Your opinion on the US attack in Pakistan today?

[kentuck]

A US drone attacked a suspected al Qaeda hangout in Pakistan today, killing between 8 and 15 people, according to various reports. This was a CIA operation. Did Barack Obama give the orders for this attack? Do you agree with it or do you not have enough evidence to have an opinion on the matter?

Reports are that the Arabs in the area attacked are very angry. They thought they might come to some type of "agreement" with Obama. Was this a productive measure at this time? Or will it only make matters worse?

Was President Obama simply sending an early signal to the terrorists in the area? Did he get another #2 of al Qaeda?

[leftstreet]

1. I rarely believe what the M$M "reports" to us

So I'd have to say "not enough evidence"

[defendandprotect]

2. I'm hoping that Obama had NOTHING to do with this and won't be first time . ..

that the CIA has undermined or betrayed a president --- including IKE--!!!

[Idealism]

3. The attack wasn't issued by Obama

They were previously authorized by the Bush administration, Obama was notified of the attack but did not authorize them in any way.

[EFerrari]

4. These attacks should be stopped. They're counter-productive, imo.

I know there have been supply line issues and there's the problem of the Pakistani army and it's strange relationship to the tribal regions. Al Qaida and others are holed up there and they are developing a campus there with interpreters and all the trimmings.

And, I still think these attacks are a bad idea. How can we tell Pakistan to fix its democracy if we don't even honor their border? We lose the high ground; it's just a continuation of Bush's thuggish tactics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I would think it would have to have been approved by Obama

Killing civilians in a country that you nominally work with is not just an everyday operation. To quote Obama (on Afghanistan):

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081400950.html

But that doesn't mean invading Pakistan. Get Pakistan to take control of its territory; tell them to get out and make it independent if they can't; but don't bomb civilians. Obama knows that.

I don't know who the 'Arabs in the area' are. This is Pakistan. Do you mean bin Laden?

[B o d i]

6. "Did Barack Obama give the orders for this attack?" Of course he did.

"Do you agree with it or do you not have enough evidence to have an opinion on the matter?" I don't have enough evidence, but I trust that President Obama had good reason to initiate this attack. It was a message to Al Qaeda, AND it was a big message to Pakistan. There's a new sheriff in town.

"Reports are that the Arabs in the area attacked are very angry. They thought they might come to some type of "agreement" with Obama." They were clearly mistaken.

"Was this a productive measure at this time? Or will it only make matters worse? Was President Obama simply sending an early signal to the terrorists in the area? Did he get another #2 of al Qaeda?" Time will tell. My gut says this precision missile strike on a known Al Qaeda strong point was a good thing. Bush refused to do it because he had no intention of winning, he wanted a never ending war.


Wouldn't it be delicious if President Obama whacked Osama Bin Laden on day three of his presidency after Duhbya failed for seven years?

[FatDave]

10. It would be most delicious.

In fact I've been fantasizing about the very thing.

[B o d i]

30. I wonder if this has anything to do with the 'letter' Presidents leave each other?

"He's there -> It's your problem now. Having a perpetual boogeyman kinda helps, y'know? You might wanna keep em." - W

[Chulanowa]

7. Well, if it pissed off Arabs in the area, we got the right guys...

Seeing as how the only Arabs in the region are likely some of Osama's leftover mujahedin....

[EFerrari]

8. There's supposed to be a big al Qaida campus in that area

that is processing all kinds of people. Not leftovers, new recruits and not just Arabs but also Europeans. I can't remember whose report that was. Want to say Tariq Ali but it wasn't him.

[Posteritatis]

11. Nice catch (nt)

[ClayZ]

9. Times online UK Headline:

:cry: It makes me feel sick!

President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

snip>
Eight people died when missiles hit a compound near Mir Ali, an al-Qaeda hub in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. Seven more died when hours later two missiles hit a house in Wana, in South Waziristan. Local officials said the target in Wana was a guest house owned by a pro-Taleban tribesman. One said that as well as three children, the tribesman's relatives were killed in the blast.
snip>




K and R

[FatDave]

12. This is the first I've heard of it.

Is it possible that somebody said "actually sir, we've known exactly where he is for a long time"?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. 8-15 people died so our new President would appear strong

no Im not happy.

In this day and age, there's no need for bombing etc.

[EFerrari]

14. I really don't understand people who drool over the idea of assassinating bin Laden.

Assassination is a tool criminals who don't want to deal with the law use. It's nothing to write home about.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Bless you, sfexpat. You are a truely compassionate human being.

The world needs to aspire to your level.

[EFerrari]

17. Lynn! We survived the mofos!

I can hardly believe it! :hi:

[LynnTheDem]

18. Sadly, far too many of our friends & fellow Americans did not. George W. bUsh killed them

with his illegal war of agression against Iraq.


And then there's the tens of thousands of wounded & destroyed Americans, the hundreds of thousands of dead, damaged destroyed Iraqis...


But we survived. :hug:

[EFerrari]

21. There's a lot of work to do, I know, and we can't bring back the dead

or restore the destroyed health hundreds of thousands now live with because of the torture president.

I'm literally happy that Cheney didn't manage to blow up the planet. It's a start. :hug:

[G_j]

43. exactly

as if we haven't already created thousands of more potential "terrorists".

[smoogatz]

56. Whatever works.

If he can be captured, it would be good to capture him. If not, the next best option would be to kill him. Doing either without taking the lives of innocents would obviously be the way to go, if it were possible.

[EFerrari]

62. Killing people without due process doesn't "work".

You may have stopped that life but you sure haven't stopped what they were about. You can't assassinate an idea. And executing bin Laden without a trial just puts our government on his level.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. I have never understood why war is regarded as more legitimate than assassination.

By pretty much any sane system of values I can imagine, whether militaristic or pacifistic, I would expect the set of situations under which it is justifiable to declare war on another country to be pretty much a strict subset of the set of situations under which it is justifiable to to try to assassinate the leader whose policies form the casus belli.

The size of those sets might vary - they may both be large if you're a militarist, or one or both of them may be completely empty if you're a pacifist who believes that war or murder are always wrong - but I would expect one to always be contained within the other almost completely.

[sandnsea]

16. I support highly targeted attacks

at very very high value targets. If that's what this was, I support it. Contrary to what people here believe, there really are terrorists out there. I hope this doesn't happen very often though.

[LynnTheDem]

19. I support courts of law.

I know, I know...very old-fasioned and "quaint".

[sandnsea]

20. Not when we've been attacked

We have a right to defend ourselves militarily against anybody who attacks us. We should have done it after they attacked the Cole. It's only a law enforcement issue in countries that contain minor cells, not countries that are fueling the core of the problem.

[LynnTheDem]

22. OMG Pakistan attacked us??!!

Wow I slept right through that one.

[sandnsea]

25. Because that's exactly what I said

:crazy: How do you think acting stupid furthers your cause?

[smoogatz]

61. In a sense, yes.

Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI) has long been believed to have high-level connections to al Qaeda; in fact Clinton's famous "missed 'em" missile attack on bin Laden's camp was temporarily aborted because high level ISI agents were spotted on the scene, and killing them might have caused an ugly international incident. ISI is almost certainly actively harboring and protecting bin Laden and re-arming and supplying al Qaeda in Pakistan. Attacking al Qaeda in Pakistan in an attempt to reduce their operational capability is actually a good thing to do, and is clearly being done with the tacit approval of moderate elements of the Pakistani government, who aren't all that happy about the presence of large numbers of radicalized foreign fighters on their soil.

[arikara]

45. How about when they attacked the Liberty?

n/t

[hack89]

36. So we have jurisdiction in the tribal areas ?

are you suggesting we parachute an police squad to arrest them? Would kidnapping people in Pakistan be legal?

[EFerrari]

42. There's a number of Gitmo detainees that were kidnapped from Pakistan.

Maybe we just should have bombed them, too.

[hack89]

47. So you support kidnapping?

I am fine with it too if it reduces the number of air strikes.

[EFerrari]

49. No. I don't support lawless behavior, period.

The rendition program Clinton started didn't stop 9/11, did it? And the bombing we're doing now won't stop another terrorist attack. On the contrary, it just gives radicals another argument to incite violence against the United States.

[hack89]

51. So how do we get terrorists into the court systems

if they refuse to surrender and their host government refuses to hand them over? Don't you agree that there are governments that actively support terrorist groups? And that there are countries where their governments are too weak to control all their territory? How you combat terrorist groups in such situations? Honest question - how do you proceed in a lawful manner in lawless areas?

[EFerrari]

53. Yes, that is the problem. You'd need to get the international community

to come down on the Pakistani government and to get them to co-operate with apprehending the individuals that really are establishing a campus in the tribal regions. And I promise you, that's the only thing that will ever really work.

But, and this is a big "but", there are too many powerful interests that make too much money supplying war zones for that to happen as far as I can tell. War profiteering is not limited to our own corporati. If you break down influential people in governments all over the world, they're there like leaches. That's the real problem, imo.

[bvar22]

64. Bombing them, and writing off civilian casualties....

...is certainly the least creative way to go.
I believe we are smarter than that.

It was WRONG when Bush/Republicans did it.
It is STILL WRONG when Obama/Democrats do it.

[hack89]

66. So what is the smarter way? nt

[tkmorris]

29. There is no one here who doesn't think there are terrorists out there

You are imagining an ideological foe that doesn't exist. They simply disagree with you about what we should DO about terrorists.

[sandnsea]

31. Some believe it is CIA psyops

I don't say things that aren't true.

[Trajan]

23. I may be one of the very few ...

Who believe Osama bin Laden is not only responsible for nearly 3000 deaths in NYC, but also killed hundreds of innocents in the two African embassy bombings ....

Even if you deny his culpability in the WTC attacks, the embassy bombings are enough to declare him an enemy of humanity, and a mass murdering criminal of the highest (lowest) order ...

I have no love for extremist theocrats who murder innocent human beings .... They get no quarter here ...

I dont think we need these fucking UAV bombings ... Pakistan and Afghanistan needs to go inside the tribal areas themselves, and arrest both bin Laden and Zawahiri, and send them to the same court where the Hutus were tried for their crimes against humanity ...

bin Laden deserves to pay for his crimes ... not as an act of revenge, not through war, but in a fair measure of solemn justice ....

[sandnsea]

26. It's been 7 years

I don't think they're going to do that. Hopefully when President Obama turns his personal attention to the region, they will come up with a strategy that will work, and end the bombing.

[Still Sensible]

46. I agree completely.

And Obama said throughout his campaign that if there was actionable intelligence of AQ activity in Pakistan and they failed to act, he would. Some here are disingenuously IMO saying that Obama was "aware but didn't order" this strike. That's bullshit folks, he's the President now and could have ordered a stand down.

[smoogatz]

63. Nice in theory.

Too bad the political dynamic in Pakistan makes the arrest of bin Laden by Pakistani troops, or police, or whatever, virtually impossible. The tribal areas are essentially autonomous: the central government has little control or influence there, and isn't much loved. The government itself is divided between moderate civilian factions (mostly out of power), the military which is powerful and wary of strident Islamism, and somewhat radicalized factions within ISI. ISI does have some sway in the tribal areas and is tight with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Any Pakistani politician that actually made a serious attempt to capture or kill bin Laden or disrupt the Qaeda camps in the tribal areas would be putting his/her life at risk, and risking the overthrow of his/her government: it's a relatively simple thing in Pakistan, as we saw in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, to recruit assassins willing to carry out spectacular attacks against public figures.

[shintao]

24. Shot over the bow

I no doubt suspect the shot was fired where bin laden is known to be living off and on. I don't hear Pakistan saying crap, so.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Totally on the fence.

Am I the only person who thinks every strike happens during either a wedding or a funeral?

Is it possible that upon hearing an incoming weapon someone either gets killed or married?

Think about it.

President Obama is in control of intel. He's my guy. Do I think for a moment that he'd order a strike on either a wedding party or a funeral procession? No.

[orleans]

28. not a good opinion. and surprised he allowed it

hope he gets what he wanted from it-and i hope he wanted something tangible and not just random acts of senseless killing like we usually achieve. i heard three kids were killed--if true then this mission failed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Just as in Iraq, they're trying to salvage a lost war with failed tactics.

[madokie]

33. I doubt that President Obama had anything to do with this particular bombing

I am more suspicious of some rogue holdovers who may not like the idea of us having a new President with a new direction. You have to keep in mind that it will take some time for the Obama doctrine to filter down to some of the more ideologue driven.

[earth mom]

34. Not happy about it at all.

x(

I'd like to see the U.S. stop killing people once and for all!

[Gregorian]

35. My hope is that it's residual Bush era command prompted.

My fear is that what Obama said in his campaign speeches is true and not just election speak.

[hack89]

37. People aren't paying attention to his fascination with Lincoln

Obama wants to be a great president like Lincoln - he also knows that many of our greatest presidents like Lincoln and FDR were war presidents. Just like Lincoln, I don't think he will hesitate for a second to wage a vigorous war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

He certainly understands what a disaster it will be if another 911 style attack is successful in America - "Democrats can't keep us safe" will be the perception for years to come.

[EFerrari]

41. "Democrats can't keep us safe" from right wing talking points, apparently. n/t

[hack89]

48. No - they will be RW talking points.

that is not the case right now.

My only point is it is foolish to think that Obama is anti-war. I think that he will wage war vigorously if he thinks it is necessary. Many here are projecting progressive anti-war sentiments on Obama that I don't think he really agrees with.

[EFerrari]

52. Bush ran on that in 2004, iirc, and although we ran a real war hero,

we let him do it.

I don't expect progressive positions from Obama but I do expect progressives to speak up when they need to.

You actually made me think of a more interesting question, though, hack89. And that is, why did Rumsfeld go to all the trouble to build Gitmo when he could have just dropped bombs?

The thing is, he knew full well that the people we were detaining were window dressing. And, remember, they dropped big bombs into Baghdad in the run up to the invasion on the chance of taking out Saddam, or so they said. So, how did they decide when to detain and when to bomb?

It's beginning to look more and more to me like both the detentions and the so called "surgical strikes" that just killed a bunch of civilians had nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with theater. Bush needed Gitmo to point to so he could pretend he was doing something to "keep us safe" and Bush needed to drop big bombs so show the American public that he was willing to "smoke them out of their holes". In reality, he did neither and didn't care about doing either. He and Cheney cared about those nice big contracts for their cronies.

[hack89]

55. I don't know why they opened Gitmo

I suspect that it was an "OMG where do we put all these people" kind of thing. After that it became self perpetuating.

I disagree about the strikes. The issues in the Tribal Regions are complex - I think that the US is getting good intelligence as the various factions and tribes fight for power and money. The Pakistani army is making inroads into areas they have stayed out of before and that is stirring a lot of resentment towards the "foreigners" in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Tribal leaders are pissed that their lives are disrupted so the Taliban and Al-Qaeda can wage war in Afghanistan. I think that the CIA and the Pakistani government are buying good intelligence on Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders in the Tribal Areas as the local tribes decide that they don't want to be on the losing side.

[EFerrari]

57. Rumsfeld had no problem having thousands of Taliban fighters

executed in the desert. Remember? Some of them were left in containers to suffocate and die there.

So, you have to ask yourself, what did they get out of saving some of them to parade for the America public?

May 23, 2003
“Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death” Broadcast for the First Time Ever in the US: Eyewitnesses Testify that US Troops Were Complicit in the Massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban Prisoners


http://www.democracynow.org/2003/5/23/afghan_massacre_the_convoy_of_death

Video, audio, transcript at link.

/typo

[hack89]

58. Your link has nothing but accusations

certainly nothing to prove that Rumsfeld personally was responsible or even knew about it.

[EFerrari]

59. The deaths of those men are public record. Sorry. n/t

[hack89]

60. Didn't say they weren't

it is Rumsfeld role that is unproven.

[Fireweed247]

38. I'm really pissed off!

I was surprisingly hopeful and happy with the Obama Administration until today :mad:

not real happy about this either
Obama Administration: Wiretapping Legal Challenge Must Die
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4903339

[Blue_In_AK]

39. I'm not happy about it.

I think it sends a bad message so early in the administration -- but I don't know the background, so my opinion is really worthless.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I'm just going to sit here and wait and make .......

..... some popcorn. This is but the opening scene of Act 1.



Who knows what Act II will bring ............

[G_j]

44. I support a moratorium

on all war activity

[many a good man]

50. Pak doesn't seem to have sovereignty over Waziristan

Waziristan has always been a no-man's land, resisting the sovereignty of any outside force.

Attacking suspected terrorists or insurgents outside your border is a murky gray area in international law. World opinion does not seem to be too opposed to it. Killing innocents, however, is always sure to backfire.

A large question is motive: was the attack merely designed to kill terrorists or to send a greater political signal?

[EFerrari]

54. The military claims to have no control and they've been very happy

to keep it that way for years so they can claim to have no control.