12 ms·

>> the US government will make it seem like they started it This has been done extensively with the war on terror. The idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" s

>> the US government will make it seem like they started it This has been done extensively with the war on terror. The idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" statement has been weighing on me lately. I agree that caving to a terrorist's demands immediately is a bad thing to do because it encourages a violent approach to change, which we shouldn't do. But shouldn't we also take a step back and say "hey - we're killing people on the other side of the world - maybe we should stop!". If "they hate our freedoms" they must be pretty happy to see what the Patriot Act has done in response - because evidently we gave them exactly what they wanted.

beloch 13y ago
You know what's pretty stupid? Routinely violating the sovereignty of a state that has nuclear weapons with drone attacks that kill their civilians (i.e. Pakistan). I doubt they'd ever launch a strike on U.S. soil, but if one of those weapons were to accidentally fall into Taliban hands... It's entirely luck that the Taliban are so brutal (i.e. Shooting school-girl activists in the head) that they don't have universal support in Pakistan.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Unfortunately the Pakistani government seems fairly complacent about that one. It distresses me that even a nuclear power like them seems to tolerate so much of our shit. I think that nuclear deterrent is not as strong as we would like to think.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    The US government funds much of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies. Around $18 Billion dollars in the last decade of official aid, of which more than half is military - not sure if there are even figures for the last few years but they've presumably grown. That's a lot of incentive in some very powerful parts of the government to allow the US carte blanche to kill whoever they want to. One day some of that money will probably be used for an attack on US soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._financial_aid_to_Pakistan_since_the_September_11.2C_2001_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._f...
- nickff 13y ago
  The Pakistanis must authorize, allow, and support US drone operations in their airspace. This is the only plausible explanation for the US drone airfields within Pakistan, which were visible for some time on Google Earth, (though I have not checked recently).
chubot 13y ago
You know it has become fashionable to hate on Ron Paul and his supporters, but he is one of the few politicians I have ever learned anything from. Namely that in 1988 the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane, in its OWN air space, with a MISSILE! Which of course killed everyone on board. Imagine if there was an Iranian aircraft carrier parked around NYC, and it fired a missile into an passenger airliner taking off from JFK. Imagine what would happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Holy crap, I completely missed that. I thought KAL007 was the worst incident like this. > However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran. Why not? That would seem to be the proper thing to do.
  - hga 13y ago
    KAL 007 was worse. The Iran Air Flight 655 debacle started with Iranian gun boats firing on one of the ship's helicopters. i.e. the shoot down was during combat initiated by the Iranians. KAL 007 was ultimately shot down because the Soviets involved didn't want to lose face or worse by letting it escape their airspace (it had probably left by the time it was fired upon).
    - X-Istence 13y ago
      The gun boats were firing upon the ship's helicopters because they were in Iranian airspace ...
      - hga 13y ago
        That's what the Iranians claim. We obviously claim differently. But even if they were correct, or honestly mistaken, why is shooting at an aircraft a good response to it intruding on your airspace? When you're not in a hot war with the intruder nothing good can come from it. In fact, this brings us right back to KAL 007....
sliverstorm 13y ago
The idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" statement has been weighing on me lately. It isn't perfectly accurate, but there might be a kernel of reality there. Remember a little while back when extremists were mad at the US for a video somebody made in their basement? I heard someone explain in regards to that issue that for someone whose government regulates such things, to them it must have looked like the US was endorsing the video simply by allowing it to exist.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  The "protests" on that one seemed a bit ginned-up, possibly to coincide with some other event. I mean, the video still exists, but all the goat enthusiasts are satisfied now that the dude's parole was revoked? That seems... unlikely.
e3pi 13y ago
An effective and unattributable false flag op trumps all DIS, DHS, and inflated budget and corrupt `security clearance' high salary revolving door critics. If another Edward Snowden bombshell is released with massive public outrage, "Expect U.S." not Anonymous.

beloch 13y ago

You know what's pretty stupid? Routinely violating the sovereignty of a state that has nuclear weapons with drone attacks that kill their civilians (i.e. Pakistan). I doubt they'd ever launch a strike on U.S. soil, but if one of those weapons were to accidentally fall into Taliban hands... It's entirely luck that the Taliban are so brutal (i.e. Shooting school-girl activists in the head) that they don't have universal support in Pakistan.

jlgreco 13y ago
Unfortunately the Pakistani government seems fairly complacent about that one. It distresses me that even a nuclear power like them seems to tolerate so much of our shit. I think that nuclear deterrent is not as strong as we would like to think.
- grey-area 13y ago
  The US government funds much of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies. Around $18 Billion dollars in the last decade of official aid, of which more than half is military - not sure if there are even figures for the last few years but they've presumably grown. That's a lot of incentive in some very powerful parts of the government to allow the US carte blanche to kill whoever they want to. One day some of that money will probably be used for an attack on US soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._financial_aid_to_Pakistan_since_the_September_11.2C_2001_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._f...
nickff 13y ago
The Pakistanis must authorize, allow, and support US drone operations in their airspace. This is the only plausible explanation for the US drone airfields within Pakistan, which were visible for some time on Google Earth, (though I have not checked recently).

chubot 13y ago

You know it has become fashionable to hate on Ron Paul and his supporters, but he is one of the few politicians I have ever learned anything from. Namely that in 1988 the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane, in its OWN air space, with a MISSILE! Which of course killed everyone on board. Imagine if there was an Iranian aircraft carrier parked around NYC, and it fired a missile into an passenger airliner taking off from JFK. Imagine what would happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

jacquesm 13y ago
Holy crap, I completely missed that. I thought KAL007 was the worst incident like this. > However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran. Why not? That would seem to be the proper thing to do.
- hga 13y ago
  KAL 007 was worse. The Iran Air Flight 655 debacle started with Iranian gun boats firing on one of the ship's helicopters. i.e. the shoot down was during combat initiated by the Iranians. KAL 007 was ultimately shot down because the Soviets involved didn't want to lose face or worse by letting it escape their airspace (it had probably left by the time it was fired upon).
  - X-Istence 13y ago
    The gun boats were firing upon the ship's helicopters because they were in Iranian airspace ...
    - hga 13y ago
      That's what the Iranians claim. We obviously claim differently. But even if they were correct, or honestly mistaken, why is shooting at an aircraft a good response to it intruding on your airspace? When you're not in a hot war with the intruder nothing good can come from it. In fact, this brings us right back to KAL 007....

sliverstorm 13y ago

The idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" statement has been weighing on me lately. It isn't perfectly accurate, but there might be a kernel of reality there. Remember a little while back when extremists were mad at the US for a video somebody made in their basement? I heard someone explain in regards to that issue that for someone whose government regulates such things, to them it must have looked like the US was endorsing the video simply by allowing it to exist.

jessaustin 13y ago
The "protests" on that one seemed a bit ginned-up, possibly to coincide with some other event. I mean, the video still exists, but all the goat enthusiasts are satisfied now that the dude's parole was revoked? That seems... unlikely.

e3pi 13y ago

An effective and unattributable false flag op trumps all DIS, DHS, and inflated budget and corrupt `security clearance' high salary revolving door critics. If another Edward Snowden bombshell is released with massive public outrage, "Expect U.S." not Anonymous.