Third Party & Independents Archives

Valuing the lives of Non-Americans

It’s something we should do as a matter of principle, yet do we? Or do we as Americans seem to believe only our lives are worth defending? Thousands are protesting in Pakistan over what appears to be another failed attempt to kill Ayman Zawahiri in which between 13 to 18 people died, some of them children. Even if it is proven that the Musharraf administration knew or gave permission for the bombing what does this “the ends justify the means” thought process create?

I'm not writing this to bash the President or to go into the reasons for or against the war in Iraq. No matter which side of that topic you are on, this is about the methods we are using. Is this necessary? Is this counter-productive? Deeper yet, is this belief that only certain groups "count" as far as a death toll and the rest are just "unfortunate incidents" create some of the very problems that make terrorism even harder to defeat?

It certainly doesn't create less anti-US feeling, in the World Opinion Round up of the Washington Post criticism came from several Pakistan newspapers, the most harsh from Peshawar, the Frontier Post:

They said the Americans "have outrageously trespassed into our territory twice with their fighter aircraft and have unpardonably killed our innocent children, women and men with their inexcusably appalling strafing. Do they think we are their colony or some kind of a banana republic? Let the American warlords based in Afghanistan and their bosses back home in Washington know that we are nobody’s colony but an independent nation that deeply regards its sovereignty, freedom and honour. And they must also know that it is not the American lives that alone are precious in this world."

What disturbs me the most is our willingness to bomb an area that we know will also contain civilians. Even if al-Zawahiri would have been killed, that alone is not going to end the war on terror. These organizations are set up specifically to deal with the death of a leader, one dies? Another one takes his place. While there are going to be times when in the course of a war innocents are killed, this is not some accidental incident. Some of you may believe that it is the fault of the parents for having their children there, realizing that some of these terrorists purposely place women and children in harm's way. I think we all know that is and has been done, but does that mean that their lives are worth nothing? If in fighting this war on terror we as a Nation create terror for others how does this stop the cycle of violence? What this does is create more hatred towards America. It actually helps Islam extremists recruit new members. The only way we are ever going to stop or at least diminish what is happening is not going to happen by killing more people. It's going to have to start with creating a situation where the islamic extremists cannot recruit easily. Where people start to value their own lives enough to see that is not a solution. It's a difficult situation, how do you create value of life in situations where they many times themselves do not hold it to be of value. I may not have the perfect solution, however reinforcing the belief that America does not value their women, their children is not the message we should be implying.

Aljazeera is reporting that Pakistan has demanded that the US ambassador report to the foreign office so they can file a protest, which further leads to speculation as to how much the Pakistan government knew about not only the intelligence that led up to the raid but the actual raid. Is this some type of a ploy by Musharraf to placate the protests that are according to this Washington Post still continuing? It's obvious coming out and admitting you gave permission to the US to bomb a portion of your country is not something he would admit. Especially given the reaction in his country right now to this incident.

We can send aid and relief to areas that have been hit by a natural disaster, as we speak there is a US effort to help those affected by the last earthquake in that region. That ends up being forgotten in a situation like this, that is human nature. I realize our record as a nation is not without it's own times of not valuing life, such as what happened in Waco, Texas as one example. Yet I can't help but wondering, when and how will this end if we keep stoking the fires of hatred rather than putting them out.

Posted by Lisa Renee Ward at January 16, 2006 3:36 PM
Comments
Comment #113692

It is a hard decision. Of course, I understand from news reports that eleven of those so far identified are also militants and if someone invites a person like Ayman Zawahiri into his home, perhaps it is he who doesn’t value human life.

We have done similar things in the U.S. BTW. You will recall Waco and Ruby Ridge, or even when Mayor Wilson Goode destroyed a whole block while going after radicals. If you believe a terrorist might destroy thousand, you take the chance. We have been lucky in the U.S. not to have such organized radicals. We almost did in the 1960s. In these situations the only moral choice is not to have to make one.

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #113699

I am disappointed in you, Lisa. You of all people must know that what the American People does not see on TV, it does not bother with. This has been true with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Rendition and all those kidnappings. Where is the footage? Abu Ghraib was a well-known torture site but it was only after the pictures came out that America cared about it. Do you have any pictures of those dead children in Pakistan? Are you sure they are not Al Queda Recruits? They will be after Bush Spin Machine gets finished with them.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #113702

Jack:

The claim that “eleven are militants” just means that 11 are grown men. They don’t know they are militants and just categorized them as such since it is more convenient. They would label the grown women militants too if they thought they would get away with it.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #113720

Do check out the ">http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Zawahiri”> rewards for justice on the target guy.

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #113723

Sorry about the link. I think this is the right one. Rewards for Justice

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #113733

Jack:

So you believe it is ok to kill 18 probable civilians for $25,000,000? I suppose you think $50 million will justify saturation bombing on the entire village?

Afterall… what’s a few deaths in the name of money?

*On a serious note - The Tribal Regions in Pakistan tend to be neutral until provoked. They are also inter-married to other villages and tribes. I would say we made a lot of Al Queda Members that day.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #113735

I haven’t seem the claim of 11 men stated since the intial bombing. It’s been stated there 18 civilians who died in the attack, including five children, five women and eight men. Some have stated five of the men were “suspected” terrorists, some reports have ranged between 11 to 18 killed. This from CNN, Fox, Aljazeera and the Washington Post as well as the Pakistan news sources.

Jack, I did mention Waco though not in detail, and acknowledged that our government has not always valued innocents here as well. I know why the US wants this man, however, there are others that will replace him. Even if killing him would somehow end this how many innocents should go with him? 5? 10? Where do we draw the line? I don’t believe killing him or any of the top leaders including Osama will stop this. It’s going to have to stop from the bottom up. As long as they can continue to recruit those willing to die for their cause? It will never end.

Aldous, I’m so sorry you are disappointed in me, I’ll try to do better next time.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #113758

This is something that perplexes me and I don’t mean this as rhetoric. I would appreciate thoughts.

As I was looking for reports about this case, I came across a short piece that a suicide bomber in near the Pakistan border killed 20 people. This kind of thing doesn’t even make the news summary in many cases because it is so common. Okay, presumably the people killed by all these bombers have similar numbers of relatives and friends as those killed by the U.S. bombing. For each person the U.S. kills, these bombers kill a dozen or more. If a U.S. bomb creates hundreds of anti-Americans, how is it that a terrorist bomb doesn’t create hundreds of anti-terrorists.

I know that people hold the U.S. to a higher standard (which, BTW, is a ethnocentric or racist idea), but if the terrorists kill someone’s brother, sister, son or daughter doesn’t that trump the higher standard thing?

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #113761

Jack,
Revenge is a problem, no doubt. It’s hard to tell in the case of the Afghan suicide bombing. I believe it occurred in Spin Boldak, was aimed at Canadian troops, and killed quite a few people in a marketplace. The attack was supposedly committed by the Taliban against infidels, but as you noted, details are sketchy.

Still, does that create resentment against the Taliban?

In Iraq, the suicide bombings certainly create resentment and desire for revenge between Sunni and Shia. The death squads are busy, but I don’t think those make the papers unless a lot of people die at once. Sometimes a large number of young men are found shot by the side of the road. It’s just left at that, no blame assigned.

No question, though, the Pakistan bombing was a huge screw-up, regardless of the motivations. Nothing to be done except apologize profusely.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #113762

It’s a matter of justification Jack, we justify the loss of some innocents here and there if the bigger cause is met. They seem to see the bombers as a result of our action. In their way of thinking, without the US and the extremists rising against us there would be no suicide bombers hence no deaths.

Same thing in Palestine and Israel, those who die with the suicide bombers that are Palestianian or Arab are killed in their minds because of the larger evil which in their case would be Israel. We to many of them are the larger evil, hence creating the justification to blame the US rather than those truly responsible.

It is something I wondered about in the past as well, because you would think eventually they would stand up and deal with the extremists. At points in time it looked like some Palestinians were heading in that direction. It appears some in Iraq are heading in that direction. That is another necessary part of this to end terrorism in addition to stopping the source is for the people to stand up to them, raise their children to realize this is not the way. As I wrote earlier, I understand it’s hard to place a higher value on lives that some of these people don’t place value on. That’s part of the reason this whole problem exists.

I do however disagree with you that holding our nation to the higher standards it promotes as part of a democracy is not ethnocentric or racist. To me we should treat those of other nations the same way we would treat those here if we truly believe in the concept we are trying to promote.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #113763

Sorry, I was distracted by our new puppy and a child who would not listen about not messing with the new puppy… that should be:


I do however disagree with you that holding our nation to the higher standards it promotes as part of a democracy is ethnocentric or racist

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #113769

Lisa Renee:

You are wrong in assuming Suicide Bombers do not value life. That is like the belief that Suicide Bombers believe they will go to heaven with 50 virgins. It is typical for people to belittle what they don’t understand.

If you want to know the Suicide Bomber mindset, there is a movie “Paradise Now” — a film by Palestinian director Hany Abu-Assad, that explores suicide bombing mindsets.

Posted by: Aldous at January 16, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #113770

Jack,

It has been said before and I guess I will repeat it.
If America (whether we want to accept it or not), is that which all aspire to emulate, then we must be held to the higher standard.
Do we just continue to piss-off folks around the world by attempting these little CIA gambits?
How do we explain our logic to a people that have lost much in a major earthquake, and may not survive the winter?
I totally disagree that 1 man is worth the lives of so many children.
In their eyes haven’t we just proven his point?

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #113772

Aldous, the virgin thing isn’t true, virgins yes, but not 50 and that is the reward for all “Good muslims” not just suicide bombers (which could be debated since the Quran also says you are not supposed to kill other muslims) yet the belief that they will have a better “life” when dead tells you they don’t value life the way we do. Most of us who have something worth holding on to fight to live, not volunteer to blow themselves up to take a few people with them.

I’ve done alot of reading on the mindset, mainly from a Palestine/Israeli view but I have not seen that particular movie. I have friends that have come here from both Palestine and Israel, their personal experiences have made me understand a small portion of this. I could never claim to fully understand it since it is not something I have ever experienced.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #113773

Thanks for the notes

The higher standard thing I still think is racist. We are saying that we are better than others. It implies that murder and dishonesty are normal and to be tolerated among non-Americans. There are two sides to this double standard. If we are held to a higher one, what does that say?

Posted by: Jack at January 16, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #113775

Jack,

“The higher standard thing I still think is racist. We are saying that we are better than others.”

No, all it implies is that America is something to aspire too.
I am, by no means, saying that America is perfect.
Perception is everything Jack.
If those around the world don’t see that the model America is built on isn’t the “best”, that the people in America don’t belive we are the “best”, then what are we fighting for?

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #113776

Jack, I get where you are coming from since I think it is partly that belief that makes some of us believe an American loss of life is more important than an Iraqi or a Palestinian or a Pakistani. There has to be a balance between realizing our nation was designed to be the form of government all should aspire to have and believing we are better than everyone.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #113778

Lisa,

My comments above weren’t to denigrate anyone. Loss of life regardless of nationality is a matter for concern.
Now, the question is do all Americans feel that way, or is this just a scam that America is perpetrating on the rest of the world?

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #113781

Rocky, I know you weren’t denigrating anyone. Loss of life regardless of nationality should be a concern.

I wish I could just say it was one political party or the other, that wouldn’t be fair though. I haven’t figured out who really is to blame initally though it’s obvious our government is the place to start. I think Jack makes a good point as to the flip side of believing our form of government is the best and our country is the best that creates some of this as well. It is possible to take the feeling of superiority to far. Pride in one’s country is one thing, believing that we are the mighty and all should bend to our will is another.

One of the main reasons I posted this was not only to write about what bothered me in this situation but to see how posters here felt and their views on it. How we solve it is difficult, the same as trying to end terrorism, it’s not going to be easy. Those who are being terrorized are going to have to act as well. We can’t do it for them, there’s only so much we can do before they have to say enough. But I also strongly feel that by continuing to have situations like the bombing in Pakistan no matter how well intentioned the plan was to take out a known terrorist, the end result made things worse.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 16, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #113783

Lisa,

“Pride in one’s country is one thing, believing that we are the mighty and all should bend to our will is another.”

Winston Churchill;

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

To say that we are the mighty and all others should bend to our will would only validate what Osama Bin Laden has been accusing us of.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #113796

Alas, Rocky, we all don’t listen to the words from the past. If we did? Many things would be different.

That seems to be human nature though, just the same as we had to learn and our children have to learn certain things by experience. We try to impart the wisdom of our experiences just as many of our founding fathers and others in history have tried to do for us.

It’d be nice if we would just once when saying “never forget” actually remember what we were supposed to avoid before it was too late.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #113868

I have to say the things you are saying and the way you say Americans I think you are saying this about True born Americans Like me that we all should be valuing the lives of non-Americans on principle well I have to tell you this what are you a foreigner from another land you come to my country and take jobs money homes cars children wives living space away from True Born American people what gives you people from other countrys the right to come to my country and take it over destroy it and everything I hold dear in my heart pack up your belongings and your family and go back to the country you all came from and stay out of mine.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at January 17, 2006 4:17 AM
Comment #113941

Albert:

First of all, learn to use punctuation. It’s a sign of intelligence, even though it doesn’t always indicate intelligence. Secondly, I don’t think Watchblog needs your type of comments—this one and your rant in another thread are among the most ignorant and bigoted posts I’ve seen.

Lisa:

Life is important and we should value it. The question is how do we do that? When we look at history, we see many situations where the path leading to the ‘greater good’ has been taken. During WWII (considered to be a just and successful war by most Americans)civilians were killed at an alarming rate. The firebombing of Dresden was among the horrific tactics employed, and the A-bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many.

But even in everyday combat, civilians were ejected from their homes, wounded by bombs, killed for collaborating with the ‘enemy’ etc. Its a savage fact of war that these kinds of things happen—-sometimes on purpose and other times by accident.

The only solution is to not have war at all, for you cannot have war without bloodshed, and sometimes the blood of innocents is shed.

I appreciate your concerns and they are valid, but I’d submit that they are impossible to have. If you have war, there will be innocent deaths. If you do not have war, there are consequences to that—-imagine if no one had stopped Hitler what our world might be like.

I don’t see solutions to your quandary. What solutions do you propose?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #113945

Albert, my family bloodline has what you would refer to as true born americans. I’d also point out to you that even the known Indian tribes that existed at the time Europeans came to North America were not the original settlers. So realistically whether you believe in Darwin or in God we came from an original pair at some point in time. Hence no matter the governmental distinction as to what is an American? We are all human beings descended from the same basic DNA and therefore should care about all humans.

Did the early European settlers respect the value of the life of Indians? No they did not. Which leads to the next thought if you remember history as to how many other groups were not treated as having the same value of life. We can’t change the past but we can’t do a better job of not repeating it.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #113949

Joe, I don’t know what solutions to offer other than what steps I think are necessary to help end/diminish the creation of more terrorists. The most simplistic solution would be to not bomb other countries in the hopes of killing a few terrorists when it is going to be at a known family type celebration. Especially in a country where it appears either the Government doesn’t want to admit they knew since I don’t think or at least I hope we would not do this without Pakistan knowing.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #114003

Lisa:

We know that the terrorists cloak themselves with ‘human shields’ as a means of protection. If we do not want ANY innocent casualties, we pretty much must make the decision to not go after the terrorists. In the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you cannot infiltrate a village—they will know you are there. So the only method is to use missiles of some sort, and with them comes the risk of innocent casualties.

I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t go after the terrorists where they are. What I AM saying is that there are repercussions with either choice, and its best to honestly assess those repercussions. Too many people want to choose one of the options, but without accepting the negative outcomes that result.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #114021
I have to tell you this what are you a foreigner from another land you come to my country and take blah, blah, blah…

Heh. At first I thought the guy was quoting Geronimo. I have Cherokee ancestors and I was hoping that was a call to kick out all the pale faces so’s I could get my land back. Oh well. :/

No question, though, the Pakistan bombing was a huge screw-up, regardless of the motivations. Nothing to be done except apologize profusely.

Sen. McCain took care of that: “It’s terrible when innocent people are killed; we regret that. But we have to do what we think is necessary.”

Oh, and don’t forget Sen. Evan Bay: “Now, it’s a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do? It’s like the Wild, Wild West out there.”

Seriously, though — and Lisa touches on this — the whole thing is an example of US military dogma: Send a bullet (or, in this case, a bomb) instead of a man. American soldiers are too precious to waste.

But, while that works great in a conventional war, it’s counterproductive in counter-terrorism. It just creates more animosity among the people we’re trying to win over to our side.

A Special Ops team would have been more discriminating, but there’s a better chance of losing some of them. The question should be, how many American soldiers lives is it worth to take out Zawahiri.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 17, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #114027

IMO the entire discussion relating to the question of how many innocents must die in order to justify the death of an actual terrorist (for those who believe that there is such a valid relationship) and, that it doesn’t matter because there will be somebody to replace the dead terrorist anyway has no solution.

If the question is simply does killing innocent people ever justify the killing of terrorists it is a morale/humanitarian issue.

The terrorists have an endless supply of people lined up waiting to become the leader upon the death of the previous one. After all, the purpose of leadership is ultimately to die for your cause and become a martyr (the virgins also is a nice touch). Just off the top of my head I would guess that as we speak there are several thousand terrorists who could assume leadership later today and they would not miss a beat.

Posted by: steve smith at January 17, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #114049

Joe, I agree that some of these men will try to shield themselves with innocents. We’ve seen that before. I also agree with you part of the issue is the taking of responsibility when this happens. Yet I also feel given this was a known family gathering as reported that it was obvious it was clearly known there would be innocents present.

AP brings up a point that does naturally follow, Special Ops would have been one way to kill/confirm there were the terrorists we were looking for rather than a guided missle of some sort.

Steve reclarifies both sides, there is a military operational portion of this and a humanitarian/moral aspect. I can understand the reasons why this is used, however I do have a problem with the moral aspect in situations like this one. Finding a secret military base of operation where civilians are also present is one situation, discovering secret information that several terrorists may be attending a family/social gathering at a non-military target is another. I can understand the implied responsibility factor at the military operation. Innocents lost in those situations are still unfortunate, yet at least in my mind slightly justifiable because I can apply Mill’s “self-regarding conduct” principle.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #114057

Lisa:

I’m not a military strategist by any means, but I don’t believe that Special Ops forces would be successful in infiltrating some of the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not only is the terrain extremely difficult to navigate, but more importantly, the tribal system with its warlords makes any outsider stand out quickly. An outsider doesn’t even need to be foreign—being outside of the tribe makes one distinctly noticeable.

I’ve not lived in Afghanistan, but I have lived in the Himalayan Mountains. Though the culture was far more open, it nonetheless was difficult to move about without drawing attention.

This kind of insulation from outsiders is most likely the reason why Al Queda leaders have sought refuge in these parts. It certainly isnt for the creature comforts.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #114063

I haven’t been there either Joe, nor can I claim to have any experience in the topography of that area. It is something else to consider though and one of the reasons we have increased military technology as far as guided missles. It is safer from an American standpoint, really from any military power standpoint to be able to use a bomb rather than troops. Logically it makes sense, no one wants to lose men in a situation where there is an increased risk. However, from a victim standpoint, there would be a lessor chance of death from a Special Ops than a bomb. Unless the child was armed and appeared to be a threat a Special Ops is not likely to shoot to kill.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #114066
We know that the terrorists cloak themselves with ‘human shields’ as a means of protection. Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM
We “know this”? How do we “know this”? Maybe it’s to make us feel better. I haven’t seen a terrorist convicted of hiding behind a baby yet.

Steve Smith; I haven’t seen you around for a while. Hope you are well.

AP, et. al.: As the right wing wants us to believe, we are in the process of trying to win the peace. The United States armed forces are the single most powerful army ever on this planet and they are not trained at peace. We need a scalpel, not a hatchet for this job, and a surgeon who doesn’t cut “just in case”…

Lisa,
I go by the:

What is moral is what you feel good after, and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
Ernest Hemingway

principle. I feel “bad” about this war, and it’s not even “after” yet.

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #114115

Dave,
Thanks for asking. I am doing pretty well. Spending a lot of time working on the VOID movement.


The issue at hand gets added interest IMO due to the “look alike” enemy. Not an ethnic reference.

What I mean is that to our soldiers, the enemy could be walking side by side with an “innocent” and we could not tell the difference. This applies to the homes they live in, horse drawn carts they use, etc. Moreover, a strategy being used is that during the day they sell vegetables and at night they are shooting at us. Children carry automatic weapons and rocket launchers.

Bin Laden and five of his friends could be walking down the street to have dinner at someone’s house with prayer rugs under their arms and it is likely we would not be able to
discern their identity.

Our objective of shooting “target specific” in order not to harm innocents is very difficult. I promise you that it is as hard if not harder to shoot target specific or shoot to wound than it is to broaden the target zone. Our enemy knows this well so it conducts itself accordingly.

Posted by: steve smith at January 17, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #114116

Dave:

We “know this”? How do we “know this”? Maybe it’s to make us feel better. I haven’t seen a terrorist convicted of hiding behind a baby yet.

It takes only a few moments to do a tiny bit of research in order to prove my statement as fact. Here are several different articles that conclude that, yes, Virginia, terrorists DO in fact use people as human shields:

1) “One child was killed and another injured when terrorists used them as human shields during Coalition forces raids of three terrorist safe houses Sept. 20….During the firefight, one of the terrorists used a small child to shield himself as he fired on Coalition forces.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/09/mil-050921-mnfi02.htm

2) Putting Noncombatants at Risk:
Saddam’s Use of “Human Shields”
January 2003

In past confrontations with the West, Iraqi President Saddam Husayn has used thousands of foreign and Iraqi civilians as human shields in bids to manipulate domestic and international opinion and deter military action against his regime.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_human_shields/index.html#08


3)Lieutenant Colonel Dave Lapan of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force and his men discovered that “when they went into the hospital to root out the insurgents, the insurgents were using the hospital staff and the patients as human shields to cover their retreat back inside the building. Lieutenant Colonel Lapan says the insurgents placed patients and hospital staff in the hallways, and held some as they fled, to prevent the marines from firing.”
http://www.christianiraq.com/news/2005/05/13/iraq-insurgents-use-hospital-patients-as-human-shields-children-as-spies-says-us-military/

4) During fighting that often forced local people from their homes, both sides reportedly breached international humanitarian law, in indiscriminate attacks by the armed forces and in the use of “human shields” by Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) forces.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2as-index-eng

There are plenty more examples, but I think the point is proven.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #114119

joebago,

How many years have you been waiting to use (MILF) on a comment? ——Brilliant.

Posted by: steve smith at January 17, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #114122

Jan 17, 5:27 PM EST

Pakistan: Terrorists Killed in U.S. Strike

By RIAZ KHAN
Associated Press Writer

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani provincial authorities said Tuesday four or five foreign terrorists were killed in the purported U.S. missile strike

Posted by: DJ at January 17, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #114141

joebagodonuts:

Nice of you to equate America with Terrorists.

Posted by: Aldous at January 17, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #114144

jbod:

We “know this”? How do we “know this”? Maybe it’s to make us feel better. I haven’t seen a terrorist convicted of hiding behind a baby yet.

Sounds like you’re declaring guilt without a trial to me.

I like the MILF comment by the way.

Posted by: Dave at January 17, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #114160

These terrorist murder our women and children and then use families that welcome them in there midst as walls of protection. Please! The male leaders that hide terrorists no the risk and the goal of these Islamofascists. If Osama bin Laden is confirmed in the center of a Muslim pre-school, take the whole thing out to stop him! He is probably teaching the children to hate Christians, Jews and Americans anyway.

Posted by: Theway2k at January 17, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #114161

Theway2k,

“If Osama bin Laden is confirmed in the center of a Muslim pre-school, take the whole thing out to stop him!”

How about if that pre-school is in Newark?

I swear some of you guys scare me more than the “Islamofacists” do.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #114180

DJ, thanks but this appears to be the latest:

A Pakistani provincial official said Tuesday that “four or five” foreign fighters were killed in the strike.

Fahim Wazir, political agent for the semi-autonomous Bajour tribal agency, said that determination was based on information gathered by investigators, but he would not elaborate.

In addition to the militants, 18 local residents also were killed, setting off anti-American protests across Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/17/pakistan.strike.foreign/index.html

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #114181

Rocky, I could not agree more with your last comment. Recommending the death of preschoolers is not something I would ever support no matter who was there.

Nor is it necessary.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #114183

Lisa,

Thanks.

Some of these folks don’t seem to realize, we just went in to a foriegn country, without authorization from that country and killed some of their citizens.
Regardless of our intentions, don’t you guys get that this why these folks are pissed at America?

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #114185

On second thought, let me put this into language you all can understand.

If Pakistan had done the same thing to us we would have considered it an act of war.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #114188

I agree again.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 17, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #114189

I guess I’m on a roll.

Posted by: Rocky at January 17, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #114195

I have already said that to Americans its not real until they see it on TV.

If OBL is in Newark and we wiped off Newark, there would be no backlash if we keep it out of TV. No interviews. No videos. No pictures of dead kids.

Foriegn Coverage is ok. Newspapers is ok. As long as its not TV.

Americans will shrug their shoulders and tune in to “American Idol”.

Posted by: Aldous at January 17, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #114198

Then Aldous maybe we should make the hunt for Osama be a reality tv show. People might show some more interest.

:-)

I wish I could disagree with you but one of my pet peeves is people that believe the few second sound bites of news that are times later corrected yet none of them seem to realize the first information wasn’t accurate. Yet some of those very same people can tell you the whole list of the last American Idol bunch and who really deserved to win….

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 18, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #114220
I’m not a military strategist by any means, but I don’t believe that Special Ops forces would be successful in infiltrating some of the border areas…

JBOD, they have these things called helicopters… ;)

Seriously though, we were acting on specific intelligence, so the team would just go in, do the job, and get out. And an op like that, with people in the loop, is easier to call off if the target doesn’t show up. You just turn the helicopters around. There’s less chance of “collateral damage” and a higher probability of getting the right target with a Special Ops team.

So, how much is Pakistan’s support for the war on terror worth? We can get away with murdering a few Pakistani women and children here and there because our staunch ally, Gen. Musharraf, is a military dictator and can keep the enraged crowds under control, but at some point, that’s not going to be enough.

So if we want to ensure Pakistan’s support, we can’t keep lobbing cruise missiles at ‘em and killing innocent civilians. How much is Pakistan’s support worth? If we want to keep it, we’ll need to start sending troops into the border areas. That means it’s probably going cost American lives. I hope America is ready, because that’s what it’s going to take to get the bad guys without killing the kids.

If Pakistan had done the same thing to us we would have considered it an act of war.

Absolutely right, Rocky. And how much more pissed would we be if we found out our president and his security forces helped plan and stage it.

If the operation had only taken out Zawahiri and his henchmen, this wouldn’t be as big a deal. But when using bombs and missiles in cities, you’re always going to kill a few children and women. It’s a bad idea.

…maybe we should make the hunt for Osama be a reality tv show.

It already is. It’s called “The Evening News”. Unfortunately, there’s not much going on. :/

Posted by: American Pundit at January 18, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #114272

“So you say that I should learn how to spell well f u you stupid bastard you are a legal or iilegal foreigner…”

Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t feed the trolls.

Posted by: Arr-squared at January 18, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #114371

Aldous:

joebagodonuts: Nice of you to equate America with Terrorists. Posted by Aldous at January 17, 2006 07:27 PM

Don’t see where I did that, my friend. Perhaps you could show where you think I did. Thanks


Dave:

I feel I’m being redundant, but once again—-yes once again—I have to suggest to you that reading IN CONTEXT is important. My original comment was “We know that the terrorists cloak themselves with ‘human shields’ as a means of protection.” You then questioned that by saying, “We “know this”? How do we “know this”?”

I responded with facts about terrorists using human shields, and now you want to play semantical games? Too late—my point is proven. Disprove it if you wish, but that will entail refuting my information or my sources, not just playing word games. Of course, word games might just be the measure of last resort, since I doubt you’ll be able to disprove my assertion that terrorists use human shields. But you are certainly free to try….or not.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 18, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #114498

joebagodonuts:

I assume you include the Israeli Military in your label of Terrorists Using Human Shields?

Posted by: Aldous at January 19, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #114501

BTW… I find it perverted that joebagodonuts would use Amnesty International on one Thread and insult the Organization in another when it exposes American Torture practices.

Posted by: Aldous at January 19, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #114578

Aldous:

Why are you making assumptions? It’s much easier for you to simply go back to my posts, read them, see what they say, and use that information to form your conclusions. By making assumptions, you end up filling in blanks with YOUR information, as opposed to mine.

I don’t recall insulting Amnesty International in another thread, as you claim. If I actually did so, I’m sure you’ll be able to provide the quote…unless its just another one of your assumptions.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 19, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #114615

“Valuing the lives of Non-Americans”

To a degree, but not more than I value the lives of Americans.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #114759

Valuing the lives of non-Americans? An interesting way of putting it.

I don’t remember FDR being asked if he “valued” the lives and rights of non-Americans over the rights of Americans when he ordered the invasion of Euorope.

I don’t remember Lincoln being asked if he valued above all else the rights of slave-owners when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.


Posted by: sanger at January 19, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #114778

Hell NO I could careless about iilegal and legal foreigners.you people that say you care and like then are not telling the truth.I know that deep down in that thing you sick sell out American scum call a stomach all of you hate them with all the evil you can think of.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at January 19, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #114877

Sanger,

“I don’t remember FDR being asked if he “valued” the lives and rights of non-Americans over the rights of Americans when he ordered the invasion of Euorope.”

So, does this mean that you are for carpet bombing Pakistanis to root out Al Qaida?

We seem to spend every effort and any amount of money to save a human life.

So I guess that a peasant in the Pakistani mountains isn’t worth the effort. After all our intel has been the best.
Hasn’t it?

Albert,

You need a hobby.

Posted by: Rocky at January 20, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #114888

jbod,

I guess the humor was wasted. You have a tendency to declare the only truths are those as determined by courts of law. I.e. DeLay is innocent of pandering favors to lobbyists until… Yet, you are more than willing to hop on the bandwagon of sterotypes by instantly assuming questionable sources with urban legend style quotes are true, simply because they meet your expectations. Whatever, I’m going to go save some lives now.

Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #114901

Sanger, one could point out that the slaves were not being valued on the same level as other Americans. Since in all reality they were Americans.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 20, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #114925

Dave:

I was quite confident that you wouldn’t try to disprove my point.

I do see the humor, though, in your attempt to paint diverse sources such as Amnesty International, the CIA, and GlobalSecurity.org as “questionable sources with urban legend style quotes”. That is funny.

Maybe its easier to simply call the sources into question than to provide any information of your own. As for me, I’ll go with the Jack Webb version: “Just the facts, ma’am”. Dum tee dum dum duuuuumm.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #114937

Thank you for proving my point, so let me explain at a simpler level: “you need to think like an adult and read between the lines.”

But anyway:
(1) GlobalSecurity.com is a military site, with a propoganda purpose. Also, you are assuming the persons killed were “terrorists” and he used the dead child as a shield. The link said : “The same bullet that killed him also killed the child as it exited the terrorist’s body” Sounds like it’s just as likely the so-called “terrorist” was trying to protect his child. Or do you believe that patriotic insurgents trying to defeat an invading army don’t give a crap about their children? (save me the crap about how evil they are and anti-american I am. They are our enemy, they are not Americans, they are patriotic to Iraq, in their way)
(2) Thar article was about Saddam, he was a “bad man” Are you saying that all insurgents are baathists and Saddam wannabes?
(3) “Christianiraq.com” Really, that’s reaching. It is also the primary source of the “urban legend” styling.
(4) “both sides reportedly breached international humanitarian law” in the Phillipenes. Not Iraq. Are you saying the Phillipene army is a terrorist organization?

In the end, I think many evil people use human shields. It’s the right wing who are more likly to be unable to see beyond their own perspective or their own hypocracy and simply respond defensively, without rationality.

Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #114947

Dave:

In the end, I think many evil people use human shields.

Well, THAT was easy wasn’t it. My original point was that terrorists (you use the term ‘evil people’) use human shields. And now you agree with me. Glad to see it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #114970

No, jbod, I do not agree with you. This is what irked me:

We know that the terrorists cloak themselves with ‘human shields’ as a means of protection. If we do not want ANY innocent casualties, we pretty much must make the decision to not go after the terrorists. In the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you cannot infiltrate a village—they will know you are there. So the only method is to use missiles of some sort, and with them comes the risk of innocent casualties…its best to honestly assess those repercussions
Posted by joebagodonuts at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM

You are stating that:
1) the only reason that there are civilian casualties is because the “terrorists cloak themselves with ‘human shields’” and
2) anyone living or near a terrorist is guilty by association since “you cannot infiltrate a village—they will know you are there”
So, no, I do not agree with you. The only common point is that people do disgusting and illegal things during war.

Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #114975

Dave:

Seriously, you keep trying to tell me what I’m saying. It’s much easier to just read what I write without making the conclusion leaps about what you THINK I’ve said.

I’ve not said anything about guilt by association. I merely stated that villages in the Hindu Kush region are extremely difficult to infiltrate. This is fact. Two of the reasons: 1) the physical environment is hostile and
2)the tribal culture, along with the low number of people, makes it hard to get around without being notice.

Secondly, I never said that the only reason there are civilian casualties is that terrorist use human shields. That is ONE of the causes, though. I DID say that if we want to eliminate all civilian deaths, then we simply have to decide to not go after terrorists. In the process of going after them, there will be innocent casualties. In war, there are innocent casualties. If you are not willing to accept this fact, then you must take a stance against any and all war.

Lastly, if these misconceptions are what was irking you, you should have brought it up originally. Instead, though, in response to my comment about terrorists using human shields, you said, and I quote : “We “know this”? How do we “know this”? Maybe it’s to make us feel better.” Then you claimed it was just in humor. Now you say something else really irked you. Its hard to keep up with your changing landscape.

The bottom line is that you stated that you “think many evil people use human shields”. And that you think actions like that, regardless of who takes them, are disgusting. With that, I fully agree.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 20, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #115815

According to Pakistani Officials who arrived on the scene, there were no Al Queda Members killed in that Missile Attack.

Another Lie from this Republican Administration.

Posted by: Aldous at January 23, 2006 7:12 AM
Comment #115888

According to this Washington Post article

Pakistan was not aware the bombing was going to take place:

Aziz said Pakistani officials were given no notice before the Jan. 13 attack that killed at least 13. The attack was apparently aimed at al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader, Ayman Zawahiri, who was not there.

Pakistan, Aziz said, “has regretted and condemned the incident and said that such incidents should not reoccur. We need to work together. There is no difference in the objectives of the two countries, so there is no reason why we shouldn’t communicate.”

Since we also discussed the reaction when it was a non-US related situation? this article is also of interest:

After the U.S. missile strike, thousands of Pakistanis took to the streets to condemn the United States. After the suicide bombing, thousands of Afghans took to the streets to condemn Pakistan.

This is also a part of that article that demonstrates the confusion still exists as to who was killed and who if anyone in the Pakistani government knew about the bombing:

After the attack, local officials said that only villagers were killed, among them women and children, who were buried nearby. But Pakistani intelligence sources have since asserted, without offering proof, that a handful of foreign al Qaeda militants also died, possibly including its chief explosives expert, a son-in-law of Zawahiri and an operational leader in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government’s response has been as conflicted as the reports. Some officials joined with the protesters in vehemently denouncing the attack, while others acknowledged that militants operate in the area. Even as the Foreign Ministry lodged a formal objection with the U.S. Embassy, Musharraf stayed silent in public, except to warn his countrymen not to harbor terrorists.

So we really don’t know alot more than we did at the time I originally wrote this.


Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 23, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #115892

Lisa:

Interesting though, that despite the lack of proof over what happened, we already have Aldous proclaiming the United States to be lying. I have to give him props for being consistent, at least.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 23, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #115896

I think it depends on which source Aldous got his information. It’s pretty obvious there is still alot of conflicting information and we probably will never know “who” was killed, except for finding how who we didn’t get if they re-appear somewhere else.

They can’t even seem to agree on how many were killed, which I guess is part of the reason I’m still following this.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 23, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #115974

I got my info from CNN. A Pakistani Official said soldiers arrived on the scene and began investigating.

Posted by: Aldous at January 23, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #116080

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4410829,00.html

Nice. I get to put him head-first into a sleeping bag, bind him with electrical cord, sit on his chest and cover Mowhoush’s mouth and nose with his hand during an interrogation until he dies by suffocation.
This is a reprimand offense. I get reprimanded for doing this.

Posted by: Aldous at January 24, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #116108

Aldous:

You appear to be programmed to believe the other guys first. Why?

You appear to believe in the US manner of justice, unless you disagree with the verdict. Then you question the system. Why?

You make claims that I’ve written certain things, and when asked to cite such an occasion, you ignore and go mute. Why?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 6:28 AM
Comment #116144

They let him stay in the army…and he got a round of applause…a 60 day sentence?

Lynndie England got three years and was not responsible for anyone’s death.

I hadn’t seen that Aldous, talk about a major difference in sentencing. As well as pretty much sending a message that there is a difference as far as value placed on life.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at January 24, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #116254

Lisa,

It’s not about the “value of life”; that has become greatly discounted since January 2001.
It’s about the “value of not getting caught”; which has had the inverse relationship. Or, if you ask joebag, it’s about the “value of not getting convicted.”

Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #116303

Lisa:

The story obviously has context to it. The guy did cause the death of a combatant and was found guilty of it. As such, he is subject to the judge’s sentence, and the judge is charged with giving an appropriate sentence.

The sentence seems light to me, but obviously there is the context of wartime battle. The judge could be dirty, or could be biased, but as far as I know, in a military tribunal, his is the final word.

I hear much about how we need to allow judges to do their jobs. Perhaps this is one of those cases.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #116329

Jack,
“I know that people hold the U.S. to a higher standard (which, BTW, is a ethnocentric or racist idea), but if the terrorists kill someone’s brother, sister, son or daughter doesn�t that trump the higher standard thing?”

That was a really wonderful attempt to co-opt a “liberal” phrase and try to denigrate it and to put the American’s in a sympathetic light.

However, it is a misuse of the intention being enthnocentric or racism. Sorry.

Since you really want to know… we are held to such a high standard because we have set ourselves up as the model in which all other’s should strive.

That cannot be done unless we are willing to hold ourselves to that standard too. And, when we don’t it really does open us up to accusations of hypocrisy.

How many times have to seen someone acting righteous and you know that they are cheating on their wife, under reporting income on their taxes, padding their expense accounts or some other misdeed?

We cannot cry out against a man who tortures his citizens and condone torture. We cannot speak out about nationial sovereignty when we violate everyone else’s. A party that calls itself the moral party or the party of integrety cannot afford even the appearance of impropriety.

We have set oursevles up to a high standard and expect the world to admire us and to emulate us… so when we do fall short we are called to task.

To me, that gives more aide to the enemy than any speech in congress against the war. When we don’t live up to our ideals and sacrafice our integrety for expedience.

That is not ethnocentric or racist. Nice try though.

Posted by: Darren7160 at January 24, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #116383

Aldous:

According to Pakistani Officials who arrived on the scene, there were no Al Queda Members killed in that Missile Attack. Another Lie from this Republican Administration. Posted by Aldous at January 23, 2006 07:12 AM I got my info from CNN. A Pakistani Official said soldiers arrived on the scene and began investigating. Posted by Aldous at January 23, 2006 07:47 PM


Now according to the Associated Press, Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Tuesday “there were indications that al-Qaida members were killed in a U.S. airstrike near the Afghan border earlier this month….There is an indication that there were some people also, al-Qaida people, who have got killed and we need to ascertain that. I’m not 100 percent sure of that,” Musharraf said in answer to an audience question.”

Not even Musharaff is certain of the facts, as he says. But you’ve already concluded that the US is lying. Does say a lot about your mindset.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #116419
What disturbs me the most is our willingness to bomb an area that we know will also contain civilians. Even if al-Zawahiri would have been killed, that alone is not going to end the war on terror.

Me too, if those killed really were civilians (not Al-Qaeda members or supporters). We may never really know. Especially if the Pakistani government itself is trying to play it down.

Yes, that bombing didn’t occur without the permission of the Pakistani government.

It would not surprise me if the intelligence was a set-up, because the outcome didn’t help the Musharraf or the U.S.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 24, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #116462

joebagodonuts:

There’s this thing called pattern of behavior the GOP does. It lends one to believe you support torture and the violation of human rights.

Posted by: Aldous at January 24, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #116487

Aldous:

Go ahead with your assumptions. You’ve shown your patterns in your posts. When asked to clarify, you remain mute. When asked to provide proof of your accusations, you remain mute.

I don’t understand someone why one would so willingly make the choice to believe the enemies of our country over our country’s leaders, but I’m sure you have manufactured many reasons. It’s a sad day when Americans choose to believe more in those who terrorize.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #116497

joebagodonuts:

I was not aware the women and children were enemies of our country. I suppose that list includes the German sent to Egypt for torture by the CIA?

You see I do not believe becoming a terrorist is what it takes to beat terrorists. I believe in being a decent human being. You should try it sometime.

BTW… what is this “proof” you are harping about?

Posted by: Aldous at January 24, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #116584

Aldous:

You made accusations about me in this very thread. You said “I assume you include the Israeli Military in your label of Terrorists Using Human Shields?”—something I’ve never even remotely commented upon, and you stated that you find it “perverted that joebagodonuts would use Amnesty International on one Thread and insult the Organization in another…”

I ignored the first, since it came out of left field, and because you didn’t claim that I wrote anything about it. On the second comment, I stated that I’ve never insulted Amnesty International, and asked you to show where you felt I had. My request was met with your continuing silence, which could be construed as an admission of your not having any proof. It could also be that you didn’t read my request, or that you are currently researching it.

Here’s your opportunity to come clean on it…ie., to provide an answer to why you would make such a statement, or to admit that it was a statement in error. I always find it interesting when people make egregious statements, and when called to explain them, go silent as if that will make it go away.

I hadn’t noticed you being a “decent human being”. That’s not something that shows up in your posts—you might be one, but from your posts, I can only see an ability to see any side of an argument but the American one. You seem to invariably take the word of others over Americans, even when there is no reason to do so.

In our current conversation, you’ve discarded not only the American viewpoint, but also the concurring viewpoint of Pervez Musharraf, in favor of supporting a viewpoint of unnamed Pakistani military forces. I can see why you might be biased against the American viewpoint, but why would you selectively choose one Pakistani viewpoing over another? Well, seemingly because it fits your argument best.

That kind of logic isn’t true logic…its only a method of trying to be always “right”. The problem is that it usjally leads to the person being wrong.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 7:58 AM
Comment #116608
but from your posts, I can only see an ability to see any side of an argument but the American one. Posted by joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 07:58 AM

I think you need to rephrase to

any side of an argument but mine

Nice try to coopt your opinions to that of “America’s”

Posted by: Dave at January 25, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #116621

Dave:

Thanks for your two cents worth. But you got it wrong. If you look back at Aldous’ comments, he invariably takes the side that makes America looks worse. It has nothing to do with MY opinions—its simple fact.

For example, in this thread, you’ll find him taking the side of “Pakistani officials” who claim there were no bodies found in the Pakistan attack. He casts aside the American claims that the bodies of Al Queda operatives were found as lies. And he has entirely ignored the words of Pakistan leader Pervez Musharraf who says “there were indications that al-Qaida members were killed in a U.S. airstrike near the Afghan border earlier this month.”

Those are not my opinions—they are facts. The fact is that we don’t yet know who was killed in the airstrike, and Musharaff says as much in his full quote. Yet Aldous has already accepted the version of events that is most negative to America. Since the investigation is ongoing, and there are multiple possibilities of the truth in this case, you’d have to ask Aldous why he so quickly jumped to the view that is the most negative for America.

Has nothing to do with MY view. My view is that we don’t fully know yet. Aldous view is that Pakistani officials are correct and American officials are liars.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 25, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #116646

jbod,

Unfortunately, in my opinion (and possibly Aldous’ too, and by poll more than half of our fellow citizens), our govt, under the administration of G W Bush has no credibility. To me, this failure of trust has decayed to a comparison with the trust I would give to a lying 2nd grade bully. It’s not that Musharaff is a saint, it’s that I don’t see a significant difference between the two bosses.

I hope you will avoid the “ad hominem” empty ” let me use some cool latin” reply. It’s not relevant here.

Posted by: Dave at January 25, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #124541

Notice how the conservatives on this page put forward thoughtful, fact-based comments and all the libs can reply with are childish smears? I have one simple question. How would all you infinitely intelligent liberal superthinkers fight the war on terror? How would you protect all us uneducated, ignorant, redneck hicks? And don’t EVEN start talkin’ bout grey areas.

Posted by: Duano at February 13, 2006 8:53 PM
Post a comment