Park Life 71 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 A lot of them moved to the Afg/Pak border, so in a way he's right. But drone hits are a lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10972 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I didn't appreciate just how much Obama had increased attacks in Pakistan since this thread started. 2004 - 1 2005 - 2 2006 - 1 2007 - 3 2008 - 17 2009 - 46 so they're getting better at it then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 A lot of them moved to the Afg/Pak border, so in a way he's right. But drone hits are a lottery. They were in Pakistan in 2007. That doesn't account for a forty fold increase in bombing attacks since then. At that time there were named targets for the majority of covert attacks. They sometimes even managed to hit those target along with the innocent bystanders which at least gave it some arguable justification. Of the 11 attacks in January, only 2 specific targets have been named and none are confirmed as hit. Bush put more thought into his bombing than Obama. Rather than acting on good intelligence to target valuable militants, Obama is leaning towards blanket bombing large areas and taking out a corresponding larger number of civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missed Sticks 0 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 A lot of them moved to the Afg/Pak border, so in a way he's right. But drone hits are a lottery. They were in Pakistan in 2007. That doesn't account for a forty fold increase in bombing attacks since then. At that time there were named targets for the majority of covert attacks. They sometimes even managed to hit those target along with the innocent bystanders which at least gave it some arguable justification. Of the 11 attacks in January, only 2 specific targets have been named and none are confirmed as hit. Bush put more thought into his bombing than Obama. Rather than acting on good intelligence to target valuable militants, Obama is leaning towards blanket bombing large areas and taking out a corresponding larger number of civilians. Maybe the army were using the inexperience and (possible) naivety of the new regime to ramp up there own agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 A lot of them moved to the Afg/Pak border, so in a way he's right. But drone hits are a lottery. They were in Pakistan in 2007. That doesn't account for a forty fold increase in bombing attacks since then. At that time there were named targets for the majority of covert attacks. They sometimes even managed to hit those target along with the innocent bystanders which at least gave it some arguable justification. Of the 11 attacks in January, only 2 specific targets have been named and none are confirmed as hit. Bush put more thought into his bombing than Obama. Rather than acting on good intelligence to target valuable militants, Obama is leaning towards blanket bombing large areas and taking out a corresponding larger number of civilians. Maybe the army were using the inexperience and (possible) naivety of the new regime to ramp up there own agenda. Perhaps. In other Pakistan news, 3 US soldiers have been killed in Pakistan even though the US deny having a presence there... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8494890.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Apparently the RAF now fly a Tornado at Mach 1.0 a couple of hundred feet above anyone "acting suspiciously" rather than zap them instantly - they generally get the message.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 A lot of them moved to the Afg/Pak border, so in a way he's right. But drone hits are a lottery. They were in Pakistan in 2007. That doesn't account for a forty fold increase in bombing attacks since then. At that time there were named targets for the majority of covert attacks. They sometimes even managed to hit those target along with the innocent bystanders which at least gave it some arguable justification. Of the 11 attacks in January, only 2 specific targets have been named and none are confirmed as hit. Bush put more thought into his bombing than Obama. Rather than acting on good intelligence to target valuable militants, Obama is leaning towards blanket bombing large areas and taking out a corresponding larger number of civilians. Maybe the army were using the inexperience and (possible) naivety of the new regime to ramp up there own agenda. As the Pakistan army is actively engaged in the counter insurgency, it might be they are specifically "calling in" the air-strikes hence the increase in number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 "As the Pakistan army is actively engaged in the counter insurgency" on both sides I understand.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now