continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:My only quibble with your analysis is I dont think it was a defeat for the army or the politicians, a compromised settlement is a win if it stops the deaths on both sides.

The whole "defeat" line was more in reference to the Irish Free State, which was established as a compromise since it remained a British Dominion after leaving the UK, but which became fully independent and separate only a decade or two later.  I'd agree that the NI settlement seems to be working out pretty well for all involved so far, all things considered.

"The US state department spokesman said: "The issue of whether to negotiate with TTP is an internal matter for Pakistan, and we refer you to the government of Pakistan for further details."

That seems incredibly unhelpful to me.

Yeah, the idea of peace negotiations that don't include one of the main players is ridiculous, and the State Department is just being disingenuous here.

I think it's naive to assume the various war departments are totally up on the diplomatic front of another country. It's like the fatal flaw of most conspiracy theories: expecting the government to actually be competent enough to pull off such a thing. I truly think the drone attack on the main Taliban negotiator was sheer lack of communication between different government agencies. Don't give these people more credit than they deserve.

The Pakistani government wasn't making a secret of these talks.*  And Mehsud was publicly known to be the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, so it's not like the US can say "oh, we didn't know the Pakistanis wanted to negotiate with him." I'm not sure what conspiracy theories have to do with it. I'm not alleging that the United States is doing anything other than showing a lack of interest in negotiations, which I find to be a cavalier attitude.

*Evidence: Reuters report on the negotiations from October 31.  Mehsud was killed on November 1.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-britain-pakistan-sharif-idUSBRE99U14E20131031

I think the flaw in your thinking is you say "it's not like US can say 'oh, we didn't know the Pakistanis wanted to negotiate with him.' "

The US is NOT a single entity with one mind. Just because the State Department is fully aware of what is going on in Pakistani Politics, doesn't mean the Defense Department is. Of course the drone program is a joint program between Defense and CIA, and if anyone should know about Pakistani politics, it's the CIA. But I still fear compartmentalization may have meant the hit list kept rolling despite whatever else was going on.

I (obviously) don't know enough about the inner workings of the US operations in Afghanistan to say if that was the case or not, but I would assume that the CIA at least has access to Reuters, no? Because it was widely reported by the world's news media that the negotiations had started a day or two before Mehsud was killed.

Yes, as I said the CIA should be aware of it. But it's also possible (though of course I don't know exactly how these things work either) that once the hit list was generated the group operating the drones just goes about their business until somebody tells them to stop. And the people who know about Pakistani politics may not have made the connection that this guy was also on the drone hit list. There's not a single person running everything, and programs are highly compartmentalized.

Then again it may have been a policy decision to go ahead and hit the guy regardless, but I'm more inclined to believe lack of communication than such deliberate and callous countervention of Pakistani negotiations. I could well be wrong.

The problem with politic at this level is everyone is lying all the time.
I read a theory that seemed quite likely to me, that the Pakistani authorities knew about, and agreed to the strike.

All the outrage is for domestic political consumption, with the real aim being to clear the way for more moderate up and coming Taliban leaders to take charge, thus actually increasing the likelihood of successful peace negotiations in the long term.

On the other hand this theory could be getting circulated by the US themselves to cover for the fact they have royally screwed up.

You takes your pick!

I'm equally willing to believe either one.

halfwise wrote:Then again it may have been a policy decision to go ahead and hit the guy regardless, but I'm more inclined to believe lack of communication than such deliberate and callous countervention of Pakistani negotiations.  I could well be wrong.

I'm not arguing that the United States was trying to deliberately sabotage negotiations.  I couldn't possibly know if that was the case.  But I would not be at all surprised if the US saw an opportunity to kill the guy and took it without regard for the negotiations (and I have a hard time believing the CIA didn't know about highly-publicized peace talks, especially since people have been trying to make them happen for years).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The problem with politic at this level is everyone is lying all the time.
I read a theory that seemed quite likely to me, that the Pakistani authorities knew about, and agreed to the strike.

That's certainly possible too, although the US has carried out strikes in Pakistani territory without informing the government before (for example, the bin Laden raid).

Got a question I cant be arsed finding out the answer to off my own back- so I will ask here and hope some UShobbit knows the answer- doesnt the President have to personally sign off on a drone strike?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Got a question I cant be arsed finding out the answer to off my own back- so I will ask here and hope some UShobbit knows the answer- doesnt the President have to personally sign off on a drone strike?

I'm not sure, but a quick Google search suggests ... probably?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/23/obama-i-make-the-drone-decisions.html

If thats the case then Obama not knowing about the peace process would be incredible (and incompetent).

Though clearly he signs off on the list, I'm not sure he's asked about the timing.  But it does seem unlikely with his level of supervision that he wouldn't have been aware of a possible conflict between a strike and current politics, so it seems like my miscommunication hypothesis is not justified.

The fact that the president was firm about retaining personal control is comforting: not completely mechanized.  I had heard before that he approved individual strikes, but thought of it more as a weekly meeting check off.  Even if it is (and I think for most cases it would be) it would have kept it in his mind enough to make the timing a deliberate policy move.

Then again, look what happened with the healthcare website.  He's recently shown an unexpected ability to fumble even important things.

But why on earth would he sign off on this assuming the authorities their are genuine in their anger at it?
He must have known if he did it without telling them, right before peace talks begin, that would be the result.

I find it hard to believe Obama has become that incompetent which makes me lean more towards the outrage being all for show.

I hope so.

'a southern New Jersey couple sued the governor of New Jersey over his signing of a bill banning so-called gay conversion therapy.
The couple claims that the bill Christie signed into law in August violates their constitutional rights. Specifically, they argue that the law violates their rights to free speech and freedom of religion because it prevents them from seeking treatment for their 15-year-old son.'- Fox

 He's gay he is not ill.  

And how does it violate religious freedoms? Last time I looked at the New Testament it was quite big on not casting stones, not finding faults in others whilst ignoring your own, and in love and tolerance.
The only prohibition against homosexuality is in the Old Testament, a Jewish book that the New Testament is supposed to replace for Christians as the go to book of God. And Jesus doesnt seem bothered about the subject at all, and doesnt give it a single mention.

good luck with the 'seeking treatment' thing. The fuckwits  

Gay conversion therapy is disgusting and I'm glad that New Jersey has banned it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The only prohibition against homosexuality is in the Old Testament, a Jewish book that the New Testament is supposed to replace for Christians as the go to book of God. And Jesus doesnt seem bothered about the subject at all, and doesnt give it a single mention.

Homosexuality comes up in the Epistles.  And the New Testament is not meant to completely throw out the Old Testament, otherwise it would not still be part of the Bible.  Although most modern Christians are selective in which Old Testament rules they apply (our fallen modern society seems perfectly fine with shellfish and blended cloth, for example).

Homosexuality comes up in the Epistles. - Eldo

True but they dont come from the words of Jesus, and as he never mentioned the subject in scripture they cant be basing it off anything he said or did.
So basically its just a lot of people talking about it after the event, no more valid than if they were doing it today.

"Although most modern Christians are selective in which Old Testament rules they apply"

I would say the vast majority of OT rules are ignored and no longer practised by modern Christians and that the few they do keep, like prohibition on homosexuality, are the minority in those that they do apply.
Its purely selective with no real rationalisation of why one law of God no longer applies when another dating from the same period does.

I'm the last person to try to justify discrimination against homosexuals on religious grounds, but it's not like people are just making this stuff up because they feel like it.  There are very entrenched religious and historical reasons for this discrimination, which is why it's difficult to overcome.  It's also why there is increased pushback as LGBT becomes more accepted by general society.  That doesn't mean said opposition makes sense, of course, and fortunately there are plenty of religious folks who are perfectly fine with LGBT people. But I can't imagine that most Christians agree with your characterization of the Epistles.

I can't imagine that most Christians agree with your characterization of the Epistles- Eldorion

maybe not, but the bulk of the material was composed after the life time of Jesus by people who had never met him, especially the Pauline ones.
Which in my view makes them no different from modern religious people making judgements on what they think someone they have never met meant when they said something. (Boy thats a tricky sentence  )

Maybe Christ was like George Lucas with regards to Star Wars: maybe Jesus never "got" christianity.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:maybe not, but the bulk of the material was composed after the life time of Jesus by people who had never met him, especially the Pauline ones.
Which in my view makes them no different from modern religious people making judgements on what they think someone they have never met meant when they said something. (Boy thats a tricky sentence  )

I'm pretty sure most Biblical scholars (at least those who are not apologists) believe that the Gospels were also written decades after the life and death of Jesus. Before that they were passed around orally and there is no way of knowing how much (or little) they may have changed in that time.

seems like anti-homosexual stuff is more cultural than religious, bit like genital mutilation or burkhas. Religion is used to make people conform to cultural stereotypes.

A very good point, Mrs Figg.