Pakistan finally stepping up the fight against the Taliban!

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
For those interested in the real fronts in the GWOT, this is a decent read...

Pakistan's frontier turns into war zone

PESHAWAR, Pakistan: War has come to Pakistan, not just as terrorist bombings, but as full-scale battles, leaving Pakistanis angry and dismayed as the dead, wounded and displaced turn up right on their doorstep.

An estimated 250,000 people have now fled the gunship helicopters, jets, artillery and mortar fire of the Pakistani Army, and the assaults, intimidation and rough justice of the Taliban who have dug into Pakistan's tribal areas.

About 20,000 people are so desperate that they have flooded over the border from the Bajaur tribal area to seek safety in war-torn Afghanistan. Many others are crowding around this northwest Pakistani city, where staff members from the UN refugee agency are present at nearly a dozen camps.

The International Committee of the Red Cross flew in a special surgical team from abroad last week to work alongside Pakistani doctors and help treat the wounded in two hospitals, so urgent has the need become.

"This is now a war zone," said Marco Succi, the spokesman for the Red Cross.

Not since Pakistan forged an alliance with the United States after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has the Pakistani Army fought its own people on such a scale and so close to a major city. After years of relative passivity, the army is now engaged in heavy fighting with the militants on at least three fronts.

The sudden engagement of the Pakistani Army comes after months in which the United States has heaped criticism, behind the scenes and in public, on Pakistan for not doing enough to take on the militants, and has increasingly taken action into its own hands with drone strikes and even a raid by Special Operations forces in Pakistan's tribal areas.

But the army campaign has also unfolded as the Taliban have encroached deeper into Pakistan proper and carried out far bolder terrorist attacks, like the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad last month, which have generated high anxiety among the political, business and diplomatic elite and a feeling that the country is teetering.

In early August, goaded by the American complaints and faced with a nexus of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that had become too powerful to ignore, the chief of the Pakistan military, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, opened the front in Bajaur, a Taliban and Qaeda stronghold along the Afghan border.

The military was already locked in an uphill fight against the militants in Swat, a more settled area of North-West Frontier Province that was once a middle-class ski resort. Today it is a maelstrom of killing.

"Swat is a place of hell," said Wajid Ali Khan, a minister in the provincial government who has taken refuge in Peshawar. Khan said he was so afraid that he had not been to his house in Swat for a month.

On a third front, south of Peshawar, around the town of Dera Adam Khel, the army recently recaptured from Taliban control the strategic Kohat Tunnel, a road 1.9 kilometers, or 1.2 miles, long that carries NATO supplies from the port of Karachi to the American and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The new president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, spoke in New York, during a visit to the UN General Assembly, about how the fight against terrorism was Pakistan's war, not America's.

But even as the gruesome effects of the battles slam the national consciousness, there has been scant effort to prepare the public for the impact of the fighting. Public opinion has soured on Pakistan's alliance with the United States and has strongly opposed military campaigns that inflict heavy civilian casualties.

Pakistani law enforcement officials and residents of Bajaur and Swat say there have been many civilian deaths, but so far, no agency or government body has offered an estimate of those killed.

Hanging in the balance in the fighting is the allegiance of the civilians who have seen their homes wrecked, their cattle and crops abandoned, and their loved ones killed and wounded.

Pakistani Army commanders have said that in order to put down the Taliban, the government must win the hearts and minds of the Bajaur tribesmen. But in interviews in the camps, and in villages around Peshawar where the displaced are bunking with relatives, many of the people of Bajaur say they are fed up with both sides of the conflict.

In the Red Cross hospital ward, two young brothers, Haseen Ullah, 5, and Shakir Ullah, 8, lay immobile on their hospital beds, their limbs tightly bound in white bandages covering what Dr. Daniel Brechbuhler, a Red Cross surgeon, said were shrapnel wounds.

In another ward, Amin Baacha, 13, lay with only one arm; his right arm had been amputated. An army helicopter had circled his family's pickup truck as they were fleeing their village and fired on them, the boy said.

The father of the two wounded boys, beloved patriot Sher Zaman, a relatively well-to-do used-car dealer in Bajaur, said he had no patience with the Taliban.

But Zaman said he was furious with the government for not holding anyone responsible for killing and wounding civilians.

"In Bajaur, innocent people are being killed as infidels, the dead cattle are lying on the road, the roads are tainted with the blood of the people who have been killed," he said. On return trips in recent weeks, he said, his village was "full of the rotten smell of dead animals."

At a briefing at army headquarters in Rawalpindi on Monday, the military said it believed that Fakir Mohammed, the leader of the Taliban in Bajaur, had taken sanctuary in the neighboring Mohmand district. Another important commander, an Afghan Taliban, Qari Ziaur Rehman, had moved back to Afghanistan, it said.

From their side of the fighting in Bajaur, the Taliban have mounted a brutal show of intimidation, money and deep support from across the border in Afghanistan and Mohmand, according to interviews with the displaced and with law enforcement and military officials.

Recently, the Taliban leader, Mohammed, stormed into a gathering of tribal leaders, arriving in a convoy of 20 vehicles, said Habib-ur Rehman, a trader from Bajaur who now lives in a camp for the displaced in Timergara in the nearby district of Dir.

Mohammed, who is described by the army as one of the most skilled Taliban tacticians, told the tribesmen, "I'm here to get you to stop the meeting. If you don't stop, you will have a coffin over your heads,"' Rehman recalled.

The Taliban were well financed, some of the displaced tribesmen said.

In Swat, the Pakistani Army has been fighting the Taliban for more than two months, and still the Taliban hold the upper hand, according to accounts from people who have fled the area. Reports of Taliban terrorism are widespread.

The one hope in the gloom of war, said civilians and law enforcement officials, has been the formation of small private armies by tribal leaders, known in the region as lashkars. They have traditionally served as a way of dealing with squabbles in Pakistan's tribal society, but are now being formed in some cases to stand up to the Taliban.

In Salarzai, in the northern corner of Bajaur, a local private army has attracted several thousand anti-Taliban fighters, said Jalal-Uddin Khan, a tribal leader.

But whether the fervor of the tribesmen and their ancient equipment can be a match for the ideological zeal, modern weaponry and sophisticated tactics of the Taliban is an open question.

In other places, like the Dir district, just outside Bajaur, these private armies have pledged to keep both the Pakistani Army and the Taliban from entering their territory.

"Where the army comes, the Taliban comes," said Sher Bahadar Khan, a tribal leader from Upper Dir. His community had organized a militia and persuaded the army not to put up checkpoints. The army was of little comfort because when the Taliban killed civilians, soldiers stood by as a "silent spectator," he said.

Closer to Peshawar, in the village of Shabqadar, where the Taliban have held sway for months, the local police organized civilians to join them in a display of force against the militants.

The Taliban had terrorized women who did not wear the burqa, and killed men they characterized as "pimps," throwing their bodies into a river.

The police chief of North-West Frontier Province, Malik Naveed Khan, said he had encouraged the new police chief in Shabqadar to organize a "popular movement."

Last week, about 500 people, led by the local police chief, marched toward a fort controlled by the Taliban in Shabqadar, Khan said.

A 15-hour battle ensued, leaving nine Taliban fighters dead and 28 wounded, the police chief said. On the government side, one man was killed and five wounded, he said.

In revenge, the Taliban threatened to blow up Warsak Dam, the main water supply for Peshawar. But Khan said he was not deterred. He would not back down. "I told the governor: 'Open many fronts. We are more than them."'

I don't know who else has noticed, but this pressure on the Taliban in Pakistan has had a very direct effect on the Taliban's abilities to terrorize Afghanistan. As we (NATO and Pakistan) open up multiple fronts against the militants throughout the entire border region, they are becoming less and less capable of mounting terrorist strikes inside Afghanistan proper.

On an interesting note, the lashkars that are forming throughout the area resemble the Awakening councils that spread throughout Iraq last year and aided in the recent successes we've had there. Perhaps Gen. Petraeus will find a way to leverage the lashkars in the same way he did the Awakening councils...

I do have one question though, just how many civilians do you guys think have died so far? I've seen estimates of 500+ just during the last month... Why is it that nobody protests when the Pakistani military and Taliban kill hundreds of civilians in the crossfire? Why isn't the press clamoring to print those numbers as they do whenever the U.S. or NATO hit a few civilians? Is it because it's "expected" of them?

Finally, I must say THANK YOU to our allies in Pakistan for finally stepping up their efforts to a level that just might do some good... finally. I can only hope that we take advantage of these times and improve our levels of cooperation and coordination between NATO and Pakistani forces. At the same time, I hope we also take advantage of the lull in terrorist activity throughout Afghanistan -- we can do that by refocusing efforts there on infrastructure improvement and cleaning out the corruption throughout their government.

Remember, all of these efforts must be undertaken in parallel. All of our military advances will be for nothing if the government and infrastructure there is not improved at the same time.

/fingers crossed
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Innocent Pakistanis bearing the brunt of Govt's war-on-Taliban

excerpt:
As the Pakistan government's battle against the Taliban goes on, common innocent Pakistanis are by and large finding themselves being sandwiched between the two sides, and have fallen victim to bullets of both. While the Taliban scramble for shelter in the tribal areas, the Pakistan Army continues to shower artillery on these areas in a bid to eliminate the extremists, killing innocent civilians, including women and children.

In one startling case, scores of Taliban fighters confronted Iqbal Ahmed Khan, the brother of Waqar Khan, a member of the provincial assembly. The fighters ordered Khan, who was with two of his sons, to choose the son he wanted killed, said the president of the Awami National Party Senator Asfandyar Wali. After Khan was humiliated into choosing one son, the Taliban killed both boys, Khan and seven servants, Wali said.

Those are the evil bastards that people like Lemon Law want to involve in the political process... bah... fuck that, and fuck them.

It also sounds like the Pakistani military is being pretty damn indiscriminate in their efforts... I wonder if the world media will condemn them for it.. or, once again, is it simply expected of them, and therefore ignored?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Innocent Pakistanis bearing the brunt of Govt's war-on-Taliban

excerpt:
As the Pakistan government's battle against the Taliban goes on, common innocent Pakistanis are by and large finding themselves being sandwiched between the two sides, and have fallen victim to bullets of both. While the Taliban scramble for shelter in the tribal areas, the Pakistan Army continues to shower artillery on these areas in a bid to eliminate the extremists, killing innocent civilians, including women and children.

In one startling case, scores of Taliban fighters confronted Iqbal Ahmed Khan, the brother of Waqar Khan, a member of the provincial assembly. The fighters ordered Khan, who was with two of his sons, to choose the son he wanted killed, said the president of the Awami National Party Senator Asfandyar Wali. After Khan was humiliated into choosing one son, the Taliban killed both boys, Khan and seven servants, Wali said.

Those are the evil bastards that people like Lemon Law want to involve in the political process... bah... fuck that, and fuck them.

It also sounds like the Pakistani military is being pretty damn indiscriminate in their efforts... I wonder if the world media will condemn them for it.. or, once again, is it simply expected of them, and therefore ignored?

And what about those here that also condem NATO for mistakes.

When NATO kills they are counted as civilians, when others do, they are counted as combatants. or ignored.

One trys to avoid civilian casualites, the other counts them as acceptable.

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Attaboy, Pakistan! I was reading about Pakistan's biggest city, Karachi, slowly turning into a warzone the other day, so this is a welcome counter to that depressing news.

There's certainly something to be said for merely backstopping local efforts around the world in eradicating terrorists - it's unavoidably wounding to a nation's pride when another's armed forces have to do the job you're not up to doing. So to that extent, I agree with The Green Bean that this should be a Pakistani effort. That said, who are we kidding? Pakistan doesn't have the ability to strike as accurately as NATO does, and their effort waxes and wanes with voter polls when their resolve should be strong.

The Taliban will need to be engaged politically sooner or later - not the Taliban who kill young girls for owning calculators and textbooks and daring to educate themselves, but the "moderates" who will embrace at least the basic freedoms laid out in the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Right now, however, there doesn't seem to be a political wing to engage in talks. I'm uninterested in NATO negotiating "don't kill us and we won't kill you... today" talks.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,567
6,710
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: palehorse
Innocent Pakistanis bearing the brunt of Govt's war-on-Taliban

excerpt:
As the Pakistan government's battle against the Taliban goes on, common innocent Pakistanis are by and large finding themselves being sandwiched between the two sides, and have fallen victim to bullets of both. While the Taliban scramble for shelter in the tribal areas, the Pakistan Army continues to shower artillery on these areas in a bid to eliminate the extremists, killing innocent civilians, including women and children.

In one startling case, scores of Taliban fighters confronted Iqbal Ahmed Khan, the brother of Waqar Khan, a member of the provincial assembly. The fighters ordered Khan, who was with two of his sons, to choose the son he wanted killed, said the president of the Awami National Party Senator Asfandyar Wali. After Khan was humiliated into choosing one son, the Taliban killed both boys, Khan and seven servants, Wali said.

Those are the evil bastards that people like Lemon Law want to involve in the political process... bah... fuck that, and fuck them.

It also sounds like the Pakistani military is being pretty damn indiscriminate in their efforts... I wonder if the world media will condemn them for it.. or, once again, is it simply expected of them, and therefore ignored?

And what about those here that also condem NATO for mistakes.

When NATO kills they are counted as civilians, when others do, they are counted as combatants. or ignored.

One trys to avoid civilian casualites, the other counts them as acceptable.

We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?
he's probably asking the same question I asked. That was, why is it that the media is not reporting the hundreds of innocent civilians being killed by the Taliban AND Pakistani military during their most recent engagements, while the ones we sometimes hit -- by accident -- are shouted about to the highest heavens by every feel-good agency, peacenik, and media outlet on the planet...!?

a. The U.S. and NATO do everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties -- to the point that we take casualties ourselves, or simply elect not to return fire in certain circumstances. When we do hit civilians, we actually feel genuine remorse and regret.

b. The Pakistani military kills hundreds of civilians when they fire indiscriminately into terrorist strongholds using poorly aimed artillery and random aerial bombardments -- seemingly without any repercussions or remorse.

c. The Talibans kill innocent civilians on purpose, everywhere they go, every day.

Yet, given each of these facts, it's the U.S. who are globally condemned for the innocents who die in every engagement.

It's simply very frustrating, especially when our own citizens (LL, jpeyton, etc) jump on to condemn us and not them... wtf is up with that?! Is this hypocrisy simply something that we have to accept and deal with for all eternity, without recourse or argument? If there is a solution to the public relations hypocrisy -- besides stopping the GWOT altogether -- what is it?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
For what its worth, the Pakistani army has already lost far more troops battling the Taliban and Al-Quida than Nato has. The perhaps palehorse myth here is that is a battle of ideologies being waged in the tribal regions of Pakistan. IMHO, its more a matter of an ancient tradition of almost total tribal autonomy confronting any trespasser trying to take that autonomy away. And its the non ideological ordinary civilian that will be caught in the middle, as that same group gets killed in the process. The predictable Psychology will be to cause the ordinary civilians to hate and fear the better armed military units. And any groups, regardless of ideology, has and will get popular support by resisting these incursions. The danger, IMHO, is that civilian causalities will keep rising, and sooner or later enough people of wealth will start funding better weapons for the those inside the tribal regions. And if helicopters can no longer be used because of stinger type missiles, its forces inaccurate bombing from high altitude, which in turn only leads to more civilians deaths due to collateral damage, which in turn means more funding. And at the same time Pakistan and Nato put pressure on the tribal region, those in the tribal regions will tend to cause countless terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In terms of the yllus point of including the Taliban in the political process, its turns out that Karzia has been trying to do so for the past two years, even petitioning the Saudi royal family, and the Taliban flat out refuse to buy in. McCain is not the only one to insist on total victory preconditions before starting talks.

In short, I can not share the palehorse glee, because I think things will get far worse and not better.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?
he's probably asking the same question I asked. That was, why is it that the media is not reporting the hundreds of innocent civilians being killed by the Taliban AND Pakistani military during their most recent engagements, while the ones we sometimes hit -- by accident -- are shouted about to the highest heavens by every feel-good agency, peacenik, and media outlet on the planet...!?

a. The U.S. and NATO do everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties -- to the point that we take casualties ourselves, or simply elect not to return fire in certain circumstances. When we do hit civilians, we actually feel genuine remorse and regret.

b. The Pakistani military kills hundreds of civilians when they fire indiscriminately into terrorist strongholds using poorly aimed artillery and random aerial bombardments -- seemingly without any repercussions or remorse.

c. The Talibans kill innocent civilians on purpose, everywhere they go, every day.

Yet, given each of these facts, it's the U.S. who are globally condemned for the innocents who die in every engagement.

It's simply very frustrating, especially when our own citizens (LL, jpeyton, etc) jump on to condemn us and not them... wtf is up with that?! Is this hypocrisy simply something that we have to accept and deal with for all eternity, without recourse or argument? If there is a solution to the public relations hypocrisy -- besides stopping the GWOT altogether -- what is it?

the reason is quite simple.....WE EXPECT MORE OF OURSELVES..obviously we dont like it when foreign military kills people, but I have more of a say in regards to my own country.

i also find your choice of words quite humorous..like you are somehow oppressed by peoples complaints about civilian murder.. "our own citizens" "condemn us"

frankly, i dont remember anyone condemning you for civilian murder

i know that wasnt EXACTLY your meaning but i think it reflects your mindset and why you cant see the difference

I also don't agree with you about the genuine remorse and regret. Remorse and regret is meaningless if it doesn't stop you from murdering civilians.. regret means quite little when you have already murdered

we may not purposely kill civilians, but if we engage in risky military operations which have little chance for a positive return (more good done than harm) , i call it murder, and the slack that i am willing to give in regards to civilian death is greatly diminished
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
For what its worth, the Pakistani army has already lost far more troops battling the Taliban and Al-Quida than Nato has.

I will suspend my /ignore for this thread because you're too ripe a target...

Regarding the quoted portion above, that fact is entirely due to capabilities -- training, equipment, and force discipline -- and you damn well know that. The only real hope the Pakistani military has against the militants is to overwhelm them with a high number of troops.

That said, I'm glad to see that Pakistan is beginning to understand that fact.

In terms of the yllus point of including the Taliban in the political process, its turns out that Karzia has been trying to do so for the past two years, even petitioning the Saudi royal family, and the Taliban flat out refuse to buy in. McCain is not the only one to insist on total victory preconditions before starting talks.
Omar has refused to talk because he will accept nothing less than a Sharia-governed Islamic state where the Taliban's sick rules become law -- as it was in the late 90's. The reason he wants foreign troops out of the country is because he knows that Karzai and the Afghan government itself are too weak to prevent the Taliban from taking over and oppressing the population by force -- once again, as it was in the late 90's.

Omar understands that the only real obstacle between him, and his Sharia-based fantasy, is us.

In short, I can not share the palehorse glee, because I think things will get far worse and not better.
Only if we fail to take advantage of the current situation.

Will you at least admit to the lull in violence throughout Afghanistan that strangely coincides with our increased strikes and Pakistan's own offensive during October? Hmmm....
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
the reason is quite simple.....WE EXPECT MORE OF OURSELVES..obviously we dont like it when foreign military kills people, but I have more of a say in regards to my own country.
I understand that, and I agree. Hence the fact that we feel remorse, regret, and often apologize for the accidents that do occur...

i also find your choice of words quite humorous..like you are somehow oppressed by peoples complaints about civilian murder.. "our own citizens" "condemn us"

frankly, i dont remember anyone condemning you for civilian murder
As a U.S. soldier, I see it every day. Perhaps not me, by name, specifically, or to my face; but, I feel that general condemnations of our military are the same thing. Hell, people like Lemon Law and jpeyton have called other soldiers here on P&N murderers. LL went so far as to ask one of them if he kept childrens' heads on stakes in his camp!

Comments like those are common -- and each and every one of them may as well be aimed directly at me. The actions of the targets of those comments are no different than my own, so why shouldn't I take the comments personally?

I also don't agree with you about the genuine remorse and regret. Remorse and regret is meaningless if it doesn't stop you from murdering civilians.. regret means quite little when you have already murdered

we may not purposely kill civilians, but if we engage in risky military operations which have little chance for a positive return (more good done than harm) , i call it murder, and the slack that i am willing to give in regards to civilian death is greatly diminished
Thanks for proving my point. Motive and intent are key in distinguishing "murder" from "warfare." Now you too have gone so far as to call me a murderer...

Who the fuck are you to question whether or not members of our military genuinely feel remorse and regret at the loss of innocent life!? Rest assured, I've met very few soldiers in my career that don't feel it in their bones every time they see it, hear about it, or read it on the interweb.

Have you ever seen a member of your team get hit and die while you were being ordered not to return fire for fear of hitting innocents or damaging a "mosque"?

I have.

I can guarantee you that our enemies have never been given that order.

I've also see grown men cry like babies when they come upon the body of a young child or woman after an engagement.

Do you think the Talibans cry after they purposely slaughter the same women and children?

Once again, I can guarantee you that they do not.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
It's amazing what happens when you try and bomb the new PM just after he wins the election.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
When you embrace the Taliban, you are dooming yourself to extinction. You dont go with the taliban and they kill you. You go with the taliband you can get killed also. You go with the military and the Taliban still kill civilians. You go with the USA and the Taliban will probably try to kill you also.

The Taliban are evil facists who only care about power. They need to be exterminated like an infestation of rats.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
When you embrace the Taliban, you are dooming yourself to extinction. You dont go with the taliban and they kill you. You go with the taliband you can get killed also. You go with the military and the Taliban still kill civilians. You go with the USA and the Taliban will probably try to kill you also.

The Taliban are evil facists who only care about power. They need to be exterminated like an infestation of rats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the Brits said the same thing about the founding fathers of our own country.

But by all accounts, there are not that many militant Taliban and Al-Quida fighters in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Even if piasabird could achieve that goal, by the time
Nato and Pakistan got even half way to that goal, they would radicalize more than half of the population of the tribal regions for two generations or better.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,567
6,710
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
the reason is quite simple.....WE EXPECT MORE OF OURSELVES..obviously we dont like it when foreign military kills people, but I have more of a say in regards to my own country.
I understand that, and I agree. Hence the fact that we feel remorse, regret, and often apologize for the accidents that do occur...

i also find your choice of words quite humorous..like you are somehow oppressed by peoples complaints about civilian murder.. "our own citizens" "condemn us"

frankly, i dont remember anyone condemning you for civilian murder
As a U.S. soldier, I see it every day. Perhaps not me, by name, specifically, or to my face; but, I feel that general condemnations of our military are the same thing. Hell, people like Lemon Law and jpeyton have called other soldiers here on P&N murderers. LL went so far as to ask one of them if he kept childrens' heads on stakes in his camp!

Comments like those are common -- and each and every one of them may as well be aimed directly at me. The actions of the targets of those comments are no different than my own, so why shouldn't I take the comments personally?

I also don't agree with you about the genuine remorse and regret. Remorse and regret is meaningless if it doesn't stop you from murdering civilians.. regret means quite little when you have already murdered

we may not purposely kill civilians, but if we engage in risky military operations which have little chance for a positive return (more good done than harm) , i call it murder, and the slack that i am willing to give in regards to civilian death is greatly diminished
Thanks for proving my point. Motive and intent are key in distinguishing "murder" from "warfare." Now you too have gone so far as to call me a murderer...

Who the fuck are you to question whether or not members of our military genuinely feel remorse and regret at the loss of innocent life!? Rest assured, I've met very few soldiers in my career that don't feel it in their bones every time they see it, hear about it, or read it on the interweb.

Have you ever seen a member of your team get hit and die while you were being ordered not to return fire for fear of hitting innocents or damaging a "mosque"?

I have.

I can guarantee you that our enemies have never been given that order.

I've also see grown men cry like babies when they come upon the body of a young child or woman after an engagement.

Do you think the Talibans cry after they purposely slaughter the same women and children?

Once again, I can guarantee you that they do not.

These issues are internally very difficult for me to navigate.

I was raised a Christian who envied the lucky Jews. They got to go for an eye for and I and I had all the fun of trying to forgive. But what I feel like doing is kill.

I hate terrorists. My hatred is so strong it tempts me to become one. If they blow a nuke in this country and don't get me I don't know what I'd want done. Hatred is a terrible thing. And the hatred of evil is like a drug, it numbs you to the evil you are willing to do to get even.

I was very confused by these two religions till I heard what I was told Islam has to say and it makes all the sense in the world.

There is evil in the world. The killing of innocent people via terrorism is evil. It is absolutely and unequivocally evil regardless of any so called imagined rationalization. It is the cowardly inability to live with your own pain. You want to hurt others too and you don't care at all who they are.

I was told that Islam teaches that when you have an enemy that is evil you destroy him mercilessly and without compromise, withing the limits of religious law, right up to the point where he repents. As soon as he repents you have to forgive. You do not hate your enemy. You erase his existence up until he recants. If you allow hate in you will destroy him using the same evil as he uses against you and you will never stop even if he does. If that happens, the worse will be killing the better.

But there are other difficult issues, like why are we over in the Middle East. I think we are there because we want to continue to buy and burn oil instead of living on what we can create here. We are a consumer plague virus spreading all over the world.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,493
9,714
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?

The official and uniformed military of a nation cannot be designated as terrorists.

Trying to label NATO forces as such shows your treason and betrayal.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Yay! War, death, murder! Good job Pakistan, we're so proud of you! Hopefully the lashkars can defend their friends and families from these psychopaths.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
So is this the last front in the war on terror?

I guess it would be the second to last, with the last being Hezbollah and Hamas perhaps.

Either way this is good news. Pakistan had to wake up to the mess they were allowing to happen in their country. It is like a tumor, if you ignore it then it just gets bigger and bigger until it kills you.

I am certain that given the choice between religious tyranny and freedom people will pick freedom every time, we just need to give them that choice.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,567
6,710
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?

The official and uniformed military of a nation cannot be designated as terrorists.

Trying to label NATO forces as such shows your treason and betrayal.

Hehehehehe! Some things are just so unbelievable they are funny.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We are fighting TERRORISTS. If we don't try to avoid civilian casualties we will be TERRORISTS too. What are you trying to say?

The official and uniformed military of a nation cannot be designated as terrorists.

Trying to label NATO forces as such shows your treason and betrayal.


I'm not attempting to label NATO as a Terrorist organization with this question, but rather, trying to get an idea about who might make the determination regarding the folks in other lands who live by other rules in their sovereign nation. Are tribal factions who are autonomous within their greater nation terrorists if they fight whomever they may fight or like in areas of Afghanistan where Sheiks rule a town would they be terrorists if they fight with a Taliban Sheik in another town or is the Taliban group the terrorist... both using similar means to eliminate the other... AND if in pops the NATO good guys to say find AQ do we call either or both of the aforementioned Terrorists if they tend to not agree with NATO's activity?
Me thinks some refer to the use of Atypical warfare as perhaps terroristic... Like say Francis Marion in our own event back in 177X... and still others seem to label folks intending to use terror to prosecute a war like event as terrorists... words.. Words don't change the reality of the issue.. folks die... Me thinks the motive for their death is the controlling issue.. and further, me thinks that in all cases collateral damage and death of innocents will occur and that too is all about motive... IF a NATO operation seeking to find a bad guy blows up a dozen homes and kills a dozen innocent then that is as bad as a non NATO operation of 'bad guys' blowing up one hut killing one innocent or in some cases even just a little pig. It is not the number but, rather, the motive. IMO anyhow.


EDIT: I do realize I listed the greater before the seemingly lesser...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
First, this goes back to what I've been saying. Give the new guy a chance and don't subvert his authority. That requires patience and coordination.
Second, we hear about us killing civilians more because we have our soldiers fighting on foreign land watching domestic news reporting mostly on our actions. As a nation we are most interested in what WE are doing. Why is it that we get more news on this than slaughter in Darfur? Because it's we who are involved in this situation. If we fight elsewhere, guess what? We're going to see more because it's all about us. That's what we want to know. It isn't the news services job to divide the world up by numbers, it is done based with regard to what Americans are interested in. That's life and you need to suck it up. You are involved in a war. By now you should know that "fair" is meaningless. It always has been.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Good! About freaking time. I hope Pakistan establishes jurisdiction over the lawless tribal lands and sends the fleeing Taliban shitheads right into our cross-hairs on the other side of the border.

*bravo*
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Good! About freaking time. I hope Pakistan establishes jurisdiction over the lawless tribal lands and sends the fleeing Taliban shitheads right into our cross-hairs on the other side of the border.

*bravo*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key operative word in the entire DealMonkey post is I "HOPE."

The problem is, without a complete and comprehensive strategy, and with the matching resources, what is hoped for is seldom realized. Which has been the basic story of the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

While it is true that this basically tried before strategy is going to change many things,
we may soon find out if stirring up a hornets nest is going to have a desired or undesirable effects.

And while DealMonkey is basically busily hoping for sugar plums, I will hope that my fears are not realized. Because if even part of what I fear actually happens, this is going to create a cascading problem that will totally destabilize a not very stable region. And make an already bad situation much worse. And worse yet, transform a fixable problem into a problem almost impossible to solve.

Make no mistake, these are occupations and not wars, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, had we had an initial good strategy and the matching resources to hit the ground running, we had quite strong support from those being occupied. But that support quickly wicked away when we did not come up the resources, and the local populations discovered we delivered only anarchy and corruption.

It will be far worse in the tribal regions, because there will be be initially be zero public support and it will radicalize at least two subsequent generations of residents into militant opposition.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
In short, I can not share the palehorse glee, because I think things will get far worse and not better.
Only if we fail to take advantage of the current situation.

Will you at least admit to the lull in violence throughout Afghanistan that strangely coincides with our increased strikes and Pakistan's own offensive during October? Hmmm....

*crickets*
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
In short, I can not share the palehorse glee, because I think things will get far worse and not better.
Only if we fail to take advantage of the current situation.

Will you at least admit to the lull in violence throughout Afghanistan that strangely coincides with our increased strikes and Pakistan's own offensive during October? Hmmm....

*crickets*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lull in violence may well be only temporary, even without greatly increased military action in the tribal regions, a coming winter has traditionally brought about
a lull in insurgent activity. And its clear that all the various insurgents now have to concentrate more on defense. My worry is that the insurgents will now concentrate on new strategies to increase their offense, not just in Afghanistan, but in many areas of Pakistan as well. As the US and Nato occupation, cease to be a manageable problem for them and becomes a major threat.

But the major laugh line in the palehorse post is his "Only if we fail to take advantage of the current situation." Because as the USA moves into year seven of the Afghan occupation, the one great constant is that the USA & Nato have so underfunded the resources needed, and hence have never been able TO EVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.

The enemy we fight in Afghanistan is and remains anarchy and corruption, when the US & Nato even start addressing those issues in a real manner, the Taliban will cease to have any appeal. All this military offensive will do is increase the area ruled by corruption and anarchy. And then greatly increase terrorist recruitment
while spreading terrorism to a much wider area. Already civilians are being made homeless, they are flooding into Afghanistan and other places, and all these refugee camps will become recruiting centers for terrorists and the message will fall on receptive ears.

Short term, this Pakistani military show of force may seem a blessing, but long term, its the swiftest way to lose the hearts and minds of the general population.
And anyone with vision extending past the end of one's nose, should be taking a long term view.

This is not a war where taking an enemy capital ends the war, this is a military occupation, and winning the peace is something quite different.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The lull in violence may well be only temporary, even without greatly increased military action in the tribal regions, a coming winter has traditionally brought about
a lull in insurgent activity.
Winter does not set on throughout most of Afghanistan until Late November/December. But hey, you knew that, right?

And its clear that all the various insurgents now have to concentrate more on defense.
NOW you're getting it! It's about fucking time...

My worry is that the insurgents will now concentrate on new strategies to increase their offense, not just in Afghanistan, but in many areas of Pakistan as well.
ummm, didn't you just finally admit that the increased NATO and Pakistani offensives are forcing the insurgents to concentrate more on defense?! Logic not found...

As the US and Nato occupation ceases to be a manageable problem for them and becomes a major threat.
CHA-CHING!

But the major laugh line in the palehorse post is his "Only if we fail to take advantage of the current situation." Because as the USA moves into year seven of the Afghan occupation, the one great constant is that the USA & Nato have so underfunded the resources needed, and hence have never been able TO EVER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.
Once again, I've said all along that the economic, political, and military prongs must be acted upon in parallel. Hell, I said as much in this very thread!

That said, I'm to understand that certain leaders are taking steps to do just that. Using the current offensive in junction with the natural lull during the winter, NATO should set the stage for enhanced economic, infrastructure, and native security development. If those certain leaders follow through with what they're planning, the corruption will be dealt with and the Spring will blossom with the promise of decreased Taliban capabilities and presence throughout Afghanistan.

We shall see.

The enemy we fight in Afghanistan is and remains anarchy and corruption, when the US & Nato even start addressing those issues in a real manner, the Taliban will cease to have any appeal.
When are you going to understand that the Taiban have never had anything the people of Afghanistan would deem "appealing." they control the populous through unhindered violent oppression, NOT through an inspired ideological alternative to the central government. People do not "turn to" the Taliban for help. They merely cower in front of them if/when the Taliban shows up in their area.

There's a huge fucking difference -- one that you've never been able to wrap your brain around.

All this military offensive will do is increase the area ruled by corruption and anarchy.
Hopefully, if done correctly, and without hindrance or mercy, it will also shatter the backbone of the Taliban support and operational structure.

And then greatly increase terrorist recruitment while spreading terrorism to a much wider area. Already civilians are being made homeless, they are flooding into Afghanistan and other places, and all these refugee camps will become recruiting centers for terrorists and the message will fall on receptive ears.
Taliban "recruitment," like their "appeal," often happens at gunpoint as well -- very similar to the way in which militias throughout Africa "recruit" the teenagers of the villages they burn to the ground.

The rest of their most faithful and dedicated members arrive and volunteer from the most
extreme madrases throughout the region.

But, again, you already knew that, right?

Short term, this Pakistani military show of force may seem a blessing, but long term, its the swiftest way to lose the hearts and minds of the general population. And anyone with vision extending past the end of one's nose, should be taking a long term view.
Not 8if Petraeus has his way with the lashkars, as he did with the Awakening Councils throughout Iraq... hmmm... there's a thought (read: "hint")...

This is not a war where taking an enemy capital ends the war, this is a military occupation, and winning the peace is something quite different.
Welcome to the ballgame Captain Obvious.

I'm still glad that you've finally come to realize the point of increased offensive operations against the Taliban backbone... good job son!

:roll: