Taliban General bans polio vaccinations due to drone strikes

[Twiddly]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e-strikes?lite


Kind of an odd way to protest drone strikes, though I guess if I were in control of an area of land and the same people that were bombing and killing people were also giving vaccines out I would be pretty pissed to. Not saying he is right, in any way, but what can they do? The drone strikes are responsible for many a good strike against high ranking terorrists, however they are also killing many civilians as well.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rone-wars?lite

That kind of explains it, how Obama broadened the definition of civilian in order to make it alright for them to die in these strikes, which I find personally reprehensible.

"The Times' report also reveals that President Obama "embraced" a broadening of the term "civilian", helping to limit any public controversy over "non-combatant" deaths."

It is ok to kill civilians, as long as people do not find out that they are actually civilians, not enemy combatants!


But please do not take this post as piling on Obama or anything; it is specifically about the limiting of vaccinations until the drone strikes stop (Which you could compare in a way to holding childrens health hostage; though the people trying to help the kids are also killing some at times)

Really touchy subject I guess, I know there are people that support the drone strikes regardless of civilian deaths, I am personally not one of them.

---------- Post added 2012-06-18 at 05:53 PM ----------

And another aspect of this is the fact that a doctor that was doing vaccinations also helped find Osama bin Laden, and got a 33 year jail sentence for treason for helping the US find him. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/wo...cial-says.html

[Maharishi]

Afridi, a Pakistan government doctor working for the CIA, used a vaccination campaign as a cover to collect DNA samples from Osama bin Laden's family members in Abbottabad – a move that helped identify the al-Qaeda leader, paving the way for his killing in May 2011.

I can see how they might view the vaccine campaign as not benevolent.

The CIA shouldn't have poisoned that well.

[Deleted]

It's just business as usual for the Taleban. I don't think the actions itself or their proposed reasons behind it make any difference.. It's just them, finding more creative ways of being fucking dicks.

Denying the local people aid and medicine is nothing new... We used to stumble across aid caches in Taleban compounds crammed full of stuff that was meant for the locals all the time.

[DaNoob2]

The fire bombing of Tokyo, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just saying, we have done a lot worse.

War is hell, what are ya gonna do? Not fight it? Well if you are in the US that is your choice. Don't like drone strikes? Go protest 'em like your 1st amendment says you can.

[kailtas]

[/COLOR]And another aspect of this is the fact that a doctor that was doing vaccinations also helped find Osama bin Laden, and got a 33 year jail sentence for treason for helping the US find him. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/wo...cial-says.html

It should have been added in your post, that this was done in a Pakistani court, not a US.

[Twiddly]

It should have been added in your post, that this was done in a Pakistani court, not a US.

Well the link does say it, I should have added it perhaps, but its pretty obvious that the US would not do it considering my wording.

---------- Post added 2012-06-18 at 06:10 PM ----------

I can see how they might view the vaccine campaign as not benevolent.

The CIA shouldn't have poisoned that well.

Yeah, that was probably a bad idea, though it DID help us find him I guess? Now that guy is screwed the rest of his life, probably making people less want to work with us, AND they do not trust the doctors there now.

[Olo]

Well the link does say it, I should have added it perhaps, but its pretty obvious that the US would not do it considering my wording.

---------- Post added 2012-06-18 at 06:10 PM ----------




Yeah, that was probably a bad idea, though it DID help us find him I guess? Now that guy is screwed the rest of his life, probably making people less want to work with us, AND they do not trust the doctors there now.

The CIA offered to get him and his family out. He refused. /shrug

[bekilrwale]

So they are at war with the United States and they are protesting our attacking them. Not to mention thats kind of a dick way of protesting.

[Bakis]

So they are at war with the United States and they are protesting our attacking them. Not to mention thats kind of a dick way of protesting.

Equally a dick way of waging war violating the national sovereignty of said country when they specifially demanded those attacks to come to a halt.

[Olo]

Equally a dick way of waging war violating the national sovereignty of said country when they specifially demanded those attacks to come to a halt.

That actually seems like a pretty normal way of waging war.

[ptwonline]

Equally a dick way of waging war violating the national sovereignty of said country when they specifially demanded those attacks to come to a halt.

Obama's drone attacks are probably illegal. But they are almost infinitely better than fighting this battle in the more traditional way (an Iraq-style invasion) in terms of cost, effectiveness, military casualties, and especially civilian casualties.

[Jeina]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...e-strikes?lite


Kind of an odd way to protest drone strikes, though I guess if I were in control of an area of land and the same people that were bombing and killing people were also giving vaccines out I would be pretty pissed to. Not saying he is right, in any way, but what can they do? The drone strikes are responsible for many a good strike against high ranking terorrists, however they are also killing many civilians as well.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rone-wars?lite

That kind of explains it, how Obama broadened the definition of civilian in order to make it alright for them to die in these strikes, which I find personally reprehensible.

"The Times' report also reveals that President Obama "embraced" a broadening of the term "civilian", helping to limit any public controversy over "non-combatant" deaths."

It is ok to kill civilians, as long as people do not find out that they are actually civilians, not enemy combatants!


But please do not take this post as piling on Obama or anything; it is specifically about the limiting of vaccinations until the drone strikes stop (Which you could compare in a way to holding childrens health hostage; though the people trying to help the kids are also killing some at times)

Really touchy subject I guess, I know there are people that support the drone strikes regardless of civilian deaths, I am personally not one of them.

---------- Post added 2012-06-18 at 05:53 PM ----------

And another aspect of this is the fact that a doctor that was doing vaccinations also helped find Osama bin Laden, and got a 33 year jail sentence for treason for helping the US find him. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/wo...cial-says.html

"Clarification: An earlier version of this story said that President Obama "personally authorized the broadening of the term 'civilian'" and attributed the redefining of "civilian" to his administration. However, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism now understands that the Obama administration instead embraced a pre-existing policy introduced under President George W. Bush."

Don't blame Obama for what Bush did.

[Bakis]

Obama's drone attacks are probably illegal. But they are almost infinitely better than fighting this battle in the more traditional way (an Iraq-style invasion) in terms of cost, effectiveness, military casualties, and especially civilian casualties.

Thing is its not up for a debate since it is illegal no matter what, well for everyone but the US, rules dont apply to them when it is in their interest

[Deleted]

Thing is its not up for a debate since it is illegal no matter what, well for everyone but the US, rules dont apply to them when it is in their interest

It's unfair to point the finger at just the US.

[Eliandal]

So they are at war with the United States and they are protesting our attacking them. Not to mention thats kind of a dick way of protesting.

You are talking about a 'religion' that has no qualms using children as human shields, walking bombs, and bait! Not to mention condoning acid attacks and executions of women who they deem to be going against the Quran.

Why expect any better of them!

[Twiddly]

"Clarification: An earlier version of this story said that President Obama "personally authorized the broadening of the term 'civilian'" and attributed the redefining of "civilian" to his administration. However, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism now understands that the Obama administration instead embraced a pre-existing policy introduced under President George W. Bush."

Don't blame Obama for what Bush did.

If he "embraced" the policy, that is just as bad. Just like anyone who voted to keep the patriot act going. Just as responsible.


Don't let Obama off the hook for continuing the shitty policies of the previous administration.

---------- Post added 2012-06-18 at 06:43 PM ----------

So they are at war with the United States and they are protesting our attacking them. Not to mention thats kind of a dick way of protesting.

We are at war with Pakistan now?

[Bakis]

It's unfair to point the finger at just the US.

Not when it comes to drone strikes within Pakistan no.

[Catta]

Thing is its not up for a debate since it is illegal no matter what, well for everyone but the US, rules dont apply to them when it is in their interest

Remember that the US does not officially acknowledge using drone strikes

[Deleted]

Not when it comes to drone strikes within Pakistan no.

There's more going on in Pakistan than just drone strikes, and it's not just the US doing it. If you want to nitpick and make this solely about Drone strikes then fine - but how do you think those drones find their targets?

Besides, war's a pretty shitty business - there's always splash damage. Compared to the alternatives methods of force, drones are probably the most effective at minimising such damage.

[Deleted]

It's bullshit. Those reactionary sadists would have banned the vaccinations anyway, the drone strikes just makes it seem like they have an excuse to do so. They'll do anything to keep as much power as they can and maintain their choke hold on the population.

Similar reactions from similar groups, refusing vaccinations has happened before, like in Nigeria in '03-'05:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3313419.stm

They don't want their civilisations to develop, because poverty, pestilence and a fear of the unknown and distrust of the offer of outside help makes people easier to control.