“some dead Arabs in a small poor Pakistani village matter pretty well squat don’t they?”

Pretty much word for word what my business partner said, (facetiously), after I posted on this and then discussed it with her.

Hey, you anti American chickenshit Canuck bastards hiding under the skirts of Uncle Sam. I got two words for you.

Nine.

Eleven.

Got it?

Until the US can be assured that no-one anywhere will ever again attempt to attack any United States citizen or building any time, under any circumstances, the US reserves the right to kill as many ragheads or Pakis as it takes, with or without the permission of their government.

Any questions, beaver boys?

Vinny, don’t you see the utter hypocrisy of your comment, in relation to what “America” apparently “stands for?”

It doesn’t bloody well matter if the dude was there or not. That is NOT the point.

“That wouldn’t be good for hits, huh?”

Yeah, Vinny. That’s why Stageleft blogs. For the hits. You caught us.

I do like the way you’re setting up the diversion this time, though. It’s the villagers’ fault they got bombed because maybe they might have lied afterwards.

I used to wonder how Bush got re-elected. I don’t anymore.

For the sake of argument let’s say he was there, do you really think that air strike would have killed just him? Or is it that everyone with houses around his, or walking passed, also deserved to die because they didn’t report it directly to the CIA? And let’s be honest, if someone had called it in there still would have been an airstrike, after which some jackass would have got in front of a tv camera and declared “We got him!”; glossing over the deaths of his neighbours.

Point is, I think using airstrikes to kill individuals people is insane.

I mean, I would have volunteered to go in an off him myself if the CIA had accurate information that he was there. And I’m a nobody with no fighting skills at all (except for my fallback ‘kick in balls’ technique I used the last time I was in a fight…when I was 8). The CIA has billions of dollars and all kinds of advanced stealth and killing techniques at its disposal. I quite frankly just don’t get this.

Vinny: Come on man. Just once pretend, even if it’s really hard and it causes your head to explode, try ascribing some malicious motives to someone other than the US. Is it possible… On any scale… At any point… That (gasp) the villagers are the ones lying?

Sure Vinny, it’s always possible that the villagers were lying, and that the Palistani government is lying through its teeth as well…. and that the US military was bang on target, give or take a few hundred yards or so with ten missiles in a known civilian area.

… and if they were lying it serves them right dammit, bombing a village for the actions of a few residents is entrenched in dozens of international military treaties — isn’t it?

I couldn’t help notice that in all your “it sucks” lines you didn’t bother to mention just how badly it might suck to have men, women, and children in your neighbourhood blown into small pieces based on a mistake. You neglected to mention just how badly it might suck to have your home blown to bits and maybe scrape up enough bits and pieces of your husband/wife/child/mother/father to bury based on incorrect intelligence.

Ya know what sucks Vinny? What sucks is your government and your president and your military deciding to bomb a village and in the process killing innocent men, women, and children - full stop, end of story, period.

If there is anything that could possibly suck even more than that it is that, for the most part, the American public does not give a rats a$$ what their government is doing - it’s nothing more than a few dead Pakis in some gods forsaken Arab hillside…. Starbucks at Guantanamo anyone?

Well, on the upside balbulican this action against civilians has more than probably helped to send Al-Qaida (and doubtless it’s associated popular support) into further disarray, as “crippled” and “broken-backed” as they are the American killing of a few more innocents is bound to erode their civilian support to the point of nonexistance.

I don’t know why you guys don’t cheer up. The way things are headed on Jan.24/06 we’ll have a government that’ll cheer the yanks on as they murder women and children. And we can all sleep smugly ’cause we’ll finally be on the side of all that is good and right.

How does one develop an emotional vacuity so extreme as to suggest that cultural bias, perceived or material, is a more important issue to a foreigner than innocent, dead children?

Hold on a minute. Are you really saying that the United States deliberatly targets innocent civilians in Middle East just for the hell of it? Give me a break!

First of all, the US has probably shown more restraint towards “innocent civilians” in the Mid-East than most of their own “leaders” have over their years of power.

Second of all, Damadola ws one of the most pro-Al Qaeda, Pro-Taliban area in Pakistan. Many Al Qaeda operatives have been known to have fled there following the bombings of Afghanistan in November 2001. Its alos the area where many Pro-Bin Laden marches occured following 9/11. The religious authorities in that region are incredibly powerful. So powerful the Pakistani authorities dare not enter there.
There would have been Al Qaeda recruits out of there had the US bombed it or not.

Thirdly, do intelligence failures and tragic events like this tame the entire war on terror? In world war 2, there were many missed targets resulting in the killing of innocent civilains, but does that mean the entire campaign is nothing but a slaughtering of innocent people? Using that logic, FDR and Churchill should have been on trial for Dresden.

Having said all that, with groups like Al-Qaeda, its useless to go after their “leaders”. They fight in a mentality where they know they’re going to die. So you can be sure that they have a mechanism in place to replace the fallen leader and nothing really changes. Truth is this guy would have been worth more to them alive than dead.

Now I’m curious, what exactly is your solution to reverse the tide in the Middle East? How can we reduce the power of Al Qaeda? By maintaining the status quo?

P.S. Technically speaking, Pakistanis are not “Arabs”. This doesn’t change anything, I’m just informing you of the ethnic labels.

“Hold on a minute. Are you really saying that the United States deliberatly targets innocent civilians in Middle East just for the hell of it? Give me a break!”

Hot damn! If I ever end up killing some people by “accident,” I’m a gonna try this big D. The big DEFENCE that “well, I didn’t deliberatly target that poor soul when I ran him over - I was simply trying to make a right turn and my gaze shifted long enough that I ended up running over 5 children”

Do any of these people actually contemplate the god damned fact that human beings were killed, or is their philosophy so fucked up that they are just numbers on a piece of paper? If their children were killed by the State in an “accident,” is this the response they would come up with? “Do you think the State deliberately targetted your little children?”

Utterly moronic. For fuck sake, soldiers killed in “friendly fire” get a lot more sympathy than innocent children do. Which shows how fucking immoral, unprincipled, illogical, and insane those are who continue to want to justify “collateral damage.”

Hmmm, a few things that are wrong with your analysis there Balb.
- “The village was probably full of Al Qaeda supporters anyway (no doubt…and now the next ten villages will be, too)”

Actually the whole comment on Damadola was concerning Al Qaeda’s strong support it receives in that city, and how many known Al Qaeda leaders have beeen knwon to have fled there following the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Therefore it wasn’t exactly a crazy theory that the number two man would have been hiding there. And to point out that anti-american sentiment in that region of Pakistan would have been strong with or without the botched attack.

- The US isn’t as bad towards civilians in Pakistan than their own leaders (good to see you setting the moral bar high, there - but this is really not really relevant.)

Now THIS was to point out the hypocrisy people treat one death over another. Specifically the anti-war type. Arab civilians get killed left right and center by their “leaders” evreyday, yet all people then do is shrug. When the US kills a civilian in the crossfire, than its time to shake your fist in the air.

- Shit happens. (Yeah, good one. It sure does.)

I don’t exactly renember saying “Shit Happens”, all I said is that mistakes get made during war as it always does. And, I simply stated that if your going to call Bush a criminal for this, then I would presume that you consider Churchill and FDR criminals due to the bombing of Dresden. If that’s how you feel, kudos! Your a man of principle.

Now, I’m still curious as to what your solution would be to reverse the tide against Al Qaeda so that these type of “raids” don’t happen?

As for my opinion that attacking Al Qaeda leaders is useless, I’m simply offering my opinion on miliatry policy.
Its not useful becuase:
1)It doesn’t change anything
2)A successor would be named within the hour
3)The leader would be worth alot more to the US alive, as he would be able to divulge information that can pinpoint what the US can do without any “collateral damadge”.

“Hmmm, a few things that are wrong with your analysis there Balb.”

I’d be glad to hear some, AK, except that you don’t really raise anything that’s “wrong” with my analysis. You just add a bit of personal spin.

Yup, anti-American sentiment was strong in Damadola, (and will now be stronger). That wasn’t the rationale for the raid, though.

I’m not sure what your reference to “Arab” civilians is about: as you noted, we’re talking about Pakistan here, a US ally, and not an Arabic country. Sorry, the fact that the Pakistani government has been oppressive in the past has absolutely no bearing on the American raid. Derailing this into a discussion of anti war folks is really, stupefyingly familiar to us here at Stageleft. Please check out the “BUD” chart off the main page, and use the appropriate abbreviation from here on in.

As for the Bush/criminal meme - you’re the only one who said that, and you raised it twice. There’s another entry on the BUD chart for that one…go to it.

“I’d be glad to hear some, AK, except that you don’t really raise anything that’s “wrong” with my analysis. You just add a bit of personal spin.”

I see.

Let’s just run through things one more time:

I stated that not only Anti American sentiment was strong in Damadola, but that Al Qaeda leaders have been known to have fleen there following the fall of the Taliban after the US invasion on Afghanistan. Therefore having the US pay close attention to that region and targetting it is not that crazy of a tactic. And whether the US has taccked that area or not, the sentiment would have always been strong. And nothing would have changed that without a massive change in the status-quo throughout the Muslim World.

“I’m not sure what your reference to “Arab” civilians is about: as you noted, we’re talking about Pakistan here, a US ally, and not an Arabic country.”

Fair enough.

“Sorry, the fact that the Pakistani government has been oppressive in the past has absolutely no bearing on the American raid. ”

No but it speaks volumes that whenever THEY do this to their citizens its never becomes newsworthy doesn’t it?

“I’m not sure what your reference to “Arab” civilians is about: as you noted, we’re talking about Pakistan here”

Fair enough.

And your right, you never made an accusation stating that the US deliberatly attacks civilians. And for that I apologize. But I’ll just re-iterate that civilian deaths in this case is very regrettable, yet unnavoidable in a war like this. I thought that’s what your were implying, but if I have to take your word for it, than your not.

“Actually, Arabian Knight, I’ll save you the trouble. Basically your response can be condensed as follows: D2, F1, F2.”

Okay. Let’s see…

D-2: The Red Herring

Check. I apoligize once again.

F-2: Brock and Roll

Well that was aimed at Ian, who wrote on his blog that Bush is should suffer the sonsequences for this “crime against humanity” due to the consequences of this raid. I just stated that if he really would apply the same standards towards every conflict, then Churchill and FDR should have stood trial along with the Nazi leaders at the time for the attacks on Dresden. I should have specified that however.

“I’ll just re-iterate that civilian deaths in this case is very regrettable, yet unnavoidable in a war like this.”

I agree. And that’s one of the reasons that why folks like me opposed it. A commitment to war means that a country is buying into a whole world of bad stuff, which may or may not be worth it. Sometimes it is, absolutely. But the government of the day will maximize the value of the intended intervention, exaggerate the threat, and minimize the direct and indirect negative impacts to sell their population.

Ironically, the need for this sales job is more acute in democracies than in dictatorships. Dictators simply point their enemy and their populace at an enemy and say Kill: democratic leaders need to justify because they can be replaced.

>>”I agree. And that’s one of the reasons that why folks like me opposed it.”

When did you oppose the military action to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Balbulican? That’s not what I’ve been seeing from you or SL, in the time I’ve been frequenting this blog.