Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drone Strikes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Drone Strikes

    Pak Taliban: ‘the Drones are Very Effective’
    Pak Taliban: ‘The Drones are Very Effective’ | Danger Room
    * By Noah Shachtman Email Author
    * May 5, 2009 |
    * 9:29 am |
    * Categories: Af/Pak, Drones

    creech_reaper_cropped

    The New York Times speaks today with a 28 year-old Pakistani logistics tactician for the Taliban. He’s utterly underwhelmed by America’s war plans for the region — well, except for one element.

    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.

    In this year alone, the U.S. has launched at least 16 unmanned assaults on suspected guerrilla camps in Pakistan. Government officials in both Islamabad and Washington say the robotic strikes have decimated Al Qaeda’s ranks in Pakistan. But recent reports in the local press have portrayed the drones as wildly ineffective, killing only 14 militants while slaying 700 civilians. The Taliban tactician seemed to reinforce the official line, saying that “29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.” Men no longer gathered in large groups in his home base of Wana, according to the tactician; they’re worried about being seen by the robot planes.

    Instead, “the drone attacks simply prompted Taliban fighters to spend more time in Afghanistan, or to move deeper into Pakistan, straddling both theaters of a widening conflict. The recruits were prepared to fight where they were needed, in either country.” The Times story doesn’t say whether these drone-displaced militants are taking part in the latest Taliban offensive within Pakistan, that has brought the militants to within 60 miles of the capital.

    At the same time, the attacks continue to spark resentment among the Pakistani public, the Los Angeles Times reports. “These drones are very bad,” Lahore apparel merchant Ashraf Bhatti tells the paper. “What would America think if someone started shooting rockets and killing people in their land?”

    In American military and political circles, a growing number of opinion leaders are wondering whether the political blowback is beginning to outweigh the drones’ lethal value. According to the Washington Post, “some senior U.S. officials think [the robotic attacks] have reached the point of diminishing returns and the administration is debating the rate at which they should continue.”

    As the influential Abu Muquwama blog notes, the tactician’s “reference to drone attacks being ‘very effective’ could be traditional Pashtun appreciation for an enemy’s prowess. Or, encouragement for a self-defeating course of action.”

    [Photo: Noah Shachtman]

    ==========
    Acting President condemns attack on security forces - PPP, PML (N) agree to continue previous coalition government arrange... - PM condemns attack on security forces - PM approves Rs. 500 million grant for NWFP government - Logistic support mandatory for sustained operations: Naval Chief - PM nominates Syed Zia Hyder Rizvi as private member PPSMB
    Petraeus adviser tells U.S. Congress drone attacks in Pakistan ‘backfiring’ PDF Print E-mail
    http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?...75163&Itemid=2
    WASHINGTON, May 3 (APP): A key adviser to U.S. Army General David Petraeus, who is the head of Central Command, has called for ending the highly controversial and unpopular drone attacks against militant targets in the Pak-Afghan border region, saying the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate.

    “We need to call off the drones,” said David Kilcullen Kilcullen, an Australian who served in Iraq as one of the counter-insurgency warrior/theorists involved in designing Gen. Petraeus’ successful “surge” of troops into the streets of Baghdad.

    During a congressional hearing earlier this week, when a congressman asked Kilcullen what the U.S. government should do in Pakistan, Kilcullen called the missile strikes “cowardly” and said they should be stopped.

    The LA Times said, Kilcullen’s objection to the U.S. strategy isn’t moral or legal . Kilcullen’s objection is practical. “He says the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate”.

    “I realize that they do damage to Al Qaeda leadership,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.

    But that, he said, was not enough to justify the programme.

    “Since 2006, we’ve killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we’ve killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly

    unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they’ve given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism. ... The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population.”

    Another problem, Kilcullen says, is that “using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak.”In the Pashtun tribal culture of honor and revenge, face-to-face combat is seen as brave; shooting people with missiles from 20,000 feet is not. And besides, Kilcullen says, “There are other ways to do it.”Kilcullen didn’t elaborate on those “other ways.” Pakistani leaders visiting Washington this week for bilateral and trilateral talks involving Afghanistan on security and development efforts in the region, are expected to raise the issue. Islamabad has repeatedly objected to the U.S. drone attacks and termed them as counterproductive to overalll anti-terrorism effort and violative of its sovereignty.

    ==========
    Personal thought - we should ratchet it up a notch. Seems to be working.

    As for legality, it does not strike me as illegal to conduct strikes against Taliban/AQ targets.
    Last edited by troung; 05 May 09,, 18:10.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    Interesting to see they fear the aerial drones. What do you think will happen when they see the latest and greatest drones but these baby's dont fly and wont eat or sleep either.;)

    When he states cowardly and weak he doesn't get the point. The point is to win with less civy damage as possible not to be a gentlemen, they are not so why should we be.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 May 09,, 18:45.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Another problem, Kilcullen says, is that “using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak.”In the Pashtun tribal culture of honor and revenge, face-to-face combat is seen as brave; shooting people with missiles from 20,000 feet is not. And besides, Kilcullen says, “There are other ways to do it.”Kilcullen didn’t elaborate on those “other ways.”
      only other way for kinetic operations is to insert special operators. don't know if that pashtun sense of courage/honor/bravery will trump the larger outrage that a much larger footprint by operators will cause.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #4
        dreadnought,

        When he states cowardly and weak he doesn't get the point. The point is to win with less civy damage as possible not to be a gentlemen, they are not so why should we be.
        no, drones aren't there for that-- they're there for a less obvious, smaller US footprint.

        at the same time, i'm not so sure how much influence being an "honorable" war-fighter is. US troops are battling taliban in direct contact engagements but that hasn't prevented villagers from informing or setting up US troops for ambushes.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          dreadnought,



          no, drones aren't there for that-- they're there for a less obvious, smaller US footprint.

          at the same time, i'm not so sure how much influence being an "honorable" war-fighter is. US troops are battling taliban in direct contact engagements but that hasn't prevented villagers from informing or setting up US troops for ambushes.
          Fully concour with smaller footprint, It was a very good idea to utilize them in this fashion although I dont know about the casuality numbers wether they are good or bad accuracy wise. We definately need to become more accurate as far as civilian casuality but then again if you hang out with terrorists elements then you might find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. As far as cowardly goes, these are cowards so why should we send any troops to erase them when technology suites rather well. The object is to win so honor as to our troops is not even a thought. We know they are honorable, but they dont have to be stupid enough to play terrorist games either.;)

          We need drones like "AMEE" from the movie Red Planet only armed.
          Last edited by Dreadnought; 05 May 09,, 19:05.
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Downside of PREDATOR

            There are two, maybe three downsides-

            1.) We can only attack incrementally, i.e. against discrete, point targets. That would be fine if we could launch 10 or 12 PREDATORS and execute something akin to a decapitating time-on-target strike that simultaneously drops 10 key leaders off the map.

            We can't, though.

            Not only can we not deliver operational success- only tactical, but it's temporal to boot while spreading the knowledge base to assure redundancy and replacements. We've STRENGTHENED their resistance by compelling a clear chain of succession while reducing the centralization of control into a few vulnerable hands.

            2.) We've unquestionably pushed potential targets to areas that we've overtly or otherwise indicated as PREDATOR-free zones, i.e. the rest of the country.

            Kilcullen certainly draws a contrast, eh? 14 Al Qaeda and over 700 civilians. I can see how he gets to one. I'm sure comm channels buzz with each success. The civilian numbers are, to my view, more suspect.

            Finally, what about all the mid-range targets? We've a mid-level taliban logistics operative discussing the deaths of 29 associates via PREDATOR.

            This isn't an easy call and Kilcullen should elaborate the other means he's in mind lest he appear a tad disingenuous himself.
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #7
              US bombing a sovereign country: US lawmaker

              http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...wmaker-szh--05

              WASHINGTON: The House Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Congress heard an unusual speech from a Republican lawmaker who described US drone attacks as the bombing of a sovereign country and questioned America’s right to do so.


              US special envoy Richard Holbrooke disagreed with this description of America’s military operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan and reminded Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul that US troops were there because people living in that region had invaded their homeland on Sept. 11, 2001.

              But the explanation came only after Rep. Paul had completed his speech, urging policy makers in Washington to review the US foreign policies which were causing worldwide resentments against the United States.

              ‘We are bombing a sovereign country. Where do we get the authority to do that? Did the Pakistani government give us written permission? Did the Congress give us written permission to expand the war and start bombing in Pakistan?’ asked the US lawmaker.

              ‘Why do we as a Congress and as a people and as our representatives within the executive branch just so casually and carelessly expand the war and say, ‘Well, today we have to do this; we’ll worry about tomorrow.’

              Mr Paul is an American physician and Republican Congressman from Texas, who gained widespread attention during his unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination. During the campaign he attracted an enthusiastic following which made use of the Internet and social networking to establish a grassroots campaign despite lack of traditional organization or media attention.

              Rep. Paul wasted little time in formalities when the committee’s chairman, Congressman Howard Berman, invited him to speak.

              After thanking the chairman and welcoming Ambassador Holbrooke, the lawmaker went straight to the question that seemed to be bothering him.

              ‘The main concern I have is I was hoping to see maybe a change in our foreign policy from the last administration, but, of course, we see just more of the same — more nation-building, more policing of the world, more involvement,’ he said.

              ‘And it just seems like we never learn from our past mistakes. We don’t learn from what kind of trouble the Soviets got into, and yet we continue to do the same thing.’

              Referring to Mr Holbrooke’s earlier statement before the committee, Rep. Paul reminded him that he too had set ‘a grandiose goal.’

              ‘We want to work for a vibrant, modern democracy. Wow, what a dream. But think of how we’re doing this. I mean, we label everybody that opposes what we’re doing, we call them Taliban,’ he said.

              While the US fought this war, ‘all of a sudden … many, many thousands of Pashtuns that are right smack in the middle, getting killed by our bombs, and then we wonder why they object to our policies over there.’

              The bombing of this area, Mr Paul said, made him believe that the US was there for the long haul. ‘It’s going to cost a lot of money and it’s going to cost a lot of lives.’

              The US lawmaker said that if the members of Congress had ever realized what Iraq would end up costing America in the number of deaths, in the number of dollars, ‘now trillion dollars,’ they would have been a little more hesitant to approve it.

              ‘They admit that now – ‘Well, maybe we shouldn’t have.’ But who knows what this is going to end up costing in terms of lives?’ he asked, reminding other lawmakers that the odds of the US policy for Afghanistan and Pakistan working were very slim. ‘This is what my great concern is,’ he added.

              Congressman Paul then explained Pakistan’s recent history to other lawmakers, recalling that in 1999 the country had an elected prime minister who was toppled by the military. ‘And (Gen.) Musharraf comes in and we support him.’

              Mr Paul then accused the US administration of trying to engineer yet another change in Pakistan, a charge Mr Holbrooke vehemently denied.

              ‘So now it’s said that we have relationships with Sharif, which everybody knows exactly what that means. It means that we’re involved in their elections. That’s the way that we’ve done it for so many years,’ said the congressman.

              ‘But, you know, the Pakistani papers report it as ‘US taps Sharif to be the next Pakistani prime minister.’ Now, whether or not we literally can do that — I think we can have a lot of influence — that’s what they believe in.’

              He then asked: ‘How do you win the hearts and minds of these people if we’re seen as invaders and occupiers? And here we are, just doing nothing more than expanding our role in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. I don’t see any end to it.’

              Addressing Mr Holbrooke, the US lawmaker said he had several specific concerns about the current situation in Pakistan.

              ‘It has to do with Pashtuns that have been killed by our bombs. What about our national debt? We have $1.8 trillion debt facing us.’

              He said that while the administration was currently seeking $3.5 billion to support its efforts in Pakistan, ‘it will turn out to be tens of billions of dollars after this.

              ‘So I’d like to know where you stand on this, the innocent killing of Pashtuns. Are they all Taliban, or are there some innocent people being killed?’

              As Congressman Paul finished, a Pakistani in the audience commented: ‘This American lawmaker has defended Pakistan more eloquently than our ambassador ever has.’

              Obviously displeased with the questions the congressman raised, Ambassador Holbrooke said he did not say exactly what Mr Paul imputed to him, but he had thought a long time about the issues raise.

              ‘And you mentioned Iraq. Afghanistan-Pakistan is not Iraq. The reason we are in this area, notwithstanding its immense difficulties, is because the people in this area attacked our country on September 11th, 2001, and have stated flatly they intend to do it again.’

              The militants, he said, not only killed Americans on 9/11 but also killed hundreds of Pakistanis and Afghans and committed gross human rights violations.

              ‘And therefore, it is not Iraq and it’s not Vietnam, despite the fact that many people say it is. It’s about defending our country,’ he said,

              Ambassador Holbrooke said he agreed with the lawmaker that the fight against the extremists was not easy and it was not cheap either.

              ‘And having seen wars on three continents, having been shot at for my country, I sure don’t feel comfortable in a situation where you ask brave young American men and women to risk their lives and sometimes pay the ultimate sacrifice,’ the ambassador said.

              ‘However, the president of the United States reviewed everything in regard to this and came to the conclusion … that our goal has to be to defeat al Qaeda. We cannot let them take over an even larger terrain, move into other parts of the world, and then plan what they’re planning,’ he concluded.
              '
              =============
              Moonbats in 3...2...1...

              \===========
              Pretty sure Pakistan doesn't disagree much...
              To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

              Comment


              • #8
                Predator drones have negative consequences that should be openly debated.
                By Micah Zenko
                from the May 4, 2009 edition


                New York - President Obama recently announced his policy goals for Afghanistan and Pakistan: "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda … and to prevent their return to either country in the future." An important tool increasingly used in pursuit of those objectives is the use of unmanned aerial drones such as the Predator.

                Under Pakistan's insistence that there be "no boots on the ground" impinging its sovereignty, the Obama administration is in the unenviable position of fighting a counterterrorism campaign from 10,000 feet. With little USpublic debate or congressional oversight, US drones have bombed suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan almost 60 times in the last four years – two-thirds of those attacks since last summer.

                From a military and political standpoint, drones have their appeal. Not least of which is the lack of US casualties.

                But using them in response to a worsening situation has not only failed to achieve President Bush's or President Obama's goals, it has fueled anti-American animosity on the ground in Pakistan. A former key advisor to Gen. David Petraeus, who is head of US Central Command, has gone so far as to call for an end to the use of drones at a time when advancing technological capabilities have many US military and political leaders clamoring for expanding the scope and intensity of Predator strikes throughout Pakistan.

                Before going down that path, the American people should consider the following:

                First, senior US officials still insist these Predator strikes are "covert actions" – defined in the National Security Act of 1947 as "activities … where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly." This standing keeps the program officially hidden and therefore beyond an open and public debate. In fact, the drone missions are possibly the world's worst-kept secret.

                Since Predators first started buzzing over villages along the border with Afghanistan, a number of unnamed US and Pakistani officials have admitted, off the record, to their use, and shrapnel fragments with US military markings have been found at bombed sites. Yet their use was not acknowledged publicly until January, when Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, Commander of US and NATO troops in eastern Afghanistan, boasted that "The Predator strikes in Waziristan [Pakistan] have caused a disruption across the border."

                Second, the drones are a hot potato for Pakistani political and military leaders. For political reasons, leaders loudly and publicly protest attacks, but in truth they are not only well aware of the Predator program, they are quietly allowing the activity. In February, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, caused a minor diplomatic flare-up between Washington and Islamabad when she mentioned them being flown out of a Pakistani base. But even this assertion had already been reported in The Washington Post twice in early 2008, and the Pakistani daily The News had published Google Earth photographs time-stamped 2006 showing three drones parked at an airstrip in the Kharan District of Pakistan's Baluchistan province.

                Third, the targets of the Predator strikes increasingly are not "high-value Al Qaeda targets who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks," as claimed by Obama. In fact, almost every recent strike, including one last week in the village of Kanni Garam, has been against the militant network run by jihadist leader Baitullah Mehsud. The leader is believed to have orchestrated the assassination of former Prime Minister and presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto. Reportedly, his primary agenda and interests are to overthrow the government of Pakistan.

                Fourth, factions within the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have tipped off its allies within the Taliban about US operations against them. As General Patraeus noted recently in Senate testimony: "An intelligence agency contact ... is warning [the Taliban] of an impending operation." At times, this has thwarted the advantage of surprise that the drones might have.

                Fifth, because the United States relies on either ISI agents on the ground or overhead video feeds, it can be unclear if the person targeted was killed. This problem is exacerbated by the militants' practice of sealing off bombed-out sites, and removing the bodies for burial before the victims can be identified.

                Sixth, after 60 Predator strikes, Islamic jihadist groups are steadily expanding their reach into Pakistani society. What is worse, the well-publicized attacks and their inevitable civilian casualties – almost 700 according to Pakistan – are swelling the ranks of jihadists who oppose the government in Islamabad, which ultimately gives the green light for the drone attacks in the first place.

                The president was correct, if overdue, when admitting he was "gravely concerned about the situation in Pakistan." By being forced to battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban with flying robots from above, US leaders are put in a position where they remain largely unaware or uninterested in the serious negative consequences that the strikes have on the ground in Pakistan. At the very least, US officials should be more forthcoming in defending the use of drones and therefore open their use up to public debate.

                The Predator strikes in Pakistan are a tactical response to a worsening foreign policy dilemma that requires developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy – using nonmilitary as well as military means – to resolve the long-term problems posed by militant groups along the Pakistani border with Afghanistan. Predator strikes can be one component of an overall strategy, but not a substitution for it.

                Micah Zenko is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations.
                Are US missile strikes in Pakistan a dud policy? | csmonitor.com

                Looks a bit like Israelis boasting they can destroy Hizbollah with air strikes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  it has fueled anti-American animosity on the ground in Pakistan.
                  I thought that is why we give them money.

                  Third, the targets of the Predator strikes increasingly are not "high-value Al Qaeda targets who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks," as claimed by Obama. In fact, almost every recent strike, including one last week in the village of Kanni Garam, has been against the militant network run by jihadist leader Baitullah Mehsud. The leader is believed to have orchestrated the assassination of former Prime Minister and presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto. Reportedly, his primary agenda and interests are to overthrow the government of Pakistan.
                  The problem being?

                  Fifth, because the United States relies on either ISI agents on the ground or overhead video feeds, it can be unclear if the person targeted was killed. This problem is exacerbated by the militants' practice of sealing off bombed-out sites, and removing the bodies for burial before the victims can be identified.
                  So then don't quote the 700 dead women and children as the gospel...

                  Sixth, after 60 Predator strikes, Islamic jihadist groups are steadily expanding their reach into Pakistani society. What is worse, the well-publicized attacks and their inevitable civilian casualties – almost 700 according to Pakistan – are swelling the ranks of jihadists who oppose the government in Islamabad, which ultimately gives the green light for the drone attacks in the first place.
                  They are expanding because the Pakistani army is filled to the brim with inept moral cowards and the Pakistani leadership (military and civilian) are idiotic ***** who have failed their people for 60 years; not because of the drone strikes.

                  Looks a bit like Israelis boasting they can destroy Hizbollah with air strikes.
                  The other option of doing nothing is no fun and worse.
                  Last edited by troung; 06 May 09,, 21:10.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by troung View Post
                    The other option of doing nothing is no fun and worse.
                    Yeah but you can do something and worsen the situation, I agree whith most of what you said but the Pakistanis can be pissed off by their rulers and the US in the same time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah but you can do something and worsen the situation, I agree whith most of what you said but the Pakistanis can be pissed off by their rulers and the US in the same time.
                      Sitting around hoping the Pakistani "army" does something is worse then the drone strikes. The Taliban/AQ could only walk around in the open because of the battlefield prowess of the Pakistani forces.
                      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by troung View Post
                        Sitting around hoping the Pakistani "army" does something is worse then the drone strikes. The Taliban/AQ could only walk around in the open because of the battlefield prowess of the Pakistani forces.
                        They did counter insurgency and prevailed against their enemy when the Pakistani army was sent in Baluchistan to fight separatists. And anyway the Pakistani army is designed for conventional wars against what they think is their only enemy which is India.

                        But do we have a better record than the Pakistanis? The Taliban were driven out of Afghanistan after 2001 and they came back due to the negligence of the Bush Administration not because of the Pakistani Army shortcomings.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          One big problem with bombing and air strikes by aircrafts, whether manned or unmanned, is that the number of civilian deaths from such deaths cannot be confirmed. Thus the enemy, say the Talibans, would make use of this blind spot to throw in additional corpses to inflate the number of air strike civilian deaths.

                          To the locals, the high number of civilian deaths causes a lot of anger. This anger is transmitted high up to the local government leaders which in turn pressurize the US to stop these bombing and strikes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                            One big problem with bombing and air strikes by aircrafts, whether manned or unmanned, is that the number of civilian deaths from such deaths cannot be confirmed. Thus the enemy, say the Talibans, would make use of this blind spot to throw in additional corpses to inflate the number of air strike civilian deaths.

                            To the locals, the high number of civilian deaths causes a lot of anger. This anger is transmitted high up to the local government leaders which in turn pressurize the US to stop these bombing and strikes.
                            And thats ok because thats a standard for them to do so and has been known for sometime now. IMO look at it like this, maybe you shouldn't be hanging around the people that you know are causing the troubles in Pakistan and are known terrorists. Self responsibility and responsibility for oneselfs own actions. Why is that so hard to understand.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              dreadnought,

                              And thats ok because thats a standard for them to do so and has been known for sometime now. IMO look at it like this, maybe you shouldn't be hanging around the people that you know are causing the troubles in Pakistan and are known terrorists. Self responsibility and responsibility for oneselfs own actions. Why is that so hard to understand.
                              in many of these cases, hanging around is not voluntary. either the civvies are there by the point of a gun, or because their ancestral homes have ALWAYS been there.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X