When is it OK to launch a bomb?
By 
Shan-ul-Hai •
July 17, 2008
Most Americans don’t know this, but NATO is currently dropping bombs on parts of Pakistan. That means that, technically, US forces have attacked Pakistani soil… and this isn’t just like the time that a bunch of Pakistani civilians were “accidentally” killed by an American bomb that was intended for an Afghani target. This time, it’s completely premeditated and intentional.
In this particular case, the NATO forces justify their actions by saying that they were attacked by some people from the other side of the border before they fired back and killed 11 Pakistani soldiers (not extremists, but actual members of the Pakistani Army). It’s understandable… if somebody attacks you, then you’d want to attack back. You can’t just be pushed around.
But where do we draw the line? There’s a reason why we talk about a due process of law. Sure, you can defend yourself if somebody attacks you… but Pakistani officials say that they did not launch any sort of attack. Is it OK to attack somebody who says that they never attacked you? What about the investigation and the trial? Who gave that military commander the right to choose between guilty and innocent? Who gave him the ability to conduct an investigation in his head and automatically decide who needs to be attacked? As far as he knows, this may have been a terrorist attack that was intentionally designed to look as if it came from a Pakistani army base.
Even if it did come from Pakistan, how do you know who the culprit is? There’s no way to possibly know that fast… so do you just kill everybody in the area? If a crazy person in El Paso decides to launch a bomb into Mexico, does that give Mexico the right to send airstrikes back into El Paso? I’m pretty sure that the US would consider that an act of war… so why isn’t this attack on Pakistan considered an act of war?
Popularity: 31% [?]
| 4.3 (6 people) |
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
TWO THUMBS!!! i like your comment on this article
using nuke for world peace reason? hehe…you figure out
(would be feel good reading this site while listening john lennon’s imagine)
Youve got to be kidding, Ive never heard anything so ignorant. The Pakistani army/govt is complicit in facilitating the attacks an Afghan citizens/soldiers & American soldiers by agreeing not to interfere with the Taliban in tribal areas where these attacks are staged from.
This is propaganda.
Anybody who knows anything about the tribal areas knows that it’d be suicide to “interfere” with them. Pakistan isn’t “facilitating” attacks by refusing to start a suicidal civil war. If the US wants to invade those areas, it’d also be suicide.
This isn’t propaganda; propaganda is the fact that the Western media has made you believe that Pakistan is at fault for not letting the US go into a suicide mission. An attack on the tribal areas would be far worse than Iraq… it would be more along the lines of another Vietnam, or maybe worse.
Fact: Pakistan agreed to a cease fire with the Taliban but did not add a condition to not attack cross border; thats COMPLICITY.
Fact: There is ZERO chance that there were any Pak soldiers injured, theyre not allowed to operate in the tribal areas, its Pakistan govt trying to save face & appease militants by feigning indignation.
The Pak military is so friggen incompetent & or complicit they get killed or taken hostage. With the money from the US alone they should be able to handle this if they wanted to.
Suicide mission?, LOL thanks I needed that. You have no oil, wouldnt be an invasion just raining fire on that cat litter box, were not Russia & this isnt decades ago.
[…] Shan-ul-Hai • July 18, 2008 //Based on the reactions to the article I wrote yesterday, I came to the realization that people don’t really understand anything about the Federally […]
There’s a difference between “complicity” and “self-defense”. They agreed to a cease-fire because they had more to gain than they did to lose. It’s already too dangerous to invade those areas, so the cease-fire only helped them by protecting their own borders.
If you think that Pakistan was lying about the dead soldiers (and staged a fake funeral for the 11 “dead” people), then that’s a separate question. They are still claiming that people were killed, so there should at least be an investigation before we start acting on the allegations.
The Pakistani military is far from incompetent; they might actually be the only competent organization in the Pakistani government. Just because they’re not as rich as the American military doesn’t mean that they can “handle this” with more money. They actually value human life… unlike the US, they don’t want to go into an unnecessary war tht would lead to a lot of civilian casualties.
We can’t just rain fire on people. Lots of civilians would die. I’m sure you don’t care about that, but human life is actually valuable to some people.
Thanks for the inspiration for today’s article.
“There’s a difference between “complicity” and “self-defense”.” Actually theres not in this instance they are exactly the same. If we were friends (as US and Pak are supposed to be)and I helped or did nothing as you were attacked I am complicit, regardless of my own risk.PERIOD.
Complicity: association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicity).
“They are still claiming that people were killed, so there should at least be an investigation before we start acting on the allegations.” What investigation?, what action is to be taken?, none. Theyre buried, over.
I never said that there werent deaths, I said theyre Taliban scum, not Pak soldiers.
“Just because they’re not as rich as the American military doesn’t mean that they can “handle this” with more money.”
Never said that either, re-read it, and I’ll clarify here, with the amount of money given annually to the Pak govt, along with whatever the Pak mil budget is, they are either complicit or retarded. Hope that clirifies it for you.
“they don’t want to go into an unnecessary war tht would lead to a lot of civilian casualties.”
Civilians aren’t dieing by the Talibans hands???
“Lots of civilians would die. I’m sure you don’t care about that, but human life is actually valuable to some people.”
DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, thats a strawman attack and just plain pathetic. If you really think that civilian live or any life is so important, wait till they pull off another big attack (Nuke, Bio, Chem ?) and see what happens then, that sound like a good idea? WWIII?, tribal area would be a sheet of glass.
Im logging off after this post but I’ll check back to see if you’ve learned anything.
So what is your proposed solution? You can’t just launch bombs at civilians… that’ll just create more problems. Violence isn’t always the answer. Will bombing the tribal areas really stop them from pulling off another big attack? If you bomb those areas, the extremists will just escape and they’ll have a really easy time recruiting more people after you blow up a few villages.
You can’t say that the person is automatically “complicit” in that area. That’s a complicated issue that can’t just be decided on a whim with a “PERIOD”.
You can’t solve all problems with more money. The issue is that they don’t want to launch bombs on civilians in their own territory… more money doesn’t change that.
Some civilians may be dying by Taliban hands, but that doesn’t mean that we can just kill other civilians. Killing those civilians won’t stop the Taliban; it’ll only make it easier for them to recruit.
I dont have the solution, but I know that Pak burying its head in the sand and letting the Taliban run rampant is going to get a shitload more people killed in the long run than if they handled it right now.
Its not a whim, its fact.
Jeez man, nobody’s launching bombs at civilians intentionally. If Taliban (who are not civilians) are hiding behind civilians while shooting then it is them who are responsible for their deaths, not the people returning fire in self defense. Any argument of that fact is just PC bullshit.