What's new

US drone kills 15 in Mir Ali

The tipping point should have been September 2010, when US launched over 40 Drone strikes killing over 200 people. Since nothing happened then, nothing will happen now.

Agreed, Its way past the tipping point, the only option left is wait for the Drone strikes to stop and NATO to leave from Afghanistan, and both of them does not seem to be happening in a hurry.
 
See its childish responses like this when I stop taking you seriously.

If you disagree with me, point out the facts and present your case, don't act like a 5 year old child and start name calling.

You are an Elite Member. Act like one.

Did you not read my post in its entirety? :lol:

I pointed out the facts as to why your analogy is childish and it doesn't apply in this case. I pointed to you the obvious problem -- you can't make some random analogy that applies to some small problems individuals may face in their own life and apply to a situation far more complex such as this. You'll always miss out some important details. And I mentioned how your analogy misses out some important information.
 
ref:Drone blitz on Pakistan enters third straight day | World news | guardian.co.uk

Drone blitz on Pakistan enters third straight dayUp to 27 people have died in strikes that began on Saturday as US shows no signs of bowing to Pakistani objections
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 June 2012 06.28 BST
Up-to-15-people-have-been-008.jpg

Up to 15 people have been killed in a third straight day of drone strikes in Pakistan by the US. Photograph: Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty
Rockets fired from a US drone killed between eight and 15 people in north-west Pakistan on Monday, officials have said in varying accounts. It is the third strike in as many days after attacks on Saturday and Sunday killed a total of 12 people.

The latest strike targeted a militant hideout in the Hesokhel village of the North Waziristan tribal region, officials said.

US drones hit targets in the South Waziristan tribal region on Saturday and Sunday. There have been a total of seven strikes in less than two weeks.

The US and Pakistan are deadlocked in difficult negotiations for the reopening of overland supply routes to Nato forces in Afghanistan. No breakthrough is in sight.

Islamabad blocked the routes in November 2011 after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by cross-border "friendly fire" from Nato aircraft. To reopen the roads Islamabad wants an apology and an end to drone strikes but the US president, Barack Obama, is taking a hardline stand.

The latest attack followed closely on the heels of another drone strike on Sunday that killed 10 suspected militants. Two Pakistani intelligence officials said in that attack, four missiles were fired at targets in the village of Mana Raghzai in South Waziristan near the border with Afghanistan.

At the time of the attack, suspected militants were gathered to offer condolences to the brother of a militant commander killed during another drone strike on Saturday. The brother was one of those who died in the Sunday morning strike.

On Sunday, gunmen killed four Shia minority Muslims, a police officer and a bystander in a busy market of south-western Pakistani city of Quetta, said police officer Abdul Wahid, who added that the killings had a sectarian motive.

ref:Drone wars and state secrecy

Drone wars and state secrecy – how Barack Obama became a hardliner
He was once a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war. Now, according to revelations last week, the US president personally oversees a 'kill list' for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. Then there's the CIA renditions, increased surveillance and a crackdown on whistleblowers. No wonder Washington insiders are likening him to 'George W Bush on steroids'
Barack-Obama-008.jpg

The revelation that Barack Obama keeps a 'kill list' of people to be targeted by drones has led to criticism from former supporters. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Amos Guiora knows all about the pitfalls of targeted assassinations, both in terms of legal process and the risk of killing the wrong people or causing civilian casualties. The University of Utah law professor spent many years in the Israel Defence Forces, including time as a legal adviser in the Gaza Strip where such killing strikes are common. He knows what it feels like when people weigh life-and-death decisions.

Yet Guiora – no dove on such matters – confessed he was "deeply concerned" about President Barack Obama's own "kill list" of terrorists and the way they are eliminated by missiles fired from robot drones around the world. He believes US policy has not tightly defined how people get on the list, leaving it open to legal and moral problems when the order to kill leaves Obama's desk. "He is making a decision largely devoid of external review," Guiroa told the Observer, saying the US's apparent methodology for deciding who is a terrorist is "loosey goosey".

Indeed, newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks. That has raised the hackles of many who saw Obama as somehow more sophisticated on terrorism issues than his predecessor, George W Bush. But Guiora does not view it that way. He sees Obama as the same as Bush, just much more enthusiastic when it comes to waging drone war. "If Bush did what Obama has been doing, then journalists would have been all over it," he said.

But the "kill list" and rapidly expanded drone programme are just two of many aspects of Obama's national security policy that seem at odds with the expectations of many supporters in 2008. Having come to office on a powerful message of breaking with Bush, Obama has in fact built on his predecessor's national security tactics.

Obama has presided over a massive expansion of secret surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has launched a ferocious and unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. He has made more government documents classified than any previous president. He has broken his promise to close down the controversial Guantánamo Bay prison and pressed on with prosecutions via secretive military tribunals, rather than civilian courts. He has preserved CIA renditions. He has tried to grab broad new powers on what defines a terrorist or a terrorist supporter and what can be done with them, often without recourse to legal process.

The sheer scope and breadth of Obama's national security policy has stunned even fervent Bush supporters and members of the Washington DC establishment. In last week's New York Times article that detailed the "kill list", Bush's last CIA director, Michael Hayden, said Obama should open the process to more public scrutiny. "Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a [Department of Justice] safe," he told the newspaper.

Even more pertinently, Aaron David Miller, a long-term Middle East policy adviser to both Republican and Democratic administrations, delivered a damning verdict in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine. He wrote bluntly: "Barack Obama has become George W Bush on steroids."

Many disillusioned supporters would agree. Jesselyn Radack was a justice department ethics adviser under Bush who became a whistleblower over violations of the legal rights of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. Now Radack works for the Government Accountability Project, defending fellow whistleblowers. She campaigned for Obama, donated money and voted for him. Now she has watched his administration – which promised transparency and whistleblower protection – crack down on national security whistleblowers.

It has used the Espionage Act – an obscure first world war anti-spy law – six times. That is more such uses in three years than all previous presidents combined. Cases include John Kiriakou, a CIA agent who leaked details of waterboarding, and Thomas Drake, who revealed the inflated costs of an NSA data collection project that had been contracted out. "We did not see this coming. Obama has led the most brutal crackdown on whistleblowers ever," Radack said.

Yet the development fits in with a growing level of secrecy in government under Obama. Last week a report by the Information Security Oversight Office revealed 2011 had seen US officials create more than 92m classified documents: the most ever and 16m more than the year before. Officials insist much of the growth is due to simple administrative procedure, but anti-secrecy activists are not convinced. Some estimates put the number of documents wrongly classified as secret at 90%.

"We are seeing the reversal of the proper flow of information between the government and the governed. It is probably the fundamental civil liberties issue of our time," said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Centre for Justice. "The national security establishment is getting bigger and bigger."

One astonishing example of this lies high in the mountain deserts of Utah. This is the innocuously named Utah Data Centre being built for the NSA near a tiny town called Bluffdale. When completed next year, the heavily fortified $2bn building, which is self-sufficient with its own power plant, will be five times the size of the US Capitol in Washington DC. It will house gigantic servers that will store vast amounts of data from ordinary Americans that will be sifted and mined for intelligence clues. It will cover everything from phone calls to emails to credit card receipts.

Yet the UDC is just the most obvious sign of how the operations and scope of the NSA has grown since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under Bush, a key part was a secret "warrantless wiretapping" programme that was scrapped when it was exposed. However, in 2008 Congress passed a bill that effectively allowed the programme to continue by simply legalising key components. Under Obama, that work has intensified and earlier this year a Senate intelligence committee extended the law until 2017, which would make it last until the end of any Obama second term.

"Obama did not reverse what Bush did, he went beyond it. Obama is just able to wrap it up in a better looking package. He is more liberal, more eloquent. He does not look like a cowboy," said James Bamford, journalist and author of numerous books about the NSA including 2008's The Shadow Factory.

That might explain the lack of media coverage of Obama's planned changes to a military funding law called the National Defence Authorisation Act. A clause was added to the NDAA that had such a vague definition of support of terrorism that journalists and political activists went to court claiming it threatened them with indefinite detention for things like interviewing members of Hamas or WikiLeaks. Few expected the group to win, but when lawyers for Obama refused to definitively rebut their claims, a New York judge ruled in their favour. Yet, far from seeking to adjust the NDAA's wording, the White House is now appealing against the decision.

That hard line should perhaps surprise only the naive. "He's expanded the secrecy regime in general," said Radack. Yet it is the drone programme and "kill list" that have emerged as most central to Obama's hardline national security policy. In January 2009, when Obama came to power, the drone programme existed only for Pakistan and had seen 44 strikes in five years. With Obama in office it expanded to Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia with more than 250 strikes. Since April there have been 14 strikes in Yemen alone.

Civilian casualties are common. Obama's first strike in Yemen killed two families who were neighbours of the target. One in Pakistan missed and blew up a respected tribal leader and a peace delegation. He has deliberately killed American citizens, including the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September last year, and accidentally killed others, such as Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman.

The drone operation now operates out of two main bases in the US, dozens of smaller installations and at least six foreign countries. There are "terror Tuesday" meetings to discuss targets which Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, sometimes attends, lending credence to those who see naked political calculation involved.

Yet for some, politics seems moot. Obama has shown himself to be a ruthless projector of national security powers at home and abroad, but the alternative in the coming election is Republican Mitt Romney.

"Whoever gets elected, whether it's Obama or Romney, they are going to continue this very dangerous path," said Radack. "It creates a constitutional crisis for our country. A crisis of who we are as Americans. You can't be a free society when all this happens in secret."

Death from the sky
• Popularly called drones, the flying robots used by Obama are referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles by the defence industry that makes them. The air force, however, calls them RPAs, or remotely piloted aircraft, as they are flown by human pilots, just at a great distance from where they are operating.


• The US air force alone has up to 70,000 people processing the surveillance information collected from drones. This includes examining footage of people and vehicles on the ground in target countries and trying to observe patterns in their movements.


• Drones are not just used by the military and intelligence community. US Customs and Border Protection has drones patrolling land and sea borders. They are used in drug busts and to prevent illegal cross-border traffic.


• It is assumed the Pentagon alone has 7,000 or so drones at work. Ten years ago there were fewer than 50. Their origins go back to the Vietnam war and beyond that to the use of reconnaissance balloons on the battlefield.


• Last year a diplomatic crisis with Iran broke out after a sophisticated US drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, crash-landed on Iranian soil. Iranian forces claimed it had been downed by sophisticated jamming technology.
 
reader comments of interest!

I'm failing to see how drone striking wedding parties, killing poorly equipped jihadist/taliban farmers and setting up Kill Lists that contain teenagers is protecting the US of A. I'm still dumbstruck how the world's 'greatest military force' is some how brought to its knees and unable to defend itself and country from poor farmers.

In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan there was definitely one thing that was the same. US troops fighting a severely weaker, less well equipped army and failing.

Is Obama a true believer though or just responding to polls as always? Remember that torture, rendition, assasinations and all the rest were and continue to be supported by the majority of Americans. If Obama really did act like a liberal law professor we wished for, he'd lose the election.

Yeah kristine. You're right it is a good article. The Drones and most of our other interventions manufacture jihadists. Why is that so technical that some commentators refuse to see the connection. It goes like this- drone strike kills family, a brother survives his dead family- mother and sisters and brother and father, he thinks "what was that?" Then he thinks "I want me some revenge." It ain't drones that make terrorists it is revenge that makes terrorists- Go Figure.
We just need to get arms manufacturers to sell the drones without the added extras like revenge and collateral damage and then we'd really be grooving- right Rememberthedog???


US is not declaring war on Muslims? Remember the Pentagon officer who for years run officially sanctioned lecture series for US army officers where he, among others, declared that US needs to commit a "Hiroshima" against Islam and destroy Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons.


Also I thought the overspending on National Security was to protect terrorists from bombing the US. I'm failing to see how fighting people hundreds of thousands of miles away does that.

ref:America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terrorObama's escalation of a war that's already caused thousands of deaths will only destabilise his own allies and bolster al-QaidaShare 852
Email
Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 May 2012 22.30 BST Comments (745)
Drone-warfare-illustratio-008.jpg

Illustration by Belle Mellor
More than a decade after George W Bush launched it, the "war on terror" was supposed to be winding down. US military occupation of Iraq has ended and Nato is looking for a way out of Afghanistan, even as the carnage continues. But another war – the undeclared drone war that has already killed thousands – is now being relentlessly escalated.

From Pakistan to Somalia, CIA-controlled pilotless aircraft rain down Hellfire missiles on an ever-expanding hit list of terrorist suspects – they have already killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process.

At least 15 drone strikes have been launched in Yemen this month, as many as in the whole of the past decade, killing dozens; while in Pakistan, a string of US attacks has been launched against supposed "militant" targets in the past week, incinerating up to 35 people and hitting a mosque and a bakery.

The US's decision to step up the drone war again in Pakistan, opposed by both government and parliament in Islamabad as illegal and a violation of sovereignty, reflects its fury at the jailing of a CIA agent involved in the Bin Laden hunt and Pakistan's refusal to reopen supply routes for Nato forces in Afghanistan. Those routes were closed in protest at the US killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, for which Washington still refuses to apologise.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner in London, describes the latest US escalation as "punitive". But then Predators and Reapers are Barack Obama's weapons of choice and coercion, deployed only on the territory of troublesome US allies, such as Pakistan and Yemen – and the drone war is Obama's war.

In his first two years in office, the US president more than tripled the number of attacks in Pakistan alone. For their US champions, drones have the advantage of involving no American casualties, while targeting the "bad guys" Bush lost sight of in his enthusiasm to subjugate Iraq. Enthusiasts boast of their surgical accuracy and exhaustive surveillance, operated by all-seeing technicians from thousands of miles away in Nevada.

But that's a computer-game fantasy of clinical war. Since 2004, between 2,464 and 3,145 people are reported to have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan, of whom up to 828 were civilians (535 under Obama) and 175 children. Some Pakistani estimates put the civilian death toll much higher – plausibly, given the tendency to claim as "militants" victims later demonstrated to be nothing of the sort.

The US president insisted recently that the civilian death toll was not a "huge number". Not on the scale of Iraq, perhaps, where hundreds of thousands were killed; or Afghanistan, where tens of thousands have died. But they gruesomely include dozens killed in follow-up attacks after they had gone to help victims of earlier strikes – as well as teenagers like Tariq Khan, a 16-year-old Pakistani boy decapitated in a strike last November after he had travelled to Islamabad to protest against drones.

These killings are, in reality, summary executions and widely regarded as potential war crimes by international lawyers – including the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston. The CIA's now retired counsel, John Rizzo, who authorised drone attacks, himself talked about having been involved in "murder".

A decade ago, the US criticised Israel for such "extrajudicial killings" but now claims self-defence in the war against al-Qaida. These are attacks, however, routinely carried out on the basis of false intelligence, in countries such as Pakistan where no war has been declared and without the consent of the elected government.

Lawyers representing victims' families are now preparing legal action against the British government – which carries out its own drone attacks in Afghanistan – for taking part in war crimes by passing GCHQ intelligence to the CIA for its "targeted killings". Parallel cases are also being brought against the Pakistani government and the drone manufacturer General Electric – whose slogan is "we bring good things to life".

Of course, drone attacks are only one method by which the US and its allies deliver death and destruction in Afghanistan and the wider Middle East, from night raids and air attacks to killing sprees on the ground. The day after last Friday's Houla massacre in Syria, eight members of one family were killed at home by a Nato air attack in eastern Afghanistan – one of many such atrocities barely registered in the western media.

But while support for the war in Afghanistan has fallen to an all-time low in all Nato states, the drone war is popular in the US. That's hardly surprising, as it offers no danger to American forces – the ultimate asymmetric warfare – while supposedly "taking out" terrorists. But these hi-tech death squads are creating a dangerous global precedent, which will do nothing for US security.

A decade ago, critics warned that the "war on terror" would spread terrorism rather than stamp it out. That is exactly what happened. Obama has now renamed the campaign "overseas contingency operations" and is switching the emphasis from boots on the ground to robots.

But, as the destabilisation of Pakistan and growth of al-Qaida in Yemen shows, the impact remains the same. The drone war is a predatory war on the Muslim world, which is feeding hatred of the US – and fuelling terror, not fighting it.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

ref:Official: 15 militants killed in suspected U.S. drone strike in Pakistan - CNN.com

Official: 15 militants killed in suspected U.S. drone strike in PakistanBy the CNN Wire Staff
June 4, 2012 -- Updated 0643 GMT (1443 HKT)
120111063248-us-drone-story-top.jpg

Monday's attack is the 21st suspected U.S. drone strike in Pakistan this year.STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The suspected drone fired at least 6 missiles, an official says
Three militants were wounded and 15 killed, the local official adds
This is thought to be the third such fatal drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region in 3 days
The U.S. government has defended such attacks as guided by the laws of war
(CNN) -- A suspected U.S. drone strike in northwestern Pakistan on Monday morning killed 15 militants and wounded three others, a local government official said, the third such deadly attack in as many days.

The drone fired at least six missiles at a militant compound near the town of Mir Ali in the North Waziristan region near the Afghanistan border, government official Muhammad Amir told CNN.

North Waziristan is one of seven districts in Pakistan's tribal region. The area is widely believed to be the operating base for the Haqqani network and other militant groups that have attacked international troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

Monday's attack is the 21st suspected drone strike in Pakistan this year. U.S. officials rarely discuss the CIA's drone program in Pakistan, though privately they have said the covert strikes are legal and an effective tactic in the fight against extremists.



Lawmaker: US should cut aid to Pakistan

Man who helped find OBL lands jail time

Ahmed Rashid: 'Pakistan on the brink' A day earlier, a drone is thought to have fired four missiles that killed nine militants at a militant compound in Wacha Dana, a village in South Waziristan, local government official Javed Marwat told CNN.

This followed a suspected strike Saturday near the town of Wana in the same province that killed two militants riding on a motorcycle, according to Marwat.

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration justified its use of unmanned drones to target suspected terrorists overseas in a rare public statement recently, with John Brennan, the president's top counter-terrorism adviser, saying the strikes are conducted "in full accordance with the law."

The program utilizes unmanned aerial vehicles, often equipped with Hellfire missiles, to target suspected terrorist operatives in remote locations overseas -- with many such strikes occurring in Yemen and Pakistan, despite some internal opposition within that latter South Asian country.

Brennan said the United States "respects national sovereignty and international law" and is guided by the laws of war in ordering those attacks.

Reader comments....

iChoose 2 comments collapsed
Collapse Expand

Why doesn't Pakistan do something about this? Surely, they didn't buy F-16s to rust in museums. US is doing what it thinks is necessary to protect the security of its citizens, why can't Pakistan?

US drones enter and exit Pakistan, ejaculate their missiles without any permission. They are quite literally raping Pakistan. Surely, a bit of retaliation won't hurt Pakistan anymore than it already is.

Instead, Pakis cry foul on cnn forums about the black man ruining things for them. If you can't respect the dignity and security of your own citizens, nobody else will either.
 
Did you not read my post in its entirety? :lol:

I pointed out the facts as to why your analogy is childish and it doesn't apply in this case. I pointed to you the obvious problem -- you can't make some random analogy that applies to some small problems individuals may face in their own life and apply to a situation far more complex such as this. You'll always miss out some important details. And I mentioned how your analogy misses out some important information.

I did read it entirely.

Your basic premise is flawed. You espouse the ideology for the Taliban as liberators when they are clearly not. Only a small percentage of the Afghan population supports the Taliban.

And thus my analogy holds.

When you have a snake problem in your back yard and those snakes slither and attack your neighbors, and you cannot do anything about it.

Then your neighbors do have a right to go to your backyard and deal with that snake problem.
 
reader comments.....


justus631 1 comment collapsed
Collapse Expand

That Obama is some Nobel Peace Prize winner. Killing people on a regular basis without a trial. I wonder how he would react if Russia or China did the same ...

Hammad Aslam 4 comments collapsed
Collapse Expand
I think America should stop drone attacks, and let Pakistan handle with these militants. Pakistan Air Force also has ability to bomb these militants. Why waste your bombs, drones and money? When we can do it as well. Pakistan has in the past engaged with militants with heavy force before, and is still willing to do again. But by American interference with drones, this will not help end this war against terror. More bad guys will increase in those areas because of the drone attacks. And who will pay the price? The Pakistani people and the forces. So, I think the American's should give Pakistan forces a chance to take care of these militants without American interference. Why don't the American's help Pakistan by providing the locations of these bad guys? Maybe they underestimate our army capability and air force capability to take those militants down.



Derryck Fobler 1 comment collapsed
Collapse Expand

I think pakistan should use there airforce to retaliate against drone attack. Any other self respecting nation would have done that


Official: 15 militants killed in suspected U.S. drone strike in Pakistan - CNN.com
 
It is clear that Pakistani establishment does not care for the remote tribal population. The government is happy to just increase the transit fee on trucks and pocket the dollars. What a shame, and where is the all mighty Army when the country needs it the most? They are all hand in glove with CIA, fooling the public with the so called 'protest' against drones.
 
It is clear that Pakistani establishment does not care for the remote tribal population. The government is happy to just increase the transit fee on trucks and pocket the dollars. What a shame, and where is the all mighty Army when the country needs it the most? They are all hand in glove with CIA, fooling the public with the so called 'protest' against drones.

We don't care for them because they have been historically anti-Pakistan.

They were against the creation of Pakistan in 1948.

They sided with Afghanistan in the numerous border conflicts we had with them since 1948.

If Pakistan were Turkey, these Tribals would be the Kurds.
 
Let make my point again very clear, United States has to Stop drone attacks, If Pakistan takes action against haqqani network and Other foreign militants holed up in North Waziristan. Further i dont think only drone attacks will help US to achieve to all its objectives. It can train Afghan Soldiers who are familiar to pashtun population to conduct Special operations inside North Waziirstan. They can follow the strategy which was introduced by General Stanley Mcchrystal. The Strategy is Find, Fix and then Strike. It can limit collateral damage. This strategy was adapted in Operation Moshtarak, Srilanka has also been sucessful in this strategy, General Sarathfonseka introduced this system in srilanka which is known as Taskforce Eight. Long Peneteration Units and Taskforce Eight Forces of Srilankan army were very sucessful in taking out many Top LTTE Commanders. US can also use this strategy against haqqani network and Al-qaeda militants.
 
Drone Strikes are a joint CIA-ISI operation. Pakistani Government just puts on a display that they are against drone strikes for the domestic consumption for the virulent anti-usa populace in Pakistan.
High_Noon_poster.jpg


High Noon.

Perhaps every Pakistani should see this movie - the U.S. makes a good fit for Gary Cooper. (Or is it the other way 'round?)
 
Drone attacks are vital to stop terror plots in the west as Pakistan is incapable to fight jihadi terror itself.
 
I did read it entirely.

Your basic premise is flawed. You espouse the ideology for the Taliban as liberators when they are clearly not. Only a small percentage of the Afghan population supports the Taliban.

And thus my analogy holds.

When you have a snake problem in your back yard and those snakes slither and attack your neighbors, and you cannot do anything about it.

Then your neighbors do have a right to go to your backyard and deal with that snake problem.

How much percent of Afghan population do you think want US in their country, regardless of whether they like the Taliban or not?

That's where your analogy falls apart.

In addition, the reason why your analogy will never hold is because US will always be a foreign occupying force.
 
How much percent of Afghan population do you think want US in their country, regardless of whether they like the Taliban or not?

That's where your analogy falls apart.

In addition, the reason why your analogy will never hold is because US will always be a foreign occupying force.

The analogy does not fall apart. Its just that you cannot follow the simple logic.

If Afghans have a choice of whether they support US troops in their country or the return of the Taliban Animals, they will support US troops remaining in Afghanistan. Its not a zero sum game. Just because some people oppose US troops in Afghanistan does not mean they welcome the Taliban with open arms.

That is what you don't seem to get.

That House has been infested with snakes. The neighborhood leader came is trying to remove the snakes and those snakes are slithering and living in Pakistan's back yard. So given the chance of being bitten by a snake or have an over bearing neighborhood leader in your house, any sane person would pick the latter.
 
My dear sir, it seems YOU are unable to follow simple logic.

Afghans do not want US in their country. You can do survey if you don't believe me.

I am not even talking about whether they want Taliban in their country or not. You seem to be unable to grasp that. I am just talking about whether they want US in their country.

US is an occupying force by even the narrowest standards and the fact that they're not welcome in Afghans. By that measure, your analogy will never stand.

Second, you have international law for a reason. Regardless of whether you believe someone is attacking you from the neighbourhood, you have to present your case at the UN.

These are basic facts you're unable to get. That no matter how awesome you think your analogy is, a back alley analogy can never apply to international geopolitics. It's a whole different ball game altogether.
 

Back
Top Bottom