Pakistan Aids Canadian Troops in Afghanistan

[rogerstaubach]

Al Jazeera
Wednesday 01 March 2006, 17:14 Makka Time, 14:14 GMT


Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships have struck a militant hideout near the Afghan border, killing 30 armed men.

Pakistani tribal sources told Aljazeera that the militants kidnapped nine soldiers.

The administrator of the region, Syed Zaheerul Islam, said the fighters had entered Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region after a raid inside Afghanistan. Army troops and three helicopter gunships attacked them.

Islam said: "They were foreigners. They had set up tents in mountains in the area."

Islam said they were running a training camp and that the strike triggered explosions in an arms dump at the site.

Major-General Shaukat Sultan, the Pakistani army spokesman, said the early morning operation took place near Saidgi, a village about 15km west of Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan.

Sultan said the raid was carried out on "confirmed intelligence" that the fighters were in the area.

He did not have information on any casualties, saying troops from a special operation task force had cordoned off the scene of the raid, and were carrying out a search.

Last month, Pakistan protested to the US military in Afghanistan over firing that hit the same village killing eight people.

The latest attack came shortly after 7am (0200 GMT), three days before George Bush, the US president, is due to arrive in Pakistan.

The region of the attack is now under curfew.



That is 30 less foreign militants who use Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks against the lives of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Do you think Canadians believe this is not a positive story for Canadian troops?

Odd that this attack and killing of militants took place at the same village of the predator drone strike that killed 5 high level AQ figures a month or so ago. So much for the call of "we're just innocent people here".

 

[slowpoke]

Al Jazeera
Wednesday 01 March 2006, 17:14 Makka Time, 14:14 GMT


Pakistani security forces backed by helicopter gunships have struck a militant hideout near the Afghan border, killing 30 armed men.

Pakistani tribal sources told Aljazeera that the militants kidnapped nine soldiers.

The administrator of the region, Syed Zaheerul Islam, said the fighters had entered Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal region after a raid inside Afghanistan. Army troops and three helicopter gunships attacked them.

Islam said: "They were foreigners. They had set up tents in mountains in the area."

Islam said they were running a training camp and that the strike triggered explosions in an arms dump at the site.

Major-General Shaukat Sultan, the Pakistani army spokesman, said the early morning operation took place near Saidgi, a village about 15km west of Miran Shah, the main town in North Waziristan.

Sultan said the raid was carried out on "confirmed intelligence" that the fighters were in the area.

He did not have information on any casualties, saying troops from a special operation task force had cordoned off the scene of the raid, and were carrying out a search.

Last month, Pakistan protested to the US military in Afghanistan over firing that hit the same village killing eight people.

The latest attack came shortly after 7am (0200 GMT), three days before George Bush, the US president, is due to arrive in Pakistan.

The region of the attack is now under curfew.



That is 30 less foreign militants who use Pakistan as a safe haven to launch attacks against the lives of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Do you think Canadians believe this is not a positive story for Canadian troops?

Odd that this attack and killing of militants took place at the same village of the predator drone strike that killed 5 high level AQ figures a month or so ago. So much for the call of "we're just innocent people here".

Odd that this attack and killing of militants took place in an entirely different village than the ill-fated US' predator drone attack of Jan 13.

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

Damadola airstrike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On January 13, 2006 U.S. aircraft fired missiles into the Pakistani village of Damadola (Urdu: ڈمہ ڈولا ) in the Bajaur (Urdu: باجوڑ ) tribal area, about seven kilometers (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border, killing at least 18 people: the Bajaur tribal area government confirmed that at least four foreign members of al-Qaeda were among the dead. The attack targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, purportedly second-in-command of al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden, who was thought to be in the village.

Airstrike
The attack was carried out by four CIA-operated unmanned Predator drones which launched four Hellfire missiles at a mud-walled compound, destroying three houses several hundred yards apart. [1] Another report said that as many as 10 missiles were fired. [2]

The official number of dead is 18, including 8 men, five women and five children, but other reports indicate that as many as 25 people were killed. 14 of the dead were said to be from the same family. [3] There is confusion over the actual number killed, since a report claims that 13 of the dead were buried immediately, without customary funeral arrangements [4].

The Associated Press (AP) has reported that unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials assert that the attack was conducted based on intelligence that al-Zawahiri was invited to a dinner to mark the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha at the compound that was targeted. While al-Zawahiri himself did not attend the dinner, aides were sent in his place. Officially, the provincial government of Bajur, where the attack took place, has now confirmed that "4 or 5 foreign terrorists" were killed in the attack, and that "10 or 12" extremists had attended in all. The official statement, however, stopped short of confirming that al-Zawahiri was the main target of the attack."...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4704436.stm
This is a link to a map of the Aghan - Pakistan border area where the predator drone attack took place.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Correct on your point that it wasn't the same village that hosted that AQ leaders where the predator drone strike killed 5 AQ members.

However, this village in question that was previously targeted, obviously harbors Taleban and AQ fighters. The clashes between Pakistani security and Taleban and AQ fighters evidences this fact.

Conclusion. Two seperate Pakistani villages that harbor Taleban and AQ fighters that inflitrate into Afghanistan with intent to kill Canadian soldiers.

 

[slowpoke]

Correct on your point that it wasn't the same village that hosted that AQ leaders where the predator drone strike killed 5 AQ members.

However, this village in question that was previously targeted, obviously harbors Taleban and AQ fighters. The clashes between Pakistani security and Taleban and AQ fighters evidences this fact.

Conclusion. Two seperate Pakistani villages that harbor Taleban and AQ fighters that inflitrate into Afghanistan with intent to kill Canadian soldiers.

There are a lot more than two Pakistani villages that contain AQ fighters and sympathizers. And if the US continues to murder innocent civilians by launching indiscriminate unmanned attacks based on faulty intelligence and rumours, there will be many more in the future:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p09s02-coop.html

..."The attack was meant to kill Al Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri. It appears to have missed its target, though it killed some of his aides. It certainly killed a dozen Pakistani villagers, including women and children. This is the second such attack on Pakistan in a fortnight, and the previous one also caused eight civilian deaths.

The Pakistani government has naturally issued a formal protest. The Bush administration, however, has yet to express regret to the Pakistani government and people over the deaths of women and children. It would also be a good thing if the US media recognized just how much damage this kind of silence does to the US image and US interests. These attacks have wiped out all the goodwill garnered in Pakistan by the generous (though belated) US response to the Pakistan earthquake in October.

While the Pakistani administration of President Pervez Musharraf has not been a wholly satisfactory ally in the war on terror, it has certainly been a very useful one. More than half of all the Al Qaeda suspects captured in the world have been arrested by the Pakistani authorities, independently or in collaboration with the CIA. Without the cooperation of the Pakistani military, the flow of help from the ethnic Pashtuns of Pakistan to the Pashtun-based Taliban in Afghanistan would be practically uncontrollable. Following this latest attack, it may prove even harder for the Pakistani army to operate in the border region, where it has already taken significant casualties fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

By helping the US in this way, against the wishes of a great many Pakistanis, Mr. Musharraf and his colleagues have incurred serious domestic risks. There have been two terrorist attempts to kill Musharraf himself. The latest airstrike has sparked massive protests, led by the Islamist parties, against his government and Pakistan's alliance with the US. Even more dangerous, Musharraf's strategy is widely unpopular within the Army and the Pakistani intelligence services. Quite apart from issues of decency, the US simply cannot afford to humiliate a key ally in this way.

Despite these realities, not only has the administration failed to make a gesture that would have cost it nothing, members of Congress have rubbed salt in Pakistani wounds by affirming that the strike was justified but failing to express equally clearly about their sorrow about the "collateral" deaths of innocent civilians."...

 

[rogerstaubach]

There are a lot more than two Pakistani villages that contain AQ fighters and sympathizers. And if the US continues to murder innocent civilians by launching indiscriminate unmanned attacks based on faulty intelligence and rumours, there will be many more in the future:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p09s02-coop.html

Honestly slowpoke, I really thought you wanted an honest and unbiased debate, but my genuine good wishes were shattered when I read the part of your post that I highlighted.

The facts of the case clearly demonstrate that Taleban and AQ are in the area in question. That they are given aid, comfort and support by people in that area. That based on the aid given to them by people in that area, they are able to infiltrate into Pakistan and launch attacks that have killed many, many innocent Aghani men, women and children in addition to many Afghani and coalition security forces.

The Taleban and AQ put these people in this area at risk. They should know the consequences of their actions would lead those who wish their murderous activites to cease to take action to stop them.

A part of the coalition of those who wish their murderous activites would cease are 2000+ Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Do you really in all honesty believe that these attacks from AQ and the Taleban which originate in Pakistan with the aid, comfort and support of people in that area, should go unchallenged?

There has been unbelievable restraint shown so far by Afghani and coalition security forces in regards to this border infiltration situation.

 

[slowpoke]

A part of the contigent of those who wish their murderous activites would cease are 2000+ Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Do you really in all honesty believe that these attacks from AQ and the Taleban which originate in Pakistan with the aid, comfort and support of people in that area, should go unchallenged?

There has been unbelievable restraint shown so far by Afghani and coalition security forces in regards to this border infiltration situation.

I was also looking forward to a genuine debate. Let me know when you've come up with a response to my first and only paragraph. I'll repeat it for you here:

"There are a lot more than two Pakistani villages that contain AQ fighters and sympathizers. And if the US continues to murder innocent civilians by launching indiscriminate unmanned attacks based on faulty intelligence and rumours, there will be many more in the future:"

There are no bonus marks for responses that seem kinda catchy but really do nothing at all about answering the questions contained in the above short passage. That'd be the one right above this one. Check it out. BTW, I'm going off to smoke pot, drink red wine and listen to (vinyl) records until I fall asleep. Tomorrow....who knows? But I can sleep easy knowing that there is an almost zero likelihood that any AQ luminaries or their distant cousins / lesser aquaintances have accepted dinner invitations within shrapnel zipping distance of my place. So good night to you sir. May you and your entire family have a safe and uneventful weekend. Nighty nite.....

 

[rogerstaubach]

I was also looking forward to a genuine debate. Let me know when you've come up with a response to my first and only paragraph. I'll repeat it for you here:

"There are a lot more than two Pakistani villages that contain AQ fighters and sympathizers. And if the US continues to murder innocent civilians by launching indiscriminate unmanned attacks based on faulty intelligence and rumours, there will be many more in the future:"

There are no bonus marks for responses that seem kinda catchy but really do nothing at all about answering the questions contained in the above short passage. That'd be the one right above this one. Check it out. BTW, I'm going off to smoke pot, drink red wine and listen to (vinyl) records until I fall asleep. Tomorrow....who knows? But I can sleep easy knowing that there is an almost zero likelihood that any AQ luminaries or their distant cousins / lesser aquaintances have accepted dinner invitations within shrapnel zipping distance of my place. So good night to you sir. May you and your entire family have a safe and uneventful weekend. Nighty nite.....

There are no bonus marks for incendiary, inflammatory and factually false statements such as the one I highlighted in your post. To genuinely answer a question that is patently false is impossible. Maybe if you posed a factually correct question you will receive a factually correct response.

While you sleep tight, fellow Canadians in Afghanistan have to worry about AQ and Taleban killers infiltrating into Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan. These safe havens are willingly granted to these killers by the people in the villages. Aid, food, shelter, clothing are willingly provided. Training, logistics, armanents and planning of attacks are all staged in these villages.

While you sleep tonite, these killers infiltrating from Pakistan and into Afghanistan are on the hunt to kill .......Canadian soldiers.

So when you make incendiary and inflammatory statements such as you have, credibility is lost admist reality.

 

[slowpoke]

There are no bonus marks for incendiary, inflammatory and factually false statements such as the one I highlighted in your post. To genuinely answer a question that is patently false is impossible. Maybe if you posed a factually correct question you will receive a factually correct response.

While you sleep tight, fellow Canadians in Afghanistan have to worry about AQ and Taleban killers infiltrating into Afghanistan from their safe havens in Pakistan. These safe havens are willingly granted to these killers by the people in the villages. Aid, food, shelter, clothing are willingly provided. Training, logistics, armanents and planning of attacks are all staged in these villages.

While you sleep tonite, these killers infiltrating from Pakistan and into Afghanistan are on the hunt to kill .......Canadian soldiers.

So when you make incendiary and inflammatory statements such as you have, credibility is lost admist reality.

So far your argument consists entirely of bluster and blather. Where have you actually addressed my assertion that it is both indiscriminate and murder to send in unmanned predator drones to launch hellfire missiles into "a mud-walled compound, destroying three houses several hundred yards apart"? If the US had sent in ground forces with helicopters and taken out only the terrorists, or made even a half-assed effort to minimize civilian casualties, I wouldn't be using the indiscriminate label. But when they hit 3 houses that are each separated by several hundred yards (600 to 900 feet), I call that indiscriminate. It tells me that they didn't know which house contained the intended AQ target so they just levelled the whole compound, knowing that innocent civilians would also be killed.

I know you think this is justified because AQ likes to hang out close to civilians whenever possible but that is not necessarily the fault of the civilians. They have to live somewhere. So it is murder when you intentionally kill those civilians just to make sure you get your target terrorist. If the police here in Toronto were in a firefight with a criminal, they would make sure they returned fire only when they were reasonably certain that there were no hostages or civilians in the line of fire. They would take these precautions whether the criminal was considered extremely dangerous or not. If they'd heard that this criminal was going to visit one of the houses in a residential area but they weren't sure which house he was visiting, they wouldn't blast all the houses in that area with missiles unless they were certain he was the only one who would be killed. If they went ahead and blasted all the houses without even seeing the criminal, that would be indiscriminate and it would be murder. You know damned well that shooting missiles into houses where people live will kill people. So it is intentional. So it is murder. Any questions?

 

[rogerstaubach]

I'm of the opinion Canada will do better in Afghanistan than the US.
Why. Canadians are more civil that Americans. That's why my
favorite cities are Toronto and Montreal. I'm with the Afghanistanis.

LONG LIVE CANADA, MY SECOND
MOST FAVORITE PEOPLE.

Well I guess the "axe impaled in the head" of the Canadian soldier demonstrates the feeling of civility engendered by Canadian soldeirs within certain quarters of Afghanistan. Truly disgusting and shameful.

 

[rogerstaubach]

So far your argument consists entirely of bluster and blather. Where have you actually addressed my assertion that it is both indiscriminate and murder to send in unmanned predator drones to launch hellfire missiles into "a mud-walled compound, destroying three houses several hundred yards apart"? If the US had sent in ground forces with helicopters and taken out only the terrorists, or made even a half-assed effort to minimize civilian casualties, I wouldn't be using the indiscriminate label. But when they hit 3 houses that are each separated by several hundred yards (600 to 900 feet), I call that indiscriminate. It tells me that they didn't know which house contained the intended AQ target so they just levelled the whole compound, knowing that innocent civilians would also be killed.

I know you think this is justified because AQ likes to hang out close to civilians whenever possible but that is not necessarily the fault of the civilians. They have to live somewhere. So it is murder when you intentionally kill those civilians just to make sure you get your target terrorist. If the police here in Toronto were in a firefight with a criminal, they would make sure they returned fire only when they were reasonably certain that there were no hostages or civilians in the line of fire. They would take these precautions whether the criminal was considered extremely dangerous or not. If they'd heard that this criminal was going to visit one of the houses in a residential area but they weren't sure which house he was visiting, they wouldn't blast all the houses in that area with missiles unless they were certain he was the only one who would be killed. If they went ahead and blasted all the houses without even seeing the criminal, that would be indiscriminate and it would be murder. You know damned well that shooting missiles into houses where people live will kill people. So it is intentional. So it is murder. Any questions?

Plenty of questions.

Please provide evidence of "bluster and blather".

Do you really believe that they Americans would be able to send in helicopters and ground forces into another country(Pakistan) without the very real risk of destabilizing Pakistan to the brink of chaos? They can't just for that reason. And that is why they don't.

So instead they must rely on Pakistani intelligence, and other intel. information to form part of the basis for a risk analysis to be undertaken regarding the benefit of targeted strikes in light of all the circumstances and possible consequences of such a strike. I guess when intelligence agency officials talk about the strenuous tests undertaken with this risk analysis, you obviously do not believe them. I guess they are all talk.

This Pakistani border area that has been and is currently used as a staging area for terrorist infiltration into Afghanistan for over four years now. 53 whole months of waltzing into Afghanistan to intentionally target and murder innocent people and yet during all this time how many attacks on this border area have been attributed to Americans. 4, 5, 6? That is incredible restraint and caution demonstrated by American and Afghani security forces in light of the tangible and substantial support given by those who harbor the terrorists who wade into Afghanistan to commit murder.

Every village targeted has stated they have nothing to do with the terrorists/militants yet intelligence information states otherwise. Bodies of terrorists/militants are quickly carried away for burial with obvious intent to hide evidence. But of course, terrorists/militants and those who support them don't lie.

 

[slowpoke]

Plenty of questions.

Please provide evidence of "bluster and blather".

Do you really believe that they Americans would be able to send in helicopters and ground forces into another country(Pakistan) without the very real risk of destabilizing Pakistan to the brink of chaos? They can't just for that reason. And that is why they don't.

So instead they must rely on Pakistani intelligence, and other intel. information to form part of the basis for a risk analysis to be undertaken regarding the benefit of targeted strikes in light of all the circumstances and possible consequences of such a strike. I guess when intelligence agency officials talk about the strenuous tests undertaken with this risk analysis, you obviously do not believe them. I guess they are all talk.

This Pakistani border area that has been and is currently used as a staging area for terrorist infiltration into Afghanistan for over four years now. 53 whole months of waltzing into Afghanistan to intentionally target and murder innocent people and yet during all this time how many attacks on this border area have been attributed to Americans. 4, 5, 6? That is incredible restraint and caution demonstrated by American and Afghani security forces in light of the tangible and substantial support given by those who harbor the terrorists who wade into Afghanistan to commit murder.

Every village targeted has stated they have nothing to do with the terrorists/militants yet intelligence information states otherwise. Bodies of terrorists/militants are quickly carried away for burial with obvious intent to hide evidence. But of course, terrorists/militants and those who support them don't lie.

I understand that the US is launching these unmanned attacks because of jusidictional limitations with Pakistan. But Pakistan's military is doing a pretty good job of hunting down Taliban and AQ insurgents. So if the US couldn't persuade Pakistan's military to surround that compound and assassinate the right people, they should have walked away. The US crossed the line when they intentionally caused the deaths of women and children. Of course the tribal leaders and local officials in many of these villages will lie about helping the Taliban / AQ. But you can't kill innocent women and children just because some local leader is a liar. It all comes down to the US not placing a high enough value on the lives of innocents. I don't care how many people were involved in this intel or how much they agonized over their cost/benefit analysis. The cost side of that equation is innocent lives. Since these innocent lives are sacred and certainly don't belong to the US, how does the US justify spending those lives? To save American lives? For the greater good? I know the US is justified in trying to route out the terrorists behind 9/11 but there are limits. This mission went beyond those limits. It was a terrorist act.

When I described your argument as bluster and blather, it is because you failed to address the above issues. You've been completely preoccupied with the importance and benefit of taking out the AQ / Taliban who are raiding Aghanistan from nearby Pakistan. I didn't dispute that it would be beneficial for Canada and US troops in that area if the Taliban / AQ were all captured or killed. So your arguments were aimed at someone else's question - not mine.