That's kind of like saying that Rosie O'Donell attacked Rosanne. I suppose it's newsworthy, but does anyone really care?
yeah guys, who cares about civilian death? it's just brown people, right? it's always cool and makes perfect sense to post how uninterested in something you are. you have a worldwide audience right here who can't wait to hear which topics you don't care about. fyi for the future: true apathy goes unannounced. (you can also avoid exposing your racism)
Well, what can we do about it. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both quite the basket cases...and now apparently so are we.
There's largely nothing we can do about most world events, yet you participate in threads about things in the west you can't do anything about. But I guess when brown people are fighting, that's when it doesn't matter.
You yourself probably not much. The US, who has military forces in Afghan, including Navy SEALs, jet fighters, drones, MOABs, and God knows what else, can, I am sure, tell Pakistan to back the hell off. Then again, the US has bern unable to stop Turkey from their continued aggression against the Kurds in Syria and Iraq...
It's interesting that you're presenting this in a one sided fashion considering this attack was a retaliatory attack and it seems like both sides are kind of at fault over this blowing up.
Pakistan (specifically their intel agency ISI) has been funding, arming, and otherwise supporting terrorism in Afghanistan for many decades, starting during the Soviet occupation there. This continues today.
I didn't say they were good. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to immediately present one side in this as the "good guys" and the other side "the villains."
In the Muslim world, there are basically three major players who have been making all kinds of trouble everywhere, supporting various terrorist outfits, creating violence, war, and instability. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. Pakistan. Qatar too, to a lesser extent, but they are just a sidekick of the Saudis, along with the UAE.
Okay well, even if I substituted "we" as in the average Westerner with the U.S. government, it's not like either Pakistan or Afghanistan ever did what we asked them to do. We tell Pakistan "hey don't build nukes" and they didn't listen. We told them "hey stop harboring terrorists" and they didn't listen. We tell the Afghans "hey clean up all that corruption" and they don't listen. Now they're shooting at each other, so what makes us think we can stop them?
What does the US government being able or unable to stop them have to do with having a thread about it and participating in a thread about it?
Yeah, it's not like we told them "Hey you should funnel millions of dollars into military insurgencies that employ religious rhetoric so that we can short-sightedly continue to engage in power contests with our geo-political rivals in ways that will prove meaningless in the long run while contributing massively to the subsequent destabilization of the countries in question and--" Oh, wait.
Okay yeah, we did that in the 80's, but since then Pakistan's been doing it on their own because they want to use those insurgents against India.
Yes, it's bad when Pakistan wants to do it against India on their own, they should only be doing this when we're directing it.
Sorry for posting this a year late, but this would be an alternate perspective nobody's mentioned: http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Article-Gartenstein_Ross-and-Vassefi.pdf Pakistan’s historical and contemporary support for jihadi groups has caused US policy prescriptions over the past decade to focus prominently on the need to change Pakistan’s strategic orientation. In this article, the authors explore one aspect of Pakistan’s strategic calculations that has received insufficient attention in public debate: the degree to which Afghanistan’s aggressions against Pakistan have helped to shape the latter’s support for religious militant groups.
Guys these notifications from necroliking are both annoying and a reaffirmation that I've always been awesome