Deadly NATO attack in Pakistan

Pardalis said:
You agree you recommended an antisemitic book? Good. Thanks Fräulein. :)
Click to expand...


Absolutely not, Pardalis.

May I ask you a question about the content of the last page of this thread?

After five years of posting together on this forum, do you really think i am "antisemitic"? Meaning either a racist or a religious nutjob? Did you catch me in the act of posting my secret agenda here? Did I slip? Really?

If not - what ARE YOU DOING? A question to yourself.
 
I'm not saying you are antisemitic, I am saying you unwittingly recommended an antisemitic book.
 
I stand by that recommendation. It's not an antisemitic book. It's one source which shows how propagating extreme religious views helped colonialism. The situation this thread is about directly originates from colonialism.

With your constant personal attacks against other members of this forum, against better knowledge, you are fighting against your own flawed believes. Nothing else.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I stand by that recommendation. It's not an antisemitic book.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, read the preface. The preface is part of the book you recommend. You haven't shown any evidence that it was written by someone else.

I haven't attacked anyone.

It's one source which shows how propagating extreme religious views helped colonialism.
Click to expand...
It's one source that seems to put the blame of the existence of extremism on entirely outside agents, which is common denialism.
 
Last edited:
I haven't attacked anyone.
Click to expand...

Unlike various munitions carrying devices that struck something and someone in Pakistan, which event happens to be the topic of this thread. *grrrrrrr*

gumboot, thanks for the book recommendation, may be able to read such things in a few weeks when work slows down.

Empress: myopia is often treatable. The question is, do you find a lens fashionable?
 
Last edited:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45452110/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TtMaEnP32cE

Afghan officials: Fire from Pakistan led to attack

"It also pointed to a possible explanation for the incident Saturday on the Pakistan side of the border. NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the poorly defined frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers, who have been accused of tolerating or supporting them."
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
And where did I say that? Even if you put a strawman in scare quotes it's still a strawman.

I only commented on the fact that they are merely tentatively our allies, and that they have been playing a double game for decades.
Click to expand...

And as such it doesnt matter that a few get killed then. That seems to be the premise from a few folks here. Not in so much words but hinted at.

BTW, if you want to make fun of me because I'm a Canadian, you should know that French Canadians don't say 'eh'.
Click to expand...

I am not making fun of you. Thats the way a lot of Scots talk. We put "eh" at the end of a question or statement. I am not the one who posts childish pictures.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45452110/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.TtMaEnP32cE

Afghan officials: Fire from Pakistan led to attack

"It also pointed to a possible explanation for the incident Saturday on the Pakistan side of the border. NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the poorly defined frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers, who have been accused of tolerating or supporting them."
Click to expand...

Yet the Pakistanis say they did nothing at it was unprovoked. That NATO knew where the posts were. Your posts supports nothing. Mr anonyomous again.

It wasnt insurgents who were killed was it?
 
funk de fino said:
Yet the Pakistanis say they did nothing at it was unprovoked. That NATO knew where the posts were. Your posts supports nothing. Mr anonyomous again.

It wasnt insurgents who were killed was it?
Click to expand...


Until we learn more it's nothing more than a case of he-said she-said.
 
gumboot said:
Until we learn more it's nothing more than a case of he-said she-said.
Click to expand...

I agree, but at least there are source names coming from one side. I guess it is OK to believe those corrupt Afghanis when it suits some here.
 
gumboot said:
I'd recommend reading this book as it will answer all of your questions. You assessment that Deobandism and Wahhabism have nothing to do with each other is false, as you'll learn if you read the book.

(I'm sure there's other similar books on the same topic, but this one is as good a place to start as any other.)
Click to expand...

Huh...I just bought this book earlier this month, and started it the other night. I'm really looking forward to reading it now.

And yeah, "Confessions of Hempel" is an antisemitic Turkish forgery.
 
gumboot said:
Until we learn more it's nothing more than a case of he-said she-said.
Click to expand...

Well we have one side that says "what?? Me do nothing at all... the other side just called for directed air support strikes for no reason whatsoever..."

Even though there has to be some reason provided for calling in air support.

Even though the Pakistani bases along the border regularly stand guard over Haqanni and other terrorist bases while they fire at Coalition forces.


If Pakistani troops were directly firing at coalition troops, or standing guard over groups that were firing at Coalition troops, than calling in air support is more than justified.

The claims of the Pakistanis are extremely questionable at best as they just don't jive with reality.

I know NATO wants to salvage some kind of relationship with Pakistan, but they can't just keep letting Pakistan act in whatever fashion they want with no repercussions.

They should not have been so afraid to stand by the assertion that Pakistan should stop directly supporting terrorist attacks and networks and start to act responsibly.
 
What really would NATO have to gain from an unprovoked attack on the Pakistani military?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Your link doesn't show that.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't want it to.

The U.S. Department of Defense has released translations of a number of Iraqi intelligence documents dating from Saddam’s rule. Most of them deal with the regime’s support for terrorism. One of them is a General Military Intelligence Directorate report from September 2002, entitled “The Emergence of Wahhabism and its Historical Roots.” (The translation may be downloaded here.) The report made the claim that the grandfather of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the school, was a merchant from Bursa in Turkey who was a Dönme—that is, a crypto-Jew. According to the intelligence report, his name, Sulayman, was originally Shulman. (Al Kamen writing yesterday in the Washington Post: “Of course! The Saudi Shulmans!”)

[...]

The Iraqi document echoes a well-known Turkish conspiracy theory—probably fabricated by one Ayyub Sabri Pasha—which claims that the British sought to weaken the Ottoman empire by creating the Wahhabi movement. The British sought to sow dissension among Muslims and the Wahhabis obliged by anathemizing (takfir) the Ottomans and making licit rebellion and the waging of warfare against the Sultan in Istanbul. The British accomplished this through a British spy named Hempher. His story has been published in a little pamphlet entitled Confessions of a British Spy. It is a neat little tale, not unlike the Protocols.
Click to expand...

This wasn't written by just some random guy, either, but Bernard Haykel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom