Terrorists target America

[no_name]

If it was one of their dogs they would not be laughing. Certainly the U.S. military has its fair share of unstable people. I have heard a lot of them just wanting to kill people once they get over there.

Oh ok. Didn't hear the laughter was watching with sounds off.

 

[Tshering22]

Very few bharatis discussing this story. We all know why.

Yeah because it means that you're not the only ones to be blamed all the time. We discuss more when terror groups from your place are involved because it affects us more than any other country.

In this case, we condemn this act of terrorism as well but terrorism from Arab offshoots won't really affect India in any tangible way. Why so surprised?

 

[SMC]

How is Pakistani Taliban, who was involved in Times square plan, targetting India? You're just finding excuses because it's obvious that the bharatis have a hate spreading agenda regarding Pakistan.

 

[iPhone]

Im happy this plot has no relation to Pakistan

lol it's hard digest. I've been in awe myself.

 

[ARSENAL6]

US Govt attacks its own people yet AGIAN !

 

[500]

No, before 9/11 also there were various attempts.

Unfortunately nt just attempts, there were actual terror attacks as well, like US embasies in Africa and 1993 WTC attack.

US Govt attacks its own people yet AGIAN !

 

[MastanKhan]

If it was one of their dogs they would not be laughing. Certainly the U.S. military has its fair share of unstable people. I have heard a lot of them just wanting to kill people once they get over there.

Hi,

A few of the american soldiers have collected body parts as souvenirs as well.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Hi,

A few of the american soldiers have collected body parts as souvenirs as well.

Are you talking about WWII or today?

 

[NWO]

America does not have a policy of deliberating killing innocent people..if such a policy was followed Afghanistan and Iraq would be largely empty today.

Terrorists do not have a policy of deliberately killing innocent people.. If such a policy were followed, Afghanistan and Iraq would be largely empty today.

Terrorists hiding in caves like cowards can only attack civilians.

Colonists, hiding in bushes like cowards, can only attack civilians back in 1776. How else do you expect a smaller force to fight a technologically superior force?

Are you talking about WWII or today?

Today, but it's extremely rare, more than likely, it's less than a dozen. Probably only 3 or 4 who were in the same squad.

 

[barcelona]

Terrorists do not have a policy of deliberately killing innocent people.. If such a policy were followed, Afghanistan and Iraq would be largely empty today.

Colonists, hiding in bushes like cowards, can only attack civilians back in 1776. How else do you expect a smaller force to fight a technologically superior force?

Today, but it's extremely rare, more than likely, it's less than a dozen. Probably only 3 or 4 who were in the same squad.

Acc. to above logic all people who died in 9/11 were sinner 26/11 also as they were killed by terrorist

Terror is the biggest threat to civilization of this world for good cause or bad method of violence n fear should be condemned n dealt with extreme measures At the end of day people should criticizes the method of violence with harshest of words whether the cause is just or not

Only state should have the right to use of force

 

[NWO]

Acc. to above logic all people who died in 9/11 were sinner 26/11 also as they were killed by terrorist

Just trying to make a point across to Ras that terrorists aren't the only ones with innocent blood on their hands. Didn't mean to insult the ones who died on those tragic events.

Terror is the biggest threat to civilization of this world for good cause or bad method of violence n fear should be condemned n dealt with extreme measures At the end of day people should criticizes the method of violence with harshest of words whether the cause is just or not

Agree with you completely. Only question is who is truly the terrorist.

Only state should have the right to use of force

I somewhat agree, but a revolution by the people is sometimes necessary. Just look at the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion.

 

[gambit]

Terrorists do not have a policy of deliberately killing innocent people.. If such a policy were followed, Afghanistan and Iraq would be largely empty today.

Of course deliberately killing noncombatants is a terrorism policy. Terrorists cannot fight organized armies in open battles. And terrorism against the civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan did occurred. It was the combined military forces of the US and Iraq that terrorism did not succeed. Afghanistan is still on going.

Colonists, hiding in bushes like cowards, can only attack civilians back in 1776. How else do you expect a smaller force to fight a technologically superior force?

See 'Continental Army'.

 

[NWO]

Of course deliberately killing noncombatants is a terrorism policy. Terrorists cannot fight organized armies in open battles. And terrorism against the civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan did occurred.

Yes, but the vast majority of dead civilians have resulted from the crossfire. Now, who is responsible for the crossfire in the first place?

It was the combined ******** forces of the US and Iraq that terrorism did not succeed. Afghanistan is still on going.

Afghanistan is still going. But Iraq was doing alright before 2003. The vast majority of crimes committed by Saddam was in the 1980's, when he was still a US ally. After the Gulf War, he didn't have enough power to carry out those crimes. He did give his people education, (almost 90% literacy rate), and good infrastructure. Today, clean water is difficult to find and education is in shambles. And with 4,500 civilians dead last year, I don't think it's over yet.

See 'Continental Army'.

See 'Taliban'.

I don't get what your trying to say with the Continental Army. That was the name of the colonial militia; so what?

 

[gambit]

Yes, but the vast majority of dead civilians have resulted from the crossfire. Now, who is responsible for the crossfire in the first place?

Al*Qaeda in Iraq deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians who cooperated with the US and the US friendly Iraqi government. Or are you going to deny such deliberate attacks did not occurred?

Afghanistan is still going. But Iraq was doing alright before 2003. The vast majority of crimes committed by Saddam was in the 1980's, when he was still a US ally.

Saddam Hussein was also friendly to other ME states as well.

After the Gulf War, he didn't have enough power to carry out those crimes. He did give his people education, (almost 90% literacy rate), and good infrastructure. Today, clean water is difficult to find and education is in shambles. And with 4,500 civilians dead last year, I don't think it's over yet.

Nope...

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact*sheet.html

Water and sanitation: In the period to 20 March 2003, the deterioration of water facilities was halted. Oil*for*Food Programme supplies and equipment improved access to potable water, and helped to reduce the incidence of water*borne illnesses, including diarrhoeah.

That does not mean there are no local issues but they belongs to the type of problems that ordinary society suffers.

See 'Taliban'.

I don't get what your trying to say with the Continental Army. That was the name of the colonial militia; so what?

The Continental Army was an organized army, not merely a militia, and they engaged the British Army. The Taliban may have been the ruling authority figure in Afghanistan, but the Taliban is not comparable to the Continental Army.

 

[NWO]

The Continental Army was an organized army, not merely a militia, and they engaged the British Army. The Taliban may have been the ruling authority figure in Afghanistan, but the Taliban is not comparable to the Continental Army.

I was comparing the principles used by both in warfare. Use the landscape to hide, civilian populations to gain logistical and intelligence support, and use hit and run tactics.

Nope...

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact*sheet.html

That does not mean there are no local issues but they belongs to the type of problems that ordinary society suffers.

Let me clarify in my earlier post of clean water: clean is very difficult to find in Iraq. However, after some research, it seems this has been a problem for a while. It seems the war just accelerated it. So, no war means better access to clean water. Now, the fault lies on who's fault it is for starting the war.

By the way, your link isn't working.

Saddam Hussein was also friendly to other ME states as well.

Okay. So what? Are you saying the US has the same morals as other ME states or something?

Al*Qaeda in Iraq deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians who cooperated with the US and the US friendly Iraqi government. Or are you going to deny such deliberate attacks did not occurred?

Who's denying that? It's just that most of them died in crossfire, not in deliberate killing.

Plus, it's debatable if Al Qaeda even existed in Iraq before 2003.