Talk:Damadola airstrike

Minor event

This is a very minor event and doesn't deserve its own article. --Horses In The Sky 19:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the 18 innocent civilians feel this a 'very minor event'? Why are 18 Pakistani peasants off less note than the 52 killed in the London bombings in 2005? If each person is worth the same, then this event should get at least 1/3rd as much coverage of those bombings, which dominated world news for weeks. Actually, this event should get more coverage, since it was an intentional massacre of civilians by a government in a sovereign country that opposes such attacks, but lacks the power to stop them. What would the US do if the shoe were on the other foor, and Russia bombed a farm in the US, killing 18 for no reason, and then stated that they thought a Chechen rebel leader had been there, but 'Woops...our bad! Sorry about the dead bodies...'

I followed this link from the Gora Prai airstrike incident of June 10, 2008. It seems to be a related topic and deserves its own article. The attack however was not intentional massacre of civilians and to state such basically has the effect of invalidating all of the other credible points that you make. Secondly, the Government of Pakistan does not oppose such attacks, what it is opposed to is the uneccessary collatoral damage that is caused by such methods as it causes domestic turmoil. Cillmore (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

>> 18 Pakistani peasants are worth NOTHING if they harbor terrorists. PERIOD! "Intentional massacre"? You had better pray to whatever heathen god you pray to that we don't start "intentional massacres". What a putz!

The amount of people died is in fact pretty irrelevant, if you based the size of a article on here on the amount of dead, the entire website would have to be re-written. Example - compare the size of the article on the Taiping rebellion in which 20-50 million died to the size of the article on September 11, 2001 attacks in which less than 3,000 died. Size of articles should be judged on their significance not the number of dead. Fair enough when I posted that it was very soon after the event and now, as high level officials have given powerful comments on it, it probably could be argued that it gets its own article. But anyway to claim that articles should be built based upon the number of dead is purely ridiculous. --Horses In The Sky 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Horses-The-Idiot: By your own standards the 9/11 attacks are puny compared to the Taipei rebellion or World War II and also deserve no mention on Wikipedia. Go ahead and delete that from Wikipedia.

Are you an idiot or something? Did you not even read what I wrote? I said that you SHOULD NOT judge the size of articles on the number of dead, jesus pay attention. --Horses In The Sky 14:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Or imagine it is 1987 and Ronald Reagan tries to kill some communist 'terrorist' on the outskirts of Moskow. This reaction would have been even better. Stone 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important - it is the first attack inside Pakistani territory.--TheFEARgod 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the first incident. Haitham al-Yemeni and Abu Hamza Rabia [1] were also killed by CIA missile attacks in Pakistan. There are probably many other cases of the US trampling on Pakistan's territorial integrity which is shortsighted, arrogant and stupid in a typical American way because it will only further inflame anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and probably lead to the overthrow of the pro-US military dictatorship. --68.19.38.174 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

yes. its a minor event. 18 people needlessly died. the future dosent need to know about that. (i was being sarcastic).

its not really related to Ayman al-Zawahiri. it shows american heavy handed tactics in the middle east.

I don't think this is a very minor event. I think this article can stand on its own. Maybe merge with an article on the village of Damadola. Damadola does not have its own article at this time. I'm sure this is a major event in the history of the village of Damadola. Other small towns and villages of no particular significance have their own articles in Wikipedia. Even many schools have their own articles in Wikipedia. Seksinfo 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided view. Have the identity of the dead been confirmed? The FBI is still checking DNA. I wouldn't be too quick to say this was a mistake or that the dead were all "innocent." Al Qaeda leaders often travel with their wives and children. Villagers harboring Al Qaeda certainly would want to say that Al Qaeda wasn't there. It is entirely too early to say 18 innocent people died. 70.190.27.105

So you want to assume that they are guilty in order to not feel guilty yourself? It doesn't work like that. A corpse is a civilian until military ties have been proven.

Not at all. I was happy with "18 people killed" which was what was accurate at the time. "18 innocent civilians" was establishing a non-neutral point of view until their identities were establsihed. It is now known that many of the dead were in fact members of Al Qaeda. Tbeatty

If the US government is to do anything to distance responsibility from themselves, they should persue Japanese style war crimes denial tactics "that work". Kilimanjaronum 03:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User 70.190.27.105|70.190.27.105, I am intrigued by your assertion that FBI is checking the bodies. Has Pakistan been annexed by the U.S.? Mimson 04:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A second Pakistani intelligence official discounted reports that the FBI may test the DNA of the victims to determine whether any were known terrorists. "What do you think, that the families of the victims would let us or the Americans dig the graves of their loved ones for FBI tests?" the official asked. "An absolutely crazy idea." [2]

"an attack that only killed innocent civilians"

This statement should be reexamined for accuracy. Several accounts dispute this information. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 According to this article, "Pakistani officials" reported that "five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures". Also, a "senior Pakistani official" said in a recent New York Times article that "at least 11 militants had been killed in the attack. Seven of the dead were Arab fighters, and another four were Pakistani militants from Punjab Province".

I deleted the word "only". Happy? --68.217.111.17 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should trust that unnamed 'Pakistani officials' are positive that some al Qaeda were killed. I'm sure they were left somewhat embarrassed by their faulty intelligence. Outside of these obviously interested parties, the CIA now says that only innocent villagers were killed. Will the article be amended or are we to vouchsafe as true the words of every tinpot dictator and anonymous source from here to Baghdad? 74.56.218.173 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look, a source to back up my statement. This article trumpets the airstrike as though it were not a colossal disaster and tragic waste of innocent lives. There seems to be some effort to obscure the fact that no known terrorists were killed, listing the names of individuals the Pakistanis claimed were killed while omitting the fact that our own, presumably better informed, intelligence services claim the opposite. "U.S. and Pakistani officials now say that none of those al-Qaeda leaders perished in the strike and that only local villagers were killed." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801845_pf.html 74.56.218.173 (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Historic incident

Regardless of whether this airstrike was right, wrong, justifiable or otherwise, the event did occur and deserves to be recorded. Current geopolitics condones a first strike by the dominant superpower into third countries. We are likely to see many such events until the geopolitical climate changes. This strike is part of the current geopolitcal climate. Although ostensibly launched in an attempt to kill a named individual, it is of historical interest because of geopolitics, not the individual targeted. As such I suggest the article retain its individual status and if anyone is concerned about putting it in context, they should include it and any similar incidents in a list or category. --Dmoss 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Translating the Pakistani Response

The way the response is currently translated looks like this: "...we will not allow such incidents to reoccur". "Reoccur" is not a word; I think the word "recur" should be used instead. However, I am hesitant to change it since I don't know if the translation comes from a more authoratative source.

How about "re-occur"? --Vsion 05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

How about leaving quotes intact? [3]

As far as I can tell, all the news sources use "reoccur", so I guess we should leave it like that too.

This is not even close to NPOV

This has to be one of the most biased wikipedia entries I've ever read. The facts most definitely aren't in, and simply assuming that the testimony of one person which conflicts with the testimony of others is correct only on the basis of being anti-American is completely unprofessional.

This is a case where the "facts" as presented are technically correct, but obviously presented in such a way as to be greatly biased. "Pakistan says...", no mention of conflicting opinions, nothing.

(Correct me if I'm wrong) Please understand that as of end of Saturday, there is still no official US statement on this. It was the Pakistani side and reporters there who were providing these information. --Vsion 08:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli

According to international law, this event is a valid casus belli. If Pakistan does not declare it is in a state of war with USA, due to US aggression or at least demand a UN security council emergency session on the topic, it should be expelled from the UN because it has lost its souverignity. When people see that central goverment has no power to defend the territorial integrity, Pakistan will become another Somalia, a chaos of warords with total lack of governemnt. Then the taleban will gain repower and the sharia cause will be stronger than ever.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Should S. Korea be expelled? What about Germany? And the United Kingdom and Italy? They all house U.S. bases that operate somewhat independantly. The reality is that Pakistan doesn't exert control over that area. Neither does Afghanistan. THey are unbable to defend it or regulate it. It is the same in the disputed regions between India and Pakistan. Should India be expelled because it doesn't declare war everytime it believes Pakistan has challenged it's soveriegnty? Also, you misapply Casus Belli in that these infractions may be listed in a Casus Beli, but it is not a requirement to go to war simply because an event could be construed as Casus Belli. You have put the cart before the horse in that nations declare war and justify it with Casus Belli, they don't have a Casus Belli that forces them into war.

reply: This is typical American talk which is completely detached from the culture,state and history of a nation and entirely dependent on one event.

Look who else is impinging on Pakistan's territorial sovereignty. Hint: it's not the United States. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.261219324&par=0

- That link doesn't work. Care to enlighten us as to whom it is you have in mind?--Lopakhin 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

edit war

Regardless of whether it is or isn't "CIA disinformation," the information is correctly attributed to the AP, a reputable news source, and thus merits inclusion. The CNN article that's been cited in other articles acknowledges that the information is coming from "officials." As always, readers are free to make their own judgements regarding the veracity of "official" statements. Also, please keep in mind the Wikipedia three-revert-rule. OhnoitsJamie 02:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. AP is not the source. The source is FOX News. And Fox News is attributing it to "some news reports" and unnamed government officials. When someone has the a name or a real source, please include it and attribute it. This is the way an encyclopedia should work. --68.217.110.69 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fox News certainly isn't the only source reporting it: [4]

Furthermore, the source is in fact the Associated Press. Foxnews.com is just hosting the article. Look at the author of it, it is quite clearly labeled "Associated Press" at the top.

AP and Fox News are reporting news delivered to them by ???? You see? You have no idea. No names. No attribution. No way to assess its veracity. That's why it is disinformation. Unnamed sources are not encyclopedic. But what do you care? --68.217.110.69 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• The US government believes/believed that there were high level terrorists there. You can't really deny what was said. — TheKMan^talk 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What was said and who said it? You have no idea because no one is speaking on the record. These are unnamed officials being paraphrased by reporters. That is the essence of disinformation; speaking anonymously and without accountability. The US government issued no comment at all about the strike. --68.217.110.69 03:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously, these airstikes had to have been approved by high level officials in the CIA, and with some sort of reason. What was said was what was done, and the obvious reason why is a given: because they thought terrorists were there. — TheKMan^talk 03:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Another "obvious reason": intimidation. AHands 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that unattributed leaks and "unnamed sources" are a normal part of newsgathering. Most of the leaks from our own (US) government to the press are from such sources. While, particularly when it relates to our own government, this could be considered a problem that allows insiders to run to the press a bit too quickly with classified information, I would argue the public has largely accepted these types of leaks as an acceptable journalistic practice. To some extent, if these leaks are going to be considered acceptable, the journalist has to police themselves or risk losing credibility with the public. Furthermore, I do believe it is often standard operating procedure at many publications and news outlets for a reporter to reveal to his editor the source in question, allowing the editor to decide whether or not said source is credible enough to be included. 71.249.242.128 14:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. OhnoitsJamie 17:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

IP only posters are removing current information with initial reports that lack a neutral POV. In fact the latest edit changed a quote from a sourced article because it sounded better. I will continue to revert to the most current and accurate account of the events with a neutral POV. Tbeatty

User:BlueTruth

Please stop removing sourced content from this article. This is considered vandalism and can lead to you being bocked from editing if you continue. Please contribute sourced and well-written text (past tense only). If you do so, your contributions will be welcome. Thanks. --68.223.81.133 15:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Same exact type of vandalism is being repeated by User:207.121.66.26. Please cease and desist. Thanks. --68.223.81.133 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Same exact type of vandalism is being repeated by User:Mistress Selina Kyle. Please cease and desist. Thanks. --68.223.81.133 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The only vandalism I (and apparently others) see is you and your multiple IPs (most of which have already been blocked) putting up POVs and inaccurate information.

I have added the balance that Pakistani officials have said that foreign fighters have been killed. This balances the charge that Pakistani officials have claimed the U.S. acted on faulty intelligence. This is not vandalism and is not done by "sock puppets." Please do not remove. It is a disservice to only provide a single, non-neutral point of view. Tbeatty

You are one editor among many. Consensus must be sought, not bullied. Don't remove sourced material just because you consider it POV.--68.211.66.91 04:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted edits to the most neutral and sourced version for accuracy. Sourced items that are non-neutral or non-factual have no place here. Tbeatty

What you consider non-neutral is POV. --68.219.234.106 04:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So far, it seems to be Anonymous(68...) who's going against the consensus of all the other editors. Why does he want to remove information from AP and ABC?

It's been several days--isn't there anything new to add, hopefully rendering this edit war moot?

—wwoods 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Who here thinks 68...'s version should stand, and who here thinks the version generally agreed upon by myself, Mistress Selina, Tbeatty and a host of other users should stand?

Reply with 1 if you agree with 68's version and 2 if you agree with the other one. I'm not counting anonymous IPs that start with 6, because 68 has a static IP which he uses to sockpuppet. --BlueTruth 13:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My own vote is a 2 of course. --BlueTruth 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:207.121.66.26, User:BlueTruth, User:Mistress Selina Kyle, and User:Tbeatty are all sockpuppets of the same person. So your vote doesn't count at all. --68.211.68.122 13:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's complete BS. I have no relation to Mistress Selina OR Tbeatty. The only thing we have in common is that we agree your revisions add nothing useful to this page. And the IP is the IP for the school comps which I'm using to post here. Don't make unfounded and libellous accusations. That can get you in a lot of trouble. --BlueTruth 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And don't make legal threats. Perhaps we should consult an admin to request a checkuser on these four. BlueTruth's first edit was on January 19th, about the same date that MSK began making POV reverts to Islamic articles. --malber 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely in favor of that. I would like nothing more than to be cleared of this troll's accusations. And as for me being heated... How would you feel if someone was making false accusations against you?--BlueTruth 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought, but wrong. I read both accounts. In fact I added edits to your account until I realized that the edits kept reverting back to a very early version of events that was factually incorrect and biased. Oh, when I visited the page to have the article semi-protected, I noticed that you were also vandalizing the Hamas page and they were requesting the same protection I was. Tbeatty

No longer a "current event"

I will remove this tag in the next few days if there is no further development or objection. --68.219.203.209 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Today's Zawahiri tape maintains this as a current event.--68.219.203.209 21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove material with references

Removing sourced material is vandalism. If you have issues with the article content, please discuss them here rather than deleting sourced material. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 13:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already been discussed here- the consensus version is Tbeatty's version. Calling a reversion vandalism doesn't make it so. Daniel Davis 13:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

It hasn't been discussed and there is no consensus. Discuss now point by point what facts you find so offensive. Everything is clearly documented. --68.219.203.209 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added factual referenced material from the two versions. I essentially merged the two versions where facts were missing but still maintaining neutral POV.

You have not indicated what you find to be POV. Your edits are POV. Removing sourced material is vandalism. --68.219.203.209 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection should stay

If the last day has proven anything it's that the person who made the protection necessary in the first place is still here. --BlueTruth 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That person is you. Your "friend" User:Mistress Selina Kyle was banned for similar behavior and perhaps you will soon follow. --68.219.203.209 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't even know Mistress Selina except what I've seen here, and second of all I was still able to edit this page while it was under protection, since I have an actual account. Third of all, it seems everyone editing this page is overwhelmingly going against your POV version. You're nothing more than a troll who uses a static IP to get around bannings.--BlueTruth 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Educate yourself on WP:NPA, WP:POV and the meaning of static IP - then get back to me with specific issues you have with the article at hand. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 01:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Protection should stay. Tbeatty 01:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what needs to be edited in this article

instead of blindly reverting to outdated and innaccurate versions. If there is a single unsourced fact that needs to be deleted, please point it out. Otherwise, do not vandalize the article. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR. Read the policy someday. If you would be willing to discuss your issues with the article, we could come to a consensus. Otherwise, do not fool yourself into believing that you can bully your weak writing and false information into Wikipedia. Thanks. --68.219.203.209 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Except you are not reverting vandalism. You continue to restore old and outdated material. I added your sourced material that had neutral POV to the article. Please read my latest edits which you blindly overwrote. It is you who owes an explanation as to why you continue to revert to very outdated material that has a non-neutral POV. Tbeatty 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point out one outdated sentence and I will gladly support your edit. --68.219.203.209 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added todays video release of Al-Zawahri. You blindly deleted it. That was one of many. The last version I posted has consensus of everyone who discusses it here. I have discussed all my edits although i don't post a talk response when reverting your vandalism. You ignore the 3 revert rule and have been reverted by numerous people on numerous occasions, yet you continue to post your outdated version of events. Please stop so we can move on. Tbeatty 04:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

The link to selective assassination not a related topic and I believe it should be deleted.Cillmore (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Damadola airstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103150459/http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/bushwidened.html to http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/bushwidened.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115043917/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4F745CF1-DDEB-4707-B7AE-567F6B7EDA54.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4F745CF1-DDEB-4707-B7AE-567F6B7EDA54.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)