Comic Genesis Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm

No man is worth the life's of 18 inocent people. In anyother contry this would constitute an act of war, but ofcorse, because its in the middle east the population is considered expendable. America is hardly about to initiate a presision strike if this guy were hiding in Texas, even if it were out in the middle of the desert, so what in hell gives them the right to do this to a vilage in the middle of another contery?
I'll be intrested to hear people's veiws on this, as I'm too ralled up about the whole situation to think straight at the mo.

Does anyone remember that during the recent Iraq war US troops blew up a restaurant that Saddam was supposed to be using?

Well, he obviously didn't get blown up, but someone did. Of course, the incident has now been conveniently forgotten about by the news media....

The truth is that this kind of "targeted" strike is proably far more common than we realise, carried out by American and Israeli and Russian forces and God knows who else, and I don't like to think about how many innocent people might have died as a result.

Would the Pakistani air strike have been justified if it had killed Zawahiri? Whether or not it did, it's bound to bring reprisals in one form or another, and if he is still alive he can use it to rally Islamic extremists and justify more terror attacks against the west.

{edit} PS: I've just noticed that my signature seems especially relevant to this particular post.

Missiles are a very blunt instrument of death and assasination is a very blunt instrument of political reform. Team America movie showed how blunt it could be (F*** yeah) but nobody takes a puppet seriously.

Ok. I was disturbed also to hear that potentially innocent villagers were killed, especially with Zawahiri not being there. It angers and saddens me that such things can and have happened.

But, a couple things...
First, according to CNN (and take this as far as you believe the mainstream media can be believed) there were probably 5 Al Qaeda members in the houses that were attacked. When the 'innocent' ownders of those houses invited Al Qaeda fighters into their homes, they put their families in harms way. They put their wives and children at risk.

Quotes from CNN: "The Foreign Office statement said a preliminary investigation shows "there was foreign presence in the area and that in all probability was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan."

" 'While this act is highly condemnable, we have been for a long time been striving to rid all our tribal areas of foreign intruders who have been responsible for all the violence and misery in the region. This situation has to be brought to an end.' "

Second, Zawahiri is reportedly the current real leader of Al Qaeda and the mastermind of many of their strikes. He is the man in charge of terrorists who are responsible (and therefore he is responsible) for the deaths of hundreds of servicemen and thousands of very much innocent Iraqis in attacks that are designed to kill as many random people as possible. This is a much different type of attack (not saying I condone it, I think they should have waited, if possible, until the targets had left the building. but obviously, none of us were there to assist in making those decisions)

Third, this attack was carried out by the CIA who operate independently from the military, indeed from the president (mostly) and carry out their own operations on their own agendas.

Fourth, I think it is good to remember that this is the cleanest most peaceful war there has ever been. World War II (or any other war before we figured out how to aim) used whatever means were necessary and commanders on all sides felt justified in their high civilian casualty rates (of course, some reveled in it while others just didn't know any other way and thought it necessary). Would you rather us drop tens of thousands of bombs indisciminatly over residiential and industrial areas to try and kill some soldiers and shut down their infrastructure?


That said, none of these things make the loss of the lives of those 4 children any less tragic. Those CIA operatives probably took a chance at taking out a man who's killing could save many more lives.



**Edited due to Yuoo's wonderful reminder and mitigating response **

Thank you for bringing up that article, Astral.

**Sigh.** There are many sad things going on in this world, and I don't know how to make sense of them.

Astral, Lee M, Ann Vole, maybe you're right. Perhaps our quest to fight the bad guys is doing more harm than good. From the point of view of the innocent people get harmed, maybe that does make us the bad guys. Maybe it is an endless cycle of attack and reprisal that we're stuck in.

J-Fries, maybe you're right as well. Despite the fact that things are grim right now, perhaps we're doing the best we can, helping people out in the long run by getting the bad guys out of power. Even though there's an ugly side to it, maybe it is something good we're accomplishing.

I respect people who protest and criticize their leaders. If we're going the wrong way, then somone has to be brave enough to stand up and say so. If the leader is bad, then someone else should lead. I also respect people to stand by their leaders. Especially in times of war, there are many tough decisions being made; if you act one way, people will die; if you act the other way, people will die. I think we need hopeful, "it's tough but we're on the right track" people as well.

As for myself, I try to do what I can. I listen to the news on the radio, and at election time I vote for who I think is best. Since I'm a Christian, I try to pray for situations around the world. I don't pray, "Please let Team A win, and please let Team B lose." I pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." I figure God knows best how that translates into world events.

Anyway, thank you for listening to my philosophin'. And I'll continue to pray for your brother, MadMoonie.

Even the local tribal leaders admit that there are elements of al Qaeda hiding out in the area. This is a demonstration of what happens to those who shelter the enemies of the United States. If the local culture is to protect guests, then they had best be more discriminating about who they allow to -be- guests, nie?

Why the media is attempting to spin this as a Bad Thing is beyond me, since I do not truly comprehend stupidity on this scale. I don't believe they actually intend to commit treason, but...

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Interesting you should mention that, Kerry.

In the Middle East, and in most Arab countries, it's almost forcebly customary to allow ANY visitor to come into your home, even if he's a well known foe, and offer him food and water (possibly due to the desert region they're in), and once inside your home, you're very much obligated to protect him. Hence, if you deliberately harm someone who is resting in your house, you're considered the scum of the earth, even if he was your enemy.

I'm not sure if that custom is still deeply rooted, or in what regions it's still practiced, nor if it has variants or loopholes.


?Zacatep?ngolas!

Until next time, remember:

I

AM

THE

J.A.M. (a.k.a. Numbuh i: "Just because I'm imaginary doesn't mean I don't exist")

Good evening.

[WARP!!!]

A CIA strike that figures. The CIA has had a reputation for poor planning in the past, and a missile for a house in a populated area is recless and a little overkill. You can not garentie that bystanders will not be injured, or killed. Infact with an explosive warhead, you can pretty much count on it. Politacaly this should be seen as a dissaster and whoever cooked this half baked scheam up should be held accountable, but under the national security act it's anything goes as long as it is done in the "best interst of the nation". I hate that law.

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Even the local tribal leaders admit that there are elements of al Qaeda hiding out in the area. This is a demonstration of what happens to those who shelter the enemies of the United States. If the local culture is to protect guests, then they had best be more discriminating about who they allow to -be- guests, nie?

Why the media is attempting to spin this as a Bad Thing is beyond me, since I do not truly comprehend stupidity on this scale. I don't believe they actually intend to commit treason, but...

Kerry consider it this way.
A; this was an out right and shoddily exicuted assasination attempt. How are they going to win suport from the far east when they peach one thing and act on quite another.
B; in any other contry they wouldn't have goten away with it. Its only because its in the far east that they even considered it. Had this guy been in a US state or even somewhere like the middle of scotland (an area where its very easy to hide due to the landscape and sparce populations) they would have never entertained the idea, not just for political reasons but because the lives of westoners are valued slightly higher on their charts.
C; Its a well taught custom that you should wecome anyone into your house as long as they come with peaceful intenion and offer you a small something in retern when they leave. Out their, Religion comes first above all things, Law and even polotics are derived directy from it. It is all too probable that they had no choice when the alquieda bloke showed up. I recken that someone in the village tossed Religion out the window in favour of the $34million thats on this guy's head, expecting troops when what they got was a crappy swing with the braudsword. Probably they hoped that they'd kill the informant(s) aswell, and there for not have to pay them.

One last thing. Showing people 'what happens to enemies' is exactly the aproch Sadam's regeame took, so what makes what the CIA did anybetter then what Sadam's secrate police would have done? The only explinations I have heard for this so far have only been very wish-wash, almost (if not equaly) as ludicurus and narrow sighted as the old 'Devine Rights of the King'.

Maybe we just need to re-prioritize who we decide is actually worth going to all this trouble to blow up.

Okay, when I posted they still thought they'd gotten him. If they screwed up again, that's different. One does not risk collateral damage unless you -know- you've got the target in your sights. They should take lessons from the IDF on that, apparently.

I'll disagree with that snarkiness about killing the informant, though. We -have- paid off in the past, and there's no reason not to. It's chicken feed to the US government, and if informants disappear, you'll stop getting any. Even the CIA isn't -that- stupid.

I should qualify my statement a bit. I am not agreeing or disagreeing withthe action but pointing out that that it is like killing flys with a sledge hammer; gets the job done but there is a lot of coladeral damage. and for political reform, assasination creates marters and makes everyone associated with the assasinators as being more justified as relatiatory targets. Isreal has been using sharpshooters and other well targeted assasination methods for years without changing the overall situation. Of course, terrorism is an even blunter weapon in that it it is like trying to scare the fly out of the house by knocking out a few walls... very ineffectual I would say.

For what it's worth, I disapprove of it on two counts.

1) There was a perfectly viable, less collateral alternative. Send in a group of snipers and pick 'em off when they come out in the morning. No fuss, no muss. Heck, we've even got aircraft capable of doing that from a mile up.

2) While it might be marginally more expedient, we must also take care that we don't stoop to their level. The "Kill 'em all and let <insert diety of choice> sort 'em out" mentality is the type of thinking they use. While it's important to understand that in order to understand their attack patterns, it's not something we need to begin practicing ourselves. Most especially not when we have good alternatives. (See #1) Doing so sets a dangerous mode of operation.

Kerry Skydancer wrote: I'll disagree with that snarkiness about killing the informant, though. We -have- paid off in the past, and there's no reason not to. It's chicken feed to the US government, and if informants disappear, you'll stop getting any. Even the CIA isn't -that- stupid.

Hmm, you've got a fair point there, but by sending a balistic attack like that there was probably a fairly high chance they killed him anyway. Actualy.. thinking about it how did they find out? I meen, a vilage like that isn't likely to have a payphone, let alone someone with a mobile.

A few comments...

Yes, the CIA IS that stupid...
How many times have they meddled with other countries internal politics, and have it backfire?
(Where did the Al Quaeda gang learn their craft, do you think? I'd list all their blunders, but I think there's a max size on these posts...)

Something the Central Incomptetence Agency has never learned is the word 'feud'. Many of the 'hot tips' they receive is from rival clans who USE the CIA to settle old scores for them...

The tradition of hospitality in that area is seated much more deeply than religion. It's a rule of survival. 'Offer a stranger the hospitality of your home and feed him, for next time it may be you who need it', and it is a harsh country.
Al Quaeda leaders knows this, and takes advantage of it, of course, but they also knows that if they abuse the custom by harming their hosts, or another guest at the same house, they will NEVER EVER be offered it again, and that could mean the end of the organisation in that area.
I wouldn't trust the 'grunts' to always hold to the tradition, though, as they have been brainwashed into believing that anything is permissible.

Astral wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm

No man is worth the life's of 18 inocent people. In anyother contry this would constitute an act of war, but ofcorse, because its in the middle east the population is considered expendable. America is hardly about to initiate a presision strike if this guy were hiding in Texas, even if it were out in the middle of the desert, so what in hell gives them the right to do this to a vilage in the middle of another contery?
I'll be intrested to hear people's veiws on this, as I'm too ralled up about the whole situation to think straight at the mo.

How many innocents does a terrorist have to put in the house before he can have a planning meeting to attack the US in peace? What number of civilians gives him immunity? This is writing the "rules of engagement" and is the job description for a significant number of people in real life. So what's your answer?

I think that you've got the utilitarian math wrong. Taking out a terrorist is saving all his future victims. The several AQ leaders that actually got hit had a very high probability of being responsible for the future murder of many more innocents. The chances are that a great majority of those future victims would be fellow muslims who aren't sympathetic to Al Queda so it's not a civilizational/race/religious matter of trading more valuable for less valuable lives. The strike worked in this case but even if it hadn't, trying to get decapitation strikes in is overall going to get fewer net civilians killed than any alternative I can think of so the tactic is justified whether or not a particular strike works.

Astral wrote:B; in any other contry they wouldn't have goten away with it. Its only because its in the far east that they even considered it. Had this guy been in a US state or even somewhere like the middle of scotland (an area where its very easy to hide due to the landscape and sparce populations) they would have never entertained the idea, not just for political reasons but because the lives of westoners are valued slightly higher on their charts.

I'm breaking my own rule about not getting involved in political discussions here, but I have to disagree on this point. I agree that this type of attack would have have been carried out in America, or the UK, or any of our "western" allies. However, that is not because we value western lives more than eastern. Far from it. The reason, and the only reason IMHO, taht this kind of attack wouldn't be carried out in those areas is because we can actually depend on the local authories for help.

That is not to say that Middle Eastern governments or agencies would necessarily keep the location of the suspected terrorist from us knowingly. It may just be that they are ill equiped to deal with it themselves or are unwilling to go against the customs that have been mentioned here already. However, the fact remains that, if this was in the middle of Scotland, you can bet that the Scottish authorities would do their damnedest to help us get to the terrorist and make sure they were taken into custody and that we cannot expect to get the same aid in the Middle East.

All life is precious, none more so than others. But, if we are left with no other choice than to allow a few innocent lives to be lost, in order to save many, many more innocent lives down the road, then that is what is going to happen. Ot'd be better if it didn't happen, but often there is no other choice.

- Mjolnir

Mjolnir wrote: That is not to say that Middle Eastern governments or agencies would necessarily keep the location of the suspected terrorist from us knowingly. It may just be that they are ill equiped to deal with it themselves or are unwilling to go against the customs that have been mentioned here already. However, the fact remains that, if this was in the middle of Scotland, you can bet that the Scottish authorities would do their damnedest to help us get to the terrorist and make sure they were taken into custody and that we cannot expect to get the same aid in the Middle East.

This is the crux of the problem of the non-integrating gap (I love Thomas Barnett). The governments are too weak to provide justice and only survive through the application of brutality outside of law. It's not just the ME. Lots of Africa is like this too as are portions of Asia and S. America.

Anyone still think exporting democracy is a bad idea?

Anyone still think exporting democracy is a bad idea?

*Razes hand*

Its dificult for us to imagin just how difrent there culture is unless you've experianced it for yourself. Politics and law take second place too and are littlulary part of religion out there. Their people have relied on a system where a good majority of decisions that they make is dictated by their religion. When its time to pray, the police will littulary hurd people with sticks so that they won't be late for the 'survice', everything about their socity relies on religion taking presidence over all things. Now sudenly, these strange people have turned up, have taken their lands by force and now are telling them that politics and law should be dictated by 'them', not by the system that they have relied on for thousands of years. Even if 'our way is better', you still can't expect them to change without being increadably disgrunteled about doing so.
The westen equivelent would be if comuniests sudenly tookover your home contery and started saying that you've been doing things wrong all this time and not just telling, but forcing you to do things their way. I'm not saying this is 'exactly' how things are for the iraqie people, but it must be damn close. Wouldn't you feel obliged to protect your way of life? Even if the consepts the invader delivers are perfectly resonably or would 'make things better' (at least in their opinion) wouldn't you still feel opressed by these alien rules and values?