Iran? Iraq? Pakistan?

I was going to post this in GQ but GD seems more appropriate, as I am looking for facts and opinion.

I heard on the news yesterday (10/7) that Iran and Iraq both voiced disapproval of the attack on Afghanistan. I’m sure that Pakistan had something to say about it as well, considering Taliban leaders are seeking refuge there. So my first question is: Does anyone know exactly what these countries’ leaders had to say about this? Secondly, I’d also like to see some predictions on who will ally with who, and which world leaders will try to take advantage of this for their own agendas.

Spend some time at

The government of Pakistan supports the U.S. However, they are also currently trying to control the riots of thousands of pro-Taliban supporters in the northern section of the country.

Iraq obviously is anti-U.S. Hussien says we deserve what we got due to our policies in the mid-East.

Iran states that it is in favor of a war on terrorism led by the U.N…but they are not in favor of the war being led by the U.S. So, they’re upset.

Iran and Iraq are obvious enimies
but when it comes to pakistan matters are very different
pakistan is like a wolf in sheeps clothing
they support the Taliban they arm the Taliban and they are a terrorist nation themselves ask any neighbouring country
they talk peace to the world while they bomb India
a week after the sep 11 incident they pakistani terrorists attacked the assembly building in Kashmir
the only reason they support or atleast pretend to support the US is because they cant afford any more sanctions against them and they know the whole worlds opinion will turn against them
they were the only country left that accepted the Taliban as a legal gov
that just about says it all:mad:

jonfromdenver, you can look at a Pakistani newspaper at It is one of the three top English-language newspapers in Pakistan and you should be able to get an accurate idea of what Pakistani leaders are saying about the attack on Afghanistan. Iraq is obviously allied completely against the U.S. and is even rumoured to be harbouring Usama bin Laden, who has now supposedly left Afghanistan.

spacedmanspliff, I find your comments unfair and biased.

There are supporters of the Taliban in Pakistan. There are also many Pakistanis who are horrified at reports that the Taliban has infiltrated Pakistani schools and is routinely kidnapping young Pakistani boys and taking them to training camps, only to return several months later with the child’s corpse and a letter to the parents informing them that their son died in the name of God. Guns and drugs have been drifting over from Afganistan for many years and have greatly contributed to the problems of drug addiction and armed robbery in Pakistan. Many people blame the Taliban for this. Just because you see a group of unemployed, uneducated men rioting in the streets and burning U.S. flags on CNN does not mean that this is the general opinion in Pakistan.

Pakistan was one of three countries to recognise the Taliban, as was the United Arab Emirates. The U.A.E. government does not support any kind of terrorism, and is not considered a “wolf in sheeps clothing”. Saudi Arabia, the third country to recognise the Taliban, is one of America’s greatest allies in the Middle East. Don’t think that recognition of the Taliban and support of terrorism go together hand in hand.

The Pakistani government has supported the U.S. against terrorism in the past. It helped in the arrest of terrorist Ramsi Yousef in 1995 and turned Aimal Kansi over to the CIA in 1997. Aimal Kansi shot two CIA agents in Virginia and then vanished without trace. He successfully hid, it is rumoured in Afghanistan, for four years until he foolishly decided to return to Pakistan. The Pakistani government turned him over to the CIA without a moment’s hesitation. It was no surprise to me that the Pakistani government agreed to co-operate with the United States over Usama bin Laden.

You compare events in Kashmir to the events of September 11th. Kashmir is considered occupied or disputed territory. The recent bombing at the assembly building was carried out by a named organisation. It was not an anonymous attack on neutral territory. Pakistan considers this part of a valid struggle for self-determination in Kashmir. India considers this terrorism. In addition Pakistan blames India for sporadic acts of terrorism in mosques near the border. You can take whatever view of it you like, but it is a complex situation in which it is not easy to judge right and wrong. It is similar to the Israel-Palestine conflict, in which the Palestinians consider themselves “freedom fighters”, and the Israelis consider them terrorists. You can think of them as terrorists if you like, and I will not argue with that, but I believe that territorial conflicts are not in the same league as an anonymous attack on civilians of sixty different nations on the soil of a nation not directly involved in any kind of conflict.

Not that I disagree with you, but wouldn’t you say that OBL’s gripe with the US stems from two issues:
[li]Their involvement in Desert Storm, which he saw as an attack on Islam[/li][li]Their continued support of Israel in the Middle East[/li][/list=1]

That, to a biased observer, would be direct involvement enough…

Yes, I’m sorry, grimpixie, I should have clarified that I believe U.S. territory itself is not involved in any kind of conflict, meaning that the occupancy/control of this territory is not in question. If Usama bin Laden has a problem with U.S. presence in the Middle East, he can attack American military posts in the Middle East, and, less justifiably, U.S. embassies in the Middle East, but when he starts attacking random targets within the U.S. I think he has overstepped the bounds of either of the conflicts you mentioned. (I wouldn’t call the Pentagon a “random” target, but the World Trade Centre and the four hijacked aeroplanes fit into that category for me.)

thanks for the link to that newspaper, pennylane. The thing that caught my eye most was this:

now we know exactly where U.S. priorities are. and they sure as hell aren’t with the safety of its citizens.

Huh? Maybe I’ve misinterpreted that quote, but I don’t see anything controversial in Powell’s statement.

maybe i should have posted the quote that powell was responding to.

thus powell seems willing to sacrifice civilian lives to meet his military goals. i know there isn’t much of an alternative, but scary nonetheless.

Sorry, I still don’t see how this is a major problem. Terrorists will continue to strike at civilians until all of their aims are met (which is not going to happen, and should not either). I don’t think Powell has a choice here between sacrificing civilians and achieving goals. Those goals are to protect civilian lives in the long term by removing those who threaten them to achieve their own objectives. If the US was to back down, every terrorist with an axe to grind would be trying it on too.

I don’t think jonfromdenver was saying that the U.S. should meet the terrorists’ demands - of course they shouldn’t. Civilian lives can be protected in the short-term also, by implementing measures of heightened security in airports, around major buildings, etc. I’ve already noticed a greatly increased level of security in airports, train stations, and shops in tourist locations, even here in France. I don’t think it will be easy for terrorists to strike again right now, even if they try.

let me quote myself:

i know there is no alternative. i know this is what has to be done. but still it scares the shit out of me. also, this seems to be a departure from past attitudes towards terrorism, but that’s the way it has to be. those were my only points, i wasn’t even criticizing powell.

I see your comments about not criticizing Powell, and I’m not referring to that in this post. However, you mention that this is a departure from past attitudes towards terrorism.

How so? I may be reading it differently, but he seems to be saying what we’re used to hearing when it comes to terrorists - “we’re gonna win, we won’t give up, those terrorist guys are gonna lose, Go America!” I don’t see anything in there giving tacit acceptance to a sacrifice of civilian lives.

Just trying to understand where you’re coming from…


i know it isn’t much of a departure from past views, but if you put these statements in relation to what has been going on, such as bush giving orders to shoot airliners down, it seems like these things would be unimaginable 10 years ago. i know orders to shoot down planes were given to try to prevent more civilian casualties, but before 9-11, it just couldn’t be justified if they didn’t know exactly what they were going to do with the plane. what i’m saying is, they are willing to sacrifice civilian lives to prevent the possible loss of even more civilians. i think that this is ok, but it’s just questionable when there could be a chance that no one had to die.