Features

derrida · #1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Would that be that surprising?

Of course it wouldn't. What would be surprising is the West allying itself with a movement that is not essentially fascist.

Geggy · #2

I predict that in 5 to 10 years this Jundallah group will "turn against" the US just like osama and saddam "turned against" the us.

KevinTheOmnivore · #3

Geggy...focus! Your presence is needed in another thread.

mburbank · #4

The 'option' Preech, isn't so much who we associatte, as hw much bullshit we slather on it.

The cognitive dissonance created from on the one hand W's 'moral clarity' and a US policy VS. Good guys vs. Evil Doers and on the other the embrace of terrorist groups ( not to mention our own use of kindapping and torture) is bad for the national mental health.

Also, our support of seriously bad actors and groups that lean toward terrorism hasn't worked out that well for us. I hope you won't think I'm being Geggy if I remind you that Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were people we backed when their agression was pointed in a direction we favored.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that down the road some future president will have to deal with the pakistani organization we're strengthening now.

I agree that the article is light on speciffics. I'd like to see more investigative journalism. But certainly this doesn't strike anyone as outside the realm of things we do, does it?

So: Cognitive dissonance, ill advised, failure to learn from the past. Those would be my objections.

Geggy · #5

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

So: Cognitive dissonance, ill advised, failure to learn from the past. Those would be my objections.

How many more times would the US have to continue to support the terrorists to fight for their interest before anyone start to realize its doesn't lead to failure but a deliberate effort to expand the global war on terror that "would not end in our lifetime" so says cheney? Nobody makes the same mistake twice, thrice or how ever many times they've done so in the past.

I think the fact the US may be currently supporting foreign terrorists is too much for the americans to complement but "whatever".

mburbank · #6

Alright, abc, I'll tell you what. How familiar are you with the Nixon administration, most speciffically the secret war in Cambodia? I think it has a great deal of bearing, as many of our foreign policy decision makers cut their teeth their and I think made a very ugly mess. I think you'd find the book "Sideshow" by William Shawcross enlightening and it might really inform your thought process on proxy wars and the way the current administration is gearing up to use them. Once you've read it (and I'd suggest reading a few books of the bibliography as well) and can demonstrate you underatand Shawcross's main thesis and can argue we are either doing the same thing again or are not, I think you need to concider that I've 'explained' it to you and simply take everything I have to say about the matter as given.

When you've done that, I might feel motivated to cut into the time I take reading sources I find enlightening and start reading ones you find enlightening instead. I will understand if you don't want to give up your reading list for mine, because it's kind of an absurd request. But that's the big difference between you and I. You have the meglomaniacal emotional develpement of a three year old or a Donald Rumsfled, and you literally incapable of imagining a viewpoint that doesn't originate inside your own head.

I know, I know, you think your relevant. Do me a favor and at very least look up what at very least Rumsfeld and Cheney were doing and thinking during the Nixon administration, and see if you don't find any useful information. But that's just for you to thnk about. I can't see your thoughts on the matter coming up to par with my 'explanation' of it until you've finished "Sideshow".

Abcdxxxx · #7

you posted a flawed article which misslabled the organization it was reporting on.

i made the correction, and suggested you research the matter.
Instead of doing that, you went on some diatribe about your distrust for me, and tried to write off the relevance of how we identify this dissident group. I again, suggested you do the research rather then take my word for it.

What's your response? "Read a book about the Nixon administration."

Max, there is no discussion unless you can figure out the importance of differentiation between a Persian, a Baluchi, or a Pakistani. If that sounds like an inconvenience to you, then you really are aiming to win the Geggy of the year award.

Preechr · #8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geggy

I predict that in 5 to 10 years this Jundallah group will "turn against" the US just like osama and saddam "turned against" the us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that down the road some future president will have to deal with the pakistani organization we're strengthening now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

hope you won't think I'm being Geggy...

Whoa...

mburbank · #9

Hey, I calls as I sees 'em, and sometimes I agree with 'em.

Abcdxxxx · #10

Why is Burbank still calling them a Pakistani organization?

mburbank · #11

Who are you asking?

That's how ABC identified them. Not abcdxxxxx, ABC news. A Pakastani Tribal group.

Abcdxxxx · #12

oh now the mainstream media in an unimpeachable source?

i've explained to you who this organization is.... like always, i encourage you to not just take my word for it, but to follow up and do the research yourself...

...but instead you just keep repeating the same lazy shit like the difference doesn't matter. THEY ARE A BALUCHI ORGANIZATION based out of Iran AND Pakistan.

I guess it's your turn to Geggy it up around here.