The CIA themselves and therefore the US have trained and (indirectly)supplied weapons to extremist Muslim's in the past and created a Frankenstein that turned against them.

True, but what relevance does that have to do with the coalition invasion? Are you inferring that just because we supplied arms at one time that that gives the mujahideen a free pass forever? That makes no sense.

And FDR armed Stalin to the teeth as well. Alex, do you feel that was wrong as well?

Double standards, what was once right is now wrong, how silly our governments are, don't you agree?

You want to learn history?

True, but what relevance does that have to do with the coalition invasion?  Are you inferring that just because we supplied arms at one time that that gives the mujahideen a free pass forever?  That makes no sense.

and neither does it make sense not to differentiate between Mujahedin and Taliban

The CIA themselves and therefore the US have trained and (indirectly)supplied weapons to extremist Muslim's in the past and created a Frankenstein that turned against them.

True, but what relevance does that have to do with the coalition invasion? Are you inferring that just because we supplied arms at one time that that gives the mujahideen a free pass forever? That makes no sense.

And FDR armed Stalin to the teeth as well. Alex, do you feel that was wrong as well?

Double standards, what was once right is now wrong, how silly our governments are, don't you agree?

You want to learn history?

We are human and we change our minds and we change allegiances. Some American soldiers do not support our government’s policies and some do. "Silly' or not, human beings have done these things since the beginning of time. However, trying to make it seem like America is the first one with such problems is silly indeed.

....but I would not travel half way around the world to hunt down a group of peasants, killing 100 times more civilians than the actual peasants I'm hunting.

Not to mention that those actual individual peasants have not attacked me, nor are they likely to.

Thank God no one else has either.

shirley you jest

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones. Perhaps they need to put in a qualifier that reads ...No defending oneself from collateral damages or you too will be deemed a terrorist?

....but I would not travel half way around the world to hunt down a group of peasants, killing 100 times more civilians than the actual peasants I'm hunting.

Not to mention that those actual individual peasants have not attacked me, nor are they likely to.

Thank God no one else has either.

shirley you jest

Not at all. The claim of killing 100:1, innocent:enemy in Afghanistan is hyperbole - yet again.

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones.

You kill someone in my family and I go find you before you come back and do it again. It ain't that hard to understand.

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones.

You kill someone in my family and I go find you before you come back and do it again. It ain't that hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand.

But what you are talking about is retribution, not pre-emptive prevention....unless your intent is to wipe out several millions of radical Muslims? I'm not saying retribution is wrong......and I reserve my thoughts on pre-emptive prevention for now......But do you think some, if not most, of the terrorists are doing exactly that? Attacking America in retribution?

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones.

You kill someone in my family and I go find you before you come back and do it again. It ain't that hard to understand.

No it is not hard at all for me to understand & I call it what it is.

But many others when seeing it call it terrorism & use it as an excuse to invade countries....funny that

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones.

You kill someone in my family and I go find you before you come back and do it again. It ain't that hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand.

But what you are talking about is retribution, not Prue-emotive prevention....unless your intent is to wipe out several millions of radical Muslims? I'm not saying retribution is wrong......and I reserve my thoughts on pre-emptive prevention for now......But do you think some, if not most, of the terrorists are doing exactly that? Attacking America in retribution?

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

By latest you mean like 9 years ago? Because that was the last verifiable transmission by him.

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

By latest you mean like 9 years ago? Because that was the last verifiable transmission by him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100124/ts_al..._20100124182004

and from a source some of you will find more reliable:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleea...5287209336.html

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

By latest you mean like 9 years ago? Because that was the last verifiable transmission by him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100124/ts_al..._20100124182004

and from a source some of you will find more reliable:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleea...5287209336.html

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i67681 one is as good as the other......

Yeah aside from phrases etc that sound like something he would say no hard proof etc..........as usual

Yet even retired officers of the Delta Force say there is no way he made it out alive from Tora Bora

Who knows eh? More importantly if that is the best shoe string they can find to justify the continued invasion......wellllllllll

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8477413.stm

A tape said to be from al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden has warned US President Barack Obama there will be more attacks if the US continues to support Israel.

In the newly released audio tape aired on al-Jazeera, Bin Laden says the US will never live in peace until there is "peace in Palestine".

The authenticity of the audio tape has not been verified.

Who knows eh? More importantly if that is the best shoe string they can find to justify the continued invasion......wellllllllll

I seriously doubt they are bothering to justify anything to the far left crowd - who will never be satisfied in any case.

Funny in this thread some who advocate invasion & all that goes with it also want to claim it is ok to defend oneself & loved ones.

You kill someone in my family and I go find you before you come back and do it again. It ain't that hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand.

But what you are talking about is retribution, not Prue-emotive prevention....unless your intent is to wipe out several millions of radical Muslims? I'm not saying retribution is wrong......and I reserve my thoughts on pre-emptive prevention for now......But do you think some, if not most, of the terrorists are doing exactly that? Attacking America in retribution?

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

Oh, puleeeease. That's the feeblest and most transparent bit of spin you have produced so far. You are referring to his latest audio and quote/refer to a part of it only. You don't quote/refer to his justification, and spin just that part about Israel.

Furthermore, you spin it again to make it seem like BL wants to control US foreign policy.

Lets break it down: You say he wants to control US foreign policy. On the face of it, that sounds reprehensible, him being a foreigner and all....and I would agree with you if that was the case.

In reality, and what he said effectively, is he wants to curb those parts of US foreign policy that result in Palestinian deaths and the criminal oppression of Palestinians, as imposed by the US condoned Israeli actions.

I am sure he does not give a hoot about what the US does in South America.

It's not hard to understand.

But what you are talking about is retribution, not Prue-emotive prevention....unless your intent is to wipe out several millions of radical Muslims? I'm not saying retribution is wrong......and I reserve my thoughts on pre-emptive prevention for now......But do you think some, if not most, of the terrorists are doing exactly that? Attacking America in retribution?

The latest message from bin Laden demanded that the USA stop supporting Israel. That has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with trying to control American foreign policy.

Oh, puleeeease. That's the feeblest and most transparent bit of spin you have produced so far. You are referring to his latest audio and quote/refer to a part of it only. You don't quote/refer to his justification, and spin just that part about Israel.

Furthermore, you spin it again to make it seem like BL wants to control US foreign policy.

Lets break it down: You say he wants to control US foreign policy. On the face of it, that sounds reprehensible, him being a foreigner and all....and I would agree with you if that was the case.

In reality, and what he said effectively, is he wants to curb those parts of US foreign policy that result in Palestinian deaths and the criminal oppression of Palestinians, as imposed by the US condoned Israeli actions.

I am sure he does not give a hoot about what the US does in South America.

"Therefore, with God's will, our attacks on you will continue as long as you continue to support Israel," bin Laden said.*

I never said that bin Laden wants to control every aspect of US foreign policy. But demanding we change any part of it is still him wanting to control what we do. If I forbid you to eat vegetables, I am trying to control what you eat.

Palestinians are dying because Palestinians elect bad leaders and make stupid decisions. No fault but their own. And they aren't helped by enablers such as yourself who encourage them to die because - be honest - you hate Jews and it makes Jews look bad. As famous Kiwi Lucy Lawless once said, (I'm paraphrasing) "we don't have any Jews in New Zealand". So I understand your irrational fear and hatred of them.

* Of course, as the link flying provided said, it might not be him after all. Personally, I think he's a skeleton by now.

Snip:

The most cited and controversial report to date on the casualty results of U.S. drone strikes is the April 2009 report published by Pakistan's leading English daily, The News.[2] The report was authored by Amir Mir who is known by leading American strategic analysts as "a well-regarded Pakistani terrorism expert."[3] The report, relying on internal Pakistani government sources, alleges that from January 14, 2006 to April 8, 2009, U.S. drone bombings killed 687 civilians and 14 al-Qaeda operatives, amounting to a ratio of nearly 50 civilians killed for every al-Qaeda operative killed, or a 94% civilian death rate. Out of 60 total strikes, only 10 hit any al-Qaeda targets. The sources attributed the failed drone attacks to "faulty intelligence information" which resulted in the "killing [of] hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children." It goes on to detail the numbers of deaths, the statuses of the victims, and the dates of specific attacks, all within annual and monthly time frames.

This report has since been cited and endorsed by several relevant and mainstream commentators, despite the fact that it has been largely ignored, or at best, marginalized and down-played, by the mainstream media in the United States. Most notably, in a meeting with Congress this past May, former senior counterinsurgency advisor to the U.S. Army, David Kilcullen, told the U.S. government to "call off the drones" noting that "since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area." In a New York Times article[4] just weeks later, Kilcullen co-authored an editorial with Andrew Exum—a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan—in which they cited the casualty ratio and figures from The News' April 2009 report as evidence of the lack of precision in the drone policy.[5]

An interesting read from here: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23346

I thought I post it as I believe the Afghanistan and Pakistan issues are closely related.

I always put a lot of stock in Pakistani newspaper reports.

Quote:

Most notably, in a meeting with Congress this past May, former senior counterinsurgency advisor to the U.S. Army, David Kilcullen, told the U.S. government to "call off the drones" noting that "since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area." In a New York Times article[4] just weeks later, Kilcullen co-authored an editorial with Andrew Exum—a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan—in which they cited the casualty ratio and figures from The News' April 2009 report as evidence of the lack of precision in the drone policy.[5]

Read again.....

The US has a large number of "advisors" as well as soldiers with different opinons about the war and how it should be fought. It is pretty easy for a crap newspaper to pick out some with an opinion that they agree with and then make them sound a lot more important than they really are.

It is kind of like claiming that an Israeli shares your opinion about their war.

Snip:

The most cited and controversial report to date on the casualty results of U.S. drone strikes is the April 2009 report published by Pakistan's leading English daily, The News.[2] The report was authored by Amir Mir who is known by leading American strategic analysts as "a well-regarded Pakistani terrorism expert."[3] The report, relying on internal Pakistani government sources, alleges that from January 14, 2006 to April 8, 2009, U.S. drone bombings killed 687 civilians and 14 al-Qaeda operatives, amounting to a ratio of nearly 50 civilians killed for every al-Qaeda operative killed, or a 94% civilian death rate. Out of 60 total strikes, only 10 hit any al-Qaeda targets.

Quote:

Most notably, in a meeting with Congress this past May, former senior counterinsurgency advisor to the U.S. Army, David Kilcullen, told the U.S. government to "call off the drones" noting that "since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area." In a New York Times article[4] just weeks later, Kilcullen co-authored an editorial with Andrew Exum—a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan—in which they cited the casualty ratio and figures from The News' April 2009 report as evidence of the lack of precision in the drone policy.[5]

Read again.....

Which is it? 14 al Qaeda operatives or 14 senior al Qaeda leaders? If it's the latter, then they are not counting foot soldiers which would greatly increase the number. If it is the former, then the worst estimates are still only half of the 100:1 figures tossed about earlier.

I always put a lot of stock in Pakistani newspaper reports.

i don't agree and claim that pakistani newspapers have no idea what's going on in Pakistan. for correct and reliable information on Pakistan it is recommended to use the "National Enquirer" and/or the "Ku-Kluxers Weekly" which is published every saturday in Birmingham, Alabama.

They say that the Aryan Times is very similar.

Somehow I'm reminded of these women

"1 Samuel 18:7And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands."

The US has a large number of "advisors" as well as soldiers with different opinons about the war and how it should be fought. It is pretty easy for a crap newspaper to pick out some with an opinion that they agree with and then make them sound a lot more important than they really are.

It is kind of like claiming that an Israeli shares your opinion about their war.

So you say the New York Times is a crap NP, fine. Please provide a more legitimate source of information that rebuts these claims.

When you mention they are just opinions from those Generals and soldiers that served there, you mean their claims are not legitimate?

What gives you the right to say and claim that their experiences are just opinions and do not reflect what is going on there?

.

I guess you never heard that old saying, "Opinions are like <deleted>. Everyone has one and they all stink.” That is why only one guy is the leader and only his opinion really counts.

The US has a large number of "advisors" as well as soldiers with different opinons about the war and how it should be fought. It is pretty easy for a crap newspaper to pick out some with an opinion that they agree with and then make them sound a lot more important than they really are.

It is kind of like claiming that an Israeli shares your opinion about their war.

So you say the New York Times is a crap NP, fine. Please provide a more legitimate source of information that rebuts these claims.

When you mention they are just opinions from those Generals and soldiers that served there, you mean their claims are not legitimate?

What gives you the right to say and claim that their experiences are just opinions and do not reflect what is going on there?

Alex, I think you might have missed this...

Which is it? 14 al Qaeda operatives or 14 senior al Qaeda leaders? If it's the latter, then they are not counting foot soldiers which would greatly increase the number. If it is the former, then the worst estimates are still only half of the 100:1 figures tossed about earlier.

Alex, I think you might have missed this...

Which is it? 14 al Qaeda operatives or 14 senior al Qaeda leaders? If it's the latter, then they are not counting foot soldiers which would greatly increase the number. If it is the former, then the worst estimates are still only half of the 100:1 figures tossed about earlier.

Tomato's...Tomatoes?

Glad to hear in your estimation it is only 50/1 then....whew so much better eh?

Alex, I think you might have missed this...

Which is it? 14 al Qaeda operatives or 14 senior al Qaeda leaders? If it's the latter, then they are not counting foot soldiers which would greatly increase the number. If it is the former, then the worst estimates are still only half of the 100:1 figures tossed about earlier.

Tomato's...Tomatoes?

Glad to hear in your estimation it is only 50/1 then....whew so much better eh?

If you count foot soldiers it's probably closer to 0.5:1 which is 200 times better so that is much better, yeah.

The US has a large number of "advisors" as well as soldiers with different opinons about the war and how it should be fought. It is pretty easy for a crap newspaper to pick out some with an opinion that they agree with and then make them sound a lot more important than they really are.

It is kind of like claiming that an Israeli shares your opinion about their war.

So you say the New York Times is a crap NP, fine. Please provide a more legitimate source of information that rebuts these claims.

When you mention they are just opinions from those Generals and soldiers that served there, you mean their claims are not legitimate?

What gives you the right to say and claim that their experiences are just opinions and do not reflect what is going on there?

Alex, I think you might have missed this...

Which is it? 14 al Qaeda operatives or 14 senior al Qaeda leaders? If it's the latter, then they are not counting foot soldiers which would greatly increase the number. If it is the former, then the worst estimates are still only half of the 100:1 figures tossed about earlier.

How to distinguish the leaders from the operatives and foot soldiers and civilians when they are dead?

These are supposed Taliban fighters, are they members of Al Quiada and do they pose a risk to the American way of life?

Are they potential terrorist?

How to distinguish them?

Ore is it just shoot every raghead just like the Mai Lai "Incident"

Anyone that moved after shooting a few rounds in front of them, was considered hostile and should be killed.

Great policy...

The US Government publicized this incident and caught and punished the perpetrators 40 years ago. What else do you want?