http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/15/alqaeda.strike.us/index.html So, do you think it'd be justified to bomb an American suburb in your neighbourhood if there was an unsubstantiated rumour that Bin Laden or, say, Timothy McVeigh was next door? And where should a country bomb if they wanted to get Kissinger? Life is sacred people, no matter how brown or poor the country. Collateral damage - yeah right... would Bush/McCain bomb if their own kids were down in that village?
They are going to go through a hard, very hard time to control the issue. But I disagree with some of the appology quotes. I just have one of those odd feelings of what would some of the soldiers out of all of them would say to that? "We regret it. We understand the anger that people feel, but the United States' priorities are to get rid of al Qaeda, and this was an effort to do so." If they regret it, then why are they in there? Another thing if they did regret it then they should be on their knees, balling with tears. Understanding the anger of the people means that it should be a sign that they should back off not uhhh hey let's keep on getting these people angry. Ahh who cares about them we need to get our job done. George Bush does not regret it, I think he has no purpose for what he is actually doing right now. I would have to see George Bush ball his eyes out to regret his actions. John Kerry would probably have at least more or a lot more sympathy for them.
I think you misunderstood what you've quoted. When they say they 'regeret' - they are referring to civilians being killed. That does not mean they regret going after al Qaeda... even at the cost of a few Pakistani civilians. In military terms... a number of dead like that is generally considered acceptable. Maybe because soldiers do not set policy. Again I think you misunderstood the quote. See below This shows clearly what their priority is. It's not the civilians caught in the crossfire. In war (high intensity or low) that is never the priority. err...are you for real? errm... reality check time for you. If military backed off of any situation anytime the civilians got ****ed then they wouldn't be a very effective military. War is not a nice thing. Ahh.. it appears you're catching on. In terms of that it's going to bring a bit of flack from the press... you bet he regrets it. In terms of whether he really cares that some Pakistani's died.... he doesn't care one iota. In terms of being Pakistan it's part of the long standing campaign to track down further al Qaeda members. Puhleeeeze... as if. But that's neither here nor there... Kerry wasn't elected president was he? Elmo from Sesame Street would probably feel bad too. But he no't president either.
Hmm.. seems you need to bone up on your definition of assasination. The incident in Waco was a fiasco.. but when you decide to kill ATF agents then you can pretty much bet that you're have a rough way to go when payback comes around.
Realistically speaking, if Ayman al-Zawahri would have been among the dead then you probably wouldn't even be hearing about the rest of the casualties. If you invite al Qaeda to your home, you have to at least have some inkling that you might also have some uninvited guests dropping in. If you study history, you'll learn quickly that life is not nearly as sacred as we think it should be.
Ermm, it seems to me that they hadnt actually invited him in. he wasn't actually there when they bombed the place or at least he wasn't killed when the bomb went off.
"Two Pakistani intelligence officials said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the village to mark the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha but passed it up and sent some aides instead." From an Associated Press report.
Very true, it would be presented in the news over here as a major success story. Of course, it wouldn't make it any better for the families of the children killed, but they'd get less of a mention in the news over here. I doubt that Pakistan 'invited' in anyone from al Qaida. Pakistan is key ally of the USA etc. Which makes this ****-up all the more embarrassing and counter-productive. Another tour de force from the masters of the PR own-goal. No argument about that.
You are correct that Pakistan is a key ally in the war on terror. The Pakistani government does not exert a lot of control over the tribes in the border region. Also, I never said "Pakistan invited' in anyone from al Qaida".
It doesn't seem to me like the potential benefit of taking out this bloke outweighs the PR risk of killing a load of innocent civilians, which is always highly likely because the methods involved are too clumsy and imprecise. Leaving aside any moral judgements, I think actions like this are a serious strategic error.
I find it amusing that in an attempt to take out 1 man, they have probably inspired a dozen more to take up arms. pure unadulterated stupidity.
I believe the thought process would be along the lines of taking out one of the leaders would outweigh more low level recruits. I was going to say cutting the head off the serpent but then I realized the irony. In quite another context to your point, you have heard of Iraq, no?
What is even more stupid is not notifying your supposed "ally" about an impending attack on a civilian neighborhood. I think the Pakistani's would have dealt with it differently if they would have been made aware of the strike. Another big screw-up by the U.S. government.
I just find it hard. Of that how many people have the soldiers killed to get only a couple of leaders? Was it worth justification? I know the soldiers have no power to oppose operations that must be done. But a question of why are soldiers are in the military? Maybe to help their country, given by the commands. I would feel so overwhelmed of people just dying in general, and dude they say that war is already happening in Iraq. What is it good for? For nothing. I had a feeling that it was for revenge when 9/11 happened. Retailiation is what causes war people. Bush didn't look back he wanted to seek truth into what had happened, and who was responsible. I have a different meaning towards of what regret was in my context when I read that. -Feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that one has done or failed to do) -Used in polite formulas to express apology for or sadness over something undesirable. That's what I was talking about all along. The civilians. In my opinion, a number of innocent civilians dead is NOT acceptable, even if it were just 1 civilian that died. No there are thousands. They aren't living to be shot or blown up, and sacrifice or accidental is not an excuse. This whole world will turn into absolute chaos pretty soon. Neighboring countries bond with allies to fight back. It was expected that they will get back again. It could start from only one country to set off a major war world-wide again in a blink of an eye. Came to show that Bush didn't make an effective choice for the military to make effective choices.
War can be prevented, among different countries. Why don't we start with one country that can be friendly, to talk to another country that you guys can make a friendly jesture to us, and we will spread the word around, simple right? Well it can be, unless if we try and cooperate with eachother. Doubts, unfriendliness and unfaithfulness, can't bond in a relationship together. The Americans don't go after Canada because we are nice and friendly and willing to know how to accept. What people have to get through their minds is to love your enemy.
The majority of would find any civilian death unacceptable , the problem is that military strategists factor in "collateral damage" and come to expect it within an urban environment. I'm not saying that they aim to kill civilians , rather that they accept the probability that some will die , it's a little like some fighters accept they might "take" a few shots before they can execute the technique they want , a gross oversimplification i know but you get the idea
