Well, I have been reading a lot of French language sources lately and unconsciously fell into their transliteration from the arabic/urdu script. A fault of mine as I frequently deal with North Africa. No big deal, if one has a command of more than English. The ch is of course sh in French etc.
So, again leander, if you’re going to pretend that I’m ignorant, then you’re going to have dig a little deeper.
I’m well-schooled in the appropriate use of the media. I also have an on the ground-sense, given long experience in the MENA region, of the problems, political and social facing someone like Moucharraf (just to expose you to other spellings for the novelty value).
Sensationalize? Hardly sensationalism.
Now, first in re the rallies, yes, I’ve read similar reports. I’ve also read a stream of reports on unrest beyond the manifestations and of manifestations in areas key to use of Pakistan as a base. I’lll add demonstrations are not the whole thing in terms of understanding. Of course, my comments were directed toward the actual scenario I was discussion, invasion of Afghanistan.
Now, yes, of course Moucharraf says what he say. Is he going to say “Well, most Pakistanis don’t support my policy.” You will note the careful construction, withdrawal of suport, revived friendship with America.
Nothing in there about the bombing. About invasion of Afghanistan.
Second of course, if you reread my comments you will note that they are directed towards Moucharraf’s vulnerability within the army and security forces structure as well as to the issue of mass unrest.
Shrug. What I seem to imply by your readings and what I said based on a whole stream of qualifications are two entirely different things.
Did they? I would say yes, they did. As have the bombers. Take a look at the air routes. Tamerlane has captured the rest of this well enough.
(Pathetic, cheap shot? You mean the bit about poor geographical knowledge. Hah, any honest American will admit it.)
Feeble attempt to sound correct? I added a small adjectival qualifier to clarify a hastily written statement. I stand by the whole discussion.
Pretty obvious? Red herrings? I don’t do deal in those kind of fish. You, however, seem to be unable to master joined up reading insofar as the context of a statement gives it its meaning. If you wish to pretend that taking a phrase out of context and juxtaposing it with another phrase discussing a different idea is good argumentation, well I little for you, newbie.
So I repeat, you’ve come into this conversation misunderstanding the OP, arguing on points which were not being argued (Taleban leadership vs Taleban in grosso modo), confusing the issue of occupation and ground forces build-up with naval and air forces etc. And you want to claim I’ve been wrong?
Backpedal? Eh, I reflected on my understanding of the GIA and qualified my statement. Rapidly written things on a message board don’t contain all the qualifiers I’d like. If that’s “backpedeling” then so be it, call me a backpeddeler. No skin of my nose.
On the other hand the overall issue of al-Qaeda structure and history and relationship with groups like al-gamaa al-islamiya, the fact that none of these organizations have clear boundries or membership --it’s not like one get a fucking party card-- and the degree to which they all reflect a degree of fluidity leads me to stand by my original statement, as rhetorical as it was.
Eh? The point was on the concept that 3 divisions on the ground represents a massive military buildup. Ah, yes, but you had imported a different idea. Apples and oranges.
Yeah, I feel for you. Sensitive.
Hahah. Now this is amusing. Fragile ego and all that. Flawed human being, well ain’t we all.
I already did. Your obsession with trivialities rather than substance.
Given your inability to argue what is actually said and argued as opposed to your straw men, I seriously doubt that, newbie.
MMMM. Thanks for the insightful and mature analysis. I’m sure your weighty experience will do us all a great deal of good. I’d go on and try to teach you about the applicability of I-Law to this thing but since you seemed to have understood my amigo London about as well as you did me, I guess this is fruitless.
Now, Zenster I think I answered your request elsewhere in re the Taleban leadership.
I have no idea whether the Taliban are on good terms with Satan or not. But, it is clear that the longer this conflict drags on the more innocent civilians the Taliban will kill.
To me, this behavior is a good working definition of “evil,” albeit maybe not “incarnate.” Clearly this constitutes a war crime, and is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
As for the OP, the most important concern is to depose the Taliban. Even the much-maligned (perhaps justifiably) Northern Alliance seems to be a better option than the Taliban. I have little hope regarding changing Taliban minds without resorting to “O’Brien” like torture methods a la Orwell’s 1984.