Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

12/16/2014: 141 children killed

Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:10:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let this day be remembered from today. I do not know if you have heard but Pakistan has faced a terrible tragedy. Terrorists went into a secured school in Peshawar, Pakistan and killed 141 children, facking children, ruthlessly.

These are girls and boys aged six to fourteen. These were innocent children, even now my eyes are tearing up. The terrorists went into the school and started shooting at random. After than another 33 children died in the hospital.

This is a tragedy not for Pakistan or Peshawar but for the world. To think that we have fallen so low, to such a disgusting point that we would now harm children. These people were also human, they could also feel...how do you go about killing a ten year old?

I live in the safest city Lahore, well away, but I know people who've lost their children. These were not poor folk, they were children from all backgrounds. THEY WERE CHILDREN.

I do not know if this is right asking, but if you guys can I would ask to donate even 1$ to any charity for these children. There are numerous NGOs.

That though was not the point, the point is to inform the world of what happened. To tell you of how low we have fallen.
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:22:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:10:30 PM, Ajabi wrote:
Let this day be remembered from today. I do not know if you have heard but Pakistan has faced a terrible tragedy. Terrorists went into a secured school in Peshawar, Pakistan and killed 141 children, facking children, ruthlessly.

These are girls and boys aged six to fourteen. These were innocent children, even now my eyes are tearing up. The terrorists went into the school and started shooting at random. After than another 33 children died in the hospital.

This is a tragedy not for Pakistan or Peshawar but for the world. To think that we have fallen so low, to such a disgusting point that we would now harm children. These people were also human, they could also feel...how do you go about killing a ten year old?

I live in the safest city Lahore, well away, but I know people who've lost their children. These were not poor folk, they were children from all backgrounds. THEY WERE CHILDREN.

I do not know if this is right asking, but if you guys can I would ask to donate even 1$ to any charity for these children. There are numerous NGOs.

That though was not the point, the point is to inform the world of what happened. To tell you of how low we have fallen.

I had heard, it is unspeakably tragic. Words just don't cut it.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:23:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is- I don't have words to describe how I have been feeling since yesterday. That interview of that one parent who found his son dead is haunting.

this is actually good advice. Donation would be helpful.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
6-14 ages

So 141 Revs basically died. In that case, it's not that big of a loss. ;D

This is insane, though. I would love to donate, but I'm only thirteen...I'll be praying for the families. Although they might not (probably won't) be Christian. O.o
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Politics section
------------------->
This way

News section
<--------------------
That way
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:34:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know so many people have died in the war already, but you're right that this seems especially horrible and sad. :(
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:44:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:34:29 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I know so many people have died in the war already, but you're right that this seems especially horrible and sad. :(

One of the parent was interviewed just after he discovered his son was dead. Which is obviously horrible in itself, but still in shock and through tears, he remarks "A parent nurtures his child for 20 years, and they didn't even take 20 minutes to kill him."

it literally broke me
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:14:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:39:26 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:33:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Politics section
------------------->
This way

News section
<--------------------
That way

I think you missed a few:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

None of those are politics or news, so my signs don't work on them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:15:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:33:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Politics section
------------------->
This way

News section
<--------------------
That way
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 12:38:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:10:30 PM, Ajabi wrote:
Let this day be remembered from today. I do not know if you have heard but Pakistan has faced a terrible tragedy. Terrorists went into a secured school in Peshawar, Pakistan and killed 141 children, facking children, ruthlessly.

These are girls and boys aged six to fourteen. These were innocent children, even now my eyes are tearing up. The terrorists went into the school and started shooting at random. After than another 33 children died in the hospital.

This is a tragedy not for Pakistan or Peshawar but for the world. To think that we have fallen so low, to such a disgusting point that we would now harm children. These people were also human, they could also feel...how do you go about killing a ten year old?

I live in the safest city Lahore, well away, but I know people who've lost their children. These were not poor folk, they were children from all backgrounds. THEY WERE CHILDREN.

I do not know if this is right asking, but if you guys can I would ask to donate even 1$ to any charity for these children. There are numerous NGOs.

That though was not the point, the point is to inform the world of what happened. To tell you of how low we have fallen.

My thoughts, prayers and hope are with Pakistan, tonight.
Tsar of DDO
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:02:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:33:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Politics section
------------------->
This way

News section
<--------------------
That way
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:31:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

The Taliban just buried themselves. Even the political factions in favor of them have publicly condemned this and are outraged. They went one step too far. You ain't gonna harm our kids.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:33:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:31:51 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

The Taliban just buried themselves. Even the political factions in favor of them have publicly condemned this and are outraged. They went one step too far. You ain't gonna harm our kids.

My understanding is that this is not the first of this kind of attack, and not the first that the Taliban has claimed. What makes this one different?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:36:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:33:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:31:51 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

The Taliban just buried themselves. Even the political factions in favor of them have publicly condemned this and are outraged. They went one step too far. You ain't gonna harm our kids.

My understanding is that this is not the first of this kind of attack, and not the first that the Taliban has claimed. What makes this one different?

Usually children are mostly always spared. If there is a bomb some ten, twelve may die, angering but not this much.
Here we estimate 200 children casualties. Also its not like this was a bomb, these kids were picked and killed on by one infront of camera, and other kids for the fun of it.

have you ever seen a friend's throat being slit? Of course I'm in lahore, but that was too far.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:36:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:36:01 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:33:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:31:51 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

The Taliban just buried themselves. Even the political factions in favor of them have publicly condemned this and are outraged. They went one step too far. You ain't gonna harm our kids.

My understanding is that this is not the first of this kind of attack, and not the first that the Taliban has claimed. What makes this one different?

Usually children are mostly always spared. If there is a bomb some ten, twelve may die, angering but not this much.
Here we estimate 200 children casualties. Also its not like this was a bomb, these kids were picked and killed on by one infront of camera, and other kids for the fun of it.

have you ever seen a friend's throat being slit? Of course I'm in lahore, but that was too far.

Again, this has happened before, yes?

http://www.bbc.com...

What makes this any different?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:38:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

I think this is a key point. Pakistan hasn't spent the resources to get the Taliban out of the Northwest Frontier Province. This isn't as senseless a tragedy as Sandy Hook given that Taliban have killed schoolchildren in the past in Pakistan, disagree with their "Western" education, and have attempted to destabilize southern Afghanistan (e.g. Kandahar), yet the Pakistani government has launched only one partially successful campaign against them. The US has urged the Pakistani government for over a decade to spend more resources on rooting out the Taliban and has offered them military aid to do so, but they refused for the longest time, and have gotten lax since the last military campaign. Sending $1 to an NGO isn't going to solve this problem, which is easier to solve than things like Sandy Hook, where mentally ill people just go nuts one day. The Taliban are a much more solvable problem. The real solution is for people who live in Lahore and other wealthier, safer parts of Pakistan to start paying more attention to the plight of the NWFP.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:38:50 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

I think this is a key point. Pakistan hasn't spent the resources to get the Taliban out of the Northwest Frontier Province. This isn't as senseless a tragedy as Sandy Hook given that Taliban have killed schoolchildren in the past in Pakistan, disagree with their "Western" education, and have attempted to destabilize southern Afghanistan (e.g. Kandahar), yet the Pakistani government has launched only one partially successful campaign against them. The US has urged the Pakistani government for over a decade to spend more resources on rooting out the Taliban and has offered them military aid to do so, but they refused for the longest time, and have gotten lax since the last military campaign. Sending $1 to an NGO isn't going to solve this problem, which is easier to solve than things like Sandy Hook, where mentally ill people just go nuts one day. The Taliban are a much more solvable problem. The real solution is for people who live in Lahore and other wealthier, safer parts of Pakistan to start paying more attention to the plight of the NWFP.

We're actually making very different points. You seem to think that the solution is just for Pakistan to do something, but the article is clear that Pakistan has been trying to do something and failing.

They are failing because the Taliban has local support, even despite tragedies like this. Same goes for other mass "terrorist" movements like ISIL. Why do they have such strong roots? Once you look at it that way and ask such a question, you then discover that this is much, much more difficult to solve than Sandy Hook.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 2:02:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 1:44:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:38:50 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

I think this is a key point. Pakistan hasn't spent the resources to get the Taliban out of the Northwest Frontier Province. This isn't as senseless a tragedy as Sandy Hook given that Taliban have killed schoolchildren in the past in Pakistan, disagree with their "Western" education, and have attempted to destabilize southern Afghanistan (e.g. Kandahar), yet the Pakistani government has launched only one partially successful campaign against them. The US has urged the Pakistani government for over a decade to spend more resources on rooting out the Taliban and has offered them military aid to do so, but they refused for the longest time, and have gotten lax since the last military campaign. Sending $1 to an NGO isn't going to solve this problem, which is easier to solve than things like Sandy Hook, where mentally ill people just go nuts one day. The Taliban are a much more solvable problem. The real solution is for people who live in Lahore and other wealthier, safer parts of Pakistan to start paying more attention to the plight of the NWFP.

We're actually making very different points. You seem to think that the solution is just for Pakistan to do something, but the article is clear that Pakistan has been trying to do something and failing.

They are failing because the Taliban has local support, even despite tragedies like this. Same goes for other mass "terrorist" movements like ISIL. Why do they have such strong roots? Once you look at it that way and ask such a question, you then discover that this is much, much more difficult to solve than Sandy Hook.

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 2:02:15 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:44:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:38:50 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

I think this is a key point. Pakistan hasn't spent the resources to get the Taliban out of the Northwest Frontier Province. This isn't as senseless a tragedy as Sandy Hook given that Taliban have killed schoolchildren in the past in Pakistan, disagree with their "Western" education, and have attempted to destabilize southern Afghanistan (e.g. Kandahar), yet the Pakistani government has launched only one partially successful campaign against them. The US has urged the Pakistani government for over a decade to spend more resources on rooting out the Taliban and has offered them military aid to do so, but they refused for the longest time, and have gotten lax since the last military campaign. Sending $1 to an NGO isn't going to solve this problem, which is easier to solve than things like Sandy Hook, where mentally ill people just go nuts one day. The Taliban are a much more solvable problem. The real solution is for people who live in Lahore and other wealthier, safer parts of Pakistan to start paying more attention to the plight of the NWFP.

We're actually making very different points. You seem to think that the solution is just for Pakistan to do something, but the article is clear that Pakistan has been trying to do something and failing.

They are failing because the Taliban has local support, even despite tragedies like this. Same goes for other mass "terrorist" movements like ISIL. Why do they have such strong roots? Once you look at it that way and ask such a question, you then discover that this is much, much more difficult to solve than Sandy Hook.

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:02:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 2:02:15 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:44:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:38:50 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 1:28:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/16/2014 11:11:41 PM, Ajabi wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

What is even more interesting is how difficult it is for Pakistan to actually mobilize against the Taliban. Apparently a lot of people are sympathetic to their cause, meaning that apparently there is a lot of evidence for the Taliban's claim that Pakistani officials are just as brutal and callous in their treatment of their civilian populace.

I think this is a key point. Pakistan hasn't spent the resources to get the Taliban out of the Northwest Frontier Province. This isn't as senseless a tragedy as Sandy Hook given that Taliban have killed schoolchildren in the past in Pakistan, disagree with their "Western" education, and have attempted to destabilize southern Afghanistan (e.g. Kandahar), yet the Pakistani government has launched only one partially successful campaign against them. The US has urged the Pakistani government for over a decade to spend more resources on rooting out the Taliban and has offered them military aid to do so, but they refused for the longest time, and have gotten lax since the last military campaign. Sending $1 to an NGO isn't going to solve this problem, which is easier to solve than things like Sandy Hook, where mentally ill people just go nuts one day. The Taliban are a much more solvable problem. The real solution is for people who live in Lahore and other wealthier, safer parts of Pakistan to start paying more attention to the plight of the NWFP.

We're actually making very different points. You seem to think that the solution is just for Pakistan to do something, but the article is clear that Pakistan has been trying to do something and failing.

They are failing because the Taliban has local support, even despite tragedies like this. Same goes for other mass "terrorist" movements like ISIL. Why do they have such strong roots? Once you look at it that way and ask such a question, you then discover that this is much, much more difficult to solve than Sandy Hook.

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?

no
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:05:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?

I was pretty clear. Pakistan needs to devote the resources to implement COIN strategies to fight the Taliban. It's not the United States' problem anymore, since we drew down from Afghanistan. We'd probably be willing to offer them military aid (i.e. money) still though, if they were willing to devote more resources to fight the Taliban.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:28:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:05:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?

I was pretty clear. Pakistan needs to devote the resources to implement COIN strategies to fight the Taliban. It's not the United States' problem anymore, since we drew down from Afghanistan. We'd probably be willing to offer them military aid (i.e. money) still though, if they were willing to devote more resources to fight the Taliban.

The thing is though you use the example of US invading Afghanistan to support your point. That's easy for the US to do, because not only is the US wealthy, the US does not need to recruit from the Afghan populace to fuel our own military. It's much, much harder for indigenous groups to do the same, to include governing bodies.

If Pakistan could actually provide basic services for its populace, wouldn't you think they would have done it already? Or perhaps a country with a per capita GDP of under $1500 (less than 5% of the US per capita GDP) has problems doing this? Perhaps a government that cannot provide basic services for its own people does not deserve to govern. Perhaps this is what is fueling support for groups like the Taliban.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:31:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:28:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 3:05:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?

I was pretty clear. Pakistan needs to devote the resources to implement COIN strategies to fight the Taliban. It's not the United States' problem anymore, since we drew down from Afghanistan. We'd probably be willing to offer them military aid (i.e. money) still though, if they were willing to devote more resources to fight the Taliban.

The thing is though you use the example of US invading Afghanistan to support your point. That's easy for the US to do, because not only is the US wealthy, the US does not need to recruit from the Afghan populace to fuel our own military. It's much, much harder for indigenous groups to do the same, to include governing bodies.

If Pakistan could actually provide basic services for its populace, wouldn't you think they would have done it already? Or perhaps a country with a per capita GDP of under $1500 (less than 5% of the US per capita GDP) has problems doing this? Perhaps a government that cannot provide basic services for its own people does not deserve to govern. Perhaps this is what is fueling support for groups like the Taliban.

They have more than enough military resources and a large enough military budget. They just choose to spend 85% of it on the eastern border with India, not in the west where the Taliban are.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:33:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:31:53 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 3:28:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/17/2014 3:05:40 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 2:05:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

We encountered the same problem in Afghanistan. If we just went to a locality, particularly in Kandahar, and asked where the Taliban was, people wouldn't tell us because they had local support. They provided a rule of law and money to locals. That's when General Petraeus came in and implied counterinsurgency (COIN) tactics, which focus on "clear, hold, build." Clear as many Taliban out as you can. Stay in the area and hold it, keeping it safe. Build up infrastructure and schools and work with local leaders to gain trust, so they'll stop working with the Taliban. Pakistan's efforts in NWFP and elsewhere have been successful because like Kandahar, that area is poor and lacks the rule of law. The Taliban are better than the independent warlords that are the alternative. You can't expect to keep a population in dire poverty and not have them support groups like the Taliban. Pakistan simply hasn't committed the resources necessary to "build" and "hold" Taliban strongholds in NWFP, like Waziristan. It's not that it's a hard problem to fight because the Taliban has local support, and we don't know how to solve that. We do. David Kilcullen wrote a great book about what Afghanistan taught us about how to disrupt insurgencies. We know how to disrupt the Taliban. Pakistan is simply not willing to devote the resources to NWFP that we were willing to devote in Afghanistan.

You are now advocating that the US invade Pakistan to solve this problem. Correct?

I was pretty clear. Pakistan needs to devote the resources to implement COIN strategies to fight the Taliban. It's not the United States' problem anymore, since we drew down from Afghanistan. We'd probably be willing to offer them military aid (i.e. money) still though, if they were willing to devote more resources to fight the Taliban.

The thing is though you use the example of US invading Afghanistan to support your point. That's easy for the US to do, because not only is the US wealthy, the US does not need to recruit from the Afghan populace to fuel our own military. It's much, much harder for indigenous groups to do the same, to include governing bodies.

If Pakistan could actually provide basic services for its populace, wouldn't you think they would have done it already? Or perhaps a country with a per capita GDP of under $1500 (less than 5% of the US per capita GDP) has problems doing this? Perhaps a government that cannot provide basic services for its own people does not deserve to govern. Perhaps this is what is fueling support for groups like the Taliban.

They have more than enough military resources and a large enough military budget. They just choose to spend 85% of it on the eastern border with India, not in the west where the Taliban are.

This kind of thinking is exactly what caused Chiang Kai Shek to lose China. You cannot solve an economic problem with a military solution.

Once Pakistan is done butchering the Taliban, are the people going to be content? No, they're going to look at the government with even more apprehension, and the next mass movement will have far more support and will have a much higher likelihood of toppling the government. Just look at Iraq if you need an example.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 3:51:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a deplorable event. It is Un-Islamic. It is inhumane. It is impious. If a God existed, and if Hell existed, those responsible for this deplorable act of grave inhumanity should be punished for the rest of eternity. I recently read about what happened, and I am surprised. There has been a recent surge of terrorist activities: in Sydney, in Syria, in Pakistan.

My frustration with these terrorists do not end. I know what it is like to have lived in a zone where terror rules the mind; all my sympathies go to the Pakistani people, to the parents, and to the soul of those who died in this conflict. Pakistan needs huge anti-terror reform. The Pakistani Army should be more responsive, although the Quick Response Force was very effective, getting to the scene in 5-6 minutes (that was what I heard). The ISI (not ISIS) needs to get their minds into preventing a terrorist attack, instead of sending terrorists across into India for the sake of it.

There. All my thoughts are said. Farewell, DDo!
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 4:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 3:31:53 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 12/17/2014 3:28:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

They have more than enough military resources and a large enough military budget. They just choose to spend 85% of it on the eastern border with India, not in the west where the Taliban are.

There's another way of looking at this if you insist upon a military solution. A fact that's typically swept under the carpet is that the Asian "miracles" involved mass cullings during their periods of martial law - 30,000 South Koreans and 10,000 Taiwanese civilians were massacred by their own governments in their government's attempts to establish order over the populace - this while they were staunch US allies. The US turned a blind eye to these large-scale human rights atrocities because Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai Shek were rabidly anti-communist.

Do you think this would fly today? Could Pakistan cull the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dissidents that would be required to establish order in the country? No...times have changed...the US would not be caught dead supporting what they supported in the past. We now actually care about "human rights" and what not, and are willing to destroy what we perceive as offenders, whereas in the past we supported brutal dictatorships that were just as cruel as Stalin or Mao, as long as they were anti-communist.

All Pakistan can do now is to grow their way out of this mess. If they cannot, they will fail, and their government will get ousted. If it becomes messy enough, there will likely be an attempt at international intervention, although any international contingent will have to be keenly aware that Pakistan is a nuclear nation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 5:44:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 11:33:18 PM, RevNge wrote:
6-14 ages

So 141 Revs basically died. In that case, it's not that big of a loss. ;D
Not funny.

This is insane, though. I would love to donate, but I'm only thirteen...I'll be praying for the families. Although they might not (probably won't) be Christian. O.o
And? Why does the religion of these children matter?
They were kids. Some of them probably didn't even know a lot about other religions.
They were young and had their whole lives ahead of them, to have it ripped apart by stupid people that deserve to go to the deepest depths of Hell.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.