'US drone' hits Pakistan

[Happy Face 29]

You'll have to explain to me how/why you interpret "I don't agree with bombing civillians where there's no threat."

 

...as....

 

"kill him by bombing him with missiles from a Drone unit"

 

 

I'd say "you'd argue black was white", but it doesn't do justice to the fact you're actually arguing "don't drop bombs" is "drop bombs".

 

[Fop 1]

You'll have to explain to me how/why you interpret "I don't agree with bombing civillians where there's no threat."

 

...as....

 

"kill him by bombing him with missiles from a Drone unit"

 

 

I'd say "you'd argue black was white", but it doesn't do justice to the fact you're actually arguing "don't drop bombs" is "drop bombs".

 

 

 

You posted it.

 

 

 

Now answer the question please.

 

 

What do you do when you've followed him?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...an_worried.html

 

So are you saying you'd use spy's and then have him killed with a "laser-guided missile fired from a pilotless U.S. Predator plane" as stated in that article?

 

 

 

So if you are now saying you categorically wouldn't wait until an informer gave a strong tip off of where he'd be, then you'd try to kill him by bombing him with missiles from a Drone unit, as you previously said.

 

 

Then what would do you do when you've followed him/got intelligence of his location?

Edited June 29, 2009 by Fop

[The Fish 10972]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

[Happy Face 29]

Another trip around the merry go round.

 

...follow him.

[Guest alex]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

Like MJ said: "It's A Turf War On A Global Scale, I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale".

[Happy Face 29]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

 

Why kill him if he's not currently a threat and can lead you to others.

 

I remember seeing a US intelligence officer on Newsnight musing over this being where the US and UK differ. He saw it as the benefit from our IRA experience in that we realise it's all about intelligence and leave people to their business as long as we can. They're more valuable alive than dead while not an immediate threat.

 

The US (Fop) approach is to pre-emptively kill anyone and everyone ASAP just in case.

[Fop 1]

Another trip around the merry go round.

 

...follow him.

 

 

All you have to do is answer the question (again - try another answer maybe ), it's a very straight forward question so why are you having so much difficulty with doing that?

 

 

 

Of course the problem you are having is that whilst you clearly want to condemn this (and fair enough) the reality is you clearly can't think of another viable way to resolve the situation.

 

Which unfortunately makes you a hypocrite and look more than a little ridiculous.

[Guest alex]

Which unfortunately makes you a hypocrite and look more than a little ridiculous.

No wonder you stuck that smiley on the end. I doubt even you could have written that with a straight face.

[Fop 1]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

 

Why kill him if he's not currently a threat and can lead you to others.

 

I remember seeing a US intelligence officer on Newsnight musing over this being where the US and UK differ. He saw it as the benefit from our IRA experience in that we realise it's all about intelligence and leave people to their business as long as we can. They're more valuable alive than dead while not an immediate threat.

 

The US (Fop) approach is to pre-emptively kill anyone and everyone ASAP just in case.

 

 

Lead you to others ok......... AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?

 

Wait for them to lead you to others and then to others and then in 2029 send a strongly worded letter basically saying "Haha we finally know where you all live, so watch out or we might send you some more disparaging letters!"

 

 

 

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

Edited June 29, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Which unfortunately makes you a hypocrite and look more than a little ridiculous.

No wonder you stuck that smiley on the end. I doubt even you could have written that with a straight face.

Are you saying Chris's position in this thread is not deeply hypocritical and indeed rather ridiculous?

[Happy Face 29]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

[Fop 1]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

[snakehips 0]

US Drone = Barack Obama, iyam.

[Happy Face 29]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

 

Yeah. I'm the one that looks ridiculous.

[Fop 1]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

 

Yeah. I'm the one that looks ridiculous.

 

Indeed, Chris, indeed you do.

 

 

Or you can always answer the question to try and claw back something approaching your dignity.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Fop

[Happy Face 29]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

 

Yeah. I'm the one that looks ridiculous.

 

Indeed, Chris, indeed you do.

 

 

Or you can always answer the question to try and claw back something approaching your dignity.

 

No. I'll only dig a bigger hole for myself.

 

Well done.

[The Fish 10972]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

Like MJ said: "It's A Turf War On A Global Scale, I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale".

 

"Heal the world, make it a better place"

 

Happy, re: getting more information, I thought the whole point of terrorist cells is that they don't know what anybody else does?

[tooner 243]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

 

Holy Fuck you're a boring CU#T!!!!!

stop talking about yourself in the third person and dragging this thread on any further. The fact is that if the governments currently carrying out "military operations" in Afghanistan wanted to they could play the covert game and take out which ever target they wanted with little or no colateral damage. However since it's the U.S. (no offence to any yanks reading this) they've read (and probably authored a few chapters) the Al-Qaeda hand-book and are trying to wreak the same sort of terror on the general populous as those they are fighting.

Just so I am CRYSTAL clear as to what my position is, I think that the military should be performing operations similar to what Fish mentioned, let the enemy go about their biz as normal and then take them out as opportunity warrents, note the difference Fop between surgical strikes using a .50 cal sniper rifle and "surgical strikes" using a 1000 lb. bomb.

[Happy Face 29]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

Like MJ said: "It's A Turf War On A Global Scale, I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale".

 

"Heal the world, make it a better place"

 

Happy, re: getting more information, I thought the whole point of terrorist cells is that they don't know what anybody else does?

 

We talking about the Taliban or Al Qaeda?

[Fop 1]

Are you really now trying to say that all anyone should be doing to the Taliban is watch it? And do nothing else?

 

 

When they're on the steps of parliment with the nuke codes in their back pocket, they can be bombed.

 

 

So like Fop said a completely ridiculous position is the best you can come up with. (it's no wonder you ran away from this thread )

 

Yeah. I'm the one that looks ridiculous.

 

Indeed, Chris, indeed you do.

 

 

Or you can always answer the question to try and claw back something approaching your dignity.

 

No. I'll only dig a bigger hole for myself.

 

Well done.

 

 

Indeed you would.

[The Fish 10972]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

Like MJ said: "It's A Turf War On A Global Scale, I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale".

 

"Heal the world, make it a better place"

 

Happy, re: getting more information, I thought the whole point of terrorist cells is that they don't know what anybody else does?

 

We talking about the Taliban or Al Qaeda?

 

To be brutally honest I don't see enough of a distinction. The world wouldn't miss either. (well the Armed forced appropriation committees might...)

[tooner 243]

Thing is, how do you kill a terrorist cell leader on his own turf? You can hardly use one a radioactive cup of tea, now can you?

Like MJ said: "It's A Turf War On A Global Scale, I'd Rather Hear Both Sides Of The Tale".

 

"Heal the world, make it a better place"

 

Happy, re: getting more information, I thought the whole point of terrorist cells is that they don't know what anybody else does?

 

We talking about the Taliban or Al Qaeda?

 

I beleive the bombing was against a Taliban target, my point was that the U.S. is using state sponsored terrorism, which is the same tactic as Al-Qaeda

[Fop 1]

Holy Fuck you're a boring CU#T!!!!!

stop talking about yourself in the third person and dragging this thread on any further. The fact is that if the governments currently carrying out "military operations" in Afghanistan wanted to they could play the covert game and take out which ever target they wanted with little or no colateral damage. However since it's the U.S. (no offence to any yanks reading this) they've read (and probably authored a few chapters) the Al-Qaeda hand-book and are trying to wreak the same sort of terror on the general populous as those they are fighting.

Just so I am CRYSTAL clear as to what my position is, I think that the military should be performing operations similar to what Fish mentioned, let the enemy go about their biz as normal and then take them out as opportunity warrents, note the difference Fop between surgical strikes using a .50 cal sniper rifle and "surgical strikes" using a 1000 lb. bomb.

 

Calm down, breath and try some proper formatting.

 

 

 

 

The problem with the "covert game" is again the problem with Happy Face's false beard, glasses and moustache "following" idea.

 

You're not talking about tracking or even befriending someone that lives in London, you're talking about doing it to someone that spends their time in the back end of nowhere (quite literally) and likely splits their time between caves in the middle of nowhere and very small towns and villages where strangers may as well be painted day-glo orange and run about screaming for their inconspicuousness.

 

It's NOT a Hollywood movie and things just don't work like one of their scripts.

 

The USA and the UK have had special forces in the area and they just haven't been all that successful (much like the USSR weren't for similar reasons), bribery and developing paid informants has been working, but again you are left with the problem of what to do and how to do it - which basically comes back to air strikes one way or another.

 

Pakistan is also massively against any unauthorised personnel being on the ground (and if they know about it/are working with them then they are probably already compromised - see what Fop posted earlier).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile more US and indeed British troops in Afghanistan are being killed by forces being organised and controlled by these people.

[Park Life 71]

This is a battle being fought out currently across many frontiers and fault lines. Tooner has a point, in that when a very indisciplined strike like this takes place, it isn't just off the bat, but calculated. IMO this strike was a warning to the general populous and intended to shake their allegiances. The state wants to strike some fear into the hearts of the men that hang out/give shelter/ sympathize with Al Kidder et al...

 

Also in Afghan things are further complicated by folks changing sides constantly depending on tribal alliances or hard cash. One also has to bear in mind that we are working with elements of the enemy in London (much to the Americans irritation) since 7/7 and had been for long periods before (this is commonly known as 'the covenant'). The deal has always been in place that known terrorists wouldn't be hassled in London by Mi5 for return of favours, information and tip offs and this worked very well for us for ages and also we had in place guarantees that London wouldn't be struck - few people realise that kept us out of harms way for nearly two decades...The point is that is the way we like to work the Americans however (fucking up as they are all over the place) work very differently against their assets.....Big hits like the one we are discussing here are America's way of making things black and white as they are lost in the very grey areas that our boys revel in.

 

Take Bosnia and the general skirmishes in that region, we and the Americans airlifted mujahadeen into the region, trained and armed them, sometimes directly by SAS etc..We also helped recruit fresh Islamic militants in England and Pakistan, train them and send them over to Bosnia, Kosovo and later Chechnya...British Muslims recruited by OUR SECRET SERVICES. My point being that the way we work in these regions is that we get our hands dirty and we tend to stay loyal to one side or the other (as in the case of Haroun Rashid who we hid from the Americans for ages and even got him out of the states. We are much better that the U.S. in ground operations in Iraq and we prefer to work with the locals. The Americans don't have the intellectual military prowess or will power to work this way, the are immediate results/budgets/hoopla driven and they are forcing the war in Afghanistan into the only way they know how....A stand off war of long range technological engagements and strikes conducted by satellite. They will lose.

[tooner 243]

Holy Fuck you're a boring CU#T!!!!!

stop talking about yourself in the third person and dragging this thread on any further. The fact is that if the governments currently carrying out "military operations" in Afghanistan wanted to they could play the covert game and take out which ever target they wanted with little or no colateral damage. However since it's the U.S. (no offence to any yanks reading this) they've read (and probably authored a few chapters) the Al-Qaeda hand-book and are trying to wreak the same sort of terror on the general populous as those they are fighting.

Just so I am CRYSTAL clear as to what my position is, I think that the military should be performing operations similar to what Fish mentioned, let the enemy go about their biz as normal and then take them out as opportunity warrents, note the difference Fop between surgical strikes using a .50 cal sniper rifle and "surgical strikes" using a 1000 lb. bomb.

 

Calm down, breath and try some proper formatting.

 

 

 

 

The problem with the "covert game" is again the problem with Happy Face's false beard, glasses and moustache "following" idea.

 

You're not talking about tracking or even befriending someone that lives in London, you're talking about doing it to someone that spends their time in the back end of nowhere (quite literally) and likely splits their time between caves in the middle of nowhere and very small towns and villages where strangers may as well be painted day-glo orange and run about screaming for their inconspicuousness.

 

It's NOT a Hollywood movie and things just don't work like one of their scripts.

 

The USA and the UK have had special forces in the area and they just haven't been all that successful (much like the USSR weren't for similar reasons), bribery and developing paid informants has been working, but again you are left with the problem of what to do and how to do it - which basically comes back to air strikes one way or another.

 

Pakistan is also massively against any unauthorised personnel being on the ground (and if they know about it/are working with them then they are probably already compromised - see what Fop posted earlier).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile more US and indeed British troops in Afghanistan are being killed by forces being organised and controlled by these people.

 

 

Look, I think it's you that is having an issue with the concept of reality versus movies. First of all we're not talking about ,the Robert Ludlum Cold War version of "covert", we're talking about a ranged observation of potential targets in hostile territory. Not an impossibilty, but there is no desire for that type of engagement.

 

Using a blunt 1000 lb bomb to make your point serves a multi-faceted purpose,

 

1) instilling terror into the general public who will inevitably be caught in the middle

2) using up pricey ordinance and therefore creating demand for more, we're in the middle of a recession don't cha know?

3) easy PR to show the folks back home what a great job is being done fighting the war on terror

 

etc.

 

I just disagree that the right way to engage the enemy is with bigger explosions, although that being said I have a real issue with being there in the first place....but that is altogether another point