But anyway I guess we’re agreed that the idea of expanding into Quetta is bad.

“the costs on both sides will be much greater should we conduct ourselves by our values instead of tribal ones.”

Much greater for us, for our tribe? If so, greater costs in terms of terror strikes against Americans outside of Pakistan, or much greater costs for troops in Afghanistan?

And I guess I’m still not exactly clear on whether you think it’s worth that cost to go by ‘our values’. I thought you were saying we should either get out or take off the gloves but then you do say ‘our values’. I’d think if you disagreed you’d find a more pejorative description. But maybe I’m reading too much into that.

“Obviously we are not at war with any nation. Who are we targeting, ha?! You say Taliban. Okay, which one; the one now we call ‘good Taliban’ or the other one, ‘the mean, bad and ugly Taliban’?”
By all indications we are targeting AQ, Afghan Taliban, and TTP in our drone strikes in Pakistan. I don’t understand the rest of your question.

“You talk about the report omitting the ‘Taliban targets’ we kill with our mighty drones. Okay, so who are they? Define. What have they done to us? Tell us. And, are their wives, children, grandmothers, grandpapas…all included in the tribal definition-Taliban?”
I talked about the report omitting Taliban targets with regard to calculating the ratio because it deliberately made a BS ratio in its analysis. What part about that don’t you understand?

“Because when we are talking about 100s of civilians killed, we are not talking about some petty statistics; we are talking about humans-flesh & bone.”
And it would be tens to hundreds of thousands if given the alternative and it were done by conventional manned airstrikes or by Pakistani ground force assault. Which would make 100’s of civilians killed some petty statistic; is that what you would prefer?

And just how many people are in al-Qaeda anyway? They seem to have an endless supply of super terrorists. Surely we must have wiped out most of the Afghanistan/Pakistan members by now and al-Qaeda in Iraq rarely makes the headlines anymore, so where do they keep coming from? And if they are such a threat, why is it that we don’t attack them from their parent nations (assuming they are not Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq)? I don’t endorse attacking every nation they come from, but I’m not the government members who vowed to “attack them anywhere”.

You start to think any time we want to blow up someone, for whatever reason, the target in question gets an al-Qaeda membership package in the mail just before the bombs hit.

First, I provided direct link to L.A. Times piece, and I did the same with the other report which also had tons of citations/documentation at the bottom of the piece. L.A. Times did not provide the number of casualties. As always, they refrained from providing facts/data on the ‘destruction & damages & civilian cost & casualties.’

Second, on projecting my own views. You bet!!! I certainly do. My views are shaped by first hand experiences, by what I read, by where I stand, by what I obtain from interviewing many people with expertise and experience on this area, by … Am I partial? You bet!!

I am partial when it comes to almost all wars. I am anti war.
I am partial when it comes to both parties. I am neither, and I stand against both.
I am partial when it comes to MIC, their total influence on our foreign policies & of course offenses/wars, and their motivation which is ‘profit;’ I oppose their ever-increasing unchallenged and unchecked status.
I am partial when it comes to media as a mouthpiece of the establishment which includes the greedy MIC players, our war machine.
I am partial when it comes to Zionists and settlers in Israel.
…

You see, I stand here proudly, boldly, and openly, and I declare what I stand for, where I stand. I am not sponsored and backed by any foundations, corporate, or the establishment party’s two headquarters.

Third: You still haven’t told me about which one of our wars this drone attacks apply to. So, which one is it? Obviously we are not at war with any nation. Who are we targeting, ha?! You say Taliban. Okay, which one; the one now we call ‘good Taliban’ or the other one, ‘the mean, bad and ugly Taliban’?

You talk about the report omitting the ‘Taliban targets’ we kill with our mighty drones. Okay, so who are they? Define. What have they done to us? Tell us. And, are their wives, children, grandmothers, grandpapas…all included in the tribal definition-Taliban? As in, if we killed 700 civilians, and if 593 of them were the cousins, and the nephews, and the papas & mamas, and babies of those bearded guys, then we have actually succeeded in hitting the targets?

Come on KingFisher. Please don’t pull ‘Another neocon’ on us here. Because when we are talking about 100s of civilians killed, we are not talking about some petty statistics; we are talking about humans-flesh & bone.

“Perhaps the point of the report was to call out the US leadership on their declared goals, as in “you say your trying to hit Al-Qaida but your hit ratio is this bad.” In other words, “You’re not being straight with us”.”
Then Mir should come out and say that. He doesn’t, instead he plays fast and loose with the data.

““We are better off literally destroying the city entirely and salting the earth beneath it instead of “playing with war.” If you’re just making an observation about how dangerous it could be to piss of the Pashtuns that much then OK, but I really hope you don’t actually mean to sanction the idea. If you do then you’re just being ridiculous.”
I would advise against essentially going to war against Pashtunistan. That said, should we continue down this path the costs on both sides will be much greater should we conduct ourselves by our values instead of tribal ones.

“And as for whether hellfires are ‘the safest way’ I’d think sending in special forces would be safer for the innocent civilians than lobbing missiles. But of course, given that they’re not our civilians why risk our soldiers, right?”
Yes, physically taking out the target it might be. It is in the infiltration and ex-filtration of the target that civilian casualties are likely to occur in a special operations assault (think Blackhawk Down in Somalia capture/kill mission).

KF

That’s accurate except Obama did not order the strikes in Yemen. It’s been reported his Secretary of State & other officials ordered these military strikes, without his approval.

Either scenario is very dark for democracy as such things do not happen when you are free…

Stockholm Syndrome, and the belief that there is nothing you can do about it. Only there is something very real you can do about it, to end the stranglehold of this rotten system & begin cutting the chords once and for all.

It’s called FREE OUR CURRENCY system from the stranglehold of greedy, squabbling bankers who profit off the MIC.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

Eradicate the Federal Reserve System permanently. Dismantle it. Begin phasing it out alltogether and put their army to rest.

That is the cause of all our wars, Central Bank Inc. controlled & manifested through a select group of greedy sellouts as bad as the bankers themselves.

http://endthefed.us

You can do it. Thousands of Palestinians, Yemeni and other civilians are counting on you awakening people left and right. Have them focus on the one thing that matters, the corruption of our currency through crime.

Eradicate it. Revolutions have always come when the time was right.

I’m pretty sure I knew where you stood on the issue before hand; that’s fine we can disagree.

But you projected your position/bias/agenda into your analysis of the article, and then stand as if they are at fault and you are some champion of impartiality. This is something I am taking issue with.

I also called out as BS the methodology used in your section “The US Drone Attacks, its Casualties, and the Implications”, to which you have completely ignored and responded by reiterating your position against drone strikes. That’s great for activism, but poor for any meaningful insight or analysis.

KF

http://www.videoweed.com/file/rv5fh4cfbce75

All wars are financed by inflation and it’s the inflation by the Fed which has enabled the MIC to grow to the size it is today. It’s no coincidence that right after the Fed was created in 1913, it enabled the US to enter WWI. The MIC depends on the Fed for their continued survival at the size they are at now. Similarly with the police state emerging.

As to why people avoid these issues, I think it’s something called “cognitive dissonance”.

In an interview of Naomi Wolf by Lew Rockwell, podcast #58. America’s Slow-Motion Fascist Coup, on hearing some of the possible explanations of the actions of the government she described it as painful. I think what she was experiencing was “cognitive dissonance”.

As to how most governments control people and keep them in a state of denial I believe their policies and actions are extensions of their personalities, i.e. they are sociopaths. It’s in their nature to know how to manipulate a situation to their advantage; that’s the way they lived their lives. They have no empathy for other people.

I think the control is managed by what’s called the “Stockholm syndrome”.

It’s the same psychological mechanism with abusive relationships. People are very familiar with abusive relationships + so they can relate to this and can therefore understand how they are being manipulated.

The combination of the Stockholm syndrome and cognitive dissonance keeps people in a state where they refuse to look at the situation and attack anyone who tries to reason with them.

As explained in “Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser (Part 1)” ,

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

* The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
* The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
* Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
* The perceived inability to escape the situation

I think these conditions are very apparent in the psychological impact of 9/11 as well as the sue of fear by the Bush administration to terrorize the public into submission.

I think it’s also apparent in other situations like “global warming” and the financial meltdown. (Note: I’m not arguing whether global warming is real or not, just about the psychological effect used to get policies passed.)