Tuesday February 14, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

4th U.S. missile in 24 hours in Pakistan kills 5

World Sep. 09, 2010 - 04:31PM JST ( 13 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

13 Comments

0

BeelzebubSep. 09, 2010 - 05:55PM JST

Perhaps the US should aim its next drone at the headquarters of Pakistan's intelligence service.
0

SpiderSep. 09, 2010 - 06:36PM JST

...or perhaps they should try something other than this perpetual gunboat diplomacy.
0

FrungySep. 09, 2010 - 10:10PM JST

The U.S. is going to carry on poking Pakistan with a stick until some grieving father or mother who's lost a child to the unprovoked bombings manages to smuggle a weapon into the US. Even if they just manage to kill a few sewer rats the US will then use this to whip the American public into a frenzy and act like this is a just war. ... and the pathetic thing is that the majority of the American public are stupid enough to believe it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of terrorist no matter what the cause, and at the end of the day it's the average people in the street who suffer, not the politicians and military leaders who caused it, so I have the upmost sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I also sincerely believe that the attacks into Pakistan by the US and their allies are also terrorist, and that the War on Terror should start with a cleanup of the Pentagon. Just because terrorist tactics are efficient doesn't make them justified.
0

SargeSep. 09, 2010 - 10:32PM JST

That's 5 fewer militants to cause misery.
0

smithinjapanSep. 09, 2010 - 10:47PM JST

sarge: "That's 5 fewer militants to cause misery."

And umpteen dozen family members who grow to hate Americans and their arrogance moreso than now -- particularly when it's confirmed, as is usually the case, that they weren't militants but civilians. But hey, it's all a video game to many Americans, so who cares, right?

Frungy: " I also sincerely believe that the attacks into Pakistan by the US and their allies are also terrorist, and that the War on Terror should start with a cleanup of the Pentagon. "

Agreed 100%, but don't tell that to people like certain posters above -- they just can't see the facts, or the reality that it is the exact same thing. The US needs to stop firing missiles from drones into a nation allied in the war on terror (on bush's declaration, back when he was desperate for support) and realize the approach is not only NOT working, but ultimately creating more terrorists and people sympathetic with their cause.
0

SargeSep. 09, 2010 - 11:04PM JST

Frungy: "I also sincerely believe that the attacks into Pakistan by the US and their allies are also terrorist"

You are wrong. You simply refuse to acknowledge that the actions taken by the U.S. and its allies reduce the ability of the terrorists to torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.
0

paulinusaSep. 09, 2010 - 11:29PM JST

"...and realize the approach is not only NOT working,..."

From a strategic sense it's effective and actually working well. The US military can't work on the ground in Pakistan to pursue terrorists from Afghanistan and as the article states Pakistan won't enter there either. And behind the scenes the Pakistanis give tacit approval for the strikes. Unfortunately, the Pakistanis are an unreliable ally because of their tendency to work both sides of the fence, so to speak.
0

smithinjapanSep. 10, 2010 - 12:14AM JST

sarge: "Don't worry, smith, we'll get them too, without your help."

And without yours... except if wearing out your armchair counts, of course. And no, I'm not making up stuff at all. Most of the strikes in Pakistan by drones end up being confirmed kills with civilians, as is often the case in Afghanistan as well (though not always by drones) and hence the 'anonymity' and hostility by Karzai (in the case of the latter). It's YOU who's making up stuff by denying it.

"Anyway, militants, civilians supporting militants, what's the difference?"

Yeah, send them all to the back of the bus, sarge -- they all look the same.
0

smithinjapanSep. 10, 2010 - 12:16AM JST

sarge: "You are wrong."

Opinion cannot be wrong be definition. Frungy saying what he/she believes to be the case is what he or she believes to be the case. Stating it is so is another matter -- as you are wrong in saying two wrongs make a right, or that civilians are the same as terrorists (if you honestly state that is the case, that makes a whole lot of American extremists terrorists as well).
0

smithinjapanSep. 10, 2010 - 12:20AM JST

"The Pakistani government has publicly criticized the missiles strikes as violations of its sovereignty, but is believed to help the CIA carry out the attacks, especially when they target militants at war with Pakistan."

Since when has the US cared about sovereignty? If they did, they would have never gotten mired in the other disasters in the ME.

"Critics say innocents are also killed, fueling support for the insurgency."

'What's the difference?' in sarge's words. They are all the same. And he honestly wonders why extremists target the US... laughable.
0

WilliBSep. 10, 2010 - 01:07AM JST

Bottomless stupidity on the part of the US government. They still cling to the naive idea that they can appease the muslim world with their silly appeasement, while at the same time picking off the occasional violent misunderstanders of the religion of peace with their missiles.

The opposite is of course the case. While all the millions of aid into Pakistan are accepted with nary a thank you, these missile hits will be played out with the usual propaganda spin ("women and children killed!").

Pure stupidity. They still refuse to recognize the nature of what they are up against.
0

SuperLibSep. 10, 2010 - 01:49AM JST

paulinusa: From a strategic sense it's effective and actually working well. The US military can't work on the ground in Pakistan to pursue terrorists from Afghanistan and as the article states Pakistan won't enter there either. And behind the scenes the Pakistanis give tacit approval for the strikes. Unfortunately, the Pakistanis are an unreliable ally because of their tendency to work both sides of the fence, so to speak.

Yep.
0

tigermothSep. 10, 2010 - 02:37AM JST

Most of the strikes in Pakistan by drones end up being confirmed kills with civilians, as is often the case in Afghanistan as well

Well, this assumes you believe the counter claim after the US strikes that these were civilians. It's sort of like when you interview convicts in prison - all are innocent and none did the crime. They don't carry badges saying 'terrorist' so technically they are all civilians, just civilians carrying out terrorist activities. Look at the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War. Children were blowing up soldiers in markets. When the troops would enter a village rife with known VC, suddenly none of them were. Just because they all suddenly claim to be innocent civilians does not mean that they actually are.

Besides, the way these same terrorist blow themselves up in markets, indiscriminately killing their own people, the innocent civilians are just as likely to be taken out by the locals. If a bomb takes out even a few then it has likely save civilian lives in the long run. Screwed up thinking perhaps, but such is life in an unconventional war.