Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on November 03, 2007, 03:01:14 PM
-
Can the US allow Pakistan to become governed by a Taliban friendly/controlled regime? We're talking about a country with nukes. I don't think so.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307857,00.html
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Can the US allow Pakistan to become governed by a Taliban friendly/controlled regime? We're talking about a country with nukes. I don't think so.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307857,00.html
I didn't even click the story..... your source is FOX. About as fair and balanced as Aunt Jemima on a seesaw by herself.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I didn't even click the story..... your source is FOX. About as fair and balanced as Aunt Jemima on a seesaw by herself.
Here's one for ya from the Clinton News Network: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/03/pakistan.emergency/index.html
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I didn't even click the story..... your source is FOX. About as fair and balanced as Aunt Jemima on a seesaw by herself.
And which news source do you delude yourself into thinking IS fair and balanced?
None of them are.
Cept the ones that tell the news with the spin they want to hear
while Im by no means a huge supporter of it (actually I flip between them all)
Always cracks me up when people slam Fox as though CNN or ANY of the others are any better.
The only difference is in the direction they spin and distort stories
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Can the US allow Pakistan to become governed by a Taliban friendly/controlled regime? We're talking about a country with nukes. I don't think so.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307857,00.html
lols, the only thing you are consistent in is your inconsistency.
-
I'll summarize.
-Musharraf ran for president while still the Chief of the Army.
-It is claimed that this is unconstitutional and there are demands that new elections be held.
-He has declared martial law.
-There is much angst in Pakistan.
-The Taliban has been gaining support in the northwest. This may or may not be significant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll summarize.
-Musharraf ran for president while still the Chief of the Army.
-It is claimed that this is unconstitutional and there are demands that new elections be held.
-He has declared martial law.
-There is much angst in Pakistan.
-The Taliban has been gaining support in the northwest. This may or may not be significant.
For those of you who desire a news source from the AP(Associated Press) here's one:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Musharraf took power in a Coup. Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf#Military_coup_d.27.C3.A9tat
Iron, what you origanally posted, though, rings' true. It's already a predominately Muslim country; and, it's got quite a few radicals. However, what would the consequences of an uprising be now? A Nuclear-armed pro-Islamic extremist country? Hard to tell. You almost have to wait and see who floats to the surface on this thing.
-
A military secularist takes control of the government and becomes dictator. He brutally suppresses armed uprisings by Islamic fundamentalists and has been militarily aggressive to his neighbours.
Wait! Oh noes! Are we talking about Mussharaf or Saddam?
-
Could be iran before as well. the only thing he didnt do is host americians as hostages....
-
Neither did Iran ... before the Islamic revolution.
-
So, which is worse...
A secular leader who took power in a coup that was successful largely because the religious leaders in charge at the time were whackos, or a return to whacko religious leaders?
Think about it carefully, because that's about all the choice you get "over there".
It is not coincidence that Al Qaeda is going after Libya right about now.
-
I wasn't judging whether or not Musharraf should remain in power. I am concerned that the Taliban may try to take over Pakistan as they did in Afghanistan. I really don't see how we can watch that happen and do nothing.
-
Pakistan was not ruled by religious leaders before the coup. Nawaz Sharif was a crook and robber ... but not a religious leader. His downfall was due to his corruption, power mongering ... and the tiny fact that he tried to remove Musharraf from his position as Army chief. Pakistan was a democratic nation.
-
Mursharraf is just another petty dictator clinging to power - this is a power struggle against the return of the pro-democratic Bhutto - and the possible decision that he is ineligible to run for "re-election" by the judiciary
Tronsky
-
Well, being a selfish American concerned with nothing more than the exploitation of all natural resources for my own personal benefit, I wonder what the price of oil will do tomorrow? Anything happening over there seems to send world markets spiraling into turmoil these days.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I didn't even click the story..... your source is FOX. About as fair and balanced as Aunt Jemima on a seesaw by herself.
This is about as stupid a response as I have seen in a long time on this board. Typical left wing head up the arse response, reminds me of David Letterman talking to Bill O'Reilly and telling him he didn't agree with what O'Reilly says on his show, then later admits he doesn't watch O'Reillys show and never has. What a fool.
Put you head in the sand Moray, listen only where you are sure you will hear what you want to hear, and do not risk an opposing view, lest you discover that there might be two sides to any story, don't risk that. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
lols, the only thing you are consistent in is your inconsistency.
While Trawns only consistancy is acting like a jerk, and speaking about things he only knows about from MSM coverage, while pretending to be an expert.
-
There REALLY isnt much difference between Fox and CNN on the 'straight' news, its the discussion/ NON-NEWS shows where there are political bias's, but if you're an avowed leftist, (and scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
A military secularist takes control of the government and becomes dictator. He brutally suppresses armed uprisings by Islamic fundamentalists and has been militarily aggressive to his neighbours.
Wait! Oh noes! Are we talking about Mussharaf or Saddam?
Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.
Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.
We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.
However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.
So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.
Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.
So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
, but if you're an avowed ( scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances
Why would you say this?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
There REALLY isnt much difference between Fox and CNN on the 'straight' news, its the discussion/ NON-NEWS shows where there are political bias's, but if you're an avowed leftist, (and scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances
I don't watch any of them anymore. Pretty much all the big American news agency's have turned into nothing more than Tabloid TV.. Fox being the worst. They are all pretty much nothing more than entertainment news.
I tend to get my news via the BBC.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I tend to get my news via the BBC.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Why would you say this?
Which part?...ya snipped out 'leftist'
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.
Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.
We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.
However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.
So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.
Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.
So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.
Crockett, are you trying to say Pakistan is Bush's fault TOO?
-
Crockett, are you suggesting we should not have invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the stranglehold the Taliban held there? Do you honestly think the Taliban would have then been content to leave democracy in their neighbor Pakistan unmolested? You really need to give those looney left web sites a break.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.
Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.
We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.
However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.
So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.
Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.
So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.
Now, going after Osama bin-Laden was something we should have done, after 9/11. That meant an invasion of Afghanistan, and of course a fight with the Taliban that were in power there. There was gonna be spillover, Musharraf should have known that things' could come to this. He should have been more active and persistent, and kept the Taliban out from day one (In other words, he could have been ALOT more helpful.)
I'm not saying turn back every single Afghan refugee...just carefully screen out the radicals. Pakistan's security service should have been up to the task(We relied on them for our info, right?)
And lastly, I guess, we shoulda made sure the job was done before we picked up sticks and left. Oh, I know there are still troops on the ground over there-A majority of them NATO, but we still have some presence. We don't have enough to do what we need to do at this very minute-run over and clean the radicals' out of Pakistan's border areas, before they topple the Musharraf gov't. This thing is leaning more and more towards a worst-case scenario.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Which part?...ya snipped out 'leftist'
The part that I quoted. I know why you would use leftist, but are you saying that all scientists are leftist?
-
Pakistan's army got their arse handed to them going into the mountain areas near Waziristan...this article gives a nice summary of it all:
link (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/09/the_fall_of_wazirist.php)
The fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan was an event telegraphed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. During the winter of 2006, Osama bin Laden announced his strategy to establish bases and pockets of territory along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Taliban and al Qaeda (virtually indistinguishable in this region at this point in time) had been fighting a long term insurgency against the Pakistani Army after President Musharraf put troops in the region shortly after 9-11.
But two developments accelerated al Qaeda's plans to conquer the agencies of North and South Waziristan: the airstrike against Ayman al-Zawahiri in Damadola, and the attack on the Danda Saidgai training camp in North Waziristan. In both instances, al Qaeda's senior leadership was targeted, and in Danda Saidgai, Osama bin Laden and his praetorian 'Black Guard,' or personal bodyguard, were the subject of the attack.
While bin Laden and Zawahiri escaped, senior commanders such as Abu Khabab al-Masri (WMD chief) and Imam Asad (chief trainer of the Black Guard), among others were killed. Al-Qaeda could no longer countenance a Pakistani presence in the region. The time had come to force the Pakistani Army to withdraw and force the government to accept terms of surrender. Al-Qaeda retaliated for the airstrikes by murdering a U.S. official at the Consulate in Karachi.
South Waziristan fell some time in the spring of 2006 (I suspect sometime in late March). On March 6, I referred to South Waziristan as 'Talibanistan.' Shariah Law was declared in South Waziristan at this time and the Taliban began to rule openly. A single political party was established in South Waziristan, a party loyal to the Taliban. It is said a secret accord was signed between the Pakistani government and the Taliban around this time. All along the fighting in North Waziristan increased over the course of 2006.
Pro-Pakistani government tribal leaders and informants were murdered and made an example of. The Pakistani Army paid a devastating price for their operations in Waziristan. The official government reports claim around 200 soldiers killed, however the unofficial numbers put the casualties somewhere around 3,000 killed in combat.
On June 25, I sounded the alarm that a truce would be in the offing in North Waziristan. The Pakistan Army was taking a pounding, and President Musharraf lacked the will to fight in the region became apparent. All along, Musharraf and the Pakistani elite attempted to draw distinctions between the Taliban and “miscreants” and “foreigners” - which is merely code for al Qaeda. The failure to realize the Taliban and al Qaeda worked towards the same end, and have integrated political and command structures, led the Pakistani government to cut deals with the 'local Taliban' and the eventual establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban and al Qaeda are by no means finished with their goals of carving out safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border. In March of 2007, the Pakitani government signed over the tribal agency of Bajaur to the Taliban. .
-
One good thing could come from a government collapse in Pakistan. The US would no longer have reservations about seeking and destroying Al-Qeada/Taliban on the other side of the Afghan border.
No, it won't offset the benefit of the current stability there.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Pakistan's army got their arse handed to them going into the mountain areas near Waziristan...this article gives a nice summary of it all:
link (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/09/the_fall_of_wazirist.php)
Thanks for putting that up there, BJ-It was really informative.
However, unfortunately, We should have concentrated on events' in Afghanistan/Pakistan until it was finished. Iraq never should have even crossed anyone's mind until things were finished in Afghanistan. It's like the same mistake that Germany made in WWII, attacking Russia before England was finished.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
One good thing could come from a government collapse in Pakistan. The US would no longer have reservations about seeking and destroying Al-Qeada/Taliban on the other side of the Afghan border.
No, it won't offset the benefit of the current stability there.
I don't know if any good thing could come from a gov't. collapse in Pakistan, Iron...When you consider that we won't be able to move in fast enough to prevent the removal of one or more of the atomic weapon's in Pakistan's stockpile. I'm sure that the Pentagon is scrambling up something like a Delta-force raid, or a quick Carrier-airstrike in case they have to move fast, but things' are moving fast, they may not have time to get proper intel. It's really a scary situation, when you think about it.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I don't know if any good thing could come from a gov't. collapse in Pakistan, Iron...When you consider that we won't be able to move in fast enough to prevent the removal of one or more of the atomic weapon's in Pakistan's stockpile. I'm sure that the Pentagon is scrambling up something like a Delta-force raid, or a quick Carrier-airstrike in case they have to move fast, but things' are moving fast, they may not have time to get proper intel. It's really a scary situation, when you think about it.
You're right, could be a real nightmare.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Crockett, are you trying to say Pakistan is Bush's fault TOO?
Looks like the US and our brainless leader are about as popular as cancer in Pakistan:
Osama 46%
Musharraf 38%
Bush 9%
Yes indeed, Osama bin Laden, alleged mass murder of US citizens and terrorist extrodinairre, is more popular than President Musharraf, and practically a hero compared to Bush.
4% said the US had a good motivation in the war on terrorism
81% related an unfavorable opinion of the US... btw the poll indicates US foreign policies is the root of the dislike...gee, imagine that.
Opinion poll Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/)
Official British Army report Brits & US are in "breach" of the Geneva Convention:
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/niraq104.xml)
The US propped up Al-Qaeda, they turned on us, Saddam was once our little friend too. Lets not forget Iran was once an ally, albeit forced, but not anymore. I'm sensing a pattern here.
Our politicians need to work on their interpersonal relationship skills, or lack thereof... looks like another friend is about to go "Adam henry"... and they have nukes... happy times.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Looks like the US and our brainless leader are about as popular as cancer in Pakistan:
Osama 46%
Musharraf 38%
Bush 9%
Yes indeed, Osama bin Laden, alleged mass murder of US citizens and terrorist extrodinairre, is more popular than President Musharraf, and practically a hero compared to Bush.
4% said the US had a good motivation in the war on terrorism
81% related an unfavorable opinion of the US... btw the poll indicates US foreign policies is the root of the dislike...gee, imagine that.
Opinion poll Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/)
Official British Army report Brits & US are in "breach" of the Geneva Convention:
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/niraq104.xml)
The US propped up Al-Qaeda, they turned on us, Saddam was once our little friend too. Lets not forget Iran was once an ally, albeit forced, but not anymore. I'm sensing a pattern here.
Our politicians need to work on their interpersonal relationship skills, or lack thereof... looks like another friend is about to go "Adam henry"... and they have nukes... happy times.
I bet Osama's popularity has declined there since 9/11, to be expected I suppose. What has he done to the great satan lately?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Looks like the US and our brainless leader are about as popular as cancer in Pakistan:
Osama 46%
Musharraf 38%
Bush 9%
Yes indeed, Osama bin Laden, alleged mass murder of US citizens and terrorist extrodinairre, is more popular than President Musharraf, and practically a hero compared to Bush.
4% said the US had a good motivation in the war on terrorism
81% related an unfavorable opinion of the US... btw the poll indicates US foreign policies is the root of the dislike...gee, imagine that.
Opinion poll Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/)
Official British Army report Brits & US are in "breach" of the Geneva Convention:
Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/04/niraq104.xml)
The US propped up Al-Qaeda, they turned on us, Saddam was once our little friend too. Lets not forget Iran was once an ally, albeit forced, but not anymore. I'm sensing a pattern here.
Our politicians need to work on their interpersonal relationship skills, or lack thereof... looks like another friend is about to go "Adam henry"... and they have nukes... happy times.
Thats hardly new, Islamic nutbergers have been the rule there since the late 70's, when Booosh was still a partying-frat-boy. There simply ARE more Bin Laden types over there than anything else, and no politician is gonna talk those people out of their 'jumpstart-to-the-13 century' attitudes
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Thats hardly new, Islamic nutbergers have been the rule there since the late 70's, when Booosh was still a partying-frat-boy. There simply ARE more Bin Laden types over there than anything else, and no politician is gonna talk those people out of their 'jumpstart-to-the-13 century' attitudes
Yeah, Bj, but if you pause to consider, We haven't had big problems in Pakistan 'till lately, when we went in after Osama. And one thing that seemed to be amiss in our planning, was trying to keep the conflict from spreading. That, however, is solely, and squarely, "Booosh's fault," as so many here on this board like to say.
No REMF, Air-Nat. guard service shirkin' jerk should have been allowed to have control over 19 yr. old kids' that actually are willing to serve, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Yeah, Bj, but if you pause to consider, We haven't had big problems in Pakistan 'till lately, when we went in after Osama. And one thing that seemed to be amiss in our planning, was trying to keep the conflict from spreading. That, however, is solely, and squarely, "Booosh's fault," as so many here on this board like to say.
No REMF, Air-Nat. guard service shirkin' jerk should have been allowed to have control over 19 yr. old kids' that actually are willing to serve, IMHO.
We didnt go into Pakistan, and as far as waging a war in Afghanistan against the salamanders who started it all against us, if their sympathizers in Pakistan are bummed, nothing much we can do about it
-
Originally posted by crockett
I tend to get my news via the BBC.
I am stunned that someone would say that and pretend to have an accurate clue about anything. Sorry Crockett, but really, the BBC is so slanted I have to believe their offices are in the Tower of Pisa.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am stunned that someone would say that and pretend to have an accurate clue about anything. Sorry Crockett, but really, the BBC is so slanted I have to believe their offices are in the Tower of Pisa.
I didn't say they wern't slanted one way or another, however the BBC tends to focus more on world news and only important stuff in the US.
I don't have to hear if Britney spears dropped her baby or if Oj Simpson had a bad hair day. US news has turned to total crap and it's nothing more than entertainment TV at this point.
The BBC also doesnt have anywhere near the fear mongering that the typical US news feeds on these days.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I didn't say they wern't slanted one way or another, however the BBC tends to focus more on world news and only important stuff in the US.
I don't have to hear if Britney spears dropped her baby or if Oj Simpson had a bad hair day. US news has turned to total crap and it's nothing more than entertainment TV at this point.
The BBC also doesnt have anywhere near the fear mongering that the typical US news feeds on these days.
Just as long as your happy with the slanted view.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Just as long as you're happy with the slanted view.
:lol
I'm sure he's as happy with his as you are with yours. :aok :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sure he's as happy with his as you are with yours. :aok :D
As are you I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
As are you I'm sure.
Ok. Now that that's "established." (editing out the poke) :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ok. Now that that's established, do you have a further point or are you just looking for attention? :D
Hey if your not busy.:D
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Hey if your not busy.:D
So, what are your biased sources? (editing out the poke) ;)
-
Arlo you have a pm
-
Thanks bro. One back.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
81% related an unfavorable opinion of the US... btw the poll indicates US foreign policies is the root of the dislike...gee, imagine that.
Yea see that's the thing right there.. I could care less about a poll stat.. However that is the root of the problem.
You rarely ever hear these guys saying they hate Americans or hate westerner's just because we are westerners. They pretty much always put the blame right where is belongs with our policies and western govt's involving themselves in their business.
Maybe one day the people of this country will actually wake up and understand what our govt does throughout the world. We do a lot of good, but we damn sure do a lot of bad as well.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
The part that I quoted. I know why you would use leftist, but are you saying that all scientists are leftist?
Sorry, missed this post...it was a reference to Moray, who is a scientist of some variety, who slowly but surely in various threads (notably the various MMGW), has shown himself to put leftist politics ahead of science
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Sorry, missed this post...it was a reference to Moray, who is a scientist of some variety, who slowly but surely in various threads (notably the various MMGW), has shown himself to put leftist politics ahead of science
Well that seems .... opinion.
And as such:
So ... what profession inspired you to put rightist politics ahead of it? :D
-
Originally posted by Dago
This is about as stupid a response as I have seen in a long time on this board. Typical left wing head up the arse response, reminds me of David Letterman talking to Bill O'Reilly and telling him he didn't agree with what O'Reilly says on his show, then later admits he doesn't watch O'Reillys show and never has. What a fool.
Put you head in the sand Moray, listen only where you are sure you will hear what you want to hear, and do not risk an opposing view, lest you discover that there might be two sides to any story, don't risk that. :rolleyes:
No sir... you don't know me so don't label me. I am not a left winger. And, sir, there may be two PERSPECTIVES to a story, yet only one truth.
The difference is, I have watched Fox, and they blatantly lie. Easily proven wrong, yet dolts such as yourself suck it down like the good little beetches you are.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Sorry, missed this post...it was a reference to Moray, who is a scientist of some variety, who slowly but surely in various threads (notably the various MMGW), has shown himself to put leftist politics ahead of science
LOL... you're such a piece of work. I put nothing ahead of science. But, I'm worried about you sir. Just because you disagree with me, you start labeling me, one way or the other. Grow the hell up... high school is over.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
LOL... you're such a piece of work. I put nothing ahead of science. But, I'm worried about you sir. Just because you disagree with me, you start labeling me, one way or the other. Grow the hell up... high school is over.
Labels,,,stereotypes, all exist for a reason;)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Labels,,,stereotypes, all exist for a reason;)
That reason being rationalization. If you can rationalize something that wouldn't be appropriate without the rationalization then why be honest ?
(IE: They're different than me in philosophy and/or apperance and/or region so it's fine for me to rationalize my reasons for hating or my lack of tolerance even though that's one of the reasons we use to rationalize the way we feel about their behavior - accurately or not: circular/failed rationalization)
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
That reason being rationalization. If you can rationalize something that wouldn't be appropriate without the rationalization then why be honest?
:D
wow say that ten times faster:huh
-
Originally posted by bj229r
wow say that ten times faster:huh
That ten times faster. Not a problem. :)
-
o it's fine for me to rationalize my reasons for hating or my lack of tolerance
Ok...I read the lower part...I disagree therefore I hate/am inTOLerant? We all disagree about stuff here, not sure that an opposing view qualifies as hate
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ok...I read the lower part...I disagree therefore I hate/am inTOLerant? We all disagree about stuff here, not sure that an opposing view qualifies as hate
I've never had a problem with disagreement. However people do seem to have a problem with my not buying their rationalization, their rhetoric or their arguments. Especially if they run out of ammo and get frustrated. It's kinda like ch 200. :)
-
The Taliban was created by the Pakistani intelligence service and exist because the ISI allows them to.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack - edited by Arlo
The Taliban was created by the C.I.A. and Pakistani intelligence service
and are presently closely tied to the JUI political party. Their current influence in Pakistan is in conjunction with the Taliban insurgency.
ack-ack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
-
Originally posted by Arlo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Argh, personally, I cringe if I have to use wikipedia sources myself. The editing protocol of letting users edit, is frought with innaccuracies.
-
Wiki articles cite sources and anything challenged is labeled "under dispute" and double checked. I tend to trust it more than poliblogs of any flavor. But I never discourage anyone adding more sources if they don't trust mine (though I may challenge that source as fervently as some challenge mine, in return). :)
That being said, is my source or attempt at an accurate portrayal under dispute?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Wiki articles cite sources and anything challenged is labeled "under dispute" and double checked. I tend to trust it more than poliblogs of any flavor. But I never discourage anyone adding more sources if they don't trust mine (though I may challenge that source as fervently as some challenge mine, in return). :)
That being said, is my source or attempt at an accurate portrayal under dispute?
Not entirely, Arlo-It's just in other threads on this board, in the past, I've seen some horrible things happen with Wiki. But, to this end, I understand your point about blogs, too, as they are usually nothing more than internet op-eds, with all the bias that entails.
-
Starting to look like things are snowballing over there-check this link out:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Gonna be a big mess, really shortly.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Starting to look like things are snowballing over there-check this link out:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105/ap_on_re_as/pakistan
Gonna be a big mess, really shortly.
Roger that, Frode.
Unstable, nuclear-armed Islamic country = not a good thing. :(
(Like several posters above also pointed out.)
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Taliban was created by the Pakistani intelligence service and exist because the ISI allows them to.
ack-ack
It's no more of a stretch to say that LBJ created the modern anti-everything American liberal.
-
WTG guys! :aok
-
Originally posted by Viking
WTG guys! :aok
Can't even blame LBJ for this guy though.
-
I'm not sure if this is gonna change/hurt the situation, but look at this:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071105/wl_nm/afghan_violence_dc_2
One way or another, it will hurt the situation in Pakistan, even though they are western provinces. Why? It will be a manpower and resource draw that will make it hard for NATO forces to mount a relief, or other kind of operation to help stabilize Pakistan.It's also a Taliban victory when we don't need one.
-
No surprise the Taliban is taking advantage of the unrest caused by Musharraf's recent actions. We need to secure the nukes and then I guess it's wait and see how it plays out.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea see that's the thing right there.. I could care less about a poll stat.. However that is the root of the problem.
You rarely ever hear these guys saying they hate Americans or hate westerner's just because we are westerners. They pretty much always put the blame right where is belongs with our policies and western govt's involving themselves in their business.
Maybe one day the people of this country will actually wake up and understand what our govt does throughout the world. We do a lot of good, but we damn sure do a lot of bad as well.
Freedoms we enjoy in the US don't interfere with the daily lives of average mid-easterners / Packis... but US policies can and do. It's that simple.
One example, Irans democratically elected .gov might have survived to this day had US policies not stomped it out... the average Iranian wakes up every day under the rule of despotic mullahs.. and blame it on US policies of long ago... maybe its just me, but I'd tend to think that might create some bitter feelings...
"They hate our freedom" sounds like one of those bumper sticker slogans Rumsfeld's suggested in his snow flakes.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's no more of a stretch to say that LBJ created the modern anti-everything American liberal.
Not at all. It is a known fact that the ISI are the ones that created, supplied and trained the Taliban. It is also a known fact that the ISI continues to support the Taliban, although under the radar. The ISI is riddled with Muslim extremists, unlike the mostly secular Pakistani army.
ack-ack
-
Remember when you shot that thief inside your house.....
Then you grabbed that "throw away " gun..and dropped it at his cold dead feet?
Thats whats waiting those men with dirty beards from the 5 th century...
As soon as they have there hands on a WMD..we can..go BANG!!! Look they were caught red-handed..
I look forward to the speedy demise off all dirty beard men
Please can we just kill them and look for a new problem?
-
Let's hope this ends as well as it looks like it will.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1681917,00.html
-
Pakistan will become a fundamentalist Muslim state. Musharraf Will be deposed by his own people. They will Sadat his Arse. The U.S. of A, will have a difficult time securing those nukes. India and China could get drawn into this to. This is not a good situation over there. Oh and all media is biased. Filter it and come to your own conclusions.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The difference is, I have watched Fox, and they blatantly lie.
I would like to see an example that measures up to Dan Rather
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/apg_rather_070919_ms.jpg)
or Jayson Blair
(http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/040305/tdy_couric_blair2_040305.300w.jpg)
-
moray.. of course you are a lefty... I don't believe that you don't see that so I am going to have to go with... all lefties are evasive and dishonest.
cnn and msnbc lie at LEAST as much as fox does but toward the left.
the difference is that left leaning stations are simply depressing.. nothing but doom and gloom... like yourself.. When I watch a big world event and want to see motion pictures of it.. I watch fox.. because.. I don't have to listen to clinicaly depressed people trying to get me to be depressed.
This is rare however. I simply don't watch the news. I listen to talk radio.. about equal parts of lefty NPR and a right wing station.. the contrast is amusing.
I also like to listen to guys here.. I like to follow the links and then search for links myself. I try to avoid blogs except for their links. most links are a dead end.. just a rant with no proof but.. some are gold.. good numbers by good sources.
lazs
-
Whenever folks talk about Fox, CNN or MSNBC (ok, the last one was discussing give Rosie a show....so mebbe they ought be left out:rofl ) lying, they never quite give specific examples...are they talking about Hannitty or Keith Olberman, or the fluff-morning shows? THOSE shows arent NEWS....If you they are talking about the '6:00 news', then I need to see some examples, because I dont think there's much difference between them, other than the stories they choose to give time to