Yeah, one of our strange quirks causes us to frown on sex offenders and want to see them behind bars. It dates back to the Roman conquests probably, mad I know.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.



You sound like the Putin suporters in moscow who want those 'Pussy Riot Whores' hung for daring to challenge the Man..
In most of the world state power does what it likes; murder, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial.
England is supposed to be one of the few places that shit don't fly.

>> ^thumpa28:

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.




You sound like the Putin suporters in moscow who want those 'Pussy Riot Whores' hung for daring to challenge the Man..

In most of the world state power does what it likes; murder, torture, indefinite imprisonment without trial.
England is supposed to be one of the few places that shit don't fly.

There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.

Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?

I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.

How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.

Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.

>> ^Hybrid:

You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.

>> ^jonny:

jonny: Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war
NetRunner: How and when did he show this?

40000+ troops sent to Afghanistan despite campaign promises to do exactly the opposite. And for what? Do you honestly believe the long term security of either the US or Afghanistan was improved as a result?

I'm not particularly happy about him ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, and I'm no optimist about Afghanistan in general, but I don't think it was some sort of obviously boneheaded or bloodthirsty decision, either.

Here's your original quote in full:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

This in response to the question of "are we about to invade Iran?" with the clear implication being that you think Obama is prone to get America involved in pointless wars without any real consideration of either the short term or long term impact to the country.

The relevant Obama bumper-stickers on foreign policy from the 2008 campaign were "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars," and "I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

I think his record shows that he's held true to both of those, and overall has wielded American power quite judiciously these last 3.5 years. I'm a big pessimist on Afghanistan, but I can't really blame Obama for trying to do something to wind down our involvement there in a way that doesn't leave the situation in Afghanistan much worse for both the Afghans and us. I don't think that's possible, but I can't blame him for not sharing in my fatalism.

>> ^jonny:
Honestly, NetRunner, you've recently been demonstrating the kind of tribalism in politics that has so many people sick of the whole process. I understand it's an election year and there are a lot of things at stake (none bigger than the likely 2 SCOTUS nominations to replace Ginsberg and Breyer). But to mischaracterize my words in that way (especially when I made it pretty clear I had no preference for Romney even on this very limited issue) is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a hack political operative. I think, no... I know you are better than that. It's not us and them. There is no them.


And here's where you've really gone off the rails. I'm some political hack engaging in mindless tribalism and mischaracterizing the words of others....because I asked you to provide examples of what Obama has specifically done to make you think he'd attack Iran without cause?

My comments after "All that said," were just my general take on the whole question of war with Iran. Even rereading it now, I find it hard to see how you got the impression I was accusing you of being a Romney supporter.

What little judgment I was passing on you was that I felt you were leveling baseless accusations against Obama, and all I was really doing was asking you to try to back it up with facts.

But years of arguing with blankfist should've taught me, asking people for evidence to support their argument is a dirty partisan trick only practiced by political hacks like me...

Did you not read what I wrote? I'm pretty sure I said the national debt is a problem. My issue with you is your rationale for the national debt is overly simplistic and utterly ridiculous. OH NOEZ! The average taxpayer owes 137K if the national debt is broken down per taxpayer, and the overwhelming majority of Americans don't have 137K lying around to pay that. Say, do most Americans have 50K laying around? No. So if the debt were cut in third roughly, surely it wouldn't be a problem. See? The rationale doesn't hold up. Most Americans don't have 10K laying around either, but if that were the debt per taxpayer, the national debt wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention the fact that wealth is concentrated in this country, too. Granted, most people don't have 137K laying around, but you know who has millions upon millions laying around? Guys like Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. The stat you threw out doesn't mean a damn thing. It just sounds bad.

That's the kind of crap that makes discussing something like this with you utterly impossible. You don't care if the national debt is truly a problem. You WANT it to be a big problem that must be dealt with immediately, and THE ONLY WAY to deal with it is... survey says... reduce spending. NO TAX INCREASES!!! EVER!!!

It's a pointless discussion. You've already made up your mind the national debt is a problem that must be dealt with like a crisis, with only one way to deal with it. Any rational person would look at this issue and conclude that even if it is huge problem, (which by the way, since you can't apparently read, I DO think it's a problem, but does not need to be dealt with in extreme measures, or unilaterally with spending cuts only) cutting spending isn't the only solution. I also know that we've run up historical deficits in our past and came out the other end a stronger nation. I also know that the vast majority of the current deficit has been caused by the Iraqi and Afghan wars, by the Bush tax cuts (which actually caused more debt than those wars did, and a collapsing economy.

Comparison between POLICIES of Bush vs Obama as contributors to the national debt:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif

Sorry, but that's the truth. The reality is we spent ourselves out in two wars and cutting taxes to ridiculous proportions.

As a side note, I just did my taxes. I'm married with no kids, my wife doesn't work due to medical reasons. I make $122,000/yr in a lower than average cost of living area. You know what my effective federal tax rate was? 10%! How in the hell can the federal gov't do what it needs to do when I'm paying 10% effective federal tax rate?! It's absurd. And it's not like I was hell bound to escape paying taxes. My deductions? $5000 in wife's traditional IRA contribution, state income taxes, mortgage interest, and some charitable donations. I benefited also from 401k contributions and a Flexible Spending Account program.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say GDP cannot be raised significantly from where it is today in the next 5 years, which would increase tax revenues to make up for much of the deficits we're running today, you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not in favor of cutting any gov't spending that would jeopardize significantly economic growth in the short run. Therefore, I don't think we can cut a whole lot of spending right now, and we'll unfortunately have to run very large deficits in the short run. However, once the economy grows significantly, we will need to cut spending at that point, and run substantial surpluses for awhile to get the debt more manageable again.

That is what we've done in the past, and it worked when facing very severe economic downturns. Call me crazy, but I look at history and see what worked, and follow that path.

>> ^bobknight33:

From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.
Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?

I posted about this before, so many of the problems that drugs create are actually created by the War On Drugs.

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can. If Tesco's sold Fair Trade Cannabis, drug dealers would be utterly screwed in no time. Plus, farmers in Columbia/Afghanistan/etc would have a legitimate market, which would erode the illegal market, in turn decimating FARC/Taliban/etc's income and ability to operate. I saw one report that said half of the Afghan Taliban's $3B annual income is from heroin and cannabis sales.

The financial implications would be vast, tax revenue for governments would be a big help while the money, and therefore power, of drug cartels shrinks. There would be even more horrific violence here as cartels look to consolidate on their remaining business, I shudder to think of how the Zetas, the Tijuana Gang and the Juarez Cartel among others in Mexico would respond and it would take considerable political strength to get through.

Is legalising drugs the answer to peace on earth? The war on drugs is subsidising organised crime.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era...
They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare...
I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Thank you, that was largely how I understood things to be within the tribal regions as well.

I have troubles with calling the tribal regions not really part of Pakistan when it's pointed out how bad some of the boys there are, but later when an American drone kills some of those bad boys in that region it is a gross affront to Pakistan's national sovereignty. It's either part of Pakistan or it's not, and if it is part of Pakistan and America is supposed to mind it's business what is America expected to do when the bad boys from that tribal region keep killing Americans and more importantly and in even greater numbers the moderate Pakistani's who are the closest America has to true allies in the region.


Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family.

I'd argue that they never really bothered anyone because they'd largely been getting what they wanted. That's not the kind of problem that gets better just because you keep giving the extremists what they want. It leads to a situation where a guy like Osama can find enough friends to hide within a mile of the very Military Academy that Musharraf graduated from. I firmly do not accept that the 'war on terror' created the problem, it just forced it to be recognized and dealt with.

Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

Agreed on both counts. As far as America is concerned it's more cost effective to just reset the clock in Afghanistan every so often so the problems there are kept localized and not something that will bother them for another decade. It's a twisted game and I desperately want to see real solutions embraced that will see the moderate locals have a real chance at being the victors in the end instead of the perpetual victims.

Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

I'd say the Saudi's are even worse. They've spent billions of dollars in Pakistan's tribal regions setting up jihadi training camps and calling them 'schools'. Regrettably the male only students come out illiterate but well trained in extremist Wahhabi doctrines and guerrilla warfare. The Saudi 'charities' have spent more money on 'education' in these tribal areas than Pakistan's own government and have been doing since long, long before the 'war on terror' ever was recognized by the West or Pakistan. That building block of an internal war against Pakistan itself has been building for a long time and without the hard push Bush made I firmly believe that would still be official Pakistani policy. The situation would be worse and when ever the militants decided to start pushing it would have been far more unpleasant than what Pakistan has faced so far from those elements.

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

I would honestly love to take you up on that. My kids are a bit young but I do hope to make it over there someday. I too believe you guys are a great bunch in a bad situation, the road out of it though is just so long, difficult and nasty. I wish all of you there the best of luck and honestly spend a lot of time trying to understand what is happening there and what small part little old me can play.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

>> ^FermitTheKrog:

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.



Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.

Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.

I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.

I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.

Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

As I think it's relevant to the discussion and it was left as a little quasi threat on my profile.

In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
Disagree with what ? your intent or interpretation of the events in the video are completely void because of this statement " Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera. ?

Is clearly is in violation of the posted rules. I'd make a big stink about it if it was 2 pm and not 2 am. I'll do it in the morning


Please do make a big stink, this site has a lot of rules that don't get enforced until someone gets a bug up their ass about it. And without enforcement whose to know what videos are allowed or not when my video CLOSELY resembles some of the videos I've linked below. And I'll say right now that you putting extra tags on my video was in poor taste and mocks the events of the video. I don't think you are the right person to be making judgements on my videos when you can mock the video with those tags.


These are the videos I found in the first 20 pages of the "death" channel.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Rare-amateur-video-of-Challenger-disaster-25-years-later - Has a short intro screen and a exit screen. No news coverage, no documentary claims. It would fall under your rule, yet it's been voted very high up there and no one complained.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Destroyed-In-Seconds - This video was taken down by youtube because it showed a guy dieing in it. The comments on THIS SITE even reflect it. No one ever questioned it.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Marines-Urinate-on-Dead-Afghans - I can't confirm those men on the ground are dieing or dead. It shows corpses, wounds and all being defiled for ENTERTAINMENT of the troops. I'd classify this as snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Footage-of-Perm-Nightclub-Fire - Shows a building where 100+ people died.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Indy-500-winner-killed-in-15-car-accident - Shows the tv footage of a car crash where the driver died. No informative news network or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Deadly-plane-crash-at-Reno-Nevada-air-show - Shows a plane crash, no news or documentary. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Molten-metal-seen-dripping-moments-before-WTC2-collapses - Shows footage of WTC where we know people were dieing inside. We can't see them dieing, but that rule still applies. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Lucky-Montana-Cop-Escapes-Death - Police office shoots a man to death. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Main-Stage-collapses-at-Indiana-State-Fair Stage collapses people die. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Sigh-police-beat-a-man-dead - Police kill a guy on film. Snuff.

http://death.videosift.com/video/Craziest-and-most-awesome-animal-compilations-of-the-web - I didn't watch this one all the way through. Video Submitter claims death occurs in it. Could be animal, could be people. You watch it and decide if it's snuff...I saw some animals attacking people but never saw the outcome to tell if they were dead or not.

>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."