16 year old attends anti-drone protest, 72 hours later is killed by drone strike

[Baha]

Also, Herman Cain (sp?lol) does have a point. Europe is between a rape and a hard place because of their concessions to Islam. It does have absolutely no place in our government, and neither does any other religion.

Could you elaborate on this? It's just that I could see Herman Cain thinking of allowing Muslims to build mosques or other things as concessions, but most of what could be construed as concessions seem like it's just people practising their rights.
Stuff like slaughtering sheep without anaesthesia for their festival of slaughter or the wearing of headscarves are always cause for debate, but it's pretty hard to argue with freedom of religion.
There's the issue that gay couples are harassed if they dare to kiss or even hold hands in areas with a lot of Muslim immigrants, but you can't really enforce people to not have backward opinions on things.

The problem is definitely there, especially in the big cities. I just think it's more of a basic immigration problem that's hard to avoid with Europe's borders and location.

[Churchill]

I don't know the answer to what Europe should have done, but my experience with Muslims who are devout is not one I wish others to experience. There's a very different level of crazy the more devout a Muslim you are than Christian for example. Not that Christians don't blow up abortion clinics and whatnot but the economical, political, and social forces at work in the Middle East and Europe create such a dangerous mix of fanaticism not only is it hard for one to escape and not be violent but it's hard to have an unbiased and logical opinion about anything at all.

On one hand, I can say well fuck it no Muslims allowed but that's not right - and while I should be saying fuck it no religions allowed but that's not necessarily right either. There's no good answer or solution (except maybe the final one miriet?)

Drone strikes causing suicide attacks, not likely. Drone strikes came into their fruition around 2006 and really started hitting it hard (in AF) around the end of 2007/08 and that's the same time that other factors (speaking 2006 here) caused Haqqani affiliated groups to conduct more suicide attacks. It's still very uncommon to see a real Pashtun outside of the Waziri tribe to conduct a suicide attack. The Waziri tribe itself is mostly situated near Khowst/Wana/Miram Shah, PK. The leaders of the tribe were Baitullah Mahsoud and Hakimullah Mahsoud, one being dead from a drone strike. They (along with the HQN) started their suicide attack operations in 2006 because their strongholds on the border (where they had previously absolutely fucked US forces) were no longer strongholds - they had been pushed back during operations, pushed back while planning operations, staging operations, you name it. This culminated in 2007 when they lost over 250 men in one night - after that the suicide attacks started. They video taped them, or tried to. This increases their global donor support - more recently you see suicide attacks against targets in Kabul - the AF insurgency has learned from the IZ insurgency in that in order to gain international attention and support from the overwhelmingly supportive Islamic community that they need to make videos, do their PR stuff and most importantly they need to be active.

Baitullah/Hakimullah Mahsoud are responsible for the PK Taliban attacks, to spur your memory these are the attacks against PK and Indian targets, embassies/hotels and whatnot. They don't give a fuck about drones, lol. The alternative to drones is to put SEALs/Rangers/etc into that building or onto that truck or whatever you're following with the drone anyway - except that it's cross border and that's a no-no and would infuriate Pakistani's even more. Why do you think we don't do that anymore? Because we're afraid? Plenty of people would love to get their kill on in an area that's the root of half the shit we deal with anyway lol. No, the drone strike option is negotiated as an acceptable alternative to 40 Rangers kicking your door in and putting you in the dirt.

Oh and by the way, the intel for whether that is a 16 year old kid or not, whether he's the target or not, associated with, whatever? It's the same whether you send boots or missiles. I guarantee you you send boots to PK you get shot at, I guarantee you I get shot at people die anyway. Guess what, the Taliban and Haqqani Network often use 14-17 year old boys as soldiers and guess what? They die just the same.

[Celeste]

If he doesn't wanna get fucked up the ass by a drone, he shouldn't live in the Middle East. He should go to the USA, home of freedom!

[Elvis]

I don't know the answer to what Europe should have done, but my experience with Muslims who are devout is not one I wish others to experience. There's a very different level of crazy the more devout a Muslim you are than Christian for example. Not that Christians don't blow up abortion clinics and whatnot but the economical, political, and social forces at work in the Middle East and Europe create such a dangerous mix of fanaticism not only is it hard for one to escape and not be violent but it's hard to have an unbiased and logical opinion about anything at all.

On one hand, I can say well fuck it no Muslims allowed but that's not right - and while I should be saying fuck it no religions allowed but that's not necessarily right either. There's no good answer or solution (except maybe the final one miriet?)

Drone strikes causing suicide attacks, not likely. Drone strikes came into their fruition around 2006 and really started hitting it hard (in AF) around the end of 2007/08 and that's the same time that other factors (speaking 2006 here) caused Haqqani affiliated groups to conduct more suicide attacks. It's still very uncommon to see a real Pashtun outside of the Waziri tribe to conduct a suicide attack. The Waziri tribe itself is mostly situated near Khowst/Wana/Miram Shah, PK. The leaders of the tribe were Baitullah Mahsoud and Hakimullah Mahsoud, one being dead from a drone strike. They (along with the HQN) started their suicide attack operations in 2006 because their strongholds on the border (where they had previously absolutely fucked US forces) were no longer strongholds - they had been pushed back during operations, pushed back while planning operations, staging operations, you name it. This culminated in 2007 when they lost over 250 men in one night - after that the suicide attacks started. They video taped them, or tried to. This increases their global donor support - more recently you see suicide attacks against targets in Kabul - the AF insurgency has learned from the IZ insurgency in that in order to gain international attention and support from the overwhelmingly supportive Islamic community that they need to make videos, do their PR stuff and most importantly they need to be active.

Baitullah/Hakimullah Mahsoud are responsible for the PK Taliban attacks, to spur your memory these are the attacks against PK and Indian targets, embassies/hotels and whatnot. They don't give a fuck about drones, lol. The alternative to drones is to put SEALs/Rangers/etc into that building or onto that truck or whatever you're following with the drone anyway - except that it's cross border and that's a no-no and would infuriate Pakistani's even more. Why do you think we don't do that anymore? Because we're afraid? Plenty of people would love to get their kill on in an area that's the root of half the shit we deal with anyway lol. No, the drone strike option is negotiated as an acceptable alternative to 40 Rangers kicking your door in and putting you in the dirt.

Oh and by the way, the intel for whether that is a 16 year old kid or not, whether he's the target or not, associated with, whatever? It's the same whether you send boots or missiles. I guarantee you you send boots to PK you get shot at, I guarantee you I get shot at people die anyway. Guess what, the Taliban and Haqqani Network often use 14-17 year old boys as soldiers and guess what? They die just the same.

Why does a Christian fanatic need to strap bombs to themselves when they can channel their political aspirations legitimately? Jewish fundamentalists? They can join the IDF and often the IDF colludes with the settlers.

I think Islamic extremists are definitely their own category of crazy but Christian fundies are mainstream in this country. Not just this country either. Efrain Rios Montt was a Christian evangelical crazy and is responsible for genocide and ethnic cleansing. He was supported by the Christian Right here and Pat Robertson specifically who ran telethons for him.

[Kuya]

Well, I mean... there really isn't one is there? Normal troop deployments increases military losses and doesn't really reduce collateral either. Seal Team 6 can't be everywhere at once and any other type of remote strike uses higher yield explosives. Drone strikes seem to be the best option for keeping collateral to a minimum and avoiding any risk to soldiers.

The alternatives would be to either put boots on the ground or do nothing.

It is always lamentable when someone dies as a result of collateral damage but given our alternative options and the fact that weapons aren't perfect, the drones are the best course of action in fighting against radicalized Islam.

I mean, we could leave but what would that accomplish? People would still die and the location would be the only difference. If we put boots on the ground? We'd be seeing an even greater loss of life than we're seeing now on both sides.

I'm not going to speculate on the most efficient military tactics, because i am not a military tactician, and for that matter, neither are you two. Whether drone strikes are an effective military tactic or not does not address whether this entire war still makes sense.

Athas says that the point of drone strikes is to reduce collateral and harm to soldiers without asnwering why soldiers or drones are there in the first place. Ronin seems to answer that question, by saying that the reason why drone strikes exist is in order to fight radicalized islam.

One then needs to ask themselves whether it makes sense for a country with increasing financing problems to commend upon itself the role of fighting an ideology with bombs.

The whole reason why this warfare started is because the Taliban was providing asylum to Al Qaeda, and they refused demands to cease giving them asylum. We then became embroiled in a war against the Taliban which we then began to fully realize was also in Pakistan, because the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is in practice nonexistent. However, because the terrain is so difficult to navegate and fully cover, it provides excellent resource for Taliban and related organizations. That is partially the reason why drones are used, aside from the fact that Democrats have always preferred air power over man power when it comes to using the military on foreign policy.

At this point, the fight against the Taliban is as far away removed from Al Qaeda as you can get, and the often cited reason for this continued warfare is the need to keep FATA from becoming a "haven for terrorists". Yet the elephant in the room is that in order to keep areas like this from becoming hosts to hostile non-state actors is either continued occupation or a strong client state. Both solutions do not answer whether such a thing is possible; these "problem areas" are de facto stateless for reason. And finally, none of these things answer why anti-americanism exists in the Middle East and why it has taken the shape of religious fanaticism. I can tell you right now, that the US has done nothing to resolve that last and probably most fundamental problem. In fact, ever since the OPEC crisis in the 1970s the US has done nothing but increase up its involvement in the region.

[ronin sparthos]

I'm not going to speculate on the most efficient military tactics, because i am not a military tactician, and for that matter, neither are you two. Whether drone strikes are an effective military tactic or not does not address whether this entire war still makes sense.

Athas says that the point of drone strikes is to reduce collateral and harm to soldiers without asnwering why soldiers or drones are there in the first place. Ronin seems to answer that question, by saying that the reason why drone strikes exist is in order to fight radicalized islam.

One then needs to ask themselves whether it makes sense for a country with increasing financing problems to commend upon itself the role of fighting an ideology with bombs.

Well, it comes down to that difficult decision again Kuya. Do we pull out of these regions entirely and allow terrorists to plot attacks that wind up back here in the states or do we continue the intelligence gathering and coordinate long-range attacks using drones? We know the Pakistani government is hopelessly in bed with jihadist sympathizers so we're left to do this ourselves.

If you believe that the regional conflict between the US and the anti-US sentiments present in this area of the ME can be solved at the treaty table, the moderates are doing well in hiding themselves. Most Pakistanis want us away from the drones but aren't really interested with curtailing their radical elements.

When Osama Bin Laden died, Pakistani opinion of him was split in the polls showing exactly how much a gap lay between us and the average Pakistani. That some significant part of the population could see redeeming qualities in a butcher of fellow Muslims is astounding. If we want to look at this from a financial perspective then even if we discontinued the strikes, we'd wind up paying that money when the inevitable terrorist attack occurs and we're tasked to react. So it's now or later. When would you prefer to put the money forth?

At this point, the fight against the Taliban is as far away removed from Al Qaeda as you can get, and the often cited reason for this continued warfare is the need to keep FATA from becoming a "haven for terrorists". Yet the elephant in the room is that in order to keep areas like this from becoming hosts to hostile non-state actors is either continued occupation or a strong client state. Both solutions do not answer whether such a thing is possible; these "problem areas" are de facto stateless for reason. And finally, none of these things answer why anti-americanism exists in the Middle East and why it has taken the shape of religious fanaticism. I can tell you right now, that the US has done nothing to resolve that last and probably most fundamental problem. In fact, ever since the OPEC crisis in the 1970s the US has done nothing but increase up its involvement in the region.

Which is why I called our war on terror a battle against radicalized Islam rather than against merely Al-Qaeda. On why anti-americanism exists in the ME? Couple ignorance due to lack of educational opportunities in the region with a faith that encourages if not outright makes declarations for war against non-believers and you're sure to get violence the minute influential Imams give the go ahead.

We're going to continue being in conflict with these countries so long as radical aspects of faith purvey top levels of leadership. When the people of the Pakistan embrace moderate stances then we may see progress.

[Restrat]

How will drones or troops help the people of Pakistan embrace moderate stances? Wouldn't it just push people further towards radicalism, as well as give their leaders an easy target for rage?

[Elvis]

We bomb them into moderation of course!

[ronin sparthos]

How will drones or troops help the people of Pakistan embrace moderate stances? Wouldn't it just push people further towards radicalism, as well as give their leaders an easy target for rage?

And thus the difficulty of such decision making.

We could pack up and leave tomorrow but how long would it take for the people to realize they're being taken for a ride by their Jihadist counterparts? That the drone attacks are caused by these individuals provoking American forces to respond? It'd certainly be many years before the change would happen if it ever did and who's to say that attention wouldn't simply be turned toward India or some other political or social issue instead?

Are we to simply allow terrorist attacks from this region while the Pakistanis make up their mind regarding combating radical Islamic fundamentalists?