Nov 07 2008

Another US Missile Strike Against Militants In Pakistan


The US has killed 13 Militants in Pakistan, some of them ‘foreigners’:

Suspected U.S. drones fired missiles into a Pakistan border region on Friday killing 13 militants, including four foreigners, officials said, the latest in a series of strikes that has infuriated Pakistan.

There have been nearly 20 attacks by suspected missile-firing pilotless U.S. drones since the beginning of September, but Friday’s is the first since Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election.


A senior government official in the region, Latif-ur-Rehman, told Reuters the missiles hit a militant compound in the Kamsham area of North Waziristan.

“It was an accurate strike and the compound has been destroyed,” said Rehman.

At least 13 militants were killed, another senior government official and an intelligence agency official said.

It’s remote so information is coming slowly but we can confirm that four missiles killed eight Pakistani Taliban and five guests,” said the intelligence official, referring to five foreign militants.

Sadly, I get the feeling fewer terrorists will be meeting Allah under an Obama administration as did under the Bush years. More here.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “Another US Missile Strike Against Militants In Pakistan”

  1. WWS says:

    It’s nice that we can get a few parting shots in before we bug out for good.

  2. kathie says:

    Democrats know they can say anything to get elected and the media will not hold them to their word, unlike Republicans. I think we have no idea what Obama is going to do. After all, he does know that he can convince 52% of the voters to support him no matter what. His support is not rational!

  3. Birdalone says:

    What really freaked me out last weekend was to learn that Obama was just finishing Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars”. I read it in paperback in 2004. Why wasn’t that REQUIRED reading for evevery member of Congress, especially anyone sitting on Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees?

    Bajaur and Swat Valley are the black holes of history for foreign armies. Even the Moghuls could not govern those tribes.

    Kathie – most voters are not rational. which is why so many don’t even bother.

  4. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    I’m willing to bet Obamatons are asking Bush to stop killing these terror thugs in Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere. Bush will of course probably comply, given the thickness of his spine. We’ll find out by how many of these stories we see in the future.

  5. Toes192 says:

    Give your President some breathing room, people… [President Obama]… He is receiving his first daily secret briefings as of yesterday… Presidents tend to “grow” in office when faced with the real decisions… Plenty of time later if our new President stumbles…

  6. Redteam says:

    “”He is receiving his first daily secret briefings as of yesterday… “”
    Haven’t heard that he had received his security clearance yet.

    While I assume it is automatically granted to a Pres, I’m not sure if that applies to a Pres elect.

  7. joe six-pack says:

    President-elect Obama will place the U.S. on the strategic defensive. I do not know how he could maintain any type of activity like this and maintain that posture. The only result I can possibly see is an almost if not entire halt to all of these types of attacks.

  8. ExposeFannyNFreddyNow says:

    Look who else needs to go on strategic defensive.

    Berkshire Hathaway profit falls 77 percent

    “NEW YORK (Reuters) – Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (BRKb.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said on Friday third-quarter profit fell 77 percent, the fourth straight quarterly decline, hurt by weaker results from insurance underwriting and a big loss on derivatives contracts.

    (Note: FOURTH STRAIGHT quarterly decline)

    Last month, Buffett pledged to move all his personal holdings apart from Berkshire stock, which is pledged to charity, into U.S. stocks from government bonds, citing long-term optimism in corporate America.”

    Warren Buffett, economic advisor to PE-O.


  9. robert c verdi says:

    Expose Fanny,
    keep banging away. I believe of McCain had followed some of the key points you raise he would have done much better.

  10. ExposeFannyNFreddyNow says:

    Thanks verdi,

    After two miserable routs to W., the Dems learned to stack the deck early. So, pile on!

    Btw, I agree McCain might have gained more ground had he chosen to accept the full arsenal at his disposal. But in the end, and I’ve thought long and hard about this, but in the end, I think McCain gave the best he possibly could.

    Whatever points he missed were points I suspect he honestly felt he couldn’t convincingly or sincerely wield. And that’s not to lay blame or to attack him.

    Everyone has issues and points of no return that can’t be crossed.

    It cost us. But I respect him for standing by his own sense of integrity. The prime example of course is Wright.

    But all of those lost points are still relevant even in defeat. PE-O is extremely scandal-prone and the Dems know it. If he wasn’t they wouldn’t need to be so vicious in their defense of Him.

    Racism? Pfffft. The guy’s baggage is INTENSE!

    Junkyard dogs guard junk.

  11. ExposeFannyNFreddyNow says:

    Just a few more points about Buffett and his Berkshire stock.

    I’ve read and re-read this article a few times and the questions just won’t let go. So please, if I’m belaboring the arguments for no good reason, tell me.

    Berkshire Hathaway profit falls 77 percent

    Buffett last month pledged to move his personal billions into US stocks “citing his long-term optimism for corporate America”. But his Berkshire stock, which is pledged to charity, he didn’t move – despite it already declining consistently through three quarters.

    So Berkshire had already been bleeding for nine months. But despite his “optimism for corporate America”, he chose not to risk his charity pledge holdings to back that optimism.

    Reason follows then that Buffett believed the optimism in his hemorrhaging charity pledge holdings was more optimistic than his “optimism for corporate America”.

    Now, assuming Buffett did indeed make good on his pledge last month – i.e. before the Nov. 4th election – to move his personal billions into US stocks, think of what that really means. Buffett voluntarily staked his personal billions on his political and economic endorsement. Yet the markets STILL crashed in HISTORIC PROPORTIONS for TWO FULL DAYS after PE-O’s election victory.

    The second richest man in America according to Forbes personally goosed the American economy for PE-O. And the markets STILL slammed Him as hard as they did.

    If moving all this money to deliberately manipulate the market is what Buffett has admitted to publicly, what might Soros The Wealthier have contributed to The Cause?

    Another point is if he had to move his personal billions into US stocks, they must have been foreign stocks to begin with. If so, how supportive of corporate America is he really if it took such an economic disaster for him to want to invest in American capitalism?

    All show or serious blow?

    Lastly, think of the shareholders and companies of all those stocks Buffett abandoned to make good his pledge. How would you feel knowing a guy like Buffett PERSONALLY and DELIBERATELY sewered your share prices to suit his political agenda?

    Yet this is the “kinder, gentler” guy Opie runs to for economic advise.

  12. ExposeFannyNFreddyNow says:

    Sorry, just one more note on Buffet and I promise to it alone.

    What do you call it when someone so incredibly wealthy is actively buying and selling stock shares to influence the nation’s politics? What’s the law’s interpretation if Buffett ends up profiting by this? And does any of this get tabulated as political “contributions”?