Killing And Battle

[P.K.]

What do you know about the destruction of the WTC?

[mæŋksmən]

Dont switch subject PK because you find this one unpalatable.

 

British troops are there for one reason only, to protect american interests in the region.

And the americans will still be there in a decade i will bet my house on it, no matter what rhetoric comes out of obamas mouth.

[P.K.]

Dont switch subject PK because you find this one unpalatable.

"Unpalatable?" Not at all.

 

It's just you come across to me as one of those idiotic conspiracy nutters. That's all.

[mæŋksmən]

I dont form my views from woo woo sites.

[slinkydevil]

I dont form my views from woo woo sites.

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cia-secret-operations-drug-money

 

It's just words from a Pakistani journalist.

[mæŋksmən]

I dont form my views from woo woo sites.

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cia-secret-operations-drug-money

 

It's just words from a Pakistani journalist.

 

It was just one quick link out of 1000s for LDV to get an overall picture.

C.I.A. drugs activities are one of the most written about subjects and anything in that link is so easily verifiable, what is it you dont agree with him about ?.

google keywords c.i.a. drugs production

[slinkydevil]

what is it you dont agree with him about ?.

 

'She' seems to have an axe to grind.

 

She says: "More disturbing is fact that this money also contributes in CIA’s operations against Pakistan as well."

 

I'm sure some of it's true but a reporter will always blow things out of proportion to make a good story - especially about 'secret' and 'clandestine' operations. Who's to argue with her, it's all secret.

[mæŋksmən]

Bullshit secret its one of the most written about subjects online, if you care to look you will find i aint doing it all for you.

 

There not good at keeping secrets.

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

 

CIA’s operations against Pakistan .googled search words.

 

Theres any amount of it.

How can it be secret with so many involved, people who try to prove it have a very poor survival rate.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

Thats why the taliban had to go.

2001 the phony war on terror began.

 

LDV if you cannot be arsed to do even the slightest research on the c.i.a. decades long involvement in drugs then please dont make ridiculous statements as above ffs.

iran contra ring any bells.

hint cia exchanging american arms for tons of opiates and then distriduting the drugs on the streets of america, funnelling the money thru wall street.

Ffs the c.i.a. even had its own bank to launder its drug money.

Bank of credit and commerce remember them,plenty of manx people will.

 

Do some research before replying otherwise your just wasting my time.

You haven't demonstrated anything in respect of your argument that the US purpose in Afghanistan is to control and make money out of opium bar any other reason. Surely you must be able to recognise that even if you do hold to the argument that the US really wants to have a thriving opium production that Aghanistan is strategically very important.

 

I wouldn't dispute much of what you are saying about the CIA. I think it probably that the CIA has been involved in the control of drugs. But I don't agree that the scope of operations is a great as you seem to believe and nor do I think that government is so engrossed in the distribution of these these drugs within for profit. If such 'facts' are so seemingly so easy to find out then it would be an issue so scandalous to seriously damage the functioning of government in the US, given the public outrage that would raised through the media and political groups. It would also run counter to the desires of big business, who would not be in any way inclined to allow the government to lose control over citizens by distributing drugs.

[- Paul -]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7091027.ece

US military lawyers were reviewing the case last night. A military official said: “We’re looking at a reinvestigation because of a question of the rules of engagement. Were all the actions that are depicted on that video in parallel with the rules of engagement in effect at the time?”

[P.K.]

I would be surprised if there was any legal action taken. It's not the fault of the US military that some reporters stupidly hooked up with a group of insurgents who co-incidentally dressed just like them - idiots. As to the aid-giver getting shot to me that's the only contentious issue. From the way they hung back before opening fire I suspect the crew were mindfull of their SOP's ie they knew their rules of engagement and waited until they were fulfilled

[Chinahand]

It is the attack on the van which disturbs me - the initial attack is at best mistaken identity which is not unreasonable given the fact the Americans only a few hundred yards away had been under fire.

 

Looking in more detail at the initial shooting of the group - the two armed guys who are initially on the other side of the road - one with a AK and the other with either an unloaded RPG or a bolt action rifle. They've moved across the street and are actually there milling around the street corner with the journalists. You could re-edit the wikileaks video quite easily to show that they are firing on an armed group.

 

I wonder if they were insurgents or bodyguards? I suspect the war-photographer was trying to get a "shot" of the Americans advancing down the road towards him - hence him being hunched up.

 

Add that behaviour - which looks very much like someone trying to get into a fire position - with the presence of the armed men in the group makes the initial firing look reasonable to me.

 

And Wikileaks are being disengenious really by only highlighting the journalists and not drawing attention to the armed guys - journalism has to be objective.

[Max Power]

Surely it's not impossible for jounalists to be identified electronically and radio their position and intent when operating in a war zone?

They could then be warned of the consequences of proceeding with their actions!

[Bananaman]

Surely it's not impossible for jounalists to be identified electronically and radio their position and intent when operating in a war zone?

They could then be warned of the consequences of proceeding with their actions!

 

No longer impartial then are they?

[mæŋksmən]

"She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

 

The hearings provided a platform for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to share the reality of their occupation experiences with the media in the US.

 

Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement (ROE) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how lax they were, to the point of being virtually nonexistent.

 

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."