Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
A week after an American drone strike killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Pakistani politicians are accusing the United States of "murder." And a militant leader responsible for attacks that killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Pakistani civilians is being viewed as a victim.
On one level, the response was nothing new in the warped, post-2001 relationship between Pakistan and the United States. For 12 years, interactions between these purported "allies" have been marked by distrust, recriminations and lies.
American officials should admit that covert U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are now counterproductive. The strikes cause Pakistanis to vilify the United States, glorify militants and coddle duplicitous elements of the Pakistani military.
For the last decade, the Bush and Obama administrations have allowed Pakistani military officials to lie to their own people about Pakistan's tacit support of the strikes. In exchange for the ability to carry out drone strikes, the United States serves as the Pakistani military's punching bag.
Pakistan's military and its ultra-nationalist allies blame foreign powers for the country's woes. They whip up anti-American street demonstrations and say that American drones kill only civilians. They declare that civilian politicians who threaten the military's power are "American agents."
The only thing surprising about the dynamic is Washington's wholehearted embrace of it. Since 2001, the United States has provided Pakistan with a staggering $17 billion in military aid, despite reports that the funds were being pilfered.
In an increasingly absurd stance, the Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge the more than 300 CIA drone strikes carried out in Pakistan since 2004. Instead, it describes the strikes in off-the-record briefings and refuses to give a detailed accounting of how many of the estimated 3,000 people killed have been civilians.
"This whole confused, convoluted discourse would change," Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador to the United States, told me Monday, "if the Americans were a little forthcoming in officially declaring who was targeted and how many people were killed."
The essential problem is Washington's appeasement of Pakistan's military.
Last month, the Washington Post obtained top secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos showing that Pakistani military officials - even while bitterly complaining about drone strikes - had secretly been choosing some of the targets. Pakistani officials also received regular briefings about the results of the strikes.
The story confirmed "one of the more poorly kept national security secrets in Washington and Islamabad" - that American drones operate in Pakistan with the tacit approval of the Pakistani military.
In the early years of the program, American drones actually flew out of Pakistani military bases. If the Pakistani air force really wanted to ground the slow-moving, propeller-driven aircraft, it could simply shoot one down.
The documents also included evidence that the Pakistani military is playing what analysts have long called a "double game." Even as it claims to be an ally in the struggle against terrorism, the military is sheltering militants - Afghan Taliban and other jihadists - whom they consider to be useful proxies against archrival India.
One memo described how former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell played a video for Pakistani officials of a man on a motorcycle arriving at a bomb-making center that Washington had asked the Pakistani military to shut down.
"Rather than launching raids, the Pakistanis were suspected of tipping off the militants," the Post reported, who dispersed their materials in a "pickup truck, two station wagons and at least two motorcycles to multiple locations."
The documents also revealed American duplicity and tight control. Though the Pakistanis choose some targets, the CIA decides when and where all strikes are carried out and informs Pakistani officials about the results afterward. And America's spies made little effort to track civilian deaths.
"One table estimates that as many as 152 'combatants' were killed and 26 were injured during the first six months of 2011," the Post described a classified document. "Lengthy columns with spaces to record civilian deaths or injuries contain nothing but zeroes."
As I've long argued, drone strikes should continue, but they should be made public and conducted by the U.S. military. The American military's system for investigating reports of civilian deaths and paying compensation that exists in Afghanistan should be applied to American drone strikes in Pakistan and around the world. And the strikes should be coordinated with civilian and military officials in Pakistan and other countries.
In an excellent column two weeks ago, Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations called for the United States to "Let Pakistan's Taliban talks fail without us." Allowing the talks to proceed and likely fail, Markey argued, would expose average Pakistanis to the hardline demands of the Pakistani Taliban.
Instead, the CIA carried out the covert drone strike Friday that killed Hakimullah Mehsud, the head of the Pakistani Taliban. The move played perfectly into a right-wing Pakistani narrative of the United States as a malevolent opponent of peace.
In Haqqani's new book, "Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding," the former ambassador describes an attempt by the Obama administration to strike a new course in Pakistan.
(Three disclosures: Haqqani and I worked together when he was a freelance reporter for the New York Times in 2002 and 2003. When he was the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, Haqqani tried unsuccessfully to win my release when I was kidnapped by the Taliban in 2008. Events I witnessed during seven months in captivity in Pakistan's tribal areas made me deeply skeptical of the seriousness of the Pakistani army's efforts to crack down on militancy.)
Haqqani's book, which was published on Tuesday, describes President Barack Obama's 2009 letter where he tried to convince Pakistani officials to shift away from their decades-old vision of India as their primary national security threat. Obama offered a long-term alliance and billions in aid in exchange for a serious attempt to eradicate militancy in Pakistan.
Pakistani military officials - who have used the threat of India to dominate Pakistan for decades - rebuffed the overture. Civilian leaders feared embracing the United States in the face of Pakistan's sweeping anti-Americanism, a public sentiment fueled, in part, by the Pakistani military.
In a brave, incisive and blunt critique of both countries, Haqqani, who was accused of being an American agent and forced to resign in 2011, calls out fellow Pakistanis.
"Pakistan cannot become a regional leader in South Asia while it supports terrorism," Haqqani wrote. "To think that the United States would indefinitely provide economic and military assistance in return for partial support of U.S. objectives is delusional."
But Haqqani also chastises American policymakers for believing that hurling billions in aid at the Pakistani military will change its institutional perspective.
"Americans must also overcome their fantasy that aid always translates into leverage and that personal relations with foreign officials can change what those officials consider to be their national priorities," Haqqani wrote. "If the Pakistanis have been reticent in their cooperation, Americans have resorted only to half-hearted sanctions."
Haqqani is right. Whatever one thinks of the Pakistani military's duplicity, they have behaved with remarkable consistency over the last 12 years.
Sadly, so has the United States.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.
63 Comments
Login to comment
BertieWooster
They are right.
This is murder.
It's also invasion.
The CIA is a terrorist organization.
nath
Also violation of the constitutionWhere does this lead to
paulinusa
I'm still trying to figure out what this guy's argument with the drone policy is. NOTHING is ever black and white. What alternative does the US have?
Frungy
The problem with drone strikes is simple, the U.S. government is executing people in another country without any sort of judicial process, and then blatantly falsifying the information released to the public under the blanket excuse of "national security", with their warped circular logic being that people in Pakistan would support and sympathise with terrorists more if they found out how many civilians the U.S. killed.
It violates the U.S. constitution, the U.S. legal system (what remains of that tattered and abused institution), the Pakistan constitution and legal system, numerous international agreements and treaties, the entire purpose of the U.N., and so many international laws and agreements that it is clearly illegal.... yet we live in an era of "Might makes right".
Think long and hard about this people from the U.S., because China has already overtaken the U.S. as #1 economy in the world according to many objective (non-U.S.) measures, and with that economic ascendency will come military ascendency. You're working so hard to create a world where "might makes right" and morality, common decency and humanity are disregarded, however soon the U.S. won't be top dog and you're going to have to live in this world you created... and you can be certain that China will have no problem continuing the U.S. philosophy.
JeffLee
Exclusively pursue the al-Queda. Remember? They were the ones who carried out the 9-11 bombings. Deploy the drones over Saudia Arabia, where al-Queda's weathly leadership lives.
The issue over the Taliban is girl's education, etc., and other domestic horrors rooted in Sharia/Islam. Leave that up for the local people to deal with. Ain't none of our business!
bass4funk
And Once again, it didn't take long for the one-sided liberal leftists to see everything in a skewed pinhole pragmatic perspective as always.
@bertie
That is ONE opinionated Journalist views.
So then, what the Jihadists do is handing out Girl scout cookies from the goodness of their hearts?
I agree, to eradicate filth, you need to move in hard and heavy and eliminate ALL potential threat. Because they would kill you, if given the chance.
Oh, really? Hmmmm, I never heard you say ANYTHING about Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood. So what kind of organizations are these?
@frungy
For terrorists, NOT necessary.
And your concrete evidence of that is......
Don't think it applies when you factor in a war on terror. Like with all constitutions, you can sometimes amend or adjust certain provisions in the law depending on the severity of a situation and this one, being in a war against Jihadists.
cleo
We get it, bass. You want to be as bad as the Bad Guys. Don't worry. Your government is trying hard to get you there.
Again, you're looking down in the mud for your role models. These are the people you want to be measured against? Raise your eyes at least to the horizon, bass.
Get someone here on JT praising the actions of the groups you mention, telling us how righteous they are and how justified their murderous practices, and I don't think bertie will be the only one 'saying' something.
And without due judicial process you know they're terrorists because how? And let's not forget the 'collateral damage' from drone strikes. Those women and children deserve summary execution because....?
Your inability to understand bertie's point underlines eloquently the truth of what he says.
nath
The idea of "The War on Terror" was absolutely ridiculous. You cannot fight an action/idea with military force. It's intangible. Can I please have a cup of terror? Or wait, do you buy terror in pounds, or gigabytes? Lets say you killed all the terrorists in one day. The next day new people are angry, So they pick up the mantle, and the war continues.
The US was right to go after the Taliban. They were tangible, and they backed the attack on the US. And the whole world was with them! But then they decided to fight 'Terror' and 'Evildoers'. What?! Next was attacking a sovereign nation that had not attacked them. And now the world was not with them. Because once again, you cannot fight an idea. Other countries were ok with fighting the Taliban. They were not ok with fighting terror. So when it came time to join in that war, most of their allies abstained, including some who had never not gone to war alongside the US.
The US even has precedent to show how successful a war against idea can work; The War on Drugs. That one has been going on for what, 30 years? And yet the US is pervaded with drugs. Because while drugs may be physical objects which can be destroyed, it just takes for someone to decide they are going to make more, and the war is back on.
The whole problem with the declaration of the war on terror is that it was a reaction against what had happened (9-11), which diverted the whole country from any reflection as to why it may have happened. So instead of reflecting on past actions, and using that to form a solid plan to move forward into a better future, the US has essentially doubled down on the things that caused so much anger against them in the first place.
BertieWooster
Bass4funk,
You seem to have conveniently forgotten this, but we used to have values such as honour and justice.
You and many other Americans seem to have been swayed by the propaganda and forgotten these things.
In order to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent, we have this procedure called a "trial." In this - ancient ritual - either a judge or a jury listen to both sides presenting their case in a calm rational manner.
A decision is made and a sentence issued by the judge.
You probably dismiss this as "liberal."
Anyway, drones do not do this. They do not hold trials.
Your country doesn't seem to think it's necessary.
The U.S.A. decides - all by itself - who is guilty or innocent.
You may also not have heard of these things around the edges of countries. They are called BORDERS.
In order to cross them, you need permission to enter.
If that's a bit hard to understand, look at it from the American point of view. Anyone entering the U.S.A. has to go through immigration.
It's wouldn't be OK to point a pilotless aircraft at some target in the U.S.A. and fire it across a border, would it. I think you and your "patriots" would have certain objections.
Well, please grant the same respect to other countries.
As Frungy points out, Pakistan is not happy about having its citizens knocked off by US drones.
This act is an act of aggression - if the boot were on the other foot - you would consider it an act of war.
Do you honestly think that Pakistan would be grateful for this act?
In the last 15 years or so, America has gone several thousands of kilometres backwards.
You have terrorists in your midst.
The number two terrorist is the CIA.
And number one is whoever is running that foul, corrupt and cowardly organization.
bass4funk
@cleo
To get the bad guys? I surely hope so!
I do and I see what you for some odd reason fail to see, radical islam in its purest form.
Don't need to do that, the very fact that many libs on JT think it's better for Israel to capitulate, lay down and roll over and do nothing as IF the arabs and Iran would just walk up, shake their hands, have a bonfire and a kumbaya moment, rather than to defend itself. Also, Cleo....why have you never mentioned anything about the Israelis that were brutally murdered by the Palestinians during the intifadas? Where's your outrage?
Usually, they are the people were identified and that are trying to kill us, you know, face recognition, spy photos, witnesses a long rap sheet, finger prints and whole whole plethora of tools that the NSA, CIA and spies on the ground use to get a positive ID.
My ability to understand Bertie's one-sided viewpoint and lack comprehension of ME politics is very evident.
@bertie
We do, but NOT for terrorists. You think, I went to visit Al Qaeda or the Taliban, they would allow me to leave alive? They would torture me first before butchering me. You think these people have morals, values and justice? To them, we're infidels, that's it, undeserving of living and occupying the same space.
Really? So why are so many Europeans on the backslide to the far-right, pretty much everywhere in Europe. Why is their a backlash of multiculturalism and anti-Islam hate is growing?
We do, they have been found guilty of the crime to conspire to destroy the US, sentence is a drone strike, fair enough.
Obama gives the final nod and the decisions were judged accordingly.
Since most liberals would rather throw daisies at the Jihadists.
Nor should they. They do exactly what they were designed to do.
After 9/11 most probably don't.
Yes, we can do that.
Yes, which the terrorists decided to cross over into the states and other radical Islamists that did the same.
When you do a crime, the police don't need permission to apprehend, enter your home or shoot you either.
But we're not talking about Immigration and by the way, that's a whole other can of worms that will pop up in the US soon.
They already did that with live pilots
Sure, once they call off their Jihad, I'll be the first one to congratulate them.
We weren't equally happy they they allowed OBL to shack up and take residence in their country, all the while claiming that they are our ally and not to mention the aid we give them, NO NOT happy at all.
Where were you during the Bush years?
I don't think we care, after all my tax dollars go to support a country that supports suicide bombers and calls for the destruction of the US. No, I don't care how they feel, they care about taking our money, but want to kill us??
I'd say more like the last 5 years about to be more accurate.
Snowden and Manning, I think so!
You mean, the Democratic party?
BertieWooster
Bass4funk,
The article above reports that Hakimullah Mehsud, Taliban leader was killed by "an American drone." You say that he was found guilty of the crime to conspire to destroy the US.
This is what you write:
Strange, Bass, I don't recall reading about a trial.
Since you seem to know ALL about this issue, please inform us when and where Hakimullah Mehsud was tried, who the judge was and what the exact verdict was.
And while you're about it, perhaps you could enlighten us on the reasoning behind the invasion. The US, as you no doubt know, did not ask permission to enter Pakistani air space or to slaughter a person who happened to be there.
We await your information with bated breath.
Frungy
I bet you'd think differently if your name suddenly appeared on the terrorist watchlist. And you know what, there's nothing you could do about it... because you'd probably already be dead. This is what fanatics don't understand, that the protections of law are there to protect everyone, and the moment you add an "except terrorists" then it quickly becomes "except terrorists and .... and .... and ....".
What astounds me is that this isn't the first, second or even third time this has happened in the U.S., nor did it happen last very long ago. In the 1950's McCarthyism used exactly the same technique, accusing U.S. citizens of "UnAmerican" activities, politics or ideals, all on the basis of little or no evidence. Later it was found that these tactics were unconstitutional, illegal, extra-legal and actionable, but for more than a decade the U.S. permitted these activities, hoping that they wouldn't be the next person pulled up before the committee.
After it finally stopped there was talk of putting measures in place to prevent a recurrence... yet here we are several decades later with precisely the same pattern repeating itself. Doubtless after this all blows over there will be the usual firm denials from politicians and individuals that they were ever in any way involved, and that all along they didn't support it... until the next time.
bass4funk
@bertie
Mehsud was in great part responsible for the Camp Chapman Attack that killed 7 CIA agents, another 6 were wounded, it was without doubt so far one the largest attacks against the CIA agents operating in the field for a very long time. Hakimullah claimed responsibility for orchestrating the attack. The Pakistani government offered a $600,000 bounty on him and On 1 September 2010 the United States added the militant leader to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists and the TTP to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The FBI posted a reward of $5 million for information leading to his capture.
Admitted, was proven, guilty, got droned, case closed. I sleep much better now and so should you.
He was responsible for murdering 7 field agents and 6 more were wounded, you think the US will just bow and capitulate because these people want us to just give up and allow them to use jihad to murder innocent men, women and children and US nationals because we're infidels? Yeah, the US government on the Presidents approval gave the man a guilty verdict and he got what was coming to him. Where is your outrage about the field officers being murdered, Bertie?
He was a terrorist, didn't need one. The man would've cut your throat as easily he would've cut mine, if we were standing in front of him. For him, we are infidels, that's it.
As I told you, the Pakistanis love the money we give them, swore they would help us in finding high value major terrorist targets and they have been constantly doing the exact opposite. Case in point, OBL. And there were others. Personally, I want the US to cut aid to the Pakistani. So since we NOW can't trust them to clean out these terrorists, we'll do that for them with better capability and fire power.
I just did.
@frungy
I'm not worried about anything like that, I'm a law-abiding citizen, so I can't subject myself to thinking in that manner. I choose to obey the law, the jihadists decided differently. You reap what you sow.
Total different ball game, now we are dealing with radical Islam and jihadists.
Yup, and I really don't care, so long they can keep Americans safe, I'm down with that. I have absolutely NO bad feelings about any of the jihadists.
Frungy
The VAST majority of victims of the drone attacks against "terrorists" have been law-abiding citizens who just happened to be standing near someone suspected of having terrorist links. Being a law-abiding citizen is no defense. That you cannot "subject to thinking in that manner" just shows that you're close-minded and unable to tolerate anything that contradicts your narrow world-view.
Back then they would have said a similar thing, they would have said that it was totally different from the Salem Witch Trials, or when they wiped out entire tribes of Native Americans, or when they killed black people, etc. The history of the U.S. is full of incidents of public hysteria and fear-mongering, and every time they kick off by reassuring people that this time it is different and that this time there's a credible threat... and every time the U.S. public laps it up. A nation of suckers.
It isn't keeping Americans safe. They aren't even really killing Jihadists, because there have been hundreds of drone strikes and the CIA is quick to announce to the newspapers when they've killed someone they're certain of... but there's been a ton of silence with only the occasional squeak from the CIA, showing that the vast majority of drone strikes are murders where the CIA has little or no clue who they killed.
Now pause for a moment and think. If someone killed your brother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter, would you let it go and walk away? Because that's what these drone strikes are doing. Creating an entire ARMY of people with a legitimate grudge against the U.S.
They're doing the reverse of protecting you, they're recruiting a whole new generation of willing terrorists who legitimately have the moral high ground and a reason to hate the U.S. with a fiery and burning passion.
BertieWooster
Bass4funk,
You didn't answer my question.
You write:
But you didn't tell me what I wanted to know, when and where the trial was held.
But you seem to be a little confused about whether there actually was a trial or not, because later in your post, you write:
So, which is true?
Mensud was tried in a court of law, found guilty and given the death sentence by a drone? Or he didn't need a trial because he "was a terrorist?"
bass4funk
@frungy
So you are basically saying we should put boots on the ground try to use surgical precision strikes, raising the rate of casualties on both sides. You can one or the other, but someone is going to sadly get killed often in these raids. If these terrorists were real men, they wouldn't hide among women and children, but these thugs don't care, your venting your anger at the wrong people, typical liberal rhetoric.
That was back then. You are making a straw man argument. It's like a black person saying, I hate all white people for the past atrocities that they inflicted on blacks during slavery! the descendants of today's whites have nothing to do with what their ancestors did.
You're talking about hysteria? Don't forget to include Europe, remember what happened in Germany awhile back?
I understand it's an ideology, we too, have an ideology not to give in to terrorists, not to negotiate and that's it. They can keep trying and we'll keep droning, whenever they come to their senses that they can't beat our resolve to live and stamp out radical Islam and decide to give up their crazy jihad, then the bombing will stop, other than that, it probably won't, nor should it.
Putting it like that,what can I do??? I'm NOT insane enough to take on the US military, I would need to seriously get my head examined. Because, in the long run, I could never win, NEVER, I would have to blame myself for associating with these thugs or move away get out of there with my family relocate or just accept it and blame these people for hiding among me and my family, it would be my fault for giving them refuge. so I would just have to deal with it.
Sure they can and they will always receive the short end of the stick and if they think using jihad will deter the US, they are seriously sadly mistaken, NOT going to happen. The ball is in their court. They have the will, we have the weapons and the will.
@ bertie
I did. You weren't paying attention, he was found guilty by the US government, the President and the military took action, didn't need a trail, doesn't extend to thugs, he was a terrorist, but you seem to have glossed over what I wrote. He was responsible for murdering 7 CIA agents. He should have known the countdown on his head started from that point.
I did you were just not satisfied with my answer. Please see above and read again.
He was found to be responsible for murdering these innocent CIA agents and was subjected to being droned, as he was a terrorist, he's not entitled under the act of terrorism to have one. There you go. He's gone and all the better.
Frungy
No, I don't. I think that the U.S. shouldn't be in Pakistan at all. Invading other countries is bad.
Typical right wing fanatic "logic", the idea that no-one would get killed if the U.S. stopped its illegal activities in other countries never even occurs to you.
It is not a straw man argument... that would be what you did above by saying that I supported a "boots on the ground" approach. I'm pointing out a legitimate pattern in the U.S.'s behaviour. You can't deny it or refute it, it is a matter of historical fact, no matter how much you'd like to pretend it doesn't exist. This pattern keeps on repeating itself, with each successive generation denying all responsibility for the past generation's crimes... yet the repetition shows that in fact the same problem exists in U.S. society as a whole, not just one generation.
Germany exhibited a similar pattern, as did Japan... until they got their countries bombed back to the stone age, and since then they've been model global citizens. I'd rather if the U.S. could learn its lesson WITHOUT that sort of pain and suffering... however people like seem intent on pushing the issue until it learns its lesson the hard way.
"They" (whoever "they" are... no-one seems to have a clue) stopped coming years ago. In fact if you examine terrorist activity in the U.S. then it seems like "they" are U.S. citizens with access to automatic weapons.
And there you have it, you're proving the idiocy of the U.S. military's strategy. You see they can't ever "win" unless the commit total genocide. But they keep on attacking in the name of "revenge" for the 9/11 victims. What is their victory condition? There is no condition under which they can win, yet they keep fighting, resulting in U.S. citizens being killed. Well done, you and your military are, by your own admission, insane.
Will they take higher casualties at the moment? Sure. However you killed their family member and they'll keep coming, and even if only one in ten makes a kill that'll add up. And for every one you kill your create a dozen more terrorists by making them martyrs for a cause.... only a complete and utter idiot could fail to see how self-defeating, idiotic and insane the US's strategy is.
bass4funk
@frungy
But when they commit acts of murder and kill US citizens, even on US soil or other countries, it's ok. So you are saying essentially walk away, turn the cheek and do nothing.
Sure, but I'm selfish, just like the majority of the world. I care about my country, my people. Yes, I don't want innocent people to get killed, but my concern and priority is for OUR brave men and women out there sacrificing their lives for our freedom, that's fist and foremost In My book.
Ahhh, So why Not point out the radical jihadists behavior that have mutilated men, women and children, killed innocent people, that want to establish a caliph and rid the world of infidels and wants to impose sharia as the rule of the land. Where is your outrage?
Not doing that, but the same goes for the jihadists, no matter how much you pretend it doesn't exist.
The same can be said about any country.
Yeah, and WHO made sure of that they remained model citizens. :-)
Like I said, all the jihadists have to do is call off their jihad against the west, the drone strikes stop, seems very simple to me.
We are not talking about mentally ill people, domestically in the states, that's an entirely different topic, different thread. They ( "terrorists" ) that kill Americans abroad is the issue, not stopped my friend, still ongoing.
So your logic is to be like Europe, capitulate, let radical Islam take foot hold, slowly submit to the radical ideology! leave them be! bow down to them! ignore them! they will eventually get the message and leave them alone. I guess if Israel does it with the Palestians, the Russians with the Chechnyans, the Chinese with the Uighur's, these problems will sooner or later rectify themselves. We leave them alone, and they'll be friendly, maybe even allies one day. Keep telling yourself that. There you have it, Liberal rationalization at its finest.
Fine and for every one radical that thinks they can take on the US, let them do it, OBL thought he got away and all these other, high value top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, a big portion are dead and each time, they keep electing a new leader, they keep getting wasted, either by a US drone or special forces. Like I said, they have their ideology and we have weapons and our will and resolve to make more drones and to wipe them out. As long radical Islam thinks it can take on the US, they will always be disappointed, always. They can end this, the choice is theirs.
Moderator
bass4funk and frungy, when you reply to one another, it is not necessary to reply to each sentence. A general reply will suffice.
Frungy
... the rant above sounds EXACTLY like the anti-communist rants of the '50's (reds under the bed! they'll take over the US!! etc..), the anti-gay rhetoric of just a few years ago (do you want them turning you gay?!), etc. And they're equally misinformed and wrong.
Serrano
"an American drone strike killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban... a militant leader responsible for attacks that killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Pakistani civilians"
Is this not good?
BertieWooster
Serrano,
If this man was responsible for attacks that killed hundreds or thousands of Pakistani citizens, of course it is not good.
The point is that in a civilized democracy, a person suspected of such crimes would be arrested and TRIED in a court of law. If he was found guilty, punishment would be meted out.
Under a totalitarian regime, trials are unnecessary, a person is killed on the order of someone who points a finger.
Which of the above is the U.S.A?
There was no trial.
Or, at least, there was no trial that the accused attended.
He was slaughtered in cold blood.
And in addition to this, this person's nationality was Pakistani. Surely it was up to the government of Pakistan to do with him as they thought fit. What the U.S.A. could have done would be to inform the Pakistan government of this man's whereabouts and then give them the right to administer their own justice.
But the U.S.A. doesn't seem to think this is necessary.
It seems to think that it is above all this.
Frungy
Serrano, you left out the bit where four innocent civilians were killed along with this suspected murderer.
Where does that leave us? Well, he was a suspected murderer, but the U.S. authorities responsible for the drone attack are self-confessed murderers. Does this entitle someone to shoot the U.S. authorities responsible, or would you insist on a trial for them? ... the type of trial they denied this suspected murderer.
Serrano
"The point is that in a civilized democracy, a person ****suspected**** of such crimes would be arrested and TRIED in a court of law."
Oh good grief, OK, in the future would you please capture the ruthless terrorists ( who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse ) alive so that they may receive their trial? Thanks in advance.
"this suspected murderer"
Hundreds, if not thousands of Pakistani family members and friends of those killed know he was responsible, even if you don't.
"four innocent civilians were killed along with this suspected murderer"
How innocent could they be if they were with him?
BertieWooster
Serrano,
Logic seems not to be a friend.
How do you know they weren't innocent?
You automatically assume they were guilty.
Without, I might add, not knowing of what crime?
How do you know they weren't US operatives, for example?
What is this, "unfriendly fire?"
Frungy
*Suspected ruthless terrorists... they could be completely innocent, like 80% of the "ruthless terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay were found to be once they finally got access to legal representation and their day in court.
Oh, and I suppose you know them? What, you don't? Oh, well I suppose you've at least seen a media report from one of them? What, no media reports from any of the victims, just the CIA's say-so that he was guilty. Oh well, the CIA is clearly trustworthy, I mean its not like they've got a reputation for getting this sort of thing wrong. Oh, wait, they do, about 80% wrong. Did you have a point?
Little kids tend to be pretty darned innocent, and at least one of the victims was a kid. Unless you're convinced that the child was a terrorist too?
Oh, and be careful about who you stand near, because the guy a few feet to your left might be a terrorist... which would make you a firm candidate for "collateral damage".. but hey I'm sure you conduct full background checks on everyone you walk past in the street, right?
bass4funk
@bertie
That is just absurd
You libs keep saying that. Again, these are radical terrorists, they don't need a trail, I'm glad that they are in a place where they can't hurt people anymore, we are all better for it and if you guys care, why must you single out ONE group of people, where is your outrage about the soldiers that were brutally murdered. It seems you and frungy are more sympathetic to the radical jihadists. We know the crimes, just because you are below that pay grade and don't know, doesn't mean it's NOT true. The very same people that you so admire that would behead you, if given the chance. Remember that.
@ frungy
You don't know any of these people, and yet, you go by a gut feeling that these people are innocent and you base that on.... There is a plethora of facts and articles that clearly contradict what you are saying. If these guys were so innocent, there wouldn't have been a bounty on his head from the US or Pakistan. And please, you don't work for the CIA, you don't know what they know or how their operations work or how they gather intel. You are approaching this on an emotional level. Leave the emotion out of it. Again, you have 2 options, boots on the ground, risk a chance of increasing your casualty count, or take your chance and send a drone in to be sure, casualty rate of being high is possible, but when these thugs choose to hide among the civilian population, there is NO way to extract them, if we wait too long, they can regroup, disappear and plan another attack. It's just not going to happen, even if sadly innocent people get killed, you or bertie won't be able to stop it, no one can and I personally don't think they should when getting these thugs. Honestly, I do wish that Obama would arrest these guys! but easier said, than done, get and send them off to Guantanamo, but now we can't do that, so the official Obama policy is, is to drone them, for terrorists, I feel NO sympathy for them.
Frungy
Ah, bass4funk back for another lesson in logic.
Let's take my personal favourite first, your contention that these are the "same terrorists that ... helped Al Qaeda at the height of the Iraq war!". The height of the Iraq war would be about 2003, that's 10 years ago if you're as bad at math as you are at logic. That would make the kid who was killed... hmm... not even born yet. I'm assuming that you have testimony from the doctor that he was threatening to "unleash the wrath of god on the US" in the womb. No? Well I guess you're just wrong then, as always.
As for innocence, you maintain that "there is a plethora of facts and articles that clearly contract what (I) am saying". Here's my challenge to you then. Give me the names and ages of all the victims killed when the accused terrorist was killed. I'm not asking for much, just 4 names and ages. Because if you don't even know their names I don't see how you can say that there are any facts about them anywhere.
And under US law (and Pakistani law) people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Show me the judgement that the CIA obtained from a court of law, even in absentia, and the judge's sentence of death (Pakistani court if the crimes were in Pakistan, US if the crimes were in the US), and you might have a point. Without that judgement though it is murder.
And even if these guy was found guilty there aren't only 2 options, you have a lot of other options, such as a sniper firing a single round 500 yards away. Any sniper who can't hit the bullseye reliably at 1000 yards is incompetent. I know an ex-sniper who's nearly 60 years old and can still hit the bullseye 9 times out of 10 at 1000 yards (and when he misses the bullseye it is by a few centimeters usually). Send in a sniper backed up by a couple of guys with LMGs. Sniper takes out the target with no collateral damage, the LMGs cover the retreat to the helicopter.
Of course the real truth is that it is cheaper to circle a drone for days and take out any (who from a picture) looks like a terrorist. And if they're not a terrorist then there are absolutely no consequences for the CIA operative who made the call since it is all classified anyway. Oh, and let's not forget that the CIA were surprised to see this guy alive, they thought that they'd already taken him out... so let's just hope that this time they weren't wrong again.... because a picture is hardly a conclusive way of identifying someone in fact facial recognition software has been so ineffective that every single real-world trial of the software for criminal identification has failed.
BertieWooster
bass4funk,
Radical terrorists, according to you don't need a "trail" (sic).
We'll presume that you meant to write what they don't need is a trial.
So, what is it that you are saying, that some human beings have rights and others don't?
Or maybe you'd like to say that "radical terrorists" aren’t human.
We've heard that line often enough!
It's the traditional excuse for genocide.
It seems really hard for you to understand, but in a civilization, whether a person is a "radical terrorist" or not gets decided in a PUBLIC COURT OF LAW. The person is given a chance to present his side of the story. This is known as a TRIAL, or "trail" if you prefer it.
When both sides of the story are heard and witness accounts heard and any other evidence presented, a decision can be made.
You think this is LIBERAL?
It's acting like a civilized human being.
And, as has been pointed out, the four people who went up with the "target," who just happened to be standing next to him when the drone hit, could have been guilty as hell, or they could have been angelically innocent.
WE DON'T KNOW.
They could have been trying to persuade him to quit being a terrorist and write for Fox News. Who knows who or what they were.
They didn't have the luxury of a trial either.
You may not have seen this. I suggest you read it:
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UNITED NATIONS)
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law
bass4funk
@frungy and bertie
And again, we use ad hom attacks.
That is your opinion.
I think you are missing the bigger picture, I'm not talking about age, I'm talking about ANY Al Qaeda thug that participated in the brutal assassination of US soldiers and other allied forces. So you are saying because I personally don't know the names, how about you giving me the names and I'll give you the names of the people that died in the Kenyan Bombing, the USS Cole, 9/11 sounds fair. The facts are there, they were innocent, sad, but in a war, casualties will occur.
Terrorists Not fully protected.
The treaties were initially written with state-sponsored military conflicts in mind and emphasize that "combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians." Combatants who fall within the guidelines and who become prisoners of war must be treated "humanely."
According to the International Red Cross: Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees. However, because terrorists are not clearly distinguishable from civilians, in other words, they are "unlawful combatants," it can be argued that they are not subject to all Geneva Conventions protections.
Bush Administration legal counsel has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and contends that everyone being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is an enemy combatant with no right of habeas corpus: Under these rules, captured enemy combatants, whether soldiers or saboteurs, may be detained for the duration of hostilities. They need not be guilty of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war.
I agree.
As far as snipers are concerned: http://www.veteransunited.com/network/the-new-face-of-counterinsurgency-military-snipers-and-drones/
And you know this because you know first hand as to how the CIA, NSA do their operations, you know this factually and your source for that is....
BertieWooster
Keep going, Bass4funk, you're doing great!
Everything you write is a revelation!
At least it certainly shows up where you're at!
Frungy
Bass4funk, it appears I was correct. You seem to view mathematics as another of those inconvenient "liberal" ideas. Showing that the kid who was killed wasn't even born during the Iraq war using mathematics isn't an "opinion" (as you like to believe), but a fact.
You also stated categorically that the individuals killed were "The same terrorists that were still involved in plotting to kill Americans, that vowed if released to unleash the wrath of god on the US, that helped Al Qaeda at the height of the Iraq war!". Yet you have no clue who they are. You can't say you know who they were, what they said and where they were... and then admit a complete ignorance as to their identity, that's basically admitting that you have no clue who was killed, whether they were terrorists or not, and basically you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and as for the CIA killing the wrong person previously, that was in the JT article about the drone strike. As a journalist I'd at least expect you to keep up with the news and remember it, but apparently you consider everything you agree with a "fact" and everything you don't agree with an "opinion", even mathematics.
bass4funk
I don’t believe so.
That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it.
Oh, and as for the CIA killing the wrong person previously, that was in the JT article about the drone strike. As a journalist I'd at least expect you to keep up with the news and remember it, but apparently you consider everything you agree with a "fact" and everything you don't agree with an "opinion", even mathematics.
I want to ask you a serious question, did you fight in any of the two last wars? Where were you stationed, what was your mission, your rank, your division? You were not on the battlefield, I was as a reporter, I don’t know many of the names, but I DO know that it was a very scary place to be.The US takes great stride to minimize civilian casualties. You and I will never agree, so just leave it at that. It is more difficult to put boots on the ground and to even put a 2 man sniper team depends on many factors and cannot be so easily deployed and please don’t rant about how snipers do their mission. As I said, before and if you read my last post, the US is employing both Snipers (like you said, they should) and drones. So now we are in agreement. Case solved.
And as for Mehsud HE was responsible, that is a fact. The man admitted it, he has blood on his hands for killing those agents and he got what all terrorists will eventually get….a tomahawk missile.
Get Real
Does this lend you one gramme of moral authority on the matter?
bass4funk
It gives me deep insight as to the reality of what a war is really like.
Get Real
b4f,
It's your reality. And it's far from objective.
bass4funk
You mean to be in a war and to see the reality of war does to a person, the sights and sounds. My reality is different from a fantasy that, Liberals THINK that a war should, which is not only a ludicrous POV, but a laughable one.
SenseNotSoCommon
Empty, macho posturing.
I grew up in a conflict zone. Was threatened by combatants of all hues, all equally brutalized, rationalizing their own actions and blinkered agendas.
On the evening news we jeered the condescending, know-it-all cheerleaders for the soldiers who humiliated us on the streets, spouting "POVs" developed between the barracks and the hotel bar before going on to their next assignments, as always submitting copy that toed the corporate line, whatever body that was.
Been there. Done that. But bought a very different T-shirt to yours. Mine has a Peace sign on it.
bass4funk
I was in working for msnbc covering Fallujah in the fall of 2003 for 4 months. How you liberals think of how a war should be and the harsh reality of what it really is, is different from what many here THINK it is, one point is, they add the emotional part to the argument, which is something you can't really do.
Frungy
b4f You were a visitor in a conflict zone, someone who had the luxury of company protection, company food, and could occassionally step out of your comfort zone and "take a risk" or two when you wanted. You may think you were brave and taking chances, but you only took the chances you wanted, then you could retreat back to your comfort zone.
You're like the people I hear spouting off about "knowing" Japanese culture on the basis of a single year spent living in Japan. Your understanding isn't deep, it is shallow and superficial.
Sensenotsocommon (SNSC) actually LIVED and grew up there, with no convenient foreign enclave to retreat into when the going got tough and his world began to fall apart. I can sympathise, I grew up in a similar situation, so I can get where SNSC is coming from.
You trying to equate your 4 months living in the press pool in an army-protected hotel with a fully stocked bar and being escorted around Iraq to photo opportunities with a "deep" understanding of the conflict... what a laugh.
bass4funk
@frungy
Yes, I had the company of protection, but that doesn't mean, we were always safe. We had a few journalists that were killed either in the crossfire or purposely targeted and sniped. We could NOT just step out, that's BS, we had to have security at all times when we would go out, adhere to the strict rules, NOT when we wanted, goes to show how much you think you understand. Has nothing to do with being brave. More like being careful, listen, pay attention to your surroundings, don't play the big hero and always have some fear instilled in you, because that is what ultimately keeps you alive. And NO, it's NOT the same thing, I don't need to spend years in Iraq or Afghanistan to SEE, again, SEE and hear to ascertain the situation as to what is going on. You don't know what I have seen or covered, war is horrible, I went, because it was my job, it wasn't Club Med and it was a scary place, which gave me that much more respect for the men and women that put their lives out there on the line everyday for us. My understanding is VERY DEEP with the footage, the people that I have interviewed, war is bad, it's bloody and you see things, you never forget. I was there for a few months, but for others that have been there for years, honestly, I don't know how they march on, but that is what makes them so great. My hats off to them all.
I see
Lol, I wish, I really wish we had those luxuries!!! Maybe I missed out. Alcohol wasn't always that easy to get. I can count on my fingers the number of times, I indulged myself in an adult beverage, NOT that much. I was more busy doing my work, that's all. It wasn't a vacation cruise. Frungy, what my job was as a reporter was to do just that, report. You may think what you like, but I just did what I was supposed to do. I didn't go as a partisan, it's not about that. You are free to think what you like, but I was happy looking back in hindsight to see for myself what life is like for the average Iraqi and there was a lot to learn in the 4 months I was there, A LOT. I learned a lot and I learned how devastating war can be to both sides and it isn't pretty. You can never get the smell from your nose, the sights, all of it. Just happy to have been able to get out and see my family and to do what I love to do in a fair and honest way.
cleo
Pity you can't crank up a bit of respect for the innocent civilians who live in the scary places you weren't allowed to wander around in because it was too dangerous. Imagine being 8 years old and having to live in a place considered too dangerous for a grown man
But only the ones with Uncle Sam passports, right? The ones who have lived there for years, the ones who were born there, they try to march on, get on with their lives, and get blown up by the drones, and that's OK with you. Nothing makes them great, they're only locals, and if they aren't already radicalised by what they've seen in their short lives, better to kill 'em before they are, right?
Sickening.
Get Real
The harsh reality of Iraq is that New Europe and the ambitious Tony Blair were duped into invading an innocent (of involvement in 9/11) country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Immediate_response
B4F, you saw the reality of the first battle of Fallujah. Luckily you didn't witness the horror of the second battle, a horror that Fallujah's citizens still live with, the cancers and birth defects caused by depleted uranium, for example, or you might have turned into a Liberal. A fate worse than death!
Nothing emotional about it. There's nothing emotional about SenseNotSoCommon's post. Human beings, the innocent men, women and children killed and maimed deserve the same dignity, esteem and column inches as any combatants. It makes your coverage objective. These casualties, and the consequences of them, are fact, not emotion.
The reality, my friend, is that if the innocent civilian victims got the coverage they deserved, the troops wouldn't fight. Once again, the troops wouldn't fight.
@b4f, how many Iraqi civilian funerals did you report on, and to what extent did you report on the consequences within Fallujah itself?
SenseNotSoCommon
You are, of course, referring to Iraqis?
Get Real
What was that corporate line SNSC talked about toeing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War
One MSNBC journalist on drones:
http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-host-gives-defense-of-drones-2013-2
An objective bunch at MSNBC.
bass4funk
@cleo
I grew up in north Long Beach, that was dangerous enough.
Of course a big portion of them are mostly radicalized. That, I have seen up close personally, so it's instilled in these kids at an early age that the US and Israel are the enemy, just black and white, they are ALL bad. I don't know where you get your info from, but you are way off the mark. Sorry, cleo, but my concern first and foremost is for the safety of Americans and to minimize the threat of Radical Islam coming to our shores or hurting Americans, for you bertie and frungy, you sympathize more with the jihadis and the people around them, whether they be innocent or not, I respect that, but when I was there reporting, I had to be objective, that's it.
To me, I find it sickening how anyone could even try to make rational sense of radical Islam as if the jihadists will become friendly loving law-abiding citizens, you really think, they would embrace you with open arms? I seriously doubt it.
@get real
Based on evidence from the US, French, the Russians, the Israelis, so that means, they were all duped, because of all the faulty information that they went by, received and traded amongst one another, this is what exactly the intelligence agency does.
I didn't, but I have been in other war zones, this wasn't the first, so I have a VERY good idea. I think you are right and it's a sad sight to see anyone suffer. I also spend time twice a year with other colleagues of mine to spend a few days with our veterans, many of them with cancer, lost limbs, challenging mental and physical difficulties and NO, I would never turn into a liberal. I covered a few funerals, not that many for the Iraqis, I have other comrades that did. I have my assignments, they have theirs. I can't just do what I want and cover what I want, it doesn't work like that. If I am freelance, different story.
As for objectivity, that is one reason I left Msnbc, because it was a giant liberal echo chamber, one-sided and never allowed opposing viewpoints to even say that you were a Conservative could get you a desk job or fired. Yes, it was that bad. But I do agree with that statement: "I know war crimes may have been committed via our drone program, but I am pro killing al-Qaeda leaders via drones — even if they are American citizens." But that's my personal opinion. You lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
Question, why do you liberals care so much for these people ONLY when you all want to make political points, other than that, any other time, when the Jihadists kill their own people, throw acid in little girls faces and commit acts in the name of Sharia and I am talking about among these people MINUS American presence. Why do you guys NOT speak out against that? Why NO vitriol projected at these people? What about the Muslims killing innocent people in Nigeria, how about the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines or Sudan? Where is your outrage at how these innocent people are being treated.
lostrune2
Problem's simple: it violates the countries' constitutions. Solution's also simple: change the constitutions.
Ya don't see this problem in countries where it doesn't violate their constitutions, do ya? When's the last time we heard complaints about that.
cleo
Is that supposed to be a joke? (I have no idea where north Long Beach is or why it's 'dangerous enough', but if you grew up there I'm pretty sure it didn't/doesn't have snipers in drones flying over firing missiles at anything that moves)
Erm, people who are firing missiles at you are the enemy.
I'm going off the rubbish people like you post here about 'these people' and how it's OK to kill any number of 'them' without even knowing who 'they' are. In what way am I off the mark? Have you been misleading me?
With the jihadis, no. They're murderous thugs. The people around them, who have done nothing wrong except be born in the wrong place - heck yes, they get way more of my sympathy than the GI Joe who earns his monthly pay check killing to order.
So do I, in fact I don't think rational sense can be made of any religion, by definition. It's all fairy stories and pie in the sky. Your point? You're upset at B so it's OK to shoot and kill A and C cos they happen to be near?
Frungy has already very eloquently squashed your claims to know about war zones. You saw what you were shown and only what you were shown, and the only idea you have is the one the military deliberately planted in your head..
bass4funk
@cleo
Hey, if you think so, lol, you are freely entitled to YOUR opinion, but sadly, hardly. None of you were there, you guys have never seen battle up close, I have and it sucks. I saw what I saw and again, none of you were there, you sit at home watching the BBC doesn't do justice of being there on the frontline seeing death, destruction and carnage and how these murderous people for the most part are killing each other, again, you libs never truly understand, but I do, it's some type of envy of the US and I do get it. Even if you put snipers in their, it's not that easy to set up that kind of operation, even when you have multiple targets. You guys really don't understand. As we speak there are special forces out there right now risking their lives for our freedoms, all of ours. You will never hear about them, because most of these missions are highly classified, they don't get paid a lot of money, they don't get a lot of credit, they do it for the love of their country to safeguard our freedoms and if you don't understand that...well, I don't know what else to tell you. You guys probably don't know the "Rules of engagement" when confronting an enemy. And because they take GREAT care to avoid any civilian casualties, they DO have their hands tied and that makes them that much more vulnerable to the enemy. They know this and DO take often advantage of this. IF we wanted to, we have enough fire power to level the city to the ground-period! But that will not happen, nor is that the goal. So this diatribe of Americans systematically trying to purposely kill people is so funny and unbelievably ludicrous, it's hard NOT to chuckle when I listen to people talk about something they know nothing about except by watching the News or knowing about a country by placing their finger on a map. But, If you really have such a concern, I want to know why you never talk about the sectarian violence, the murdering of young girls that want an education, people getting married and killed for marrying someone of a different sect or tribe, the public beatings, beheadings, the executions. Why are you NOT on here condemning that, because when you crunch the numbers it's a lot more killing going on from their own people 20 to 1. As I said, for me, I have anger more towards the cowardly Al Qaeda's and Taliban, because they make up 98% of the violence that goes on in these areas.
cleo
Not my opinion, but your own words: I had the company of protection.... We could NOT just step out, that's BS, we had to have security at all times when we would go out, adhere to the strict rules, NOT when we wanted.
If you saw it all you doubtless saw what happens when children are hit by a missile? But that doesn't stop you thinking it's perfectly OK for the US to continue its policy of drone strikes in which the innocent die? Or maybe your 'company of protection' protected you from such scenes, and only took you to see the results of strikes by the Bad Guys?
bass4funk
@cleo
Which was true.
Sorry, but you DON'T KNOW what I saw, you really don't, therefore, you cannot say definitively anything as regard to what I saw on the ground when I was in Iraq.
I suggest you go to the Jihadi sites and show your frustration and anger towards them, they are the root of the problem and THE main cause for all of this happening and even in Iraq, where most of the US forces are leaving, the killing is still going on and getting worse WITHOUT THE AMERICANS. Cleo, where is your outrage? Do you go on their sites, protest, send letters to the Iraqi government that the murder and slaughter of innocent children is a vile, heinous and monstrous act. Don't what liberals do, the last 5 years, Obama blamed Bush for practically everything, personally, I'm surprised he didn't blame him for the failing ACA, but that's a different topic. Will you blame these people? Next year when almost all the US forces are gone and when the murdering continues (and it will) will you blame the crimes at that moment in time on the civil war insurgencies or will you keep blaming Americans. That will happen, just like in Afghanistan with the Taliban, it's the same exact situation. The Taliban are already making a comeback since the WH publicly gave a verbal time table. These guys will just wait it out until that day.
Get Real
@b4f
Evidence from the Israelis? Not at all partisan, I'm sure!
Othering one's fellow human beings like that makes it easy to dismiss Iraqi civilians (or is it rag heads?), and under-report their stories, their horrors.
What it all boils down to is, from the mercenary in the back of a contractor's jeep to drone controllers, they're all conditioned not to see their targets as human.
That, sir is an abomination, aided and abetted by subjective reporting.
bass4funk
@get real
Evidence from the Israelis? Not at all partisan, I'm sure!
No more partisan than the democrats, republicans, the Palestinians, if you take it to that extreme level, anyone can be partisan, but the fact remains, the US did not go in based on its own intel solely it relied on a number of other nations to make its case, so if you say, the US lied, then all these other countries lied as well.
Subjective reporting.....hmmmmm, I guess, if you come from a terrorist vs freedom fighter POV hiding behind masks, why, what for? Seriously, No, it Wasn't subjective reporting. It was what I saw. How you choose to interpret the visual facts are subjected to your own interpretation of what you think is subjective.
Get Real
Throw the Palestinians into the WMD argument, why don't you? Why not the Cubans and Hugo Chavez while you're at it?
Thank you very much. Sorry for doubting your broad perspective and objectivity.
No more questions.
bass4funk
You are welcome.
cleo
We all know the US public were duped.
The French were so far from being duped that Foreign Minister de Villepin stated clearly in the UN Security Council that 'the case for war has not been made' and had half of America (the stupid half) munching down on Freedumb Fries and Freedumb Toast and pouring away perfectly good bottles of wine in an attempt to prove their patriotism.
On the same day that de Villepin spoke out, the Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov went on record saying 'Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq'.
Which leaves Israel...who knows what sweet nothings the country that supported Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and whose 'military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq' was whispering in Bush's little shell-likes? Sorry, but no 'evidence' out of Israel relating to should we (or rather, our big bro Uncle Sam and his mates) bomb Iraq? should be considered kosher.
Meanwhile millions around the world who had looked at Bush's close-set, shifty little eyes and seen the lies there demonstrated against war. So no, bass, no one was duped except those who wanted to be duped.
bass4funk
@cleo
Sadly, to correct you, not only the US and no one was purposely duped, despite what the liberal media wants to convey you to believe, I know for a fact, they ALL had the same intelligence, all of them, which equates to I guess, that they all lied then.
The case was made with the UN article Iraq resolution we went through all that and even if Bush didn't go to the UN, unlike Clinton who just went into Kosovo, Bush tried to go about it the diplomatic route, but had the UN not agreed, it matters little. We don't need to ask anyone if we are allowed to protect ourselves and our national interests.
Wrong again.
a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Oh, and one last thing about the French being duped.....ahhh...no, sneaky, YES!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/10/france.iraq
When I was a reporter and I had an assignment in France, I did try to find answers to why they did this and I couldn't get ANY government official that wanted to talk to me, but I don't blame them, I would do an Ostrich myself.
No one yearned for war with Iraq, lol. I think you have a Jewish conspiracy problem, you always seem hateful towards America and Israel, but for some reason, you have empathy, sorrow and compassion for Jihadists, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But have zero knowledge as to how ME politics work, you just tune in to the BBC see photos and videos of war torn people and you take it as fact. You don't understand about the media, you don't even understand that 98% of the media is liberal. How is that balanced? It's all skewed to fit a certain demographics, partisan all the way. You go on and on about about the innocent men, woman and children being killed, but when have you ever mentioned about people in Israel being brutally murdered and the mall or buses etc. Do you remember Nick Berg? Who murdered him? Where was your outrage about that. You never commented on the Iranian Jews that were tried, many were hung, just like many of the Christians. You have a very selective POV when it comes to the bloodshed of one particular group of people. Again, I have been there, seen it with my very own eyes and as a reporter, I know what is the truth and what is fiction and I can assure you, things are not always the way you think they appear to be.
And that is your personal opinion and you are free to believe that, if you like.
Get Real
National interests: keep the oil flowing; ensure Saudis control OPEC; optimize defense industry profits
Is the BBC photoshopping photos?
cleo
The UN did not agree The US and UK didn't push for a resolution because they knew they wouldn't get one. and you're right, it mattered little, because they went in all the same, without UN approval.
Sorry, but that's a legitimate quote.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/24/usa.politics
I understand you might see the Guardian as an evil liberal bogeyman, but it's a highly respected, mainstream newspaper. Reject their editorials all you like, but are you going to say they report outright lies?
So the US government passed a law allowing itself to go to war. What has that got to do with anything? (and, you're referring to wiki? Oh my.)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/10/france.iraq
Oh, I see the Guardian is OK as a source when you think it's backing up your opinion. Right then.
So some French businessmen (and US ones too, if you read down to the bottom of the article) wanted to buy Iraqi oil. You know, I tend to think that paying bribes, while not pristine, is way preferable to dropping bombs. But that's just me. I tend to think killing is wrong.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/background-enthusiastic-idf-awaits-war-in-iraq-1.18896
Is Israel's oldest daily newspaper also part of this Jewish conspiracy problem?
You make it sound like that's a bad thing.....
The media is 98% liberal because on the whole you have to be pretty intelligent to work in the media, and people who think tend to be liberal because it makes sense. As in any other field, about 2% of dullards manage to find their way in, though.
No, I have a very liberal POV when it comes to bloodshed, full stop. I disapprove if it.
Again, by your own admission, you saw what you were allowed to see. You don't have to see a dead person to understand that being dead is not a good thing. Ergo it follows that wanton killing is not a good thing. You are the one with the very selective POV - killing Americans Baaad, killing anyone else just in case, Goood.
bass4funk
@cleo
Question, how is all this related to this thread. you are way off track
I said it many, many times, they can use their ideologies if they want, but as long as they do, we'll keep droning them, simple as that, black and white. If they stop with their crazy Jihad, we stop.
No, sorry, I don't have a selective POV, I just do my job, regardless of what or how YOU think I should do it, I follow the guidelines of my employer and my own senses and judgment, I get done what needs to be done. And, I am sorry, but Killing anyone is bad, but you and some other JT members seem to pass off the killings of Americans as something not to be taken seriously, but you guys bang the drum that the lives of the people that are around and living among the terrorists as if their lives are more valuable, but you guys never and I mean, NEVER condemn the slaughter and killing of these innocent people when their own people do it, because you know it doesn't further your liberal cause, but if you can point the finger at America or Israel, it's much easier.I am still waiting that you call out the Taliban for brutalizing women and throwing acid in their faces or the constant and ferocious attacks in Iraq between the Sunnis and the Shiites. The public beatings, execution, beheadings, please, when will you ever on JT for the record, speak out against these atrocities? They happen on a daily basis and once all the troops are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, they will still continue. Cleo, will you still come on JT and denounce these acts? Because the Americans will be gone and the ONLY people that you can blame are the locals living there. Will you and the other liberals voice your outrage still??
cleo
When JT puts up a thread about the Taliban or anyone else brutalising women/throwing acid/religious conflict/public beatings/executions/beheadings, and then some fool comes on telling us how justified it all is, that fool will get the same treatment you're getting.
taiko666
Freedom Fries... so indicative of the USA's insanity.
@bass
The Taliban are murderous thugs. I'm disgusted by the worldwide jihad, from Afghanistan to Kenya/Nigeria to the streets of south east London. I'm appalled by the politically correct myopia about that jihad. But I'm also appalled and disgusted by the utterly brain-dead manner in the USA attempts to solve this problem. In fact, the USA's behaviour is so astonishingly idiotic that it might appear that they're actually trying to whip up Muslim hatred to further some obscure goal. But Occam's Razor suggests that the USA is just plain stupid.
bass4funk
Oh, No you don't! Why does it have to be on only JT??? Or why NOT use JT as a way to vent your anger against these monsters? Don't just wait, for a specific article to be put out. You don't need that to vent your anger against these people that do this on a daily basis, which makes up the majority of the crimes in these countries. Don't even talk BS about venting at a specific JT individual, don't be selective, don't cherry pick, you're going to lose even more credibility.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194158/Taliban-swoop-party-behead-17--dancing-Women-victims-killed-breaking-law.html
How about this one....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/us-afghanistan-women-idUSBRE97C08220130813
I can go on and on article after article. Again, I know what you're doing. I'm calling you out. This is about bashing Americans and nothing more, it's not about the injustices of what's happening in Afghanistan, because if it were, you'd be screaming your lungs out about the vile Taliban, the brutalizing of women and children on ever level, but you don't. You just want to attack Americans because it's convent for you because you have such vitriol and distain for them. You always act as if you care for these people, you've never been there, I personally have seen these people up close, you, on the other hand, hear and see some report on the BBC see a few rogue soldiers murder a family in cold blood (which I do believe was horrific) the man was caught and tried and yet, you seem to spout off that Americans joyfully, gleefully just kill innocent people on a daily basis as if it's their sole mission to decimate that country all the while excusing what brutalities the Taliban are doing on a daily basis. Instead of cherry picking who you prefer to hate, because you have an axe to grind, why not call out THE people the REAL PEOPLE that are responsible for these crimes and that's NOT the US or just keep coming on JT and make a fuss of the soldiers that that overall are responsible for less than 1% of the crimes. By the way, once the US leaves next year and you hear the Taliban re-surfacing, which they will, will you be on JT venting OR will you find another area where you can bash Americans? I really would like to know.
@taiko666
The Taliban are murderous thugs. I'm disgusted by the worldwide jihad, from Afghanistan to Kenya/Nigeria to the streets of south east London. I'm appalled by the politically correct myopia about that jihad. But I'm also appalled and disgusted by the utterly brain-dead manner in the USA attempts to solve this problem. In fact, the USA's behaviour is so astonishingly idiotic that it might appear that they're actually trying to whip up Muslim hatred to further some obscure goal. But Occam's Razor suggests that the USA is just plain stupid.
What do you suggest? Sit down and have a talk and a Pepsi? If you think talking with these guys will solve something and bring an end to the jihadists war against the west, you are seriously and sadly mistaken. The Muslims hate us for a very, very long time as well as Israel, if the Israelis leave their land, then the radical Islamists would stop, but that's never going to happen, therefore, their anger towards the Jewish nation will never stop. The US hatred won't stop no matter what, ask Obama, he thought so, him having a Muslim middle name and background, he thought he could win them over and guess what, it didn't happen, it's all a ruse, the jihadists will never give up, negotiating won't work, look at Iran. Time and time after time history has shown us, how these radicals think. They want to put their ideology to destroy the US, we will use our resolve to counter that. They can keep trying and keep promoting a new leader and we'll keep taking them down, every single time. Once they renounce Jihad against the west, we can stop droning them, I would love that, we all want peace, but it's their choice.
Moderator: We have asked you more than once to stop bickering with other readers. You do it on every thread on which you post. From here on, I suggest you post your opinion on the story and do not address other readers. Any posts in which you bickering will be removed.