-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
US 'threatened to bomb' Pakistan
- Thread starter The Green Bean
- Start date
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Frankly, this doesn't surprise me at all. It does prove that Pakistan is not an "ally" as Bush and Co. so often have said. Now Pakistan is again officially protecting those who pulled off 9/11, with the recent agreement to not meddle in the border area....
Extelleron
Diamond Member
There's nothing wrong with threatening harsh measures against terrorist-supporters like Pakistan. If Pakistan was really concerned about the War against terror, Osama would have been dead or captured years ago, and Al Qaeda would bee dissolved.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
That's not terrorism, that's good common sense.
Whether you like it or not, Pakistan is a major source of extremists and if there ever was two countries to go into and stomp out terrorists-in-training, it would be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, there's the fact that the Pakistan army is excellent (sort of like Israel, they train themselves at a fever pitch because of the enemy beside them), the countries has nuclear warheads and the rockets to deliver them, and a population of 162 million people who would rally to the country's defense. It'd be an absolute bloodbath, so the best thing the U.S. can do is threaten and hope Pakistan gets on side.
Fortunately for the West, Pakistan's head of state is pretty non-religious guy with a good head on his shoulder. He knows those extremists are a threat to the world, which includes his own country. So he's doing the best thing possible under the circumstances: Aligning with the West, sharing intelligence and trying to clamp down on extremists using his own forces. He doesn't get the full cooperation of those forces, but it's the best possible scenario if you're thinking in realistic terms.
Whether you like it or not, Pakistan is a major source of extremists and if there ever was two countries to go into and stomp out terrorists-in-training, it would be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, there's the fact that the Pakistan army is excellent (sort of like Israel, they train themselves at a fever pitch because of the enemy beside them), the countries has nuclear warheads and the rockets to deliver them, and a population of 162 million people who would rally to the country's defense. It'd be an absolute bloodbath, so the best thing the U.S. can do is threaten and hope Pakistan gets on side.
Fortunately for the West, Pakistan's head of state is pretty non-religious guy with a good head on his shoulder. He knows those extremists are a threat to the world, which includes his own country. So he's doing the best thing possible under the circumstances: Aligning with the West, sharing intelligence and trying to clamp down on extremists using his own forces. He doesn't get the full cooperation of those forces, but it's the best possible scenario if you're thinking in realistic terms.
Extelleron
Diamond Member
Terrorists are people who intentionally cause harm to civilian infastructure/civilians and those who go to war under no flag other than hate and violence.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Not to mention those who use fear as a weapon of war and change. A terrorist causes terror and the intentional change in way of life. Sounds to me that the US under Bush is a bigger terrorist than any A-Q-like organization ever could be.
Extelleron
Diamond Member
Yes, putting fear into terrorists and their supporters just makes us the big bully in the world. :roll:
LegendKiller
Lifer
It's amazing how people like you are just as bad as those you despise. How does Bin Laden get all of his people frothy? By labeling entire populations as infidels and saying they are trying to change muslim way of life. Then, the US does the same thing.
The US policy of regime change and fighting "fear" is a failure. We have created tremendous ill-will in our pre-emptive strikes, bully tactics, and stupidity. Rubber stamping these activities won't solve the problem.
Finally, the reason why Bin Laden can get more terrorists is because all he has to do is point out our actions. Even now, I imagine he is saying "See how the Devil threatened your country, you should kill them for it".
and again people are changing the meaning of words to fit their agenda
http://www.answers.com/terrorism&r=67
so what do you think this is then?
DealMonkey
Lifer
Interesting term you coined there. 😀
The Green Bean
Diamond Member
They support terrorists the same way Saddam had WMDs.
The Green Bean
Diamond Member
Isn't the department of defense that said
..responsible for the war on terror?
Jaskalas
Lifer
So your intent is to stop us before Al Qaeda. Then we wonder why, when a solid chunk of the country believes that BS, we're too scared to take real measures for combating our enemy. The answer is simple ? we?re too busy fighting amongst ourselves to ever defeat our enemies. A loss is the predetermined fate when we are our own enemy.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Herein lies the crux of the ignorance of this country. Tell me, how many suicide bombers did we have in 1930? What about 1940's when the only ones targeted military (kamakazis). How about 1950? when did they actually start? Hmmm, perhaps when we fabricated a country by displacing another, when we meddled in the affairs of others.
Then, when did they increase? After the Gulf War. When did we violate the US ethos of non-pre-emptive strikes and "do good"? GWII.
How many people in the US have actually died from suicide bombers? About what? 3,000. How many soldiers have we lost and civilian deaths can be attributed to our war? 40,000? Have we brought Zawahiri or Bin Laden or the Taliban leader to "justice". NO!
The war on fear is a fools game intended to hoodwink gullible morons into allowing further power plays by an overbearing and power-hungry government. Terrorists will adapt to a sledgehammer approach, they will avoid and attack in oblique angles, always looking for the weak point. They have the initative and you can't take it from them.
So, instead, we just blunder around like fools. Using that sledgehammer to swat at flies, putting more holes into our house, letting more flies in, which inevitably leads to more holes. Of course, as we do so, we get bigger sledgehammers, because bigger is always better. After a while, our house is gone and we have nothing left.
The solution? Stop interferring in other country's business. Stop nation building. Stop threatening. Stop "regime change". It hasn't worked for 50 years and it isn't magically going to work now.
blackllotus
Golden Member
Your bias against America is clear once again. If you actually bothered to think about this rationally you would have realized that something is not necessarily true just because the Pakistan president says it is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
