Contributors

  • John Morgan
    Blog Owner
  • Kirk Wentzel
    Contributor
  • Peter Bonny Jr.
    Contributor
  • Michael P
    Contributor

Blog Ads


  • To advertise on this blog please contact the owner through the "Email Me" link.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2006
Recently on this blog
Recently on other blogs

« Sen. Connie Williams Retiring | Main | Romney's Decline »

December 28, 2007

Comments

Melissa

The story of gunshots followed by a suicide attack seemed a bit odd. I thought some of the shrapnel may have initially appeared to be bullets fired. But that had to be one hell of a jolt for a sunroof latch to cause a fractured skull and profuse bleeding from her head.

The blame is now being placed, and somewhat predictably, with Musharraf and our support of him--not Al Qaeda. This is not only a tragic situation, but also a very dangerous one.

John Morgan

The Pakistani government has a long history of lying about these things so we have no real authority for which to believe. We'll never really know how she died.

onenastybeast

Now Al-Qaeda is claiming credit. Boy, that Pakistani government can fake anything!

Melissa

"Now Al-Qaeda is claiming credit. Boy, that Pakistani government can fake anything!"

FYI, it is not uncommon for multiple terrorist organizations to claim responsibility for attacks that generate widespread publicity. Why would you assume people who commit such acts of barbarism for notoriety are honest? It's a pretty safe bet Al Qaeda is connected, but confirmation beyond confession is necessary.

As for the Pakistani government, I believe an investigation may be best conducted by an independent task force so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety or cover-up. Do you consider that unreasonable?

onenastybeast

Yes, for someone who seems to have a problem interfering in the internal affairs of another country.

John Morgan

Waziristan is an autonomous region which, while officially part of Pakistan, is self governed.

Al Qaeda attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans so we have every right to act militarily to bring them to justice for their crimes. The fact they have moved from Afghanistan to Waziristan is irrelevant. Our national security demands that we eradicate them and destroy their safe havens.

I'm sorry you don't agree with that policy. Do you remember September 11th? Maybe you're one of the idiots who think Saddam attacked us instead of Osama. The only righteous war going on is the one against those who attacked us and we're well within our rights to pursue those people.

If Pakistan is providing them safe haven, even in the region where the nation has no legal authority, we should still pursue the criminals. Instead we've given Musharraf $11 billion which is unaccounted for and likely went to strengthen the forces of oppression within the country.

Islamic extremism is taking hold there partly because of the presence of Al Qaeda and is destablizing the country. One method to correct this is to take out the corrupting influence. We have the capability to covert and overt forces quietly to do so without triggering massive unrest, which has happened anyway.

What part of this don't you comprehend One Nasty Beast?

Melissa

"Yes, for someone who seems to have a problem interfering in the internal affairs of another country."

I disagree with meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, in part because it rarely coincides with the will of the people, and in part because I don't want it for my own country. An independent body investigating a terrorist attack, on the other hand, is done for the sake of openness and to satisfy the people. Bali 2005 is a good example of this.

I believe you are comparing an apple to an orange.

onenastybeast

No, I believe that meddling is meddling.

John Morgan

Well, you're an expert at meddling. By the way perhaps you should meddle around some and update yourself on the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Melissa

"No, I believe that meddling is meddling."

You're free to espouse whatever belief you like, no matter how embarrasingly ignorant I find it.

The people of Pakistan have asked for an independent investigation, and such a task force has the potential to help quell the violence in their country. If it were meddling, as you say, the people wouldn't even have knowledge of it.

Additionally, the information gleaned by an international body of intelligence experts could not only determine responsibility in Bhutto's death (offering closure to the Pakistani people), but also help track those terrorists currently inside Pakistan (which could prevent future attacks worldwide).

But please don't let facts and the best interests of the people of Pakistan and the world stand in the way of your beliefs about so-called meddling.

onenastybeast

"The people of Pakistan have asked for an independent investigation."

What people?

I never said I didn't believe in meddling. I believe you don't believe in meddling only when it's convenient or when "the People", whoever they are, ask for it.

onenastybeast

"The people of Pakistan have asked for an independent investigation, and such a task force has the potential to help quell the violence in their country. If it were meddling, as you say, the people wouldn't even have knowledge of it."

Who are these "people?" They have risen up and demanded an international independent investigation, but wouldn't even have knowledge of it?

Logic does not run in your family.

BTW, I never said I didn't beleive in meddling. I beleive in meddling in any area in which a vital American interest is at stake. Since you and your ilk are so concerned about meddling in a country's internal affairs, I found it interesting that you only support meddling when it is supported by your version of "the people."

John: I know the PA Human Relations Act, John. I have sued people under it. BTW, where is the lawsuit with the hopeless Mr. Rossi. I followed his specious argument regarding "political parties as state actors" argument in Lancaster. It is a ridiculous argument, but if you're convinced it works, why not encourge Mr. Rossi to take your case on a "flyer." Let's see how good the argument is when he isn't getting paid and is fronting the costs. Dummy!

onenastybeast

"The people of Pakistan have asked for an independent investigation, and such a task force has the potential to help quell the violence in their country. If it were meddling, as you say, the people wouldn't even have knowledge of it."

Who are these "people?" They have risen up and demanded an international independent investigation, but wouldn't even have knowledge of it?

Logic does not run in your family.

BTW, I never said I didn't beleive in meddling. I beleive in meddling in any area in which a vital American interest is at stake. Since you and your ilk are so concerned about meddling in a country's internal affairs, I found it interesting that you only support meddling when it is supported by your version of "the people."

John: I know the PA Human Relations Act, John. I have sued people under it. BTW, where is the lawsuit with the hopeless Mr. Rossi. I followed his specious argument regarding "political parties as state actors" argument in Lancaster. It is a ridiculous argument, but if you're convinced it works, why not encourge Mr. Rossi to take your case on a "flyer." Let's see how good the argument is when he isn't getting paid and is fronting the costs. Dummy!

Melissa

First and foremost, I think you’re out of line in attacking my family simply because you disagree with me. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know you/your family and vice versa, and I wouldn’t lower myself to those kinds of insults even if I did. I like to think you’re equally capable of keeping a discussion out of the gutter. Don’t prove me wrong, okay?

I already explained why I don’t approve of meddling, and I also defined why I feel investigating a terror incident is not the same as meddling (citing Bali ’05 as one example). It is you who appears to be stumbling over your own words as you question mine. I can’t make it any clearer than I already have.

Anyway…… since you seem to imply such an investigation would be meddling, and you also believe that meddling is acceptable for the sake of American interests, then aren’t you in essence agreeing with an international investigation, albeit for different reasons than me? Unless you do not see any implications here for the United States, that is, in fact, what you are saying.

onenastybeast

I would agree with following Al Qaeda into Pakistan and destroying them there, with or without Pakistan's permission. No international investigation needed for that. Bhutto is dead. No investigation needed to protect American interests. The only people interested in international commissions/task forces are Jimmy Carter and the group of professional sobsisters who make a career out of such useless endeavors.

John Morgan

It was announced this afternoon that Scotland Yard is going to aid with the investigation.

Melissa

"I would agree with following Al Qaeda into Pakistan and destroying them there, with or without Pakistan's permission."

I could agree with that, without getting into specifics.

"Bhutto is dead. No investigation needed to protect American interests."

Ensuring a stable Pakistan and keeping its nuclear weapons out of radical hands is not only America's interest, but the world's interest. If an international group of investigators can help to provide that, why not? It's not as if it would be a large or costly operation.

"and the group of professional sobsisters who make a career out of such useless endeavors."

Who does that?

Melissa

"It was announced this afternoon that Scotland Yard is going to aid with the investigation."

I'll bet Musharraf was reluctant to agree. Of course, when you hose down the scene of a crime w/in an hour and wash away evidence, what matter is it, really?

Did you get a chance to see the Channel 4 footage? Here's a YouTube link if you haven't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc-ICcefi48

The comments to this entry are closed.