Apparently, we got some of the evil doers. The U.S. airstrike in Pakistan last Friday, which led to "Death to America" chants in Islamabad and condemnation by the Pakistani government, killed at least four al Qaeda members. The manner in which al Qaeda members generally strike (primitive, suicide bombs), and the manner in which we struck them (unmanned, remote-controlled drone), speaks volumes about the clash of the two civilizations.

"The manner in which al Qaeda members generally strike (primitive, suicide bombs), and the manner in which we struck them (unmanned, remote-controlled drone), speaks volumes about the clash of the two civilizations."

Would you mind clarifying what you meant by this, Dan? You seem to be suggesting some sort of moral equivalence.

He should be Gary but I don't think he is. The U.S. airstrike was hardly a precision act since we killed at least 17 people while purportedly only 4 of them were Al Qaeda members. That doesn't sound to me like a just act at all. Apparently the strike killed many more noncombatants than combatants, which isn't all that dissimilar to many or most of the terrorist/insurgent attacks themselves.

I expect Islamic militants and terrorists to fail to follow jus in bello restrictions but I expect more from my own government, not that I have any illusions about the U.S. being a Christian nation or anything.

Come on. Didn't your parents ever tell you, when you were a teenager perhaps, that if you hang around with bad kids you'll get in trouble just being with them when they get caught? Even if you didn't do anything?

The lesson: Don't go hangin' 'round with them terrorists.

Brian, Tell me how do you tell them apart.(noncombatants and combatants) What would you have done if you had intel about this dinner? This is a war and noncombatants get killed in all wars. War is a nasty business and does not have anything to do with the U.S. being a Christian nation...

Brian's attempt to establish moral equivalence fails and misleads.

The moral superiority of the west is self evident in the reaction.

When the United States accidentally kills a handful of innocents in a missile strike, everyone comes out of the woodwork to condemn us.

When Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Insurgents deliberately blow up a mosque or car bomb a crowd of children, it's just another Tuesday in that part of the world.

Why? Because people hold America to such higher moral standards than they do to our enemies.

"He should be Gary but I don't think he is."

He should be what, Brian?

"The U.S. airstrike was hardly a precision act since we killed at least 17 people while purportedly only 4 of them were Al Qaeda members. That doesn't sound to me like a just act at all. Apparently the strike killed many more noncombatants than combatants, which isn't all that dissimilar to many or most of the terrorist/insurgent attacks themselves."

The killing of innocents was an accident. This is an unfortunate consquence of war, but our ability to reduce such incidents has become admirably improved in recent years. Nonetheless, we're still not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be, either. To equate this accidental killing of civilians with the deliberate killing of civilians by terrorists is, as I said, moral equivalence and is disgusting. I would expect something like this from Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy - not Dan Flynn.

"I expect Islamic militants and terrorists to fail to follow jus in bello restrictions but I expect more from my own government, not that I have any illusions about the U.S. being a Christian nation or anything."

As I said above, your expectations are unreasonable. To expect a war without casualties on our side is ridiculous. It is also equally as ridiculous to expect that we can conduct a war without unwanted civilian casualties. I don't know what this has to do with religion, by the way. Our killing of innocents was not an intentional act, so, if you are attempting to imply that no "Christian nataion" (whatever that is) would do such a thing, you are neglecting the fact that this was an accident.

Ben,
I'd go so far as to say that attacks on Americans and/or non-muslims are not "just another Tuesday in that part of the world" -- they're a cause for celebration and momentary media stardom.

The two issues are practical defense issues and morality.

We may have killed a few Al Quaeda operatives, but I'm sure this action of going and bombing "collateral damage" in a non-hostile country will make morep people hate us and throw them into the arms of Al Quaeda. This "war on terrorism" is not going to be won this way.

As for morality. If the best we can say is that we aren't as ruthless as Al Quaeda, then I think that we have some serious moral failings in our policy.

Marcus, first, it is highly debatable that Pakistan hasn't already been in Al Qaeda's arms, to begin with. You may recall that there was talk, during 2001, of the fact that Pakistan's intelligence agency was working in collusion with the Taliban and that, in fact, the Taliban was created by them.

There is no question that the U.S. has the moral high ground over Al Qaeda. If this is a matter of doubt or degree for you, then you don't understand the difference between offense and defense, deliberate murder and accidental killings. The United States does not seek to kill innocent Pakistanis (or Iraqis or Afhgans). Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are all about killing and apparently don't care who they kill.

What we are doing is way worse than what "the insurgents" are doing. Think about it for a while you dumb asss fuks

"The American Nightmare" (boy, I'll say!), your understanding of geopolitical affairs, like your understanding of the fundamental difference right and wrong, is absolutely apalling. Are you getting this nonsense from your professors?

Assuming Marcus, that those who survived the people we killed were not already pro-Al Qaeda, which they probablly WERE, it is worth it to give Al Qaeda a few additional footsoldiers from a backwater Pakistani village in order to take out a high level Al Qaeda operative such as Abu Khabab al-Masri

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1517986

Anyone know why we wouldn't use special forces in a case like this? Catching any of these high level guys alive would be beneficial I'd think. And even if we kill them all, at least we'd have positive ID. As an added bonus we'd probably kill fewer civilians too.

Good question, Obi Juan. Considering the best guess, at this time, is that Bin Laden is in the mountains of Northern Pakistan, you'd think that's where our troops would be.

We found out that Zawahiri was going to be at this village for a dinner party he had been invited to (of course he didn't show up, but that bomb maker did).

It's not a simple matter to, in that short amount of time, get a spec ops team trained for assassination over the mountains, into northern pakistan, into Al Qaeda controlled territories, and then to said dinner party. Far easier to use a missile strike.

Also, the kind of Al Qaeda guys that would be guarding Zawahiri would most likely be able to take on American spec ops with a good chance of winning. Only Al Qaeda's most veteran warriors would be assigned to guard Zawahiri, and they would most likely have much experiance fighting Russian Spetsnaz in the Afghan occupation.

(accidentally hit post)

Al Qaeda fighters should not be underestimated. They are usually very experianced and armed to the tee th (Flynn files edits out the word tee th?). Too often we assume they are simply farmers with rifles. This is not always,or even usually, the case.

"Al Qaeda fighters should not be underestimated. They are usually very experianced and armed to the tee th"

And, unlike U.S. Special Forces, they are trained on the monkey bars, too. Seriously, a Green Beret could take out one of these punks in nothing flat.

And unlike the average Green Beret, they have spent more or less their entire lives fighting wars against vastly superior military forces and finding ways to win.

Underestimating one's enemies is never a smart move.

"...against vastly superior military forces..."

Such as? What, the Soviets? Other than them, who? Osama Bin Laden and his followers had never fought a war before in their lives until they fought the Soviets, with our help. They haven't defeated anyone else since then, either.

Muhajideen had the EU on the run in Kosovo before we showed up.

Also, many different factions in Afghanistan in their civil war.

You're way OVERestimating the Afghan resistance. The only reason they were so successful in the civil war, was that they were converting the other Afghans to betray their Soviet-backed government, or other superiors. We can have a long discussion of how the Soviets lost the war, but I can't think of a single one of those discussions, granting all of the factors, that place much importance on the strength of Islamist resistance (by ITSELF) as one of them. In fact, the Stinger missiles that we distributed to them probably contributed more than anything else, really.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine, as I'm getting sick of this myth. These muslims are not the damned A-Team. I'll grant you that what they lack in brains they make up for in determination and a knack for hiding very well. But their performance has been so bad thus far, how can anyone possibly think that US troops couldn't beat them any day of the week?

Very good post Homer....I agree with you...The Stinger missiles was the major factor...

Homer, don't forget the CIA's training of the Mujahedin, as well as the underground bunkers the CIA built at Tora Bora - and which the Taliban later fled to during the war in Afghanistan. The Afghans would be speaking Russian now if it hadn't been for the U.S.

...and having the greatest home field advantage of any other country in the world (save Russia itself).