PDA

View Full Version : Deadly blast targets Marriott Hotel in Islamabad



SarasotaRepub
09-20-2008, 12:45 PM
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A car bomb detonated Saturday night in the heart of Islamabad, killing at least 34 people, police said, and shattering windows more than two miles away.

At least 200 people were injured in the attack in Pakistan's capital, policed said.

Rescuers pulled bloodied victims from vehicles, and other casualties could be seen in the street. Officials predicted the casualty tolls would rise.

GEO TV's Hamid Mir, who was at the explosion site, said he saw at least 52 bodies. Most of the dead appeared to be drivers who were waiting with their cars outside the hotel, and hotel staff -- most of them security guards.

Mir said a witness saw the gates of the hotel rammed open by a small car, followed by an explosive-laden truck that detonated.

Yikes! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/pakistan.islamabad.marriott.blast/index.html)

Gingersnap
09-20-2008, 12:53 PM
When are Muslims going to get tired of being blown up by their co-religionists? :mad:

Odysseus
09-20-2008, 08:07 PM
When are Muslims going to get tired of being blown up by their co-religionists? :mad:

Not anytime soon.

Now, here's a question for the isolationists among us. This wasn't a military target or an embassy, it was a privately held US corporation. What happens to all of the property held by US businesses and individuals if we pull out all of our troops, close down our embassies and spend the next few years singing Kumbaya from within our own borders?

LogansPapa
09-20-2008, 08:37 PM
We can well afford to be murders around the world - outside international law, just like the fellows that perpetrated this abomination. We cannot however afford to be the world's policeman, any longer.

OwlMBA
09-20-2008, 08:56 PM
Nothing like Muslims killing other Muslims.... how they think this benefits their cause is beyond me.

LogansPapa
09-20-2008, 09:10 PM
Nothing like Muslims killing other Muslims.... how they think this benefits their cause is beyond me.

They don't. They believe they're Mohammad's hand, correcting ones that have strayed from the true faith. Reference Salem, Massachusetts and their "witches" to see how far out of hand that can get, then go back 7 centuries to see where these fine examples of the human race preside.

OwlMBA
09-20-2008, 09:12 PM
They don't. They believe they're Mohammad's hand, correcting ones that have strayed from the true faith. Reference Salem, Massachusetts and their "witches" to see how far out of hand that can get, then go back 7 centuries to see where these fine examples of the human race preside.

Great! All this will do is get their own countrymen to turn against them - and that is what we need.

LogansPapa
09-20-2008, 09:17 PM
Great! All this will do is get their own countrymen to turn against them - and that is what we need.

Less a military draft. ;)

SarasotaRepub
09-20-2008, 10:48 PM
Heard the death toll is up to 60 now.

Odysseus
09-21-2008, 01:16 AM
We can well afford to be murders around the world - outside international law, just like the fellows that perpetrated this abomination. We cannot however afford to be the world's policeman, any longer.
If you can't see the difference between us and them, then you really have no concept of what goes on in the world.

Great! All this will do is get their own countrymen to turn against them - and that is what we need.
It's hard to figure exactly what the results of this will be. 9/11 galvanized us (briefly), but the Madrid bombings cowed the Spanish into running from Iraq. Pakistan has as many factions as there are clans and tribes, and each one has its own agenda. Some will be apalled by this, and some will be thrilled. There's no way of knowing how this will play out.

Heard the death toll is up to 60 now.
The religion of peace continues to cement its reputation...:rolleyes:

ConJinx
09-21-2008, 01:47 AM
I need the death toll to reach 200 or I lose my bet. Because it's not the religion of peace unless its not BIG.

Odysseus
09-21-2008, 11:12 AM
I need the death toll to reach 200 or I lose my bet. Because it's not the religion of peace unless its not BIG.

I hate to say this, but you might just see it, just not in one incident. Right now, the Jihadis know that they have to supply carnage for our news cycle in order to influence our elections. They can't, however do as much as they'd like in Iraq or Afghanistan, although obviously, they will try. What I suspect we're going to see are a lot of small actions in areas where security is lax, softer targets that won't have any tactical or strategic importance beyond body counts and headlines, from now through the election. Yemen and Pakistan are obvious soft targets, because security is lax and the local population aids and abets the terrorists with a vengeance. Iraq and Afghanistan are tougher, because we control our AO and can take measures to reduce the threat. Based on that, the most likely COA is more attacks in peripheral locations, most likely Jordan, Egypt, Yemen (again), central Africa and the West Bank and Gaza, in short, anywhere that they can stage operations that will gain a body count with ostensibly American or Israeli targets, preferably with lots of big media outlets. As to whether or not they can coordinate the attacks so that they occur close enough together to form a "Tet" type of offensive, that will depend whether they have actual terror cells in place or are depending on local affiliates who may not have the same capacity to synch operations.

SarasotaRepub
09-21-2008, 11:31 AM
Reading and hearing about this attack today in the news and papers you have to assume it was an inside job. A fucking DUMP truck pulls up to a hotel at night??? Duh!
Why didn't the friggen security pepper that cab right away?

How many times are we going to see the same MO? A massive bomb like that requires a dump truck or a tanker, it's happened over and over.

LogansPapa
09-21-2008, 02:25 PM
If you can't see the difference between us and them, then you really have no concept of what goes on in the world.

I have to look no further than Predator missions taking out vehicles full of bad guys - with no trial - no consideration of any children that might be riding in said vehicle, and not the slightest amount of recrimination for killing innocents after a Hellfire missile strikes the vehicle at twice the speed of sound.

This is where we're going.

It is cost effective, from the standpoint of not losing our fine folks. And, if we can keep each incident off the internet for at least a year after it happens, quite effective. That way the bleeding hearts don't have a chance to show the public what we're really becoming.

Face it Major - this is the only way to truly win.:cool:

Odysseus
09-21-2008, 03:20 PM
I have to look no further than Predator missions taking out vehicles full of bad guys - with no trial - no consideration of any children that might be riding in said vehicle, and not the slightest amount of recrimination for killing innocents after a Hellfire missile strikes the vehicle at twice the speed of sound.

This is where we're going.

It is cost effective, from the standpoint of not losing our fine folks. And, if we can keep each incident off the internet for at least a year after it happens, quite effective. That way the bleeding hearts don't have a chance to show the public what we're really becoming.

Face it Major - this is the only way to truly win.:cool:

Gee, let me get this straight, we're supposed to provide trials before we engage combatants on the battlefield? When did that become a requirement under the laws of warfare?

What color is the sky in your world?

LogansPapa
09-21-2008, 03:35 PM
Gee, let me get this straight, we're supposed to provide trials before we engage combatants on the battlefield? When did that become a requirement under the laws of warfare?

What color is the sky in your world?


We're not, Major. That was my point. The difference between having boots on the ground - in force - becoming targets, and, of course, following some supposed International Law? With all due respect, wake up Sir.

Odysseus
09-21-2008, 03:38 PM
We're not, Major. That was my point. The difference between having boots on the ground - in force - becoming targets, and, of course, following some supposed International Law? With all due respect, wake up Sir.

You really must learn to parse a sentence. It sounds like that's exactly what you're saying, that we are in violation of international law when we use a predator to take out a carload of terrorists.

LogansPapa
09-21-2008, 04:03 PM
You really must learn to parse a sentence. It sounds like that's exactly what you're saying, that we are in violation of international law when we use a predator to take out a carload of terrorists.

Sorry for my lack of communication. But I think your 'Liberal Assumption' may be playing too great a roll in what you see.

We'll probably never commit another quarter-million man force to any single theater again.

Our technology will allow us to murder at a distance.

Trying to bring Democracy to the world is a waste of resource and considering our current and future financial condition as a nation, we'd be best to turn every embassy into nothing more tha a spy nest - to do nothing but identify satellite surveillance targets and use our limited cash to pay local snitches for fire mission intelligence.

The paring down and streamlining of a hyper-specialized military is the wave of the future - shifting mass purchases to the US Air Force and US Navy. All other entities will no doubt spend their careers supporting the supply line mission.

Odysseus
09-21-2008, 09:20 PM
Sorry for my lack of communication. But I think your 'Liberal Assumption' may be playing too great a roll in what you see.

We'll probably never commit another quarter-million man force to any single theater again.

Our technology will allow us to murder at a distance.

Trying to bring Democracy to the world is a waste of resource and considering our current and future financial condition as a nation, we'd be best to turn every embassy into nothing more tha a spy nest - to do nothing but identify satellite surveillance targets and use our limited cash to pay local snitches for fire mission intelligence.

The paring down and streamlining of a hyper-specialized military is the wave of the future - shifting mass purchases to the US Air Force and US Navy. All other entities will no doubt spend their careers supporting the supply line mission.

As a general rule, the only people who find our very limited and careful selection of targets to be "murder" are the liberals, especially of the Cindy Sheehan variety. If the Birkenstock fits...

I remember reading about the way that nuclear weapons were going to make infantry obsolete after WWII. Didn't happen. Wars were supposed to be won solely by air power. Didn't happen. Now, drones, technology and financial ruin are going to make us either more lethal or impotent, depending on which way the wind is blowing. Give me a break.

ironhorsedriver
09-21-2008, 09:22 PM
Sorry for my lack of communication. But I think your 'Liberal Assumption' may be playing too great a roll in what you see.

We'll probably never commit another quarter-million man force to any single theater again.

Our technology will allow us to murder at a distance.

Trying to bring Democracy to the world is a waste of resource and considering our current and future financial condition as a nation, we'd be best to turn every embassy into nothing more tha a spy nest - to do nothing but identify satellite surveillance targets and use our limited cash to pay local snitches for fire mission intelligence.

The paring down and streamlining of a hyper-specialized military is the wave of the future - shifting mass purchases to the US Air Force and US Navy. All other entities will no doubt spend their careers supporting the supply line mission.

Well, What do you call the bombing raids on Germany and Japan. Bombing is meant to kill. That's what happens in war. If you try to play by politically correct rules of engagement, the other side has no reason to call it quits. They just run to the safe base and wait it out. just like Germany in WWII, the populance of an enemy must learn war effects them, maybe they will help end it.
You can't play by rules in war, you cheat, do what ever winning requires.

LogansPapa
09-21-2008, 09:55 PM
As a general rule, the only people who find our very limited and careful selection of targets to be "murder" are the liberals, especially of the Cindy Sheehan variety. If the Birkenstock fits...

I remember reading about the way that nuclear weapons were going to make infantry obsolete after WWII. Didn't happen. Wars were supposed to be won solely by air power. Didn't happen. Now, drones, technology and financial ruin are going to make us either more lethal or impotent, depending on which way the wind is blowing. Give me a break.

Without implementing a draft - two war fronts the size of the Iraq / March / 2003 commitment will not happen again, without a formal declaration of war. If you look at the technology leap of the last decade and the direction Pentagon purchases are taking - you'll recognize that "boots on the ground" (unless of course you're securing some other country's natural resource) may be a phrase headed for the anachronism file. Under the guise of "humanitarian relief", scores of troops may be delivered to certain theaters, but if you actually believe our country is going to go through the shit it has in the last eight years - you're just plain silly.


Well, What do you call the bombing raids on Germany and Japan. Bombing is meant to kill. That's what happens in war. If you try to play by politically correct rules of engagement, the other side has no reason to call it quits. They just run to the safe base and wait it out. just like Germany in WWII, the populance of an enemy must learn war effects them, maybe they will help end it. You can't play by rules in war, you cheat, do what ever winning requires.

People of Europe and maybe those in Eastern Asia understand exactly what can happen to them from the air, as they've seen it - more than once. The fine people that we're up against now are stuck in the 9th Century. The have a 'one bullet theory' that can cause 3-4 tons of ordnance to be expended upon their location for a single round shot from a sniper's rifle. I personally require no special piece of paper to kill these folks - treaties, coalitions, etc. Kill them all. Kill their fathers. Kill their sons. Kill their uncles. Spend money on DNA programmed missiles for all I care, but don't be stupid enough to try and tell me these latest follies haven't torn the fiber of my country and weakened its leadership as much as it was in the time of Richard Nixon.

ironhorsedriver
09-21-2008, 10:03 PM
Well, for one, I don't consider myself stupid. I'm actually quite educated. Secondly, I feel that we went into Iraq at the wrong time, should have completed our job in Afghanistan. However, I will support my country, since it is in Iraq, with my whole heart. The US is not in an Illegal war, and war is ugly by nature.

Odysseus
09-22-2008, 05:35 PM
Without implementing a draft - two war fronts the size of the Iraq / March / 2003 commitment will not happen again, without a formal declaration of war. If you look at the technology leap of the last decade and the direction Pentagon purchases are taking - you'll recognize that "boots on the ground" (unless of course you're securing some other country's natural resource) may be a phrase headed for the anachronism file. Under the guise of "humanitarian relief", scores of troops may be delivered to certain theaters, but if you actually believe our country is going to go through the shit it has in the last eight years - you're just plain silly.

Army procurement has been primarily in the area of mine-resistant vehicles in order to protect the boots on the ground, as well as enhanced body armor. There's absolutely no basis for the assumption that we are planning remote controlled wars. The Air Force and Navy continue to buy longer range systems, but that's the nature of their operations.

And just what has our country gone through? The vast majority of Americans have been unaffected by the war. Less than 0.5% of Americans are under arms, and the expenditures have been minimal compared to previous wars. In fact, if it weren't for the headlines and the occasional protestors, the average American would have no idea that there was a war going on, and the headlines disappear whenever things are going well. In fact, the one event that did have an effect on everyone, temporarily, was 9/11, and the media has done everything within its power to sanitize our memories of that.


People of Europe and maybe those in Eastern Asia understand exactly what can happen to them from the air, as they've seen it - more than once. The fine people that we're up against now are stuck in the 9th Century. The have a 'one bullet theory' that can cause 3-4 tons of ordnance to be expended upon their location for a single round shot from a sniper's rifle. I personally require no special piece of paper to kill these folks - treaties, coalitions, etc. Kill them all. Kill their fathers. Kill their sons. Kill their uncles. Spend money on DNA programmed missiles for all I care, but don't be stupid enough to try and tell me these latest follies haven't torn the fiber of my country and weakened its leadership as much as it was in the time of Richard Nixon.

The only thing that has torn the fiber or this country and undermined its leadership has been the relentlessly negative and dishonest coverage of the war by our media. Americans have no problem fighting and winning a war, even a long one, but we hate to lose one, and if you tell us that we're losing often enough, while attacking the basis for the war and the conduct of the troops fighting it, then most people will lose heart. This is exactly what our media learned from Tet, and they've applied the lessons to this war in order to ensure the victories of their political allies rather than of their nation.

LogansPapa
09-22-2008, 07:00 PM
You, as with many, haven’t yet realized that this is a war of cultures.

If you gave all Iraqis a $100,000 house a new car and a new hospital in every neighborhood - you’d still be an alien being in their Muslim body. Nothing will appease their deep seeded hate. They've seen all this before, in the beginning of the last century - with a different set of foreigners and they eventually just left.

They will never embrace us as true heroes in their land and simply tolerate our presence their as long as they’re getting paid to do so. People that once used our soldiers as target practice are now manning check-points for $300 per month each.

That’s not peace through Democracy - it’s a truce through prostitution. Nothing more.

Once we’ve moved fully into the massive outlying bases and started to wind this ridiculous venture down they’ll go off on each other. We’ll make speed runs out with Ospreys and Apaches to hose down neighborhoods that go at each other like mad dogs.

All the ethnic separations have run their course and who could leave (professionals and the like), have. You don’t have even providential elections yet - and that’s for a very specific reason: No need to - they’re making too much money off the Americans, and bank-rolling their petro-dollars while they’re at it, and their leadership is laughing at us all the while.

This is why we won’t put boots on the ground in Pakistan, eh?

It may be a hard lesson learned. Airborne strikes and UAV’s hits - anywhere we feel like on their real estate, and all they can do is piss and moan about our incursions. Putting masses of personnel onto other people’s territory, say like North Korea, would be a waste of resource. Just let the Navy handle it - setting off both coasts of the peninsula.

Time for the Army to take a break.

Odysseus
09-22-2008, 08:19 PM
You, as with many, haven’t yet realized that this is a war of cultures.

Funny, but I seem to be the one who keeps pointing out that this is a war of cultures. It's you and Gator who keep claiming that it's a war to keep Israel safe.


If you gave all Iraqis a $100,000 house a new car and a new hospital in every neighborhood - you’d still be an alien being in their Muslim body. Nothing will appease their deep seeded hate. They've seen all this before, in the beginning of the last century - with a different set of foreigners and they eventually just left.

They will never embrace us as true heroes in their land and simply tolerate our presence their as long as they’re getting paid to do so. People that once used our soldiers as target practice are now manning check-points for $300 per month each.

That’s not peace through Democracy - it’s a truce through prostitution. Nothing more.
What you don't seem to grasp is that they wouldn't have taken money to side with us two years ago. The reason that we're winning, something that you refuse to accept, is that we have become an honest broker in Iraq, the only truly objective arbitrator between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. At the same time, Al Qaeda alienated Iraqis by imposing their crazed version of Sharia law, which included the segregation of vegetables (women were not permitted to buy cucumbers, seriously), murderous rampages and destruction on a massive scale. People got tired of trying to expel the guys who were providing medical care, infrastructure repairs and stability in favor of the thugs who were walking into crowds of children with bombs strapped to their bodies.

Once we’ve moved fully into the massive outlying bases and started to wind this ridiculous venture down they’ll go off on each other. We’ll make speed runs out with Ospreys and Apaches to hose down neighborhoods that go at each other like mad dogs.

All the ethnic separations have run their course and who could leave (professionals and the like), have. You don’t have even providential elections yet - and that’s for a very specific reason: No need to - they’re making too much money off the Americans, and bank-rolling their petro-dollars while they’re at it, and their leadership is laughing at us all the while.
Do you mean provincial elections?
Once again, you speak without any knowledge of the situation on the ground. You simply assume the worst of the people of Iraq, without recognizing the incredible strides that they have made.

This is why we won’t put boots on the ground in Pakistan, eh?
We won't put boots on the ground in Pakistan so long as their government supports us in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's generally not considered a good idea to invade an allied nation, although Obama didn't get that, and you don't seem to, either.

It may be a hard lesson learned. Airborne strikes and UAV’s hits - anywhere we feel like on their real estate, and all they can do is piss and moan about our incursions. Putting masses of personnel onto other people’s territory, say like North Korea, would be a waste of resource. Just let the Navy handle it - setting off both coasts of the peninsula.

Time for the Army to take a break.
It's not often that someone says something that's so incoherent that I consider any response to be all but pointless, but you've managed to do it. I'm not sure if you're advocating nuking North Korea, or simply hitting them with conventional munitions from a distance, but either way, I don't see your point. I can only assume that you'll be able to write a more cogent explanation when the buzz wears off.

LogansPapa
09-23-2008, 10:49 AM
Funny, but I seem to be the one who keeps pointing out that this is a war of cultures. It's you and Gator who keep claiming that it's a war to keep Israel safe.

I’ve always said that America has no idea what is involved in a ‘tribal society’ (reference American Indian reservations for a historical education on how that’s worked out for us - via our military jurisdiction) and the Israeli coddling is mainly due to our post-WWII guilt trip.


What you don't seem to grasp is that they wouldn't have taken money to side with us two years ago. The reason that we're winning, something that you refuse to accept, is that we have become an honest broker in Iraq, the only truly objective arbitrator between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. At the same time, Al Qaeda alienated Iraqis by imposing their crazed version of Sharia law, which included the segregation of vegetables (women were not permitted to buy cucumbers, seriously), murderous rampages and destruction on a massive scale. People got tired of trying to expel the guys who were providing medical care, infrastructure repairs and stability in favor of the thugs who were walking into crowds of children with bombs strapped to their bodies.


I sincerely hope you’re right - but I think the people that have harbored (willingly and unwillingly) the thugs are still doing so and now that we’ve set a time-line (something we said we’d never do) via Iraq’s "leadership", the bad guys are just keeping their powder dry. People in this part of the world have ALWAYS taken power via murder. It’s a right of passage in their culture and blood feuds are the hallmark of their society. History is nothing if not cyclonic and one needs to look no further than T.E. Lawrence’s "7 Pillars of Wisdom" to see that it’s repeating itself some 90 years later.


Do you mean provincial elections? Once again, you speak without any knowledge of the situation on the ground. You simply assume the worst of the people of Iraq, without recognizing the incredible strides that they have made.

Come on - do you actually believe the Kurds in the North are just going to quietly hand over their natural resource assets and play nice, after not expending their ammo over the last five years, biding their time and reinforcing their proclaimed territory? If you do - that’s astoundingly naïve.


We won't put boots on the ground in Pakistan so long as their government supports us in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's generally not considered a good idea to invade an allied nation, although Obama didn't get that, and you don't seem to, either.

Utter B/S: the Pakistani government (equivalent to the police force in Tijuana: same look - same uniform supplier) has given us lip service. Told us exactly what we wanted to hear - to keep the money spigot wide open. Tell me another country that wouldn't be in the United Nations making a giant shit storm in 15 minutes about people in their air space with manned and unmanned missions. What would India’s reaction be to us doing that along their border with Pakistan? That country is our of control: reference a certain female candidate being assassinated and the country’s Supreme Court being eviscerated. We don’t go there because of the painful lessons learned in Iraq - simple as that.


It's not often that someone says something that's so incoherent that I consider any response to be all but pointless, but you've managed to do it. I'm not sure if you're advocating nuking North Korea, or simply hitting them with conventional munitions from a distance, but either way, I don't see your point. I can only assume that you'll be able to write a more cogent explanation when the buzz wears off.

I have to take a veteran of that war’s word for it. A family member’s 78 now and wants to see that war finally won - conventionally. He seems to think that the only reason it doesn’t happen is that South Korea’s too dependent on our presence there - even half a century later, and, the fact that we’re really all Wal-Mart whores in the States, not wanting to risk offending the mainland Chinese. I wouldn’t know - I’ll have to take his word for it. He was stuck up near the border near some reservoir, when I was still in diapers.

;)