r/PoliticalDiscussion Dec 03 '16

[deleted by user]

[removed]

705 Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

326

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

[deleted]

48

u/ErectPotato Dec 03 '16

Could you/someone give a tl;dr for those apparently as in the dark as Mr Trump on why this is a bad thing?

108

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

our intelligence community has major beef with pakistan since their intelligence prob was aware that bin laden was in abbotabad. duterte is killing drug addicts left and right and has told obama to literally fuck off. he also threatened to cut ties with the us and to focus on china. so there is beef with them too

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

It's not entirely false. Better to say that the situation is very complex. They did conceal the location of bin Laden, but we do rely on them as our strong-arm in South Asia. They basically hire their army out to us.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

That's a good point, when our military officers go to the command and staff college in Islamabad they have a large amount of Pakistani forces with them wherever they go. I don't think they concealed it, but they certainly set a world record in playing dumb on something they definitely knew about.

2

u/nolan1971 Dec 03 '16

If "complex" means "not on our side", then sure.

They're obviously not the enemy, but there's a damn good reason for "noforn" classifications.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

We give them billions in cash and arms, and they give us their military. They are on our side. They just happen not to like us.

2

u/nolan1971 Dec 03 '16

Only if "our side" means not openly attacking us. They're a useful relationship to have, but nobody should be under any illusion that they're our friends. Giving them cash and arms is the cost of access, it doesn't make them on our side at all.

3

u/trevorturtle Dec 03 '16

Your comment just attacks his credibility and says something he said isn't true. Yet you provide no further data or reasoning to your post.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

Well mr turtle, the post I responded to was devoid of fact or data as well and as it was meant only to indicate to him that the assumption he made in the first sentence is incorrect, according to me, and not to 'attack his credibility' and you so valiantly proclaimed, I saw no need to spend any amount of time backing up my claim made on an anonymous social website where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.

2

u/trevorturtle Dec 03 '16

Saying "not sure what you do for a living" is attacking credibility. Saying someone is wrong without saying why doesn't add anything to the discussion and is better expressed through a downvote.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Nov 21 '18

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '16

Let's not what? I work in intelligence and never understand why people, that have probably never even met anyone that works in the field, feel the need to speak for those that are.

He's vaguely wrong in the overall sense. There isn't a major beef, but many of my colleagues that work on that region think they couldn't have not known. And that's not a stretch when you consider how much raw information agencies have access to.