Article

2009-12-04 India-Pakistan

Rawalpindi mosque attacks kills 26 - Pakistan officials

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2009-12-04 06:13|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 This mosque contained the wrong brand of Muslims ('wrong', of course being a relative term?) Or just being near a government garrison was crime enough for death sentences? If our liberal overlords do not find this kind of bombing unnacceptable we might consider applying it as precedent for JDAMing mosques in neighborhoods we don't like.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-12-04 07:37|| 2009-12-04 07:37|| Front Page Top

#2 For something (we infidels have been told) a muslim would never do, it sure happens a lot.

Posted by ed 2009-12-04 08:56|| 2009-12-04 08:56|| Front Page Top

#3 "muslims would never do"

well we HAVE been told that the terrorists arent really muslims, havent we?

Glenmore - its another way to kill Paki army officers. It seems clear the taliban on the run in NWFP, is doing their damndest to use the best weapon they have (suicide attacks) to intimidate the Paki army leadership.

Of course this is unnacceptable.

Become terrorists ourselves though, is not going to win us this war.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-04 09:46|| 2009-12-04 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Bombing German cities is not the answer.

Posted by Gromston Churchill 2009-12-04 15:25|| 2009-12-04 15:25|| Front Page Top

#5 we had military targets. we didnt target churches for the hell of it

Note well, I am ALL for targeting mosques when there are weapons stored there, they are used by snipers, etc. If THAT is what glenmore was referring to, then I withdraw my disagreement.

Posted by liberalhawk 2009-12-04 15:33|| 2009-12-04 15:33|| Front Page Top

#6 we had military targets. we didnt target churches for the hell of it

That was true for most of the war. But as the fighting dragged on, Britain in particular was near collapse. Churchill intentionally ordered firebombing of civilian targets in Dresden and other cities to break the will of the German populace. The US joined the RAF in the raids.

The incident is discussed in at least one textbook on ethics, posing the question of whether in extreme cases the choices are between acts that are generally not ethical vs. accepting horrible consequences if they are not chosen. Others, including the USAF commission that reviewed the decision later, concluded Dresden was a legitimate military target, a transportation and communications nexus whose factories kept the Nazi war effort going. But Churchhill was clear about the decision he in particular was making.

It's a serious dilemna for leaders in such times. On the whole, I'm glad Churchill called it the way he did.

The modern belief, fervently embraced, is that there is always a clean, wholesome way out of a conflict and that the parties to a conflict always are either misunderstood or have legitimate grievances that justify their violence.

Sometimes, though, wars occur because the aggressor is truly evil. And in more than one such conflict in history the outcome hung by a very thread. The good guys don't always win and when they do it is sometimes due to extreme measures taken when other options seem exhausted. No such struggle occurs without leaving a mark on all concerned.

Posted by lotp 2009-12-04 16:57|| 2009-12-04 16:57|| Front Page Top

#7 LH,
I was not calling for indiscriminate bombing of mosques, but rather expressing exasperation that such behavior is at least tacitly condoned by our most civilized as long as it is done by our enemies.
If it's acceptable for them to blow up a mosque to kill a Pakistani officer attending services then would it be similarly acceptable for us to blow one up to kill a Taliban or Al Quaeda officer attending services? By extension, perhaps it's wrong for us to blow up houses and kill family members along with the AQ targets? That does seem to be a common position.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-12-04 18:14|| 2009-12-04 18:14|| Front Page Top

#8 It is hardly fair to say that Britain was near collapse in mid-February 1945 when Dresden was bombed. By then the Bulge was pretty well, if not completely, collapsed and there was no meaningful resistance left in the West, the Rhine was crossed three weeks later.

Nonetheless, this is what happens when you get in a Total War with the Anglo Saxons. And remember that more Americans are and were of German extraction than any other ethnic group. And ask any American from Georgia or South Carolina.

The muzzies would do well to consider what we were willing to do to our cousins when they, utterly unrelated to us, repeatedly and over extended periods of time threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. It will not be pretty. Cherem.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-12-04 19:02|| 2009-12-04 19:02|| Front Page Top

#9 NS, not militarily but economically at a minimum. So Churchill believed. And there was still the war in the Pacific.

Posted by lotp 2009-12-04 20:28|| 2009-12-04 20:28|| Front Page Top

#10 the V2 attacks were nothing but terrorizing civilians and hoping for firestorms to crush the English civilian morale. They got it back in bomber-dropped bombs. There's something to be said for willingness to do whatever it takes in Desperation Mode©. The hinsight brigades may question it, but willingness to go crazy is a strategic tool to keep in the pouch

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-12-04 20:53|| 2009-12-04 20:53|| Front Page Top

23:23 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:12 trailing wife
23:08 Angleton9
22:25 USN, Ret.
21:59 Glenmore
21:57 Skunky Glins****
21:55 Mike N.
21:38 trailing wife
21:32 Penguin
21:31 trailing wife
20:56 Frank G
20:53 Frank G
20:39 lotp
20:32 trailing wife
20:28 lotp
20:09 phil_b
19:57 Pappy
19:56 JosephMendiola
19:49 JosephMendiola
19:40 JosephMendiola
19:36 JosephMendiola
19:32 JosephMendiola
19:28 Frank G