 |
| The similarity might not be intentional, but its far too obvious. |
Pakistan's gun culture has been mentioned before--and they love their guns as much, if not more, than people in the US. Pakistan even has an equivalent of the Second Amendment as gun loons envision it in their Constitution!
Well, they weren't gonna be outdone in the mass shooting department by the US of A.
No way.
The Pakistanis, especially the Taliban, had to show that they were freedom loving people like their US counterparts with a massive school shooting.
At least 126 people, most of them children, have been killed in a Taliban assault on an army-run
 |
| Hali Ph'shar (ALEX BOWIE / GETTY) |
Peshawar--sound familiar? Yeah, it's the home of the Darra Gun Bazaar! It's Pakistani Gun Loon Central!
Let's toss in that the School was run by the Army.
I don't give a shit what you clowns think, but there were probably more "good guys with guns" on the spot than you could count.
I also doubt there will be much of a movement to try and ban guns in this part of the world as well.
But, this definitely changes the dialogue.
The Taliban know the real meaning of FREEDOM!
See also:
This oughtta piss the looners off big time. I hope so.
ReplyDeleteNot at all..This is what normal people expect from a mentally ill socialist lawyer. To expect anything different from Laci would be foolish
DeleteKewl! More reasons for Obama's Drone Attacks.
ReplyDeleteMore than 2,400 dead as Obama’s drone campaign marks five years
Five years ago, on January 23 2009, a CIA drone flattened a house in Pakistan’s tribal regions. It was the third day of Barack Obama’s presidency, and this was the new commander-in-chief’s first covert drone strike.
Initial reports said up to ten militants were killed, including foreign fighters and possibly a ‘high-value target’ – a successful first hit for the fledgling administration.
But reports of civilian casualties began to emerge. As later reports revealed, the strike was far from a success. At least nine civilians died, most of them from one family. There was one survivor, 14-year-old Fahim Qureshi, but with horrific injuries including shrapnel wounds in his stomach, a fractured skull and a lost eye, he was as much a victim as his dead relatives.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/
Blowback is a bitch.
orlin sellers
Better deflections, please.
DeleteIn reality, drone strikes save lives. Face facts, we're in a low-grade war in that area of the world. Drones save lives because of a number of factors: 1. they can loiter and better identify targets. 2. they're unmanned, sparing aircrew and ground personnel lives. 3. they are far and away more accurate than aerial bombing (even with 'smart' weapons or cruise missiles.
Yeah, it sucks that sometimes noncombatants are killed. But, in all wars, civilians get killed.
We bombed, invaded, occupied Iraq and Afghanistan why? We bombed Libya why? We setup puppet governments in these countries and more why? We have troops and bases in over 150 countries why?
DeleteWe were shooting spaghetti up Gitmo residents asses why?
The only one deflecting here is you my friend.
The next thing you'll tell me is that all these assholes over there killing innocent people are heroes. Fucking warmongers make me sick.
orlin sellers
The have medals for drone pilots. They must be hero's ya see.
DeleteWe occupied Afghanistan and Iraq because Bush the Dimmer was avenging his daddy issues or something. And we torture and kill because folks like Dick Cheney and John Yoo like it.
DeleteIt's deflection.
"Yeah, it sucks that sometimes noncombatants are killed. But, in all wars, civilians get killed."
DeleteThe problem of course is that we are conducting airstrikes in a country that is at least on some level considered an ally. This is quite different than providing direct air support for ground troops in contact with the enemy.
These strikes are being conducted on targets without the permission of the local government.
I should have known, use Bush as the great deflection away from Obama's campaign promises in 2008 to immediately, his first day in office, to close Gitmo and bring the troops home. Well, here we are, 6 years later, Gitmo is bustling, Obama is sending more troops back to Iraq, more troops staying in Afghanistan, Drone missions expanding, ISIS formed under Obama, Bombing in Syria, Lybia in total chaos, starts a new Cold War with Russia, and the list goes on and on and on.
DeleteBtw, how do drone attacks save lives? What is it like living in Obama''s fairy tale world.
orlin sellers
If a country is harboring terrorists like Ben Ladin, they are not an ally. Obama said years ago that if he knew where the terrorists were, he would go get them. The world was given notice.
DeleteDrones save American lives while killing the enemy and have less collateral damage than if we had sent ground troops. That's what technology of war is supposed to do.
I support pulling out troops out completely, bit if we must wage useless war, then at least try to save as many American lives as possible.
then we have to be prepared to face the consequences of these actions. You could make the same argument to justify the interrogation techniques we've been reading about recently.
DeleteMr. McCain understands the importance of keeping to the moral high ground, likely because of his experiences as a POW.
"then we have to be prepared to face the consequences"
DeleteAgreed, which is why we should not be over there at all. The decision to start a war over there predetermined that we would do such things because that's what happens in war.
Hey Pooch,
ReplyDeleteThis is the perfect opportunity for you to discuss the astrological importance of the Winter Solstice to this event. Maybe you could call it the Massacre of Innocents II. Maybe even incorporate some new or additional lyrics to Coventry Carol. Be sure to include Peace Prize Winners name.
orlin sellers
Hmm . . . :
ReplyDeletePerhaps, if there is a legitimate case for easy access to guns for ordinary citizens, it is in Pakistan because citizens are in dire need to protect themselves. And yet, in Pakistan, you cannot possess guns with ease. To obtain legal ownership is extremely difficult and, furthermore, gun permits are strictly limited in numbers.
Of course, you can illegally get guns but even there, not everyone has the means or the contacts to obtain these. In Pakistan, unless you are very well-connected or living in a completely wild area, possession of guns is not an easy task.
And moreover, there is no pressure from the general population to ease the restrictions on the gun ownership. Despite the dangers, citizens by and large understand that more guns are not going to protect them. If anything, they understand that possession of guns increase the chance of violence manifold. Gun culture is popular in only those areas which are bordering Afghanistan.
The author, by the way, is from Pakistan, advocates more "gun control" in the U.S., and is "Co-editor of Pak Tea House, which is a prominent Pakistani liberal blogzine."
Why, do you mean to say that Laci lied to us? Or that he was stereotyping an entire country? Say it ain't so!
DeleteSo, youy point is there were no good guys with guns at the Pakistan school shooting? Or what?
DeleteOf course you believe everything you read on the internet, at least when it fits into your world-view-of-the-moment. Only the very well connected can get guns in Pakistan? You believe that? How did that work in Mexico and Iraq where practically every home has a gun in spite of whatever laws may or may not be operative?
How did that work in Mexico and Iraq where practically every home has a gun in spite of whatever laws may or may not be operative?
DeleteAnd yet you seem to argue that in the U.S., "whatever laws may or may not be operative" would make a very significant difference in people's ability to obtain firearms. Why? Are Mexicans and Iraqis just that much more resourceful than Americans? What about immigrants to the U.S., from Mexico and Iraq? Do they keep this mysterious ability to acquire firearms despite laws, or do they suddenly become as helpless as Americans at defying gun laws?
Gunloons like tout how their masculinity proxies are the only thing preventing tyranny.
DeleteYet, many of the most wretchedly despotic countries on earth are awash in guns. Iraq put up with 4 decades of Saddam Hussein and throughout those 40 years, any Iraqi could buy virtually any firearm--even full auto weapons. Pakistan is no different; if you have money--you can buy whatever you want. Yemen may actually lead the world in gun ownership. The proliferation og guns in Africa certainly hasn't checked tyranny there.
"Are Mexicans and Iraqis just that much more resourceful than Americans? What about immigrants to the U.S., from Mexico and Iraq? Do they keep this mysterious ability to acquire firearms despite laws, or do they suddenly become as helpless as Americans at defying gun laws?"
DeleteThis dumb even by Kurties low standards. Drugs and prostitution are also illegal in Mexico--yet it isn't too hard to find either there. It isn't that the population is resourceful--it's far more the case that Mexico has insufficient resources to enforce their laws. Public corruption is also a factor. This is why cartels run certain parts of the country.
Is that possible in the US? Nope.
Really, Jade? So there isn't organized crime in the US, and it isn't easy to find drugs or prostitutes here?
DeleteMike,
Delete"So, youy point is there were no good guys with guns at the Pakistan school shooting? Or what?"
Actually, I think Kurt's point was that Laci was full of shit when he claimed that Pakistan had strong legal protections for gun rights like the US and that the whole country is awash in legal guns.
As for Laci's notion that there were lots of armed people to respond; as he suggested, "more than you could count," how then did 7 guys overcome this multitude, and yet, in the end, only kill a handful of teacher and a ton of students? Did they only wound the armed multitude? Or might the case be more as reported on CNN--they infiltrated, met no resistance for a while, then the police and army showed up with guns, pushed them into one building and killed them all.
Seriously, with this kind of fact lacking BS from Laci, he doesn't even deserve point by point refutation--it's like arguing with a drunk, but highly opinionated 4 year old.
"Of course you believe everything you read on the internet, at least when it fits into your world-view-of-the-moment."
Ah yes--Kurt totally went to a source that fits his worldview: a pro gun control Pakistani! Why, he and Kurt are like brothers from other mothers!
Sure, you can find both in the US. But where's it far more prevalent?
DeleteAnd do we have organized crime with their own private militaries that are capable of controlling entire cities or regions.
Where are drugs and prostitution far more prevalent? Well gee, Jade, all I have to go on is the news and movies for Mexico and anecdotal evidence about where I've seen hookers, how many people I knew or knew of doing drugs at college, and how many people I see in court with charges relating to one or the other--both seem common enough.
DeleteDo you have some first hand knowledge of the drug trade and of prostitution in both countries that can illuminate this issue?
Regardless of whether there are more drugs and prostitutes available in Mexico and whether its marginally easier to get these things there, it's not exactly hard to do here.
As for private militaries capable of controlling entire cities or regions like the cartels have in Mexico, no. We don't have those--we could go into a discussion of why we don't, but it would be off topic. Our organized crime is connected to theirs, ships their drugs, smuggles weapons to them, and back from them. Heck, our organized crime smuggles people, whether to work in sweat shops, on huge farms, or in the sex trade--you're lying or crazy if you say they can't simply expand their traffic in weapons and make them quite easy to get, even if not as easy as in other places.
Ah yes--Kurt totally went to a source that fits his worldview: a pro gun control Pakistani! Why, he and Kurt are like brothers from other mothers!
DeleteYou noticed that too, did you, Anon? Strange--I guess Mikeb no longer believes I'm a "gun rights fanatic," and a "racist hater" of Pakistanis.
"Our organized crime is connected to theirs, ships their drugs, smuggles weapons to them, and back from them"
DeleteIs this Michael coreleone or Tony Montana? Fact is, none of the 5 largest organized crime groups are US-based. In reality, US organized crime isn't very organized. It is comprised largely of piecemeal groups and gangs. And drug running is considered a relatively small part of US organized crime. The largest part is money-laundering and cybercrime.
And yet, that relatively small part manages to get drugs all over the country so that you can get your weed, blow, or even crack whether you're in NYC, LA, or small town Podunk.
DeleteYou really seem invested in this so much that you are willing to distort reality and pretend we don't have some of the law enforcement problems that we do have, all to try and pretend that gun control would make a bigger difference than it could ever hope to make.
Anon-
ReplyDeleteYou're quite wrong, of course.
Pakistan's gun policy is quite permissive. If you have money, you can own any kind of firearm you can afford. Even full auto. Compounding this, there is perhaps the most robust illicit firearm trade in the world in Pakistan.
Again, the good guy with a gun stops the bad guy with gun is nonsense. This is why a US Army base can suffer horrible losses due to 1 bad guy even though there are many good guys with guns.
"Again, the good guy with a gun stops the bad guy with gun is nonsense. This is why a US Army base can suffer horrible losses due to 1 bad guy even though there are many good guys with guns."
DeleteWe seriously have to do this again? How many people at Fort Hood were carrying and able to shoot back? How many people at the Navy Yard?
What's that? Just the MP's? And they weren't nearby at the time? But when they got to where the shooter was, they ended the situation?
In contrast, let's take bases in theater where soldiers are armed--worst incident I can think of was early in the Iraq war--the guy that killed the lights, tossed four frag grenades, and shot at his fellow soldiers. From what I remember, the motives were similar to the Fort Hood shooting, and the equipment he had was obviously far superior, yet he didn't stack up the same kind of body count before being subdued.
For other examples, see the Oklahoma beheading that was stopped by an executive at the company who shot the guy before he could kill his second victim.
Or the resource officer who prevented a shooting in Sullivan county.
Or the students who ran, got their guns from off campus parking, and came back in time to stop the Appalachian School of Law shooter before he finished going down his revenge list.
Or the Knoxville Alderman who held a murderer at gunpoint in the mall until police could arrest him.
Etc. etc. etc.
We seriously have to do this again? How many people at Fort Hood were carrying and able to shoot back? How many people at the Navy Yard?
ReplyDeleteActually, I work at the Navy Yard. I was about 50 yards away from Bldg 197. The answer is, of course, there were plenty of good guys with guns. There were the gate guards--a combination of active duty MPs and Naval District police. Further, each building has armed District police and security forces. In addition, the site of the shooting was located near the NCIC (NCIS for TV buffs)--they have firearms as well. So let's just acknowledge you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Most bases are very similar or even more secure.
Re the Appalachian Law School incident--you're aware the student was a police officer--right?
"Most bases are very similar or even more secure."
DeleteI've spent quality time on several Army posts, and I would suggest that you shouldn't base your assumptions on a facility that houses what could be considered sensitive activities.
While I'm not going to go into the same detail that you have Jade, most operational bases have security more comparable to Ft. Hood.
Yes, Jade, I remember you writing about it at the time. Your comments didn't contradict what I said; it just expended on it slightly by mentioning additional police forces on the base. This still left these armed individuals scattered, securing the areas as best they could, and requiring time to ascertain where the shooter was and respond to him.
DeleteDo you have some evidence of him coming into contact with many "good guys with guns" who failed to stop him before the main response? Or are you just bringing it up because the "good guys with guns" who didn't come into contact with him were, of course, unable to stop him?
As for the Appalachian School of Law shooting, yes, I am aware that BOTH of the students who responded were police officers. How does this change the fact that they were good guys with guns who stopped a shooting?
Furthermore, were you, o bright one, aware that they were not on duty? In fact, that they were both out of state law enforcement--both from North Carolina? That they weren't able to carry their guns on campus and had to park off campus and lock their guns in their vehicles? That these were both their personal firearms, not duty weapons? That in all these ways, they were basically acting like any other person with a permit?
The scariest thing I have read on this blog to date "Actually, I work at the Navy Yard"
DeleteSSG: You have no idea what you're talking about. Ft. Hood and other bases I've been to are easily comparable to the Navy Yard and many bases surpass them in terms of security. Wanna pretend you've been to more bases than I have? Good luck.
DeleteWhat neophytes like you and anon forget--or perhaps miss because of your TV and movie experiences--is that attacks of any kind are usually pretty much over by the time overwhelming force is brought to bear. Honestly, I think you and anon really believe such attacks are Die Hard-like affairs where John McClain gets to run and around for several hours and taunt his rivals.
The larger point is that most--if not all terror attacks happen so quickly that fat white males with guns have usually choked on their donuts and wet themselves before they can get to their male proxies.
Had either of you been at the Navy Yard, you'd know details were extremely sketchy even several hours into the tragedy. We were hearing there were 2 or more attackers. Even the location of the attacks was fuzzy. So---do you really want armed good guys, who were there almost immediately, having to figure out which fat white males with guns and wet spots on their pants are good or not?
"Wanna pretend you've been to more bases than I have? Good luck."
DeleteJade, I don't know what you do when you visit all of these bases. I just train soldiers wherever I'm sent. As for the comment regarding fat white males, I can only imagine that wherever you go on these bases, you must hang with the civilian contractor types who don't have to meet military weight standards.
As for these white males wetting themselves, ever notice how many soldiers wear a combat patch these days? Want to bet there are more than a few of males and females who have been on multiple deployments?
And then perhaps we could talk about the combat arms units. Same there, only they get to spend their time actively looking for these bad folk. How exactly are they less qualified that whatever security guard or cop?
Lets not forget, that the response time for both Ft. Hood shootings were likely comparable to civilian police response to a school shooting where the school doesn't have an in-house officer.
Jade,
DeleteWe're taking you on nothing but your own dubious word that you were at the Navy Yard that day. Maybe you shouldn't discount SSG's experience.
As for the rest of your post, you set up a nice straw man that you profess to believe that we hold to. Sure, it has no relation to our thoughts on the matter, but it allows you to quickly transition from discussion, which you had been engaging in, and go straight to the usual insults and racist non-sequiturs.
You've been shown plenty of instances of people who had guns on the scene of shootings stopped them, be they cops or private individuals, and so your response is to ignore any discussion of this and make broad, insult laced generalizations that deflect from the issue.
"So---do you really want armed good guys, who were there almost immediately, having to figure out which fat white males with guns and wet spots on their pants are good or not?"
DeleteI'd also like to observe that you seem a bit conflicted in your views. On one hand you and Laci seem quite OK with U.S. military types operating Predators, Apaches, and Laci's favorite grid zone eliminator. Yet you have issues with soldiers using a simple handgun to defend themselves and others.
And while you seem concerned that these soldiers might shoot the wrong person, I can't remember, was it you or Laci that chalked up civilian casualties from drone strikes in Pakistan as the cost of doing business?
Soldiers aren't paid to sit and wait to be rescued. All they need are the proper tools.