Latest U.S. drone strike in Pakistan kills 18

[mania]

This article may help folks

understand whether using drones in Pakistan is to be considered

constitutionally correct. Meaning allowed to be waged or decided without a formal declaration

of war approved by Congress.

http://www.ponderpost.com/2010/10/constitution-war-congress-declares-president-wages/

[Scott]

The link is interesting, but off-topic. Please post with the topic of this thread in mind.

[mania]

The link is interesting, but off-topic. Please post with the topic of this thread in mind.

Thanks Scott

That article does actually mention Pakistan specifically as an example.

I think a big question on many Americans mind regarding the use of Drones in

Pakistan is whether it is Constitutionally correct or to be allowed/financed

with tax dollars. Of course there are also other concerns collateral damages

being checked by whom etc.

Will try to keep as tightly the topic as possible

Edited July 6, 2013 by mania

[simple1]

The link is interesting, but off-topic. Please post with the topic of this thread in mind.

Thanks Scott

That article does actually mention Pakistan specifically as an example.

I think a big question on many Americans mind regarding the use of Drones in

Pakistan is whether it is Constitutionally correct or to be allowed/financed

with tax dollars. Of course there are also other concerns collateral damages

being checked by whom etc.

Will try to keep as tightly the topic as possible

The following URL is a decision by the Pakistani High Court concerning the legality of US drones attacks and actions recommended to the government that will not come as a surprise. Obama has stated the justification is to prevent known terrorists attacking ISAF forces and civilians and is legal. Looks as though Congress is not overly happy & is pushing back to have management transfered to the military to enable a greater level of oversight. With more than 3,000 killed on Pakistani territory the CIA must have access to an astounding qantity & quality of intelligence, both electronic and HUMIT. If this is so, why are they not using drones to take out the ISI and others within the Pakistani establishment who are in fact managing and co-ordinating the various terrorist groups. As I said previously "something" is going on and what is being said in the public domain just doesn't resonate with truth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/12/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

Edited July 6, 2013 by simple1

[antfish]

The following URL is a decision by the Pakistani High Court concerning the legality of US drones attacks and actions recommended to the government that will not come as a surprise. Obama has stated the justification is to prevent known terrorists attacking ISAF forces and civilians and is legal. Looks as though Congress is not overly happy & is pushing back to have management transfered to the military to enable a greater level of oversight. With more than 3,000 killed on Pakistani territory the CIA must have access to an astounding qantity & quality of intelligence, both electronic and HUMIT. If this is so, why are they not using drones to take out the ISI and others within the Pakistani establishment who are in fact managing and co-ordinating the various terrorist groups. As I said previously "something" is going on and what is being said in the public domain just doesn't resonate with truth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/12/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

the article says:

The American use of drones is, in the chief justice's legal opinion, wholly disproportionate under international law. He notes that 9/11 still provides the US administration's pretext for a "global war on terror", yet there has been "not a single … terror incident … anywhere in the USA" emanating from Pakistan in more than a decade since. How, then, can it be proportionate to kill more than 3,000 Pakistanis, including "infant babies, pre-teen and teenage children, women and others".

That is also how I see these drone attacks.

Can anyone of the pro drone-murder hawks disprove that? How many of the 3000 killed people were involved in attacks on the USA?

[jamhar]

A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

I hate to bring up an old post but

I recall reading this article in the guardian

And the claims that it made

I think the article repeated the claim 3 or 4 times

but never supplied the data, which I thought odd at the time

So i did a little digging, not much mind you

found this data

Drone effectiveness data

Now i dont know the authors from adam, so I'm cautious

but the numbers are more inline with what i would expect.

Does anyone know where the Guardian got its data from?

[mania]

This might be better

A long read to be sure but even the executive summary is good.

The Authors are listed as well as the methodology used to collect data

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

[simple1]

A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

I hate to bring up an old post but

I recall reading this article in the guardian

And the claims that it made

I think the article repeated the claim 3 or 4 times

but never supplied the data, which I thought odd at the time

So i did a little digging, not much mind you

found this data

Drone effectiveness data

Now i dont know the authors from adam, so I'm cautious

but the numbers are more inline with what i would expect.

Does anyone know where the Guardian got its data from?

A US senator has claimed more than 4,700 killed by drone strikes since the technology has been deployed across the region. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism says the number killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia is between 3,072 and 4,756. The Washington-based New America Foundation says there have been 350 US drone strikes since 2004, most of them during Barack Obama's presidency and the foundation estimates the death toll at between 1,963 and 3,293, with 261 to 305 civilians killed.

Take a pick, who do you prefer to believe?

Edited July 6, 2013 by simple1

[jamhar]

Take a pick, who do you prefer to believe?

I believe the Taliban

I dont think i ever heard them say, "please stop the F16 bombings!"

This is the data for Pakistan from the link I provided

the numbers are inline with the "3000 Pakistani killed" quote from antfish above

Total drone strikes

accumulated data

Drone Strikes

357

Total killed

2021- 3350

Civi

258-307

militants

1567-2713

unknown

196-330

Drone Strikes 2012

48

total killed

222-361

civi

5

militants

194-317

unknown

23-39

From where i sit, the data looks pretty good. At least for argument for UAV's vs Manned flights.

Edited July 6, 2013 by jamhar

[jamhar]

This might be better

A long read to be sure but even the executive summary is good.

The Authors are listed as well as the methodology used to collect data

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

Thanks mania, like i said, always looking for opposing views

It looks like a long read but i'll see if i get thru it.

[marstons]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

bit like dressing as women and women and kids as shields, not to mention IEDs.

Taliban were there before the "coalition" went in and will be there after, then the death toll will seriously rise.

[antfish]

Take a pick, who do you prefer to believe?

I believe the Taliban

I dont think i ever heard them say, "please stop the F16 bombings!"

This is the data for Pakistan from the link I provided

the numbers are inline with the "3000 Pakistani killed" quote from antfish above

Total drone strikes

accumulated data

Drone Strikes

357

Total killed

2021- 3350

Civi

258-307

militants

1567-2713

unknown

196-330

Drone Strikes 2012

48

total killed

222-361

civi

5

militants

194-317

unknown

23-39

From where i sit, the data looks pretty good. At least for argument for UAV's vs Manned flights.

And for how many attacks on the USA these militants were responsible and which attacks exactly?

[jamhar]

And for how many attacks on the USA these militants were responsible and which attacks exactly?

Zero, which is the objective

[antfish]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

bit like dressing as women and women and kids as shields, not to mention IEDs.

If you attack and invade a country without any big military industry you should expect that they fight back with IEDs because they don't have any tanks, helicopters, missiles, aerial bombs, rocket launchers nor drones.

[Credo]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

bit like dressing as women and women and kids as shields, not to mention IEDs.

If you attack and invade a country without any big military industry you should expect that they fight back with IEDs because they don't have any tanks, helicopters, missiles, aerial bombs, rocket launchers nor drones.

I believe the countries that you are talking about, or at least the groups from within them, invaded and attacked the US first.

I don't think drones are susceptible to attack by IEDs, so when they plant them, in general they have a greater chance of getting civilians than they do soldiers.

[mania]

I believe the countries that you are talking about, or at least the groups from within them, invaded and attacked the US first.

I cannot say because all I have ever really done is read things.

No first person experience.

But I assume what your saying is 9/11 was the start.

It seems most would say Bin Laden etc. Yet when you read the history you see the US had a long relationship with him

as a useful tool. Same as Saddam & many others later deemed terrorist in need of killing

When you read Bin Ladens Manifesto or his translated letter to the American people

he states:

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

Full translation here at the information clearinghouse ( being a translation again unknown how accurate or if intent changed by translators )

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm

So it is hard for folks like us to know again, which came first the chicken or the egg?

I am only sure I do not know for sure.

I can read & question the source but when taken as a whole it does not look one sided

Edited July 6, 2013 by mania

[antfish]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

bit like dressing as women and women and kids as shields, not to mention IEDs.

If you attack and invade a country without any big military industry you should expect that they fight back with IEDs because they don't have any tanks, helicopters, missiles, aerial bombs, rocket launchers nor drones.

I believe the countries that you are talking about, or at least the groups from within them, invaded and attacked the US first.

I don't think drones are susceptible to attack by IEDs, so when they plant them, in general they have a greater chance of getting civilians than they do soldiers.

You talking about 9/11?

i thought those people came from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia studied in Germany, lived in the United States and took flight lessons there.

The Afghani villagers or those in the mountains at the border to Pakistan had nothing to do with it.

Jamar is right, the number of attacks on the USA these militants were responsible is ZERO.

[jamhar]

Jamar is right, the number of attacks on the USA these militants were responsible is ZERO.

You misspelled my name.

not complaining,,,, just say'n

As i have stated before, after 9/11, the US decided to take the fight to them

If you're actively planning, aiding in planning, an attack on us soil, we will come for you.

If you're actively planning, or aid in planning, an attack on us citizens abroad, we will come for you.

I'm assuming they fit one of the two conditions.

These are just my assumption. I'm just an engineer and a us citizen

PS, antfish, before things get too heated.....

I do read your posts. We disagree, absolutely, but i respect and value your posts

Lord knows i've made my share of mistakes So its good to read opposing views,

just to double check that i'm on the track that i want to be on.

I rarely know with certainty if i'm right or wrong,

i'm just a guy happy to make a somewhat informed opinion or decision.

Ummm No group hug needed at this time

[Credo]

There were attacks well before 9/11, including the one on an embassy in Africa that caused Clinton to let loose with a few missiles on the Afghani training centers.

We are straying off topic, though. The drones are just another chapter in the same war.

[simple1]

Jamar is right, the number of attacks on the USA these militants were responsible is ZERO.

You misspelled my name.

not complaining,,,, just say'n

As i have stated before, after 9/11, the US decided to take the fight to them

If you're actively planning, aiding in planning, an attack on us soil, we will come for you.

If you're actively planning, or aid in planning, an attack on us citizens abroad, we will come for you.

I'm assuming they fit one of the two conditions.

These are just my assumption. I'm just an engineer and a us citizen

PS, antfish, before things get too heated.....

I do read your posts. We disagree, absolutely, but i respect and value your posts

Lord knows i've made my share of mistakes So its good to read opposing views,

just to double check that i'm on the track that i want to be on.

I rarely know with certainty if i'm right or wrong,

i'm just a guy happy to make a somewhat informed opinion or decision.

Ummm No group hug needed at this time

A quick rehash…The US decided to attack Afghanistan as Al Qaeda was being provided protection by the Taliban government. Al Qaeda were defeated in Afghanistan, but were able to move across the border to Pakistan due to some very poor decisions by the US military and Rumsfeld. We all know the US did not follow up by attacking Pakistan for providing protection for Al Qaeda operatives. The whole drone issue has been authorised by US law for attacks on another nations sovereign territory, not based upon international conventions governing the conduct of war, so an arbitrary decision by the US. In a similar fashion the legal reasoning by the US for justification of torture, again in contraction to international conventions for the conduct of nations.

It is regrettable US Administrations are ignoring well established international conventions & in the longer term will be to the detriment for the safety of US citizens.

Edited July 7, 2013 by simple1

[F430murci]

Jamar is right, the number of attacks on the USA these militants were responsible is ZERO.

You misspelled my name.

not complaining,,,, just say'n

As i have stated before, after 9/11, the US decided to take the fight to them

If you're actively planning, aiding in planning, an attack on us soil, we will come for you.

If you're actively planning, or aid in planning, an attack on us citizens abroad, we will come for you.

I'm assuming they fit one of the two conditions.

These are just my assumption. I'm just an engineer and a us citizen

PS, antfish, before things get too heated.....

I do read your posts. We disagree, absolutely, but i respect and value your posts

Lord knows i've made my share of mistakes So its good to read opposing views,

just to double check that i'm on the track that i want to be on.

I rarely know with certainty if i'm right or wrong,

i'm just a guy happy to make a somewhat informed opinion or decision.

Ummm No group hug needed at this time

A quick rehash…The US decided to attack Afghanistan as Al Qaeda was being provided protection by the Taliban government. Al Qaeda were defeated in Afghanistan, but were able to move across the border to Pakistan due to some very poor decisions by the US military and Rumsfeld. We all know the US did not follow up by attacking Pakistan for providing protection for Al Qaeda operatives. The whole drone issue has been authorised by US law for attacks on another nations sovereign territory, not based upon international conventions governing the conduct of war, so an arbitrary decision by the US. In a similar fashion the legal reasoning by the US for justification of torture, again in contraction to international conventions for the conduct of nations.

It is regrettable US Administrations are ignoring well established international conventions & in the longer term will be to the detriment for the safety of US citizens.

Very clearly your opinions which are never biased at all when it comes to Muslim or US. Shock and awe as to your opinions. I am feeling pretty safe as a US citizen, especially with drones flying around taking care of business so I am seriously doubting your opinion as to safety of US citizens. It is regrettable that we need to use drones because some people in this world just cannot act right.

Do we have any stats on number of civilians taken out by drones in the last 5 years compared to number of civilians taken out by IEDs, suicide bombers and just terrorist bombing in general in Iran, Pak., Afg., et al. I think they are taking their own out way more then we are.

[jamhar]

A quick rehash…The US decided to attack Afghanistan as Al Qaeda was being provided protection by the Taliban government. Al Qaeda were defeated in Afghanistan, but were able to move across the border to Pakistan due to some very poor decisions by the US military and Rumsfeld. We all know the US did not follow up by attacking Pakistan for providing protection for Al Qaeda operatives. The whole drone issue has been authorised by US law for attacks on another nations sovereign territory, not based upon international conventions governing the conduct of war, so an arbitrary decision by the US. In a similar fashion the legal reasoning by the US for justification of torture, again in contraction to international conventions for the conduct of nations.

It is regrettable US Administrations are ignoring well established international conventions & in the longer term will be to the detriment for the safety of US citizens.

Maybe, its a complicated relationship for sure

Regarding the tactical decisions by the military, i have no idea. Its war, shit happens. learn from the mistakes, and move on.

Regarding the drone attacks

maybe

or maybe the $1.5B the Pakistani military is getting every year, and the similar amount the civilian government is getting

could be on the conditions are they look away at the drone attacks but can complain publicly afterwards.

and maybe the recent Pakistani court decision on drones is a message that Pakistan is unhappy with the proposed

cuts in financial aid scheduled for Pakistan for 2014.

Its all conjecture.

but the effectiveness of the drone attacks vs manned attacks is a fact.

Edited July 7, 2013 by jamhar

[LomSak27]

What is the death toll on drone strikes in Pakistan anyway - 800 now?

And how many dead in Pakistan by these same miltants the US is targeting ..... was it 14,000 or 17,000

However thats not the issue, so best just to pretend you never read it.

[simple1]

What is the death toll on drone strikes in Pakistan anyway - 800 now?

And how many dead in Pakistan by these same miltants the US is targeting ..... was it 14,000 or 17,000

However thats not the issue, so best just to pretend you never read it.

Varying estimates, but they average around 3,000 killed by drones in Pakistan.

Between 14,780 and 43,149 Pakistanis have been killed since 2004 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. This does not include the likely deaths of tens of thousands more combatants — both insurgents and Pakistani government forces. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded. Other estimates indicate 50,000 deaths in Pakistan due to the internal fighting and terrorist attacks targeting civilians. More detail at: http://costsofwar.org/article/pakistani-civilians

A bit more granular info; at least 2,000 Pakistani civilians and 680 security forces personnel were killed in terrorist-related incidents in Pakistan during 2012, the US State Department said in its annual Country Reports on Terrorism 2012.

http://www.aaj.tv/2013/05/2000-civilians-and-680-security-personnel-killed-in-2012/

[simple1]

Jamar is right, the number of attacks on the USA these militants were responsible is ZERO.

You misspelled my name.

not complaining,,,, just say'n

As i have stated before, after 9/11, the US decided to take the fight to them

If you're actively planning, aiding in planning, an attack on us soil, we will come for you.

If you're actively planning, or aid in planning, an attack on us citizens abroad, we will come for you.

I'm assuming they fit one of the two conditions.

These are just my assumption. I'm just an engineer and a us citizen

PS, antfish, before things get too heated.....

I do read your posts. We disagree, absolutely, but i respect and value your posts

Lord knows i've made my share of mistakes So its good to read opposing views,

just to double check that i'm on the track that i want to be on.

I rarely know with certainty if i'm right or wrong,

i'm just a guy happy to make a somewhat informed opinion or decision.

Ummm No group hug needed at this time

A quick rehash…The US decided to attack Afghanistan as Al Qaeda was being provided protection by the Taliban government. Al Qaeda were defeated in Afghanistan, but were able to move across the border to Pakistan due to some very poor decisions by the US military and Rumsfeld. We all know the US did not follow up by attacking Pakistan for providing protection for Al Qaeda operatives. The whole drone issue has been authorised by US law for attacks on another nations sovereign territory, not based upon international conventions governing the conduct of war, so an arbitrary decision by the US. In a similar fashion the legal reasoning by the US for justification of torture, again in contraction to international conventions for the conduct of nations.

It is regrettable US Administrations are ignoring well established international conventions & in the longer term will be to the detriment for the safety of US citizens.

Very clearly your opinions which are never biased at all when it comes to Muslim or US. Shock and awe as to your opinions. I am feeling pretty safe as a US citizen, especially with drones flying around taking care of business so I am seriously doubting your opinion as to safety of US citizens. It is regrettable that we need to use drones because some people in this world just cannot act right.

Do we have any stats on number of civilians taken out by drones in the last 5 years compared to number of civilians taken out by IEDs, suicide bombers and just terrorist bombing in general in Iran, Pak., Afg., et al. I think they are taking their own out way more then we are.

I was commenting on Mania's (?) post seeking a debate on the legality or otherwise of drone attacks.

I am sure you feel safe in your Florida condo surrounded by your special forces friends and acquaintances. I was primarily referring to US citizens and military living and travelling overseas.

The various extremist organisations are not taking out "their own" they are killing and injuring those in government agencies and civilians who are opposed to them. But you are correct, just about guarantee that the extremist organisations and others are feeding info to the CIA & military arranging drone strikes to kill people they don't agree with in competing organisations or tribal/family disputes over such matters as money/drug /weapons smuggling etc

[jamhar]

What was supected, is now admitted. The latest revelations makes for interesting reading.

U.S., Pakistan have ‘understanding’ about drone strikes: ISI chief

"There was never a written agreement between Washington and Islamabad on the use of U.S. drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt, but officials had an “understanding,” Pakistan’s former spy chief said.

“There was a political understanding” about drone strikes between the two countries, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, former director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, told the Abbottabad Commission."

Link - isi-chief-us-pakistan-have-understanding-about-drones

And from fox (i hate quoting anything from fox , but i'll make an exception here )

Disclaimer: If you can believe what an Afgan Army official says about the Pakistani Army.

"US has not started drone attacks on their own," the Afghan army chief said, arguing that Islamabad had "given the lists" of militants it wants taken out."

Lnk - pakistan-could-end-afghan-war-in-weeks-army-chief

Edited July 11, 2013 by jamhar

[simple1]

What was supected, is now admitted. The latest revelations makes for interesting reading.

U.S., Pakistan have ‘understanding’ about drone strikes: ISI chief

"There was never a written agreement between Washington and Islamabad on the use of U.S. drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt, but officials had an “understanding,” Pakistan’s former spy chief said.

“There was a political understanding” about drone strikes between the two countries, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, former director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, told the Abbottabad Commission."

Link - isi-chief-us-pakistan-have-understanding-about-drones

And from fox (i hate quoting anything from fox , but i'll make an exception here )

Disclaimer: If you can believe what an Afgan Army official says about the Pakistani Army.

"US has not started drone attacks on their own," the Afghan army chief said, arguing that Islamabad had "given the lists" of militants it wants taken out."

Lnk - pakistan-could-end-afghan-war-in-weeks-army-chief

What the Afghan army chief says makes perfect sense. Pakistan security elements control the various terrorist/insurgent organisations, so they would kill anyone who does not comply to instructions or launch attacks not beneficial to their goals

[jamhar]

What was supected, is now admitted. The latest revelations makes for interesting reading.

U.S., Pakistan have ‘understanding’ about drone strikes: ISI chief

"There was never a written agreement between Washington and Islamabad on the use of U.S. drones to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt, but officials had an “understanding,” Pakistan’s former spy chief said.

“There was a political understanding” about drone strikes between the two countries, Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, former director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, told the Abbottabad Commission."

Link - isi-chief-us-pakistan-have-understanding-about-drones

And from fox (i hate quoting anything from fox , but i'll make an exception here )

Disclaimer: If you can believe what an Afgan Army official says about the Pakistani Army.

"US has not started drone attacks on their own," the Afghan army chief said, arguing that Islamabad had "given the lists" of militants it wants taken out."

Lnk - pakistan-could-end-afghan-war-in-weeks-army-chief

What the Afghan army chief says makes perfect sense. Pakistan security elements control the various terrorist/insurgent organisations, so they would kill anyone who does not comply to instructions or launch attacks not beneficial to their goals

I agree S1. Theres even been reports i read back that suggest that the Pakistani Army had been giving occasional "requests" for drone strikes. But i couldnt find the reference this morning so i didnt post. I do now in response to your suggestion. I'll see if i can find that reference later on.

But given the strained relationship between the Afghan and Pakistani military, one's opinion of the other needs to be considered with a grain of salt.

Just my opinion.

[LomSak27]

Mania posted

Yet when you read the history you see the US had a long relationship with him
as a useful tool. Same as Saddam & many others later deemed terrorist in need of killing

No they did not have a long relationship with, sorry if your conspiracy theory rings hollow.

If you want a real one, Pakistan’s ISI who they did have a long relationship with, and they KNEW they were rogue screwheads and yet they made a deal. You can say Dick and Rummey had to but, lot of drone strikes to clear out what you could have taken down back on November of 01

"The Kunduz airlift, also known as the Airlift of Evil, refers to the evacuation of thousands of top commanders and members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, their Pakistani advisers including Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agents and army personnel, and other Jihadi volunteers and sympathizers, from the city of Kunduz, Afghanistan, in November 2001 just before its capture by U.S. and United Front of Afghanistan (Northern Alliance) forces during the War in Afghanistan. As described in several reports, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants were safely evacuated from Kunduz and airlifted by Pakistan Army cargo aircraft to Pakistan Air Force bases in Chitral and Gilgit in Pakistan Administered Kashmir's Northern Areas.

According to the Los Angeles Times, during the siege of Kunduz, U.S. and Northern Alliance forces (led by Mohammad Daud Daud and Abdul Rashid Dostum) had declared that they would treat foreign fighters of the Taliban (including Pakistani military advisers as well as Pakistani and Arab volunteers) more severely than their Afghan counterparts. The Northern Alliance had earlier witnessed Pakistani and Arab involvement in several massacres perpetrated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistani leaders feared that revenge killings of Pakistanis in Kunduz could lead to unrest and instability in their country and therefore decided to evacuate their forces before the US and Northern Alliance ground forces moved into Kunduz"

[mania]

Mania posted

Yet when you read the history you see the US had a long relationship with him

as a useful tool. Same as Saddam & many others later deemed terrorist in need of killing

No they did not have a long relationship with, sorry if your conspiracy theory rings hollow.

Well you kind of butchered that quote with all your sizes & fonts etc not to mention leaving out the named person completely but I am assuming you mean OBL?

Which is whom I was speaking about as well as others.

In any case

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4708-bin-laden-al-qaeda-us-govt-creations

it’s important to remember that bin Laden was once a good friend of the U.S. government. In many ways, he can even be considered a creation of American officials and their allies. His Mujahedeen, or Islamic warriors, were even armed, trained, supplied and financed by America and some of its allies. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, writing in the U.K. Guardian, had some interesting observations. Noting that “throughout the 80s [bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan,” Cook called bin Laden “a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.” And while not everybody agrees that it was an accidental miscalculation, the fact that he worked with the U.S. government and other Western powers is beyond dispute.

There are many others that easily support history as it occurred

Edited July 13, 2013 by mania