A declaration of war?

Worldview item of the day

In an interview with the Associated Press, the Pakistani foreign minister declared that Pakistan has not and will not allow foreign countries to pursue Osama bin Laden in its territory.

If this declaration proves to be anything other than a screen by the Pakistani government to avoid the political consequences of allowing the US to hunt for bin Laden in western Pakistan, then it seems that Pakistan unilaterally declared its nearly lawless western states to be a haven for the terrorist leader. In doing so, Pakistan gives harbor to one of the United State’s greatest enemies, an action tantamount to a declaration of war.

The current political climate in the United States makes people throughout the world forget a critical factor in the still ongoing war against the fundamentalist Muslims who attacked American on 9-11: the free world can no longer afford to sit idly by while zealots and dictators plot the overthrow of free people. The reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the reason for the aggressive diplomacy with Iran and North Korea is to prevent events like 9-11, Bali, Madrid, and London from ever happening again.

President Bush once said that nations who were not with us in the war to end these threats were against us. He was right. There is no neutrality in this fight. If Pakistan’s rhetoric proves to be true, then that nation becomes and enemy and must be treated accordingly.


This entry was posted in al Qaeda, Groups, Nations, News, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, People, War on Terror, World Watch. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to A declaration of war?

  1. djhitz says:

    So what if Pakistan is in violation of terrorist, hunting policy. Another declaration of war, should not be in the making. Oh, sure we could barge into any country we want but we don’t. You want a bunch of Jihad declared on us again? It’s been seven years since Osama, {USAma}, Tim Laden has been on the run. These ageless, images of him in these videos that surface from time to time are crap. They seemed to have made enough of them that when a topic is convenient to broadcast him, they do. They can dub anything in with the translations. Even our exalted, commader says,”I don’t spend much time on him.” Why? Is he, dead? The government flew out over 80 members of the Bin Laden family when all aircraft were grounded on 9-12-’01. I don’t know too many people in my, social realm, who wouldn’t like to have a piece of Muhammed Attah’s, main man, USAma Tim Laden. So why doesn’t our commander not want to, “Spend much time on him?”
    Whether Pakistan is hiding him or not, wouldn’t, we be pushing it to invade another Moslem nation at this juncture? Eventually all Moslem nations, will unite in Jihad against the United States. This act might provoke that. Then we’ll really get to kill ’em.
    I personally if Bin Laden were captured might let him out in Times Square dressed as you see him in his videos. I might even give him a loaded AK-47 and all the ammo he could carry just to help him even the odds. It’d have to be internationally televised. It’d be my gift to New York.
    But, I’m not in charge. If by some freak occurence, Bin Laden was apprehended, say in Pakistan. He’d be detained by Islamic termed, diplomatic, immunities and our diplomatic hands would be tied. Could, we send special operatives in to get him? Our commander might not want to,”Spend much time on him.”
    I’ll go get him. I’ll make a HALO jump right on him with the weaponry of my choice and if I don’t extract him, hopefully I could get a film out of what could come next, the Fifth Commandment and the Golden Rule.

  2. dlhitzeman says:

    There’s already a bunch of jihad against us and has been for a very long time. Whether or not we go after bin Laden specifically or fundamentalist terrorists in general, Pakistan’s decision represents an openly declared haven for the people who planned and committed Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombings, attacking the USS Cole, 9-11, Madrid, and London.

    Whether or not we are going after bin Laden, we must, as liberty loving people, go after those who hate liberty wherever they hide. To fail to do so is to condemn our own liberty. If this pursuit means violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, then so be it.

  3. djhitz says:

    Precisely, there is enough Jihad aimed at us now. There are 3 billion Islam and only 300 million, US citizens. Shall we rile more Moslems?
    As far as loving liberty, we’ll do what we’re told.
    Our commander doesn’t spend much time on Bin Laden because the grand scale of terroristic activity is all around and any one man is merely a figurehead.
    Bin Laden could have been in Pakistan this whole time. We don’t have to declare war on Pakistan to invade it. Do we?

  4. dlhitzeman says:

    So what do you suggest then? Do we allow our enemies safe haven where they can re-establish themselves and strike at us again?

  5. djhitz says:

    It would seem with Allah in charge, there is no, real, safe haven in the Middle East.
    If they’re building a terrorist body we will know about it. Will we be able to stop them from carrying out a global crime in time?
    Pakistan is so much more hardlined Islam than in Afghanistan. Afghans are sellouts to America to their Islamic constituents. I am merely trying to find a different path into Pakistan than invading or declaring war. If Bin Laden’s in there, we should go in after him only when we have good positive intelligence. We don’t need to be going in and bombing all over the map like we did when we were chasing Hussein. We were killing all kinds of civilians and ended up finding him in a scorpion hole in his own home town. We have better surveillance than that. We can get better intelligence.
    Moreover, going into Pakistan requires a more surgical insertion and not a great guns invasion.
    Intensely so, invading Pakistan will once again and most definately cause a great deal of anti-American sentiment in the Moslem community and in the spirit of Moslem jihad could trigger other wars in which might open the gateway for China to invade the Middle East. This would a giant political manuver to say the least.
    So I say if you want to open another huge can of worms go right ahead and declare war on Pakistan. Go in and hunt up Al Quaida and Bin Laden. Then try to be prepared for what comes next.
    If full jihad is expected then the United States is in the perfect position to help ignite it.
    Now I ask you, do I sound like a citizen who wants to quietly sit back while terrorist camps plan fee world demise? We should not be so eager to deal death but the Middle Eastern’s seem to mostly hate US. Perhaps most of them don’t and some of them do. You ever thought about that? Maybe we should just kill them to punish them. Put them out of their misery. After all terrorists are like rats and cockroaches and we have the raid but even the dumbest rodents know to eat charcoal to soak up the d’con poisoning their bellies. They’ll keep coming back and hating us. We can kill them out for sure at a cost, lives mostly.
    Iraq is the key base for US over there. We’re nice and centrally located. If you have the confidence that this is a good strategic manuver. I say bully. Go for it. You should know better than I. You wear the uniform. I’ve only pressed it.

  6. djhitz says:

    Those stupid suicide bombers.

  7. dlhitzeman says:

    I agree with fundamental parts of what you are saying. We need better intelligence. We need better diplomacy. We need a lot of things in this conflict that, for a variety of reasons, we don’t have.

    We also need to prevent a known enemy from being able to establish a new operating base from which it can launch more attacks. We know the enemy–the Taliban, al Qaeda, maybe even bin Laden– is organizing, training, equipping, and striking from Western Pakistan with impunity, and now the Pakistani government appears poised to grant that state of affairs the protection of its soverignty.

    Regardless of the kind of war we find ourselves in, allowing the enemy to operate from a safe harbor is military foolishness. The best answer is always to strike fast and to strike hard, thereby denying the enemy the luxury of organization. The first few years in Iraq should have already taught us that lesson. Do we need to learn it again?

  8. djhitz says:

    No, we’ve learned alot and we’ll keep on learning.
    We’ll be going into Pakistan soon. The UN’s in there now so it’s just a matter of time until, we’re on their boot heels in force. Face it. We have people ready on standby and operations already enacted.
    The suicide bomber that killed 58 people in an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan on President Karzai’s, life ignited this latest terror hunt. Terrorists are in Pakistan. Duh! Who knew?
    As far as I’m concered, eradicating terrorism in action with our technology, should be as easy a spotting them from space and bombing them. Though, it’s not quite that easy. The real fight is stopping the hate. It goes deep as hell with middle eastern people and can hide in deceit, Mohammed for instance. For this reason it would seem the thing to do is kill hate, out or at least the terrorist attitude. Is this possible? It seems like a seed that keeps growing. Hatred of the US seems too unecessarily, prevalent around the globe. Hey, we’re nice people in the US. We have a few bad seeds but we’re basically decent. Make friends with the US as much as you can. We’ll get you anything you want as long as you give us back some of our jobs. Except the government’s probably going to give away the rest of what, we have. We’re faced with allsides, opposition.
    So why not interfere with Darfur or Myanmar while were at it? Or no, we have, present business in camel, central. We need fuel.
    The invaded nations of the middle east are only building blocks. They’ve only all been invading each other since the Sumerians, Hittites, Persians, Assyrians lived in the same area. They’ve been trouble makers for mellenia. Eventually the real troublemakers will be invaded, like Iran, especially Syria unless the unholy, Jihad, glues the Islam, spirit together. They will then be Meccan warriors.
    I’ve worry about the further mess more middle eastern, invasion means. It means the end in the end, right? Watching it’s progression as fast as it is. In this scale at this point in history during the time while our economy is weakening, it’s dissappointing. Our citizens seem to be becoming less American, all the time. It’s truly unnerving for those of us who grew up during the 70’s and 80’s when production jobs were so available and gas was less than $1 per gallon. What is their to globally look forward to?
    Pakistan is right on China’s border. How’s the “red dragon” feeling about this?
    Is Pakistan, so strategic? If they’re training, terror babies. We kill ’em? I guess it would depend on how many suicide bombers attack, among other things, like hostages, bombings, etc.
    We don’t invade for sovereignty.
    We invade for security.
    We’r you not as rich, Uncle Sam.

  9. djhitz says:

    I meant, “We are your not as rich, Uncle Sam.”
    It used to read, “Your, rich, Uncle Sam.”

  10. Pingback: Bookmarks about Press

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *