Pakistan orders troops to open fire if U.S. raids

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Smack, there is a big big difference between not well liked and despised riviled loathed and hated. The tribes and the Pak Army agree fully about Uncle Sam.

When an army is afraid to enter the tribal regions or anywhere in their own country... they are not afraid of being yelled at...they're afraid of getting killed. I would say they were loathed.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Oh yes you would Smack, the first wedding party vapourized in your nieghbourhood by the Pak Airforce and you'd be there in spades.

The "I wouldn't go that far" post was in response to the "bagpipes, banners blazing, and Canadians dying by the hundreds of thousands." I wouldn't go that far. Colorful but you need to have some basis of fact behind statements such as this. But then again... you are DarkBeaver and need not be bothered by those things.

Wedding parties are our favorite target if you haven't noticed. We always seem to be hitting wedding receptions.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Probably the cultural habit of firing guns into the air at weddings.

It would probably help if they stopped doing that for awhile.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The "I wouldn't go that far" post was in response to the "bagpipes, banners blazing, and Canadians dying by the hundreds of thousands." I wouldn't go that far. Colorful but you need to have some basis of fact behind statements such as this. But then again... you are DarkBeaver and need not be bothered by those things.

Wedding parties are our favorite target if you haven't noticed. We always seem to be hitting wedding receptions.

Hey Smack we were in both big Wars before America and we died by the hundreds of thousands stopping machine gun bullets and various other chunks of cheap steel. Where is your problem with those facts? Don't make us come down thier and prove how stupid we are.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Yep, sovereign nation, who is the US or anyone else to tell them how to celebrate OR face dire consequences? (in their own country BTW- that's like saying I was psychotic and ready to snap so my neighbors should not leave their house for a while or I might just kill them- SAME thing)

Seems the US needs to get busted a few more pegs down, WAY too big for their britches if they support that idiotic attitude
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Hey Smack we were in both big Wars before America and we died by the hundreds of thousands stopping machine gun bullets and various other chunks of cheap steel. Where is your problem with those facts? Don't make us come down thier and prove how stupid we are.

Yawn. How many times do we have to go over this? Canadians were not fully engaged until 1943. They listed their first infantryman killed in 1942...after Pearl Harbor. Sure there was a pilot here and there flying in British Squadrons but there were Americans there as well.

I would LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE for you to come down here!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Yep, sovereign nation, who is the US or anyone else to tell them how to celebrate OR face dire consequences? (in their own country BTW- that's like saying I was psychotic and ready to snap so my neighbors should not leave their house for a while or I might just kill them- SAME thing)

Seems the US needs to get busted a few more pegs down, WAY too big for their britches if they support that idiotic attitude

We LOVE our positive attitude. Who are you to say how we should feel? We are a sovreign nation and THATS how we feel. Perhaps you could learn from us.

Terrorists your game is through...
And now you have to answer to...
AMERICA
F* YEAH
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Yawn. How many times do we have to go over this? Canadians were not fully engaged until 1943. They listed their first infantryman killed in 1942...after Pearl Harbor. Sure there was a pilot here and there flying in British Squadrons but there were Americans there as well.

I would LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE for you to come down here!

No you wouldn't.Panzy:lol:
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
We LOVE our positive attitude. Who are you to say how we should feel? We are a sovreign nation and THATS how we feel. Perhaps you could learn from us.

Terrorists your game is through...
And now you have to answer to...
AMERICA
F* YEAH

Terrorists have nothing to worry about, these twits can't even handle thier bankers.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
HAHA totally content to bully and tell other SOVEREIGN NATIONS how they should behave within their own borders. So you're admitting that the US is an a$$hole on a grand scale??

You must excuse the rest of the globe for being happy to close the book on the failed experiment called the USA, maybe as a loose collection of city states the global menace aspect can be toned down and the GOOD people of the territory can live out their lives in peace, free from terror brought by the ridiculous policies of the WORST system of government on earth as far as long-term survival of our species goes

I hope you know, ES, that most of the USonians I know are ashamed of people like you and attitudes such as those you put forward
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
<shrug>. So how would you interpret that statement?

In a rare public statement last week, Kayani said Pakistan's sovereignty would be defended "at all cost." Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which is skeptical of American goals in the region and harbors sympathy for rebels fighting in the name of Islam.

"Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion," Abbas said. "The army is also an extension of the public and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions."


Seems pretty clear to me. "The public supports the rebels fighting in the name of Islam (Taliban) and we're out to satisfy the public. Ergo, we support the Taliban."

I don't know where you see controversy in my translation. I'm interested.

Unless you want to blanket the entire population of Pakistan as Taliban, then you're wrong in your reading.

Let's break it down shall we?

In a rare public statement last week, Kayani said Pakistan's sovereignty would be defended "at all cost."

^ Which means to me that they don't like other countries stepping in on their turf, that their people expect them to do.

As an example, I sure would expect Canadian forces to defend me and kill the idiots who decide to send their troops accross our borders without our approval. The US is running through their borders, shooting on their land, and perhaps they are killing their targets, but they are also killing thier own people.... people who were in the area of the attack and probably had nothing to do with the Taliban.... much like the Afghans who are killed by the US in air strikes.

They will not allow any forign troops into their country, and they will take care of their own problems.

It would be no different then Canada having some internal problem, and the US just waltzing over our borders to kill the people they want..... there are borders for a reason.

Abbas said Pakistani officials had to consider public opinion, which is skeptical of American goals in the region and harbors sympathy for rebels fighting in the name of Islam.

The people are who should be running the government, not the government running the people. If not, then it's not really a democracy now is it? Public opinion, be that taliban support, or mostly just regular folk who support their government..... none of them was the US or any other forign country fighting and perhaps close to patrolling their streets, like what's going on in Iraq.

I sure as hell wouldn't put up with US troops and tanks rolling around downtown Halifax, you wouldn't want any nation doing what you feel your own country is capable of doing themselves.

They have sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean they support them. One can have one without the other. And when you continually hear of civilizians being killed..... usually in the double digits, all for one Taliban leader..... that's just sick, I don't care who you're fighting..... it could be Hitler's Zombie come back from the dead, there are other ways of dealing with the situation without having to kill piles of civilians, just to take out one guy.....

That's inhuman, it's overkill, and it does little for drumming up support for your cause from those you are killing.

They claim they're harboring them, or that they shouldn't allow these "Terrorists" to come back into their villages?

Well if you take the damn troops & police and leave for another location, how the hell are they supposed to defend themselves and say no? Then they go back to the allies, tell them the "Terrorists" came back to their village and need help.... the US air strikes and kills everyone....... how the hell is that helping them?

No wonder why they have sympathy..... The people who are supposed to be helping them, are killing them..... you go for the lesser of two evils..... kinda like politics, only their situation is more serious.

I have sympathy for the civilians who are always stuck in the middle, but does that mean I support what random decisions they may make?

Not to mention, the part which is skeptical of American goals in the region and harbors sympathy for rebels fighting in the name of Islam .... is a thrown in comment by the writer to make a quick rundown of the details.... but none of this is from the words of the people in pakistan. Not only that, but if you read it properly, there are people who are skeptical, and people who harbour sympathy, there are people who also support, and some who fight..... but this description is not an absolute, nor does it give any information on how much of the population thinks one or the other.... or both.

I imagine, based on many reports I've read in recent, many do not support terrorists of any kind as they harm everyone, but they probably still wouldn't want forign troops into their country. As stated before, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan.... do you think they want their nation like that?

If that happens in Pakistan and they become detabilized, what security would be still in place for their nukes? Who could get ahold of them?

The other problem in what is going on right now, is that they now have a new government, who now has to put in their own plans on how to deal with the situation. Everything has been getting worse and worse in the past, right up to today..... why?

This Guy:


He barely did jack squat in the territory.... all the while taking in Billions from the US, while the Taliban seemed to keep getting stronger and stronger after getting pushed to defeat.... how many years ago?

Moving on....

Please look at the public reaction to this kind of adventure or incursion," Abbas said.

^ Please think about what the public of Canada's reaction would be if the US, or Russia, or Iceland started to unload their troops inside Canadian borders. Most Canadians got pissed enough by the US subs popping up out of the waters in our territory up north in 2005.... and before that as well...... imagine if troops and arms started to come onto our land

The reactions would remain very much the same.

"The army is also an extension of the public and you can only satisfy the public when you match your words with your actions."

Their nation and how it and the military is run is done much different then how most of us understand how it works.

Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan

None of this directly means anything in regards to them supporting the Taliban as you said.

Before I finish, let's look at what Support and Sympathy both mean shall we?

sup·port
• To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
• To aid the cause, policy, or interests of
• To argue in favor of; advocate

sym·pa·thy
• A relationship or an affinity between people or things in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.
• Mutual understanding or affection arising from this relationship or affinity.
The act or power of sharing the feelings of another.
• feeling or an expression of pity or sorrow for the distress of another; compassion or commiseration. Often used in the plural. See Synonyms at pity.

To me, there's a difference.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Because Mushy negotiated with them and made a deal, leaving them alone in the tribal areas. As soon as they were strong enough they broke the deal and attacked.

Remember that when you hear suggestions that we should just negotiate a peace with the Taliban.

Surely those sweet boys would never reneg on a deal.

You hit the nail on the head.... the problem is that now this new government, which is starting to crack down on them, and cleaning up Mushead's self made mess, now the US is starting to get involved in another manner, by not giving this new government a chance to do anything about it, doing what they please and killing their people, and now the Pakistani Government is telling them to piss off or die.... they will take care of it themselves.

Let them do their job. Most would say they had their chance, and I say Mushbrains had his chance, and he remained corrupt, called off the elections, did nothing, and now resigned before the new government could do the right thing and impeach that son of a bitch.

Imagine some of the information that would have come out if they did. I don't see why they can't still now.

But they at least look like they're on the right track for their country, and give them time to get their forces in gear under a new command structure, and they can finally help benifit our troops as well.

Is it certain? no.... nothing is, but going in like cowboys and shooting up their people with their remote control airy planes sure as hell not going to solve the problem..... it's only going to fester like a picked scab.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
It's what we Canadians do for our friends Smack, we die in the hundreds of thousands in imperial wars because we are plainly too stupid to start one of our own. If you'all want us to attack in a full frontal charge with bagpipes and banners into blazing machine guns and artillary barrage no problem, you just have to tell us that the Paki's are bayonetting babies and rapeing nuns and fill us with cheap liqour and point us in the general direction and we're off like a herd of turtles. If you want dumber than that you'll have to go to Austrailia.

Dude.....