The Huffington Post Pakistan
Log In | Sign Up | July 10, 2009

If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post


The Blog

HuffPost Wire Services
Spread Awareness - Stumble this Big News Page


Pages:   1 2 3 4 5

South Waziristan: Suspected US Drones Kill At Least 45 In Pakistan


Comments
401
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (16 pages total)

The word "suspected" always amuses me in these stories. Like who really knows? The missiles might have been sent by Zeus.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 07/09/2009
photo

Doesn't matter Zeus, Thor or a virtuoso Sony PlayStation trained kid. As long as some Talib/AQ types were taken out.
One cannot win a war without breaking the will of the opponent to fight on.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 07/09/2009
- raaf I'm a Fan of raaf permalink

"Independent verification of the targets and casualties was not possible because the region is remote, dangerous and largely inaccessible to journalists."

If you don't know then why is this article loaded with terms like 'militants' and 'insurgents'? Now you're just acting as a mouthpiece for US military propaganda.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 AM on 07/09/2009

The fact is, we don't know the facts. I do know that IF innocent civilians were injured or killed in this attack, it is, unfortunately, the wages of war. On the other hand, what are we to do? We operate on the best intelligence available and my guess is that most of those killed or injured were legitimate targets. One thing I know for sure, is (as far as Afghanistan/Pakistan) goes, we didn't start this mess. Most importantly, those that attacked us couldn't find refuge in an area that didn't support them (through intimidation or otherwise. We have a sovereign obligation to defeat our enemy; if that means that those that harbor our enemy sustain casualty so be it. Every "innocent" civilian who dies or is wounded should blame their own government for the problem and not the U.S. It should give them every reason to rise up and rebel against a government that supports terrorism.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 AM on 07/09/2009
- FHTB I'm a Fan of FHTB permalink

I love the way there is no mention of "collateral damage", read: civilian deaths...
Whether Obama does it, or Bush, the casualties of war are a serious and problematic outcome of this continued engagement in both Iraq and Pakistan...winning hearts and minds has been a fruitless endeavor for the most part; in Pakistan, it took the public flogging of a woman by the Taliban to wake them up to the reality that those medieval religionists were trying to destroy their country...Obama killing a few militants when there are probably more civilians killed is not going to help matters in how Pakistani public views us. THEY have to realize what is happening...when they do, as they have, they take action...I think the Afghanis and Iraqis feel the same way...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 AM on 07/09/2009
photo

What are we to do? Stopping the excessively imprecise air campaign would be a start. Civilian casualties lead the otherwise pacifistic local population to support and join the Taliban insurgency, and thus any strategy which results in significant civilian casualties is self-defeating. No action would be better than this action.

Steps in a positive direction would entail listening to what the Afghanis want, like a focus on reconstruction, not war, and perhaps just getting the f*** out because we seem so woefully incapable of doing what's effective or right.

By the way, we DID start this mess back when we funded the mujahideen in the 1980s. These anti-Soviet forces quite literally morphed into the Taliban.

Oh, and thanks for your completely arbitrary and inexpert guess that "most of those killed or injured were legitimate targets."

And what the hell is "a sovereign right to defeat our enemy"? No such right exists under current international law. I suppose you're saying, "we're attacking the Taliban because they harbored Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for 9/11". But he probably wasn't, hence the FBI's unwillingness to list him as wanted for that crime. And the Taliban offered to term him over in exchange for evidence from the Bush administration, none of which was produced. But we went to war anyway. And now eight years later we're still doing a bad job at it. And people like you are still sitting around justifying it.

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 AM on 07/09/2009
photo

Good!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 07/09/2009

How to create terrorists forever.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 07/08/2009
- FHTB I'm a Fan of FHTB permalink

Exactly...Obama is not any different than Bush in Pakistani, Afghani or Iraqi eyes if innocent civilians die. Obama's backers are deluding themselves into thinking it is different.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 AM on 07/09/2009
photo

"if innocent civilians die."
But according to all reports none did. Happy?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 07/09/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (16 pages total)

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect