Pakistan hit by US Air Strike

[ViolentPanda]

The term "paki" does not have the same impact in the Americas as it does in the UK.

I would suggest that you accept that this was a cultural difference, and now that he has been informed of the situation, will pay more attention to his terms.

Suggest away. The point is that Pakistan's diplomats complain vociferously whenever the term is used by the press anywhere, and they do so because since the foundation of the country in 1947 it has been used in a derogatory way.

I'm sure you wouldn't be insolent or ignorant enough to suggest to the Pakistan ambasador in your country that he "accept a cultural difference"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was expecting him to be from another site, true conservatism.

still same bullshit.

Didn't think us people used paki.

Bush did in 2001 when Pakistan "stood shoulder to shoulder" with the US. He was crass enough to refer to them as "the Pakis" and got torn off a strip even by the comatose US press, as well as getting an official complaint from Pakistan.

I'm reckoning that unless Rogue Yam is some kind of inbred fuck he knew exactly what he was doing using that terminology.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just a purely speculative idea:

Might it be possible that it could be an element within the Pakistani military that could have carried this out. They get rid of someone who is troublesome to them, it stirs up anger against the US allowing them to look good to the Pakistani people by getting all upset by it, and if anyone makes a fuss domestically it gives them an excuse to tighten up security in the area. They even have US weapons so that that if they were seen from the ground it looks like the Americans.

I agree it's probably the Americans being bloody stupid again though.

It could be either. ISI has very deep links with the CIA dating back at least to Zia. Both parties can blame each other and it would be within the realms of believability (and also therefore deniable by both parties).

I'm not too sure that the powers that be in Pakistan would actually want to "tighten security" in the frontier territories though, the porosity plays to the advantage of the generals and their intelligence friends, and also, occasionally, to the Americans.

 

[mears]

Bush did in 2001 when Pakistan "stood shoulder to shoulder" with the US. He was crass enough to refer to them as "the Pakis" and got torn off a strip even by the comatose US press, as well as getting an official complaint from Pakistan.

I'm reckoning that unless Rogue Yam is some kind of inbred fuck he knew exactly what he was doing using that terminology.

"Pakis" is a foreign term in the US. If an American refers to someone of Pakistani orgin as a "Paki" chances are they employ the term as a British person might be called a Brit in the States If its an offensive and derogatory term than it of course should not be used. I used it once here and when it was explained to me that it was offensive I never used it again.

Cultural differences. Relax

 

[mears]

Suggest away. The point is that Pakistan's diplomats complain vociferously whenever the term is used by the press anywhere, and they do so because since the foundation of the country in 1947 it has been used in a derogatory way.

I'm sure you wouldn't be insolent or ignorant enough to suggest to the Pakistan ambasador in your country that he "accept a cultural difference"?

Can you link some information where Pakistani officals made such statements?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

"Pakis" is a foreign term in the US. If an American refers to someone of Pakistani orgin as a "Paki" chances are they employ the term as a British person might be called a Brit in the States If its an offensive and derogatory term than it of course should not be used. I used it once here and when it was explained to me that it was offensive I never used it again.

Cultural differences. Relax

Mears it's not as if your 'President' hadn't been told that 'paki' is an offensive term and I certainly believe that this would have been communicated wider than just Bush's internal staff. The difference is that being called a brit or a limey is not a derogative term on the same level as 'paki'

You can't just write this one off as cultural differences. Troll boy is either stupid or he deliberately went out to insult.

 

[mears]

Mears it's not as if your 'President' hadn't been told that 'paki' is an offensive term and I certainly believe that this would have been communicated wider than just Bush's internal staff. The difference is that being called a brit or a limey is not a derogative term on the same level as 'paki'

You can't just write this one off as cultural differences. Troll boy is either stupid or he deliberately went out to insult.

In my city there are mostly Somalis and Hmong immigrants. I also work with people from Nigeria and Nepal. I have not run into anyone of Pakistani orgin in my city.

I'm sure most people in Britian have much exposure to Pakistanis because many live in Britian. You are exposed and aware of their culture, religion and history. If you lived in many place in America chances are you would not.

I'm not small town America. I have been as far east as Russia and many countries in Europe. I had no idea this was a derogatory term until posting on Urban 75.

 

[oi2002]

...I have not run into anyone of Pakistani orgin in my city.

Enough already with the P-word thing.

Here's a short drama exploring the problems of Asian immigrant alienation in early an 70s Britain rife with post-colonial racism.

WARNING: May be offensive to Pakistanis and Daleks.

 

[rogue yam]

So just to get this straight: there were no innocent lives lost in the air strike - is that correct? Is that because you think "they all look the same"?

Oooh! The race card. I'm soooo impressed! And let's not waste time on this "no innocent lives" canard. This is war. We do what we can to avoid civilian casualties (more conscienciously and skillfully than any other country in human history) but we are obliged to defend ourselves. Let those who harbor terrorists take responsibility for their own decisions.

 

[rogue yam]

I noticed that he's using the word 'Paki' to describe the inhabitants of Pakistan. I wonder if he has bothered to inform himself of acceptable usages of words - or does he even care.

"Acceptable" where?

 

[rogue yam]

DC has done this before. Its a pity innocents have been killed but frankly I've little quarrel with it. The likes of al-Zarwahiri are very dangerous men whose victims are mostly innocent fellow Muslims.

Pakistan will be outraged of course. I'd not be sure if that's theatre for its Bin Laden loving population or if DC plays its cards close to its chest so the ISI does not tip of its Jihadi chums of a coming air strike. DC has been baffeling timid in it's pursuit of AQ into Pakistan. This afterall is a malign occasionally genocidal, military dictatorship that has trafficked in nuclear weapons, which in practice shelters active terrorists and has become refuge for men who were instrumental in 9-11 and remain a threat to the US.

Quite!

 

[rogue yam]

You can't just write this one off as cultural differences. Troll boy is either stupid or he deliberately went out to insult.

Well, you leftists are certainly enamored of your own fine senses of moral outrage. To bad it's not worth anything.


Why won’t they talk about Bush’s slur?
Socialist Worker Online

January 18, 2002

THE MAINSTREAM media will let George W. Bush get away with anything. During a press conference earlier this month, Bush used the racial slur "Pakis" in talking about escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.

"We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there’s a way to deal with their problems without going to war," Bush said. The insult is especially vile given that the phrase "Paki-bashing" is used, mainly in Britain, to describe attacks on any Asian or African immigrant.

But the establishment press doesn’t seem to care. The Washington Post tucked its account of Bush’s slur--and of the White House’s unapologetic statement that the president "meant no disrespect"--as the next-to-last entry in its digest of minor Washington news items. And the New York Times tucked the story into the end of an article about White House policy in South Asia.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/390/390_02_BushSlur.shtml

 

[spring-peeper]

Well, you leftists are certainly enamored of your own fine senses of moral outrage. To bad it's not worth anything.

Grow up and accept that you are here, on a UK board and should conform to their rules.

You were already granted amensty on your comments due to lack of knowledge of the cultural differences here.

Stop defending your error in judgement and accept that American terminalogy is not accepted here.

You defend your nation with pride, but it is your nation's inability to acknowledge that other cultures have as much right to exist as your culture does.

If you want your ideas to be accepted here, stop being the stereo-typical American - "all america, all the time" - and enter into an international conversation.

 

[TAE]

And let's not waste time on this "no innocent lives" canard. This is war. We do what we can to avoid civilian casualties (more conscienciously and skillfully than any other country in human history) but we are obliged to defend ourselves. Let those who harbor terrorists take responsibility for their own decisions.

All kinds of terrorists have used the excuse of "being at war" and "having to defend themselves" in order to justify killing innocents. Such phrases justify nothing.

The US is not at war with Pakistan, yet the US military attacks a defenceless village using a pilotless drone, killing more than a dozen bystanders. You might as well have planted a truck bomb. Skillfully avoiding civilian casualties, my arse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oooh! The race card. I'm soooo impressed! And let's not waste time on this "no innocent lives" canard. This is war. We do what we can to avoid civilian casualties (more conscienciously and skillfully than any other country in human history) but we are obliged to defend ourselves. Let those who harbor terrorists take responsibility for their own decisions.

You mean like your own state doesn't take responsibility for the Central and South American and Caribbean terrorists it harbours?

You're great at pontification and bogus moralising, but you're invariably light on reality.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Well, you leftists are certainly enamored of your own fine senses of moral outrage. To bad it's not worth anything.

Did I say I was a leftist -- now quit the bellyaching and the sidewinding and give me my fucking answer on the Iran / Blair thread. -- please/

Why won’t they talk about Bush’s slur?
Socialist Worker Online

January 18, 2002

THE MAINSTREAM media will let George W. Bush get away with anything. During a press conference earlier this month, Bush used the racial slur "Pakis" in talking about escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.

"We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis there’s a way to deal with their problems without going to war," Bush said. The insult is especially vile given that the phrase "Paki-bashing" is used, mainly in Britain, to describe attacks on any Asian or African immigrant.

But the establishment press doesn’t seem to care. The Washington Post tucked its account of Bush’s slur--and of the White House’s unapologetic statement that the president "meant no disrespect"--as the next-to-last entry in its digest of minor Washington news items. And the New York Times tucked the story into the end of an article about White House policy in South Asia.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/390/390_02_BushSlur.shtml

Look troll boy if you had half a brain and searched back through my previous posts on here you will see that I am no friend of the SWP for the simple reason that I don't trust them and their Respect vehicle is divisive.

Now answer a fucking question - on the Iran Blair thread.

 

[rogue yam]

All kinds of terrorists have used the excuse of "being at war" and "having to defend themselves" in order to justify killing innocents. Such phrases justify nothing.

In our case it is true.

The US is not at war with Pakistan, yet the US military attacks a defenceless village using a pilotless drone, killing more than a dozen bystanders. You might as well have planted a truck bomb. Skillfully avoiding civilian casualties, my arse.

The U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. We are killing them where they live. The ordnance used and the casualties inflicted in this strike are both quite proportional to the intended target, and the physical realities of the battlespace. We have bigger.

 

[rogue yam]

Stop defending your error in judgement and accept that American terminalogy is not accepted here.

Done. The last thing I want to do is quibble over semantics.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

In our case it is true.




The U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. We are killing them where they live. The ordnance used and the casualties inflicted in this strike are both quite proportional to the intended target, and the physical realities of the battlespace. We have bigger.

Fuck off with your opinions about AQ. All you know is what you've been told to know. Now be a good boy and pop over to the Iran/Blair thread and answer my fucking question.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. We are killing them where they live. The ordnance used and the casualties inflicted in this strike are both quite proportional to the intended target, and the physical realities of the battlespace. We have bigger.

By this logic you'd be fine with the Guatemalan police tripping along to Miami and executing some of the rightwing death-squad suckwads your government gives safe harbour to, then?

 

[rogue yam]

You mean like your own state doesn't take responsibility for the Central and South American and Caribbean terrorists it harbours?

What? Who?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Done. The last thing I want to do is quibble over semantics.

Why not be a good polite human being and stop faffing and debate please.

I could go to FR and I could debate - why do you find it so difficult to do the same here - surely the US educational system isn't that bad?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What? Who?

Don't play dumb.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps you really are that pigshit-thick.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

What? Who?

Does this man have no sense of shame? I've called his bluff, I've called him a liar and still he comes on here and obfusticates.

You are in the wrong game mate - a desk awaits you at the Ministry of Propaganda.

 

[rogue yam]

By this logic you'd be fine with the Guatemalan police tripping along to Miami and executing some of the rightwing death-squad suckwads your government gives safe harbour to, then?

This is the first I've heard of the U.S. harboring "right-wing death squads" in Miami or anywhere else. If there are criminals in the U.S. that the Guatemalan government has an interest in, there are channels through which they can pursue this.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is the first I've heard of the U.S. harboring "right-wing death squads" in Miami or anywhere else. If there are criminals in the U.S. that the Guatemalan government has an interest in, there are channels through which they can pursue this.

Yeah, right.

You're either frighteningly ignorant, or an apologist.

From your post history I'd bet on the latter.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yeah, right.

You're either frighteningly ignorant, or an apologist.

From your post history I'd bet on the latter.

I agree there. The ignorant can at least be educated.

Whats really frightening is that I've debated with members of the BNP in a far more effective manner than RY. Which really puts it into perspective.

 

[TAE]

In our case it is true.

No it is not.

The U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. We are killing them where they live.

You are not fighting a war. You are hunting criminals.

The ordnance used and the casualties inflicted in this strike are both quite proportional to the intended target, and the physical realities of the battlespace.

You bombed a village, killing women and children, because a wanted criminal *might* have been there. What was proportional about that?!

We have bigger.

Bigger what?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

!


Bigger what?

Well it certainly aint fucking brain cells - nor an encyclopeadia.

 

[mears]

You mean like your own state doesn't take responsibility for the Central and South American and Caribbean terrorists it harbours?

You're great at pontification and bogus moralising, but you're invariably light on reality.

Who are these terrorists? Names? Orginizations? Links?