Pakistan's price of co-operating with the United States

tvdog

16 Jan 06, 17:25

For co-operating with the United States to help bring to justice terrorists who bombed and killed innocent civilians, Pakistan was bombed by the United States warplanes in which innocent civilians were killed.

The US authorised this airstrike apparently without first notifying Pakistani authorities.

this should be a lesson to those who think the US military is your protector. They are inept and their methods are clumsy. And they really do not care about innocent civilians being killed in the countries they are sent to "protect" or "liberate" etc.

I just can't believe how arrogant they can get.

And they still didn't get their target. Basically, they needed to assassinate a terrorist leader. By assassinate you think of sniper rifle, silenced pistol or maybe a SWAT team. The weapon of choice for US, unfortunately, was a F-16.

tvdog

16 Jan 06, 17:39

Most of us don't feel much about Pakistani civilians being collateral damage.

But imagine that CIA informed the US military that a JI leader is hiding out in BLK 288 in Yishun. And they call in a F-16 airstrike or they shell the building with a tank.

That's how useless they are. So if we are in any kind of trouble better take care of it ourselves and don't give Uncle Sam an excuse to offer "help".

Remember in hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan they sent out B-52's to bomb the mountains? That was a real joke. That was the clearest sign that the Americans knew NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, about unconventional warfare. They killed a lot of Afghan villagers then, as well.

If the US hired the Mossad to hunt Bin Laden, they would've got him already and they woul;dn't need to kill so many innocent people.

Someone should make a calculation of how many innocent civilians are killed in US 911 vs how many innocent civilians the US killed n Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

riken1974

16 Jan 06, 21:12

The Americans will tell you: "oops soory....it's just collateral damage....they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time"

riken1974

16 Jan 06, 21:22

FYI, definition of collateral damage

"Collateral damage is a US military term for unintended or incidental damage during a military operation. The term started as a euphemism during the Vietnam War and is still regarded as such by many; as a phrase intended to hide the reality that innocent civilians have been killed or have had their property destroyed."

lwflee

16 Jan 06, 21:26

Ya. I started a thread on this earler. The US dun seem to understand the concept of COIN and restraint.

As i said in the thread i started, If one fine day out of the blue someone decides to bomb my house and kill my entire family and some friends to boot...you bet i'll seriously consider taking up arms against that person.

Further, Pakistan has been one of the US' Allies against the "war on terror", much to many paskistanis' displeasure. What now? Can Musharraff tahan the heat? This is surely an Own goal!

Edit: Just went to Militaryphotos.net to read a thread. Wow. Instantly reminded why I do not go there anymore.

MobyDog

16 Jan 06, 22:41

Originally posted by lwflee:
Ya. I started a thread on this earler. The US dun seem to understand the concept of COIN and restraint.

Edit: Just went to Militaryphotos.net to read a thread. Wow. Instantly reminded why I do not go there anymore.

They do... It's just that they had become so into it, and has done so many times with no consequence, that they had developed a" so what are you going to do about it" superiority attitude. Precision strikes has upgraded to a Jdam strike... notice the progress ? They even had bombed a Chinese Embassy, with no worries whatsoever... UN ? what's UN ? They are good only to enforce saunctions expressly for US interest, when not in it's interest, UN can shove it. WE RULE THE WORLD...

LRRP

17 Jan 06, 14:47

The main culprit is Rumsfeld. He knows nothing about insurgent warfare.

tvdog

17 Jan 06, 22:10

If the US had any idea about COIN they might've won the Vietnam War.

They treat every conflict like it's WW2 all over again.

Shotgun

17 Jan 06, 23:06

I agree that they shouldn't just bomb intended targets without notifying relative authorities first.

But there is always the question of a leak. The US military cannot be sure that information about the operation would not be leaked by sources within the Pakistani authorities.

The US govt really DOESN'T fully trust Musharraff. Its just that Bushy thinks Mushy has been a good boy recently, and cant do a thing about him at all.

Mushy knows that he has to be a good boy or the situation will really tip against him. He's dancing to the american tunes cos he knows that doing otherwise would be unfavorable for the balance of power in the region. India would continue to get armed, while Pakistan would probably continue to face arms embargo for not cooperating with the US. (not to mention an excuse for a regime change since mushy wasn't really democratically elected either. Hahha)

Paki is balls to the wall on this one.

lwflee

18 Jan 06, 14:36

Originally posted by Shotgun:
I agree that they shouldn't just bomb intended targets without notifying relative authorities first.

But there is always the question of a leak. The US military cannot be sure that information about the operation would not be leaked by sources within the Pakistani authorities.

The US govt really DOESN'T fully trust Musharraff. Its just that Bushy thinks Mushy has been a good boy recently, and cant do a thing about him at all.

Mushy knows that he has to be a good boy or the situation will really tip against him. He's dancing to the american tunes cos he knows that doing otherwise would be unfavorable for the balance of power in the region. India would continue to get armed, while Pakistan would probably continue to face arms embargo for not cooperating with the US. (not to mention an excuse for a regime change since mushy wasn't really democratically elected either. Hahha)

Paki is balls to the wall on this one.

I understand and agree with what you say re leaking of intel. However, don't you think that a better way of handling the situation, both diplomatically and strategically, would be to send in troops to attempt an arrest?

Have the US run out of troops? Or do they not have a rapid reaction force in place for contingencies? I find both of these propositions preposterous.

Re the possible argument that they are afraid their targets might move, I guess the difference between sending in planes/heli/drones to drop a bomb shouldn't be that great?

I also agree that Musaraffs position is very tenuous and he probably needs to get ont eh good books of the US. But isn't the reverse true? Would the US want a radical to get control of pakistan's nukes? The answer is clearly not.

BillyBong

18 Jan 06, 14:44

To the americans, the end justifies the means....

It doesn't matter how many innocents die so long as they are NOT AMERICANS.

Politics and military actions don't mix.

iveco

19 Jan 06, 14:28

The main reason for Musharraf to cooperate with the USA is to get some relief from his country's debts. Another possibility is to gain legitimacy for his rule. Don't forget he seized power following a military coup back in 1999.

iveco

19 Jan 06, 16:25

US missile attack in Pakistan killed Al-Qaeda bomb maker: report

WASHINGTON : A top Al-Qaeda bomb maker with a five million dollar reward on his head was killed in last week's CIA missile strike in Pakistan, ABC News reported Wednesday.

Pakistani officials identified him as Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, the US television network said.

US officials were unable to confirm the report, and appeared to have doubts that he has been definitively identified.

"It's an open ended question on who was at the site of the attack," said an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But Mursi was believed to have been in the immediate vicinity of the strike, which targeted a gathering of senior al-Qaeda figures in the village of Damadola in a tribal area in northwestern Pakistan.

ABC News cited Pakistani officials as saying Mursi was one of three known Al-Qaeda leaders present at a meeting in the village of Damadola that was targeted in a missile attack late Thursday or early Friday.

The Pakistanis said he was on a guest list for the gathering, ABC said.

Among those who initially were believed to be attending was Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two, but his fate was not known and it was unclear if he was ever there.

Pakistani officials said Tuesday that four or five "foreign terrorists" were killed in the attack, which was carried out late Thursday or early Friday by armed CIA-controlled Predator drones.

"Obviously a decision along these lines (to launch an attack) is not taken lightly, and you can be assured it was based on very solid information," said a US counter-terrorism official, who asked not to be identified.

Eighteen civilians also were reported killed in the strike, prompting large protests over the weekend in Pakistan.

Pakistani officials said they found 18 freshly dug graves but two were empty.

On Tuesday, the administrator of the Bajur tribal agency said two local militants had removed the bodies of foreign terrorists after the air strike.

If Mursi has been killed, the US official said, "that would be a very significant development."

A five million dollar reward for Mursi's capture is posted on a State Department list of wanted Al-Qaeda leaders.

The State Department posting says Mursi operated a training camp in Derunta, Afghanistan where hundreds of mujahideen were trained in the use of poisons and explosives.

He produced training manuals with recipes for crude chemicals and biological weapons, some of which were recovered by US forces in Afghanistan, it said.

The US official said Mursi also was associated with video-taped poison gas experiments on dogs in Afghanistan. - AFP/ch