Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
War on Terror
33 Answers
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/as ia/article4251551.ece
If we are serious regarding the "War on Terror", isn't it time we took action against these safe havens for terror training?
Pakistan especially.
If we are serious regarding the "War on Terror", isn't it time we took action against these safe havens for terror training?
Pakistan especially.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I really feel sorry for the American, British, Pakistani govts and Western media who are really under the influence of Jewish lobby. Americans and allies are being forced to attack countries only on the basis of assumption that these countries may attack Israel. Plus George Bush added his family business interests in that. They have come up with a suspense account by the name of Al Qaeeda and whichever country they want to attack they see few people belong to Al Qaeeda in those counties.
I talked about govts but the public in these countries especially of course in Islamic countries are turning more and more towards this. I said so many times before that CIA created Osama Bin Laden and I have no doubt that he still is an American agent. But people who are thinking of him as a hero are out of any ones sight and control. So lets see what happens. After all this world has to finish one day.
I talked about govts but the public in these countries especially of course in Islamic countries are turning more and more towards this. I said so many times before that CIA created Osama Bin Laden and I have no doubt that he still is an American agent. But people who are thinking of him as a hero are out of any ones sight and control. So lets see what happens. After all this world has to finish one day.
mmmmmm keyplus you actually might have a point there bin laden an american agent?.......ive often thought how the hell can they not find a 7ft tall bloke with a 3 ft beard,riding a horse in the middle of a desert and occasionally making a dvd and sending it to the white house.....i actually think you could be right......
Many of the so-called experts on the war on terror, advising western governments, have stated that the conflict may last 3 decades.
Without doubt this is correct, because it will last at least 100 years.
I can see no end to the tensions between Christian western governments and the followers of Islam.
The situation will only get worse if western governments continue to believe that the war on terror can be won by invading, bombing & killing them and imposing a system of government acceptable to the USA.
I suspect some in western governments would agree with me, talking about a war you cannot win is not a good idea � and therefore ban the phrase �War on terror�.
My advice to the UK, USA governments is to take a leaf out of George W. Bushes book, and lie - announcing to the world the war on terror has been won �Mission Accomplished� (with all troops withdrawn from the middle-east) and hope no one notices otherwise (including those in the middle-east).
Without doubt this is correct, because it will last at least 100 years.
I can see no end to the tensions between Christian western governments and the followers of Islam.
The situation will only get worse if western governments continue to believe that the war on terror can be won by invading, bombing & killing them and imposing a system of government acceptable to the USA.
I suspect some in western governments would agree with me, talking about a war you cannot win is not a good idea � and therefore ban the phrase �War on terror�.
My advice to the UK, USA governments is to take a leaf out of George W. Bushes book, and lie - announcing to the world the war on terror has been won �Mission Accomplished� (with all troops withdrawn from the middle-east) and hope no one notices otherwise (including those in the middle-east).
-- answer removed --
AOG
You may be interested to know that the US, as part of its 'War on Terror', has given P@kistan $5.4bn in aid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pa kistan.usa
If al-qaeda were defeated, where would the arms companies and oil companies that bankroll Bush, make their disgusting profits?
You may be interested to know that the US, as part of its 'War on Terror', has given P@kistan $5.4bn in aid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pa kistan.usa
If al-qaeda were defeated, where would the arms companies and oil companies that bankroll Bush, make their disgusting profits?
Lets try and get back to some form of sensible debate.
In answer to you naomi 24, perhaps NATO could come to some arrangement with the Goverment of Pakistan, to create a buffer zone along the border of Pakistan & Afghanistan.
This could then become a sort of no-man's land, regularly patrolled by combined forces of ground troops and air surveilance.
If they could stop the Taliban from nipping over the border into Pakistan on a regular basis, seek out their training camps, and stopping the shipment of drugs over the border, I think we would be then be better employed than spending time, trying to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
In answer to you naomi 24, perhaps NATO could come to some arrangement with the Goverment of Pakistan, to create a buffer zone along the border of Pakistan & Afghanistan.
This could then become a sort of no-man's land, regularly patrolled by combined forces of ground troops and air surveilance.
If they could stop the Taliban from nipping over the border into Pakistan on a regular basis, seek out their training camps, and stopping the shipment of drugs over the border, I think we would be then be better employed than spending time, trying to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghans.
sp1214/AOG
"Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".
The incident happened inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, as US-led forces tackled pro-Taleban militants."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/74 47608.stm
"Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".
The incident happened inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, as US-led forces tackled pro-Taleban militants."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/74 47608.stm
Thanks for that very interesting link gromit, even though it was a Guardian report dated February 2008. Why have we not heard anymore of this since?
Why should the US be giving them aid anyway? If Pakistan are as concerned about these terrorists as we are they should be fighting them along side us, at their own expence. No countries give us financial aid.
There is something wrong when the combined forces of NATO and Pakistan, (with crack Troops and Air Forces)cannot wipe out a mob of tribesmen, who's biggest weapons are rocket launches.
If al-qaeda were defeated, where would the arms companies and oil companies that bankroll Bush, make their disgusting profits?
In answer to this gromit ; How did they make their disgusting profits prior to 9/11?
There are aso much more worthwhile causes in the world that need sorting out, than these drugged up muslim fanatics.
Why should the US be giving them aid anyway? If Pakistan are as concerned about these terrorists as we are they should be fighting them along side us, at their own expence. No countries give us financial aid.
There is something wrong when the combined forces of NATO and Pakistan, (with crack Troops and Air Forces)cannot wipe out a mob of tribesmen, who's biggest weapons are rocket launches.
If al-qaeda were defeated, where would the arms companies and oil companies that bankroll Bush, make their disgusting profits?
In answer to this gromit ; How did they make their disgusting profits prior to 9/11?
There are aso much more worthwhile causes in the world that need sorting out, than these drugged up muslim fanatics.
Afghan and US-led forces accuse Islamabad of failing to stop infiltration by Taleban fighters who take refuge in Pakistan's tribal belt along the frontier, and are worried that the Pakistani government's recent peace talks with militants there will only give the Taleban more room for manoeuvre.
I wonder if Allied forces in Afghanistan do not trust Pakistan why can�t they seal the Afghan side of the border themselves.
Why should the US be giving them aid anyway?
To answer your question AOT, I would only say one thing that this aid is not for Pakistan or Pakistani people by any means, this is a price (or small gift) to Pakistani corrupt leaders and Army generals for killing their own people. Otherwise general public there since 9/11 have been going down and down and down�����because no govt has enough time to think about Pakistani interests and they are more worried about American interests
And trust me, you would surely see and I am already sure that these things are only going to make world more unsafe. But Americans and their allies are unable to understand this easy equation.
I wonder if Allied forces in Afghanistan do not trust Pakistan why can�t they seal the Afghan side of the border themselves.
Why should the US be giving them aid anyway?
To answer your question AOT, I would only say one thing that this aid is not for Pakistan or Pakistani people by any means, this is a price (or small gift) to Pakistani corrupt leaders and Army generals for killing their own people. Otherwise general public there since 9/11 have been going down and down and down�����because no govt has enough time to think about Pakistani interests and they are more worried about American interests
And trust me, you would surely see and I am already sure that these things are only going to make world more unsafe. But Americans and their allies are unable to understand this easy equation.
I wonder if Allied forces in Afghanistan do not trust Pakistan why can�t they seal the Afghan side of the border themselves.
Good point keyplus90, I have long wondered this.
But Americans and their allies are unable to understand this easy equation.
By using the term "THEIR allies" gives the impression that perhaps you are not batting for our side, am I correct?
Good point keyplus90, I have long wondered this.
But Americans and their allies are unable to understand this easy equation.
By using the term "THEIR allies" gives the impression that perhaps you are not batting for our side, am I correct?
'sealing a border' isn't as easy as it sounds. The Americans have trouble sealing their own border with Mexico, some of which is river. How many men, how much materiel, how much surveillance would it take to completely block a border between two other countries thousands of miles away? And that's quite apart from the PR disasters that happen when you bomb a wedding party where people are shooting into the air.
And if the USA can't afford this, how on earth would Pakistan, which already has resources tied up on the Kashmir border with India? (US per capita GDP: about $45,000; Pakistan per capita GDP about $2,500).
And if the USA can't afford this, how on earth would Pakistan, which already has resources tied up on the Kashmir border with India? (US per capita GDP: about $45,000; Pakistan per capita GDP about $2,500).
AOT � Depends what side you are calling your side. I am from Asian British original from Pakistan. And I have never ever tried to hide it. If you think only because of living in the West should be enough for anyone to be on YOUR side then I am afraid there are so many people who are born here and are not even of Asian origin, are against this American Oil and interests war. Many knows here and are sensible enough that these are not winnable wars. In simple words by calling War on Terror that in fact are American own interest and for that they managed to pull other countries in because their influence is too much when you talk about UNO or any other forum.
But these things have and are making world more dangerous. You only have to look at Iraq under Saddam (I am not praising him) and Iraq now. These wars are killing more innocent people on either sides and are no way going to stop what the main problem is. The only way this world can become peaceful is the solution of Israel & Palestine crisis. Every thing else is dependant on that. Or else keep on watching.
JNO � I have no hesitation in agreeing with you on that.
But these things have and are making world more dangerous. You only have to look at Iraq under Saddam (I am not praising him) and Iraq now. These wars are killing more innocent people on either sides and are no way going to stop what the main problem is. The only way this world can become peaceful is the solution of Israel & Palestine crisis. Every thing else is dependant on that. Or else keep on watching.
JNO � I have no hesitation in agreeing with you on that.
jno obviously they could not seal the 1,640 mile border 100% but could make a much better job of it than at present. Most of it could be done by helicopter, heat seeking devices, spy planes, and satelite surveilance.
Regarding your PR disasters that happen when you bomb a wedding party where people are shooting into the air.
If they are wild enough to shoot of weapons into the air at a wedding, they deserve to be bombed, especially in a war zone. Try shooting a weapon into the air in your local high street and see what might happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6232167. stm
This link is interesting, it seems it is the Afghans that are proving the awkward bu**ers, I say "leave them to it to then and pull our troops out".
Regarding your PR disasters that happen when you bomb a wedding party where people are shooting into the air.
If they are wild enough to shoot of weapons into the air at a wedding, they deserve to be bombed, especially in a war zone. Try shooting a weapon into the air in your local high street and see what might happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6232167. stm
This link is interesting, it seems it is the Afghans that are proving the awkward bu**ers, I say "leave them to it to then and pull our troops out".
