Zen: Or possibly "our allies have weak central authority and very little control over some parts of their country". That's the real problem which allows Al Qaeda to hide in parts of Pakistan.
Yes, the US has of course denied everything - but who else is supposed to have done this? Who else has the planes (or predator drones, according to some witnesses) in the area? Are you seriously suggesting the Pakistani government bombed their own people just so they could complain about it?
I thought the USA had complete aerial dominance in the Afghan/Pakistan border area so, as I/S points out, since the Pakistanis are hardly going to bomb their own citizens who else should we point the finger at?
If our Allies have weak central control over such rugged terrain, it doesn't necessarily follow that the U.S has complete aerial dominance. That's likely a relative statement, based on who you'd place bets on in a dogfight, not what aircraft can make a run on a target.
Was I suggesting the Pakistani government did this? To be honest, hadn't even considered them.
There was just a few other possibilities - like an explosion not relating to missile strike, or a rival group with stinger missiles for example.
I just recently read an account by a guy on the ground in Afghanistan who said some of the tribes would actually fight each other for the prestige of gaining the most stinger missiles. Mad as cut snakes, but life is so harsh there, that their value system is completely alien to the likes of you and me. Well, I wont speak for you - but I was willing to believe this guys account.
So, there's a theory.
I'm not saying I strongly believe ALL of the details of the story one way or other. I have just learned that you can't believe all you read from a single source.
Just found this snippet as more news comes to light:
"Witnesses and news reports citing unidentified US and Pakistani officials suggested that an unmanned Predator drone aircraft fired missiles at three houses, but Aslam and General Shaukat Sultan, a spokesman for the armed forces, said the explosions came from rockets fired across the Afghan border, not planes."
>> Something there for both of us. You take the first theory, I'll take the second. Could go either way, I reckon.
"The bombing promises to further harm relations between the government and the tribal people who live along the Afghan border and who have been accused of harbouring bin Laden and his network."
>> Seems like (in other reports) the tribal people were protestig equally against the imperialist Americans and the hated Pakistani government.
This also fits in nicely with my suggested headline. Yours does a good job of putting the hard word on the US before all of the evidence is in, but mine seems to take into account a basic understanding of the politics of the border tribes.
I know you've got your fingers crossed that the US are the bad guys. Good luck.
Justice should be seen to be done. Turning vehicles into black smudges on the landscape in Yemen or houses into rubble in Pakistan does not look like justice.
Looks just like shit happens really.
If they (the US) find out where these guys are, they need to catch them, and put them on trial, not some Gitmo sham, and then whatever follows from that.
I don't think this will end by just making the sky fall here and there.
Killing terrorists off by dropping bombs (or rockets) is a good way to further the terrorists cause given the likelyhood of other casualties. Right now there are 10,000 Pakistanis pissed off enough to protest about the bombing. How many Pakistanis are pissed off enough to start aiding Al Quaeda?
How about the headline "Our Allies found habouring Terrorists" ?
ReplyDeleteI note the report says the US military deny the attacks, and the best the article can come up with is "it was probably the US"
I note the attack came near the border.
Zen: Or possibly "our allies have weak central authority and very little control over some parts of their country". That's the real problem which allows Al Qaeda to hide in parts of Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteYes, the US has of course denied everything - but who else is supposed to have done this? Who else has the planes (or predator drones, according to some witnesses) in the area? Are you seriously suggesting the Pakistani government bombed their own people just so they could complain about it?
I thought the USA had complete aerial dominance in the Afghan/Pakistan border area so, as I/S points out, since the Pakistanis are hardly going to bomb their own citizens who else should we point the finger at?
ReplyDeleteIf our Allies have weak central control over such rugged terrain, it doesn't necessarily follow that the U.S has complete aerial dominance. That's likely a relative statement, based on who you'd place bets on in a dogfight, not what aircraft can make a run on a target.
ReplyDeleteWas I suggesting the Pakistani government did this? To be honest, hadn't even considered them.
There was just a few other possibilities - like an explosion not relating to missile strike, or a rival group with stinger missiles for example.
I just recently read an account by a guy on the ground in Afghanistan who said some of the tribes would actually fight each other for the prestige of gaining the most stinger missiles. Mad as cut snakes, but life is so harsh there, that their value system is completely alien to the likes of you and me. Well, I wont speak for you - but I was willing to believe this guys account.
So, there's a theory.
I'm not saying I strongly believe ALL of the details of the story one way or other. I have just learned that you can't believe all you read from a single source.
Just found this snippet as more news comes to light:
ReplyDelete"Witnesses and news reports citing unidentified US and Pakistani officials suggested that an unmanned Predator drone aircraft fired missiles at three houses, but Aslam and General Shaukat Sultan, a spokesman for the armed forces, said the explosions came from rockets fired across the Afghan border, not planes."
>> Something there for both of us. You take the first theory, I'll take the second. Could go either way, I reckon.
"The bombing promises to further harm relations between the government and the tribal people who live along the Afghan border and who have been accused of harbouring bin Laden and his network."
>> Seems like (in other reports) the tribal people were protestig equally against the imperialist Americans and the hated Pakistani government.
This also fits in nicely with my suggested headline. Yours does a good job of putting the hard word on the US before all of the evidence is in, but mine seems to take into account a basic understanding of the politics of the border tribes.
I know you've got your fingers crossed that the US are the bad guys. Good luck.
Justice should be seen to be done. Turning vehicles into black smudges on the landscape in Yemen or houses into rubble in Pakistan does not look like justice.
ReplyDeleteLooks just like shit happens really.
If they (the US) find out where these guys are, they need to catch them, and put them on trial, not some Gitmo sham, and then whatever follows from that.
I don't think this will end by just making the sky fall here and there.
- ThisIsIt
Killing terrorists off by dropping bombs (or rockets) is a good way to further the terrorists cause given the likelyhood of other casualties. Right now there are 10,000 Pakistanis pissed off enough to protest about the bombing. How many Pakistanis are pissed off enough to start aiding Al Quaeda?
ReplyDeletePhil: Actually, quite a bit.
ReplyDelete