This article states that Taliban attacked on various locations in Afghanistan and killed 11 soldiers bearing 39 causalities of their own (Ofcourse official figures of both sides cannot be trusted as each side will exaggerate opponent causalities we will have to wait for Taliban figures and then an approximate figure b/w both extremes can be found) In my opinion it is beginning of the end in Afghanistan and there will be more attacks coming. What is your opinion?
That is your proof? That isn't proof at all. Where is the proof?
By this logic, WWII was full of government coverups of an amazing super-weapon, since Germany and the USSR where negotiating and there is, of course, no way Germany would have attacked someone they where negotiating with?
That is your proof? That isn't proof at all. Where is the proof?
By this logic, WWII was full of government coverups of an amazing super-weapon, since Germany and the USSR where negotiating and there is, of course, no way Germany would have attacked someone they where negotiating with?
The negotiations were in completion stage so this does seem suspicious This thread is about taliban attacks in afghanistan so we should get back to the topic
The negotiations were in completion stage so this does seem suspicious This thread is about taliban attacks in afghanistan so we should get back to the topic
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuureeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it does...Your the one that brought it up in the first place...
So what do you think about the 11 tons of explosives? You really didn't say anything about them.
The Wikipedia article is unreliable, the link at the bottom claiming it was the U.S was broken, as well as half the other links, the first is biased. I can't find any trustworthy source claiming that there was U.S involvement, and plenty that say the U.S was not involved.
The Wikipedia article is unreliable, the link at the bottom claiming it was the U.S was broken, as well as half the other links, the first is biased. I can't find any trustworthy source claiming that there was U.S involvement, and plenty that say the U.S was not involved.
here goes ur BS again Both links work here is another one
There goes your BS again. I am talking about the links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, the citations as to were the Wikipedia article is getting it's information. And they are all blank.
here is another one
This link pretty much says it has no clue who attacked, and that it might be U.S. And it might be drones, it might of been helicopter and gunships. It might be Pakistan. Hardly definitive.
This link pretty much says it has no clue who attacked, and that it might be U.S. And it might be drones, it might of been helicopter and gunships. It might be Pakistan. Hardly definitive.
US had three reasons compared to pakistan having only one. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/eighty-die-as-pakistan-bombs-madrassa-linked-to-militants-422274.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1101-03.htm Evidence suggests it was a coverup http://www.atimes.com/atimes/south_asia/mh18df02.html
This one sounds like a conspiracy theory. Like the 9/11 one. It is basically saying that America was willing to kill near a hundred people and force Pakistan to take credit...to ruin Pakistan peace talks? Why?
Where are all the credible sources? Not some random unsighted Wikipedia article, but the respected news sources. Where are the BBCs? The NYC times? Oh that is right, they all say Pakistan attacked.
Where are all the credible sources? Not some random unsighted Wikipedia article, but the respected news sources. Where are the BBCs? The NYC times? Oh that is right, they all say Pakistan attacked.
Maybe Fox, but why can you say the same about the others? Their stories are all constant, in line with each other, and your source is really the only one to state the story as it did.
Doubts over the official explanation were fuelled by measures limiting media access to the site of the attack. Soldiers prevented local journalists from reaching Bajaur, while foreign correspondents were barred from the tribal areas. The timing of the attack also roused suspicions. Just days earlier, President Musharraf's officials were talking peace with the Bajaur militants and had freed several prominent fighters as a gesture of goodwill. The two sides were due to sign a deal yesterday.
and this
Chingai is inside the tribal agency of Bajaur, which the Pakistani government has declared off limits to foreign journalists. Yesterday troops were preventing even Pakistani journalists from reaching the scene.
This one sounds like a conspiracy theory. Like the 9/11 one. It is basically saying that America was willing to kill near a hundred people and force Pakistan to take credit...to ruin Pakistan peace talks? Why?
How convenient! what disproves you point is a conspiracy theory. As for your question Some tribal leaders were willing to hold a truce and americans feared that they can provide safe haven to other terrorists.
Doubts over the official explanation were fuelled by measures limiting media access to the site of the attack. Soldiers prevented local journalists from reaching Bajaur, while foreign correspondents were barred from the tribal areas. The timing of the attack also roused suspicions. Just days earlier, President Musharraf's officials were talking peace with the Bajaur militants and had freed several prominent fighters as a gesture of goodwill. The two sides were due to sign a deal yesterday.
How is that evidence? Soldiers where said to be blocking off the area, there where peace talks, therefor America did the attack? It is just as likely to get "Aliens did it" from that evidence.
Chingai is inside the tribal agency of Bajaur, which the Pakistani government has declared off limits to foreign journalists. Yesterday troops were preventing even Pakistani journalists from reaching the scene.
Preventing journalist for going to the scene of a horrible attack? It must be Americans! Or Aliens? Or the Pakistani! Would you expect Pakistan to let media in to see that they had attacked a school?
How convenient! what disproves you point is a conspiracy theory.
What disproves it? OH MY GOD SOLDIERS WHERE BLOCKING IT OFF! THAT MUST MEAN AMERICA HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT! I mean it is isn't like there could be a logical explanation to it! Therefore, Aliens! Or America. Or Godzilla. Really it means nothing.
As for your question Some tribal leaders were willing to hold a truce and americans feared that they can provide safe haven to other terrorists.
So wouldn't it be easier to force Pakistan out of the peace talks?
So wouldn't it be easier to force Pakistan out of the peace talks?
They tried at first but did'nt succeed
How is that evidence? Soldiers where said to be blocking off the area, there where peace talks, therefor America did the attack? It is just as likely to get "Aliens did it" from that evidence.
What disproves it? OH MY GOD SOLDIERS WHERE BLOCKING IT OFF! THAT MUST MEAN AMERICA HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT! I mean it is isn't like there could be a logical explanation to it! Therefore, Aliens! Or America. Or Godzilla. Really it means nothing.
here starts ur clowning again
Preventing journalist for going to the scene of a horrible attack? It must be Americans! Or Aliens? Or the Pakistani! Would you expect Pakistan to let media in to see that they had attacked a school?
tthey let journalists in lal masjid which was biggest meesup of that time so why stop now? and while other side is willing to surrender why blow em up?
tthey let journalists in lal masjid which was biggest meesup of that time so why stop now? and while other side is willing to surrender why blow em up?
Why not start now? It sounds like a lot of young kids where there, that isn't exactly something the Pakistan government wants to get out to much. And why would America blow them up? To get stop the peace talks, which could easily be stopped with no or less bloodshed?
