Amazing strike kills 25 Militants.

[roadrunner]

This was a tremendous hit! Congratulations to the CIA and ISI for nailing so many of the jihadi jerks at one time!! Great!! I hope the drones strike every day.

I'm not sure this fellow is typing with both hands

 

[Vinod2070]

Its good that the PA didn't have to waste their men fighting this scum.

 

[notorious_eagle]

If 25 militants were killed, than its good news. But the number 25 is too low, should have been more than 100's. Have to kill more and more of these bastards, just look at what they are doing to my beautiful country. I remember there was a time when i used to go to Swat with my family or friends, it was completely peacefull. But these bastards have made that paradise into a living hell

 

[haviZsultan]

Even though I am against US airstrikes within pakistani territory I support this one strike because baitullah mehsud and his men are the worst enemies of Pakistan currently and even though US created these murderers and bloodthirsty animals it fills me with happiness whenever I hear of baitullah mehsuds men dying.

I am hoping they will do something useful for once and kill the bastard and get some commander responseible for attacks on Pakistanis.

Do note that the foreigners are the worst murderers in the region. The afghans uzbeks and arabs are worse than any of the religious fanatics in any of the regions of ours. These guys kill people in cold blood and dont even look back. These guys are purely agents.

 

[Sgt Automatic]

Amazing violation of our sovereignty.

When i said amazing it was because, usually 1 of these 25 killed would be millitant and the rest innocent by standers, but in this particular one, they compound was very remote, and had hundreds of uzbek fighters training there. So out of 25 to 30 people killed atleast 25 if not all were militants. And that is very amazing.

I agree with most people out here, that CIA should atleast ask pakistans permision before launching strikes but something tells me that there might be a mutual understanding between them.

If the strikes don't kill any innocents like to ones of this one, than the US and PAK Govt will regain civillian support.

But at the moment the best solution would be that Pakistan and US work cooperativly but chances of that happening are very low. So instead the US should keep flying drones in the area (non lethal ones) and hand over important intelligence to PAF and then PAF should strike these targets. And PAF definatly has the capability to do such srikes easily.

 

[roadrunner]

Can't say I disagree with the above auto.

I'm all for removal of the Uzbeks and Arabs from the tribal areas (the militant ones anyway), but not at the expense of civlians.

 

[S-2]

"...usually 1 of these 25 killed would be millitant and the rest innocent by standers..."

FINALLY, somebody who knows with certainty. Outstanding. Can I ask where you get your data from? You've the ratios quite exact- 1/25.

I can't wait to read your analysis and sources...right?

Ah, never mind, actually. We both know that you SWAGged that ratio from your fourth point of contact. All that's important is that PREDATOR continues flying until your army reconquers FATA.

Stop making war on Afghanistan from your soil and PREDATOR will stop defending Afghanistan from you.

 

[Sgt Automatic]

"...usually 1 of these 25 killed would be millitant and the rest innocent by standers..."

FINALLY, somebody who knows with certainty. Outstanding. Can I ask where you get your data from? You've the ratios quite exact- 1/25.

I can't wait to read your analysis and sources...right?

Ah, never mind, actually. We both know that you SWAGged that ratio from your fourth point of contact. All that's important is that PREDATOR continues flying until your army reconquers FATA.

Stop making war on Afghanistan from your soil and PREDATOR will stop defending Afghanistan from you.

I guess I should have made it clean cut clear that ofcoarse, I meant it as sarcasm, but thought you would be mature enough to read it because obviously those "ratios" are overly exagerated, but get the point across that innocents are dieing needlessly. But i guess what you should take from that statement is that innocent lives are 10 times more important than what your govt takes them for and should exercise more caution.

By the way, we have lost more than a 100 soldiers in Afghanistan by now for a war that we never signed up for. It started as a peace keeping mission and now its actually fighting militants. Your govt is not only asking Pakistan to do more but other NATO nations and ofcoarse we are one of them.

Although we are fighting with you in Afghanistan, we still respect Pakistans sovereignty by not launching cross border raids. But I am glad to say that our contract ends in 2011 and hopfully we will go back to peace keeping if not leave afghanistan once for all.

 

[S-2]

"By the way, we have lost more than a 100 soldiers in Afghanistan by now for a war that we never signed up for."

We didn't SIGN UP either. It was gift-packaged to our front-steps on 9/11.

"It started as a peace keeping mission and now its actually fighting militants."

Your government lied to you. Read Christine Lamb's articles for the Sunday Times of London from the early spring of 2006. As the Canadian, British, and Dutch parliaments were debating the deployments, she was writing about the hell that Kandahar, Oruzgan, and Helmand had already become. Little wonder when you understand where the heartland of the rebellion lay.

Either you didn't notice or care because there was no way that you were pulling a "peacekeeping" mission there-except in your dreams. John Reid testified how the Brits fully expected to deploy and conduct their operations without need to fire a shot.

You guys were so cocky and sure that you KNEW this COIN business. Berets and "softly, softly".

Uh huh. Shoulda asked us. We knew and told you. The press (some of them) knew too.

"But I am glad to say that our contract ends in 2011 and hopfully we will go back to peace keeping if not leave afghanistan once for all."

Programmed the war to end then or are you just quitting early?

 

[Captain03]

our government needs to takes its head out of its @$$ and do something for the nation rather than relying on the u.s.

 

[Sgt Automatic]

'We didn't SIGN UP either. It was gift-packaged to our front-steps on 9/11."

Again you missed the point, you are right YOUR front-steps, not ours.

"Programmed the war to end then or are you just quitting early?"

This might come as a shock to you but, we can't lose if its not OUR war. First you guys quit Vietnam, then Iraq and sooner or later you guys will leave Afghanistan as well. So stop quiting and start finishing the jobs you started. No body likes pre-mature ejaculation.

Vast majority of the Canadians oppose the war in Afghanistan and thus the decisioin is solidified to pull troops out by 2011. We already know that it can't be achived so we are not gonna waste any more resources or men. Although while we are there we are gonna try our best to end the war by then, which is highly unlikely.

 

[roadrunner]

^^ The US might be out before you guys in 2011 with all its financial difficulties.

 

[S-2]

"We already know that it can't be achived so we are not gonna waste any more resources or men."

We'll miss your troops. Here's a statement, though, from the Canadian Army Official Website. Try to match it's words with yours-

"Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government, along with 36 other nations, and as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic, and self-sufficient society."

Official Canadian Army Website

So, like I said, did the Afghanistan government indicate it no longer needed your assistance? Did the "UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable , democratic, and self-sufficient society" pick a date firm when all of us can go home?

Did you ever note the number of foreigners, to include Canadians, who suffered on 9/11? You should. How about 7/7 in Britain? Madrid? Bali? You've a rather myopic and skewed view of matters. Clearly you're one of those who'd wait for the problem to wash ashore in Hudson Bay before recognizing the sheer malevolence afoot.

"So stop quiting and start finishing the jobs you started. No body likes pre-mature ejaculation."

You know, Sgt. Automatic, coming from you to think of Japan, S. Korea, W. Germany, Kuwait, Iraq, and others is funny. I certainly don't see us "running" from Iraq. That has turned to a resounding victory by any measure.

I suppose you should leave or do something "safer". You've tried hard. As you wrote, you simply weren't up to the task.

Evidently, you've the luxury in your mind to pick and choose your battles. Those at the WTC had no such choice. If Afghanistan fails and we leave, it will revert to it's past history of mayhem- as sure as the sun rises in the east. It is these same men who permitted that outrage on 9/11 with whom we do battle now and it's a certainty of the same or worse-particularly if Pakistan falls too.

 

[Awesome]

When i said amazing it was because, usually 1 of these 25 killed would be millitant and the rest innocent by standers, but in this particular one, they compound was very remote, and had hundreds of uzbek fighters training there. So out of 25 to 30 people killed atleast 25 if not all were militants. And that is very amazing.

I agree with most people out here, that CIA should atleast ask pakistans permision before launching strikes but something tells me that there might be a mutual understanding between them.

If the strikes don't kill any innocents like to ones of this one, than the US and PAK Govt will regain civillian support.

But at the moment the best solution would be that Pakistan and US work cooperativly but chances of that happening are very low. So instead the US should keep flying drones in the area (non lethal ones) and hand over important intelligence to PAF and then PAF should strike these targets. And PAF definatly has the capability to do such srikes easily.

Dude, thats the worst solution. You could've killed 1000 militants here, and it would still be perceived as "A-hole foreigners came and slaughtered a thousand people".

What has the drone strikes achieved? Have they regained any territory? I sometimes think the drone strikes are only there to destabilize the Pak government as that is what they are only achieving.

I don't see any real mention that Pakistanis cooperated in this strike. We only have the US word for it that these were 25 militants. We also know that the US has in the past killed wedding processions and claimed them as militants. We also know that the US description for a militant is every big bearded guy with an AK47 (which is like 80% of the entire Pashtun population).

Dude the US actions have totally raped the stability of my country. So excuse me when I don't trust their word for it. The only action I like to see from the US is inaction and to just pack and go home.

 

[Awesome]

Can't say I disagree with the above auto.

I'm all for removal of the Uzbeks and Arabs from the tribal areas (the militant ones anyway), but not at the expense of civlians.

Me too, but only WE should have the right to do it. You know whenever Pak Army tries to regain territory with the militants it has rarely come down to using air strikes and we physically put boots on the ground, risk our lives and then get the job done.

Why is that? We can just carpet bomb the entire area too right? But the idea is to kill militants and only militants. Americans prefer blowing up an entire village to get one guy.