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.)

Wanna bomb the hell out of some civilians and start another front in the ‘Wars for Wall Street and Israel?’ Just say the magic word, ‘al Qaeda!’

Obama Ordered U.S. Military Strike on Suspected “Terrorists”

December 18, 2009 “ABC News” — On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

One of the targeted sites was a suspected al Qaeda training camp north of the capitol, Sanaa, and the second target was a location where officials said “an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned.”

If there was a Republican in the WH, starting new wars in Yemen, Pakistan and the Sudan, the ‘progressive’ media outlets would be howling like a dog scalded with hot water.
But since OBOMBA is a ‘democrat,’ then Code Pink says it’s alright to continue with the mass murders.

After all, we have to save the women and children, right?

Guess we’ll have to destory Pakistan to save it. Turn it into a failed narco-state like Afghanistan.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.

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”.

“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. 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?

“The fraudulence of the “War on Terror,” however, is clearly revealed in the pattern of subsequent facts: 1. In Afghanistan the state was overthrown instead of apprehending the terrorist: Osama bin Laden remains at large. 2. In Iraq, when the U.S. invaded, there were no terrorists at all. 3. Both states have been supplied with puppet governments, and both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases in strategic proximity to their hydrocarbon assets.” And more.

Untreated PTSD can manifest itself in many ways.
Little kids who witness trauma can literally have their body chemistry changed because of it.
And, just saying shut-up-and-get-on-with-it doesn’t solve anything.

I must be so very ignorant, totally asleep…or confused with wayyyyyyyyyy too many undeclared wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Pashtunistan, Yemen, good Taliban, bad Taliban, bad Al Qaeda, worse Al Qaeda…next, Iran…

Just get these ‘MANLESS’ drones out there, and drop the bombs; they’ll fall where they fall, and since we have wayyyy too many declared and undeclared enemies, a few of them will be hit even by chance alone…

Okay. Maybe now you understand where I stand, and what I mean. You may disagree, which is fine, but don’t give us this particular line; it simply doesn’t wash the booobooos we’ve been engaged in, and the reportage on it by the unquestioning stenographers…

On a related note, this morning I saw a show on my local cable station(comcast, DC area) called Defense Weekly or something. Interviewer talking to a military guy. Sorry, just watched few minutes, got no names, but the topic turned to the drone attacks. To a question about what we are learning about their performance in a country with no airplanes, nothing to threaten the predators, military guy says, yes we have had success in “non-hostile”(cant remember the exact word) environments but we are going to see how they perform where there is some hostility. Again, I apologize for the rough paraphrasing, but the jist is clear. More so after I hear about plans for use in Pakistani cities.
I don’t believe any of the murdered human beings were any threat at all to the US in any way. I believe they were just target practice. As will be the unfortunate Pakistanis. They are just perfecting their killing machines. Who believes, when perfected, they will never be used here?

Sibel, I just don’t see what you are talking about. The increased targeting of Pakistani Taliban leadership into Quetta would be a sign of “a new U.S. resolve” with regard to policy toward Pakistan; it is a benign statement.

“And finally, the stenographers continue with this glowing report on this now widely popular war machine strategy”

Drone strikes are a tactic to be used in support of a strategy and not a strategy in and of itself; that our government continues the drone strikes absent a consistent and comprehensive strategy is something people should be upset about.

“For instance, there are reports that allege that between January 2006 and April 2009, U.S. drone attacks have killed 687 civilians and 14 al-Qaeda operatives, amounting to a ratio of 50 civilians killed per one al-Qaeda target killed. In other words, our drone attacks civilian death ratio has been around 95%. Or that of 60 drone strikes only 10 of them hit actual al-Qaeda targets, because of either faulty intelligence or reasons deemed top classified.”

Bullsh#t!
A large portion of the drone attacks in Pakistan have been on Pakistani Taliban targets (often secretly at the behest of and in cooperation with the govt of Pakistan). This statement takes the total number of drone attacks but selectively picks only AQ targets in calculating the ratios, ignoring Taliban targets. Mir even reveals his deceptive error in the same paragraph when he acknowledges both AQ and Taliban are being targeted when he says: “while three attacks conducted in 2007 had slain 66 Pakistanis, yet none of the wanted al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders could be hit by the Americans right on target”. Selectively factoring AQ targets while not accounting for Taliban targets in calculating the ratio is either incompetence or intentional deception; either way it is BS.

And I’d be curious if Fitzgerald and Gould have any updated impressions or new thinking from Rob Schulteis, who they quoted in Invisible History from a 2002 interview with him. That material included:

“Schultheis minced no words about CIA culpability for 9/11 and the hideous betrayal of both American and Afhan lives being covered up by the blanket secrecy imposed by the war on terror. ‘… They’re directly responsible for 9/11 happening. They were getting paid a lot of money to make sure that wasn’t going to happen and they didn’t do anything. But there were a lot of shady deals having to do with Arab money and drug money and weapons money and there were kickbacks, I’m sure. … I think there are people out hunting foxes in Leesburg on the backs of dead Afghans because Gulbiddin and ISI kicked X amount of money back to them. I’ll bet any amount of money on that because there’s no other reason for a lot of this.’ (p260, Invisible History)

His point: Obama’s perpetuating the “emperical authority” idea. Basically, the States are the strongest country in the world. And that fact alone entitles us to “maintain peace and spread “democracy” throughout the world.”

There’s Obama the person and Obama the Brand. Just like a person who decides to become a terrorist and “Terrorism”. The MSM believes that we the public aren’t capable of understanding anything complex or with nuances. Instead, it has to be dumbed down to be sellable.

Instead of being held accountable, some are essentially saying that doesn’t matter. He’s (for lack of a better phrase) “chosen” to unite the various factions in society. Why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? Popularity, and not because of actual accomplishments.

Now, that “X factor” is going to allow him to keep going with the status quo. And if you challenge him on something, you instantly get a knee jerk reaction. You’re a racist, you want him to fail, and so on.

Just because you’re exercising your still legal right to freedom of speech.

Horribly true.

So the homicidal cowboys are still on the lose with Obama now covering for them… how completely decadent.

Raising a consciousness in a critical mass of people

Leading them to action / change the status quio

The PTB powers that be, employ all sorts of tactics in their mission of control, domination, exploitation and greed.

They control the media and use it to create false narratives and “brain wash” the public
They intimidate with fear, creating a national security state which is controlling the people, and inducing them to participate in killing and oppression, believing it is protecting their democracy, way of life and beliefs.
They control the government by stealing elections, legal bribery, nepotism, illegal bribery, corrupting the system, passing laws which are not in the interest of the people, but in aid the “special interests”
They break the law without accountability to intimidate and silence dissent.

As in the use of torture, the use of drones is a TACTIC to intimidate any and all who would think that they can organize to oppose US hegemony.

We will kill them and care less about collateral damage. Oh that collateral damage, that would be blood on your hands Mr Terrorists for putting yourselves amongst non combatants. That was the same cowardly technique the Palestinians used, but we don’t care. All’s fair in love and war.

Cue the next drone… and there are more with that’s coming from.

I really love what you do. It’s time for me to donate again!

One small suggestion/correction for you is this:

I think you mean to say “Yep” or “Yup”, when you use “Yap”.

@JamesLaffrey: How about a multi-tiered approach?

I really like your ideas about action. There are many people who can support these actions financially. There are some who have great ideas about brainstorming effective actions. And there are a few who can and will take on the execution. Hopefully, with some communication, many can take part, and we will see some concrete force.

One suggestion I have is that we should concentrate on individual MSM “journalists”. Let’s put some real pressure on them!

As I’ve said before, Pakistan looks like the next domino, with Iran a close second. The quotes you cite set up the idea (a lie) that if the drone terrorism hurts the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, well, it’s “worth it” in order to “decapitate” the Taliban-Al-Qaida. (It’s easy to predict ObombA’s future lies.) Then, when Pakistan “defies” U.S. demands, when Pakistan “blocks” “necessary” U.S. “anti-terrorism” efforts, the U.S. will take “justified” action against the “conspiracy by certain high level Pakistanis” “aiding and abetting terrorists.” And those Pakistanis will be blamed for “protecting” Osama Bin Laden all these years. Yeah, THAT’s why the U.S. hasn’t caught OBL yet.

We have to stop the crimes being committed by the U.S. Deep State (which is really international, though headquartered in the U.S.). “Putting information out there” (as Russ Baker and Peter B said in podcast 16) is not going to bring change in our lifetimes. Jim Garrison is dead. He put it out there, and nothing changed in his lifetime. Posting information on relatively low-traffic websites is important from a journalism point of view. But it’s not active from an ACTION point of view. It’s passive. People have to find the website, they have to choose to click, and they have to choose to read or to click again and listen.

Enough information is already “out there.” We know, for example, that the CIA was involved and presidents have covered up crimes including the JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, the Iraq invasion, and international torture. Those are just the very easy examples. We already KNOW. And the crimes are ongoing. We already know.

I’ll say it just one more time: We need to plan and conduct creative legal actions and creative public events. And we have to plan to govern. (I guess nobody’s “Brave like MLK,” which explains the continuing passivity by nearly all commenters.) I don’t have the resources to initiate legal actions and public events. I’m alone. But I guess, as usual in my life, I’ll have to try alone.

But I’ll keep reading here. I support what you’re doing. And I know Sibel is a proven doer — a true American hero, as was Jim Garrison, and as is Jesse Trentadue.

Quetta is a very disturbing development. There must be another way to accomplish this. HellFire missiles raining down on a City of 850,000 people. The Core of Pakistan.

They need to follow that thought through.

Yes I did watch him. And it was like watching a foreign film. I’m hearinng one thing. But he’s REALLY saying something else. And now, there’s nothing. Some countries could literally disappear because of this. But what do the big countries do? They’re fighting over their share of the carbon market. And maybe the reason the business MSM isn’t talking about this is because they don’t want to piss off some of their advertisers.

Re: food and drinks, I’m trying to pace myself . But I agree about spicy. It always amazes me that there’s now wide range of salsa:
mild
medium
hot
very hot
really spicy and hot
are you old enough to eat this?
and more

This could be a whole new market .

Just watched Obama’s Copengahen assembly speech. Is he perpetuating much of what the previous guy did? Yes.

Why? No surprise, profit. I’ve been trying to think of anything else that might be the answer. And I’m stuck.

Look at the various signs up till now. The hardcore Obama supporters still say, he’s our guy. Give him time. He’ll get it right.

Oh, really? What “change” has he accomplished since he came in in January?:

The State Security Apparatus (call it what it is) is still firmly in place. Not all but many say, if you have nothing to hide then why complain about it?

We still have troops in Iraq. How many civilians have been killed there? Then again, it’s the old out-of-sight-out-of-mind thing. That’s over THERE. That doesn’t affect me. Besides, as long as we keep killing terrorists, that’s all that matters.

In Afghanistan, we’re going to win the “hearts and minds” of the people. How? How can you acomplish that when the people don’t want you there.

Obama is a multi-millionaire (largely to the success of his books). Now a question: how much (if anything) is he making from defense investments? Normally a question like that would get you banned from the MSM. But luckily I can ask that here.

Another hot investment area: carbon derivitives. This market is now bigger than the subprime derivitive market. Naturally the States is fighting to maintain it’s share of this.

Why? To maintain our consumer lifestyle. Why are we entitled to that (and the rest of the world isn’t)? Is it only because of who we are?

Bear with me as I mention this again. We consume a huge amount of natural resources and produce a huge amount of CO2. Yet once again because of who we are, accountability doesn’t apply. And, the other countries are supposed to obediently fall into line and do what we say?

I don’t think so.