It's not terrorism if Bush does it?

Well, it’s had an effect on US-Pakistani relationships:

"Pakistan said on Saturday it was summoning the U.S. ambassador to protest against an airstrike that killed civilians in a village where U.S. intelligence officials suspected al Qaeda’s deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri was visiting.

“The U.S. Ambassador will be called to the foreign office,” Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told journalists, adding a protest would be lodged over the attack on Friday in which, according to residents, 18 civilians were killed.

Ahmed said Pakistan had no information about Zawahri, but another senior Pakistani government official said Osama bin Laden’s deputy was not in Damadola village, near the Afghan border, at the time of the attack."

I’d like to point out that’s i’m not considering the Coalition forces actions at this point to be terrorism itself - merely that **Quartz’**s suggestion was.
The example given in the OP, I don’t consider to be terrorism.

What’s my solution to the terrorism problem? I don’t know. I could go into my opinion, but that’d be a bit of a hijack. What I do know, however, is that if you want to stop terrorism you can’t fight it with terrorism. That just creates a vicious circle.

And they were wrong and they should pay for it. They need to reassess their intelligence and plans for acting on it. And they need to apologize. No excuses.

Villagers. Villages were attacked. Women and children and men. The CIA weren’t going after terrorists, remember. They were going after one man.

So I’m guessing that merely being suspected of terrorism is enough reason to be killed. Fuck Gitmo and fuck the secret prisons. Just kill them all and let God sort it all out?

See, this is why this hellish war on terrorism has got to end. We don’t even care if people have done anything wrong or not. Simply being sympathetic to a cause is enough to be justifiably murdered. Simply being in an area where a terrorist MAY be makes you guilty by association.

I’m glad you at least see the decency of doing this.

The analogy with Japan doesn’t hold. First off, your average Japanese had every right to complain about Hiroshimi. He didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor or engage in war with the US. And he was just as as innocent as your average American (wait…are you going to tell me that Americans didn’t have a right to complain about Pearl Harbor either?)

Second off, why do assume that people who drop a “dime” on Al-Zawarhri’s whereabouts would be spared by “accidents” like this one? I can easily imagine a guy telling local officials about his neighbor’s suspicious guest, and the next day waking up to find a bomb in his bed. Oops, our bad. Bad intelligence.

If we cared about human life, we wouldn’t be carpet bombing areas. We don’t care about human life. We only care about American life.

I think it’s safe to say that the people who were killed in this tragedy would still be alive if it hadn’t been for the CIA and this blasted war on terrorism. So yes, the blame should go to the owners of the drone aircraft before it goes boogeymen we’re never going to capture.

Stop killing innocent people. Every mistake we make helps our enemy.

In the past few months:

This attack: 12

Aug 30 2005: 56 - U.S.: Air strikes kill seven insurgents - Aug 30, 2005

Oct 2 2005: 11

That is off the first two pages of a Google for US Air Attacks on Al Qaeda.

Now lets see, this sort of thing has been going on in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere for some four years. SO about 90 people every four months in random air strikes would make nearly 800 people. Then there is Falluja where thousands of civilians perished as the US declared it an Al Qaeda stronghold and massacred the inhabitants as if it were a battlefield. I think that we could make over 3000 if we checked through the records. It’s at least of the same order of magnitude!

Ha! Are you saying we can’t fight terrorism without being a terrorist? Because I for the life of me can’t think of any other reason you’d ask me to come up with a plan.

If I know of a physician who makes his patients rape puppies for the treatment of bladder infections, am I required to come up with an alternative plan before I deplore this activity? Or is it possible to see the ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy of a policy even if you have no expertise in the subject?

My plan: fight terrorism without being a fucking terrorist. Don’t carpet bomb areas when you have a target of one. If we kill innocents accidently, own up to it and compensate the victims appropriately. Don’t promote our accidents as a “warning”, as Quartz put it. Don’t do shit that jeopardizes the already fragile relationships we have built with key governments. Don’t use “war is rough” as a blanket excuse for everything.

Is that a good enough plan for you?

Well, yes, except that it has a great effect on how much materiel*can be brought to bear on the problem.

*Never could spell them fancy French words.

If innocent Americans die in the pursuit of a guilty one, I feel bad.

Now would you care to address the points I made in post number 12?

I don’t think it’s a hijack at all. I think the question of what to do goes right to the heart of the OP.

I’m not being combative or snarky when I ask the next question. By that statement, are you saying that you don’t have an alternative, yet you disagree with the current actions?

The only reason to kill AL-Zawahri is revenge and so that Bush has a head to put on his wall to divert people away from the fact that he went to war on a lie and can’t explain how incompetent he is at occupying and pacifying a country that he said would welcome him with open arms. Killing or not killing one man will have no effect on the global situation. Its all spin- smoke and mirrors.

So guilt by association is your watchword. And threatening to kill people if they don’t turn someone in sounds like terrorism to me. But then Bush IS the Greta Terrorist, isn’t he? :smiley:

Watch out towel heads, if the evil one is amongst you any one of you may be killed. This is US Democracy Speaking. If you disagree, just choose another icon and fly an aircraft into it. We are ready, Bring it on! :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree.

Were any of the victims active members of AQ or complicit in their activities? If so, this is a case of “death by association.”

Hyperbole. They thought they had a location on Al-Zawahri. If he’s smart, he never spends more than a couple of days in the same place. The window for action was short and they thought they had a valid target.

How exactly is the war on terrorism going to end? Would you like us to surrender? That would stop it. Or perhaps you can convince the Islamo-facists to settle down and join the 21st century.

I’m trying to drag pragmatism and logic into this dreamworld of absolutes.

As I’m sure you are aware, my point was that AQ started these events…and they bear the responsibility for them. Do you think the CIA would be attacking houses in Pakistan if 9/11 hadn’t happened?

That is one of the reasons he has a 25 million dollar bounty on his head. Of course it’s a risk to expose yourself. That’s why he’s been able to hide.

First of all, we aren’t carpet bombing. It was a targeted strike. If we really didn’t care, we could carpet bomb the area, killing thousands of people. One of them would probably be him.

We certainly will never capture him using your logic. Again, do you want to just give up?

Post 12 done and dusted.

Now that innocent Pakistanis have died in the pursuit of the guity one, how do you feel.

True. So you are with Monstro? Just quit looking? Back off and hope that they change their minds about wanting to kill as many Americans as possible?

There is no evidence to suggest this. If you have any, please share. If not, it is just another one of your strawmen.

The problem is EvilOne that your attitude is exactly the one that is going to cause people to rise up against the US. Indifference about Muslim collateral damage deaths, guilt by association, massive use of force in built up areas, attack first/ask questions later- the whole Uncle Sam deal- is exactly what recruits more terrorists. Let’s see, the US has been trying to kill the Top Two for over five years now. How much animosity has this campaign led to in the Muslim world. How much less would there be if this had been handled humanely and sensibly, kept in proportion and shelved. But of course, then, Bush would not have been reelected as a war president. Ye Gods, when will sanity return (Nov 2008 one hopes.)

There are many alternatives - some of them possibly worse, some better. All my post there said was “This suggestion (Quartz’s) would be terrorism - and that alternative would have significantly more negative affects than postive”. I don’t need to have an alternative position in order to say that it is bad (as monstro pointed out in his post).

As regarding the OP, I thought i’d stated my position; I don’t think that this example is a case of terrorism. I think it’s a calculated risk, and I imagine you wouldn’t disagree with that. I personally think that it is frighteningly callous, though - and I imagine you would disagree with that opinion.

What’s my alternative? Hmm. If we’re taking the situation from where we’re at now…I think Iraq is still a far too dangerous place to hand it back over completely, or to get our troops out of there. I suggest a phased replacement of coalition forces with UN troops. And i’d try to make sure that there were as few US units in that contingent as possible - you’re really not liked much at the moment. With regards to finding terrorists? Work with the Iraqi government. Use caution and stealth with regards to targets. No more blanket bombing, even if you’re 100% certain a terrorist(s) is there. At this stage, winning the hearts and minds is the priority - if we just focus entirely on taking out terrorists, with “accepted losses”, then it’s just going to create an endless cycle. Granted; this approach would probably mean more coalition/UN troop deaths (as terrorists would not be being killed/captured straight away). I think however, that in the long run, it’ll result in a shortened stay in Iraq, a more friendly Iraqi (and Middle-Eastern in general) population, and perhaps a sense of actual co-operation between the UN and the people.

Here’s a plan for fighting terrorism:

Don’t invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Instead, use the funds for a massive intelligence op aimed at ferreting out terrorists. Coincident with this, have a massive program to make the culture in countries that now harbor terrorists, less likely to harbor terrorists. This would involve infiltrating their media nd government at low levels at first. Use bribery to gain high-ranking agents.

Where necessary, conduct assassinations or small-scale military ops, designed out stomping out terrorist strongholds.

If you only want to assassinate one person, use a sniper. Or develop drones capable of firing the equivalent of a sniper rifle remotely.

Push really hard on the development of small-scale flying devices (insect-sized) that can be remotely controlled and can transmit any conversations iwithin the room they’re in.

Most of all, don’t be stupid.

Don’t fire skilled Farsi translators because they’re gay.

Don’t do clumsy propaganda programs that are easily outed, like the military “pay for good news” program in Iraq.


Just not being stupid would be a HUGE FUCKING IMPROVEMENT over what we have now.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging! That 17 year old Pakistani who lost 24 family members, do you think he is now more likely to support the war on terror, or volunteer as a suicide bomber? We are creating terrorists with our actions, we are making the world less safe. If this is your only way of fighting terror, yes, we should do nothing. Fewer Americans will die.

Bush invades Iraq because of assciations with Al Qaeda

WTC Atrocity cost 3000 lives

30000 lives lost in Iraq alone

Over 2000 US Deaths in Iraq alone.

I’ll tell you what, lets call it quits when the WTC Deaths= US Casualties in Iraq.

We’ll call it a tied game.

There has to be an exit strategy.

Sure. But you have very little credibility to criticize when you don’t understand what’s going on. If you don’t know the background and the reasons behind a decision, you don’t have the knowledge to call it ineffective. Ineffective compared to what? Something else you aren’t aware of? As for the morality question, AQ gave up the moral high ground a long time ago. We are trying to find them with as little damage to innocent people as possible. They had no such concerns.

No. Because it consists of “don’t do what I disagree with” without a viable alternative. You don’t like the predator drones? What would you use in their place? Would you try to put more agents on the ground in Pakistan? Remember, it takes a long time to train and plant them. Would you try to buy the information instead? Would you be willing to go there yourself with the cash or would you send the very people you are now vilifying?

If you aren’t willing to do any of this and another attack over here happens, will you find comfort by telling yourself “at least I wasn’t a fucking terrorist”? Will the innocents over here that died when they might not have had to be the sacrifices on your altar of morality?