Gigantic terrorist attack - bomb blast at the Marriott, Pakistan

[DinoDoc]

Let's see we have Dr. S playing the part of the leftist/anti-American nutjob (and I must say that is a switch. I would have expected che to be playing that part) along with Lancer playing the part of the Russophobe. Rufus seems to be the sole bright spot in this thread with his strange habbit of talking sense.

[Lancer]

Zkribbler, Rufus, Aeson. Without them we would be truly lost.

I'd include Sloww in that list but he's more my kind of nutjob, soo...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer
"What are you going to do when those translators protest firing on buildings not clearly occupied by al Qaeda, shoot them? Do you really want witnesses coming along for the ride? "

That is a rather difficult situation. Hmm. I know, we throw them out of the choppers!

Just trying to be the nutjob you want me to be Dr Strangelove.

When it happens it won't be that funny. The fact is that our accuracy for hitting terrorists in Pakistan has been very low. Having translators won't improve the accuracy of our bombs, and since the special ops teams deployed to Pakistan shoot first and ask questions later I don't think that having translators will improve the innocent to terrorist kill ratio much either. So I repeat, who wants to bring witnesses along on our raids of Pakistan? The only way that putting Pakistani liason officers in our special ops teams fighting in Pakistan will help the situation is if those Pakistani officers are given some dgree of command. Are you willing to do that?

[Lancer]

Yes, if we can determine that they won't lead us into an ambush or give away our attack plan so the terrorists are gone when the troops arrive.

Somehow we have to prevent them from sending teams and or nukes into the US. It's very difficult to defend the ports with vast amounts of containers coming in. A proactive approach seems to be the only way. So, taking the fight to the enemy is the best bet to save American lives.

How would you accomplish this Dr Strangelove? Lets say the next pres puts you in charge of protecting the US and allies from terrorist attacks. Our troops in the field in Afghanistan are telling you that Pakistan is a safe haven that terrorist groups under Bin Laden are using as a base to attack coalition forces and prepare attacks against our homeland. What do you do about Pakistan?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's see we have Dr. S playing the part of the leftist/anti-American nutjob (and I must say that is a switch. I would have expected che to be playing that part) along with Lancer playing the part of the Russophobe. Rufus seems to be the sole bright spot in this thread with his strange habbit of talking sense.

There's nothing really leftist about what I've said. That the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, that the troops sent to Iraq would have been more productively deployed in Afghanistan has been rehashed so many times that it doesn't need to be implied. There's a new government in Pakistan, we should be building up their trust before attempting raids on their territory. Who knows it might improve our accuracy. Besides, as far as countering the threat to Afghanistan by al Qaeda living safely in Poakistan, it's not Pakistan's fault that we've squandered our forces in Iraq. If we had those soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan we wouldn't need to attack them in Pakistan.
The point I was making in my earlier posts is that our air and land raids into Pakistan have had a lousy history. We've killed how many innocents to get rid of how few terrorists? Just when it seemed that we were about to make a new enemy in the Middle East al Qaeda begins a new bombing campaign to remind the Pakistanis of who their enemy really is. Lancer comes up with this twisted crap implying that the only reason the new Pakistan government has protested the US attacks is because they're al Qaeda's biatch.

I'm not even sure that the bombing was related to the US attacks on Pakistan. Has there been a declaration from the terrorists? I think it's just a matter of al Qaeda being itself. It appears to me that if we had waited for al Qaeda to show it's true nature to the new government we would't be in the current situation where the current Pakistan government has to choose between al Qaeda aggressors and American aggressors.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's a cluster**** with no way out. Al Qaeda appears to be supported by rogue groups operating within the ISI (Pakistan's security services); there's no way for us to go in after AQ without those groups fomenting rebellion against the Pakistani government. And since Pakistan has, by best estimates, 30-80 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver then, destabilizing the government is not a good idea -- not because the government will use nukes, but because the nukes will end up on the black market, where they will surely be acquired by both AQ and Iran.

And how did we come to this pass? Simple; we diverted our attention and resources to the needless war in Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ironically paving the way for the proliferation of real WMD by whipping up a war over imaginary ones.

Bush really is the worst f*cking president ever.

(nothing to add)

[fed1943]

Perhaps American leaders refuse to see the difference between the
XIX century imperialism and the XXI century universal leadership.
Trouble elsewhere could help the former, but surely not the last.
Best regards,

[chequita guevara]

Pakistan has recently emerged from an American backed dictatorship. That dictatorship has fallen and the people of Pakistan aren't likely to look kindly upon the American empire. In addition, that dictatorship was engaged in a virtual civil war in sections of its country, which has led to a bombing campaign by Muslim extremists.

A new, democratically elected government is in power. If that government wants to stay in power, then it needs to make concessions to its own population, something the right-wing authoritarian types among us always seem to ignore/mock. Of course, since they hate democracy at home, it's no surprise they hate democracy abroad.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Lancer
Zkribbler, Rufus, Aeson. Without them we would be truly lost.

I'd include Sloww in that list but he's more my kind of nutjob, soo...

I'd include him.

I take positions that IMHO I believe are correct. But I also acknowledge my views often are not the views of mainstream America. SlowwHand has in finger on the pulse of America far more than anyone else here. So, even when I don't agree with Sloww, I'm always interested in what he has to say.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


There's nothing really leftist about what I've said. That the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, that the troops sent to Iraq would have been more productively deployed in Afghanistan has been rehashed so many times that it doesn't need to be implied. There's a new government in Pakistan, we should be building up their trust before attempting raids on their territory. Who knows it might improve our accuracy. Besides, as far as countering the threat to Afghanistan by al Qaeda living safely in Poakistan, it's not Pakistan's fault that we've squandered our forces in Iraq. If we had those soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan we wouldn't need to attack them in Pakistan.
The point I was making in my earlier posts is that our air and land raids into Pakistan have had a lousy history. We've killed how many innocents to get rid of how few terrorists? Just when it seemed that we were about to make a new enemy in the Middle East al Qaeda begins a new bombing campaign to remind the Pakistanis of who their enemy really is. Lancer comes up with this twisted crap implying that the only reason the new Pakistan government has protested the US attacks is because they're al Qaeda's biatch.

I'm not even sure that the bombing was related to the US attacks on Pakistan. Has there been a declaration from the terrorists? I think it's just a matter of al Qaeda being itself. It appears to me that if we had waited for al Qaeda to show it's true nature to the new government we would't be in the current situation where the current Pakistan government has to choose between al Qaeda aggressors and American aggressors.

[Heresson]

I suspect Hindu terrorists.

Nah, seriously, it's very sad.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Bush really is the worst f*cking president ever.

Ding! I hear the crystaline ring of Truth.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I'd include him.

I take positions that IMHO I believe are correct. But I also acknowledge my views often are not the views of mainstream America. SlowwHand has in finger on the pulse of America far more than anyone else here. So, even when I don't agree with Sloww, I'm always interested in what he has to say.

He may share the views of mainstream America but here we're wacko right wing extremeists.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


There's nothing really leftist about what I've said. That the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, that the troops sent to Iraq would have been more productively deployed in Afghanistan has been rehashed so many times that it doesn't need to be implied. There's a new government in Pakistan, we should be building up their trust before attempting raids on their territory. Who knows it might improve our accuracy. Besides, as far as countering the threat to Afghanistan by al Qaeda living safely in Poakistan, it's not Pakistan's fault that we've squandered our forces in Iraq. If we had those soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan we wouldn't need to attack them in Pakistan.
The point I was making in my earlier posts is that our air and land raids into Pakistan have had a lousy history. We've killed how many innocents to get rid of how few terrorists? Just when it seemed that we were about to make a new enemy in the Middle East al Qaeda begins a new bombing campaign to remind the Pakistanis of who their enemy really is. Lancer comes up with this twisted crap implying that the only reason the new Pakistan government has protested the US attacks is because they're al Qaeda's biatch.

I'm not even sure that the bombing was related to the US attacks on Pakistan. Has there been a declaration from the terrorists? I think it's just a matter of al Qaeda being itself. It appears to me that if we had waited for al Qaeda to show it's true nature to the new government we would't be in the current situation where the current Pakistan government has to choose between al Qaeda aggressors and American aggressors.

Great post.

BTW is it true that Pakistan's new president was supposed to be at that hotel that night but that he canceled at the last minute?

[Lancer]

Blah. Makes me wonder why he cancelled, really. Or if he had a dinner scheduled, the Marriot denied it. You think they might know if the pres was coming.