 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Saddest news article.
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:09 PM Just been reading of the death of an al Qaeda chief,on the Pakistan border. The man was killed in a "surgical" strike by a US drone, which has been lauded by the American military as a triumph for US weapons technology. Almost as an afterthought, the article mentions that the mans wife, three daughters, grand daughter and other family members were also killed in the strike. My heart burns for those children, but my greatest sadness is for what we have become....worse than the terrorists with their home made bombs. We are the high tech terrorists with no concern for women and children, they are simply cannon fodder, hardly worth a mention, while our activists run around demanding "rights for all" What about the right to live? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:12 PM Forgot to add the link, I'm so fucking angry! LINK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: gnu Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:14 PM I can only assume the governments and militaries of the West justify such "revenge" and "anti-terrorism" based on the killing of innocent people who died in New York.... you know, defense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:26 PM We present ourselves as "liberal democrats" gnu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Ebbie Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM From ake's link: "He is reported to have managed the finances for the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. "In a rare interview with Pakistan's Geo TV in 2008, he said al-Qaeda was "properly involved" in those attacks, as well as the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. "He also denounced the Pakistani government for fighting Islamic militants, justified suicide attacks, and predicted victory for Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan." Question/Comment: If the man did all these things, in what way is the fact that his loved ones died along with him worse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: pdq Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM "He is reported to have managed the finances for the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. In a rare interview with Pakistan's Geo TV in 2008, he said al-Qaeda was 'properly involved' in those attacks, as well as the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He also denounced the Pakistani government for fighting Islamic militants, justified suicide attacks, and predicted victory for Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. He is believed to have been jailed in Egypt in 1982 in connection with the assassination of Egypt's then-President Anwar Sadat." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:35 PM Well, ya' gotta have mixed feelings about stuff like this... I mean, there are some bad guys out there who wnat very much to plan and execute terrorism on innocent people... Now, if it had cost US a dozen or so service people to get to this guy then I'd rather see this carried out in a manner where that is not the case... Of course, if it could be done without anyone else dieing other than the bad guy that would be the best scenerio... But wars go get messy... Always have... That's why we prolly shouldn't go startin' them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 10 - 04:44 PM You think that if someone has got to die, it's better that it's non-combatants rather than your own soldiers, Bobert? I suppose that's a point of view. Not one that I share, in any conflict. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:25 PM The drone programme has been in the news again recently "The campaign of CIA drone strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan has made the United States "the most prolific user of targeted killings" in the world, said a United Nations official, who urged that responsibility for the program be taken from the spy agency. Philip Alston, a New York University law professor who serves as the U.N.'s special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, made the comments Wednesday as he released a report on targeted killings. The report criticizes the U.S. for asserting "an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe" in its fight against Al Qaeda and other militant groups." By David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times June 3, 2010 Meanwhile, May 30 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. military said "inaccurate and unprofessional" reporting by a team operating a predator drone contributed to a February airstrike that resulted in the deaths of as many as 23 Afghan civilians. The February 21 attack on three vehicles took place because the ground-force commander received inadequate information about who occupied the vehicles and where they were traveling, U.S. Major General Timothy McHale wrote in a four-page report released yesterday. McHale said "poorly functioning" command posts failed to provide the ground commander with evidence and analysis that the vehicles posed no "hostile threat." U.S. military personnel compounded their error of firing on civilians by failing to report the incident in a "timely" fashion, McHale wrote. The civilian casualties weren't revealed until almost 12 hours after the strike when a surgeon disclosed the deaths at a hospital, the report said." A widely-quoted study released by the New America Foundation in February estimates that between 830 and 1,210 civilians have been killed by drones since 2004, 30 per cent of estimated total fatalities. This figure probably refers to inaccurate strikes however rather than those in proximity to a 'target' As one Pakistani official asked, "Who is a militant? A bodyguard? A driver? A cousin or guest sitting in a hujra next to a militant?" There is an increasingly elastic definition of 'combatant' being applied by the CIA, which runs the drone programme in Pakistan Scott Horton, a contributing editor at Harper's magazine and an expert on the law of armed conflict, highlighted the problems: "Under international law, and specifically under the Geneva Conventions, those who render material aid are not so clearly legitimate targets as the US sometimes makes out. "Bodyguards are clearly legitimate targets, and family members are not. In the proportionality analysis, however, it can be argued that family members recognise and accept risk of being targeted by remaining in the immediate proximity of their relative who is a command-and-control figure. Still, I would argue that the US view pushes the outer pockets of currently accepted law." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bill D Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:57 PM I just don't know how to reconcile the deaths of his family with the fact that his family likely considered him a hero and believed in his efforts to mount attacks against us. If I were engaged in War is not the same anymore.... we have no good rules for dealing with enemies who are not in uniform, not an organized 'army', and not deterred by losses. They have an attitude similar to the Japanese in WWII, but with a slightly different overlay of religious fervor. The Japanese were at least definable and identifiable in the field. How DO we 'back out' of this conflict, knowing that it would be unlikely to end planning & attacks against us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Jack Campin Date: 03 Jun 10 - 05:59 PM Somehow I don't think somebody who started killing the children of American soldiers would be seen as "pushing the outer pockets of the law". Obama and his goons are just plain murderers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 03 Jun 10 - 06:14 PM I find my self on unfamiliar territory, being 100% in agreement with Ake, however he is right that this is an unforgivable crime. Sending a Robot to murder an entire family and then claiming that it was somehow justified because one of them is an alleged criminal is nothing less than sickening. I thought that we were the land of "innocent until proven guilty" and of fair trials etc. Apparently this only applies within our own borders. I agree that the right to life is the most fundamental human right, without which the others mean nothing. But in fact I see this as being a prime example of why the principle of Basic Human rights for all is an essential principle. It is the absence of a notion of equal human rights for all that allows the US and its cronies to get away with this kind of stuff. It is the implied sense that the rights of that family and the lives of that family mean less than lives over here that is the problem. Our government would not dare to undermine human rights so brazenly over here. Instead they use more subtle means. But in all cases its all about the right propaganda for the right circumstances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: gnu Date: 03 Jun 10 - 06:15 PM Bill... "we have no good rules for dealing with enemies who are not in uniform..." All is fair in love and war. The fact that "they" don't wear uniforms is fair... they need every edge they can get. They are fighting for their survival... that's all they know. Re drones... at least the drones have cameras that are viewed by young computer game players so that some civilians have a chance. I have said this many times - here I go again - better the drones with cameras than a sniper shooting someone at over 2km and having NO idea who the person is. Sure, a satellite might see the person "sneaking around" with a gun and tell the sniper he's clear to engage, but there is a shitload of guys in Tennesee doing the same thing hunting turkeys... fer fuck sake! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:02 PM "we have no good rules for dealing with enemies who are not in uniform" Bill do you believe that the CIA operatives playing real life snuff 'video games' with their drones are 'in uniform'? Prof Gary Solis, formerly a West Point scholar on the laws of war and currently at Georgetown University, wrote recently in the WashingtonPost that in engaging in combat as civilians "CIA agents are like the unlawful combatants that they target". In his article Prof Solis argues that because they are unmarked military personnel "without uniforms or insignia" directly participating in hostilities they are equivalent to civilians who directly participate in the activities of non-state groups and hence are unprotected by the laws of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Leadfingers Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:12 PM So its perfectly fine for Terrorists to plant bombs and kill innocent civilians , but if 'innocent' people get killed at the same time as a terrorist . that is perfectly Abhorrent ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:16 PM Surely BOTH are abhorrent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:27 PM Both are instances of terrorism. "All is fair in love and war." I have always understood that as beinmg an ironic way of saying the opposite. Taken at face value, it is a lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bill D Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:28 PM So...those who took issue with what I never quite said**...what do you suggest? It's one thing to call Obama a murdering goon, but it's quite another to find a better answer....unless you think we should just go away and hope. It's always easy to have 'selective focus' and condemn someone, which is what bin Laden did when he 'decided' we were evil, and deserved any havoc they could wreak on us. **I did NOT say I approved of drones or killing of 'innocents'...I said, essentially, that I understood why drones are being used. I HATE the idea of deaths among whatever passes for civilians...even when I know that far fewer die in this sort of attack than in bombing cities...etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:36 PM "So its perfectly fine for Terrorists to plant bombs and kill innocent civilians" Who is supposed to have said this Leadfingers? Are you suggesting that iif a terrorist kills civilians then his family are fair game? Try talking out of the top half of your body. There may be less chance of you spouting shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: kendall Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:39 PM A little boy came home with a black eye. His Father asked how he got it and the boy said, "It all started when he hit me BACK." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:51 PM And who started this war? Not the people of Afghanistan, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:01 PM There's a lot of truth to what Kendall said... Hey, this entire jihadist movement is more than partially fueled by the US and Isreal... We have disrespected Arabs and Muslims because our God is the right God... Bull... What a stupid reason to have a war... But, hey, we are in it and until there is some progress toward a peacefull and respectfull negotiated settlement of issues we are going to be in it... That is reality... It is also reality that family memebers of al Qeada are in danger, be it from a conventional assualt or drones... Personally??? If I can accomplish the same results without having to *sacrifice* any greater number of lives then, hey, be it robots 'er drones or whateveres that is the path I am going to take... I don't believe that it is more honorable in having people kill people verses machines... Both are insane... This entire conflict is insane... It could be over in matter of a couple years if the US and Isreal would get off their high horses and talk with and respect people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Amos Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:04 PM War is murderous. It's the nature of the animal. Three thousand mothers and fathers innocent of any crime (as far as we know) were wiped out in September of 2001, which is enough to make people pretty angry. The war in Afghanistan, by the way, was not begun by "Obama and his goons". It was begun by GWB and HIS goons, in response to that attack. I would be really, really interested if anyone here has a solution to the war in Afghanistan other than what is presently being done. And if any of you know how to run a remote air strike that is surgical and guaranteed to only take out the individuals targeted, DO let us all know your tactic. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:14 PM The phrase 'evil' empire was applied especially to the Soviet Union by U.S. President Ronald Reagan "Axis of evil" is a term initially used by the former United States President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002 and often repeated throughout the rest of his stay in office, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Consequently considerable havoc was wreaked on Iraq despite the fact that the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported that they found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, in fact the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for "anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan." Bill I certainly never said you had approved the killing of innocents (although I'm not altogther certain what you mean by your inverted commas) I merely wished to point out that CIA operatives are also not uniformed combatants they are NOT 'definable and identifiable' they are not even 'in the field' So where are the 'rules'? A wedding party (they do not 'pass for civilians' they ARE civilians) is blown up from a distance or a suicide bomber blows up a civilian building - an eye for an eye until we are all blind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:18 PM Exactly, Emma... War is insane... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Charley Noble Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:41 PM And just because "war is insane" does not relieve the sane ones among us from assuming responsibility anyway for what our government decides to do. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bill D Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:43 PM Targeting a wedding party is/was a STUPID, careless mistake. That is a slightly different issue than whether the basic strategy is correct. And the apostrophes were to indicate how hard it is to define, identify, and avoid innocents. -------------------------------------------------- Now... I am gone for 3 days to a festival. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Paul Burke Date: 03 Jun 10 - 09:09 PM ... have you got any news of the iceberg....? Now that IS sad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 10 - 09:49 PM I had allready made that abundantly clear, Charlie... Doesn't change the fact that war is insane... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 04 Jun 10 - 03:05 AM Some interesting stuff, but the idea that "this is what happens in war" dosent really hold water. The nature of war seems to have changed, now we try to placate the media and the people at home during an unpopular war, by reducing the number of deaths and injuries amongst our own troops at the expense of civilians of the invaded nations. As I said earlier, we in the West present ourselves as "liberal democrats" yet we feel that women and children are expendable in the search for lower casualty figures. The next step in the ladder to hell is of course to take out a complete province or a whole country, and rationalise the action as we did in Hiroshima,Nagasaki and Vietmam (with the wholesale use of defoliants and Napalm) Looking at our war history, we should be ashamed at the atrocities we have been and are inflicting on fellow humans, to maintain military supremacy.....not hold up our system of govt as "free, fair, and liberal" What are we to do, rather than methodically wipe out innocent people?......Get ourselves to fuck out of other people's countries and governments. Most of the atrocities committed against the US and UK have been in response to British and American aggression and interference in the governance of other nations. They strike back in the way they do because they have no other way. Given the huge technological advantage enjoyed by the US an outright face to face combat against invasion and aggression would be suicidal. It all boils down to our need to maintain military supremacy to support our mad economic system while keeping the curtains shut from our people and the rest of the thinking world.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 04:48 AM Killing by Playstaion - 'the only game in town'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:09 AM "Under President Barack Obama, the CIA has stepped up its drone strikes in the tribal zone of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, targeting not only high-level al Qaeda and Taliban targets but largely unknown foot soldiers as well. Following a directive first issued by former President George W. Bush and continued by Obama, the CIA has widened the "target set" for drone strikes in Pakistan, Reuters reported last month The United States is believed to control the fleet of drones from CIA headquarters in Virginia, coordinating with civilian pilots near hidden airfields in Afghanistan and Pakistan who fly the drones remotely, according to Alston, an Australian who teaches at New York University School of Law. "Because operators are based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, and undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, there is a risk of developing a 'Playstation' mentality to killing," he said, referring to the popular Sony <6758.T> video game console. Under international law, targeted killings are permitted in armed conflicts when used against fighters or civilians who engage directly in combat-like activities, Alston said. "But they are increasingly being used far from any battle zone" " Reuters June 3 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 04 Jun 10 - 05:14 AM Good link Emma. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 10 - 08:49 AM Actually, the Obama administartion has this kinda secret war going on in over 80 countries (this morning's Washington Post) where he is deploying Special Operation personael to purdy much do spy and police work behind the scenes... Far cry from Bush's response to 9/11... No "Shock 'n Awe" to entertain Joe Sixpack... They say that we have always used strategies to fight the "last war"... Well, as much as I hate war, seems like the Obama folks are slowly fighting the current one... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: GUEST,kendall Date: 04 Jun 10 - 09:02 AM Well folks it finally happened. I agree with akenaton. No foreign power has ever licked the Afghans from Alexander the great to the British to the Russians to us. They will never surrender unless we use the big one as we did in Japan.Heaven forfend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:17 PM Come on Kendall, I agree with a lot of your ideas.....leaving aside the unsavoury incident with Miss Rama Llama! Mr Obama appears to be ratcheting up the covert war on radical groups. Operations are now ongoing in 75 countries....Drone attacks with their attendant civilian deaths have increased dramatically under the Obama administration. The aggressive secret war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups has coincided with a surge in the number of US drone attacks in the lawless border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, an al-Qaeda and Taleban haven, since Mr Obama took office. Just weeks after he entered the White House, the number of missile strikes from the CIA-operated unmanned drones significantly increased, and the pattern has remained. According to The Washington Post, Mr Obama has also approved pre-emptive special forces strikes to disrupt terror plots, and has given the units powers and authority that was not granted by Mr Bush when he occupied the White House. Same old......Same old! Full report |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: DougR Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:31 PM Who is "we" Akenaton? Perhaps word has not reach you, but the US is at war with Al Quieda. People get killed in wars. Convince AlQuieda to crawl back into their caves and forget war, and the US can stop killing them. DougR P.S. I have no idea how successful you will be convincing them though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:50 PM Hello Doug, I have no problem with invaders and insurgents killing one another, tho' it seems a terrible waste of life, but when "we".... "liberal democrats", start seeing women and children as expendable commodities in this stupid game, I begin to worry for our sanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bill D Date: 05 Jun 10 - 09:30 PM I'd like to agree....but I still see no real suggestions about how to deal with terrorists who run out, cause some havoc, then run back TO cover among civilians..including their own families. Saying what NOT to do is easy.... saying what TO do is awkward. If Obama decides to 'just wait and see', he'll be raked over the coals for that also. Hey...maybe calling up the bad guys and saying "Pretty please, stop that....." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:17 AM I think you intentionally miss the point Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: akenaton Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:24 AM BTW....High tech warfare and how it is used seems to me one of our most important and contraversial issue. There also seems to be a dearth of ideas on the subject.....are we all finished at 40 posts? Would we all rather discuss homosexual presidents? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:36 AM Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who writes on international affairs In May he wrote an article about the use of drones starting with an analogous situation .......... "Let us imagine that Spain invaded Mexico in similar fashion to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 because Madrid suffered a terrorist atrocity that was planned by a Saudi Arabian fanatic living in Chihuahua. Spanish troops poured into the country, and Spanish generals and mercenaries were to all intents running the place although generously subsidizing a corrupt national government whose president was in power through gross electoral fraud. A militant resistance movement developed and a lucrative drug industry prospered mightily. There was much illegal movement of criminals and insurgents across the US-Mexico border. And Spain, objecting to transit of militant Mexicans fighting against Spanish occupation of their country, obtained information that some guerrilla fighters might - might - be in a house in the little town of Van Horn in Culbertson County, Texas. So one morning a video game player in Madrid pressed a button and a Spanish drone roaming round in US airspace fired missiles on Van Horn that killed two Mexican militants as well as a dozen US citizens, including two women and three children who were minding their own innocent business in their house on Hackberry Street……………….. Obama has ordered over 100 CIA drone strikes in Pakistan since becoming president. It is claimed that if some civilians are killed, there aren't many of them. As if the murder of some kids and their mothers is quite OK, providing the drones kill the 'bad guys' too. US drone strikes, although undoubtedly technically amazing, are not only illegal but asinine and entirely counterproductive. They cause, in CIA terms, 'blowback.' They are what the Brits would call an "own goal." The CIA have bamboozled Obama into believing their drone killings will work, in that they will eradicate anti-American militants. In Vietnam, all these years ago, we used to call it "termination with extreme prejudice". It didn't work then, and it isn't working now. The calculating experts, the dedicated dorks, the disastrous dweebs of the CIA imagine they can deal death with precision. They are confident their technology will result in victory. But they don't recognize the human factor. It's called resentment. It results in hatred. While the drones and their video controllers seek people here and there and try to kill them - and even sometimes succeed in blowing a militant to smithereens - the effect of their blitz is to attract ever more recruits to the legions of anti-American terrorists. Obama joked that "You never see it coming." But what the drone-masters haven't seen coming is the blowback." full article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Bill D Date: 06 Jun 10 - 08:49 AM I NEVER "intentionally miss the point". I see remarks like "seeing women and children as expendable commodities in this stupid game, ", and I wonder if they are serious. THAT is not the point. I can't imagine any leaders *I* support thinking that way. I am told all effort is being made to avoid targeting non-combatants, but we all know that an early good opportunity to get bin Laden was scrapped because he was hiding among civilians. So... I ask again... how DO we react to information the a major, known terrorist in in a house where there 'may' be non-combatants? DNA seeking missiles with a 2-foot radius of power? (I think that's still in Beta...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: GUEST,kendall Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:02 AM If Afghanistan and Pakistan had honest governments they would deal with the terrorists. They don't. I still say the answer is to get our infidel asses out of their countries and start treating them as human.We can remove their reason for hating us, but we won't and the beat goes on. ...when will they ever learn? oh when will they ever learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:20 AM I see remarks like this one: "I see remarks like "seeing women and children as expendable commodities in this stupid game, ", and I wonder if they are serious." And I wonder if the writer has eyes to see. Quick reminder ... The Al Qaeda guy was targetted by the CIA. Fine. But they also killed his wife and Kids. When the BBC reported on it, the story was about the great success of killing the bad guy. What about the innocents who died? Where is the triumph in their death? If a mass murderer in the US went back to have dinner with his family, would the police be justified in lobbing a hand grenade into the dining room to get him? Woo Hoo, we got the bad guy (by the way we killed his family too and they were innocent). The only differences here are that it didn't happen here, (so who gives a fuck) and that they weren't British or American (so who gives a fuck). Here's my headline for the same incident. INNOCENT CHIULDREN AND BABIES MURDERED IN BOTCHED ASASSINATION ATTEMPT. Now take that seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:24 AM Kendall, on this occasion your comments about Pakistan are dead wrong. If you knew more about Pakistan, and the wild areas in the North ruled by tribal leaders, you would see that the problem isn't the Pakistan Government, it is western policy which rides roughshod over systems of control which are unfamiliar, but need to be respected nonetheless if they wish to ever have any influence there.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Emma B Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:34 AM "So... I ask again... how DO we react to information the a major, known terrorist in in a house where there 'may' be non-combatants?" and I ask... How do we react to information that a home with civilians 'may' be located next door to a house where there may be terrorist foot soldiers? Actually that is a rhetorical question as I think we all know the answer Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, said missile strikes could be justified only when it was impossible to capture insurgents alive instead and ONLY if they were carried out by regular U.S. armed forces operating with proper oversight and respect for the rules of war. "Intelligence agencies, which by definition are determined to remain unaccountable except to their own paymasters, have no place in running programs that kill people in other countries. The world does not know when and where the CIA is authorized to kill, its criteria for choosing targets, whether they are lawful killings, and how it follows up when civilians are illegally killed" he said Under President Barack Obama, the CIA has stepped up its drone strikes in the tribal zone of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, targeting not only high-level al Qaeda and Taliban targets but largely unknown foot soldiers as the CIA has widened the "target set" for drone strikes in Pakistan, Reuters reported last month. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: mauvepink Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:34 AM I only just saw the thread and have had a quick read through so hope I have not missed the most important features anywhere. I apologise if I have. I also agree with akenaton. The cold facts are that this man's family are seen as collateral damage - like all the innocents seen in war that get killed - and each time we do it we lose some of our humanity. Can you imagine anyone calling all those who were killed in the twin towers "collateral damage"? Like, they only intended to drop the building but never meant anyone to get caught up in it"? Of course not. Those who occupied those towers were targets. We talk of cut backs in services in our countries yet think nothing of launching a million dollar missile against a ten dollar tent. We do 'clinical strikes' that take out half a block around them and then call the casualties "collateral damage". Innocent people get killed, on both sides, and the whole solution to this will, in the end, come to a very simple piece of furniture. It's called a table. Many can be purchased for under £50.00. It's the cheapest solution to conflict. Until all sides actually sit around a table, and show leniency to each other's differences in policy/ideas until they can talk, this killing will go on. Compromise. One of the BIGGEST words in human language. There should be no celebrations of death of enemies on either side. In the end it will come down to people sitting around a table and talking out their fundamental differences. Has there ever been a war stopped that did not have this ending? Body bags are no way to find peace. Creating more people to hate you and who would want to fight you does not seem a good way to stop being attacked either. If any of us had our family wiped out by an unseen enemy, would we not want to go seek them out and have revenge? What else would we have to live for when no-one else listens to us or regards us as important enough to want to save? Just some thoughts in support of the thread. I get the impression from what I have read that the majority here and in the real world we live in only want to see an end to the killing - on all sides - and that has to be a very noble cause and aim. Sadly it is probably more of a fairy tail. I would happily buy that table for them though. Wouldn't you? mp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: GUEST,kendall Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM Let's look at the other side of this coin. That terrorist knew he was a target and like so many others he surrounded himself with innocent people. Surely he knew we would get him with one of those drones? Lox, I maintain that the big problem is the fact that we are there and they don't want us there. (Except for a few corrupt officials that we support) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Saddest news article. From: Lox Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:37 PM Hi Leadfingers, This is a public debate. If you would like to engage me in this public debate then why not do so publicly? You may assert if you wish that I blindly support anyone who is anti-western as being a freedon fighter as oposed to a terrorist. However, if you read my posts, you will see that I at no point discuss either term in relation to the thread topic. Which returns us to my original - unanswered - question. Show me where anyone has said "So its perfectly fine for Terrorists to plant bombs and kill innocent civilians". Try focussing on the thread and its topic and responding to points made, or even making a relevant point of your own. |
