Fresh U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan kill 4

[flying]

I think the drones are only 'unacceptable' as they belong to an outside agency, the Pakistanis have been murdering each other with great gusto by more conventional means, yet nobody appears to give two hoots.

That like the other example leaves many targets open world wide.

After all there are many countries murdering each other

Who elected the US the selective sheriff?

Edited August 19, 2011 by flying

[Wallaby]

I think the drones are only 'unacceptable' as they belong to an outside agency, the Pakistanis have been murdering each other with great gusto by more conventional means, yet nobody appears to give two hoots.

That like the other example leaves many targets open world wide.

After all there are many countries murdering each other

Who elected the US the selective sheriff?

The problem is the drone strikes very rarely actually kill terrorists, they kill 'suspected' terrorists. Though how they can say they are suspected terrorists or civilians is not exactly clear until the bodies are identified.

So one cannot say the drones are killing terrorists. Unless of course you are deranged enough to think that if you get 1 out of a hundred then that's a pass mark. But then again, how does the US know who they killed, do they go down and go through their wallets for ID? No.

The only thing these drones do is cause collateral damage. As one poster said, if his family were killed by a rocket attack, mistake or not, he would do everything possible to hunt them down. Guess what.....that is exactly what the people subject to these drone attacks think. They have killed civilians and the families of those civilians will do whatever is necessary to gain revenge.

All the drone attacks do is make some feel that something is happening to win the war on terror. It won't be won by bombing the shit out the place that's for sure. Hasn't worked before and won't work now.

[Wallaby]

As they purport to be our "allies" they should not object to us lending them a hand.

I know oz won't help the US unless a specific request is made. The US also will not help oz unless we specifically request assistance. Perhaps the US should wait to be asked.

[lovetotravel]

As they purport to be our "allies" they should not object to us lending them a hand.

I know oz won't help the US unless a specific request is made. The US also will not help oz unless we specifically request assistance. Perhaps the US should wait to be asked.

Many times they are asked:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9159819-pakistan-army-chief-wanted-drone-support-wikileaks

Also, like the time Saudia Arabia asked for help in dealing with Iran. Wikileaks info. Was never publically stated though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/150519

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209200,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109282747371782.html

[Ulysses G.]

As they purport to be our "allies" they should not object to us lending them a hand.

I know oz won't help the US unless a specific request is made. The US also will not help oz unless we specifically request assistance. Perhaps the US should wait to be asked.

As it is often OUR troops being killed by the terrorists, asking should not be necessary.

[Wallaby]

As they purport to be our "allies" they should not object to us lending them a hand.

I know oz won't help the US unless a specific request is made. The US also will not help oz unless we specifically request assistance. Perhaps the US should wait to be asked.

As it is often OUR troops being killed by the terrorists, asking should not be necessary.

If the US troops weren't there they wouldn't be killed.

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists. The drones are also killing civilians, that is the problem of the drone attacks, when civilians are killed the families of the dead want revenge. The drones don't help the cause of the West.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Wallaby

[Ulysses G.]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

[slapout]

I think the drones are only 'unacceptable' as they belong to an outside agency, the Pakistanis have been murdering each other with great gusto by more conventional means, yet nobody appears to give two hoots.

That like the other example leaves many targets open world wide.

After all there are many countries murdering each other

Who elected the US the selective sheriff?

There is a coalition of countries involved in the fight against potential and active terrorists, or whatever term you want to use, and to point to the US as the only enforcer/sheriff may be somewhat shortsighted/prejudiced. You utilize the most advanced weapons avaliable to the entire coalition, otherwise would you leave troops from Thailand, Nepal, etc, and other countries out on a mountain without giving them full support. As far as your question "who elected the US the selective sheriff"? Think about that and you may come up with a plausible answer.

[slapout]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

I seriously doubt those Special force teams are setting out in the boon docks brewing up tea and chasing the local snatch. Some of the arm chair generals wanting to play at war games, may look up some of the individuals involved in today's military, for a visit. Today's military makes warfare thinking of 20 to 40 years ago look sophomoric. The similarity is at the end of the day, causalities, secure positions, etc and that can/will change before the sun comes up.

[Wallaby]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

Then if they are so sure why do they call them 'suspected' terrorists?

[Wallaby]

Here is another version against the certainty by the CIA that it has never killed any civilians in a drone strike. Though how they could claim they are so sure about their perfect record leaves a lot to the imagination.

It is almost as if there were parallel realities. The C.I.A. contends that a May 6 strike on a pickup truck along the Afghan border wiped out only the intended targets: nine militants and their bomb-making materials. But British and Pakistani journalists say the missiles hit a religious school, an adjoining restaurant and a house — killing 12 militants and six civilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-cia-and-drone-strikes.html

[slapout]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

Then if they are so sure why do they call them 'suspected' terrorists?

That is so they can make photos of those who show up for the funeral and compare with more suspects. It is kind of like sending "you won a prize" notice to people with warrants on them. You do not have to waste man power searching, as they come to you.

[Wallaby]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

Then if they are so sure why do they call them 'suspected' terrorists?

That is so they can make photos of those who show up for the funeral and compare with more suspects. It is kind of like sending "you won a prize" notice to people with warrants on them. You do not have to waste man power searching, as they come to you.

Or it could be because they don't know.

[Ulysses G.]

They don't know the drones are killing terrorists.

Of course they do. They have satellites and other drones watching everything. Lefties just make this nonsense up with no concern for the facts.

Then if they are so sure why do they call them 'suspected' terrorists?

It is the media calling them that and they also called Ted Bundy a "suspected' murderer.

[Wallaby]

It is the media calling them that and they also called Ted Bundy a "suspected' murderer.

I would think they used the term 'alleged'. They had to call Bundy that until he was convicted otherwise they would be sued if he wasn't convicted. But you say they KNOW they are terrorists so there is no need to say are suspected or alleged. They aren't likely to be charged with anything.

[Wallaby]

It is the 'officials' calling them 'suspected'. Not the media

At least 45 suspected militants were killed by missiles launched by U.S. drone aircraft in Pakistan's northwest, local intelligence officials said on Tuesday

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/12/us-pakistan-missile-idUSTRE76B0I320110712

[Ulysses G.]

That is not a direct quote. This is:

"The missiles were fired as militants sitting in a vehicle were entering into a house used by them as a hideout," an intelligence official said, adding that 15 militants were killed in the strike. "The house is on fire."

Note the quotation marks and no mention of "suspected" miltants.

The U.S. refuses to speak publicly about the drone program in Pakistan, but officials have said privately that the strikes have killed senior Taliban and al-Qaeda commanders.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2088901,00.html#ixzz1VTb3vLGX

Edited August 19, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

Put it this way in North Waziristan the chances of hitting a brain surgeon are pretty remote. I wouldn't want to send troops thousands of miles through inhospitable territory risking ambush when as I previously stated the Pakistanis seem to have contempt for all life including their own.

[flying]

As far as your question "who elected the US the selective sheriff"? Think about that and you may come up with a plausible answer.

Not really......In fact 2/3rds of Americans cannot come up with a plausible answer....Because it was not "We The People" that did the electing.

Since we are supposedly a country which elects a government of the people, by the people, for the people,....

Wonder why this continues still...........

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Edited August 19, 2011 by flying