Bomb kills 12 children in northwest Pakistan

but army chief General Ashfaq Kayani defended a decision by the military not to intervene as “tactical,” despite U.S. pressure.

It is same like NK defying and demanding unconditional aid from International Community. Unless there is drastic change in US policy towards Pakistan, such news reports will come pouring but will earn no sympathy from anywhere.

Never understood this, never will, and I never want to. I can understand military supply depots, government centers, and police centers as potential targets but this? Disgusting.

I can’t imagine the extremists will blame the idiot bomber for accidentally killing these children by leaving his bomb outside a girl’s school. Why should they, this is surely the will of Allah. What worries me is something that some14some touches on, there is a coming point when we all become so numb to these reports that they stop hurting us. I just hope I never reach the point that another murdered child doesn’t make me angry.

Must be hard for militant Islam's apologists on the international Left to read reports like this day in and day out.

12 Islamic children killed by a bomb in an area already under Islamic law. The warriors of the Religion of Peace must certainly be celebrating their great victory over the infidels tonight... and if the great Satan-America doesn't grovel at their feet, they'll kill more of their own children to show them who is truly powerful!

What gets me is where are the moderate Islamic voices in this? Are they silent because, deep down, the writings of their religion really are that violent?

One wonders if Bush & Co. had not ignored Afghanistan for their bogus war in Iraq perhaps the Taliban would have been severely hobbled. But instead they were left to fester and now threaten to destabilize a nuclear armed Pakistan.

Absolutely disgusting.

What a silly thing to say, buddha.

Superlib - why is it a silly thing to say?

People like you whooped and hollered as U.S. troops were sent into Iraq on a wild goose chase to find the non-existant WMD, while all along the U.S. government knew OBL - the perpetrator of the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history - was in Afghanistans.

Bush and co. diverted far more troops into Iraq to find fairies than they put into Afghanistan to hunt down OBL, who, you will remember, Bush said he'd find dead or alive and failed.

Please think before you write silly posts like your previous one.

What a silly thing to say, buddha.

The Taliban gave comfort to those who planned and executed the terrors on 9-11. Bush & Co were given a wide berth and support in going after them by the international community. Then the CinC of the American forces lost the plot and started another war. The Taliban and Quaida were on the run and America had Pakistan's co-operation, now the Taliban are a threat in two countries and probably more.

12 children may not have died had Bush not ignored his original mission.

The Taliban are losing the moral highground.

"12 children may not have died had Bush not ignored his original mission"

Oh, for cryin' out loud, the United States has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, far more than any other country. Please don't blame Bush for the actions of scumbags.

The Taliban gave comfort to those who planned and executed the terrors on 9-11. Bush & Co were given a wide berth and support in going after them by the international community. Then the CinC of the American forces lost the plot and started another war. The Taliban and Quaida were on the run and America had Pakistan's co-operation, now the Taliban are a threat in two countries and probably more.

12 children may not have died had Bush not ignored his original mission.

Last time I checked this occured in Pakistan. U.S forces routed the taliban from Afghanistan so they set up shop elsewhere and now Pakistan refuses to either deal with the problem or let the U.S in to deal with it. Pakistan has blocked attempts by U.S drones, condemed attempts by ground forces to pursue the taliban across the boarder, and has even given the taliban a little chunk of the country to run however they want.

What would you and shushi recommend then? Pakistan refuses to cooperate and refuses to deal with its own problem and I still fail to see how any this is the U.S's fault.

The U.S didn't tell the taliban how to do their job, they didn't teach them how to make IED's, and they didn't tell them to place explosives next to schools in order to slaughter as many children and teachers as possible. You two spent all of your time on this thread trying to find a way to blame the U.S for the actions of some crazed scumbags in a country the U.S has absolutly no sway in.

The Taliban gave comfort to those who planned and executed the terrors in 9-11.

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

Bush & Co were given a wide berth and support in going after them by the international community.

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

Then the CinC of the American forces lost the plot and started another war.

It appears that you never really understood the plot to begin with. The Taliban is in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. You're saying that Bush diverted resources to Iraq and I'm saying that resources were never intended for Pakistan, and this article is about the Taliban killing innocents in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

The Taliban and Quaida were on the run

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

and America had Pakistan's co-operation, now the Taliban are a threat in two countries and probably more.

The only way the US can influence the Taliban in Pakistan is to engage them directly, something that the US does on a limited basis because it makes Pakistan angry. That's because it's a different country than Afghanistan.

12 children may not have died had Bush not ignored his original mission.

What a silly thing to say. :)

TheQuestion: What would you and shushi recommend then?

Probably that we need to wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan so that Pakistan will be more secure. It requires a suspension of logic, but if you try hard enough you might be able to get there for a moment or two.

Sarge: the United States has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, far more than any other country.

Triple spot bang on, amigo! The one country giving the largest commitment by far is the first one criticized for not doing enough. But that's just reality for America, ne? Even with the resources the US has in Iraq, we still outperform all other nations combined in Afghanistan. And most of those nations have zero resources in Iraq (except those for profit).

Too bad the moderate Muslims used up all their protest signs and magic markers on that cartoon brouhaha some time ago. This would have made a great protest imho.

Superlib because Bush failed to fully pursue the original objective the Taliban has been able to regroup and rearm and gain strength. Six years ago America had the initiative, now the Taliban are gaining strength in two countries (one with real WMDs).

You currently argue that the Taliban should be wiped out

in Afghanistan so that Pakistan will be more secure

All I am saying is that because Bush failed to do that, Pakistan today is less secure as the murder of 12 children clearly shows.

buddha: because Bush failed to fully pursue the original objective the Taliban has been able to regroup and rearm and gain strength.

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

All I am saying is that because Bush failed to do that

What a silly thing to say.

All I am saying is that because Bush failed to do that, Pakistan today is less secure as the murder of 12 children clearly shows.

Seems to me that if "the whole world" knew that Bush was gonna invade Iraq and steal all a da oil and get bogged down in quagmire man and lose sight of "the real war" in Afghanistan well then maybe the rest of the world, who let America basically go it alone in Iraq, should have stepped up in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan the other hot spots where the religion of peace is waging war against non-believers and heretics.

SuperLib said:

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

It is the SAME Taliban. They are interconnected in the same region. They are continuous located in the mountains in and across the border on both sides and they travel back and forth constantly.

Bush is directly responsible for vast advances the Taliban has made in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we had put 100,000 troops in the region beginning in 2003 we would not be in this mess now.

Probably that we need to wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan so that Pakistan will be more secure. It requires a suspension of logic, but if you try hard enough you might be able to get there for a moment or two.

The problems Pakistan is currently having is not by some random terrorists. It is by al-Qa'ida and specifically the Taliban which has its roots in the Kandahar Province. You may see a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan but they do not. It is not Pakistani or Afghan officials that patrol the border in that region it is the Taliban.

All of this is very well documented with a plethora of evidence and can easily be seen if one were to take the time to view maps of the Taliban concentrations in that region.

The only "suspension of logic" here is SuperLib denying the facts that there is one Taliban and not a Pakistani Taliban and an Afghan Taliban.

If you want to debate that Bush is directly responsible for these children's death I will not state unequivocally that Bush is directly responsible for these 12 children's death. But far less evidence is needed to prove someone is indirectly responsible and thus negligible in a civil court case.

If you want to debate that Bush is directly responsible for these children's death I will not state unequivocally that Bush is directly responsible for these 12 children's death.

What is there to debate? The Taliban murdered these 12 children.

The victims included seven boys and five girls ranging between five and 13 years old, said the official, Said Zaman.

My first reaction to this was one of sorrow. I feel very bad for the children and their families. I felt bad when I read the headline and then reading the entire article allowed the pain to literally travel to my stomach. I may not have commented properly and expressed my grief and sympathy for the loss in the proper order of comments. But that in no way diminishes the fact that I do care about the victims. I got caught up by fallacious comments and was driven by emotion to comment because I lost track of my original emotion. Some have said in the past that the order or failing to acknowledge ones grief and sympathy is due to using the victims for political purposes. Because I caught myself not posting what I originally wanted to post first I took pause to ponder that notion. Then I realized I had done absolutely nothing wrong. It is wrong for those who try to tell others we are using the victims. It is they who are doing such by dishonesty. Although it was not done on this thread this shameful activity was done in the past and on repeated occasions. I chose to speak out against it now because I experienced the guilt of not expressing my feelings in my initial comments. No one should ever feel any such guilt if they truly had the sympathy for the victims. It is not necessary to put it down in words and it is not necessary to get the order of sentiment correct.

nandakandamanda said:

The Taliban are losing the moral highground.

Your statement is not only correct but rather poignant. Continued situations like these will quickly turn the support they rely upon against them. Their entire campaign rests on their ability to convince others that their mission is moral and noble. Incidences like this leave no room for denial of pure evil.

doogdonkey: You may see a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan but they do not.

Do you know who else sees a border? NATO. NATO has the responsibility of taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they DO NOT have the authority to engage the Taliban in Pakistan. I'm sure you've seen the friction a handful of air strikes have caused, and that's because the border is important to another group: Pakistan. Despite knowing this situation, it appears that some here are actually holding Bush responsible for not stopping Taliban advances in Pakistan.

The only "suspension of logic" here is SuperLib denying the facts that there is one Taliban and not a Pakistani Taliban and an Afghan Taliban.

Nope. The distinction between the Taliban in Pakistan and the Afghanistan is used to point out where the fall on the map. It's not used to say they are two different groups. It's silly to hold someone responsible for not stopping Taliban advances in Pakistan when it's not part of the mission to begin with. It would be like blaming the US for not stopping a drug murder in Mexico just because the US is fighting against the same drug cartel that exists in Texas. The location of specific members of the same group determines who can take action and who is ultimately responsible for success or failures.

superlib the mission 6 years ago was in Afghanistan. Bush & Co failed that mission because of their desire to invade Iraq. This failure allowed the Taliban to grow and rearm in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now we have a much more serious problem than we had six years ago.

Oh don't worry, buddha, I'm not trying to change your mind. I just want to make sure other people reading this thread know what's going on. I don't want to see your brand of radicalism spread anymore than the Taliban's.

Pakistan has a much more serious problem than 6 years ago, but not Afghanistan. Comparing the Taliban's influence in Afghanistan before and after the invasion is still s stark difference despite recent gains by the Taliban. Pakistan has done a piss poor job of handling the Taliban on their side of the border (peace deals????) and the Taliban's advancements are a direct result of that.

Again, I'm sure this is meaningless to you since you just want to criticize Bush, but others might be reading it so I can use your radicalism to educate them. In that sense, I'm actually giving you a purpose so you should thank me for that. If you want to give me more of your opinions about the region I'd be more than happy to correct them so others can learn.

Thank you for your condescension.

Yes, Pakistan has much to answer for and it seems it will only get worse. However, unlike you it seems, I do recall when America forces had the Taliban and Quaida on the run and then took instead of finishing the job, Bush & Co went off to Iraq. This gave both groups time to rearm.

There is nothing radical about that. What Bush did and didn't do have consequences that extend beyond his term in office, if that isn't obvious enough.

I do recall when America forces had the Taliban and Quaida on the run

Right...the Taliban in Afghanistan. But this article is about the Taliban in Pakistan.

So what if the article doesn't mention Afghanistan, I am not responsible for what the article writer includes and excludes. Do you think that what America does or doesn't do in Afghanistan has no effect in Pakistan? Actually you don't - you even said above that the Taliban should be wiped out in Afghanistan so that Pakistan will be more secure, which is basically what I am saying but in a historical context.

Why you want to bother arguing about something that you already agree with in principle is a bit puzzling.

Do you think that what America does or doesn't do in Afghanistan has no effect in Pakistan?

Keep swinging.

Ah you're a hoot superlib.

Don't blame me....blame Bush.