Deadly Missile Strike in Northwest Pakistan

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by strollingbones, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    Pakistani intelligence officials say at least eight people have been killed in a suspected U.S. missile strike in northwest Pakistan.

    Officials say the attack occurred Monday in the South Waziristan tribal region near the border with Afghanistan. Two vehicles were destroyed in the attacks, killing all eight people.

    The region is considered a stronghold of Taliban and al-Qaida militants. There have been a series of missile strikes targeting alleged militants in northwest Pakistan in recent months.


    USAF photo of a MQ-1L Predator UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, 2006 file photo
    The strikes are widely believed to be from U.S. drones - unmanned, remote-controlled aircraft. Washington has refused to confirm or deny responsibility.

    Media reports say the United States has carried out about 30 air strikes in Pakistan this year.

    The Pakistani government has publicly condemned the air strikes, saying they undermine Pakistan's counter-terrorism efforts.

    VOA News - Deadly Missile Strike in Northwest Pakistan

    what are your feelings on the us crossing into a supposed ally (hacks up fur ball) nation to stop the killing of us soldiers?

    myself, hunt the rats down ...
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I think Pakistan ought to decalre those areas where they cannot control the comings and goings of the terrorists a free fire zone.

    That or we ought to get the hell out of Iraq and let the Iraqi and Paki's deal with these folks themselves.

    The moment American are gone those so called terrorists are going to go after their governments.

    That's really what this so called war of terror is really all about, after all.

    Controlling the Islamic world.
     
  3. we_ourselves
    Offline

    we_ourselves Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    45
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +4
    To me it would be no different if London launched an attack on Boston in response to its being a stronghold for IRA militants. That is, unacceptable.
     
  4. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    We need to KILL Radical Islam anywhere and everywhere it is found in the world. Radical Islam's goal is to kill everybody who does not convert to their religion. I say kill all of them before they try to kill us.

    We should never again be caught standing around waiting for a terrorist attack. Let them hide in total fear that we are going to kill them sooner or later.

    AMEN!
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    a disingenuous line: "what are your feelings on the us crossing into a supposed ally (hacks up fur ball) nation to stop the killing of us soldiers?"We are not bombing the targets for that reason or that reason alone. That is like saying needed to go into Iraq because of WMD.

    I am not for frustrating Afghanistan's counter terrorism efforts, but the enemy needs to be targeted and if Afghanistan is too unstable to do it when we have the targets in sight ... bombs away.
    but I know we will pay a price for these violations of trust and treaties. the law of unintended consequences will come back to bite us in the ass. I just happen to think it may be worth the price.

    adive to you: be honest and screw the hyperbole and deceit. I agreed with you while not denying the costs and acknowledging we are doing wrong in the name of a right
     
  6. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Attacking and killing supposed militants inside Pakistan is a stupid policy.

    Pakistan has a population of 172,000,000 million people. Killing 8 people is hardly something to brag about.

    This action only infuriates the Pakistanian people. For every 1 militant killed, we have created a thousand more.
     
  7. Kenny
    Offline

    Kenny BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think that we could be making the same mistake in Pakistan that Israel is making in Gaza. Its a very difficult situation to find a solution to. However, too often the US Military is put under more head than the militants in Pakistan. When was the last time that Pakistan sincerely condemned the militants within their own nation? It is obviously that some elements of the Pakistani government are in support of terrorism, or at least maintaining a good comfort level for terrorist to operate within Northern Pakistan.



    Its very easy to point the finger at NATO forces. Surely innocent people have been killed in these missile strikes. Also, I agree that the brightest military minds in the world should be able to find a better solution. But, if you're going to criticize, why not present a solution? What would your reaction to insurgency in Afghanistan coming from the tribal regions.
     
  8. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +364
    I think that it's good that the US is doing it. In fact, I think they should just send a couple of nukes to clear the area.

    I mean, it's not like that might... you know, totally radicalize the population and bring about the unceremonious crash of the fledgling democracy, simultaneously producing a gigantic failed state (the third in the region). And then, who knows, maybe that's exactly what America needs to get it's act together again. This time it won't be a trillion dollar war, but a three trillion dollar war. I mean, everyone can get employment building bombs and granades, huh?

    Sounds peachy. Keep at it, boys.
     
  9. Kenny
    Offline

    Kenny BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1
    That's a pretty far off analogy. Maybe we should try to be a bit more realistic in regards of military power comparison, relations, culture, and the actual situation. A better analogy would be if the United State allegedly sponsored terrorist attacks against Moscow, killing 2000 of their citizens. Then, US turns around and provides a stronghold in Boston for the terrorist leader who organized the attack. US refuses to allow the area to be searched and refuses to cooperate in anyway. Would it be unacceptable for Russia to declare war on the United States or launch missile strikes on Boston to initiate war?
     
  10. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +364
    That analogy is flawed. The Pakistani government's official position is to condemn the rebels in the western provinces. You have to remember... The Taliban represents an INFINITELY greater threat to the Pakistani government's survival than it could ever DREAM of representing to the Americans. It is in Pakistan's best interest to deal with the rebels, but we're talking about a dirt poor shithole with a months-old democracy. You say that the previous analogy doesn't take into account power relations, but the power relations between Russia and the US are a little more even than between the US and Pakistan. I mean, to claim that Pakistan is somehow "refusing to cooperate" doesn't make any sense, if by "cooperating" you mean actually trying to impose its power on its country. Of course if by "cooperating" you mean allowing a foreign power to wage war inside the country, then you're right, they aren't cooperating, and in that case the Americans (or any industrial country) would never 'cooperate'.

    But your analogy would be better presented like this: If those same rebels were hiding somewhere in the Rockies and the US was inept at finding them quickly enough for the Russians sense of vengeance and self-satisfaction, would you accept Russian troops landing on the Western States to do it themselves? Would you be ok with that? Would anyone here? What do you think would happen to an administration that actually allowed Russian troops and missiles to station themselves in the Rockies? Well, it might be short of summary execution, but I'm fairly certain that THAT government's credibility might plummet. Dramatically. But hey, at least the Americans can actually prevent the Russians form doing so, because America's got the bombs and the tanks and all of the state of the art super-weapons from the movies. Pakistan doesn't, because Pakistan is weak. At least if the Russians went into America the Americans would have something to say about it. The Pakistani's just have to take it, because they don't gots all the bombs and fancy war satellites.

    Now why should Pakistanis be any different? What would happen to this this newborn democracy if they had to face their people and say "Because we are so inept at doing what the Americans want us to do, we're turning over our internal security to them". I'm sorry, but that's the fastest way to get that government to summarily collapse. That'd be the end of any democracy in Pakistan for a long time.

    Not like anybody here really cares about democracy in Pakistan. Democracy is for Americans, not for third world peasants. Am I rite? Am I rite?
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2008

Share This Page