Comments for Pakistan order to kill US invaders »
Posted By _kam0_ 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsKey corps commanders of Pakistan's 600,000-strong army issued orders last night to retaliate against "invading" US forces that enter the country to attack militant targets. The move has plunged relations between Islamabad and Washington into deep crisis over how to deal with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban
Read Full Story at theaustralian.news.com.au »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 99
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
rightfromwrongComment removed: Spam
-
31%
Mutainia1 year, 3 months ago
-
69%
skeek1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You seem to think that all eyes in the world are turned to American culture, one that has all the depth of a car saleman's showroom spin, but you are wrong.
Reply
An out-of-date, egocentric preacher to power, probably the first of America's religo-tainment, TV evangelists, would be of little interest to Muslims, at least to those few that have actually ever heard of him; probably about as much interest as Osama Bin Laden has been to your government other than a name-dropping excuse and opportunity o continue invading other people's countries.
It looks like your America's exhausted and overstretched, two front war is about to get a whole lot bigger. If you think this can be easily contained you are deluding yourself. Pakistan has nuclear arms, it shares a border with Iran, and should this situation escalate it can find new friends and support elsewhere; not the least being Russia.
Pakistan has cut off oil supplies to your troops in Afghanistan, which is currently experiencing drought and is about to go into famine. Soon, you'll be fighting desperately hungry people that already want you out, and then, winter is coming. Prepare to be bogged down, isolated, and under siege. It may not happen, but it's not altogether unlikely.-
86%
Grancher1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am rather curious as to what the US government is thinking pushing Pakistan like they are, perhaps they have a half dozen more wars planned, to make sure the war profiteers don't run out of money.
Reply
But regarding Billy Graham, he is fairly famous around the world from what I can tell, at least in English speaking countries with sizable Christian populations.-
100%
skeek1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But regarding Billy Graham, he is fairly famous around the world from what I can tell, at least in English speaking countries with sizable Christian populations."
Reply
When people say "around the world" they tend to refer only to the first world, and the western one at that. Break that down into its more accurate percentages and it rapidly becomes the minority. This world is, for the most part, not western, not first world, and not English-speaking.
Pakistan is one such country. It is not English speaking, it is impoverished, and it has a sizable Muslim population.
If you were to truly look into the many and varied cultures and traditions that exist in this world today, you would realise most of them are not represented by the sweeping generalisation, "around the world." You would also realise that American as a country, an empire, and a culture, is still unknown to many of them. Thus any efforts to homogenise the world in the image of America, with all the trappings of "freedom," "democracy," commercialism and modernity, is as much ludicrous as it is naive.
It is these people, those who exist outside the narrow, shallow sweep of first world perception that are most often branded as "terrorists." Americans, in particular because it suits their country's imperial agenda, bandy about the term "terrorist" labelling all those who oppose them as such.
But in truth, many of these so-called "terrorists" are not driven by ideology, the are just fighting to provide food, water and shelter for themselves and their families. These things comes in increasingly short supply when they are in the midst of a war they understand little or nothing of. All they know is that strange jets and bombs blew up their farms, destroyed their livestock, and killed their families.
When American troops come waltzing through the desert sands, jungles or paddy fields they are as alien to them as creatures from another planet. These people do not know of America's geopolitical plans and its appetite for political expansion; many don't even know George Bush exists, much less who he is. Although are doing is fighting to stay alive. This is why, the more America continues its wars in others people's countries, invariably those of the third world, the more it will find more and more "terrorists" under every rock and behind every tree. And what is surprising only to them, is they weren't there the last time they looked.-
100%
inverse1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps our next president should lead us to fight the war against poverty, to help bring sufficient food, clean water , electricity to more than a billions of people that don't have access to them, to fight the war against ignorance to help bring clean energy and sustainable development to the world. This is probably the more efficient approach to spread democracy and fight terrorism.
Reply-
89%
skeek1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would be a start although the belief that democracy must be spread still grates as it remains an imperial motivation; that is, the desire to indoctrinate and thus control. The impotency of America's three ring circus 'democracy,' its dirty pool pettiness, its suspect electoral rigging, its rampant nepotism and inclination towards oligarchy, and its legal lobbyist corruption and cronyism is in no way a shining example of anything that anyone would necessarily want to embrace.
Reply
But what you are coming close to saying that I haven't yet said is that the War on Terror is actually the war between the rich and the poor of the world. As Peter Ustinov said, "Terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich." -
-
-
-
-
-
100%
mark-stevens1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Follow the news, Pakistan is killing more bad guys than Americans are, it was well over 100 this week alone.
Reply
On the other side if someone shots a cop and runs into your house, a good idea would be not to tell the cops to get out of your house. -
33%
tanners1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
as of tommorow morning I would cut alll financial aid to Pakistan..
Reply
I case you dont know we give themm billions /year
Of course we will not do that but rather try to kiss ass to try and try to get the to be our friends/
Muslims want us all dead .... so wake upAmerica -
-
-
91%
canadianrancher571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Could someone down there please explain to me who is in charge of foreign affairs or foreign policy or what ever you what to call it. Who ever is in charge must of missed the course on how to win friends and influence people. Most of the Americans that I have met have been proud and opinionated but have have had manners and common sense and know that when you go to the neighbours house you don't insult the person, you don't kick his dog and you don't slap his kids. You would think that with the American public knowing this that the people in charge of dealing with other countries would have a clue that the same ideas are used when dealing with nations. These people who are in charge seem to have issues regarding power and if not educated shortly will have the whole world hating you.
Reply-
75%
Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
**** Cheney is in charge of foreign policy, as well as most of the rest of the government here. (Bush wasn't really interested in running anything, so he handed over the reins to his VP.)
Reply
Cheney really doesn't care about winning friends or influencing people. He lives in a paranoid, delusional fantasy where the U.S. can bully the rest of the world into submission, and where this bullying is the best way to achieve its ends.-
88%
canadianrancher571 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Mr. Cheney is in charge that does explain just about everything. My next question could be the topic for a story and that is will Cheney remain in the US, If the Democrats win the election or will he cut and run, My bet is he has reservations made just in case.
Reply-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
64%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Pakistan finally found out that the Bush's war on terror was really a "war profiteering scheme" at the expense of innocent muslim men, women and children. It this moron has the guts to order air strikes inside any country he thinks he wants to, he is sadly mistaken.
Reply
Now they know that Bush & his regime of crooks are the #1 terrorists in the world.
.......and John McCain and the Lipstick better understand.-
89%
skeek1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pakistan always knew that that was the case. It had little choice but to careful tread a very fine line in order to not raise the ire of its anti-American populace while at the same time trying to not draw hostile attention from Washington. It was a tightrope act from which it is now falling in slow motion. There is no more sitting on the fence for Pakistan.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
50%
davejones11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A college education is unquestionably not any assurance of the ability of a man or a woman to execute the duties of the presidency of this country. Just where is it written that our presidents can only attend certain Ivy League colleges or, if not, that they are unfit to hold that office? Aren't you just a bit tired of electing all of these lawyers to office? It looks as if that most people consider attorney’s to be the least trusted people in the country yet as a nation we continue to elect them to critical positions in our government. It appears to me that you’re a bit of a snob.
Reply-
Neutral
saneman1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO! Except Bush and Cheney aren't lawyers and have successfully brought this country to the lowest depths possible financially and economically. Of course, Bush tried to get into law school but wasdenied because he is dumb as a box of rocks. I guess I am more tired of retards and crooks like Bush and Cheney getting into office and running this country into the ground. Unfortunately, when I see people like you, I can only feel saddened how far humanity has dropped under your beloved Bush and Cheney.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ChefEOD1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pakistan has been harboring and supporting the Taliban & OBL right from the start, playing the US like Santana plays his guitar. Why do you think they would never allow us access to AQ Khan? Because he was just doing the job he was paid to do.
Reply-
89%
skeek1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make it sound as though Pakistan had a choice.
Reply
Musharaff was perfectly content to play tin pot dictator without having to play colonial butler and be on the beckoned whim and call of Bush and the American Empire. It is your country that arrived on Pakistan's doorstep making demands. It was a game of pretense and evasion that could invariably not be sustained, and it hasn't. But the phase it is about to enter is as much a threat to America as it is to Pakistan. Not to mention the rest of the world. -
-
-
-
-
-
71%
robear1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
he will never "catch" obl - if OBL is caught then the "war" is over. OBL is a huge scapegoat and losing him would mean less excuses to invade and or bomb.
Reply
Why do you think shrub let OBL get away when we had him trapped like a rat in the mountains? we had him surrounded and we KNEW he was in there. instead we packed up and invaded iraq.
-
-
11%
pmshipilov1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wether or not Pakistans people like us is not our problem. That country has aided and abbeted terrorism for the last 20 years. The people should realize that once you are part of a country- you are the country. We should of bombed Pakistan 7 years ago...we knew , and they knew that Binh Laden was there. If they never gave him to us after all this time...they must be supporting him. Figure it out. Screw them...give us Binh laden or wind up like Iraq. I dont think Israel would put up with that BS for 7 years like we did.
Reply-
100%
tchef1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the whole problem with the mindset of America. It is a big deal who likes us and who does not. The fact that no one likes us and we don't care is one of the reasons Al Queada is growing the way it is.
Reply
The other thing about your statement is unlike Iraq, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Marching into Pakistan would quite likely set off WW3 and this time we wouldn't be the only ones using nukes.-
-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the money we give to Pakistan is mostly re-cycled to buy weapons from Bush/McCain buddies in our corrupt 'defense' industry.
Reply
Besides, McCain has better ideas for corrupt buddies he wants to give money to.
McCain's Fannie and Freddie Connections
Although John McCain rails against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the campaign trail, many of his campaign staffers have been involved in dubious lobbying payoffs from Fannie and Freddie.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/13/mccains-...
-
-
-
100%
italymeetsdixie1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If this war were only about "terrorism" then it would be reasonable that we should have attacked them long ago. The mere fact that he has waited until now to deal with "terrorists" in Pakistan, should tell you alot. However, it has apparently not.
Reply -
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We should of bombed Pakistan 7 years ago.>>>>
Reply
How about the Saudi's. Should we have bombed them? If not, why not. How about the Russians? They do business with Iran. Should we have bombed them? If not, why not? How about Syria? How about N. Korea? And hey, what about all those radicals in Africa. You know the terrorists train there, right? How about we bomb Africa?-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pmshipilov, i hate to burst in on your fantasy, but the US has been supporting terrorists in other countries for many years now, they even trained some. Personally, i think you would go a long way in the war on terrorism if you just bombed yourself first.
Reply
-
-
83%
ISITJUSTME1 year, 3 months ago
-
67%
mark-stevens1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
100%
robear1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i say we get rid of em both - the world would be alot less ignorant without all the religious whackjobs everywhere spewing the ******** that their ministers pour into their heads. screw war on terrorism - we need a war on ignorance.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
73%
bigpuma1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
American soldiers entered Pakistan without permission and killed Pakistani civilians.
Reply
This response is just,and exactly what the US deserves. If Pakistani soldiers entered the US and killed civilians we'd call it "terrorism". So who exactly is the terrorist now? -
-
-
-
100%
Klarissa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
socialistworker.org/2004-2/515/515_07_Obama.shtml
Reply
On September 24, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."
-
-
-
-
50%
nikkibabe1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now another challenge for Lipstick. To invade Pakistan or not invade Pakistan. Either way, Pakistan has ordered its forces to shoot at sight any American invader on its soil.
Reply
Who will argue that it is not legal.
These Republican rednecks better know that they cannot march in to any country and start killing their people. -
0%
GLee1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with Nikki to an extent.
Reply
If strikes on our troops in Afganistan come from Pakistan, and there is no mistake about it, we should pursue the invaders and kill them where we find them. Attacks originating from Pakistan or any other country can NOT be tolerated. PERIOD. We have to establish security.
Or, we could try to chat with them over some tea or something.........
And this is not to say that we shouldn't have words with Pakistan concerning protecting our troops or even 'pushing' Pakistan to committ to a BIG move on terrorist targets. But, in any event, we can't tolerate strikes in Afganistan out of Pakistan. I beleive Pakistan's statement is more 'positioning' themselves for talks with the US. -
-
33%
luplor1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come on, some of you just dont get it, innocent civilian casualties? Theyre either living or meeting in your house and youre innocent? Even the mafia keeps their people out of the family home and family off limits. I just wonder how much of this is b.s. is for public consumption in Pakistan. Except for a few rogue elements, theyre probably just as glad to get rid of the extremists before they consume Pakistan. I cant believe some of you are now bringing Palin into this issue, this is a very serious survivable issue not some political football. These just want to ouright Kill you not hold hands, hug and discuss differences. It is obvious most you have never been in other countries, sorry talking with Jaheed at the store, vacationing or reading some book IS NOT exposure to other cultures. The real danger is most of you are living in some disney world and dont have a clue.
Reply-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually your choice of the words 'Disney World' suggests that you have been in the cradle-to-grave totalitarian propaganda bubble to which americans are subjected for far too long.
Reply
As for Palin, let us hope that the media finally does a proper exposure of the lies, corruption, support of domestic terrorists and heresy (according to the Assemblies of God) of this 'theocracy whacko'. While they are at it, the media whoudl also expose those behind Palin.
The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket
McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,” whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.
The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/14/the-pali...-
100%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy
Reply
"neocons", whose standard bearer in government, VP Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/14/neoconse...
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"sorry talking with Jaheed at the store, vacationing or reading some book IS NOT exposure to other cultures. The real danger is most of you are living in some disney world and dont have a clue."
Reply
The real danger is that racist waterheads like you are allowed to run loose.
-
-
aacr1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.