CIA Attacks Inside Pakistan Without Approval

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
CIA Attacks Inside Pakistan Without Approval

Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

By Joby Warrick and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
link

19/02/08 "Washington Post" -- -- In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.

U.S. military officials say, however, that the uneven performance of their Pakistani counterparts increasingly requires that Washington pursue the fight however it can, sometimes following an unorthodox path that leaves in the dark Pakistani military and intelligence officials who at best lack commitment and resolve and at worst lack sympathy for U.S. interests.

Top Bush administration policy officials -- who are increasingly worried about al-Qaeda's use of its sanctuary in remote, tribally ruled areas in northern Pakistan to dispatch trained terrorists to the West -- have quietly begun to accept the military's point of view, according to several sources familiar with the context of the Libi strike.

"In the past, it required getting approval from the highest levels," said one former intelligence official involved in planning for previous strikes. "You may have information that is valid for only 30 minutes. If you wait, the information is no longer valid."

But when the autonomous U.S. military operations in Pakistan succeed, support for them grows in Washington in probably the same proportion as Pakistani resentments increase. Even as U.S. officials ramp up the pressure on Musharraf to do more, Pakistan's embattled president has taken a harder line in public against cooperation in recent months, the sources said. "The posture that was evident two years ago is not evident," said a senior U.S. official who frequently visits the region.

A U.S. military official familiar with operations in the tribal areas, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the operations, said: "We'll get these one-off flukes once every eight months or so, but that's still not a strategy -- it's not a plan. Every now and then something will come together. What that serves to do [is] it tamps down discussion about whether there is a better way to do it."

The Target Is Identified

During seven years of searching for Osama bin Laden and his followers, the U.S. government has deployed billions of dollars' worth of surveillance hardware to South Asia, from top-secret spy satellites to sophisticated eavesdropping gear for intercepting text messages and cellphone conversations.

Yet some of the initial clues that led to the Libi strike were decidedly low-tech, according to an account supplied by four officials briefed on the operation. The CIA declined to comment about the strike and neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.

Hours before the attack, multiple sources said, the CIA was alerted to a convoy of vehicles that bore all the signatures of al-Qaeda officers on the move. Local residents -- who two sources said were not connected to the Pakistani army or intelligence service -- began monitoring the cluster of vehicles as it passed through North Waziristan, a rugged, largely lawless province that borders Afghanistan.

Eventually the local sources determined that the convoy carried up to seven al-Qaeda operatives and one individual who appeared to be of high rank. Asked how the local support had been arranged, a U.S. official familiar with the episode said, "All it takes is bags of cash."

Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group, said the informants could have been recruits from the Afghanistan side of the border, where the U.S. military operates freely.

"People in this region don't recognize the border, which is very porous," Bokhari said. "It is very likely that our people were in contact with intelligence sources who frequent both sides and could provide some kind of targeting information."

Precisely what U.S. officials knew about the "high-value target" in the al-Qaeda convoy is unclear. Libi, a 41-year-old al-Qaeda commander who had slowly climbed to the No. 5 spot on the CIA's most wanted list, was a hulking figure who stood 6 feet 4 inches tall. He spoke Libyan-accented Arabic and learned to be cautious after narrowly escaping a previous CIA strike. U.S. intelligence officials say he directed several deadly attacks, including a bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan last year that killed 23 people.

Alerted to the suspicious convoy, the CIA used a variety of surveillance techniques to follow its progression through Mir Ali, North Waziristan's second-largest town, and to a walled compound in a village on the town's outskirts.

The stopping place itself was an indication that these were important men: The compound was the home of Abdus Sattar, 45, a local Taliban commander and an associate of Baitullah Mehsud, the man accused by both the CIA and Pakistan of plotting the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Dec. 27.

With all signs pointing to a unique target, CIA officials ordered the launch of a pilotless MQ-1B Predator aircraft, one of three kept at a secret base that the Pakistani government has allowed to be stationed inside the country. Launches from that base do not require government permission, officials said.

During the early hours of Jan. 29, the slow-moving, 27-foot-long plane circled the village before vectoring in to lock its camera sights on Sattar's compound. Watching intently were CIA and Air Force operators who controlled the aircraft's movements from an operations center at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.

On orders from CIA officials in McLean, the operators in Nevada released the Predator's two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles -- 100-pound, rocket-propelled munitions tipped with a high-explosive warhead. The missiles tore into the compound's main building and an adjoining guesthouse where the al-Qaeda officers were believed to be staying.

Even when viewed from computer monitors thousands of miles away, the missiles' impact was stunning. The buildings were destroyed, and as many as 13 inhabitants were killed, U.S. officials said. The pictures captured after the attack were "not pretty," said one knowledgeable source.

Libi's death was confirmed by al-Qaeda, which announced his "martyrdom" on Feb. 1 in messages posted on the Web sites of sympathetic groups. One message hailed Libi as "the father of many lions who now own the land and mountains of jihadi Afghanistan" and said al-Qaeda's struggle "would not be defeated by the death of one person, no matter how important he may be."

A Temporary Impact

Publicly, reaction to the strike among U.S. and Pakistani leaders has been muted, with neither side appearing eager to call attention to an awkward, albeit successful, unilateral U.S. military operation. Some Pakistani government spokesmen have even questioned whether the terrorist leader was killed.

"It's not going to overwhelm their network or break anything up definitively," acknowledged a military official briefed on details of the Libi strike. He added: "We're now in a sit-and-wait mode until someone else pops up."

Richard A. Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser to the Clinton and Bush administrations, said he has been told by those involved that the counterterror effort requires constant pressure on the Pakistani government.

"The United States has gotten into a pattern where it sends a high-level delegation over to beat Musharraf up, and then you find that within a week or two a high-value target has been identified. Then he ignores us for a while until we send over another high-level delegation," Clarke said.

Some officials also emphasized that such airstrikes have a marginal and temporary impact. And they do not yield the kind of intelligence dividends often associated with the live capture of terrorists -- documents, computers, equipment and diaries that could lead to further unraveling the network.

The officials stressed that despite the occasional tactical success against it, such as the Libi strike, the threat posed by al-Qaeda's presence in Pakistan has been growing. As a senior U.S. official briefed on the strike said: "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. But overall, we're in worse shape than we were 18 months ago."

This may be temporarily effective. But strikes like this does not cripple a resistance movement, no movement is based on one man. In the end however it is countereffective since it undermines the US. If you blindside that authorities and populace of a sovereign country they are not going to like it. Eventually the resentment will lead to active countermeasures to get the foreigners out. If the US doesn't respect sovereignty it shouldn't whine if others do not either. Pakistan is a sovereign country, even if Al Qaida is not.

The US invades, kills, maims, tortures, assassinates pay bribes and threaten others with nuclear bombs. If others do that they are branded terrorists, mainiacs and rogue nations. Obviously the US would not accept if another nation was using drones to assassinate people in the US. This double standard is diminishing the US.





 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
That thread is a discussion about the policies of McCain v. Obama, I posted in that thread that I didn't want to derail that discussion.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: yllus
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.

What about if that host nation is the U.S.? Does this policy now dictate that other countries have the same right to do this also?

If Salman Rushdie visits the U.S. again, would you be just as apathetic if Iran sends in a force to assassinate him up to and including using bombs/missles?
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: yllus
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.

What about if that host nation is the U.S.? Does this policy now dictate that other countries have the same right to do this also?

If Salman Rushdie visits the U.S. again, would you be just as apathetic if Iran sends in a force to assassinate him up to and including using bombs/missiles?

Sure. All's fair in international relations - there are no "rights", only self-interests. Though if it was me ordering the attack, I'd make sure we could withstand the wrath of the host nation in the aftermath.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
It seems that a nation should only be able to claim sovereignty over a territory if they are capable of maintaining any semblance of authority in the area. The areas we are talking about in Pakistan have their own regional authorities, their own militias, and their own arms industry, all outside the control of the Pakistani government. This is the same rationale I believe Israel has in going after terrorists in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Their governments refuse to or are unable to exercise authority over parts of their terriroty, and forces within those territories are attacking a foreign state. The state that hosts these forces must either bear responsibility for it, or grant the foreign power the right to retaliate.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
Originally posted by: yllus
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.

Indeed. And Musharraf is an illegitimate leader anyway.
 

ITJunkie

Platinum Member
Apr 17, 2003
2,512
0
76
www.techange.com
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: yllus
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.

What about if that host nation is the U.S.? Does this policy now dictate that other countries have the same right to do this also?

If Salman Rushdie visits the U.S. again, would you be just as apathetic if Iran sends in a force to assassinate him up to and including using bombs/missles?

Welcome to the slippery slope...watch your footing. We can probably debate this over and over again but it seems that the Pakistani government is trying to play both sides in this at the moment. "We won't give you tacit approval but you can put a secret base on our soil to launch these types of attacks from". Situations like this rarely turn out well for either party and I am concerned about the mid to long term affects of this...
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval.
You know I'm against the reckless foreign policy of the US, but there is a country that lacks the will or ability to police its own region and harbors a wanted criminal and then tells you that you cannot get him and they aren't going to do anything about it, what else can you do? I don't blame them for this action. Pakistan cannot on the one hand pretend it lacks control over certain regions and on the other take offense at the US if it wants to go into these regions to act on clear information about enemies.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: yllus
If it seems clear that the host nation is not going to act and take out one's enemies, I don't really see an alternative.

What about if that host nation is the U.S.? Does this policy now dictate that other countries have the same right to do this also?

If Salman Rushdie visits the U.S. again, would you be just as apathetic if Iran sends in a force to assassinate him up to and including using bombs/missles?
Bad analogy. Rushdie is welcome here, so Iran can piss off. Pakistan pretends that these terrorists are not welcome there, so either it removes them which it claims it lacks the ability to do, or it lets somebody else do it. To say they can do nothing and not allow somebody who can do something to deal with it, they are approving of the party in their country.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

Very well. But do you grant others the right to operate in the US in the same way? Or does the US have special rights?

 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

This is dangerous thinking.....what if they were located within Russia? If they didn't hand them over, would you be OK striking at them while still in Russia?

What do you do if the Russian military intervenes? It is a border violation, after all. That could get messy, really quickly.

And please define "enemies"....is that anyone that disagrees with us, or anyone that attacks us, or what?

So if (for example) we host several violent anti-Castro groups in the US (which we basically do) and refuse to do anything about it, by your reasoning Cuba has every right to go into the US and kill these groups. Is this OK with you? Because you can't argue that we have "special right" to do it, and no one else can.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

Very well. But do you grant others the right to operate in the US in the same way? Or does the US have special rights?

Please let me know if/when armed militias begin staging, unhindered, in America, and launching attacks into Canada or Mexico; and then again if/when the US fails to stop them.

Only then will your strawman have any merit.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

Very well. But do you grant others the right to operate in the US in the same way? Or does the US have special rights?

Please let me know if/when armed militias begin staging, unhindered, in America, and launching attacks into Canada or Mexico; and then again if/when the US fails to stop them.

Only then will your strawman have any merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_66

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/14/cuba/

Cuba considers this gorup a terrorist organization. So they can attack them in the US, right?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

This is dangerous thinking.....what if they were located within Russia? If they didn't hand them over, would you be OK striking at them while still in Russia?
If Russia allowed them to continue staging there and attacking US troops over the border? Then YES.

What do you do if the Russian military intervenes? It is a border violation, after all. That could get messy, really quickly.
Yes, it could -- so it would unwise for Russia to allow such militants to continue operating unhindered within their own borders.

And please define "enemies"....is that anyone that disagrees with us, or anyone that attacks us, or what?
That's easy: Anyone who attacks us, attacks our allies, or directly supports those who do. Period.

So if (for example) we host several violent anti-Castro groups in the US (which we basically do) and refuse to do anything about it, by your reasoning Cuba has every right to go into the US and kill these groups. Is this OK with you? Because you can't argue that we have "special right" to do it, and no one else can.
They can try. The difference being that the US openly supports those groups opposed to Cuba, Cuba is not an ally of the US, and Cuba lacks the wherewithal and capability to do anything about it.

In the case of Pakistan, their government supposedly opposes the same militants we wish to capture/kill. Second, unlike Cuba, the US most certainly has the wherewithal and capability to solve the problem ourselves.

These strawman comparisons are getting old...
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I disagree 100% with the OP. The U.S. has EVERY right to pursue our enemies wherever they run to, if/when the sovereign nation they run into refuses to be of assistance, OR fails in their own efforts to kill or capture said enemies.

Our enemies will NOT be allowed to operate unhindered anywhere on the planet. Period.

:thumbsup: to the CIA for another successful hit!!

This is dangerous thinking.....what if they were located within Russia? If they didn't hand them over, would you be OK striking at them while still in Russia?
If Russia allowed them to continue staging there and attacking US troops over the border? Then YES.

What do you do if the Russian military intervenes? It is a border violation, after all. That could get messy, really quickly.
Yes, it could -- so it would unwise for Russia to allow such militants to continue operating unhindered within their own borders.

And please define "enemies"....is that anyone that disagrees with us, or anyone that attacks us, or what?
That's easy: Anyone who attacks us, attacks our allies, or directly supports those who do. Period.

So if (for example) we host several violent anti-Castro groups in the US (which we basically do) and refuse to do anything about it, by your reasoning Cuba has every right to go into the US and kill these groups. Is this OK with you? Because you can't argue that we have "special right" to do it, and no one else can.
They can try. The difference being that the US openly supports those groups opposed to Cuba, Cuba is not an ally of the US, and Cuba lacks the wherewithal and capability to do anything about it.

In the case of Pakistan, their government supposedly opposes the same militants we wish to capture/kill. Second, unlike Cuba, the US most certainly has the wherewithal and capability to solve the problem ourselves.

These strawman comparisons are getting old...

So this "attack anywhere " law only applies to us and our allies. All the "bad guys" don't have the same right?

And does any country have the right to defend itself if we cross into their border? OR do they have to "roll over" and let us do what we want?

Cuba, while not an ally, is a real country, so if we can act in self-defense, so can they. Are you willing to start a war with Cuba (in their case, that would be a laugh, I know), but what about Russia? or Pakistan? They both have real armies, and even worse, nukes.

But hey we are the US, right? The rules don't apply to us, since we are "special".

I'm not going to argue that a quick air strike isn't something we should or should not do, I would think that it has to be handled on a case by case basis, weighing the risks/rewards.

But to blindly insist on being able to kill "anyone, anywhere, anytime" isn't going to help us in the long run, and just goes to the whole "we are above the law" mantra of Bush.

War's and battles are fought for political reasons. To ignore politics (I mean international, not this stupid dem/repub crap) is a surefire way to cause MORE problems.

So to you, (hypothetical example) killing 1-2 mid-level terrorists in Russia (or Iran, or Pakistan) is always justified, no mater what the repercussions? What if we end up getting engaged in a major battle, killing 100-200 people (on both sides)?

What if that incident pisses of the country and they become hostile to us? What if (in Pakistan's case), they start quietly helping terrorists, because they are mad at us? Or Russia, starting another arms race and Cold war? Are those two terrorists still worth it?

Issues like this are why the military doesn't have blanket ROE to shoot everyone.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
You guys are missing the point. It is simple. Pakistan: "We don't like these guys, we wish we could stop them but we don't have the ability to control the land." US: "OK, look we have a plane it will come in and get rid of them for you. Ok?" Pakistan: "Uh, no. actually we were lying before, we just don't want them controlled." US: "OK, eff you, we're coming in anyway.".
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
You guys are missing the point. It is simple. Pakistan: "We don't like these guys, we wish we could stop them but we don't have the ability to control the land." US: "OK, look we have a plane it will come in and get rid of them for you. Ok?" Pakistan: "Uh, no. actually we were lying before, we just don't want them controlled." US: "OK, eff you, we're coming in anyway.".

sounds about right

Maybe if they actually turned over Osama they might garner a little respect
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
So we should let them sit there and plan 9/11 II b/c Pak won't move on them? Even Obama has said he supports moves like this. Hey man, nice shot.
 

ZzZGuy

Golden Member
Nov 15, 2006
1,855
0
0
As a Canadian, I'm fed up with the terrorists in Afghanistan using Pakistan as a safe harbor. The result is more of my countrymen getting killed and Pakistan doing jack **** about it. If they can't control this region then let us go in a clean up their mess.

If the result would be a massive backlash against the Pakistani government and destabilization of the country as a whole and possibly a great many deaths as a result, then maybe it's better they do it so we (i'm thinking NATO) don't have to.

 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
1 So this "attack anywhere " law only applies to us and our allies. All the "bad guys" don't have the same right?

2 And does any country have the right to defend itself if we cross into their border? OR do they have to "roll over" and let us do what we want?

3 Cuba, while not an ally, is a real country, so if we can act in self-defense, so can they. Are you willing to start a war with Cuba (in their case, that would be a laugh, I know), but what about Russia? or Pakistan? They both have real armies, and even worse, nukes.

4 But hey we are the US, right? The rules don't apply to us, since we are "special".

5 I'm not going to argue that a quick air strike isn't something we should or should not do, I would think that it has to be handled on a case by case basis, weighing the risks/rewards.

6 But to blindly insist on being able to kill "anyone, anywhere, anytime" isn't going to help us in the long run, and just goes to the whole "we are above the law" mantra of Bush.

War's and battles are fought for political reasons. To ignore politics (I mean international, not this stupid dem/repub crap) is a surefire way to cause MORE problems.

So to you, (hypothetical example) killing 1-2 mid-level terrorists in Russia (or Iran, or Pakistan) is always justified, no mater what the repercussions? What if we end up getting engaged in a major battle, killing 100-200 people (on both sides)?

What if that incident pisses of the country and they become hostile to us? What if (in Pakistan's case), they start quietly helping terrorists, because they are mad at us? Or Russia, starting another arms race and Cold war? Are those two terrorists still worth it?

Issues like this are why the military doesn't have blanket ROE to shoot everyone.

1 correct - although your 'bad guys' seems a bit general

2 they can defend themselves if they want/have the ability

3 Each country is different - don't pretend to act like we don't treat cuba differently than Russia

4 Some contries are more special than others - is the US the most special? Thats a matter of opinion. Is the US (or Frace, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China) more special than the Sudan? I would say yes and I am guessing most people would agree

5 If you think it should be handled on a case by case basis why do you make blanket statements and generalizations like 'bad guys'. If you want to be specific, be specific then - and relate to specific events, not hypoteticals

6 I don't believe we are killing anyone, anywhere, anytime - this looks like a specific person in a specific place at a certian time



 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,837
10,141
136
If Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty over the terrorists that commit acts of war against NATO, then we must respond to Pakistan with our own acts of war. Sort of like ?if you break it you buy it?. In the case of terrorism, if you host it you ARE responsible for it.

Either Islam and its host nations will keep the peace, or we will have to persecute them all.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
When are the Predator drones going to be patrolling over Paris, Berlin, etc. Don't forget where the 9/11 plot hatched.