NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes that's right, I'm using the Eutrusca's layout because I like it.


'Zawahiri' strike sparks protest
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm)

A missile strike apparently targeting al-Qaeda's deputy leader in a village in Pakistan has prompted Islamabad to protest to its American allies.
Ayman al-Zawahiri was not in the village on the border with Afghanistan, Pakistan officials said. But the attack left at least 18 local people dead.

The US military has denied knowledge of the attack, which US media reported have been carried out by the CIA.

But Islamabad condemned the strike and called the US ambassador to complain.

Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the Pakistani government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur".

He said he did not know whether Zawahiri had been in the area at the time.

According to preliminary investigations there was foreign presence in the area and that, in all probability, was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan

Pakistan foreign ministry

Zawahiri has eluded capture since the US overthrew the Taleban in Afghanistan in 2001 despite a $25m bounty on his head.

Osama Bin Laden's second-in-command is regarded as the ideological brains behind the al-Qaeda network, says BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera.

The Egyptian has also become its most visible spokesperson, issuing a number of video and audio tapes, whilst Osama Bin Laden has not been seen or heard from for more than a year.

Foreign presence

The raid took place in the village of Damadola in the Bajaur tribal area, about 7km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border.

Jets - or in some accounts a Predator drone - reportedly fired missiles at a particular housing compound in the village.

Tribesmen there are convinced the strike was the work of the Americans and are very angry at the attack.


Zawahiri has been in hiding since 2001

Reporters who reached Damadola spoke of three houses hundreds of metres apart that had been destroyed.

Shah Zaman said he lost two of his sons and a daughter. "I ran out and saw planes. I ran toward a nearby mountain with my wife. When we were running we heard three more explosions. I saw my home being hit.

"According to preliminary investigations there was foreign presence in the area and that, in all probability, was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan," Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement, adding it had complained to the US envoy in Islamabad.

A Pakistani intelligence official told Reuters news agency that Damadola was the stronghold of a banned pro-Taleban group, the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi.

The US has about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, but Pakistan does not allow them to operate across the border.

Pakistan has about 70,000 troops in the border region



The details seem to be a little hazy at the moment but if it turns out that American forces were behind the attack (which seems the most likely explanation) this could cause some serious trouble and will be snatched up by Islamic radicals for use as propaganda.

There are many questions that need to be answered here:

Was the the Americans? If not, who was it and why?

If it was the Americans was it a regular millitary operation or a CIA operation?
Were they aware of the civilians in the area? If not why?
How far up did the authorisation for the attack go? I'm guessing it would have been pretty high considering it was meant to take out Al-Quaeda's deputy leader.
What will this mean in terms of US/Pakistan relations?

Thoughts anyone?

Was the the Americans? If not, who was it and why?

If it was the Americans was it a regular millitary operation or a CIA operation?
Were they aware of the civilians in the area? If not why?
How far up did the authorisation for the attack go? I'm guessing it would have been pretty high considering it was meant to take out Al-Quaeda's deputy leader.
What will this mean in terms of US/Pakistan relations?

Thoughts anyone?
Seems likely to have been the Americans, though I expect it'll kept as quiet as possible.
Short of them being completely incompetent they must have been, so either they are completely incompetent, they grossly overestimated the accuracy of their info and weapons, or the civillians were acceptable collateral damage, three bad situations.
Pretty High, but someone lower will take the rap if anyone does
Pakistan will be more hostile to the US, and the US's world(and in particular in the Arab world) popularity, will descend still further

i'm sure the septics would be alot more bothered if another nation accidently killed 18 of its innocent citizens

but then again this is america - look at Vietnam, Iraq , Guatemala, Panama and Cambodia for civilian atrocities . . .

I guess if I were a tribesman getting paid to hide a terrorist and they killed my meal ticket anyway, I might be a bit ticked. I'm not so sure what good it would do for me to strap on my protest sign and picket with the donkeys and a video camera though. The only people they will outrage are the supporters they already had and may one or two from the traitor times in the US.
If there were indeed innocent people that died in the attack, no matter who carried it out, it is a regretable shame, however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.

I guess if I were a tribesman getting paid to hide a terrorist and they killed my meal ticket anyway, I might be a bit ticked. I'm not so sure what good it would do for me to strap on my protest sign and picket with the donkeys and a video camera though. The only people they will outrage are the supporters they already had and may one or two from the traitor times in the US.
If there were indeed innocent people that died in the attack, no matter who carried it out, it is a regretable shame, however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.
Good point.

Does Hallmark make a card for this sort of thing?

Does Hallmark make a card for this sort of thing?

This card is just to say,
Though we ruined your day,
And killed all your people,
It won't happen again,
If you just turn Christian,
And pray at the steeple.

Does Hallmark make a card for this sort of thing?

Your meal ticket is dead
He was once so alive
Don't you regret yelling, duck, get inside!

I guess if I were a tribesman getting paid to hide a terrorist and they killed my meal ticket anyway, I might be a bit ticked. I'm not so sure what good it would do for me to strap on my protest sign and picket with the donkeys and a video camera though. The only people they will outrage are the supporters they already had and may one or two from the traitor times in the US.

You have to be a traitor to be outraged at an apparently blase attitude towards civilian casualties by the US army or CIA? And some tribesmen may be angry because they supported the terrorists but many more will be angry at the innocent deaths and the attitude of people like you towards them.

If there were indeed innocent people that died in the attack, no matter who carried it out, it is a regretable shame, however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.

Because we already know terrorists to be murdering scum whereas US forces are supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy. If you have no respect for innocent life then you are no better than the terrorists. If it helps then let me state that I completely condemn the practice of using innocents as human shields.

...however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.


....

there WAS lots of outrage about this a while ago. theres not much people can do about it.

Thoughts anyone?

Crap happens. This is a war after all and people die in wars. :eek:

Crap happens. This is a war after all and people die in wars. :eek:

This village wasn't in a war, it was in Pakistan which is actually an American ally of sorts.

I guess if I were a tribesman getting paid to hide a terrorist and they killed my meal ticket anyway, I might be a bit ticked. I'm not so sure what good it would do for me to strap on my protest sign and picket with the donkeys and a video camera though. The only people they will outrage are the supporters they already had and may one or two from the traitor times in the US.
If there were indeed innocent people that died in the attack, no matter who carried it out, it is a regretable shame, however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.
So if I said Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Overland Park, Kansas, and they blew up your house without really caring to first confirm whether or not it was true, would it still only be a regretable shame? After all, you were probably getting paid to hide him anyways and thus deserved to have your house blown up, that no one really knows whether or not it was true is irrelevent...

America do wrong? Heavens no! Those so called "civilians" were probably only towel head baby-eating terroists anyway. Or commies. Or gooks. Or something which makes them unamerican and thus expendable.

This village wasn't in a war, it was in Pakistan which is actually an American ally of sorts.

People who are at war with the Allies are hiding in a village that happens to be one of our allies in the war, and that village is not participating in the war? What planet are you from? :(

So if I said Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Overland Park, Kansas, and they blew up your house without really caring to first confirm whether or not it was true, would it still only be a regretable shame?

Why do you assume that they had not confirmed the probability that he was there? Got an agenda? Having been there, I can tell you that they made absolutely ever possible effort to confirm their targets before attacking. It would be counter productive not to.

Despite that, to answer your question. Yes, as much as I would dislike a missle up my own ass, it would be a regretable consequence of war. Fortunately, I do not harbor traitors, activists or terrorists so the need to call for fire on my own position is minimal. Sometimes i wonder about the guy across the street though!

So if I said Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Overland Park, Kansas, and they blew up your house without really caring to first confirm whether or not it was true, would it still only be a regretable shame? After all, you were probably getting paid to hide him anyways and thus deserved to have your house blown up, that no one really knows whether or not it was true is irrelevent...

I'm sure the telephone in that house in that village was... Get real. If he was hiding in my house in Oklahoma, I doubt the feds would be kind enough to call me on the phone before they busted in my door. Yah right. The law always calls first to ask if the criminal is there. Oh, and if it were Osama hiding in my house, I'm also sure they would take the time to get a search warrant before knocking down the door. Sure, they would…:D

There are two possibilities

1. Packees playing the usual double game..giving intel to CIA to target the house and tipping off the the target to leave the place.

2. CIA did have proper intel and took out a high value target, possibly some Packee intel higher up got killed, hence the anger.

I am waiting for further details to come out. But some things are certain.

This attack is 50 Kms into Packee territory. The deepest incursion so far. Indicates that US patience with Packees is wearing thin.

There is palpable anger in certain quarters of Packee regime. Indicates that they view this incursion as loss of sovereignity and a fear that US may reach into other Packee safehouses where who knows who is being hidden....;)

A ticker tape on NDTV news (Indian news channel) says that Pak has confirmed that Zawahiri is dead. I am sceptical though. Until I see dead body and confirmation by DNA, I would be highly sceptical of anything that Packees say.

Meanwhile, angered yahoos take it out on...guess what...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/14/welcome.htm
Protesters burn aid office after airstrike deaths in Pakistan KHAR, Pakistan, Jan 14, 2006 (AFP) - Pakistani tribesmen torched the office of a US-funded aid group Saturday amid protests against the death of 18 people in an alleged US airstrike targeting Al-Qaeda's number two, witnesses said. An estimated 5,000 people gathered at a stadium near Khar, the main town in the Bajur tribal zone, close to the village of Damadola where Friday's attack h took place, an AFP reporter said. Some demonstrators then set fire to the offices of Associated Development Construction, a non-governmental organisation funded by the US Agency for International Development, an official at the aid group said. "They attacked our office in reaction to the deaths on Friday and put it on fire; it is badly damaged," site engineer Fazal Maibood said. The mob also took away hundreds of bags of cement, while upto 20 tonnes of steel were damaged by the fire, he added. Hundreds of policemen were deployed in Khar and other nearby towns to maintain law and order, witnesses said. Earlier, Jamaat-i-Islami legislator Haroon Rasheed, addressing the rally of protestors condemned the airstrike as a "slap on the face of the country's sovereignty" as the crowd chanted anti-US slogans, witnesses said. Pakistani officials meanwhile said they were investigating whether Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, was killed in what a US intelligence official described as an attack by a US Predator drone. Residents said they heard missiles being fired from aircraft, adding that there were women and children among the dead and that there were no foreigners in the village at the time. "Those killed were all innocent tribesmen, there were women and children among the dead," Rasheed said. "There was no Arab and no foreigners."(First Posted @ 16:04 PST Updated @ 16:48 PST)

It appears that it is not a predator attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/international/asia/14cnd-afghan.html?hp

"I was awakened from deep slumber by the noise of the drone and then, together with thousands others who too had been woken up by the plane's noise, saw jets targeting the area," he said. "One plane circled the area and dropped illuminating flares and the other planes fired missiles. There were loud explosions."

Does not look like predator attack at all.

You have to be a traitor to be outraged at an apparently blase attitude towards civilian casualties by the US army or CIA? And some tribesmen may be angry because they supported the terrorists but many more will be angry at the innocent deaths and the attitude of people like you towards them.



Because we already know terrorists to be murdering scum whereas US forces are supposedly fighting for freedom and democracy. If you have no respect for innocent life then you are no better than the terrorists. If it helps then let me state that I completely condemn the practice of using innocents as human shields.

I ask you the very same question as another poster. Why do you assume there is an apparently blase attitude towrds civilian casualties? I'll tell you why. Because that is the picture painted by the carefully editited and completely speculative story you read. If there were civilian casualties as I said, that is a very regretable situation, but it is one perpetuated by the terrorists, and those that harbor them, behind the skirts of women and children. Stop and think about it for a minute. If the US forces could prevent from killing an innocent civilian it would do so 100% of the time, if for no other reason than an accurate battle damage assessment. There is no benefit to killing an innocent civilian for them, but there is a huge benefit to the terrorists to arrange for civilians to die along side of them. If one applies a bit of common sense in situations like this, they usually do not wind up as propaganda tools that terrorists consider their greatest weapon.

Al Qaeda is like a virus. We should just try to let it run its course and stop trying to kill its hydra-like leaders.

I guess if I were a tribesman getting paid to hide a terrorist and they killed my meal ticket anyway, I might be a bit ticked. I'm not so sure what good it would do for me to strap on my protest sign and picket with the donkeys and a video camera though. The only people they will outrage are the supporters they already had and may one or two from the traitor times in the US.
If there were indeed innocent people that died in the attack, no matter who carried it out, it is a regretable shame, however, terrorists and their leaders have made a habit of hiding behind innocent women and children. It is nothing new, yet there seems to be no outrage at this practice. I wonder why.

I disagree. America should apologize to Pakistan.

Another thing, I'm sure there wouldn't be worldwide protests of people carrying signs saying, "Don't use us for your purposes, terrorists" because that would look utterly unintelligent.

Terrorists use innocent people because of certain ways they do it. Because the people hide them doesn't make them criminals.

A ticker tape on NDTV news (Indian news channel) says that Pak has confirmed that Zawahiri is dead. I am sceptical though. Until I see dead body and confirmation by DNA, I would be highly sceptical of anything that Packees say.

Meanwhile, angered yahoos take it out on...guess what...

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/14/welcome.htm


It appears that it is not a predator attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/14/international/asia/14cnd-afghan.html?hp



Does not look like predator attack at all.

If we got Zawahiri then maybe it's worth it. If true, we just kicked Al Qaeda in the balls.

Al Qaeda is like a virus. We should just try to let it run its course and stop trying to kill its hydra-like leaders.
Yeah. Like with smallpox. Usually if you let it run it's course you'll survive.

I disagree. America should apologize to Pakistan.

In all probability, it was the regime that setup the operation. US would not do this kind of operation within 50 Kms of Pak without Musharraf's approval.

I'm all for good international relations but if Pakistan would let us cross the border we would have bin Laden by now so I personaly don't care if their angry.

If we got Zawahiri then maybe it's worth it. If true, we just kicked Al Qaeda in the balls.

Like I said, I am very sceptical of the whole operation. There are many factions in the Paki regime..nationalists..and pan-islamists and lots of overlapping factions with varying loyalties and lots of internecine intrigues and even longtime Pak watchers can get lost in this maze.

I do think somebody of high value died in the attack (my guess..from reactions from certain quarters)...but it remains to be seen if it is indeed the doctor.

People who are at war with the Allies are hiding in a village that happens to be one of our allies in the war, and that village is not participating in the war? What planet are you from? :(

1 person who is at war was hiding in a village, that doesn't make the entire village including women and children at war.

How far do you take your logic? If there's a terrorist in a town is the whole town at war? What about a city? Or a country?

There are two possibilities

1. Packees playing the usual double game..giving intel to CIA to target the house and tipping off the the target to leave the place.

2. CIA did have proper intel and took out a high value target, possibly some Packee intel higher up got killed, hence the anger.

I am waiting for further details to come out. But some things are certain.

This attack is 50 Kms into Packee territory. The deepest incursion so far. Indicates that US patience with Packees is wearing thin.

There is palpable anger in certain quarters of Packee regime. Indicates that they view this incursion as loss of sovereignity and a fear that US may reach into other Packee safehouses where who knows who is being hidden....;)
Option 3, CIA's Intel was wrong, target wasn't there, they didn't tell the Pakistani (or Paki) government because they thought the target would here about it. So they bomb the village (arguably an act of war bombing a country without telling warning the country of the reasons and asking permission first) and kill innocent people for nothing.

Aryavartha please don't use that word, the word is 'Pakistani'.

I ask you the very same question as another poster. Why do you assume there is an apparently blase attitude towrds civilian casualties? I'll tell you why. Because that is the picture painted by the carefully editited and completely speculative story you read. If there were civilian casualties as I said, that is a very regretable situation, but it is one perpetuated by the terrorists, and those that harbor them, behind the skirts of women and children. Stop and think about it for a minute. If the US forces could prevent from killing an innocent civilian it would do so 100% of the time, if for no other reason than an accurate battle damage assessment. There is no benefit to killing an innocent civilian for them, but there is a huge benefit to the terrorists to arrange for civilians to die along side of them. If one applies a bit of common sense in situations like this, they usually do not wind up as propaganda tools that terrorists consider their greatest weapon.

But the US could have prevented civilian casualties by NOT BOMBING THE VILLAGE!!! Is that really so hard to understand? A special forces mission would have been just one of the many alteratives open to them: spec ops in, snipe terrorist leader, evacuate long before anyone knows what the hell happened. Instead what do they do? They send in bombers.

Here's a question for you to consider, you seem to think that 18 dead innocents are an acceptable price to pay for the death of Al Quaeda's deputy but I'm sure you'd agree that 1 billion lives wouldn't be worth it.

So, where do you draw the line? I want you to give me the maximum number of innocent lives that it is justified to end in return for the death of one terrorist. Once you've given me that figure I'll know more about you, in fact, could everyone on this thread who supports the attack tell me what they feel is the cut-off point on the innocents:terrorists kill ratio.

But the US could have prevented civilian casualties by NOT BOMBING THE VILLAGE!!! Is that really so hard to understand? A special forces mission would have been just one of the many alteratives open to them: spec ops in, snipe terrorist leader, evacuate long before anyone knows what the hell happened. Instead what do they do? They send in bombers.

Here's a question for you to consider, you seem to think that 18 dead innocents are an acceptable price to pay for the death of Al Quaeda's deputy but I'm sure you'd agree that 1 billion lives wouldn't be worth it.

So, where do you draw the line? I want you to give me the maximum number of innocent lives that it is justified to end in return for the death of one terrorist. Once you've given me that figure I'll know more about you, in fact, could everyone on this thread who supports the attack tell me what they feel is the cut-off point on the innocents:terrorists kill ratio.
To be fair, that's an unanswerable question, because whatever number is given it can't be justified for any good reason.

The only real answer is up to the number that said terrorrist would cause to be killed if he remained alive, which you can't know beforehand so the question isn't fair.

If a terrorrist plans to kill thousands of innocents, and you could prevent it by killing one innocent, would you do it? What about killing two? And so on...

But the US could have prevented civilian casualties by NOT BOMBING THE VILLAGE!!! Is that really so hard to understand? A special forces mission would have been just one of the many alteratives open to them: spec ops in, snipe terrorist leader, evacuate long before anyone knows what the hell happened. Instead what do they do? They send in bombers.

Here's a question for you to consider, you seem to think that 18 dead innocents are an acceptable price to pay for the death of Al Quaeda's deputy but I'm sure you'd agree that 1 billion lives wouldn't be worth it.

So, where do you draw the line? I want you to give me the maximum number of innocent lives that it is justified to end in return for the death of one terrorist. Once you've given me that figure I'll know more about you, in fact, could everyone on this thread who supports the attack tell me what they feel is the cut-off point on the innocents:terrorists kill ratio.
The last time we tried to use special forces to capture one guy among loads of his supporters over a thousand Somalis died. Special forces would have been forced to kill every man and probably accidentally kill several of the women and children. Those villagers aren't just going to let you walk in and capture one of their guests without a fight.

Aryavartha please don't use that word, the word is 'Pakistani'.

50 years back, I was a Paki too :) . I can damn well use that word, but not you.

The last time we tried to use special forces to capture one guy among loads of his supporters over a thousand Somalis died. Special forces would have been forced to kill every man and probably accidentally kill several of the women and children. Those villagers aren't just going to let you walk in and capture one of their guests without a fight.
Yeah but we can make a movie and video game from that. With this situation you get nothing.

The last time we tried to use special forces to capture one guy among loads of his supporters over a thousand Somalis died. Special forces would have been forced to kill every man and probably accidentally kill several of the women and children. Those villagers aren't just going to let you walk in and capture one of their guests without a fight.
Yeah but we can make a movie and video game from that. With this situation you get nothing.

The last time we tried to use special forces to capture one guy among loads of his supporters over a thousand Somalis died.

This might be a crazy suggestion, but why not let the Pakistani police do it? It is their country after all.

Your meal ticket is dead
He was once so alive
Don't you regret yelling, duck, get inside!

I find it very interesting to think that you believe that just because they say that they believe that what's his name is hiding there, the villagers must be automatically guilty of hiding him and were being paid for it.

Welcome to Fascist America, where you are guilty because we say you are.

Option 3, CIA's Intel was wrong, target wasn't there, they didn't tell the Pakistani (or Paki) government because they thought the target would here about it. So they bomb the village (arguably an act of war bombing a country without telling warning the country of the reasons and asking permission first) and kill innocent people for nothing.

Or option 4. Some people faked the evidence for nice payoffs from the CIA or to settle a grudge with said village. Not the first time it's happened. Anyone remember the part about visitors and refugees being picked up and sold to US intelligence as terrorists? Why not sell out an entire village for big bucks then?

Even if it did have nothing to do with truthful intelligence.

This might be a crazy suggestion, but why not let the Pakistani police do it? It is their country after all.

No, that wouldn't increase anti-american sentiments in an already unstable country with nuclear weapons, and thus also increasing the possibility that fanatical islamists gain power and influence.

What? :confused: Wasn't that the point? Then why attack two villages in Pakistan in less than one week with weapons that have a high probability of collateral damage, killing innocent people including children?

Pakistan is a nuclear power. It has a loyal diaspora throughout the English-speaking world, at least three members of which were able to blow themselves up on the London tube system. It is of the utmost, and I mean utmost-utmost, importance that Pakistan and the Pakistani people are kept on the right side of the War against Terror.
I cannot believe that something this stupid was allowed to happen.

But the US could have prevented civilian casualties by NOT BOMBING THE VILLAGE!!! Is that really so hard to understand?

We did NOT BOMB THE VILLAGE. We bombed ONE house in the village. Two other houses received collateral damage. One house a village does not make.

We did NOT BOMB THE VILLAGE. We bombed ONE house in the village. Two other houses received collateral damage. One house a village does not make.

Semantics.

We did NOT BOMB THE VILLAGE. We bombed ONE house in the village. Two other houses received collateral damage. One house a village does not make.
So the Americans aimed at one house, hit three, did all of these nearby eplosions not even affect what are I'm sure extremely sturdy huts.

It appears that the intel came from Pak (WSJ report) and that Zawahiri was supposed to have lunch at that house.

The intel definitely came from Pak since US has zero humint on the ground and AQ is quite good at avoiding snooping by elint.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011302260.html
"This would not have happened without Pakistani involvement," the source said, adding that Pakistanis were "heavily involved." He said the attack was planned and executed by a combination of CIA officers in Pakistan and Pakistani officials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060115/ts_nm/security_pakistan_zawahri_dc
A dinner invitation to al Qaeda's second-in-command triggered a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan but Ayman al-Zawahri failed to show up, Pakistani intelligence officials said on Sunday.

My speculation is that the islamist faction in Pak intel tipped him off and he escaped the hit.

This is not the first time this happens. OBL escaped the cruise missile attack in a similar way.

I don't blame the US for this operation or its failure. They acted upon the intel they received from their "allies" and were fooled once again by their "allies".

Time to give more F-16s to Musharraf. That oughta help. :rolleyes:

This might be a crazy suggestion, but why not let the Pakistani police do it? It is their country after all.

lol...what makes you think that the Pak regime wants to clean up the place ?

...So, where do you draw the line? I want you to give me the maximum number of innocent lives that it is justified to end in return for the death of one terrorist. Once you've given me that figure I'll know more about you, in fact, could everyone on this thread who supports the attack tell me what they feel is the cut-off point on the innocents:terrorists kill ratio.

1. Who said all 18 were "innocent" civilians? All of them were not innocent civilians, some were aids to Ayman al-Zawahri.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_41


2. Collateral damage (innocent people getting killled while bombing a legitimate military target) is an unfortunate consequence of war. It has happened in every war ever fought. Fortunatly, technology has improved so much we are able to minimize collateral damage.

3. So where do the terrorists we are fighting draw the line. They have deliberatly targeted innocent civilians. They have bombed office buildings, markets, hotels, train and subway stations, nightclubs, etc.

...So, where do you draw the line? I want you to give me the maximum number of innocent lives that it is justified to end in return for the death of one terrorist. Once you've given me that figure I'll know more about you, in fact, could everyone on this thread who supports the attack tell me what they feel is the cut-off point on the innocents:terrorists kill ratio.

1. Who said all 18 were "innocent" civilians? All of them were not innocent civilians, some were aids to Ayman al-Zawahri.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_41


2. Collateral damage (innocent people getting killled while bombing a legitimate military target) is an unfortunate consequence of war. It has happened in every war ever fought. Fortunatly, technology has improved so much we are able to minimize collateral damage.

3. So where do the terrorists we are fighting draw the line. They have deliberatly targeted innocent civilians. They have bombed office buildings, markets, hotels, train and subway stations, nightclubs, etc.

1. Who said all 18 were "innocent" civilians? All of them were not innocent civilians, some were aids to Ayman al-Zawahri.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_41

At least five were children, five more were women so it is possible but unlikely they were involved.

timesonline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1986114,00.html)

2. Collateral damage (innocent people getting killled while bombing a legitimate military target) is an unfortunate consequence of war. It has happened in every war ever fought. Fortunatly, technology has improved so much we are able to minimize collateral damage.

This is one of the main problems, it is not a war. In a war you have a conventional enemy and a country to fight but here you're fighting a terrorist network and that requires totally different tactics.

Whatever your views on the rights or wrongs of bombing the village you must agree that pissing of Pakistan is a stupid idea.

3. So where do the terrorists we are fighting draw the line. They have deliberatly targeted innocent civilians. They have bombed office buildings, markets, hotels, train and subway stations, nightclubs, etc.

They don't draw any lines. If we don't draw lines then we will be no better than them.

1. Who said all 18 were "innocent" civilians? All of them were not innocent civilians, some were aids to Ayman al-Zawahri.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_41


2. Collateral damage (innocent people getting killled while bombing a legitimate military target) is an unfortunate consequence of war. It has happened in every war ever fought. Fortunatly, technology has improved so much we are able to minimize collateral damage.
A village is a legitimate military target? I suppose that had the pentagon aimed plane hit it, you'd have accepted that as a legitimate military target and the dead innocents as collateral damage.


3. So where do the terrorists we are fighting draw the line. They have deliberatly targeted innocent civilians. They have bombed office buildings, markets, hotels, train and subway stations, nightclubs, etc.
So you don't think International governments should have higher standards than terrorrists?


It appears that the intel came from Pak (WSJ report) and that Zawahiri was supposed to have lunch at that house.

The intel definitely came from Pak since US has zero humint on the ground and AQ is quite good at avoiding snooping by elint.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302260.html

You'll forgive if I'm sceptical about an un-named (from the sounds of it American source).

US have zero OFFICIAL human intelligence on the ground in pakistan, not to mention the possibility of a captured al-qaeda operative from outside Pakistan knowing of it.

At least five were children, five more were women so it is possible but unlikely they were involved.

timesonline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1986114,00.html)



This is one of the main problems, it is not a war. In a war you have a conventional enemy and a country to fight but here you're fighting a terrorist network and that requires totally different tactics.

Whatever your views on the rights or wrongs of bombing the village you must agree that pissing of Pakistan is a stupid idea.



They don't draw any lines. If we don't draw lines then we will be no better than them.

1. Please note the words "or parties" in paragraph 1.1. Indeed we are at war.

war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

2. As I said, unfortunatly collateral damage is a consequence of war.

3. We have drawn lines and they are called the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.

This is rich.

The major story a number of months back was about an iraqi car bomber who drove at a group of children surrounding american troops, and bombed them.

There was major outrage from almost everybody on the board, with a couple exceptions.

Now, a story about american aircraft bombers flying over pakistan, bombing pakistani villages where there might or might not be terrorists.

There are still many people who are outraged at this, and I commend you if you are consistant between these two stories, in your dislike of enemies being attacked with no care about extraneous casualties.

But then there are people, like liverbreath, who think this is just fine. So I ask you: If this was all fair and good, was it fine for that iraqi carbomber to attack that group of children, because they were trying to hit american forces?

Though, of course, I note there is a difference. The iraqi actually knew that american troops were there. The americans had a guess.

Very bad press when you kill 18 civilians in an attack using faulty intelligence, it not only pisses off the population (in this case causing riots requiring tear gas) but makes you look stupid. When the US response is, well we might have got him, rather than.. oh we blew up 18 humans by accident invading your airspace and didn't get the guy who says bad stuff about us, we messed up.

LWTF, Musharref is like at times being plotted agianst for being allied with the US, now he has to put down riots caused by bad US missle strikes in his country.

I would hope they could atleast 1. Know with 100% certainty he is there.. and two if you know why not like set up a base and fly in a team to capture the guy or if you are evil and such take the guy out with strategic humanint positive identification.

WHen you claim to be technologically advanced radomly blowing up mud houses doesn't give you clout. Not only this but this 'botched' attack destroyed an area claimed to be a potential area Z. might show up at.

Either this was intentional or the US really screwed up and should admit it and compensate the individuals attacked, as if this happened in the US or any other country there would be civil suits against the military for damages, big time. This is a million times worse then the Italian Ski Lift.

I think we should all read this article:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wargames.html
Some guy said earlier that the 18 killed were minimalized becuase it was the US. While he gave some good example (central america, indchina)
I bet if you found mass graves in America, then there would be a mass media rush.

People who are at war with the Allies are hiding in a village that happens to be one of our allies in the war, and that village is not participating in the war? What planet are you from? :(I say we blow up new york, there's bound to be a few terrorists hiding there.. Nuke it all!

I say we blow up new york, there's bound to be a few terrorists hiding there.. Nuke it all!

Nuking? Huh...that's being a little light on those damn terroist harbouring New Yorkers...some might survive and only be badly affected with radiation sickness! I personally recommend every single person who lives within a 1 mile radius of an arab...I mean terrorist, should be rounded up and tortured for their treachery. I mean, these so called "insurgents" do such disgusting things, like torturing innocent hostages not involved with their war...there must be no limit on the reprisal for helping them!

1. Please note the words "or parties" in paragraph 1.1. Indeed we are at war.

war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

Please note the word 'open' in paragraph 1.1. Indeed we were at war while we were fighting the armies of Iraq and Afghanistan in open warfare but we aren't anymore.

2. As I said, unfortunatly collateral damage is a consequence of war.

I've just shown by your own definition that we are not at war. You ignored my second statement: even if the attack was justified it was a bloody stupid idea.

3. We have drawn lines and they are called the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.

Which are routinely ignored by the US government, it seems that they don't have any standards anymore.

3. We have drawn lines and they are called the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.
Which brings us back to the original question which you've avoided with your pointless mention of terrorrists not drawing lines

How high a level of collateral damage is acceptable?

Is killing everyone in the world to make sure you got the terrorrists acceptable?

Half the people in the world.

Say you know that OBL and all his aides were meeting somewhere in Washington D.C., would bombing that to the ground be acceptable collateral damage? Including the president etc?

What ratio is the line between acceptable and un-acceptable collateral damage.

Also the other criticism not that I am for abduction and torture, but if you know they are collaborators with your enemy why not just arrest them, and put them on trial, isn't it a little more orderly. Sure you may like to kill the guy but shutting him down and not allowing more growth would seem to be the idea if you are trying to stop a movement. Inciting a population against you by seemingly callough strikes that put more individuals at risk then neeeded to shut down illegal activity is highly 'criminal' to the standards to any civilized society.

Even if they did kill him it is gonna just causes splintering.. of course murder seems pretty totalitarian, especially children, although i'm not an agist.

Of course black ops and cia operations .. whatever.. when the rules of war don't apply and the general domestic population is involved all the rules change.

Although I firmly understand the debauchery of control, as I'm sure many others may, we should know that at any time any of us can be killed for no reason or because we talk to the wrong people. To stop the killing the killers must die, there is some bane on us till then, the catch being if we ourselves are the killers we must die before peace.

Where is the opium? Where is the opium woe es me. Really though, the world is fakked up. If Al Qaeda was a culture etc.. it would be genocide.

You'll forgive if I'm sceptical about an un-named (from the sounds of it American source).

But you seem to think that the US would have conducted the operation without the consent of the Paki regime. And that the US must have arbitrarily picked up the target for wantonly killing children and woman.

Forgive me if I'm sceptical about your arguments.

US have zero OFFICIAL human intelligence on the ground in pakistan,

Well, that kinda supports my assertion that the intel came from the Pakis to begin with.

Lemme summarize here

Intel came from Pakis and the fact that the operation was 50 Kms into Pak territory means that the regime was aware of the operation and consented to it..because otherwise, they would have attempted to shoot down the planes.

So why you taking it all out at the US? The US does not have any more responsibility to Paki citizens than the damn Paki regime itself.

I do not condone the death of non-combatants nor am I a fan of US policies in this war on terror. But I sure am confused at all this "US should take all the blame for this operation" line that some are saying in this thread.


not to mention the possibility of a captured al-qaeda operative from outside Pakistan knowing of it.

you lost me here.

3. We have drawn lines and they are called the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.

Which the US then refuses to apply to not only "terrorists", but those who engaged in open combat (Afghanistan).

But you seem to think that the US would have conducted the operation without the consent of the Paki regime. And that the US must have arbitrarily picked up the target for wantonly killing children and woman.
Since the Pakistanis seem rather angry about it, it seems likely that they didn't authorise it.

I was theorising that they may have had incorrect intelligence given the fact that they missed the target.



Well, that kinda supports my assertion that the intel came from the Pakis to begin with.
Not really, I'm merely pointing out that the US isn't going to list the locations of all its agents, and that it's very possible they could have slipped some spies through unofficially without telling anyone.



Intel came from Pakis and the fact that the operation was 50 Kms into Pak territory means that the regime was aware of the operation and consented to it..because otherwise, they would have attempted to shoot down the planes.

So why you taking it all out at the US? The US does not have any more responsibility to Paki citizens than the damn Paki regime itself.

I do not condone the death of non-combatants nor am I a fan of US policies in this war on terror. But I sure am confused at all this "US should take all the blame for this operation" line that some are saying in this thread.
As I said above, if the pakistanis had known about it, why are they apparently outraged?

50km? The original article said 7km, didn't it?


you lost me here
I'm suggesting that they could have captured an al-quaeda operative on the other side of the pakistani border, who knew about the meeting, or lied about it.

But I sure am confused at all this "US should take all the blame for this operation" line that some are saying in this thread.

Currently we know for a fact that the attack was carried out by the US, the involvement of Pakistan is based on one anonymous source from one news outlet.

If it turns out that Pakistani intelligence was behind the attack then they must share the blame, until then it is firmly on the shoulders of the US.

When the US response is, well we might have got him, rather than.. oh we blew up 18 humans by accident invading your airspace and didn't get the guy who says bad stuff about us, we messed up.

That's BS. Zawahiri is more dangerous than OBL and in purely operational terms, his elimination would be of greater value than OBL's.

lol..I never thought there would be a time when I would actually defend US actions in my region.


LWTF, Musharref is like at times being plotted agianst for being allied with the US, now he has to put down riots caused by bad US missle strikes in his country.

Oh poor Musharraf.:rolleyes: Guess you did not know how he engineered a split in the PML to create a king's party (PML-Q) and facilititate higher seats for the MMA (the mullah alliance) which then he used as a bogeyman to propogate "Mushy is the last hope, he needs to be kept in power and he needs to be given arms and money blah blah" line.

Just to clarify the from unconfirmed sources, the US has/had black ops operations in northern pakistan for some time.

Also unconfirmed Predator drones (and other craft) circle the planet.

Note some countries have 'stealth' aircraft, that have signatures not noramally detected, although 'few and far between' although my guess is a number operate in the gulf area, BUT THIS wasn't the US miitary from Afghanastan says a spokesman for the DOD, and the state department, we arn't OFFICIALLY responding.

"That's BS. Zawahiri is more dangerous than OBL"
not to offend OBL whereever the heck he is ' all I got her is chloe and although they can transplant faces, I highly doubt Chloe the munsterlander is OBL, hold on I'll ask... .. no response.. we may need to torture the dog to find out for sure...
OBL unless magic and religious powers and psychic powers and aleins exist OBL prolly is only as dangerous as the intelligence of other people.

I would geuss his former Dr. Is like the jester in the starwars movie with the real ' leader of those things'

Killing any of them is stupid, because it makes them martyrs.. it is al about $$$ and economic control of values...

the whole thing is self fullfilling. It is making 'icon's' basically giving them leadership.

Those in the know are in the know it is that simple, anyone intelligent can do crap to people largely at will it is called well planned criminal activity. Honestly there are all these robots flying around or remote war equipment, all I know is that it is a good thing these things cost lots of money when they come down to the price of remote control helicopters 'we' I may have some issues.. Trust me, if they can't find someone who is walking around then it means that they prolly arn't very active, but the world is a big place.

OBL or Z make little difference, it is the ideals and the identity that matter, these men are 'considered' hero's and from where they are more heros will step up to the plate,.. or not.

All I know is that attacking 'an allied states' civilians is sorta not good even if it is to kill hitler.. not to bring up my personal opinion of the former leader of the third reich. To say the least why not like you know get support, or are people not allowed to have an opinion that doesn't agree with yours. If they don't do anything they arn't guilty.. if terrorism is neither crime nor war... then how can the domestics be guilty of a criminal offence.. if they are civilians in war some general rules apply, if that actually was the case.

It is all to the level of postnationalism, transnationalism post modernist economic chains and control structures. The jihadists and the ultrapoststatist elites must be jizing over this situation.

The fact is it ain't just the event, we know this, it is the effect. Just like a bomb.. it ain't just the crater but the collatoral damage that is the 'incentive' (and i say that thinking it ill)

Musharref is a former Commando turned Coupeist.(word?) turned sorta dictator... I have no idea what is good for him, except maybe a nice yacth cruise somewhere.

I just hope things sort out for the best as they must. I know the last thing Pakistann needs is yet more chaos and disorder and fractions. It is impulse to a movement. Resources were damaged, that is not good.

Since the Pakistanis seem rather angry about it, it seems likely that they didn't authorise it.

That's for domestic consumption and plain old CYA (cover your ass).


I was theorising that they may have had incorrect intelligence given the fact that they missed the target.

US does not have reliable intel on the ground. They may have some but they cannot be reliable. Nobody is realiable there.

As of now, the best possible explanation is that, intel came from Pakis that are in the pay of US and the tipoff to Zawahiri came from the islamist faction of the Paki regime.

US got taken for a ride.

Btw, there is Paki presence in CENTCOM HQ. It is BS that this operation was not without consent of the regime.


50km? The original article said 7km, didn't it?

Bajaur is 40-50 Kms from Durrand line.

That's for domestic consumption and plain old CYA (cover your ass).



US does not have reliable intel on the ground. They may have some but they cannot be reliable. Nobody is realiable there.

As of now, the best possible explanation is that, intel came from Pakis that are in the pay of US and the tipoff to Zawahiri came from the islamist faction of the Paki regime.

US got taken for a ride.
Of course we're assuming the US did it, according to the article they're denying it, which suggests there was something fishy about it.


Btw, there is Paki presence in CENTCOM HQ. It is BS that this operation was not without consent of the regime.

I just wonder whether the US got permission to mount an operation to take out Zawahiri, and the Pakistanis are unhappy about the collateral damage.

Of course we're assuming the US did it, according to the article they're denying it, which suggests there was something fishy about it.

Ofcourse everybody would be denying culpability. You think somebody will come up and say, "Yes, I killed 18 people and got nothing to show for it" ?:confused:

There is a major CYA thing going on.


I just wonder whether the US got permission to mount an operation to take out Zawahiri, and the Pakistanis are unhappy about the collateral damage.

Depends on which Pakistani you are talking about. Is it the regime or the people? There are many factions like nationalists, pan-islamists, ethno-supremacists and plain old "show me the money"ists.

All I can say at this point is that the intel came from Pakis and the tipoff came from them too and US ended up being fooled with blood on their hands.

Ofcourse everybody would be denying culpability. You think somebody will come up and say, "Yes, I killed 18 people and got nothing to show for it" ?:confused:

There is a major CYA thing going on.



Depends on which Pakistani you are talking about. Is it the regime or the people? There are many factions like nationalists, pan-islamists, ethno-supremacists and plain old "show me the money"ists.

All I can say at this point is that the intel came from Pakis and the tipoff came from them too and US ended up being fooled with blood on their hands.
You have proof of this? Other than an un-named source?

Of course we're assuming the US did it, according to the article they're denying it, which suggests there was something fishy about it.


I just wonder whether the US got permission to mount an operation to take out Zawahiri, and the Pakistanis are unhappy about the collateral damage.


Could just be to sooth the uprising... you know .. BAD US BAD US..

see we are like you, stop burning our foreign aid.

Move along, nothing to see here, just some collateral damage, happens every day with the Iraqui resistance and no one complains.

uhhh

Or not :p

lol...what makes you think that the Pak regime wants to clean up the place ?

Yeah, they just love having terrorists running around their back yard. And they also orgasm every time the US violates thier nationion sovignty to drop a few bombs into a village.

Yeah, they just love having terrorists running around their back yard. And they also orgasm every time the US violates thier nationion sovignty to drop a few bombs into a village.

I dunno if they love them or not, but they do use them.

Since 1989, jihadis were an extension of the state's strategy.

It is still that way, Musharraf's 400% assurances notwithstanding.

Seriously, the regime could care less for the dead Pathani tribesmen and goatherds. Lol..they themselves catch them and label them as Al-Qaeda and ship them to Gitmo now and then in exchange for arms and money.

Btw, this just in..
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/15/alqaeda.strike.us/
Senator John McCain, also concurred.

"It's terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."
..
He added, "We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."

All I can say at this point is that the intel came from Pakis and the tipoff came from them too and US ended up being fooled with blood on their hands.

Spot on.

All I can say, is that the whole thing was masterminded by the Malawian navy.

To be fair, that's an unanswerable question, because whatever number is given it can't be justified for any good reason.

The only real answer is up to the number that said terrorrist would cause to be killed if he remained alive, which you can't know beforehand so the question isn't fair.

If a terrorrist plans to kill thousands of innocents, and you could prevent it by killing one innocent, would you do it? What about killing two? And so on...

You're forgetting one factor:
It works in the other way as well, the civilian you killed while killing the terrorist might have stopped a number of terrorist later in life, had he/she not been killed. He/she might not have killed any terrorists at all but maybe instead saved a number of other innocent people from death, or found a way to cure a disease.

It was reported here that America was certain that the attack succeded but then later confirmed that their target was probably not among the dead.

What I don't get is why it's never reported in a slightly different style. Instead of being upset that the guy wasn't there, shouldn't we be more concerned that 18 innocent people died? I'm pretty sure that if another country, say North Korea, or even Australia, decided to take the same action, there would be hell to pay. Or that if it wasn't Pakistan that was bombed, say a non-Arab country, then there would be public outrage. But instead, we adopt the policy that "Oh there goes America again, outing terroists, doing the world a favour." It's completely and utterly disgraceful.

I'm all for good international relations but if Pakistan would let us cross the border we would have bin Laden by now so I personaly don't care if their angry.

So, by that logic, you would be perfectly ok with Pakistan conducting military operations on US territory? You would be fine with them bombing a village or town in the US and killing 18 innocent American civilians for the sake of getting at a terrorist?

What kind of a reaction do you think there would be in the US if Pakistan dropped bombs on US soil and killed innocent American civilians in the name of the "War on Terror"? And why do you expect Pakistanis to react differently?

What kind of a reaction do you think there would be in the US if Pakistan dropped bombs on US soil and killed innocent American civilians in the name of the "War on Terror"? And why do you expect Pakistanis to react differently?

I agree.

I'm going to wait on forming a full opinion until we know more about this, but when I first heard about this, my only thought was how utterly stupid it is to drop bombs on the civilians of a nuclear power, whether or not it's accidental...

...that kind of shit, if done during the Cold War, could have spelled the end of humanity. Somehow, I guess, it's OK now? :rolleyes:

...that kind of shit, if done during the Cold War, could have spelled the end of humanity. Somehow, I guess, it's OK now? :rolleyes:

Well, the Pakistan government lacks the missiles with the range to hit the US I think, and most of the hawkish government seems to be hanging it all on their vaunted missile defense shield.

Maybe if Pakistan and Russia by some turn of dementia signed a mutual defense pact, we can have WWIII a lot sooner.

This village wasn't in a war, it was in Pakistan which is actually an American ally of sorts.
The Pakistan Government is the ally. Half of the Pakistani people hate us.

The Pakistan Government is the ally. Half of the Pakistani people hate us.

Therefor, think if the current government gets toppled in part as a reaction to the bombings, and are replaced by someone representing that half eh?

Oh, and to repeat just for fun: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan in currently an ally to the US. The current government is unpopular, in part due to their support of the american War on Terror™. If the government falls, what could happen to those nukes?

The Pakistan Government is the ally. Half of the Pakistani people hate us.

Debatable....considering the fact that it was the Pakistani regime (I wouldn't call that thing as government) that propped up the taliban into power and the fact that several intelligence chiefs of Pakistan (Hamid Gul, Mahmoud Ahmad) have involvement in 9/11. You are naive to believe that the regime is an ally and that it is against jihad directed against other countries.

I would believe that the day Musharraf marches his army into the LeT headquarters in Muridke and cleans up the place.

Anyways..it is now coming out that atleast 8 people killed in the attack were aides of Zawahiri..and this is from the Pakis, not the Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/16/pakistan.strike/index.html
But only some of al-Zawahiri's aides were there, Pakistani intelligence officials said Sunday, according to The Associated Press.
A U.S. counterterrorism official told CNN, "I cannot confirm at this point whether he [al-Zawahiri] showed up or not."

The remains of about 12 bodies, including as many as eight foreigners, were quickly retrieved by a group of men after the airstrike and buried elsewhere, sources said.