Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Feb 11, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Musharraf is a typical dictator and badly needs American support. So he can say anything, confirm any version. Who namely was killed only Allah knows.
Oh Happy Days
Sergey, would you at least CONSIDER the POSSIBILITY that the CIA strike MIGHT have hit the right targets? Or is your yankeephobia so ingrained that you believe the CIA randomly goes around blowing up villages in allied countries for no apparent reason, no matter what evidence is put before you?
Well said Andy....
Although it still doesn't explain why they need to use missiles instead of some sort of surround & capture/kill operation. It may well be that they only had a few moments notice of the meeting of high-value targets --- But I wonder would they do the same thing if the meeting was in an American suburb? Perhaps Pakistani lives are worth less....
tricam, we went through that on the thread at the time. None of us were involved in the decision-loop so there's not much mileage in second guessing those who were, although I suspect a ground invasion by US troops would be even more unpopular in Pakistan that a Predator strike.
Why risk losing a special ops team or helicopter when you can strike the enemy without risking personnel ?
T6 - I don't expect to get anywhere with this line of argument but the answer is to try and minimise civilian casualties if at all possible... Why minimise civvy casualties? Well partly cause its the right thing to do and partly cause civilian casualties don't play very well on the media.
(Apologies Andy - I edited my original post very shortly after making it, you may not have seen the final version)
Well I take your point in your re-edited post, tricam, but...remember Waco?
Errr.... Doesn't Waco kinda support my argument? They didn't fire a missile at the Waco compound - they surrounded it and told David Koresh to come out with his hands up. They didn't even request a missile once they started taking casualties... quite a few if I recall correctly....
The right thing to do would have been to do the same thing here. I mean its not as if Al-Queda types have only recently started crossing the border into Pakistan. I wonder why they haven't made some sort of arrangement with Pakistan allowing 'hot pursuits' or perhaps beefing up the Pakistani Army? I think an ARRSE poster is in the Pakistani Army and may be able to answer the question.
Hang on a minute, you're saying the right thing to do would have been to surround the compound, besiege it for a few weeks, then try and storm it, setting it on fire and killing everyone? Riiiight...
Think I'd have gone with the Predator strike, thanks.
Waco was different - there were a lot of religious fundamentalists in Waco.... there wouldn't be any of them in Pakistan...
Who started the Waco fire? Koresh's followers or a mistake on the part of the police? Either way I'm not saying that's the part of the Waco job they should be copying. The point I'm making is that the police at least tried to minimise civilian casualities - it failed through either a mass suicide pact or police ineptitude but that's besides the point.
There are lots of arrest operations in Iraq (A recent operation targeted the police in Basra) which manage to go ahead without Predator strikes. Its bad strategy to be relying on them in Pakistan. As I said before its not as if this is some sort of new problem they haven't had time to deal with - Al-Quada types have been crossing into Pakistan for ages.
tricam, let's agree to disagree on that point. The argument's been done to death.
No they didn't. They attempted a no-notice dynamic entry and got their asses handed to them.
Separate names with a comma.