Drone strikes in Pakistan

Many Al Quida (sp?) terrorists move across the Pakistan/Afghanistan border freely, and although the "fight" isn't actually in Pakistan, there are plenty of bad guys there too.

They had covert ops back during Vietnam in Cambodia and Laos. If they had drones back then, they probably would have done the same thing.

Is it right? No. but then again, nothing about war is.

pres589 wrote: I have to assume nicksta was kidding.

I may or may not have been however the meds have kicked in and I'm feeling a little better now.

Even w/ US boots on the ground there will be innocents and collateral damage. If there wasn't hate for the US and it's allies before these strikes, there will be now. As per drones, nobody knows the value of the targets except the person(s) who ordered the trigger pulled. I'm not about to argue the use of drones or covert missions for that matter as we have no idea of the significance or opportunity of the strike, that is in the hands of our (trusted) leadership.

nicksta43 wrote: Not even one tenth the number it needs to be. berkeley em, berkeley there mommas, berkeley there daddy's berkeley all of em'. They need to swing those drones over France on the way back just for being such Bob Costas's. berkeley em' all!

'cause 'murica

GameboyRMH wrote: The whole region isn't made up of wannabe terrorists who just lack the resources to pull off an attack, it's mostly innocent people minding their own business with a few terrorists mixed in.

Well first of all...

Of course. I absolutely agree.

But to think this is really about "terrorists" or as some people like to link to it, "religion" is foolish. These people dislike you guys for various reasons (and some of those reasons are valid I'd think everyone can agree) BUT, that doesn't give them the right to attack you.

While the reasons for going into various places like Iraq and Afghanistan might be "dubious" in some parts, I still personally believe that the US gov did it for the overall betterment of society worldwide. Did it backfire? Yes. But the idea was still sound. The people doing the killing now are the people that were doing the killing before. They may have a different battle cry, but it is all the same E36 M3.

So, take those people out that want/try to hurt you. The fact is, STOPPING what "we" are doing won't do anything besides let the "bad guys" breed and spread further.

(Edit- stopping what "we" are doing won't do anything. God that was horribly written. My apologies!)

Any other country would take the same stance. A country first and foremost (IMO) has the responsibility to respect its citizens, even if that is at the detriment of others.

The drone strikes in Pakistan are done with the consent of the Pakistani gov't., many times with intelligence info. from the ISI. Also: no. of US/NATO troops killed during operations = zero.

I typed a response two times and deleted it before posting. I don't want to get some of you riled up and get the thread locked. I will say that I am not a fan of the drone strikes.

Curmudgeon wrote: Yep, it sure could be less. I think these berkeleyers need the same kind of trial they gave all those people in: 1) the WTC, 2) the Pentagon, 3) Flight 93, 4) the Spanish train bombings, 5) the London bus bombings, 6) the Berlin disco bombings, 7) the USS Cole, 8) the Beirut Marine barracks, 9) the Nigerian hotel bombings, 10) the Lockerbie bombings, 11) the Reid shoe bombing, unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, 12) the Times Square car bomb, again unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

So by your reasoning, since we have knowingly killed innocent civilians in Pakistan, all Pakistanis are hereby given 100% consequence free rights to bomb your house, your neighborhood, and kill your family. That is exactly what you're saying, and it's the stupidest berkeleying thing I've heard all day. And that's saying a lot.

Tell me how it's okay to kill a child because someone in the area he was in might have done some planning for one of those events. That way I can see how it is that you got so berkeleyed in the head.

Amazingly, doing the right thing is hard. But it's still the right thing. And killing 10x more innocent bystanders than legitimate targets is not the right thing.

In reply to fifty:

Yeah, that's just it, we effectively have no skin in this, we can just play our video games out of offices in Ohio and somewhere someone else is dead.

And to the others that have this whole "all's fair in war", well, where's our declaration of war and who's it written against?

I'm really not sure why it seems great fun to seemingly stoop to the level of terrorists. And that's what this smells like.

fifty wrote: The drone strikes in Pakistan are done with the consent of the Pakistani gov't., many times with intelligence info. from the ISI. Also: no. of US/NATO troops killed during operations = zero.

Please explain.

As far as I am aware, Pakistan catagorically rejects the strikes as illegal, counterproductive, in contravention of international law and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty, although Musharraf has recently admitted permitting "a few" (which he defined as "maybe two or three times only").

Please cite some info showing further consent of the Pakistani government.

T.J. wrote: I typed a response two times and deleted it before posting. I don't want to get some of you riled up and get the thread locked. I will say that I am not a fan of the drone strikes.

I have been thinking lately that I spend way too much time in Internet discussions about topics with no clear-cut answers. Tonight, I forgot it all, and went to a karaoke bar for a few hours. Much better.

SVreX wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Yep, it sure could be less. I think these berkeleyers need the same kind of trial they gave all those people in: 1) the WTC, 2) the Pentagon, 3) Flight 93, 4) the Spanish train bombings, 5) the London bus bombings, 6) the Berlin disco bombings, 7) the USS Cole, 8) the Beirut Marine barracks, 9) the Nigerian hotel bombings, 10) the Lockerbie bombings, 11) the Reid shoe bombing, unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, 12) the Times Square car bomb, again unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Pakistan, dude. Pakistan. The drone strikes referenced are in Pakistan. Your references are all over the map, with many varied people and groups claiming responsibility (mostly not Pakistan). The "berkeleyers" you are referencing are, in fact, many different varied "berkeleyers". How about we just blow all the "berkeleyers" off the map?

The militants are definitely wanting to blow all us berkeleyers off the map.

All the incidents I referenced (except for Lockerbie and the German disco bombing, these two were Libyan government related) are al-Quaeda related. The same al-Quaeda whose leaders were hiding out in a mountainous area along the Pakistani-Afghani border and whose head honcho was living in Pakistan after his home country kicked him out. (Pakistan's military leadership HAD to know where OBL was hiding. That makes their government complicit. Not a good thing for them.) The same al-Quaeda that has declared war on the United States.

The best thing the Pakistani government could possibly do is round these shiny happy people up and present them to the CIA/FBI in a gift wrapped package with a note saying 'our bad'. As evidenced by the OBL hunt, that's not real likely. So they bear a bunch of the responsibility for these drone attacks. But, as I noted earlier, the cool thing for them is they can make PR hay out of these attacks, make us look like the big bad guys rather than the ones who were attacked first.

As far as innocents, the link quotes ~3800 innocents killed. I hate that. But: how many American innocents died in the WTC/Flight 93/Pentagon attacks? (Answer: 2,996 which includes the hijackers themselves. That does not include those who died in the other attacks, only 9/11.) How many fatherless/motherless kids here in the States because of that? Let's not forget this was their second attempt at bringing down the WTC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing Six people died in that attack.

You do realize also that al-Quaeda was also planning to hijack and blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, right? That there were 'test runs' that injured innocents in a movie theater and killed a Japanese businessman on an airliner? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

And that the planning was happening in the Phillipines and also this same area where the drone strikes are going on? Again, this reeks of Pakistani leadership compliance.

Look, I hate that there are innocents caught in this. It sucks. I'd much rather it could be done like a Jack Reacher novel: send one pissed off guy in with a pile of weapons and let him pick off those truly responsible. Unfortunately, this is not a novel and it is not an ideal situation.

EDIT to clear up a mistake on my part: It seems there has been no hard evidence found to link AQ to the Madrid train bombings, although AQ has expressed pride in them.

dculberson wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Yep, it sure could be less. I think these berkeleyers need the same kind of trial they gave all those people in: 1) the WTC, 2) the Pentagon, 3) Flight 93, 4) the Spanish train bombings, 5) the London bus bombings, 6) the Berlin disco bombings, 7) the USS Cole, 8) the Beirut Marine barracks, 9) the Nigerian hotel bombings, 10) the Lockerbie bombings, 11) the Reid shoe bombing, unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, 12) the Times Square car bomb, again unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

So by your reasoning, since we have knowingly killed innocent civilians in Pakistan, all Pakistanis are hereby given 100% consequence free rights to bomb your house, your neighborhood, and kill your family. That is exactly what you're saying, and it's the stupidest berkeleying thing I've heard all day. And that's saying a lot. Tell me how it's okay to kill a child because someone in the area he was in *might* have done some planning for one of those events. That way I can see how it is that you got so berkeleyed in the head. Amazingly, doing the right thing is hard. But it's still the right thing. And killing 10x more innocent bystanders than legitimate targets is not the right thing.

See my response to SVreX.

Let me ask YOU something: how about if THEY do the right thing? As in shut down the militant training bases and turn over the remaining AQ leadership? No? Don't expect them to do that? Ah, I see: doing the right thing only applies to us. The rest of the planet need not play by the same rules.

I also submit to you that their attacks on 9/11 killed exactly ZERO of what they would consider 'high value targets'. If Flight 93 had made it to its intended target (the Capitol) then perhaps that would have given them some 'high value targets' to crow about.

Instead, innocents. Going about their daily lives, bringing home the bacon for their families. So they have already done EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And you call me berkeleyed in the head. Dude, disagree with me all you want, it's a free country. But knock off personal attacks. That's just plain childish.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Ok, so I think I am understanding your perspective to be, essentially, that AQ has had (significant) presence and activity in Pakistan, therefore the nation of Pakistan should be held responsible for the actions of AQ, right?

I think it is a fine line (or perhaps a slippery slope) to blame a sovereign nation for the actions of a militant extremist group that exists in their borders. There really is a separation there, unless we are saying that Pakistan is not sovereign (completely different argument).

A NATION is bombing a sovereign NATION.

I hope someone doesn't start dropping bombs across our border because we've got stupid people here who have done stupid things.

Curmudgeon, you're right, I was in a bad mood from garage frustrations (forgot to put the heat shields on my exhaust manifolds when installing the cylinder heads and I don't know if I'll be able to get them on with the engine in the car, ugh) and took it out on you. I apologize 100% for the tone of my post, I'm really sorry.

To the content, not the tone, of my post I agree but not the tone. That was wrong. And childish, yes.

I know that terrorists have done wrong, but equating our response to that is pointing out why our response is wrong. WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS. At least I hope not. Them doing wrong does not mean we should respond in kind. And what is different about us killing 3800 of their innocents and them killing 3000 of our innocents?

We're creating generations of people that hate us, with good reason. I'm afraid we're sowing the seeds for us to be involved in hundreds of years of an Israel / Palestine situation, only with us on one side and the entire middle east on the other. And, as history shows, you do always reap what you sow.

Curmudgeon wrote: I also submit to you that their attacks on 9/11 killed exactly ZERO of what they would consider 'high value targets'. If Flight 93 had made it to its intended target (the Capitol) then perhaps that would have given them some 'high value targets' to crow about.

I disagree.

Their "high value targets" were not human targets. They were iconic targets of national pride that they hated (financial might, military might, freedom). Very high value targets to them.

HiTempguy wrote: While the reasons for going into various places like Iraq and Afghanistan might be "dubious" in some parts, I still personally believe that the US gov did it for the overall betterment of society worldwide. Did it backfire? Yes. But the idea was still sound. The people doing the killing now are the people that were doing the killing before. They may have a different battle cry, but it is all the same E36 M3. So, take those people out that want/try to hurt you. The fact is, STOPPING what "we" are doing won't do anything besides let the "bad guys" breed and spread further.

This brings back my question of when it will become difficult to call this anything but genocide. People are being killed outside of a combat zone, while not in uniform and usually not engaged in any combat-related behavior, for being associated with an enemy group or even just following the behavior of someone who does ("signature strikes"), with MASSIVE collateral damage (and the adult males who die are hand-waved away as "suspected militants"). Is this the kind of behavior a modern "enlightened" country's military should be participating in?

I'm neutral on the situation but I can just see this thread spiraling out of control because someone who is oversensitive will get butthurt and turn this into a shouting match. I second this thread getting locked lol.

In a war, innocents are the unfortunate victims. In WWII, how many were killed in the bombing of cities. Hitler sent unguided missles into London. When wars stop, so will the killing.

and we are in a war.

SVreX wrote: Wars are fought with rules of engagement, policies, procedures, International treaties, and accountability.

No, we've fought with rules of engagement, etc., but in case you didn't get the memo in this new age the other side doesn't.

I have no idea if these numbers are correct or even close to correct but you forget that even in a "proper" war there are many civilian casualties.

And you're not taking into consideration that the "other side" had been purposefully hiding &/or basing themselves in amongst hospitals, schools, etc. to keep us from going after them once we've found them. This helps them manipulate the press and the numbers to make it appear that we have been indescriminately bombing or otherwise attacking the public.

BTW you need to look up the definition of genocide, it's obvious that those of you who have used the term have no concept of what it means. It just sounds mean so you decided to use it.

carguy123 wrote: BTW you need to look up the definition of genocide, it's obvious that those of you who have used the term have no concept of what it means. It just sounds mean so you decided to use it.

I've looked it up and I do think the drone war may be bordering on it, even if not intentionally. Can "we were aiming the missiles at a member of an enemy group not in a combat situation or environment when we killed over a dozen others, whoops it was an accident AGAIN and we suspect all dead adult males to be militants anyway" really fly as an excuse?

We've seen arguments right on this page that it's all OK because there's a relatively high number of AQ members in the region, or that stopping the bombing will "let the bad guys breed and spread further." Are those really the best justifications anyone can come up with? If so...I've said what I had to say.

carguy123 wrote:

SVreX wrote: Wars are fought with rules of engagement, policies, procedures, International treaties, and accountability.

No, we've fought with rules of engagement, etc., but in case you didn't get the memo in this new age the other side doesn't.

As long as you are suggesting people look up the definition of "genocide", may I suggest that you also look up the words "war" and "terrorism"?

War

Terrorism

You are describing terrorism, not war.

And who is this "other side"??

My post is referencing the drone strikes on the sovereign nation of Pakistan. There seems to be a LOT of reference in this thread to the militant extremist group Al-Qaeda. They are NOT the same.

Technically, we are currently allies with Pakistan, with a common enemy of Al-Qaeda, though those relations and trust are strained and questionable at best.

BTW, "genocide" could actually be relevant, because it technically could include the targeting of a national group, not just an ethnic, racial, or religious group.

SVreX wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: I also submit to you that their attacks on 9/11 killed exactly ZERO of what they would consider 'high value targets'. If Flight 93 had made it to its intended target (the Capitol) then perhaps that would have given them some 'high value targets' to crow about.

I disagree. Their "high value targets" were not human targets. They were iconic targets of national pride that they hated (financial might, military might, freedom). Very high value targets to them.

And the entire world would flip out if we were to target mosques etc. Dat ol' debbil double standard strikes again.

In their eyes it's OK to kill innocents to strike at their high value targets. But it's not OK if we kill innocents while going after AQ leaders, which are OUR high value targets? Our high value targets are MUCH more likely to generate other attacks on us than their high value target ( the WTC) would start shooting at them.

I said it before, I'll say it again: I wish it weren't so. I wish the whole world would join hands and sing 'Kumbaya'. That's not gonna happen.

I wish we could merely target only the exact people who are at the root of the problem, what used to be known as a 'surgical strike'. These people purposely hide among civilians to make it difficult to hit them and to reap PR benefits if they are attacked.

Since we can't accomplish either of these, there's gonna be a war. I'd much rather see the war stay over there. I'd much rather see it fought from the air with drones than to have US boots on the ground. I have not forgotten Mogadishu. Come to think of it, that would have been an excellent place to deploy drones...

dculberson wrote: Curmudgeon, you're right, I was in a bad mood from garage frustrations (forgot to put the heat shields on my exhaust manifolds when installing the cylinder heads and I don't know if I'll be able to get them on with the engine in the car, ugh) and took it out on you. I apologize 100% for the tone of my post, I'm really sorry. To the content, not the tone, of my post I agree but not the tone. That was wrong. And childish, yes. I know that terrorists have done wrong, but equating our response to that is pointing out why our response is wrong. WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS. At least I hope not. Them doing wrong does not mean we should respond in kind. And what is different about us killing 3800 of their innocents and them killing 3000 of our innocents? We're creating generations of people that hate us, with good reason. I'm afraid we're sowing the seeds for us to be involved in hundreds of years of an Israel / Palestine situation, only with us on one side and the entire middle east on the other. And, as history shows, you do always reap what you sow.

Should have been around the last time I left an oil slinger washer out of a Triumph motor.

I don't view us as terrorists. I see us as a nation which was attacked due to our support of Israel (the modern version of that problem was created by the British after WWII, but I digress). The Middle East problem stretches back to thousands of years ago, we are merely the latest in a long line of nations to get caught in that particular quagmire.

I see us on the one side doing our best to try to conduct this war in as civilized a manner as possible but being forced into distasteful choices by an opposition which uses no such restraint. It makes for an ugly distasteful thing.

As I said earlier, this could be ended pretty quick if the Pakistani government would round up these high value targets for us. Then there would be no need for drone (or other) attacks. As long as they don't do this and there is a credible AQ threat, drone and other types of attacks will continue. We don't really have a choice.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Your "eye-for-an-eye" arguments throughout this thread sound like you think we should aspire to being just like Al-Qaeda.

berkeley that.