Re: Should US attack Pakistan?
Let the jinnah bashing start lol.. :p
It was the duty of pakistani govt to slowly integrate these FATA into Pakistan and end feudalism [not obl will come and defend chaudhris, waderas along with moin?] but we lack SELFLESS LEADERS in Pakistan!!!!
Re: Should US attack Pakistan?
I don't mean to Jinnah bash - I'm merely inquiring where all this stupidity originated from? If they were meant to be slowly integrated, then why weren't they? Corruption, right?
And now when another country is speaking of invading Pakistan, that comes as a surprise? Friggin' country doesn't have a proper sewage system, even. A dump gets treated like a dump.
I really love the idea of a Pakistan, honestly, but the way Pakistan has "developed" over the past few decades, and the way Pakistanis behave, I'm so sick of it. Let the Americans go in and do some arse-kicking. Maybe then some of these free-roaming criminals might finally get what's coming to them.
Very few Pakistanis come to mind who DON'T deserve a good jhooti.
Re: Should US attack Pakistan?
Not the bombings. The soldiers' reactions.
Soldiers are there to kill the enemy. We get sanitized version of war in our homes, but reality is always more brutal no matter which side.
Re: Should US attack Pakistan?
Let the Americans go in and do some arse-kicking. Maybe then some of these free-roaming criminals might finally get what's coming to them.
Oh...like in Iraq? Oh wait....
The American administration that would be put in place will be just as corrupt. If not more so.
The criminals will be brought on side so long as they support policy.
It's never about doing the "right" thing.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
American society is not anywhere near as corrupt as in Pakistan. We don't have jaahils roaming the streets like animals causing problems left and right.
I am not Iraqi, so I can't comment on how filthy those people are. But the fact is that Pakistanis are asking for it. What with all these bombings left and right, and even the media is supporting the renegade maulvi cause. What country does that?!?
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
But the fact is that Pakistanis are asking for it.
That is a completely baseless statement. No country is "asking to be invaded." Your statement puts you on par with all those fundamentalists/terrorists that say the same thing about the US when they commit acts of terror.
The tribal areas are full of Pakistani Muslim people. Do you guys actually believe that everyone in FATA is some evil suicide bombing bearded terrorist out to destroy Pakistan? Because it sure seems like most people talk like they know what is going on the ground, when they have not seen these areas. Mind you, these are areas where even the Pakistan Army thinks twice about entering.
Many of the residents of FATA are uneducated, poor, simple, people who are devoutly Muslim. Now lets make the distinction clear between the Taliban and Al-Qaida. The Taliban are largely Pakhtuns who want to reclaim the control of Afghanistan, they may be radicalized by Al-Qaida, but their world view is NOT global, it is limited Afghanistan, perhaps the Pakhtun areas of Pakistan.
Al-Qaida is a terrorist organization active globally looking to cause problems in Pakistan and the larger Muslim world by creating a religious confrontation with the West. After we realize that distinction, policy can be conducted on a more even footing.
The correct way forward is isolating the foreign presence in FATA. The Arabs, the Uzbeks, the Chechnyans etc. must be removed from the area with the cooperation of the people of FATA. Setting up agreements like President Musharraf did in the past is the way to go. All this talk about bombing or trying to go in there to extricate the terrorists will result in more casualities for the military. All you hotshots calling for daisy cutters or carpet bombing the area, should remember that there are innocent Muslim civilians who will be killed by any such act. If that is ok with you, then there is no difference between you and those suicide bombing terrorists.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
^^ Taliban have similar cause with AlQaeda because they are basically the same core with wahabis claiming to "follow" imam hanbli [if asked..] and deobandi try to brand themselves as hanafi ahle-sunnah.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
America would love to come into Pakistan. They'd make minced meat out of us. What's stopping them is the fear a bigger lunatic will take Mush's place once the fighting really begins.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
America would love to come into Pakistan. They'd make minced meat out of us. What's stopping them is the fear a bigger lunatic will take Mush's place once the fighting really begins.
so you are saying that US is being a chicken out of fear right now?
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
US and Pakistan are allies in war on Talibans. We are getting $billions to support the allied armies in the region. Every US general pays salaams Adaab to Islambad during the tour of this region. This is hardly a situation where US will attack Pakistan. Only in Commie dreams that day will come true.
** CIA and ISI conduct joint reconnaissance missions in the border area sometimes 20 miles inside Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.
**
So I do not understand the knee-jerk reaction to every shout coming out of Leftie media that loves to twist the statement of US officials.
Both US and Pak soldiers are being attacked by the same Mullah enemy.
It really doesn't matter if a Pakistani SSG kills that Mullah or the good deed is done by a Green Beret.
Example. J.R. Mullah Rasheed was enemy of both Pakistan and America. In this case Pak army killed this terrorist.
A similar example is a second Lal masjid on the border. Similar Mullah kills US soldiers. US uses predator to send the Mullah to Jahannum.
There is no difference between the two methods, as both killed terrorist Mullahs.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
The fact remains that the US has conducted many raids on the Pakistani soil and routinely sends drones for reconnaissance. The only difference is that the Paki army asssumes the blame to stave off further humiliation and declaration of its submissive state. Furthermore, the Paki forces carry out concealment actions by actually firing rockets over the already decimated buildings by American bombings. This is what's happening in reality.
Now, if the US were to carry out blatant attacks, it would be only to mock and belittle the Pakistani regime and nothing else. For that reason, I fully support all out strikes by the US. More power to them, and God bless America, for putting the cowards in their place..
Re: Should US attack Pakistan?
Soldiers are there to kill the enemy. We get sanitized version of war in our homes, but reality is always more brutal no matter which side.
I can never reconcile myself to images of an Army that cheers at the indiscriminate killing of humans. Whats worse, its Muslims at the other end of the barrel.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
...... if the US were to carry out blatant attacks, it would be only to mock and belittle the Pakistani regime ...
Funny how Ben-La-Deen and his sidekick Zawa-hiri-dada-giri can carry out "blatant attacks" on Pak army and Pak civilians and people jump up and down, and cheer.
Heavens forbid if one of those Arab or Uzbek terrorist gets killed by a US fired bullet. With the Jahannum raseedi of each terrorist, Pak government gets so "beee-Littled".
Whatta Middle-Eastern logic.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
Musharraf emphasizes again…
**No country would be allowed to operate in Pakistan, says Musharraf **
ISLAMABAD: President General Musharraf said that no foreign country including US would be allowed to conduct operation within Pakistani territory.
Talking to media before his departure to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, Musharraf said that Pakistani security forces conducting comprehensive operation against terrorists and denied the impression that Pakistan is a safe heaven for terrorists and added that Pakistani forces pursuing terrorists.
Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Ehsanul Haq, Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ahsan Saleem Hyatt and some federal ministers were present at Chaklala airport to see off the president.
While in Saudi Arabia, the President will perform Umra and meet Khadim-ul-Harmain Sharifain King Abdullah.
After his Saudi Arabia visit, the president will leave for UAE.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
http://dawn.com/2007/07/27/top8.htm
Hillary against direct action
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
America would love to come into Pakistan. They'd make minced meat out of us. What's stopping them is the fear a bigger lunatic will take Mush's place once the fighting really begins.
Why would america invade when it can use its airpower with the atoon agn bhangees from the east who want to swallow bangladesh and pakistan into some hindu empire?
Iraq was a different scenario as US had no credible group to take casualties for them. Usually, US fights by putting its guns on someone else's shoulders..
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
And who listens to Musharraf? Bush? lol:D
They wont ask for Musharrafs permission to do anything inside Pakistan.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
And they will ask for the blessing of deobandi wahabis? 
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
^^ Taliban have similar cause with AlQaeda because they are basically the same core with wahabis claiming to "follow" imam hanbli [if asked..] and deobandi try to brand themselves as hanafi ahle-sunnah.
That is not true. Following Imam Hanbali does not mean you automatically become a terrorist/suicide bombing is allowed. All of these scholars of fiqh fall under orthodox Islam and there is widespread overlap.
While it is true that the Taliban have been cornered into pretty deep alliance with Al-Qaida, their worldview is limited to the region of Pakhtun influence. Suicide bombings and attempts to destablize Pakistan were NOT a Taliban mode of action. they have Al-Qaida written all over them. The reason I am making these distinctions clear is because Pakistanis are apparently as clueless as some Americans on the issue.
After the invasion of Afghanistan, obviously we have Taliban elements that are mopre closely allied with Al-Qaida and presenting a unified front. I think that the Government is correctly making this distinction when it attempts to create these peae agreements in FATA.
Re: Should US attack militants in Pakistan?
Unfortunately Hillary is not a green beret posted in the hills of Tora Bora. If and when US / NATO / Pak soldiers on the ground are in danger, they will call in air support. And the result will be a whole lot of shelling on the Mullah positions.
As I said earlier, 20 miles each side of Pak-Afghan border is a fare game for anyone with air power or boots on the ground.
NATO has air power but lacks boots on the ground (only 20K to cover the whole hell-hole of Afghanistan).
Pakistan may lack air power, but we can concentrate 80K pairs of boots in a relative small area of Wazirastan.
Pak government should stop protesting at every statement.
We instead should take a stance that yes NATO planes can bomb the terrorists few miles inside our border while pursuing these Mullahs running across the border.
and we on other hand (with 80,000 boots on the ground) can do hot pursuit in Afghanistan when these terrorists run for cover across the border.
The emphasis is on the “joint” ops.