High Value Terrorist...Children
By Steve Hynd Saturday Jan 24, 2009 5:00amCNN report via CSpanJunkie
"we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Barrack Obama, July 15, 2008
Well, Musharraf is long gone but his handpicked general, a former head of the ISI, is still in charge of Pakistan's armed forces. And on Friday President Obama's administration carried through on his promise to act. Airstrikes by American pilotless drones killed 17 people in two successive attacks in North and South Waziristan. Although we do not know from reports whether Musharraf's successor as head of the Pakistani army, General Kayani, or President Zardari refused or were unable to take action on any solid intelligence, we do know that three children as well as a "possible" senior Al Qaeda leader were reported killed. The airstrikes were part of a program begun by the Bush administration and authorized to continue by President Obama, but he himself does not personally authorize each strike.
I continue to think this program is a massive mistake. Firstly, on purely "realist" terms for reasons I've long-ago explained and that some reports say the US intelligence community warned Bush about - they're dangerously destabilizing to a nuclear-armed nation on the very precipice of civil collapse. The aim of these raids is to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaida leadership. But if a strike is to kill Bin Laden, or the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar, it will likely do so at a safe house owned by the ISI which would cause an anti-American explosion in Pakistan's military and convulsions in Pakistani society which would certainly oust anyone willing to back the US. Pakistani officials have previously condemned Bush's heavy-handed violation of their sovereignty, leading general katyani to say that such incursions would be prevented "at all costs". If Obama is really looking to stabilize the region, that's about as counter-productive as it is possible to get. As one former Pakistani official put it: "Maybe you'll get the fish, but you'll poison the pond around him." The most obvious retaliation Pakistan could take would be to close the supply route to Afghanistan from Pakistan's ports via the Khyber Pass. That might not hurt US forces much, but it would mean famine in Kabul as the Afghan countryside cannot support the capital on its own.
But secondly because such attacks really are morally unsupportable given the way they are planned and carried out. One attack inside Pakistan has already missed its target and killed entirely innocent civilians instead. We know from events in Afghanistan that the USAF seems to have a terrible predeliction for bombing wedding parties because some tribal enemy fingers the neighbouring village as being a nest of militants. And I simply don't believe the possible death of a "possible terrorist leader" is worth three children's lives under any circumstances. There's no point to reclaiming the moral high ground by closing prisons and banning torture if you're going to hand it away again with indiscriminate airstrikes - and airstrikes are by their nature indiscriminate despite what the PR brochures on "precision" bombs might say.
I've been very impressed with Obama's first couple of days in office but this is one campaign promise I believe he should either u-turn on or consider a drastically out-of-the-box alternative.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
America must consider itself God with the power of life and death at it's sayso. We must be infallible.
Air strikes are counterproductive. There's no way to prevent "collateral damage," i.e., the death of innocent people, so every attack has the potential to do more harm to American interests than good. Obama's election is seen around the world as the American people's rejection of Bush's warmongering: the most effective way for Obama to squander that good will is to continue the slaughter of Muslims by the USAF. The so-called "war on terror" must be a struggle for hearts and minds; violence can never succeed in making us safe.
n/t
Really? So, that minor unpleasantness that occupied the world from 1939 through 1945 didn't make anyone safe? How about Europe's Jews? Teenaged Korean girls? My father, living in Coventry?
I'm always amused by people who think we can win hearts and minds among the Taliban. These people and their followers think we are the next best thing to actual demons. We are evil for simply existing and not being fundamentalist Muslims. It would be like a convicted child molester coming to you and saying he wanted to discuss taking your kids to DisneyWorld for a weekend. Would you even want to listen to his arguments?
We need to keep hitting the Taliban and al-Qaeda hard. If Pakistan cannot handle the load, the we will do it ourselves and to Hell with the ISI. If they are helping bin-Laden, then they can die too.
Well, no.
The US is hated because it's currently a warmongering nation, violating international and US law.
By what possible logic can you compare WW II with what Bush and now Obama have been doing in illegally attacking, invading, and occupying sovereign nations? Their actions are more akin to what the Nazis did, not the Allied Forces who finally went to defend Europe at their request against a complete Nazi overthrow.
All politics and the right or wrong of it aside; taking the oath of office and then going to sleep the next night knowing you've okayed the deaths of 17 people...I believe Obama is a good man who feels this deeply (until he gets used to it, perhaps). I can't imagine what it must be like. (And before you all jump down my throat, of course I know it's worse for the families of the people who've died.)
that Obama has his staff send sympathy cards. Wonder how he explains this to his daughters?
Even when Bush was president, I thought that attacking tribal Pakistan was a good idea. Bin Laden is there; the area is destabilized enough with little Islamabad influence already; there is a US military strike force set to move on Pakistan and stop nukes from being launched, a convoluted 3 hours process for them. The US has been killing ISI since '98; they already hate us.
Who says Bin Laden is there?
the same people who told you WMD's were there?
the same people who told you we were fighting for democracy?
the same people that trot out an inexhaustible Al Qaeda #2?
wake up.
a broken clock is right twice per day. And as we've seen since WW2, the fight for "democracy" has always been the fight to capitalism.
"the fight for "democracy" has always been the fight to capitalism."
Please tell me you wrote that as a joke. Because it certainly is one. Also since you believe violating US and international law is a "good idea" that technically means you support US criminality and use of terrorism so you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother paying any attention to any futher opinions you may have.
If the US was interested in "spreading Democracy" as it were, it wouldn't be propping up autocrats all over the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Gaza.
In all these countries the United States propped up or overthrew a democratically elected government. Iran was a democracy before the US overthrew that government and installed a religious fanatic. Jordan's and Saudi Arabia's monarchies oppress their people, but are backed by the US. Egypt has had a "democratically elected" president for more than 20 years now. Every election he wins by more than 94% of the vote. Sure. I believe that.
In 2006 after Bush had pushed for free elections in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas won. But, THAT kind of election wasn't good for neither Bush, nor Israel. In essence they were saying "Yes, you can elect whoever you want, that's what democracy is all about, but if we don't like the elected government, then we reserve the right to dictate to you who you should pick".
That's why when Obama, or Bush, or Clinton speak of respect for human rights and individual freedoms, the rest of the world, and the Middle East in particular laughs.
All over the world the US has toppled leaders that it didn't like. If a country has a tyrannical dictator, the odds are good that he's supported 100% by the US government. It's the leaders who try to do something to help their people that the US just can't stand.
South and Central American histories are rife with horror stories of US backed atrocities. Pinochet was a good ole boy to US leaders for decades. Somoza was also a fair haired boy. Many leaders have been killed or toppled at the say so of an American president. The C.I.A. is the presidents personal hit squad.
The United States is a terrorist country! It's leaders have been international criminals for decades.
The story that is taught to children about US benevolence and charity, is just so much propaganda.
the same people that made up alQaeda,
You don't build schools, water systems, their economy, healthcare clinics, their lives in other words don't improve. These people already have negative opinions of the US, some of it as a result of a lack of education and access to information, some of it for good damn reason. The US comes along and kills 17 people in their village that they knew and cared about for years. This accomplishes what exactly? Do we just say, "X terrorist group", is here, so let's bomb them?
It's amazing how violent and irrational a populace we have. The only thing we know is war, destroying, we don't seem interested or know how to respond to situations like Pakistan with anything other than war, and war, without improving anything materially, economically, socially, does nothing but make a bad situation worse. I don't expect us to learn lessons from history, because we usually don't know history and only puke out conventional wisdom given to us by our media figures and out of touch politicians, it would be nice to though.
Concerned Americans sent thousands of pounds of relief supplies. Tents, warm clothes, food, medicine, even toys for displaced children.
In many places the locals refused to accept it when they learned the material came from the Great Satan. Relief workers had to repackage things and lie about the origins to keep people from freezing and starving.
What part of "irrational levels of hate driven by religion" is not clear to you?
What part of irrational hate driven by religion is not clear to you?
Is it irrational to hate someone or something that knows nothing but violence to any problem?
If you had a neighbor down the block who routinely bombed the other houses in his vicinity wouldn't you rightly be very wary of his every move?
If that same neighbor went about killing heads of households because he doesn't like the way they run their families, wouldn't you be afraid to even see him looking your way?
If that same neighbor was so powerful that no one could stop him from committing any crime against you or your loved ones, would you want to accept any charity from him in a time of crisis?
I surely wouldn't. It would be like accepting blood money.
Apparently Clinton faced a similar dillema where his intel. agencies thought they had what looked like Bin Laden in its crosshairs and could be taken out with airstrikes. The problem was that he was situated in a community with children's swings and other signs of women and children. Clinton told the Pentagon to stand down because of the potential "collateral damage" that could result even if they did get their man. Now, looking back, was that the right call?
"The US has been killing ISI since '98; they already hate us"
Obama is not excused from laws or morality.
n/t
okay, I have seen this alot, what does n/t signify?
just curious.
n/t
The Headline was the message.
I usually just put a period in the box.
i seem to recall that you told me that war is ok if an intelligent man is leading it! i have been against these bush cheny wars from the beginning, and i have reminded you and everyone here many many times about obamas sanctioning these wars and his intentions of continiuing bushes policys in iraq and afganistan and packistan , many condem me for saying so and feel like i have no call to blame obama if he continiuies to stay the course as bush would say, that thiers going to be more deaths by innocent men women and children should be obvious by the posters here and i dont think being offered a few jobs by this new administration should stiffel the call to disengage our forces from these ileagle wars , i dont consider that it is more glorious dieing for obama any better then dieing for bush!
then the taliban retakes the entirety of afghanistan and there will again be deaths of innocent men, women and children
seems you are caught betweeen a rock and a hard place
Well, aren't there already deaths of innocent women and children?
Remember before the Taliban was an enemy it was a friend. Much like Saddam.
The reason it became an enemy is because it wouldn't let the US build a pipeline through it's territory.
The Taliban offered to return Osama to the US after 9/11. The only provision they made was that the US had to show proof that Osama was responsible for 9/11. The US declined to show such proof. The US itself, said that it would provide proof, "soon", that was over 7 years ago and the world is still waiting.
O Bomba has joined the ranks of the Serial Killer Presidents and ordered his first air strikes, completing a bloody rite of passage.
but hey, at least he closed some interrogation sites.
To let him know this will not be tolerated. At least with him there is some hope we could have an affect on his policies. We won't if we sit on our hands.
to do our killing cannot do much for winning hearts and minds. Imagine knowing that your child or mother was killed by a remote-controlled, pilotless plane that dropped bombs because some suit hundreds of miles away with a US flag pin somewhere on it pressed a button, all while sipping Starbucks and watching Fux at the same time.
If that doesn't make you want to rise up and fight, I don't know what would.
rabid Xtian coward in air conditioned trailer. too chickenshit and cheeseburger fed to fight them face to face.
All the worst stereotypes will come into play.
Central Asia is still heavily tribal and old school warrior to a degree, esp in the boonies, could be said to be true even in some parts of rural America.
So they are going to hate with a passion people who kill them the dishonourable way, and not on the ground on foot.
Very cliched, but still a fact of life and tradition for people out in the boonies.
When the Soviets were in Afghanistan support their puppet statelet, they awoke and created the Taleban, with their mechanized and aerial warfare and genocide against the Afghans.
"So they are going to hate with a passion people who kill them the dishonourable way, and not on the ground on foot.
Very cliched, but still a fact of life and tradition for people out in the boonies."
----
Yessir! If they have to fight, real men fight real men.
We're gearing up to send 30,000 US Marines to the region.
The Taliban wants a face-to-face fight? They'll get it. The survivors will go back to herding goats and thank Allah everyday that they had the smarts to run away.
The United States relies very little on Human Intelligence, known as HUMINT. Instead, it relies on SIGINT, Signals Intelligence.
In his book, James Bamford, describes an incident where one "suspected Al-Qaeda" member's phone was picked up by an NSA analyst in Fort Bragg. The analyst was able to get the satellite phone's GPS coordinates, but the GPS receiver in the phone is accurate to within 100 meters (300 feet). The analyst then contacted a CIA station in Ethiopia where the CIA operate missile equipped UAVs. So the CIA station got the GPS coordinates from the NSA and sent out a UAV to track down that guy's satellite phone.
They located a car traveling down a desert road. Since there was no other vehicle or human in the vicinity they assumed the suspect was in that car and bombed it. Among the dead was the "suspect" and 5 other civilians who were riding in the Taxi.
Human life has been reduced to a video game, you push a button and a missile fires thousands of miles away killing a target.
Obama made it clear that this was what he would do. Obama is not a progressive left democrat, he is a Bill Clinton type democrat who sits in the middle of the party. Like Clinton, Obama will be hawkish when it come,s to war with terrorists.
I guess if losing the war because of the desire to win a few quick battles to gain the support of right wing radicals is "hawkish" then you're right.
Simple rule, according to the out or touch media and idiot politicians a "terrorist" is whoever the government says is a terrorist, usually whoever we're bombing. A "moderate" is whatever leader, no matter how murderous and horrible, is following US orders (see the drug cartel, death squad Uribe in Colombia). A "radical" or "dictator" is usually who isn't following US orders, no matter how democratic they are in practice (see the countless debunked lies by the press and government about Chavez).
In the end, most terrorism is state terrorism, and the US is by far the biggest supporter and perpetraitor of state terrorism in the world today. It isn't "anti-American" to say that, it is just realizing reality, DOING it should be anti-American, but we have such large industries dedicated to war and our economy is tanking otherwise, so we might as well build more weapons and sell them to other states commiting state terror, outside of us of course.
What the Enormous Army calls the tiny army.
what US killers call whoever they kill, or aimed to kill, to justify their violence. Our state terrorism, far more violent, widespread and consistant, is always "defensive" in some way.
Endless War = Endless Profits: for the fascists who own the companies that manufacture the tools of war and who also own the politicians who create and perpetuate the reasons to buy and use those tools.
If a few (hundred million) soldiers or innocent people die: So What?
Bush had said "any country that harbors terrorists and
decides not to cooperate in routing them out will bear
the consequences". Well Bush for all his bloviating did not keep his word. Pakistan hasn't done squat, they are afraid to confront Wizirastan. I say go in
blow the place to where it doesn't shine and take out
al queda ...before they kill more innocent people.
Pakistan has had it's shot for 7 years. It is time to
end this, otherwise we will be diddling in Afganistan
for years. It will be slow bleed, as Taliban and al queda forces flow back and forth over the border at will. As far as Pakistan being nuclear, they need a
message also, do not proliferate, which they have already done, do not threaten, do not retaliate. Either you do Al Quaeda or we will.. you didn't...
we will.
Bush was a terrorist for 8 years. Would it be right to blow up Washington to eliminate the corrupt terrorists, because the home nation won't?
The only outcome is trouble and blowback, they dont want us there, and us being there is expensive both in money and human lives and losing the moral high ground.
If its all about oil and pipelines, then we can buy oil on the open market.
Buying oil on the open market would mean two things:
1. The United States will have to change its consumption habits and do what Europe has been doing for decades.
2. The United States will no longer be able to dictate policy to other nations because it will no longer control the oil or the flow of oil.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/C...
[Deleted. Don't do that here-Sitemonitor]
The northern drone attack actually killed some militants, some Arab-Taliban and some locals working with them. The guy they were associated with is mentioned in the series I linked. Taliban swarmed the area right after. Bad guy, good hit, check. Leaving other issues out of it for now.
The southern drone attack killed a tribal leader and his family that the Pakistani government had just flipped to working for them. I think he is even mentioned by name in the videos above. His tribe is mentioned, as a showcase of the Pakistani Army of how to turn the locals against the Taliban. Ooopps!
We killed him, and his whole family. Bad hit.
they are full of schitt and barack needs to get some facts.
.
What were those kids doing on OUR lawn?
of course! (/snark)
but dude, what are those commandos in the control rooms gonna do if you take their toys away....
Most importantly it needs to be noted that these attacks are acts of war. Yet Congress has not declared war on Pakistan nor has Pakistan requested military aid in the form of these attacks. Therefore they are illegal under both US law and international law. And yes absolutely they pose a very high risk of further destabilizing the region.
Terrible
Very well said. Since, as you correctly note, these acts of aggression committed by the United States are acts of war, the logical inference is that they are also violations of the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and should therefore be considered war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. This then begs the question as to how long it will be before a war crimes tribunal is conducted so that Barack Obama can stand alongside Bush and Cheney in the dock for the crimes that they have so impersonally carried out against people who have never threatened anyone in these United States.
Richard Seymour bring home the point quite well in his book The Liberal Defence of Murder of how liberals throughout the world in many different countries are just as culpable in starting and committing atrocities as their conservative counterparts while Lance Selfa in his book The Democrats: A Critical History and Dennis Perrin in his study of the Democrats called Savage Mules expose the belligerence and militant nature of the Democrats in this country during the past century.
Three days and now it is guaranteed that Obama will never support or recognize the ICC, as he would himself be in jeopardy of an arrest warrant. Truly remarkable.
the Dems were jealous that terrorists attacke US soil on Bushie's watch instead of theirs? They sure seem to be trying damn hard to create as many as Bush was.
Petraeus is there? Don't trust him.
Stop the bombing.
End the program.
Bring all the troops home.
cut the military budget by 75% and eradicate hunger with the proceeds.
Oh, snap!
But if that happened, some very important white people will be unable to ensure their obscene profits...
do something productive with their lives.
Somehow, I doubt you'd last a month as an infantryman.
Somehow, I doubt you'd last a week as an aid worker.
Cernig
Ka-Boom! Game, set, match. Intelligently and persuasively well stated.
Cernig
Just a picky-pick here. Barack Obama is misspelled at the top of your report. Barack doesn't have 2 "r"s.
=====
So we have Obama now following in GW's footsteps, illegally using military force against al Qaeda and consequently killing civilians in another sovereign county. Al Qaeda is not a military force but rather small groups of people bent on terrorism. They can certainly be obliterated from any country through military force, but only by wiping out ALL the citizens of that country. Furthermore, surgical strikes are anything but "surgical".
We don't need military force to destroy terrorists. We need covert operations to destroy terrorism.
Folks, I'm afraid that in foreign policy, we just got more of the same Bush policies and practices in Obama. But hey, Obama says Bush is a nice guy, so it must be all right.
You're just prejudiced against surgeons who use chain saws.
Just as gruesome, Kathy Bates in Misery comes to mind.
That seems like our style.
who use scalpels to remove large tree limbs. Kills the production rate for the day and the tree doesn't like the extended pain.
Why would this tickle my funnybone? But it did, like being prejudiced against dog groomers or barbers.
Well, each to his own prejudice, I guess. I once knew a 5 year-old boy who was shudderingly opposed to eating anything round. He wouldn't eat peas or grapes or carrots or potatoes sliced in rounds, but he loved sliced grapes, french fries, and carrot sticks.
Pffft. Stupid children. Why were they hanging around with terr'rists? Why didn't they get in their cars and go some place else, they should have known bad things happen to kids who hang around with terr'rists. Don't they watch teevee?
Don't worry President Obama, there's always a little blood when your cherry gets popped.
We're Americans! If that means anything, it means killing small brown non-christians. We do it so reliably you'd think it was in the Constitution. Its just our way.
It took a civil war and a lot of battles to force 100% for everybody.
And not until 1970 did the last redneck state have 100% rights for everybody.
IE; marriage or cohabitation between black and white legal.
Should he leave them alone to plot their next attack?
Imagine the outrage if he did and they attacked us again.
There are other options besides doing nothing and lobbing high explosives from far away on to what you hope is just your enemy.
Also, there is already non-stop constant outrage from the Right over Obama making us unsafe and no matter what he does, if there is another attack he will be blamed for it no matter what, so worrying about outrage is the last thing Obama should do.
Makes the Repugs and their basement dweller supports wet.
Just browsing Youtube and other video sites, the amount of pornographic military videos is obscene.
Most are just things in action, things going boom, understandable curiosity value, the worst offenders mix in photos and footage of third world women and children, implying and gloating they are valid targets for death and destruction.
Goebbels and Himmler would be so proud of the modern reichwing psychopaths.
Just that there are other options.
Just asking.
We can't (won't) send troops in to 'selectively' kill the terrorists, so the only other option is to do nothing.
"so worrying about outrage is the last thing Obama should do."
Seems to me that's what he's doing now, ignoring the outrage from those who would have us do nothing at all.
If we can shoot missles we can send troops. If we choose not to that doesn't mean its not an option. Also, diplomacy.
I seem to recall that our groundtroops were previously forced to leave Pakistan during an operation by Pakistani forces.
Should we risk a shoot-out between our forces and Paki forces? Seems that would guarantee an instant escalation between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Sorry, but diplomacy alone has failed us in the past. Clinton relied heavily on diplomacy and the result was 9/11.
I'm not pooh-pooing the deaths of innocents, but has anyone even considered that this may have been a legit operation?
I don't buy the idea that we have to let terrorists get away to eliminate the risk of collateral damage. Sorry, but what you're really saying is you want the war on terror to be clean and guilt-free, and the other side has no such reservations.
Some posters here make it sound as if the Air Force is lobbing missiles willy-nilly, with no regard for the lives of civilians. That's bullshit.
Obama is not Bush, and he's not being led around by Dr. Evil the way Bush was. I'll trust the decisions of an informed, intelligent man over a bunch of internet 'experts' any day.
I guess that makes me one of the very first 'Obama apologists'.
Sigh.
The result of 9/11 was Bush's lack of action on actionable intelligence.
Also, as I've said, if we can shoot missles, we can send troops. Pakistan is quiet dependent on us and if we push it we can do it.
So your argument is we should be like the terrorists? No thank you. I'm not a coward that chucks my values when I get threatened.
"We can send troops"
Really? It's that easy?
And as 'Grand Ruler and Moral Guide for the Universe', you've decided it's that easy?
Because troops on the ground are no more provocative than selected missile strikes. Right.
You're naive or ignorant, or both.
And you're neither brave or cowardly, you're just safe there behind your computer screen, making believe you're risking something by decreeing what Obama's policy towards terrorist havens should be.
Oh how very brave of you.
Where did I say it would be easy? You like to argue against things you make up but your opponent didn't say cause its the only way you can feel you're right.
I said it could be done. Not that it would be easy. Also I'm going to go out on a limb and say troops on the ground offer a somewhat more reliable method of taking out terrorists and not innocent children than, oh say, missiles.
Also as far as bravery goes I'm not the one willing to have innocent children killed in my name because I'm afraid of a terrorist attack, even though killing those children in no way guarantees there won't be another terrorist attack.
We've had seven damned YEARS of Bush doing this kind of illegal bombing and killing, and because more civilians were killed than ANY terrorists, he swelled the ranks of survivors who now hate the US. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
There ARE other options that have already been mentioned. You should read the entire thread. But it isn't up to ordinary Americans to provide the options. Nobody listens. That's the job of the Defense department, the State department, and any special forces the US has who can be trained for effective covert action.
what are these effective 'options'?
You ask for options, you're given them, you then choose to qualify with the word effective. The problem there is you're not qualified to judge the effectiveness of all the possible options, so no point in going into it. I get the feeling to you 'effective' means guaranteeing safety for us and that will never happen. All we get now are dead children AND terrorists are still planning to attack us.
Why am I not "qualified" to decide whether the other 'options' (which still haven't been specified) will be effective? Because you say so? Some of us have actually been paying attention.
I guess Obama chose the military option because he's "not qualified" either.
He certainly couldn't be as informed as, or as moral as you.
But I can back it up:
Your criteria for 'effective' is what makes us safe. Since nothing makes us safe, and even worse, killing innocent children doesn't make us safe, yet you support killing innocent children anyway, I judge you incompetent to decide these issues.
logic is a topic you're not very familiar with. You'd make a good right winger.
I never said my criteria was "what makes us safe". You did. I'm not that ignorant.
"...yet you support killing innocent children anyway..."
Yes indeed, you'd make a good right-winger, judgemental and not very bright. Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with an imbecile.
Bye-bye.
You asked for options. You were given options, then you qualified asking for 'effective' options. Logically one would conclude that 'effective' in the context we're discussing meant stopping terrorists from attacking us.
And lets never forget that even though it doesn't guarantee our safety, you support killing innocent children.
This is the part, where like a good little reactionary right-winger, you bait me over and over with a heinous and unfair label. Yup, everyone who disagrees with you supports killing innocent children.
Moron.
Hey, why don't you call me a coward again too while you're at it.
You're so brave and tough and morally pure there hiding behind you're keyboard.
Whatever you candyass punk.
Anyone reading this thread is going to be quite convinced you support killing innocent children if you think it helps make us safe.
is what I take of this poster's opinion. Fear, fear, fear "but, but, but if we don't kill their children, they'll kill REAL innocent people (Americans)"
Whatever you candyass punk.
Its an internet tough guy!
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/JAmade...
(picture is not mine)
We need to get these countries to police there own countries.
We do need to stop this indiscriminate killing.period.
We need to engage these govt's so they send out there own forces to capture these people. It's in their country. And should be dealt with by their govt.
If they fail to comply with our diplomatic requests, sanctions.
Which in and of it self is a lacking response. Many more would die.
But at least, we wouldn't be bombing them . And this would probably stir some resentment in the local populations to turn them against the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
I do wish we would just get up and leave both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But it's not that easy. Logistics are involved here.
Now, I know someone here will say
" What do ya mean! We can just get up and leave! We did it before!
And that's true, we could. But this is a different situation.
We broke it. Yes, The US broke these countries. And now we're responsible for fixing them.
I would like to see President Obama rise above the boosh way of doing things.
We need to engage in diplomacy.
If boosh would have done this right in the first place, we wouldn't be discussing this.
mudshark you stressed that i have only been comeing on here and complained about obamas policys since november the 4th , when you know i have been against these bush cheny wars since the beggining, i am not now or ever been the villian here , my seeing obama stateing he was going to be a war president was what turned me off of his being president , and no we wouldnt have been any better off under mccain, as anyone here knows my choice was kucinich the only candidate willing to end these wars and bring bush and cheny to justice, had kucinich won the democrat presidential bid and he went back on a promiss to withdraw from these wars bush started i would have been just as critical of his actions, this old policys of we broke it we have to fix its a lame excuse to keep us from withdrawing from these wars , we dont have the resorces to rebuild iraq or afgainstan and if you can show me where the moneys going to come from to rebuild these countrys id grately appreciate your input on it! as far as i know the kiber pass is the only way we can exit from afganistan how much harder will it be to come out if we do as obama wishes ,that being to increase our troop levels there? all i have ever called for was an end to these wars, and i intend to keep blameing obamas policys of the bush cheny wars of choice!
Deleted, knock it off. This has gone too far. SiteMonitor
Deleted,knock it off. This has gone too far. SiteMonitor
Deleted, Enough. This ends now. SiteMonitor
"The US broke these countries. And now we're responsible for fixing them."
Nope, that's just a guilt trip giving an excuse for more neoliberal meddling. The real Pottery Barn rule is "you broke it, you pay for it and you get the hell out of the store - not stick around telling the owners how to spend your money and breaking more stuff."
Regards, C
That is the correct way to state that.
My mistake. But the point remains the same. We have to do something. What do you suggest we do? Just leave?
Regardless, if we call it neoliberal meddling we have to do something. We simply cannot just leave. There is the issue of these maniacs wanting to do the country harm. There is a whole world of innocent people that are not guilty of doing anything to justify terror type attacks on them.
This is all due to the foreign policies of this country.
So, what do you suggest? As I've said above and in the past, diplomacy is in order here. Safety is an issue. How do you suggest this country provide safety for it's citizenry ?
There needs to be sweeping changes in our foreign policy regarding the Middle East. I also believe this country needs to be more self reliant with respect to energy. That alone would be a good start. But nothing is that simple.
I would like to see the US get out of Afghanistan and Iraq . I just can't see how we can do it right now. Iraq would be easier to get out of. At least they have formed some kind of Govt. I suppose we could just pack up and leave Afghanistan as well.
They too have some kind of govt established .
But what about the people who wish to do us harm? Do you think both of these countries are capable of resolving these issues without US intervention? Iraq , yes. I do think they are capable. But we will have to help them with financial costs of rebuilding their country.
Afghanistan, I'm not so sure of.
What is a neoliberal? Would you define that term for me?
I was wondering when someone was going to come up with that one.
Which is, yes, accepting you unrealistic hypothesis for the sake of argument that our only two options are between killing innocent children or letting terrorists plot, I choose to let them plot. Perhaps had we not been indiscriminately killing their children these past 8 years their would be fewer plotters.
Unlike most right-wingers I'm brave enough to stick to the values of being an American as well as a decent human even if my life is in danger. Its called courage to do whats right. Strange that its not a right-wing position, no?
that you'll take responsibility for deaths resulting from 'plotting'? Really?
So another 9/11 is fine with you, because at least WE didn't kill innocent people trying to prevent it? What if you're "bravery" gets thousand of innocent Americans killed? You may be fine with risking your life, but maybe others aren't so enamored with dying for your pacifist ideals.
And I'm not a right-winger, if that's what you're implying.
I know the default position of the ultra-lib portion of the left is that anyone who disagrees is a DINO, but that's bullshit.
I guess Obama is a failure already because he's not willing to blindly support far-left idealogy.
Again you make these false choices. So if I'm not ok with killing innocent children I'm a pacifist? Ridiculous.
Also another false choice is that Not supporting killing innocent children makes me responsible for another 9/11. Also patently ridiculous.
And whatever wing you are, if you're willing to kill innocent children to save lives you're a coward AND by definition you let the terrorists win, since the very act of terrorism is to force a people to change, especially if they abandon their values out of fear.
AND...Bill Lumbergh aupports terrorist tactics, which is just what Bush and now Obama have chosen to exercise, the illegal use of force against other sovereign nations who have not harmed nor threatened to harm America.
The use of fear is a popular rightwing tactic -- if we don't kill those children, the adults will come and kill us at home.
You have no idea what you're talking about. "Terrorist tactics"?????
You have no freaking idea what you're talking about. Terrorists don't care about innocents or collateral damage, we do.
Some of you are absolutely detached from reality.
YOU apparently don't care about innocents or collateral damage, or you wouldn't support illegal actions that result in exactly that.
If we care, why are innocent children being killed?
If supposed terrorists attack and kill Americans on American soil because of these bombing runs, that is bad. But when it's done to them, it's all right cuz they are terrorists. You don't seem to be able to grasp the meaning of terrorist. If you live somewhere, that gets bombing runs, is that not living in terror? Is that not being terrorized? If the military really cared about innocents or collateral damage, why do they always cover it up until someone proves they did it?
Bill Lumbergh, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't call me an ignorant fool. You'd try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, huh?
We all know you're losing the argument when you resort to insults. I have not called you names or insulted you similarly, so please stop it.
This guy had me wondering "Am I wrong for not wanting to kill children?"
this person is nothing more than a troll FilthyHarry...sane people don't advocate killing children as necessary and not important.
weighs in.
"Advocate".
Look up the word imbecile. I did not advocate any such thing. But I don't live in the fantasy world that allows war to be conducted without innocent casualties. Apparently you do.
So far not one of you has tendered a realistic option for dealing with these terrorist havens, except for WhimpyHairy, who thinks we should invade a nuclear-armed nation with ground troops because it would be less provocative than air strikes.
Sorry, but you people are so used to dealing with reich-wingers that you react to any dissent with vitriol and unfair labeling.
Apparently Obama has a plan that doesn't involve checking the moral compass of internet experts before he acts.
what war? You justify killing hundreds, thousands, maybe even more, in an attempt to get a hundred or less terrorists? And you say posters on here can't comprehend? Like, hello? Is anyone home? Even the federal government admits there are less than 100 terrists in AQ. And the Taliban, were allies before Afghanistan was invaded and there were very few AQ located there. Had to justify the military invasion, you know. So before you attack posters, I suggest you read something besides government propaganda statements.
Let's see if you can comprehend real world. You kill one innocent, who is married and has a family of 24, how many future terrorists have you recruited?
Dude quit shit talking yourself. It's OK. You aren't totally challenged...I'm sure. You got the computer turned on...
He gives the impression of being a white supremacist or a redneck to whom all others are worthless. This kind of aggressive hostility toward others certainly doesn't contribute any answers to problems in the world. Just kill 'em before they come and slaughter us in our beds.
Anyway, it's quite pleasant to not read his posts anymore.
is one of the leftover small percentage of Bush support.
that I never voted for or supported Boosh. And I voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama.
But since I'm not a pacifist, then I'm not a real Dem/Lib.
Whatever.
In the end, at least I don't spend all day every day spewing nonsense on this site like you do.
[Deleted. Off topic. This post was pure insult, no argument. I can become surgical and start cutting out insults here and there, but really, I'd prefer it if everyone on this thread could find it in themselves to discuss the issue presented, not everyone's shortcomings as a bff-Sitemonitor]
yes, that is the impression everyone gets. You justify repeatedly that their children's deaths are unimportant as long as innocent people don't get killed. Which in your posts, means Americans. So these people and their children are all worth less then?
Bush was a terrorist for 8 years, so then with that in mind, people he's terrorized have the right to bomb Washington killing innocent people, because then their innocent people won't get killed. That makes abso-frackin-lutely no damn sense whatsoever.
... by the voices in you head.
You keep putting words in my mouth, and then when you can't provide those words to prove what you say, you rely on 'impressions' which are nothing more than what your pea-brain supposes I think.
You don't have any idea what I think, because you don't know me, and yet you, just like reactionary reich-wingers, think you've got me 'all figgered out'.
You're demented.
If stating the fact that civilian deaths cannot ever be competely avoided during war makes me a wanton baby killer, then you've become detached from reality. That's the same illogic that the right used when they claimed that everyone who was against the Iraq war was a traitor. A=B=C, because we say so.
Whatever. At least my new President has a clue, even if the uber-libs don't.
See there is where your argument loses any logic. There is no war. You going to support the killing of anyone that the government says is a terrorist? There is a word for non-thinking government propaganda parrots. Lemmings.
"There is no war".
And Korea was a 'Police action'.
If you want to hide behind semantics, fine. Whatever you want to call the fact that there are people who spend every day preparing and planning for the time when they can kill other human beings, just because they're American citizens. Maybe they're not at 'war' with us, they're just really, really annoyed?
Also:
"You going to support the killing of anyone that the govenment says is a terrorist?"
I like that you hide that statement by placing a question-mark at the end.
The answer to your insane accusation is "OF COURSE NOT YOU IMBECILE".
FYI and note to you:
Boosh isn't Preznit no more.
Do you see any? Neither does anybody else. What they see is the bombing of weddings, funerals, and goat herders and then the proclamation of AQ #2 was killed, yet again. You don't get it at all. Short sighted and idiotic. The money spent on this fake war, could have actually helped these people, which in turn would have made them turn from these so-called terrorists.
If you think Obama's launching of missiles and killing those bad "Taliban" is keeping you safe from a "terrorist attack" then you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I'll tell you why.
The US has f**** everyone from Korea to Panama over the years. There's a lot of hate and resentment there. Those that attack or manage to pull off an attack are the ones that have the means. Bin Laden was a wealthy man, he came from a very wealthy family in Saudi Arabia. That's how he was able to finance the whole thing.
Yet, you're sitting there pretending things are so simple "If we fight them there, they won't fight us here" and "They hate us for our freedoms."
Weren't those talking points proven as bullshit as early as 2004?
You've done it again, insulted me because you are losing the argument. I don't know FH except for an occasional notice of a post, but I sure noticed YOURS.
I'll reiterate -- I've never insulted you, and I certainly didn't call you a coward.
You go on my Ignore User list now, not worth the bandwidth you take up.
Lets see:
Didn't call you a child killer, just said you support it. And a quick read through of your posts completely back that assertion up. However:
Supports killing children to keep us safe = Cowardly.
You said:
"And whatever wing you are, if you're willing to kill innocent children..."
And since you clearly weren't using the figurative "you", and you were speaking to me, you called me a child killer. That's where the name calling started, along with your repeated and weak accusations of cowardice.
Oh, to be as brave as you while you sit there not risking anything but words.
You're just another internet tough guy.
like War on Terra supporters that advocate killing innocent people "over there" so we don't have to fight them over here? Ah yes, Bushie is alive and well.
everyone who disagrees with you thinks the same about every subject.
I confess, I get the evil talking points every day in my inbox so that I can remain in lock-step with 'them'.
What's it like to always know what other people are thinking?
It must be cool to always be right on top of that. Whew, it's great being you...
certainly making friends. Guess you don't need any when everyone is considered an enemy and collateral damage, eh?
to 'make friends' if it means compromising what I believe just to fit in or to avoid the criticism of those of lesser intelligence.
All you and others have done is hurl baseless accusations about my character and try to put words in my mouth. Why would I care what you think?
My President apparently agrees with me.
Maybe next election you can work towards putting a pacifist on the ballot.
Why is it clear that I wasn't using the figurative "you"? The context of the conversation is clearly your support of our gov't killing innocent children.
This is how I know you're a right-winger, they don't understand context.
but nice try.
And just to be clear, it's your Government too. So that innocent blood is on your hands just as much as it is mine. Which makes clear your real goal, which is to make believe that those innocent deaths aren't being done in your name, but rather in the name of 'evil' people such as myself, who have no conscience and don't care one whit if babies and innocent virgins die./sarcasm
You clearly aren't intellectually capable of seeing the difference between indiscriminate killing and unavoidable casualties.
Do I want innocents killed? Of course not. (not that you believe that, because you think I'm EEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLLL)
Am I willing to let people who want to kill my family and friends go free because they hide behind women and children? Sorry, but the painful answer is no.
You disagree, I get that, but don't try to make believe that those Air Force bombs aren't meant to kill those who want to kill you, as well as me.
Maybe you should volunteer to be a 'human shield' if you're so brave and full of humanity.
Of course the blood is on my hands too, and of course its my govt. That is one of the reasons I'm so against it.
Now lets talk about clarity. You said "Am I willing to let people who want to kill my family and friends go free because they hide behind women and children? Sorry, but the painful answer is no."
So if someone who wants to hurt you, hides behind an innocent child, its ok to kill that child to get the person who wants to hurt you? That IS cowardice. And its especially cowardly when there are other options to take.
what?
To let the person get away, so that they can kill you some other day.
I would choose to try to kill the person hiding behind that child, and make every effort to hit only the killer. BUT, if something went wrong and the child was harmed, it's the fault of the person using that child as a shield. That person is the one that CHOSE to place that child in harm's way, not me. These terrorists know they are being hunted, and choose to put innocents at risk by hiding amongst them.
That's the part you apparently can't grasp.
You want to send in troops because they won't kill 'indiscriminately', and yet, what would they do if confronted with EXACTLY the scenario you describe? Would they just let that terrorist walk away?
I think you know the answer.
Don't be so hard on yourself Bill. We see tools like you here all the time.
Sure we care about the kids. That's why we have a history of decimating wedding parties in Afghanistan and Iraq, Why our soldiers shoot up carloads of families at checkpoints, and used naplam in VietNam on kids and White phosphorus in Fallujah and land mines and cluster bombs everywhere else. Oh and DU. Don't forget the DU conatamination. It really is all about the kids, isn't it.
If that's your reasoning, then you might want to send troops to every country the US has screwed over in the last 100 years. That doesn't even include the supplying of US allies with white phosphorus, depleted uranium and cluster bombs to kill innocent civilians.
Think of terrorism as an export/import business. If you export terrorism and kill thousands of innocent people, don't be surprised if you end up importing terrorism. You reap what you sow. Do you want to live in a country that acts like a thug, no different than the worst dictator out there? Or do you want a country that respects human rights and international law?
The Kurdish minority in Iraq were gassed by Saddam with US supplied weapons. The same goes for Israel. You just haven't traveled to South America where the US hired mercenaries to slaughter thousands of people, have you? You haven't been to Iran where the US overthrew a democratically elected government, have you?
For the record, the Taliban didn't attack the US on 9/11. That's what "next" in your post implies after all.
In 2001, Al-Qaeda consisted of Bin Laden and a few deputies down the chain of command. The total number of his entire group was about 30.
It's just sad. You're probably not the only one out there who not only doesn't know who attacked you, but doesn't know why and who you're fighting in Afghanistan.
I have lived in four countries over the years and I have yet to see people who are so disconnected from their own government and its policies as they are here.
stuff.....I suggest Obama call in John McCain and DEMAND that he shares his knowledge of OBL's whereabouts and his plan for finding and catching the Real Terrorists who are causing all these problems.
Really, John, can you help us out now???!
Great point. Think the good ol' Liberal Media would maybe bring that up to McCain in an interview? Naw, don't think so either.
I think OBL is dead - hard for me to believe that a guy with serious kidney disease could still be alive while wandering in that rugged Afghan country. Plus, Bhutto said he was murdered, as was she, so that's good enough for me.
OBL was just a bogey man the neo-cons used to foment their plans to invade Iraq, steal the oil, and use it as a base to smash the rest of the ME and bring it into the Empire. And, let us remember, OBL was originally "created" and supported by our buddy Zbig Brerziewski (and the CIA) during the USSR-Afghan problem.
in a Saudi Facility. Or a private place paid for by his family, pals of the Carlyle Group
does it? He was just a tool, used by the global M-I elitists
Bushes, Saudis, Brits, etc. - first to help "change" the USSR, and later to use as an excuse to move our military into the ME.
The real point, I think, is that TWAT (the war on terror) is a sham, perpetrated in part by elements of our government and corporatists (including Carlyle and all their holdings) basically for their own personal gain - in power and wealth. Nothing we've been doing in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan has anything to do with keeping US or any other citizens safe from AQ or any "terrorists."
Call me crazy.....
but had the job been completed in afghanistan, you wouldve been wrong
but bush had no intention of completing the job...and it must be completed
although, thanks to bush's incompetence and malfeasance, that may be increasingly more difficult
if he is alive and being aided by people CheneyBushCO called 'friends' and 'allies'
Other than that, it doesn't matter.
Love the acronym 'TWAT' BTW. :P
The larger point I was alluding to was this:
not only is (TWAT) a sham, but I think that in and of itself, something like (TWAT) was bound to occur eventually, because our entire attitude towards this region has been screwed for a long time. I'll probably get flamed even here, for mentioning Noam Chomsky and Edward Said, but sadly, especially in Said's case, they are exactly right about where we stand. Read Failed States... if you can slog through it (I wish Chomsky's lit style was a bit more fluid) as well as anything Said has ever written about the PLO and our manipulation of the Isreal/Palestine conflict to forward our ulterior interests...
I'd sum it up in this forum if I thought I could do it justice.
Interviewer (A hypothetical one with a spine): Sen. McCain, during the campaign to told the American people that you knew how to get Osama Bin Laden, that you had a plan to get him. Even though you've lost, its fair to ask, isn't it, if you've shared this plan with Pres. Obama?
McCain: I was jus bullshittin!
So far from what I've read, you are the first person in this thread who has touched on what I consider to be one of the core issues of The War Against Terror (TWAT). WE BROKE THESE COUNTRIES, WE HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. We have enacted short-term, short-sighted and generally violent policies for decades in this region. The result is a destabilized and desperate group of people who by and large, HATE US. Our unwavering support for Israel (regardless of right or wrong) has not helped. Whether they intended to or not, the Soviets essentially succeeded in getting us so tangled up in this mess that in 2009 we *still* cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.
What we should have *all* learned by now though, is that we need to find a radically different approach to how we engage this region. A lot of different things have been tried, and I wish I knew what the right answer was. We've dug ourselves into a huge hole in the Middle East. I think even if we did find and enact effective policies it will still take at least a couple of decades before we see any large gains in terms of stability and peace. Militant terror and fanaticism will be with us for some time.
Regards.
.. posting AJ links is like waving red meat to some .. here I go.
They recently posted a long video series on the internal Pakistan vs. Tribal Militants + Taliban.
Segment 1 - Pakistan's War: The Battle Within
Segment 1 - Part 1
Segment 1 - Part 2
Segment 1 - Part 3
Segment 1 - Part 4
Segment 2 - Pakistan's War: On the Front Line
Segment 2 - Part 1
Segment 2 - Part 2
Segment 2 - Part 3
Segment 2 - Part 4
The series is long (and in English). But, good watching if you want to catch up on exactly what is going on in the tribal areas.
A couple of points to bring up about it, and tie it into the missiles.
- The AJ reporter was embedded in the Pakistani Army. This causes a slant seeing them in the most favorable light, as with any embedding.
- There are four players out there, Talibs, tribal Pakistani's, other Pakistani's and the Pakistani military.
- Its not an Islamic issue, most non-Taliban consider the Taliban's use of Islam a perversion of it, their rise is due to circumstances not religion. Indians, an Afghan, and Pakistani's I've talked with all say that. But, it causing muslim on muslim deaths is a big problem say the muslims.
- A separate report claims that Kashmir militants are now working with Taliban and some Pakistan militants (Asia Times - Karachi reporter), so its more complicated, even worse, and ties in with Kashmir now. So two independent sources, and Pakistani's I know verify that twist. Long term solution must include India.
- The tribal areas are not as developed as the rest of Pakistan, think .. their Appalachia. It's pointed out in the series, and by people I've talked to. The tribal people there don't like the Pakistani Army, as its seen as the army of the rich Pakistanis who won't share anything with them. They don't really like the Taliban either, they just want to live. A little bit of aid would go a long way.
With the missile/drone attacks. They rarely give any long term benefit, with high collateral cost. They do cause instability for the Pakistani military. Do you really want to destabilize the Pakistani military right now?
Do you think the drone spy camera's can tell the difference between a training camp run by a tribal group just organized and given AKs by the Pakistani Army to fight the Taliban newcomers, and a training camp run by a Taliban group that just married into the village? I for one doubt it.
We'd probably get a greater return by rebuilding the (previously very good, co-ed public) schools in the Swat Valley (that the Taliban closed, and destroyed, replacing with miltary boys-only) then guarding them than the drones.
Until the Taliban and Al Qaeda are defeated and the children are not being used as soilders in this war, that will be when it will be safe for the children.
Login or Register to post comments.