A question at the heart of this "War on Terror" - New England Patriots Forums

***PressCoverage*** · 01-09-2007, 02:03 AM

i have a question... actually, i have always had a particular question about this whole crusade, ... it routinely goes unanswered by the "loyalists" i've asked on other boards... i often get a muddled response along the lines of "it's complicated"... or "do you want WW3????"... or my favorite, "bin Laden's in China!!"... but never anything of substance that ever truly answers the question, why aren't we going after the symbol of our enemy in Pakistan, where he is?

if we, the U.S., "will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these evil acts, and those who harbor them," why, then, haven't we gone into Pakistan en masse, after them? or forced the Pakistani military to do it themselves or sever all diplomatic ties? there's no secret where the heart of al qaeda sleeps... and they're not far over the Afghanie border... heck, if they were comfortable with 3-5 thousand US casualties, why did they focus them for loss in Iraq, and not for a major offensive into western Pakistan where we KNOW they're risiding? ... what's the matter? is our Rumsfeld-crafted military not equipped for mountains? what happened to "smoke em out"? .... is the mightiest military power in the world beaten by mountains? ... or is there some kind of political agreement keeping us out? we already sided with India recently on that nuclear info sharing pact, and left Pakistan unprivy... so what's going on?....

why is the enemy who burned and crushed 3,000 US civilians to death being allowed to survive and thrive, even mock us? heck, we're even LOSING major ground inside Afghanistan!!!

why aren't we "smokin' 'em out" of Pakistan? they're there... Zawahiri is in Peshawar... huge swaths of areas in western Pakistan are being gobbled up by the Taliban, as if it's a whole new country...

if you don't believe it, watch "Return of the Taliban" on PBS' frontline tonight at 9 ...

but instead, are leaders need to fumble around in Iraq and secure those oil contracts, among other things...

wistahpatsfan · 01-09-2007, 05:04 AM

Here's some possible answers you'll get from the ball-washers:

Q: if we, the U.S., "will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these evil acts, and those who harbor them," why, then, haven't we gone into Pakistan en masse, after them?

A: Because Musharrif is on shaky ground and any US invasion will destabilize the situation and cause our "friend" dictator to be toppppled by Islamic extremist terrrorists who will eat our babies

Q: if they were comfortable with 3-5 thousand US casualties, why did they focus them for loss in Iraq, and not for a major offensive into western Pakistan where we KNOW they're risiding?

A: Saddam Hussein funded terrorism and knew a guy who knew a guy who dated Bin Ladin's sister = CONNECTION WITH 9/11! Besides, we'll catch Bin Ladin in Afghanistan sooner or later or we'll stay there until he dies. Besides, we can't leave because the Afghan government is on shaky ground and any US withdrawal will destabilize the situation and cause our "friend" dictator to be toppppled by Islamic extremist terrrorists who will eat our babies and not allow the locals to make an honest living growing heroin. Why do you hate Afghanis?

Q: is our Rumsfeld-crafted military not equipped for mountains? what happened to "smoke em out"? .... is the mightiest military power in the world beaten by mountains?

A: Don't blame Rumsfeld! The Russians couldn't handle it there, either, not to mention the British and Alexander the Great.

...just some examples of what you can expect to hear.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-09-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

... Islamic extremist terrrorists who will eat our babies and not allow the locals to make an honest living growing heroin. Why do you hate Afghanis?

LOL.... no doubt...

BruschiOnTap · 01-09-2007, 08:01 AM

How about 'because al-Quaeda doesn't exist'?

All_Around_Brown · 01-09-2007, 10:51 AM

These are the questions people with objective minds ask. Please, lets stick to the right wing media outlets to ease your mind and remind you that Bush is in charge and he knows more than you. Fox news and Sean Hannity are the 'wubbies' of the right. Its clear that these people can't answer your question because it flies in the face of everything they've been told...and they simply can't handle the truth.

Holy Diver · 01-09-2007, 11:14 AM

Al Quaeda, the CIA and the drug trade are an unbeatable tripple threat. I think they figure..."if it ain't broke....."

Real World · 01-09-2007, 11:41 AM

Guys, the answer is simple, it's called reality. I've explained 20 times in this forum. Pakistan, and the entire surrounding region, are very fragile area's. We all the know the Taliban & AQ were business partners, hence our operation in Afghanistan post 9/11. I think we all pretty much agree with the action taken there. Mushareff, who is pro-western, but who's country is made up of a volatile mix of hard liners and reformists, chose the west over AQ. The problem is, his alliance with the "infidels" has created some discomfort in his own nation. Remember, the radicals have tried to assasinate him multiple times since 9/11. PAkistan is a nuclear nation, as is its arch enemy, billion population & nuke nation India. If we undermine Mushareff by demanding more than he's already done, we could push radical Pakistani's to power there. Were that to happen, then we'd have a nuclear radical islamic state, who would probably end up fighting a war with India. Incase you don't know, Pakistan has about 160 million people, while India has over a Billion. A war between the two could very well go nuclear. Beyond that issue, is where said nukes would end up under a radical regime. A radically run Pakistan could arm AQ with nukes rather easily. There is so much more to it than most want, or are willing to understand.

All_Around_Brown · 01-09-2007, 11:55 AM

There you have it. Press, I think what Real World is trying to say in a nutshell is that although Bush said those things, he really didn't mean them. We're not really going to fight the people who attacked us if its potentially dangerous. That would be political suicide! INstead, we'll pick on a nation stripped of its defenses and beaten down by sanctions and 60 years of infighting, even if they had nothing to do with 911.

Silly of you to take the man on his word. You been duped by a barrel of neo-conservative monkeys.

Real World · 01-09-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

There you have it. Press, I think what Real World is trying to say in a nutshell is that although Bush said those things, he really didn't mean them. We're not really going to fight the people who attacked us if its potentially dangerous. That would be political suicide! INstead, we'll pick on a nation stripped of its defenses and beaten down by sanctions and 60 years of infighting, even if they had nothing to do with 911.

Silly of you to take the man on his word. You been duped by a barrel of neo-conservative monkeys.

It's not my fault if you can't understand how things work in the Real World. When FDR was president, he knew the US had to get involved on the Allies side, even though the public was greatly against it. He publically put forth that he was not going to get involved, even though he knew we would. Why didn't Roosevelt just say we had to? When this country was founded, Jefferson wrote in his letters that he knew Slavery would be an issue that would tear at the country. He knew blacks deserved the same "equality" which white men seeked. Yet, he, nor any of his peers, pushed to make every man equal. Why not? Probably because he knew that to large a portion of the country he hoped would support the cause to independence wouldn't. Or once independence was gained, they knew that such a course would certainly result is the disintegration of the union. Nothing is ever as simple as yes or no, black or white, coke or pepsi. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is a fine line between lying and leading. Ultimately, each individual decides when it's which.

BruschiOnTap · 01-09-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

It's not my fault if you can't understand how things work in the Real World. When FDR was president, he knew the US had to get involved on the Allies side, even though the public was greatly against it. He publically put forth that he was not going to get involved, even though he knew we would. Why didn't Roosevelt just say we had to? When this country was founded, Jefferson wrote in his letters that he knew Slavery would be an issue that would tear at the country. He knew blacks deserved the same "equality" which white men seeked. Yet, he, nor any of his peers, pushed to make every man equal. Why not? Probably because he knew that to large a portion of the country he hoped would support the cause to independence wouldn't. Or once independence was gained, they knew that such a course would certainly result is the disintegration of the union. Nothing is ever as simple as yes or no, black or white, coke or pepsi. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is a fine line between lying and leading. Ultimately, each individual decides when it's which.

The sad truth... only because the public at large is too selfish/shortsighted/uneducated to see what's in its best interests

Doesn't absolve Bush, though, he lied and it served NO PURPOSE except his, Cheney's, and Halliburton's...