Taliban / Pakistan cease-fire in Swat Valley

[Lemon law]

The common courtesy contention basically boils down to his last statement of "Bowing/groveling to terror only allows it to grow stronger. IT is a cancer that is willing to feed on the host."

Which is something that cuts both way for the Pakistani government and the Taliban in Swat. And as they have both been competing for control of Swat, its changed hands a number of time already, in what amounts orgies of violence and terror on both sides. And now as the Pakistani army stands down, at least the violence and terror should reduce in Swat.

And while one contention may be that the Taliban may want to use Swat as a staging area to expand out of, the Taliban also has to worry about keeping the modern world out, if we buy the assumption that the Taliban is incompatible with the modern world. And thus unable to compete in a world of modern ideas and technologies that will out compete them in terms of delivering the better life for its citizens.

And then that other saying may apply, the Taliban can fence themselves in, but they can't fence the modern world out, and if they have to compete on an economic basis, they will lose in a matter of a decade or so.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I think enough is enough: http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/co...t-official-in-swat--il
We should give one week for the civilian population to leave and start carpet bombing.

A Taliban spokesman in Swat, Muslim Khan, claimed responsibility for the abduction of the administrator.

?He is our guest. We have to discuss some issues with him. We will serve him with tea and then free him,? he told Reuters.

I note how similar this sounds to the Republicans who talked about the vacation resort of Guantanamo, or Barbara Bush talking about the lucky poor people in Katrina who were so helped by the better living situations in Texas, or the Wall Street Journal who said the poor who don't pay income taxes are 'lucky duckies'.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And then that other saying may apply, the Taliban can fence themselves in, but they can't fence the modern world out, and if they have to compete on an economic basis, they will lose in a matter of a decade or so.

They did a pretty good job of blocking out the modern world when they controlled Afghanistan during the mid 90s up until the US invaded after 9/11. I don't think the Taliban cares about the modern world a whole lot, and would be pretty content if they kept everyone under their control firmly in the grip of Sharia in a sort of static existence.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I see, as usual, that palehorse has a totally exaggerated grip on reality in terms of what military bombing can do. Even if the Taliban lets the civilians flee, the Taliban would just find caves and other natural bomb shelters, and while Nato bombs might level various small and medium sized cities, in general a highly destructive policy, the Taliban would mostly survive, and any returning or non returning civilians would hate Nato and the Pakistani government with ever fiber of their being for the destruction.

We had to kill you to save you reasoning never works, and would cause world wide outrage.

Is that your educated intelligence analysis of the common operating environment in Western Pakistan based on the latest all-source reporting? Or perhaps you've been there? Flown over in a chopper? Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express for a week or two? :roll:

I notice that you completely ignored TGB's desire to "carpet bomb" or use "tactical nukes" on the Taliban.

You're such a predictable f'n hack...

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
....

And then that other saying may apply, the Taliban can fence themselves in, but they can't fence the modern world out, and if they have to compete on an economic basis, they will lose in a matter of a decade or so.

Well, the Iranian clergy has fenced itself in and fenced the modern world out for the last 3 decades. And it looks like they're investing in nukes to drive the piles of their rule further into the ground, in case the modern world has something to say about it. And the Taliban will have ready-made nukes waiting for them in Islamabad, if they take over Pakistan.

 

[The Green Bean]

http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/co...ias-to-fight-terror-yn

WTF? You can't distribute weapons to potential terrorists!!

 

[Lemon law]

Got to somewhat question the tvarad contention of " Well, the Iranian clergy has fenced itself in and fenced the modern world out for the last 3 decades. And it looks like they're investing in nukes to drive the piles of their rule further into the ground, in case the modern world has something to say about it. And the Taliban will have ready-made nukes waiting for them in Islamabad, if they take over Pakistan."

Need I remind you that Iran is a vastly different nation since the they threw out the Shah in 1978. After Iran got their head handed to them by Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, the rule of the Mullahs is being questioned. And on 911, while people were dancing in streets throughout the mid-east, the Iranians were demonstrating in favor of the USA,

In 2002, GWB&co spurned a peace initiative by Iranian moderates, and as a direct result, an extremist like Ahmadinejad won because Cheney discredited the moderates. In terms of Sharia law, it has absolutely no traction in Iran at all.

And now in Swat, total idiots in Nato and the Pakistani government endorse the idea of arming the enemy of our enemy who will be unlikely to be anything but our fair weather friend. And a plethora of old line mujaheddin freedom fighters are now in overall command the Taliban resurgence, they may be less ideological than the Taliban themselves, but thanks to excellent CIA training, they are rather effective in their fight to throw Nato out.

The last time we tried that stunt, one of the enemies of our enemies that we armed and trained was Ossama Bin Laden.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/co...ias-to-fight-terror-yn

WTF? You can't distribute weapons to potential terrorists!!

Your link doesnt work... Is THIS the article you meant to link to?

I can't see anything good coming from pouring 30k more weapons into the NWFP. And the "Elite Police" sound an awful lot like the foundation of a group of Sharia enforcers... I hope I'm wrong.

WTF is the minister thinking!?

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: Lemon law
....

And then that other saying may apply, the Taliban can fence themselves in, but they can't fence the modern world out, and if they have to compete on an economic basis, they will lose in a matter of a decade or so.

Well, the Iranian clergy has fenced itself in and fenced the modern world out for the last 3 decades. And it looks like they're investing in nukes to drive the piles of their rule further into the ground, in case the modern world has something to say about it. And the Taliban will have ready-made nukes waiting for them in Islamabad, if they take over Pakistan.

As long as we are dependent on ME Oil we won't be able to cut their funding and no drilling in Alaska and the poles is not the answer.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/co...ias-to-fight-terror-yn

WTF? You can't distribute weapons to potential terrorists!!

Your link doesnt work... Is THIS the article you meant to link to?

I can't see anything good coming from pouring 30k more weapons into the NWFP. And the "Elite Police" sound an awful lot like the foundation of a group of Sharia enforcers... I hope I'm wrong.

WTF is the minister thinking!?

Ok the link is dead. It's basically the local government giving 30,000 tribal people free guns to fight militants.

 

[Kadarin]

Green Bean: Do you support the Taliban? Do you wish Pakistan were governed under Sharia?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/co...ias-to-fight-terror-yn

WTF? You can't distribute weapons to potential terrorists!!

Your link doesnt work... Is THIS the article you meant to link to?

I can't see anything good coming from pouring 30k more weapons into the NWFP. And the "Elite Police" sound an awful lot like the foundation of a group of Sharia enforcers... I hope I'm wrong.

WTF is the minister thinking!?

Ok the link is dead. It's basically the local government giving 30,000 tribal people free guns to fight militants.

Why not, what could go wrong? I hear the only thing lacking in that region is the availability of guns. :disgust:

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
When the people are wanting their law I don't think why they shouldn't be given it. If one of your states wanted Biblical laws and protested in the streets almost rioting; would the US National Guard be ordered to fire? That's what this is. The British law system has a lot of flaws; and people were getting delayed justice. Cases pending for years. That and the people are uneducated and easily manipulable. Marvels of democracy.

are you kidding me? Every modern country uses British Common Law as its base. The correlation between successful governments and economies and the usage of BCL is near 1. Why? Because it stresses expediency, fairness, and rights.

Just because the Islamofascists have corrupted it in Pakistan and they cannot effectively govern doesn't put the legal system at risk.

The legal system is a tool (albeit, with some flaws), how you wield the tool is up to you.

France don't.

Just in point of fact.

Civil law FTW, from a Louisianian.

(mostly just kidding, by the way.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Thought some of you might enjoy this great political cartoon:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/215...y/62646-a62651-t3.html

 

[Aberforth]

They should force nuclear disarmament before providing aid to government backed terror countries.