maz......you haven't come across honestly in the past.
While you can sometimes spin a good enough yarn, but details you leave out often turn out to be more important that the basis of your claims.
I simply don't trust you.
AMERICA: NO 1 WAR MONGER.....
- Thread starter mazHur
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
maz......you haven't come across honestly in the past.
While you can sometimes spin a good enough yarn, but details you leave out often turn out to be more important that the basis of your claims.
I simply don't trust you.
-
2KReplies
-
19KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Isnt pk the number one war monger?..Anything and everything can be a target..I think it is safe to say if we add up all the terrorist attacks to all the nations they win.
I like how it is claimed we started the war against terrorism...truth is we only responded to the attacks that we had been receiving.
I like how it is claimed we started the war against terrorism...truth is we only responded to the attacks that we had been receiving.
Mainstream media hasn't made mention of it very often, but al Qaeda has had it's presence felt through out southeast asia. And you saw that article of the China attack.
And then there are the Russian Chechen connections that are outside of al Qaeda direction but based in Pakistan. This USA article made mention of it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/19/russia-chechnya-terror-caucasus/2095995/
more:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/secret-battles-us-forces-chechen-terrorists/story?id=22580688
It's obvious there is a lot more terrorism emanating from Pakistan than our press has knowledge of.
So, yeah......Pakistan obviously leads the world by far as a war mongering nation.
Terrorists from PK are not only enemies of the US, as you can see, they are also an enemies of China and Russia.
The big three.
No, I was literally amazed that a white woman would stoop so as low as to get fucked by a dog!! That's an insult to human beings and humanity!!
what do you say about this>>??
President Obama and President Benigno S. Aquino III during a state dinner Monday night at Malacanang Palace in Manila. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times
Mr. Obama’s statement, delivered at the end of a weeklong trip to Asia, was a rare insight into a second-term president already sizing up his legacy as a statesman. By turns angry and rueful, his words suggested the distance he had traveled from the confident young leader who accepted a Nobel Peace Prize with a speech about the occasional necessity of war.
While he flatly rejected the Republican portrait of him as feckless in the face of crises like Syria, Mr. Obama seemed to be wrestling with a more nuanced critique, that aside from one or two swings for the fences — the nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example — his foreign policy had become a game of small ball.
Mr. Obama offered this trip as Exhibit A for the virtues of an incremental approach: He nudged along trade negotiations with Japan, consoled a bereaved ally in South Korea, cultivated ties with a once-hostile Malaysia and signed a modest defense agreement with the Philippines.
He drew a sharp contrast between the international coalition the United States had marshaled to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin and the proposals of some Republicans to funnel weapons to Ukrainian soldiers, which he mocked as ineffective.
“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force,” Mr. Obama said, “after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous cost to our troops and to our budget. And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?”
The president did not name his critics, except to refer to them as foreign policy commentators “in an office in Washington or New York.” He also referred to the Sunday morning talk shows, where Senator John McCain of Arizona, a fierce Obama critic, is a ubiquitous guest.
“If we took all of the actions that our critics have demanded, we’d lose count of the number of military conflicts that America would be engaged in,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
These days, one crisis follows on the heels of another. Even Mr. Obama’s Asian trip, which he had put off from October because of the government shutdown, was overshadowed by the tensions with Russia and the suspension of peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
When Mr. Obama returns to Washington on Tuesday, his advisers say, he wants to regain the offensive with several speeches, most notably a graduation address at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., next month, in which he will try to place his decisions on Syria, Ukraine and other crises into a broader context.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
He has done this before. In December 2009, when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, the president made a case for the responsible use of military force when responding to a terrorist attack, as in Afghanistan, or when looking to prevent the brutalization of a population, as in Libya.
Mr. Obama has not hesitated to use drones to target suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, showing an appetite for shadow warfare that surprised many of his supporters.
But the president’s profound reluctance to get drawn into Syria’s civil war shows no sign of wavering. For critics ranging from Mr. McCain to human rights activists, it has come to symbolize the erosion of America’s leadership role in the world during the Obama presidency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/world/obama-defends-foreign-policy-against-critics.html?hp&_r=0
April 29, 2014
How the U.S. Created the Afghan War -- and Then Lost It
Tomgram: Anand Gopal, How to Lose a War That Wasn't There
This is really simple. If you only read one book on America’s war in Afghanistan, it has to be Anand Gopal’s just published No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes. It’s an instant classic, a brilliant piece of reportage, and a stunning exploration of the lives of three Afghans (a housewife with a remarkable story, a local warlord, and a Taliban commander) behind whom lurk the Americans (mis)fighting their “war on terror.” Mother Jones calls it “a brilliant analysis of our military's dysfunction and a startlingly clear account of the consequences.” The New York Timesdescribes it as “devastating,” as well as “essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong.”It’s a tale of the Afghan War that, so many years later, has simply never been told and it couldn’t be more dramatic. In addition, for a contribution of $100 (or more) to this site -- money we’ll use to help out future Anand Gopals -- he will sign a personalized copy of his book for you. Check out our donation page for the details. Finally, for those of you in New York City, Gopal is giving a free lecture about his book and the Afghan War at the Cooper Union tonight at 6:30 pm. Check it out here. Tom]
You might think that 12-and-a-half years after it began, Washington would have learned something useful about its war on terror, but no such luck. If you remember, back in the distant days just after 9/11 when that war was launched (or, in a sense, “lost”), the Bush administration was readying itself to take out not just Osama bin Laden and his relatively small al-Qaeda outfit but “terror” itself, that amorphous monster of the twenty-first century. They were planning to do so in somewhere between 60 and 83 countries and, as they liked to say, “drain the swamp” globally.
In reality, they launched an overblown war not so much “on” terror, but “of” terror, one that, in place after place, from Afghanistan to Somalia, Pakistan to parts of Africa, destabilized regions and laid the basis for a spreading jihadist movement. In so many cases, as at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, they fulfilled Osama bin Laden’s wildest fantasies, creating the sort of recruiting posters from hell for future jihadists that al-Qaeda was itself incapable of.
So many years later, they seem to be repeating the process in Yemen. They are now escalating a “successful” drone and special operations war against a group in that impoverished land that calls itself al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The drones turn out to be pretty good at knocking off various figures in that movement, but they are in another sense like a godsend for it. In what are called “targeted killings,” but might better be termed (as Paul Woodward has) “speculative murders,” they repeatedly wipe out civilians, including women, children, and in one recent case, part of a wedding party. They are Washington’s calling card of death and as such they only ensure that more Yemenis will join or support AQAP.
The process of creating ever more enemies you must then kill started in Afghanistan in 2001, even if that remains news to most Americans. Now, TomDispatch regular Anand Gopal in his new book No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes offers a stunning history of how the U.S. fought its “war on terror” for almost a year in that country against -- quite literally -- ghosts. In the process, it resuscitated a Taliban movement that had ceased to exist and then found itself in a conflict it couldn’t win. It’s a story that’s never been told before, even if Washington’s second Afghan War makes no sense without it.
For many Americans, as Henry Ford so famously put it, history is bunk. In this case, however, history turns out to be everything that matters, and the rest has proved to be bloody, painful, and costly bunk. If you don’t believe me, read Gopal’s hidden history of the Afghan War at this website today and then get your hands on his book. Tom
How the U.S. Created the Afghan War -- and Then Lost It
The Unreported Story of How the Haqqani Network Became America's Greatest Enemy
By Anand Gopal
It was a typical Kabul morning. Malik Ashgar Square was already bumper-to-bumper with Corolla taxis, green police jeeps, honking minivans, and angry motorcyclists. There were boys selling phone cards and men waving wads of cash for exchange, all weaving their way around the vehicles amid exhaust fumes. At the gate of the Lycée Esteqial, one of the country’s most prestigious schools, students were kicking around a soccer ball. At the Ministry of Education, a weathered old Soviet-style building opposite the school, a line of employees spilled out onto the street. I was crossing the square, heading for the ministry, when I saw the suicide attacker.
He had Scandinavian features. Dressed in blue jeans and a white t-shirt, and carrying a large backpack, he began firing indiscriminately at the ministry. From my vantage point, about 50 meters away, I couldn’t quite see his expression, but he did not seem hurried or panicked. I took cover behind a parked taxi. It wasn’t long before the traffic police had fled and the square had emptied of vehicles.
Twenty-eight people, mostly civilians, died in attacks at the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, and elsewhere across the city that day in 2009. Afterward, U.S. authorities implicated the Haqqani Network, a shadowy outfit operating from Pakistan that had pioneered the use of multiple suicide bombers in headline-grabbing urban assaults. Unlike other Taliban groups, the Haqqanis’ approach to mayhem was worldly and sophisticated: they recruited Arabs, Pakistanis, even Europeans, and they were influenced by the latest in radical Islamist thought. Their leader, the septuagenarian warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani, was something like Osama bin Laden and Al Capone rolled into one, as fiercely ideological as he was ruthlessly pragmatic.
And so many years later, his followers are still fighting. Even with the U.S. withdrawing the bulk of its troops this year, up to 10,000 Special Operations forces, CIA paramilitaries, and their proxies will likely stay behind to battle the Haqqanis, the Taliban, and similar outfits in a war that seemingly has no end. With such entrenched enemies, the conflict today has an air of inevitability -- but it could all have gone so differently.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
Vi
How the U.S. Created the Afghan War -- and Then Lost It
Tomgram: Anand Gopal, How to Lose a War That Wasn't There
This is really simple. If you only read one book on America’s war in Afghanistan, it has to be Anand Gopal’s just published No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes. It’s an instant classic, a brilliant piece of reportage, and a stunning exploration of the lives of three Afghans (a housewife with a remarkable story, a local warlord, and a Taliban commander) behind whom lurk the Americans (mis)fighting their “war on terror.” Mother Jones calls it “a brilliant analysis of our military's dysfunction and a startlingly clear account of the consequences.” The New York Timesdescribes it as “devastating,” as well as “essential reading for anyone concerned about how America got Afghanistan so wrong.”It’s a tale of the Afghan War that, so many years later, has simply never been told and it couldn’t be more dramatic. In addition, for a contribution of $100 (or more) to this site -- money we’ll use to help out future Anand Gopals -- he will sign a personalized copy of his book for you. Check out our donation page for the details. Finally, for those of you in New York City, Gopal is giving a free lecture about his book and the Afghan War at the Cooper Union tonight at 6:30 pm. Check it out here. Tom]
You might think that 12-and-a-half years after it began, Washington would have learned something useful about its war on terror, but no such luck. If you remember, back in the distant days just after 9/11 when that war was launched (or, in a sense, “lost”), the Bush administration was readying itself to take out not just Osama bin Laden and his relatively small al-Qaeda outfit but “terror” itself, that amorphous monster of the twenty-first century. They were planning to do so in somewhere between 60 and 83 countries and, as they liked to say, “drain the swamp” globally.
In reality, they launched an overblown war not so much “on” terror, but “of” terror, one that, in place after place, from Afghanistan to Somalia, Pakistan to parts of Africa, destabilized regions and laid the basis for a spreading jihadist movement. In so many cases, as at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, they fulfilled Osama bin Laden’s wildest fantasies, creating the sort of recruiting posters from hell for future jihadists that al-Qaeda was itself incapable of.
So many years later, they seem to be repeating the process in Yemen. They are now escalating a “successful” drone and special operations war against a group in that impoverished land that calls itself al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The drones turn out to be pretty good at knocking off various figures in that movement, but they are in another sense like a godsend for it. In what are called “targeted killings,” but might better be termed (as Paul Woodward has) “speculative murders,” they repeatedly wipe out civilians, including women, children, and in one recent case, part of a wedding party. They are Washington’s calling card of death and as such they only ensure that more Yemenis will join or support AQAP.
The process of creating ever more enemies you must then kill started in Afghanistan in 2001, even if that remains news to most Americans. Now, TomDispatch regular Anand Gopal in his new book No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes offers a stunning history of how the U.S. fought its “war on terror” for almost a year in that country against -- quite literally -- ghosts. In the process, it resuscitated a Taliban movement that had ceased to exist and then found itself in a conflict it couldn’t win. It’s a story that’s never been told before, even if Washington’s second Afghan War makes no sense without it.
For many Americans, as Henry Ford so famously put it, history is bunk. In this case, however, history turns out to be everything that matters, and the rest has proved to be bloody, painful, and costly bunk. If you don’t believe me, read Gopal’s hidden history of the Afghan War at this website today and then get your hands on his book. Tom
How the U.S. Created the Afghan War -- and Then Lost It
The Unreported Story of How the Haqqani Network Became America's Greatest Enemy
By Anand Gopal
It was a typical Kabul morning. Malik Ashgar Square was already bumper-to-bumper with Corolla taxis, green police jeeps, honking minivans, and angry motorcyclists. There were boys selling phone cards and men waving wads of cash for exchange, all weaving their way around the vehicles amid exhaust fumes. At the gate of the Lycée Esteqial, one of the country’s most prestigious schools, students were kicking around a soccer ball. At the Ministry of Education, a weathered old Soviet-style building opposite the school, a line of employees spilled out onto the street. I was crossing the square, heading for the ministry, when I saw the suicide attacker.
He had Scandinavian features. Dressed in blue jeans and a white t-shirt, and carrying a large backpack, he began firing indiscriminately at the ministry. From my vantage point, about 50 meters away, I couldn’t quite see his expression, but he did not seem hurried or panicked. I took cover behind a parked taxi. It wasn’t long before the traffic police had fled and the square had emptied of vehicles.
Twenty-eight people, mostly civilians, died in attacks at the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, and elsewhere across the city that day in 2009. Afterward, U.S. authorities implicated the Haqqani Network, a shadowy outfit operating from Pakistan that had pioneered the use of multiple suicide bombers in headline-grabbing urban assaults. Unlike other Taliban groups, the Haqqanis’ approach to mayhem was worldly and sophisticated: they recruited Arabs, Pakistanis, even Europeans, and they were influenced by the latest in radical Islamist thought. Their leader, the septuagenarian warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani, was something like Osama bin Laden and Al Capone rolled into one, as fiercely ideological as he was ruthlessly pragmatic.
And so many years later, his followers are still fighting. Even with the U.S. withdrawing the bulk of its troops this year, up to 10,000 Special Operations forces, CIA paramilitaries, and their proxies will likely stay behind to battle the Haqqanis, the Taliban, and similar outfits in a war that seemingly has no end. With such entrenched enemies, the conflict today has an air of inevitability -- but it could all have gone so differently.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
Vi
It is.
And it's an even lower human being that thinks it's humorous, which you posted several times, that you do.
You reveled in the tortured soul of another human being.
And we both know why.
The woman was white and you are an admitted racist.
Not interested in reading a propaganda article that's as obvious as this one is with the title.
A bit more than just a training ground, imo.
We've both read articles of PK's involvement in orchestrating much of those terrorist armies activities to PK's advantage concerning neighbors in southeast Asia.
I suspect the leaders in PK thought of themselves as 'puppet masters'.
What about it?what do you say about this>>??
President Obama and President Benigno S. Aquino III during a state dinner Monday night at Malacanang Palace in Manila. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times
Mr. Obama’s statement, delivered at the end of a weeklong trip to Asia, was a rare insight into a second-term president already sizing up his legacy as a statesman. By turns angry and rueful, his words suggested the distance he had traveled from the confident young leader who accepted a Nobel Peace Prize with a speech about the occasional necessity of war.
While he flatly rejected the Republican portrait of him as feckless in the face of crises like Syria, Mr. Obama seemed to be wrestling with a more nuanced critique, that aside from one or two swings for the fences — the nuclear negotiations with Iran, for example — his foreign policy had become a game of small ball.
Mr. Obama offered this trip as Exhibit A for the virtues of an incremental approach: He nudged along trade negotiations with Japan, consoled a bereaved ally in South Korea, cultivated ties with a once-hostile Malaysia and signed a modest defense agreement with the Philippines.
He drew a sharp contrast between the international coalition the United States had marshaled to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin and the proposals of some Republicans to funnel weapons to Ukrainian soldiers, which he mocked as ineffective.
“Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force,” Mr. Obama said, “after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous cost to our troops and to our budget. And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?”
The president did not name his critics, except to refer to them as foreign policy commentators “in an office in Washington or New York.” He also referred to the Sunday morning talk shows, where Senator John McCain of Arizona, a fierce Obama critic, is a ubiquitous guest.
“If we took all of the actions that our critics have demanded, we’d lose count of the number of military conflicts that America would be engaged in,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
These days, one crisis follows on the heels of another. Even Mr. Obama’s Asian trip, which he had put off from October because of the government shutdown, was overshadowed by the tensions with Russia and the suspension of peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
When Mr. Obama returns to Washington on Tuesday, his advisers say, he wants to regain the offensive with several speeches, most notably a graduation address at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., next month, in which he will try to place his decisions on Syria, Ukraine and other crises into a broader context.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
He has done this before. In December 2009, when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, the president made a case for the responsible use of military force when responding to a terrorist attack, as in Afghanistan, or when looking to prevent the brutalization of a population, as in Libya.
Mr. Obama has not hesitated to use drones to target suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, showing an appetite for shadow warfare that surprised many of his supporters.
But the president’s profound reluctance to get drawn into Syria’s civil war shows no sign of wavering. For critics ranging from Mr. McCain to human rights activists, it has come to symbolize the erosion of America’s leadership role in the world during the Obama presidency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/world/obama-defends-foreign-policy-against-critics.html?hp&_r=0
Merely shows his poor leadership skills.
He runs down prior presidents...apologizes to terrorists.
His red line had been crossed in syria.
Laughed at by Russia.....he should have either aided crimea or let it go...as it is now crimea has been shit on anyway and Obama has damaged relations with Russia.
Iran now hates our guts....sanctions harm the citizens..not to fond of sanctions. ..Israel had the right idea by blowing up uranium enrichment plants.
Back to Russia for a minute...I really hate to see damaged relations with russia the reason being when the mideast gets to stupid and does something to big Russia would be a nice player to have at your side.
But make no mistake the US Israel and western Europe can and will win against the Mid east when it gets nasty
I hate to see it happen but it will as soon as one of the nations in the mideast does soomething stupid enough it will be game on.
Imo first place that should get it are the terrorist havens which includes a large chunk of pk.
I am not pro war..I just think that if you are going to do it then do it right.
Not trying to sound harsh here but if the mideast wasnt around it would be a pretty peaceful world for the most part.
Indeed I feel ashamed to have them as allie status with the states ...we adopted them years ago but should drop them due to thier terroists support which is causing grief to much of the globe.
Good do it...
You cannot handle a handful of Talibans and talk ill about 200M Pakistani allies??
Shame on you, you silly prejudiced folks!
Look here..where YOU have badly failed during the last 12.5 years of futile warring...
The red spot is the place which gives you goose bumps...
Catch them if you can,,,a handful of people, rather than whine about an entire nation having NO concern with them
Indeed, the US owns it's mistakes. (And suffers from them)
As you can see by the replies posted , openly.
But you've been dishonest through out most of our conversations about the role Pakistan plays in supporting and promoting terrorism .
You've been an apologist for terrorism and even claim we have no right to challenge your claims.
You are evidently not reading or grasping my postings properly...
You are a closed mind who knows but only accusing and bad mouthing others,,,,ignorance seems bliss to you!
Good do it...
You cannot handle a handful of Talibans and talk ill about 200M Pakistani allies??
Shame on you, you silly prejudiced folks!
Look here..where YOU have badly failed during the last 12.5 years of futile warring...
The red spot is the place which gives you goose bumps...
Catch them if you can,,,a handful of people, rather than whine about an entire nation having NO concern with them
Why not? I've learned from YOU what a degenerate society you have going on in Pakistan.
I keep telling you, sophistry is not a logical argument. It's not prejudice that's in question, it's the moral and ethical decisions your society has made in accepting terrorists into your realm and giving support and direction to their terrorist acts.
Your sexual perversions and proclivity to violence against your own women and children on such large scales is a true reflection of how far you've evolved into something other than human in spirit.
What do you think that proves?
That your society is innocent of all the pain and suffering your leadership and terrorist allies inflicted upon humanity?
Hardly.
I suggest you own up to your society's own faults.
And you certainly act as if the initial invitation for them to project their terrorism from within your boarders is .....no big deal.
And then you whine when the US confronts a sworn enemy that started a war with the US.
You whine a lot for a supposed intellectual. Try posting commentary that demonstrates intellect rather than the constant stream of sophomoric propaganda you continually spew.
Go pet your dog.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members