Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack by deadlockvictim

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

there will never be peace on earth

Maybe, maybe not. I think Miss Bhutto has found the only peace we can all be sure to find.

Terrorist fanatics vowed to kill this woman. The blew up a bomb in a large crowd a few months ago but missed her. This time they got her.

You can close your eyes to the terrorist threat and hope it passes you by. But so long as you refuse to believe in their way or refuse to bow to their whim or just happen to be standing in the way they will gladly kill you in the name of their twisted version of faith.

Bhutto was a grave threat, not because she was a moderate, the world is full of moderate muslims, but because she was a moderate muslim woman. Such is the enemy that the Democrats would have us ignore.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Such is the enemy that the Democrats would have us ignore.

Wow. You just can't stop with the partisan bullshit, can you?

Terrorists feel that the only way to their goal is through violence. If they could only just kill enough enemies, all would be well. The funny thing is, the more they kill, the more people hate them.

So go ahead, Hero. Vow to kill everyone who stands in the way of YOU feeling secure.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So go ahead, Hero. Vow to kill everyone who stands in the way of YOU feeling secure.

And maybe a little harsh interrogation could have prevented this.

Democrats whine, moan, and bitch when we seek to interrogate terrorists, listen in on their calls, track their money, or kill them before they strike.

This is very much a partisan issue because don't think for one second that they would hesitate to blow up a bomb next to any one of our leaders of either party if they could.

Democrats want to stop Republicans, Republicans want to stop the terrorists. That makes this a partisan issue. Democrats have spent far more time in the last year trying to investigate Republicans and slow down efforts to track, catch, and interrogate terrorists then they have spent on ANY other issue including security and the Presidential election. This is a partisan isssue and perhaps the most important of them at this time.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Democrats whine, moan, and bitch when we seek to interrogate terrorists, listen in on their calls, track their money, or kill them before they strike.

That's because Democrats basically hate America, and are suicidal in their zeal to see our country go down in flames. To them, the US Constutution is a suicide pact, never to be bent or stretched, and we must fight our enemies with due process, lawyers, and cultural respect. In a decade or so, hopefully not, there will be a permanent Memorial in a major city in America...the melted & burned into-the-wall shadow ghosts of thousands killed by a dirty nuke bomb smuggled in somehow....The Important part of this is that there will still be visible images in the shadows of all the Liberals proudly holding high their ACLU Cards, and the placard will read: See, We Won! We Never Profiled Muslims getting on planes, or Listened To Phone Calls To Pakistan.
Bottom line for Liberals is ...they would accept a million dead Americans before we profile, eavesdrop, or interrogate a suspect who knew of the pending plans. That's how dangerous these people are to the rest of us. Hell...half their electoral power base is full of people who already don;t give a shit if they live or die...like gays with aids, criminals & felons, pedophiles, drug addicts, and whacked anarchists....hey let's have a Death To America Party dude!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:29 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
[BThat's because Democrats basically hate America, and are suicidal in their zeal to see our country go down in flames.

This seems a little harsh, I'm sure not all Democrats hate America. What about Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, never mind they threw him out of the party. On second thought...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:36 AM

You're right...I stand corrected. I should have used the term MODERN Democrats. Guys like Truman & FDR , and yes Joe "The Man" Leiberman would spit on Pelosi & Reid for their treasonous rhetoric. Truman & FDR put the safety & security of American citizens ahead of all other considerations....sorry Japanese-Americans....sorry German-Americans....your brief confinement was seen as necessary back then, because our President was trying to win a war against ruthless barbarians and feared a home-grown fifth column. Now we're fighting jihadists overseas...THEY DON'T NEED a fifth column here...they already have the Democrats & the Mainstream Media here acting as useful idiots in their war against the West. Spock's little parable...The Needs Of The Many, etc etc falls on deaf liberal ears. To them the needs of the ONE outweigh the needs of the many.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You know what? The problem is that the Bush Administration has NOT tracked or monitored or detained terrorists. The vast majority of people who've been monitored, tracked and detained.... and I mean the totally vast majority... are just regular folk like you. Now I don't know about you, but I don't think it's reasonable to treat the whole nation as if it were guilty because of a few terrorists, especially in light of the fact that procedures are ALREADY in place to track and monitor terrorists. Even the FISA courts allow searches w/o warrants, provided that you get one after the fact.

The only thing the Bush Administration has done is to throw out judicial oversight and get rid of the necessity of warrants and charges (habeas corpus. You might be familiar with that Hero).

So get your heads out of that false dichotomy that you seem to be stuck in. It's NOT a case of 'either -or".
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 6:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And maybe a little harsh interrogation could have prevented this.

You're joking, right? You think Pakistan doesn't have harsh interrogation already? My god, man, get your head out of your butt!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

That's because Democrats basically hate America, and are suicidal in their zeal to see our country go down in flames.

Jeez, maybe we should register 'em all, make 'em wear special arm bands with a special symbol,( yellow with a six pointed star would be good , maybe?), load 'em into freight trains and ship them to special camps. There's a place memorialized in Poland where that was tried, the facilities there are still preserved. It's called Osweikem, something like that...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
There's a place memorialized in Poland where that was tried, the facilities there are still preserved. It's called Osweikem, something like that...

I think you mean Oswego; it's in upstate NY. There's a State University of NY there & it's very cold in the winter. If by ANY chance you actually meant Auschwitz, then your post would be worthy of further discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The correct spelling is Oświęcim. If you would bother to know anything JS you might be worth talking to.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The correct spelling is Oświęcim. If you would bother to know anything JS you might be worth talking to.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Thanx, Sig. Didn't think I spelled it quite right, and I refuse to use special characters...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well here's the thing: I didn't know about it either but I looked it up. OTOH, some folks refuse to learn, and that's why they never get smarter.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:38 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Bottom line for Liberals is ...they would accept a million dead Americans before we profile, eavesdrop, or interrogate a suspect who knew of the pending plans.

More black & white BS.
As a 'Liberal', I don't have much problem with illegal taps and such, if it's to gather info on real suspects and not laugh about some girl's sexual confessions to her friends...
Where did all the intel on 9-11 end up? On the desk of a**holes that didn't want to look stupid if it never came to fruition, so it was dismissed (covered up?) and thousands of Americans (as well as other citizens of the world) paid (and are paying) the price.
Professionalism in the intelligence community has been replaced with corporate-style toadyism. Less patriotic Jack Ryans and more fascist Dick (Ooops- I shot a guy, but he weren't a terrorist) Cheneys.
Let the REAL professionals- the guys doing the footwork- do their jobs, and the terrorist threat to the free world will be diminished. Micromanage from the top, and, well, you see what you get...

Not such a bleeding heart Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:48 AM

here's a question I haven"t seen addressed either here, or in the national media, tho' it's early yet: Who was behind this? Who benefits? This "terrorist" on a motor bike blew himself and 22 others and an ex- ruler and candidate in the forth-coming elections. Who was behind him? Who gave him the motor bike and explosives? Does anybody believe he acted truly solo, used the bike he used to ride to school and some dynamite he had laying around in the cellar? Does he represent Osama bin-Laden, or someone wronged by Bhutto while she ruled, or fundamentalis Muslims, or anti- American groups, or just what? Or was a he a toady of Mussharrif?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:56 AM

ERIC

Wouldn't put it past the CIA- it's not like they haven't done stuff like that before...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not sure if Musharraf finds extremists useful or simply to big to take on directly, but Pakistan's ISI (like the CIA, NSA, and Special Forces all rolled into one) funded the Taliban for years. ObL is holed up somewhere in Pakistan too.

IN this case, it's prolly extremists who did the deed, but Musharraf found it awfully convenient.

Oh and BTW he's our ally.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you would bother to know anything JS you might be worth talking to.

Oh no no...I much prefer that you never talk to me. Guess I'll have to stay ignorant to avoid any direct contact from you, but I do adore you're daily, ever-present little jabs, nudges, and insults. I miss them terribly when you're away...C'mon now...I've got a few other posts today on these boards...lot's of correcting and condescending for you to do....let's snap to it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow. You just can't stop with the partisan bullshit, can you?

Careful. That's a knife that cuts both ways.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

there will never be peace on earth

And this is a surprise to anyone who has even a moderate knowledge of world history?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:08 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
lot's of correcting and condescending for you to do....let's snap to it!

"Lot's" would be a contraction of "lot is", which makes no sense, Jong.

Correcting and condescending Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:11 AM

At the risk of pissing off the people who are enjoying the partisan bullshit (on both sides), I thought I'd raise a question about the death of Bhutto: will this strengthen the position of radical Islamists in Pakistani politics, or weaken it? IMHO, it could go either way. Pakistan has a strong secular tradition (Bhutto was an ex-Prime Minister twice over, and she was a woman). On the other hand, even reasonable people will pipe down when a violent death is a live option.

(Also, the fact that the conversation has devolved into a game of "you-people-are-all-idiots" is a good example of both why I hate the current state of American politics, and why I come ever closer to putting these boards behind me. Left and right, Republican and Democrat--we can't even talk about the issues anymore. Pathetic. What's wrong with us?)
________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:13 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

there will never be peace on earth

And this is a surprise to anyone who has even a moderate knowledge of world history?]

guess i was caught up in the whole christmas season thing... i do know better

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
]lot's of correcting and condescending for you to do....let's snap to it!

"Lot's" would be a contraction of "lot is", which makes no sense, Jong.

Correcting and condescending Chrisisall:

Might not have made sense to you, still not convinced it makes no sense to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wow. You just can't stop with the partisan bullshit, can you?- Signy

Careful. That's a knife that cuts both ways.- Causal

Yanno, I was all ready to talk about what this means for the future of Pakistan and for the region. Whether or not there could ever be an "orange" revolution in the area, and if this might set the stage for it. But peeps like Hero and Jongsstraw throw so much chaff into the air it's hard not to respond. I try not to, I really do. I should know better and just ignore them.

So ...
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Wow. You just can't stop with the partisan bullshit, can you?- Signy

Careful. That's a knife that cuts both ways.- Causal
Yanno, I was all ready to talk about what this means for the future of Pakistan and for the region. Whether or not there could ever be an "orange" revolution in the area, and if this might set the stage for it. But peeps like Hero and Jongsstraw throw so much chaff into the air it's hard not to respond. I try not to, I really do. I should know better and just ignore them.

So ...
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

You lied. You said you won't talk to me. Always gots ta have the last word, huh? FIGURES

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was all ready to talk about what this means for the future of Pakistan and for the region. Whether or not there could ever be an "orange" revolution in the area, and if this might set the stage for it. I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.)

It's Waziristan that's screwing them up, I think. That and the ISI. Bastions of radical Islam, both of them. If they could get a hold of those two actors, they might have a fighting chance. So I guess the question is: is there a tipping point beyond which the actions of radical Islamic movements cease compelling behavior and begin to produce indignation and the will to response? Looks like that could be happening in Iraq (though the results are most certainly not in on that score yet). I'd be curious to know where that point will come (in any place). Also, I'm curious what other environmental factors might contribute.

On a procedural note:
I think that sometimes it's helpful to remind all players that some dangers apply both ways (another example besides partisan rhetoric would be ends-justify-means reasoning). I meant that as a general exhortation, not a specific accusation.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

(Also, the fact that the conversation has devolved into a game of "you-people-are-all-idiots" is a good example of both why I hate the current state of American politics, and why I come ever closer to putting these boards behind me. Left and right, Republican and Democrat--we can't even talk about the issues anymore. Pathetic. What's wrong with us?)
tomorrow!

Damn straight!

*edited for politeness

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I edited that out to keep down the inflammation.

You know, like I said it's only a feeling, but honestly I think a tipping point HAS been reached. I'll look into it some more, hopefully I'll have something more than a "gut reaction" to go on.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.

It's interesting that sometimes what you really need is an horrific event that galvanizes people into action--regretable but, I think, true. I think that's the real failing of terrorism. Up to a point it can be very effective: the instinct to preserve one's own life can be a powerful motivator. But there's a line that, once crossed, causes people to cease complying out of self-preservation and to resist the aggressor out of a desire to preserve something greater than the self (which is, I think, one of the things that makes humanity great). But I digress. In the case of Pakistan, I just wonder if the assassination of Bhutto will be that line beyond which violence no longer compels compliance. How exciting if a Muslim country threw off both theocracy and autocracy on its own!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And maybe a little harsh interrogation could have prevented this.
You're joking, right? You think Pakistan doesn't have harsh interrogation already? My god, man, get your head out of your butt!

What? You don't think a couple of those folks we picked up in Afganistan who are now sunning themselves down in Gitmo just might know somebody who knows somebody who had a little bit to do with this business.

Maybe if we waterboarded a little more and entertained appeals to the Supreme Court a little less...or maybe if we'd listened in on one more call...or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company. But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
here's a question I haven"t seen addressed either here, or in the national media, tho' it's early yet: Who was behind this? Who benefits?

“I am what the terrorists most fear,” she tells me, “a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan. Now they’re trying to kill me."- Benazir Bhutto, November, 2007.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...

No power in the verse could have stopped this. She was DOA the minute she returned. I'm surprised it took this long.

Who killed her? Better question for that country is who didn't?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I thought I'd raise a question about the death of Bhutto: will this strengthen the position of radical Islamists in Pakistani politics, or weaken it? IMHO, it could go either way.

I pretty much agree with 'either way'. If the Pakistani people believe this was the act of Islamic radicals and get pissed off enough, they could force the government to take some concrete action instead of just doing enough to keep the US aid coming. Or they could just roll over and let the radicals have their way. Too soon to tell.

This assumes that the "It was(pick one or more): Musharif, CIA, Jews, Club of Rome, Illuminati, India, etc." camp doesn't grab the lead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
What? You don't think a couple of those folks we picked up in Afganistan who are now sunning themselves down in Gitmo just might know somebody who knows somebody who had a little bit to do with this business.

Maybe if we waterboarded a little more and entertained appeals to the Supreme Court a little less...or maybe if we'd listened in on one more call...or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company. But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...

Here's my trouble with that line of thinking. In order to prevent these sorts of incidents, you'd have to cast a pretty broad net. After all, it's not as though anybody would have the luxury of saying, "One of these five guys has the knowledge we're after. So if we just practice 'harsh interrogation' on these five guys, we'll be able to prevent terrorist attacks." No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement. Obviously, that's going to be one hell of a lot of people. So the question is this, to my way of thinking: is the possible prevention of terrorist acts (read: the saving of lives) worth the broad application of torturous interrogation tactics? I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Because the use of such tactics represents moral compromise, in my view. I do not think that the use of morally objectionable means in order to prevent morally objectionable acts is justifiable. Will that mean the loss of life from terrorist attacks? Yes, and no doubt I'll be attacked on those grounds. But let us not lose sight of the fact that the moral culpability for those acts rests squarely on those who perpetrate them. I refuse to allow a misplaced sense of moral responsibility to lead me to the commission of moral wrong-doing. Let us not be persuaded by ends-justify-the-means reasoning. Does the prevention of terrorist acts justify torture? In my opinion, no, it does not.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by deadlockvictim:

there will never be peace on earth

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071227/pakistan/

That all depends on how you define 'peace'.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I second the Oh Shit comment.

Casual?
"What's wrong with us?"

To borrow a line from Con-Air, my first thought would be... a lot.

Blame enough to go around, but imma lay it 60/40 cause when one party seems to be actively seeking the absolute destruction of the other, in spite of the fact that they're both servants of the status quo - it's kind of unsurprising when they adapt the same scorched earth tactics.

For mine own rabidity, the explaination is even more simple, I feel that my freedom, personhood, and even very life are greviously and imminently endangered by both sets of these maniacs and will go to any length short of knuckling under to preserve em.

It's fear... and human response to fear is often an aggressive assault on it's source in hopes of crippling it's ability to harm us.

We live, currently, in an atmosphere positively reeking of it, but what scares me the worst is the folks who *want* us to be scared witless, and why.

"How exciting if a Muslim country threw off both theocracy and autocracy on its own!"

Oh how I wish.. and that'd be the ONLY way to sink it good and proper too, internally from the people within it, whom most partisans instantly dismiss without a thought, or suggest forcing at gunpoint - neither of which will, or ever has, historically, worked very well.

My suggestion would be helping more moderate folks trapped in that mess sabotage it internally, I posted a long and involved tactical outline for how that could be done in a previous discussion with Jong, who really didn't wanna hear it one bit... it's HERE in this thread if you've the interest.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31642

All we really gotta do down at the root of it is three things, to flush these goons forever.

1. Remove the threat of our meddling.

That stupdity is what kept Castro in power so long, the more we push, the tighter they cling to their established order, even if they despise it.

2. Stop dismissing them wholesale.

There's a lot of folk caught up in this who don't even like these assholes, but with no dialogue, no support, nothing but the threat of torture and slaughter from us, they have no interest in throwing them out only to be mowed down by us - and now we have a credibility problem on top of it, thanks to the current administration.

We *NEED* these guys, if you ever wanna break the back of Theological Autocracy over there, and we keep makin enemies of em instead of friends.

3. Let them DO it.

If it ever comes, hell yes it's gonna be a bloodbath, but the worst thing we could do at that point is send in peacekeepers, or try to stop it, besides the fact that it's impossible and over time such protracted stalemates cause more death and destruction, we have a nasty history of taking sides for our own advantage, which'll just start the cycle all over again.

The SMARTEST thing we could do is quietly support the folk who want these bastards gone, and leave well the hell enough ALONE.

And no sending support and weapons to the guys in power to make a quick buck neither, that's bitten us on the ass here too.

There's a merit to not pickin at a problem that's likely to solve itself if we see to our own defenses and allow it to do so without meddling in such a fashion that it delays or prolongs it while giving both sides someone to hate worse than each other.

See also: Point 1. above.

This meddling has cost us so horribly, so deeply, that I fail to see how anyone could possibly support it anymore, especially in light of the fact that we are in part responsible for OBL, Saddam, The Shah, and by that action, Khomeni.. do we never learn ANYTHING about propping these maroons up ?

Bout time we learned the wisdom of knowing when to leave well the hell enough alone outside our borders, and see to our own affairs instead of pissing away our resources needlessly like this.

And yes, I too am deeply suspicious of what happened to Bhutto and am watching intently to see who benefits and how.

But it's not OUR country, which is MY primary concern.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement. Obviously, that's going to be one hell of a lot of people.

Setting aside the morality of 'harsh interrogation' for the moment, how do you arrive at the conclusion that there are 'Obviously...one hell of a lot of people' at least moderately involved in radical Islamic terrorism at the suicide bomber level? What do you consider 'a lot'? 1% of the population? 10%? .01%?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Here's my trouble with that line of thinking. In order to prevent these sorts of incidents, you'd have to cast a pretty broad net.

Yeah. Thats kinda the point. "In order to prevent" pretty much sums up the Republican position. "No big nets" sums up the Democratic position. One position is about preventing terrorist acts, the other isn't. Now me, I'm in favor of prevention...I suspect Miss Bhutto would agree.

Democrats, on the other hand, would be sad, but hold their heads high (not too high, snipers...) knowing that they kept Bush from abusing our rights. They'd lament that its America's fault (check Kucinich's statement on that one). After all the Middle East was a place of peace and harmony until January 20th, 2001. What's the needless death of one or thousands, they'd ask, next to a political victory that could last up to two years (although, to be fair, two years of congressional control means a lot of money in their pockets)?

Quote:

No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement.

There's what, just a comparative handful down in Gitmo. And we'd have other intellegence to help weed out the good leads from bad, but yes, we'd have to "talk" to a fair number of folks.

I note for the record that all US Special Forces troops are subject to waterboarding during their training process and that captured military personel are lucky if waterboarding is the least they get. In the words of a Special Ops guy I know...waterboarding isnt something worth losing your head over...especially when the alternative is losing your head.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement. Obviously, that's going to be one hell of a lot of people.

Setting aside the morality of 'harsh interrogation' for the moment, how do you arrive at the conclusion that there are 'Obviously...one hell of a lot of people' at least moderately involved in radical Islamic terrorism at the suicide bomber level? What do you consider 'a lot'? 1% of the population? 10%? .01%?

I think what I was getting at is the notion of waterboarding every single individual detained on suspicion of having some link to terrorism. The thought of using "harsh interrogation"/torture on all of them just makes my skin crawl.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:14 PM

I'm liking the "leave well enough alone" idea pretty good these days.

On a second note, I'll try and cruise over to the other thread and see what I think (I'll post any comments here if I can).

Finally, a note from the vanity/spell-check police: the "u" in my nick goes in front of the "s".

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:34 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think what I was getting at is the notion of waterboarding every single individual detained on suspicion of having some link to terrorism. The thought of using "harsh interrogation"/torture on all of them just makes my skin crawl.

Seems you're making some pretty broad assumptions. First, that we have a big bunch of folk detained on suspicion of terrorism links. Second, that we're performing 'harsh interrogation/torture' on all or even most of them.

Gitmo is down to 400 folk now, and there'd be less if we could find somewhere to send them. Hard to find figures on detainees elsewhere, but I would guess that there aren't too many who aren't just obvious rifle-toters with no valuable info.

Despite all you hear about waterboarding, etc., I'd guess such stuff is rarely used. I suspect that just the rumor of such 'aggressive' methods, along with normal interrogation techniques, nearly always works. I wouldn't expect that our intelligence agencies would give away the methods which succeed, so they're not going to say yea or nay on the ratio of 'torture' to psychology.

As Hero noted, most of the useful info we get will probably be communication intercepts, bank transactions, weapons sales tracking, etc. And a lot of chaff will have to be winnowed to find the grains of wheat. Does a computer checking millions of anonymous emails, phone calls, etc. for keywords and kicking out the matches for research bother you as much as waterboarding? 'Cause that's a good part of how the conflict is gonna be won.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:39 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

3. Let them DO it.

If it ever comes, hell yes it's gonna be a bloodbath, but the worst thing we could do at that point is send in peacekeepers, or try to stop it,

The only problem with letting things go crazy in Pakistan is that they have nuclear weapons. Someone has to secure their nuclear weapons. The same people who killed Bhutto would love to have a little chaos to cover their takeover of the Pakistani arsenal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What? You don't think a couple of those folks we picked up in Afganistan who are now sunning themselves down in Gitmo just might know somebody who knows somebody who had a little bit to do with this business.

Whu.... whAAA? Those folks in Gitmo were picked up at least four years ago and have been held incommunicado ever since!!! And that was long before Benazir Bhutto even thought of returning to Pakistan! Wow. I mean wow. You'd waterboard people who have a snowball's chance of knowing anything about anything? Heck, they';ve been out of the loop for years! How in hell do you rationalize that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:44 PM