Zawahiri 'not hit by US missile'

[Nono]

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. (...)

How do Americans react when their citizens are killed by incoming explosives as they go about their business?

[bishop]

it'd be nice if we could at least get ONE thing right for a change... that'd be better than fucking up as frequently as we do.

i don't really care about pakistan's perspective in all of this though.. they are hardly a friend imo, and i don't think we should stake our anti-terror operations on their implicit support. that said, perhaps surgical attacks with special ops could be used rather than blatantly blunt weapons like bombs.. (kind of hard to cover that up)

one of these days, maybe our intelligence bureaucracies will learn what it means to be competent..

[Zeebadee]

"Friday morning's strike killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ike/index.html

What's all the fuss about? It's just collateral damage.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I will condense 2 posts from a thread a started on this same American terrorism.
(I will ask a moderator to delete the other thread)

I know if I bombed the wrong country, I would go to jail. Bush does it and he doesnt even apologize. I know its early yet. But you watch, he wont apologize. That would be a sign of weakness in his mind. In fact it would be a sign of christianity, of courage.

Tsk, tsk, a bombing raid on whatever country they feel like at the time. Republitards!

This is terrorism. There is no other way to define it.

ABC News Washington had no comment on the reports that the attack was aimed at al-Zawahri

Nose thumbing is foreign relations?

Shrub may have to postpone the scheduled failure in Iran, if he has to respond to retaliation from Pakistan, a shiney new enemy:

ABC Pakistan's information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, called the "incident" in Damadola "highly condemnable." <snip> More than 8,000 tribesmen staged a peaceful protest in a nearby town Saturday to condemn the airstrike, which one speaker described as "open terrorism." Police dispersed a smaller protest in another town using tear gas. A mob burned the office of a U.S.-backed aid agency near Damadola, but nobody was injured, residents said.

Quote by: Nono How do Americans react when their citizens are killed by incoming explosives as they go about their business?

We retaliate against countries that had nothing to do with it.
But that doesnt mean we should expect others to be so stupid.
Its terrorism, plain and simple.

[gr8fuldaniel]

OK, I got it.
This is an invitation for terrorist strikes here in the Fatherland.
Bush ratings are plunging and elections are looming. Bush almost HAS TO attack innocents. He may nuke a childrens hospital to draw a "favorable" attack. Its a sacrifice he is willing to make.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop i don't really care about pakistan's perspective in all of this though.. they are hardly a friend imo, and i don't think we should stake our anti-terror operations on their implicit support.

What if it were Mexico rather than Pakistan? Or Canada? Would a bombing raid be acceptable? How would you feel if it were physically "closer to home" ?
Say, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" Bridge:
Would that be less acceptable? Does it matter that Canada is a sovereign nation?

EDIT to add:
Of course I am sure their would have to be ROCK SOLID evidence of a boogeyman in the vicinity.

Even if they are our friends, Canada shouldnt mind if we bomb a few villages. After all : "If they arent with us they are agin us"

[bishop]

you completely misquoted me - i said that they should've used special ops rather than bombs.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Zeebadee What's all the fuss about? It's just collateral damage.

Sarcasm?
If not; Would you "fuss" if it were "eight men, five women and five children" in your family? Remember, its only collateral damage. Would you feel like "Dang, thats just bad luck". How about if Pakistan had good evidence that there was a suspected terrorist living next door to you. And I mean they were positive! Would they be justified in paying a visit with a "Predator drone aircraft"?
Then when asked about it the Pakistan ambassador said: "not aware of any operations taking place in Zeebedee's tribal area "

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop you completely misquoted me - i said that they should've used special ops rather than bombs.

Sorry, I did read the rest of that post yesterday. But the today when I read it I DID have a knee-jerk reaction. Again, sorry.
That said, Is a surgical strike legal? It still seems overreaching.

Seems like bush has appointed himself sole ruler of the world.

[bishop]

our ban on assassinations was pushed through via executive order - i.e. it wasn't legislated. both clinton and bush jr. have refused to support this measure in light of al qaeda. they support targeted killings, so the ban has been effectivelly nullified for over a decade. (and even though reagan supported the ban - he too authorized targeted killings.)

as for international law, there is no explicit concensus.. people like zawahiri are technically "illegal combatants", therefore not protected by international law - this is debatable, but since it is, you cannot explicitly say that it's illegal. the u.n. charter also provides for killing the enemy's chain of command during wartime. and, we've had troops operating in pakistan for several years now...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop and i don't think we should stake our anti-terror operations on their implicit support

This just looks more like "pro-terrorism" to me.
Especially considering this admin hasnt responded to this interview with usama Bin Laden (not that I know of, anyway):

Link Interview published in newspaper Ummat Karachi, 28th September, 2001 The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given. UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be? USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf). I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims. More....

The whole war on terror is a farce, theatrics played out to empower the corporatists who own the White House and Congress and with the newest addition to the Supreme court, controlling interest in the judiciary branch.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop the u.n. charter also provides for killing the enemy's chain of command during wartime

The UN charter has not recognized this as a legitimate "War", has it? War on Terror is too vague. War cannot be declred on a tactic anymore than you can declare a war on dreams or narcissm. Who will arrest gw bush for his own acts of terror? Shouldnt he bomb himself?

That would be bigger than the Super Bowl! I take the Bomb and give 7 points to bush.

BTW, what are the odds on Denver vs Seahawks in the Super Bowl? That would be a gr8 game!

[bishop]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel This just looks more like "pro-terrorism" to me. Especially considering this admin hasnt responded to this interview with usama Bin Laden (not that I know of, anyway):

again, you're misquoting me..

pakistan had strong ties with the taliban (and the taliban had strong ties with al qaeda).. pakistan has helped north korea develop nuclear weapons, and is guilty of exporting that technological knowhow (maybe even supplies) elsewhere. do you consider pakistan, run by a dictator, to be an ally? i certainly don't.. if we see al qaeda leaders, i'm not going to wait for musharef to approve it - especially since he tangentially supported al qaeda in the past.. supposing that we did ask him for permission and he denied it - should we really listen? i think not.

and again, if we used special ops, this wouldn't have happened because the soldiers would've had to make a positive ID on the target before firing their weapon. nice and clean, no collateral damage - and i'll bet that pakistan would even push this story as if it were some sort of joint operation..

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am not misquoting you this time. I am disagreeing with you on the basic premise that the bombing was an "anti-terrorist" strike. The attack was terrorist. Not "anti-terrorist"

[bishop]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The UN charter has not recognized this as a legitimate "War", has it?

when we were attacked on 9/11, that was an attack on our country - u.n. rules permit a country to take action to defend itself. (i don't really entertain the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.) and, nato authorized the campaign in afghanistan (which is relavent to the attack in pakistan)..

the war on terror is similar to the "war on piracy" back in the day.

i don't think the u.n. ever recognizes war as being legitimate or not - but it does have the authority to authorize a military campaign. that's only happened twice in the u.n.'s history - korea and iraq. since the u.n. hasn't supplanted the sovereign state (and doesn't have any real power), its explicit support for any war isn't necessary in realpolitik terms.


i definitely don't have a problem with us going after the heads of al qaeda, do you? my preference, however, is that we make better decisions - special ops should be used rather than bombing random villages.

[Athena]

Quote by: bishop it'd be nice if we could at least get ONE thing right for a change... that'd be better than fucking up as frequently as we do. i don't really care about pakistan's perspective in all of this though.. they are hardly a friend imo, and i don't think we should stake our anti-terror operations on their implicit support. that said, perhaps surgical attacks with special ops could be used rather than blatantly blunt weapons like bombs.. (kind of hard to cover that up) one of these days, maybe our intelligence bureaucracies will learn what it means to be competent..

If you don't care about Pakistan's perspective, why would any on earth care about you?
I can not think of anything that would put a population in greater danger, than a population that doesn't care about the perspective of others. It is this attitude that motivates the world to arm against all others. It is stupid, costly, and as out dated as cave men carrying clubs. All men of reason care about the perspective of others. This doesn't mean never engaging in war. It just means engaging in reason before engaging war, something the Bush administration didn't do!

[Athena]

Quote by: bishop when we were attacked on 9/11, that was an attack on our country - u.n. rules permit a country to take action to defend itself. (i don't really entertain the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.) and, nato authorized the campaign in afghanistan (which is relavent to the attack in pakistan).. the war on terror is similar to the "war on piracy" back in the day. i don't think the u.n. ever recognizes war as being legitimate or not - but it does have the authority to authorize a military campaign. that's only happened twice in the u.n.'s history - korea and iraq. since the u.n. hasn't supplanted the sovereign state (and doesn't have any real power), its explicit support for any war isn't necessary in realpolitik terms. i definitely don't have a problem with us going after the heads of al qaeda, do you? my preference, however, is that we make better decisions - special ops should be used rather than bombing random villages.

9/11 wasn't an attack on the country of the US. It was an attack on the New World Order symbolized by the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But you admitted to your leaning towards making decisions without thinking. Bush probably respents you well.

[gr8fuldaniel]

u.n. rules permit a country to take action to defend itself.

Even from imaginary enemies?

(i don't really entertain the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.)

Unless one person radio controlled those 4 planes on 911, and NORAD was just off work on a tuesday in sept 2001, Then 911 WAS a conspiracy. Who was involved in that conspiracy has everything to do with who we should "defend" ourselves from.
Since there was no investigation of the crime scenes and al Qaeda denied involvement (Arent they always proud of their handiwork?) are we to ASSUME guilt. "Contempt prior to investigation will keep a man in everlasting ignorance" -- Herbert Spencer

Cervantes warned us about vaporous enemies in Don Quixote. How many innocent sheep must die to appease a king with psychopathic visions of grandeur. Would that it were mere sheep! This is about evil white men murdering innocent brown people for their property.

I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land --Mark Twain

[bishop]

Quote by: athena 9/11 wasn't an attack on the country of the US. It was an attack on the New World Order symbolized by the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But you admitted to your leaning towards making decisions without thinking. Bush probably respents you well.

spare me this inane bullshit. anyone who's read 1% of my posts knows that i despise bush. *bin laden probably represents you well.*

and this "it was an attack on the NWO" is cute.. say that to the people who lost loved ones in that attack (i personally know a couple that you could talk to).. i guess they had it coming to them, they deserved to die.


if we just go the path of the pacifist's wet dream and totally stop going after al qaeda, do you think that al qaeda is just going to agree to a truce and leave us alone? to your "men with clubs" metaphor, i can just as easily say "spineless pussies"... al qaeda's mission in life is, in part, to change u.s. policy by killing innocent civilians.. i'd love to see our policies change, but not simply because some vile islamic shits are threatening us with death (or because some pussy pacifists don't think that we're entitled to defend ourselves).. i'd much prefer a dead terrorist to scores of dead civilians (some of whom were family friends).

as i've constantly repeated, which seems to be consistently ignored, i supported targetted killings of al qaeda's leaders/members (not bombing raids).. only people on the fringe will cry bloody murder if we were to put a bullet in zawahiri's head.

Quote by: athena All men of reason care about the perspective of others.

that is hilarious.. that opinion completely ignores the very real element of political power. your opinion ignores the realities of human nature.

[bishop]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Unless one person radio controlled those 4 planes on 911, and NORAD was just off work on a tuesday in sept 2001, Then 911 WAS a conspiracy. Who was involved in that conspiracy has everything to do with who we should "defend" ourselves from. Since there was no investigation of the crime scenes and al Qaeda denied involvement (Arent they always proud of their handiwork?) are we to ASSUME guilt.

what utter nonsense.. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

i get the feeling that you are beholden to these conspiracy theories though, so any further debate on this is quite pointless.


even the u.n. condemned al qaeda for the attacks:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement