Skip to main content

View Diary: 123 civilians, 3 al Qaeda DRONED in January, 17 more dead today (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Those aren't, by far, the only two options (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus

    Fighting at much closer quarters, so you generally know you're killing someone who is pointing a weapon at you, is also an option.

    •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ShadowSD, fairleft2

      but then we have to send troops into Pakistan tribal areas. Yikes

      Everything passes, everything changes, just do what you think you should do-B.D

      by defndr on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:42:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Instead Pakistani civilians get to say "Yikes" (0+ / 0-)

        and die in huge numbers.

        •  More would die in a troop invasion certainly (0+ / 0-)

          and in an air strike as pointed out above.

          These are valid points.

          77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

          by ShadowSD on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:00:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  None would die if we just (0+ / 0-)

            left Pakistan alone.

            •  The Pakistani extremists are a real threat to the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jon Says

              people and the government, so that isn't true; they enflame a country already riddled with tension concerning India and having actual nuclear weapons that Al Qaeda could actually get (unlike in Iran or Iraq, where such an argument was bullshit).  

              The idea that no one would die if we weren't there sounds like it would be true at first blush, but sadly the opposite is probably the case.    

              77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

              by ShadowSD on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 03:17:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The government is extremist too, (0+ / 0-)

                so why are we killing some extremists and most of the civilians who share the same village and supplying billions of dollars to the other extremists?

                The 'Taliban' of the Northwest Provinces is powerful only in the Northwest Provinces. They're Pashtun, which is a relatively small minority ethnicity in Pakistan, and are no threat to take over Pakistan's central government. The unquestioned mainstream media lie that they are a threat TO GET THEIR HANDS ON NUKES is critical to unchallenged neoconservative interventionism.

                •  The civilian governent is the Bhutto family, not (0+ / 0-)
                  extremists; however, despite sustained improvement since the end of Musharraf's reign (as evidenced by a complete turnaround on their ability to kill and capture Al Qaeda on their side of the border) the military still nonetheless has many extremist elements, you are quite correct.  However, the whole point of there being danger in this is that these extremists ARE dangerous and DO seek nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda and its affiliates in particular, and they are headquartered in the mountainous region of NE Afg/NW Pak.  

                  If only their search for nukes was just neocon propaganda - it isn't.

                  Can it be used as a cover for neocon policies - sure - Al Qaeda was twisted by neocons as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing at all to do with it.  That doesn't mean that the threat from Al Qaeda is fictional, simply because it can be manipulated by neoconservative purposes; any threat, fictional or real, can be potentially manipulated by neocons and likely will be, but that's no reason to ignore real threats.

                  Al Qaeda seeks nukes, and they are more in the Pakistan side of the mountains than the Afghanistan side at this point.  Terrorists seeking nuclear weapons is a real threat, moreso than governments like Iraq or Iran, which would never actually use them even if obtained, only using them for leverage - too much to lose.  The problem is that terrorists have nothing to lose; again, just because this fact has been manipulating to nauseating and sustained effect by neocons doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

                  77% of voters support a public option, Congress.

                  by ShadowSD on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 03:55:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Killing civilians and bombing their villages, (0+ / 0-)

                    creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, is extremist behavior. I don't disagree with the goals of the Pakistani govt, but extremism is typically about the means you choose to an otherwise honorable end.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site