
![]() | |
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! May 6, 2009 RevelationsBy GreyhawkSo, the Red Cross complains that Obama is just airraiding villages and killing civilians. Women and children were among dozens of bodies in two villages targeted by airstrikes, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported Wednesday, after sending a team to the district.Fortunately, the NY Times was able to get in front of this story, publishing an an interview with a "Pakistani logistics tactician for the Taliban" who "showed himself to be knowledgeable of Taliban activities, and the information he provided matched up consistently with that of other sources". Among the shocking revelations, civilian casualties are actually part of the plan: “The Americans cannot take control of the villages,” he said. “In order to expel us they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.”Although he admits that the drone attacks are actually the most effective weapon used against Taliban/al Qaeda forces: The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. “The drones are very effective,” he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.One must conclude that successfully bringing internal and international pressure on the Obama administration to halt the attacks is a significant enemy goal, and the higher the number of civilian dead the more swiftly that goal can be achieved. Obviously, "International Red Cross" reports like the one relayed by the AP in the first link above - regardless of how well intentioned - further this goal. Certainly such reports should never be withheld or concealed, but we're fortunate indeed to have the New York Times explaining this tactic to their readers who can then put the entire discussion in its proper perspective. I'll resist the urge to condemn them for not acknowledging this back in 2006 when tangible evidence of the use the media tactic first became available and will suppress my personal desire to speculate why they choose to expose rather than play along with Taliban/al Qaeda sources now (certainly something must have changed) and instead welcome what appears to be their first tentative steps to "our side" in the battle. They could be coming "just in the nick of time". Continued: Revelations (II) Recent/related: The Plan for a 'Stan (or two) Part Two Posted by Greyhawk / May 6, 2009 12:44 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksTrackBack URL: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16058 Vicodin and valium mix. Valium side effects. Valium. Read More Some in the White House might get a bit wobbly in the knees reading this Washington Post story, but in the end author Rajiv Chandrasekaran only provides some additional details of how the Obama administration wasted a year "focused" on "the Karzai prob... Read More 13 CommentsLeave a comment |
July 19, 2010Dawn Patrol 07/19/2010 [Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our ongoing roundup of information on war and other topics - from the MilBlogs and other sources around the world.
Always updating - refresh for updates.
AFGHANISTANProspects for stability in Musa Qala: challenges and possible solutions -- [Bill Ardolino /Long War Journal - in Afghanistan] Exploding Culverts -- [Kandahar Diary - in Afghanistan] Arbaki -- [Free Range International - in Afghanistan] Weather -- [A Major's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Fête Nationale -- [Field Notes: One Soldier's Perspective - in Afghanistan] Goodbye "FaST" Food (and good riddance) -- [FaST Surgeon - in Afghanistan] IRAQOn The Iran, Iraq Border -- [J.D. Johannes - in Iraq] WAR ON TERROR /TERRORISMSenators Look For Smoking Gun In BP-Lockerbie Link -- [AP] No Link Between BP And Lockerbie Release: UK Envoy -- [NPR news blog] UK's Cameron: Releasing Lockerbie Bomber Was Wrong -- [AP] U.S. AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLDAs Cameron and Obama Meet, BP Will Be Top Issue -- [NY Times] Afghanistan tops agenda for British PM's visit -- [Washington Times] WELCOME HOMEHomecoming -- [Rajiv Srinivasan - home from Afghanistan] STRATEGY & TACTICSISAF, SCR Address Military ROE and Tactical Directives -- [ISAF] SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGYRaytheon's pain gun finally gets deployed in Afghanistan (update: recalled) -- [Engadget] Pain Ray Recalled From Afghanistan -- [Noah Shachtman/Danger Room] The Active Denial System: the weapon that's a hot topic -- [The Telegraph (UK)] World's Fastest Helicopter Boosts Battle Against Insurgents -- [ISAF]
POLITICSIs it time for a real GI Jane? -- [CNN] HUMOR/SATIRE(Need more? Dawn Patrols Archives are here.) Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Terrorism, Military, Politics, Media, MilBlogs, dawn patrol Mudville |
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2009 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() |
Hope and change from the NYT.
Are you arguing that the Obama Administration, absent UN authorization and absent Congressional authorization, should conduct a war against people living in Pakistan?
A war in which robots indiscriminately kill both enemy combatants (assuming this is true) and innocent bystanders which include children?
Is that your argument. That Obama should be allowed to kill men, women and children with robots in a country we are not at war with?
wondeerer, now that you mention it as far as I know the United States isn't at war with any country in the world today.
Amazing, isn't it?
You did not answer the question.
Because the question makes no sense.
Actually, that's wrong. To paraphrase a common truism - there are no senseless questions. The lesser known and generally unspoken companion to that is that there are, however, senseless people who ask questions and expect answers. If in this case the questioner is not senseless he must think I am.
Since I have a spare moment I'll explain in generic terms: answering the question "are [unspecified 'you'] arguing [for subject x] to take action z without [A AND B] but limited to [C modified]?" - is pointless, and further compounded in this specific example by a likely disagreement on definitions of terms ("war" for instance). One could respond "no" or even "no, I'm not arguing" - and that answers the question, but there remains a high likelihood the questioner would misconstrue the meaning of the response (one could also argue the answer in fact grants license for him/her to do so).
Asking it in the first place says more about the mentality of the questioner - and likely his/her overestimation thereof. Throwing in "robots" doesn't help.
I urge you to study the works of English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson for further discussion on this topic.
Ok, I'll ask the question in a way that does make sense:
You seem to be of the opinion that the enemy has a goal of halting attacks by pressuring the Obama administration.
I'm of the opinion that the Obama Administration never got Congressional authorization to make war against the citizens of Pakistan. I'm of the opinion that Obama never went before the United Nations to receive UN approval to attack the citizens of Pakistan.
I'm also of the opinion that it's a war crime to torture people; and I submit that using unmanned Predator drones to fire missiles into areas known to be the home of non-combatant women and children is torture. Those women, and those children are being tortured to death very quickly by Missile-Boarding them.
So, what I'm asking is:
When did Barack Obama get authorization to torture to death non-combatant women and children in the country of Pakistan?
And the answer is: Never.
Barack Obama isn't authorized to conduct a war against the citizen of Pakistan, and he's committing war crimes in the indiscriminate way he's using Predator drones to attack those people.
The next Republican Attorney General might want to start taking notes today about who they're going to haul into the dock to answer for these crimes.
First I must say for the record I expanded my initial comment at 06:32 - it originally read simply "Because the question makes no sense." I mention that because it's likely (given the timing) that wanderer's response was to that brief initial remark.
More shortly.
Wonderer: are you serious here? As in getting huffy over what Obamessiah wants to do? Lie back and enjoy it, my man! Remember, if Bush did it, it was per se wrong. If Obama does it, no problem.
I am almost enjoying the moral free-fall, just to watch the convolutions of the faithful.
"You seem to be of the opinion that the enemy has a goal of halting attacks by pressuring the Obama administration.
"I'm of the opinion that the Obama Administration never got Congressional authorization to make war against the citizens of Pakistan. I'm of the opinion that Obama never went before the United Nations to receive UN approval to attack the citizens of Pakistan."
The opinions expressed above are actually facts.
However, one can argue
a) the definition of "war" in this context (can a nation wage "war" on people, vice another nation?)
and
b) the tacit approval of bodies (governing or otherwise) who offer no opposition to an action
But the overriding point is that civilians aren't the target in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anywhere else on earth. As I noted above, their deaths serve the enemy's cause. All sides are well aware of this.
I will add that my point is that once (say, prior to November 2008) the NY Times would gleefully make the case you appear to be making here, that the administration was slaughtering women and children without concern or consideration of consequences. Now they seem to be of the opinion that the administration is concerned and considerate when attacking women and children.
But despite reports to the contrary, there's been no fundamental change in strategy, plans or ROE from October to May. Odd, that.
#Greyhawk at May 6, 2009 08:28 PM
No need to speculate. This is the same tactics terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah used against Israel. As we all know, the media bought the line, hook and sinker. Leftists love terrorists more than Jews, George W Bush and Americans, but less than Obama. They only mentioned this tactic to cover Obama's ass,
"“The Americans cannot take control of the villages,” he said. “In order to expel us they will have to resort to aerial bombing, and then they will have more civilian casualties.”
And when the Americans do bomb, they become murderers, killers of women and children and innocent boys. Does that make you happy? That people will start calling American soldeirs baby killers...and be correct?
Your answers exhibit a moral blindness. You simply will not see. Can you explain, how, exactly, you are better than the terrorists?
"And when the Americans do bomb, they become murderers, killers of women and children and innocent boys. Does that make you happy? That people will start calling American soldeirs baby killers...and be correct?"
No - I believe we should avoid civilian casualties at all cost. But I know of incidents where al Qaeda in Iraq had assaulted villages and were "caught in the act" of slaughtering civilians there. U.S. forces intervened, to include airstrikes. The result was lives saved and a devastating blow to AQI. Arguably none of this would have happened without combat air support - support that obviously would have been denied under any blanket removal of authorization.
Your question over-simplifies the moral question which I recognize as complex: should an airstrike (the definition of which I'm currently not certain you understand - no offense) option be pre-denied an on-the-ground commander? Or, for a fundamental moral argument: if an action could save lives AND result in bad press is it morally wrong to avoid the action? (An accurate but misleading headline regarding the event I cited could have read "U.S. strikes village; dozens slain".)