We are not discussing the Talibs ideology here. Everyone knows what they do and will continue to do. What we are saying is that these drone attacks are creating more Talibs. They are driving the people who have had their families killed by drones into the arms of the Talibs.Originally Posted by silentstriker
Pakistan needs to get rid of these animals, but what we don't need is more people joining the TTP.
Want to be careful about sounding like this guy
Are they really driving more people into the arms of the Taliban though? Taliban is a relatively local movement - not a broadly anti US one like terrorist organizations are. Now, certainly I can see the border issue and Pakistan having to cope with an influx of people from Afghanistan, but are native Pakistanis being driven into the arms of the Taliban due to the American drone strikes? I would have to see some evidence for that - it seems weird for someone whose daughter was killed in a drone strike to go murder other peoples daughters from the same community.
Now, I want to come out and say that I oppose drone strikes (or at least, oppose them at the frequencies that they are being used at the moment - I think it does far more harm to the US security long term than helps in the short term). So if you say that drone strikes are not OK, you won't find arguments from me.
I think you might be conflating the issue. Even an organization like Lashakr-e-Taiba - not exactly a fan of US - has released a statement condemning the attack (pretty rich coming from a terrorist organization like them, but just making a point). I mean I would think, if drone strikes do in fact drive people towards terrorism (which is not a point I would necessarily agree with but it's a separate issue), it would be to organizations like that and not to the Taliban.
It's one thing to say: 1) Drone strikes killed my daughter --> I now hate the country who did it, vs. 1) Drone strikes killed my family --> now I hate all women and the daughter of the guy next door and will attack their schools. (??)
I think it's a lazy excuse to blame America - I think the roots are very deep and complex it's not something with an easy solution. Easy answers are popular and can be satisfying (true in the US, Pakistan, India...anywhere), but they are rarely right.
"The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
-My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with
How the Universe came from nothing
You are trying to rationalise something that can't be rationalised. Haven't you seen people in countries like Pakistan kill neighbours for petty issues or burn their own property due to some stupid cartoon. These aren't rational people. And then they get brainwashed by the fanatics.
Drone attacks create terrorist safe havens, warns former CIA official | World news | guardian.co.uk
Ex CIA official thinks that they are creating more enemies. And they don't just target the US, but anything in relation to them, including western values or way of life.
Please let me know where these people were before the US invaded.
Former CIA official Ray McGovern also thinks that the Drone strikes are creating terrorists.
Ray McGovern: "U.S. Drone Strikes Create More Terrorists" - YouTube
Also interesting that the US uses CIA rather than the air force.
Wrong Answer, the Drone attacks started because the locals were providing shelter to the Talib terrorists.
And before the Drone attacks started, there was all peace in Waziristan, wasn't there ? Pakistani Army was doing the same before the Drones. You should read up on Mir Ali Massacre.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Burials follow Waziristan clashes
Classic case of Pakistan Government and Army playing the double game. They have let Americans do the things they were doing before 2008. If Pakistan establishment wants it can stop US drones attacks in one day. The question is do they really want the Drone Attacks to Stop ?
Last edited by Sanz; 11-10-2012 at 07:03 AM.
Pakistani military and politicians are just as bad as the Americans. Nothing new there.
Right !! And Taliban are really God's people, aren't they ?
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan
What is your point? None of that contradicts anything I said....
You are saying that they aren't joining the TTP. But where are the TTP recruiting all their people from. Not very difficult to convince people whose families have been killed that it's Pakistan's fault, because they are allowing the drones, so why not target Pakistanis.
On an encouraging note, I’m finding that there is near universal outrage in Pakistan about the attack on the girl. Attack on teen blogger consumes Pakistan. Hell, even the other extremists/terrorist parties like the JUI have condemned the attack (as Clinton might say, it takes some brass to attack someone for doing what you do).
I hope the tide of public opinion is turning from appeasement and “peace deals” to confronting these savages.
I'd want to see evidence for an assertion like that - I would be surprising if there is a large population who lost their own family/friends and then decided to avenge it by embracing a philosophy that involves murdering little girls from the same community. We are talking about joining the Taliban here specifically.
It's a very illogical assertion. And I wouldn't believe it without some proof.
Last edited by silentstriker; 11-10-2012 at 11:23 AM.
I don't think anyone has any statistics on which terror groups are being joined. Can you back your assertion that they are joining groups like Lashker?
All we know at this point is that terrorists are being created and it's not at all illogical that they join TTP in that area. Why do you think the Pakistani government is trying to reassure people it does not have any control over these drone attacks? They can destroy them if they want to and have the SAM's to do so. Because they don't want people whose families have been killed to join groups like the TTP to get revenge on Pakistan. And it's not just little girls who are being targeted. What about the markets, and the military compounds where our spy planes were destroyed.
The attack on Malala and the forensics of negotiation
A lengthy but excellent piece by Sami Shah in The Tribune. He readily admits that there is no easy solution to the problem and is harsh on the use of the drones (as he should be). Some excerpts that I especially liked:
The most common thing I hear from the PTI is that this attack and all others like it are a result of the ongoing drone attacks. That the Taliban are behaving this way in retaliation for America’s usage of those robotic drones. And that the only way to end all of this is to enter into negotiation with the Taliban, since all else has failed. By “all else” it apparently means “war and bombings.”
Now allow me a rebuttal. The Taliban don’t claim that Malala was involved in drone usage. They targeted her because she believed in her right to education and vocalised that belief. They said so themselves. To ascribe ulterior motives here is disingenuous. They attacked Malala because the Taliban believe that women are chattel, with no rights to access the tools for self-development. This isn’t a theory. This is based on the rules they imposed on Swat when they occupied it, Afghanistan when they ruled it and every statement they make justifying the bombs thrown at schools. Linking it to drone attacks makes no sense here. The drone attacks may also be something they dislike. It’s quite likely, given that the drones are supposed to be targeting them (even if they somehow manage to kill more families of innocent people than actual members of the Taliban). But this attack was a separate issue entirely. It was born of their fanatical subscription to a religious system of belief that they think informs their actions. In other words, they think this is what their religion tells them to do (please note that I was very careful in my word usage here and am in no way saying the religion actually says that, just that they think it does). And this is important because it lies at the heart of the negotiation challenge that the PTI seems so keen to take up. Their terrorism is not caused by the drone attacks alone. It may be one reason, but not the only. The other reasons have been clearly stated by them repeatedly. They want women to be deprived of education, they want their personal, brutal interpretation of Shariah law to be implemented across Pakistan and they want all of it or they won’t stop until they get it. There were no drones over Swat when they had control of it and they still turned that city into a charnel house.
There are some rules to a negotiation. It relies on rational players on both sides. For it to be fair, the players should be on equal standing. None of this is currently in evidence. If tomorrow, somehow, the PTI get their wish and we enter into negotiations with the Taliban, what exactly are we to ask for? “Don’t bomb us, don’t impose your version of justice on us, leave the women alone. In return, we will discontinue the drone attacks?” There has been no evidence that this single bargaining chip will satisfy their massive appetites.
They need to move her and her family to a more secure location due to the threats. Is she currently safe or is the government doing nothing as per usual?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote