So, was bin Laden's death worth the lives of eighty innocents?

Will it be worth the fact that these avenge killings will continue, continuing to drive up the body count? All these innocents dead, just so we can beat our chest and proclaim that we got our man.

"A pair of suicide bombers attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center in Pakistan on Friday, killing 80 people in the first retaliation for the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos last week."

<http://www.salon.com/news/osama_bin_laden/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/05/13/as_pakistan_32>

but in fact, little has changed...


sP

Fresh out of training, to be sure, but participants by any reasonable standard.

What makes you think that they wouldn't have made the same kind of attacks if bin Laden was captured and
imprisoned? Violence is their message and he was their hero. There is every reason to believe that they
would have resorted to violence to protest Osama's imprisonment just as they are doing for his killing.

I think that's a better way to ask the question.

It's far too close to the "give in to bullies, you'll get a quieter life that way" argument.

Why is the behaviour of the suicide bombers not considered a *decision* link in your chain of cause and effect?

If you award them with "emotion trumps everything" you can't really point blamey fingers at the USA, who has also lost innocents in the current conflict (although I'm not sure if that's really what you're doing).

I don't think his assassination was the best possible outcome, a trial would have been significantly preferable, but there's no point blaming the United States for the actions of it's opponents, the US chose to remove a threat to itself and the supporters of the threat, unsurprisingly, reacted. Apprehension of Bin Laden could very well have resulted in the same response.

If it's bad for the US to bomb people, it's bad for other people to bomb people, too. Unless you want to get into "who started it" teritory, in which case, if we want clarity and resolution on the appropriate moral position to take, we're all a bit doomed.



EDITED - inserted "decision".

To cause 9/11.

The US had been involved, up until that time, in a very agressive stance against elements of the Middle East resulting in the birth of the phrase "collateral damage" to refer to the loss of significant numbers of innocent people. It was horrible, but it's not surprising that the twin towers were destroyed. You can't bomb people forever and expect them never to do anything about it.

You can't fly planes into buildings and expect people not to do anything about it either.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The World Trade Center was not a military target. Any innocents lost in prior years were killed while attacking military targets during military action.

they were collateral damage in an effort to take "legitimate military targets" or not. They are just as dead and their lives just as wrecked.

Then you immediately go another step by demanding that any retribution come in the form of ragged bands throwing themselves into the teeth of vast martial superiority, which is an automatic fail.

I'd also tend to say that financial infrastructure is as legitimate as manufacturing, roads, and utilities and you damn well know we target such things.

The OP is asinine but so is this superpower/superbully attitude that makes the whole history a whitewash and declares many, many thousands of deaths and more destruction as trivia.

We have killed many times more than the pitiful handful of Al Queada. We directly create "insurgents", who wouldn't be an "insurgent" if a foreign power occupied their lands and killed indiscriminately (and we do, see the journalists gunned down from the air)?

When faced with an aggressive force with overwhelming superiority you strike where the blows can land and do damage.
We bomb people, from their perspective it is an act of terror.

Bodies are going to continue to pile up on both sides.

Period. Every nation has fucked up in their past, with WWII being a horrible example on all sides. Killing civilians should never be acceptable. IT does happen, but the key is that we and other nations deeply regretted that it happened. Terrorism specifically targets them and gets a thrill from planning their deaths. They are not equivalent.

Bin Laden planned the murder of women and children as a sport, seeking better ways to murder them by the droves. That has zero equivalence to people being killed in the "crossfire".

All they cared about was whether or not it worked.

There is talking at cross-purposes here, you are defending a moral stance that serves no purpose but to be thwarted so that you can continue to be angry. Of COURSE they weren't going strike a military target, their only opportunity to alter the perceptions of the ongoing conflict was to attack along an an unanticipated vector. Whether or not it was morally "appropriate" in the eyes of the US is irrelevant to them.

"Bin Laden planned the murder of women and children as sport" - what does this even *mean*?

How can you possibly expect to win if you refuse to understand your enemy? How are we to combat terrorism when its targets interpret the actions of the terrorist only in terms that make them feel comfortable about themselves?

Presumably you do NOT believe that Al Quaida expected the USA to sit back and do nothing? What they wanted was a huge, muscluar, emotional, badly planned, poorly executed mess with lots of torture and lots of Middle Eastern kids and women getting bombed by "accident" with the US publically declaring it's lack of interest in the situation of this "collateral damage" as loudly and frequently as possible and freely viewable on the Internet so that they could increase their numbers of recruits and it WORKED.

It had nothing to do with "justice". They are relying on these wars to drain the US financially and to gradually erode international support for the US until the influence of the US is at a level low enough to permit them greater freedom of movement.

WHY do you think that those pulling apart the silly behaviour of the US are somehow trying to thwart them? The US is hanging itself by its own petard! What would you have those that would prefer the US NOT to be bankrupt DO?

The original post, now deleted, was along the lines of "we got what we deserved". My emotion is not anger, it is shear disgust.

You are wrong. I fully understand what Bin Laden's goal was, and I didn't want our nation to engage on a decade of war. I'm over you and others assuming that I don't understand the situation because I don't trash my country and people, whom do not deserve to be murdered. At the same time, innocent people in the middle east also do not deserve to be murdered. I understand that. I know our actions were a gross overreaction. But I'm not going to take anyone seriously who states we deserve punishment in the form of terror attacks. It's a disgusting view.

Our actions don't get the privileged position of being in a vacuum. We don't get to only judge responses to our military and financial adventures.

These folks cannot send a few carrier groups and saber rattle with a nuclear arsenal to address their grievances by hitting hard targets.

The down side of military superiority is one must logically be attacked by unconventional means as they are all that is available. You think the British didn't see us as terrorists? Get real.

Our superiority and hamfisted, self serving policies demand these kinds of blow back.

What other reaction can we logically expect?

To those without such means, striking soft targets by unconventional means is feasible.

I'd also say it has proven effective, even if we magically kill every last one of them by our own response. The next generation of "terrorists" will be huge.

"horrible example on all sides." Nazi Germany was the clear aggressor against Poland and the low countries to begin with, later the British and subsequently the USSR. Or did I miss something?

They took a horrible toll on many innocent people.

Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. Laos, Cambodia, and much of Vietnam(where the policy was, "if they run, they're the enemy")

The US has targeted civilians for centuries, and has done so without regret. Just ask the Native Americans.

Oh wait, I did.


FAIL

I hadn't got to your reply yet. Geez, hostile much?

Threads and my posting don't revolve around you and your posts. Deal with it.

I specifically stated that WWII was a horrible example on all sides.

As for hostile, I'm a bit annoyed. I get treated like I'm some teabagger because I don't spend my entire day justifying why we are to blame for every bad thing in the world. I do understand that we have done terrible things - I have read Noam Chomsky's books such as What Uncle Sam Really Wants. I realize we totally screwed up South America. I know we need to get out of the Middle East. But we are not responsible for every bad thing that happens out there. But one would never know that here.

Which is neither pleasant, nor innocent. We have deliberately targeted civilians in what can only be acts of terrorism in incidents going back for centuries. To pretend otherwise is to ignore our history. It is the disconnect that our country has between our noblest of sentiments and our actual deeds. If you can't understand that contradiction, or accept what we have done and are currently doing, that is your problem, not mine.

Tamerlane comes to mind.

Targeting civilians is also perfectly legal under the Geneva conventions if those civilians are working in war industries.

Especially not the Native Americans.

Nor were the Incas or the Aztecs, but the Spanish pushed them into slavery in the gold and silver mines.

Tokyo, Hiroshima were both legit targets.

but sheer sport was not one of them. Pretending that it was, and failing to acknowledge the actual motivations that drove him, is a very dangerous form of blindness. We may all disagree with those motives, but we're all adults here -- almost ten years later, we should all be able to stop pretending 9/11 happened because OBL liked murdering for sport, or hated our freedoms, or whatever fiction happens to make us feel superior.

You won't get more than a handful of people here to even acknowledge this truth, but it's a truth nonetheless.

as a direct result of US intervention were not military targets either. Their deaths numbered in aggregate approx. twice the number of deaths in the latter day lesser event on the same date.

Or most of the almost one Million people in Iraq we killed. BTY, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 in the first place? Remember "Shock and Awe"? That was mostly a civilian residential neighborhood.

I want my country to be a civilized country. How many more innocent brown people must die to avenge 9/11?

Their eye plus an arm and a leg for one of our eyes must stop. We are over there killing them long before 9/11. They are not over here killing us.

It is never justified to kill innocent people. Sure, innocent people have always been killed in wars, but that was not the goal. Accidents will happen in war and always have. Even soldiers sometimes kill their own by accident. No party should ever seek to kill civilians.

What Bin laden and his followers do is exactly that. They go after the women and children as their primary target. They want to kill thousands of innocents as their primary goal. That is NEVER ever justified!
No matter what happened to them or to us in the past, the preplanned murder of women and children is not justified. It's the act of a monster.

of sanctions imposed upon Iraq after Operation Desert Storm\Desert Shield.

And what was the Secretary of State's response when called out? "We think it's worth it," Madeleine Albright said. N.B. Albright was Clinton's Sec of State, i.e., a Democrat.

So when you say "Any innocents lost in prior years were killed while attacking military targets during military action," you must be excluding those 500,000 Iraqi children. Or including them under the theory that they were 'terrorists disguised as children" :sarcasm:

Just like I excluded the 30,000 children under age 5 who die of preventable diseases in Africa every day. Did we murder them also?

sanctions on Iraq 'caused' the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children who would otherwise have been alive when Bush took office.

In other words, our sanctions killed 500,000 children. So don't tell me our actions don't kill innocents where theirs do.

And to have the Secretary of State say those 500,000 deaths were 'worth it'? I don't think I have to spell out for you that Albright was accepting responsibility on behalf of the U.S. for causing those deaths.

But whatever you've got to tell yourself to sustain your delusion that the U.S. is morally superior to 'them,' don't let me stop you.

Why did the others not provide supplies? Are they also not part of the sanction. How about actually laying the blame on the leader of Iraq who caused the sanctions? Why did he make his people suffer?

deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children? If so, you are joining the ranks of such storied Republicans as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, et. al.

Go right ahead. Albright (a Dem) said it was 'worth it' and thus nothing I say will dissuade you from your ethnocentric views. So I don't think there's really any further purpose to be served in dialogue with you.

How many other countries participated in the sanctions and why?

didn't kill any 'innocent civilians' on purpose the way the 9-11 higjackers did. I responded that the sanctions imposed on Iraq after DStomrm\DShield and maintained at the insistence of the U.S. to 'punish' Saddam Hussein had caused the deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi children.

Hell, Madame Albright accepted responsibility for those sanctions and their dreadful consequences when she claimed that the 500,000 child deaths were somehow 'worth it' (meaning the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children served some sort of legitimate U.S. foreign policy aim.) Those are Albright's words (speaking not for herself but for the U.S. government), and not mine.

I can tell that I'm pissing in the wind with you supporters of genocide, so piss off.

when you get offended at pointing out Saddam's role i just can't take it seriously.

they would not allow the sanctions to be lifted--regime change was their new goal. Since the US had veto power on the Security Council they could block their repeal. The UK was in on it as well.

I don't really buy the Saddam made the US kill half a million Iraqi children argument.

American exceptionalism will have them desperately scramble for rationalizations for what can only be called 'genocidal' policy. I get tired of typing it out over and over again and have found it's generally less painful to simply use the Ignore button on them so as not to have to listen to their ignorant bleating any further.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You get off your "those three thousand people who died jumping out of windows and being crushed into paste when the WTC collapsed" horse.

You sound like you've been taking flying lessons.

I could be wrong, of course, but warfare is understood in *most* places to be underpinned by reciprocity.

Was bin-Ladens's tantrum worth the lives of 3,000 innocents?

Feel guilty if you like, I don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Killers are going to kill until they are killed.

You understand, I assume, that millions of people around the world are pointing at this country and saying exactly the same thing. And they aren't wrong.

Not killing him does not mean these people would not have died anyway. HE wanted to kill thousands at a time, and these same followers would have done the killing for him in life as they have after his death. Given these facts, yes, it was worth it.
Only a fool would think otherwise, IMO.

The blood for any "revenge" killing is all on the terrorists, not on us.

Osama bin Laden was blowback. We trained him, he worked for us, till we were done with him. Then we just forgot about him as if he never existed. Not even an "Thank you". So of course he was upset.

No it's not on us in any way. What? He wanted a "thank you" and if he'd gotten one he'd be our friend. :rofl:

You are just playing the old "everything is our fault" game. In this case, its not only a sad tactic but embarrassing.

Could you please restate your premise in a more condescending & supercilious manner? That'll bring 'em around to your way of thinking, for sure!

fact that this miserable human being will not be able to plan the deaths of the thousands he already is responsible for killing?

How do you know that? How do you know that he would have been able to do anything. For ten years now, he was so ineffectual that many thought he was already dead. Sure, he could plan all he wanted to, but would he have been able to carry out any of those plans:shrug:

Meanwhile we are faced with the very real possibility that the death of bin Laden turns into an inspirational martyrdom that prompts people who would have otherwise not done a thing to become lethal terrorists.

even figured out where bin Laden was. So your premise has holes in it. The 80 people got blown up because the Pakistani government is playing both sides of the field and is being soft on the people that has been killing innocents for a decade. If Pakistan does not have the will to go into north waziristan and take on extremists, the country should give the US an idea where the top terrorist leaders are and let the US kill them with either special OPs raids or drone strikes.

The warmongers come out of the party woodwork.

Violence is not going to end terrorism. We are engaged in a war of ideas, one that we are losing because we brought our military instead of our brains.

Going to war with Iraq was a stupid move by Bush. We lost soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. President Obama rightfully de-escalated that war. Afghanistan is a fight that we had to undertake. If the Afghan war had been conducted properly bin Laden and all of his lieutenants would have been in jail or dead years ago. But the Afghan effort did not have the proper focus, counter-terrorism, only since 2009 has the right focus been applied. Killing people that issue death threats against americans and carry out those threats is not warmongering, it is the right thing to do.

Maybe I should also wear a headscarf! Because when I don't that provokes those evil crazy fucks to kill people too!

Oh my goodness!!! Oh my goodness!!!

Bin Laden is dead! GOOD!!!

He died terrified! GOOOD!!!


He was planning on killing thousands of us again.

What.

Part.

Of.

That.

Is.

So.

Hard.

To.

Grasp?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Number One: The US is not responsible for the actions of terrorists. We have zero responsibility for what they do. The guys responsible were the men (or women) that built the bombs and carried out the attack.

Second: We needed to take Bin laden out. He was a real threat to us as recently proven, and even if captured attacks would be threatened against us. We do not back down to terrorists.

Third: These attacks were probably already planned and the Taliban just claimed they were for retaliation. It isn't logical to attack Pakistanis if you're angry at the USA.

It is highly probably that if bin Laden was still in his compound, alive and watching TV, those eighty innocents would be alive today. The reason that they're not is simple, they are dead as a result of our action in killing bin Laden.

Furthermore, you assert that bin Laden was a "real threat", but really, was he? He was hiding in a compound watching television. He was not able to easily communicate with anybody, much less effectively carry out any sort of plan. He had not been able to hurt us for ten years now.

Finally, you simply cannot say that these attacks were already planned, and that they were simply attributed to bin Laden's death, but otherwise would have happened. Hell, the president and the administration stated immediately after killing bin Laden that the terror threat would be rising because of this killing, it is a logical conclusion. To think that such retaliatory attacks won't happen is foolish in the extreme.

You have proposed nothing but surrender.

Which is it.

Never mind, trying to have a sane discussion with such a bundle of contradictions and hypocrisy as yourself is pointless. Good night:hi:

Yes and Yes.

Those nutcakes would have found some other reason to kill innocents, if not in the name of bin Laden.

Why do you value the lives of innocent abroad less than innocents here? Human is human, and each life is of value. To differentiate between the value of lives based on skin color or nationality is display base bigotry.

Gee, who would have guessed?

Maybe bin Laden's crackpot followers would be willing to chat with you about their strange habit of blowing people up.

He's very dead, and that's a great thing for the world in general.

And I notice that your response was simply more "rah rah". Why is that? Do you think that the lives of innocents abroad are worth less that the lives of US citizens? Would you still call it a "bargain" if eighty US citizens had been killed instead?

had him over for small talk, or perhaps tea and cookies?


He's gone, and they would have killed just for the sport of it. It's what they do.

Nice try, but still a fail.

Read the replies - it ain't looking so good for your line of thinking.

(You still haven't told us what you would have done to bin Laden, either)

(And yes, I really do understand why you don't want to go there)

Instead you're just going to divert and sidestep.

Thanks for playing, your words, and lack of them, speak for themselves

Goodbye:hi:

They were killing innocents in Kashmir before the US came and have bombed markets that are full of innocents ever since. What makes you think not killing bin Laden would have made any difference? Bullies point to reasons why they bully instead of accepting that they are fucked up, such is the pakistani taliban. 80 dead innocent people are 80 dead innocent people, skin color does not matter. Now, if the 80 people were closely aligned with terrorists, which the dead 80 do not appear to have been, then them getting killed during attempts at killing terrorists means that they are SOL.

They do it for the sheer sport of it.

they were killing innocents long before bin-Laden was killed.

The cowards that put such things together will use any "excuse" they can to kill, bin-Laden, US presence, Jews, they don't care, they just want to kill...any "excuse" will do. It is all about justifying murder, they could care less what they use to justify said killings, whatever is convenient at the time will do. Dealing with psychopaths is never easy, when people have no conscience, no empathy or compassion, they live to destroy that which goes against anything they have decided to believe in. Mass murder to them is merely a means to an end.

What people like this fail to realize is that acts of terror never gain anything other than shock value. People flock to destroy the terrorists, nothing can steel the resolve like an attack. Ask those that survived London or Dresden or Tokyo or Pearl Harbor.

I've said it before, someone needs to stand up and ask those that get others to commit acts of terror, like suicide bombings, "if this is such a great idea with such incredible rewards, how come you don't blow yourself up?"

Murderous bullies don't stop murdering until they are killed.

Nasty "logic" at play here.

Try harder next time.

The CIA found evidence linking OBL to the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

Was NOT killing him then worth the 3000 lives lost in 2001?

You have a known terrorist that has killed thousands, probably over tens of thousands if you add everything up, and we are supposed to not do anything to them because their followers will engage in a few destructive acts in response?

I'm sorry, that just simply doesn't follow.... at all.

who are killing fellow Muslims.

:crazy:

Absolutely hideous OP. You should be ashamed.

all the coming attack in September 2001. They did know and did nothing. Other countries warned us.The out goinb Clinton Administration gave the in coming Bush Administration a thick report on it. The only thing they did not know was where.
Ask yourself why Richard Cheney ordered our air defenses to stay on the ground till is was all but over?
If you are going to be offended, at least be offended at the right people.

last night. Of course, like your comment, that has nothing at all to do with the OP ... or my condemnation of it.

They had over 7 years to get bin Laden. They didn't, so he had time to build his following.
In fact the Bush Administration used 9/11 for their own purposes, i.e., Iraq.
If the Bush Administration hadn't been so corrupt, 9/11 would most likely not even have happened.

Events do not happen in a vacuum, history is a continuum. It is a fact we did train and support Osama bin Laden to use against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The only reason we felt the need was because of the propaganda to fear communism and the cold war that we perpetuated for the MIC.

It's all tied together.

They need to switch to electronic calls of balls and strikes.
I'm over it.

But our Bravos delivered a "W" today! :woohoo:

By the way, :hi: neighbor...

Were the deaths of eighty innocents worth the life of Bin Laden?

...had we merely captured him, these bloodthirsty a**holes would be doing the same thing, killing innocent people and demanding we release him.

The 80 people killed (and who knows how many maimed) are on their heads, not on ours.

It is beyond dispute that bin Laden was involved in terrorism, that he was still actively involved and planning and having his minions carry out acts of terrorism. Therefore he was a justifiable target to be captured or killed.

Terrorists are evil. If they really had the courage of their convictions, they could try going after the real targets of their wrath -- the generals, heads of state, etc. But they go for the soft targets, low-level people and innocent civilians. So fuck them.

OP and others should stop kidding themselves.

Those deaths are on the people who carried out the attacks. It's insane that people are blaming this on the US.

Since that also would almost certainly have prompted actions that cost the lives of other persons.

one that they killed, then we can blame them for killing (and release ourselves of any responsibility).

Then they will kill 80 times the 80 we killed, then we will.....well it just keeps going up.

But hey, everyone at that point is not responsible, the other party is for making them do it.

:eyes:

And certainly not every damn week.

Might as well blame the latest on the oppressive language of the food pyramid.

Edited to add, just in case: :sarcasm:

HTH

for their never-ending propoganda mill.:thumbsdown:

that they want out of their asses. We in this country are not responsible, and shame on you for suggesting so.

The ridiculous thing about your post is that you would be spewing the same nonsense had we captured Bin Laden alive, after the inevitable attacks that come after that.

Put the blame where it belongs.

Unrec for sheer stupidity.

:banghead:

I'm guessing you didn't think your premise through very well and decided to quit after the many flaws in your logic were exposed

and skulks away silently, hoping for the thread to sink.

But hey, thanks for assuming:eyes:

Who knows

- Especially their own countrymen?

You are kidding, right??

:sarcasm:

What a stinky load of crap.

Tough questions, exercise of logic, confrontation with one's conscience?

Sorry that everything isn't tied up in a nice tidy, rah, rah package for you. Don't like it, oh well, deal with it as you may. If you feel you need to leave, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Actions have consequences, some immediate, some that are felt in the future.

What if I told you that the Twin Towers would still be standing, and those that perished in those attacks that fateful day would still be alive if we had behave differently in 1989.

That is the very case. Yes, we supported the Mujahideen in their war against the Soviet Union, to the tune of a billion dollars. The Mujahideen war that proxy war against the USSR for us, speeding their demise. But when the Mujahideen, later to become both the Taliban and al Qaeda, asked the US government for two million, $2,000,000, to rebuild their country, we turned our back on them. Bin Laden himself stated that was the turning point for him, when he came to violently hate the US.

Actions have consequences, and our current method of fighting terrorism with violence and ever more violence only insures one thing, the creation of more terrorists.

Heck, in 1938, there were actually people who thought we should not respond to Germany's actions, thinking they would "provoke" more violence that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

That doesn't mean the people with such a view (especially those actually familiar with the lessons of history) are numerically relevant.

After all, if our country had questioned what people like Ford, Watson, and Harriman were doing in Germany, Hitler could very well never gained power.

numerically irrelevant group of people with a lack of sufficient knowledge of history. Maybe if we just lay off, they'll lower their inflicted body count.

:sarcasm:

Our first amendment fortunately gives you and anyone else the right to articulate this nonsense, but you don't have the right for your opinion here to be taken seriously (and fortunately from the looks of this thread, that doesn't appear to be happening).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:crazy:

If we caught OBL alive, they'd still attack. Fuck them and fuck him.

Were you mad and shouting about all the innocents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Seems to me the USA is doing whatever the fuck it wants to and no one has the guts to tell them to stop killing innocent people...in a warzone. Goodluck with that one.

I think we have killed about a million innocent people since the 'war on terror' began and even more if you include the no-fly zone sanctions on Iraq from Poppy Bushs days.

Was it worth it? Was it worth going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and now parts of Pakistan?

Little late to be yelling...might want to ask why this is now so commonplaces that the Pentagon doesn't even bother to do anything about all the innocents killed in a warzone.

Seems to me that is SOP now.

You can actually find out that I'm consistent about criticizing the death of innocents. Search is your friend.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Boy suicide bomber kills 31 at Pakistan army
By Fayaz Aziz
MARDAN, Pakistan | Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:00am EST

(Reuters) - A boy in a school uniform blew himself up at a Pakistani army recruitment center on Thursday, killing 31 cadets, officials said, in an attack that challenges government assertions it has weakened militants...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-pakistan-violence-idUSTRE7190QW20110210


Pakistan Suicide Bomber Kills At Least 36 Attending Funeral
By RIAZ KHAN 03/ 9/11 09:44 AM AP

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- A suicide bomber struck a funeral attended by anti-Taliban militiamen in northwestern Pakistan on Wednesday, killing at least 36 mourners and wounding more than 100 in the deadliest militant attack in the country this year. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility.

The blast near the city of Peshawar was not far from the tribally administered regions bordering Afghanistan where militants are at their strongest. The area struck is home to several tribal armies that battle the Pakistani branches of the Taliban with the government's encouragement...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/pakistan-suicide-bomber-k_1_n_833413.html


Another article, from Telegraph UK:

Pakistan: timeline of suicide bomb attacks 2007-2011

After a double suicide bomb killed 80 people in Pakistan on Friday here is a timeline of major extremist attacks carried out in the country in the last five years.

List at link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8511518/Pakistan-timeline-of-suicide-bomb-attacks-2007-2011.html


History doesn't suggest that the continuing violence & carnage due to such attacks in Pakistan would cease or diminish if Bin Laden were still alive. Now there's a new "reason" given, but this is the sort of thing that has been going on in Pakistan for years. Only just recently, apparently, are some people paying more attention to Pakistan. Given past events, this recent attack was in keeping with previous targets of attacks. But now they can claim Bin Laden's death as a "justification." Gov'ts aren't the only ones who engage in PR spin and propaganda.

And FWIW, considering the source of info:

May 13, 2011
Questions of Motives in Bombing in Pakistan
By JANE PERLEZ

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Senior police officials said Friday that a suicide attack that killed more than 80 cadets from a government paramilitary force was probably retaliation for an army offensive in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and not for the death of Osama bin Laden, as the Pakistani Taliban claimed.

Shortly after the attack early Friday, which was aimed at members of the Frontier Constabulary in the town of Charsadda, the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility, saying it was retribution for the American raid on May 2 that killed Bin Laden in the small garrison city of Abbottabad, about 75 miles from the capital.

But the Pakistani Taliban have recently issued several statements claiming responsibility for attacks that they did not initiate, the police officials said, adding that they doubted that the suicide bombing was carried out by the group, or that it was in revenge for the American raid.

They said the attack was instead probably the work of a splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban that has been fighting the Pakistani Army in the nearby tribal region of Mohmand, where the army has struggled for two years to subdue the insurgents, who are led by Umar Khalid.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/world/asia/14bomb.html?_r=1

Yes, if Bin Laden hadn't of been killed, there would be no more terrorist bombings.

Sad as it is, this is just one of many attacks on Pakistan, which are part of a campaign to destroy the country. The bad guys just call it a counterattack for political reasons.

So why shouldn't we consider this one not be a retaliatory attack? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck:shrug:

If they can time it to conincide with a news event, they will, but mostly they attack when they manage to get the plan and people together.

In the Obama administration?

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the experts rather than some anonymous internet poster with an ax to grind.

I just don't think we were in more danger the day after compared to the day before.

Unlike the Bush administration, who liked to jack the fear factor whenever they found it expedient, and as many people here like to point out, the intelligent adults are in charge. The Obama administration has refrained from playing the terra card, and now that they've issued this stark warning, I find it quite credible. After all, it makes very good, sound, logical sense that bin Laden's followers would retaliate for killing their leader.

I believe that they are already maxing out their efforts. Bin Laden's death actually DISRUPTS the network and makes its plans less likely to come to fruition. The administration's warnings are just cautionary.

Yes, terrorists would never have attacked again if we had just left OBL alone to plan... Killing... More... People... oh wait...

But the fact is, these terrorists attacked in direct retaliation of our killing bin Laden. So was the death of eighty innocents worth it?

This 80, a different 80... What difference does it make, they are going to kill innocents. Would it be better if OBL was alive and a different set of 80 innocents was dead? Mind numbingly stupid.

And if you were being honest with yourself, you would recognize that. The Obama administration recognizes that the killing of innocents will provoke retaliatory attacks, that innocents will die as a result of its actions, why can't you?

If you were being honest, you would not try claiming these innocents would still be alive, you have no way of knowing that unless you feel there would have been no more attacks.

So I'll ask again:

Would it be better if OBL was alive and a different set of 80 innocents was dead?

Let me add a new question:

Would it be better if OBL was alive and these same 80 innocents were dead?

Appeasement does not work, you do not let killers simply be, you stop them.

We didn't kill bin Laden.

You don't know that a different set of eighty innocents would have been killed if we hadn't killed bin Laden. You don't know that bin Laden would have bombed these same innocents. You are dealing in speculation.

The facts however, speak for themselves. We killed bin Laden. Obama warned that retaliatory attacks would happen, and at least this one has. It is an attack that wouldn't have otherwise happened. Those are the facts. Try dealing in reality rather than speculation and what ifs.

To think there was even the smallest of chances that there would never have been another attack is simply wishful thinking and... dare I say speculation. While it is true this attack is being called retaliation, it is simply delusional to think that there would never have been another attack. It is also delusional to think we would be better off with OBL alive. Please though, present this wonderful reality we would have today with OBL still alive in Pakistan... Tell me about the press conference we would be hearing about instead today with OBL announcing he would never order the killing of another innocent and his calls for his followers to stop all attacks... Please, tell me all about it.

Who needs to start dealing in reality?

What I am pointing out is that this particular attack was in retaliation for bin Laden's killing, and wouldn't have happened if bin Laden hadn't been killed.

Nor am I speculating whether or not we would have been better off with bin Laden alive, but hey, thanks for trying to shove words in my mouth.

What I am posing is a tough and uncomfortable question, one that you apparently can't handle cognitively or emotionally.

pointing something out that is likely false, not just once but actually multiple times.

That this attack wasn't in retaliation for bin Laden's killing?

What, exactly, do you feel is false?

While no one knows for certain, it is certainly far more likely false than true. If you disagree with that in any way, that just speaks to your lack of knowledge on the subject of terrorism (not anything else).

Along with Germany, Interpol, and a number of other such organizations and leaders.

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day that you disagree with Obama. Congratulations on surprising me.

Of course attacks that were already in the works may be pushed up slightly if the terrorists feel the messaging benefits of the new date outweigh the costs of abruptly breaking with the previous plan. That doesn't mean in any way that the attack would not have happened otherwise. While you may have a view of terrorism that involves terrorists increasing the body count due to the "provocation" of Bin Ladens death (as opposed to cost effectiveness), that view is not shared by most. Attacks are often shifted.

That view is the viewpoint of our administration, the leadership of Germany, Britain, Pakistan, and most of our other allies. It is a view that is shared with the FBI, Homeland Security, Interpol and security agencies around the world. It appears that I stand in good, sane, logical company.

Which leaves you where? Oh, yeah, never mind, we can all see for ourselves.

"Which leaves you where? Oh, yeah, never mind, we can all see for ourselves."

Yes. Yes, we can. This thread and its responses are certainly proof positive of that. As is the fact that you have avoided at least four times the question of what YOU think we should have done. The reason you run as far away as you can from this question is quite obvious: you know that if you answer something like "try him in a court of law," we would have had the EXACT same retaliation (likely with hostage taking thrown in the mix).

:rofl:

That tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking capabilities. Good night:hi:

I was only pointing out that you couldn't find people to take that view seriously even here. It was more of a confirmation of what was previously obvious, rather than the sole source of proof of anything.

You are trying to put forth the premise that no one else would ever have been killed if we had just served OBL tea and crumpets. If you were not you would address if these people are any different then the people that OBL would have ordered killed in his next attacks. You also seem to feel appeasement is better then stopping, a silly notion. "oh, just leave them alone and the crazy people won't kill anyone else" yeah... Good luck with that.

"What I am posing is a tough and uncomfortable question, one that you apparently can't handle cognitively or emotionally."

More non-sense. It is a tough question but not uncomfortable for me. I have handled it and even addressed it though you wish to ignore my answer as it does not allow for appeasement of the killer of innocents. I'll try again. Yes, this attack is being called retaliation. It changes nothing, attacks would have occurred anyway, crazy killers will invent reasons to kill, you do not try to appease them. Now... When are you going to address my questions? or can't you handle them either cognitively or emotionally?

I have specifically limited myself to this particular attack that occurred, one that is in retaliation to bin Laden's killing.

Nowhere am I saying that there would be no more terrorist attacks if bin Laden was alive. Please, post a quote where I say that. Oh, that's right, you can't, because there is no such quote.

What I am doing is simply asking the question of whether or not the death of eighty innocents was worth bin Laden's death. You apparently can't handle it except by trying to shove words in my mouth and resorting to the last resort of the cognitively challenged, personal insults.

I believe that your response speaks more to your problems than to mine.

To do so would prove my point.

Unless you regard the Pakistani Taliban as being absolute truth tellers. Again, gov'ts are not the only ones who do "spin" and propaganda.

Militants in Pakistan have been attacking Pakistan's military & police for years and quite recently as well. Despite public claim of "credit" by Pakistani Taliban, this latest attack was in keeping with other previous similar attacks and likely was similarly motivated, part of an ongoing war with authorities.

Of course, claiming credit and citing Bin Laden's death as a motivation gets them exactly what they're looking for: terrorist cred and headlines.

Yes, I give them credence. Just like the Obama administration does.

Bin Laden's death?

It has been officially "sanctified".

By that standard there should be no protest, no justice, no voice of any kind no matter what the crime. BECAUSE SOMEONE NASTY MIGHT GET EVEN.

Well, this time the dimwitted twits killed their own instead of us. And maybe one day their people will figure that out. UNLESS THEY'RE AFRAID TO DO ANYTHING IN CASE THERE ARE REPRISALS.

I do love shrieking gutlessness in the wilderness.

It was regarding to the Watts riot in 1965.

Amazing how such sentiments repeat themselves.

because of fear of reprisals. I thought using the fear thing was a repuke trait that they work for everything ... apparently it's not just them. :-(

edit: typo

When in reality I'm just asking a very tough, and very uncomfortable question.

I knew it would be a tough and uncomfortable question even before I posted it, in fact because it is so tough and uncomfortable I thought it should be kicked around.

But apparently it is so tough and uncomfortable that people are now resorting to insinuations that I'm somehow a 'Pug. So much for intelligent discussion.

More like mind-numbingly stupid.

These are questions that philosophers and ethicists wrestle with all the time. You may find it stupid, but that does not make it stupid.

"I don't care what religion they are, what country they are in, the onus is on them to learn how to act like civilized people in the modern world where our Freedom of Speech has become the model, the aspiration of countries large and small."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=799213

I completely agree with this esteemed philosopher. It is up to them to act like civilized people; it is not up to us to negotiate with them to get them to act like civilized people.

Of course, you (amazingly) have a different opinion now. Back then, when 20 people died in an attack shortly after the Koran burning, you didn't ask whether we should change our behavior. You didn't talk about the 20 deaths as if they were caused by us. You attacked them OUT OF HAND, and said it is THEIR fault for being uncivilized, not our fault for failing to appease them.

But of course now, the tables have turned. Now, we need to change our behavior to appease them.

What a joke.

Never mind what I've said both here and in previous posts about our own country's culpability.

Again you show how limited you are. Good night:hi:

doing something that you approved of. Apparently, when the US does something you disapprove of, that onus to be civilized disappears, and the quote was therefore "out of context."

I'm sorry for ever implying that you might have thought they ALWAYS had the onus to be civilized. I should never have assumed that from your quote -- it was clearly limited to the US-doing-something-you-approve-of case.

OBL due process of the law and a trial before execution because, if we did, there would be all these attacks. I've seen that argument or an iteration of it repeated over and over in the past 14 days.

political support in the U.S.? It's kind of hard to build a governing, progressive majority when you vindicate Bin Laden's horrific actions as reasonable responses to U.S. aggression or when some of you imply that the U.S. is to blame for these recent attacks.

After all, it was he and his administration that said straight up that killing bin Laden was going to prompt deadly retaliatory attacks. In essence, he was taking blame for those deaths even before they occurred:shrug;

If Sue smacks Joe, one could expect that Joe may hit Sue back. In this case, Joe then hit Mike, who had nothing to do with Sue's act.

The President stated there will likely be retaliation against us. Blowing up a few car bombs in Pakistan is just the normal attacks planned by the extremists, but now blamed on the US act for media attention.

That it wasn't just going to be the US who would face retaliation, but US allies. The Pakistani military is, at least nominally, an ally of ours.

That is why not just the US, but our allies have gone to a higher terror alert status.

How is this attack any different from those that occurred prior to May 1st?

Even if this was completely provable as a direct retaliation, why would that be uncomfortable for us? Short of giving Bin laden a massage and converting to Islam, the terrorist were still going to attack us. They attacked while he was in hiding, and they would have attacked while he was in custody.

You just revealed far too much of your soul, none of it good. It is pointless to continue this discussion with you.

Congratulation, you've become that which you profess to hate. "Even if this was completely provable as a direct retaliation, why would that be uncomfortable for us?"

Absolutely I said it! "Even if this was completely provable as a direct retaliation, why would that be uncomfortable for us?" We are not to blame for the acts of terrorists. In the end, a thinking rationale person choices to murder innocent people for a political cause. All blame and responsibility resides with that man. They are men, who unlike animals, make conscious decisions on the actions they take. This is not some automatic or instinctual action.
I have no moral problem here - I did not murder those people. The terrorists - the people you are actively defending - killed those people. Or did you forget that?

We either try to take Bin laden out of his power to lead attacks against us, or we just allow our people to die as he keeps leading attacks against us. It is likely additional attacks will take place in retaliation, but the leadership is gone. Terrorism only works by getting people to cower in fear like yourself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You should look up the definition of the word "projection."

Never seem to take responsibility for their failure to win elections. It's always, the Dems, the Corps., Fox News, etc. etc.

Maybe it's because American Progressives and the American Left simply do not know how to connect with people. Simply don't understand how to address their fears and concerns.

Just look at all of the hand wringing over the Bin Laden killing by some DUers. In contrasts, do you see protests marches in Europe over the killing? Do you see calls from European circles for the arrest of Obama?

is desired. Some of the posts by the Left on DU leaves me seriously wondering about issues of sanity. The childlike blindness to reality is profoundly astounding.

Apparently too tough and uncomfortable for many here, yourself included, to handle. Such is life:shrug:

That says nothing specific, but implies a lot.

C'mon, have the courage of your convictions, stop beating around the bush, say what you want to say plainly and concisely.

We are engaged in a war to defeat a terrorist organization. You believe we can successfully fight such a war without doing things that might elicit retaliation? That is laughable. We just got their top guy and scored a lot of valuable intelligence. Should we expect retaliation? What do you think? Is it our fault they target defenseless civilians in their conduct of a war? I don't think so and I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about their actions.

Maybe you believe we should just put with the terrorists because if we piss them off, they'll just commit more terrorism. I'm glad adults are running the operation.

We shouldn't ask what the costs of our actions are? We should not practice reflection upon our action, but simply continue to charge blindly ahead on the path we're on?

Why do you find such questions so threatening? Are you so close minded that you refuse to even consider the question, much less answer it?

If so, if this is your idea of what being an adult is, then we are in far greater danger from ourselves than from any terrorist. After all, we followed that unquestioning path before, under Bush, and look where it got us.

But rather ours. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Yes, I think it was worth it. The fanatics will do what they do regardless. We need to get the bad guys off the streets.

And bin Laden, what did he do in the intervening time? Oh, year, essentially confine himself to house arrest and fantasies.

Was he a bad man, certainly. But the question is whether the lives of eighty, and quite possibly more, innocents was worth the life of one bad man.

I doubt many of the DUer's in this thread will take the time to read this article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1003-09.htm

After all the important thing to do here is to flame each other and the piece is 10 years old. However when I read it shortly after 9/11 , I was profoundly affected by Roy's insight.

I'll exercise restraint and just say that I disagree.

BTW, I lived in Iraq for a year in 1979 and 1980. Saddaam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who didn't give a rat's ass about the children in his own country. He could just as easily complied with the UN demands and the sanctions would have gone away.

The WTC would still be standing, and 3000 plus people would still be with us. But rather than give humanitarian aid to a country that just won a proxy war for us, we turned our back on them, setting their rage, and events into motion.

"yeah it's all our fault and we deserved 9/11" then I suggest you bone up on your reading comphrehension. Jumping from A to Z is rather simplistic don't you think? And Roy doesn't say that AT ALL.

I also don't know why you feel compelled to point out the obvious about Saddaam(sic).

But hey, thanks for "struggling through" it anyway.

huh ?

Which is actually true if you look at it from the perspective that I just laid out, you know, chickens come home to roost and all that. Please do try to keep up, and if you don't believe what I'm saying, go out and do your own research. There are multiple sources backing up my contention, including the words of OBL himself.

but they did end up killing a bunch of muslims they claimed to be defending.

You gain more that way. You truly gain more if you actually go out and investigate for yourself what I am saying.

Or hey, continue to be part of the problem, another American wallowing in self induced ignorance.

but your position is really offensive to the real victims including the ones hurt by america's actions.

One can always count on you for your over the top sarcasm, so over the top that it misses its mark completely. Keep up the . . .amusing work.