In Peshawar, state of denial over market attack culprits

[Absar]

Since early 2009, Barack Obama administration officials have been claiming that the predator attacks in Pakistan have killed nine of 20 top al-Qaeda officials, but they have refused to disclose how many civilians have been killed in the strikes.

CIA Secrecy on Drone Attacks Data Hides Abuses by Gareth Porter -- Antiwar.com

The New York Times report it too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html

 

[S-2]

Lot of chatter about drone casualties and collateral deaths. 14 Al Qaeda and that's it, correct?

Gee whiz, what about all those strikes with ten here and 20 there and a Baitullah now, etc.

Here's what one TALIBAN logistician said last May-

Porous Pakistani Border Could Hinder U.S. -NYT May 4, 2009

"The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. 'The drones are very effective,' he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes."

David Rohde, a recently escaped NYT reporter who had the dubious privilege of being escorted about Miram Shah by one of Haqqani's sons noted his captor was equally fearful of the drones-and Rohde endured a strike himself that had been very effective.

Of course, here's what you don't get. Pakistanis cannot wage war nor allow others to wage war on Afghanistan and ISAF without having the same done to them. Just that simple. Always has been. Always will.

It is a sovereign responsibility that comes with sovereign rights. These men on your lands lead an insurgency that has killed more than double the afghan civilians as the firepower intensive ISAF-with all their jets and bombs.

These men use human shields.

These men TARGET CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN.

AND these men are led by men like Haqqani who live on your lands.

You know this, of course. Virtually all of you.

Don't believe me, do you? Check the UNAMA or HRW figures about the slaughter the taliban commit upon afghans. Ask A.M. to research it for you if you can't. I've posted the numbers and links here in the past but it's evident that what you don't read can't hurt you.

Your choice.

Meanwhile, we know that some newspaper always receives some anonymous phone call shortly after a drone strike from some FATA citizen with a cell phone near the target. What does he/she tell us? X taliban and Y civilians have been killed but can't be confirmed because militants have cordoned off the area.

Hmmm...

That says enough. How could anybody but the intelligence services intercepting communications discussing dead commanders actually know in an area where reporters and others die for possessing a cell phone?

Plenty of bad guys die in these precision attacks. Very few true innocents die in these precision attacks. Rarely do they miss their target.

When Pakistanis quit harboring the enemy leadership of the Afghan taliban and their Haqqani/Hekmatyar/A.Q. associates on your tribal lands, the drones will stop.

Until then, they are immensely effective even if the more august members of this board are reluctant to share that truth with your fragile eggshell minds.

 

[Absar]

Lot of chatter about drone casualties and collateral deaths. 14 Al Qaeda and that's it, correct?

Gee whiz, what about all those strikes with ten here and 20 there and a Baitullah now, etc.

Here's what one TALIBAN logistician said last May-

Porous Pakistani Border Could Hinder U.S. -NYT May 4, 2009

"The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. 'The drones are very effective,' he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes."

David Rohde, a recently escaped NYT reporter who had the dubious privilege of being escorted about Miram Shah by one of Haqqani's sons noted his captor was equally fearful of the drones-and Rohde endured a strike himself that had been very effective.

Of course, here's what you don't get. Pakistanis cannot wage war nor allow others to wage war on Afghanistan and ISAF without having the same done to them. Just that simple. Always has been. Always will.

It is a sovereign responsibility that comes with sovereign rights. These men on your lands lead an insurgency that has killed more than double the afghan civilians as the firepower intensive ISAF-with all their jets and bombs.

These men use human shields.

These men TARGET CIVILIANS IN AFGHANISTAN.

AND these men are led by men like Haqqani who live on your lands.

You know this, of course. Virtually all of you.

Don't believe me, do you? Check the UNAMA or HRW figures about the slaughter the taliban commit upon afghans. Ask A.M. to research it for you if you can't. I've posted the numbers and links here in the past but it's evident that what you don't read can't hurt you.

Your choice.

Meanwhile, we know that some newspaper always receives some anonymous phone call shortly after a drone strike from some FATA citizen with a cell phone near the target. What does he/she tell us? X taliban and Y civilians have been killed but can't be confirmed because militants have cordoned off the area.

Hmmm...

That says enough. How could anybody but the intelligence services intercepting communications discussing dead commanders actually know in an area where reporters and others die for possessing a cell phone?

Plenty of bad guys die in these precision attacks. Very few true innocents die in these precision attacks. Rarely do they miss their target.

When Pakistanis quit harboring the enemy leadership of the Afghan taliban and their Haqqani/Hekmatyar/A.Q. associates on your tribal lands, the drones will stop.

Until then, they are immensely effective even if the more august members of this board are reluctant to share that truth with your fragile eggshell minds.

Well, no offense, but this is all non sequitur

All I'm talking about is the number of civilians casualties as compare to the miscreants. And I reiterate again, when U.S Army or any army regrets the loss of innocent life, I ask whose life isn't Innocent?? We all are Innocents.

“What have the Americans done in eight years?” asked Abdullah Wasay, 60, a pharmacist in Charikar, a market town about 25 miles north of Kabul, expressing a view typical of many here. “Americans are saying that with their planes they can see an egg 18 kilometers away, so why can’t they see the Taliban?”

Prospects of More U.S Troops Worries Afghan Public -- Not to mention, it does worry Pakistani Public too.

 

[AstanoshKhan]

 

[S-2]

“What have the Americans done in eight years?”

Spent waay to much money and shed a bit more of our and afghan blood than we really needed. Otherwise I don't think we've REALLY gotten a damned thing done.

We shouldn't try to help anybody. We're really not very good at it. Certainly not this nation-building thing. We haven't lost that many troops and the afghans still haven't remotely approached all the dead from the afghan civil war much less the afghan-Soviet war.

But we are tired of spending huge sums of money for nothing. Not in Afghanistan and not in Pakistan either. Better if your leaders steal from you than us. You've less to steal and they'll go broke sooner rather than later with us.

I'm all over America leaving. Doing so is a BIG part of my plan...

...but only a part.

We can talk about the rest some other time.

 

[S-2]

Throw your best shot, azzhole.

You're a PERFECT example of what this thread's about-a state of denial.

 

[PostColonial]

These people cannot wrap their heads around the fact that their "fellow muslims" are responsible for killing innocent people.

 

[AstanoshKhan]

Throw your best shot, azzhole.

You're a PERFECT example of what this thread's about-a state of denial.

This goes to you Mr. S-2



and this is to your corrupted corporate Media and Organizations... who has controlled your mind to such an extent.

 

[Solomon2]

Yes, there is a fundamental conflict here: Pakistan's see the U.S. as a financial resource to be exploited. They know that once the OBL is gone and the Talibs defeated the gravy train will end or more controls will be in place that will make corruption more difficult, so they wish to drag things out as long as possible. (That the ruling elite doesn't give a damn about much of the populace was demonstrated in the spring when they abandoned Swat to the Taliban.) So why not make the process as short as possible, apply the strings now, and force Pakistan to make a choice? After all, what use is it to America to spend money to build schools when a large portion disappears in graft, and the end product is used by the Taliban?

This isn't the normal way a war like this should work; in most of our wars with common enemies, the U.S. could team up with its ally and share military commands as appropriate: the ally that could apply the most power to the battlefield would command the over-all strategy and battle. Since April, that would have been Pakistan. But Pakistan's leadership, and Pakistanis in general, don't really commit themselves as much as they yo-yo back and forth about who there enemy really is. And the Pakistani leadership has made it clear that they wish to keep supporting efforts that go against America's interests, like supporting the "good Taliban" or tolerating new terror-training madrassas - now in Punjab, since the FATA ones backfired.

Since this is a "mental" issue with the Pakistanis, I'm not so sure why they merit our support anymore, since more money will just engrave the delusions more deeply. Better to cease now, and see if comparative poverty will assist Pakistan's leadership in coming to their senses. I suppose they could try turning to China. But really now, what will the Chinese demand that would be different?

 

[Absar]

These people cannot wrap their heads around the fact that their "fellow muslims" are responsible for killing innocent people.

Wrong. However, I agree to you in a general way that Muslims are often hyperactive. But the manner in which you've stated about "Muslims", may depicts your obsession with 'Muslims'. I'm sorry if this is not the case, but your manner of posting this post is really reflecting this.

When a Muslim go on a killing spree, it's because of, as they say, religionism. But when an American Non-Muslim (since we're discussing a very particular case about America so I'll use the term "American Non-Muslim") go on a killing spree -- just like Virginia Tech Uni event in 2007, and the very next day a shooting spree in Florida -- it's never hyped or overstated the way it's done in "Muslims" case. There are many many such shooting sprees in U.S where "Muslims" have nothing to do with the killing of innocents. Don't blame Muslims all the time when majority of shooting sprees have been carried out by Non-Muslims in U.S :S

These authentic websites will help you to learn the shooting spree in U.S. It'll also tell you how many of it is carried out by "Muslims" and how many by "Non-Muslims"

1) BBC NEWS | Americas | Timeline: US school shootings

2) Timeline: US shootings - Times Online

3) Timeline: US gun massacres | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[The Patriot]

On Killing Sprees and Terrorism:

A killing spree by an individual or group of individuals is a criminal act if it is not intended to achieve their political agenda. if somebody comes out with a gun, spray bullets on innocents, because of his grudges with someone or enmity or any other cause it will be constituted as criminal act.

But if the same killer or killers kill or harm some one or damage property for the advancement of their political agenda it would constitute terrorism. in terrorism, the innocent killed is not the goal but a means to achieve goal, which is to put across their agenda by creating and instilling fear in public and thus forcing governments to cave in to their demands.

 

[SecularHumanist]

Wrong. However, I agree to you in a general way that Muslims are often hyperactive. But the manner in which you've stated about "Muslims", may depicts your obsession with 'Muslims'. I'm sorry if this is not the case, but your manner of posting this post is really reflecting this.

When a Muslim go on a killing spree, it's because of, as they say, religionism. But when an American Non-Muslim (since we're discussing a very particular case about America so I'll use the term "American Non-Muslim") go on a killing spree -- just like Virginia Tech Uni event in 2007, and the very next day a shooting spree in Florida -- it's never hyped or overstated the way it's done in "Muslims" case. There are many many such shooting sprees in U.S where "Muslims" have nothing to do with the killing of innocents. Don't blame Muslims all the time when majority of shooting sprees have been carried out by Non-Muslims in U.S :S

These authentic websites will help you to learn the shooting spree in U.S. It'll also tell you how many of it is carried out by "Muslims" and how many by "Non-Muslims"

1) BBC NEWS | Americas | Timeline: US school shootings

2) Timeline: US shootings - Times Online

3) Timeline: US gun massacres | World news | guardian.co.uk

What you conveniently forgot was the motivation behind going on a killing spree. The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally unstable and seeking counseling.

"The Virginia Tech review panel concluded that because of Cho's inability to handle stress and the frightening prospect of being turned out into the world of work, finances, responsibilities, and a family, Cho chose to engage in a fantasy where he would be remembered as the savior of the oppressed, the downtrodden, the poor, and the rejected."

Now compare this to the muslims we blame for Islamic Jihad. Are their motivations the same? Where are they getting their motivation and inspiration from? They usually shout "Allahu Akbar" and blow themselves up or go on a shooting spree. You want us to think the Virginia Tech shootings and jihad are the same phenomena? There is a reason why we don't call ordinary muslim murderers (who kill for something like personal revenge) jihadis. But when we see a muslim killing in the name of Allah, we call it Islamic terrorism/Jihad.

When I see people blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus, I shall call them Christian terrorists. Same goes for hindus, jews, etc. Comprehended?

 

[Vassnti]

These authentic websites will help you to learn the shooting spree in U.S. It'll also tell you how many of it is carried out by "Muslims" and how many by "Non-Muslims"

You missed one point Absar, of course most crimes in the US are by non muslims because the majority of the population arent muslim.
Just as you could say most crime in Pakistan is commited by muslims simply because there are few people that are any thing else.

 

[Absar]

You missed one point Absar, of course most crimes in the US are by non muslims because the majority of the population arent muslim.
Just as you could say most crime in Pakistan is committed by muslims simply because there are few people that are any thing else.

I agree with your analogy. But what I'm trying to make you understand is: Muslims, by and large, in West do get afraid and feel insecure after such events like Fort Hood rampage. I can say this because I've been living in a Western Country for years. I feel it, I experience(d) it in my surrounding too. "Muslims" pertinent newses are 'hyped' on media and everywhere, but this doesn't happen when it's a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Bhai, Buddhist, Jainism, Shinto etc. When it's a Muslim on a shooting spree, it's always called and perceived as an act of Jihad by a common people -- only because of media's bias. Whereas, when Non-Muslims is engaged in such a rampage, it's called instability of mind or an ad hominem tussle.

 

[S-2]

"...this [media hyping christian terrorism] doesn't happen when it's a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Bhai, Buddhist, Jainism, Shinto etc."

Heres a google link to christian fundamentalist terror-

Christian fundamentalist kills at abortion clinic - Google Search

Your comment seems clear that this flat-out doesn't happen. I see at least 10 pages of hits that says at least some elements of the western media report it as such.

Also, btw, this serves as just another example of the diversity found in the western media for those whom believe the western media is one monolithic reporting block.

So my guess is you're very wrong.

Here's an interesting report from PBS Frontline about Judaic Fundamentalism and the murder of Yitzakh Rabin-

Talking With Jewish Extremists-PBS Frontline

Googled, again over 10 pages of hits-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF_enUS290&ei=OrP4SqzBO5HIMa2CpdoK&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=Jewish+fundamentalist+murder+of+Yitzhak+Rabin&spell=1

"But what I'm trying to make you understand is: Muslims, by and large, in West do get afraid and feel insecure after such events like Fort Hood rampage."

No doubt you should watch your back and be careful. I would. It just pays to be cautious. At the same time, have there been mass outbreaks of anti-muslim violence in the west that might make a case for a pervasive climate of state-encouraged hate crimes? Even after 9/11? Any you can point to after the shootings at Ft. Hood last week?

Yes there are always crazed bigots but, if you're fair, you will admit that, perhaps, you've one or two of your own. Is this not so or are you prepared to tell me that hate crimes against christians haven't happened in greater Islam of late-

This couldn't be anti-muslim christian propaganda, could it? Killed for drinking from a non-christian cup-

Pakistan Christian Killed For Drinking From A "Muslim Cup"-Worthy Christian News June 12, 2009

and this?

Punjab: Young Christian Man Accused Of Blaspheme Killed In Prison-Asia News.It Sept. 15, 2009

He had a relationship with a muslim girl? For this his christian community's church was burned, two homes were pillaged, and, ultimately, Fanish was murdered. Blaspheme for throwing away a Koran but the charge was unproved nor does it now need to be. He's dead.

The story goes further. A week earlier near Karachi-

"In another incident, also last Saturday but reported only today, a Christian settlement in Ghaziabad, a neighbourhood in Orangi Town, near Karachi (Sindh), was attacked by a mob of Muslims, enraged by blasphemy charges against a 40-year-old Christian man called Lawrence.

After repeatedly attacking the man’s house with stones and rocks, the mob attacked local Christians and tried to storm the local Catholic Church. Only a quick intervention by police prevented a blood bath. Still police arrested Lawrence’s nephew, Shahkeel. The accused man went into hiding."

You remember Indonesia a couple of years ago? Three christian girls beheaded?

"It is unclear what was behind the attack, but the girls attended a private Christian school and one of the heads was left outside a church leading to speculation that it might have had a religious motive."

Three Indonesian Girls Beheaded-BBC Oct. 29, 2005

Can you help me with this? In most cases, the events related went beyond simply the victims and spilled into the immediate community. This makes it difficult to see these acts as isolated.

Personally, I think that you are far safer as a muslim living in the "Christian" west than I shall be as a christian catholic living in Pakistan. Guess that's just my opinion though, eh?

I think you've been very unfair here.