using a cellphone to trigger a bomb is not difficult in the least.
Pakistan to use its own drones
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
using a cellphone to trigger a bomb is not difficult in the least.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Then what's so hard about an RC plane with a bomb inside?
I doubt most "over the counter" RC planes could get off the ground carrying even a hand grenade or a stick of TNT.
The notion does prompt the surreal mental image of shady characters sauntering into hobby shops to purchase the necessary equipment to ship back to "Jihad HQ" so that they could try it out, though...
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa: Is that right? Still? 700,000 troops on the border?
The number could very well be wrong but Pakistan and India have had these border issues for a long time though I don't know the number of troops. They have a large population in India so there is no shortage of man power and India doesn't have this kind of hostility with any other nation so they would probably use more of their military resources in that direction.
As for regime change in Pakistan, I believe the US (no matter the president) would set precedence and blow it off the face of the earth if there was a Taliban takeover of the country and its nukes
The number could very well be wrong but Pakistan and India have had these border issues for a long time though I don't know the number of troops. They have a large population in India so there is no shortage of man power and India doesn't have this kind of hostility with any other nation so they would probably use more of their military resources in that direction.
As for regime change in Pakistan, I believe the US (no matter the president) would set precedence and blow it off the face of the earth if there was a Taliban takeover of the country and its nukes
All the estimates I've seen are in that range (600k or more).
But there's a different problem with that statement. The troops aren't on "the border." They're in Jammu & Kashmir, on the Indian side of the Line of Control.
And a line of control is generally a very different thing than a border, when it comes to questions of troop deployment. Especially lines of control that run within 60 miles of a national capital.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But what's the difference? It says the line is the 'de facto border':
"Specifically, the term Line of Control (LOC) refers to the military control line between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir - a line which, still to this day, does not constitute a legally recognized international boundary but is the de-facto border."
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Still I would hate to get hit by one!
The difference is in the implications of keeping large deployments of troops near it.
If we were to say "Spain deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to the border with France" that would be pretty alarming. And that's because those countries share a mutually-agreed, internationally recognized border, and so sabre-rattling along it implies a threat to said legal, peaceful relations.
A line of control, on the other hand, is nothing other than the extent of land that deployed troops exercise military control over. You can't move your troops away from a line of control the way you can a legitimate border: the line of control will simply withdraw right along with the troops.
This is a "de-facto" border in the sense that is delineates the geographical regions controlled by different polities. But it is not the type of border that most states share, specifically when it comes to the implications of troop deployments along it.
Note that Pakistan also keeps upwards of half a million troops stationed in Kashmir.
The history of the CIA funding of the Mujahideen is known. Regarding present day CIA involvement and activities consider:
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cia-destabilizing-pakistan/
and
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7705
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Presumably it's the same UN report you get your casualty stats from.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/afghanistan.civilian.casualties/index.html
Thanks.
superstring01
Moderator
I asked you to support your claims and you provide two opinion pieces on how the US is destablizing Pakistan which themselves, provide not one single shred of evidence that such destablization exists beyond just saying that it exists. Making a statement, and saying that somebody else says it, doesn't make it true. StrawDog, you do know the difference between lectures and actual facts, right? In this case, I'd like to see proof, evidence, news articles on exposed CIA destabilization of Pakistan; an ally the US needs to continue its efforts in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.
The CIA didn't fund the Mujahideen, the ISI did. Operation Cyclone was began in 1979 and was designed to use the Pakistanis as intermediaries in aiding the Afghanis in their fight against the Soviets. It should be noted, at that time, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia were thrilled about this attention in that they were all fearful of: (a) the Soviet Union's thirst for a warm water port and (b) the Soviet Union's ire at continued Muslim preaching against the atheist Soviet state (thus, causing Islamic unrest in the USSR, and a possible invasion by the Soviets to stop such activity). In the case of each of these nations, ample funds were sent to the very same effort that the USA was supporting (and in the case of Saudi Arabia, it was matches practically dollar for dollar). None of this, however, demonstrates any attempt at destabilizing the government of Pakistan.
Take a look at something credible like Ghost Wars or the Looming Tower. The mountains of evidence that the writers sifted through paint a different picture than what you describe. At no point is there any evidence that the USA ever actively destabilized Pakistan. For what purpose would that be? I know it's in vogue to assume the USA a nation of morons, but I assure you that any effort to alter the political makeup of Pakistan would cost billions of dollars and would achieve absolutely NO positive results for the American people.
~String
The CIA didn't fund the Mujahideen, the ISI did. Operation Cyclone was began in 1979 and was designed to use the Pakistanis as intermediaries in aiding the Afghanis in their fight against the Soviets. It should be noted, at that time, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia were thrilled about this attention in that they were all fearful of: (a) the Soviet Union's thirst for a warm water port and (b) the Soviet Union's ire at continued Muslim preaching against the atheist Soviet state (thus, causing Islamic unrest in the USSR, and a possible invasion by the Soviets to stop such activity). In the case of each of these nations, ample funds were sent to the very same effort that the USA was supporting (and in the case of Saudi Arabia, it was matches practically dollar for dollar). None of this, however, demonstrates any attempt at destabilizing the government of Pakistan.
Take a look at something credible like Ghost Wars or the Looming Tower. The mountains of evidence that the writers sifted through paint a different picture than what you describe. At no point is there any evidence that the USA ever actively destabilized Pakistan. For what purpose would that be? I know it's in vogue to assume the USA a nation of morons, but I assure you that any effort to alter the political makeup of Pakistan would cost billions of dollars and would achieve absolutely NO positive results for the American people.
~String
Last edited:
The context of my initial post (#15) was regarding the era 1979 into the `80s and the existence of ongoing collusion between the CIA and ISI, which clearly still exists today. Obviously in the context of the `80s, the destabilization was part of the anti Russian offensive. Are you denying that the CIA, the Saudis and Pakistan via the ISI, was involved in arming, funding and organization of the Mujahedin which led to the fracturing and destabilization of Afghanistan?
The "somebody else`s" in question are Shuja Khanzada, respected ex Military man and present member of the Pakistani national legislature, and Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, an academic, scholar, published author (on this topic) who serves, and has consulted to many international organizations and governments. The integrity of my cited sources are sound.
According to my sources, the CIA funded the Mujahideen with Saudi and US money, via the ISI.
No, the first stage was Afghanistan. The program of destabilization spilled over into Pakistan, via the same agencies. The evidence speaks for itself. Since the US accelerated across border offensives, drones and other, Pakistan has been practically in a state of war.
These books are credible, but most likely incomplete sources, as are others such as "Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA- John Prados" http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Democracy-Secret-Wars-CIA/dp/product-description/1566638232 and "The myth of good interventions by Michael Parenti" (not free, http://www.informaworld.com/)
The evidence is visible due to the clear correlation between increased across border activity/ drone attacks/US Political interference and increased militancy and violence inside Pakistan.
Furthermore, a prime example of destabilization tactics, there is the allegation of CIA involvement in Bhutto's assassination. At a critical junction, when there was a real chance for Democratic advancement in Pakistan.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=100769§ionid=3510203
superstring01
Moderator
Fantastic. I was able to identify his credentials almost immediately. That still means nothing as he supported his statements with nothing. It was all opinion, which is nice and useful, but not enough to be counted as factual.
I remind you, again, that this website runs on the scientific method, you are required to prove your points. Sometimes, it's okay to state an opinion, but when in a debate about specific facts, you are required to cough up the goods. That's how it works. A moderator has, TWICE NOW, requested information from you on your statements and TWICE has not received them.
Which sources are those?
I will give you mine: Lawrence Wright ("The Looming Tower"/Pulitzer Prize - Investigative Journalism); John Miller, Michael Stone & Chris Mitchell (ABC News, "The Cell"), Steve Coll ("Ghost Wars", Pulitzer Prize - Investigative Journalism); Lawrence Freedman ("A Choice of Enemies") and MOST important of all: Omar Nasiri ("Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda").
While these works don't all agree on every point, they all do agree on how the war Mujahideen came about, how they were traind and where the funding came from (they were trained, primarily, by the ISI, with the leadership receiving direct, but secret, training by the CIA; funds were given directly by the ISI and Saudi Intelligence, with the CIA funding it's efforts directly through the ISI. All this was done to help the Afghanis do what they wanted at the time: resist Soviet invasion.
Straw, your statements are reaching the point of trolling which will receive a very different response from me. You are required to support your statements, especially these kind. And NO, resorting to the comments like, "The evidence speaks for itself..." does not count backing up your claim.
Straw, if a book is not available to be read, then it counts for nothing. The Prados book looks interesting and I'll check it out. The problem with it, as I glance over the e-version, is that it doesn't seem to address the funding of the Taliban or the supposed destabilization of Pakistan. I'd challenge you to provide me with specific quotes and page numbers where it makes that claim.
This counts as more of you opinion and not support. People are not required to take note your interpretations of a gestalt and then come to the same conclusion you do. While your opinons are valid, if you are expecting others to respect you or respect your ideas (at least on this website), you are required to support them a little better.
This point makes my respect for you really wane. You've made a blatant assertion here and provided nothing to back it up. I'm trying to have a pleasant conversation with you, but up till this point you've made it difficult. And then to cap it off, you take an event that was tragic and state that the CIA was involved and without a shred of evidence, lay that blame at the Agency's feet. Fine. Wonderful. But back it up, NOT with opinion pieces, but with proof (peer reviewed, verifiable) of what you are saying.
Seriously, through this entire conversation I've asked for you to use the scientific method while making your statements. They may all be valid, it's just you haven't proven them so. Later, when we continue this this conversation, I expect better because the next time it will be in moderator mode that we discuss correct technique on this thread.
~String
Last edited:
Before I waste my time, I don`t appreciate your veiled threats. I have engaged in a decent manner and tone, I don`t claim to be the expert regarding debating technique and skill level. I, like many others, is engaged in a process of learning and engagement. The TONE of the above comment, in relation to my track record on this forum, is unacceptable and unwarranted. This leads me to conclude there is a vendetta afoot on this board, aimed at dissenting voices. Dissent and opposing views being the essence of healthy debate. In my opinion, you are abusing your role as a moderator, and I expect a response that is accordingly, acceptable to me. If none is forthcoming, I will happily move on.
Note. I am not denying the fact that my debate is flawed, I am objecting to the tone and manner of your post.
superstring01
Moderator
Mod Notes: Ice, we're not playing at this. If you want to contribute, do so. If you don't like the fact that you have to support your claims with something verifiable, then go somewhere else and play.
Gustav, if you want to troll, complain, dissect or whatever, do it somewhere else as well.
Gustav, if you want to troll, complain, dissect or whatever, do it somewhere else as well.
alright
those are nothing but extended opinion pieces
what are the sources they cite in support of their conclusions that pertain to the issue at hand?
agreed
what experiments with regards to the issue should be conducted here?
any ideas?
superstring01
Moderator
First, the threats weren't thinly veiled. In fact, the one was highlighted in red to serve as a strong reminder of the fact.
Second, I'm tired of you posting bullshit and not supporting it. I've been trying to guide you to how you need to behave, if you need a warning to do so, then I'll issue it. You are REQUIRED to post sources which support your claims. End of discussion, if you don't like it, and refuse to follow the rules, then you and the mod team will head down an undesirable path. If you play right, then everything will be fine.
Third, If you don't like the tone, then work at improving your behavior. I'm not required to tippy toe around to keep you happy. Follow the rules, support your claims, and there won't be an issue. It's how this forum is supposed to work, and how it will work with or without you.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
Actually they are not extended opinion pieces. Unlike the op-ed articles cited, the works I sited are actually peer reviewed, (in two cases) Pulitzer Prize winning, works with citations, investigations by actual journalists who can point out specific examples, texts and events that make them write what they do.
In the case of "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" I can state specific pages and quotes that are referenced. With Straw, I get a link to a page that I have to pay to see and a link to a book that I doubt he's read with little more than what amounts to be, "Yeah, this book says I'm right." Well, I'm offering to believe him, just tell me where it says in those books that the USA is actively destabilizing Pakistan.
I implore ANYBODY to show credible evidence that the CIA is currently engaging in a campaign to destabilize Pakistan. That US activities around the world might have the secondary effect of encouraging radical elements in Pakistan is not being debated. The actions of the USA seems to have that effect on every nation on earth. Separating out that fact, I'd like to see anybody show how the USA vis-à-vis the CIA is currently working to destabilize Pakistan.
~String