Pakistan condemns US drone attack (1 Viewer)

[Dittohead not!]

Pakistan condemns US drone attack

Pakistan has strongly condemned a US drone strike that killed at least 17 people and wounded many others in North Waziristan's Miranshah bordering Afghanistan.

In a press release on Wednesday, the Pakistan foreign ministry said the strikes were a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The statement described the attacks as "counterproductive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives and have human rights and humanitarian implications".

Imagine that, the Pakistanis don't agree with the US flying over their territory and killing people that the USA sees as terrorists. Why might that be?

I'm sure that, were t here a more powerful nation killing our citizens who are suspected of being bad guys, we'd think it was perfectly OK, after all. Might does make right, doesn't it?

 

[iacardsfan]

Pakistan condemns US drone attack





Imagine that, the Pakistanis don't agree with the US flying over their territory and killing people that the USA sees as terrorists. Why might that be?

I'm sure that, were t here a more powerful nation killing our citizens who are suspected of being bad guys, we'd think it was perfectly OK, after all. Might does make right, doesn't it?

When there is an explosion here we call it a terrorist attack, when we cause one overseas it's because they were a threat.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Pakistan condemns US drone attack





Imagine that, the Pakistanis don't agree with the US flying over their territory and killing people that the USA sees as terrorists. Why might that be?

I'm sure that, were t here a more powerful nation killing our citizens who are suspected of being bad guys, we'd think it was perfectly OK, after all. Might does make right, doesn't it?

We may allow that in our "tribal lands" which we claim to have absolutely no control over. Clever how Pakistan has so much sovereign land yet is not a state sponsor of terrorism even while allowing UBL and his ilk to wage war from within its borders. Pakistan should immediately refuse to accept our aid, but I suspect a few billion more will make this "objection" to our actions go away, as ususal.

 

[humbolt]

**** Pakistan.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

We may allow that in our "tribal lands" which we claim to have absolutely no control over. Clever how Pakistan has so much sovereign land yet is not a state sponsor of terrorism even while allowing UBL and his ilk to wage war from within its borders. Pakistan should immediately refuse to accept our aid, but I suspect a few billion more will make this "objection" to our actions go away, as ususal.

But Pakistan has a right to aid, why should it let the death of a few of its citizens keep it from getting aid?

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

We may allow that in our "tribal lands" which we claim to have absolutely no control over. Clever how Pakistan has so much sovereign land yet is not a state sponsor of terrorism even while allowing UBL and his ilk to wage war from within its borders. Pakistan should immediately refuse to accept our aid, but I suspect a few billion more will make this "objection" to our actions go away, as ususal.

The Obama "shoot and spend" foreign policy.

 

[ecofarm]

The suspected militants who were targeted were believed to be from the Haqqani network. U.S. officials consider the Haqqani network to be one of the most dangerous militant factions fighting American troops in neighboring Afghanistan. The leadership of the Haqqani network pledges allegiance to Taliban chief Mullah Omar but operates fairly independently...

Elsewhere in northwest Pakistan, militants attacked a police post before dawn Wednesday and killed six policemen, said a local government administrator, Habibullah Khan. Ten policemen were wounded in the attack about 15 miles southeast of the city of Peshawar, said another government official, Feroz Shah. The post was staffed by both paramilitary police from the Frontier Constabulary force and also by tribal policemen. Khan said policemen retaliated in a gun battle that lasted several hours and killed several militants. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. But the Pakistani Taliban have carried out many similar attacks against security personnel in the area.

Pakistan: U.S. drone strike targeting Haqqani network kills at least 16 in Waziristan - CBS News

 

[Tigger]

Any nation that harbors or allows terrorists to operate inside its borders has no right to claim to be anything other than terrorists themselves so far as I'm concerned.

 

[MadLib]

Any nation that harbors or allows terrorists to operate inside its borders has no right to claim to be anything other than terrorists themselves so far as I'm concerned.

I wouldn't go as far as declaring Pakistan a terrorist nation - and all noncombatant deaths are a tragedy - but when you combine the fact that it was one of the main supporters of the Taliban prior to 9/11, its tactic over the last decade of making it as hard as possible for us to fight terrorists in Afghanistan, and their inability to eliminate terrorists within their own borders without significant US help, they have neither a right to criticize our actions in handling terrorism nor to act as if we are violating sovereignty that they refuse to support.

 

[Brain Stock]

I think every country has right to question over his sovereignty either if its is attacked or some civilians are killed in that attack, whatever the purpose is!

 

[Wraith8]

Imagine that, the Pakistanis don't agree with the US flying over their territory and killing people that the USA sees as terrorists. Why might that be?

Oh please, if the Pakistanis were as outraged about Muslim extremists (who are killing Pakistanis in far greater bulk) as they are about US drone strikes than maybe their country wouldn't be a haven for Muslim extremists in the first place.

I'm sure that, were t here a more powerful nation killing our citizens who are suspected of being bad guys, we'd think it was perfectly OK, after all.

If there were Muslim extremists in the US who were killing American citizens daily and the US government was refusing to address the problem, I would have no problem with another country using our airspace to take military action against them.


-

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh please, if the Pakistanis were as outraged about Muslim extremists (who are killing Pakistanis in far greater bulk) as they are about US drone strikes than maybe their country wouldn't be a haven for Muslim extremists in the first place.

If there were Muslim extremists in the US who were killing American citizens daily and the US government was refusing to address the problem, I would have no problem with another country using our airspace to take military action against them.


-

Oh, I think you would, especially when the collateral damage started to make itself manifest.

 

[Wraith8]

Oh, I think you would, especially when the collateral damage started to make itself manifest.

Far Left Rule #9 - You must pretend that it’s possible for the military to fight a brutal insurgency that’s indistinguishable from civilians without incurring any loss of civilian life and when civilians are unintentionally killed you must make no distinction between nations, organizations and individuals that kill or injure civilians in order to fight oppression and nations, organizations and individuals that deliberately kill or injure civilians for no other purpose other than to cause havoc or impose oppression.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Far Left Rule #9 - You must pretend that it’s possible for the military to fight a brutal insurgency that’s indistinguishable from civilians without incurring any loss of civilian life and when civilians are unintentionally killed you must make no distinction between nations, organizations and individuals that kill or injure civilians in order to fight oppression and nations, organizations and individuals that deliberately kill or injure civilians for no other purpose other than to cause havoc or impose oppression.

Far right rule #1: It would be OK for a foreign power to fly drones into the USA, as long as the guys that they were targeting were actually bad guys. Moreover, a little collateral damage would be acceptable, as long as our own government wasn't addressing the problem.

 

[MadLib]

Far right rule #1: It would be OK for a foreign power to fly drones into the USA, as long as the guys that they were targeting were actually bad guys. Moreover, a little collateral damage would be acceptable, as long as our own government wasn't addressing the problem.

It would also be OK if we purported to be that foreign power's ally and guzzled $3,000,000,000 a year in aid from that power while at the same time providing refuge and support for said power's murderous enemies.

 

[Strucker]

Far right rule #1: It would be OK for a foreign power to fly drones into the USA, as long as the guys that they were targeting were actually bad guys. Moreover, a little collateral damage would be acceptable, as long as our own government wasn't addressing the problem.

You can't apply a principled use of universality. Blinders make it literally impossible for some folks to understand the thought experiment.

At the precise moment that George W. Bush declared "Nations who harbor terrorists are as bad as the terrorists themselves"....and were open to attack......Haitian state terrorist Emmanuel Constant was living free and easy in New York.

Haiti had requested his deportation to face war crimes trials...but was ignored.

Meaning Haiti, had it the means, could have attacked the city block in question in NY City...and wiped out a bunch of innocent civilians in the process.

"Collateral damage is unfortunate, but unavoidable...so you lefties should stop whining about it!"

Anyway, this is a relatively precise analogy...and yet oddly, very few people would accept such behavior, and salute their noble allies in Haiti for their performance.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Pakistan condemns US drone attack





Imagine that, the Pakistanis don't agree with the US flying over their territory and killing people that the USA sees as terrorists. Why might that be?

I'm sure that, were t here a more powerful nation killing our citizens who are suspected of being bad guys, we'd think it was perfectly OK, after all. Might does make right, doesn't it?

what the Pakistani govt publicly states and often condones behind closed doors are not always the same thing

 

[Grand Mal]

Far Left Rule #9 - You must pretend that it’s possible for the military to fight a brutal insurgency that’s indistinguishable from civilians without incurring any loss of civilian life and when civilians are unintentionally killed you must make no distinction between nations, organizations and individuals that kill or injure civilians in order to fight oppression and nations, organizations and individuals that deliberately kill or injure civilians for no other purpose other than to cause havoc or impose oppression.

Far Right rule number 1(a)- Never proofread. Ever. And never consider brevity to be anything but a socialist plot.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

When there is an explosion here we call it a terrorist attack, when we cause one overseas it's because they were a threat.

A big difference here is we can exercise security and control over our territory and population, and don't have armed factions waging war against foreign nations within our borders

 

[Dittohead not!]

A big difference here is we can exercise security and control over our territory and population, and don't have armed factions waging war against foreign nations within our borders

No, we just have armed factions waging war with each other over drug turf.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

No, we just have armed factions waging war with each other over drug turf.

The two are not even comparable; neither in their aims, capabilities, or methods.

 

[Wraith8]

Anyway, this is a relatively precise analogy...and yet oddly, very few people would accept such behavior, and salute their noble allies in Haiti for their performance.

Actually it's not a precise analogy at all. While I do agree that the US should've extradited Emmanuel Constant, he isn't currently killing Americans the way that Muslim extremists are currently killing Pakistanis (and in far greater numbers than US drones are.)


-

 

[Strucker]

Actually it's not a precise analogy at all. While I do agree that the US should've extradited Emmanuel Constant, he isn't currently killing Americans the way that Muslim extremists are currently killing Pakistanis (and in far greater numbers than US drones are.)


-

I based the analogy on the exact words of George W. Bush, who made no such distinctions.

And even if Constant and the rest of the protected rogues gallery were committing ongoing terrorist acts....would you actually support an attack on American soil? And if not...why not?

At any rate, what would be your suggestion for the Haitians in such a situation? Or for Cubans, re the occasional right-wing Cuban terrorist, for that matter? Since the US harbors terrorists and mass killers....what is the remedy?

 

[Wraith8]

And even if Constant and the rest of the protected rogues gallery were committing ongoing terrorist acts....would you actually support an attack on American soil?

If Emmanuel Constant was organizing death squads in the US that were killing Americans and the US government was ineffective in stopping it I would have no problem with another country attacking those death squads. I'd be more angry at the incomptence of the US government than I would at the other country's actions.

what would be your suggestion for the Haitians in such a situation? Or for Cubans, re the occasional right-wing Cuban terrorist, for that matter? Since the US harbors terrorists and mass killers....what is the remedy?

If I was Cuban I'd be more angry at the Castro government for oppressing my country under a dictatorship for five decades than I would be at the US for harboring a Cuban terrorist. If I was Haitian, yes I would be angry at the US for harboring Constant but also mindful of the huge amount of humanitarian support that the US provided to Haiti after their earthquake. And that would probably outweigh my anger over Emmanuel Constant (who is currently in a US prison anyway.)

.

 

[the_recruit]

I based the analogy on the exact words of George W. Bush, who made no such distinctions.

George W Bush does not post on this forum. No one here is going to defend statements they neither said nor with which they agree.

And even if Constant and the rest of the protected rogues gallery were committing ongoing terrorist acts....would you actually support an attack on American soil? And if not...why not?

At any rate, what would be your suggestion for the Haitians in such a situation? Or for Cubans, re the occasional right-wing Cuban terrorist, for that matter? Since the US harbors terrorists and mass killers....what is the remedy?

We cannot allow national sovereignty to be abused as a loophole that shields terrorists from retribution as they actively engage in wrongful violence . If the US were harboring terrorists that were actively engaging in wrongful violence against Haitians and the US government were unable or unwilling to do anything about it, then yes I absolutely support the right of the Haitians to defend themselves and kill said terrorists on US soil.

That scenario does not currently exist though. And if it did, I would prefer the US government to neutralize the threat, as I'm sure it would.