Let’s rise against the war crimes of US and its fundamentalist lackeys!

[grey boy 2]

"White Supremacists around the globe should REPENT their EVIL DEEDS."

Prove we intend to target these misfortunates. Prove that these actions haven't been an abiding concern that has our full and undivided attention...

...because, you racist POS, I can EASILY prove the intended targeting of these same unfortunates by your muslim islamo-fascists-

The Human Cost: The Consequences Of Insurgent Attacks In Afghanistan- HRW

Or here-

Afghan Conflict Monitor- Human Security Report Project

"UNAMA recorded 800 civilian casualties between January and May 2009, mostly in the south, south-east and eastern regions of the country. This represents an increase of 24 per cent over the same period in 2008, when 646 civilians were killed. According to UNAMA figures, 55 per cent of these deaths were caused by anti-Government elements and 33 per cent by international and Afghan forces (the remaining 12 per cent could not be attributed to any of the parties to the conflict)."

What explains intentionally attacking girls with acid?

Now go and suppress some Uighars or Tibetans.

Shameless response!!

Your army men kill some innocent people, is it a fact? who care what were thier intention. Atleast you can do is to show respect to the innocent deaths by shut the hell up!!!

talking about suppessing people, in order for us to be sucessful, may be we should take a few lessons from USA, since you guys are master in suppressing your own natives indians:angry

 

[Patriot]

I don't support Talibans or US Army but you know it's really funny how Americans show atorcities commited by Talibans as huge crime while the damage done by US Army is called colletrial damage which is far far more then what Talibans have done.Actually IMHO US might have won Afghanistan if that idiot G W Bush had not started Iraq War which gave rise to Anti Americanism in Muslim countries.There is no doubt that US will negotiate with Talibans sooner or later..it's only matter of time.

 

[Thomas]

Shameless response!!

Your army men kill some innocent people, is it a fact? who care what were thier intention. Atleast you can do is to show respect to the innocent deaths by shut the hell up!!!

talking about suppessing people, in order for us to be sucessful, may be we should take a few lessons from USA, since you guys are master in suppressing your own natives indians:angry

War is a horrible thing with Innocents dieing for no good reason. All sides are responsible for this. Heck people even get killed by their own side from friendly fire. I think what some have tried to point out though is there is a difference of deliberately targeting civilians and those that die from collateral damage. Unlike the Taliban the U.S. never targets civilians deliberately. if Civilians die it is because the Taliban uses them as shields or as has happened in Afghanistan faulty intelligence is given by people that have tribal feuds to settle. The U.S. is at fault for not properly verifying intelligence given to it. This has started to change with the new Afghanistan commander. At the same time the Taliban need to stop using civilians as human shields. They in effect are trying to create as many civilian casualties as they can with this tactic. and who is to say that didn't happen with the child in the picture.

 

[Thomas]

I don't support Talibans or US Army but you know it's really funny how Americans show atorcities commited by Talibans as huge crime while the damage done by US Army is called colletrial damage which is far far more then what Talibans have done.Actually IMHO US might have won Afghanistan if that idiot G W Bush had not started Iraq War which gave rise to Anti Americanism in Muslim countries.There is no doubt that US will negotiate with Talibans sooner or later..it's only matter of time.

tell that to the thousands that have died in the tribal areas because of the Taliban.

here is a interesting article all should read

 

[Patriot]

tell that to the thousands that have died in the tribal areas because of the Taliban.

Well.You can't win insurgency through force only.You have to either negotiate or buy your enemy (which is what you guys did in Iraq)...

 

[Durran3]

White Supremacists around the globe should REPENT their EVIL DEEDS.

Dubious claim to say the least! The word racism in today's world is just thrown like a 1 dollar bill around every action that you don't agree with. Now a days anyone who advocates a ban on theocracy (a mere opinion) is labeled as a Racist. The word racist has been hijacked and abused by the silly multicultural hippies and quiet frankly deserves an apology to the victims who have been affected by 'genuine' racism who have actually suffered simply because of the color of their skin or where they happen to come from and is being devalued every time by people like you who use it against religion.

 

[muse]

S2

There you go with your peculiar sense of absolutism. Despite the ISI's pathetic attempts to mentor your taliban proteges in the past, last I checked your government still maintains four consulates and one embassy-exactly the same as India, in Afghanistan. Please explain your legitimate interests that are so impeded by us in a "free and independant" Afghanistan, if you wouldn't mind?

...unless Pakistan expects something above and beyond the rest of mankind WRT Afghanistan as "legitimate"...

...you know, like dominate its political milieu with a bunch of islamo-fascist "loons" that you've stayed in bed with all these many years since 9/11.

If so, mankind can't afford to permit you a second go. It will likely result in more of the same for the rest of us.

Now that you imagine the US speaks for "mankind", I suppose those who disagree with US policy had find a different group to belong to.

Look, let me set some of the the primary problem with the outlook of US policy makers and security personnel when thinking about Pakistani interests in Afghanistan:

1. Pakistani policy is not about Islam-ism as a End, Afghanistan fits into Pakistani policy for two reasons:

a. Security - Pakistan shares not just cultural heritage, but a border with Afghanistan, the security of Afghanistan is the security of Pakistan -- While no Pakistani policy maker is going to articulate it publicly, by for instance suggesting that it is in "vital interest" because that would mean saying publicly that they would defend this against all, which in this case will mean the US and therefore not practical, nonetheless, the Pakistani security establishment considers it just that.

Now, we can have any multiplicity of views regarding this, it does not change the fact that it is as has been described.

b. Trade (Especially Energy supply) Unimpeded access to Central Asia is again, a "vital interest" and it has not been articulated as such for exactly the same reasons as above.

By it's actions and in particular the hostile propaganda against Pakistan, presented by Radio Liberty (out of Czechoslovakia) and by others, including a major US facility in Kabul (no, I will not identify it) , US policy makers continue express a rebellion against the reality of Pakistan in Afghanistan. And while this is regrettable, the promotion of interests of other regional players, itself speaks volumes regarding US determination to create a environment more in accord to it's vision, rather than a reflection of the strategic reality of Pakistani interests.

2. Your point about Indian consulates is interesting, you imagine some sort fair play when you suggest the number of consulates, as a reflection of "equality" in the interests -- please refer to our point number 1. Indian interests are best served by the two points offered above, however; if the interests of India are best served by skewing the security of Pakistan and it's access to Central Asia, then clearly, our point about US policy makers determination to change strategic reality is further strengthened - as allegations of terror training camps in US controlled Afghanistan, run by Indians, suggests.

3. Your point about Islamo-fascist" lunes is taken - but there is no point to the pot calling the kettle black - Pakistan and the US used Islam-ism as a Vehicle of policy - just that, as a vehicle of policy - Pakistan continued to use this vehicle after the US abandoned this vehicle - this is fact - however; the important point here is that it was a vehicle, a means, and not an end -- the policy is, was, will remain, security for Pakistan as equal to security for Afghanistan, trade, access to central Asia and energy supplies, as a net positive for Afghanistan and an imperative for Pakistan.

I would put it you that US policy makers (those ascendant presently anyway) by not recognizing the reality of the strategic interest of Pakistan and by promoting interests antagonistic to these, bring harm to the intended goal of a stable Afghanistan.

See, beyond the emotionally satisfying stuff about being in Afghanistan to be rid of AQ and by extension the Talib, the effort in strategic terms is not about Afghanistan, it's about Pakistan.

Few will argue that Islam-ism still has credibility and therefore utility for Pakistan, and so this "vehicle" has lost it's utility and good riddance, however; Pakistani strategic interests remain - as does the inability of US policy makers to understand that had these interests been respected to begin with, the effort against AQ and Talib may have been more successful.


AND what is this about:

I REALLY rather doubt so. I'm sorry but you stretch the bounds of your credibility here as, naturally, you won't be able to offer names of such (to protect the not-so-innocent)

That's a bit on the uncivil side, rather personal - lets avoid going there. We are better served by discussing ideas.

 

[Thomas]

Well.You can't win insurgency through force only.You have to either negotiate or buy your enemy (which is what you guys did in Iraq)...

That is true you can't. One improvement in Afghanistan is they replaced the U.S. commander with someone that actually has a special operations background. Understands this type of war and how to fight it. However mistakes will be made in the future no matter who commands. No army in the history of the world fighting a major campaign is immune from them. The issue is do you learn from them and adapt.

 

[Slides]

The US needs a whole lot more troops in Afghanistan before it can think of truly winning.

 

[S-2]

I'll remind you of this comment. It merits exploration in light of your interesting reply

."US policy seems determined to deny that Pakistan have any legitimate interests in Afghanistan..."

Nowhere in your following comments does that word appear again. I see "vital interests". I see "strategic interests". I don't see "legitimate interests".

A nicely subtle shift in your rhetoric.

"Pakistani policy is not about Islam-ism as a End, Afghanistan fits into Pakistani policy for two reasons..."

Better let your good proxies in the west know so. They imagine otherwise. Of course, when they realize the duplicity by which they've been manipulated by their Pakistani controllers, there may be some additional blowback- like all the good taliban suddenly becoming bad.

"Security - Pakistan shares not just cultural heritage, but a border with Afghanistan..."

Indeed. You share long borders with the PRC, India, and Iran as well. Many nations share long borders. America and Canada have an exceedingly long border where we do daily battle with the infiltration of those insidious Canucks and their odd socialist ideas.

Afghanistan, in turn, shares long borders with others as well. There's nothing special in your borders. As to your culture- honestly, Muse, it's really only the Pashtu culture that you give a demonstrated whit about.

"...that would mean saying publicly that they would defend this against all, which in this case will mean the US and therefore not practical, nonetheless, the Pakistani security establishment considers it just that."

Stunning.

How about focusing on defending the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan from itself? Your efforts to defend Afghanistan from all since 2002, something "no Pakistani policy maker is going to articulate [it] publicly..." interferes with the mandate ascribed by the U.N. and implemented by ISAF & friends.

Worse, doing so through your good taliban proxies has nicely contaminated the local social milieu of the tribes. You acquiesced to the infection now faced in your hills. Blowback.

It would seem, again, that Pakistan is the problem, sir.

I only wish my government would call an enemy an enemy for comments such as yours above. Too much treasure and blood by too many nations to accept your perspectives as legitimate much less vital to the rest of us. Indeed, if these are so, they should be rejected at every turn.

"Unimpeded access to Central Asia is again, a "vital interest" and it has not been articulated as such for exactly the same reasons as above."

No doubt that access shall improve immeasurably just as soon as trucks aren't high-jacked or blown up anywhere between Peshawar and Mazur-I-Sharif. Maybe eliminating your support for your good taliban dogs and their associates would allow those trucks to flow.

Until THAT changes, it really doesn't matter whether Afghanistan wishes to prevent your goods and CAR energy to transit their lands. Given your sponsorship of those creating these ills, it's akin to Pakistan shooting itself in the foot...again.

Any number of nations await the development of Afghanistan as a distribution and transit hub for goods and energy to a myriad of locations. Development of such is beyond your meagre means. Your efforts only impede your ultimate objectives- at least as stated by you here.

Best leave it to those with the capital and wherewithall to do so- like Europe, America, Japan, PRC, India...YIKES!!!

Did I say...? No wonder this follows by you-

"...the interests of India are best served by skewing the security of Pakistan..."

Such a zero-sum perspective. Win-lose all the way and hardly proven by this-

"...then clearly, our point about US policy makers determination to change strategic reality is further strengthened - as allegations of terror training camps in US controlled Afghanistan, run by Indians, suggests..."

Of course. "US controlled", eh? Actually, your points about these "camps" and more- all directed at poor, pitiful Pakistan from US controlled Afghanistan has rather worn thin.

Just no substance. Allegations.

"Your point about Islamo-fascist" lunes is taken - but there is no point to the pot calling the kettle black - Pakistan and the US used Islam-ism as a Vehicle of policy - just that, as a vehicle of policy"

You have "personalized" this narrative for too long, sir. The PRC, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states also used that vehicle. It saw it's purpose through and we abandoned it rather quickly. Clear enough by our unpreparedness to follow the lead of the KSA, UAE and yourselves in recognizing the Taliban government.

"...Pakistan continued to use this vehicle after the US abandoned this vehicle..."

The greatest mistake of your country's modern history. Pray that Pakistan ceases doing so before it destroys itself from within or is destroyed by others from without.

"...the policy is, was, will remain, security for Pakistan as equal to security for Afghanistan..."

Under your defined vehicles of implementing such "security" these objectives are utterly unacceptable were they openly espoused by the GoP. Thus the term "proxies". Nonetheless, open war with you is counter-productive to our end goal so we'll simply stymie this insidious interference in the sovereign affairs of others at every possible turn...

...doing so always with words of praise and a smile on our faces for your "contributions and efforts" against a select portion of these beasts.

"...trade, access to central Asia and energy supplies, as a net positive for Afghanistan and an imperative for Pakistan."

If such an imperative then improve your policies. Sponsoring proxy armies against a sovereign neighbor is a Diplomacy 101 no-no.

"...AND what is this about..."

Making points that are unassailable when you won't reveal your sources-critical to the point you've made- nor do I know who YOU are such that those sources should be considered relevant.

Rather shuts matters down when I can easily, instead, point to a myriad of publically-rendered comments by the most SENIOR U.S. policy-makers, none of which have suggested that we wish to interfere with your "LEGITIMATE" interests in Afghanistan.

Now you've done it again with your radio nonsense about spewing anti-Pakistani propaganda.

"By it's actions and in particular the hostile propaganda against Pakistan, presented by Radio Liberty (out of Czechoslovakia) and by others, including a major US facility in Kabul (no, I will not identify it) , US policy makers continue express a rebellion against the reality of Pakistan in Afghanistan. And while this is regrettable, the promotion of interests of other regional players, itself speaks volumes regarding US determination to create a environment more in accord to it's vision, rather than a reflection of the strategic reality of Pakistani interests."

Should grab you three or four "thank you's" right there.

You've lost me, though.

A "free and independant" Afghanistan- right?

Hardly.