US drone strikes hit Pakistan

[StarfarerBill]

Source: Al Jazeera

A suspected double US drone attack has killed at least 15 people in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.

The strikes on Wednesday occurred in North Waziristan, where several opposition groups stage attacks inside the district and into bordering Afghanistan.

Some officials have claimed that as many as 12 opposition fighters were among those dead.

The first drone attack hit a mud fort in Datta Khel region of the tribal district, with the second missile striking as people were searching in the rubble more than an hour later.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/20101613294018697.html

[HereSince1628]

1. Interesting, the use of second attacks to kill the responders

is a tactic also used by terror bombers.

At what point does the unconventional tactic become conventional?

[ShortnFiery]

3. Unconventional = Executions Without Trial = Immoral = USA is ALL-POWERFUL.

What did we learn? American Lives are always "more precious" than ME lives. Otherwise we would not BOMB *suspects* without arrest and/or trial.

The USA is *The Rule of Law.*

[ShortnFiery]

2. Body Counts = "12 opposition fighters" ... what's old is new again.

But what we really want to know is how many innocent Women, Old Men and Children goes with that nifty BODY COUNT of the evil-doer 12 Opposition Fighters, i.e., political enemies to the ruling THUG, Hamid Karzai? :crazy:

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

4. Same difference...

... they either die or are raped at the hands of the illiterate terrorists (for want of a better word) or they are killed for harboring them. I hate to see women and children killed as collateral damage, but either way, they will end up dead or damaged for life by associating, whether willingly or forcibly, with those that are against civilization.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Since you are eventually going to die can I off you today rather then die later?

Or maybe we can use that logic against our military, kill them now since they are going to be fucked later.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Bullshit! The Taliban are merely the tribes peoples. The al Quaeda are the people that

the "leadership" of either Pakistan and/or Afghanistan consider does NOT support them.

It has NOTHING to do with morality or women's rights. It has to do with LOYALTY. Those who support the CORRUPT central governments = GOOD Taliban while those who wish to control their own areas and be released from central control (don't support the corrupt thug, The mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai = The Double Plus Evil Taliban.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with morality or the wellbeing of the women, old men and children. It has to do ONLY with the USA and our geographical hegemony.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

42. A few problems with your interpretation of events

If the Taliban are truly simply "the tribes peoples", thus their views are not viewed as extremist by the majority of people they rule over, why do they need to go to such great lengths to exert their will over their neighbors? Surely, if the Taliban were what you claim them to be, there'd be no need to throw acid in girls' faces on their walks to school, because no one would be sending their girls to school in the first place. They'd already be on the Taliban's side on this one. Same with blowing up schools in the dark of night. Or better yet, why, when given the chance, have other tribes people taken up arms against the Taliban? I find your understanding of the Taliban to be naive, at best. You're attempting to make black and white an issue that is far, far more complex than that.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Well, don't take my word for it ... here's testimony of three CIA officers who

have the same "naive" :wtf: views as myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

68. No offense, but I don't tend to waste my time when people post videos instead of articulating

their views themselves. I've always taken a person's ability to articulate their views themselves as evidence that they're truly researched things and thought them through.

[Kolesar]

5. You could volunteer to become an undercover operative in Pakistan

You could infiltrate the terrorist cells and point out specifically who should be targeted. Your compatriots could do the killing so that we don't kill any more innocent civilians.

It will be great.

[bahrbearian]

9. Or we could just stop the Occupation

[Mari333]

18. +1000000000000000

[ShortnFiery]

30. I already served in Military Intelligence. I've become ultra-liberal in my elder years.

War truly is "a racket."

We're being punked and IF we continue to "play along" I promise that the powers that be will come for OUR CHILDREN to serve ... right after we fire up a conflict with Iran ... when that "Balloon goes up" then there's no turning back.

Best to now realize that our TROOPS are being Mis-USED to kill ruling thug leaders' political enemies. That's the al Quaeda, i.e., anyone who doesn't agree with Karzai's et. al., RULING junta(s).

[wordpix]

93. & Obama's known all along Karzai can't be trusted, doesn't have much backing in Afghanistn

WHY are we supporting someone who's not supported by his own people? Why is there a "secret" war we're perpetrating in Pakistan?

We should secure our borders and leave it at that. These wars just perpetuate more enemies and drain away resources from our national security. I can't even write about all the security holes I've seen in DC.

[Bragi]

6. This changes everything! Not! /nt

[Socal31]

7. The CIA is going to take out many

in retribution for the loss of their 7 officers. I feel sorry for anyone within 50 yards of a Jihadi at this point.

[bemildred]

10. That ought to win a lot of those hearts and minds eh? nt

[Socal31]

11. I dont think hearts and minds is really on the agenda

in that part of Pakistan/Afghanistan.

[bemildred]

12. So you figure McChrystal is out of luck then?

It's going to be dog-eat-dog from here on out? No more partnering and trust and all that?

[Socal31]

13. Which war have you been watching?

I tend to watch the actions on the ground, not PR news-bytes.

The only real partnering we are doing is with ISI, who is feeding us the intelligence on where to strike in Waziristan, and housing some UAVs for us. Of course, we pay a ton of $$$ for this intel.

[bemildred]

14. That is a "yes" then? nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

16. I see no reason, based on this strike, to assume the CIA is going on a rampage

This strike was targeted, and 80% of those killed were militants.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. lets put it this way

There's a large backlog of actionable intel in the area. From a political standpoint, requests for action have been set at a certain speed. The speed limits have jst come down.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

21. True.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

15. 12 out of 15 were militants. Not perfect, but when one considers

that these guys aren't setting up in separate buildings the way a conventional army or police force does, this wasn't the worst drone strike in the world.

[ShortnFiery]

27. FAR from perfect if the other three were your INNOCENT blood relatives.

:puke:

EXECUTING "suspected" militants without charges and a trial is keeping Americans safe? HOW does that help when it always also entails killing innocents? Does that mean that our American Lives are more precious than those of Middle Eastern peoples?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

39. My blood relatives wouldn't be harboring Islamic militants

so it's a little difficult for me to put myself in that position. With that said...

In a war zone (and AfPak is one, in case you missed it), one doesn't typically drop in and arrest enemy forces. Expecting otherwise in this war strikes me as a bit absurd. And frankly, you can post all the images from InfiniteJest that you like, it won't change the way wars are conducted.

[ShortnFiery]

45. You have all "the propaganda" down pat. Too bad it's all bullshit! We are TERRORIZING these two

countries we occupy. "The TERRORISTS" are mostly rag-tag tribal peoples of the area who don't support the illegitimate leader, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

If you will recall Karzai's re-election was anything but free and fair.

We are the INVADING ARMY. We have no right to continue to terrorize these tribal people. It is NOT keeping Americans safe at home or abroad.

What our actions are doing is creating terrorists much faster than we are killing local insurgents.

EVERY INNOCENT we kill as you so casually may term "collateral damage" is CREATING at least One to Six Family members who HATE the invading Army.

Bring the troops home NOW!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. I find your interpretation to be extremely naive

For starters, you seem to be attempting to link the Taliban insurgency with Karzai's sketchy re-election, as if one led to the other. But we all know that wasn't the case, this fight was going on long before those elections were held and would've continued long afterwards, even if the elections had been 100% fair and transparent.

Secondly, if this were simply about tribes people disliking Hamid Karzai, that'd be fine and dandy, they could stay up in their remote villages, living their own lifestyle, and no one would care. But it isn't, and simply living their own lives is not what the Taliban are after. They're using remote villages as bomb factories and training facilities, essentially as staging areas for attacks both throughout Afghanistan and also throughout Pakistan. Attacks that, all too often, are intended to terrorize and kill civilians.

Third, you're very quick to condemn American actions as the terrorism of tribal people, but your silence is deafening on threads about Taliban attacks on the civilians. When three civilians die in an American drone strike, you flip your lid. When 94 are killed in the Taliban bombing of a volleyball game, you have nothing to say about the matter. It's not even a blip on your radar.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

49. My mistake.

It was 95 civilians blown up by the Taliban in the instance I cited, not 94.

[ShortnFiery]

53. I find your narrative above, painfully sophomoric.

I'm not going to "engage" any longer because you seeming nurture KILLING and DYING when it's NOT YOU personally who has to put your ass on the line.

I've served as an company grade officer in Army Military Intelligence.

You go serve a tour or two in the military OR as a mercenary contractor and then get back with me via PM.

Bye arm chair "warrior." :eyes:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

57. I'm sure you do, but the fact that you can't refute my arguments speaks volumes.

[ShortnFiery]

66. I can't counter your arguments which you are trying to suck me into TACTICs because this occupation

in and of itself is patently INSANE. You must be too young to remember the horrors and "lessons learned" from Vietnam?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVdsbdvXGOA&feature=player_embedded

Just last month, Matthew Hoh resigned from his position at the State Department to protest the Obama administration’s seeming determination to send tens of thousands more American troops to a disastrous war in Afghanistan. In that short time, Hoh has become one of the smartest, most compelling, articulate, and principled dissenters our country has seen against the failed Afghanistan occupation.

If the Obama administration doesn’t listen to Hoh now, his warnings of the tragedy that lies at the end of the path of escalation will come to haunt our nation in years to come.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

69. I'm not unaware of the lessons of Vietnam

Perhaps you'd like to explain how Vietnam is comparable? Use specifics, if you would.

Secondly, people resign in protest over controversial policies all the time. That, in itself, is not evidence that this is a new Vietnam.

[ShortnFiery]

80. "Use specifics." ? What are you, my professor? See post # 77 for specifics of the Soviet Disaster.

And let's just leave it at that. :eyes:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. That's what I thought...

There's not a lot of room for comparison between the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the current American one - not in the end goals and certainly not in the way the war is being conducted. I assume you know that, considering how you've consistently declined to list how they're comparable.

[ronnie624]

90. In fact,

the Soviet justification for their invasion of Afghanistan, was the terrorist attacks that were being funded and organized by the CIA, and carried out by the Mujahideen. So basically, they were waging a "war on terror" as well.

Post War Afghanistan was gradually moving into the 20th century. Liberal political forces were gaining influence over Afghan civil society. Meddling by the US and USSR stoked the rise of extremism. The US in particular is responsible for fomenting extremism and violet jihad as a weapon against the Soviets. The students and future soldiers being trained at that time in the madrassas, were the precursor to the Taliban. There are declassified CIA memos that comment on the damage that will knowingly be done to Afghan civil society through the CIA's proxy war. Clearly they felt it was worth it (of course they did not have to live through the aftermath). Zbigniew Brezinski, in an interview, said the US plan was to deliberately provoke the USSR, and referred to the resulting situation in Afghanistan as "some stirred-up Moslims".

We reap what we sow.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. It's undoubtedly true that we reaped what we've sown

with regard to Afghanistan, however, I would say that even the cause of the Soviet interference is different. Generally speaking, they were invited in by the pro-Soviet regime in order to prop it up against the increasing resistance there.

[ShortnFiery]

46. p.s. with all your seemingly "special knowledge" you need to go enlist tomorrow.

That way, when our warmongering leaders start a war with Iran, you can take my child's place?

I'm old and have already served on active duty ... TAG, it's your turn - most especially since you're fully in agreement to continuing the KILLING AND DYING for American Hegemony.

You're perfect, go serve now!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. The kicker is, none of this requires "special knowledge"

War with Iran isn't on the table, our hands are full between Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, your fear is unfounded. I would think a military man would realize that, but eh.

[ShortnFiery]

56. My fears are being realized. When all hell breaks loose and they do take someone

you actually care about more than "pawns on an Xbox game" then, and only then will you FEEL the HORROR of WAR.

War is Terrorism. Occupying a country should not be run like "an endless war." If you do operate in that manner you will lose the "hearts and minds of the natives" as well as the loyalty of your soldiers.

I love the military and come from a line of Army Officers in my ancestry back to the Civil War.

My father, a battlefield commissioned combat engineer shared many stories with me. As a young woman I graduated within the upper 5% of my R.O.T.C. class and gleaned a Regular Army Commission before serving four years on Active Duty.

Why did I bore you with the above trivia? Because I want you to UNDERSTAND that I know my topic area and if I FEAR anything it's people such as yourself and such shameless over confidence.

This will not end well. It will only end up the SENSELESS DEATHS of both American Military as well as that of the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. To hell with the militants! I agree but don't every doubt the fact that they will fight you to the LAST REMAINING NATIVE INSURGENT. They will not ever give up. Not unlike Vietnam, they will meld into the population and WAIT US OUT.

However, make no mistake: The MINUTE we leave both Iraq and Afghanistan, all hell will break loose because these natives must settle their own scores - it's their lands and their tribal wars.

It's late and I'm tired. I'm saddened that you don't realize our continued occupations within the ME Arena will only serve up more death and destruction for all involved.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. Quite frankly

I don't care if competing factions decide to throwaway peace and stability once we withdraw. That's on their shoulders, not ours. Our job, and once we invade we take on this responsibility, is to leave these countries in a position to handle their own problems and provide for their own people. Whether they do or not is up to them.

[ShortnFiery]

61. When will we ever learn?

WARNING Graphic Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PFk4SXpb-8

i'm just a normal man
i wouldn't hurt nothing at all
but here we are

our leaders have a plan
i'd only kill if it's for them
now here we are

i drove in a car and flew in a plane
to come to your house and kick your door in
now it's down to this, it's just you and me
i'll blow your fucking head off for my country

i go to church and tithe
i go to work in a suit and tie
but this is war
i'm really not sure why
but the tv says that you are wrong
now here we are



my feet hurt from the sand
but still i march on gun in hand
cause this is war
this isn't what i planned
i wanted to be so much more
but this is war

Smile Empty Soul

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

70. Countries have to make their own decisions.

Sometimes they'll make the right ones, sometimes they'll make the wrong ones. Either way, we can't stay indefinitely to ensure they make the ones we think the wisest.

[ShortnFiery]

78. Occupying diverse tribal peoples by an invading modern army can only result in EPIC FAIL.

The only purpose that will be served will be to "gift" another trillion of our USA tax dollars to the corporations comprising the MIC.

Have we learned NOTHING from the Soviets pouring their wealth into that Money Pit?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. Quite frankly

the same thing was said prior to the unification of Germany and many other areas.

[ShortnFiery]

79. "... we can't stay indefinitely to ensure they make the ones we think the wisest."

By jove, I think you've finally got it! :-)

And THE MOMENT we withdraw, things will fall into civil war. Yes, like we never were there AT ALL. What a monumental waste of blood and treasure to remain ONE EXTRA DAY much less for years on end!?!

Therefore, it doesn't make any difference, save for a few THOUSAND LIVES and a TRILLION of our tax dollars, if we pull out TODAY or TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

That's why the intelligent act would be to pull our troops out NOW.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. And again, we've heard this same thing before too

People assured us that as we withdrew from the Balkans, the bloodbath would resume. The history of hatred was just too great to be overcome. Of course, that hasn't come to pass and it seems unlikely that the bloodbath in Iraq is likely to resume full scale again either. People got sick of it.

[wordpix]

95. +1 well said

[Socal31]

62. Honestly....

Is this your first war?

If we can go 12/15 on a strike, that is pretty damn good historically. You can try and say I'm making light of the three innocents, but that is not the case. I am merely pointing out that is a very good ratio compared to say....Nam/Korea/Dolittle/Enola etc.

I, like you, wish that we could eradicate it all together. But we both know it isn't going to happen. The best we can do is minimize the innocent casualties.

[ShortnFiery]

63. No, the best we can do is NOT occupy sovereign nations that have a diverse population.

This will not end well, for anyone other than Military Lifers of high rank and the corporations comprising the MIC. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE else will lose and lose BIG.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. Are we "occupying" Pakistan?

[Thothmes]

92. Need to pass that thought on to the current President of the

United States. He seems to disagree with you.

[spoony]

74. "Some officials have claimed that as many as 12..."

Not quite the concrete statement you just made. Personally, I'm not really satisfied with that level of wishy-washiness in telling us who was killed.

[PacerLJ35]

24. Many of the UAVs operated in theater are operated by USAF crews

Some strikes are likely run by the CIA, but both ACC and AFSOC-gained units operate the Predator and Reaper drones, which are by far the most prolific of the "shooters".

[ShortnFiery]

26. And such Drone Executions are keeping AMERICANS safe ==> exactly HOW?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

40. The idea is to create havoc within Taliban or al-Qaeda groups

either by destroying supplies or destroying their fighters (ideally, those in leadership positions). If done right, it can have enormous success (i.e. al-Qaeda in AfPak essentially becoming neutered, as it has been).

One of the main difficulties the Soviet Union faced during the 1980s was the fact that the Mujahideen were able to lay low and build up support in areas they weren't able to hit. We're able to hit those areas.

[wordpix]

94. "We're able to hit those areas." But not all of them, b/c al Quaeda et. al keep sprouting elsewhere

Even in Canada and here at home.

[EFerrari]

35. Or within 50 yards of anyone. CIA is not known for their discretion.

In fact, they're known as sloppy thugs.

[PacerLJ35]

38. Most "drone" strikes aren't CIA

They are carried out by the USAF, and the protocol to pull the trigger is very complex and thorough. They don't just shoot at anyone.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

17. It's a little weird to me how regularly you post about drone strikes

but have nothing to say when...say, a suicide bomber kills over ninety people at a Pakistani volleyball game. What's your deal? If your motivating factor was truly concern over the lives of Pakistanis, surely you'd be presenting both sides.

[StarfarerBill]

20. I have posted news about bombings; sorry you missed them.

Perhaps you should post up those news items I miss, for the sake of balance.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

22. Perhaps I have simply missed them, sorry if my accusation was off base.

[StarfarerBill]

23. Apology accepted.

[ShortnFiery]

29. It depends on how you DEFINE terrorism? How about the term "shock and awe."

I must always remind myself that AMERICAN lives are automatically considered "more precious" than those savages in the Middle East. :sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

32. Both sides? There is not Taliban Air Force to prevent these EXECUTIONS.

WE OWN THE SKIES and reign TERROR on these tribal people.

What we are doing is VILE and nothing less than Summary Execution without trial. :puke:

[PacerLJ35]

37. Should we desire an even field during war?

[ShortnFiery]

47. This isn't a fucking WAR. It's an OCCUPATION. We OWN them - it's vile to have complete

air superiority as well as total ground dominance when we choose.

WE OCCUPY - no it's IMMORAL and should be A WAR CRIME to go in there with our KILLER DRONES and conduct "strategic executions."

THIS CAN COME BACK TO what you euphemistically call "the homeland." It wouldn't be too cool if the police decided to bomb some home in Detroit.

Think about what these EXECUTIONS open the door to if "the ruling elite" feels threatened on our native soil?

Again we are NOT at war ... there are no front lines in these "occupied nations" not to mention Pakistan and Somalia where we're just doing the corrupt ruling elite's "hit jobs" while snidely calling our dead militants "al Quaeda." <wink wink> :puke:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. It's vile to have air superiority? How so?

[ShortnFiery]

54. Occupying a nation is not the same as all out WAR. Killing civilians "at will" is no way ...

to win the natives "hearts and minds."

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

59. What do you mean by "killing civilians 'at will'"?

[ShortnFiery]

67. You're comments and questions are unbelievably shallow.

I'm sorry but you are IMO, becoming willfully ignorant.

When are you going over there to get in "the fight?"

HONESTLY? When the balloon goes up (we are at WAR with Iran) it's best people such as YOURSELF, who fully buy-into this SENSELESS Death March, be "in the shit."

I sure as hell am NOT going to sacrifice my beloved children to this WAR for Corporate Wealth.

So when are you ENLISTING?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. When discussing with someone who views the world in such a radical light

I sometimes find it necessary to back the conversation up a bit, to make sure we use the same definitions for terms. Forgive me, I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding you clearly when you make certain claims.

Secondly, where am I wrong? The troop increase in Afghanistan is being staggered specifically because we don't have enough troops on hand to send them there immediately - they need to be withdrawn from elsewhere. And you somehow think we have enough forces available to invade Iran? Buddy, it's not even on the table.

[ShortnFiery]

75. You're amazing in your capacity for obfuscation. Iran is going to be bombed.

The foregoing is immanent because the M$M in concert with The Pentagon and CIA are already manufacturing consent.

In the short term we're already justifying the "need" to build a base in Yemen.

Wake up and stop throwing up the "evil-doer terrorists" at ever turn. Yes, there are radicalized militants in all these unstable tin pot dictator ME nations. However, the "unspoken reason" that most of these elements are *radicalized* is ... <Jeopardy tune> ... survey says = Because we OCCUPY two ME nations.

The notion that stationing our Combat Troops in these ME nations is keeping Americans safe is "The Big Lie."

What should we do? Pull our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan and let "the natives" sort out their tribal ties and central government, if any. We, the God Almighty American Crusaders will NOT be able to settle these tribal areas and the longer we "occupy" these untamed lands, the more UNSAFE Americans will be, both at home and abroad.

Again, we have NO RIGHT to be in these areas and "the locals" resent the hell out of us for thinking that we can RULE their lives.

No joke. We are witnessing the initial opening of "The Gates of Hell." When (not IF) the Israeli Government bombs Iran there will be no turning back. That is, the country will automatically hype-up the war rhetoric and a UNIVERSAL draft will be implemented.

Now, it's time again for me to bookmark this page because, sadly, I'm going to have to bring this thread back up, hopefully before all Hell breaks loose. While the people of America have time to tell our ARROGANT Legislators and their masters in the MIC, "Hell NO! We won't go fight in your Crusade."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r54SnuOXrY&feature=player_embedded

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. Will Iran be bombed?

Maybe. I can't say it won't. But a full scale ground invasion is certainly not on the agenda.

Secondly, both the Yemeni and U.S. governments have openly stated that the U.S. will not be involving itself directly in the fight there, so I think you're off base in assuming this is a quest for a base there.

[PacerLJ35]

83. Common misperception I keep seeing...

That these "drones" (actually UAVs, because technically drones are self-directed...) are manned by USAF crews for the most part, and they have to go through a very rigorous targeting process and receive approval and meet several criteria before the trigger is pulled. They don't just go around blasting anything that moves just for the fuck-all fun of it.

If civilian deaths occur, it's usually because:

1. The casualties are mostly fighters but AQ/Taliban, whatever, claims massive civilian casualties for propaganda value
2. The civilians weren't known to be in proximity of the target (ie, the Pred driver checked for civilians and didn't find any, but unfortunately you can't see everywhere)
3. The target was of such a high value or our own troops were in such imminent danger that the risk of civilian casualties is assumed by the US.

I will also state that case #3 is becoming rarer...US troops on the ground used to call for airstrikes and get what they wanted. Nowadays, in many cases troops are asking for air support and it's getting denied for fear of creating more civilian casualties....ie, command and control says "sorry, suck it up because we can't risk killing any civilians. Hope you guys make it out alive".

[pinniped]

25. The title didn't say it was one of those suspected drones,....

but the first line cleared it all up.

A suspected double US drone attack has killed at least 15 people in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region.


And why the fuck are all the drones suspected drones?

[Prometheus Bound]

28. What's the difference between a drone attack and terrorist bomb attack?

Oh, one arrives by air and the other by land.

[ShortnFiery]

31. They are both State Sponsored Terror attacks. WAR itself is TERROR. These people

deserve to not be EXECUTED with ZERO CHANCE for charges and trial.

Given that so many of our prisoners on "death row" are released by DNA evidence in the USA, what gives you total confidence that the political enemies identified by these corrupt RULING LEADERS of these nations are GENUINELY al Quaeda and not merely these mens' POLITICAL RIVALS?

So we go KILL a shit-load of people based on "the word" of CORRUPT leaders who suck off the teat of our pay-offs and bribes.

Lovely. :puke:

[Prometheus Bound]

34. Actually, I was referring to the way they are reported.

[ShortnFiery]

43. OK, now understood - sorry for the misunderstanding.

:blush:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

41. Do we really need to go through this? I mean, I will if you honestly need clarification

For instance, the drone strikes focus on legitimate military targets, where as terrorist bomb attacks tend to focus on soft targets. One seeks to minimize civilian casualties, while the other seeks to maximize them.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Oh, get real. Legitimate military targets = those who the ruling thug leaders consider "enemies."

We are doing the CORRUPT tin pot dictatorships of these ME countries "hit jobs" for them on their political enemies.

Did we learn NOTHING from Vietnam if not to support CORRUPT LEADERSHIP whom "their people" LOATHED?



It's vile and against the rule of law.

Is it any wonder why the peoples of the ME, in general, DESPISE us - The Invading Crusaders?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

52. Please, qualify your assertions with specific examples.

[ShortnFiery]

55. I will qualify with Military History. Read up on our operations within Vietnam.

Then study the Brits defeat in Afghanistan in 1918 and the Soviets defeat late last century?

You can't WIN modern occupations of tribal/untamed and multi-dimensional nations.

As I mentioned above, killing "suspected militants" at will while occupying a country will ONLY bring the wrath of the native peoples. They will fight you until their last dying breath. WE WILL leave after we've lost massive casualties and/or go financially broke. But we will NOT WIN.

As for the poor bloody military soldiers, they LOSE. The Afghan Peoples, both loyal to the central government as well as those "evil militants" ... they all lose.

It's insanity to remain and only serves to benefit the Field and General Grade Military Officers and their civilian contractor counterparts. No, stirring up this ME hornet's nest "over there" is not keeping Americans safe "over here." In fact it is having THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. What specific comparisons do you feel can be made between the current American occupation

and the British occupation, or the Soviet occupation?

[ShortnFiery]

64. We. Will. LOSE. You know that, I know that ... but only after the MIC has its second TRILLION

of our Tax Dollars. We'll declare "victory" with THOUSANDS of senseless military youth's DEATHS. Lives snuffed out for Corporate Profits because occupying these countries is not keeping Americans at home safer.

We'll then LIE to ourselves like we did after Vietnam and blame the Liberals when it was the ENTIRE NATION who was "war weary."

Nope, no modern occupations have ended well when you don't have a homogenous native population.

I don't need to give you SPECIFIC examples when Military History is crystal clear but here's a video with background and the testimony of men and women with much more clout than myself, i.e., former CIA officers.

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part six of Rethink Afghanistan brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents on the record to explain why. There is no “victory” to be won in Afghanistan.

Help build a movement to change this misguided policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

73. If I may

which modern occupations did you have in mind when you say none have gone well?

And yes, if you're going to insist that the situation today is comparable to the situation for the British, nearly a hundred years ago, you do need some specifics if you expect that argument to be taken seriously. I'll wait for them.

And finally, again, I'm not going to watch your videos. You ought to be able to articulate and defend your positions yourself, without directing me to Youtube. I use Youtube for Motely Crue and G'n'R videos. Little more.

[ShortnFiery]

77. You're unbelievable, how about the horrific disaster that helped topple the Soviet Union?

Their ARROGANT invasion of Iraq in 1979 and "attempted occupation." If you don't wish to consider "ancient history" of the British getting their asses kicked out of Afghanistan in in the early 20th century, then consider this more recent "Soviet Tragedy?"

Guess what? Historians have been reviewing the Soviet's battle plans from the 1980s and are concluding that we are MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES. Senior level deliberations by Soviet leaders that MIRROR what General "Peaches" Petraeus and his Golden Boy Junior McCrystal are cooking up at present. :thumbsdown:

Christmas Eve 2009 fell on the 3,000th day that U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan, as well as the 30th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the very same nation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a disaster and they proved that you cannot win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people through troop surges, and continued occupation.

This is an 18th century strategy performed on an 14th century ENEMY. ----> Epic FAIL ---> Useless War.

Kindly take the time to process the following DOCUMENTARY video:

Afghanistan War: The Soviet Lesson Not Learned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3eq-8G4UQ&feature=player_embedded

p.s. I know that Robert Grenwald's "Rethink Afghanistan" documentary films don't have Motley Crue's "Girls Girls Girls" extravaganza that you're obviously familiar with, but THIS documentary has, among others:

1) Artyom Borovik, Former Soviet Journalist (1980s);
2) Mathew P. Hoh, Former Senior US Representative, Zambul Province, Afghanistan;
3) Carl Conetta, Co-Director, Project for Defense Alternatives;
4) Ruslan Aushev, Soviet-Afghan War Veteran, LT General, Russian Army (Ret.)
*Served in Afghanistan for five years'
5) Mohammad Osman Tariq, Former Mujahid Commander, Soviet-Afghan War President, National Council
for Peace and Democracy in Afghanistan;
6) Robert Baer, former CIA Operations Officer, Middle East; and
7) Mikhail Gorbachev, Former Soviet Union President.

Yeah, you could say compared to your average YouTube videos, this one is pretty "heady?" :eyes:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

88. And, again, the fact that you can't articulate the reasons why these instances are comparable

but instead can only point me to a documentary sends up a red flag for me, personally. I might watch it on my free time, but using Youtube as a substitute for you articulating your own beliefs is a weak.

[The abyss]

36. I feel so much better

knowing that my country is dealing with the terrorist threat

<>

[Robb]

76. Just so we're clear, you're comparing this to the Holocaust.

I just want to make sure I've got you correctly.

Your picture of a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw during the German occupation of Poland is meant to equate U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan to the slaughter of 6 million Jews.

[ShortnFiery]

81. Occupying forces KILLING civilians can never be compared to such?

Also, lets not forget our funding of Training Camps and Death Squads during the 1980s tinkering in Central America? :evilgrin:

[Robb]

82. And the Battle of Lake Tanganyika!

:eyes:

[newspeak]

89. KO last night

played some of OBL's 2004 film (just before the election). It's really too bad that our free MSM didn't interpret all of his words. Because if they had, * never would have been elected. OBL was saying how we were playing right into his hands--how if they plotted a terrorist attack (and even if it failed), that the purpose is to get the US involved in whatever area was being attacked--to spread out our forces, until they bankrupt us. He also mentioned that some corporations would make profits, but the goal was to bankrupt us. So, how's that working? THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE WAS GOING IN TO IRAQ. Saddam Hussein was no friend of Al Quaeda, as a matter of fact, our government could have made a deal with him to fight Al Quaeda. But no, we did SA a favor by getting rid of someone who OBL had no love for.

Now before some of y'all go on about Saddam being a bad man--true, but we were dealing with bad men as allies fighting against Iraq. Also, we have been allies of SA for a long time and they have one of the worst human rights records in the world. At least Iraq allowed their women to vote, drive, and have careers. We could have made a deal lifting the embargo in exchange for help against Al Quaeda and strengthening his human rights stance. We could have done that, if stealing their resources wasn't one of the main goals.

This whole war on terror is one big, fat FUBAR! And, I still want to know why we have given OBL everything he has desired. Close the US base in SA, get rid of Saddam, kill more innocent civilians making more recruits, feed more US dollars to corporate war profiteers (I wonder if the Bin Laden family is making money on the chaos), and weaken our military (many soldiers doing more than two tours) while bankrupting us at home. Yep, I'd say one great pile of shite.