CIA Attacks Inside Pakistan Without Approval

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

We do need to look within our own borders, not with drones but with persecution against a specific and targeted group. I would say that is needed more so than strikes in Pakistan, Iran, and especially more than any occupation.

While I say your point is well made, and I agree with your contention, I do not waiver in the previous post?s cruelty towards those who host our opponents. Yet the difference between western nations and Pakistan is that we do not consider our killers to be heroes. We harbor them out of stupidity, not in solidarity.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty over the terrorists that commit acts of war against NATO, then we must respond to Pakistan with our own acts of war. Sort of like ?if you break it you buy it?. In the case of terrorism, if you host it you ARE responsible for it.

Either Islam and its host nations will keep the peace, or we will have to persecute them all.

This is true. As long as a country hosting terrorists is putting in a reasonable and honest effort, then obviously they cannot be held accountable. I think part of a reasonable and honest effort is letting the US conduct limited sorties into uncontrolled territories for known targets. If Pakistan says no, who are they trying to kid?

When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

Difference being if the US said they had Bin Laden in France at a known location, France would say "have at it".

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

When we have actionable intel on terrorist locations in German and France, inform the leaders of those countries about the targets, and they flatly refuse to move on them, I guess we'll see. But since that situation is extremely unlikely to happen, I predict it will remain a hypothetical for the foreeable future.

But here's one situation where the US's improved post-Bush standing in the world will matter. Other nations may not be so keen on working with Bush, who is seen as a liar and warmonger, and their populations would not exactly be trusting of Bush's word that there are terrorists plotting in their country. A new president, who can renew faith in the US around the world, who doesn't garner distrust with every sentence that leaves his lips, is more likely to gain cooperation from foreign governments, because their people won't have an instictual reaction to their government working with the US gov't the way they do now.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

This is dangerous thinking.....what if they were located within Russia? If they didn't hand them over, would you be OK striking at them while still in Russia?

If Russia allowed them to continue staging there and attacking US troops over the border? Then YES.

What do you do if the Russian military intervenes? It is a border violation, after all. That could get messy, really quickly.

Yes, it could -- so it would unwise for Russia to allow such militants to continue operating unhindered within their own borders.

And please define "enemies"....is that anyone that disagrees with us, or anyone that attacks us, or what?

That's easy: Anyone who attacks us, attacks our allies, or directly supports those who do. Period.

So if (for example) we host several violent anti-Castro groups in the US (which we basically do) and refuse to do anything about it, by your reasoning Cuba has every right to go into the US and kill these groups. Is this OK with you? Because you can't argue that we have "special right" to do it, and no one else can.

They can try. The difference being that the US openly supports those groups opposed to Cuba, Cuba is not an ally of the US, and Cuba lacks the wherewithal and capability to do anything about it.

In the case of Pakistan, their government supposedly opposes the same militants we wish to capture/kill. Second, unlike Cuba, the US most certainly has the wherewithal and capability to solve the problem ourselves.

These strawman comparisons are getting old...

So this "attack anywhere " law only applies to us and our allies. All the "bad guys" don't have the same right?

LOL... uhhh, the "bad guys" dont follow ANY rules. In this case, the US has the right to defend itself by whatever means necessary. IOW, if the nation hosting the bad guys does nothing effective to stop them, only then should the US act, with, or without the host nations' approvals.

And does any country have the right to defend itself if we cross into their border? OR do they have to "roll over" and let us do what we want?

I'd much prefer they just roll over; but sure, they're always welcome to side with our enemies and try to fight us.

Cuba, while not an ally, is a real country, so if we can act in self-defense, so can they. Are you willing to start a war with Cuba (in their case, that would be a laugh, I know), but what about Russia? or Pakistan? They both have real armies, and even worse, nukes.

I'm willing to defend America and our allies, including Afghanistan, by whatever means necessary... how about you?

But hey we are the US, right? The rules don't apply to us, since we are "special".

You're a "special" kind of ass, for sure.

I'm not going to argue that a quick air strike isn't something we should or should not do, I would think that it has to be handled on a case by case basis, weighing the risks/rewards.

Then what the fvck are you arguing against!? That's the only point of this entire thread, you dolt!

But to blindly insist on being able to kill "anyone, anywhere, anytime" isn't going to help us in the long run, and just goes to the whole "we are above the law" mantra of Bush.

I guess you missed the part - again - about only doing so if/when the host nation does nothing to capture or kill the perps on their soil.

War's and battles are fought for political reasons. To ignore politics (I mean international, not this stupid dem/repub crap) is a surefire way to cause MORE problems.

Of course -- but, in my opinion, allowing our enemies a safe haven, of any kind, is an even larger mistake.

So to you, (hypothetical example) killing 1-2 mid-level terrorists in Russia (or Iran, or Pakistan) is always justified, no mater what the repercussions? What if we end up getting engaged in a major battle, killing 100-200 people (on both sides)?

Such is war -- proportionality is always a key factor, but good leaders will know how to weigh the pros and cons of any engagement.

What if that incident pisses of the country and they become hostile to us? What if (in Pakistan's case), they start quietly helping terrorists, because they are mad at us? Or Russia, starting another arms race and Cold war? Are those two terrorists still worth it?

That would be for those who "quietly support them" to decide. Our only consideration should be the defense of the US and its allies from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Issues like this are why the military doesn't have blanket ROE to shoot everyone.

True, but that doesnt mean there shouldn't be exceptions. So, once again -- for the short bus riders amongst you -- if/when a host nation does nothing to capture or kill the violent terrorists on their soil, the US should take care of the bad guys ourselves.

Allowing the terrorists a safe haven, wherein they can train and stage attacks on US soldiers, or any of our allies, is absolutely criminal. Period.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

When we have actionable intel on terrorist locations in German and France, inform the leaders of those countries about the targets, and they flatly refuse to move on them, I guess we'll see. But since that situation is extremely unlikely to happen, I predict it will remain a hypothetical for the foreeable future.

But here's one situation where the US's improved post-Bush standing in the world will matter. Other nations may not be so keen on working with Bush, who is seen as a liar and warmonger, and their populations would not exactly be trusting of Bush's word that there are terrorists plotting in their country. A new president, who can renew faith in the US around the world, who doesn't garner distrust with every sentence that leaves his lips, is more likely to gain cooperation from foreign governments, because their people won't have an instictual reaction to their government working with the US gov't the way they do now.

I think that it's likely to happen, especially in countries such as France. They are legendary in the non-extradition of criminals to the US. They have even gone as far as protecting participants in the Rwandan genocide from extradition to the UN tribunal.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

When we have actionable intel on terrorist locations in German and France, inform the leaders of those countries about the targets, and they flatly refuse to move on them, I guess we'll see. But since that situation is extremely unlikely to happen, I predict it will remain a hypothetical for the foreeable future.

But here's one situation where the US's improved post-Bush standing in the world will matter. Other nations may not be so keen on working with Bush, who is seen as a liar and warmonger, and their populations would not exactly be trusting of Bush's word that there are terrorists plotting in their country. A new president, who can renew faith in the US around the world, who doesn't garner distrust with every sentence that leaves his lips, is more likely to gain cooperation from foreign governments, because their people won't have an instictual reaction to their government working with the US gov't the way they do now.

I think that it's likely to happen, especially in countries such as France. They are legendary in the non-extradition of criminals to the US. They have even gone as far as protecting participants in the Rwandan genocide from extradition to the UN tribunal.

Can you really not see the difference between not extraditing a criminal and not taking action against a group of identified known terrorists in their country? After Madrid and London bombings, the terrorists in their country are more likely to be planning attacks in their country than over here anyway. But we don't have to take that chance. And you know France just elected a conservative president right? Between this post and your other completely off post about how Europeans are scared to death of a black US president, I can only conclude you have absolutely no idea what is going on in any European country politically or in the minds of the citizens there.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Yet the difference between western nations and Pakistan is that we do not consider our killers to be heroes. We harbor them out of stupidity, not in solidarity.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well done, CIA, do it again!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.

When we have actionable intel on terrorist locations in German and France, inform the leaders of those countries about the targets, and they flatly refuse to move on them, I guess we'll see. But since that situation is extremely unlikely to happen, I predict it will remain a hypothetical for the foreeable future.

But here's one situation where the US's improved post-Bush standing in the world will matter. Other nations may not be so keen on working with Bush, who is seen as a liar and warmonger, and their populations would not exactly be trusting of Bush's word that there are terrorists plotting in their country. A new president, who can renew faith in the US around the world, who doesn't garner distrust with every sentence that leaves his lips, is more likely to gain cooperation from foreign governments, because their people won't have an instictual reaction to their government working with the US gov't the way they do now.

I think that it's likely to happen, especially in countries such as France. They are legendary in the non-extradition of criminals to the US. They have even gone as far as protecting participants in the Rwandan genocide from extradition to the UN tribunal.

Actually you'll have to provide a link to the Rwandan people you are talking about because that is just made up shit you came up with as you wrote your post, i know of the cases where they were not extradited to Rwanda because of the death penalty.

When it comes to extraditing to the US and other countries that employ the death penalty, that isn't just a French thing, no country in the EU will extradite any prisoner to a country where he might be executed.

I usually just ignore your responses because if it isn't about how Muslims are taking over Europe it's about how badly they are treated in Europe, you are just a Euro-hater and no lie is to big for you to tell it on the matter.

You're basically a parody of yourself.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Exterous
5 If you think it should be handled on a case by case basis why do you make blanket statements and generalizations like 'bad guys'. If you want to be specific, be specific then - and relate to specific events, not hypoteticals

I agree it should be on a case by case basis. The problem is, it seems some other people think it should be an "always, doesn't matter who or where, no discussion necessary thing, lets just do it". That is what I was trying to point out (poorly, I guess).

There is a big difference between sneaking across the Pakistan border with a drone or small spec ops team to capture/kill OBL or someone like him, where the chances we get in/out without being observed are good, and going into a country where we would be detected, and possibly fired upon.

Is antagonizing a whole country (say Pakistan) by ignoring their sovereignty (they have pride too, just like us), to maybe get a couple of mid-level people that are already at least partially isolated? Pakistan (or any country), can have a knee-jerk reaction, just we did to 9/11. What if they decided not to help us anymore? Is that worth getting two people? When we created probably hundred of pissed-off Pakistanis that either become terrorist helpers, because they are mad at us.

All I'm saying is a blanket statement that the US will (or should) go in to get anyone we deem an enemy is wrong, and can cause more problems sometimes. Killing several terrorists while creating hundreds is not a good trade-off.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Exterous
5 If you think it should be handled on a case by case basis why do you make blanket statements and generalizations like 'bad guys'. If you want to be specific, be specific then - and relate to specific events, not hypoteticals

I agree it should be on a case by case basis. The problem is, it seems some other people think it should be an "always, doesn't matter who or where, no discussion necessary thing, lets just do it". That is what I was trying to point out (poorly, I guess).

There is a big difference between sneaking across the Pakistan border with a drone or small spec ops team to capture/kill OBL or someone like him, where the chances we get in/out without being observed are good, and going into a country where we would be detected, and possibly fired upon.

Is antagonizing a whole country (say Pakistan) by ignoring their sovereignty (they have pride too, just like us), to maybe get a couple of mid-level people that are already at least partially isolated? Pakistan (or any country), can have a knee-jerk reaction, just we did to 9/11. What if they decided not to help us anymore? Is that worth getting two people? When we created probably hundred of pissed-off Pakistanis that either become terrorist helpers, because they are mad at us.

All I'm saying is a blanket statement that the US will (or should) go in to get anyone we deem an enemy is wrong, and can cause more problems sometimes. Killing several terrorists while creating hundreds is not a good trade-off.

Ah, I understand your position better.

IMO (and what I hope) is that the people who say 'get them any time, anywhere' don't have enough power to make that happen. It looks (to me) as though there is a fair consideration of the repercussions, but it is still a risky game. How much are we willing to risk to get them where they hide? Hopefully the successes outweight the failures

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Exterous
5 If you think it should be handled on a case by case basis why do you make blanket statements and generalizations like 'bad guys'. If you want to be specific, be specific then - and relate to specific events, not hypoteticals

I agree it should be on a case by case basis. The problem is, it seems some other people think it should be an "always, doesn't matter who or where, no discussion necessary thing, lets just do it". That is what I was trying to point out (poorly, I guess).

There is a big difference between sneaking across the Pakistan border with a drone or small spec ops team to capture/kill OBL or someone like him, where the chances we get in/out without being observed are good, and going into a country where we would be detected, and possibly fired upon.

Is antagonizing a whole country (say Pakistan) by ignoring their sovereignty (they have pride too, just like us), to maybe get a couple of mid-level people that are already at least partially isolated? Pakistan (or any country), can have a knee-jerk reaction, just we did to 9/11. What if they decided not to help us anymore? Is that worth getting two people? When we created probably hundred of pissed-off Pakistanis that either become terrorist helpers, because they are mad at us.

All I'm saying is a blanket statement that the US will (or should) go in to get anyone we deem an enemy is wrong, and can cause more problems sometimes. Killing several terrorists while creating hundreds is not a good trade-off.

who has advocated going in "any time, anywhere" or "always, doesnt matter who or where"?

I sincerely hope you're smart enough to realize that's not what I said above.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Can you really not see the difference between not extraditing a criminal and not taking action against a group of identified known terrorists in their country?

Of course, but they don't necessarily view groups the same way. The EU didn't even recognize the LTTE as terrorists until a few years ago. Even Canada didn't until recently.

After Madrid and London bombings, the terrorists in their country are more likely to be planning attacks in their country than over here anyway. But we don't have to take that chance. And you know France just elected a conservative president right?

Yes.

Between this post and your other completely off post about how Europeans are scared to death of a black US president, I can only conclude you have absolutely no idea what is going on in any European country politically or in the minds of the citizens there.

I don't think you grasp the situation in Europe either.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Actually you'll have to provide a link to the Rwandan people you are talking about because that is just made up shit you came up with as you wrote your post, i know of the cases where they were not extradited to Rwanda because of the death penalty.

Call to end European safe havens for Rwandan Perpetrators

Inexcusable delays in following up on allegations . Whilst many countries have failed to conduct investigations into the presence of genocide suspects this failing is most evidenced in France where not a single trial has resulted despite numerous investigations and prosecutions. Several organisations, including FIDH, LDH (Ligue française des droits de l?Homme et du citoyen), the Communauté rwandaise, Survie, and individual victims, are involved in the following cases: Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Laurent Bucyibaruta, Laurent Serubuga, Cyprien Kayumba, Sosthène Munyemana. Despite the opening in France of proceedings against Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka on 25 July 1995, the head of the Catholic Parish of Ste. Famille in Kigali, who is said to have been complicit in numerous massacres at that site, there has been a failure by French authorities to put the suspect on trial. He is currently under judicial supervision. The European Court of Human Rights condemned France for its inexcusable delays which continue to this day. Laurent Bucyibaruta, former préfet (governor) of Gikongoro, is also said to be present in France. Despite evidence pointing to his involvement in a massacre of over 50,000 Tutsis on 21 April 1994 at Murambi, a technical school in Gikongoro which is the site of official commemoration activities this year on 7th April, he has not yet been prosecuted.

France continues to this day to harbor and protect its genocide allies.

When it comes to extraditing to the US and other countries that employ the death penalty, that isn't just a French thing, no country in the EU will extradite any prisoner to a country where he might be executed.

Like the Ira Einhorn situation? The French were extremely resistant to his extradition, even with the death penalty being waved.

I usually just ignore your responses because if it isn't about how Muslims are taking over Europe it's about how badly they are treated in Europe, you are just a Euro-hater and no lie is to big for you to tell it on the matter.

You're basically a parody of yourself.

ok

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Actually you'll have to provide a link to the Rwandan people you are talking about because that is just made up shit you came up with as you wrote your post, i know of the cases where they were not extradited to Rwanda because of the death penalty.

Call to end European safe havens for Rwandan Perpetrators

Inexcusable delays in following up on allegations . Whilst many countries have failed to conduct investigations into the presence of genocide suspects this failing is most evidenced in France where not a single trial has resulted despite numerous investigations and prosecutions. Several organisations, including FIDH, LDH (Ligue française des droits de l?Homme et du citoyen), the Communauté rwandaise, Survie, and individual victims, are involved in the following cases: Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Laurent Bucyibaruta, Laurent Serubuga, Cyprien Kayumba, Sosthène Munyemana. Despite the opening in France of proceedings against Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka on 25 July 1995, the head of the Catholic Parish of Ste. Famille in Kigali, who is said to have been complicit in numerous massacres at that site, there has been a failure by French authorities to put the suspect on trial. He is currently under judicial supervision. The European Court of Human Rights condemned France for its inexcusable delays which continue to this day. Laurent Bucyibaruta, former préfet (governor) of Gikongoro, is also said to be present in France. Despite evidence pointing to his involvement in a massacre of over 50,000 Tutsis on 21 April 1994 at Murambi, a technical school in Gikongoro which is the site of official commemoration activities this year on 7th April, he has not yet been prosecuted.

France continues to this day to harbor and protect its genocide allies.

When it comes to extraditing to the US and other countries that employ the death penalty, that isn't just a French thing, no country in the EU will extradite any prisoner to a country where he might be executed.

Like the Ira Einhorn situation? The French were extremely resistant to his extradition, even with the death penalty being waved.

I usually just ignore your responses because if it isn't about how Muslims are taking over Europe it's about how badly they are treated in Europe, you are just a Euro-hater and no lie is to big for you to tell it on the matter.

You're basically a parody of yourself.

ok

Ahhhh, so it's not that they have not turned anyone over, no request has been made (and yeah, i checked) it's that they have not taken those to trial that some people want to be taken to trial because the accusations were not enough, they needed some kind of evidence that was non-existent (yeah i read the rest too).

This is how you do it? you take a part out of something and believe it despite the other parts and without checking into the matter?

Some of them are not even present in France as far as anyone knows, they haven't been seen for a good ten years by now, might not even be alive and there is no evidence what so ever that they are in France.

I like how you dance, dance monkey, dance for me.

I'm not French and i have been pissed at those arrogant a-holes in several situations, they are even worse than Americans.

For some reason Americans in the Army or Airforce or Navy are mostly humble respectful people who gain respect by showing respect, the civilian Americans though....

The majority would wipe out the rest of the world if they could, hate Russia out of tradition and love China because... well i really don't know why, compared to China, Russia is a beacon of freedom and rights.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Ahhhh, so it's not that they have not turned anyone over, no request has been made (and yeah, i checked) it's that they have not taken those to trial that some people want to be taken to trial because the accusations were not enough, they needed some kind of evidence that was non-existent (yeah i read the rest too).

I guess you didn't read it.

No, they are extremely resistant to put the people on trial or extradite them.

Why? Perhaps it's because they would further expose France's involvement in the genocide.

This is how you do it? you take a part out of something and believe it despite the other parts and without checking into the matter?

Believing the truth is better than believing in the lies.

Some of them are not even present in France as far as anyone knows, they haven't been seen for a good ten years by now, might not even be alive and there is no evidence what so ever that they are in France.

The guy on judicial supervision who was supposed to be on trial in 1995 is missing? The guy supervised by the French government is missing? Seriously?

Man didn't land on the moon, huh?

I like how you dance, dance monkey, dance for me.

I'm not French and i have been pissed at those arrogant a-holes in several situations, they are even worse than Americans.

For some reason Americans in the Army or Airforce or Navy are mostly humble respectful people who gain respect by showing respect, the civilian Americans though....

The majority would wipe out the rest of the world if they could, hate Russia out of tradition and love China because... well i really don't know why, compared to China, Russia is a beacon of freedom and rights.

ok

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You know what, i think you KNOW that nothing of what you say is true, but rather than going forward and back and you posting links to nationalistic pages that you for some reason or another read i'm just going to go back to ignoring you.

I think we have all got the point by now, you hate everything European, if they let refugees in, they are letting them take over, if they stop them, they are promoting genocide, if they are trying to integrate them, they are racist, if they don't they are excluding them.

There is no use discussing shit with the likes of you because you'll always find some obscure article that was published in one paper five years ago and bookmark it and wait for the right opportunity to post it, validity and credabilyty doesn't matter at all.

So i bid you farewell as i go back to ignoring you completely.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You know what, i think you KNOW that nothing of what you say is true, but rather than going forward and back and you posting links to nationalistic pages that you for some reason or another read i'm just going to go back to ignoring you.

I posted a link to a human rights organization.

You posted bizarre statements and no facts.

I think we have all got the point by now, you hate everything European, if they let refugees in, they are letting them take over, if they stop them, they are promoting genocide, if they are trying to integrate them, they are racist, if they don't they are excluding them.

I don't hate everything European. I just hate their governments. I don't think that they are good allies for the United States, just like how many Europeans feel the other way.

You obviously have me confused with someone else. I never claimed that Europeans are letting minorities take over. In fact, I would tend to see it the other way. Let people come to Europe because the population is dropping at an incredible rate.

There is no use discussing shit with the likes of you because you'll always find some obscure article that was published in one paper five years ago and bookmark it and wait for the right opportunity to post it, validity and credabilyty doesn't matter at all.

Human rights organizations, The European Court of Human Rights, etc. sure are obscure!

So i bid you farewell as i go back to ignoring you completely.

I guess that's what you gotta do when you're incapable of a coherent discussion. All you have is bizarre rambling, nothing to back up your statements, etc.

If only the British ignored everyone in the world centuries ago...

Again, back to my original point, the French cannot be wholly trusted in extradition of terrorist suspects.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

/ignore from now on canofshit.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
/ignore from now on canofshit.

I'll chalk this up as another victory.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
/ignore from now on canofshit.

I'll chalk this up as another victory.

'cept that The Hague is Spanish? :-D

You're a funny motherfucker, i can't believe you actually not only bought that but evolved it to a Spanish PR coup.

Holy hell man, you're hilarious.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
/ignore from now on canofshit.

I'll chalk this up as another victory.

'cept that The Hague is Spanish? :-D

You're a funny motherfucker, i can't believe you actually not only bought that but evolved it to a Spanish PR coup.

Holy hell man, you're hilarious.

Defense mechanism?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
/ignore from now on canofshit.

I'll chalk this up as another victory.

'cept that The Hague is Spanish? :-D

You're a funny motherfucker, i can't believe you actually not only bought that but evolved it to a Spanish PR coup.

Holy hell man, you're hilarious.

Defense mechanism?

I dunno what it was, maybe it was, anyway, it was funny as hell.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty over the terrorists that commit acts of war against NATO, then we must respond to Pakistan with our own acts of war. Sort of like ?if you break it you buy it?. In the case of terrorism, if you host it you ARE responsible for it.

Either Islam and its host nations will keep the peace, or we will have to persecute them all.

Get over it. There's a limit to what you can do. You certainly don't want to invade Pakistan or Iran and start WW3. You host Bush. You are responsible for his illegal acts of war.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
I sincerely hope you're smart enough to realize that's not what I said above.

You are correct, I didn't mean you.

(Doesn't mean I always agree with you though )