Pakistan army kills up to 80 at Qaeda-linked school

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sultan said there were no women or children present

Yeah, and Major-General Sultan has no institutional interest in denying inconvenient casualties.

[DinoDoc]

Who am I going to trust more without going out there and digging up the bodies myself? MOBIUS who sounds like a hysterical moron or Major-General Sultan who doesn't?

[SlowwHand]

My apologies, Sava. I must have developed a nervous tic, from having to listen to idiots like Mobius and MrFun so much.

I have that addressed now.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Who am I going to trust more without going out there and digging up the bodies myself? MOBIUS who sounds like a hysterical moron or Major-General Sultan who doesn't?

You shouldn't trust either, but leave the question open in the lack of reliable information.

[thesilentone]

Don't know why they didn't just nuke them, only way to be sure right?

Seriously, sounds a bit over the top, 5 choppers and just bombing the heck out of the place? And people criticize the US for Waco... this makes that look like a slap of the wrists.

(countdown till i'm called a terrorist sympathizer in 3..2..)

[Dinner]

The people at Waco handn't tried to assassinate the President multiple time or to take over the country.

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The people at Waco handn't tried to assassinate the President multiple time or to take over the country.

The cleaning lady? The cook? The teenage students? Come on. They flew in and just blew up 80 people. That doesn't seem slightly wrong to you?

[Dinner]

If the cleaning lady is cleaning in a terrorist training camp then no, I don't have a problem with it. Blow the f'ers up. Doing so is the only way to deter such activities effectively. It's either kill them now or wait until after they kill NATO troops.

[Chemical Ollie]

Terrorists don't kill troops, they kill civilians

[SlowwHand]

Ollie, don't you get tired of being wrong? What do you watch anyway? I know you said it was television.

You need to be aware of certain facts.

Terrorists do kill military.
Terrorists do train children.
Terrorists do hide among innocent civilians.

HOWEVER, these same civilians, that you say are the only ones bombed, take no action to better their plight.
Why wait to get bombed, but you know who they are?

That's why my patience is exhausted with them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Terrorists don't kill troops, they kill civilians

What do you call the nonuniformed fighters from other countries then (mostly Pakistan but also other muslim countries as well)? If it is just semantics then we can call them unlawful combatants but really they are terrorists because they are armed groups attacking civilians, government workers, and military personnel.

At that point the difference between a terrorist, insurgent, and unlawful combatant are negligible.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm just protesting over-use of the T-word. It's used as an apology for any war crime "our" side commits, may it be kidnapping, torture, or airstrikes based on crappy intel. How do I know the intel was correct this time?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm just protesting over-use of the T-word. It's used as an apology for any war crime "our" side commits, may it be kidnapping, torture, or airstrikes based on crappy intel. How do I know the intel was correct this time?

Except that IS who the enemy is, and that IS why we, and those allied with us in South Asia, launch the attacks they do. Whether such attacks are based on right intell or wrong intell, etc, etc. I mean how else do we explain why we attacked a madrassah that is (allegedly) being used as training camp for fighters who A. are fighting against the lawful recognized govt of Afghanistan B. are allied with Al Qaeeda C. Want to kill all us Christian, Jewish, and insufficiently fundamentalist muslims cause were "pigs and dogs" D. Want to impose a taliban sharia state in Pakistan, etc, etc.

Should we say we blew the place up in protest at the German invasion of Poland? Because we're againt unrestricted submarine warfare? Would that make you happy? I mean IF you approve of what we're TRYING to do, why would you object to saying its about terrorism? If you disapprove of somethings (like, say, secret prisons) but approve of attacks on training camps like this, why make a fuss in a thread like this. It gives the impression that you DONT approve of attacks on training camps and pro taliban leaders like this. Well, look, if we cant do that, if every madrassah gets a free pass, we might as well go home. Leave Kharzai out to dry. Let the Northern alliance do their best to stop the Taliban, with the help of Russia and India, but without our help. Let things go back to the status quo of September 9th so to speak. Maybe you think thats viable. But dont hide behind "I dont like Bushs rhetoric" Im here in the USA, and believe me we're hearing discussions of terror where its not appropriate. But when all the elections are done, and we have new leadership, we will STILL be engaged in a war with the AQ and its allies and ideological cheerleaders.

[Arrian]

I second the above.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
My apologies, Sava. I must have developed a nervous tic, from having to listen to idiots like Mobius and MrFun so much.

I have that addressed now.