I rest my case.

The drones are by far the most effective and efficient means of
taking out Al Quaeda and Taliban leaders.

If the Taliban were really concerned about lives, they are
free to put on uniforms, so that we know who they are.

If America had used drones to take out Saddam and his boys,
it would have saved everyone a lot of lives and bother.

Belly got it right, CSteele’s intent is to denigrate the Americans.

S/he starts the little ruse :
“Why are we still part of this?
… we blithely condone the killing of those who have "rushed to the scene to retrieve the dead and injured"?

[It’s immoral to attack “rescuers”!]

But when challenged by Belly, retorts :
“ the obligatory concern for the inhabitants, well the female ones at least”

[No, apparently, it’s ok to attack “rescuers” as long as they aren’t female!]

But there was no mention of male or female in the news link, why say “well the female ones at least”? [unless, to play the “they are bullies” card].

And this, second part of the quip is also informative:
“ one certainty after Wikileaks, we can't trust the US military to tell us the truth”

[The WHOLE report was sourced from the US military –why believe any of it ?]

S/he goes on:
“So now we use the screams of the wounded as bait for another attack? In my childhood it was only those "mongrel Japs" or "Jerries"”

[Where has s/he been for the last ten years?]

Such two pronged attacks have been long used by militants in Iraq and Afghanistan --- except, they characteristically employ it in crowded Baghdad/ Kabul streets ---not isolated militant camps.

By the third post, Csteele’s talking of the “slaughter’ of “ Afghani and Pakistani tribesmen” [ appealing to noble savage sentiment? ]
In all likelihood, the targets were foreign Jihadis, Saudi, Egyptian or even, Australian.Wikileaks which CSteele holds so dearly, tells us that are 25 Australians being held on terror charges in Yemen.

Then, Peter Hume chips-in accusing the US army of “ blowing up goatherds and bridal parties” as a matter of policy.Neglecting to mention that when the militants embed themselves next to civilians, or dress as a women , or use women or children to deliver bombs it elevates the chances of such things happening.

And OUG does his bit about 911 being a CIA plot .

Don’t let them get to you Belly!

SPQR,

Belly knows we're not trying "to get to him". He's the first to admit that we all have our opinions.
I'm fascinated by the fact that most of the funding for Muslim extremist organisations emanates from Saudi Arabia, yet they are great pals of successive U.S. Administrations...and they have a woeful reputation for limiting the autonomy of their female population. Another interesting phenomenon is that America's ally Pakistan seems to provide an abundance of the training venues for Muslim extremism - and again they are seen as pals of the U.S.?

Belly,

The Americans backed the Mujahideen against the Russians just like they backed Saddam's Iraq against Iran. Sections of the Mujahideen later morphed into the Taliban - just as in U.S. eyes Saddam apparently morphed into a danger to the West.
Allegiances change depending on what's at stake for individual countries. For the same reason, the U.S. seems to think it can succeed where Russia (and many before) have failed, and that's why it is presently chasing the Taliban up hill and down crevice in one long and tragic game of hide and seek.

*I'm fascinated by the fact that most of the funding for Muslim extremist organisations emanates from Saudi Arabia, yet they are great pals of successive U.S. Administrations...*

No need to remain confused any longer, Poirot, for the explanation
in both Saudi and Pakistan, is fairly simple.

No nation is made up of a homogeneous mindset, they are made up of
people of very different opinions and religious beliefs.

Take Israel for instance. You have your orthodox jews with the funny
hats, they think and believe quite differently to your secular jews.
In fact, within Israel itself, there is constant conflict between
the two.

It is no different in Saudi Arabia. You have those with extreme
religious beliefs, those who don't. Pakistan is the same.

When Saudi Arabia was formed, a deal was done between two tribes,
the Sauds and the Wahabs. The Sauds would run the economy, the Wahabs
would run the religious side of things, ie their extreme version
of Islam.

So there is a constant compromise between the two, to keep local
politics in order. The King is a Saud, very much pro America, but
he makes sure that the Wahabs receive adequate funding, to bankroll
the growth of Wahabi Islam around the world.

In Pakistan you have the same extremes. Its no different in America,
where you have your bible belt fanatics, all the way to your secular
Americans. Whatever Govt is in power, hardly ever reflects the views
of all the population.

Hi Yabby

So would I be right in surmising that the pro-American Sauds give money to the Wahabs so that they can fund anti-American extremists?....glad you cleared that one up - sounds perfectly reasonable to me.