RE: Pakistan border and US forces

RE: Pakistan border and US forces (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 11:23:53 AM)
Thanks for linking to my post below. Lets read it a line at a time, and see if i am doing what you accuse me of. Line One : I told Butch he was thinking of a different incident. Line two : I provided a link Line three : I made an observation. quote: Butch you are thinking of the events of 2002. The recent bombing was in July. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7504574.stm Every time an event like this happens, its a recruiting drive for the militants. Nope, dont look to me like i am always accusing the USA of doing anything.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 11:27:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Where have I said that? The verified and accepted figures for last month were around 350 civilians, for this month it is around 200, not including the wedding party of 90 in Pakistan which has also been verified. The Taliban has no need to exaggerate those numbers because they are so bad. Verified and accepted by who? Where do you get this "information"? NATO. I've seen it on the BBC news, German news, Dutch news and French news. I've sat there and watch both British and American commanders accept the figures as fact in interviews. There have been both British and American politicians accepting the figures and saying NATO has to stop killing civilians for the sake of NATO fullfilling its aims. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I said Al Qaeda is taking advantage of political and social grievances which is what NATO and the Afghan Pakistani governments accept, which is why even the British government said, without addressing the socio-political problems the war is unwinnable. Al-Qaeda isn't "taking advantage" very effectively when they're busily killing so many of their fellow Muslims - which was my whole point from the beginning. And socio-political problems? That almost sounds as if you're thinking of a certain super-wealthy tyrant who used golden toilets in his myriad gleaming mansions while his sons and his brutal regime funded terrorism and starved and raped, tortured and otherwise murdered his own people, and who started wars with neighboring countries... Helluva guy. How do you think a problem like that could be effectively addressed? If you read up on Pakistani politics you will find it is tribal and corrupt and each party looks after its own people at the expense of others while accusing the other party of being guilty of corruption they themselves are guilty of. It would ahve been wiser not to have interfered too deeply in the region in the first place but just gone after those guilty of 9/11 and left it at that. No one else has managed to tame the area and that should ahve been a lesson in the first place. NATO is there now and there is little they can do but keep retaking the same old ground ad infinitum, which is what they seem to be doing. There probably isn't a solution, too many Afghans and Pakistanis are making money for them to want the problem solved. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Aid to the central governments rarely gets to the places where the grievances are because of corruption. Basically, the US and NATO are pissing into the wind by supporting sympathetic governments and the reason the governments are sympathic to the west and particularly to the US is because the US is the money tap. See, I told you, you could do it! I'm just saying the US is pouring money in a money pit and very little gets to the people its meant for. That is a fact accepted by US and British commanders on the ground. It's certainly accepted by British politicians once you decipher their waffle.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity What else are you suggesting when you maintain along with meatcleaver that practically all we ever do is blow up children and wedding parties. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2143901 You're getting over sensitive now. I gave you figures that are accepted by NATO as fact. I didn't say all you do is blow up wedding parties, I said so many civilians are being killed, NATO is recruiting terrorists for the Taliban.

Vendaval -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 1:47:10 PM)
The latest front page news on Pakistan is very grim. The photos and video footage are rather graphic. Scroll down the page for commentary from analysts in the region. "Inteligence analysts and Pakistani officials have speculated that the suicide attack on Islamabad's Marriott hotel, which killed more than 50 people and left hundreds injured, was masterminded by al-Qaeda. The hotel, part of an American-owned chain, was popular with Westerners and the Pakistani elite. A number of foreigners were among the dead. The Pakistani interior ministry has blamed al-Qaeda, but no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack." http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/09/2008921101425391503.html

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 1:55:59 PM)
It's that observation that I took issue with, which in the context of the thread is an accusation or a suggestion that we're targeting children and wedding parties and such. Should I take this reply as an apology on your part? Are you admitting that we're targeting al-Qaeda with these strikes? quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Thanks for linking to my post below. Lets read it a line at a time, and see if i am doing what you accuse me of. Line One : I told Butch he was thinking of a different incident. Line two : I provided a link Line three : I made an observation. quote: Butch you are thinking of the events of 2002. The recent bombing was in July. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7504574.stm Every time an event like this happens, its a recruiting drive for the militants. Nope, dont look to me like i am always accusing the USA of doing anything.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 1:58:35 PM)
You can't provide us with any links, though. quote: NATO. I've seen it on the BBC news, German news, Dutch news and French news. I've sat there and watch both British and American commanders accept the figures as fact in interviews. There have been both British and American politicians accepting the figures and saying NATO has to stop killing civilians for the sake of NATO fullfilling its aims.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 2:08:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It's that observation that I took issue with, which in the context of the thread is an accusation or a suggestion that we're targeting children and wedding parties and such. Should I take this reply as an apology on your part? Are you admitting that we're targeting al-Qaeda with these strikes? quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Thanks for linking to my post below. Lets read it a line at a time, and see if i am doing what you accuse me of. Line One : I told Butch he was thinking of a different incident. Line two : I provided a link Line three : I made an observation. quote: Butch you are thinking of the events of 2002. The recent bombing was in July. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7504574.stm Every time an event like this happens, its a recruiting drive for the militants. Nope, dont look to me like i am always accusing the USA of doing anything. Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I make no apology for something i have not done. My reply was as i have stated. I pointed out that the event he was thinking of, wasnt the recent one ( he mentioned shots being fired in the air, which was in 2002 ) I also pointed out the consequences of such events. I didnt say it was deliberate and you have failed to produce a quote where i did.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 2:18:20 PM)
I'm not being overly sensitive, you're trying to be offensive. Regardless, the bottom line is this. NATO isn't targeting civilians.... they're targeting al-Qaeda (who proved again yesterday with their gruesome attack WHICH ACTUALLY WAS DIRECTED AT CIVILIANS that they are nobody's freedom fighters). Al-Qaeda keeps on proving that pretending they don't matter, or worrying that they're exploiting the difference between some abstract notion of haves and the have-nots, really isn't an option. We need to keep hitting them hard, just as we've been doing. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You're getting over sensitive now. I gave you figures that are accepted by NATO as fact. I didn't say all you do is blow up wedding parties, I said so many civilians are being killed, NATO is recruiting terrorists for the Taliban.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/21/2008 2:20:44 PM)
My pleasure. Sorry about any misunderstanding.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 1:36:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I'm not being overly sensitive, you're trying to be offensive. Regardless, the bottom line is this. NATO isn't targeting civilians.... they're targeting al-Qaeda (who proved again yesterday with their gruesome attack WHICH ACTUALLY WAS DIRECTED AT CIVILIANS that they are nobody's freedom fighters). I never said NATO was targeting civilians, I implied they were being reckless which they are. The fact that Al Qaeda set out to murder civilians is irrelevant, we know they do, that is their modus operandi. NATO is trying to win the population round to their thinking and create a viable state, as long as they kill civilians in such numbers, they will and are being seen as part of the problem by much of the population. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Al-Qaeda keeps on proving that pretending they don't matter, or worrying that they're exploiting the difference between some abstract notion of haves and the have-nots, really isn't an option. We need to keep hitting them hard, just as we've been doing. Hitting Al Qaeda hard is one thing but hitting the civilians hard is another because it creates more terrorists or freedom fighters, which ever side of the fence you're on. Killing civilians works against NATO because they are then seen as just more foreign forces like all those that tried and failed to subjugate Afghanistan before in history. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You're getting over sensitive now. I gave you figures that are accepted by NATO as fact. I didn't say all you do is blow up wedding parties, I said so many civilians are being killed, NATO is recruiting terrorists for the Taliban.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 1:50:59 AM)
Sanity, just imagine the Russians genuinely in pursuit of some terrorists and your family got in the way and were slaughtered. Would you believe the Russians when they claim it was a mistake and that they genuinely tried not to kill civilians? You don't trust Russia anyway so the chances you believe them is pretty small and even if you did believe they were after terrorists and it was an accident, the chances are you will still think they were criminally reckless. Well, many tribal people in Afghanistan don't trust NATO in the same way you don't trust Russia and don't believe NATO cares if it kills civilians in their pursuit of terrorists. My guess is that you would end up with a grudge against Russia to the point you'd want some revenge.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 6:48:22 AM)
So, in other words, you're claiming (without providing credible links) that NATO isn't evil so much as they are clowns. So in the interest of finding solutions, what would you have them do? Be more careful? Or would you prefer they leave al-Qaeda to their devices... quote: I never said NATO was targeting civilians, I implied they were being reckless which they are.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 7:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So, in other words, you're claiming (without providing credible links) that NATO isn't evil so much as they are clowns. So in the interest of finding solutions, what would you have them do? Be more careful? Or would you prefer they leave al-Qaeda to their devices... I wouldn't say clowns, I would say in certain incidences they have been criminally negligent. In the wider picture I would actually blame the politicians rather than the troops on the ground, it was the politicians that chose the type of war to be fought, they chose to fight a war that probably can't be won in military terms. As in all geurilla wars, the long view has to be taken, the local population won over and the belief created that the side supported by NATO is in their interests to support. When NATO kills civilians, it damages the confidence of the civilian population that the side NATO is on is in their interests. According to the Brits on the ground in Helmond province, civilian casualties and lack of progress with building the infrastructure is damaging the confidence in NATO amongst the local population which hedges its bet with Al Qaeda. The local population will side with whoever it thinks is winning. They after all, have no where else to go.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 7:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So, in other words, you're claiming (without providing credible links) that NATO isn't evil so much as they are clowns. As I pointed out, I saw the admission on TV not in something I read on the web but here is another problem for NATO, in the recent attack that reportedly killed 90, the US military said only 7 civilians were killed and then film was produced of the aftermath of the attack which clearly shows 90 women and children dead was nearer the correct figure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800633_pf.html "The footage that is there on this shows horrendous pictures of these bodies and clearly identifies women and children. In some cases, the bodies are not in one piece," a U.N. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Whether you say it was 76 or 82 or even 92 -- it was clearly not seven who were killed there." It is not the first time NATO has been caught out radically underestimating the number of civilians killed in an air raid.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 10:09:51 AM)
You claimed verified reports - that one's still under investigation. It's a very interesting article though, thank you for linking to it. It seems that a U.S. patrol came under heavy fire from a compound and so they called for an air strike on the compound in defense of themselves. What else would you have the men on the ground do, meatcleaver? And according to the article, it's claimed that later aerial photos showed only a couple of new graves, but still it's being thoroughly investigated from all angles... they're graciously re-opening the investigation, they're very open and honest about it. The press is allowed in, questions are allowed to be asked, it all seems very straightforward...

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/22/2008 10:17:54 AM)
Could it be that the new Pakistani leadership is reconsidering their decision to not cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terror? quote: Pakistan leaders narrowly avoided huge blast Official says government dinner at Marriott was changed at last minute ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A top Pakistani official said Monday that the country's leaders were due to dine at the luxury hotel devastated in a weekend bombing, but changed the venue at the last minute. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Pakistan's top Taliban commander said the militant leader played no role in the attack, which killed 53 people at the popular expatriate gathering spot. Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik did not say why the prime minister and president decided to move the Saturday dinner to the prime minister's house but said the decision was kept secret. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26833568

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/23/2008 6:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You claimed verified reports - that one's still under investigation. I know, I read the article before I posted it. I saw the NATO admission on the BBC World News and German TV. The problem with trying to follow a story in the printed media is that if the victims have brown faces, stories are rarely followed up, if the vicitms have white faces, the story is never ending.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/23/2008 6:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Could it be that the new Pakistani leadership is reconsidering their decision to not cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terror? quote: Pakistan leaders narrowly avoided huge blast Official says government dinner at Marriott was changed at last minute ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A top Pakistani official said Monday that the country's leaders were due to dine at the luxury hotel devastated in a weekend bombing, but changed the venue at the last minute. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Pakistan's top Taliban commander said the militant leader played no role in the attack, which killed 53 people at the popular expatriate gathering spot. Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik did not say why the prime minister and president decided to move the Saturday dinner to the prime minister's house but said the decision was kept secret. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26833568 Could be, it isn't after all, their war and with the US not respecting Pakistan's borders which in effect weakens Pakistan's central government, who can blame them is they do stop cooperating.

Sanity -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/23/2008 6:19:37 AM)
As long as al-Qaeda is finding safe havens in Pakistan and regularly crossing the Pakistan - Afghanistan border to kill people there are going to be problems there, and Pakistan is as much to blame as anyone. And the whole point of my posting the article detailing al-Qaeda's recent attempt to kill Pakistan's new leadership was to point out how, if it's not Pakistan's war now, al-Qaeda may well change all of that.

meatcleaver -> RE: Pakistan border and US forces (9/23/2008 6:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity As long as al-Qaeda is finding safe havens in Pakistan and regularly crossing the Pakistan - Afghanistan border to kill people there are going to be problems there, and Pakistan is as much to blame as anyone. And the whole point of my posting the article detailing al-Qaeda's recent attempt to kill Pakistan's new leadership was to point out how, if it's not Pakistan's war now, al-Qaeda may well change all of that. Pakistan is going through a low intensity civil war, it is convenient to claim Al Qaeda are the main antagonists, Al Qaeda are in the tribal areas because the host population there allow them to be there, if they didn't, Al Qaeda wouldn't be there. The main problem in Pakistan is tribal culture and corruption which the government relies on to be elected. Like most wars, it isn't a case of one side good, the other side bad. Wars are very rarely that simple.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125