What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
118 Comments
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -8/+66Given that the CIA's activities in Afghanistan in the 1980s gave us the ***** Taliban and Al Qaeda, this doesn't sound very god damned reassuring.
- borez, on 05/24/2009, -7/+60What is it with the CIA always having to have a silent ***** war somewhere that, as history shows, usually ends up with that particular country ***** up beyond belief?
They're like the world ***** up squad...causing chaos at every opportunity. - Sabretou, on 05/24/2009, -2/+31Millenniums is also an acceptable plural form of millennium:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millenniums
It's just very rarely used. - chillypacman, on 05/24/2009, -2/+23I'm pretty sure even if there was no tribal law recquiring revenge they'd still want revenge.
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -4/+24"Shah, a Pashtun himself, says the families of the drones' victims are required under the tribal code to seek revenge, which makes them ideal recruits for militant leaders like Baitullah Mehsud, the Pashtun commander of the Pakistani Taliban. Mehsud, says Shah, "likes to boast that each drone attack brings him three or four suicide bombers.""
GG - ultralights, on 05/24/2009, -7/+24and planting remote detonated roadside bombs, and using mentally disabled children as suicide bombers is the brave warriors way to fight?
- opticwind, on 05/24/2009, -3/+20They're welcome to think so, it doesn't make the drones any less effective. It may hurt the reputation of the U.S. in Pakistan, but frankly, there's not a lot of room left to go.
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/24/2009, -1/+16The article misses the mark a bit... The "drone wars" in Pakistan aren't winnable, no, but they're not supposed to be won. They're supposed to deny talibans safe havens in Pakistan in order to make the ground war in Afghanistan winnable.
Also, of course the tribals don't like the drones: they can't fight back at them. All they've got is what used to be known as "bosnian air defense": pumping your fist in the air and shouting "come over here and fight like men you big cowards". - ben72227, on 05/24/2009, -5/+20"Moreover, while the drones may seem a technological marvel and strategic asset to those waging the campaign on the American side, they don't impress the local tribesmen. On the contrary, they feed a perception that the U.S. is a cowardly enemy, too frightened to shed blood in battle."
- Rapter09, on 05/24/2009, -3/+17They're not natives. Read the article which clearly says MILITANTS in the next sentence.
""The militants say that if the Americans want to come and fight, they should fight them face to face,"
They don't want a fight. They want to strap explosives to women. Face to face my ass. - Beautyon, on 05/24/2009, -9/+22Does the CIA have the legal authority to wage war? The answer is 'no'. That means that the people who are flying these drones and giving the orders are criminals. What is worse, is that they know that what they are doing is counter productive... or at least that is the assumption; everyone assumes that they all know the history of the CIA, at least the parts that have been published in books. It is perfectly possible that the CIA is staffed by nitwits and no one outside of the organization knows it, and everyone in the organization knows nothing about the past of the CIA and its myriad murderous operations of the past.
Now that is a thought. - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -5/+18Bush should be impeached for letting this happen. Oh wait, Obama is the one doing it now. Nevermind. Carry on CIA.
- opticwind, on 05/24/2009, -2/+15When did the war in Pakistan get silent? They've been talking about using drones in the North-west zone for months.
- Volath, on 05/24/2009, -20/+32"......ethnic Pashtun tribesmen live as they have for millenniums."
*facepalm* - pintomp3, on 05/24/2009, -5/+16The things the CIA does is rarely good for anyone except the corporatocracy.
- lorddazzer, on 05/24/2009, -7/+16Don't group natives with extremists.
- sovereign3, on 05/24/2009, -0/+9The CIA operates under the direction of the US President. They aren't an independent organization free to do whatever.
- Rudegar, on 05/24/2009, -1/+8is that not the reason for CIA ?
to spy and destabilise administrations and groups they feel
are a threat to the American way of life ? - Tubal22, on 05/24/2009, -0/+7Narnia
- elYorte, on 05/24/2009, -2/+9"The News, a Pakistani daily, reported recently that 60 strikes since early 2006 had killed 687 civilians and only 14 al-Qaeda leaders." I wonder how much truth there is to that. It'd probably be too much to hope that we've made better progress than this.
Also, the photos on that site, "A Jihadist's Journey" is unbelievable. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1883 ... - opticwind, on 05/24/2009, -4/+11Listen, first up, if you haven't heard about the drones being used in Pakistan, you're not in the dark...you're living under a friggin' rock. They've made very little effort to conceal it, it's been ALL over the news the last 2 months.
- simplyintricate, on 05/24/2009, -4/+11Now maybe you can see why they have grounds to hate the USA? With so much people killed and so little of the bad ones taken out, why should they not hate us?
It'd be outrageous for some foreign country to bomb an apartment that had 95 good citizens and 5 bad conspirators here, so why is it not outrageous over there? - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -2/+9because they have dark skin and aren't christian.
- phuckpolitics, on 05/24/2009, -12/+18I ***** hate the CIA.
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -1/+7The Mujahadeen Reagan dubbed 'freedom fighters' went on to form the core of the Taliban.
- Blydchyld, on 05/24/2009, -0/+6Sentime, empathise with these people imagine this senario.
Your mother was just killed by some faceless terrorists who live thousands of miles away, you have no way to personally strike back against them so you join the local millitary junta, you dont agree with their aims oer objectives, you just want to strike back at the ones that hurt you, even if it costs you your life.
Now imagine you diddnt just join the US army in retribution for 9/11 and that your a farmer in afganistan... - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -3/+8i lol at the people burying you, they clearly don't know ***** about the CIA.
- cosgriffc, on 05/24/2009, -0/+4Sealand
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -2/+6"You think we or the Russians would have sent forces in there in the first place if it was a stable place of chocolate and smiles?"
I don't think anyone would have bothered with the place at all, unless it was of strategic importance. One of the major goals of *all* would-be modern occupiers of this territory is to gain strategic foothold in an area that can boast access to the Caspian oil reserves. The US has wanted to put pipelines through Afghanistan for decades. So did the Russians. So do the Iranians. - emmeron, on 05/24/2009, -0/+4I'm willing to bet if it could be decided both sides would lay down long range capabilities and go into a battlefield, they would take that option as well. They don't have much of a defense against an armored tank other than bombs -- it's not like we sold them _that_ many anti-tank weapons.
Seriously though, we do the best we can to risk nothing. When our lives aren't at stake while we wage war, we can do it with impunity. That's the downside. - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -9/+13another place he CIA is ***** up
wtg - nirvanix, on 05/24/2009, -1/+5No, the job of the CIA is to destabilise any country that feels they can have self-rule without licking the boot of the military-industrial complex.
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -1/+4Soviet Union didn't "collapse" like your white trash parents may have you believe, nor was Afghanistan a "leading" factor in its dissolution. The terrorists in Afghanistan didn't defeat anybody but only made it too costly to occupy the country.
The only thing CIA did was train, supply, and assist a group of terrorists that not only committed 9/11, but to this day continue to kill Americans all over the world. There's no "mixed bag." It was a huge blunder by the world's most criminal organization that backfired right in their face. - Lamadave222, on 05/24/2009, -2/+5CIA bad; crazy ass Pashtun tribesmen who believe killing people for looking at you wrong good.
Ever see the houses up in the hills, no windows at ground level, all up high,,,,believe they have been building their homes that way for ever, even before the evil CIA arrived. Wonder why? - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -1/+4Once again, our strategy is infallible! lol god damn our government sucks.
- inactive, on 05/24/2009, -0/+3Merriam Webster says either way is correct:
plural -nia \-nē-ə\ or mil·len·niums - Beautyon, on 05/24/2009, -4/+71/ When the drone attacks started, they were done without the permission of the Pakistani government. That is an act of war. War is a legal condition that exists between two or more states. It is more than a label, and should not be used outside of the legal definition. Thanks for that link. That the Pakistani government now 'gets a say' in the drone attacks, I am presuming they can say anything they like other than 'no'. They, unlike most americans, understand that their country can be turned upside down by the CIA. It was done in Iran and Iraq, so why not there? I think they are trying to preserve their culture and sovereignty, and are willing to sacrifice some civilians to make that happen. Still, it is pure evil that is being done there; it is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, counter productive, costly and nuts.
2/ The rules of engagement between countries at war are unambiguous. When killing is done without a declaration of war, it is illegal. It was illegal in the 60s' and it is illegal now. It is not subjective either. If war is declared then soldiers are permitted to kill and this is not murder in the legal sense. I'm afraid that we really do need a declaration of war for military actions to be legal, and assassination, outside of a declaration of war, is illegal (Executive Order 12333):
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination.
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
http://www.tscm.com/EO12333.html
These drone attacks are illegal acts of assassination, and when civilians are killed, acts of murder. No doubt about it. - Sabretou, on 05/24/2009, -0/+3The article doesn't say that Pashtuns have been living *in* Pakistan for millenniums (hell yeah to alternative plural), it says that Pashtuns are living *as* they have for millenniums.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 05/24/2009, -1/+3Looks like someone may be a little shaky on the masculinity scale. Better kill some third world losers or Liberals. By the way, we true conservatives do not approve of either Liberals or militarist morons wasting still more of our USA prosperity for the benefit of the Military, MIC and their politician whore friends. Oh watch out, incoming Taliban on flying carpet at 11:00.
- peters1023, on 05/24/2009, -0/+2After seeing the grammar in the first 6 words of the first sentence I buried you and concluded you are an idiot.
btw: No one thinks they are going to like us, and no one cares if they do. - Junkyarddawg, on 05/24/2009, -1/+3What's up with the CIA doing covert ***** you ask?
IT'S THEIR JOB!
It's what secret services do, it's why the state pays them.
Fun fact: the even though Pakistan is an ally of the US and on/off fights with the talibans, the Pakistani secret service actively help the Taliban plan and carry out attacks inside both India and Afghanistan. - Junkyarddawg, on 05/24/2009, -1/+3Yeah, the "save comment" box is seven kinds of broken with Firefox.
- cosgriffc, on 05/24/2009, -0/+2Whether or not your right or wrong your inability to spell destroys the comment. This comment would be good if it ended with "/s" because you sound like a moron but for some reason I don't think it does.
- ricklempke, on 05/24/2009, -1/+3One word for the majority who are here. (I can tell by your responses)
T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-C-Y
I could also add, "we're gonna end this war tomorrow", "we need to spend more responsibility", "we need to account for every dollar", "I don't want to get involved in the private sector", "we're going to go through the bills line by line (speed reader)",...
now lets count up those negatives because I'm right on the hypocrisy and you can't dismiss a fact! - LenBaird, on 05/24/2009, -0/+2They are doing exactly what they plan to do, which is start wars where they want them, overthrow leaders who won't play ball, steal resources, etc.
- nirvanix, on 05/24/2009, -2/+4Why? Covert Imperialism.
- liuite, on 05/24/2009, -2/+4John Connor, please save us now by destroying the killing machines which will evolve to be part of skynet!
- Beautyon, on 05/24/2009, -6/+81/ If it was your house and family being blown to smithereens, you would not call it semantics. When a state blows people up in another country with missiles at the command of the executive, that is an act of war. It is not a technicality in any way shape or form. Since the attacks happened on Pakistani soil, without the permission of the State of Pakistan, it is an act of war against the Pakistani state.
2/ First part, see (1/). Second part, people who commission acts of murder are guilty of murder. The pilots (the assassins) who carry out the acts are also guilty of murder. Who they work for is irrelevant; without a declaration of war, they are criminals. As for the 'known terrorist cells' if the CIA knows where these people are (and clearly they do not, since they have been bombing weddings, women and children) then they should be monitoring them to stop these alleged plots against americans in america. In case you did not know, Pakistan is very far from the USA. They cannot launch attacks on the continental USA from there. Blowing them up there is absolute insanity. It would make far more sense to monitor their comms, to see who they are talking to, if anyone, to thwart their plans, where they exist at all. Only Kool-Aid drinkers believe the propaganda swirling around all of this.
3/ What the hell are you talking about? It is unforgivable that people who go to work for an organization like the CIA do not research it before joining it. There are millions of pages of declassified evidence of the bat ***** insane antics of the CIA; google 'OPERATION AJAX' for an example. Google the CIA cocaine planes for another. Plus there have been many books authored by ex CIA workers detailing their nasty business. To say that there is "no evidence or sources that have been published" is beyond silly. - inactive, on 05/24/2009, -1/+3if they're the "top special forces" and alot smarter than us, then we're all *****. Cause the CIA has ***** up every single campaign it's taken on.
- borez, on 05/24/2009, -3/+5Err...right, OK and you made that assumption about me from what part of that comment exactly?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is