Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president

[Tiger]

Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....


Yahoo! News

Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report

2 hours, 56 minutes ago

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
citing government officials and a member of his circle.

The paper quoted an unidentified senior Pakistani government member as
saying a deal had been brokered between Musharraf and members of the
newly elected coalition government.

"The president will neither be impeached nor prosecuted on any charges.
He will try and stay in Pakistan," the paper quoted the official as saying.

Speculation has been rife Musharraf would quit rather than face
impeachment for misrule, though his spokesman, who was not immediately
available for comment, has repeatedly denied that.

The long-running crisis surrounding Musharraf's future has heightened
concern in the United States and among other allies about the stability
of the nuclear-armed Muslim state, which is in the front line of the
campaign against militancy.

Musharraf, a close U.S. ally, has been under pressure to quit from the
ruling government coalition, led by the party of assassinated former
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It said last week it planned to impeach him.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino referred to the
report as a "rumor mill."

"We've heard the reports and we continue to monitor it," she said,
adding that the United States considered the leadership of Pakistan an
issue for Pakistanis.

Former army chief Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup but has been
isolated since his allies lost a February election.

A Pakistani newspaper this week said Musharraf was expected to announce
a decision to step down on Independence Day on Thursday. Instead,
Musharraf issued a call for reconciliation, which he said was essential
to tackle mounting economic problems and Islamist militancy.

That appeal apparently failed to check government attempts to force him
from power, with one senior coalition official saying preparations to
impeach the president were on track.

ARMY'S ROLE

The political uncertainty is unnerving investors, with the rupee setting
a new low of around 75.05/15 to the dollar on Wednesday and stocks
hovering near two-year lows.

Financial markets were closed on Thursday.

The Financial Times said Musharraf had demanded he be allowed to retire
to his farm in Islamabad and that there be no moves to prosecute him
once out of office,

It quoted a senior government official as saying Pakistan's powerful
army had insisted Musharraf's demands be met.

Coalition leaders said this week the army, which has ruled for more than
half the country's history since its founding in 1947, would not
intervene to back its old boss.

Analysts say the army is loathe to step back into the political fray and
is unlikely to take any action against the government on Musharraf's behalf.

Reports have cited army commander General Ashfaq Kayani, who Musharraf
chose to succeed him when he gave up command last year, as saying he
wanted to avoid the controversy over Musharraf.

Asked about the possibility of a military coup in Pakistan, Perino said:
"I haven't heard of a military coup ... But I think if they are be
moving forward on impeachment proceedings it seems to be within their
constitution."

(Additional reporting by Jon Boyle in London, Tabassum Zakaria in
Washington; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the
prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any
errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy

[La N]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>
>
> Yahoo! News
>
> Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>


Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews with
Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against America
is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
country.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.

- nilita

[Raymond O'Hara]

"La N" > wrote in message
news:NF5pk.7141$%b7.1183@edtnps82...
>
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! News
>>
>> Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>
>> 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>
>> Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>> impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>> citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>
>
>
> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> with Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> America is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in
> his own country.
>
> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> - nilita
>

well our efforts to chase the taliban hifdng in pakistans will step up
because we don't have to worry about undermining him anymore.

[Tiger]

La N wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! News
>>
>>Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>
>>2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>
>>Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>>impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>>citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>
>
>
>
> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews with
> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against America
> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
> country.
>
> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> - nilita
>
>

This is something the world does not need right now. Musharraf was a bad
guy, but at least a stable bad guy on our side. What next???? Is a very
good question for the region.

[Tiger]

Raymond O'Hara wrote:
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:NF5pk.7141$%b7.1183@edtnps82...
>
>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
>
> well our efforts to chase the taliban hifdng in pakistans will step up
> because we don't have to worry about undermining him anymore.
>
>


Not so fast. This may cut the other way. The paki's shut us out entirely
due to the fly boys lack aim lately. We seem to kill as many non targets
as targets.

[eatfastnoodle]

On Aug 14, 9:16*pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops.....
>
> > Yahoo! News
>
> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>
> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews with
> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against America
> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
> country.
>
> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> - nilita

I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.

[La N]

"eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>
> > Yahoo! News
>
> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>
> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> with
> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> America
> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
> country.
>
> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> - nilita

I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.

****************

Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?

- nilita

[eatfastnoodle]

On Aug 14, 10:30*pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops.....
>
> > > Yahoo! News
>
> > > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> > > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> > > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> > > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> > > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>
> > Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> > with
> > Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> > America
> > is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
> > country.
>
> > It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> > - nilita
>
> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>
> ****************
>
> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>
> - nilita

You do know Pakistan is a Islamic country, you do know Muslim around
the world call each other brother. You do know a good chunk, if not
the majority of Muslims, consider the "war on terror" is just a
disguise for the "war on Islam". You do know America abandoned
Pakistan and left Pakistan in the dust more than a few times. And
that's the problems America have for Muslims. Even in Europe and
Canada, America could only be described toxic over last few years, I
suppose you know the few European leaders lost their jobs at least
partially because of their close association with America. Add it up.
You will know.

[Tiger]

La N wrote:
> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>
>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
>>
...
>>
>>
>>>Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>>
>>>Yahoo! News
>>
>>>Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>
>>>2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>
>>>Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>>>impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>>>citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>
>>Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>>with
>>Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>>America
>>is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his own
>>country.
>>
>>It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>
>>- nilita
>
>
> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>
> ****************
>
> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>
> - nilita
>
>

Dropping bombs on non Talibans has not won many hearts & minds for a
start....

[La N]

"eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 10:30 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
> > > drops....
>
> > > Yahoo! News
>
> > > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> > > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> > > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> > > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> > > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>
> > Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> > with
> > Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> > America
> > is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
> > own
> > country.
>
> > It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> > - nilita
>
> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>
> ****************
>
> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>
> - nilita

You do know Pakistan is a Islamic country, you do know Muslim around
the world call each other brother. You do know a good chunk, if not
the majority of Muslims, consider the "war on terror" is just a
disguise for the "war on Islam". You do know America abandoned
Pakistan and left Pakistan in the dust more than a few times. And
that's the problems America have for Muslims. Even in Europe and
Canada, America could only be described toxic over last few years, I
suppose you know the few European leaders lost their jobs at least
partially because of their close association with America. Add it up.
You will know.

******************************************

"Countries don't have friends; they have allies".

- nilita

[La N]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> La N wrote:
>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe drops....
>>>
>>>>Yahoo! News
>>>
>>>>Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>>
>>>>2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>>
>>>>Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>>>>impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>>>>citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>>
>>>Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>>>with
>>>Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>>>America
>>>is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
>>>own
>>>country.
>>>
>>>It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>>
>>>- nilita
>>
>>
>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>>
>> ****************
>>
>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>>
>> - nilita
>
> Dropping bombs on non Talibans has not won many hearts & minds for a
> start....
>

True enough. Many faux pas committed. Even *moi* as a canuckistanian
sillyvillain has had to say "oh oh" more than a few times when watching CNN.
I can truly understand why Americans are seen as "terrorists" in some parts
of the world.

- nilita

[eatfastnoodle]

On Aug 14, 10:41*pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 14, 10:30 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>
> > > "Tiger" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
> > > > drops....
>
> > > > Yahoo! News
>
> > > > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>
> > > > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>
> > > > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> > > > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> > > > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>
> > > Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> > > with
> > > Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> > > America
> > > is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
> > > own
> > > country.
>
> > > It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>
> > > - nilita
>
> > I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> > because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> > Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> > countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> > office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> > seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>
> > ****************
>
> > Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>
> > - nilita
>
> You do know Pakistan is a Islamic country, you do know Muslim around
> the world call each other brother. You do know a good chunk, if not
> the majority of Muslims, consider the "war on terror" is just a
> disguise for the "war on Islam". You do know America abandoned
> Pakistan and left Pakistan in the dust more than a few times. And
> that's the problems America have for Muslims. Even in Europe and
> Canada, America could only be described toxic over last few years, I
> suppose you know the few European leaders lost their jobs at least
> partially because of their close association with America. Add it up.
> You will know.
>
> ******************************************
>
> "Countries don't have friends; they have allies".
>
> - nilita

well, I seriously don't know what to say.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...

> This is something the world does not need right now. Musharraf was a bad
> guy, but at least a stable bad guy on our side. What next???? Is a very
> good question for the region.
>

Stable!

On our side!

Look, he was a military dictator who sponsors Islamic terror on a huge
scale.

The training camps that are directed against India produced both sets of
London bombers, the gang that went 'bang' and the gang that went 'phut'.

He's one of the bad guys who managed, like a couple of others, to fool the
US into thinking he was on their side.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"La N" > wrote in message
news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
>
> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
>> > drops....
>>
>> > Yahoo! News
>>
>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>
>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>
>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>
>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>> with
>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>> America
>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
>> own
>> country.
>>
>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>
>> - nilita
>
> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>
> ****************
>
> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>

Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[PaPaPeng]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:07:34 -0400, Tiger >
wrote:

>Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>citing government officials and a member of his circle.


The consequence will be a power struggle between the two "democratic"
blocs, both of which are based on the two principal and antagonistic
feudal land owning clans. The government cannot function. The
country decends into chaos and bankruptcy that no amount of American
aid will be able to reverse. Either the Pakistani Army takes over
again or the Taliban does. With that goes Afghanistan and Indian
stability.

1. Taliban win a fight - and settle scores
When the Pakistani military launched operations against Taliban and
al-Qaeda militants in Bajaur Agency, their opponents were more than
ready, having been briefed by well-placed informants. Under the
unified command of radical leader Baitullah Mehsud, the militants
repulsed the offensive and are already planning retaliatory attacks in
other parts of the country. And on Wednesday, Baitullah settled a
score with one of Islamabad's last remaining "precious assets". - Syed
Saleem Shahzad (Aug 13, '08)
Full article in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH14Df01.html

2. India-Pakistan relations in free fall
The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is back on a razor's edge, with
huge Muslim protests and a Hindu backlash stoking violence. Pakistan
has internationalized the issue, just as Delhi works with the United
States to pressure Islamabad over its commitment to the "war on
terror". The peace process between India and Pakistan is on hold, and
given the volatility of the political situation in both countries,
Kashmir will continue to burn. - M K Bhadrakumar (Aug 14, '08)
Full article in http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH15Df01.html

[[email protected]]

> Dropping bombs on non Talibans has not won many hearts & minds for a
> start....

It's more likely the expression of frustrations in failing societies
that you're getting. I'm sure 99% of Pakistanis still want that green
card. My father's neighborhood was often visited by 8th AF B-17s that
were going after railway hubs, resulting in some civilian casualties
on the ground. It never was too much of an issue, rather, some locals
with balls would themselves contribute to even more destructions.

It's not a matter of hearts and minds. A shared cause requires all
parties to benefit, and if only measued by the amount of cash handed
out to some tribes, it's a bad start.

[William Black[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...

> I'm sure 99% of Pakistanis still want that green
> card.

Somehow I doubt that.

You do know that there are over 170 million Pakistanis...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Peter Stickney[_2_]]

eatfastnoodle wrote:

> On Aug 14, 9:16Â*pm, "La N" > wrote:
>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
>> > drops....
>>
>> > Yahoo! News
>>
>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>
>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>
>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>
>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>> with Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>> America is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular
>> in his own country.
>>
>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>
>> - nilita
>
> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.

Probably has more to do with Mushareff being hated by the ISI.
(Pakistan's version of CIA/KGB/MI-5 and 6)
Those guys are the nastiest stripe of Islamic fundamentalist, and
are the folks who gave us both the Taliban and Al 'Qeda.
Taliban Afghanistan is a classic example of an ISI "Pakistani expansion" op.
Find some bunch of nasties, pump them up with weapons and cash, and
send them into a "disputed area" to stir up trouble so that the Pakistani
military can rush in to "save their Muslim Brothers" - basically a re-run
of Opewration Grand Slam in 1965, which ended up with Pakistan getting
thrashed by India.

The will of the people doesn't count in Pakistan. The ambitions of the
factions, including ruling and expanding the Islamic world, do.

--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan

[La N]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"La N" > wrote in message
>>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
>>>
>>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
>>>> > drops....
>>>>
>>>> > Yahoo! News
>>>>
>>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>>>
>>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>>>
>>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>>>
>>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>>>> with
>>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>>>> America
>>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
>>>> own
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>>>
>>>> - nilita
>>>
>>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
>>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
>>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
>>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
>>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
>>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>>>
>>> ****************
>>>
>>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>>>
>>
>>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
>>
> Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
> going to go.
>
> Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
> suspect there might be less of them bombed.
> --

Oh, tell me about it! I think the best thing to do would be to invade those
wacky Muslim countries and force them to change their customs and culture!

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article <afrpk.7555$%b7.4736@edtnps82>,
says...
>
> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"La N" > wrote in message
> >>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
> >>>
> >>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> >>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
> >>>> > drops....
> >>>>
> >>>> > Yahoo! News
> >>>>
> >>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
> >>>>
> >>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
> >>>>
> >>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> >>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> >>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> >>>> with
> >>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> >>>> America
> >>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
> >>>> own
> >>>> country.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
> >>>>
> >>>> - nilita
> >>>
> >>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> >>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> >>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> >>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> >>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> >>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
> >>>
> >>> ****************
> >>>
> >>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
> >>
> > Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
> > going to go.
> >
> > Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
> > suspect there might be less of them bombed.
> > --
>
> Oh, tell me about it! I think the best thing to do would be to invade those
> wacky Muslim countries and force them to change their customs and culture!
>

That's interesting.
I recall back a during the 1990's there were calls about how terrible
the Taliban were in thier treatment of women.



--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[La N]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article <afrpk.7555$%b7.4736@edtnps82>,
> says...
>>
>> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"La N" > wrote in message
>> >>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
>> >>>
>> >>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>> >>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
>> >>>> > drops....
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Yahoo! News
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>> >>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web
>> >>>> > site,
>> >>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows
>> >>>> interviews
>> >>>> with
>> >>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>> >>>> America
>> >>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in
>> >>>> his
>> >>>> own
>> >>>> country.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - nilita
>> >>>
>> >>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
>> >>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
>> >>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
>> >>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out
>> >>> of
>> >>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
>> >>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>> >>>
>> >>> ****************
>> >>>
>> >>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
>> >>
>> > Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
>> > going to go.
>> >
>> > Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
>> > suspect there might be less of them bombed.
>> > --
>>
>> Oh, tell me about it! I think the best thing to do would be to invade
>> those
>> wacky Muslim countries and force them to change their customs and
>> culture!
>>
>
> That's interesting.
> I recall back a during the 1990's there were calls about how terrible
> the Taliban were in thier treatment of women.
>

And that has to do with my tongue-in-cheek comment ... what .....?

But, to fine tune it for you, Tanky, here was my implication. Wolfie was
blaming the innocent victims for being bombed by the U.S., because it is
their custom to shoot AKs airwards at weddings. Blaming the victims and
their tribal wedding customs is not going to win you hearts and minds.

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article <q0spk.7608$%b7.6765@edtnps82>,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <afrpk.7555$%b7.4736@edtnps82>,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"La N" > wrote in message
> >> >>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
> >> >>>> > drops....
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Yahoo! News
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> >> >>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web
> >> >>>> > site,
> >> >>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows
> >> >>>> interviews
> >> >>>> with
> >> >>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> >> >>>> America
> >> >>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in
> >> >>>> his
> >> >>>> own
> >> >>>> country.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> - nilita
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> >> >>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> >> >>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> >> >>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> >> >>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ****************
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
> >> >>
> >> > Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
> >> > going to go.
> >> >
> >> > Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
> >> > suspect there might be less of them bombed.
> >> > --
> >>
> >> Oh, tell me about it! I think the best thing to do would be to invade
> >> those
> >> wacky Muslim countries and force them to change their customs and
> >> culture!
> >>
> >
> > That's interesting.
> > I recall back a during the 1990's there were calls about how terrible
> > the Taliban were in thier treatment of women.
> >
>
> And that has to do with my tongue-in-cheek comment ... what .....?

some of those complaining seemed to be acting like we should go stop
them,


>
> But, to fine tune it for you, Tanky, here was my implication. Wolfie was
> blaming the innocent victims for being bombed by the U.S., because it is
> their custom to shoot AKs airwards at weddings. Blaming the victims and
> their tribal wedding customs is not going to win you hearts and minds.

Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?


--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[La N]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article <q0spk.7608$%b7.6765@edtnps82>,
> >
>>
>> But, to fine tune it for you, Tanky, here was my implication. Wolfie was
>> blaming the innocent victims for being bombed by the U.S., because it is
>> their custom to shoot AKs airwards at weddings. Blaming the victims and
>> their tribal wedding customs is not going to win you hearts and minds.
>
> Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
>

You're right, Tanky, and I'm wrong. The Pakistanis understand all this
friendly fire business and love the U.S. to pieces.

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article <8gspk.7620$%b7.5352@edtnps82>,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <q0spk.7608$%b7.6765@edtnps82>,
> > >
> >>
> >> But, to fine tune it for you, Tanky, here was my implication. Wolfie was
> >> blaming the innocent victims for being bombed by the U.S., because it is
> >> their custom to shoot AKs airwards at weddings. Blaming the victims and
> >> their tribal wedding customs is not going to win you hearts and minds.
> >
> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
> >
>
> You're right, Tanky, and I'm wrong. The Pakistanis understand all this
> friendly fire business and love the U.S. to pieces.

Hey I don't care if you don't want to hear it.

More rational an explanation than the fellow who want''s to claim it
policy to go around shooting up weddings.




--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"La N" > wrote in message
>>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
>>>
>>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
>>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
>>>> > drops....
>>>>
>>>> > Yahoo! News
>>>>
>>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
>>>>
>>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
>>>>
>>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
>>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
>>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
>>>>
>>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
>>>> with
>>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
>>>> America
>>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
>>>> own
>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
>>>>
>>>> - nilita
>>>
>>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
>>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
>>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
>>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
>>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
>>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
>>>
>>> ****************
>>>
>>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
>>>
>>
>>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
>>
> Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
> going to go.
>
> Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
> suspect there might be less of them bombed.

Undoubtedly.

You are displaying the legendary contempt and ignorance for other cultures
often shown by your countrymen when travelling abroad.

It's not 'quaint', it's how people live.

If you are dropping bombs on people because of their lifestyle you're going
to lose.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...

> Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?

If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's nobody
on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.

In that case they're not insurgents, they're the local government...
..
--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...

> Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.

Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.

Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra and
Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
reunified...


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
>
> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's nobody
> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.

If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication is
you are trying to hit somebody.

>
> In that case they're not insurgents, they're the local government...

Before they were just innocent civvilians, why the change ?



--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:37:42 +0100, "William Black"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"La N" > wrote in message
> >>news:lL6pk.7156$%b7.6619@edtnps82...
> >>>
> >>> "eatfastnoodle" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> On Aug 14, 9:16 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> >>>> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> > Just when the world is watching something else, the other shoe
> >>>> > drops....
> >>>>
> >>>> > Yahoo! News
> >>>>
> >>>> > Pakistan's Musharraf to resign as president: report
> >>>>
> >>>> > 2 hours, 56 minutes ago
> >>>>
> >>>> > Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf will resign rather than face
> >>>> > impeachment by parliament, the Financial Times said on its Web site,
> >>>> > citing government officials and a member of his circle.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just yesterday, I believe, I was watching on some news shows interviews
> >>>> with
> >>>> Pakistanis who say that the hatred that Pakistanis have had against
> >>>> America
> >>>> is because of the US support of Musharraf who is very unpopular in his
> >>>> own
> >>>> country.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's going to be interesting to see what happens next.
> >>>>
> >>>> - nilita
> >>>
> >>> I believe it's more of the other way around. Musharraf is hated
> >>> because of his alliance with US. Blair used to be hottie NO.1 in
> >>> Britain until he became Bush's poodle NO.1 in the eyes of his
> >>> countrymen. The former Spanish prime minister got himself voted out of
> >>> office because he was seen too close to the US. I suppose you don't
> >>> seriously believe US is hated because of Musharraf? I mean, come on.
> >>>
> >>> ****************
> >>>
> >>> Okay, you tell me .... why *do* the Pakistanis hate the U.S.?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Because the US Air Force keeps blowing up weddings there by mistake...
> >>
> > Funny thing about bombs, once released they sorta go where they are
> > going to go.
> >
> > Also, if it wasn't a tradition to blast away with your AK @ Weddings I
> > suspect there might be less of them bombed.
>
> Undoubtedly.
>
> You are displaying the legendary contempt and ignorance for other cultures
> often shown by your countrymen when travelling abroad.

As opposed to the understanding and acceptance the English show...

>
> It's not 'quaint', it's how people live.
>
> If you are dropping bombs on people because of their lifestyle you're going
> to lose.




--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.
>
> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
>
> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra and
> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
> reunified...


They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.

--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(William Black) wrote:

> He's one of the bad guys who managed, like a couple of others, to
> fool the US into thinking he was on their side.

"Fool" may be overstating it. The decision may well have been "defining
him as being on our side is better than the opposite, since that would
mean the other guys have nuclear weapons." Of course, that's a bit
nuanced for the US Administration to explain internally, let alone to
the media.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...

>> You are displaying the legendary contempt and ignorance for other
>> cultures
>> often shown by your countrymen when travelling abroad.
>
> As opposed to the understanding and acceptance the English show...

These days the Brits just get ****ed and fall over, or get arrested for
drunkenness.

But, as a general rule, they are aware of the local culture.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
>> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
>>
>> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's
>> nobody
>> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
>
> If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication is
> you are trying to hit somebody.

Or celebrating something...

>>
>> In that case they're not insurgents, they're the local government...
>
> Before they were just innocent civvilians, why the change ?
>

Is English not your native language?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.
>>
>> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
>>
>> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra and
>> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
>> reunified...
>
>
> They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
>

They can't hit them with nukes.

Going on past performance they may drop a few iron bombs and kill a few
civilians, but they won't do any serious damage to the military
infrastructure.

They did try in the past, my wife remembers doing air raid drills in Bombay
in the 1965 war (which had some tank battles worth reading up on for people
with an exaggerated view of Pakistani military capabilities) ,but these days
India is much stronger militarily than it was and Pakistan is weakened in a
conventional conflict by having its elite units optimised for fighting in
the NWF against terrorists.

Unlike Pakistan, the Indian army tends not to train units specially for
anti-terrorist work but follows the British model of using ordinary soldiers
for 'security duties' (wandering about and being seen) and a few small
specialist units to do the dirty work.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> >> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
> >>
> >> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's
> >> nobody
> >> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
> >
> > If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication is
> > you are trying to hit somebody.
>
> Or celebrating something...

Would you care to be in the aircraft at night and have to make the
decision ?

>
> >>
> >> In that case they're not insurgents, they're the local government...
> >
> > Before they were just innocent civvilians, why the change ?
> >
>
> Is English not your native language?
>
I accept your surrender.

--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >> You are displaying the legendary contempt and ignorance for other
> >> cultures
> >> often shown by your countrymen when travelling abroad.
> >
> > As opposed to the understanding and acceptance the English show...
>
> These days the Brits just get ****ed and fall over, or get arrested for
> drunkenness.
>
> But, as a general rule, they are aware of the local culture.

After 500 years I'd hope so.


--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.
> >>
> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
> >>
> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra and
> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
> >> reunified...
> >
> >
> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
> >
>
> They can't hit them with nukes.

IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
Should be easy to get one there.


>
> Going on past performance they may drop a few iron bombs and kill a few
> civilians, but they won't do any serious damage to the military
> infrastructure.
>
> They did try in the past, my wife remembers doing air raid drills in Bombay
> in the 1965 war (which had some tank battles worth reading up on for people
> with an exaggerated view of Pakistani military capabilities) ,but these days
> India is much stronger militarily than it was and Pakistan is weakened in a
> conventional conflict by having its elite units optimised for fighting in
> the NWF against terrorists.
>
> Unlike Pakistan, the Indian army tends not to train units specially for
> anti-terrorist work but follows the British model of using ordinary soldiers
> for 'security duties' (wandering about and being seen) and a few small
> specialist units to do the dirty work.
>
>

--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[La N]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
>> >> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
>> >>
>> >> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's
>> >> nobody
>> >> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
>> >
>> > If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication is
>> > you are trying to hit somebody.
>>
>> Or celebrating something...
>
> Would you care to be in the aircraft at night and have to make the
> decision ?
>

There are 2 issues here.

The first is, the bombing(s) of a wedding party was a terrible error.
Given. The Americans don't bomb innocent civilians intentionally.

The second issue is, that doesn't make the people - Pakistanis - like you
more, even when they know that.

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article <NBMpk.8108$nu6.4118@edtnps83>,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> >> >> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst there's
> >> >> nobody
> >> >> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
> >> >
> >> > If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication is
> >> > you are trying to hit somebody.
> >>
> >> Or celebrating something...
> >
> > Would you care to be in the aircraft at night and have to make the
> > decision ?
> >
>
> There are 2 issues here.
>
> The first is, the bombing(s) of a wedding party was a terrible error.
> Given. The Americans don't bomb innocent civilians intentionally.

Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
A most absurd statement IMHO.


>
> The second issue is, that doesn't make the people - Pakistanis - like you
> more, even when they know that.

I'd imagine it wouldn't make anyone happy.

I've yet to see a solution suggested though.


--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[La N]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article <NBMpk.8108$nu6.4118@edtnps83>,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
>> >> >> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst
>> >> >> there's
>> >> >> nobody
>> >> >> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
>> >> >
>> >> > If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication
>> >> > is
>> >> > you are trying to hit somebody.
>> >>
>> >> Or celebrating something...
>> >
>> > Would you care to be in the aircraft at night and have to make the
>> > decision ?
>> >
>>
>> There are 2 issues here.
>>
>> The first is, the bombing(s) of a wedding party was a terrible error.
>> Given. The Americans don't bomb innocent civilians intentionally.
>
> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>
>

It is indeed an absurd statement.



>>
>> The second issue is, that doesn't make the people - Pakistanis - like
>> you
>> more, even when they know that.
>
> I'd imagine it wouldn't make anyone happy.
>
> I've yet to see a solution suggested though.
>

A solution to ... what?

Here's the deal. It is what it is. American foreign policy gets instituted
and we get into the cause-and-effect thingy. Americans generally don't have
a good idea as to how they are perceived by "furriners". I imagine most
Americans don't care or would tend to think that the "furriner" thinking is
wrong. Generally speaking, the Pakistanis hate you. However, most
(conservative) Americans would like to believe that they ("the Pakis") are
all lining up for Green Cards to run 7/11s in Michigan.

Is it any wonder the world is in the state it is?

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article <HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83>,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <NBMpk.8108$nu6.4118@edtnps83>,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Pointing out that shooting weapons into the air in an area with
> >> >> >> > insugents around is a bad idea is blaming the victims ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you're dropping bombs on weddings the implication is thst
> >> >> >> there's
> >> >> >> nobody
> >> >> >> on the ground shouting 'don't shoot, it's a wedding'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If your shooting into the air with aircraft around the implication
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > you are trying to hit somebody.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or celebrating something...
> >> >
> >> > Would you care to be in the aircraft at night and have to make the
> >> > decision ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are 2 issues here.
> >>
> >> The first is, the bombing(s) of a wedding party was a terrible error.
> >> Given. The Americans don't bomb innocent civilians intentionally.
> >
> > Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> > A most absurd statement IMHO.
> >
> >
>
> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> The second issue is, that doesn't make the people - Pakistanis - like
> >> you
> >> more, even when they know that.
> >
> > I'd imagine it wouldn't make anyone happy.
> >
> > I've yet to see a solution suggested though.
> >
>
> A solution to ... what?
>
> Here's the deal. It is what it is. American foreign policy gets instituted
> and we get into the cause-and-effect thingy. Americans generally don't have
> a good idea as to how they are perceived by "furriners". I imagine most
> Americans don't care or would tend to think that the "furriner" thinking is
> wrong. Generally speaking, the Pakistanis hate you. However, most
> (conservative) Americans would like to believe that they ("the Pakis") are
> all lining up for Green Cards to run 7/11s in Michigan.

You were doing ok until you got sophmoric about Pakistani's and 7/11's.


> Is it any wonder the world is in the state it is?

What solution to you propose ?

--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[[email protected]]

> Here's the deal. *It is what it is. *American foreign policy gets instituted
> and we get into the cause-and-effect thingy. *Americans generally don't have
> a good idea as to how they are perceived by "furriners". *I imagine most
> Americans don't care or would tend to think that the "furriner" thinking is
> wrong. *Generally speaking, the Pakistanis hate you. *However, most
> (conservative) Americans would like to believe that they ("the Pakis") are
> all lining up for Green Cards to run 7/11s in Michigan.

They'd also line up in Sangatte if they can, it's got nothing to do
with trivial local political sensibilities, or whether they like you
or not. Their mindset is that of the dust bowl, survive. Read
Steinbeck or live in a place you can't even trust your drinking
water.for a while.

> Is it any wonder the world is in the state it is?

I assume you are thinking it is in a sad state?

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.
>> >>
>> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
>> >>
>> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra
>> >> and
>> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
>> >> reunified...
>> >
>> >
>> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
>> >
>>
>> They can't hit them with nukes.
>
> IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
> Should be easy to get one there.

Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.

There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt the
ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into it.

In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that coast,
there's the huge one in Bombay.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"La N" > wrote in message
news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message

>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>
>>
>
> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>

So why are they still bombing weddings?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[La N]

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>
>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>>
>
> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>

Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?

- nilita

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in Maharashtra
> >> >> and
> >> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
> >> >> reunified...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
> >> >
> >>
> >> They can't hit them with nukes.
> >
> > IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
> > Should be easy to get one there.
>
> Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.

Yes.
But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?

>
> There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt the
> ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into it.
>
> In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that coast,
> there's the huge one in Bombay.

Merchant ships travel many places...



--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

[tankfixer]

In article <n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82>,
says...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "La N" > wrote in message
> > news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >
> >>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is indeed an absurd statement.
> >>
> >
> > So why are they still bombing weddings?
> >
>
> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?


Maybe it's part of a leftover stealth policy from the gay friendly
Clinton administration !? ;')




--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

[J a c k]

La N wrote:

> The first is, the bombing(s) of a wedding party was a terrible error.
> Given. The Americans don't bomb innocent civilians intentionally.


Not an error. Merely an unfortunate confluence of events.


Jack

[William Black[_1_]]

"La N" > wrote in message
news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "La N" > wrote in message
>> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>>>
>>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>>>
>>
>> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>>
>
> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>

I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
culture of the people on their side that they're killing.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with
>> >> >> > it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in
>> >> >> Maharashtra
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
>> >> >> reunified...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> They can't hit them with nukes.
>> >
>> > IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
>> > Should be easy to get one there.
>>
>> Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.
>
> Yes.
> But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?
>
>>
>> There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt the
>> ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into it.
>>
>> In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that
>> coast,
>> there's the huge one in Bombay.
>
> Merchant ships travel many places...

Into large naval bases?

I suppose you have some proof that any nuclear state has ever considered
such a delivery system?


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>"La N" > wrote in message
>news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
>> weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>
>I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
>culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

The locals fire small-arms into the air at some celebrations. This is
hardly a shocking surprise. Deal with it.

This ought to be a compulsory part of RSOI, along with a proper threat
brief about what does and does not kill aircraft in theatre.
(Spray-and-pray small arms fire hasn't clocked up many kills anywhere,
even for fast jets flying low enough for it to reach)


The USAF has earned itself a reputation, though. I recall one 2005
incident where a company of infantry - over a hundred troops, a dozen
big armoured vehicles and more soft-skinned transport, lots of kit and
signature - came under fire from an AC-130 which claimed that (a) the
range should have been cleared for it so the infantry shouldn't have
been there and (b) after meticulous examination it didn't see _anyone_
on the ground so thought it could fire freely.

(a) is a procedural or administrative problem. (b) says that the vaunted
sensors either weren't all that or actually weren't checked. (Strangely,
the recordings from the AC-130 were irretrievably mislaid before the
inquiry)



--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Dan[_12_]]

William Black wrote:
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>> "William Black" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "La N" > wrote in message
>>> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>>>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>>>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>>>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>>>>
>>> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>>>
>> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
>> weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>>
>
> I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
>
How many weddings has the U.S. actually struck?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>>"La N" > wrote in message
>>news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>>> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
>>> weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>>
>>I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
>>culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
> The locals fire small-arms into the air at some celebrations. This is hardly
> a shocking surprise. Deal with it.
>
> This ought to be a compulsory part of RSOI, along with a proper threat brief
> about what does and does not kill aircraft in theatre. (Spray-and-pray small
> arms fire hasn't clocked up many kills anywhere, even for fast jets flying
> low enough for it to reach)
>
>
> The USAF has earned itself a reputation, though. I recall one 2005 incident
> where a company of infantry - over a hundred troops, a dozen big armoured
> vehicles and more soft-skinned transport, lots of kit and signature - came
> under fire from an AC-130 which claimed that (a) the range should have been
> cleared for it so the infantry shouldn't have been there and (b) after
> meticulous examination it didn't see _anyone_ on the ground so thought it
> could fire freely.
>
> (a) is a procedural or administrative problem. (b) says that the vaunted
> sensors either weren't all that or actually weren't checked. (Strangely, the
> recordings from the AC-130 were irretrievably mislaid before the inquiry)

The whole Tarnak Farm affair back in '02 is similar. The Pats filed the
appropriate plan announcing that they were training, and the f***ers drafting
the ASOI never passed it on. **** me! Staff wienies killed soldiers through
negligence.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >> >> . ..
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done with
> >> >> >> > it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in
> >> >> >> Maharashtra
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India gets
> >> >> >> reunified...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> They can't hit them with nukes.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
> >> > Should be easy to get one there.
> >>
> >> Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.
> >
> > Yes.
> > But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?
> >
> >>
> >> There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt the
> >> ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into it.
> >>
> >> In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that
> >> coast,
> >> there's the huge one in Bombay.
> >
> > Merchant ships travel many places...
>
> Into large naval bases?

Surely the port is more than a naval base.
Having been a major port into India for thousands of years.



> I suppose you have some proof that any nuclear state has ever considered
> such a delivery system?

Sure, most nuclear states use ships as a delivery method.



--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

[tankfixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "La N" > wrote in message
> >> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
> >>>
> >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
> >>
> >
> > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> > weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
> >
>
> I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

I'd say your wrong.
There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.


See:
ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS

TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2


That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
Cultual awareness.


--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

[frank]

On Aug 17, 9:22*pm, Dan > wrote:
> William Black wrote:
> > "La N" > wrote in message
> >news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
> >> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> "La N" > wrote in message
> >>>news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
> >>>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >>>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >>>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>
> >>>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>
> >>> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>
> >> Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> >> weddings? *What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>
> > I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> > culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
> * * How many weddings has the U.S. actually struck?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Good question, at least a few dozen. Thing is, WE know its not
intentional, THEY don't. All they know is they had a wedding and the
Americans bombed it. Then claimed it was terrorists or whatever. There
might have even been a terrorist there. But, most was collateral
damage. And the consequence is, we lost the hearts and minds. Did that
in another war as I recall.

We can do better than that.

I think the whole truth on the mess has not come out, and I think that
once the truth does come out, and its going to be way after we're
gone, its not going to be pretty.

Some of the Marine Air Wings have dumped tons of ordinance on some
cities. There was one report that was sort of hushed up of a million
pounds of ordinance by one Wing. Think of where you live. Think of
AC-130s hitting it. Or a bunch of 500 lb bombs going in. That's a lot
of damage in an urban area. I've seen stuff go in real time. I can't
see any reason to dump it on an urban area. Period.

We did it in WWII, we hit military targets. It wasn't until later that
we started pretty much carpet bombing of large areas.

I've seen some of the after action bomb plots on the amount of damage
done in Japanese cities, percentages destroyed. Yeah, war is hell.
Yeah, we were breaking the back of an evil empire. But that is a lot
different than Iraq where we're supposed to be bringing in Democracy.

Christ, we're as bad as the RAF using chemical weapons on the Iraqi
tribes. And they did tons of that in the 20s. Still lost.

Look, we had the Turks shut down water to Iraq (and there's a whole
wealth of information that is just coming out in the states - google
Aaronson (sp?) who mapped water resources in the Middle East and how
it would reduce conflict IF the borders were defined correctly - they
weren't). That in part led to a ton of deaths the US refuses to
acknowledge. Lots of other countries and NGOs do.

The Iraqis were the most educated group in the Middle East. They know
whats going on over there, we don't. And its the media, Bush, DoD that
are to blame. Bluntly, not only are we going broke propping up a lie
promulgated by Bush, we're also committing war crimes.

Don't believe me? Read the laws of ground conflict, read the laws of
war. You can find copies cheap in most bookstores.

Part of being a military professional is having a sense of ethics. We
seem to have lost that somehow.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>> >> >> . ..
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > says...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Perhaps one day they will simply Nuke each other & be done
>> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> > it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Except the Pakistanis can't hit anything south of Delhi.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Which means that they can't hit the huge Indian bases in
>> >> >> >> Maharashtra
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> Goa, which means they're stuffed, and, chances are, India
>> >> >> >> gets
>> >> >> >> reunified...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > They can't hit those bases with normal means of delivery.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They can't hit them with nukes.
>> >> >
>> >> > IIRC Goa is a major seaport.
>> >> > Should be easy to get one there.
>> >>
>> >> Goa is an Indian state with a population in millions.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> > But in this context we are talking Indian military bases are we not ?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> There in a major Indian navy fleet base in Goa, but somehow I doubt
>> >> the
>> >> ability of the Pakistani armed forces to smuggle an atomic bomb into
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> In any case it's not the only major base the Indian navy has on that
>> >> coast,
>> >> there's the huge one in Bombay.
>> >
>> > Merchant ships travel many places...
>>
>> Into large naval bases?
>
> Surely the port is more than a naval base.

Seperate installations.

The Indian naval base in Goa is a new build.

> Having been a major port into India for thousands of years.

Well no.

It was build by the Portuguese about 500 years ago.

Bombay, where the other big base is, was, famously, built in a malarial
swamp by the British.

The naval base there, built by the British, is a fair way from the docks.

Anyone blowing up a population centre of about 25 million people with an
atomic bomb had better be sure nobody's going to come around later with a
war crimes tribunal...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[William Black[_1_]]

"tankfixer" > wrote in message
...
In article >,
says...
>
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
> >
> > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "La N" > wrote in message
> >> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
> >>>
> >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
> >>
> >
> > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> > weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad
> > p.r.?
> >
>
> I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> culture of the people on their side that they're killing.

I'd say your wrong.
There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

----------------

So why do they keep hitting weddings?

It's not beyond the wit of man to get some sort of weddings registration
system going, although if the government doesn't have anyone on the ground
that would be difficult...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Aug 17, 11:55 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "La N" > wrote in message
> >news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>
> > > "William Black" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >> "La N" > wrote in message
> > >>news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>
> > >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>
> > >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> > >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>
> > >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>
> > >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>
> > > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't like
> > > weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad p.r.?
>
> > I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> > culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
> I'd say your wrong.
> There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
> understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> See:
> ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
> by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
> U.S. Army War College
> CARLISLE BARRACKS
>
> TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2
>
> That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
> Cultual awareness.
>
> --
> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
> Goode with Ketchup.

Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed

[Jack Linthicum]

On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...

>
> Sure, most nuclear states use ships as a delivery method.
>


Cite? Name one.

[William Black[_1_]]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...

> Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
> are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
> Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed

The stuff being written by people, both here and elsewhere on the net,
seems to me to indicate that they know very little about South Asian culture
at all and haven't even bothered to read the available literature on the
area, and especially the vast literature available about the NWF and
Afghanistan from the days of the British.

Despite all the warnings from everyone the word 'tribal' seems to indicate
Amerindian culture to all Americans. Perhaps if they'd used the word 'clan'
and the special vocabulary for dealing with clans earlier it would all have
been better, but it's too late now...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[La N]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 17, 11:55 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "La N" > wrote in message
>> >news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>>
>> > > "William Black" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> > >> "La N" > wrote in message
>> > >>news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>>
>> > >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>>
>> > >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>> > >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>
>> > >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>>
>> > >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>>
>> > > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't
>> > > like
>> > > weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad
>> > > p.r.?
>>
>> > I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
>> > culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>>
>> I'd say your wrong.
>> There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
>> understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>
>> See:
>> ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
>> by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
>> U.S. Army War College
>> CARLISLE BARRACKS
>>
>> TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2
>>
>> That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
>> Cultual awareness.
>>
>> --
>> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
>> Goode with Ketchup.
>
> Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
> are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
> Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed

They may have handbooks, but obviously they're not well read.

Did someone just say "a few dozen" weddings have beem bombed????!!!!

- nilita

[frank]

On Aug 18, 8:12*am, "La N" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:55 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
>
> >> > "La N" > wrote in message
> >> >news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>
> >> > > "William Black" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
>
> >> > >> "La N" > wrote in message
> >> > >>news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>
> >> > >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>
> >> > >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >> > >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>
> >> > >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>
> >> > >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>
> >> > > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't
> >> > > like
> >> > > weddings? *What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad
> >> > > p.r.?
>
> >> > I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> >> > culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
> >> I'd say your wrong.
> >> There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
> >> understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> >> See:
> >> ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
> >> by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
> >> U.S. Army War College
> >> CARLISLE BARRACKS
>
> >> TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2
>
> >> That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
> >> Cultual awareness.
>
> >> --
> >> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
> >> Goode with Ketchup.
>
> > Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
> > are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
> > Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed
>
> They may have handbooks, but obviously they're not well read.
>
> Did someone just say "a few dozen" weddings have beem bombed????!!!!
>
> - nilita

Yeah, me. There's enough showing up in the news that as a rough guess
its more than a handful. And whether its a wedding or a just friendly
tribal gathering of Omar and his buds, those clans have long
memories.

We joke about the Hatfields and McCoys, I remember a professor way
before Kosovo and all that, trying to beat into our American heads (he
was a ex Navy expert on the region) about how the Slavs thought. They
would dig up corpses and **** on them. And that's a civilized, Western
culture. Think about Afghanistan, and Kipling would feel at home
there, be amazed at the newfangled weapons and roads, but as far as
tribes, yeah, same as when he was there last time.

At least there is literature out there. 30 years ago there was
nothing, except if you were a linguist, but as far as how to deal with
the culture, the only thing was propaganda from the Saudis about how
much His Royal Highness was loved and he was upset again that somebody
in the US said something bad about him.

A local Lutheran is deploying with the troops and he noted in the
local paper he had a pile of reading to go through, in addition to all
the official military stuff. Ever been in the military, the higher up
you are the more stuff like this you get, some better than others. But
at least we're trying to get past the learning curve.

In any conflict like this, the best guys are the ones that go native.
But, that's not encouraged and there aren't enough people willing to
do it.

[La N]

"frank" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 8:12 am, "La N" > wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:55 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
>
> >> > "La N" > wrote in message
> >> >news:n7Vpk.7874$%b7.4500@edtnps82...
>
> >> > > "William Black" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
>
> >> > >> "La N" > wrote in message
> >> > >>news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>
> >> > >>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>
> >> > >>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
> >> > >>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>
> >> > >>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>
> >> > >> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>
> >> > > Are you suggesting that Americans bomb weddings because they don't
> >> > > like
> >> > > weddings? What are they getting out of bombing weddings besides bad
> >> > > p.r.?
>
> >> > I'm saying they bomb weddings because they refuse to take note of the
> >> > culture of the people on their side that they're killing.
>
> >> I'd say your wrong.
> >> There are any number of training publications stressing the need to
> >> understand the culture in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> >> See:
> >> ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN?THE MULLAH CONNECTION
> >> by: CHAPLAIN (COLONEL) KENNETH L. SAMPSON
> >> U.S. Army War College
> >> CARLISLE BARRACKS
>
> >> TRADOC DCSINT HANDBOOK NO. 2
>
> >> That's two of the 101 documents CALL listed under
> >> Cultual awareness.
>
> >> --
> >> Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
> >> Goode with Ketchup.
>
> > Have you ever been to one of those sessions? Third hand word says they
> > are time killers with no emphasis on paying attention or attendance.
> > Just mark in the book how many were there. "Cultual awareness" indeed
>
> They may have handbooks, but obviously they're not well read.
>
> Did someone just say "a few dozen" weddings have beem bombed????!!!!
>
> - nilita

Yeah, me. There's enough showing up in the news that as a rough guess
its more than a handful. And whether its a wedding or a just friendly
tribal gathering of Omar and his buds, those clans have long
memories.

We joke about the Hatfields and McCoys, I remember a professor way
before Kosovo and all that, trying to beat into our American heads (he
was a ex Navy expert on the region) about how the Slavs thought. They
would dig up corpses and **** on them. And that's a civilized, Western
culture. Think about Afghanistan, and Kipling would feel at home
there, be amazed at the newfangled weapons and roads, but as far as
tribes, yeah, same as when he was there last time.

At least there is literature out there. 30 years ago there was
nothing, except if you were a linguist, but as far as how to deal with
the culture, the only thing was propaganda from the Saudis about how
much His Royal Highness was loved and he was upset again that somebody
in the US said something bad about him.

A local Lutheran is deploying with the troops and he noted in the
local paper he had a pile of reading to go through, in addition to all
the official military stuff. Ever been in the military, the higher up
you are the more stuff like this you get, some better than others. But
at least we're trying to get past the learning curve.

In any conflict like this, the best guys are the ones that go native.
But, that's not encouraged and there aren't enough people willing to
do it.

**********************

Yes, I've heard that about those who "go native".

And, btw, IIRC, is it practice to compensate the bereaved family members
financially - that is, on the part of the US?

- nilita

[William Black[_1_]]

"frank" > wrote in message
...

, but as far as
tribes, yeah, same as when he was there last time.

----------------------

They're not tribes. They function as complex clans but with an inclusive
sept system and extended families.

----------------------

At least there is literature out there. 30 years ago there was
nothing, except if you were a linguist, but as far as how to deal with
the culture, the only thing was propaganda from the Saudis about how
much His Royal Highness was loved and he was upset again that somebody
in the US said something bad about him.

----------------------

Utter rubbish. there's a huge literature relating to Afghanistan and the
NWF.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

William Black wrote:
> "La N" > wrote in message
> news:HCNpk.8112$nu6.3256@edtnps83...
>> "tankfixer" > wrote in message
>
>>> Our friend has been claiming it is policy.
>>> A most absurd statement IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>> It is indeed an absurd statement.
>>
>
> So why are they still bombing weddings?
>
Because Muslims still have not learnt that guns are not toys.

Andrew Swallow

[frank]

On Aug 18, 12:37*pm, "William Black" >
wrote:
> "frank" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> , but as far as
> tribes, yeah, same as when he was there last time.
>
> ----------------------
>
> They're not tribes. *They function as complex clans but with an inclusive
> sept system and extended families.
>
> ----------------------
>
> At least there is literature out there. 30 years ago there was
> nothing, except if you were a linguist, but as far as how to deal with
> the culture, the only thing was propaganda from the Saudis about how
> much His Royal Highness was loved and he was upset again that somebody
> in the US said something bad about him.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Utter rubbish. *there's a huge literature relating to Afghanistan and the
> NWF.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, *like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.

But in the United States, there was nothing as far as Middle East
Studies. Tons of Latin American Studies, which has pretty much died on
the vine. Still a lot of European Studies. But 30 years ago, outside
of possibly Harvard, nobody knew about it. Its not like in the UK
where you slogged through the Kyber Pass. Hell, Mandalay is probably a
musical instrument for all most Americans know.

We had a professor who was quoted as a national expert, his take was
to concrete over the Middle East as a solution. F%cking brilliant.
That pretty much was the state of what was taught on the Middle East
except if you were studying the language.

Over here, tea is something you toss in the harbor or get in bags.

At least now there is a fair amount of literature at least available
in the bookstores.

Whether anybody on the street in the Middle East thinks its anywhere
near truthful is another story.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Aug 19, 12:24 am, frank > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:37 pm, "William Black" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "frank" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > , but as far as
> > tribes, yeah, same as when he was there last time.
>
> > ----------------------
>
> > They're not tribes. They function as complex clans but with an inclusive
> > sept system and extended families.
>
> > ----------------------
>
> > At least there is literature out there. 30 years ago there was
> > nothing, except if you were a linguist, but as far as how to deal with
> > the culture, the only thing was propaganda from the Saudis about how
> > much His Royal Highness was loved and he was upset again that somebody
> > in the US said something bad about him.
>
> > ----------------------
>
> > Utter rubbish. there's a huge literature relating to Afghanistan and the
> > NWF.
>
> > --
> > William Black
>
> > I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> > Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> > I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> > All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> > Time for tea.
>
> But in the United States, there was nothing as far as Middle East
> Studies. Tons of Latin American Studies, which has pretty much died on
> the vine. Still a lot of European Studies. But 30 years ago, outside
> of possibly Harvard, nobody knew about it. Its not like in the UK
> where you slogged through the Kyber Pass. Hell, Mandalay is probably a
> musical instrument for all most Americans know.
>
> We had a professor who was quoted as a national expert, his take was
> to concrete over the Middle East as a solution. F%cking brilliant.
> That pretty much was the state of what was taught on the Middle East
> except if you were studying the language.
>
> Over here, tea is something you toss in the harbor or get in bags.
>
> At least now there is a fair amount of literature at least available
> in the bookstores.
>
> Whether anybody on the street in the Middle East thinks its anywhere
> near truthful is another story.

The reverse guy was George Lenczowski, Polish officer served in the
Middle East in WWII, did academic work and worked for Aramco and the
United States as well the University of California. Only the accident
that he was in the Political Science department at Berkeley kept me
from getting a degree under him. Brilliant man and very useful to the
powers that be.
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/GeorgeLenczowski.htm

[William Black[_1_]]

"Zombywoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 04:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
>>On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, tankfixer > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>
>>>
>>> Sure, most nuclear states use ships as a delivery method.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Cite? Name one.
>>
> The U.S. of A.

Idiot.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.