US airstrikes in Pakistan

**BadKharma** · 18 Nov 08,, 18:13

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I honestly don't see it as a proper analogy to begin with. The KKK is not carrying out international terrorist attacks.

Yes that is true, thats is also part of the oversimplification.

**RustyBattleship** · 18 Nov 08,, 18:13

It does not matter if the country supports or fights or grants neutrality to Taliban. The Taliban have no regard for borders except to find a country that will accomodate them.

Therefore we should disregard borders, nasty letters from their governments, useless visits by Ambassadors, threat to trade agreements and tourism.

Just go in there and destroy Taliban hideouts, training camps, etc. Unfortunately, there will be some "innocents" killed also. I put "innocents" in quotes because if they are mixed in with Taliban, then they are probably supporting the Taliban. If it's a case that they are true hostages, perhaps a more personal and close up engagement is necessary, like Special Forces.

But either way, the Taliban has to be wiped out either by live fire OR (preferably) re-education that their style of power is hated by everybody else in the world and it is they that must change. Joining the rest of the world in common goals is better than holding children hostage, threatening lives of innocents and eventually getting a .50 caliber bullet from a Barret through the lungs.

**JAD_333** · 18 Nov 08,, 18:58

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Well isn't that what the question is here. Pakistan(the US) has a terrorist group in its back yard(we just have a jackass hate grp KKK who hates jews). So one day the clan gets uppity(and smart enough to do something) and whacks the crap out of Isreal 9/11 style. Isreal wants blood and we don't act aggressively enough for Isrealis taste so they come on over and hand out some spankins (like Entebbe and every thing else they've ever done). What do you think we would do? I think the same thing that Pak ought to be doin right now. All this sh1t going on right now just seems to be leading into reason upon reason for us to go into the whole middle east and set off the big one..........imho.

Of course the proposition you lay out is extremely unlikely, but as a matter of principle, if the US did nothing at all about a KKK terror attack on Israel, Israel would have as much right to take matters in their on hands as the US did in Afghanistan. But practically speaking, Israel would be unable to send the USG into exile across the Canadian border as we did the Taliban. The most it could do is take out the KKK leadership much as it did PLO leaders wherever they could find them.

The problem with discussing the principle of hot pursuit is the examples, e.g. KKK, Israel, US. It's hard to speak in the abstract about a principle when the examples are highly speculative.

Nope, that was all mine....I'm a bit of an isolationist

but way bigger on sovereignty

In these days of turmoil I get to feeling like an osterich has the right idea.

Then scroll about halfway down this motorbikes you owned or do .

and you'll have a clear image

)

Sweet, and is that the snipe hisself alongside? Yeah, it fits, except I was imagining thinner.

)

**JAD_333** · 18 Nov 08,, 19:09

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I understand that it isn't a proper analogy, if it were, we'd probably be seeking to undermine the Pakistani state itself.

In my view, all of the evidence points to Pakistan being unwilling to take action against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the NWFP. They have one of the largest land forces in the world, outnumbering the United States (active and reserves) 1.45 million to 1.32 million.

Where's the Pakistani Army in the midst of all of this? Probably mostly deployed in Kashmir and on the Indian border. The Indians aren't a threat, they're not coming across. They're taking our tax dollars, wasting it on junk in some sort of brinksmanship with India whom they cannot hope to match, nor need to.

Meanwhile they're chronically on the edge of becoming a failed state because they care more about keeping up with the Joneses than cleaning their own house, the house that General Zia and his protege Nawaz Sharif built.

It's their own yard, they have the means with which to clean it up, but they refuse. Why? I'm coming around to the opinion that they see it as a means to keep getting multi-million/billion dollar welfare checks from Uncle Sam.

I'm sure you're familiar with how Bush and Baker withheld billions in loan guarantees to Shamir when he wouldn't stop building settlements. It worked. We need to quit speaking so softly and start using big stick diplomacy.

Pakistan's biggest problem can be summed up in one word: Islam. They do not want to appear to be fighting fellow religionists on behalf of a Christian nation. They need a raison d'etre for a Muslim on Muslim conflict. Taliban suicide bombings in Karachi or wherever and the threat of Islamic fundamentalist to take over of the country, these are the things that will give them cover to take on the Taliban. US pleadings are mucking up the works. Every time we complain and Pakistan grudgingly complies, it puts Pak in an awkward position. Better we simply wildcat the problem as we have been doing with cross-border raids.

And, oh, you are right. Turning off the $$ spigot does clear the mind.

)

**Stitch** · 18 Nov 08,, 19:27

It would be one thing if the Pakistanis flat out said, "No, we're not gonna help you, and stay out of our country!". But they don't, they keep telling us, "Yes, we'll help you, we'll get those terrorists for you!"; then they end up doing nothing or, worse, letting their security service help the terrorists out. So, yes, we have every right to take care of business if they won't; if they won't take care of the problem after having been given the chance to do so, then we will, even if that means violating so-called sovereign territory.

**junoth1001** · 18 Nov 08,, 20:10

So long as there is the possibility of civilian deaths, then the Americans should not bomb. Also, if the bombing raids were carried out, then it means that America is breeching the UN aggreement and therefore, would not receive UN approval.

**Shiny Capstar** · 18 Nov 08,, 20:19

Originally Posted by junoth1001

So long as there is the possibility of civilian deaths, then the Americans should not bomb. Also, if the bombing raids were carried out, then it means that America is breeching the UN aggreement and therefore, would not receive UN approval.

There is always the risk of civilian casualties when you call in an air strike, and yes sometimes civilians die, but it is war. They have no place being by/with the Taliban anyway.

**BadKharma** · 18 Nov 08,, 20:24

Originally Posted by junoth1001

So long as there is the possibility of civilian deaths, then the Americans should not bomb. Also, if the bombing raids were carried out, then it means that America is breeching the UN aggreement and therefore, would not receive UN approval.

I am not sure how any civilian casualties could ever be completely eliminated. That asks the question are civilians complicit if they are dealing with terrorists and become casualties. Do you believe that any military action requires UN approval?

**~~Pashtun~~** · 18 Nov 08,, 20:46

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I thought I'd run a poll to gauge whether members believe that the United States is right in carrying out airstrikes upon suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan's NWFP region.

Pakistan has been complaining that their sovereignty is being violated by US forces, but they have been unable to exercise effective control over those regions. In my opinion, if they are unable or unwilling to do anything about the problems there, we should. If they cannot properly exercise sovereignty over these regions, they're in no position to complain about it being violated.

Your opinions?

Sir,

I do not wish to offend, and in such a small post, it is conceivable that all that you know did not come across, so what I say is meant for those that dont know what I say, not for those that do:

First please remind ourselves the huge distinction between the Al-Qaeda people and the Taliban, (Well documented in Ahmed Rashid's classic work "Taliban", to wit:

Al-Qaeda are Arabs, headed by Bin Laden (Saudi), and Al Zawaheri (Egyptian) - All their top guys are Arab including those we have caught, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The latter is the person who claims to have planned 9/11
The nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Al-Qaeda, all Arab, 14 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Most of Al-Qaeda are well educated individuals, and most are well off. They live well, even in caves. Some one is funding them, some one well off, is funding them. Probably Arabs, probably their kith and kin or friends; Obviously this is conjecture on my part.

The Taliban are mostly Pashtun. Mostly they have only been schooled in parochial schools, (A Madrassa means a School) - if funded by Wahabi's then that is the doctine they learnt, but the most common maddrassa is the Haqqani school, which is not wahabi.
None of these guys came on planes to attack America. No they are not nice guys. I am not here to praise them, for they did a terrible thing, they refused to give up OBL when President Bush told them to do so. And they beat their women, and they are really backward. They closed down girls schools and held public executions. So they are really nasty characters. They have no education to speak of, they have never heard of Shakspeare, or heard Mozart or seen Swan Lake. And they take a literal interpretation of their scripture. Imagine that, they think their scripture is the word of God. They believe that Yunus (Jonah) was swallowed by a whale. That Lot's wife froze into a column of salt, and so are seriously homophobic and still use the scripture to meet out justice - toppling a wall over a homosexual, or other crimes. In their view, it seems that the major crimes are sexual. Religion is very important to them so a mountain peak is named for Soloman (Takht-i-Solaiman) and another valley is named for Abraham's father, Tirah - where the Afridi tribe live,- the Afridi's have been mentioned by Herodutus in his writings.
And they value the right to bear arms, so each family no matter how poor has a weapon, some are .303 Lee Enfield's from the Brits that left them behind, a lot are AK-47 from the soviet war.
The Durand line is not recognized by them, so cousins live on both sides and cross back and forth without a passport or a visa.
They live in desolate areas so like the reprieve of visitors, much like an older America, they take care of their guest, distrust the government, and fend for themselves. The terrain is so harsh, people die when cant cope any longer, no one lives to a ripe old age. Death is a part of life, and like an other semitic people, they cover their graves with stones, and small flags flying from sticks.

The British in their divide and rule mode, divided them, into several parts, about 60% live in Pakistan - of this 60% they are divided into the "North-West Frontier Province", which they like to call Pukhtunkhwa, and Balochistan where Qwatta (English spelling Quetta) is a Pashtun majority city. They are futher divided in SEVEN federally administered tribal areas or FATA's plus a few PATA's (Provincially Administered Tribal Areas) AND some Frontier Regions -FR's - to boot.
So you see, the Pashtun are a really backward people, and Al Qaeda are not. The latter have money and are organized. The former are dumb and show more brawn than brain. People try to make comparisons between the Iraqi surge and Afghanistan, and its apple and oranges. The Shia population here is very small, 1% maybe - I dont know for sure because no one has done a census in such a long time. However in my opinion to adopt a non compromising policy towards the Taliban that have not yet drunk the coolaid is to doom our efforts, because though not all Pashtun are Taliban, almost all Taliban are Pashtun, and you can not win this war without having the Pashtun on your side. Just as in Iraq things began to change when the Sunni started to co-operate with the US. OK so it was the surge that made the difference. The Sunni's just helped a little :P
As far as exercising control over the Pashtuns, that is another topic & perhaps a controversial one.
FYI: The most famous Pashtun today is RNC conservative and US Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad.

**~~drayegon~~** · 18 Nov 08,, 23:01

I have a few question for you Pashtun. IF a man lives in your house. If a man is fed by your food. If a man talks with you and is sheltered by your roof. Is he not your brother? IF a man is your brother does not god admonish you to be your brothers keeper? Is that man not only evil but the devil incarnate if he accepts all those things and brings death to your door. When you stand before god on the day of your judgment does God not require you to be punished for all crimes committed by the man that eats your food and lives under your roof? All of these things are therefore required by god YES?? So if you are killed or maimed and dismembered by a foe who seeks to destroy the devil that lives under your roof is he not the anointed of god and doing gods work? I am sure you know the answers to each of these questions. God said do not suffer a sinner to live in thine house and if thy eye offend thee pluck it out. Do not try to tell me what the Torah or the Bible or the Koran says unless you find your self wanting and in need. For with gods blessing I may smite thee. Gee glad you see it my way and you do understand. Because if you should say you do not know there of and do not understand You shall be punished by the costs of an eternity in hell.

**Stitch** · 19 Nov 08,, 00:18

Wow, I think this thread took a left turn somewhere . . . .

**Blue** · 19 Nov 08,, 01:36

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I honestly don't see it as a proper analogy to begin with. The KKK is not carrying out international terrorist attacks.

Well I couldn't really think of any better who would hate who. I'll try to explain better, although you are correct, it isn't the best analogy. I was just saying that if the tables where turned, how would we feel/react. You know, that silly do unto others thing. Why should we expect others to respect our borders when we don't respect thiers..........hmm......wait a second, just had a thought. I don't think anyone really does respect our border. On second thought, bomb em all back to the stoneage, screw 'em. I think thats my final thought on that.

**Blue** · 19 Nov 08,, 01:39

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Not bad for an old fella

Thanks Pari, except I'm not old(yet)

**steelface581** · 19 Nov 08,, 02:16

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

In that case, what if Mexico let Isreal set up camp there and they executed airstrikes on US targets? Good point JAD.

So should we just pull all our guys back, secure our borders, and when someone WANTS our help they just dial 1*911. We cure thier ill and send them the bill for the ambulance, emergency room and physical therapy.

I do like that idea

- but then somebody would see the need to drag us into their fight and would blow something up on US soil and we d be off to the races again.

as for the original question - the emotional part of me says, yes take them out while we have the chance...it may be the only shot we have and it would disappear while waiting for permission.

the rational part of me says: what kind of order can you hope to have if you set aside law/borders when they become inconvenient?

is a difficult question for me- guess id have to go with the old saying:
Its better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission

**Blue** · 19 Nov 08,, 02:42

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Of course the proposition you lay out is extremely unlikely, but as a matter of principle, if the US did nothing at all about a KKK terror attack on Israel, Israel would have as much right to take matters in their on hands as the US did in Afghanistan. But practically speaking, Israel would be unable to send the USG into exile across the Canadian border as we did the Taliban. The most it could do is take out the KKK leadership much as it did PLO leaders wherever they could find them.

The problem with discussing the principle of hot pursuit is the examples, e.g. KKK, Israel, US. It's hard to speak in the abstract about a principle when the examples are highly speculative.

I agree. At least you got my imaginative analogy

)

In these days of turmoil I get to feeling like an osterich has the right idea.

They just get shot in the butt

Sweet, and is that the snipe hisself alongside? Yeah, it fits, except I was imagining thinner.

)

The camera adds 100 pounds

View Poll Results: Is the US right to conduct airstrikes against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan?

Thread: US airstrikes in Pakistan

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Differentiating AQ wrt Taliban

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Pakistan 'is a top failed state'

US-Pakistan Relations: The Way Forward

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions