22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[hasang20]

This is funny.

First, Pakistan has always been a part of India pre-1947, where else it would be located now!

Second, these problems are coming from your Western border, not Eastern.

The only unfortunate part throughout history has been it's invasion from the North-Western direction.

there was on India it was Britians occupied territory if it wasnt for the Muslims there would be no India.Either way India still sufers from "WHITE MENS COMPLEX"

 

[qsaark]

"I consider the 'self-proclaimed so called Jihadists cum warlords' and their 'creators and sponsors' the two sides of a single coin."

God gives each man free will, counselor, on both sides of your so-called "coin". Your moral equivocation doesn't change the relevancy of OBL's admission of guilt-freely offered in October 2004.

You're the one that said there'd been no proof nor did any exist now. I'd pay closer attention to your absolutist use of verbage.

AlJazeera videos are fake and hold no weightage in a court of justice. That is why I said there is no proof.

I don’t give a damn to these fake videos aired by the AlJazeera. AlJazeera network is not located in Tora Bora Caves or in Waziristan. It is located in Qatar, a gulf state friendly to US and happens to host thousands of US troops. Albeit of its physical presence in Qatar and all kind of intel resources at their disposal, US couldn’t even trace how such videos right under their nose reach to AlJazeera (why only to AlJazeera, why not to other networks?), who is responsible? Does it ring some bell? They can get 'credible' intel to launch hellfire on civilians in Pakistan, but cant trace from where the videos are coming into Qatar. Because there is something fishy, very fishy.

 

[S-2]

"AlJazeera videos are fake and hold no weightage in a court of justice. That is why I said there is no proof."

You can't be an attorney.

The video wasn't made by al Jazerra. It was OFFERED AND DISPLAYED by al-Jazerra.

Second point- Admission freely offered while under the protection of a legal counselor IN a court of law does hold weight. Lots of it. As such, the testimony and admissions of guilt by SKM and Ramzi Binalshibh would also serve as adequate proof.

Al Qaeda, directed specifically by OBL, planned, resourced, and financed 9/11 to the satisfaction of those that are tasked with forming nat'l policy for a wide range of nations-not just America.

The persistant clinging of muslims globally to the salvation of conspiracy isn't holding water in the face of more sober assessments. You should try to make resolution, qsaark, and then pick a side of the fence.

There are clear lines of demarcation which are being drawn. Nobody will be left on the sidelines.

 

[qsaark]

"AlJazeera videos are fake and hold no weightage in a court of justice. That is why I said there is no proof."

You can't be an attorney.

The video wasn't made by al Jazerra. It was OFFERED AND DISPLAYED by al-Jazerra.

Second point- Admission freely offered while under the protection of a legal counselor IN a court of law does hold weight. Lots of it. As such, the testimony and admissions of guilt by SKM and Ramzi Binalshibh would also serve as adequate proof.

Al Qaeda, directed specifically by OBL, planned, resourced, and financed 9/11 to the satisfaction of those that are tasked with forming nat'l policy for a wide range of nations-not just America.

The persistant clinging of muslims globally to the salvation of conspiracy isn't holding water in the face of more sober assessments. You should try to make resolution, qsaark, and then pick a side of the fence.

There are clear lines of demarcation which are being drawn. Nobody will be left on the sidelines.

I have already mentioned that testimony and admissions of guilt by SKM and Ramzi carry no weight because they were taken under torture. I didn't say videos were made by AlJazeera, I questioned WHO provide these kind of videos to them? why this source or messenger could'nt be traced and caught by the americans in Qatar for all these years? It is not only muslims who think of conspiracy. I am in US for past 4 years or so, and have met with hundreds of Americans and Europeans. A large number of thems also think of conspiracy. OK, that is true that I move in a highly educated circle, so perhaps they think more logically and objectively.

 

[S-2]

"A large number of thems also think of conspiracy."

I encourage a lemming-like group-think of mutually reinforcing circular logic...so, go ahead, you were saying-

"OK, that is true that I move in a highly educated circle...",

I see. I confess that's new to me though I've a couple years of formal education myself. Probably nothing like you though. The association between rational, dispassionate discourse and conspiracy theories has always actually seemed rather tenuous to me...

"...so perhaps they think more logically and objectively."

Perhaps so.

 

[qsaark]

I encourage a lemming-like group-think of mutually reinforcing circular logic...so, go ahead, you were saying-

Dont you think it also applys to you?

I see. I confess that's new to me though I've a couple years of formal education myself. Probably nothing like you though. The association between rational, dispassionate discourse and conspiracy theories has always actually seemed rather tenuous to me...

Gulf of Tonkin incident was also taken that way until classified documents wer made public in 2005. For the matter at hand, we would have to wait for another 25 years, I dont know if any of us would still be posting on this forum by than

Perhaps so.

Yes, I am really thankful to Science for it helped me differentiating between objective and subjective.

 

[S-2]

"Dont you think it also applys to you?"

I have no opportunity to evaluate intelligence or diplomatic cables. I've no access to classified documents. It's irrelevant to policy makers what my personal impression might be.

OTOH, nat'l intelligence agencies responsible to governments OTHER than America have reached similar conclusions to ours. Very similar. So much so that they and U.N. fully supported our demands for the surrender of OBL and the subsequent actions taken by my nation and others against the taliban gov't of Afghanistan.

Now-following all those independant assessments reaching the same conclusions, they could nonetheless be wrong. We have, though, video-taped admissions of responsibility by OBL and court testimony freely offered by other involved personages. More than simply SKM and RB.

You cling obstinately in the face of crystalline conclusions otherwise. Your science, I fear, has failed you.

 

[Vinod2070]

So now you're in denial?

Read up the history of your india. There was no such thing as india before the british invaded south asia. Check anywhere. Your india is just as new as Pakistan!

As for the indian consulates in Afghanistan, a brother from our western province posted more than a dozen names of indian consulates in Afghanistan..do a search on this forum for the names of indian consulates in Afganistan. Every Pakistani, especially from our western provinces, know theres a strong indian prescence in Afghanistan and also in our western provinces of Pakistan causing trouble.

I guess your facts about the consulates have been comprehensively proven wrong. Your brother needs to substantiate about the dozens of consulates.

there was on India it was Britians occupied territory if it wasnt for the Muslims there would be no India.Either way India still sufers from "WHITE MENS COMPLEX"

Not true at all. It's been discussed enough, you seem to remain in denial.

Prior to the 17th century, the area of Pakistan was never ruled by India for any significant period of time.

Prior to the 17th century, the area of Pakistan was only part of the North west of India (Punjab) for a significant amount of time - not central India, not East India, and not South India.

So overall, whilst Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab might have been one unit for quite a while in history, that's as far as the association goes, give or take one or two extrene northwestern states for during some time points.

To say that India and Pakistan have been one unit based on this, throughout history, is like saying China and Greece are the same country because they once were part of the same empire (Mongol).

I will prefer not to make this into a history thread. And remaining stubbornly in denial isn't the same as being correct.

There were several empires that united the country or large parts of it. This includes the Gupta empire, the Maurya empire, the Pala empires, Harshwardhana and many more. I am not even talking of the Mughals here.

I wasn't referring to "those" problems. When the Americans leave Afghanistan, all the problems will revolve around India. But I wasn't referring to tha either!

"those" problems is what this thread is about. India is not a problem but a solution for Pakistan's problems. You just need the ability to recognize the fact.

If India was able to, it would have invaded Pakistan long ago. It just never had the ability or belief to pull it off.

We don't intend to, except when it becomes absolutely necessary for the safety of our citizens. We attacked you in 1965 and 1971 when the conditions left us no choice. Let's hope it doesn't come to that again.

 

[roadrunner]

^^Let's not talk bs now.

In '71, it was pure and simple terrorism by India on Pakistan.

India had no reason to attack East Pakistan at that time.

The excuse you usually use is refugees, or a so called genocide in East Pak.

IF that was the case, you still shouldn't have done it without taking it to the UN.

Unilateral action like that is not the right of any country. It's the right of a terrorist, though.

In '65 it's debateable.

 

[Vinod2070]

^^Let's not talk bs now.

In '71, it was pure and simple terrorism by India on Pakistan.

India had no reason to attack East Pakistan at that time.

The excuse you usually use is refugees, or a so called genocide in East Pak.

IF that was the case, you still shouldn't have done it without taking it to the UN.

Unilateral action like that is not the right of any country. It's the right of a terrorist, though.

In '65 it's debateable.

Let's not derail this thread.

If you want to discuss the 1965 or 71 events, please post on the relevant threads and let's discuss there.

 

[belarusian]

the problem with these missle attacks is that we are killing muslims.

non-muslims killing muslims on muslim land.

and also there are bases on muslim land so that means we are occupying muslim land so that is also a problem.

this is really a different and unrelated to the question of sovereignty.

whatever the government of pakistan says or does or gets in exchange or agrees to

america is attacking islam.

its like making treaties with indian tribes to buy land in american history.

the indian tribes did not have the capacity to enter into equal treaties with the united states.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Our ‘drone attack’ problem

January 26, 2009

President Asif Zardari has again expressed concern over the American drone attacks in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas to US Ambassador Anne W Patterson on Saturday, saying, “These attacks can affect Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror”. The “concern”, which can also be called a mild warning, has been renewed because of the change of guard in Washington and the appointment of a special envoy to the region, Mr Richard Holbrooke. Pakistan’s parliament has a “unanimous” resolution on the subject asking the government to get the US to stop the drone attacks.

The drones began to fly when President Musharraf was in power. The early hits were publicised negatively in Pakistan and the government didn’t want to be openly associated with them, so it expressed “concern” without saying too much to the Americans. Some briefings actually revealed that the drone attacks were called in by the Pakistan army. That line didn’t last beyond Musharraf’s time and one federal defence secretary under the PPP government actually lost his job after stating that drone attacks were actually going on with the tacit consent of the army.

The question arose: was there an agreement between Mr Musharraf and the US on the matter of the drones? The army denies the existence of any such agreement; Mr Musharraf has himself denied that he ever let the Americans do it. But the fact is that on his watch nothing was done to stop them. The Americans have handled the Pakistan army with utmost care in the post-Musharraf period although there were statements from some quarters in Washington that the Pakistani side tended to “forewarn” the Taliban-Al Qaeda elements of the coming attacks and therefore the drones had to ply without Pakistan’s knowledge.

There is national consensus in Pakistan against drone attacks. These attacks may be targeting terrorists whose elimination goes in Pakistan’s favour, but its side-effects are not good for Pakistan. The Pakistan army thinks it curtails the effect of its own efforts to pacify the Tribal Areas. This concern should be addressed because the army is getting results from its operations in Bajaur and Mohmand. President Zardari has brought up the subject again after probably hearing that the latest attacks were carried out with President Obama’s clearance.

There are two kinds of “do more” pressures on the PPP government. The US asks it to do more while knowing the limits of Pakistan’s response to global terrorism. The opposition in Pakistan also asks it to “do more” in the way of getting the Americans to stop the drones. Both policies of “do more” are unrealistic. *

 

[Patriot]

Editorial: Our ‘drone attack’ problem

January 26, 2009

President Asif Zardari has again expressed concern over the American drone attacks in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas to US Ambassador Anne W Patterson on Saturday, saying, “These attacks can affect Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror”. The “concern”, which can also be called a mild warning, has been renewed because of the change of guard in Washington and the appointment of a special envoy to the region, Mr Richard Holbrooke. Pakistan’s parliament has a “unanimous” resolution on the subject asking the government to get the US to stop the drone attacks.

The drones began to fly when President Musharraf was in power. The early hits were publicised negatively in Pakistan and the government didn’t want to be openly associated with them, so it expressed “concern” without saying too much to the Americans. Some briefings actually revealed that the drone attacks were called in by the Pakistan army. That line didn’t last beyond Musharraf’s time and one federal defence secretary under the PPP government actually lost his job after stating that drone attacks were actually going on with the tacit consent of the army.

The question arose: was there an agreement between Mr Musharraf and the US on the matter of the drones? The army denies the existence of any such agreement; Mr Musharraf has himself denied that he ever let the Americans do it. But the fact is that on his watch nothing was done to stop them. The Americans have handled the Pakistan army with utmost care in the post-Musharraf period although there were statements from some quarters in Washington that the Pakistani side tended to “forewarn” the Taliban-Al Qaeda elements of the coming attacks and therefore the drones had to ply without Pakistan’s knowledge.

There is national consensus in Pakistan against drone attacks. These attacks may be targeting terrorists whose elimination goes in Pakistan’s favour, but its side-effects are not good for Pakistan. The Pakistan army thinks it curtails the effect of its own efforts to pacify the Tribal Areas. This concern should be addressed because the army is getting results from its operations in Bajaur and Mohmand. President Zardari has brought up the subject again after probably hearing that the latest attacks were carried out with President Obama’s clearance.

There are two kinds of “do more” pressures on the PPP government. The US asks it to do more while knowing the limits of Pakistan’s response to global terrorism. The opposition in Pakistan also asks it to “do more” in the way of getting the Americans to stop the drones. Both policies of “do more” are unrealistic. *

Haha..let me guess how many drones attacks happened during Musharraf time?2-4? and now blame Musharraf for not stopping these attacks.These articles are written for ***** Democracy lovers who like to blame everything on Musharraf.

 

[aimarraul]

the problem with these missle attacks is that we are killing muslims.

the problem with these attacks is that you killed more innocent people than the terrorists did,the problem with US is that you rather kill 1000 innocent people ,in order to kill 10 terrorists ,only difference between US army and terrorists is that you have better weapons

 

[waraich66]

Haha..let me guess how many drones attacks happened during Musharraf time?2-4? and now blame Musharraf for not stopping these attacks.These articles are written for ***** Democracy lovers who like to blame everything on Musharraf.

Your beloved leader signed agreemnt for that .Shame on him ,

Still you like him and doing advocay for him , strange