• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terrorist massacre of children ‘blowback’ from U.S.-backed Pakistani offensive

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,605
Reaction score
26,420
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
https://news.yahoo.com/terrorist-ma...against-taliban--officials-say-230211180.html

The Pakistani Taliban assault on a school — killing 145, including 132 children — appears to be ”blowback” from a months-long Pakistani military offensive against the terror group that was encouraged and supported by the U.S. government, Pakistani and U.S. officials said today.

The Pakistani military launched the offensive last June, killing more than 1,800 militants as well as an unknown number of civilians, in the group’s hideouts in North Waziristan.

There you go. Why did we even get ourselves involved in this?
 
To blame the USA about it is to be naive and ignorant.

The Pakistani govt has been fighting their version of the taliban for a long time now.
Their taliban are afghan nationalists. Or better say, Pashto unionists. A significant part of Pakistan is part of the Pashto etnolinguistic gorup. The primary language of Afghanistan is Pashto. the people of Afghanistan are, well, pashtun. And as I explained above, a significant part of Pakistan is also pashtun. They are a (the largest or 2nd largest) minority in Pakistan as the majority of Pakistanis are, well, indians. Punjabi indians but not hindu but muslims.

The taliban in Pakistan aren't like the taliban in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they are fighting for an islamic state. In pakistan, they are fighting for cultural union because they don't want to be ruled by other people who care little for them.
Not only did the Pakistani govt treat the afghani refugees from the afghan-soviet war horribly, they are treating the pakistani pashtun horribly too.

So be clear. Pakistan is a mess. Right now there is massive civil unrest in the capital for a whole host of reasons. It's an oppressive regime that treats the pashtun, and others, very poorly. Barluchistan, the largest region in Pakistan, is subjected to poor governance, corruption and lack of representation because in Pakistan, the governor of a region is appointed, not elected. The Pashtun of pakistan are therefore very angry and rightfully so.

It's easy and also stupid, to blame the USA for everything wrong in the world, especially for this. A pakistani official said the USA encouraged them to be aggressive towards their taliban. So what? Who told them to be stupid about it? The pakistani govt isn't fighting a war, it's fighting a civil war and when fighting a civil war, you need to be clear what your objective is. And in the case of the Pakistani govt is to exterminate the will and identity of the pashtun people. And they've been doing it for decades, it's not something new.

So yes, this is a long reply but it's to point out the stupidity of the media. "Journalists" who know little or nothing about what they're writing about so they just wanna pin the blame on something "progressive" losers can masturbate to while self-flagellating themselves.
 
So I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility. Could you change your lean to something besides "libertarian" please?
As a libertarian I am against any sort of government involvement in the affairs of other countries. Perhaps you ought to change your lean since youre all for it.
 
To blame the USA about it is to be naive and ignorant.

The Pakistani govt has been fighting their version of the taliban for a long time now.
Their taliban are afghan nationalists. Or better say, Pashto unionists. A significant part of Pakistan is part of the Pashto etnolinguistic gorup. The primary language of Afghanistan is Pashto. the people of Afghanistan are, well, pashtun. And as I explained above, a significant part of Pakistan is also pashtun. They are a (the largest or 2nd largest) minority in Pakistan as the majority of Pakistanis are, well, indians. Punjabi indians but not hindu but muslims.

The taliban in Pakistan aren't like the taliban in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they are fighting for an islamic state. In pakistan, they are fighting for cultural union because they don't want to be ruled by other people who care little for them.
Not only did the Pakistani govt treat the afghani refugees from the afghan-soviet war horribly, they are treating the pakistani pashtun horribly too.

So be clear. Pakistan is a mess. Right now there is massive civil unrest in the capital for a whole host of reasons. It's an oppressive regime that treats the pashtun, and others, very poorly. Barluchistan, the largest region in Pakistan, is subjected to poor governance, corruption and lack of representation because in Pakistan, the governor of a region is appointed, not elected. The Pashtun of pakistan are therefore very angry and rightfully so.

It's easy and also stupid, to blame the USA for everything wrong in the world, especially for this. A pakistani official said the USA encouraged them to be aggressive towards their taliban. So what? Who told them to be stupid about it? The pakistani govt isn't fighting a war, it's fighting a civil war and when fighting a civil war, you need to be clear what your objective is. And in the case of the Pakistani govt is to exterminate the will and identity of the pashtun people. And they've been doing it for decades, it's not something new.

So yes, this is a long reply but it's to point out the stupidity of the media. "Journalists" who know little or nothing about what they're writing about so they just wanna pin the blame on something "progressive" losers can masturbate to while self-flagellating themselves.

Wars cost money and the fact that the Obama administration is actively encouraging the Pakistan government to do this and is supporting them means the blame definitely lies with our government- this is why terrorism is on the rise all over the world.
 
As a libertarian I am against any sort of government involvement in the affairs of other countries. Perhaps you ought to change your lean since youre all for it.

Choosing to blame those responsible makes one an interventionist?
 
As a libertarian I am against any sort of government involvement in the affairs of other countries. Perhaps you ought to change your lean since youre all for it.

"Libertarian" is not a synonym for "isolationist."
 
Wars cost money and the fact that the Obama administration is actively encouraging the Pakistan government to do this and is supporting them means the blame definitely lies with our government- this is why terrorism is on the rise all over the world.

Why shouldn't the Obama administration encourage the Pakistani government to fight the Taliban? While the Pakistani government is not the "good guys" by ANY stretch of the imagination, the Taliban are horrible, horrible people.
 
So I see you're not a fan of personal responsibility. Could you change your lean to something besides "libertarian" please?

governments have collective responsibility
 
Choosing to blame those responsible makes one an interventionist?
So when the US government dispatches billions in military aid to Pakistan and encourages their ethnic cleansing of other peoples in the region all is non-interventionist to you?

Why shouldn't the Obama administration encourage the Pakistani government to fight the Taliban? While the Pakistani government is not the "good guys" by ANY stretch of the imagination, the Taliban are horrible, horrible people.

Choosing a side in a civil war in which we have no business to be a part of does not make us any better, in fact, it encourages reprisal attacks against us.
 
Wars cost money and the fact that the Obama administration is actively encouraging the Pakistan government to do this and is supporting them means the blame definitely lies with our government- this is why terrorism is on the rise all over the world.

What would you like the obama administration to do?
And btw, the pakistanis have been killing the talibans for decades now. It's not something that they just started doing, they've been at it for decades. As I said above, the pakistani talibans are pashto unionists, they want for the pashtun dominated regions to be united with Afghanistan because they're one people. And the pakistani majority, which is indian and muslim, are not making any compromise.

The pashtun dominated regions like Barluchsitan is under appointed governorship by Islamabad. In other words, they, the pashtun can't even vote for their governor for their region. It's like if you lived in california and Obama appointed the political leadership, governor and legislative assembly, in California and the californian people would have 0 say in it. That's not giving people representation, it's tyranny. What would you like the pashtun in pakistan to do? Shut up and take it? Ofc they're rebel. And that's what the pakistani talibans are, pashtun people who want to not be under the tyranny of a punjabi-dominated political class that basically ****s all over them. I think you didnt' read what I wrote and just replied like an automaton, otherwise I can't imagine why you would make such statements.

Why shouldn't the Obama administration encourage the Pakistani government to fight the Taliban? While the Pakistani government is not the "good guys" by ANY stretch of the imagination, the Taliban are horrible, horrible people.

the taliban in pakistan aren't the same as the taliban in afghanistan. They're fighting for different reasons. Read comment #2.
 
Choosing a side in a civil war in which we have no business to be a part of does not make us any better, in fact, it encourages reprisal attacks against us.

I wouldn't say we had no business being a part of it. I hate playing the 9/11 card, but the Taliban DID harbor OBL and DID give safe haven to AQ. Now, we could have done about this much better (I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that), and given that Pakistan is a nuclear state, it is in the United States' best interests that the powers that be in Pakistan remain so, rather than have the Taliban, perish the thought, WIN that debacle.
 
the taliban in pakistan aren't the same as the taliban in afghanistan. They're fighting for different reasons. Read comment #2.

Are you comfortable with the Taliban in Pakistan having their hands on nuclear armaments?

EDIT: Yeah, I might want to rethink that last statement
 
"Libertarian" is not a synonym for "isolationist."

Platform | Libertarian Party

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

I wouldn't say we had no business being a part of it. I hate playing the 9/11 card, but the Taliban DID harbor OBL and DID give safe haven to AQ. Now, we could have done about this much better (I don't think any reasonable person can disagree with that), and given that Pakistan is a nuclear state, it is in the United States' best interests that the powers that be in Pakistan remain so, rather than have the Taliban, perish the thought, WIN that debacle.

By choosing sides, we are encouraging more Taliban recruitment to be used against us. If we didnt take any sides, there would be no reason for the Taliban to retaliate against us. The US is not the policeman of the world.
 
slimpic.jpg


The Pakistani government has identified Umar Mansoor (above, a/k/a Slim) as the mastermind of the school attack. The bloody attack in Peshawar killed many of the sons of Pakistani Army officers. Army Gen. Raheel Sharif said Pakistan will re-introduce hanging for terrorism crimes with no appeal allowed. Death warrants have been issued for six men so far.
 
The fact that the Taliban is capable of such atrocities is the very reason why we and all other western powers should encourage governments in the Middle East to stamp these roaches out with brutal force. Just more hippie ****bag apologism.
 
So when the US government dispatches billions in military aid to Pakistan and encourages their ethnic cleansing of other peoples in the region all is non-interventionist to you?

Ethnic cleansing? Is the Taliban an ethnicity now in Oceania?

Choosing a side in a civil war in which we have no business to be a part of does not make us any better, in fact, it encourages reprisal attacks against us.

Yes, yes it most certainly does make us better than those who carry out the attacks. The usefulness and moral superiority of your "none of our business" foreign policy pretty much ends outside AynRandville.
 
The taliban in Pakistan aren't like the taliban in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they are fighting for an islamic state. In pakistan, they are fighting for cultural union because they don't want to be ruled by other people who care little for them.
Incorrect. The Pakistani taliban has claimed allegiance to both the Afghani taliban and the Islamic State, and has pledged to aid in reaching both goals.

Pakistani Taliban leaders pledge allegiance to Islamic State - The Washington Post
 
https://news.yahoo.com/terrorist-ma...against-taliban--officials-say-230211180.html

The Pakistani Taliban assault on a school — killing 145, including 132 children — appears to be ”blowback” from a months-long Pakistani military offensive against the terror group that was encouraged and supported by the U.S. government, Pakistani and U.S. officials said today.

The Pakistani military launched the offensive last June, killing more than 1,800 militants as well as an unknown number of civilians, in the group’s hideouts in North Waziristan.

There you go. Why did we even get ourselves involved in this?

This is going to be a tough call to suggest that the US is responsible as the article suggests, but I tend to agree with you that our long term participation in this cannot be ignored. The bigger issue here is how we handle "encouragement" of these nations to handle their own problems. That should be our goal. We know from the US lengthy war in Afghanistan that at some point the Taliban has to be minimized else there will be continued issue in the region for whoever is in charge. This is not new. The current Afghanistan government will have to contend with this on their side of the fence, and so will the Pakistan government on the other side.

We cannot unring this bell now given our lengthy involvement in the region. It is going to take time to undo this as it is way to simplistic to say the school massacre is a result of Pakistan government action against the Taliban at our insistence. I would offer that this ideological fight has been going on for decades, and they seem to be perfectly willing to kill themselves with or without our involvement.
 
Incorrect. The Pakistani taliban has claimed allegiance to both the Afghani taliban and the Islamic State, and has pledged to aid in reaching both goals.

Pakistani Taliban leaders pledge allegiance to Islamic State - The Washington Post

Because they're trying to unite their people into a single country. And nobody is on their side. The pakistani taliban want union for all pashtun people and if nobody is there to help them achieve it, they'll find allies in those that have the same enemies or perceived enemies as they do.

Also, the pakistani talibans are, just like the taliban, a plurality of groups all lead by loosely associated leaders. And a lot of people just... do stuff. Things like, 6 friends get together and talk about how angry they are that the islamabad-driven regime has put X or said Y or did Z or something to their people and they decide to take matters in their own hands and that's how you get them having weapons and going in to shoot some police officers or whatever. It's ad-hoc guerilla warfare because it's not about faction Taliban vs faction Pakistan. It's people of pashtun origins who are driven to anger and hate by a regime that disconsiders them against said regime.

Are you comfortable with the Taliban in Pakistan having their hands on nuclear armaments?

EDIT: Yeah, I might want to rethink that last statement

I'm not comfortable with Pakistan having nuclear armaments. I wouldn't be with the taliban having them either. But India has nukes so therefore Pakistan must have nukes. And you can't take their nukes without taking China's nukes away... and good luck with that. It's at least 30 years too late for that.

The point isn't to defend either side, it's to understand what is happening in Pakistan. In case you didn't understand what post #2 and the prev comment was about, it wasn't about me being partisan, it's about you guys being partisan and not understanding the situation. How can you have an opinion, or say a certain thing, or support that puff piece of journalism that the OP posted without understanding the situation.

Right now, Pakistan is facing a civil crisis. Taliban, mass riots and protests, there is a lot of civil strife and the current regime is doing poorly. And yes, it is a nuclear power we're talking about which makes understanding, UNDERSTANDING not taking sides, not being partisan, but understanding what is happening in Pakistan all the more important.
 
I'm not comfortable with Pakistan having nuclear armaments. I wouldn't be with the taliban having them either. But India has nukes so therefore Pakistan must have nukes.

Because a democracy with human rights has nukes, a totalitarian backwards ****hole must have them as well? That's like saying because responsible people have guns, insane people must also have a guns. What sense does your position make. Beside, if the Indian government took control of Pakistan, Pakistanis would be far better off.

So, why does India having nukes necessitate Pakistan having them?
 
Because a democracy with human rights has nukes, a totalitarian backwards ****hole must have them as well? That's like saying because responsible people have guns, insane people must also have a guns. What sense does your position make. Beside, if the Indian government took control of Pakistan, Pakistanis would be far better off.

So, why does India having nukes necessitate Pakistan having them?

Doh:

Pakistan broke away from India when the British finally ended their cololonial rule. Pakistan was created to fulfill the condition that India's Muslim population have a homeland of their own.
 
Doh:

Pakistan broke away from India when the British finally ended their cololonial rule. Pakistan was created to fulfill the condition that India's Muslim population have a homeland of their own.

Everyone knows the basic history of Pakistan. Who cares? Pakistan is a piece of garbage and India is no threat to it today. In fact, India conquering Pakistan would be good for everyone including Pakistanis. So why must a backwards ****hole have nukes?
 
Back
Top Bottom