk straight into the buzzsaw of leftist propaganda without ever doubting it. Sheep with different sheopards. Be sensible.
But..........but...........but.............America is da Debil!!!!
How you don't see the irony of this statement in cunjunction with implying its acceptable because "one mans terrorism is another man's freedom fighter" is scary and hilarious at the same time.
Is he not "imposing personal beliefs" when he blows up someone because they don't live life the way he wants??
Some women in those countries aren't too happy with "the place they grew up in" and want change. But them getting blown up by a nutjob is somehow not the nutjob's fault. Strange view.
Unless of course I misunderstand your statements.
So have you looked at both sides of the equation or just your equation?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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.
If your target is one person than you don't need a bomb. by saying that the use of a gun or a bomb depends on where you live is really sad for me because i think that there is no hope.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
If your target is one person than you don't need a bomb. by saying that the use of a gun or a bomb depends on where you live is really sad for me because i think that there is no hope.
When you strap yourself up with explosives, I would have to hazzard a guess that there is no hope. Or you are not an independent thinker.
This is like a bad merry go round. Im an awful person because I see some justification in our current cause, however much I disagree with HOW its being done matters not to you, but somehow YOUR justification of the "other guy" killing is okay. Have you or have you not justified their killing of our people???? In my mind, saying its okay because of what we've done in the past is exactly that. Justifying killing.
Other than who you support, how are we really any different?
This is like a bad merry go round. Im an awful person because I see some justification in our current cause, however much I disagree with HOW its being done matters not to you, but somehow YOUR justification of the "other guy" killing is okay. Have you or have you not justified their killing of our people???? In my mind, saying its okay because of what we've done in the past is exactly that. Justifying killing.
Other than who you support, how are we really any different?
One side is forcefully occupying a foreign country to justify the spread of it's own intentions. That's the difference I see.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
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.
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?
Hail, Hail!!!
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.
America aren't the ones deliberately slaughtering innocent people.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
please explain the following instances to me:
Iraq
Palestine
Afghanistan
if you haven't figured it out by now.....
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.
Bigger bombs from Jesus.
Wait till the other's chime in...
praise god?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
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...
BULLSHIT. Do you even know the definition of deliberate?
Abu Ghraib is fucking bullshit and should not exist, but the people sent their are at least suspected insurgents/terrorists. Once again, not a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent Iraqi civilians. try again.
And what the fuck did that article prove? That US soldiers under stress of an IED reacted by spraying bullets everywhere? is it wrong? yes. is it unprofessional? yes. Is it murderous? yes. Is it a DELIBERATE attempt to target innocent civilians? no. In most of the cases stated its a very stupid and sloppy way of defending oneself in a FUCKING WARZONE and cracking under pressure. There are also isolated cases of soldiers straight up raping and murdering innocent civilians, but there is no logical, stretegic reason this would be official American military doctrine as this would go directly against the goals they are trying to achieve.
Contrast the above with Al-qaida. They deliberately plan and execute attacks on civilians without regard for American or Gov't presence in the area. These TERRORIST actions are fully supported by Al-Qaida hierarchy, and the main goal of these attacks are to inflict the maximum number of INNOCENT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
Any logical person can see that there is no comparison.
Look at the situation from a logical, objective viewpoint, not someone who has swallowed up piles of internet propaganda. I can't believe some people can recognize mass media such as FOX news as conservative propaganda, and then walk straight into the buzzsaw of leftist propaganda without ever doubting it. Sheep with different sheopards. Be sensible.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Funny that there's no one praising Geroge Bush for increasing sanctions on the Burmese government this week or sticking it to the Chinese by awarding the Dalai Lama the Congressional medal.I'm not suggesting in any way that Bush is a great leader but he does do some good.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
How you don't see the irony of this statement in cunjunction with implying its acceptable because "one mans terrorism is another man's freedom fighter" is scary and hilarious at the same time.
Is he not "imposing personal beliefs" when he blows up someone because they don't live life the way he wants??
Some women in those countries aren't too happy with "the place they grew up in" and want change. But them getting blown up by a nutjob is somehow not the nutjob's fault. Strange view.
Unless of course I misunderstand your statements.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
But..........but...........but.............America is da Debil!!!!
www.myspace.com/jensvad
So have you looked at both sides of the equation or just your equation?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Fallujah was a flat out turkey shoot.
I guess that one was an oops.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Do you see justification in killing?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If your target is one person than you don't need a bomb. by saying that the use of a gun or a bomb depends on where you live is really sad for me because i think that there is no hope.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
When you strap yourself up with explosives, I would have to hazzard a guess that there is no hope. Or you are not an independent thinker.
This is like a bad merry go round. Im an awful person because I see some justification in our current cause, however much I disagree with HOW its being done matters not to you, but somehow YOUR justification of the "other guy" killing is okay. Have you or have you not justified their killing of our people???? In my mind, saying its okay because of what we've done in the past is exactly that. Justifying killing.
Other than who you support, how are we really any different?
www.myspace.com/jensvad
One side is forcefully occupying a foreign country to justify the spread of it's own intentions. That's the difference I see.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")