US bombs Pakistan

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by techumseh
What a bunch of crap.

Just because you create a monster doesn't mean you are required to let it run amok. The difference between them and us is they deliberately go after the innocent. They aren't going after our leaders, our military in any substantive way, our bases, etc. They just go after the people.

We know what kind of nightmarish society they would create. Have you forgotten the horror of Taliban rule in Afganistan so soon? It had all the bad of fascism with none of the good. They couldn't even make the trains run on time, cuz there were no trains.

The fact that our governments created the breeding ground for the Salafists and conveniently removed all rivals to them, doesn't mean that we have to allow them to establish their hell on Earth or let them attack us with impunity.

They are evil. These people were preparing a dinner for evil men who are at war with the world. It's hard to feel sympathy for them.

[Arrian]

Just because you create a monster doesn't mean you are required to let it run amok.

Indeed, quite the opposite. It goes without saying, of course, that one should attempt to not create more monsters in the future (by supporting fanatics just because they happen to be the enemy of your enemy).

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Like certain drug lords in Afganistan?

[Arrian]

Are they fanatics? They're not nice guys, sure. I dunno if they're fanatics, though.

The problem, wrt Afganistan, is that if you want to ally with locals, you're pretty much dealing with fanatics of some kind. The more "progressive" types (liberals, commies) are rather thin on the ground. And they don't have militias.

I think the lesson is that we should stick around and help out the government (such as it is) in Kabul for a long time. Given Iraq, I'm certainly worried that we'll forget about Afganistan and allow it to lapse back into Taliban control.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Afganistan it totally, and completely, under the control of the drug lords. Karzai is just a pretty face they can trot out to pretend they're on the road to democracy. Course, opium's victims are voluntary, so the drug lords are definately preferable to those who would kill you for being human.

[Arrian]

Drug lords... warlords... tribal chiefs... it's freakin' Afganistan. It's always been that way. If we wish to change it at all, we have to keep an eye on Karzai and make an effort to support him. Make him the conduit through which aid flows (this means actually giving the aid). Train up some semblance of a national army (IIRC, we were supposedly doing this?).

I don't really expect a successful, modern nation to rise in Afganistan. But if we're at least paying attention to it, we hopefully notice if it starts becoming a haven for people who want to fly planes into buildings and such again, and deal with it.

-Arrian

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by techumseh
What a bunch of crap.

The fact that our governments created the breeding ground for the Salafists and conveniently removed all rivals to them, doesn't mean that we have to allow them to establish their hell on Earth or let them attack us with impunity.

The point is that the Bush-led policies which you apparently support are exactly the same policies which created the breeding ground in the first place. It makes no sense to continue down that road.

They are evil. These people were preparing a dinner for evil men who are at war with the world. It's hard to feel sympathy for them.

Evil? That's a pretty black and white view of the world. Not very scientific. And you seem pretty sure of everyone's complicity, given that your ultimate source of information is the CIA.

[lord of the mark]

1. Looks like Zawahiri wasnt there. Thats bad. But it looks like we did get several terrorists, including some aides to Zawahiri.

2. Civilians shouldnt invite one of the worlds most wanted terrorists for dinner. If they do, they shouldnt have the kids in the house. Still its bad if any children died.

3. Pakistani govt says they "dont accept this". But they want the relationship with the US to continue.
Look, Zawahiri tried to kill Perv, twice. You really think Perv considers this a violation of soveriegnty? He wants Zawahiri dead. If we kill Z, Perv can complain about us crossing the border, but wink will he does it. If Perv is actually upset, its only cause we didnt get Z.

4. Pakistan NWFP is being used as a basis for terror attacks in Afghanistan. That gives Afghanistan a right to respond to defend itself. The US, as Afghanistans ally, has the right to help them.

5. Once again, the US did not create the Taliban. We funded a wide range of Muhajadeen in the 1980s, some of whom were Salafists. When the USSR fell we pretty much abandoned Afghanistan. In the chaos that followed, in which Massound, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, that ex-commie guy from Muzar e Sharif, etc all played shifting roles, the Taliban, with backing from Pakistan emerged victorious. The US is at fault, not for supporting the Taliban, but for ignoring the whole country - having supported pushing the Commies out, it was our obligation to help rebuild. Hopefully weve learned from that.

6. Kharzai has been gradually reducing the influence of the warlords. By patience, and clever political maneuvering, he has effectively restored govt control over Herat and Mazar e Sharif. He is no longer just the "mayor of Kabul" However he has only taken limited steps against opium cultivation. Nonetheless opium cultivation has begun to decline. Clearly a crackdown on opium cultivation, at a time when the economy remains fragile, will be a difficult thing. I think a slow,gradual approach to dealing with the Opium problme is wise.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by techumseh


The point is that the Bush-led policies which you apparently support are exactly the same policies which created the breeding ground in the first place. It makes no sense to continue down that road.

The NWFP has been a lawless area since Pakistan became independent. In fact since well before Pakistan became independent.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

4. Pakistan NWFP is being used as a basis for terror attacks in Afghanistan. That gives Afghanistan a right to respond to defend itself. The US, as Afghanistans ally, has the right to help them.

actually, strickly speaking, thats not true under international law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by techumseh
The point is that the Bush-led policies which you apparently support are exactly the same policies which created the breeding ground in the first place. It makes no sense to continue down that road.

Salafism originated in the 60s. Bush was in Yale then, killing his brain cells. The fact that we support corrupt, violent governments for the interests of our corporate elite in no way mitagates the fact that these bastards need to be killed. The fact that imperialism and capitalism need to be overthrown in no way mitigates that this movement is an enemy of humanity. They need to be destroyed, completely and utterly. This may be the only thing my completely clueless, scary bastard of a President is correct about.

I don't think we should sit around and wait until our house is in order to deal with these ****ers.

Evil? That's a pretty black and white view of the world. Not very scientific. And you seem pretty sure of everyone's complicity, given that your ultimate source of information is the CIA.

Just because there are shades of grey doesn't mean there isn't also black and white. Salafism is an evil philosophy. It actively wishes harm on others. There's no grey here.

[lord of the mark]

To clarify

IIUC not all Salafists are Qutbists. Salafism is a fundamentalist strain of Islam, that opposes both "liberal" Islamism and such non fundie traditions as Sufism, honoring of Islamic "saints" etc. Salafism reads the Koran in ways that are hostile not only to modern liberal thought, but to Jews and Christians in general. However not all Salafists support a violent campaign of murder in order to destroy non-Salafist forms of Islam, or to kill non-muslims. In Saudi Arabia there exist Salafists who oppose Al Qaeeda, and in Afghanistan there exist Salafists (like Rabbani) who oppose the Taliban. While I think Salafism is a general problem for the muslim world, and for the West, the immediate principle enemy in the WOT is NOT all Salafists, but Salafists who follow an ideology of terror (and the secondary enemy are non-Salafist elements in the muslim world who follow an ideology of terror)

[Arrian]

The point is that the Bush-led policies which you apparently support are exactly the same policies which created the breeding ground in the first place.

If you see no difference between current US policy wrt Afganistan/Pakistan and US policy in the 1980s... you're hopeless. We are now attempting to hunt down and destroy people we would've been handing out Stinger missles to in the 80s.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by germanos
che: get off those hormone pills, they ain't doing you good

It's not a pill, and I hadn't taken any in three weeks because of waiting for new insurance to kick in (and thank goodness, cuz it knocked $200 off the price for me). So this was written by the "real" me.

[dannubis]

if you guys can place the al-somethingarabic dude at the scene, then why not drop a sniper ? much cleaner, and if the target isn't there, no dead children. of course, no big bang and gun-ho ****, but it could get the job done.