Pakistan officials say US Drone Strike sabotaged peace talks with Taliban - Polidicks

[url]http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/02/21286929-pakistan-officials-say-us-drone-strike-sabotaged-peace-talks-with-taliban?lite[/url] [QUOTE]Pakistani officials sharply criticized the United States on Saturday for a drone strike that killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, summoning Washington's ambassador to lodge a protest and accusing the Obama administration of sabotaging peace talks between their country and the Islamic militant group. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan's interior minister and the official in charge of negotiations with the Taliban, called Friday's CIA drone strike that killed the brash Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud "counterproductive" to peace negotiations and announced that the Cabinet Committee on National Security, the highest conflict-management body in Pakistan’s newly elected government, will “review all perspectives of the relationship with the U.S.” Khan said Pakistan had invested "days and weeks and months of work" in peace talks with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the official name of the Pakistan Taliban, but that the drone strike that targeted Mehsud "murdered the hope and progress for peace in the region.” [/QUOTE] Perhaps killing doesn't solve all problems.

Smells like a way for them to extract more aid money by way of "reparations". The Pakistanis have missiles capable of taking down those drones and already disapprove of them to begin with. If they really thought it was a threat to their diplomatic progress with the Pakistani Taliban, they'd have taken it down themselves. Instead, they chose not to and let the Americans take out a thorn in their side, claim they were trying and make the Americans give them a favour for all their "lost work". Knowing what the ISI is fully capable of, I'm not buying this for a second. You are not going to "review relations" with the country that's providing you with billions in aid and who also managed to get rid of a potential problem for you, it's pretty clear.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42740480]The Pakistanis have missiles capable of taking down those drones and already disapprove of them to begin with. If they really thought it was a threat to their diplomatic progress with the Pakistani Taliban, they'd have taken it down themselves.[/QUOTE] This is a really idiotic thing to say. The US would throw an absolute shit fit over that happening.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42740607]This is a really idiotic thing to say. The US would throw an absolute shit fit over that happening.[/QUOTE] We'd have a reenactment of the Vietnam War, with Pakistan playing as Cambodia.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;42740607]This is a really idiotic thing to say. The US would throw an absolute shit fit over that happening.[/QUOTE] Not really - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident"]you remember what happened when the Iranians took out a similar drone from the US[/URL]? The US fumed and ranted but ultimately, nothing happened. Better yet, China got a hold of those parts and reversed engineered most of it to make their own little drone. The US shouldn't be flying in Pakistani airspace to begin with if they didn't already have covert permission to do (which they have) or they were prepared to lose their drones ([URL="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down"]which has happened[/URL]).

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42740707]The US shouldn't be flying in Pakistani airspace to begin with if they didn't already have covert permission to do (which they have) or they were prepared to lose their drones ([URL="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down"]which has happened[/URL]).[/QUOTE] Pakistan remembers what happened when the US visited their neighbor Afghanistan. They're basically taking it up the ass to protect the country from breaking out into a destabilized mess shrouded in civil war. One day I'm sure they'll fight back but not before the US enters financial collapse.

You could say the Taliban sabotaged negotiations with all the violence they caused recently, but you never hear it that way.

[QUOTE=Saxon;42742526]You could say the Taliban sabotaged negotiations with all the violence they caused recently, but you never hear it that way.[/QUOTE] Maybe Pakistan are willing to negotiate with the taliban because of the violence, maybe the pakistani government want to stop their people getting blown up every week. The taliban aren't just killing for the sake of it, they have an agenda and can be negotiated with. All this has done is stir up the taliban who now have another reason to start bombing pakistani's.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42742559]Maybe Pakistan are willing to negotiate with the taliban because of the violence, maybe the pakistani government want to stop their people getting blown up every week. The taliban aren't just killing for the sake of it, they have an agenda and can be negotiated with. All this has done is stir up the taliban who now have another reason to start bombing pakistani's.[/QUOTE] Their only agenda is to have a state where Islamic law is the only law, and they want those values to be enforced as a matter of course. They're also forgetting that some parts of Islamic law might be less than fair when it comes to women's rights among other things.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;42742588]Their only agenda is to have a state where Islamic law is the only law, and they want those values to be enforced as a matter of course. They're also forgetting that some parts of Islamic law might be less than fair when it comes to women's rights among other things.[/QUOTE] Maybe but surely there must be a better way of dealing with the taliban than blowing up their leader, all this does is anger the taliban into carrying out revenge attacks. Not to mention they'll have a new leader in a matter of days.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42742610]Maybe but surely there must be a better way of dealing with the taliban than blowing up their leader, all this does is anger the taliban into carrying out revenge attacks. Not to mention they'll have a new leader in a matter of days.[/QUOTE] What negotiations? they'd sooner form their own government and if they could, they would overthrow the legally elected ones. There are a few voices of reason with moderate views among the Taliban, but they're also considered to be heretics by the others and their loyalty to the glorious cause is often suspect. They have one viewpoint alone - that of the Covenant.

[QUOTE=TankMan;42742624]Pakistan officials also claimed to be clueless as to where UBL was.[/QUOTE] great rebuttal how long did it take for you to think of that

[QUOTE=TankMan;42742667]As quickly as it took you to rate it dumb.[/QUOTE] so instantly

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;42742610]Maybe but surely there must be a better way of dealing with the taliban than blowing up their leader, all this does is anger the taliban into carrying out revenge attacks. Not to mention they'll have a new leader in a matter of days.[/QUOTE] They've tried to, they go to the tribal elders in Taliban controlled villages to build roads and other things to bring more trade and make them more prosperous but they're not interested.

Im pretty sure peace talks with the Taliban wouldn't work because of their mostly extremist nature, I can only imagine they would request America adopt sharia law or something else entirely ridiculous. Edit: sorry but reworked for better wording

the taliban are basically the afghanistan/pakistan equivalent of a mixture of organized crime and "revolutionaries" when you get down to it, you can easily compare them to the FARC in colombia in a way, they're highly involved in all kinds of shit like drug/human trafficking, you can't "make peace" with that, its ridiculous. also you can't really "stop" them due to the way they're organized(tribal-like), you kill one dude, there are 300 next in line, and shitload of poor people who think the US is "the great devil" or whatever to recruit from. killing their leaders constantly is actually one the smartest thing the US could probably do.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42743474]the taliban are basically the afghanistan/pakistan equivalent of a mixture of organized crime and "revolutionaries" when you get down to it, you can easily compare them to the FARC in colombia in a way, they're highly involved in all kinds of shit like drug/human trafficking, you can't "make peace" with that, its ridiculous. also you can't really "stop" them due to the way they're organized(tribal-like), you kill one dude, there are 300 next in line, and shitload of poor people who think the US is "the great devil" or whatever to recruit from. killing their leaders constantly is actually one the smartest thing the US could probably do.[/QUOTE] Even Malala, who was shot by the talibab disagrees with you. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24333273[/url]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42743564]Even Malala, who was shot by the talibab disagrees with you. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24333273[/url][/QUOTE] here is a thing, just because you're doing something great, doesn't instantly makes you correct. [url]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020218-201892,00.html[/url] the taliban engages in sex slave trade, regular human slave trade, drug trafficking, the fuckers do everything. you want to make peace with the mexican cartels too?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42743564]Even Malala, who was shot by the talibab disagrees with you. [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24333273[/URL][/QUOTE] She is not their spokesman. If she can say that while sitting in the country whose Taliban have already stated that they'd still try to kill her if they get the chance instead of Birmingham, then I'd be inclined to believe it. She might be the voice of reason, but she isn't [I]their[/I] voice of reason. Her views, while full of youthful optimism which is very commendable considering the ordeal she's been through, are also incredibly naive. She is talking about an organization that was around before she was even born - if the problem could be solved by something as simple as holding peace talks they'd have been done long ago. But as it stands, the Pakistani intelligence establishment has good reason to keep them as they are, for conducting a proxy war with India through Kashmir.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42740707]Not really - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident"]you remember what happened when the Iranians took out a similar drone from the US[/URL]? The US fumed and ranted but ultimately, nothing happened. Better yet, China got a hold of those parts and reversed engineered most of it to make their own little drone. The US shouldn't be flying in Pakistani airspace to begin with if they didn't already have covert permission to do (which they have) or they were prepared to lose their drones ([URL="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down"]which has happened[/URL]).[/QUOTE] Yeah because there's a huge difference between Iran, a country not on the friendliest terms with the US, shooting down a spy drone and the Pakistanis shooting down a drone on it's way to kill the leader of the Taliban.

[QUOTE=bravehat;42743802]Yeah because there's a huge difference between Iran, a country not on the friendliest terms with the US, shooting down a spy drone and the Pakistanis shooting down a drone on it's way to kill the leader of the Taliban.[/QUOTE] No - the key point is that both countries didn't give the US permission to fly into their airspace and shoot things on their soil. The difference is that the Iranians didn't give a damn, took it down and the American government was left with humiliation of first admitting that they were flying in places they shouldn't have, got caught and were unable to get it back because the country that dropped their eye in the sky was now hawking off their bird to the highest bidder in retaliation. Fast forward to now, the US is hosting peace talks with them and it's like the even didn't happen, despite the fact that earlier this year, the Iranians had announced they manage to decode the flight video of the downed drone. The Pakistani government, on the other hand, chose a different route - they chose to make a very public hue and cry about the fact that these drone strikes were carrying too high a collateral damage (and rightly so), while their own generals ([URL="http://dawn.com/news/1023972/report-reveals-pashas-admission-of-pak-us-understanding-on-drones"]General Pasha, in particular[/URL]) were secretly negotiating deals with the US to have it continued because it was serving their purposes well aka killing the same militants their government is trying to have "peace talks" with. They are playing a very, [I]very[/I] dangerous double game with the Americans and at some point it will come back to bite them. But until then, you have to put up with it for your best interests, because the ISI is most certainly looking after theirs - ensuring that the Talibanis are alive and well, using weapons purchased with aid money suppied by the US to conduct their own private wars, while asking for more money from you to "fight" or hold "peace talks" with them. The only real losers is all of these are the ones that want a satisfactory conclusion for all parties.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42743599]here is a thing, just because you're doing something great, doesn't instantly makes you correct. [url]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020218-201892,00.html[/url] the taliban engages in sex slave trade, regular human slave trade, drug trafficking, the fuckers do everything. you want to make peace with the mexican cartels too?[/QUOTE] You're still being incredibly naive about this. [url]http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21579874-peace-afghanistan-distant-not-impossible-talking-taliban[/url] [url]http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21568428-signs-grow-renewed-if-cautious-enthusiasm-talks-afghan-taliban-table[/url] [editline]3rd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=snookypookums;42743658]She is not their spokesman. If she can say that while sitting in the country whose Taliban have already stated that they'd still try to kill her if they get the chance instead of Birmingham, then I'd be inclined to believe it. She might be the voice of reason, but she isn't [I]their[/I] voice of reason. Her views, while full of youthful optimism which is very commendable considering the ordeal she's been through, are also incredibly naive. She is talking about an organization that was around before she was even born - if the problem could be solved by something as simple as holding peace talks they'd have been done long ago. But as it stands, the Pakistani intelligence establishment has good reason to keep them as they are, for conducting a proxy war with India through Kashmir.[/QUOTE] its not just malala, its every credible analyst and they've been saying it for years.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42740707]Not really - [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident"]you remember what happened when the Iranians took out a similar drone from the US[/URL]? The US fumed and ranted but ultimately, nothing happened. Better yet, China got a hold of those parts and reversed engineered most of it to make their own little drone. The US shouldn't be flying in Pakistani airspace to begin with if they didn't already have covert permission to do (which they have) or they were prepared to lose their drones ([URL="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/10/9352886-pakistan-says-us-drones-in-its-air-space-will-be-shot-down"]which has happened[/URL]).[/QUOTE] iran and the usa already exist in a state of incredibly high tension and hostility. pakistan would be escalating diplomatic tension by shooting down drones and pakistan gets a lot of aid(financially, diplomatically, and i think politically) from the usa. this aid comes in exchange for a subversion of pakistan sovereignty. so while pakistan might get angry about the situation, and even publicly denounce it, the action they can take is limited because they risk shooting themselves in the foot. [editline]3rd November 2013[/editline] this is a contrast to iran where much of their political and diplomatic policy is based around sustaining high tensions with the usa.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42744070]You're still being incredibly naive about this. [URL]http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21579874-peace-afghanistan-distant-not-impossible-talking-taliban[/URL] [URL]http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21568428-signs-grow-renewed-if-cautious-enthusiasm-talks-afghan-taliban-table[/URL] [editline]3rd November 2013[/editline] its not just malala, its every credible analyst and they've been saying it for years.[/QUOTE] Every credible analyst has been stating and restating the fact that while talking to the taliban is an option, it is a very distant and very unlikely that any positive outcome will come from it which has any compromise from their side. [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282347/what-obama-considers-diplomacy-taliban-considers-defeat-ahmad-majidyar"]Hell, these are the same people that were celebrating the withdrawal of American troops, a diplomatic move, as a sign of defeat.[/URL] [URL="http://mobygroup.com/moby-media-update/783-mmu-abandoning-diplomacy-taliban-close-qatar-office-and-vow-to-keep-fighting-10-july-2013"]A few months ago, they also decided that enough was enough and gave up on any peace talks that weren't outright giving in to their demands with no real compromise on their side.[/URL] It will always be about them making outlandish demands under the pretext of being "diplomatic" and it would be setting a bad precedent to accede to any of them unless you fancy seeing Pakistan turn into an Afghanistan before 9/11.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42744155]Every credible analyst has been stating and restating the fact that while talking to the taliban is an option, it is a very distant and very unlikely that any positive outcome will come from it which has any compromise from there side.[/QUOTE] Do you know what an ever more distant and very unlikely positive outcome is? Beating them militarily. That is what everyone is saying. That is why we need talks if you like it or not.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42744172]Do you know what an ever more distant and very unlikely positive outcome is? Beating them militarily. That is what everyone is saying. That is why we need talks if you like it or not.[/QUOTE] Finally, something I can agree with (the not beating them with military force bit, that is). Defeating them militarily isn't an option either, but what is most important is that the Pakistani government needs to stop their covert support for them and let them implode on their own. This discussion (or rather, argument, depending on how passionate you feel about this topic) has deviated substantially though. At its core, however, lies this - the US drone strikes, while legal by US law, [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=18742654"]are illegal by international law[/URL]. As such, regardless of any geopolitical tension that exists, any country that finds a drone conducting missions within its airspace are well within their rights to shoot it down unless they have permission to do so, whether it be a country hostile to the Americans, like Iran, or even a hypothetical country that enjoys good relations with them for reasons of securing their airspace. The Pakistanis are capable of doing just that and have every motive to do so (jeopardizing their peace talks and regional stability, the drones causing too many civilian casualties are just a few, army directives instructing just that) but they choose not to because it would potentially destroy their bilateral ties with the US and thus potentially either result in their aid money being reduced substantially or completely which would be, in a word, catastrophic for them. The fact that they do let these drones in to do their job, however, makes it abundantly clear that they have in fact, permitted them to do it (for the above reasons) which should also call into question progress (if any to begin with) they've made in peace talks with the Taliban who are being actively killed by drones which Pakistan allows the Americans to fly in their country(in full contravention of international law, at that).

The taliban isn't propped up by covert support from the government they're propped up by ideology

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42744496]The taliban isn't propped up by covert support from the government they're propped up by ideology[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/02/2012227163094221.html"]They are propped up by ideology, they are supported financially and armed by the Government. [/URL] [URL="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm"]Report from HRW on the matter.[/URL] I would also urge people to take the time to read [URL="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all"]this[/URL], if they can - you might find it very insightful.

None of those sources are particularly good, or supportive of your claims sorry

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42744655]None of those sources are particularly good, or supportive of your claims sorry[/QUOTE] Al Jazeera English, Human Rights Watch and The New Yorker (Granted, it's more of an opinion piece, but the factual information is still verifiable and correct) aren't "reliable sources"? In the face of you not being able to provide any counter points from a source that we both can deem "credible"? Well, color me surprised.