[NEWS] US unilateral Pakistan airstike misses al-Zawahiri

[solypsist]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/alqaeda.strike/index.html

"U.S. sources said al-Zawahiri was the target of Friday's strike and initially reported that he may have been among the 18 people killed.

The Pakistani intelligence official said it was not known whether al-Zawahiri was in the area.

Pakistan's Foreign Office said Saturday it had lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan over the attack on the village of Damadola, near the Afghan border."


Can the CIA do anything right? Anyway, I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?

[Marcellus]

Eighteen people killed and the US military didn't even ask for permission to attack parts of a sovereign state?

[Dâriûsh]

Shoot first, ask later. Too bad 18 people had to die. ~:rolleyes:

[Just A Girl]

acording to what ive red In this post.
I havent read the article yet.

It seems there was no evidence that al-Zawahiri was in the are they attacked,
So why did they?

[Ice]

Can the CIA do anything right? Anyway, I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?


In March 2004, Pakistani troops launched an assault on an area in Waziristan province where intelligence indicated al-Zawahiri was hiding, but he was not captured.

It's more along the lines of: Can the Pakistanis do anything right? They have had how many years to catch Bin Laden and other key Al Queda members, who are assumed to be hiding in Pakistan on the Pakistani/Afagan Boarder? If they really wanted these guys caught, it would be done.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

[Reenk Roink]

If they really wanted these guys caught, it would be done.

Yup, and we can say the same for the good ol' US.

[Watchman]

The Pakistanis can at least cite muddy internal politics and the need to tiptoe diplomatically around the damn hill tribes as excuses, since they need to manage the blasted place tomorrow too.

[solypsist]

so tell me what gains the US made by acting on their own with this little failed effort other than to really piss off (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/14/alqaeda.strike/index.html) one of our allies on the War On Terror.


A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight.

Crazed Rabbit

[Reenk Roink]

It's easy to act without considering the consequences...

[Xiahou]

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed RabbitIt's a clear case of damned if you do vs damned if you dont. I would've like to heard soly's reaction to a news story saying we found Zawahiri with an UAV but didnt do anything because it was just across the border. My guess is it'd be pretty much the same reaction.

[solypsist]

No, what I want to read is this: Coalition forces capture/kill top terrorist Zawahiri. I want mission success, and I expect it to be done properly. Your "alternative" is narrow since you've chosen a scenario that ends in defeat.



It's a clear case of damned if you do vs damned if you dont. I would've like to heard soly's reaction to a news story saying we found Zawahiri with an UAV but didnt do anything because it was just across the border. My guess is it'd be pretty much the same reaction.


Hey, let's talk about other stuff the US could have done properly (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html&OQ=eiQ3D5094Q26enQ3D6a69abccc77d978fQ26hpQ3DQ26exQ3D1136696400Q26adxnnlQ3D1Q26partnerQ3DhomepageQ26a dxnnlxQ3D1136642192-CplvFQ2BUbnLReqwsAswCDkA&OP=22d82014Q2FyPVQ2Ay@6GQ3Ee66)CyCQ3AQ3A_yQ3A-yQ3AayQ3C6Q60J)JGQ3EyQ3AaMek6eQ25q)kQ60): "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials."

See? I don't want to go O/T but come on - time and again the US approach to the War on Terror lets me down - the bungled attack in Pakistan is just the latest in a series of bad gaffes and ....oh, man.

[Xiahou]

So what did you mean by
I suppose the big deal here is not that the US missed him again so much as it was done in Pakistani airspace without their permission. I know that Pakistan is a US "ally" in the GWOT and that US aircraft fly in their airspace all the time. Maybe the rules on munitions release has changed in Pakistan?The 'real big deal' isn't whether they hit or missed him according to your prior statement- what matters was that they fired without permission.


Hey, let's talk about other stuff the US could have done properly: "A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials."

See? I don't want to go O/T but come on - time and again the US approach to the War on Terror lets me down - the bungled attack in Pakistan is just the latest in a series of bad gaffes and ....oh, man.Ah, there comes the rhetoric- you rightly point out it's off topic, but dont let that stop you from getting some swipes in huh? :rolleyes:

[Watchman]

States do so tend to get edgy when others infringe on their "monopoly on legitimate violence" thing without permission...

[solypsist]

Read the second sentence in my post above yours, the italicized word.

truth be told, if we had killed him, I probably wouldn't be complaining, but after so many times of US forces just being cowboys and charging in and then botching the mission, maybe the solution is to start doing things properly with the help of our allies instead of in spite of them.


So what did you mean by The 'real big deal' isn't whether they hit or missed him according to your prior statement- what matters was that they fired without permission.


Ah, there comes the rhetoric- you rightly point out it's off topic, but dont let that stop you from getting some swipes in huh?

some well deserved and documented swipes at that.

[Xiahou]

truth be told, if we had killed him, I probably wouldn't be complaining, but after so many times of US forces just being cowboys and charging in and then botching the mission, maybe the solution is to start doing things properly with the help of our allies instead of in spite of them.So if they can see into their crystal ball and know the operation will succeed, you wouldnt mind them doing it without permission eh? Too bad the real world doesnt work that way- for all we know at this point, they could've missed him by a matter of feet or minutes, but since it failed you can now look back and say assuredly that it should never have been attempted.



some well deserved and documented swipes at that.Hardly, do you know how much body armor they wear now? It's up to 90lbs at times isnt it? If they encased every soldier in 300lbs of ceramic armor it might protect them better from bullets or shrapnel... but then they couldnt move either. What the Pentagon study was for more likely, was to study the effectiveness of current armor and what parts need modification or reinforcement based on the types of injuries sustained.

Armor is heavy, and hot- there's always going to be a trade-off between protection and mobility. Could an injury or death have been prevented had there been a heavy trauma plate there instead? Probably, but how many others could be injured by being weighed down by bulky armor and unable to fight/move/dodge properly. Obviously a study was being done to monitor it's effectiveness. Why do you think this was done?

It's just more of the same anti-military dailykos claptrap. :rolleyes:

[Ice]

Yup, and we can say the same for the good ol' US.

Wonder why that is? ~:rolleyes: Hmm, think about it. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan, now why aren't we going to get him?

[Marcellus]

Wonder why that is? ~:rolleyes: Hmm, think about it. Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan, now why aren't we going to get him?

Perhaps because Pakistan is a sovereign state, and an ally of America in the 'War on terror'? In a relatively undeveloped country, with remote areas, like Pakistan, it's not really that surprising that they haven't caught Bin Laden, even if he's in the country. After all, the Americans couldn't catch him when he was (probably) in Afghanistan.

[Tribesman]

What a dumb ass move . An easy lesson in how to annoy your "friends" , but with friends like these who needs enemies .
The dictator in Pakistan has made it clear from day one that Coilition forces will not be allowed operate his side of the border , his army has repeatedly fired on US/Afghani patrols along the border just to reinforce the message .

Perhaps in this global war on terror it isn't really a great idea to have an ally who supports terrorists and backed the Taliban .

[solypsist]

note true: AQ has tried numerous times since 2003 to assassinate Musharaff (http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21719) - he wants them dead as much as we do. i could find no sources indicating Pakistan firing at Coalition soldiers


The dictator in Pakistan has made it clear from day one that Coilition forces will not be allowed operate his side of the border , his army has repeatedly fired on US/Afghani patrols along the border just to reinforce the message .

Perhaps in this global war on terror it isn't really a great idea to have an ally who supports terrorists and backed the Taliban .

[Watchman]

Pakistan (which wasn't being run by Musfarrah at the time anyway - he only took power a few years ago) acted as the middleman when the US was supplying and training the beardy guys in the mountains who were shooting up the Soviets back in the day, and of course had its own interests involved. And right next door the Iranians were doing about the exact same thing, save from their own pockets and not American ones.

That's geopolitics for you. Yesterday's indispensable ally is tomorrow's sworn enemy. Nothing new under the sun there.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I say Nuclear Carpet Bomb the entire freakin mountain rage where we think he is.

[Watchman]

That from "How To Gain Friends and Influence(tm)" ? :inquisitive:

[Leet Eriksson]

That from "How To Gain Friends and Influence(tm)" ? :inquisitive:

Nay, its from Kaiser's "I came, I saw, I conquered.. then i failed"tm

[Tribesman]

note true: AQ has tried numerous times since 2003 to assassinate Musharaff - he wants them dead as much as we do.
Al-Qaida is not the only terrorist organisation Soly , besides which several senior officers in the military regime have been arrested for aiding Al-Qaida and for trying to assasinate Musharraf , that is the problem you get when your military supports terrorists , sometimes they support the terrorists that you don't want them to It is a problem that the dictator is having to face as he walks the tightrope of supporting the US while at the same time opposing the US .
i could find no sources indicating Pakistan firing at Coalition soldiers

Well I suggest you look a little harder .
Like I said there are numerous and continuing incidents stretching back to 2002 . Try the incident where the coilition troops called in an airstrike on the Pakistani border patrol at Shkrin after being fired on after refusing to leave Pakistani territory , it should be easy enough for you to find .:book:

[solypsist]

i'm afraid i can't. links? you said numerous, so more than two or three incidents (w/ links) would be nice



Like I said there are numerous and continuing incidents stretching back to 2002 . Try the incident where the coilition troops called in an airstrike on the Pakistani border patrol at Shkrin after being fired on after refusing to leave Pakistani territory , it should be easy enough for you to find .:book:

[Ice]

Washington: Pakistan has issued new rules of engagement permitting its Army to fire at US forces that cross the border from Afghanistan without coordinating first, according to a report contributed to the magazine ‘American Conservative’ by a former CIA officer.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-2-2005_pg1_4

[doc_bean]

The US has probably killed more innocent civilians in the so called war on Terror than the terrorists (including 9/11). :wall:

[Kanamori]

I think there is a big difference between accidentally killing civilians in a country you are in a full scale war with and accidentally killing totally innocent civilians in your allies country...

We should not have been bombing in a friendly nation unless the target was the only thing there.



This is absolutely disgraceful, as far as I'm concerned.

[doc_bean]

I think there is a big difference between accidentally killing civilians in a country you are in a full scale war with and accidentally killing totally innocent civilians in your allies country...


I'm not saying the US is (morally) worse than the terrorists, I just think people are making to light of 'collateral' damage.

It's time like these I really hope there is a God, I can just imagine some politician going up to God, telling Him of all the good things he did, how moral he was, etc etc., and then God says "Well, that's great, I'd let you in in a heartbeat, except, well, there's this little problem of you being responsible for the death of a few hundred thousand people..."

[solypsist]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-2-2005_pg1_4

from the article: "Washington: Pakistan has issued new rules of engagement permitting its Army to fire at US forces that cross the border from Afghanistan without coordinating first..."

so - we're back to my main point when i created this thread. the article did not give any examples of US forces being shot at, just of a directive that may or may not be in effect. can you imagine another [allied] country violating US borders, bombing a US town, killing US citizens, andthen giving some excuse about "We thought somebody we needed to kill was staying downtown there, oops." ?? Would you find that acceptable? Or would you argue that a country has a right to defend its borders and make its "allies" follow procedure to insure things like that are minimized?

[Geoffrey S]

And people wonder why the US isn't all that popular in the Middle East. :laugh4:

[Reenk Roink]

Or South America, or Africa...

[Xiahou]

However, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he had "every reason to believe" high-ranking officials in the Pakistani government knew in advance.

Many in this nation of 150 million people oppose the government's ties with Washington and there is increasing frustration over a recent series of suspected U.S. attacks along the rugged frontier aimed at militants.

Bayh said the problem is the Pakistani government does not control the border region where
Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahri and other militants are believed to have been hiding since the U.S.-led military ouster of Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime for hosting al-Qaida.

"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" Bayh told CNN. "The Pakistani border is a real problem." link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack)
I think that about sums it up.


can you imagine another [allied] country violating US borders, bombing a US town, killing US citizens, andthen giving some excuse about "We thought somebody we needed to kill was staying downtown there, oops." ?? Would you find that acceptable? Or would you argue that a country has a right to defend its borders and make its "allies" follow procedure to insure things like that are minimized?Yeah, I think I could almost imagine it- if we had a unpoliced border were militants were using small villages on our side of the border to make attacks against the citizens and forces on the other side. However, the reason I can't quite see that is because that situation doesn't exist in the US- we have people sneaking into our borders to be sure, but they arent using the US as a platform to launch attacks into Mexico.... :shrug:

[Tribesman]

from the article: "Washington: Pakistan has issued new rules of engagement permitting its Army to fire at US forces that cross the border from Afghanistan without coordinating first..."

Whats strange about that article is the date , the rules of engagement and the original content of the article article date from Jan 2003 , not Feb 2005 when the daily times repeated it .

[Reenk Roink]

However, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he had "every reason to believe" high-ranking officials in the Pakistani government knew in advance.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack)
I think that about sums it up.


Oh come now, that just disregards the paragraph before those two:

In a sign of tensions over the attack, two top Pakistani officials — one from the military, the other from the civilian administration — said privately that the government was only informed of the strike after it happened.

[Ice]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack)
I think that about sums it up.

Yeah, I think I could almost imagine it- if we had a unpoliced border were militants were using small villages on our side of the border to make attacks against the citizens and forces on the other side. However, the reason I can't quite see that is because that situation doesn't exist in the US- we have people sneaking into our borders to be sure, but they arent using the US as a platform to launch attacks into Mexico.... :shrug:

Yup

[Reenk Roink]

See post 37 :sweatdrop:

[Xiahou]

Oh come now, that just disregards the paragraph before those two:Ignoring what? We know the Pakistani story thus far- why would I bring it up again? Was I also ignoring the fact that there was an attack since I didnt mention that again? :dizzy2:

[Leet Eriksson]

Ok i had to skim, did they kill zawahiri or not?

I thought they finally got him becuase the news were all over it saying he "probably" died.

[Reenk Roink]

Ignoring what? We know the Pakistani story thus far- why would I bring it up again? Was I also ignoring the fact that there was an attack since I didnt mention that again? :dizzy2:

Wrong, you quoted only the US part of the story and said it about summed it up, while I would have (in order to have any degree of objectivity) given both those paragraphs together...

But I see this isn't going anywhere...

And faisal, according to what's been said, mostly likely no...

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

no time to engage in other threads today but I saw this and thought you may all be interested (especially those saying how evil it was):

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Osama_bin_Laden_and_al_Qaida/

yep, Pakistan says the strike did in fact kill a bunch of terrorists.

[Ja'chyra]

Couldn't this be construed as an act of war? All you need to do now is start kidnapping foreign nationals..........

[Xiahou]

From what I've heard, they werent all just shlubs either- there were supposedly some higher ranking members. In fact, from what I've heard, US personell are still hopeful that Zawahiri was killed.

[Ice]

also said that between 10 and 12 foreign extremists had been invited to the dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack

Ah...

[Goofball]

A 'unilateral' strike? Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us, so that, although nothing would be different, it'd make certain people feel warm and fuzzy because it wouldn't be unilateral?

Or were we supposed to sit on our butts while we talked to Pakistan and let the al-Queda terrorist slip through again?

Crazed Rabbit

So I assume then if CSIS developed credible intelligence that Osama bin Laden had just ordered the breakfast special at Joe's Diner in Deer Park Michigan you'd have no problem with Canada dispatching a pair of CF-18s to level the building without notifying the U.S. gov't? After all, killing the terrorists is the important thing, sovereignity be damned.

[Tribesman]

Were we supposed to wait for the Pakistanis to develop their own UAV with missiles and have them send one along with us,
Wait for what development , they developed them , they have them , they use them , and guess what they also export them .:book:

After all, killing the terrorists is the important thing, sovereignity be damned.
Goof you fail to spot the difference , that would be US soveriegnty that was damned , thats a different kettle of fish altogether .

[Major Robert Dump]

The drones are causing more problems than solving. Oddly enough, with a drone you somewhat take away accountability.

Don't make light of this. This is a major, major error, even worse than the afghan wedding mishap or the total destruction of a neighborhood on the 4th day of Iraq war where Saddam and his sons were "supposed" to be hiding.

I don't think Soly is being anti-military at all. In fact, it was a CIA operation not a military one. I don't mean to hurt your little brains here, but requesting competence and criticizing high level decisions does not make one anti-military or anti-american. Seeing as how Bush thinks the CIA is out to get him, I'm surprised the Bush apologists arent saying its a Clinton-CIA conspiracy to make Bush look bad.

Now someone answer Goofballs question. What would happen if Canada did that? I've got an answer: relations would be strained but would continue, but anti-canadian hyperbole would be rampant in the congress and the public, and we may even see hate crimes against canadians in the states and maybe some hyper-patriots going over the border for skirmishes. That would be the least I would expect.

You don't make mistakes like this in an allies country. You just don't. Someone should be fired.

[Tribesman]

The drones are causing more problems than solving.
Not neccasarily , look at the aftermath of the USS Cole attacks .
There was a high profile target that the local government could not get to . Due to its own domestic situation it was not advisable to allow US personell either on the ground or in its airspace .
Operating a UAV out of a French base (so French territory) , with guidance and co-operation from the local government they destroyed their target . And they did it with no collatoral damage whatsoever (apart from wrecking a bit of roadway) .

[Major Robert Dump]

well, actually I meant lately. I know that even recently we've knocked off a few high profile targets with the drones in afghan and iraq, but the drones+CIA intel= a no no in allied airspace without somesort of go-ahead from the nation. I just think in cases like this patience is the better virtue, even if it means having to wait another month to pin him down.

[Xiahou]

So I assume then if CSIS developed credible intelligence that Osama bin Laden had just ordered the breakfast special at Joe's Diner in Deer Park Michigan you'd have no problem with Canada dispatching a pair of CF-18s to level the building without notifying the U.S. gov't? After all, killing the terrorists is the important thing, sovereignity be damned.I already replied to an almost identical statement by Soly- just reread it and change Mexico to Canada as I don't feel like addressing this again.


Seeing as how Bush thinks the CIA is out to get him, I'm surprised the Bush apologists arent saying its a Clinton-CIA conspiracy to make Bush look bad.Huh? In all likelihood, several high ranking al Qaeda members were killed along with the possibility of Zawahiri himself and this is somehow a disaster? I guess I don't think they way you do.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was aware that Pakistan had back peddled slightly and said a couple of "foreign militants" were killed and there are now sources saying some paki officials were aware in advance of the strike, but I've yet to see anything saying it was high level AQ who were among the dead.

I've also gotten conflicting reports on the number of civies killed

Based on the info I've gotten up to this point then yes, I would say its less than acceptable tactics. Hopefully I'm wrong, hopefully it wasn't 18
civies killed and hopefully Z. is among the dead. But I don't like missle strikes that kill civilians, especially in allied territory and especially when its not an immediate matter of protecting troops and assets.

[Tribesman]

I was aware that Pakistan had back peddled slightly and said a couple of "foreign militants" were killed
Back peddled slightly ? Foriegn militants ? errrr.. didn't Musharraf grant amnesty last summer to the majority of the foriegn militants in that and a neighbouring province . I wonder if it was some of those "foriegn militants" that were hit ?

Musharraf is scared shitless that his unpopularity with the people and growing unpopularity with his own army is heading towards his overthrow by the very army that put him in power .
Since the elements within the army that are unhappy with their present dictator are of the very fundamentalist terrorist loving kind do you people not think that America has made one of its biggest ballsups for a long time ?

While the current dictator is certainly not a very nice person , he is immeasurably a better prospect than some taliban loving nutcase dictator that might replace him , with a nice handy nuclear arsenal at his disposal .

Yay lets drop a bomb so we can see if we can fill the streets with people shouting "death to Musharraf , death to America" , what a brilliant idea .:oops:

[Proletariat]

As far as I'm concerned Pakistan's countryside is about as much our ally as AQ themselves.

It's a terrible tragedy but not all that avoidable when you look at the sort of support AQ seems to be getting from areas like Waziristan. Back the right horse next time and quit harboring these 7th Century Cockroaches.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/bert.jpg

[Xiahou]

While the current dictator is certainly not a very nice person , he is immeasurably a better prospect than some taliban loving nutcase dictator that might replace him , with a nice handy nuclear arsenal at his disposal .

Yay lets drop a bomb so we can see if we can fill the streets with people shouting "death to Musharraf , death to America" , what a brilliant idea .:oops:
Oh man, now I'm confused- first we're a bunch of hypocrites for allying with him, now we're assholes if he gets destabilized by us. :dizzy2:

I guess how good or bad he is is inversely proportional to how his country is getting along with the US... :laugh4:

[Proletariat]

Oh man, now I'm confused- first we're a bunch of hypocrites for allying with him, now we're assholes if he gets destabilized by us. :dizzy2:

I guess how good or bad he is is inversely proportional to how his country is getting along with the US... :laugh4:

I fell out of my chair reading that by Tribesman, too. So much for intellectual honesty.

[Goofball]

So I assume then if CSIS developed credible intelligence that Osama bin Laden had just ordered the breakfast special at Joe's Diner in Deer Park Michigan you'd have no problem with Canada dispatching a pair of CF-18s to level the building without notifying the U.S. gov't? After all, killing the terrorists is the important thing, sovereignity be damned.I already replied to an almost identical statement by Soly- just reread it and change Mexico to Canada as I don't feel like addressing this again.

Yes you "replied," but you didn't answer the question.

Your response was essentially "Well, that's different."

[Proletariat]

Your response was essentially "Well, that's different."

You don't see the difference?

:idea2:

[Tribesman]

Prole and Xiahou , which do you prefer , going from bad to worse or just sticking with bad ?
It is your government that chose its allies . If it wants to screw over its allies and try and find new ones thats fine by me .
If it wants to replace nutters with complete lunatics fine , go ahead .
If you choose to lay down with dogs then expect fleas , if you choose to kick the dog because you got a flea bite then get ready for the bunch of mangy mutts that are going to be biting your flea ridden arse .

[Goofball]

You don't see the difference?

:idea2:

No, I don't. It's a question of sovereignity. Allies don't launch airstrikes against targets in an allied country without at least telling that country about it first, and getting their permission.

Why am I so sensitive about this?

Because I live right next door to the most powerful country in the world. Until now we have enjoyed an excellent relationship, and though you guys have much more military might than we do, you have always treated us more or less fairly and respected our sovereignity, and even to some extent sheltered us under your wing. And the reason you have always done this is because you have been living up to the ideals upon which your excellent nation was founded.

But when you have political leadership that seems to be saying that the old rules no longer apply, and that (ideals be damned) you'll bomb whomever and wherever you want without notice, it starts to make us little guys a little bit nervous. I realize that there is a big difference between Afghanistan and Canada, but the underlying principle remains the same in both cases: friends don't drop bombs in their friends' countries.

[Ice]

I realize that there is a big difference between Afghanistan and Canada, but the underlying principle remains the same in both cases: friends don't drop bombs in their friends' countries.

Don't worry Goofball, you are a much better friend to the United States then Pakistan is. Don't be rediculous and say that your country could be the next one to be hit with missles. You and me both know that won't ever happen.

[Redleg]

Don't worry Goofball, you are a much better friend to the United States then Pakistan is. Don't be rediculous and say that your country could be the next one to be hit with missles. You and me both know that won't ever happen.


If it makes those in Canada feel any better - I am sure the United States Government will allow them to bomb some of the survialists sitting along the Montana and Canada border area. I know they let the forest just burn when it gets near them.

[Goofball]

Don't worry Goofball, you are a much better friend to the United States then Pakistan is. Don't be rediculous and say that your country could be the next one to be hit with missles. You and me both know that won't ever happen.

Really?

What if Osama was found hiding out in Canada, and we refused to hand him over?

[Papewaio]

What happens if Canadian troops are on a fire range in Canada and a US airplane flys overhead?

[Ice]

Really?

What if Osama was found hiding out in Canada, and we refused to hand him over?

A) Osama would never make it to Canada.
B) The Canadian Governement would never refuse to hand a terrorist over.

[Soulforged]

A) Osama would never make it to Canada.You don't know for sure.

B) The Canadian Governement would never refuse to hand a terrorist over.Really? We never allowed to hand the nazis...

Anyway notice that this is only an hipotesis to demonstrate that the problem is more on this positions: "you're against my interest and you're not". Instead of basing your answers adressing the particular point, you could have answered the principal point here, unilateral attacks, stating for example that this case is an exception and the USA will not make that a rule, but of course this last opinion might be little disregarded lately.

EDIT: Spelling.

[Ice]

You don't know for sure.
Really? We never allowed to hand the nazis...

Anyway notice that this is only an hipotesis to demonstrate that the problem is more on this positions: "you're against my interest and you're not". Instead of basing your answers adressing the particular point, you could have answered the principal point here, unilateral attacks, stating for example that this case is an exception and the USA will not make that a rule, but of course this last opinion might be little disregarded lately.

EDIT: Spelling.

Osama would never leave where he is alive. The bounty on his head is to large. I can gurantee you this, and yes the Canadian government would hand him over. Don't be rediculous.

All I'm trying to say here, is that there no need to worry about us attacking Canada. Canada is nothing like Pakistan. Even if we did have interests there, I believe the Canadians would coperate better then the Pakistanis.

[Xiahou]

Osama would never leave where he is alive. The bounty on his head is to large. I can gurantee you this, and yes the Canadian government would hand him over. Don't be rediculous.Exactly, it's a totally absurd comparison. If there were militants attacking the US from across the Canadian border, we wouldn't have to launch a strike- Canada has control over it's own territory.

Goofball, if militants were launching terrorist attacks on Canadian cities and hiding across the border and the US either refused or was unable to do anything about it, you'd be telling your government to do nothing?

[Major Robert Dump]

Wow. You guys are totally missing the point. You are clouding hypotheticals with current facts, and even more so reversing the situation of the canada/us thing. If strikes we launched from the US to Canada by badguys and the US refused to help, the most Canada would do is make diplomatic pleas due to the fact that the US would crush it in any military engagement.

That is not a valid comaprison to pakistan. Instead reverse the roles, and look at it form the perspective of a stronger nation making strikes in a weaker nation, and what the weaker nation would do about it.

That being said, a nation "not being able to" control its own people and territory is a very valuable point. In fact, its probably the key point in this discussion for most of you. Like I said, its valid. But for me, I still think its incredibly TACKY to make a move like this on an ally that is a failure and kills the wrong people....i suppose we will see when the IDs on the bodies are confirmed by the white house

[Tribesman]

What happens if Canadian troops are on a fire range in Canada and a US airplane flys overhead?

Nasty Pape :no:
That would depend on whether the pilot was so hyped up on stimulants that he didn't understand the meaning of the words hold on or don't fire .:hide:

[Goofball]

A) Osama would never make it to Canada.
B) The Canadian Governement would never refuse to hand a terrorist over.

A) He's managed to elude the largest, richest, most powerful country in the world for a few years now, so I wouldn't be too sure about that.

b) We routinely refuse extradition to countries that still have the death penalty.

[Ice]

A) He's managed to elude the largest, richest, most powerful country in the world for a few years now, so I wouldn't be too sure about that.

b) We routinely refuse extradition to countries that still have the death penalty.

A) By staying in Pakistan... Afganstian. Think about it. Do i really have to fully explain how complex it would have to be with him trying to travel in secret to Canada? He doesn't exactly blend in.

b) I'm sure your government would be willing to coperate due the fact that this man was responsible for thousands of deaths around the world. If not, well, I'm sure we would work something out.

[Tribesman]

He doesn't exactly blend in.

Has he got two heads or something then ?

I'm sure your government would be willing to coperate due the fact that this man was responsible for thousands of deaths around the world. If not, well, I'm sure we would work something out.
I am sure you could work somethig out , and then drop a bomb despite what you had worked out .:oops:

[Redleg]

He doesn't exactly blend in.

Has he got two heads or something then ?

I'm sure your government would be willing to coperate due the fact that this man was responsible for thousands of deaths around the world. If not, well, I'm sure we would work something out.
I am sure you could work somethig out , and then drop a bomb despite what you had worked out .:oops:

Someone is trolling I see. :dizzy2:

[Proletariat]

I realize that there is a big difference between Afghanistan and Canada, but the underlying principle remains the same in both cases: friends don't drop bombs in their friends' countries.

I honestly can't tell if you're just horsing around or you are really this confused about the difference between Canada and Waziristan.



Don't worry Goofball, you are a much better friend to the United States then Pakistan is. Don't be rediculous and say that your country could be the next one to be hit with missles. You and me both know that won't ever happen.

Really?

What if Osama was found hiding out in Canada, and we refused to hand him over?

...

[InsaneApache]

As it stands the UK government is in exactley the same situation to Canada vis-a-vis handing over suspects to regimes that still impose the death penalty.

So if Osama was found driving a taxi in Leicester we (the UK) would not be able to hand him over as it would be illegal.

Would the USAF 'take out' the medium sized east-midlands town (and others) until we did?

After all RAF Mildenhall is just down the road, you guys could walk there in an hour or so.

As to the post. Some of the US leaders need to get a grip on reality. It's just not cricket, old boy, to bomb your allies.

[Tribesman]

It's just not cricket, old boy, to bomb your allies.

Thats funny Apache , the Pakistani cricket team is adding its voice to the protest .

[Ice]

I give up, your right.

To all the Britians and Canadians on this forum:
Better start beefing up your miltiaries because a US attack is inevitable. I mean.. Canada is such a hot spot on the war on terror.

[Xiahou]

As it stands the UK government is in exactley the same situation to Canada vis-a-vis handing over suspects to regimes that still impose the death penalty.

So if Osama was found driving a taxi in Leicester we (the UK) would not be able to hand him over as it would be illegal.

Would the USAF 'take out' the medium sized east-midlands town (and others) until we did?

After all RAF Mildenhall is just down the road, you guys could walk there in an hour or so.

As to the post. Some of the US leaders need to get a grip on reality. It's just not cricket, old boy, to bomb your allies.Wow, look- more totally inane comparisons. :dizzy2:

In more relevant news... we have some more information on the results of the strike:
U.S. Strike Killed Al Qaeda Bomb Maker (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986)
ABC News has learned that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.

The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by U.S. authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects of experiments with poison and chemicals.

"This is extraordinarily important," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber, Richard Reid and Zacharias Mousssaoui, as well as hundreds of others."

Pakistani authorities tell ABC News they have confirmation that Mursi was among those on the guest list for the late-night meeting. The authorities say al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was also expected to attend but apparently changed his mind.

[Goofball]

Wow, look- more totally inane comparisons.

Why are they inane?

We are talking about the Bush administration dropping bombs in allied countries without the allied countries' permission.

The comparison(s) are very apt.

[Xiahou]

Why are they inane?

We are talking about the Bush administration dropping bombs in allied countries without the allied countries' permission.

The comparison(s) are very apt.
Oh get off it.

We're not talking about bombing some downtown buffet or British towns... we're talking about bombing a compound that was playing host to a terror summit just across the border into a largely ungoverned area of Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't able to capture the terrorists and just not turning them over because of the death penalty or some other BS- Pakistan was totally unable to apprehend them.

[Goofball]

Oh get off it.

We're not talking about bombing some downtown buffet or British towns... we're talking about bombing a compound that was playing host to a terror summit just across the border into a largely ungoverned area of Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't able to capture the terrorists and just not turning them over because of the death penalty or some other BS- Pakistan was totally unable to apprehend them.

I don't care if it was a meeting between Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama, Pol Pot and George W. Bush.~;) It took place within the borders of a sovereign nation, and the U.S. decided they were allowed to drop bombs within that nation's territory without asking permission first. The situation is not grey, as you are trying to make it out, but very black and white.

The problem is, the decision to drop those bombs was made in the knowledge that even though it's wrong to drop bombs in your friends' countries, there is absolutely nothing your friends can do about it other than complain, because you are the biggest, toughest kid on the block.

And don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea that it could happen to anybody, not just Pakistan. There are already disturbing reports of American nuclear subs sneaking around in Canadian waters without prior Canadian consent.

It always starts out with small things, that have a tendency to get bigger and bigger.

[Tribesman]

In more relevant news... we have some more information on the results of the strike:

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.

There is nothing about it on the Pakistani Government or military sites , neither is it on the regional authority or the opposition sites .
There are stories in some of the local and national press repeating the ABC story but questioning the source as the authorities are not identifying anyone .~:confused:

[Xiahou]

There is nothing about it on the Pakistani Government or military sites , neither is it on the regional authority or the opposition sites .
There are stories in some of the local and national press repeating the ABC story but questioning the source as the authorities are not identifying anyone .~:confused:That's not really suprising is it? There's been many conflicting stories coming from various branches and levels of the Pakistani government- let alone announcing an official statement. I'd assume that ABC had a good source before they'd make a claim like this and CBS and the AP are also reporting the same. We may never know all of the targets that were killed though- there's many reports of locals hiding the bodies.

[Ice]

I don't care if it was a meeting between Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Osama, Pol Pot and George W. Bush.~;) It took place within the borders of a sovereign nation, and the U.S. decided they were allowed to drop bombs within that nation's territory without asking permission first. The situation is not grey, as you are trying to make it out, but very black and white.

The problem is, the decision to drop those bombs was made in the knowledge that even though it's wrong to drop bombs in your friends' countries, there is absolutely nothing your friends can do about it other than complain, because you are the biggest, toughest kid on the block.

And don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea that it could happen to anybody, not just Pakistan. There are already disturbing reports of American nuclear subs sneaking around in Canadian waters without prior Canadian consent.

It always starts out with small things, that have a tendency to get bigger and bigger.

Ah this is just to much. Like i said, better prepare, Canada could be next.

[Adrian II]

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of three known al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit conference in the village of Damadola.I hear Abu Falafel was there too, and so was Ali Baba.

Of course there is no way that the Pakistani authorities could be covering up the mistakes of their ally by inventing terrorist dinner parties in Damadola, is there? :coffeenews:

[Tribesman]

That's not really suprising is it?
Well I would expect the pro-western outlets to be trumpeting it , or some of the pro western opposition .
there's many reports of locals hiding the bodies.
Which is curious , because it was claimed that all the foriegn militants bodies had been spirited away by foriegn militants . Where did they find this body ?

The ABC story may well be true , are they going to name this anonymous "official" who is their source ?
Because the official sources are still very silent on this story .

[Tribesman]

I'd assume that ABC had a good source before they'd make a claim like this and CBS and the AP are also reporting the same.
Are they , this doen't look the same at all ..........
A Pakistani intelligence official, speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak to journalists, said authorities still did not know the names of the dead foreign militants but suspect one was a ranking al Qaeda figure.

"We have no names. We know one of them had value in al Qaeda. He had intelligence value in the network, but we are still checking his name," said the official.

However, Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told AP the government does not know the identities of the foreigners believed killed in the missile strike Friday, which officials have said targeted Osama bin Laden's top aide, Ayman al-Zawahri.

"We are still investigating. There's a possibility that some foreigners were there, but we still do not know," said Sherpao, who was in New York with visiting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

Sherpao said the government had not retrieved the bodies of any of the four foreign militants reported killed in the raid. He said the bodies may have been taken by a local pro-Taliban cleric, Maulana Faqir Mohammed, who also is being hunted by authorities.
......does it ?

[Soulforged]

We're not talking about bombing some downtown buffet or British towns... we're talking about bombing a compound that was playing host to a terror summit just across the border into a largely ungoverned area of Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't able to capture the terrorists and just not turning them over because of the death penalty or some other BS- Pakistan was totally unable to apprehend them.So as said early (when my point wasn't the accuracy of the comparission but the problem with unilateral disicions) if it represents an interest to USA then nothing else matters, your government can take a desicion and exercise it by themselves.
And talking about innane comparisions: what does it matters if it's a buffet in a western perfect country on in the backwaters where the bad guy hipotetically lives. The illegality and amorality of such actions are not related to the target if there's an allie in the middle wich you've to consult. I think that the international community represented by the UN should have the power to stop such decisions even by force if necessary, and also any unjustified attack on any nation, the lack of justification can come from an excuse as an egoist interest.

[Reenk Roink]

Oh get off it.

We're not talking about bombing some downtown buffet or British towns... we're talking about bombing a compound that was playing host to a terror summit just across the border into a largely ungoverned area of Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't able to capture the terrorists and just not turning them over because of the death penalty or some other BS- Pakistan was totally unable to apprehend them.

And neither were the Americans...so you can get off it too...

[Ice]

And neither were the Americans...so you can get off it too...

what?

[Ice]

I think that the international community represented by the UN should have the power to stop such decisions even by force if necessary, and also any unjustified attack on any nation, the lack of justification can come from an excuse as an egoist interest.

lol rofl lmfao hahahaha :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

I hear Abu Falafel was there too, and so was Ali Baba.Pretty close- I just think your spelling was a bit off. :wink:


According to ABC, Pakistani officials also said two other terror network officials were killed: Khalid Habib, the al-Qaida operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan; and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for the group.link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack)

[Xiahou]

Are they , this doen't look the same at all ..........
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack) you go. The AP was just a little slower in picking up (authenticating?) the story apparently.

[Tribesman]

Here you go. The AP was just a little slower in picking up (authenticating?) the story apparently.

authenticating ??????strange authentication there Xiahou .

He stressed that their bodies have not been found.

"We do not have any evidence to prove that they have been killed, but we have indications that they were there and were among those bodies that were taken away," the official said, declining to elaborate.

[Vladimir]

He stressed that their bodies have not been found.


So for you it's back to Vietnam where all you care about is the body count? I ordered a metric tonne of humble pie for you and the guy that started the thread. These barbarians "love death more than you [we] love life" Bin Laden. Do you remember when Saddam turned the top floor of command bunkers into bomb shelters? How many civilians died during the invasion of Normandy? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not upset. The anti-war anti-US types are loosing credibility all the time so I find this entertaining.

[Watchman]

So for you it's back to Vietnam where all you care about is the body count? I ordered a metric tonne of humble pie for you and the guy that started the thread. These barbarians "love death more than you [we] love life" Bin Laden. Do you remember when Saddam turned the top floor of command bunkers into bomb shelters? How many civilians died during the invasion of Normandy? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not upset. The anti-war anti-US types are loosing credibility all the time so I find this entertaining.Err...what ? I've looked that one through four times now, and just about the only bit that makes sense is the last sentence - and that only if it's separated from the rest...
What's the gist, anyway ?

[Vladimir]

Well I'll assume you're being serious:

So for you it's back to Vietnam where all you care about is the body count?

He wants to actually see the bodies that were carried away after the attack.

I ordered a metric tonne of humble pie for you and the guy that started the thread.

Four MAJOR terrorists dead and the #2 man's stress factor skyrocketing. The initial post criticized the CIA’s “incompetence”. Many believe that the source was Pakistani intelligence.

These barbarians "love death more than you [we] love life" Bin Laden.

That quote (hence the " and ") is from Bin Laden and is my response to all those who are rending their clothes over the "civilian" deaths (terrorists are civilians too). These people surround themselves with innocents and use them as human shields to elicit sympathy from the weak willed among us like:

Do you remember when Saddam turned the top floor of command bunkers into bomb shelters?

And:

How many civilians died during the invasion of Normandy?

is to remind people that civilians WILL die in war. Would you have allowed Hitler to go about his merry way because fighting him would have harmed women and children? When is the last time someone here posted about how many Israeli civilians have been directly targeted and killed by extremist Palestinians (just as an example, not to incite)? We don't focus the majority of our military might on killing civilians, these people do. Pressure for improvement is always good but keep it in context.

[Watchman]

Ah. I see.

The end justifies the means, is it ? Inter arma silent leges - "amongst arms the laws are silent" (most probably don't know the original had "they say" at the beginning, though) ?

[Vladimir]

The end justifies the means, is it ?

Ask those who want to kill you because you're not a "slave to Allah".

[Tribesman]

Err...what ? I've looked that one through four times now, and just about the only bit that makes sense is the last sentence - and that only if it's separated from the rest...

Don't worry watchman it is a mindless rant .

So Vladamir darling , what the hell are you on about ?

Here ,would you like me to explain it very slowly to you , you can get a responsible adult to to help you if it is too confusing for you .

1 : somone posts a story that contains an unnamed source making a claim .
2 : it is pointed out that no official source is confirming the claim .
3 : a second story is posted which "allegedly" authenticates the claim .
4 ; on reading the second story it does no such thing and in fact quotes the so called source as saying he hasn't got a clue who was killed and he has absolutely no evidence as to who was killed .

So I ask again , what the hell are you ranting about ?

But then again since you claim Four MAJOR terrorists dead it does seem that you are living in a fantasy world where facts simply do not exist .

[solypsist]

the goal was to kill al-zawahiri. mission failed. coincidentally killing 4 terrorists among the 18 dead women and children does't make it a success by any stretch.



Four MAJOR terrorists dead and the #2 man's stress factor skyrocketing. The initial post criticized the CIA’s “incompetence”. Many believe that the source was Pakistani intelligence.

[Reenk Roink]

Ask those who want to kill you because you're not a "slave to Allah".

Yep, they both share the same mindset that's for sure...

[Watchman]

Huh. "Anything can be done in the name of Justice", or in this case "Freedom". :dizzy2: Did you know, back in the day the Soviets had that in the form of "anything can be done in the name of The People" and now the AQ beards formulate it in the traditional religo-nut form "anything can be name in the name of the Faith" ?

Surest way to corrupt all your morals, ethics and get despised as a hypocritical monster in the eyes of posterity is what it amounts to. It is a mental tool for justifying any horror to yourself with the idea that it is for some greater cause that will be realized any time now... and they never are.

The willingness of the pro-US apologists to start wandering down that path is one of the things that squicks me the most in the whole affair.

[Xiahou]

3 : a second story is posted which "allegedly" authenticates the claim .
4 ; on reading the second story it does no such thing and in fact quotes the so called source as saying he hasn't got a clue who was killed and he has absolutely no evidence as to who was killed .I guess I should know by now that I have to spell everything out for you....

Originally, the AP only referred back to the ABC report claiming the killing of terrorists. A few hours later, the AP dropped the reference to the ABC story and reported the names of 4 terrorist leaders that were believed killed. This would suggest that instead of relying on ABC's report, someone from the AP contacted these "security officials" for themselves and "authenticated" the report from ABC- thus they could stop referring to the ABC report and report it directly for themselves.



Here you go. The AP was just a little slower in picking up (authenticating?) the story apparently.Maybe you didn't understand what the "story" was? That's hard to believe though, since you quoted it. :no:


the goal was to kill al-zawahiri. mission failed. coincidentally killing 4 terrorists among the 18 dead women and children does't make it a success by any stretch.
By your logic, it would've been a failure if it had killed Bin Laden...

[Tribesman]

Maybe you didn't understand what the "story" was? That's hard to believe though, since you quoted it.
They quote an anonymous official to confirm the the story , that official then goes on to show that actually there isn't any confirmnation of the story .

[Watchman]

By your logic, it would've been a failure if it had killed Bin Laden...So, are you saying it'd have been all right to kill 18 women and children if Osama went in the blast too ?

Nice to see human life holds equal value to you. Here's a thought game you could try - would you also consider it all right if those 18 were Americans, and included a relative you're fond of ?

Yes, the scenario is absurd. That's beside the point. Consider it a reductio ad absurdum of the principle "the end justifies the means".

[solypsist]

straw man alert


By your logic, it would've been a failure if it had killed Bin Laden...

[Proletariat]

Nice to see human life holds equal value to you. Here's a thought game you could try - would you also consider it all right if those 18 were Americans, and included a relative you're fond of ?


If they were Americans harboring Bin Laden I wouldn't blink. What a silly hypothetical.

[Watchman]

Hey, it's not my morals that need to be explained at the Final Judgement should it at some point become necessary...

It just tends to make me wonder where exactly are you people possessed of any higher moral standards than the AQ guys, if your basic response to almost twenty women and children dying as collateral damage can be summed up as "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

[Papewaio]

If they were Americans harboring Bin Laden I wouldn't blink. What a silly hypothetical.

Neither would I if they were Australians.

However I would prefer these in reverse order.

They recover body parts.
They recover body parts and positively DNA test it to prove it is Bin Laden.
They recover the body.
They recover the body and positively DNA test it to prove it is Bin Laden.
+ They cause less civilian casualties. So a strike by commandos or snipers.
+ Capture Bin Laden. Die in Prison.
+ Capture Bin Laden. Given a trial.
+ Capture Bin Laden. Given a fair trial.
+ Sentenced to death... agian if it is a fair trial they may find out something that is uncomfortable for some administrations a la The Iran Contra Affair.
+ Sentenced to life as a pig herder. Anything that makes him unclean to match his warped version of faith.

[Proletariat]

It just tends to make me wonder where exactly are you people possessed of any higher moral standards than the AQ guys, if your basic response to almost twenty women and children dying as collateral damage can be summed up as "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

Now here's a strawman.



However I would prefer these in reverse order.

Agreed, 100%.

[Tribesman]

Further to the last post XiahouOriginally, the AP only referred back to the ABC report claiming the killing of terrorists. A few hours later, the AP dropped the reference to the ABC story and reported the names of 4 terrorist leaders that were believed killed. This would suggest that instead of relying on ABC's report, someone from the AP contacted these "security officials" for themselves and "authenticated" the report from ABC- thus they could stop referring to the ABC report and report it directly for themselves.

AP bureau in Pakistan is not reporting that there is anything to report concerning the identities. The government and military are still denying they have identified anyone . Your government is saying no one has been identified .
So you have a couple of journalists from several media outlets , and that number is constantly growing as is the number of terrorists (though that is going up and down in each different article) and the number of supposed identified and named terrorists , all from anonymous officials who in most of the reports then go on to contradict what is being claimed .

So I suppose these journalists must have some really good sources , especially considering that they are all banned from entering the province .

[Watchman]

Now here's a strawman.That doesn't make me wonder any less about it. Some answer.

[Proletariat]

You are calling me amoral because I think killing Bin Laden along with whomever he is hiding out with is the right and just thing to do? I don't even know where to begin. The obvious thing would be to ask you whether you'dve spared Hitler in the same situation, but I don't think there's a point.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the 'kill 'em all' bit, which is what I found straw man-like. Watch a documentary sometime and get to know just a little bit about the mentality of the folk in Waziristan.

This argument is silly. Bin Laden needs to pay for his murderous crimes, and anyone willing to harbor him should be willing to share his fate.

[Watchman]

I'm sure those women and children had a lot of say in the matter. You *do* know how enlightened those hill tribes tend to be, do you ?

What you're basically saying is "damn buggers shouldn't have been there." What a responsible point of view.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What you're basically saying is "damn buggers shouldn't have been there."

Well basically yes. There are two main possobilities. Either their hostages as you seem to indicate. But I highly doubt. Or they are supporters of his. Im sure there is no shortage of women and children who are willing to become human shields and or martyers for their holyman. If your hanging out with Bin Laden you should expect the bombs to be falling at any moment.


How many French citizens were killed by allied troops trying to set them free ?

[solypsist]

i like how the cia apologists have twisted this into a "what if" discussion about bin laden, who wasn't there and was not the target of this fiasco anyway.

also, what i'm seeing is a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the "average" application of american military airstikes. Most of the time (I won't say all) a specific target is hit it is with a precision weapon that takes out only the intended target. Most collateral losses from these strikes occur not from just dropping some 500lbs bomb on a neighborhood but from lack of coordination in intel and procedure regarding the target(s) and unexpected occupants.

They are mistakes, not factored in losses for the weapons being employed.

[Proletariat]

i like how the cia apologists have twisted this into a "what if" discussion about bin laden, who wasn't there and was not the target of this fiasco anyway.


Please read more thoroughly.



By your logic, it would've been a failure if it had killed Bin Laden...
So, are you saying it'd have been all right to kill 18 women and children if Osama went in the blast too ?

I was answering Watchmen's question.

[solypsist]

not all thread replies revolve around you! ~:flirt:


Please read more thoroughly.



I was answering Watchmen's question.

[Strike For The South]

...

[Watchman]

You people just don't get it, do you ? The issue here isn't the fact that the US military-intelligence complex blew up about twenty civilians alongside some people who may or may not have been on its list, although that's bad enough.

The issue is you apologists claiming "that's all right because of fill in the blank cheap excuse", which is pure and undiluted BS, and don't see anything wrong with it. That you demonstrate an utter lack of analytical ability in the process ("hostages" ? "human shields" ? how about "inhabitants of the place" ?) isn't exactly surprising.

Killing civilians alongside your intented target is morally abominable period. The point is not negotiable. It doesn't matter who the targets are, it doesn't matter who the civilians are, it doesn't matter what any one of them did and why, it's out and that's it.

Start messing around with that line and you're pretty damn soon on the same ethical level as those funny people who blow up school buses to express a political point. Indeed you already are; the assorted attempts, based on pure hypothesis, speculation and flat out prejudice, to explain why it wasn't "such a bad thing" the about twenty civilians perished proves as much.

So as to reiterate: that civilians are killed as "collateral damage" is bad enough in itself. What is much worse is the monumental intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in trying to explain that away under various crappy excuses, as that in a rather real sense makes you a partner in crime. Tacit approval is still approval, and it is with the tacit approval of the majority the worst atrocities have always been done.

[Papewaio]

If during WWII Hitler was in a parade would you condone bombing that or not given that hundreds of civlians would die in the process.

[Watchman]

Killing Hitler and killing seven hundred people around him are two entirely different topics. The former ? Sure, go ahead. The latter ? Please hang yourself, or at least have a decent set of nightmares for the rest of your life or some similarly melodramatic but appropriate guilt complex.

Human lives aren't something you can pile on scales and see if a bunch of A's carries the mass of one B. Intrinsic value is intrinsic value, and not negotiable.

[Redleg]

You people just don't get it, do you ? The issue here isn't the fact that the US military-intelligence complex blew up about twenty civilians alongside some people who may or may not have been on its list, although that's bad enough.

No the issue is did the United States violate a nation's soverignty to strike at what they believed to be a legimate target. You can argue all you want about the legimency of the target - but the over-riding issue is did the United States without premission from the soverign nation carry out a strike.

A side issue is was the target a legiment terrorist target?

And finally a topic of the ages is the killing of innoncent women and children in a military strike to take out a legiment military target morally sound or ethical?



The issue is you apologists claiming "that's all right because of fill in the blank cheap excuse", which is pure and undiluted BS, and don't see anything wrong with it. That you demonstrate an utter lack of analytical ability in the process ("hostages" ? "human shields" ? how about "inhabitants of the place" ?) isn't exactly surprising.

Careful of the pot calling the kettle black. Warfare is amoral - its the nature of the beast that is war. If the target was a legiment target in accordance with the established Rules of Engagement concerning the terrorist elements then the basis of the attack is sound. If Pakistan was informed and gave consent for the operation then the legality of the strike is sound. If neither condition was meet then the United States has a problem concerning the strike.



Killing civilians alongside your intented target is morally abominable period. The point is not negotiable. It doesn't matter who the targets are, it doesn't matter who the civilians are, it doesn't matter what any one of them did and why, it's out and that's it.

Again war is amoral - one must address the first two points concerning were the individuals targeted for a military strike, legimate targets according to the established Rules of Engagement? If not, then a problem exists.

Did the United States have premission from the Pakistan Government to carryout the strike? If not, then the United States has a problem.

The civilian causalities is an unfortunate side effect of military operations, especially such strikes as this one. Address the legality of the first two points before attempting to cast morality on the last. Remember the conduct of warfare is amoral. Do I personally have a problem with attempting to justify the deaths of civilians trapped in the engagement between two warring parties - yes their deaths are not justifiable in that aspect, since they were not part of the warring party. However what you must answer before taking a high moral stance, Where the civilians killed in the attack active in supporting the combat operations or forces of the engaged enemy?



Start messing around with that line and you're pretty damn soon on the same ethical level as those funny people who blow up school buses to express a political point.

Strawman - and not even close. Attacking legiment enemy targets in accordane with the Rules of Engagement does not even come close to the ethical level of said arguement.



Indeed you already are; the assorted attempts, based on pure hypothesis, speculation and flat out prejudice, to explain why it wasn't "such a bad thing" the about twenty civilians perished proves as much.


I see plently of that from both sides of the arguement. Facts are inconsistent and lacking to reach any real conclusion about what exactly happened, and who knew what was happening. I have a tendency to think that the Pakistan Government did not know the operation was going to happen - especially those at the levels that have come forward with information.



So as to reiterate: that civilians are killed as "collateral damage" is bad enough in itself. What is much worse is the monumental intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in trying to explain that away under various crappy excuses, as that in a rather real sense makes you a partner in crime. Tacit approval is still approval, and it is with the tacit approval of the majority the worst atrocities have always been done.

Valid point - but part of your arguement is based upon an equally intellectual dishonesty in my opinion. The facts of the situation and circumstances involved are not fully known at this time. Contradicting information is being banded about by the media sources.

[Redleg]

Killing Hitler and killing seven hundred people around him are two entirely different topics. The former ? Sure, go ahead. The latter ? Please hang yourself, or at least have a decent set of nightmares for the rest of your life or some similarly melodramatic but appropriate guilt complex.

Human lives aren't something you can pile on scales and see if a bunch of A's carries the mass of one B. Intrinsic value is intrinsic value, and not negotiable.

I will answer an appeal to emotion with an emotional appeal.

Try being a soldier and surviving combat - things live in your memory that sometimes prevent one from sleeping. Even when you know your engagements were only against enemy soldiers.

[Watchman]

The point eludes me.

What, exactly, is there so difficult to grasp in the idea that one evil cannot be used to "make good" of another ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What, exactly, is there so difficult to grasp in the idea that one evil cannot be used to "make good" of another ?


It happens everyday. We used evil Russia to eliminate evil Germany. Now many of you see us as the evil ones. Many choices are those between the lesser of two evils. Nothing is totally right or wrong. The world is a terrible place to live. I think I heard that in a song once.

[Watchman]

"Make good of" as in "justify morally."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

"Make good of" as in "justify morally."

Ok . If you were in charge and you knew that killing 20 innocent people would save the lives of 10,000 innocent people is there a correct moral choice and what would it be?

[Watchman]

The point is having apologists offer feeble excuses, hypotheses and whatever to morally whitewash the deaths of those twenty.

Look, I'm under no illusions of how these things work in practice, especially somewhere high up in the hierarchy where the question is mostly abstract and the decisions are made. What seriously pisses me off is partisans then trying to explain it away for the people responsible.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What seriously pisses me off is partisans then trying to explain it away for the people responsible.


You need a break from the backroom then :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Everyone needs a hobby, even if it starts bordering on the masochistic. Ah well, I was never too judgemental over what eaxactly people get their kicks from anyway...
*Rocky Horror Show soundtrack starts*

[Redleg]

The point is having apologists offer feeble excuses, hypotheses and whatever to morally whitewash the deaths of those twenty.

Again address the points of wether the stated intendd target was a legimate target according to the established rules of engagement. Then address the issue if the attack into Pakistan was done without the knowledge and Permission of the Pakistan Government. Both of these are legimate questions.



Look, I'm under no illusions of how these things work in practice, especially somewhere high up in the hierarchy where the question is mostly abstract and the decisions are made. What seriously pisses me off is partisans then trying to explain it away for the people responsible.

Well if you have an understanding of how these things work in reality then you know that your attempt at ethical comparrison between a legiment military target which costs civilian lives verus a terrorist who blows up a bus in downtown London is incorrect.

[Watchman]

Brilliant job not getting the point. Look, the dead are dead and that doesn't change regardless of how formally justified or not their killers might have been.

Nitpicking about "rules of engagement," "legitimate targets" and such junk is merely hedging the issue. We're talking basic morals here, not legalese. By all means, go and blow up those legitimate targets of yours - but if you kill a score of civilians on the side, they're dead just the same regardless of the legitimacy of the actual target. And the deaths are on your conscience.

Trying to make it look better by speculating over why exactly those civilians were there is just plain vulgar, because it doesn't matter one bit.

[Papewaio]

Killing Hitler and killing seven hundred people around him are two entirely different topics. The former ? Sure, go ahead. The latter ? Please hang yourself, or at least have a decent set of nightmares for the rest of your life or some similarly melodramatic but appropriate guilt complex.

Human lives aren't something you can pile on scales and see if a bunch of A's carries the mass of one B. Intrinsic value is intrinsic value, and not negotiable.

I take exception from the direct personal attack.

If for some reason you out value the lives of 700 people in a parade supporting a facist dictator then the millions that die fighting against and for him, not to mention the millions of civilians that died in concentration camps then your grasp of what humanity is is scant.

And you can compare numbers of people when the ratio is overwhelming. You do everything you can do minimise casualties, but that does not mean you compromise the mission unless the very act of inflicting so many casualties will have a worse outcome. In other words if you can save a million of your soldiers from dying then you nuke two of your enemies cities (Japan WWII). If you can save millions of your citizens you let the enemy obliterate your ports and not let on that you have cracked their codes (ie Swansea in WWII)

Civilians get benefits from supporting a regieme... Apartheid South Africa, the white upper class may have not directly done anything to black South Africans, but the certainly benefited from the social structure. By doing nothing they perpetuated the gross unfairness of that system.

I have not whitewashed the situation, I have already stated that I would prefer the capture and trial of terrorists. But I would not wring my hands in grief if the only viable option was to drop a bomb on the house he was hiding in.

My guilt, nope. Because I understand that I am a replicator, a bewildered mix of genes and memes.

[solypsist]

personal attacks mark the end of this thread. let's all take a collective breath.