"PAYBACK'S A BITCH" says grief-crazed prez--blows up wrong house, women, kids

Great Debates
101

Why would they want us to go home ? We do far more for their cause by being there.

It’s called “shooting back” and “general chaos”. You didn’t realy think the Iraqis would just lie down for us, did you ? You didn’t think that removing Saddam and wrecking the country would increase order, did you ?

Any terrorists in Iraq are there because we are there; if Iraq was about stopping terrorism, it’s had the opposite effect. It’s created a recruiting tool and training zone and provided them with targets. It’s more like a war for terrorism, not against it.

102

Well, I thought their cause was to remove westerners from their lands.

103

Killing Americans, hurting America, and strengthening themselves are also things they want; we are helping them do those things by our actions in Iraq. They are also things they can do; the chance of them ever being able to “remove westerners from their lands” is near zero, and I suspect most of them know it.

104

musharraf is finished.

way to go, crackerboy.

I wonder who will be running that vital NUCLEAR ARMED country in six months…

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/news/web.0115pakistan2.php

“We demand that Pervez Musharraf resign and American troops vacate all parts of Pakistan and go out of Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Baluch, whose Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, or the United Action Forum alliance, made stunning gains in parliamentary elections in 2002.

The party runs on a platform of support for the Taliban and opposition to the United States.

Pakistan’s government insists it does not allow the 20,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan to cross the border in the hunt for Taliban fighters or al-Qaida members believed to be hiding in the remote mountains of the frontier region.

But the attack in Damadola was the latest in a string of incidents on Pakistan’s side of the border in recent weeks that many people suspect were U.S. assaults that violated this Islamic country’s sovereignty.

Associated Press writer Sadaqat Jan in Islamabad contributed to this report.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan Chanting “Death to America,” angry anti-U.S. Islamic groups began nationwide protests Sunday against a purported CIA airstrike that Pakistan says killed innocent civilians instead of the apparent target - top al-Qaida lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf meanwhile, warned his countrymen not to harbor militants, saying it would only increase violence within Pakistan’s borders.

“If we kept sheltering foreign terrorists here … our future will not be good,” Musharraf said in speech broadcast Sunday by state-run Pakistan Television. “Remember what I say.”

Musharraf, who spoke Saturday to a gathering in the northwestern town of Sawabi, did not directly mention Friday’s attack that killed at least 17 people, including women and children, in a village of Damadola, just a few kilometers (miles) from the Afghanistan border.

But his government has protested to the U.S. Embassy amid growing frustration over a recent series of suspected U.S. attacks along the frontier, apparently aimed at Islamic militants.

On Sunday, more than 600 people braved rain and cold to rally against the airstrike in the town of Samarbagh, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) east of Damadola.

Protesters chanted “Death to America,” “Death to Bush” and “A friend of America is a traitor,” while also denouncing Musharraf for cooperating with the United States.

< . . . >

The president’s policies “are having dangerous results for the country’s integrity,” said Liaqat Baluch, a lawmaker from the alliance.

“We demand that Pervez Musharraf resign and American troops vacate all parts of Pakistan and go out of Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Baluch, whose Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, or the United Action Forum alliance, made stunning gains in parliamentary elections in 2002.

The party runs on a platform of support for the Taliban and opposition to the United States

105

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agi

s]
(although I’d quibble with whether the bombing was “illegal”)…
[/QUOTE]

Now, here is another guy who makes you proud to be a lawyer.

Be so kind, counselor, as to set forth the defense you would make if called upon to represent the drone operator who pushed the missile release button were he or she put on trial in pakistan (assume, arguendo, the Federal Rules ofCriminal Procedure are in effect) on six counts of murder, (the children, ya feel me?)

106

Like marilyn monroe’s skirt when the subway pulled in…

(altho on reflection, they are both millenarial fundies, but I can’t pretend to have had anything that subtle in mind…)

107

Um, you are aware that Islamic militants had previously tried to bring down those very towers, right?

And lets not talk about Iraq, because you and I both agree that had nothing to do with the “war on terror”, but certainly the conflict in Afghanistan did and that is not over yet. But why, specifically, could Islamic militants (or anyone else for that matter) not pull off another, similar “criminal act”? Calling it a “criminal act” is beyond ridiculous, too, as if it were some act of arson. It was a terrorist attack. It’s author has explicitly stated his desire to commit future terrorist acts against the US.

I’ll let that above quote stand on its own. That is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever posted on this message board.

108

Planned attacks against Iraqi civilians are acts of terrorism, not “general chaos”. “General chaos” is what happened during the first few weeks of the Iraq War, not what is going on now. As for “shooting back”, see my astrrixed note below.

I don’t know if the terrorists in Iraq (and many of the insurgents* are definitely terrorists) would be willing or able to bring that terror to the US, but the certainly have exported it to at least one other country-- Jordan. I suspect that if we pulled out of Iraq tomorow, the terrorists there would still be more interested in wreaking havoc in Iraq, not in the US. But that doesn’t make them any less terrorists, or their actions any less acts of terror.

*I agree that any of the insurgents who are fighting solely against US troops are not terrorists.

109

Wanna bet?

110

alaricthegoth, Do not post entire copyrighted articles.

[ /Moderating ]

111

I wasn’t talking about the bombing in Pakistan. I was talking about the bombing of Berlin in World War 2. If you’d quoted more than one fraction of a sentence, that would be clear to everyone.

Please refrain from pulling my quotes out of context. It’s dishonest.

And if I was defending the individual who pushed the missile release in Pakistan, my defense would probably center on the fact that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and other US criminal laws) are not applicable to the action in Pakistan. And it would probably center on the fact that I, as defense counsel, don’t have the burden of proof in this trial. Ya feel me?

112

I misunderstood the thrust of your comment–I thought you were quibbling with the illegality of the current bombing.

I take it from your rejoinder vis-a-vis the burden of proof that you are not presently prepared to concede the factual nexus–ie, dead kids, predator missile, us trigger finger.\

ok.

113

I don’t know why you’d say they were not terrorists, too. What is it they are trying to gain? Kick the US out of Iraq? And what would the benefit of that be and to whom? So they can put their own tinpot dictator into power most likely. Or is it to stop people from having a vote in elections and determine for themselves who their leaders will be? It this what is bothering them? Or do they want Saddam back in power? Unlikely, true.

The longer they fight, the longer the US will stay there*. Even a dim-witted terrorist should be able to figure that out. All his activities really go to inconvenience his fellow countrymen which will eventually lead to a backlash against them.

Maybe if I understood why they were fighting (and killing their own people in the process), I’d be more willing to agree with you on this, but I can’t see how trying to drive out a temporary occupying power that removed a dictator and is trying to install democracy (the horror!) is beneficial to anyone over there.

*Assuming the weak-willies back home don’t pull the troops out before the Iraqis have a chance to get enough trained troops on the ground to take care of things themselves and have a stable enough government that Saddam2 doesn’t take over.

114

I suppose we would need to clarify the parameters–ie, how much modification of his public stance (amelioration) would I concede to, how long a period do you give for the upheaval to occur, how do we define “survive” (I don’t mean physically, altho I’d say he’s rolling the dice there as well, given past history…)

115
  • their own tinpot dictator*
    I think the operative feature is “their own”
116

**tomndebb ** that was about 5% of a 4 pager, but I will be more economical still. I know Punch S. needs every $50.00 Timeselect fee, and he will be up our ass in a new york minute to collect.

117

You’d be surprised at the amount of people who would prefer Saddam to the US*. I’m surprised by that, too, but apperently there are such people - and it’s a faction that’s not going to go away until the US can prove it’s worth.

Why? You don’t think if this kept up for 10, 20, however many long years, the US would still be so happy to be there? That Americans would still be happy with their family members being there? I think by that point you’ll vote heavily for any President who says he’ll pull the troops out.

No. His activities will inconvinience his fellow countrymen and also the US troops, the latter being the priority. And it does not follow straight from that that there will be a backlash against their innocent countrymen - unless, of course, the US decides that it will kill the terrorists and not care about injuring or killing innocents. Is that what will happen? Maybe. Maybe not. But the decision to cause this “backlash” lies in the hands of the US, not the terrorists.

Because you’re killing them. Say a power tried to take over America, and promised you a better political system, better healthcare, a more organised economy etc. You watch their tanks roll down your street. You think no-one would rise against them? You wouldn’t be able to understand them if they did?

I myself am fully behind the removal of US troops and replacement with UN peacekeeping forces. I’d like you to pull your troops out - because a large amount of terrorists hate America and Bush personally, I imagine there will be less attacks on UN forces. Am I to be counted among the weak-willies?

*I’m not saying he would be better - simply that there are people who think this.

118

Shooting at the soldiers who are occupying your country is not terrorism.

I expect many Iraqis would consider that a good in itself. Plus, they are killing Americans; a goal that has widespread Iraqi support.

Since the alternative is likely our tinpot dictator, why not ?

Probably. It’s not likely the winning faction will treat the losers at all well, assuming any elections aren’t rigged.

Many probably do; we seem determine to make him look good by comparison.

Nonsense. Americans have a very limited tolerance for American casualties. We’ll wade to the hips in the blood of foreigners, but we aren’t willing to spend much American blood.

Assuming they don’t blame us instead.

We invaded them, killed tens of thousands, ruined the country, still haven’t fixed it, raped and tortured them, turned them into an economic puppet, and in general screwed them up completely. Any sane Iraqi hates us.

And if you think we’re really going to leave, ever, you’re deluding yourself.

The best they can hope for is Saddam2; it’s more likely that any “Iraqi” army will just split into factions and fight itself.

119

Because no reasonable definition of terrorism includes acts of violence against uniformed, armed forces. Terrorism, by definition, must target civilians.

120

If Canada was a dictatorship where people could be killed and tortured at will and if the country who was invading was a democracy and had a record of helping countries they had defeated in war (Germany, Japan), then I certainly wouldn’t fight. Hell, I wouldn’t fight if the US invaded Canada now. If the former USSR had invaded then, yeah, I’d be making Molatov’s in the basement to greet my new overlords.

Sorry, people are getting to vote in Iraq and thus have a say in their own future. Killing the people who made that happen is terrorism, killing your own people in the process is murder. There is a point where you must realize that fighting is futile and then do your best to work towards something that is greater than your own personal gripes and prejudices.