It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: 1000's Of Tribesmen Protest Against Alleged US Zawahiri Air Strike

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

from WyrdeOne

When you occupy a country, you have to use police tactics in place of death from above.

What country are you referring to?



The tactics being used are not effective in the long run, they're not even totally effective in the short run (as we're seeing). This has been proven over and over again, in earlier conflicts and over the course of this one. Even with a vastly superior military utilizing air power and stand-off tactics, one cannot expect to defeat an embedded enemy if one is not willing to engage the local populace.

What tactics do you suggest we use? The people are immune to bribes, as the $25million rewards show. Tribal loyalty is fierce. So how do you suggest we infiltrate these tribes?


[edit on 15-1-2006 by jsobecky]




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   



The analogy of a city block in America is accurate, a couple of people have used it in this thread and others. If you're trying to catch a guy in apartment B on the second floor, you don't just launch ordinance at the whole block and go in later with the DNA swabs.



I do not think it is accurate.

The sources point out that all three houses belong to the same family - and that this family invited al-Zawahri to a dinner marking a Muslim festival.

So

  • the family knew whom they invited and

  • they used the innocent other guests and familiy members as a human shield.

    It is also said, al-Zawahri had visited Bajur in recent months, a tip gleaned from the interrogation of Abu Farraj al-Libbi, a senior al-Qaida figure arrested in Pakistan in May.


    Therefore I think both Pakistan and the U.S. had agreed to this air strike.


    [edit on 15-1-2006 by Riwka]



  • posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:28 PM
    link   
    I don't get it, if Pakistan is Americas "Friend in the war on terror" why they didn't do the operations themselves in their own country.

    But rather now US is been blame with the death of "Innocent children and women" while the target walk away.

    No very good for the support on the "war on terror" unless our country really don't care about who gets in the way when is after one person.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:35 PM
    link   
    The fact of the matter is, they attacked a target using inaccurate information proven by the fact that the required targets had not been killed and as a result injured innocent non combatants. If they could not see if the target of their attack was available they were just attacking blindly at a rumor in the hope of hitting jackpot.

    I would have suggested tighter border control in order to prevent activity from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

    You cant just shoot blindly and hope that probability is in your favour. If you are gonna do that then you may as well just nuke all non western supporting countries and call all non combatant casualties an acceptable loss so that we can all stop the paranoia.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:45 PM
    link   
    You are right perhaps border control will be in order but that is the job of Pakistan in his side and Afghanistan in the other.

    Then this brings one issue that I have been on for quite sometimes, I don't trust the Pakistani government either they are not going after Al-qaida leaders or the Pakistani government is afraid of their own people.

    I always feel that The government in Pakistan is just hanging in there, to think that they have nuclear power is kind of scary if the people take the government and the nuclear power falls in the wrong hands and they are not very happy with the US either.

    Afghanistan is another problem just because they have " Some type of secular democratic government" thanks to the US it seems that their leaders are only able to government the country around the main cities the rest of the country is still lawless land.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:00 PM
    link   


    What country are you referring to?


    Well, I had Iraq on my mind when I was writing. I should have said that when one conducts military operations to quell dissent in ostensibly friendly nations, one should use police tactics rather than death from above.

    It's just counter-productive on the PR front to kill the folks you're trying to persuade. That's just from a purely rational perspective. In other words, if you want folks to stop harboring your enemies, it behooves you to prove your dedication to their well-being. Blowing up their villages, complete with women and children, on faulty intelligence or on purpose (doesn't matter from their perspective), is a good way to lose the war for 'hearts and minds.'



    What tactics do you suggest we use? The people are immune to bribes, as the $25million rewards show. Tribal loyalty is fierce. So how do you suggest we infiltrate these tribes?


    I think infiltration is probably impossible, just from what I know of the people and the region. If the Pakistani intelligence services can't do it effectively, the CIA sure as hell can't. They don't have the resources on the ground to do anything like that, they don't have the local support necessary.

    I would liken it to a Chinese spy trying to infiltrate a small town in W Virginia. The results would be somewhere between gruesome and hilarious.
    Speaking the language and looking the part is a hard enough order to fill, nevermind implanting an operative that everyone knows and trusts. That's practically impossible, without GENERATIONS of planning.

    The Pro-West Pakistani agents aren't having an easier time of it because they're in the same position. They have an easier time looking the part and speaking the language, but I imagine they're still trying to bribe the locals rather than take on the unique challenge presented by social engineering on the scale we're talking about.

    I'm looking at it from a law enforcement perspective. If intelligence indicates the target is going to be visiting on a certain day, then you conduct a raid. We have the means to watch and listen, and to track fleeing suspects, from the air.

    If protecting innocent people is a priority, then launching hellfire missles into a house containing non-combatants is not an option. Why not attack the convoy as it's coming or going? Why not ambush them and disable their engines as they flee? Why not neutralize the vehicles outside while the people are inside, and then move in with an entry team to take people into custody for processing?

    You don't use a flamethrower on a mouse-hole in your own house. But callous, careless individuals have a habit of acting that way in other people's houses...



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:14 PM
    link   
    You also have to look at the reasons behind the support that the terrorist may have. Find out what individuals are trying to achieve and why.
    Once this is learned then more humane tactics can be employed. What purpose did this attack have? If this individual had been killed, would he have been replaced? More than likely. What is the final goal of the terrorists? Does this have anything to do with religion? We hear reports of Muslim groups denouncing the action of terrorists so this cannot be the case.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:42 PM
    link   
    Unite The Tribes


    Originally posted by marg6043
    I don't get it, if Pakistan is Americas "Friend in the war on terror" why they didn't do the operations themselves in their own country.

    Probably because they can't. At least, not without taking heavy casualties.

    For some background on this, I recommend doing some research on the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan and the Pashtun people who inhabit them.

    To summarize things somewhat, the tribal areas in Pakistan are not really under the control of the Pakistani government in any meaningful sense of the word – although relations have recently improved in some areas.

    Still, last I heard, signs are posted at the borders of the FATA that warn travelers of the risks of entering them.

    Opinions may vary, but I think Frank Herbert drew heavily on the ways of the Pashtuns when he invented the Fremen.

    Basically, the Pashtuns are some serious badasses and not to be trifled with.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that the people of Bajur are hostile themselves, but if Al Qaeda members are welcome at the home of a prominent family in Bajur, then it's a safe bet that troops of any kind – Pakistani or otherwise – are not also welcome.

    While these considerations may not necessarily justify an air strike, they certainly may help explain the reasons for making such a choice.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:57 PM
    link   
    thanks Majic, interesting perspective on the tribal life of the different people of that area.

    I have been researching into the subject of tribal rivalry and alliances from the people of Iraq and Iran taking in consideration that we may be involve in another conflict in the area.

    It is worth to learn because it also make you realized why is so hard for these people to unite in a common purpose.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:11 PM
    link   
    If the administration wants to set an example (I do think this was their goal) that they are willing to do any means necessary to fulfill their goals on the war on terror then this would be the best way to go... relentless (5 bombs) attacks on areas in even foreign countries to set the example to those countries and areas that if you allow known terrorists into you land you are also a terrorist and that would include innocent bystandards.

    Although I do not agree with this strategy for a war on terror. In fact I think this would be a perfect example of what NOT to do. This strategy is the perfect way to create more terrorists I believe. But as of now its beyond our control and what ever this administration does... the CIA, the FBI, any branch of the military... it all falls under the admins of this country right now and they should be held responsible for whatever any branch of the country does. I think everyone here understands that much.



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:23 PM
    link   
    I admit that I have not read each and every post in depth but from what I did read makes me want to ask an important question whose answer might shed a bigger light on the whole picture here.

    WE have a title on the thread that states 1000s of tribesmen are protesting but no one has asked if perhaps these tribesmen might have been put up to it at daily prayers by fanatical clerics in the area? Why is that?

    Lets consider some known facts here.

    1 The area in question are known supporters of terrorists.

    2 Clerics in the region are known to train the Taliban and al qaeda or any off shoot clans that ask for training as long as they will adhere to the terrorists training manual.

    3 The tribesmen in the region normally do not see eye to eye with normal Pakistani people.

    4. The media has stated several known suspects were in the and the prime target may have in fact been invited to dinner which alone would make it a prime target.

    I could go on and on but those are just a few examples of why fanatical clerics would want to make people think it is worse then it actually was.

    Do not get me wrong here I am sorry to hear that it is possible that some innocent people might have been killed and note I said possibly because there is always the chance that each and everyone of them except for very young children were aware they were who they where.

    Now to end I will state this, I feel that both governments were aware of what was going on and I think the fanatical clerics are trying to take advantage of the situation that could cause further friction between the Packistani people. After all that is what they really want friction and fear between everyone who doe not agree with their ways isn't it?






    [edit on 1/15/2006 by shots]



    posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:13 PM
    link   

    from Klepto I would have suggested tighter border control in order to prevent activity from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

    The geography of those borders represents some of the wildest terrain on earth. It would be impossible to control it.


    from WyrdeOne I'm looking at it from a law enforcement perspective. If intelligence indicates the target is going to be visiting on a certain day, then you conduct a raid. We have the means to watch and listen, and to track fleeing suspects, from the air.

    The problem with this is, they are masters of disguise, and travel with commoners and peasants to get where they are going. They avoid using cell phones and use couriers to transfer messages. To a sat or a drone, they look like a group of peasants travelling by mulepack.

    One part of this whole scenario that puzzles me is that several sources have stated that drones were patrolling the skies around the village for the previous two or three days before the bombs were dropped. I would think that that would be enough to keep Zawahiri away from the area until things cooled down.

    Final question: who supplied the faulty intel?

    [edit on 15-1-2006 by jsobecky]



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:08 AM
    link   
    say some country had bombed us because its intelligence said we had some splinter cell terrorists in america. say an entire apartment building went down and killed ruffly 100, but they got a terrorist cell that had a co leader of a terrorist organization that was a threat to THEIR country and not ours. would you be mad? or would you say the lives of 100 of our american people was worth stopping a possible attack in some other country?

    hey im not siding either way i just sayin...



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:33 AM
    link   
    hypocracy? funny coming from certain posters who sit there and believe the government wanted 9/11 to happen because it didnt bomb osama before 9/11, yet when we do the exact thing they condemned the government for not doing before, they are up in arms about it and calling the action terrorism, make up your minds people, lest you be hypocrits.

    maybe if our forces in afghanistan werent having taliban/al queda freely moving between this area and regrouping across the border and creating more problems than all the rest of afghanistan because of this "border" stopping us and locals aiding them in hiding, this might not have been needed.



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:36 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by jsobecky
    The problem with this is, they are masters of disguise, and travel with commoners and peasants to get where they are going. T


    plus pakistan wont allow our soldiers in their country to conduct ground raids.



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:41 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by shots
    WE have a title on the thread that states 1000s of tribesmen are protesting but no one has asked if perhaps these tribesmen might have been put up to it at daily prayers by fanatical clerics in the area? Why is that?


    ell I think its because fanatic muslim clerics haven't been mentioned in any newspaper article about this event, especially rabble rousers prayers ones and if there was even a whiff of that, western media would have picked at its bones well before now.

    . So my opinion is that you are putting 2 and 2 together to make 10 and making whatever conclusion you want there.



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:49 AM
    link   
    mayet not hardly, since western media has limited access there.



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:00 AM
    link   
    and i'll be damned....

    "The pro-Taliban religious alliance, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, known as M.M.A., which has wide support in the regions bordering Afghanistan, organized some of the demonstrations"

    www.nytimes.com...



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
    But you said the 5000 protesters were harboring the
    terrorists and it was 'their fault'...


    No I didn't.

    Approximately 17 people died in the bombing.
    Some of them were terrorists. Some were those
    harboring terrorists.

    If you harbor a terrorist then you are taking a
    chance with your own life. If you have a terrorist
    over for dinner, and then you die in a bombing
    that is targeting a terrorist ... it's your own damn fault.



    posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:17 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by pavil
    We are now hearing some reports that Zawahiri was "invited" by a villiager to Celebrate a Muslim feast day.


    Thank you. There ya' go. If these tribal people are dumb
    enough to invite a terrorist mastermind to dinner, then they
    are risking their own life.... AND they are not just an 'innocent
    civilian' anymore.

    Zawahiri is a criminal in Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan ...
    and the rest of the international community (except perhaps
    for Syria which has a terrorist government). Ask the guy to
    your house, and you knowingly risk obliteration.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

    log in

    join