Here's the story:

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)

To be debated:

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?

If US forces were responsible:

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks? Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan? Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

QUOTE

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?

More correctly US forces above Afghanistan, as Predator UAV.

If US forces were responsible:

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

QUOTE

You bet.  Pakistan has known that their border area harbors some of our worst enemies and if they want to be an “ally” they need to work with us to kill these people.

QUOTE

3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks? Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan? Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

The people in Pakistan who hate us and sympathize or work with the terrorists are upset. The government is still behind us although there is some limit to what we can do before the government has major unrest problems to deal with. No doubt the AQ folks know this and that is why they are there.

Yes and No.

Was the “attempt” justified; Yes. BUT not the bone-head way it was carried out. If we had good intelligence, a sniper should have been sent in, or at the minimum, a Recon team to confirm that the target was present.


The War should have progressed into Pakistan when bin Laden slipped away at Tora Bora.

And while supporters of the quagmire in Iraq grasp at any discredited straw trying to link Saddam to al-Qaeda; they conveniently overlook the wide and deep ties that Pakistan had/has to al-Qaeda.

To be debated:



As far as I'm aware, the government isn't denying responsibility for th attack. No one else would be capable, let alone have the determination, to carry it out.



There were intelligence reports that enemy leaders were in the area, most specifically, al-Zwahiri. We were more than justified in trying to take him out. The loss of civilian life is a very sad thing, but occurs in conflict. You only have intelligence to go on and that isn't infallible by any means. Our government has paid resittution to civilians killed in attacks of a similar nature, I'm confident that the villagers will have similar compensation for what happened.



That particular area is a hot-bed of militant activity, even Musharraf has said as much and hinted that the reason why they face such a risk of life is who they choose to lend support to:



We've never bene able to win with some of those people and we never will. We don't owe it to them to win them to our side, or to respect their wishes when they continue to harbor untrustworthy individuals who seek to take American lives.

I hate that my response comes soon after after Ted’s “love it or suck it up in the name of Freedom®” post, which flies in the face cooperative gestures like quiet agreements concerning the treatment of downed pilots and actions on the ground in Afghanistan before Bush’s Axis of Evil™ speech brought all nascent contact with the moderate Iranian regime to a screeching halt, but my answers may surprise you.

Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?
I haven’t read anything to indicate the assault wasn’t the work of the U.S.

Was this a justified action in the war on terror?
Justified? Unlikely. Stupid? Without a doubt.

Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan?
That’s always been a possibility. However, we’ve basically given “President” Musharraf all the material support he needs to suppress an uprising. It’s not like Musharraf hasn’t screwed up on his own in the name of Freedom®.

Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?
Small chance the U.S. will blow up another building. The preferred method includes identifying the body and avoiding civilian casualties. That requires a ground operation.

Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks?
Decrease our standing in the eyes of those we want to win over and provide terrorists with a new recruitment highlight.

With some Pakistani officials saying they believed some extremists were in the building, I’m not buying Pakistan’s story that they had no idea the CIA would take out the building in an airstrike.

It wasn't justified?, on what basis do you make that judgement? If you have intelligence stating that al-Zwahiri is around a village in a party and have a predator drone in the air, why wouldn't you try and take him out? It's easy for us to play arm-chair quarterback after the fact, and yes, the loss of human life does occur. At the same time, when you have intelligence indicating that a hot-bed of insurgent activity is now the home of a high ranking member of al-qaeda, you would be more than justified to act on it.

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?

I am very positive that the attack was carried out by the US. I didn't hear any denial by US gov.

If US forces were responsible:
2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

No. The killing of terrorists when there are civilians in jeopardy is not acceptable. The US has other means to deal with these people, e.g. sending in Special Forces to capture them and trial them if they are so evil. I once thought you have to be found guilty before you are being punished. Ahh, right, it's war.



I am not aware that the US is at war with Pakistan. Stupid me, it's war on terror and that is everywhere to be fought.



It is very easy to accept the loss of innocent life if it's not yours or that of your loved ones.
What I honestly don't understand here is how some people accept the death of civilians that easily. In the war on terror, a human life does not seem to be much of worth when there is the slim chance of killing a terrorist.
Actions like these are the reasons why the terrorists keep having reinforcements, young people dying to be of service for these groups.
America just got up its reputation after helping in dealing with the horrible earthquake in Pakistan. That one incident turned around public opinion quite effectively.



Trying to avoid attacks on civilians like this would help to not losing people who are on your side. Similarly, Nebraska29, you assume that the civilians harboured terrorists. There is no confirmation of this, instead there are reports of 5 children who were killed. What was their bad deed?
The US officials as well as the public need to understand that by killing civilians in the name of the war on terror, the terrorists become martyrs.
The US has overwhelming military force, why not use it wisely for once?

Pakistan still is one the side of the US in the war on terror. However, the US does a lot to support the militants in their fight against Musharrafs regime.

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?
Um...yeah.

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

The incident begs the age old question: how do you wage war without harming innocents? Until warfare is rendered obsolete, the question goes unanswered. That doesn't assuage the family members of the victims, but it is reality.

The key to remember is that intelligence has a shelf life. In most cases, there simply isn't time or resources to 'send in the green berets, or employ a sniper'. Both suggestions disregard the logistics of such an action and the survivability factor for our forces.
We are then left with the weight of the intelligence itself. Is it solid? Does it warrant the risk of killing civilians?
Sometimes they get it wrong.

I don't oppose taking al-Zwahiri out. I oppose taking him out at all costs. Neither he nor Osama warrant executing a sloppy operation. They are not worth rousing the ire of Pakistanis who were on the fence or partially inclined towards killing terrorists, and “enhancing our sterling reputation as a military that can get the job done with the minimum fuss,” to quote an alleged MI. Then there's the issue of lobbing a missile into the territory of a sovereign state without its express permission until Musharraf says otherwise.

This isn’t a question about a desire to take out the bad guys, but it will undoubtedly be portrayed that way by those who object to the operation until someone in the know steps forward and suggests the same thing. It’s enough to make my eyes roll.

I guess your response creates a question - what level of civilian casualties is deemed acceptable? I assume 18 people is acceptable. Is 36 acceptable? Is 180 accceptable? I guess if we judge by the Al-Zawahiri's potential, several thousands should be acceptable is well - since he's potentially capable to kill thousands of people.
Al-Zawahiri would be nobody if he didn't have foot soldiers to follow his orders. How many foot soldiers we just created for him with one mission gone awry?

What upsets me more is total gloss-over in the press of 18 lives we just wasted. Here we have killed 18 innocents and all they get is a one-line mention at the end of the article? Ouch... Life really is cheap over there.

Yes, this is more than settled.



It's that kind of thing that kept the U.S. from killing bin-Laden a number of times. Checks and re-checking had to occur before the order was given, which by that time, was too late. Yes, we do have special forces, but the advantage with a predator drone is that if it gets shot down, we lose a hunk of metal. If we send in special ops forces, lives may be lost, people will wring their hands, and you know what that leads to in the popular media.



The second part of your statement is very true. The president has said that innumerable times. This isn't a conflict like any other in the past. This enemy crosses national boundaries, and it's not a new event that neighboring countries would have skirmishes and be somewhat involved in this conflict. The Sandinistas attacked the Honduran border to get at the contras. Before that, the Viet Cong utilized Laos to sneak in supplies, nothing new there. Musharaff and company know that they can't act in that region, and he hasn't criticized us because he knows in all probability, that the people in that region are hardly without blame in being an al-qaeda support area.




That is very true. Women and children do not deserve a horrible fate like some unquestionably did when th attack occured. At the same time, I know that I don't live in a village where people harbor terrorists or where political extremism has taken hold. It is perhaps unreasonable to ask innocent people to leave areas they've lived at for centuries, but staying incurs a risk and I'd wager that to a certain extent, people along the border regino are aware of that.



Is not innocent death during war a fact of life? The bombings of dresden and the "fire bombing" campaigns on Japanese cities certainly took many lives. By no means am I sweeping it under the rug, but when it comes to our military, I believe that they try and do the least bit of damage they possibly can. I don't believe that the village was intentionally drilled because the military hates civilians or just wants to callously take lives. We made a grave mistake, and we will compensate hte people as best we can.

.

Really?, in reading the article, their al-qaeda sympathies were long established before this attack. With these people, everything bad will be magnified, while everything al-qaeda and other groups do will go without mentioning. We will always be wrong in their eyes, we will always be "the imperialists" we really can't win their hearts and minds to begin with. All we can hope to do is kill their leaders with as much precision as we can and go from there.



Musharaff was quoted as saying the region is a known al-qaeda safe-haven. When he points that out rather than criticize us, he is probably going with some hard intelligence. I really doubt the claim is baseless. Five children-I have two and I would be a wreck if anything ever did happen to them. I couldn't imagine being in the parent's shoes over there. At the same time, is it really our fault? Did we intentionally set out to be in Afghanistan? Is it our intent to bomb villages? why do we do these things? Who compels us to do this?

Was this a justified action in the war on terror?
Yes I think killing terrorists is a justified action in the war of terror. I just feel this particular action was poorly implemented and unfortunately this is becoming a trend as the same thing happened in Iraq only 2 weeks ago.

This just highlights the fact that the US can not and will not succeed at fighting this war as some omnipotent force swooping from the sky to extratct revenege and make judgements of who lives and who dies. We have to be on the ground or at home.


The war on terror's full name is the Global War on Terror. It has spread to the US, UK, Spain, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Nairobi, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, Bali......

I suppose if there was a legitimate chance of killing al-Zwahiri then there was some justification, but I also have to wonder how long the US can lob high explosives into villages, and when among the bodies none turn out to be the target, smile and say "Oops, missed."

This is not firing a misile into a Taliban training camp, it is firing a missile into a village of an allied country. If Bin Laden were hiding in Wilmington Ohio, would it be justified to lob a missile in there? What about Aberdeen, Scotland?

I guarentee the result today is no dead Al Qaida operatives, but a few dozen more volunteers and a few thousand (or more) people simmering with anger at the attack on their country.


It's easy when the nation in question is a long way away, and not a first world, (dare I say caucasian?) nation. Yes, Pakistan is involved in the war on terror, but it is a soverign government the US has recognised and an ally, which was not consulted before its territory and citizens were attacked. Some might say Pakistan is 'not doing enough' to help in the war on terror.

Well, keep in mind that during the 1980s and early 1990s, the US was doing little to nothing to help the UK deal with Irish extremists, in fact the vast proportion of PIRA funds came from fundraising efforts in the USA that the US government turned a blind eye to.

So if a top IRA terrorist was hiding in Newport, RI, would the UK Royal Navy been justified in lobbing a missile in there on 'good intel' that they would kill, among others, the target?

Drones fly a lot faster than helicopters?

But you do touch on an important topic; had we not been distracted by the War of Choice in Iraq; we would have had the resources to properly fight the War on Terror available.

As for the Survivability factor; I noticed that many don’t mention anything about the ‘Survivability Factor’ of sending troops into an unplanned occupation that is now basically a Civil War. So it appears that the ‘Survivability Factor’ of the Troops is not a priority in Iraq, so why should it be in the real War on Terror?

I’m sure it could have been planned right; the attack was at 3am, lots of time to get a force in place to catch him when he left many hours later.

Guess I didn’t think of it that way. How would you do it? The attack was “stupid” you must have a plan.

A ground assault is out of the question and would have engendered even more protests, and cost American lives. The terrorists are there for the same reason they were in Afghanistan – they are protected by locals. And these local are the “civilians” that were killed. If AQ ‘s # 2 killer was there then anyone with him is a supporter. Would you have us just forget it and leave them alone? The man they were after PLANNED and carried out the operation that killed 3,000 American civilians.


Your idea that the attack will “Decrease our standing in the eyes of those we want to win over and provide terrorists with a new recruitment highlight.” Is naive at best. Many in Pakistan hate us and love the terrorists. Certainly the government knew we would take out the building with a missile. There was no other way. AQ only accepts 15% of the people who would love to join. It has always been that way and nothing we can do will change that.


http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper439.html

AL QAEDA'S SHADOWS ON INDIA & S.E. ASIA
by B.Raman
There are indications that to avoid detection of their presence in Pakistani territory by the US intelligence agencies and possible cross border (Pakistan-Afghan border) punitive strikes by the US forces operating in Afghanistan, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan has started shifting important elements of the Al Qaeda, including surviving leaders of its brains trust, to Pakistani Punjab and the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK), including the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan).
Since December, 2001, sections of the Pakistani media have been reporting about the movement of the Al Qaeda survivors towards Punjab as well as the POK by the ISI-supported Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET). This movement has continued, despite the ostensible ban on the LET imposed by Gen.Pervez Musharraf on January 15, 2002, under US pressure.

With the complicity of the ISI, the LET started moving the Al Qaeda survivors to private homes in different towns in Punjab as well as to its camps in the POK.

Right. I guess 5 children and 5 women are guilty by assosiation - because among 18 dead 10 were women and children. These are the "civilians" that were killed. Do you put them in quotes, too, or your quotes apply only to 8 men who may or may not be supporters of Al-Zawahiri?



That's exactly what Vermillion was talking about - a racism when it comes to pricing American life (or life of a "western" man) vs. a life of some arab villager. There're plenty of terrorists all over Western Europe and yet there're no missile strikes in London, Hamburg, or Madrid.

Why the assumption that U.S. troops would conduct the operation alone, how do you know Pakistani and U.S. troops wouldn’t have made a coordinated assault, and why is a ground operation out of the question? Do platitudes like stay the course, perseverance and patience only apply when we take every possible precaution to avoid U.S. casualties and screw the citizens who reside within an “allied” state?

Throwing billions of dollars worth of ordinance and armor at Iraq hasn’t significantly changed the situation on the ground for the better. American lives have already been lost on both fronts. We either accept the fact that we are not engaged in an infantryman’s/Cold War conflict and adjust the scale, that means sometimes doing it the hard way and yes, accept casualties, or pack up our bags and go home.

The rest of your post goes on to point out that there are really bad people out there taking advantage of the cover anonymity provides. And they want to kill us. No kidding? Since they use the public as a shield should I assume you think we’re wasting our time training the Iraqi army/police and turning Iraq into glass is preferable to losing American lives—for a while.

Do we know this for a fact? Do we have independent data. Naturally AQ would say this – but it could be a total fabrication couldn’t it.

And if AQ personnel are now housed with “women and children” should we tiptoe in and just kill the “bad guy”. Is that possible? Of course not.

IMO if you are living with AQ senior killers you are either family or part of the group and you risk your life in doing so. They are NOT just “Arab villagers” . The drone used is extremely precise - we did not just wipe out a town or village as was done frequently in WWII. Even if we dropped in hundreds of men right on top of this compound chances are very good the results would have been the same or worse.

This man planned and carried out the MURDER of 3,000 Americans.


Lesley - This from 2004! Its not as simple as "coordinated assault"

If Iraq is our next Vietnam, will Pakistan be our next Iraq?

The US envoy to Afghanistan has angered Pakistan by warning the country that it must eliminate "terrorist sanctuaries" near their common border or US forces will have to step in. In a speech Monday at a private Washington think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Zalmay Khalilzad said that if Islamabad doesn't solve the problem then "we [the US] will have to do it ourselves."

In other words, according to Khalilzad, if Pakistan doesn't root out terrorists on its soil, the "U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition might send its troops to destroy them." Not a shining example of diplomacy.

Pakistani officials, already hampered by anti-American sentiment, are angered by what appears to be a threat to unleash the U.S. military on Pakistan. Information Minister Sheikh Ahmed Rashid said "We do not need anybody in our territories ... These kind of irresponsible statements can create political problems for us." Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan says that Khalilzad "is clearly out of his depth" and "should desist from making such statements that can only cause misunderstandings."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005972.html

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?

This has been answered. What other nation would have ignored the sovereignty of the country of Pakistan to do it?

If US forces were responsible:

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

The point has been brought up that had a European country or the United States been suspected of harboring an important terrorist leader, there would have been no bombing.

Life does seem to be cheaper for the inhabitants of the area. Apparently it is better for "them" (women and children included) to die than our brave soldiers who at least have the means (guns, grenades, body armor) to defend themselves, except for one thing: it is the relatives of these "nobodies" who end up strapping explosives to themselves and trying to take out the people they perceive to be the enemy. Tell me, how would you feel if your relatives ended up as "collateral damage"?

3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks? Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan? Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

It is a great recruitment tool for al-Qaeda. And it is yet another reason for the United States to remain in a state of constant warfare and to exact the penalties on the American people via continued loss of personal liberty and higher taxes.

Have you noticed I doubt Pakistan’s story about not being informed of the assault and I used quotations around the word allies in reference to Pakistan?

I stand by my original statement. It is as “simple” as a coordinated assault. We are not breaking new ground here with Pakistani authorities.


If communication has gone awry between Pakistan and the U.S. (perhaps there has been an increase in resistance to local terrorist kills/arrests within Pakistan), we need to address the problems instead of turning the conversation on its head by declaring “They mean to kill you!” over and over again and risk other democracies to regard our intelligence policy wonks as a pack of insensitive idiots.

I'll skip the first question, since the answer to that seems obvious.

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

The debate on this seems to be a rehash of the entire war on terror debate. I have noted that some of those stating it wasn't justified bring up the practical consideration of the impact of such attacks on the population in Pakistan. These are very valid concerns...any attack that generates more support for AQ than it removes is counter productive. I haven't seen anyone offering any counter theories, though. Consider that notice has been given that those supporting AQ are subject to lethal force. Consider also that al-Zwahiri has to feel less confident of his secrecy and therefore of his ability to move around, even amongst his supporters. Consider that he probably now questions where the intelligence came from, and is therefore suspicious of all those around him. I'm not necessarily saying that these factors outweigh the public outcry, but as with most things, there are arguments on both sides, and only one seems to have been present here.

I would also note that there seems to be an assumption that *innocent* civilians were killed in this attack. Are civilians who are harboring and abetting al-Queda innocent? Note that even though he wasn't present at the time of the bombing, that doesn't necessarily mean the intelligence was wrong. Absent contrary evidence, it is worth assuming that these people were indeed consorting with al-Zwahiri. If so, who's to blame for the deaths...the US, or those who chose to consort with AQ? Again, there are two sides to such questions, and only one seems to have been present in this debate.

3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks? Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan? Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

I don't think the ground war will spead into Pakistan, at least any time soon. It is too volatile a region, and going in would undoubtedly cause massive problems...and with little chance of ultimate success, I think. Personally, I think Musharraf must have approved such actions behind the scenes. It just makes political sense for him to assuage his people by questioning that now. He is balancing a very difficult situation, in which much of his populace supports AQ. Such grandstanding is therefore to be assumed. As for the ultimate outcomes of such attacks, I think it remains to be seen. Sure, there is public outcry...but we won't know about the effects on hindering AQ's mobility or their supporters reluctance to continue to harbor him for some time.

There have been several posters here who decry the loss of civilian life here. I join them in that. However, if force is so restricted that it is rendereing ineffective, then AQ's leaders would be free to commence their work. How many innocent civilians would then die? War is a dirty, ugly thing. But sometimes not using force has even more dire consequences, which are even dirtier and uglier. No intelligence gathered will likely ever be perfect. But, I think that, given solid intelligence with a significant probability of success, I would authorize such a mission, although I would be cognizant of its potential repurcussions as well.

If that is an absolute as you are clearly suggesting here then how would you feel if the US or the UK decided to bomb some village or neighborhood in Europe or the US because AQ supporters were known to be there (or at least that is what intelligence said)?

I'm pretty confident that no one would believe that is justified which means there is a clear double standard here. European/American civilians are regarded much more highly than those in Pakistan. In Europe or America a ground assault or police action would have been authorized even if that meant more personal risk to the anti-terrorism forces.

So please, let's stop kidding ourselves that the US cares about Pakistani citizens or any other citizens in the middle east at large. If we did value their lives then we would take the same care around them as we would in a US or European city.


I'd be willing to bet that the women and children involved were innocent and were probably just family members, friends or relatives and were not involved in AQ. Just because they happen to be unfortunate enough to be related to al-Zwahiri, does that mean they should die? You are making a large and completely unprovable assumption that they were cohorting with AQ. Given that children were involved I'd say the assumption they were innocent bystanders is much more likely.

I would give our military and leadership the benefit of the doubt here. IMO the government ( of Pakistan) knew all about this attack before it happened and gave the OK. There is little doubt that a Delta Team could have dropped in and done the job as well but I still feel this approach was used because Pakistan has been reluctant to allow any US soldiers on their soil. I am also sure that our government would have preferred the Delta Team since we would have had proof we got the right man on the spot and their would have been fewer casualties.

Unfortunately nothing in the region is black and white. Below are some recent quotes out of Pakistan where the government must walk a tight rope in it’s relations with the US. We do NOT want to go to war in Pakistan but we DO want to get Al Qaeda leaders.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/2003/chapter4.htm

"The holiest soil on earth is that of Pakistan and we cannot tolerate the unholy presence of Nancy Powell on our holy land. Her presence keeps us away from Allah's blessings. Pakistan should cleanse itself from her unholy existence… Allah has told us to make atom bombs. America is telling us not to. Who should we listen to O Muslims, Allah or America? Kashmir will not be solved by talks, not by American arbitration, not by its division but only by jihad, jihad, jihad!... The Hindus were terrorists yesterday, they are terrorists today and they will remain terrorists tomorrow. We are right in seeking revenge from these spawns of evil."
- Taped speech of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, chief of Lashkar-e-Toiba, played on Kashmir Day,
at the Jamia Mosque Ghousia, Rawalpindi, February 2003


"I have come here because this is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in peace until we have destroyed America and India."
- Masood Azhar, Chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad, January 5, 2000

"We have the nuclear capability that can destroy Madras (India), surely the same missile can do the same to Tel Aviv. Washington cannot stop Muslim suicidal attacks. Taliban are still alive and along with "friends" they will continue the holy jihad against the U.S. America will destroy Iraq and later on repeat the same act of war against Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia."
- Gen. Hamid Gul, former ISI chief, Islamabad, March 2003

"We do not consider ourselves separate from Taliban or Afghanistan. Our history, our religion and blood and culture are the same. The Taliban government is our ideal government and we want a similar one in Pakistan because it has peace, equality and justice. We consider the war against Osama and Taliban a war against us, Pakistanis and Pakistan."

- Maulana Azam Tariq, Member of National Assembly from Jhang constituency and chief of Sunni group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, January 2003.

I'm failing to see the justification for the racism aspect of this debate. The weapons, delivery vehicles and tactics used in the strike in Pakistan are essentially the same as was used in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo, with the exception of upgraded technology. European cities, European nations. European citizens. We were also on the side of the oppressed muslims you may remember.
I believe the race aspect to be a red herring.

Thats not an argument, its a blatant justification. It is a justification that has been used to argue the need for unecessary force for generations. The people in the Irish pub i blew up were sympathisers. The family and neighbours of the Palestinian were collaborators. The population of that Vietnamese village were sympathisers. The civilians he surrounded himself with were actually his supporters. and so on.

There is no actual ARGUMENT behind this, just the assertion that, since they died, the MUST have been bad guys, the proof of their guilt in the fact that they got killed by the US.

Firstly, I think it is at least as likely that al-Zwahiri was in hiding there, rather than surrpounded by his supporters. Secondly, you argue those close to him must have been bad people (including women and children), but I put it to you that even if this silly assertion were true, these victims were NOT near him, they were killed but the target was not present.




You say that as if we were somehow aware that 9/11 occurred. Thanks for the update. So what? Just how long does the 'trump card' of 9/11 (to be pulled out when the US needs a justification for its blunders or killing of innocents) last?

Al-Zwahiri is a bad man, and he very certainly needs to be brought to justice. I am just staggered by the fact that in purusing that goal there seems to be few moral boundries some are willing to cross.

"Oh, we missed the bad guy but killed a bunch of innocent villagers? Well, they were probably bad anyays. In fact, if we spin it right, we can spin their guilt-by-mortality into a headline saying we killed 18 more terrorists! maybe that will make it look like we are actually getting somewhere in the 'war on terror'..."




No, it is basic common sense. A foreign power just attacked Pakistani soil killing Pakistani civilians. Of COURSE this will engender ill feelings among the Pakistani population. How can you possibly argue otherwise? Yes there are Pakistanis who dislike the US already, just as there are those who like the US, or at least agree with the premise (however poorly executed) of the war on terror. By this action, of COURSE those Pakistanis who hate the US will feel vindicated, and those who support the war on terror will be angered.


There is a common error made by the far-right wing in the US, that the US has a lock on nationalism. That actions which, if taken against the US would cause a mass riot of anger, those same actions if taken against another country will cause no reaction. Thats just absurd.

Right, so you are telling me that if Bin Laden himself were known to be in Paris as an example that the military would drop a bomb on his flat instead of using police and special forces? Give me a break.

We were already nominally at war with the countries you mentioned, we are not at war with Pakistan and consider them to be an ally in this fight.

CJ, you're disregarding the fact that Paris Police have a bit more presence and dominion in Paris than the Pakistani Army does in Damadola. If the racist aspect is but a pet theory of yours, fine. If you disagree with the decision to bomb the building via UAV, fine. I might disagree with it as well.
But if you are trying to prove that this attack was subconsciously or consciously racist, it falls a little flat.

I didn't say that race had anything to do with it DTOM, that was your creation. There is one thing that is clear here, we have different standards on the relative value of civilians in Middle Eastern countries. The military won't think twice about dropping a bomb on a neighborhood there (even one that is extremely precise) and the same thing, even in the name of the GWOT, would be unthinkable anywhere in the first world amongst allied countries.

Now if you want to suggest it is race that is fine but don't attribute that to me, I'm not trying to determine why that is the case I'm simply stating observed facts.

First of all I am with Dontredon me. The attack was like others done Bosnia in DEFENCE of Muslims. We are not raciest and we are NOT murderers as much as you would like to paint it as such. The reality IMO is that in order to get this man we could have dropped in 10 Delta commandoes or used a drone. To drop in the Commandoes we would have had to use a big obvious military aircraft over Pakistani soil that could not have gone unnoticed. IMO the government told us to use a missile and accept the loss of life.


And your suggestion that one of the most wanted and notorious killers in the history of world was traveling with no security and all the people with him didn’t know exactly who he was is ludicrous. Anyone with this man knew who he was and what he was. The protesters hate the US and support the Taliban and that has not changed.

From the story:
Many al-Qaida and Taliban combatants, including al-Zawahiri and bin Ladin, are believed to have taken refuge in the rugged mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Two Pakistani intelligence officials said Ayman al-Zawahiri, Usama bin Ladin's top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the village to mark the Islamic holiday


When you invite killers to dinner you take your chances. Any mother who had children there was a fool.. Obviously they felt they were safe. Even Delta might have killed civilians.

And how is your logic different from the logic of 9/11 attackers who claim that if 3000 civilians chose to work in New York, the symbol of Western power, they're aiding and abetting this government and therefore deserved to die?
I thought we are better than them...
Women at this part of the world don't have much choices, not like that can jump into their SUV and drive with their children to the nearest Applebee's while Al-Zawahiri is having dinner at their house...

Ya right they just wanted the “building” as the “symbol”. Give me break. Both times AQ attacked the building(s) it had thousands of people in it.  They loved watching Americans die as we know from statements made by Osama and his friends later. 


The people in this town were hosting their friends and they knew exactly who they were.

AND we apparently have used the missile from drone before with success. See below.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/03/pakistan.rabia/

Al Qaeda No. 3 dead, but how?
Sunday, December 4, 2005; Posted: 12:31 a.m. EST (05:31 GMT)
LAHORE, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistani officials have confirmed the death of a top al Qaeda official, Abu Hamza Rabia, but witnesses and officials give conflicting stories of how he died.
Without elaborating, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on Saturday he was "200 percent" certain Rabia, the operations chief of the al Qaeda terrorist network, was killed Wednesday.
He was killed north of the border town of Miram Shah, Musharraf said during a visit to Kuwait.
Other Pakistani officials also confirmed that Rabia died during an explosion at a home in the North Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan near the Afghan border. (Watch officials confirm Rabia's death -- 1:26)
Residents who witnessed the blast say the explosion was caused by a missile strike, which Pakistani officials deny.

Actually, CJ, it seems that you are stating your opinion as an observed fact. As DTOM pointed out, there are numerous other factors that would come into play if UBL were found to be hiding in Paris, for example. The use of other forces to apprehend him would be much more feasible. So, there simply isn't enough evidence to support the conclusion that we therefore must place less value on Middle Eastern lives. In fact, I would claim that we place no more value at all...but that repurcussions among allied countries would probably be stronger. Let's face it...much of the Middle East already hates us, so doing something to make them hate us has very little incremental effect. That is a far larger factor than anything else. There is also the considerable factor of whether a particular population supports those against us, or not. I don't think we paid particular attention to the value of German lives during WW II, for example, regardless of their European standing.



No, I am not making that assertion. I am stating that there isn't any evidence that they weren't consorting with them at all, whereas there is evidence that intelligence indicated that they were. Therefore, all those assuming that these were in fact *innocent* civilians are making a conclusion without any evidence supporting their position.



No, as I responded to Vermillion, I am stating that we had evidence that they were, whereas nowhere in this thread or anywhere else have I seen any evidence whatsoever that they weren't. So, anyone claiming that all the victims were indeed *innocent* are making such assumption without any evidence at all. As for the children, I won't claim that they weren't innocent, but I will claim that if either of their parents were consorting with AQ, then it was they that put them in harm's way, not us. Face it...if we place excess restrictions on our use of force, then there isn't any way we're likely to apprehend these people...and THAT puts thousands, if not millions, of innocents at risk. Who's looking out for them?

I'm sorry, this is important. You say there is evidence these civilians were consorting with Al-Qaida? I must have missed that. What evidence exactly is there that these women and children were consorting with Al Qaida? Because without that, you are as I said earlier, making nothing but a bland assertion.


Which, to be fair is better than Ted who just keeps repeating that, since they were narby and killed, they MUST have been evil. according to Ted, Obviously everyone in the village knew and sympathised with al-Zawahiri. Why? Well, because they just must have!

Firstly, why you assume that a man hiding for his life broadcasts his identity to a whole village is baffling. Secondly, EVEN IF he did, why you assume that instantly the village sympathised with him automatically is baffling. But even worse, even if we took both of those massive logical leaps to be true, your whole case rests on the assertion: They were near him, so they must be Evil. Except at this point, we don't even know if they WERE near him! The bomb missed him, the intel was wrong. He may have moved, he may have never been there.

Either way, the reaction of Ted and his fellow hawks is to toe the ground sheepishly and say 'Oops, our bad. Well, they were all bad anyways, so whatever.'


And by the way, while we are poking obvious holes in silly arguments:



Yes. of COURSE you are right. US special forces have no capacity to be covert after all, they go everywhere in a big aircraft marked "US SPECIAL FORCES INSIDE" in red paint on the fuselage.

They could have been inserted covertly quite easily and quickly if they were based nearby. Oh wait! They were based nearby, as this raid occurred near the border with Afghanistan, where the vast majority of US special forces are currently deployed!


This attack was clunsy, killed a lot of people in an allied foreign power and, oh yeah, was unsucessful. (Unless you count all those 'bad' women and children Ted says were killed)

Let me be clear. I DO believe al-Zawahiri is a valid target, and needs to be brought to justice. I also do NOT believe that the US military is somehow utterly institutionally racist. But I do think it is tragic that there are people out there who do not seem to bat an eyelid over the US killing civillian citizens of an allied country in a clumsy, botched operation, and then rationalising this act (which, if it was done to the US would be taken as an act of war), like the fox and the grapes, by saying: "Oh, but they were probably all bad civilians anyways".

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

Clearly the US believes it can bomb whomever and whenever they please. They had been relying on Pakistani assistance in the past. Pakistan and India have been at each others throats over Cashmere, and there's no telling waht this may do to upset the relative calm they have had in the last few weeks. The Bush administration's lack ofconscience knows no bounds. The people with the sustpected terrorist (if we even there) must be considered innocent civilians unless there was direct proof they were not. One of the principals of American justice is innocent untill proven guilty.
3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks? Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan? Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

There can be no justification for bombing a sovereign territory in this manner. There is no precedence in international law for a coutnry to lawfully attack another without warnign and without a formal declaration of hostilities. However, the US will use their blanket 'War on Terror' to justify it. The people of ANY country would vehemently oppose one country imposings its justice inside another.
Undoubtedly this will result in an increase in attacks on not only Americans but others as well.

The fact that the attack occurred is evidence that intelligence indicated al-Zwahiri was planning on visiting the compound, as is the fact that such information was disclosed immediately after the attack. Could this intelligence be faulty? Certainly. However, what evidence is there that this is the case? Currently, none. So, to claim that these were innocent civilians is a bland assertion, as well. That is all I am saying...that until more information is known, making claims about the innocence of the victims is just as much an assertion as the opposite.



I would agree with you on this, except for the phrase "clumsy, botched". That is a baseless claim, unless you have detailed information on the intelligence information provided, the sources it came from, and all the mission parameters used in making the strike. Assuming that is not the case, then all we know is at this time is that it was unsuccessful. That happens, particularly when you have a target that is very adept at concealing his whereabouts, and making numerous alternate plans, as Al-Zwahiri likely did.

I would further add that I do not take killing of civilians lightly at all. Extreme care must be taken to ensure that such casualties are minimized if not avoided completely. What is usually missing from this line of argument, though, is that delay in apprehending or eliminating such people also brings civilians into harm's way. So, there is inherently a balancing act to be played. Err too much on the side of caution, and the targets will likely go unapprehended for sufficient time for them to plan and execute another attack. Err too much on the side of aggression, and innocent civilians are victims, which is unfortunate in its own right, and also has potential negative ramifactions on the antiterror effort. So, you take all this into account, and some level of force based on some level of intelligence is certainly not only justified, but the only prudent course of action. At this point, we don't have any evidence that anything other than this was the case.

MSNBC reports that the attack was made from numerous Predator planes (three) and that at least three missiles were fired. Knowing the precision with which Predator planes are able to operate, this information tells us that the military knew very little about Al-Zawahiri whereabouts, and decided "to cover all the possible bases" anyways. That's why "clumsy" seems like a very appropriate word. I wouldn't have a problem at all if a single missile from a Predator plane took out Al-Zawahiri along with a few of his security personnel. It could happen that an innocent civilian may lose the life in the process. But firing three missiles on three different targets tells us that the military knew that at least two of these missiles will be killing innocents for sure.

Sorry, when you claimed that you had evidence that the civilians here were collaborating with Al-Qaida, I assumed you mean actual evidence, not assertions which you call evidence.

Lets deal with your questions in order. Could the intelligence be faulty? you maintain there is no evidence that this is the case. Well, they missed. Al-Zwahiri was not there. That at least is evidence of some kind or error.

Again we return to you calling the civilians 'collaborators' because they are dead. They were nearby where the US THOUGH al-Zwahiri might be, close enough to be killed by a large misile, thus they are bad guys. That is not only spurious logic behind a facade of justification, it is also very dangerous logic. Guilt by mortality.

As I said, considering that we KNOW that al-Zwahiri was in hiding, it is so utterly impossible that he might have been hiding? You assume that he broadcast his arrival and intentions to all (incredibly unlikely for one of the most wanted men on the planet) and that this small agrarian village supported him fully and completely, women and children included, and were thus Al Qaida collaborators.

I think it is at LEAST as likely if not more so that he was there in dsguise, or anonymously, or unknown to the bulk of the village. Certainly to presume that because he was there (though, we don't even know if he was), instantly anyone within a half-kilometer radius is automatically an Al Qaida sympathiser.

I assume civilians are civilians unles proven otherwise. So does the planet, not to mention the geneva convention. Though I am NOT drawing a paraole between the two obviouly different events, I would like to point out that the argument of guilt by geographic proximity was exactly the same argument used by the perpetrators of Mai Lai to justify that massacre.




Well, let me take a shot in the dark here. I am going to guess that one of the mission parameters was to kill al-Zwahiri. Oops. However, 18 civilians including women and children were killed in his place, civilians of an allied nation, killed without the consent or knowledge of the Pakistani government.

You don't think that was a botch? OK, perhaps you could tell me what your failure standards then. If a mision failes to accomplish its objectives, but killed a lot of civilians and angers an ally with no tangible returns, would you call that an unqualified, glowing success?




Again, thats not an argument or evidence, it is just a justification. We also have no evidence at all that this was the case. Was al-Zwahiri 12 hours away from launching some kind of massive attack from his remote pastoral village? Unlikely, since if that were the case the authorities would be trumpeting this to high heaven as another attack averted, another 'success' on the war on terror. Further evidence that there was no immediate attack, is that they missed al-Zwahiri entirely, and yet no subsequent large attack has occurred.

So much for that justification.

I'm always a little surprised by this logic. Even if al-Zawahiri were present - and it looks very much like he was not - he's one of the most wanted men on the planet and unlikely to have been travelling alone and unarmed. More likely, he was with a small team of highly dangerous people, armed to the teeth; or he was travelling incognito; or (most likely) both.

So it's not a certainty that the people he was with (or not with as it turned out) were aware of his presence, or that they were sympathisers. They might have been just ordinary people unaware of the nature of the strangers to whom their culture requires them to give their hospitality. As we're constantly told, this is a lawless area, so being armed isn't on it's own going to raise anyone's eyebrows, since anyone sane in the area is going to arm themselves when moving around.

Personally, I find this a rather credible idea. After all, where did the initial intelligence come from?. We know the Pakistani government's remit doesn't run in this area - it's supposedly one of the reasons why ground forces didn't go in with an arrrest warrant, after all, so it doesn't seem obvious that they'd know specifically where a particular target was. It seems to me that the most likely way we'll catch someone like al-Zawahiri in such country is that the locals will tell us where he is or where he's going to be, but won't do anything themselves because they know the bad guys will hurt them (or maybe put out false intelligence to sucker the US into bombing random villages, acting as both a recruiting sargeant and a warning to any village that informs on them).

They may have been perfectly aware of who and what their visitors were, and giving their hospitality at gunpoint (a-Q has no special record of treating ordinary Muslims any better than it treats anyone else who isn't a fanatical Wahabist jihadi).

It is also possible that the locals were all passive a-Q sympathisers, but this is not automatically the most likely situation, especially given that al-Zawahiri and co were not there at the time of the attack.



Perhaps, but this attack was not a success, was it?



There is no "therefore" in this case, because the intelligence that supposed that they were consorting with them was WRONG. That's why no terror suspects' bodies were recovered, only those of ordinary villagers.

The logic you're applying is much the same as me saying that because chickens have webbed feet, they must be the legitimate target of a duck hunt. The first premise is demonstrably WRONG, and the post-justification of "well, they all had feathers, so we were okay shooting at them" is exactly that - post justification.

Even in modern war - where the 90:10 military to civilian casualty ratio found in, say, the Falklands Conflict has been reversed - the killing of civilians is only acceptable as collateral damage to operations achieving some kind of higher objective (such as the capture or killing a legitimate target). When the killing of civilians happens on it's own, it's only polite to apologise. Saying "well, they were probably guilty anyway" just doesn't cut it.



That would be the case if we didn't have a long-standing, nay, hallowed principle at the centre of our civilisation's attitude to justice that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. If we sacrifice all pretence to that goal in our desire for revenge for 9-11 (it can only be said to be justice in this case inasmuch as this operation was a blind as she is), how are we any different from the people we claim are so inferior to us?



Quite so. I'm glad that you see that it's possible to be too aggressive and that that has negative consequences not only for the unfortunate victims of that aggression, but also for the aggressor in the long run. What do civilised people usually do when they err? They apologise, don't they? So why hasn't America apologised for this, instead blustering on about collateral damage, legitimate targets and faulty intelligence. It seems everyone else is to blame in circumstances like this where America "errs", including the victims themselves. America herself, and her armed forces, are blameless.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nobody defending this kind of actio seems to have any problem with this principle when they are trying to say that "just because al-Zawahiri wasn't there at the time doesn't mean he hadn't been or hadn't planned to be there". This cuts both ways - he wasn't there, and just becase there is no current evidence that force was not only unnecessary but counter productive doesn't mean that is not the case.

Enough rebuttals - to the debate questions:

1. Was the missile attack the work of US forces in Afghanistan? If not, who was responsible?

I believe so, and the US hasn't denied responsibility - I don't doubt the US would have done so if they weren't involved.

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

Only using the kind of tortured post-justification logic used above, but that's nothing new in the GWOT.

3. Whether justified or not, what will be the outcome of such attacks?
Extended and deepened anitpathy towards the USA in the Muslim world. Extended and deepened antipathy/contempt/ridicule towards the USA in the rest of the first world, even among supportive nations.

Will the war on terror spread into Pakistan?
It's been there since the outset - the Taliban were largely trained in Pakistan, with covert help from the Pakistani government, and the US. The win-at-all-costs mentality of the Cold War had unintended consequences, one of which has been the rise of Muslim extremism (which, at one time, was seen as at least preferable to Communism). Now we have a win-at-all-costs mentality for the War on Terror. Eventually, that will calm down (with a less obvious victory, I think), but what consequences have not been foreseen of this one?

Will the people and government of Pakistan support or oppose such actions by the USA?

Musharref is esentially an opportunist, like all dictators. His domestic opponents are mostly Islamic extremists, so it's useful to him to cosy up to the USA, especially since India (his main foreign opponent) is much less close to America. I don't doubt for a second that, had the attack been successful, he would have praised it to the skies, and played up the part played in it (if any) by the Pakistani security forces.

As it is, he realises that he has to keep a semblance of majority opinion on his side, so he plays up the hurt pride at the infringement of sovereignty, as he has done.

The cosy relationship to Pakistan is one of the things that bothers me about the GWOT - if it's about democracy and freedom, why are we so pally with Musharref (and, for that matter, the Saudi Arabian royal family)? Both openly indulge Islamic extremists domestically - most of the madrassas at which the extremist imams learn their hate-filled rhetoric are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, yet we bat nary an eyelid at this, instead preferring to invade Iraq with little cogent idea about what happens afterwards. Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons illegally, just like Iran (supposedly) want to do, yet Pakistan is our best mate in the region and serious commentators are suggesting targeted military strikes against Iran with straight faces.

Huh?

Actually the way the story reads - al-Zawahiri did not show but his deputies did and in a small village IMO they knew who the people were. And the attack may have been a partially success if it killed some of his deputies.




There is probably NO Arab country where there is not hatred for the West and the US in particular. Should we go to war with them all or work with the imperfect governments where we can gain some level of cooperation. Certainly the major reason why the US is hated over and above the rest of the West is Israel and our strong support for the Jewish State. You know as well as I do this cannot change. So we make the best of a poor situation in this VITAL region of the world.

We have, of course, done this to ourselves. We strongly support the most hated country in the Arab world and we are strongly tied to OIL. We must have it because we and our politicians cannot seem to move toward energy independence. From both sides of the isle – we cannot raise the gas mileage for cars, environmentalists will not let us drill for oil off the coast, or in Alaska and we don’t have enough refineries. Finally we seem to be unwilling to pay the equivalent of 3 $ a gallon forever for alternative fuels. We are STUCK with our strong dependence on the middle east.

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

The answer is: it depends.

It depends on what the Pakistani government authorized. If Mushareff gave tacit approval for the operation (which is likely, but unknown for certain), then it was justified.

The intelligence was given to the US by Pakistani intelligence. Obviously giving over such information (that terrorists will be in this place at this time) to the US implies that the Pakistanis thought the US could use the information.

Publicly, Pakistan has not authorized US forces to "cross the border". We are not at war with Pakistan and so we have no mechanism for going against their will. That is probably why unmanned drones were used rather than special forces.

The Pakistan government has been teetering on the brink for years. On one hand, fundamentalists are pressuring the government to support Muslim unity. The government doesn't want to get on the bad side of the US (for many reasons). Given that set of facts, the government cannot overtly allow US forces into Pakistan. This has been the same since the Afghan conflict began and many Taliban and al Qaeda fled into Pakistan where US forces could not pursue.

So we have a situation that we received bum intelligence from Pakistan about terrorists in Pakistan. We have tacit approval to use missiles and unmanned aircraft but not troops. We had this scenario before when we killed al Qaeda's #3 (Rabia) successfully. This time, the intelligence was wrong. Perhaps it was misinformation let out by al Zawahiri himself, who knows?

Note that the Pakistan government has not blamed the US. Again, tacit approval.

The results were certainly tragic. Innocents were killed (it is still unknown where al Zawahiri's aides were there and killed).

If the Pakistan government gave the nod on this (and given the evidence, that is likely) than this was a justified action. If they did not give approval, then this is a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty.

I think the analogy to Aberdeen or Wilmington is a bit misplaced because in this case, the controlling authority (Pakistan) was unable to act. Instead, it gave the information and the approval to the US to act. The US was forced to use a clumsy mechanism (I agree that it was clumsy) due to the political reality in Pakistan.

That's not the way I read it - let's agree that the story is (at best) ambiguous. Deputies may or may not have been present. If they were, they may or may not have been killed. We just don't know. You're prepared to give the US the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not. Neither of us know for sure that we're right.



OK, so I opened this tin of worms myself by mentioning the Saudis, but when did Pakistan get to be an Arab country. Or for that matter, when did a country with land borders with China get to be in the Middle East?



Ok, pragmatically it isn't possible to wage war on all the unpleasant dictatorships and regimes in the region that murder and torture their own civilians, plot against Western and American interests, etc.

But if that's the reason, why keep referring to the PRINCIPLES of freedom and democracy and peace as the motivation for the WOT in the first place? Why make the case for the Iraq War as a matter of such high principle to remove an undemocratic and brutal regime with WMD that shows willingness to spread those WMD to hostile forces, yet cosy up to another brutal undemocratic regime with WMD (in this case the worst kind - nuclear weapons) that shows willingness to spread them to hostile forces (isn't the guy who gave bomb technology to North Korea and Iran a Pakistani?)?

You're right, US support for Israel is a major reason why the US is hated over and above the West. (It might even be the major reason, as you say, but it isn't the only reason.) But another major reason is the hypocrisy of TALKING about matters of principle but not living up to them.



So the world has to put up with this kind of thing because America can't (for which read "doesn't want to badly enough") change it's own thinking and behaviour? Another reason why America is hated... the rest of the world - especially the brown / poor / Muslim (delete as applicable) parts of it - have to pay for America's blindness/stubbornness?

(In all this, I include my own country, although less so, because we don't have the international heft that we used to have, and also because our military philosophy is not almost entirely predicated on the domestic necessity not to suffer casualties.)

Amlord answered this. There can be little doubt Pakisstan Intel had much to do with the targeting of this “meeting” Amlord - see bottom of page






We can refer to principles but obviously our vital interests there are very important as well. To think that the war didn’t have anything to do with OIL and Israel is naive. Iraq had the distinction of 1. Hating the US and actively targeting our planes and people after Gulf I. 2. invaded a neighbor – who was a major oil producer and ally. 3. Used WMD in and out of the country and had the potential to pass same to Terrorists as well as “states”. 4. had numerous unresolved UN Resolutions from Gulf I of which we were a part.

Thus while Pakistan is no ideal ally they are fundamentally different than Iraq under Saddam. And speaking of North Korea – WE did as much (under Clinton) as Pakistan did to help NK develop nukes and now we must live with the consequences of having another nutty state with nukes who hates the US and the free world in general.

Where in any of my posts have I asserted that they were collaborators? I don't think you'll find any reference. All I have been saying is that we don't know that they weren't. I really fail to see why this is debatable, as nowhere anywhere in this thread has anyone offered any evidence that they are. Have we all become so polarized in our thinking that we can't understand that there are two sides to every argument, which is all that I'm trying to say?



Ok, I can support that. Again, nowhere in my posts have I said otherwise myself. Of course, we won't have access to the intelligence used in the attack, therefore we won't know if any proof existed for a while. But I guess that doesn't stop everyone from making assertions as fact.



Failures happen in warfare. Lack of success does not mean that the operation was clumsy, or botched. It simply means that it was unsuccessful. You would need a lot more information about the intelligence, planning, and execution to make that claim.



Whatever. I am sick and tired of getting into meaningless debates when all I'm trying to do is point out both sides of an issue. Frankly, if anyone here doesn't understand the point I was making I'm not going to waste any more time pointing it out to them. You say you are for getting alZwahiri, and yet you are arguing my point here? Again, whatever.



Ahh, I see. And we know that these were *ordinary villagers* because...they said so? Obviously, that has to be taken as clear fact then? So, then, the solution to finding the terrorists is just going up to them, and asking if they're an ordinary villager, and if they say yes, then move on to the next person? Wow, three whatevers is one post....maybe I need that second cup of coffee.

I would add that we do not know that the intelligence was wrong. All we seem to know at this point is that Al-Zwahiri wasn't there. Why wasn't he there? We don't know. If intelligence was that Al-Zwahiri planned on having dinner at this place, at a certain time....we have no information at this point that that wasn't, in fact, accurate.



I suggest you review similar attacks we have made in the past, all of which involved targeting multiple missles at a single building, before making such assertions. I guess I'll have to go with a fourth whatever, and call it a day.

Not because they said so - my later paragrpah in the same post refers:



Until someone demonstrates that the under-10s (let alone the adults) who died in this attack were acitve terrorist sympathisers, I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that they were not.

Given that the intelligence that says that the victims of this attack were anything other than innocent bystanders (or, to use the hateful modern euphemism, collateral damage) is also the intelligence that says that the deputy leader of al-Queda would be on the same site at the time of the attack, and he is not one of those verified killed, I'd also say it was a reasonable assumption to question the validity of that intelligence.

And I'd further say it was a reasonable assumption to expect that intelligence that will likely result in civilian casualties is going to at least result in some intended target casualites as well, and with no evidence to support the conclusion that intended targets were hit, it is also a reasonable assumption that this was a botched attack, or even that should never have been launched.

edited to add
nebraska29's post below changes this a little - clearly there were some terrorists present.

However, I'm still sceptical that the attack could not have been more, er, surgical. I think sympathy for the US would rise significantly if it went so far out of it's way that no "collateral damage" occurred.

And even here, the article itself says 10-12 foreign terrorists were there, but only four were killed (the difference being made up of non-terrorists. Hardly an unqualified success.

And we still don't know how genuinely unforced the "invitation" was. When someone "invited" Al Capone to their restaurant, was it becasue they were also gangsters, because he was rich and they needed the money / glamour, or because they were scared he'd have them killed if they didn't?

Well, it's coming to light that this attack was justified, as four terrorists were killed.