Drone kills Taliban in Pakistan

[seemslikeadream]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/02/200921714540932408.html

A missile attack by a remote-controlled drone has killed at least 15 people in Pakistan's Kurram tribal region near the Afghan border.

Monday's attack was the first in the Kurram tribal region and came two days after a missile strike in the South Waziristan tribal region killed at least 25 mostly Central Asian fighters suspected of having al-Qaeda links.

There was no confirmation on who was behind the missile strike but Pakistan has often accused the US military of targeting fighters in the border region with remote-controlled aircraft.

An intelligence official in the area said Taliban fighters "were holding an important meeting there when the missiles were fired" and a fighter from the area said those killed included Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.

Kurram's top administrator, Arshad Majeed Mohmand, confirmed Monday's strike and said three missiles were fired.

[babylonsister]

1. Isn't the Taliban the problem? What am I missing? And fuck Pakistan.

Better yet, let's GTF out of that part of the world.

[Why Syzygy]

2. "Taliban is simply a word that refers to they who study the Koran devotedly and literally",,,

alohaspirit (1 posts)
Sat Jan-31-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Afghanistan is not a country

What everyone is calling "tribes" are nations in the eyes of most of the people who live there-- Afghanistan is an arbitrary collective of ethnic groups pulled together unwillingly under a nation-state. Taliban is simply a word that refers to they who study the Koran devotedly and literally, but it has become an empowered force to reckon with, thanks to our sloppy and deliberate covert activities based on greed, imperial desire, and meddling in others' business. The idea that bombardment from the air somehow extinguishes a people's passion is not only absurd but proven wrong. And the idea that one could ever fight a war on something as vague as "terror" is even more twisted than trying to fight a war on "drugs." Both are poorly-defined concepts, when, in the case of the former GWB was referring actually to resistance fighters who resorted to criminal means like attacking the WTC; or, in the case of Ronald Reagan, when he was actually not referring to drugs themselves but to their channels of distribution and those who abused them.

I am hopeful that Obama has taken a hard line in this regard throughout his campaign in order to convince his critics that he was willing to take a tough Bushlike stance on certain foreign policy initiatives and create a sense of contiguity in the Middle East. But now it's time for him to tack and change course. If the US really does care about the future security of our world, and about the welfare of all human beings--be they "women and girls" or anyone who deserves to live life with dignity and human rights--then what we should be doing instead of dropping bombs is listening to ALL sides, and that means taking a better inventory of who all these sides really are and what they are wanting. I'm sure each side is wanting something very legitimate, very reasonable. Before "death to all Americans" was mouthed, I am sure a US bomb fell somewhere and someone was hurt or killed-- and before that there was probably something much more understandable-- much deeper pain and suffering that was decades, centuries, even millennia old. We are blind to this-- completely ignorant of it in fact. I am disappointed that Obama, with all his education and wisdom, is not more appreciative of this complexity.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4948683&mesg_id=4954319
emphasis added