Comments on: We Were Brothers, You And Me, Loyal To Our Hardcore Scene

By: wohjr

wohjr — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:45:40 +0000

Re: Pakistan

Gilani/Zadari are not the answer. Likewise for Nawaz though he may get his shot eventually. Musharraf will definitely reappear at some point- he has always fancied himself as the saviour of the country. Seems doubtful that any of these characters would be conducive long term stability and stable democratic process. They (the Pakistanis) need to be convinced that India is not out to get them (or ARE they?)- it pervades their entire decision-making, to detriment.

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:34:09 +0000

The point is that attacking the Taliban is a means to the greater strategic end of destroying al-Qaeda. If the Taliban is willing to split off from al-Q, then there’s no reason to continue to keep fighting them.

By: Kilo

Kilo — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:29:18 +0000

“…continue attacks hand-in-hand…” should say “collaboration” re- camps, training, personnel crossover.

By: Kilo

Kilo — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:27:20 +0000

Bit of a reality check here…
http://www.terraplexic.org/rev.....liban.html

You’ll also recall the Taliban negotiating to give up UBL in 2001 wasn’t exactly a schism-inducing event. The argument for why that was totally different from this is also an argument against this.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Taliban that isn’t being negotiated with will continue attacks hand in hand with aQ one would presume.

But a prospective Taliban/AQ schism is worth a hell of a lot, because the Taliban has never been the real target. That’s al-Qaeda.

What ? Nobody’s calling for more troops in Afghanistan because aQ numbers/operations are just too overwhelming there. The reconstruction, COIN and stability operations in Afghanistan either exist or they don’t. If they do then how is the Taliban less of a target of these than aQ ?

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:32:56 +0000

Not sure he possesses even that much sincerity.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:31:20 +0000

And what’s this stuff about a monolithic view? There are an enormous number of people, spread over vast territory and encompassing many cultural groups, who proclaim themselves as Muslims. Who could confuse these people with the type of views coming from Saudi Arabia and Iran?
You trying to push mine?

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:26:37 +0000

Musharraf is perfectly sincere in denouncing anti-Musharraf terrorism.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:59:01 +0000

No, Spencer Arafat and Mussharif are cited as people denouncing terrorism, with transparent insincerity.

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:11:18 +0000

I think you’ve proven my point. Yes, people are easily persuadable. And for that reason, a stalwart, credibility-infused jihadist like Omar will get potential recruits thinking twice about al-Q. And your examples bespeak a monolithic view of Islam. Arafat I’ll spot you. But Musharraf as a terrorist? Please.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:17:58 +0000

I understand your thinking, but I think you underestimate the people of the world. They’ve heard an endless stream of bullshit denouncing terrorism uttered by endless assholes from Arafat to Mussharif. People are not going to be swayed by some words by an illiterate buffoon like Omar when it’s obvious that he’s gettin paid.
It only works if, by action, he puts al-Qaeda heads on the table.