Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and news service reports
ISLAMABAD -- Pakistan will shoot down any U.S. drone that intrudes its air space per new directives, a senior Pakistani official told NBC News on Saturday.
According to the new Pakistani defense policy, "Any object entering into our air space, including U.S. drones, will be treated as hostile and be shot down," a senior Pakistani military official told NBC News.
The policy change comes just weeks after a deadly NATO attack on Pakistani military checkpoints accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, prompting Pakistani officials to order all U.S. personnel out of a remote airfield in Pakistan. Pakistan told the U.S. to vacate Shamsi Air Base by December 11.
A senior military official from Quetta, Pakistan, confirmed to NBC News on Saturday that the evacuation of the base, used for staging classified drone flights directed against militants, “will be completed tomorrow,” according to NBC’s Fakhar ur Rehman.
Pakistani Military Chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani had issued multiple directives since the Nov. 26 NATO attack, which included orders to shoot down U.S. drones, senior military officials confirmed to NBC News on Saturday.
It was unclear Saturday whether orders to fire upon incoming U.S. drones was part of the initial orders.
The Pakistani airbase had been used by U.S. forces, including the CIA, to stage elements of a clandestine U.S. counter-terrorism operation to attack militants linked to al-Qaida, the Taliban and Pakistan's home-grown Haqqani network, using unmanned drone aircraft armed with missiles.
President Barack Obama stepped up the drone campaign after he took office. U.S. officials say it has produced major successes in decimating the central leadership of al-Qaida and putting associated militant groups on the defensive.
Since 2004, U.S. drones have carried out more than 300 attacks inside Pakistan.
Pakistani authorities started threatening U.S. personnel with eviction from the Shamsi base in the wake of the raid last May in which U.S. commandos killed Osama bin Laden at his hide-out near Islamabad without notifying Pakistani officials in advance.
Aduro wrote:I wonder at point point, or if it's even at all actually likely, that the US just cuts off all that monetary aid it gives Pakistan.
You would think someone in the pentagon would see that the SEALs found the single most wanted international criminal in the world on the doorstep of one of their major military bases and put two and two together...
Pakistan isn't nominally part of the Middle East, though like Turkey and Europe it often gets lumped in because of shared political issues and regional connections.
LordofHats wrote:Pakistan isn't nominally part of the Middle East, though like Turkey andEurope it often gets lumped in because of shared political issues and regional connections.
W.T.F?
Also, any time Pakistan gets snotty, start US coseying up with India and major redirection of foreign aid that way...
Horst wrote:Real smart, pakistan... America has started wars in the middle east for much less than this.
You mean America regularly starts wars with people who protest over the lobbing of drone missiles into their country for a prolonged period, after they've killed many civilians, and in the latest round, military targets? With people who assert their rights to controlling their own airspace?
Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.
Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.
Pakistan does have weight it can throw around. It's a nuclear capable power. One could say that confers a considerable amount of weight. After all, that's what America currently derives a huge amount of its own clout from.
DIDM wrote:Just wait for one to be loaded with smallpox or some gak, then shot down, spreading it all over the place
Lovely. So when a country withdraws your right to freely assassinate people, and kill many others as collateral within their borders, you advocate biological warfare.
This thread reassures me that hypocrisy and stupidity is just as prevalent in America as it is on my local council estate. Imagine how that fills me with joy.
Ketara wrote:
You mean America regularly starts wars with people who protest over the lobbing of drone missiles into their country for a prolonged period, after they've killed many civilians, and in the latest round, military targets? With people who assert their rights to controlling their own airspace?
A demotivational is not, by itself, considered an acceptable post. -Mannahnin
The trick is, Pakistan is nominally our ally... and haven't been living up to the treaty obligations that come with the money we are sending them. Then we find bin Lauden hiding next to a major military base of theirs, and now this.
Fine. They don't want to be our allies, we don't have to send them any more money or support. I'm sure India can use it.
LordofHats wrote:Pakistan isn't nominally part of the Middle East, though like Turkey andEurope it often gets lumped in because of shared political issues and regional connections.
W.T.F?
Turkey isn't technically part of Europe, but is often talked about alongside Europe because of the interconnections between the two. Similar is true of Pakistan and the Middle East.
Horst wrote:Real smart, pakistan... America has started wars in the middle east for much less than this.
You mean America regularly starts wars with people who protest over the lobbing of drone missiles into their country for a prolonged period, after they've killed many civilians, and in the latest round, military targets? With people who assert their rights to controlling their own airspace?
Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.
Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.
Pakistan does have weight it can throw around. It's a nuclear capable power. One could say that confers a considerable amount of weight. After all, that's what America currently derives a huge amount of its own clout from.
DIDM wrote:Just wait for one to be loaded with smallpox or some gak, then shot down, spreading it all over the place
Lovely. So when a country withdraws your right to freely assassinate people, and kill many others as collateral within their borders, you advocate biological warfare.
This thread reassures me that hypocrisy and stupidity is just as prevalent in America as it is on my local council estate. Imagine how that fills me with joy.
um, at what point do I advocate?
I hate the military, check my posts. it was a , I can see it happen, statement
LordofHats wrote:Turkey isn't technically part of Europe, but is often talked about alongside Europe because of the interconnections between the two. Similar is true of Pakistan and the Middle East.
The only people I've ever heard talk about Pakistan as part of the Middle East are the same people that can be expected to say "Lol, Muslims are brown!"
dogma wrote:The only people I've ever heard talk about Pakistan as part of the Middle East are the same people that can be expected to say "Lol, Muslims are brown!"
Probably because Pakistan is the country where not much newsworthy happens. I mean, outside the US diplomatic issues with Iran, and the Kashmir conflict, what is there to talk about? EDIT: Newsworthy being that it gets mentioned. I'm sure there's plenty to talk about. Pakistan just doesn't get as much attention as other countries.
So wait, these donkey-caves harbor a known terrorist and we're donkey-caves for keeping spy drones in their airspace? How's that supposed to work?
They shot one down...rightly so. We'dve done the same. Doesn't mean we'll stop sending drones all over the place, it just means they'll ALL be armed next time.
Funny how people talk about how much America sucks when those same douchebags live in countries that have had their entire infrastructure BUILT with money supplied by American taxpayers.
LordofHats wrote:
Probably because Pakistan is the country where not much newsworthy happens..
American news agencies talk about Pakistan all the time, generally in terms of Afghanistan (which lots of people also think is in the Middle East).
Now they do yeah. As I pointed out in my post. But pre-Afghanistan invasion? Other than the Kashmir conflict and the wars with India, Pakistan got little mention. Heck, there was another war in 2006 wasn't there? And that got overshadowed bigtime by Iraq and Afghanistan.
This could be potentially very bad for Pakistan if they mistakenly shoot down a manned craft, if they even have the competence to do it.
Regardless of how we leave Afghanistan, the best thing that will happen is Pakistan will lose what little leverage it still has over us, and fall back into cyclical military coups, losing wars that they start with India, having its proxy terror groups turn on them, and watch their 2 neighbors become quasi-superpowers while they are stuck with an essentially feudal society ruled by either the corrupt military or corrupt politicians. "Land of the pure" my ass. I despise this country.
NELS1031 wrote:This could be potentially very bad for Pakistan if they mistakenly shoot down a manned craft, if they even have the competence to do it.
Regardless of how we leave Afghanistan, the best thing that will happen is Pakistan will lose what little leverage it still has over us, and fall back into cyclical military coups, losing wars that they start with India, having its proxy terror groups turn on them, and watch their 2 neighbors become quasi-superpowers while they are stuck with an essentially feudal society ruled by either the corrupt military or corrupt politicians. "Land of the pure" my ass. I despise this country.
Not really..if they shoot down a manned US plane flying over Pakistani airspace without permission, there's no court in the world that would convict them..they would be wondering why US planes were violating Pakistani airspace. and they do probably have the competence to shoot down a UAV because no one will ever capture one of those high tech ones......, and to be honest this big loss in relations is huge for the US, our Afghanistan supply lines won't be as reliable
LordofHats wrote:
Now they do yeah. As I pointed out in my post. But pre-Afghanistan invasion? Other than the Kashmir conflict and the wars with India, Pakistan got little mention. Heck, there was another war in 2006 wasn't there? And that got overshadowed bigtime by Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2006? Not that I know of.
Still, though, I don't see why Pakistan would be called part of the Middle East other than "All Muslims are Middle Eastern."
Huffy wrote:Not really..if they shoot down a manned US plane flying over Pakistani airspace without permission, there's no court in the world that would convict them..they would be wondering why US planes were violating Pakistani airspace.
There are significant parts of Pakistans border that are undefined, making confusion over airspace extremely easy. Its not about what court would convict them, its about Pakistan losing what goodwill and funding it still gets from the U.S., being put back onto the list of state sponsors of terrorism where they belong. Maybe we should give the pakistani Taliban and it affiliates some drones as that seems to be the only thing that gets Pakistans government and its citizens into an uproar. Not suicide bombings and terror attacks plotted on their soil or even carried out in Pakistan on its own people, not attacks on Shia/ahmadiyya/Christian and other minorities, not un-Islamic honor killings or tribal customs superceding the law of the land. None of that gets widespread protest, but if the kufir zionist crusaders of the west kill some civilians in targetted drone strikes in a portion of land that the Pakistani army is too cowardly to enter, its the crime of the century. Kid gloves need to come off.
Huffy wrote: and they do probably have the competence to shoot down a UAV because no one will ever capture one of those high tech ones......,
Just like they were competent enough to know the most wanted cash cow, I mean terrorist, in the world was right on the doorstep of a major military base and not know that 3-4 helicopters entered their airspace, one of which crashed, again right outside of a military base, had the time to conduct their mission and search the premises for intel before leaving of their own volition. Thats either the greatest raid ever, or the worst display of sovereign security enforcement ever. Possibly both.
In regards to taking down a drone, you are referring to IRI having a drone in their possesion, which is interesting, but its bound to happen just like with the spy plane being shot down over Russia during the cold war, which oddly enough was launched from pakistan without their knowledge (shocker). Mess ups happen in covert intel gathering missions. Kudos to them for protecting their sovereignty, but how many ops were flown before they took down the one they now have, is the more interesting question.
Huffy wrote:and to be honest this big loss in relations is huge for the US, our Afghanistan supply lines won't be as reliable
Plans have long been in place and implemented for different supply routes coming from the more stable -stan countries. A complete shutdown of Pakistani supply routes only leaves Pakistanis without jobs and their government without aid money, and has little effect on warfighting supplies which could never be trusted in Pakistan even when they were relatively reliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Now they do yeah. As I pointed out in my post. But pre-Afghanistan invasion? Other than the Kashmir conflict and the wars with India, Pakistan got little mention. Heck, there was another war in 2006 wasn't there? And that got overshadowed bigtime by Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2006? Not that I know of
He may be referring to outbreaks of violence with Balochistan separatists which has been going on for some time, including an incident in 2006 and still ongoing.
NELS1031 wrote:
He may be referring to outbreaks of violence with Balochistan separatists which has been going on for some time, including an incident in 2006 and still ongoing.
That's what I thought of first, but I don't consider that a war by any stretch.
NELS1031 wrote:
He may be referring to outbreaks of violence with Balochistan separatists which has been going on for some time, including an incident in 2006 and still ongoing.
That's what I thought of first, but I don't consider that a war by any stretch.
idk, something happened over there recently. I thought India and Pakistan got going over Kashmir again but I guess they didn't.
biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."
I missed this, though I shouldn't have.
Thanks for biting.
Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?
And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?
Then there's also the fact that there used to be a Near East, Middle East, and Far East but now people usually refer to the Near and Middle Easts as the Middle East. Regions like Turkey, Iraq, and Iran are included in the Near East while Pakistan comprises part of the Middle East. But when we clump the term Middle East we clump Pakistan in with the rest of them.
As far as I know Georgia is counted as being a Near Eastern Country, but not part of the Middle Eastern countries because of its latitude. Countries like China and the Philippines comprise the Far East,
Actually to make this all easier;
Ottoman Empire= Near East
East of Ottoman Empire= Middle East
East of Middle East= Far East
It wasn't until Dulles said that the Middle East was from Libya to Pakistan that the Middle East comprised of those countries. And then latitude is brought in to determine some sort of boundary.
I agree with Biicat that the US is unlikely to do anything if Pakistan shoots down a US drone. I also feel it's like the US will continue drone flights over their airspace, both now and even in the event one does get shot down.
Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.
Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.
So its ok to be a trigger happy idiot and blow up a platoon of their soldiers. Thats ok, they are only Pakistanis after all, plenty more where they come from. No biggie just aim a little better next time, if you can be bothered.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."
I missed this, though I shouldn't have.
Thanks for biting.
Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?
And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?
Excellent catch sir. Pakistan is 'Indian Subcontinent', not 'Middle East'.
Can't really blame Pakistan for this move. There is outrage there over the 24 soldiers gunned down by the people who were supposed to be their allies. The government had to respond.
Also America have a notoriously poor record for these kind of friendly fire incidents. Pakistan would't be the first of America's allies to consider shooting down american planes for their own safety.
Smacks wrote:Can't really blame Pakistan for this move. There is outrage there over the 24 soldiers gunned down by the people who were supposed to be their allies. The government had to respond.
Also America have a notoriously poor record for these kind of friendly fire incidents. Pakistan would't be the first of America's allies to consider shooting down american planes for their own safety.
They fire at us all the damn time (literally or otherwise) and and we are supposed to be their premier allies, white and Christian, with a great deal of shared culture and history, "Western" as well. What hope does an ally have when its all "brown people" of suspect religion, with inscrutable aims and wildly different cultural mores and perspectives?
Mr Hyena wrote:Its kinda funny that Pakistan thinks its got any weight it can throw around.
Even after letting one of the biggest head of terrorism live right on their doorstep.
So its ok to be a trigger happy idiot and blow up a platoon of their soldiers. Thats ok, they are only Pakistanis after all, plenty more where they come from. No biggie just aim a little better next time, if you can be bothered.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
Hooray for common sense!
Lots of people seem to have missed the fact that the Americans managed to kill 24 Pakistani soldiers, and a bad history of friendly fire incidents. If you can't hit the right target, I wouldn't want you flying missions in my country and killing my soldiers. The Pakistani government has made the right move on this one IMHO.
I imagine it makes the Pakistani air defence people's job a hell of a lot more difficult, if the US insists on flying things through their airspace without warning. They wouldn't look very good if they let an unidentified intruder through so as not to nark the Yanks, and it turned out to be an Indian first strike (or something). Surely the Pakistanis are just enacting sensible principles of air defence? Even more so of those "friendly" unidentified air craft go on to actually kill more Pakistanis than the Indians have in years.
As much as I think Pakistan is a hole, they have the right to defend their airspace and their citizens.
If the Mexican police force chased some drug runners over into America, in the process gunned down a whole load of American border guards/soldiers/police, or if the Canadians chased a moose down into America and were accidentally polite to someone, how much do you think America would stand for it?
biccat wrote:
It's the one on the right, labeled "Pakistan."
I missed this, though I shouldn't have.
Thanks for biting.
What do you mean "biting"? You posted a map and said "point to Pakistan." Presumably you're having difficulty reading the map you posted, so I figured I'd help you out. Here's a hint: Pakistan borders Iran (the big one in the middle) and Afghanistan.
dogma wrote:Why is Pakistan often considered a Middle Eastern Country while Georgia, a country typically displayed in maps of the Middle East (or even, in this case, Russia), not considered in that light?
Because the term "Middle East" isn't geographically precise. And most people are bad at geography. Similarly, one could ask why some people refer to Idaho or Montana as part of the "Midwest."
dogma wrote:And before "They're majority Muslim!" comes into play, why not Indonesia? why not Kazakhstan?
Hopefully you understand that Kazakhstan is pretty far north (entirely (?) north of Turkey) and Indonesia is a few thousand miles east of even Pakistan.
Most people probably wouldn't immediately think of Russia as an Asian nation, they're usually considered European, despite most of the country being east of the Urals.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.
Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?
You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?
You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.
Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.
Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.
Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.
What evidence do you have that they knowingly harboured him?
Apart from "Osama was muslim, Pakistan is muslim, Pakistan must have been helping because they're both muslim!".
Mr Hyena wrote:The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base? This is the real reason they did this; they are trying to save face and they will never be forgotten for it. Asking pakistan for clearance just gives their military time to inform the terrorists and get them out of the blast zone. So its completely pointless.
Maybe if Pakistan actually acted like an Ally, we wouldn't need to run missions in their area.
Regardless of what they do and do not do, even if they were not "allies" of the USA, they still have the right to defend their airspace and citizens. The USA has been accused of sending people out to be tortured - does that mean it is fair game to send aircraft to bomb things as they please, and the USA has no right to protest and defend itself if civilians and "innocent" soldiers are killed?
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?
You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.
Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.
Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?
Yes. Because he is the most wanted man in the world hiding beside a military base is a great idea. Why would the most wated man in the world hide that close to the miltary? He'd have to be mad. We can rule that out as a hiding place. Not to mention that, while Pakistan has an intelligence agency, I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
No. Pakistan has every right to stop drone attacks on their soil, the US doesn't ask for clearance before bombing Pakistan, they just do it. Thats a sign of vile contempt and one Pakistan has decided to no longer tolerate.
The same supposed 'ally' who KNOWINGLY harboured Osama Bin Laden right on their doorstep, right next to a Military base?
You have proof that Pakistan knew he was there then? The best place to hide is close to the base of your hunters, as noone would expect you to be that close to those hunting you.
Your seriously suggesting he lived right next door to a military base and nobody knew he was there? One of the most wanted men in the world? Thats either a case of knowingly harbouring him or of the biggest case of stupidity.
Our intelligence agency found him there. Does Pakistan have a proper intelligence agency?
Yes. Because he is the most wanted man in the world hiding beside a military base is a great idea. Why would the most wated man in the world hide that close to the miltary? He'd have to be mad. We can rule that out as a hiding place. Not to mention that, while Pakistan has an intelligence agency, I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
What better place to hide? Hell, Bin Laden could have have had home in London, or Birmingham, or Bradford, or Leicester. A clever man could wind up in Washington DC.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Kilkrazy wrote:This could probably have been avoided if NATO had apologised for shooting up that Pakistani army post a couple of weeks ago.
We need Pakistan "on side" if we want any hope of getting a reasonable result from the Afghan imbroglio.
This really sums it up, cant say I blame the Pakestani for not wanting to have the citizens killed by so called "allied" drones. I think the end result of this mess Afganistan and to a lesser degree Pakistan is that we will have even more hostile region to contend with.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.
I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.
He didn't have to leave the house though, he probably had servants to do that for him.
I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.
SilverMK2 wrote:If the Mexican police force chased some drug runners over into America, in the process gunned down a whole load of American border guards/soldiers/police, or if the Canadians chased a moose down into America and were accidentally polite to someone, how much do you think America would stand for it?
You should really, really try to remember some of the earlier threads concerning this. We have arrested and imprisoned our own border agents for shooting drug runners.
The statement read: 'Earlier today the president placed a phone call to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to personally express his condolences on the tragic loss of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers this past week along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
'The president made clear that this regrettable incident was not a deliberate attack on Pakistan and reiterated the United States' strong commitment to a full investigation.'
Pakistan said the attack was unprovoked, with officials calling it an act of blatant aggression - an accusation the United States has rejected.
Two U.S. officials have told Reuters that preliminary information from the ongoing investigation indicated Pakistani officials at a border coordination center had cleared the air strike, unaware they had troops in the area.
halonachos wrote:You should really, really try to remember some of the earlier threads concerning this. We have arrested and imprisoned our own border agents for shooting drug runners.
You should really, really try to read what I have written
biccat wrote:
What do you mean "biting"? You posted a map and said "point to Pakistan." Presumably you're having difficulty reading the map you posted, so I figured I'd help you out. Here's a hint: Pakistan borders Iran (the big one in the middle) and Afghanistan.
It was a map of the Middle East. It included all states typically considered as parts of the Middle East, and some states that Americans like to associate with the Middle East. One of those states was Pakistan. Pakistan had roughly the same amount of land area on the map as Russia, a state that no one, anywhere, ever would call Middle Eastern. It also included, in totality, the states of Georgia and Azerbaijan, also states that no one would ever call Middle Eastern.
The point was that Pakistan is exactly as Middle Eastern as Russia.
biccat wrote:
Because the term "Middle East" isn't geographically precise. And most people are bad at geography. Similarly, one could ask why some people refer to Idaho or Montana as part of the "Midwest."
As usual, you're wrong. The term "Middle East" is one of the more precise geographic terms, and it wasn't until young Bush coined the term "Greater Middle East" (ie. Here Be Muslims That Are Sort Of Arab) that controversy came about.
biccat wrote:
Hopefully you understand that Kazakhstan is pretty far north (entirely (?) north of Turkey) and Indonesia is a few thousand miles east of even Pakistan.
And Pakistan is, bar Balochistan, entirely South of Turkey, is Turkey not part of the Middle East, or is Pakistan not relevant to the question?
The US didn't notify the Pakistani government because the information would have been given directly to the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence agency). The ISI has a history of working with Al Qaeda (google it if you don't believe me), and if the information was given to the ISI prior to the strike, Bin laden surely would have been tipped off.
I'm not faulting the entirety of the ISI here, just the certain untrustworthy individuals that work there.
The Bin Laden incident was more of a "It's easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission" instance.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.
I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.
As for the 24 soldiers killed on Pakistan side. Anyone here knows RoE for the coalition forces? It was Pakistan forces that engaged and upped the stake by bringing crew serve weapons into the mix.
edit
Insurgent comes arm with ZPU1 and ZPU4 heavy weapons.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.
I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.
Which incident would that be?
The fact Bin Laden was found chilling in their country, and nothing was done about it.
Hiding in plain sight is the best plan of all. Be where you are not expected to be.
Maybe in Movies/Books/Video Games. The fact is, anyone could have seen him.
I highly doubt it is as effective and efficient as the British or American ones.
Then its clear the bigger problem for Pakistan should be working on its intelligence agency, considering its caused a diplomatic incident it will never be forgiven for.
Which incident would that be?
The fact Bin Laden was found chilling in their country, and nothing was done about it.
He was found "chilling" in their country by the US, who then launched a raid to get him, not by the pakistani government.
Goliath wrote:He was found "chilling" in their country by the US, who then launched a raid to get him, not by the pakistani government.
The problem is that given his location, it's very improbable that Pakistan's government didn't know he was there, to the extent you can talk about Pakistan's government as if it has a single mind and combined goals.
Unless the Pakistani military go door to door daily looking for terror suspects, I can't see how Bin Laden's whereabouts would be so very obvious to anyone, especially if he had a dogsbody do all his shopping. Its not as if he was wandering the streets, and even if he were.. a bearded Muslim wouldn't be particularly noteworthy in most English cities. Why would it be noteworthy in Pakistan of all places?
LordofHats wrote:Turkey isn't technically part of Europe, but is often talked about alongside Europe because of the interconnections between the two. Similar is true of Pakistan and the Middle East.
The only people I've ever heard talk about Pakistan as part of the Middle East are the same people that can be expected to say "Lol, Muslims are brown!"
The term "middle east" generally refers to Northern Africa and Southwest Asia. It's a rough cultural grouping, not a discrete landmass.
This is a problematic development, since the assassination of hostile warlords via drone is the only effective means of combating the local issues, since manned missions are too slow and expensive to wipe them out fast enough to deplete their numbers, however illegal it may be. The only options are to ignore Pakistan's complaints and keep running missions, or strong arm them into rescinding them, which would be problematic in and of itself, since they have nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran, whose regular military could be annihilated in days with minimal US losses, Pakistan has the potential to cause a lot of damage if it panics.
I saw the Pakistani PM interviewed on the BBC, he seemed pretty even handed in his presentation of the situation. Certainly none of the sabre rattling that we see in this thread.
The up shot of a this is that I am rather more concerned for the British Forces in the zone that are more reliant of the Pakistani supply route. An excuse for early withdrawal or perhaps a reduction in Ops?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Why would it be noteworthy in Pakistan of all places?
Because he was the most famous Terrorist in the world and is a 1.5 feet taller than everyone else around him?
Because he had a fortified compound with armed men coming and going within the shadow of a supposedly secure military base?
Just for starters...
Most famous in the west. Do you watch Pakistani TV? Do you know how much air-time he did or did not get? For that matter do you know how common "Compound" type buildings are in Pakistan? Armed security guards? Have a look on Google maps. The house isn't unique.There is a house just down the road with what appears to be a decent sized wall around it which could just as easily be hiding any number of terrorists. For that matter, "compound" style houses are common everywhere. I can think of a fair few near me, and up until recently I lived "in the shadow" of a military base as well. We used to skive school ON the base.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have been able to detect something suspicious per se..and indeed there must have been something significant for the US Forces to seize upon in the first place... but I don't doubt for a minute that there are military bases and townships, police stations and government buildings the world over sharing real estate space with all manner of unpleasant characters, with very few clues as to their presence, especially if they are reclusive and making a determined effort to not be found.
To be fair, he only had to be giving back-handers to the local police, and they didn't have to be privy to who he was. "We would appreciate if you were to patrol more vigorously on THAT side of town, do we have an understanding?" *notes change hands*
To clarify: The "base" in question is basically a Pakistani military school, like West Point. I admit I'm not overly familiar with American military cadet training programs, but I would be most surprised if it involved house-to-house searching the local area for terrorists. Thus its equally unlikely that the Pakistani version does either.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have been able to detect something suspicious per se..and indeed there must have been something significant for the US Forces to seize upon in the first place...
Exactly.
I didn't realize that Bin laden was an unknown in pakistan.
I guess he never had any luck get a hit single on the Pakistani charts. Too bad because he had some fat beats and great coreography...
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have been able to detect something suspicious per se..and indeed there must have been something significant for the US Forces to seize upon in the first place...
Exactly.
I didn't realize that Bin laden was an unknown in pakistan.
I guess he never had any luck get a hit single on the Pakistani charts. Too bad because he had some fat beats and great coreography...
Someone who wants to hide, spends years actively hiding, and fits the basic racial descriptors for half the world. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this? Even if you had seen someone who you thought looked like Bin Laden anywhere in the world in the street, would you really be so very sure of yourself that you would inform the FBI/CIA/MI5/Whoever, and that they would then not file that sighting in with all the other lunatic rubbish they must hear every day of the week?
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have been able to detect something suspicious per se..and indeed there must have been something significant for the US Forces to seize upon in the first place...
Exactly.
I didn't realize that Bin laden was an unknown in pakistan.
I guess he never had any luck get a hit single on the Pakistani charts. Too bad because he had some fat beats and great coreography...
Someone who wants to hide, spends years actively hiding, and fits the basic racial descriptors for half the world. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this? Even if you had seen someone who you thought looked like Bin Laden anywhere in the world in the street, would you really be so very sure of yourself that you would inform the FBI/CIA/MI5/Whoever, and that they would then not file that sighting in with all the other lunatic rubbish they must hear every day of the week?
I guess it would depend on how badly I wanted the $25 million dollar bounty, or if I actually supported/feared/sympathized with him and his terror organization or not...
I'm not saying that they wouldn't have been able to detect something suspicious per se..and indeed there must have been something significant for the US Forces to seize upon in the first place...
Exactly.
I didn't realize that Bin laden was an unknown in pakistan.
I guess he never had any luck get a hit single on the Pakistani charts. Too bad because he had some fat beats and great coreography...
Someone who wants to hide, spends years actively hiding, and fits the basic racial descriptors for half the world. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding about this? Even if you had seen someone who you thought looked like Bin Laden anywhere in the world in the street, would you really be so very sure of yourself that you would inform the FBI/CIA/MI5/Whoever, and that they would then not file that sighting in with all the other lunatic rubbish they must hear every day of the week?
I guess it would depend on how badly I wanted the $25 million dollar bounty, or if I actually supported/feared/sympathized with him and his terror organization or not...
Or if you even knew that it was him hiding in the house in the first place?
Monster Rain wrote:Wow, he's trying really hard isn't he?
I thought it was common understanding that when one person says "we will just have to agree to disagree" that they are communicating a desire to cease discussion because they have had their fill of whatever crazy it is that someone is selling?
Goliath wrote:He was found "chilling" in their country by the US, who then launched a raid to get him, not by the pakistani government.
The problem is that given his location, it's very improbable that Pakistan's government didn't know he was there, to the extent you can talk about Pakistan's government as if it has a single mind and combined goals.
Well, I think in that final comment you have pointed out the issue with regards to Pakistan. Their government treads an extremely fine line between a rock and a hard place, the West on one hand and foreign aid and relations which will help their economy, and on the other hand Islamic militancy. Apparently some high ranking general knew of Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan. Almost certainly more knew, but the government has to turn a blind eye to it; official condemnation would be tantamount to political suicide.
I'm sure on some level the US administration must understand this, and the need for Pakistan to be (at least officially) on side with them, and hence the complete lack of belligerent rhetoric from the US following the drone being shot down.
Monster Rain wrote:Wow, he's trying really hard isn't he?
I thought it was common understanding that when one person says "we will just have to agree to disagree" that they are communicating a desire to cease discussion because they have had their fill of whatever crazy it is that someone is selling?
Then, O voices of Sanity, prove to me that walled houses are uncommon in Pakistan. Demonstrate that armed guards are a noticeably alien feature of Pakistani culture. After all, these are two of the incredibly sensible suggestions made as to why Bin Ladens secret terrorist headquarters should have stood out,
Because that is how these conversations usually unfold. But, if you're going to ruin an otherwise enjoyable evenings discussion by being tedious, so be it.
I always favoured "Daft statement" "Refutation". The Hitler part comes much much later on, though I can't quite fathom where that might fit in this one just yet.
So..there are several reasons why Osama might have been sprung, including the actual one. There are also several reasons that rely on the media translation of events, sites and their whereabouts, which don't actually stand up when analysed. For the record, walled houses are actually pretty common in Pakistan, just as they are not that uncommon elsewhere. So saying "But his compound should have given it away" is just a touch daft.
Built in 2005, the three-story[36] mansion was located in a compound about 4 km (2.5 mi.) northeast of the center of Abbottabad. [34] While the compound was assessed by US officials at a value of USD 1 million, local real-estate agents assess the property value at USD 250 thousand.[37] On a lot about eight times the size of nearby houses, it was surrounded by 12- to 18-foot (3.7-5.5 m)[35] concrete walls topped with barbed wire.[34] There were two security gates and the third-floor balcony had a seven-foot-high (2.1 m) privacy wall.[36] There was no Internet or telephone service coming into the compound. Its residents burned their trash, unlike their neighbors, who simply set it out for collection. The compound is located (34°10′09″N 73°14′33″E) and 1.3 km (0.8 mi.) southwest of the closest point of the sprawling Pakistan Military Academy. [38] President Obama met with his national security advisors on March 14, 2011, in the first of five security meetings over six weeks. On April 29, at 8:20 a.m., Obama convened with Thomas Donilon, John O. Brennan, and other security advisers in the Diplomatic Room, where he authorized a raid of the Abbottābad compound. The government of Pakistan was not informed of this decision.[34]
to be fair walled compounds are common in islamic culture because it's much easier to have a big family. Debating the finer points of Intelligence isn't the point.
The point is that the CIA found him and Pakistan didn't so whatever he was doing, was obvious enough that the CIA found out about it before the Pakistani intelligency agency, bringing us back to the orgiinal point.
The pakistan intilligency agency is either incompetent or ignoring him. Considering how powerful a military the pakistani government has, (look it up, they're top 10 if I'm remembering correctly) does it really seem reasonably that they spend tons of money on military and entirely neglect intelligence?
That is what bothers people, they have a fairly competent intilligence agency and osama was hiding right next to what should have been one of the most secure places. After all, you don't want a terrorist attack on your military school.
The competence and funding of Pakistan intelligence isn't really the point. Its a known fact Pakistan's government is divided, and one side like Al Qaeda and what Al Qaeda does, or at least sympathizes with them. This faction is known to have actively supported Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and its foolish to think that they didn't know where Bin Laden was.
Especially since this faction is in control of Pakestani intelligence and probably put Bin Laden there in the first place.
OBL was found 1 mile from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, yes? Either they were complicit in hiding him, in which case they are untrustworthy double-dealers who are undeserving of our foreign aid largesse.
Alternately, they didn't know he was there, honest injun. In which case they are so incredibly incompetent that they are an utterly useless asset to us in the Global War on Terror™, and undeserving of our foreign aid largesse.
LordofHats wrote: This faction is known to have actively supported Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and its foolish to think that they didn't know where Bin Laden was.
Maybe, but in the absence of evidence no conclusion can be drawn.
Ouze wrote:Maybe this is a better way of putting it.
OBL was found 1 mile from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, yes? Either they were complicit in hiding him, in which case they are untrustworthy double-dealers who are undeserving of our foreign aid largesse.
Alternately, they didn't know he was there, honest injun. In which case they are so incredibly incompetent that they are an utterly useless asset to us in the Global War on Terror™, and undeserving of our foreign aid largesse.
Ouze and I agree on something. This is scary, very scary.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact I had a dream about zombies last night. Not the good "let the slaughter begin HAH HAH HAH!" kind. Instead the dream focused on whether it would delay a deal at work.
In Hollywood style commando operation, USA has finally hunted Osama Bin Laden. The Hunt, spread over almost a decade has come to an end. Globally, media is discussing every possible fact of this operation. Exact detail of this operation may come out in Public arena little later but all kind of speculation are being aired in the name of “considered opinion”. Pakistan, ironically and unfortunately is again in the centre of storm. It appears as there is no let up for Pakistan from the revenge of cosmic forces.
Immediately after the news of operation broke out, whole world media is pointing an accusing finger towards Pakistan and shouting and “intelligence failure” course. Since its human Psyche that it tends to turn blind eye on facts and logic during euphoric moments, it appears natural. But there is need to take stock of things with cool mind and sift fact from fictions. What is an intelligence failure? In the Osama’s case, well, it would perhaps mean that Pakistani intelligence agencies were unaware of his presence in Pakistan. But was Osama a high value target for Pakistan or USA? Since we joined the global war on terror, he would have automatically been designated as High value target for us. But realistically, our intelligence agencies have more than enough on their hands already is shape of Tehnik Taliben and cohorts like them who are a bigger and more sinister threat to our national security than Osama. Moreover, we had been made to believe by persistent and over hostile media and intelligence establishments of the world that Osama and his lieutenants were hiding in no man’s land of FATA and adjoining areas. Unless we refuse to accept the fact, Pakistan had been effectively coerced to deploy majority of its military and intelligence assets in FATA. When a country of Pakistan’s resources is coerced to comply to the wishes of a Super Power, there is not much left with country to guard the rest of the territory. Pakistan does not have infinite resources. Nor it has had any previous intelligence tentacles in FATA. In order to meet the demands of USA led coalition in Afghanistan, we were compelled to focus on FATA alone, leaving a huge void of intelligence in other areas.
Of course, it is not what one would wish to see. We are into midst of a home grown, foreign sponsored, religiously motivated violence. It requires concerted efforts of the state and all of its organs to root this violence out. Corruption touching horrendous proportional shows focus of our ruling political masters. They have perhaps no interest in putting things right. And worst, it appears as if the war on terror has been sublet to security apparatus alone without any political direction. In such a situation, where our civilian intelligence setups like IB and FIA are perhaps forced to devise cover-ups for wrong doings of political masters, gathering operational intelligence has suffered a big body blow. Kind of ingress IB and FIA has into society is not matched by any other agency of state.
That’s said, we of course can not absolve our intelligence agencies of their responsibility. But it also reflects a reality about which no serious comment has been made in print and electronic media as yet. Is this a first intelligence failure in the history of world? Ancient history tells us of an interesting intelligence failure. Trojan Horse was such a failure to anticipate usage of new technology or tactic. It was a monumental failure and gave English language an idiom. But a cursory look at recent history would reveal that all nations have suffered one failure or another.
Israel boasts of its intelligence prowess. But despite known history of hostility with its neighbors, with whom she had fought the latest war in 1967, Israel was surprised at strategical level on the eve of Yom Kippur war of 1973. Israeli intelligence agencies could not foretell a war, despite massive military movements across Suez Camel. Who can forget the Munich Olympic Games and failure of German and Western intelligence agencies? Palestinians did not plan the abduction and subsequent assassination of Israeli athletes over night. Such covert operation require deliberate planning and extensive recconissance of target area. But all this happened in the heart of Europe on the eve of mega sport event like Olympic. Indra Gahndi was assassinated by her own Sikh body guards. Men deputed on such sensitive security assignments are usually kept under 24/7 surveillance to monitor their activities, trend and state of mind. But body guards still managed to surprise every one on the morning of 31 October 1984. Egyptian intelligence agencies could not unearth plot to assassinate President Anwar Sadat. Military Parades are usually kept under strict security intelligence agencies since soldier are carrying weapons into close proximity of dignities, but President Anwar Sadat paid the failure of his intelligence staff with his life.
Coming to more recent history, one is surprised as to how advance European countries can fail so miserably on intelligence operation.
World had changed beyond recognition in the wake of 9/11. State has come down heavily on her own citizens. Personal space has shrunk drastically in USA and Western world. Powers of intelligence agencies to conduct eavesdropping and peep into privacy have been enhanced significantly. But despite all the technological advantages, UK suffered its own 9/11 on 7 July. To us and rest of the developing and underdeveloped world, it may have been shock. But imagine for a while, and we are right now in correct perspective to imagine as to how humiliating it must have appeared to an ordinary citizen of Great Britain. A country of great history and greatest of the imperial powers, in whose empire sun would not set. But it happened and happened in her capital and not some remote, obscure town.
Story of ugly intelligence failure does no end here. In fact, most of the keen reader would be anxiously waiting for a mention of 9/11. USA the sole super power of globe, with over a million people working in nearly 17 different intelligence agencies, failed miserably on account of effective intelligence gathering. What happened on that fateful day is history now. But it leaves a lot to probe as to how and why USA intelligence apparatus could not nip the evil plot in bud. And when the plot went into action, and that action was spread over three different states of America, the state apparatus was caught with its pants down and no effective response was mounted.
Moral of al what has been said earlier is not that we should keep quiet and accept it as a fait accompli. In stead, we should do more soul searching and make a resolve not to let it happen again. Out intelligence agencies may be very effective and competent but there are not omni potent. These are composed of humans from our own society and not staffed by people from Mars. More than ours, this was intelligence failure at part of American. They, with their technological edge, had been pushing us to search Osama in vast stretches of FATA. It proves American propaganda of the past as heap of lies about “Al Qaeda” being controlled by Osama. There were no telephone or internet connections in Abottabad mansion. Without these basic gadgets of communication, how can one run or direct a feared entity like “Al Qaeda”. The world had been fed on concocted stories and lies for last decade. It is natural for an intelligence agency of developing country like Pakistan to misled by in cessent propaganda of western powers, who are master at selling half baked truths as “gospel truth”.
We must accept that if there have been intelligence successes in the past, a failure can also occur. Let us not accept hostile propaganda against our state and its apparatus. We must put our own house in order on our own will and not under any coercion.[url]
You really have to admire Pakistan's optimism. A more realistic title for this topic would be, "Pakistan advises they will now try to shoot down US drones in their airspace on the rare occasions they're aware US drones are in their airspace".
Also, what's with the Brits sandbagging us so hard about friendly fire? You throw around the sheer, Herculean amounts of ordnance we've thrown around in the past decade, and yeah, you're going to screw up now and then. And the 24 Pakistani soldiers getting hit may not even have been a screw up on our part, if a lot of the reports are true.
I'm still amused by the competence (or frightening level of surveillance) that people seem to believe the US government agencies have, or that they use that as a bench-mark by which to judge other nations. As if the CIA knows exactly who is living in every house in the vicinity of West Point, or precisely why any given building is being constructed in that area?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm still amused by the competence (or frightening level of surveillance) that people seem to believe the US government agencies have, or that they use that as a bench-mark by which to judge other nations. As if the CIA knows exactly who is living in every house in the vicinity of West Point, or precisely why any given building is being constructed in that area?
No, but if the CIA knows your organization supports terrorist organizations they will be keeping track of what you're doing, and setting a nice fancy complex just outside a military facility that seems to serve no military purpose does kind of stand out.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm still amused by the competence (or frightening level of surveillance) that people seem to believe the US government agencies have, or that they use that as a bench-mark by which to judge other nations. As if the CIA knows exactly who is living in every house in the vicinity of West Point, or precisely why any given building is being constructed in that area?
I'd say the chances of being able to run a worldwide terrorist network out of a compound in Annapolis are pretty slim, yeah.
Story of ugly intelligence failure does no end here. In fact, most of the keen reader would be anxiously waiting for a mention of 9/11. USA the sole super power of globe, with over a million people working in nearly 17 different intelligence agencies, failed miserably on account of effective intelligence gathering. What happened on that fateful day is history now. But it leaves a lot to probe as to how and why USA intelligence apparatus could not nip the evil plot in bud. And when the plot went into action, and that action was spread over three different states of America, the state apparatus was caught with its pants down and no effective response was mounted.
QFT: They must either have been party to it, or so ignorant of it as to be utterly useless . (sic.)
Also, what's with the Brits sandbagging us so hard about friendly fire? You throw around the sheer, Herculean amounts of ordnance we've thrown around in the past decade, and yeah, you're going to screw up now and then.
Those Brits are ignorant hippy types and pinko's.
British veterans love the American air force, and entirely appreciate that when you drop thousands and thousands of bombs whilst supporting our troops, occasionally some might go amiss, gak happens.
If we weren't given the air support provided to us by the Americans, we would be down a couple thousand more soldiers, so you cant really whinge too much about the occasional blue on blue, sad as that is.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm still amused by the competence (or frightening level of surveillance) that people seem to believe the US government agencies have, or that they use that as a bench-mark by which to judge other nations. As if the CIA knows exactly who is living in every house in the vicinity of West Point, or precisely why any given building is being constructed in that area?
I'd say the chances of being able to run a worldwide terrorist network out of a compound in Annapolis are pretty slim, yeah.
Running a world-wide terror network from a house anywhere must be pretty damn hard when lacking a decent communications set up. That or Al Quaeda have created a pigeon-post renaissance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm still amused by the competence (or frightening level of surveillance) that people seem to believe the US government agencies have, or that they use that as a bench-mark by which to judge other nations. As if the CIA knows exactly who is living in every house in the vicinity of West Point, or precisely why any given building is being constructed in that area?
No, but if the CIA knows your organization supports terrorist organizations they will be keeping track of what you're doing, and setting a nice fancy complex just outside a military facility that seems to serve no military purpose does kind of stand out.
Aren't we crediting the CIA et al with rather more skill than they actually demonstrated? How long were they looking for this chap again?
If the US trusted Pakistan they would have simply tOld them they had found him, given the address and let them handle it internally. Or they might have purposes a joint mission.
The fact that they chose to do neither suggests that they questioned pakistan's desire/ability to get him.
I'm far from a warhawk, in fact I think I am one of the liberal hippies that keep getting mentioned, but OBL was to important a target to take a chance with...
Nominally, Osama Bin Laden was only the figure head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri has been the real leader for a long time, but he needed Bin Laden alive to hold the organization together. With BL dead, Al Qaeda has pretty much collapsed in on itself and fractured.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Running a world-wide terror network from a house anywhere must be pretty damn hard when lacking a decent communications set up. That or Al Quaeda have created a pigeon-post renaissance.
There's been this big new invention the past 20 years or so, called the cell phone. With it you don't need to be hardwired to have decent communications, or rely on easily-detectable radio transmissions which have also gone wireless in the past 125 years.
There is also the old-fashioned way to do it, just have someone carry a letter to someone who does have a landline, or the new version - carry a flash drive.
Also, what's with the Brits sandbagging us so hard about friendly fire? You throw around the sheer, Herculean amounts of ordnance we've thrown around in the past decade, and yeah, you're going to screw up now and then.
Those Brits are ignorant hippy types and pinko's.
British veterans love the American air force, and entirely appreciate that when you drop thousands and thousands of bombs whilst supporting our troops, occasionally some might go amiss, gak happens.
If we weren't given the air support provided to us by the Americans, we would be down a couple thousand more soldiers, so you cant really whinge too much about the occasional blue on blue, sad as that is.
The issue isn't so much that it happens, people in the know know it will at some point inevitably. The issue is more that the US is entirely uncooperative in the subsequent enquiries and has a habit of shielding the people responsible. The issue is compounded by those times when there really has been a significant feth-up and the media goes into a rage. A prime example is the 190th Fighter Squadron - Blues and Royals incident. Quick summary is that a convoy of Scimitar CVR(T)s with thermal reflectors, orange air recognition flashes and Union Flags were patrolling a Coalition no-engagement zone and were strafed by some A-10s who were tasked with engaging Iraqi targets about three miles from the Blues and Royals.
In the subsequent enquiry the US refused to handover the tape from the gun camera and the aircrew involved were never dealt with by a US court.
The issue isn't so much that it happens, people in the know know it will at some point inevitably. The issue is more that the US is entirely uncooperative in the subsequent enquiries and has a habit of shielding the people responsible.
If it makes you feel any better they do the same thing when we kill our own.
Pat Tillman's (ex-NFL player who joined up post 9-11 but faultered in his support of the direction the US was takingr mid-service)) death is shrouded in controversy.
Some evidence and eye-witness testimony points to the possability that he was intentionally killed by US forces to make him into a war hero to build support for the war.
The subsequent investigation was a giant cover-up and snow job from the bottom all the way up to the president...
I have read the Tillman case actually, and it does sound very fethed up. I will admit though... I really do not get the US military, especially the Pentagon official types.
infinite_array wrote:Huh. I didn't think the Pakistanis could throw rocks high enough to hit the drones.
Maybe they've come up with some sort of super-stretchy slingshot?
Or lots of Russian and Chinese stuff that is actually quite effective? The West has a problem with thinking that it has the only decent kit in the world.
I haven't actually said anything on the main topic, but when it comes down to it they're in the right. The US is violating Pakistani sovereignty. Whether it's a necessary thing to do due to internal Pakistani politics is immaterial, the US is ignoring the basic rights of a sovereign nation, which is ironic considering that it purports to respect the rule of law and despise 'imperialist' powers.
Maybe it is a necessary thing to do considering Pakistan's divided nature vis a vis international terrorism, but you can't whine about it when Pakistan pulls you up short.
CT GAMER wrote:I'm far from a warhawk, in fact I think I am one of the liberal hippies that keep getting mentioned, but OBL was to important a target to take a chance with...
We're 4 on the floor with this. I've never understood the sentiment that OBL just wasn't that important. The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.
Ouze wrote:The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.
Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Some evidence and eye-witness testimony points to the possability that he was intentionally killed by US forces to make him into a war hero to build support for the war.
The subsequent investigation was a giant cover-up and snow job from the bottom all the way up to the president...
I sincerely doubt it was intentional, as the standard argument against conspiracies applies (too many people knowing too many potentially valuable facts).
I wouldn't doubt, however, that certain mistakes may have been made, and then subsequently glossed over. And that's not even really a dig on the military, most organizations with a solid sense of esprit de corps will take liberties in how they investigate and punish their members, especially in terms of public visibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Nominally, Osama Bin Laden was only the figure head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri has been the real leader for a long time, but he needed Bin Laden alive to hold the organization together. With BL dead, Al Qaeda has pretty much collapsed in on itself and fractured.
He was also a major fundraiser, given both his background and notoriety.
I haven't actually said anything on the main topic, but when it comes down to it they're in the right. The US is violating Pakistani sovereignty.
Now, this got me thinking. Can Pakistan really claim sovereignty? I mean, they have a difficult time managing the areas that the government actually controls, which doesn't even take into account the large tracts of virtually lawless areas.
Man, my old International Relations teacher would have had a field day with this.
Of course Pakistan can claim sovereignty. It's an internationally recognized government, weather they can actually control thier country means very little in the world of "international community." they can go whine to the UN and the UN can pass a non binding resolution in GA, 5 years from then they can scream about thier sovereignty while the UN and the "community" pressure the US, China, or whoever else will be the preeminent power to bomb the gak out of them. However much you and the UN want to hold hands and sing songs about love and piece; a claim of sovereignty is a waste of air, time, and any medium it's printed or accessed on. The only thing that matters is the will and power to enforce it. You can talk all you want about culture and civilization, when it all boils down might makes right.
dogma wrote:Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.
Because the war on terror is only somewhat about protecting people from future attacks. It is very much about proving who controls the situation, and if a public face like Osama is still alive and free years after an attack on the scale of 9/11, that makes it look like the US really, really isn't control of things.
dogma wrote:Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.
Because the war on terror is only somewhat about protecting people from future attacks. It is very much about proving who controls the situation, and if a public face like Osama is still alive and free years after an attack on the scale of 9/11, that makes it look like the US really, really isn't control of things.
Yes, I always felt it was a message of "you won't get away with attacking the US"...however 10 years after the fact, that message seems a little muted
infinite_array wrote:A joke, Lux! A joke, 'twas it.
Lux_Lucis wrote:
I haven't actually said anything on the main topic, but when it comes down to it they're in the right. The US is violating Pakistani sovereignty.
Now, this got me thinking. Can Pakistan really claim sovereignty? I mean, they have a difficult time managing the areas that the government actually controls, which doesn't even take into account the large tracts of virtually lawless areas.
Man, my old International Relations teacher would have had a field day with this.
Apologies. I did get the feeling it was a joke when you mentioned giant sling-shots... But there has been a superiority complex thing going on here about US capabilities and I wanted to point out it was a bit silly
It's been just under a year since I last did Int. Relations, but as far as I'm aware then Pakistan fits the criteria for sovereignty. If we're going on the control thing, then while they might not have day to day control, with a concerted they can impose it over a given area. And they have internationally recognised borders (which the US keeps ignoring...).
As somebody mentioned earlier the Pakistani government is in a difficult place. They've got a faction that supports militant extremism on one side, with its rather problematic (for the West) beliefs, exacerbated by heavy-handed US strategy, and they've got a side which wants US/Western support, specifically aid money. Which way do they swing? They can go with the militant extremism and all the associated beliefs but then pee the US off or they can go with US aid support and lose popular support, and also suffer the consequences from the militant extremists, which will probably be massive civil unrest.
At the moment they're obviously trying to stay in the middle, but honestly I think if they're forced to choose a side they'll go with the militant extremism.
The West has just fought two wars in that area of the world (still fighting one as well) and is suffering from massive financial problems. Attacking Pakistan would be massively unpopular and very expensive and would receive little international support, and of course the militants can just up-sticks and move to the next country with a grudge against the West (of which there are many of course).
Pakistan can claim its sovereignty is being violated, and they can be absolutely right about it. That would matter a lot more if international law wasn't, when it comes right down to it, more reminiscent of the way prison works than anything else. If you can't defend yourself and you don't have one of the powerful gangs on your side, chances are pretty good that nobody's going to step in when you get jumped in the shower room.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.
Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.
Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.
Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.
And what will you do if the launch nukes back?
Nuke them first.
Doesn't stop them firing theirs to get revenge though.
I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature American flags, and John Mellencamp will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.
Frazzled wrote:It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.
You're trying to suggest Pakistan won't know you've launche nukes at them?
Yep.
I should posit, you started this conversation, not I. I am not advocating anything but the greater glory of Weinerdogdom and Queso (is there a connection?). Its just my natyre to note the options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.
GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!
Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.
Second strike capabilityAccording to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[59]
It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.[60]
Kilkrazy wrote:Pakistan has nuclear weapons. No-one is going to be jumping on them in the shower room.
If you think the US pulling its support would lead to the Pakistani government being overturned by militant Islamic extremists, you may well be right. I can't see how it would count as a good result for the USA.
Well, we can always nuke them stem to stern and call it a night.
Second strike capabilityAccording to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[59]
It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.[60]
Second strike. Learn it, live it, love it!
Sorry, they have the range to make it to the United States? Also, Railguns and X ray lasers picking wobbly rubber band spun rockets off at leisure.
THAAD. Making better worlds.
daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.
GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!
Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.
Ah, you're right. I'll go watch True Grit as penance, pilgrim.
daedalus wrote:I believe what he's saying is that God, miniature wiener dogs, and Zombie John Wayne will all ensure that we have nothing to fear in the form of retribution.
GO AMERICA! WOOO! WEE IZ DA BESTEST!
Corrected your typo. Also its "AMURICA HURR!" get it right boyo.
Ah, you're right. I'll go watch True Grit as penance, pilgrim.
Castiel wrote:
And what will you do if they launch nukes back?
They'll fall a little short.
This. The concern isn't that we hit Pakistan and they nuke us in retaliation; the concern is we hit Pakistan and they nuke India in retaliation. Of course, the real concern is that Pakistan's horrifyingly atrocious nuclear weapon security lets some Jihad-lovin' folks walk off with a couple dozen warheads.
Castiel wrote:
You're trying to suggest Pakistan won't know you've launched nukes at them?
Depends on how they're delivered. Hell, apparently we could use helicopters to drop them off by hand.
Ouze wrote:The man killed three thousand goddamn Americans. We don't give up on catching a man like that just because it got hard.
Conversely, I don't understand (on anything other than an intellectual level) why bin Laden was important. Capturing or killing him had a far lesser impact on Al-Qaeda, and terrorists as a whole, than the larger War on Terror which itself entailed many dubious actions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Some evidence and eye-witness testimony points to the possability that he was intentionally killed by US forces to make him into a war hero to build support for the war.
The subsequent investigation was a giant cover-up and snow job from the bottom all the way up to the president...
I sincerely doubt it was intentional, as the standard argument against conspiracies applies (too many people knowing too many potentially valuable facts).
I wouldn't doubt, however, that certain mistakes may have been made, and then subsequently glossed over. And that's not even really a dig on the military, most organizations with a solid sense of esprit de corps will take liberties in how they investigate and punish their members, especially in terms of public visibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Nominally, Osama Bin Laden was only the figure head of Al Qaeda. Zawahiri has been the real leader for a long time, but he needed Bin Laden alive to hold the organization together. With BL dead, Al Qaeda has pretty much collapsed in on itself and fractured.
He was also a major fundraiser, given both his background and notoriety.
No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:It will if their nukes are vaporized in place. First Strike. Live it. Learn It. Love it.
Haven't you played Missile Command? You can see them coming down before they hit...
CT GAMER wrote:
No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.
So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Propaganda is just us making ourselves feel warm and fuzzy? Come on man, you're better than that.
It's good for our morale. It sends a valuable message to others like him that we won't give up and they can't get away with it forever sending other people to their deaths. It removes his capacity to potentially orchestrate any more attacks. It removes his capacity to personally raise money or more supporters to the cause.
Personally I'd rather he had been seized and tried as a criminal, like the Nazis at Nurenburg. I think that would have been even better from a moral and propaganda standpoint, making an outstanding point about the rule of law and us really standing by the principles we espouse. But if it's a choice between shooting him or him potentially getting away (or even killing a couple of the SEALs), a bullet is pretty close to what he deserved.
Mannahnin wrote:Propaganda is just us making ourselves feel warm and fuzzy? Come on man, you're better than that.
It's good for our morale. It sends a valuable message to others like him that we won't give up and they can't get away with it forever sending other people to their deaths. It removes his capacity to potentially orchestrate any more attacks. It removes his capacity to personally raise money or more supporters to the cause.
To be honest, I'm not even sure it made us feel all that warm, or all that fuzzy. Is our morale really that much better in the aftermath of bin Laden's death? I know that, at least for me, it was barely a footnote to the year, and I have a lot of personal connections to NYC. Maybe I'm just cold (well, I probably am) but it simply doesn't seem like it was worth the money as an action when divorced from the domestic political boon (though, arguably, that's all that matters).
Ultimately, we killed an old man living in Boca Raton, Pakistan.. It made some people, mostly American citizens, happy but it didn't produce any long-term strategic boons.
CT GAMER wrote:
No it wasn't actually important on a strategic/military level, but with Osama as a revered figurehead and jihadist folk-hero it certainly had great symbolic value from a propaganda perspective.
So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
In a manner of speaking Yes, And this surprises you?
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...
CT GAMER wrote:
In a manner of speaking Yes, And this surprises you?
Surprises? No.
I just like poking holes in the "manly man" image that entails strength, and a stiff upper lip.
CT GAMER wrote:
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...
CT GAMER wrote:
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to settle a score with the bad man that messed with his Daddy (and also to balloon the stock portfolios of his cronies, but whatever)...
Come on, you know that's not true.
The part in parentheses is just a coincidental byproduct im sure, but the first part was widely discussed and talked about going back as far as 1993:
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01
U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.
Clan Bush was rumored to be absolutely enraged by this fact, and when Jr. got into office he had his opportunity to get some personal payback, but he needed a "good" excuse to invade, and thus the phantom "WMDs" that could never be found post-invasion...
CT GAMER wrote:
The part in parentheses is just a coincidental byproduct im sure, but the first part was widely discussed and talked about going back as far as 1993:
There are easier ways to make more money, and the latter, well, its discussed by fools.
But yeah We won't fight the guys with sand in their asses because they don't have anything thing we want. Seriously that's how my government thinks.
Why should we invade so soldiers like me can get sand in our asses like the people already living there?
Pakistan imo is like the fat ugly girl who owns a lot of cats. You accidently step on one of her flowers and she flips gak because she has nothing better to do than be angry at the world for having nothing.
dogma wrote:So we spent a large amount of money on the removal of bin Laden because it would make some Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Terrorism is a war of perception, for both sides. Asking why a fortune was spent killing Osama is like asking why AQ focusses on high profile attacks that need a lot of organisation and are therefore rare and easier to counter, instead of a campaign of constant attacks on vital infrastructure.
Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.
Or you could view it from Conan's point of view.
"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
So i guess we won besides the lamentation part lol
but on a more serious note the perception is like you said, a large number of resources on symbolic victories is what the public percieves as the war on terror. But is something symbolic even worth anything?
Yeah this toe nail is symbolic to me because it was my first toe nail ever.
You see thats taking it to the extreme yet they are in the same ball park as "WE GOT OSAMA WOOOO!"
Theres really no victor here. We are basically fighting a type of people not a nation so there are no borders, no treaties, nothing, just a bunch of dead muslims and rocks.
So this war could basically go on forever. I rest my case
sebster wrote:
Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.
Sure, but why not just bow out?
No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.
Good. Finally someone in the middle east is telling the Americans to piss off. And why the hell are drones inside Pakistan air space anyways. I'm sure the U.S. Military has some sort of justifcation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I seriously cant wait for the states to start an act of agression on the Pakistanies. The Americans really need to be put in their place and finally relise what their place in the world is. They are not on top anyone more. I'm talking about Pakistan dealing with them. I'm talking about the Chinese.
No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.
It isn't about complete control or no control at all, but somewhere in between.
Consider if ten years from now Osama was still going*. No matter how many other AQ people were killed or captured, no matter how many other terrorist schemes had been stopped, there would remain an idea that people could declare their own private wars on the US.
On the other hand, consider if one month after 9/11 the spec ops team attacked Osama's compound and killed him.
In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.
*Somehow surviving on dialysis all that time... it's a theoretical, work with me here
sebster wrote:
In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.
Among other, Western, nations that already bow to the US. I don't expect that Islamic militants, given their stance on martyrdom, have been dissuaded by bin Laden's death.
To generalize, I've not heard a better rationale for the action than "It makes white people feel better." everything else is speculation regarding the nature of reactions in a part of the world we cannot survey.
Edit: I'm not saying that making white people feel better is bad, just that we might do well to recognize what we're really doing.
Think of it as Pillars of logistical/finance/propaganda
Osama DEAD = Spiritual leader/founder no longer around physicaly to inspire the troops. Matrydom though works much better if there were was a body.
Saddam Hussien DEAD = Actually donated money to suicide bombers family (10K) against Isreal. Notice the drop in that attack since he swung from a stairwell?
Awalaki DEAD = An american that actually thinks like an american and knows the right button to push to make someone slide down that path of "Jihad"
Any new training camps springing up in any other countries? Since currently Afghanistan is their version of NTC its either GO/NO GO training for them
Resource denial. Insurgents were down to crawling throgh minefields recovering russian mines for the explosive. Russia do like to place a lot of grenades under them (example)
Gettng off track
What I'm saying is that this type of war is a pain in the a$$ to fight. So we knock down pillars.
but on a more serious note the perception is like you said, a large number of resources on symbolic victories is what the public percieves as the war on terror. But is something symbolic even worth anything?
Well, yes. 'Symbolic' doesn't mean the same thing as 'without worth'. In fact, symbolism is a major component of worth.
Yeah this toe nail is symbolic to me because it was my first toe nail ever.
You see thats taking it to the extreme yet they are in the same ball park as "WE GOT OSAMA WOOOO!"
Wow, dude. Deep.
Theres really no victor here. We are basically fighting a type of people not a nation so there are no borders, no treaties, nothing, just a bunch of dead muslims and rocks.
So this war could basically go on forever. I rest my case
Your 'case' shows an incredible lack of understanding of.... Well, anything.
sebster wrote:
In the first instance, people wouldn't believe the US had no control over world affairs, but they'd certainly percieve US potency a lot less than in the second instance, even if nothing really material changed.
Among other, Western, nations that already bow to the US. I don't expect that Islamic militants, given their stance on martyrdom, have been dissuaded by bin Laden's death.
To generalize, I've not heard a better rationale for the action than "It makes white people feel better." everything else is speculation regarding the nature of reactions in a part of the world we cannot survey.
Is he present to raise money or help recruit jihadis? Can he record more videos saying basically, "Hey, I'm still alive and fighting the good fight against the Great Satan and you can too"?
sebster wrote:
Instead, both sides focus a large number of resources on symbolic victories, because the primary battleground is in people's perception of who is in control.
Sure, but why not just bow out?
No one sensible believes the US controls the world, and the rest cling to sensibilities that the rest of us laugh at.
Wait I thought the quadrilateral commission controlled the world. Is everything I knew a lie?
Frankenberry wrote:So wait, these donkey-caves harbor a known terrorist and we're donkey-caves for keeping spy drones in their airspace? How's that supposed to work?
They shot one down...rightly so. We'dve done the same. Doesn't mean we'll stop sending drones all over the place, it just means they'll ALL be armed next time.
Funny how people talk about how much America sucks when those same douchebags live in countries that have had their entire infrastructure BUILT with money supplied by American taxpayers.
That about sums up this post.
So you honestly think that just because a country protects a criminal, you have the right to offend their airspace as much as you want? I agree that it was totally wrong for them to hide him like they did, but it wasn't entirely acceptable to just shoot him either. He should have faced a fair trial and he should have served decades in prison for the crimes he did. Now he just got off the hook. Bang. One bullet, no pain, no penalty, no suffering in custody. Besides, USA has also harbored criminals in the past, most notably former Nazi scientists who had made experiments with humans.
And you are not the world police, no offense. If they take extreme measures to protect their airspace, you have no right to send a fleet of armed-to-the-teeth drones to lay waste to their country, while you were the ones provoking them in the first place. Heck, some countries have shot down passenger planes just because they came too near their border. You should be grateful they have tolerated military class spy planes in their airspace for this long.
First of all, America means the two whole continents. USA means you. Secondly, people are allowed to criticise, no matter how "douchebag". And that last statement is a bit exaggerated. You have helped the world a lot, yes. But you have not "built" whole countries. Even in post WW2 Europe you only gave support and relief packages. Countries like Pakistan have built their economy mostly on agriculture and exports.
One argument made, and a good one I think, that you couldn't afford to keep him in jail, that every terrorist dirtbag from here to Leichtenstein would start grabbing people and holding/killing them.
Frankly, he was the maastermind behind killing thousands of US citizens. Capping him quickly was the most humane option that should have been done. Justice matters.
Can I mention that he wasn't the "mastermind" behind anything I can remember, more of a financier and ideological leader...which is more important not less.
Keeping Osama alive in the states would have been insane. Imagine the possible mass hostage taking to trade their lives for Osama freedom. It's better that he is dead and gone. I notice though that no one of his caliber has step forward to "inspire" the "Jihad".
Nuke rounds can go as low as a 155mm arty shell. 1KM kill zone and a clean fallout. its not something that would get fired all the time...well maybe when alien robots land but you know what I mean
ParatrooperSimon wrote: And why the hell are drones inside Pakistan air space anyways.
I believe that it's called "taking off" and "landing" since they were based there. There has been a US air presense based in Pakistan for 10 years, its not like they showed up there overnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_Airfield
I seriously cant wait for the states to start an act of agression on the Pakistanies. The Americans really need to be put in their place and finally relise what their place in the world is. They are not on top anyone more. I'm talking about Pakistan dealing with them. I'm talking about the Chinese.
Oh look it's Paratrooper Simon from New Zealand telling us about America's place in the world. Perhaps you should concern yourself with more domestic concerns.
ParatrooperSimon wrote: And why the hell are drones inside Pakistan air space anyways.
I believe that it's called "taking off" and "landing" since they were based there. There has been a US air presense based in Pakistan for 10 years, its not like they showed up there overnight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamsi_Airfield
I seriously cant wait for the states to start an act of agression on the Pakistanies. The Americans really need to be put in their place and finally relise what their place in the world is. They are not on top anyone more. I'm talking about Pakistan dealing with them. I'm talking about the Chinese.
Oh look it's Paratrooper Simon from New Zealand telling us about America's place in the world. Perhaps you should concern yourself with more domestic concerns.
hey don't mess with New Zealand. Those sheep look cute, stupid, and smelly but...
Castiel wrote:Watching the colonies fight is fun, but I feel I should do the responsible thing as someone from your parent nations and break it up.
We're not Scots
You might not be, but half of your lot claim to be, so I feel the comment still stands. Or I can go british for a while, if you like?
Spain and France would disagree about you being the parent. As the 13 colonies is just a tick's butt bit of the total continental space, they'd be right.
Castiel wrote:Watching the colonies fight is fun, but I feel I should do the responsible thing as someone from your parent nations and break it up.
We're not Scots
You might not be, but half of your lot claim to be, so I feel the comment still stands. Or I can go british for a while, if you like?
Spain and France would disagree about you being the parent. As the 13 colonies is just a tick's butt bit of the total continental space, they'd be right.
Castiel wrote:Watching the colonies fight is fun, but I feel I should do the responsible thing as someone from your parent nations and break it up.
We're not Scots
You might not be, but half of your lot claim to be, so I feel the comment still stands. Or I can go british for a while, if you like?
Spain and France would disagree about you being the parent. As the 13 colonies is just a tick's butt bit of the total continental space, they'd be right.
A trail for Bin Laden would have been pointless. The man would have just used it as a platform to turn himself into a bigger martyr and preach his rhetoric. Killing him is strategically much more sensible than a trial. Besides, what's there to prove? Everyone knows he did it and he admits he did it. Man would have gotten a death sentence anyway.
Lux_Lucis wrote:Wasn't Bin Laden unarmed when they found him?
Yes, just like the people in the towers...
So your argument is that because he did it, it's alright to do it back? The US basis its foreign policy on nursery aged politics?
Shooting unarmed people is just wrong. I can't see how a country that believes in the rule of law can justify that. Arrest him, haul him in front of a court and then no doubt he would have been executed anyway, but at least due process would have been observed.
Lux_Lucis wrote:Wasn't Bin Laden unarmed when they found him?
Yes, just like the people in the towers...
So your argument is that because he did it, it's alright to do it back? The US basis its foreign policy on nursery aged politics?
Shooting unarmed people is just wrong. I can't see how a country that believes in the rule of law can justify that. Arrest him, haul him in front of a court and then no doubt he would have been executed anyway, but at least due process would have been observed.
Maybe you could write letter to someone and let them know how you feel...
So your argument is that because he did it, it's alright to do it back? The US basis its foreign policy on nursery aged politics?
Shooting unarmed people is just wrong. I can't see how a country that believes in the rule of law can justify that. Arrest him, haul him in front of a court and then no doubt he would have been executed anyway, but at least due process would have been observed.
I had no issue shooting down a couple insurgents that were unarmed.....it was one big IED they were putting in a culvert.....they're security though we caught were armed. They fell under lawful combatant. Same as Osama
ROE's a bit different in that case surely though? They're laying an IED which is obviously a threat, and Osama was an old bloke who was standing there.
If I remember correctly, he made for a gun, though the only time they're not allowed to shoot to kill is if he's visibly surrendering to the troops, which he wasn't.
moom241 wrote:If I remember correctly, he made for a gun, though the only time they're not allowed to shoot to kill is if he's visibly surrendering to the troops, which he wasn't.
Well that's fair then, I thought he'd just been shot straight away kind of thing while he was standing there. I certainly would have shot him then. I withdraw that objection.
Lux_Lucis wrote:ROE's a bit different in that case surely though? They're laying an IED which is obviously a threat, and Osama was an old bloke who was standing there.
Standing behind 2 women from some reports or assuming a posture that may lead one to believe he had a weapon by others. A tier 1 professional soldier assessed the threat upon breaching a darkened room and took action. We now have the privilege of hindsight, but in that 2-3 seconds that the assault into that room entailed, the Seal had no idea if the partially obscured OBL was pulling a pin on a grenade, pulling out a weapon or any other myriad tool that could threaten the life of the shooter or his team. All indicators, as said by OBL himself, were that he would take as many Americans down with him if they ever came close to capturing him. Completely justified kill. And I don't mean that in the sense that he was a bad dude that needed to be killed outright (although I personaly believe that) , but in a tactical sense. In such a situation life and death is hearbeats away and the Seal member acted accordingly. It was a tactical op, not an execution.
Lux_Lucis wrote:ROE's a bit different in that case surely though? They're laying an IED which is obviously a threat, and Osama was an old bloke who was standing there.
Standing behind 2 women from some reports or assuming a posture that may lead one to believe he had a weapon by others. A tier 1 professional soldier assessed the threat upon breaching a darkened room and took action. We now have the privilege of hindsight, but in that 2-3 seconds that the assault into that room entailed, the Seal had no idea if the partially obscured OBL was pulling a pin on a grenade, pulling out a weapon or any other myriad tool that could threaten the life of the shooter or his team. All indicators, as said by OBL himself, were that he would take as many Americans down with him if they ever came close to capturing him. Completely justified kill. And I don't mean that in the sense that he was a bad dude that needed to be killed outright (although I personaly believe that) , but in a tactical sense. In such a situation life and death is hearbeats away and the Seal member acted accordingly. It was a tactical op, not an execution.
I agree, like I said I thought he was just standing there.
LordofHats wrote:A trail for Bin Laden would have been pointless. The man would have just used it as a platform to turn himself into a bigger martyr and preach his rhetoric. Killing him is strategically much more sensible than a trial. Besides, what's there to prove? Everyone knows he did it and he admits he did it. Man would have gotten a death sentence anyway.
Why did we bother trying the Nazis are Nurenburg, then?
A trial demonstrates the strength and value of Western-style justice and rule of law. It demonstrates that we believe in doing the right thing and exercising due process even in when it's hard and in the extreme cases. Those are the times it's most important to upgold our own rules. To demonstrate that as civilized people, we can sublimate our passion and desire for revenge in favor of organized and methodical justice. If he ranted with hateful rhetoric, that just makes our point the stronger. Saddam tried some of that. How'd that work out for him?
dogma wrote:Among other, Western, nations that already bow to the US. I don't expect that Islamic militants, given their stance on martyrdom, have been dissuaded by bin Laden's death.
Sure, but Western nations aren't the only ones that matter.
Nor are Western nations purely hiveminds that follow the decision made by their governments. At a governmental level Australia right now is attached at the hip to anything the US does, but at the business level we look more and more to China and the rest of Asia.
Now, Osama living or dead isn't going to switch a sound business decision from one company to another, but economics is a game played on the margins.
Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:So you honestly think that just because a country protects a criminal, you have the right to offend their airspace as much as you want?
In a word, yes.
If you harbor a stateless actor who has declared war on our country and effected attack(s) in pursuance of same, either you hand him over, or you are his ally and will treated accordingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lux_Lucis wrote:Wasn't Bin Laden unarmed when they found him?
Who cares? It matters not. Are you saying if we have a military team in the field, and we spy one of their generals out in the open, unarmed, we would not be allowed to shoot at him?
I hate to come down on what I am painfully aware is the Bush\Cheney side of the fence, but I do not consider Osama to have been a criminal, but rather a military target, a stateless actor more akin to a pirate then a soldier.
Not necessarily, to my thinking. I think the primary interest, specifically for Osama, would be removing him with as little loss of life as possible all around as is technically feasible while still accomplishing the mission. I think Pakistans shielding of him deserves consequences, but not necessarily rising to those of full-blown hostilities as their shielding of him is really a tangential issue. I do think it's possible and even acceptable to have limited hostilities without declaring war, and have no problem with our government performing black operations against unambiguous hostile non-citizen actors when it's in the best interests of the national security of the United States of America as deemed by the President and as signed off for by Congress with an authorization for use of force, even if it remains classified.
Osama wasn't a domestic criminal. He was a self-described enemy combatant who declared war on the US and vowed to keep killing as many Americans as he could. Based on these facts and the history of what he had done or ordered done the seals had no reason to capture him. It wasnt a police action, it was a military strike. It was also carried out with minimal collatoral damage and much restraint considering we could have turned the house and surrounding into glass if we really wanted to.
It was also important to prevent his supporters from denying his death or having relics to prop up his martyrdom. We killed him and took he body. That is about as clean and precise in purpose as you could ask for and prevented his pakistani sympathizers from coming into play...
Why did we bother trying the Nazis are Nurenburg, then?
To start
The indictments were for:
1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity
Octorber was the kicked off date for the trials
The full extent of the Nazi Apparatus was seen
death camps
concentration camps
slave labor
to name a few
