Pakistan Kicking some Taliban Butt!

Sir Bandelot · May 13, 2009

Apparently when the allies liberated Italy, france, Belgium and Holland, 100 of thousands of people had to flee the fighting, but when the Nazis were there, they did not have to leave.

I see its Reductio ad Nazium time again.

My point is questioning the mainstream medias portrayal of the attitude of the general populace in swat valley, that they didn't want the Taliban and now welcome the Pakistani army's attack efforts to get rid of them. Prior to this operation we heard that sharia law was to be implemented there, and it seemed to be hugely popular.

"Speaking before an audience of tens of thousands in the Swat Valley town of Mingora on Sunday, cleric Sufi Muhammed declared democracy and Pakistan's judicial system "un-Islamic.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/2...iban/index.html

This set off immediate alarms in the US administration, who strongly opposed allowing such measures. See the part I italicized in my previous post. The response from the US is to be expected... but still does not deny the fact that this is what the people of the region really want, strict muslim law. Most of the media I'm reading wants to cover this up, using quoted from Pakistani opposition parties and government spokesmen.

Why did they offer the peace deal? Because they conceded that the fighting would never stop, and the people would accept sharia over constant war. Now under US pressure they return to war. I'm saying the consequences of this flip-flop will further radicalize the population.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

myata · May 13, 2009

It's not entirely clear who's actually kicking whose butt there: BBC: spread of Taleban in Pakistan. But what's becoming increasingly obvious, is that the policy of "getting messy" and "kicking the butt" in the remote and unknown lands is counter productive and in the long run will create lot more problems that it solves (if any).

Compare: we had a relatively minor case of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Sure they caused an enormous tragedy in 9/11, but it's by far more an intelligence failure of the US, then indication of fighting power of Al Quaeda itself.

Now we have near desperate situation in Afghanistan, hot potato of Iraq, and growing trouble in the nuclear Pakistan, on our hands. Who's saying that "war on terror" isn't bringing results?

DogOnPorch · May 13, 2009

Sir Bandelot: My point is questioning the mainstream medias portrayal of the attitude of the general populace in swat valley, that they didn't want the Taliban and now welcome the Pakistani army's attack efforts to get rid of them. Prior to this operation we heard that sharia law was to be implemented there, and it seemed to be hugely popular.

Taliban execute a couple in Peshawar for 'adultry': April 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y65U6i6XYqc (executions blacked-out)

I see its Reductio ad Nazium time again.

They're sure acting like the SS.

M.Dancer · May 13, 2009

I see its Reductio ad Nazium time again.

Not in the least. In most parts of the world (Gaza excepted) Civilians avoid conflict. It is not unreasonable to expect refugees..whether they are safer with the Taliban elements or not is moot. The Taliban are in defiance of Pakistani authority and have set up a parallel state and it is entirely reasonable for the Pakistani government to reassert control.

Your comment about refugees in this case is simply absurd.

DogOnPorch · May 13, 2009

The Taliban have been busy doing Henry VIII impersonations.

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2009

...Compare: we had a relatively minor case of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Sure they caused an enormous tragedy in 9/11, but it's by far more an intelligence failure of the US, then indication of fighting power of Al Quaeda itself.

I am sure this is comforting news to the victims' families of previous and subsequent bombings, beheadings, and stonings.

Now we have near desperate situation in Afghanistan, hot potato of Iraq, and growing trouble in the nuclear Pakistan, on our hands. Who's saying that "war on terror" isn't bringing results?

This was true long before 9/11 or the WoT.

myata · May 13, 2009

I am sure this is comforting news to the victims' families of previous and subsequent bombings, beheadings, and stonings.

While being killed by a liberating missile attack, on the other hand, should feel entirely different?

On a practical note though, it's not about consolotation and comfort, but fact of reality. Human nature. And nature and its laws can be ingnored only to the ignoramus's peril.

(Hostile) act creates counter-act. Messing in other peoples affairs will cause resistance. Even liberating and educational messing. Want to reduce or elimintate resistance? Don't mess in other people's affairs. Even if you don't really like their way of life (you can have your own; which you can demonstrate for everybody to see, and those who like it, to try and maybe accept - of their own will, and in their own time); or, they happen to have oil; or both. I know, sounds doubtful and unlikely. But maybe after all the troubles, blowbacks, billions, and thousands, tens and hundreds, of lives, buried in the ground, worth giving a chance? As a last resort in that war, which by all indications, isn't really going anywhere?

This was true long before 9/11 or the WoT.

What exactly was true before War on Terror, can we be more specific?

- daily attacks and loss of human life in Afghanistan?

- tens of thousands dead, infrastructure in shambles, crime and daily attacks in Iraq?

- taleban fighters within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital?

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2009

While being killed by a liberating missile attack, on the other hand, should feel entirely different?

Yes..it does.

On a practical note though, it's not about consolotation and comfort, but fact of reality. Human nature. And nature and its laws can be ingnored only to the ignoramus's peril.

Not much ignoring going on from either perspective.

What exactly was true before War on Terror, can we be more specific?
- daily attacks and loss of human life in Afghanistan?

- tens of thousands dead, infrastructure in shambles, crime and daily attacks in Iraq?

- taleban fighters within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital?

All of the above. I don't know why you insist upon drawing such an unnecessary before / after comparison, as if policies before 9/11 were just ducky. Maybe you are just about relative body counts / magnitude?

Edited May 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Sir Bandelot · May 13, 2009

In most parts of the world (Gaza excepted) Civilians avoid conflict. It is not unreasonable to expect refugees..whether they are safer with the Taliban elements or not is moot.

Is it really... I think the people should be the ones to decide what they prefer, not you and I from the comfort of our keyboards. Seems to me one eventually gets weary of constant war, if they ever knew peace at all. Theres the question of being REALISTIC, rather than IDEALISTIC, in terms of expected outcomes.

The Taliban are in defiance of Pakistani authority and have set up a parallel state and it is entirely reasonable for the Pakistani government to reassert control.

Maybe I read it wrong but the article shows that a separate legal system, sharia law was approved of for this region by the government of Pakistan. It was given as a concession to stop the fighting, not taken in defiance. it was in effect a peace agreement.

What happened next is debatable. The Taliban reportedly tried to spread their influence into other regions. This and the pressure by the US administration has forced the Paki government into military action again. Yet they have already conceded that there really can be no lasting victory, by military means.

Your comment about refugees in this case is simply absurd.

See the definition of insanity...

Edited May 13, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

myata · May 13, 2009

Yes..it does.

We'll have to take your word on that because you tried it both ways?

Not much ignoring going on from either perspective.

A lot of it, if one'd only cared to take an honest look around. When was the last time you were "liberated", had your government selected, installed, supported, armed and kept afloat by foreign powers? I know, what's good for a goose, is a big no for the great democratic gander.

All of the above. I don't know why you insist upon drawing such an unnecessary before / after comparison, as if policies before 9/11 were just ducky. Maybe you are just about relative body counts / magnitude?

Because it's the only logical, scientific way to establish causal relationship. Cause - effect. War on terror - glorious march of freedom and democracy on Earth. Or not. Short of taking somebody's word on it, like WMD in Iraq, or 45 minute attack, etc.

Still we need some factual confirmation to these general statements. 50,000 foreign troops barely keeping stability in the country? Power grid down for months, if not years, in Baghdad? Taleban rising in Pakistan? You sure it all happended before War on Terror (and here, in this Universe)?

All facts, including bodycounts as collateral damage of great liberation should be taken into account, if one wouldn't end up consuming loads of bullsh.. (like above, but by far not limited to it).

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2009

We'll have to take your word on that because you tried it both ways?

I can only speak from an engineering perspective....we know how to kill people very efficiently.

A lot of it, if one'd only cared to take an honest look around. When was the last time you were "liberated", had your government selected, installed, supported, armed and kept afloat by foreign powers? I know, what's good for a goose, is a big no for the great democratic gander.

I think the USA, Canada, and France did this as recently as 2004 in Haiti. Honest....

Because it's the only logical, scientific way to establish causal relationship. Cause - effect. War on terror - glorious march of freedom and democracy on Earth. Or not. Short of taking somebody's word on it, like WMD in Iraq, or 45 minute attack, etc.

Which WoT? When? Who? Surely you are not advocating a huge demarcation because of 9/11 along the "terrorism" continuum.

Still we need some factual confirmation to these general statements. 50,000 foreign troops barely keeping stability in the country? Power grid down for months, if not years, in Baghdad? Taleban rising in Pakistan? You sure it all happended before War on Terror (and here, in this Universe)?

Perhaps you missed the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

All facts, including bodycounts as collateral damage of great liberation should be taken into account, if one wouldn't end up consuming loads of bullsh.. (like above, but by far not limited to it).

Well, if that's what bugging you, then things are going very well indeed compared to your great wars of Empire (body count).

M.Dancer · May 13, 2009

Is it really... I think the people should be the ones to decide what they prefer, not you and I from the comfort of our keyboards. Seems to me one eventually gets weary of constant war, if they ever knew peace at all. Theres the question of being REALISTIC, rather than IDEALISTIC, in terms of expected outcomes.

Your answer is a nonsequitor.

Maybe I read it wrong but the article shows that a separate legal system, sharia law was approved of for this region by the government of Pakistan. It was given as a concession to stop the fighting, not taken in defiance. it was in effect a peace agreement.

You clearly don't understand the reality or the region. It is a defacto breakaway province...operating outside of Pakastani authority

See the definition of insanity...

Another no nsequitor....I think we already have our quotas of Bennys filled

myata · May 14, 2009

I can only speak from an engineering perspective....we know how to kill people very efficiently.

Relatives will have more comfort because their loved ones died efficiently... even if in greater numbers... but for a good cause, that certainly should be a consolation? As we think, for them?

Perhaps you missed the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

I can't recall anything quite like Iraq war even in those tumultous times... then, didn't we all see the dawn of the new era, post Cold War, that was supposed to see cooperation, multilateralism, peace and rule of law.. when it plays into our hands.

Well, if that's what bugging you, then things are going very well indeed compared to your great wars of Empire (body count).

I'm not quite following. It's a common knowledge that bodicounts resulting from our liberating efforts by far (i.e. multiples and orders of magnitude) exceed meagre achievements by any terrorists. Why so? I'd like to know probably more than the great liberators themselves.

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2009

Relatives will have more comfort because their loved ones died efficiently... even if in greater numbers... but for a good cause, that certainly should be a consolation? As we think, for them?

Well, they certainly take the money as small compensation! :lol:

I can't recall anything quite like Iraq war even in those tumultous times... then, didn't we all see the dawn of the new era, post Cold War, that was supposed to see cooperation, multilateralism, peace and rule of law.. when it plays into our hands.

See "Iran-Iraq War" and "Gulf War I". Not so peaceful after all.

I'm not quite following. It's a common knowledge that bodicounts resulting from our liberating efforts by far (i.e. multiples and orders of magnitude) exceed meagre achievements by any terrorists. Why so? I'd like to know probably more than the great liberators themselves.

You're working under the false assumption of Bodycount Parity.....no such thing exists except in the minds of those struggling to understand and cope with reality.

Sir Bandelot · May 14, 2009

Your answer is a nonsequitor.
You clearly don't understand the reality or the region. It is a defacto breakaway province...operating outside of Pakastani authority

Yeah well neither do our leaders... so why don't you take charge, MKnowitall?

Another no nsequitor....I think we already have our quotas of Bennys filled

You know, you got a tongue fancier than a ten dollar whore...

Ok let me dumb it down for ya some... insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

myata · May 14, 2009

You're working under the false assumption of Bodycount Parity.....

My assumptions are based entirely upon freedom hugging humanity loving cermons we hear in between (or, on occasion, while buzy, i.e. messy with) our liberating efforts. The moment we state the actual state of reality, i.e that we are trying to procure any kind of advantage by virtually any means available to us, I'll remove my objections (no, not to the strategy itself, which I still deem counter productive in the long run and big picture, but to the idea of humanism and enlightenment, exercised in that particular context).

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2009

My assumptions are based entirely upon freedom hugging humanity loving cermons we hear in between (or, on occasion, while buzy, i.e. messy with) our liberating efforts....

....more false assumptions.....our brand of "freedom" ain't free.

Nevertheless, such notions are unrelated to "Bodycount Parity", wherein the universe of conflict is in perfect mortal balance.

myata · May 14, 2009

....our brand of "freedom" ain't free.

While our freedomloving bullsh.. is. Unlimited.

bush_cheney2004 · May 14, 2009

While our freedomloving bullsh.. is. Unlimited.

Precisely....one can only go so far with a goat.

Sir Bandelot · May 16, 2009

Apparently 500,000 people had to flee from the fighting in the SWAT region. But when then the Taliban was there, they did not have to leave.

Apparently when the allies liberated Italy, france, Belgium and Holland, 100 of thousands of people had to flee the fighting, but when the Nazis were there, they did not have to leave.

Your comment about refugees in this case is simply absurd.

Pakistan reels under Swat offensive

"All of Pakistan's major political parties have given their support - along with the United States - to the operation, but with no exit strategy in place, the unfolding humanitarian crisis looms as a bigger threat than the Taliban."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE15Df03.html

This strategy will not work. Especially if the Taliban offer assistance to the fleeing civilians, food and medical aid as they have done before in parts of Afghanistan.

Army Guy · May 19, 2009

This strategy will not work. Especially if the Taliban offer assistance to the fleeing civilians, food and medical aid as they have done before in parts of Afghanistan

And where are they going to offer this aid ...now there is no place to run, no place to hide, no protection of a border....

Sir Bandelot · May 20, 2009

Thats the problem in an ideological war, you can't win unless you kill every one of them, and put their children into re-education camps. Even if they surrender and say they accept our culture and our politics, there's always a suspicion that they are just faking it, and so ideological wars are much more brutal than wars for control of land or resources.

And where are they going to offer this aid ...now there is no place to run, no place to hide, no protection of a border

In this case I doubt that the Taliban will arrive at the refugee camp in a truck that says "Taliban" on the roof. But here's a situation I think we must avoid- If we do nothing to help the 1 million or so refugees, if they are instead helped by a group that supports islamic fundamentalism, ie. the Home-boys who already live there, what will happen? Those people will say, "We are here to help you, to protect you from the infidel westerners who drove you out of your homes." Then we lose the war of ideas.

On the other hand, I understand that certain military aid now being sent to Pakistan is being diverted to build more nukes. Not directly... they take the money to pay for civilian and military operations, then use their own money to build more A-bombs. Pakistan has a history of using western aid, weaponry and troops to bolster their position in the region.

Army Guy · May 20, 2009

In this case I doubt that the Taliban will arrive at the refugee camp in a truck that says "Taliban" on the roof. But here's a situation I think we must avoid- If we do nothing to help the 1 million or so refugees, if they are instead helped by a group that supports islamic fundamentalism, ie. the Home-boys who already live there, what will happen? Those people will say, "We are here to help you, to protect you from the infidel westerners who drove you out of your homes." Then we lose the war of ideas.

Stop painting the people as stupid goat hearders who do not know why this war has been started....They know that the Taliban have been moving in, they know why the Taliban are doing it, and they know why the Pakistan army must drive them out....

When the Aid arrives it will be clearly stamped "Made in America" hard to confuse where it came from....

On the other hand, I understand that certain military aid now being sent to Pakistan is being diverted to build more nukes. Not directly... they take the money to pay for civilian and military operations, then use their own money to build more A-bombs. Pakistan has a history of using western aid, weaponry and troops to bolster their position in the region.

Just think for a second do you really think that the US president/ NATO will allow Pakistan and her Nuk wpns program to fall into the hands of an extreme islamic group such as the Taliban....with out exhausting every military opition possiable....So regardless of what Pakistan government spends it's resources on....one thing is almost for certain, the Taliban have more of a chance of taking Russia than Pakistan...and the Talban have bitten the hand that has protected them for this long....this is a side show, for if it continues the taliban will be destroyed....

Sir Bandelot · May 20, 2009

Stop painting the people as stupid goat hearders who do not know why this war has been started....They know that the Taliban have been moving in, they know why the Taliban are doing it, and they know why the Pakistan army must drive them out....

I do not portray them as such, nor do I believe they are stupid, so you stop putting words in my mouth. As for knowing why this war started, if your trying to say that the civilians are on the governments side, I doubt it. When I read that 10,000 supporters in the swat valley came to hear the local cleric give a speech, saying that democracy is anti-islamic, I think that story speaks for itself. As I said earlier, they did not have to run away when they were under their own sharia law. Incidentally, they are Pashtun, not Taliban as the media portrays. It's clear that the pashtun want to live by sharia law.

When the Aid arrives it will be clearly stamped "Made in America" hard to confuse where it came from....

I hope so, we shall see about that. Or will it instead be stolen, diverted elsewhere by forces who don't want that aid to arrive, who would rather see them starve than get help from the west? It's happened before. This is a war of ideology, not as simple as shooting some people and then shaking hands with tribal leaders. There are many, many there who don't want our interference, in ANY way. And more each day, as resentment grows. We are just as alien to them, as they are to us.

Just think for a second do you really think that the US president/ NATO will allow Pakistan and her Nuk wpns program to fall into the hands of an extreme islamic group such as the Taliban....with out exhausting every military opition possiable....So regardless of what Pakistan government spends it's resources on....one thing is almost for certain, the Taliban have more of a chance of taking Russia than Pakistan...and the Talban have bitten the hand that has protected them for this long....this is a side show, for if it continues the taliban will be destroyed....

No, NOT regardless of what they spend the money on, this is the same foolish knee-jerk reactionary response we have seen before. Its obvious that what we want is not what they want, they couldn't care less what we want, but they'll take our money make some platitudes to keep us happy, then meanwhile quietly continue on their agenda. There are people at the highest level of government, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, who support the fundamentalists. This just shows what a snake pit we are in.

You don't think that expanding their nuclear arsenal with the help of foreign aid is a problem? Can't you think past the end of your own rifle? This has becoming a worse problem every day, in some very surprising ways. We must not ignore the longer term outcomes, just because we have to scramble to put out daily fires... they do keep getting bigger.

"the taliban will be destroyed...."

We've been hearing that one for about 8 years now. Looks even less likely today than it did then. Unless of course you plan on killing every single rag head.