• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Head of the Pakistani Taliban Killed by US Drone Strike

Sherman123

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
7,774
Reaction score
3,791
Location
Northeast US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, has been killed in a US drone strike sources are confirming to the BBC.

BBC News - Hakimullah Mehsud killed by drone, Pakistan Taliban say

While his killing is being given a mixed reception in a Pakistani media loathe to cast accolades onto the United States, it is never the less being viewed with quiet optimism. Efforts to forge a political understanding with the Taliban have been fruitless with Mehsud being a consistent opponent of the government and unwilling to scale back large scale terror attacks. Splinter commanders like Khan Said Sajna are being touted as possible successors who will be more willing to engage with Islamabad. It is unclear how Washington and the Pentagon would view this development but with involvement being scaled back in Afghanistan the US approach may have changed. Or not.

Either way this strike reaffirms the overwhelming utility of drones as a means for maintaining an aggressive and persistent campaign against the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and its Islamist affiliates with great precision. In conjunction with the dramatically revised numbers coming out of Pakistan on civilian death tolls (which are in line with major studies and tallies conducted by RAND, LWJ, NAF, etc) will likely do much to neuter the effect of the recent HRW and UN reports. Indeed the revised numbers had already done much to do so.
 
Buh-Bye, Mr Taliban Man.
 
but some seditionists still cheer against the USA unless it is their President doing the droning..
oops, forgot, he didn't kill many bad guys .
 
That Obama dude is one terrorist killin' summabeotch!

Nice shot!!!
 
One dead, 50 new fighters born. Great job.

That sounds like what liberals said about Iraq. But that was different.....yeah, totally different....:roll:
 
That sounds like what liberals said about Iraq. But that was different.....yeah, totally different....:roll:

Your point? I have expressed my lack of support for the Iraq and Afghan wars plenty on here.
 
That sounds like what liberals said about Iraq. But that was different.....yeah, totally different....:roll:

My sentiments exactly. Maybe that guy wants to send them Christmas cards and boxes of chocolates instead.

That was so off the hook I didn't even bother responding to it.
 
And now we're getting close to wrapping up the destruction of the chemical weapons dumps, two of which are too dangerous to inspect..
Don't here much from the two-faced RepuLieLoons on this..

Gotta love the Israelis for spanking a little Putin/Assad ass yesterday..
I'm glad they're on my side..

That Obama dude is one terrorist killin' summabeotch!Nice shot!!!

The only reason the world knows what we're doing is because our friends in the BBC front us off..
They wouldn't dare piss off the Israelis .
 
One dead, 50 new fighters born. Great job.

There is zero evidence of this, and much evidence to the contrary. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.
 
but some seditionists still cheer against the USA unless it is their President doing the droning..
oops, forgot, he didn't kill many bad guys .

I love how the Right shows their true colors whenever we see another major player on the enemy list taken out. They are certainly proving to me that they are selfish partisans more than loyal Americans.
 
How ****ing stupid is a President who tells the Muslim world to "bring it on".
Well, the muslim world did bring it on and how many more dead Americans do we needlessly have ?
That sounds like what liberals said about Iraq. But that was different.....yeah, totally different....:roll:
 
There is zero evidence of this, and much evidence to the contrary. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.

Facts, schmacks. They don't mean nothin' to an Obama hater. They think Factchecker's are commies. LOL!
 
I love how the Right shows their true colors whenever we see another major player on the enemy list taken out. They are certainly proving to me that they are selfish partisans more than loyal Americans.

That has been pretty obvious for several years now.
 
The leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, has been killed in a US drone strike sources are confirming to the BBC.

BBC News - Hakimullah Mehsud killed by drone, Pakistan Taliban say

While his killing is being given a mixed reception in a Pakistani media loathe to cast accolades onto the United States, it is never the less being viewed with quiet optimism. Efforts to forge a political understanding with the Taliban have been fruitless with Mehsud being a consistent opponent of the government and unwilling to scale back large scale terror attacks. Splinter commanders like Khan Said Sajna are being touted as possible successors who will be more willing to engage with Islamabad. It is unclear how Washington and the Pentagon would view this development but with involvement being scaled back in Afghanistan the US approach may have changed. Or not.

Either way this strike reaffirms the overwhelming utility of drones as a means for maintaining an aggressive and persistent campaign against the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and its Islamist affiliates with great precision. In conjunction with the dramatically revised numbers coming out of Pakistan on civilian death tolls (which are in line with major studies and tallies conducted by RAND, LWJ, NAF, etc) will likely do much to neuter the effect of the recent HRW and UN reports. Indeed the revised numbers had already done much to do so.




This is a significant achievement and a huge blow to the Taliban.
 
why is the US droning PAKISTANI Taliban in PAKISTAN????? anyone wanna hazard a guess? 'cuz it beats the heck out of me,,,,

In other words, are we now in the bizness, of securing Pakistani's government?

how about this:
The strike against Baitullah Mehsud reportedly came after repeated complaints by Pakistani officials that the Americans were not hitting militant groups who attacked targets in Pakistan
which is contradited by this:
Pakistan's government has issued a statement strongly condemning the drone attack, saying such strikes were a "violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integity

what are we doing ? Is Afganistan's (AfPak apparently) sucessful transition determined by The Pakstani Taliban?

Apparently so, and if it is so, we got a hopeless task ahead of us..unless we want perpetual war in that region.
 
Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador to protest drone strike of Taliban leader

Pakistan's interior minister has said the death of Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud has destroyed the country's nascent peace process

This is not just the killing of one person, it's the death of all peace efforts," Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said.

Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador to protest over Friday's drone strike that killed Mehsud.

It came a day before a Pakistani delegation had been due to fly to North Waziristan to meet Mehsud.

......................................

But BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says that however weakened the Taliban may be by this loss, they will fight on under a new leader.

In a rare interview two weeks ago, Mehsud told the BBC he was open to "serious talks" with the government but said he had not yet been approached.

Mehsud denied carrying out recent deadly attacks in public places, saying his targets were "America and its friends".

He had loose control over more than 30 militant groups in Pakistan's tribal areas

BBC News - Hakimullah Mehsud drone strike: 'Death of peace efforts'

So you can say striking the head of the Paki Taliban is a good thing; I think it is not - because the peace procees in Afg,
depends on co-operation by the Paki Taliban; at least those based in N.Wazi.

We cannot kill our way to peace, we cannot war our way to peace - all we can do is war and kill with the drones.

It might be helpful (mindful) to recall that Afg.'s path towards any reconcilliation is not helped by our warring.

Then again I am quite sure the Taliban are not going to cooperate in any meaningful "power sharing" by the Afg. gov't

All of which means we are irrelevant, except the fact we believe we are not.

Afg. will do as it please, US Superpower status or not.
 
There is zero evidence of this, and much evidence to the contrary. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.
We keep striking and the taliban keeps growing. Hmm, kind of puts the study to shame.
 
We keep striking and the taliban keeps growing. Hmm, kind of puts the study to shame.

Does the fact that there is a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment mean that "we keep striking and the taliban keeps growing?"

Even if there was a positive correlation, would it prove in any way that drone strikes cause the Taliban to grow?

What other methods would be nearly as effective in dealing with the al-Qaeda ilk?
 
Does the fact that there is a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment mean that "we keep striking and the taliban keeps growing?"

Even if there was a positive correlation, would it prove in any way that drone strikes cause the Taliban to grow?

What other methods would be nearly as effective in dealing with the al-Qaeda ilk?
I vote for doing nothing. Close our borders, become more isolationist, let whatever regime come to power over there and deal with them then. Not allow them to hide behind "democratically" elected governments that we pour billions into.
Then hide in the shadows while protecting our enemies.
 
I vote for doing nothing. Close our borders, become more isolationist, let whatever regime come to power over there and deal with them then. Not allow them to hide behind "democratically" elected governments that we pour billions into.
Then hide in the shadows while protecting our enemies.

Hardly a viable long-term approach to the issue. Isolationism has never worked before, and it's certainly not going to work now.

The Pakistani Taliban is one of the biggest allies of al-Qaeda. Should we refrain from punishing aggressors simply because you conjured up some bogus correlation between terrorist recruitment and drone strikes?
 
Hardly a viable long-term approach to the issue. Isolationism has never worked before, and it's certainly not going to work now.

The Pakistani Taliban is one of the biggest allies of al-Qaeda. Should we refrain from punishing aggressors simply because you conjured up some bogus correlation between terrorist recruitment and drone strikes?
Who are they aggressive towards?
 
Who are they aggressive towards?

Al-Qaeda flew planes into our skyscrapers. They, and any group that allies itself with them, should be brought to justice. This is really pretty basic.
 
I vote for doing nothing. Close our borders, become more isolationist, let whatever regime come to power over there and deal with them then. Not allow them to hide behind "democratically" elected governments that we pour billions into.
Then hide in the shadows while protecting our enemies.

I always find it funny that isolationism gets trotted out as a viable foreign policy in the same way that atheism gets called a religion. I guess, no foreign policy = a foreign policy and no religion = a religion. Also, black is white and white is black.
 
Al-Qaeda flew planes into our skyscrapers. They, and any group that allies itself with them, should be brought to justice. This is really pretty basic.

12 years ago, and define justice and at what price.
 
Back
Top Bottom