Pakistani PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29736066]I never said I support it. You're simply taking everything to the extreme by e.g. equating those doctrines with the implementation of the NWO. Your argument stems from primarily psychological problems, there's very little ways to disprove it, in much the same way Russell's teapot can't be disproved; that's why we have the burden of proof concept.[/QUOTE] Ok, now I have learned not to mention things like "NWO", because people usually rush to the quick reply box and write about mental instability and burden of proof concept they improperly use. Also, refer to my previous post. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ignhelper;29736096]TL;DR USA wouldn't do shit to Pakistan If they actually did something about the terrorist.[/QUOTE] No. The terrorists were in Pakistan, the Bush doctrine labels the whole country as in league with the terrorists. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736118]e: An NWO through defeat doesn't make much sense either, it's not a very effective global community if you wipe out anyone different.[/QUOTE] Wipe out anyone with a different mindset, and everyone with the same mindset will work towards the same things. That's good if you're a leader of a population, and want everyone to think the way you want them to.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736121]Ok, now I have learned not to mention things like "NWO", because people usually rush to the quick reply box and write about mental instability and burden of proof concept they improperly use. Also, refer to my previous post. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] No. The terrorists were in Pakistan, the Bush doctrine labels the whole country as in league with the terrorists.[/QUOTE] Well obviously we're not following that doctrine right now because then shouldn't we have attacked Pakistan or sanctioned them or actually do anything to the country? Why didn't we attack Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Somalia? Or one of the dozen other countries with terrorists in them? How about Russia, the Caucauses are just crawling with islamic extremists. [QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736121]Ok, now I have learned not to mention things like "NWO", because people usually rush to the quick reply box and write about mental instability and burden of proof concept they improperly use. Also, refer to my previous post. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] No. The terrorists were in Pakistan, the Bush doctrine labels the whole country as in league with the terrorists. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] Wipe out anyone with a different mindset, and everyone with the same mindset will work towards the same things. That's good if you're a leader of a population, and want everyone to think the way you want them to.[/QUOTE] Except there's no actual government that has the mindset of "Kill everyone we don't agree with" I can pretty much guarantee you if America attacked and destroyed multiple countries in the name of some doctrine the international community would have a gigantic outrage, as would the people of the country.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736165]Well obviously we're not following that doctrine right now because then shouldn't we have attacked Pakistan or sanctioned them or actually do anything to the country? Why didn't we attack Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Somalia? Or one of the dozen other countries with terrorists in them? How about Russia, the Caucauses are just crawling with islamic extremists.[/QUOTE] They are following it, because the doctrine gives the U.S. the right to do whatever they want. And that's what they're doing. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you're going to do it all the time.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736175]They are following it, because the doctrine gives the U.S. the right to do whatever they want. And that's what they're doing. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you're going to do it all the time.[/QUOTE] Doing what? Doing nothing? The fact that they're doing nothing shows they have the ability to do whatever? Do you think the action in Abadabad (whatever it was) was unjustifiable outside of the doctrine? e: If we were actually following this you would see more examples of it, you can't point to a few incidents and say "there that proves the rule!"

Who says they're doing nothing? Good job pulling that fact out of your ass. It sure seems like they're doing nothing when you're not around anywhere this shit would happen, and can only know what they tell you on the news.

Thats ok, we could just not recognize them and stop trading with them. Their economy would be dead in weeks.

Good, the US needs to learn not to violate the sovereignty of other countries - if it happened to them they'd fucking throw a tantrum of tantrums so it's only fair.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736222]Who says they're doing nothing? Good job pulling that fact out of your ass. It sure seems like they're doing nothing when you're not around anywhere this shit would happen, and can only know what they tell you on the news.[/QUOTE] So where's your proof they're doing something? I judge they're not doing anything based on the available data I have and you just say OH WELL YOU JUST LISTEN TO THE MSM YOU DON'T [I]KNOW![/I] e: Really, you say i'm pulling stuff out of my ass and you just kind of say YOU DON'T KNOW? e: You don't know this is all a dream how can you judge you're awake right now it's all just what your brain tells you and that connection is fallible YOU DON'T KNOW.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;29736230]Good, the US needs to learn not to violate the sovereignty of other countries - if it happened to them they'd fucking throw a tantrum of tantrums so it's only fair.[/QUOTE] I for one, would be happy if they pulled out a high profile terrorist out of my country. That is like saying you would be pissed if someone took out a piece of shrapnel out of you leg because they didn't ask first.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736258]So where's your proof they're doing something? I judge they're not doing anything based on the available data I have and you just say OH WELL YOU JUST LISTEN TO THE MSM YOU DON'T [I]KNOW![/I][/QUOTE] Are you saying there is no proof that they're doing these things? Also, do you think world events are known by everyone, and that the evidence that they took place is accessible from anywhere?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736300]Are you saying there is no proof that they're doing these things? Also, do you think world events are known by everyone, and that the evidence that they took place is accessible from anywhere?[/QUOTE] Are you saying there's proof that they're doing these things? You should provide it, instead of just saying YDK whenever someone claims a negative. And something like significant military action by a major country, yeah i'd say that'd be known especially if it's something new or radically different from the norm.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;29736289]I for one, would be happy if they pulled out a high profile terrorist out of my country. That is like saying you would be pissed if someone took out a piece of shrapnel out of you leg because they didn't ask first.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but it's not as simple as that. Not only do they give themselves the freedom to kill any terrorist, they allow themselves the right to attack/invade any country where a terrorist has been. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736320]Are you saying there's proof that they're doing these things? You should provide it, instead of just saying YDK whenever someone claims a negative. And something like significant military action by a major country, yeah i'd say that'd be known especially if it's something new or radically different from the norm.[/QUOTE] Okay genius, what format do you want your evidence in?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736324]Yeah, but it's not as simple as that. Not only do they give themselves the freedom to kill any terrorist, they allow themselves the right to attack/invade any country where a terrorist has been. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] Okay genius, what format do you want your evidence in?[/QUOTE] How about something reputable/credible demonstrating actual abuse of the policy and military action in a country that's only connection to terrorism is the base fact that one was there once. Not actually harboring them systematically, or supporting them monetarily, just having them live there sometimes.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736175]They are following it, because the doctrine gives the U.S. the right to do whatever they want. And that's what they're doing. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you're going to do it all the time.[/QUOTE] This is my favourite part of this, he thinks having a doctrine means you can carry it out without consequences. "Hey, you can't invade that country! Oh you have the Bush doctrine, carry on then." It gives no rights, it gives no special privelidges, a doctrine is just a method for doing what they could already do. It's manipulative and pushing it but within what people will let them, they can do it with or without it. Really though, if they abused it you can guarantee someone would call their bullshit.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736359]How about something reputable/credible demonstrating actual abuse of the policy and military action in a country that's only connection to terrorism is the base fact that one was there once. Not actually harboring them systematically, or supporting them monetarily, just having them live there sometimes.[/QUOTE] The problem with what you're asking for, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)]is that I can easily supply you with bullshit that you would easily believe, because you would perceive it as real evidence[/url]. How different would you be then from the conspiracy theorists that believe in fake shit? And because a source of information has a reputation of being accurate, doesn't make it 100% credible. Unless you believe it's impossible to tell the truth consistently, and then tell a lie. So how seriously am I going to take you when you demand for this type of evidence, when it's possible that it's totally bullshit. You call that evidence? What a smart person would have asked, is for hard evidence. Something that isn't possibly just a lie. Proper evidence for example would be seeing this shit first hand. But feel free to argue that just because it's possible that the evidence for something might not be really evidence for it, it doesn't mean that it is not evidence. But right back at you, because it doesn't mean that it's evidence either. [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Devodiere;29736487]This is my favourite part of this, he thinks having a doctrine means you can carry it out without consequences. "Hey, you can't invade that country! Oh you have the Bush doctrine, carry on then." It gives no rights, it gives no special privelidges, a doctrine is just a method for doing what they could already do. It's manipulative and pushing it but within what people will let them, they can do it with or without it. Really though, if they abused it you can guarantee someone would call their bullshit.[/QUOTE] You're right. We can say "fuck that doctrine" to the U.S. But prepare yourself, because the U.S. will entitle themselves to the right of doing whatever they want to you, when they want. And who'd let them carry on invading/attacking? Anyone who isn't able to stop them from doing so, that's who.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736501]The problem with what you're asking for, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)]is that I can easily supply you with bullshit that you would easily believe, because you would perceive it as real evidence[/url]. How different would you be then from the conspiracy theorists that believe in fake shit? And because a source of information has a reputation of being accurate, doesn't make it 100% credible. Unless you believe it's impossible to tell the truth consistently, and then tell a lie. So how seriously am I going to take you when you demand for this type of evidence, when it's possible that it's totally bullshit. You call that evidence? What a smart person would have asked, is for hard evidence. Something that isn't possibly just a lie. Proper evidence for example would be seeing this shit first hand. But feel free to argue that just because it's possible that the evidence for something might not be really evidence for it, it doesn't mean that it is not evidence. But right back at you, because it doesn't mean that it's evidence either.[/QUOTE] Word salad blather besides, the War In Afghanistan isn't an example of what you're talking about because regime with wide spread and rigid power throughout the country was providing direct and systematic support to a terrorist organization. This is not an issue of terrorists simply living there. Would you like to provide the hard evidence that you speak of, or are you just going to say it's impossible to provide to satisfy my requirements or something?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736501]You're right. We can say "fuck that doctrine" to the U.S. But prepare yourself, because the U.S. will entitle themselves to the right of doing whatever they want to you, when they want. And who'd let them carry on invading/attacking? Anyone who isn't able to stop them from doing so, that's who.[/QUOTE] Oh man, paranoia up the ass. There'd be a lot less conspiracy theorists out there if they actually did that you know.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736523]Word salad blather besides, the War In Afghanistan isn't an example of what you're talking about because [b]regime with wide spread and rigid power throughout the country was providing direct and systematic support to a terrorist organization.[/b] This is not an issue of terrorists simply living there. Would you like to provide the hard evidence that you speak of, or are you just going to say it's impossible to provide to satisfy my requirements or something?[/QUOTE] Way to go, hypocrite. You just made a claim, said it as a fact, and failed to provide evidence. And before you come rushing back with evidence (you won't), make sure you have evidence that it's real evidence for it. What you're doing here is asking for evidence that something is a certain way, but you fail to provide evidence that it isn't that certain way. Don't worry, most people do this. But you should be able to provide evidence for what you "know" is fact, otherwise it isn't a fact, but only a possibility.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736575]Way to go, hypocrite. You just made a claim, said it as a fact, and failed to provide evidence. And before you come rushing back with evidence (you won't), make sure you have evidence that it's real evidence for it. What you're doing here is asking for evidence that something is a certain way, but you fail to provide evidence that it isn't that certain way. Don't worry, most people do this. But you should be able to provide evidence for what you "know" is fact, otherwise it isn't a fact, but only a possibility.[/QUOTE] [quote]The aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it. [/quote] [quote]After the refusal of the Taliban regime to cease harbouring al-Qaeda, on October 7, 2001 the U.S. government launched military operations in Afghanistan.[/quote] I could go find more rigorous evidence, but the position i'm arguing is the accepted reasons for the war in afghanistan, thus it has a much lower immediate burden of proof than whatever the hell it is you're arguing. e: I'm not making extraordinary claims, so I don't need to go get reams of evidence. I'll admit i'm not very well educated as to the complicated history of the taliban regime in afghanistan, but seeing as how it's the main analysis of them, I don't think I need to go deeply educate myself on it. ee: Though I might because now that I think about it, the sociopolitical boondoggle that it was seems interesting.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736626]I could go find more rigorous evidence, but the position i'm arguing is the accepted reasons for the war in afghanistan, thus it has a much lower immediate burden of proof than whatever the hell it is you're arguing.[/QUOTE] [b]Fucking gold.[/b] You have a lower burden of proof because you're using text that anyone could have written as evidence? Fucking brilliant. Where's the evidence that what you claim to be evidence is accurate and truthful? Without that, your evidence doesn't prove anything. You're quick to tell me how everything I say is a claim for which I must have proper evidence for, but don't forget how you're making claims too. Except you use the stupid logic that I must be able to prove my claims first, just because I made the first claims, and that if I can't prove my claims to be correct, that your claims are automatically right.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736681][b]Fucking gold.[/b] You have a lower burden of proof because you're using text that anyone could have written as evidence? Fucking brilliant. Where's the evidence that what you claim to be evidence is accurate and truthful? Without that, your evidence doesn't prove anything. You're quick to tell me how everything I say is a claim for which I must have proper evidence for, but don't forget how you're making claims too. Except you use the stupid logic that I must be able to prove my claims first, just because I made the first claims, and that if I can't prove my claims to be correct, that your claims are automatically right.[/QUOTE] Ok, would you like me to talk with you about how informed conversations work? If I talked to a friend about the war in afghanistan, and discussed the reasoning behind it and the influence of the taliban, I would say "Remember the regime that was in power. The influence they had towards preventing the education of women was terrible." to which he would likely respond either "Yeah I know blah blah blah politics" or "I don't recall that, what do you mean" and i'd probably say how I heard about it through analysis of the region and all the news stories behind the war, but he wouldn't go "Prove it. Find me evidence now" because I did not make an extraordinary claim, I made a claim that meshes with the common sociological perspective on it. You, however, are arguing something extraordinary that isn't apparent common knowledge, and you're entitled to provide evidence towards your claims. I'm not, because it's not my fault that you're uneducated on the war. e: But here since you demand it: [url]http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/al-qaeda-taliban-nexus/p20838[/url] e: Ah whoops, that's analysis of pakistan. Give me a minute to find this, it's a bit out of date.

If you say "Remember the regime that was in power. The influence they had towards preventing the education of women was terrible.", you need evidence to back up this claim to prove that the statement is true and accurate. Reading that claim online, or hearing it on the news, is not evidence that proves the statement is true. Just like reading what claims I make and repeating them to someone, then referencing the source of information doesn't make that claim true. And you're going to rely on the short-sighted logic that because something is out of the ordinary, it's impossible that it would happen? Sure, you can say it's unlikely, compared to ordinary situations. But if you were to keep on taking the gamble that the ordinary will happen, you will lose at some point. That's why it's not logical to do so. It is logical to assume the ordinary if given the once chance to make such prediction, but when you're asked whether the ordinary will happen everyday, it's not logical to always expect the ordinary.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736782]If you say "Remember the regime that was in power. The influence they had towards preventing the education of women was terrible.", you need evidence to back up this claim to prove that the statement is true and accurate. Reading that claim online, or hearing it on the news, is not evidence that proves the statement is true. Just like reading what claims I make and repeating them to someone, then referencing the source of information doesn't make that claim true.[/QUOTE] Your claims are false, my claims are false, everything is false and the world is a lie. Wake up from the Matrix Neo!

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736782]If you say "Remember the regime that was in power. The influence they had towards preventing the education of women was terrible.", you need evidence to back up this claim to prove that the statement is true and accurate. Reading that claim online, or hearing it on the news, is not evidence that proves the statement is true. Just like reading what claims I make and repeating them to someone, then referencing the source of information doesn't make that claim true.[/QUOTE] My source on the information comes through people that actually understand the issues. They get this information out through analysis's, the news, the internet, and other means. I read this, and understand the issues more. I do not directly study the region, or read a sociological journal about it, because I am not educated in that field and I would likely not understand the complicated issue fully. For an issue I was educated on I might be able to do this, but like most any other person ever, I rely on people educated in their subjects to analyze complex situations and make them more understandable to the layman. e: Also it's unbelievably hard to find an article through google talking about the link from 10 years ago, and I don't feel like digging through the cites on wiki to read up on it more, so oh well. We've kind of gotten off track from the issue here, that being one of you making extraordinary claims and then being a smartass when I ask for evidence for them, then act like even more of a smartass when I pull out a quote from something you linked me, to back you up, to actually shoot down what you said. e: [quote]And you're going to rely on the short-sighted logic that because something is out of the ordinary, it's impossible that it would happen? Sure, you can say it's unlikely, compared to ordinary situations. But if you were to keep on taking the gamble that the ordinary will happen, you will lose at some point. That's why it's not logical to do so. It is logical to assume the ordinary if given the once chance to make such prediction, but when you're asked whether the ordinary will happen everyday, it's not logical to always expect the ordinary. [/quote] That's an absurd misrepresentation of my position and you know it. I said extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, not that it's impossible.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736812]My source on the information comes through people that actually understand the issues. They get this information out through analysis's, the news, the internet, and other means. I read this, and understand the issues more.[/QUOTE] But what evidence is there that these guys, if they really know what's going on, are telling you the truth, and their claims are accurate? You're skipping over that again. You're putting blind faith in that these guys are telling you the truth. Don't you understand how that blind faith allows you to be exploited? It's not hard to replicate the factors that motivated you to believe in those claims you blindly believe in. That doesn't mean they're lying to you, but it does mean that it's incredibly easy for them to do so, and you should understand that there is often things to be gained from lying or withholding information. That means that if it would benefit these guys in any way to lie to you, nothing would stop them. And most people would believe it.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736895]But what evidence is there that these guys, if they really know what's going on, are telling you the truth, and their claims are accurate? You're skipping over that again. You're putting blind faith in that these guys are telling you the truth. Don't you understand how that blind faith allows you to be exploited? It's not hard to replicate the factors that motivated you to believe in those claims you blindly believe in.[/QUOTE] Ugh always with this blind faith thing from you people. No I don't have full proof that they're totally qualified and are not lying to me, but judging from the fact that I never saw a large upswell of social and political scientists saying "Hey, no, this is wrong, this is what actually happened" and I haven't seen that since leads me to believe that I was lead to believe the right thing. I could work on finding the absolute source of all information I hear and validating the credibility of all of the sources I get it from, but it's honestly not that important. I do that with science, I do that with things that directly affect me, I do that with things that there is an actual controversy over and that people have apparently lied over. I never heard of such a thing for the war in afghan, unlike the war in iraq, and there's no real reason why I would have not heard it for that if it existed, so...

Why would political scientists say it's wrong, if they find out it is? Benevolence? Profit? The only thing to be gained to speak out against the government your disappearance from the face of the Earth. That's if you actually have hard evidence that would convince even the brainwashed. So it's a terrible idea to rely on the logic that people involved with the corruption are going to tell you about it. Because then they wouldn't have all the benefits they get. And you think that they'd have a bigger reward from telling the public the truth? And if they would, and then they were gonna tell people about the corruption so they could have that benefit, they're going to be a fucking target. So how could they collect such a reward? Maybe the reward is helping other humans out. That's why it's hard to leave that corruption, as you then pose a threat to them. And precautions are taken when getting people involved in that corruption. They want to make sure they can't leave, and that they don't want to leave. It can be done.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736973]Why would political scientists say it's wrong, if they find out it is? Benevolence? Profit? The only thing to be gained to speak out against the government your disappearance from the face of the Earth. That's if you actually have hard evidence that would convince even the brainwashed.[/QUOTE] Ok now you're just bullshitting, shut up. You completely ignored the whole Iraq war issue I just pointed out in contrast to the Afghan one. You're talking about the gov't secretly making people disappear when there's been a gigantic outcry against most any action any government has taken in a long time, if this was true then there'd be a lot less opposition. Unless... you think the opposition is orchestrated as well by the international controllers, and in that case I give up.

I'm not bullshitting, I'm talking about a very possible situation that can easily take place. Read what I just added to my last post. I'm not claiming that this shit is true, I'm just saying it's true that it can happen easily.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29737043]I'm not bullshitting, I'm talking about a very possible situation that can easily take place. Read what I just added to my last post.[/QUOTE] Iraq War, Wikileaks, Watergate, Iran-Contra, do I need to continue or are you just going to ignore that all? Your blather about corruption and brainwashing and conspiracies doesn't hold up in the face of the fact that many people have exposed many corruptions and spoke out against many injustices. e: And I think it's safe to assume now that you're not actually going to provide any evidence for your claims?