« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
some1onearth
Joined: May 23, 2005
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 20
Country: United States
Province/State: Washington
City: Seattle
|
Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 9, 2006 - 05:49 AM
|
|
instead of fighting terrorism and killing number-2-most wanted terrorist-Ayman al-Zawahiri, U.S. missils, once again, mistarget.
eighteen civilians killed-including children and women, when the missils come and destroyed atleast three houses in small village, few kilometers from Pakistan-Afghan border on friday (1/13/06)
it's the second time after the similar incident killed eight others few days before.
meanwhile, the one who called terrorist is alive and still lost.
ha ,it's funny, and tragic.
in the name of fighting terrorism, the United States has become a threat, a nightmare, a terror for others.
what do you say?
peace
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 11, 2006 - 02:17 AM
|
|
Originally posted by thomasbradley
There were known terrorists in that house that were killed. If you check a newspaper you would have seen that. And as for the innocents killed,if you lie with dogs you are one.
I would think Islam is becoming a threat to others.Look at the Paris riots,look at the so called cartoon riots,that are still going on. There are other ways to accomplish things than thru threats and violence. Isn't Islam the religion of peace?
There weren't. Pakistani intelligence claims that there have been several terrorists killed, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. But then again, even if there were, the US violated both legal and moral law.
Without informing the Pakistani government officials, their sovereingty was violated.
It was morally wrong becuase the CIA could predict that it would cause civilian casualties (which it did) and went on with it.
Your argument "if you lie with dogs, you are one" is not applicable here. We are talking about children here. What are you talking about?
I already talked about this issue in more details. It's here: http://www.takingitglobal.org/connections/discuss/showthread.html?s=&threadid=13048
As the report by Los Angeles Times mentions, at least 12 such operations have been conducted since 9/11. CIA officials claim that 4 Al-Qaeda commanders have been killed. But, they say, nobody knows how many civilians have been killed. According to CIA officials' own testimony, 8 out of 12 operations didn't kill any terrorists, but very likely dozens of civilians.
If terrorists were in Israeli or British territory and that a Predator attack would endanger the lives of Israelis or British, CIA would NOT attack for sure. The point here is that Pakistani lives are not as "valuable."
Let's say Russians decided that Basaev or one his closest associates is in the United States territory and they hit the area where they thought the terrorist is, but instead they kill 18 American civilians, most of them children. Would you justify that?
The problem with your thinking is that you seem be unable to apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others.
What about riots in France? What does Islam have to do with that? It was the socio-economic condition of Arabs in French ghettoes and Sarcozi's racist statements that caused the riots.
As for the cartoon issue, the debate on it is going on in a different thread. You are welcome to express your opinions there. But I would still mention that most of the protesters against ugly cartoons did it peacefully. The media is just focusing on violent ones.
Yes, Islam is the religion of peace. The Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings be Upon Him, was vilified, slandered against, insulted countless numbers, but what he would do in those cases was praying for people who insulted him.
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
thomas bradley
Joined: Jan 2, 2006
Posts: 2
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: Brooklyn Heights
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 11, 2006 - 06:48 AM
|
|
"There weren't. Pakistani intelligence claims that there have been several terrorists killed, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. But then again, even if there were, the US violated both legal and moral law."
I think there were 3 or 4 killed.
"Without informing the Pakistani government officials, their sovereingty was violated."
The US should tell Pakistan their plans,so the Pakistan goverment could inform the targets.
"It was morally wrong becuase the CIA could predict that it would cause civilian casualties (which it did) and went on with it."
But 9-11 and most other terrorist attacks have killed civilians. The US is at war with Islamic terrorism and in war civilians unfortunatly will be killed.
"Your argument "if you lie with dogs, you are one" is not applicable here. We are talking about children here. What are you talking about?"
"The parents knew who was there and should not have brought their children."
"I already talked about this issue in more details. It's here: http://www.takingitglobal.org/connections/discuss/showthread.html?s=&threadid=13048
As the report by Los Angeles Times mentions, at least 12 such operations have been conducted since 9/11. CIA officials claim that 4 Al-Qaeda commanders have been killed. But, they say, nobody knows how many civilians have been killed. According to CIA officials' own testimony, 8 out of 12 operations didn't kill any terrorists, but very likely dozens of civilians.
If terrorists were in Israeli or British territory and that a Predator attack would endanger the lives of Israelis or British, CIA would NOT attack for sure. The point here is that Pakistani lives are not as "valuable."
Let's say Russians decided that Basaev or one his closest associates is in the United States territory and they hit the area where they thought the terrorist is, but instead they kill 18 American civilians, most of them children. Would you justify that? "
War can never be justified,but there will always be war.
I'm sure civilians are killed in these types of operations.It's unfortunate but it happens.
"The problem with your thinking is that you seem be unable to apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. "
I sure can and unless you can read my mind you don't have a clue how I think and feel.
"What about riots in France? What does Islam have to do with that? It was the socio-economic condition of Arabs in French ghettoes and Sarcozi's racist statements that caused the riots. "
The French riots were mostly muslems,and they blew everything out of proportion.
"As for the cartoon issue, the debate on it is going on in a different thread. You are welcome to express your opinions there. But I would still mention that most of the protesters against ugly cartoons did it peacefully. The media is just focusing on violent ones. "
12 people have been killed,I don't think it is peaceful.
"Yes, Islam is the religion of peace. The Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings be Upon Him, was vilified, slandered against, insulted countless numbers, but what he would do in those cases was praying for people who insulted him. "
There is an awful lot of evidence to go against your religion of peace story.
Other religions have had to put up with worse than cartoons,and I don't remember any riots.
When the pope was shot by a muslem...no riots.
When a picture of the Virgin Mary was on diplay in NYC with feces and penises drawn on it.....no riots.
These people need to realize they don't live in the 13th century.
Arslan[/B][/QUOTE]
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
thomas bradley
Joined: Jan 2, 2006
Posts: 2
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: Brooklyn Heights
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 11, 2006 - 09:44 AM
|
|
There were known terrorists in that house that were killed. If you check a newspaper you would have seen that. And as for the innocents killed,if you lie with dogs you are one.
I would think Islam is becoming a threat to others.Look at the Paris riots,look at the so called cartoon riots,that are still going on. There are other ways to accomplish things than thru threats and violence. Isn't Islam the religion of peace?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
mnopq
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 134
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender: Male
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Al Qahirah
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 12, 2006 - 01:16 AM
|
|
Originally posted by thomasbradley
"There weren't. Pakistani intelligence claims that there have been several terrorists killed, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. But then again, even if there were, the US violated both legal and moral law."
"Without informing the Pakistani government officials, their sovereingty was violated."
The US should tell Pakistan their plans,so the Pakistan goverment could inform the targets.
I tend to agree with Arslan on this: America gives itself too many liberties in a "war" agains terrorism. By its definition WAR is a confrontation happening between well structured entities:
"War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians." -quote Wikipedia
Secondly, the misuse and I would say rather abuse of that word by G.W. Bush is just an excus to do what seems correct according to the US policy. America is fighting an amorph mass of extremists, which is not a "war on terrorism" as it claims, but more should be called "eradication of extreme and radical elements which harm peaceful policies".
"It was morally wrong becuase the CIA could predict that it would cause civilian casualties (which it did) and went on with it."
But 9-11 and most other terrorist attacks have killed civilians. The US is at war with Islamic terrorism and in war civilians unfortunatly will be killed.
9/11 was the most visible and large scale attack of that sort on the US, or for that matter on any Christian nation, during recent 10 years or so. And it was the one that made too much of noise cause there were Arabs dubbed terrorists who hijacked planes and did the abominable thing. And many innocent civilians died...
But what do you then call American activities in Iraq, Vietnam etc??? I dont think these or other cases were githful wars, rather mostly a massacre, whether targeted or no, of innocent civilians.. you see its the same, but name of those activities was not terrorism acts, it was dubbed WAR by Americans and American propaganda spread it as war...
Thats the difference.. but the essence remains the same: Americans kill and get killed and not only Americans do..
And all similar actions, whether instrumented by Arabs, Christians, Americans or Arabs SHOULD be condemned and prevented.
Cheers,
H.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 14, 2006 - 03:26 AM
|
|
"It was morally wrong becuase the CIA could predict that it would cause civilian casualties (which it did) and went on with it."
But 9-11 and most other terrorist attacks have killed civilians. The US is at war with Islamic terrorism and in war civilians unfortunatly will be killed.
Are you admitting that the US is adopting the terrorists' policies?
You are saying the US is at war. Well, Al-Qaeda also was at war with the US. Do you support the attack on Pentagon (which they consider a powerful terrorist center) which killed American citizens on the grounds that "in war civilians unfortunately will be killed"?
"The problem with your thinking is that you seem be unable to apply the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. "
I sure can and unless you can read my mind you don't have a clue how I think and feel.
I hope you can show here your ability to apply the same standards to yourself that you do to others. Let's try.
The Russian intelligence claims to have evidences that Ahmed Zakayev has been involved in financing terrorist activities in Chechnya. If the Russians try to assassinate him in Britain (that's where he is now in political asylum), but instead kill 18 civilians. Would that be OK?
Or, take another example. It's needless to mention that Posada whom the US have given refuge for many years is a terrorist. Everybody knows that. If the Cuban intelligence tries to assassinate Posada in American territory but fails and instead kills 18 American citizens. Would it be OK?
Let's see how you answer this questions. It will be clear whether you can apply the same standards to yourself.
"What about riots in France? What does Islam have to do with that? It was the socio-economic condition of Arabs in French ghettoes and Sarcozi's racist statements that caused the riots. "
The French riots were mostly muslems,and they blew everything out of proportion.
Haven't anyone other than Muslims rioted ever? Did you forget Civil Rights movements in your country? Were all protests peaceful? Or were all African-American rioters Muslim? {Answer: No)
It seems that for you Muslims have no right to riot. Whatever bad Muslims do is because of Islam, right?
The French rioters were the disgruntled youth who don't have education, who don't have job opportunities, and who are victims of discrimination. Yet who aren't good practicing Muslims either. Before demanding to be peaceful from them, the French government must teach them what is to be peaceful. They should first teach them who Ghandi is, who Martin Luther King is.
And for God's sake, they are not "scum that needs to be cleansed." What doy you think will be the reaction if Rumsfeld or Gonzales -- any person who holds as high a position as Sarcozy -- makes racist statements about African-Americans in your country?
"As for the cartoon issue, the debate on it is going on in a different thread. You are welcome to express your opinions there. But I would still mention that most of the protesters against ugly cartoons did it peacefully. The media is just focusing on violent ones. "
12 people have been killed,I don't think it is peaceful.
Again, you ignore peaceful Muslims, focus on violent ones, and lump together all Muslims. You lump together Islam in general. You have so many people killed and injured during Civil Rights movements. Do you consider then King or his policy to be violent?
There is an awful lot of evidence to go against your religion of peace story.
Other religions have had to put up with worse than cartoons,and I don't remember any riots.
When the pope was shot by a muslem...no riots.
When a picture of the Virgin Mary was on diplay in NYC with feces and penises drawn on it.....no riots.
These people need to realize they don't live in the 13th century.
Obviously, Nazis had "an awful lot of evidence" to go against Jews-are-peaceful story. Your government had "an awful lot of evidence" to go against blacks-are-equal-to-whites story. Even today, 74% of your prison population are black people while blacks constitute less than 20%. In Texas, you have 92% of black population in prisons. Perhaps, here also you have "an awful lot of evidence" to claim that blacks are naturally prone to commit crimes. Do you?
I have heard your "an awful lot of evidence" a million times. I have debated it and am tired already.
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 14, 2006 - 04:25 AM
|
|
Arslan, Someoneonearth.
This is a real war - it is not for the faint of heart - and if they have solid intelligence that Zawahirir and his people are going to be some place they need to pull the trigger.
What HAS been confirmed is that A - a top Al Qaeda Bomb designer was killed - and B Zawahiri was invited for dinner - and number of his deputies went.
America did not fire the missle in order to kill a bunch of innocent people - or terrorize the local community - they fired it to kill members of AL Qaeda.
What is really remarkable is that this is the first time this has happened in a long time, which suggests that the US is waiting for solid intelligence before pulling the trigger.
but as Senator Kerry said - this is not for the Faint of Heart - if we see an opportunity to take out Al Qaeda leadership we cannot fear to pull the trigger.
"Are you admitting that the US is adopting the terrorists' policies?" - Arslan
Not at all and you know it. America was not aiming for civilians - they were aiming at terrorists.
But more to the point Arslan, how do you suggest we handle this? Are you saying that all a terrorist has to do in order to hide safely is walk into a villiage, so long as he keeps some civilians around him he will be immune - is that what you are suggesting?
basically you are saying that we cannot fight Al Qaeda, or that we shouldn't.
It was Al Qaeda's luitenants who put those civilians in danger - by going to their house, and the heads of that family for inviting them.
It also begs the question - if they invited Zawahiri over for dinner - are they really civilians in the first place.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
mnopq
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 134
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender: Male
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Al Qahirah
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 02:44 AM
|
|
Luke,
I am not going to give any more evidence (whether from past or present) that American government is not doing "well".
Arslan provided you enough sources and some of them independent and some American.
I notice you mostly explain away most of arguments against US government. Lot of people in this thread think that American foreign policies are not functionning as they expect themselves to according to the international public opinion backed by HARD facts..
You are American, which firstly means(as applied also for all countries) that American media that you mostly read and watch are not going to blackmail US government cause most medias are directly or indirectly controlled or influenced by political parties or the government itself. Thats normal! Every local media is orienting according to beliefs, values of a country.
Now, when you have so many people saying that American policies are not as good as you think they are it means that there is something wrong, maybe not totally, but at least partially.
Most of people posting in this thread I consider knowledgable and, in my opinion, none of them is anti-American per se. They just think America should make sure it doesnt harm other nations (innocent populations) while executing its own projects or "war".
And this is an aimless conversation here!
I think that any intelligent person who doesnt want to be convinced IS NOT going to be convinced no matter what evidence is shown..
As all parties of this discussion including Luke, Arslan and the rest are, in my opinion, quite knowledgable and intelligent, I dont see any end to this discussion!
Cheers,
H.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 04:25 AM
|
|
mnopq -
I read Al Jazeera EVERY DAY online (today they are headlining with Hamas going to Russia). I read the Guardian EVERY DAY.
I am no more a victim of my media than you are of yours.
"saying that American policies are not as good as you think they are it means that there is something wrong, maybe not totally, but at least partially" - mnopq
You don't seem to understnd me at all - I don't support Bush at all - I think he is basically the worst President since Nixon.
I am not in favor of the war in Iraq - at least as it was executed - I didn't have a problem with knocking over Saddam, but such things have to be done with great care and wisdom and the Administraition tried to do it on the cheap.
I think for all the blood and treasure - we will end up handing Iraq over to Iran - which is lunacy.
I think the basic dilemma which confronts countries trying to combat terror are two-fold.
One is a balance with Civil Liberties on the domestic front.
and the second is the basic issue of having to wage a violent confrontation amongst civilian populations on the foreign front.
And no, I don' think the Administraition is being smart about it - they are not fiscally responsible either - and basically the Radicals like Bin LAden are trying to bankrupt us so that when we withdraw they can wage war on moderate Muslims - who frankly have more to fear than we do.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 08:07 AM
|
|
Luke,
Don't you think that if your anti-terrorist measures actually encourage more terrorism and a much greater resentment in the Muslim world, at least, it's better not to do it?
Millions of people have not died in ANY war since WW2 - except the Iran/Iraq war which apparently killed about 1 million in 20 years.
How about Vietnam?
"Saddam Hussain was given weapons to fight Iran for 20 years. Becuase it was in the interest of USA to make two Muslim Countries fight." - Goodway
He was NOT given weapons for 20 years - more like 5 - and it was not a matter of making them fight - they were already fighting.
It was more than that, Luke.
Not only King Fahd, but also Alexander Haig confirmed that Jimmy Carter gave "a green light" for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran:
consortiumnews.com
Missing U.S.-Iraq History
By Robert Parry
February 27, 2003
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/022703.html
Less than two months after Saddam’s trip, with Carter still frustrated by his inability to win release of the 52 Americans imprisoned in Iran, Saddam invaded Iran on Sept. 22, 1980. The war would rage for eight years and kill an estimated one million people.
The claim of Carter’s “green light” for the invasion was made by senior Arab leaders, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, to President Reagan’s first secretary of state, Alexander Haig, when Haig traveled to the Middle East in April 1981, according to “top secret” talking points that Haig prepared for a post-trip briefing of Reagan.
Haig wrote that he was impressed with “bits of useful intelligence” that he had learned. “Both [Egypt’s Anwar] Sadat and [Saudi then-Prince] Fahd [explained that] Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel,” Haig noted. “It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd.”
Haig’s “talking points” were first disclosed at Consortiumnews.com in 1995 after I discovered the document amid records from a congressional investigation into the early history of the Reagan administration’s contacts with Iran. At that time, Haig refused to answer questions about the “talking points” because they were still classified. Though not responding to direct questions about the “talking points,” Carter has pooh-poohed other claims that he gave Saddam encouragement for the invasion.
You can read the document yourself here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html
I hope they [Iran and Iraq] kill each other ... too bad they both can't lose.
Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and a Nobel Peace Prize Recipient.
When the Iran-Iraq war began, over a million very young men lost their lives in that war. Henry Kissinger said at the beginning of that war, eight years the war, “I hope they kill each other”. And that was exactly our policy.
Ramsy Clark, former US Attorney General.
Now, am I saying that it was the US who instigated the Iran-Iraq war? No. What I am saying is that the information I am posting should be well taken into consideration when the issue of Iran-Iraq war discussed.
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 08:33 AM
|
|
The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
February 14, 2006
by William Blum
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer30.htm
On January 13 the United States of America, in its shocking and awesome wisdom, saw fit to fly an unmanned Predator aircraft over a remote village in the sovereign nation of Pakistan and fire a Hellfire missile into a residential compound in an attempt to kill some "bad guys". Several houses were incinerated, 18 people were killed, including an unknown number of "bad guys"; reports since then give every indication that the unknown number is as low as zero, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, the principal target, not being amongst them. Outrage is still being expressed in Pakistan. In the United States the reaction in the Senate typified the American outrage:
"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again" said Sen. John McCain of Arizona
"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" said Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.
"My information is that this strike was clearly justified by the intelligence," said Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi.[4]
Similar US attacks using such drones and missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. In has not been uncommon for the destruction to be so complete that it is impossible to establish who was killed, or even how many people. Amnesty International has lodged complaints with the Busheviks following each suspected Predator strike. A UN report in the wake of the 2002 strike in Yemen called it "an alarming precedent [and] a clear case of extrajudicial killing" in violation of international laws and treaties.[5]
Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a house in Paris or London or Ottawa because they suspected that high-ranking al Qaeda members were present there? Even if the US knew of their presence for an absolute fact, and not just speculation as in the Predator cases mentioned above? Well, most likely not, but can we put anything past Swaggering- Superarrogant-Superpower-Cowboys-on-steroids? After all, they've already done it to their own, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On May 13, 1985, a bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict an organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.
The victims were all black of course. So let's rephrase the question. Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a residential area of Beverly Hills or the upper east side of Manhattan? Stay tuned.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
New Salem Witch Trials
February 16, 2006 - 08:39 AM
|
|
Los Angeles Times
February 14, 2006
EDITORIAL
The Gitmo disgrace
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gitmo14feb14,0,4946566.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
It is becoming evident that the majority of the men held in Guantanamo were not, in fact, captured in battle. A study of individual detainee cases published recently by the National Journal argued persuasively that more than half of the detainees currently in Guantanamo were abducted in the mountains of Pakistan by warlords who handed them over to U.S. forces for cash rewards, sometimes $1,000 a head. At a time when U.S. forces were unable to find Osama bin Laden, and were desperate to find enemy soldiers in the mountainous caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan, tribal informers apparently had a field day pointing to their own enemies as a way to supply human chattel, who ended up in Guantanamo.
Many of their individual case files suggest that government lawyers felt pressured to find, or invent, evidence that detainees actually knew something about Al Qaeda operations. One Yemeni prisoner was interrogated so roughly that, according to the National Journal, he finally said in exasperation, "OK, I saw Bin Laden five times: three times on Al Jazeera and twice on Yemeni news." His "admission" was duly recorded in a case file: "Detainee admitted to knowing Osama bin Laden."
His case is not uncommon. For detainees at Guantanamo, legal proceedings appear to resemble Salem witchcraft trials. Presumption of guilt and tarring by association abound, while the rules of evidence are perfunctory.These are not the American values our soldiers are fighting for.
Here is more info on how the "War on Terror" is being conducted.
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Sarah
Joined: Jul 19, 2003
Posts: 17
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 23
Country: Cayman Islands
Province/State: South Town
|
Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 08:47 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Arslanik
[b]The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
February 14, 2006
by William Blum
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer30.htm
On January 13 the United States of America, in its shocking and awesome wisdom, saw fit to fly an unmanned Predator aircraft over a remote village in the sovereign nation of Pakistan and fire a Hellfire missile into a residential compound in an attempt to kill some "bad guys". Several houses were incinerated, 18 people were killed, including an unknown number of "bad guys"; reports since then give every indication that the unknown number is as low as zero, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, the principal target, not being amongst them. Outrage is still being expressed in Pakistan. In the United States the reaction in the Senate typified the American outrage:
"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again" said Sen. John McCain of Arizona
"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" said Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.
"My information is that this strike was clearly justified by the intelligence," said Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi.[4]
Similar US attacks using such drones and missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. In has not been uncommon for the destruction to be so complete that it is impossible to establish who was killed, or even how many people. Amnesty International has lodged complaints with the Busheviks following each suspected Predator strike. A UN report in the wake of the 2002 strike in Yemen called it "an alarming precedent [and] a clear case of extrajudicial killing" in violation of international laws and treaties.[5]
Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a house in Paris or London or Ottawa because they suspected that high-ranking al Qaeda members were present there? Even if the US knew of their presence for an absolute fact, and not just speculation as in the Predator cases mentioned above? Well, most likely not, but can we put anything past Swaggering- Superarrogant-Superpower-Cowboys-on-steroids? After all, they've already done it to their own, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On May 13, 1985, a bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict an organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.
The victims were all black of course. So let's rephrase the question. Can it be imagined that American officials would fire a missile into a residential area of Beverly Hills or the upper east side of Manhattan? Stay tuned. [/B]
Your point being???
Correct me if I am wrong but the central theme I have gathered so far is that you’re saying that Americans are racist. But isn't racism and intolerance the same thing you are doing with this and your other posts?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 117
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Turkmenistan
Province/State: Dashoguz
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 09:32 AM
|
|
Luke,
I am really surprised to hear you supporting this act. I thought you would not. You simply fail to answer my questions that draw a moral equivalence to the incident: the case of Ahmed Zakayev or Posada. Can the intelligence of other countries hit terrorists in your country knowing that it will endanger and quite likely kill innocent civilians--"collateral damage" in the ugly language of your political establishement?
You say that the US is at war. So says Russia. Russia says it is at war with Chechen warlords and believe that Zakayev has financed, and may finance future terrorist activities inside Russia. Would you justify it if FSB made a Predator strike on British land without notifying the British government in the same way you are supporting CIA's terrorist attack on a Pakistani village? (Yes, terrorist, because whatever its intention the attack terrorized the village.)
Originally posted by luke
Arslan, Someoneonearth.
This is a real war - it is not for the faint of heart - and if they have solid intelligence that Zawahirir and his people are going to be some place they need to pull the trigger.
What HAS been confirmed is that A - a top Al Qaeda Bomb designer was killed - and B Zawahiri was invited for dinner - and number of his deputies went.
America did not fire the missle in order to kill a bunch of innocent people - or terrorize the local community - they fired it to kill members of AL Qaeda.
What is really remarkable is that this is the first time this has happened in a long time, which suggests that the US is waiting for solid intelligence before pulling the trigger.
What is really remarkable is that this is NOT the first time this has happened in a long time, but this is the first time you have been informed about it. What is really remarkable is that the CIA was able to keep it in secret. I have already posted the report. Perhaps, you haven't read it yet. Here it is (please read the ones selected in bold very carefully):
Los Angeles times
CIA Expands Use of Drones in Terror War
By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-predator29jan29,1,615453.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
"WASHINGTON — Despite protests from other countries, the United States is expanding a top-secret effort to kill suspected terrorists with drone-fired missiles as it pursues an increasingly decentralized Al Qaeda, U.S. officials say.
"The strike against Zawahiri reportedly killed as many as 18 civilians, many of them women and children, and triggered protests in Pakistan. Similar U.S. attacks using unmanned Predator aircraft equipped with Hellfire missiles have angered citizens and political leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen.
"Several U.S. officials confirmed at least 19 occasions since Sept. 11 on which Predators successfully fired Hellfire missiles on terrorist suspects overseas, including 10 in Iraq in one month last year. The Predator strikes have killed at least four senior Al Qaeda leaders, but also many civilians, and it is not known how many times they missed their targets.
"The CIA does not even acknowledge that such a targeted-killing program exists, and SOME ATTACKS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AS CAR BOMBINGS OR OTHER INCIDENTS [does "other" stand for suicide bombings or what?--Arslan]. It is not known how many militants or bystanders have been killed by Predator strikes, but anecdotal evidence suggests the NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANT.
INE SOME CASES, THE DESTRUCTION WAS SO COMPLETE THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH WHO WAS KILLED, OR EVEN HOW MANY PEOPLE.
"There were some well-publicized failures before the Zawahiri strike. In February 2002, a Predator tracked and killed a tall man in flowing robes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The CIA believed it was firing at Bin Laden, but the victim turned out to be someone else.
"Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government had targeted Bin Laden in at least one Cruise missile strike [which killed 27 civilians--Arslan]. But the CIA was reluctant to engage in targeted killings because it said the laws regarding assassinations were too vague and the agency could face criminal charges."
As this report shows, not only CIA doesn't care about the lives of "collateral damage," but also that the CIA intelligence sucks. You have at least 19 predator strikes since 9/11, as the report shows, but 4 Al-Qaeda senior officials killed. Do your calculation.
As the report shows, in some instances the destruction was so complete that it was impossible to find out who was killed and how many were killed.
Honestly, Luke, I am really disappointed to hear that you support such strikes, such a policy.
But more to the point Arslan, how do you suggest we handle this? Are you saying that all a terrorist has to do in order to hide safely is walk into a villiage, so long as he keeps some civilians around him he will be immune - is that what you are suggesting?
basically you are saying that we cannot fight Al Qaeda, or that we shouldn't.
It was Al Qaeda's luitenants who put those civilians in danger - by going to their house, and the heads of that family for inviting them.
It also begs the question - if they invited Zawahiri over for dinner - are they really civilians in the first place.
You guys, perhaps, have killed terrorists there, but there is a greater number of civilians that have been killed in the strike (according to LA report, at least 18). And this is just one incident out of many.
Luke, how would capture or assassinate terrorists if they somehow turn out to be in your country? Will you just blow him up where he is which may kill ordinary citizens of your country, or do you do everything in your hands to save the lives of civilians?
Now, are you suggesting that you are fighting Al-Qaeda? Give me a break. You guys are strengthening it day by day. Look at this scary report:
Al-Jazeera Net
US terror suspect list growing fast
Wednesday 15 February 2006, 13:47 Makka Time, 10:47 GMT[b]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2EB9D7B6-C2B2-4CBE-9559-A5B9414768CD.htm
The US National Counterterrorism Centre maintains a list of 325,000 names of alleged international terrorism suspects or people who aid them.
Now, is that any of these 325,000 people may be assasinated by the CIA by the decision of the officials at Langley?
The report goes futher:
Citing unnamed counter-terrorism officials, the Washington Post newspaper said on Wednesday that the number had more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003.
Here is the proof for you that you guys actually are not fighting terrorism, but encouraging it. Why do you think the number has quadrupled since the fall of 2003? The number of terrorists, or just people willing to attack America or anything American is growing day by day. But you guys don't get it.
You might have killed 4 terrorists in Pakistan with the predator strike. But now you have, may be 40, may be 400, [b]additional Pakistanis or other Muslims willing to attack your country or your people. This is just logical and as plain as day.
Now, there is another interesting point mentioned in Al-Jazeera report:
The paper said because the same person may appear under different spellings or aliases, the true number of separate individuals was estimated to be more than 200,000.
But the paper [Washington Post] doesn't say that some of the people out of 325,000 may NOT be actually terrorists. It doesn't consider this despite the fact that you have so many cases of intelligence failure. So many people have been wrongly assassinated. So many people have been wrongly tortured. But never mind, this is a "War on Terror."
Luke, did you forget that it was the same intelligence that led to the war in Iraq? Did you forget Powell's report to UN?
Arslan
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 156
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 30
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Blum's comment on Predator attack
February 16, 2006 - 10:06 AM
|
|
Arslan - I don't think either of us know enough about who was in the house.
If AL Qaeda's top bomb maker WAS in there then yeah - pull the trigger.
As for the "same intelligence that lead us into Iraq" - that is kind of silly - are you saying the CIA officer who called in the strike was the same one who told us to go into Iraq?
It is a big organizaiton - but more to the point you seem to be tying our hands - if we are never to trust any intelligence, or cannot take any action against people like Zawahiri and his luitenants - then how are we supposed to fight this?
Arslan - if you could solve this problem I would be very impressed with you.
Because Al Qaeda is not cooperating and staying out of civilian areas.
"Luke, how would capture or assassinate terrorists if they somehow turn out to be in your country?" - Arslan
this is a rediculous comparison - We have captured AL Qaeda cells in our country - but in this country we are in complete control and police can just arrest them.
In Northern Pakistan no one is in control - not even the Pakistani government - so it is not the same matter of police driving to the house.
Look anyway Arslan you are hitting on a central problem that comes in this struggle - the Israelis have been trying to deal with it for decades - how does one fight terrorists when they hide among the civilian population - without killing civilians?
As I said if you can solve this problem I would consider you a genius.
but you seem to be saying that the solution is to simply not fight them and that all Al Qaeda has to do in order to plot safely is hide in a house that has children in it.
As for the CIA being trigger happy - this can certainly be the case as well, no question -
You are right about that - and I do not think they should pull the trigger unless there is a real certainty as to who they are shooting at.
but again - are those who dine with terrorists really civilians? If someone had Hitler over for dinner - and the allies had a shot at him - would YOU support a strike on the house?
lets make that the question - its 1942, Hitler goes to a dinner - him and 2 luitenants, with 20 "civlians" (ie non-combatants, but obvious sympathizers that would want to have dinner with Hitler) - would you pull the trigger??
To put it simply I support targeting Zawahiri - I don't care what country he is in -
I deplore the death of innocents and agree that the CIA needs to watch its step and not cross the line to becoming terrorists themselves.
I just question how "innocent" are the people who would invite Zawahiri to dinner in the first place. If you invite one of the most famous terrorists to your house you MUST know that you are assuming risk - you must also sympathize with his plots and past crimes.
I also appreciate that this is a fundamental problem in the struggle with terrorism.
You can't simply leave them alone on the pretext that by fighting terrorism you are creating terrorism - because that leaves it unfought and unchecked and is obviously self-defeating.
You also can't simply let sympathetic villiages hide people like Zawahiri. But that said it is not a liscence to drop bombs into villiages for the hell of it.
So what is the Answer Arslan - how would you strike the balance?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
 1 2 3 »
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
