Bomber Kills U.S. Diplomat in Pakistan

[KrazyHorse]

[Wezil]

"He took the job, knowing the risks..."

[Wezil]

I understand the point LOTM and others are making. It just gets frustrating hearing any attack against US personnel being given the knee jerk label of 'terrorist'.

IED blows up beside an APC and CNN tells us of another 'terrorist' attack in Iraq. WTF?

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, that's real dumb. I'm with you there.

It's a guerilla attack, pure and simple. Or insurgent if you prefer.

When, on the other hand, a bomb blows up in a marketplace I have no problem with calling it a terrorist attack...

[Wezil]

So long as it was intended to blow up in the marketplace...

Otherwise, we have 'collateral damage'.

[KrazyHorse]

What, did they park the car-bomb in the wrong section of town?

"Hey, Mohammed, this doesn't look like the headquarters of the Marines!"

"I don't know, the map says it's here. Let's cheese it!"

[Wezil]

After the ax attack in Afghanistan, nothing would surprise me.

[KrazyHorse]

I wonder if that dude's last thoughts were "This was a bad idea" as 20 pissed off infantrymen with automatic weapons turned toward him...

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Ahmed? Was there a second stage of this plan you have neglected to tell me about until now?"

[KrazyHorse]

*insert underpants gnome joke here

[Elok]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Who's going to make that telephone call, son?

Pretty much anybody who has the information. Doesn't even need to be inside the country, though that would be more efficient if the info was gathered locally. There's something distinctly stupid about the idea of passing information indirectly by word-of-mouth when the same thing can be done more quickly and reliably by a bloody e-mail between the parties concerned. Any message a human being could deliver in person could be passed on by any of a number of channels should that person be killed.

I repeat, this is not the Kremlin circa 1978. Our enemies do not control the environment, we don't need to sneak around in routine communications. They could theoretically tap a line, but given what I've heard about the situation in Pakistan that actually sounds a good deal less likely than them corrupting the local officials a diplomat would relay information to. These people are not exactly cutting-edge.

This dude was not killed as part of a military objective. I don't think anybody thought he was a significant component of our war effort. The killing was a pure political statement. In other words, terrorism.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what about the guy who mops floors at the embassy? Is he a legitimate target too?

Funny you should say that. There are five kinds of State Department officers at an embassy: Political officers (who promote US policial interests); Economic officers (who promote US economic interests); Public Affairs officers (who promote US cultural interests and handle embassy media interaction); Consular officers (who issue visas and provide services to American citizens abroad); and Management officers.

Management officers have nothing to do with politics; their job is the internal functioning of the embassy -- payroll, HR, housing, facilities maintenance, etc. David Foy was a management officer.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok


Pretty much anybody who has the information

Why do you think the diplomatic corps even exists?

This dude was not killed as part of a military objective. I don't think anybody thought he was a significant component of our war effort. The killing was a pure political statement. In other words, terrorism.

Way to argue a general principle froma specific set of circumstances

"This guy wasn't a military target. He's a diplomat. Ergo no diplomats are military targets"

[Elok]

The whole situation renders diplomats useless for military purposes. They're too damned obvious to infiltrate an AQ base and there's no information they can relay that can't just as easily be relayed by a dozen other means. There is nothing that would especially distinguish diplomats from civilians in Pakistan, except that killing them constitutes a political statement according to somebody's warped POV. So I feel quite comfortable saying that anybody who whacks diplomats in Pakistan is a terrorist. In other situations, where they might have a role in espionage/intelligence gathering, you might have an argument.

Also, please stop acting condescending. It doesn't make you right or me wrong, but it is very annoying.