Wrong assessment. Forget about the civilian government. They are eunuchs sitting in Islamabad and issuing useless edicts. It's the army which holds the power and, right now, it's content to sit and do nothing and more importantly not allow anything to be done. That is why the situation is deteriorating.
Wrong assessment. Forget about the civilian government. They are eunuchs sitting in Islamabad and issuing useless edicts. It's the army which holds the power and, right now, it's content to sit and do nothing and more importantly not allow anything to be done. That is why the situation is deteriorating.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/co...ve-against-taliban--07
The army is finally confronting the Taliban. It's the paramilitary but that's a start. I don't know but I would think the Pakistani military would have a better picture and assessment of the gravity of the situation than the arm chair generals on this board.
The army is finally confronting the Taliban. It's the paramilitary but that's a start. I don't know but I would think the Pakistani military would have a better picture and assessment of the gravity of the situation than the arm chair generals on this board.
Yeah, they're going "The Taliban are swarming all over the Northwest, so let's strengthen the Eastern border and infiltrate some more mujaheddin into Kashmir to solve the problem".
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Well congratulations, Nato and Pakistan, because of pressure from Washington, Pakistan just started a major offensive against the Taliban while the Taliban are saying any peace deals it had with Pakistan are off because the word of Pakistan is worthless.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...RzbGsDdGFsaWJhbmRlcmlk
And while its all well and fine for us fan boys in the West to say Pakistan is finally getting off its dead butt and doing something, but the Taliban problem can't be solved by military means, regardless if we are talking Afghanistan or Pakistan. If nothing else, the Taliban can simply blend with the population, bide their time, and come back as strong as ever.
But the real losers in this will be the hapless residents of Swat and Buner, who see a full blown war erupt in their houses and villages, and many totally innocent civilians will be killed. Because Nato does not look even a half a move ahead, it can't realize getting innocent civilians killed is not part of the play book nor to they care. And because the Pakistani army is the aggressor here, its not rocket science to figure the people in Buner and Swat will blame the
Pakistani army, meaning the Taliban, even though they may suffer short term losses, will be the big winners in the end.
And we wonder why we are losing the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And the answer is that of our generals in charge can't think a 1/4 of a move ahead. Its not the the Taliban outsmart us, we out dumb ourselves.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...RzbGsDdGFsaWJhbmRlcmlk
And while its all well and fine for us fan boys in the West to say Pakistan is finally getting off its dead butt and doing something, but the Taliban problem can't be solved by military means, regardless if we are talking Afghanistan or Pakistan. If nothing else, the Taliban can simply blend with the population, bide their time, and come back as strong as ever.
But the real losers in this will be the hapless residents of Swat and Buner, who see a full blown war erupt in their houses and villages, and many totally innocent civilians will be killed. Because Nato does not look even a half a move ahead, it can't realize getting innocent civilians killed is not part of the play book nor to they care. And because the Pakistani army is the aggressor here, its not rocket science to figure the people in Buner and Swat will blame the
Pakistani army, meaning the Taliban, even though they may suffer short term losses, will be the big winners in the end.
And we wonder why we are losing the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And the answer is that of our generals in charge can't think a 1/4 of a move ahead. Its not the the Taliban outsmart us, we out dumb ourselves.
I don't think the taliban are regarded as such a big threat that entire towns be flattened to confront them. Besides that would only make the people go against the government. The army is there to fight other armies. The paramilitary is for insurgencies like this one.
Edit: It seems like the regular army IS taking part:
And on another note
Whose gonna pay for those people? The Pakistani government is already borrowing billions. I think it's about time the international community instead of blaming Pakistan what it is not doing look at the situation realistically. We need money. Perhaps many billions of dollars in aid.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Yeah, what was I thinking? This is just a run of the mill insurgency.
I think at this point if the purse strings are going to be loosened, it's going to come at a great cost to the infamous Pakistani ego. Something along the lines of a public declaration that foreign militaries are going to operate in the country with Pakistan's full cooperation.
I think a watershed moment has occurred - nobody is buying Pakistan's BS about doing the best they can anymore. We want results now, or the country can fall to pieces and nobody will give a damn (except to swoop in and possibly take out the nukes).
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
What we fail to note is, " And on another note
*
Military offensive displaces 30,000 in Lower Dir."
If this ends up driving a wedge between the people in the tribal areas and their own government, there are not enough foreign troops in the world to repair
the lasting damage. All we do, at a cost of a few Taliban lives, is to insure that the Taliban will win in the end.
*
Military offensive displaces 30,000 in Lower Dir."
If this ends up driving a wedge between the people in the tribal areas and their own government, there are not enough foreign troops in the world to repair
the lasting damage. All we do, at a cost of a few Taliban lives, is to insure that the Taliban will win in the end.
There are a few differences between NATO and the PA.
1. NATO is a foreign army.
2. NATO attacked the Taliban first.
3. NATO has shown no respect for civilian casualties.
4. NATO is using heavy weapons in cities including air power.
5. The Pakistanis have always lived under the Pakistani flag.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
Those 30K civilians being displaced are due to the fact the Pakistani government/military did not have the balls to stop the Taliban initially.
They ceded the territory as an appeasement. Now when they want it back, the true cost is being felt. And Pakistan wants foriegn aid to cover their mistake again.
They ceded the territory as an appeasement. Now when they want it back, the true cost is being felt. And Pakistan wants foriegn aid to cover their mistake again.
3 is blatently false. If we had no repsect for civilian casualties then we would just use our 'heavy weapons air power' and carpet bomb the f*ck outa any place that pisses NATO off.
If you want to know what no respect for civilian casualties looks like I would suggest you investigate the firebombing techniques used during WWII.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat of a good point Exterous, as both sides used it against enemy civilian populations
during a conventional war now called WW2. The reasoning was to break the enemy will to fight and also to destroy the factories that provided the war materials that allowed enemy armies to fight on. And to hasten the day when your army occupy the enemy capital at which points the madness of a conventional war ends.
The problem with your argument is that this is anything but a conventional war. And while there are combatants of all stripes, insurgents and counter insurgents, they are the minority and temporary, and the arbiters of end outcome is the hearts and minds of the very civilian populations whose lives this endless combat makes miserable. And if both Nato and the Pakistani army are seen by these very civilians as the author of their miseries, the Taliban by default wins. Death and hatreds can be forever, human beings are very stubborn animals.
We lost in Vietnam with the same tactics, against a much smaller population and with far more troops.
I don't really see a problem in my argument. I never tried to make a case of conventional vs unconventional war only that NATO shows more than 'No' respect for civilian casualties.
The problem with civilian casualties is that the type of war that is being waged makes civilian casualties inherently more probable than in conventional wars. When your enemy wears the same clothing as a local resident ? without any clear uniform to distinguish them ? civilians always pay an added price.
I agree that the hearts and minds of the population are critical to achieve any sort of lasting victory over the Taliban (or any similar outfit). Although it is very difficult to try and find a balance between fighting guerrillas/insurgents and alienating the population that they hide behind
Put it this way: they care much much much more for their civilians and armymen than ours. 3000 Americans are worth more than 3million Muslims and counting.
Wow, I had no idea the US/West had killed 3 million people....where'd you get that number again?
Chuck
Chuck
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chucky2, its not that Nato has killed 3 million people, its that there are not that many people in the tribal regions, and at least three million of them have had their lives vastly disrupted.
Driven into refuge camps, losing relatives, living long term lives of no safety, and most of those civilians
find that intolerable. And our pea brain generals simply do not take their suffering into account. It may not be deliberate killing, but its still indifference and denial, is there a dimes worth of difference?
And while you live half a world away in absolute safety, these decisions rain bombs on their heads. How would you feel if you were in their shoes? If someone a half a world away made some decision that made your life a living hell for the foreseeable future?
In a sense, that is what Bin Laden and a few of his supporters did on 911, even if it was a one time deal. So we punish the civilians in the tribal areas of Pakistan to avenge it even if they had nothing to do with it?????????
The point being, BIN Laden and AL-Quida can launch such attacks from anywhere. Nor do we make ourselves safer by pissing off billions of people while AL-Quida gets recruits as a result.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,303
- 15
- 81
Out of his ass, probably. Or maybe the Taliban is running a killboard?
He does, however, say something interesting:
Aside from the fact that he's implying that Muslims and Americans are entirely different things (not always the case), he's forgetting something about human nature. I, as an American citizen, value the lives of my fellow American citizens more than the lives of some random people halfway across the world who potentially have values antagonistic to my own. Just like he, as presumably a Pakistani citizen who may have values that are different from mine, likely values his own life and those of the people around him more than he values mine.
And I think that's the reason why most people here despise Americans. Because they only care for themselves. I bet most people on this forum would accept $500 in exchange for some random person killed in Afghanistan if there was no guilt involved. And I think that is precisely what's happening in the world. To defend American borders against at attack that would kill 10,000 Americans they don't mind killing 100,000 innocent civilians elsewhere. The mistake you make is that with an attitude like that you except the families of the 100,000 you kill to offer their sympathies to the 10,000 that would supposedly have been killed if not for the pre-emtive action. I am a muslim and will therefore look at the world through muslim philosophy. Preemtive killing is oppression. And a charge can only be laid on something that is apparent. The current American policy of kill before getting killed and detain without charges is in my eyes barbaric.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,303
- 15
- 81
The bolded part is basic human nature, and does not only apply to Americans. It applies to everyone. We tend to care about people in the following order: ourselves, our family, our friends and loved ones, people who share the same beliefs and ideals as we do (i.e. country/religion), and finally, random people.
Yup, because every single person in the middle east is a good, law-abiding person who doesn't intend any harm on anybody. Right.
:roll:
Yup, because America is clearly the only country killing people. Right.
:roll:
Yup, we don't have nations and groups who are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against us even as I write this. Sure sure, Iran for instance isn't publicly stating that America needs to be obliterated. Right.
:roll::roll::roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter