US launches 17 airstrikes inside pakistan since mid-august

Suspected U.S. missile strikes kill 27 in Pakistan
Last Updated: Friday, October 31, 2008 | 3:03 PM ET
The Associated Press

Suspected U.S. missiles slammed into two villages close to the Afghan border on Friday, killing 27 people including an Arab al-Qaeda operative and other foreign militants, intelligence officials said.

The al-Qaeda member was identified as Abu Kasha Iraqi, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

He had been living in Pakistan's tribal region for about three years, from where he had been organizing attacks on foreign forces in neighbouring Afghanistan, the officials said.

Suspected U.S. unmanned planes have fired at alleged militant targets in Pakistan at least 17 times since mid-August, putting pressure on extremists accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But the marked uptick in their frequency is straining America's seven-year alliance with Pakistan, where rising violence is exacerbating economic problems gnawing at the nuclear-armed country's stability.

Scores of foreign al-Qaeda members are believed to be hiding out in the lawless border area, which is considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden.

The United States rarely confirms or denies firing the missiles and the identities of those killed are only occasionally made public. Locals frequently say civilians, sometimes women and children, are among the dead.

The first attack took place in Mir Ali village in North Waziristan after drones had been flying overhead for several hours, the intelligence officials said, citing reports from agents and informers in the area.

The drones fired twice, hitting a house frequented by Abu Kasha Iraqi and a nearby car, killing 20 people, the officials said, citing reports from agents and informers in the field.

Around two hours later, a second set of missiles hit a village in South Waziristan, killing seven people, including an unspecified number of foreign fighters, the officials said.

© The Canadian Press, 2008

"Suspected U.S. unmanned planes have fired at alleged militant targets in Pakistan at least 17 times since mid-August, putting pressure on extremists accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

- mid-august? why does that date ring a bell? oh yeah, that's the official resignation date of pakistan's dictator with whom george bush was very chummy

Embattled Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/wa...n/18prexy.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

"Suspected U.S. unmanned planes have fired at alleged militant targets in Pakistan at least 17 times since mid-August, putting pressure on extremists accused of planning attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

- mid-august? why does that date ring a bell? oh yeah, that's the official resignation date of pakistan's dictator with whom george bush was very chummy

Embattled Musharraf resigns as Pakistan's president

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/wa...n/18prexy.html

---

Exactly

we should have done this 7 years ago, what would pakistan do? launch a nuke on us?

when a country fails to maintain its sovereignty over certain areas inside its borders, and thats causing much harm to 3rd parties, then those 3rd parties reasonably can take measures to fix or contain the threat, assessing the risks involved tho.

Its funny how we have made attacks both in Pakistan and Syria with whom we have diplomatic relations and have totally backed off from confronting Iranian regime which we accuse so much of killing and helping harm on American troops in the region...

we should have done this when it was a dictatorship...instead, bush waits until it's a fledgling democracy and then bombs them back towards a dictatorship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

we should have done this 7 years ago, what would pakistan do? launch a nuke on us?

when a country fails to maintain its sovereignty over certain areas inside its borders, and thats causing much harm to 3rd parties, then those 3rd parties reasonably can take measures to fix or contain the threat, assessing the risks involved tho.

Its funny how we have made attacks both in Pakistan and Syria with whom we have diplomatic relations and have totally backed off from confronting Iranian regime which we accuse so much of killing and helping harm on American troops in the region...

---

So does that mean we should start shooting border patrol agents for failing to do there job on the mexican border?

only if the illegal immigrants and border patrol agents are terrorists

I remember early in the Iraq war, when the US military got a tip that Saddam was hiding out in a house in some crowded neighborhood. They promptly sent a missile to blow the shit out of said house, killing several innocents, only to find out Saddam wasn't actually there.
This seems to be the recurring theme in US military policy; kill a few dozen civilians if it means possibly getting a couple terrorists. Then when Muslims declare a Jihad on the America, we're told it's because "they hate our freedom". :rolleyes:

saddam hussein was no threat to america or even his neighbours so that decapitatation strike and the following invasion/occupation with all it's ugliness were unjustified

if the usa had actionable intelligence that osama bin laden had been in that house, i would support a raid even if it endangered some civilians...air strikes are indiscriminate in who they kill so they should be a last resort

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

saddam hussein was no threat to america or even his neighbours so that decapitatation strike and the following invasion/occupation with all it's ugliness were unjustified

---

hang on there:

Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 8 years, Iraq launched Chemical weapons on civilian population with all the technology and material supplied by then world powers of east and west

then resolution 598 forced both sides to sign a cease fire and end the war

then saddam attacked kuwait, and only then when the tiny state with a shit ton of oil and no military and a good relationship with us got attacked we went after him half/way and then again hit him over lies in 2003

it was justified to attack saddam hussein early in the 80s... no one did, iranians defended alone with little help from others

it was justified to attack saddam in early 90s when he stupidly invaded kuwait
it was justified to take him out then... we never did, does anyone know why????

then we had to make up a story and hit him in 2003. I dont have a bit of problem with Saddam's Iraq being taken down at all, i just have a problem with all the lies and inconsistencies

and when i say justified I dont mean that "america" should have attacked only, I mean it was reasonable for International community and UN and world powers to take such actions as a whole, u cant help it when America is the strongest military power out there but to expect the most contribution from them, although in the perfect world I would stick with Ron Paul's ideas and policies of non-intervention

Winner of both of our current wars is no entity in the world but Iran, Saddam was still on CEASE FIRE with mullahs when he was found in a ditch

Taliban is an extremist sunni group totally not down with Shia Mullahs

there, we just took out both of their sworn enemies and yet we expect them not to take advantage of this situation? mhm thats weird to me, those who made the decisions should have left some room to have some control over Iran factor when they knew its going to be catalyzed

All I can say is that it is precisely this kind of behaviour that gives terrorists thier reasons for attacking the west, it is insanity of the highest degree,
Interfering in other countries business is always going to be a dangerous precedent and is guaranteed to make enemies , it has been going on for far too long.
The west has no right to invade any country in order to place a puppet goverment in power and I strongly suspect that is the whole purpose of the "terror war" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 8 years"

- that was in the 1980's, with the support of the united states government...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect iran from something that ended in 1988?


"then saddam attacked kuwait"

- that was in 1991 with US permission, and we kicked his ass out of kuwait in quick order...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect kuwait from something that ended in 1991?


"then again hit him over lies in 2003"

- what lies? are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect america from lies? saddam was a criminal and a monster, but iraq was no threat to anyone in 2003:
No 10 knew: Iraq no threat | Politics | The Guardian

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

CNN.com - Scott Ritter: Case against Iraq is speculation - September 13, 2002

Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix | World news | The Guardian



"it was justified to attack saddam in early 90s when he stupidly invaded kuwait
it was justified to take him out then... we never did, does anyone know why????"

- george bush senior explained why he didn't take out saddam by saying:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
- George HW Bush, 1998, proving that the apple sometimes falls farther from the tree


if you think it would be justified to take out saddam because he invaded kuwait (with prior permission from the US ambassador to iraq), then would you say it is justified to take out george bush after he invaded iraq? or take out bill clinton after he bombed the crap out of yugoslavia? or take out george bush senior after he invaded panama? or take out ronald reagan after he invaded grenada? or take out richard nixon after he secretly carpet bombed laos and cambodia? or take out lyndon johnson after he lied about US forces being attacked in the gulf of tonkin to get authorization to invade vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

"Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 8 years"

- that was in the 1980's, with the support of the united states government...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect iran from something that ended in 1988?


"then saddam attacked kuwait"

- that was in 1991 with US permission, and we kicked his ass out of kuwait in quick order...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect kuwait from something that ended in 1991?


"then again hit him over lies in 2003"

- what lies? are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect america from lies? saddam was a criminal and a monster, but iraq was no threat to anyone in 2003:
No 10 knew: Iraq no threat | Politics | The Guardian

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

CNN.com - Scott Ritter: Case against Iraq is speculation - September 13, 2002

Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix | World news | The Guardian



"it was justified to attack saddam in early 90s when he stupidly invaded kuwait
it was justified to take him out then... we never did, does anyone know why????"

- george bush senior explained why he didn't take out saddam by saying:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
- George HW Bush, 1998, proving that the apple sometimes falls farther from the tree


if you think it would be justified to take out saddam because he invaded kuwait (with prior permission from the US ambassador to iraq), then would you say it is justified to take out george bush after he invaded iraq? or take out bill clinton after he bombed the crap out of yugoslavia? or take out george bush senior after he invaded panama? or take out ronald reagan after he invaded grenada? or take out richard nixon after he secretly carpet bombed laos and cambodia? or take out lyndon johnson after he lied about US forces being attacked in the gulf of tonkin to get authorization to invade vietnam?

---

no no no

i think we totally had a misunderstanding. i thought u were sayin saddam didnt deserve this by sayin he posed no threat, cuz he not only did pose threat, he turn them into action!

by lies, i meant the WMD lies

justified: Moral justification that most rational people anywhere in the world would 'agree' on

about bill clinton and yoguslavia, dude there was a massacre there, ethnic cleansing, that bitch is now facing court over it in holland

and thanks for mentioning G H bush's comments, but i always think there is more than the cover of story, like the 90s iraq actually owning a lot of chemical weapons that were destroyed under int'l pressure and UN inspections in the next decade, thus totally risking a massive human-life factor in the region for American troops and non-americans as well

I think G.W Bush and people who facilitated this war should be sued at least in a civil court for merely lying to everyone and deception that led to many lost lives from both sides, i wouldnt go as far as calling him a war criminal the same way i call milochevich a war criminal, but Bush certainly violated some laws domestically and internationally

all in all, i do not agree that we should be policing the world at all, but there needs to be an effective UN to do this job, cuz someone must be able to stop lunatics in power when its absolutely needed to protect innocent lives

this is not happening yet, its kind of pick n choose on what world powers and mainly US wants, we turn a blind eye on darfur and arabs there and we turn a blind eye on Israel's mistakes. we act not for the good intention only, but we think about our money (read all those interests involved, whether its business money or not) first and foremost. we are down with completely undemocratic KSA while condemning others for being undemocratic. We are a republic and perhaps one of the worse types of representative democracies, but we keep banging on drums of spreading democracy all over the world, even with wars at the expense of other's lives. these are the inconsistencies I'm talking about that I have a problem with