*We do know there was a CIA drone strike on a funeral with hundreds of mourners at it and around 70 to 80 were killed. We also know the strikes at the mosques killed 70 odd so we have a similar 'body count'.*

But Csteele, you don't know the importance of anyone within that
group, to the CIA or America. You are a mere onlooker, guessing.

But even you would have to concede, that it is not in the interests
of the CIA or the US, to kill civilians mindlessly. So why would
they do it?

The same principle does not apply to Taliban killings. Being Shia
is enough, to justify their claims. Shia after all, are regarded
are not regarded as real muslims by them. There is no reason not
to kill them.

BTW it was not me who posted any link to any website that you are
referring to, so we can establish that at least your memory is
clearly flawed :)

Dear Yabby,

Sorry just got the phone back to reply.

My memory? I would think not.

"Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 January 2011 10:03:02 AM"

Ouch ;)

Let's try and stay on track. We are specifically comparing two instances. You seem to be saying there may well have been a compelling strategic reason for the drone attack, well why not for the attack on the mosque and if so why are they not comparable and worthy either of equal condemnation or equal acceptance of this type of warfare?

csteele just wondering, Pakistan in the news again this morning.
Car bomb killed 20 outside a police station.
Will it be ok if America uses car bombs?
Puts them in market places to kill civilians?
How about capturing a few ,sometimes innocents and cutting their throats on TV?
And what is some children can be told how good heaven will be and sent to destroy both themselves and others.
America just maybe must adopt its enemy's views on fair warfare.

Oops Csteele, I did in fact post a link on this thread,
sorry. Taliban killings of civilians are so common, they
are not even worth remembering, it seems.

There is a big difference between the two, Csteele.

The Taliban have no qualms about killing civilians who
disagree with them, they are not considered real muslims.

Not so for the US. It is not in their interest to kill
civilians, why would it be? The US is trying to let
democracy prevail, something which the Taliban are fighting
tooth and nail, threatening voters with death, if they decide
to vote.

The big difference here is that Western military wear a uniform,
they make clear targets. Not so for Al Quaeda and Taliban
commanders, who hide amongst civilians as camaflague.

That makes locating their military leaders, so much more difficult,
which plays right into the hands of Taliban spin merchants,
such as yourself.

Dear Belly,

There is ample evidence the the same organization that is conducting the drone strikes funded car bombings, a bomb in a cinema, a school bus, etc in an attempt to help destabilize Saddam's regime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09ALLA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Dear Yabby,

I repeat, "we are specifically comparing two instances. You seem to be saying there may well have been a compelling strategic reason for the drone attack, well why not for the attack on the mosque and if so why are they not comparable and worthy either of equal condemnation or equal acceptance of this type of warfare?"

If as it appears the question is too difficult for you to directly engage in then I understand because it is the consequence of the contradictory views you hold.