Zawahiri 'not hit by US missile'

[gr8fuldaniel]

I think bush should dust off the old flight "costume" and pop over to Pakistan in person to quell the masses.

US air raid outrages Pakistan press BBC Last Friday's US air strike on the remote village in northwest Pakistan near the Afghan border has unleashed a furore in the Pakistani press. Papers speak of a violation of the country's sovereignty, and demand an apology from Washington. Some also link the air raid to the controversy over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Violation of the country's sovereignty".
Give them bush. His reckless invasions across the globe have embarassed America! This would send a clear message to the world that we do not intend to consume Pakistan in our designs for empire. Let him choose a dozen reich wing lawyers to defend him (must include Alito and Roberts) and ship him off, as freight (if its good enough for our troop casualties, its good enough for bush)

[Charon]

Quote by: pubmanager Only if you choose to believe that blowing up innocent women and children is OK. What is the difference between USA blowing up innocent civilians and a terrorist blowing up innocent civilians?

Sorry this is so late in response.

Catholic Doctrine of the Just War; We are allowed to count ours more than the others'. You could also look at it as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

All things being equal, and they are not, Muslim Fundamentalists see no difference between children and adults. There were innocents on those planes that were used to attack our country, but lets forget that for the time being.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Charon All things being equal, and they are not, Muslim Fundamentalists see no difference between children and adults. There were innocents on those planes that were used to attack our country, but lets forget that for the time being.

Instead of telling us what Muslim fundamentalists believe, which I doubt you're really familiar with, why don't you explain how we are justified in killing innocent women and children in pursuit of bringing justice to criminals that attacked us?? If you can do that, couldn't the terrorists also use that same rationale in defense of, say, killing the innocents on the plane that hit the Pentagon because there were military enemies in that building?? Why are all our attacks considered valid military targets, while all of their's are classified as terrorist?? Even the attack on the USS Cole, a naval warship, has been labeled a terrorist act.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop the only difference is how the attacks are spun. i don't think these women and children were direct targets, although i doubt we cared that they were at risk of being killed in the attack). perhaps that's the only distinction between us and al qaeda - a distinction without difference imo.

Of course they weren't direct targets, but if they are that close to the bad guys they must be harboring them, therefore they BECOME part of the legitimate targets so we can blast 'em. Don't you know anything?



You are right about special ops, or even better, locals bribed to do the job for us.

This is no surprise to me that these things happen, actually. We DO have a terrific military but they are best at fighting people with uniforms and planes. When it gets local we are usually threading that needle with a howitzer. Bush is too stupid and Rumsfeld too arrogant to realize the military is not the solution to all problems.

[brien]

Quote by: Charon Sorry this is so late in response. Catholic Doctrine of the Just War; We are allowed to count ours more than the others'. You could also look at it as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. All things being equal, and they are not, Muslim Fundamentalists see no difference between children and adults. There were innocents on those planes that were used to attack our country, but lets forget that for the time being.

All I would ask is: If the US kills innocent women and children, as do the terrorists, then doesn't that equate the US policy with being equal to Terrorists?

[Nono]

They excuse it by calling it "collateral damage", i.e. they didn't mean to kill them, it just happened incidentally. Whereas Osama & Co. fully intended to kill innocents.

I think there's a small degree of merit in this argument, but not much. And very often, as in Falluja say, the US knows damn well that it will be killing innocents before the first shot is fired.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Nono They excuse it by calling it "collateral damage", i.e. they didn't mean to kill them, it just happened incidentally. Whereas Osama & Co. fully intended to kill innocents. I think there's a small degree of merit in this argument, but not much. And very often, as in Falluja say, the US knows damn well that it will be killing innocents before the first shot is fired.

Becaus we fire such BIG shots! As I said, we do warfare with armies, navies and other organized groups who wear uniforms. This is warfare in name only. It is more accurately called a multinational police issue and our military can't be used as the cop on the beat, regardless of how big that beat is.

As Bishop said, special ops or some other small, "up close and personal" group should be doing work like this. Smart missiles just aren't smart enough for this job.

[Rainbow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4612400.stm

The deputy leader of al-Qaeda was not in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border which was hit in an apparent missile attack, Pakistan officials say. The unnamed officials said the attack -- in which at least 18 people were killed -- was based on "false information". Quoting intelligence sources, US media said it was a CIA raid. The US military says it is not aware of any operations taking place in the Bajaur tribal area. Pakistan's information minister condemned the attack. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the US ambassador would be summoned to explain. (...)

What intelligence sources ?
What CIA raid ?
U.S. tried to minimize an information's leak. That is the reason U.S. did not inform/prompt its Pakistani partners on that action.

Civilians died ?
How do you know all of them were "civilians" ?
What do decent "civilians" invite terrorists to their houses ?
By inviting terrorists, are those "civilians" not aware that they can become a subject of termination, as well, not to mention their families along with their members, relatives, associates, ect. ?

It seems, that for some people terrorists along with their affiliates deserve more rights than oridinary people. Terrorists - along with all the supportive elements - deserve no mercy.
U.S. intelligence agencies would use all the means available and continue to track down terrorists all over the world, in order to eliminate them physically (at least).

Pakistani condamned that U.S. attack ?
They have already received something in return as a "recuperation".
The Pakistani's political statement represents the official Pakistani government's stance to ensure its population that the Pakistani government has not granted any permission for U.S. military personnel's presence on Pakistani soil, so Pakistani people should not concern that event (read : U.S. attack) as an issue.

[Matt W]

U.S. intelligence agencies would use all the means available and continue to track down terrorists all over the world, in order to eliminate them physically (at least).

Piss off. You have no jurisdiction outside your borders; how dare you assume the rest of the world is subservient to you. You have allies, not slaves. Comprende?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W Piss off. You have no jurisdiction outside your borders; how dare you assume the rest of the world is subservient to you. You have allies, not slaves. Comprende?

In your opnion or view, U.S. may not have such permission.

That is your opinion, though. Facts points otherwise.
To your disappointment, there are others who decide on allies, their participations, shares, roles, ect.

[Matt W]

And people wonder why Americans are described as 'arrogant' by those who disagree with them..... :rolleyes:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Rainbow It seems, that for some people terrorists along with their affiliates deserve more rights than oridinary people.

Seems from the reports that the people in that house WERE "oridinary people". Doesn't that make their killers terrorists?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Nono They excuse it by calling it "collateral damage", i.e. they didn't mean to kill them, it just happened incidentally. Whereas Osama & Co. fully intended to kill innocents. I think there's a small degree of merit in this argument, but not much. And very often, as in Falluja say, the US knows damn well that it will be killing innocents before the first shot is fired.

The people that planned and executed this attack certainly knew that there would be innocent civilians in that house. It's therefore pretty difficult to claim that "they didn't mean to kill them".

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W And people wonder why Americans are described as 'arrogant' by those who disagree with them..... :rolleyes:

Compaints ?
I did not participated in your state's electoral system along with outcomes.

[Matt W]

No shit. Let's try another tack here. Do you, or do you not, believe that the US, in its' pursuit of "terrorists" should follow the rule of law in countries it is allied with?

And I have many 'compaints', if I could just figure out exactly what one is

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee Seems from the reports that the people in that house WERE "oridinary people". Doesn't that make their killers terrorists?

No oridinary people invite terrorists to their place of staying.

Those "oridinary people" should have been aware that by inviting terrorists to their place of staying they become a subject for termination, including all the participating bodies.

I sense you sympathize with those "oridinary people".
Am I correct ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W No shit. Let's try another tack here. Do you, or do you not, believe that the US, in its' pursuit of "terrorists" should follow the rule of law in countries it is allied with? And I have many 'compaints', if I could just figure out exactly what one is

U.S. promotes pro-democratic governments. That is not U.S. intention to dictate those states their policies.
U.S. makes "deals" with some countries, in order to achieve its goals. Tracking down and eliminating terrorists, that is one of the U.S. objectives, these days.
Those states' representatives may or may not accept some "deals". That decision belongs to them.

I think you base your opinion on informations you read within mass-media, with concern to those "deals". Not all the informations published all over mass-media are correct and/or detailed. That is the reason you may not know the real "deals" U.S. has made with your country and/or its representatives.
That is why I write :
- complaints ?
Ask your representatives to provide you with reliable answers.
(Personally, I doubt it would happen.)

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4612400.stm What intelligence sources ? What CIA raid ? U.S. tried to minimize an information's leak. That is the reason U.S. did not inform/prompt its Pakistani partners on that action. Civilians died ? How do you know all of them were "civilians" ? What do decent "civilians" invite terrorists to their houses ? By inviting terrorists, are those "civilians" not aware that they can become a subject of termination, as well, not to mention their families along with their members, relatives, associates, ect. ? It seems, that for some people terrorists along with their affiliates deserve more rights than oridinary people. Terrorists - along with all the supportive elements - deserve no mercy. U.S. intelligence agencies would use all the means available and continue to track down terrorists all over the world, in order to eliminate them physically (at least). Pakistani condamned that U.S. attack ? They have already received something in return as a "recuperation". The Pakistani's political statement represents the official Pakistani government's stance to ensure its population that the Pakistani government has not granted any permission for U.S. military personnel's presence on Pakistani soil, so Pakistani people should not concern that event (read : U.S. attack) as an issue.

You wrote: What intelligence sources ?
What CIA raid ?

My comment: So that US Drone just happened to be flying over that house, and just decided all by itself to launch those missles that killed those people. H'mmmmmm Interesting little buggers now aren't they? This must be "1984"! Run everyone, run, the machines have a mind of their own. Does anyone know how to get a hold of Reese? The terminators are coming, the terminators are coming!

Rainbow wrote (his/her grammar, not mine please): How do you know all of them were "civilians" ?
What do decent "civilians" invite terrorists to their houses ?
By inviting terrorists, are those "civilians" not aware that they can become a subject of termination, as well, not to mention their families along with their members, relatives, associates, ect. ?

I ask: How do you know these people knew they had terrorists in their home? And, if they did I ask you this: Had not Yassir Arafat, before he died, visited the White House? Ergo, since a terrorist was in the White House, it should have been vaporized by a missile launched from a drone? Your logic, not mine. I yi yi :rolleyes:

Rainbow wrote:The Pakistani's political statement represents the official Pakistani government's stance to ensure its population that the Pakistani government has not granted any permission for U.S. military personnel's presence on Pakistani soil, so Pakistani people should not concern that event (read : U.S. attack) as an issue.[/quote]


I write: Great. So the government says it is ok to the Pakistani people and this makes it all better. It is like: "Ok, folks. It's all over now, nothing more to see here. Go' wan home and go about your business. You are completely safe now." Then in a booming voice they all hear:

"THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN" as a little dog draws back the curtain to reveal a puny little man struggling to speak into a microphone while he turns wheels and squeezes levers all in a haphazzard manner

Yeah sure, the Pakistani people are going to listen to that pablum. Actions always speak louder than the words that make excuses for those who have no moral explanation for their illegal actions.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien Y 1. My comment: So that US Drone just happened to be flying over that house, and just decided all by itself to launch those missles that killed those people. 2. I ask: How do you know these people knew they had terrorists in their home? And, if they did I ask you this: Had not Yassir Arafat, before he died, visited the White House? Ergo, since a terrorist was in the White House, it should have been vaporized by a missile launched from a drone? Your logic, not mine. I yi yi :rolleyes: 3. I write: Great. So the government says it is ok to the Pakistani people and this makes it all better. It is like: "Ok, folks. It's all over now, nothing more to see here. Go' wan home and go about your business. You are completely safe now." Then in a booming voice they all hear: "THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN" as a little dog draws back the curtain to reveal a puny little man struggling to speak into a microphone while he turns wheels and squeezes levers all in a haphazzard manner 4. Yeah sure, the Pakistani people are going to listen to that pablum. Actions always speak louder than the words that make excuses for those who have no moral explanation for their illegal actions.

#1
No idea.
I did not operate that U.S. Air Force drone.

#2
The "host" should know the "guests".
What is logic to you, does not necessarily means logic at all.

#3
I am not quite sure on that point.
Are you trying to express and/or produce a sort of "show", "talk", "funny cabaret monolgue" or something ?
#4
U.S. already made a mistake by not eliminating Osama, in order to save a political "figure" who was present within a range at the same time.
U.S. is going to use all the available means to track down and terminate all those (along with their supporters, affiliates, ect.) responsible for 09/11 attacks, at least.

If you see such actions as illegal, then sue and/or put U.S. governing bodies to court.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 No idea. I did not operate that U.S. Air Force drone. #2 The "host" should know the "guests". What is logic to you, does not necessarily means logic at all. #3 I am not quite sure on that point. Are you trying to express and/or produce a sort of "show", "talk", "funny cabaret monolgue" or something ? #4 U.S. already made a mistake by not eliminating Osama, in order to save a political "figure" who was present within a range at the same time. U.S. is going to use all the available means to track down and terminate all those (along with their supporters, affiliates, ect.) responsible for 09/11 attacks, at least. If you see such actions as illegal, then sue and/or put U.S. governing bodies to court.

1) It is obvious you have "no idea".

2) This was a extension of YOUR logic in YOUR post.

3) Just a parody on the reasoning of your interpretation of the the Pakistani excuses made to its people. Maybe it is over your head, don't know.

4) That is precisely what is wrong with the US foreign policy now. It sees no limit to the abuse of its power.

5) It is not only I that sees such actions as illegal. However, you seem to be satisfied with the strategy behind #4, so that really states your position quite well. At least you are clear about it.