After pleading for life on his knees, an unarmed man is shot at point blank range by a military police officer before being left to bleed to death in the street.

In the footage, a plain-clothed man grabs the victim, who allegedly robbed someone, by the hair and drags him over to a group of paramilitary rangers in Karachi, Pakistan.

He is forced to his knees with his hands behind his back. He pleads for mercy, then one of the soldiers shoots him twice - once in the leg and again in the arm.

Horror: A Pakistani ranger aims his gun at Sarfaraz Shah in the city of Karachi after he was accused of robbery

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1Ow19lT1E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyANnZ5dDc

only one word, barbaric ! .......

This is the problem in Pakistan (or one of the problems).

The civilian government does not control the security forces - they are a completely different countries, living within the one state. And then the tribal lands are different again.

Until a strong leader unites the whole as one country such examples will continue to occur.

Benazir Bhutto might have done it, but as a woman she would have had great difficulties with the old-fashioned muslim men, as a Sindhi she would have had problems with the tribal lands and the Kashmiris, among others.

All I can suggest is a return to a military regime, such as under Musharref Sharif, but then all the lawyers and human rights people will start screaming again. Having worked with hundreds of Pakistanis (outside of Pakistan) I have found many to be envious, resentful of the success of others, aggressive and very vocal on their rights as employees. But I have found damned good workers among them and I have seen the employers of the labour gangs exploit them and treat them extremely badly - far worse than other nationalities.

(The employers - the labour-gang bosses - have been arab and Pakistani)

Why do you think so many Pakistanis emigrated to En gland?

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

Agreed. Even the modestly educated can see that the difference is due to the sheer arrogance of those that fire the hellfire missiles.

only one word, barbaric ! .......

The Scots were branded barbaric by the invading Romans.

What was the name of those two English boys that murdered a younger boy with a brick? That was rather barbaric.

Murder is not confined only to the people that you hate, it is amongst your own too.

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

and one doesn't need a stack of advanced degrees to judge the obvious lopsided efforts of some of the participants in "outside the box". their chorus is "if it's Islam, Pakis, Muslims et al we can display our holier than thou attitude and thereby compensate our inferiority complexes."

it reminds me somehow of my wife's Thai driver who recently mentioned... ahmm no... that would be slightly off topic

only one word, barbaric ! .......

The Scots were branded barbaric by the invading Romans.

What was the name of those two English boys that murdered a younger boy with a brick? That was rather barbaric.

Murder is not confined only to the people that you hate, it is amongst your own too.

these two English boys must have been Pakis... no?

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

Agreed. Even the modestly educated can see that the difference is due to the sheer arrogance of those that fire the hellfire missiles.

And are firing them from their console in a comfortable office back in the home country. Not even enduring the privations of the grunts on the ground.

only one word, barbaric ! .......

The Scots were branded barbaric by the invading Romans.

What was the name of those two English boys that murdered a younger boy with a brick? That was rather barbaric.

Murder is not confined only to the people that you hate, it is amongst your own too.

these two English boys must have been Pakis... no?

No, Liverpudlians.

There is a difference - somewhere.

when an allegedly innocent man is shot in Pakistan it is called barbaric. when innocent women and children are torn into pieces in Pakistan by a hellfire missile it is called collateral damage.

sickening!

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

Agreed. Even the modestly educated can see that the difference is due to the sheer arrogance of those that fire the hellfire missiles.

And are firing them from their console in a comfortable office back in the home country. Not even enduring the privations of the grunts on the ground.

That's one less mission for the grunts to put their lives on the line for.

The arrogance is coming from those who only care about women and children getting accidentally killed by the Western powers while not caring one iota when the Taleban, al Qaeda and their allies kill far more and on purpose. But that's an old story which has been proven time and time again around here.

Why do you think so many Pakistanis emigrated to En gland?

Comes with the territory? Grand old ladies that don't mind their own and find it their deluded destiny to civilise "those" people?

Comes back to bite ya in the hindsides.

You don't need a stack of advanced degrees to see the difference.

Agreed. Even the modestly educated can see that the difference is due to the sheer arrogance of those that fire the hellfire missiles.

And are firing them from their console in a comfortable office back in the home country. Not even enduring the privations of the grunts on the ground.

That's one less mission for the grunts to put their lives on the line for.

The arrogance is coming from those who only care about women and children getting accidentally killed by the Western powers while not caring one iota when the Taleban, al Qaeda and their allies kill far more and on purpose. But that's an old story which has been proven time and time again around here.

1. When the Standing Orders state that ALL collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable, and those orders are purposefully adhered to, THEN, you can talk about "accidental" killings.

2. I am absolutely positively certain that I speak for all the members that you're referring to that there is not one that even remotely "does not care one iota".

But that's an old story that you always choose to ignore and try to spin to paint your detractors in a poor light. Your usual pointless ad hominem argument.

2. I am absolutely positively certain that I speak for all the members that you're referring to that there is not one that even remotely "does not care one iota".

It would probably be more accurate to claim that there is not one who would admit that he "does not care one iota".

2. I am absolutely positively certain that I speak for all the members that you're referring to that there is not one that even remotely "does not care one iota".

It would probably be more accurate to claim that there is not one who would admit that he "does not care one iota".

OK, lets humour you and say that I don't care one iota. What then? Attack me for my opinions and feelings? What have my opinions and feelings got to do with stated facts and logic?

If Muamar Gaddaffi said the sky is blue, you would say "it is red and you're a bad guy so that means I am right".....except you'd try to say it with a silly graphic and a snide comment.

You're the same as koheesti; ad hominem tactics when your argument fails to win a debate.

The level of care seems to be on who perpetrates the injustice. The level of care for the victim, with some posters, has to do with who does the killing.

The level of care seems to be on who perpetrates the injustice. The level of care for the victim, with some posters, has to do with does the killing.

I know what you're saying, and I can see why you see it that way (and I can see now why you have an unproffessional bias against some members). But you are wrong.

For this, I will speak for myself only (though I am sure that I am not alone); Of course I abhor terrorist killings, whether it is by Hamas on Israelis, Al Qaeda on Americans, Uzbeks on Russians, or Talebani on Pakistanis and Afghans.

It's not a matter of the level of care, it's a matter of apportioning a level of blame on who did what first way back, and who should (and could) take the moral high ground and end the conflicts by being honest, honourable, fair and reasonable, withdraw from lands that are not their own, and stop meddling in the politics of foreign states for "national (and sometimes personal) interests".

The level of care seems to be on who perpetrates the injustice. The level of care for the victim, with some posters, has to do with who does the killing.

At least you admit that injustices are perpetrated by both sides.

That's a start.

You're the same as koheesti; ad hominem tactics when your argument fails to win a debate.

That is sort of amusing - considering the source.

There's a saying: Simple things amuse simple minds.

I'm not sure if that's an appropriate saying when the simple amusement comes from an absurdity too.

It's not a matter of the level of care, it's a matter of apportioning a level of blame on who did what first way back, and who should (and could) take the moral high ground and end the conflicts by being honest, honourable, fair and reasonable, withdraw from lands that are not their own, and stop meddling in the politics of foreign states for "national (and sometimes personal) interests".

And who decides this? A bunch of lying hypocrites.

There's a saying: Simple things amuse simple minds.

What a surprise, an ad hominem attack!

This appears to be an appropriate time to present a little food for thought.

_______________________________________________________

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

Read more here: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

This appears to be an appropriate time to present a little food for thought.

_______________________________________________________

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

Read more here: http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html

Yes, totally appropriate straight after UG's post. I'm a bit suprised though that you are implying he has "not much up top"...I always thought you would take his side no matter what.

You're the same as koheesti; ad hominem tactics when your argument fails to win a debate.

I don't suppose you could produce an example of one of these so-called attacks by me?

In war you have innocent people getting killed including women and children. Innocent people die everyday whether there is a war or not. But it is a sad fact of war and while it can't be 100% avoided, it can be minimized. Western powers - I include Israel here - go to great lengths to limit these deaths, the "collateral damage". That's a great thing because the Western powers are the ones capable of obliterating every living thing in the country they are at war with. Often the other side of the conflict - insurgents, al Qaeda, Taleban, Hamas, Hezbollah to name a few - not only target civilians intentionally, they also hide behind them with the goal of maximizing innocent deaths at the hands of the Western powers so as to win a propaganda war. That propaganda is eaten up by the Leftists of the world as is evident here on this forum.

I wonder what makes people who seem reasonably intelligent - I'm sure they feel they are above average - fall for this propaganda? I'm certain they can see the difference between targeting someone intentionally and killing them by accident. So since they aren't stupid, there must be another reason. Simply trolling? Anti- the country responsible for the deaths? They actually support the cause of the terrorists, insurgents, etc? They are anti-Semites? Or maybe like me, they expect innocent deaths, but hold the Western powers to higher standards. If so, does that mean they think the ones doing the intentional targeting are inferior, lesser developed and civilized and therefore their behaviour can be excused? That would make them sort of like white supremists, wouldn't it?

1. When the Standing Orders state that ALL collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable, and those orders are purposefully adhered to, THEN, you can talk about "accidental" killings.

2. I am absolutely positively certain that I speak for all the members that you're referring to that there is not one that even remotely "does not care one iota".

But that's an old story that you always choose to ignore and try to spin to paint your detractors in a poor light. Your usual pointless ad hominem argument.

The first reference to ad hominem in this thread.

You're the same as koheesti; ad hominem tactics when your argument fails to win a debate.

Taa Daa!! The second reference to ad hominem in this thread.

Yes, totally appropriate straight after UG's post.

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

- Dr. Carl Sagan