Why?[/quote]
Your disingenuousness is tiring. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews, bombed London, etc. Therefore it’s okay to slaughter a hundred thousand German civilians for no reason other than “they had it coming to them?”
No. That was not what we were supposed to be about. The concept seems obvious. Clearly it isn’t.
Why?[/quote]
Careful JD, confusing him with facts is just going to antagonize him.
Why?[/quote]
Careful JD, confusing him with facts is just going to antagonize him.[/quote]
Another shining example of your towering intellect. Not only am I a “Nazi” for deploring what happened at Dresden, but now naffing about clumsily with Socratic questioning is the equivalent of offering up “facts.”
Well done.
I understand the Pakistanis can be seen as flaky at best, but there is no state of war between the US and Pakistan, which is considered at least on paper to be a US ally. This obvious fuck up puts pressure on the Pakistanis that are willing to work with the US against the lslamo-nutcases.
HG
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]
Not only am I a “Nazi” for deploring what happened at Dresden, but now naffing about clumsily with Socratic questioning is the equivalent of offering up “facts.” [/quote]
If the jackboot fits…
For those who are criticizing the US for this move, I’d like to ask this: What would you be saying if this Al-whateverthefuckhisnameis was actually in this village and had been killed in the bombing? Would the dozen odd dead civilians have been worth it then? What about if a hundred civilians were killed? How about three hundred? At what point would it not have been worth it? If you were in a decision making position and you had information telling you that one of the biggest of the bad guys’ heads would be there for the taking at the cost of about a dozen innocents, what would you decide to do? I’m not sure I know the answer myself.
I also wonder if or how many times the US or its closer allies have passed up chances to get Bin Laden or any of the other top targets because they either weren’t sure enough or the collateral damage was too high.
Why?[/quote]
Your disingenuousness is tiring. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews, bombed London, etc. Therefore it’s okay to slaughter a hundred thousand German civilians for no reason other than “they had it coming to them?”
No. That was not what we were supposed to be about. The concept seems obvious. Clearly it isn’t.[/quote]
I don’t think you know me well enough to assume I’m being disingenuous. I simply wanted to get YOUR opinion. You are making a connection of revenge that I wasn’t making at all. Check the posts. I never made the connection to the Jews, Comrade Stalin did. My post was about the millions of Germans and East Europeans who directly and indirectly benfitted from Dresden, and Japanese after Hiroshima for that matter?
And what makes you think that YOU have any idea what “we” were about 60 years ago? The US has evolved quite a bit since WWII. What our grandparents found acceptable, we clearly do not. However, we should not brush aside the times and the context of these wartime actions while attempting to throw a blanket of our own self-held truths over them.
[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“porcelainprincess”]
Not only am I a “Nazi” for deploring what happened at Dresden, but now naffing about clumsily with Socratic questioning is the equivalent of offering up “facts.” [/quote]
If the jackboot fits…[/quote]
Look, I’m involved in this discussion and now must switch hats for a bit.
Stop the baiting, and namecalling, and personal attacks.
HGC and JT are trying to get us back on track. They’re right. I think we should discuss the thread topic. Dresden can be another thread if you like.
Thanks.
jdsmith
IP comod
Good question Jive, but I think my answer would be not to go around lobbing bombs in an allied country. Despite the obviously porous borders in the frontier states, Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in the war on terror. Although many here scoff at the French, I’m quite sure no one would seriously advocate dropping bombs on France to off an Islamo-nutter leader, so why do it in Pakistan?
My concern is not coming from a knee-jerk bitchslap to the yanks, rather concern that they get it right . I think the US needs to consider carefully the hearts and minds in all of this.
Of course, if they’d succeded . . . but they didn’t.
HG
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060116/ap_ … ida_attack
So much for the innocent victims call. The fact that they invite this guy to their house with kids running around is NOT the US’s fault.
So that no one gets lost. The only thing that went wrong here was that Zawahri WASN’T there.
Careless? Yes. Innocent? No way. This is like saying the US is wrong for bombing a hospital that Saddam’s Red Guard was using as a base.
[quote]
But Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., and other American lawmakers defended the airstrike.
“This war on terror has no boundaries," McCain, a former Navy combat pilot who challenged George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, told CBS. "We have to go where these people are, and we have to take them out.”
.[/quote]
McCain is closer to getting my vote.
Well, one thing’s for sure, they’ll not be getting a chance to defend themselves against their alleged involvement wth terrorists now.
From what you posted it would be quite conceivable that they were his wife’s relatives. Does that make them terrorists? If so, the question I’d be again asking is why the US let Binladen’s rels out after 9/11?
Another bold step in America’s path to klilling 'em all and letting god sort it out. Bravo!
HG
Well, one thing’s for sure, they’ll not be getting a chance to defend themselves against their alleged involvement wth terrorists now.
From what you posted it would be quite conceivable that they were his wife’s relatives. Does that make them terrorists? If so, the question I’d be again asking is why the US let Binladen’s rels out after 9/11?
Another bold step in America’s path to klilling 'em all and letting god sort it out. Bravo!
HG[/quote]
I believe the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly, right along with the rest of the country, when air traffic resumed. I have a copy of The 911 Commission at home. I can check later. 
Edit: And why would we automatically assume that BL’s family were involved?
Also, visiting family is ok for the second most wanted terrorist in the world? The weight here is on Zawahri alone. It is his fault these people are dead. There is NO WAY that these folks didn’t know he was being hunted. They were fools to invite him, but he is the reason the bombs fell.
The point is that the US should not be lobbing bombs at a supposed ally.
Take him out by all means, but not indiscriminantly with a bomb that takes out 17 others.
If the US had got him I doubt there’d be a noise, but they didn’t.
HG
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]The point is that the US should not be lobbing bonmbs at a supposed ally.
HG[/quote]
Well, it doesn’t come as a surprise to me. Pakistan is a “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer” kind of ally.
I’m not at all suprised either, but I think if the US wants to win this “war on terror” it simply has to minimalise acts like these which make it that much harder for moderates in Islamic countries to be heard or supported.
I support the war on terror, I do want the US to win.
HG
I woud, at this time, like to point out that this was not an “indescriminate lobbing of bombs”.
Quite to the contrary, this was a precision strike on 3 previously identified and targeted houses in a rural village in the mountains of Pakistan. The only houses hit wetre the ree intended targets. Quite a feat concidering that the drones were piloted by USAF pilots and Weapons Officers operating from a complex in the Unoted States. Probably in Colorado.
Their ordinance was on target.
Faulty intel aside - This was quite a demonstration of precision targeting.
Not a justification of the results, just a clarification of what actually occured.
Good question Jive, but I think my answer would be not to go around lobbing bombs in an allied country. Despite the obviously porous borders in the frontier states, Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in the war on terror. Although many here scoff at the French, I’m quite sure no one would seriously advocate dropping bombs on France to off an Islamo-nutter leader, so why do it in Pakistan?[/quote]
Because, despite our derision and wise-cracks often lobbed towards the French, if there was really a big terrorist dude living in Paris, the French authorities would be able to take care of it themselves. The situation in that region in Pakistan is a bit different. The Pakistani military and intelligence forces do not have control in the area, and by the time our people could coordinate with their people to make a move, Al-Zawahiri would be gone. Secondly, it’s pretty common knowledge that there are many in the Pakistani intelligence services that are sympathetic to the Taliban (they helped prop up their regime) and Al-Qaeda. Simply put, there’s a big difference between the “wild west” of Pakistan and France.
[quote=“porcelainprincess”]
This is why I despise you, Comrade Stalin. One hundred thousand people in Dresden were burned to death in what can only be described as an act of terrorism, and you call it a “slight nudge.”
You are utterly despicable.[/quote]
I find your moral equivalence of Dresden to terrorism both disgusting and pathetic. :raspberry:
Oui! 
Sometimes I really wonder how on earth with all the technology and information, these simple guys hiding in mountains or wherever cannot be tracked properly.
In any case, all what was won by killing innocent people is that you have a very angry country with people who will do anything now to help the terrorists.
The CIA has not helped the pakistanese president. His life is even more in danger. What if he is killed and a nut takes his place ? We can always talk about Iran but Pakistan has the atomic bomb.