Pakistan condemns deadly US airstrike

[Amazing Rando]

Pakistan Condemns Deadly U.S. Airstrike

News | Article

DAMADOLA, Pakistan - Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA airstrike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the U.S. Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.

Thousands of local tribesmen, chanting "God is Great," demonstrated against the attack, claiming the victims were local villagers without terrorist links and had never hosted Ayman al-Zawahri.

Two senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that the CIA acted on incorrect information in launching the attack early Friday in the northwestern village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information," said a senior Pakistani intelligence official with direct knowledge of Pakistan's investigations into the attack.

© source where applicable

Double

[TheOneAndOnly]

You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Many must die for the good of America.

[Rahab]

Pakistan Condemns Deadly U.S. Airstrike

News | Article

DAMADOLA, Pakistan - Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA airstrike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the U.S. Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.

Thousands of local tribesmen, chanting "God is Great," demonstrated against the attack, claiming the victims were local villagers without terrorist links and had never hosted Ayman al-Zawahri.

Two senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that the CIA acted on incorrect information in launching the attack early Friday in the northwestern village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information," said a senior Pakistani intelligence official with direct knowledge of Pakistan's investigations into the attack.

© source where applicable

Double

Bonjour Amazing Rando,

Are we to understand that such air raids conducted on the bordering Pakistanese territory are not first authorized by the Pakistanese authorities?

The text does not clearly indicate whether the Pakistanese government authorized a foreign military intervention on Pakistanese territory being duly briefed as to the reasons to justify such intervention. It appears they were not aware of the upcoming airstrike.

Are you getting the same read out?

[Pilgrim]

Bonjour Amazing Rando,

Are we to understand that such air raids conducted on the bordering Pakistanese territory are not first authorized by the Pakistanese authorities?

The text does not clearly indicate whether the Pakistanese government authorized a foreign military intervention on Pakistanese territory being duly briefed as to the reasons to justify such intervention. It appears they were not aware of the upcoming airstrike.

Are you getting the same read out?

That is the way I have understood the information coming in this morning. The CIA executed an airstrike in a Pakistani village with out the knowledge of the Pakistani government and it did so based on fauly information.

By the way, how many "2nd's in command" of Al Quaida are we going to get or almost get? It must suck to be the 2nd in command there. You'ld think that with all the 2nds in command that we haver targeted we would have been able to get the top guy at least once!

[CatholicSage]

Bonjour Amazing Rando,

Are we to understand that such air raids conducted on the bordering Pakistanese territory are not first authorized by the Pakistanese authorities?

The text does not clearly indicate whether the Pakistanese government authorized a foreign military intervention on Pakistanese territory being duly briefed as to the reasons to justify such intervention. It appears they were not aware of the upcoming airstrike.

Are you getting the same read out?

It's "Pakistani" actually, but yes, it seems they did so without getting permission from the Pakistani government, probably because they felt there was a very limited timeframe.

I don't know what to think about this, really. There seem to be conflicting reports of both civilian and Al Qaeda casualties, so I don't think we can call this a tragedy or a triumph just yet (except that I'm betting they did indeed fail to kill Zawahiri).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

My only question is, if the cause is just, why should we care? Is this supposed to be some sort of world popularity contest where we can only do the right thing provided all the other nations like us?

[geochron]

My only question is, if the cause is just, why should we care? Is this supposed to be some sort of world popularity contest where we can only do the right thing provided all the other nations like us?

Thirty years ago, if we'd known an IRA chief of staff was visiting a bar in Boston, would it have been ok to take it out with a missile?

[CatholicSage]

I think that the deaths of innocent bystanders is a more pressing concern than a violation of sovereignty in a possibly time-constrained situation. So, geochron, if you can snipe him instead of blowing him up, then be my guest.

[geochron]

I think that the deaths of innocent bystanders is a more pressing concern than a violation of sovereignty in a possibly time-constrained situation. So, geochron, if you can snipe him instead of blowing him up, then be my guest.

We tend not to have snipers loitering around in Boston, so it's either a missile or nothing.

And what if it turned out afterwards that our intelligence was faulty. All we got were a few American families eating Sunday breakfast.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

My concern is still the same. It seems like liberals are upset when we do things for a just cause because "so and so nation won't like us." This isn't about people liking us. It's about doing what's right.

[CatholicSage]

We tend not to have snipers loitering around in Boston, so it's either a missile or nothing.

How did the missile get there if you have no agents in the area? Surely there must be some way to track the guy. Anyway, if the choice really were between a missile or nothing, I would say nothing. But that doesn't seem like a terribly realistic choice.

And what if it turned out afterwards that our intelligence was faulty. All we got were a few American families eating Sunday breakfast.

I would say that the deaths of the bystanders would be more troubling than the fact that the US didn't authorize the attack.

Although I wouldn't trust any American family that eats Sunday breakfast at a bar.

[Jme]

My concern is still the same. It seems like liberals are upset when we do things for a just cause because "so and so nation won't like us." This isn't about people liking us. It's about doing what's right.

What 's the difference between a nation not liking you and the people of that country not liking you? Sure there could be difference when we consider the dissident element by still.

Would you be happy or ok if the street nxt to yours was blown up by another country (without your country's ok)? If your country agrees at least you have that, but without it that's almost terrorism or an act of war in and of itself - ok a bit dramatic but see it from their point of view: "some other country has just launched an attack on us!" it doesn't matter that they were aimming at someone in particular especially if they missed.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

My concern is still the same. It seems like liberals are upset when we do things for a just cause because "so and so nation won't like us." This isn't about people liking us. It's about doing what's right.

I find myself a bit disquieted when you repeatedly use the terms "us" and "we" for American military actions...the implication here is that you primarily see yourself as American. Is this true?

p.s. Where's the objective court that tells us whether the actions of sovereign nation-states are just or not? Or is that only up to the nation-states? Do we as Christians owe ultimate fealty to the state, or Christ? If we owe ultimate fealty to the state, doesn't that split Christianity into multiple sects ultimately serving the interests of one's own nation-state? Isn't that idolatry? Does a Christian send mixed messages when primarily identifying themselves as American? Isn't this idolatry?

Even if we accept the U.S. actually taking out Zawahiri (which was highly doubtful), using the same logic, should I kill my atheist boss who treats me like crap because he's affecting my quality of life? Or am I called to love him and pray for him? Awww...take him out. It's not about people liking us. It's about doing what's right.

Something's fishy here.

[Pitchforkpat]

Good to see the US busy making more friends around the world. Does the phrase heavy-handed mean anything here?

[Ryokan]

That is the way I have understood the information coming in this morning. The CIA executed an airstrike in a Pakistani village with out the knowledge of the Pakistani government and it did so based on fauly information.

By the way, how many "2nd's in command" of Al Quaida are we going to get or almost get? It must suck to be the 2nd in command there. You'ld think that with all the 2nds in command that we haver targeted we would have been able to get the top guy at least once!

This has been the second in command for at least since Al Queda merged with Zawahiri's group in the nineties. Your are thinking of Zarqawi's "second in command(s)".