Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
^ so if US said they didnt carried out drone attack they must be saying the truth, but if pakistan said that they lied? nice...
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
if it is ok for America to use drones on muslim nations this is green light for muslim nations to attack america with drone attacks.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Its not like the US hasn't lied before. Raymond Davis is an obvious example in connection with Pakistan. More so they used the US media specifically the New York Times and the Washington Post to spread their lies. It wasn't until the Guardian published the fact that Raymond Davis was CIA did they admit it.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
And the New York Times starts its dirty tricks. Last week it was no US drone strike. Then it was to blame Pakistan now it says “Attack, said to be drone strike by US, kills 2 in Pakistan”. Basically the military was right. It is an attempt to delegitimize Pakistan’s claim against drone strikes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/drone-strike-reported-in-pakistan.html?_r=0
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Wrong thread
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
A Secret Deal on Drones, Sealed in Blood
Nek Muhammad knew he was being followed.
On a hot day in June 2004, the Pashtun tribesman was lounging inside a mud compound in South Waziristan, speaking by satellite phone to one of the many reporters who regularly interviewed him on how he had fought and humbled Pakistan’s army in the country’s western mountains. He asked one of his followers about the strange, metallic bird hovering above him.
Less than 24 hours later, a missile tore through the compound, severing Mr. Muhammad’s left leg and killing him and several others, including two boys, ages 10 and 16. A Pakistani military spokesman was quick to claim responsibility for the attack, saying that Pakistani forces had fired at the compound.
That was a lie.
Mr. Muhammad and his followers had been killed by the C.I.A., the first time it had deployed a Predator drone in Pakistan to carry out a “targeted killing.” The target was not a top operative of Al Qaeda, but a Pakistani ally of the Taliban who led a tribal rebellion and was marked by Pakistan as an enemy of the state. In a secret deal, the C.I.A. had agreed to kill him in exchange for access to airspace it had long sought so it could use drones to hunt down its own enemies.
That back-room bargain, described in detail for the first time in interviews with more than a dozen officials in Pakistan and the United States, is critical to understanding the origins of a covert drone war that began under the Bush administration, was embraced and expanded by President Obama, and is now the subject of fierce debate. The deal, a month after a blistering internal report about abuses in the C.I.A.’s network of secret prisons, paved the way for the C.I.A. to change its focus from capturing terrorists to killing them, and helped transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organization.
The C.I.A. has since conducted hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan that have killed thousands of people, Pakistanis and Arabs, militants and civilians alike. While it was not the first country where the United States used drones, it became the laboratory for the targeted killing operations that have come to define a new American way of fighting, blurring the line between soldiers and spies and short-circuiting the normal mechanisms by which the United States as a nation goes to war.
Neither American nor Pakistani officials have ever publicly acknowledged what really happened to Mr. Muhammad — details of the strike that killed him, along with those of other secret strikes, are still hidden in classified government databases. But in recent months, calls for transparency from members of Congress and critics on both the right and left have put pressure on Mr. Obama and his new C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, to offer a fuller explanation of the goals and operation of the drone program, and of the agency’s role.
Mr. Brennan, who began his career at the C.I.A. and over the past four years oversaw an escalation of drone strikes from his office at the White House, has signaled that he hopes to return the agency to its traditional role of intelligence collection and analysis. But with a generation of C.I.A. officers now fully engaged in a new mission, it is an effort that could take years.
Today, even some of the people who were present at the creation of the drone program think the agency should have long given up targeted killings.
Ross Newland, who was a senior official at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va., when the agency was given the authority to kill Qaeda operatives, says he thinks that the agency had grown too comfortable with remote-control killing, and that drones have turned the C.I.A. into the villain in countries like Pakistan, where it should be nurturing relationships in order to gather intelligence.
As he puts it, “This is just not an intelligence mission.”
From Car Thief to Militant
By 2004, Mr. Muhammad had become the undisputed star of the tribal areas, the fierce mountain lands populated by the Wazirs, Mehsuds and other Pashtun tribes who for decades had lived independent of the writ of the central government in Islamabad. A brash member of the Wazir tribe, Mr. Muhammad had raised an army to fight government troops and had forced the government into negotiations. He saw no cause for loyalty to the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani military spy service that had given an earlier generation of Pashtuns support during the war against the Soviets.
Many Pakistanis in the tribal areas viewed with disdain the alliance that President Pervez Musharraf had forged with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They regarded the Pakistani military that had entered the tribal areas as no different from the Americans — who they believed had begun a war of aggression in Afghanistan, just as the Soviets had years earlier.
This article is adapted from “The Way of the Knife: The C.I.A., a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth,” to be published by Penguin Press on Tuesday.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
What a bad deal! You eliminate 1 for us, and we'll let you eliminate any amount you want. No no wait,,we'll sweeten the deal and also hunt your targets on the ground. Just do us 1 solid....like brothers? :)
Disgraceful
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Have you guys seen this timeline on the Guardian?
Drone war: every attack in Pakistan visualised | News | guardian.co.uk
Here’s a screenshot… each white line at the top symbolises a drone attack. You can hover the cursor over the individual bars at the bottom and get details of each strike.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
^ thanks for sharing, in other words out of 3105 people killed 47 are high level terrorists. The rest are civilians (including women and children) and low level combatants (this needs to be double checked).
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
I doubt this BS, more propaganda than lies, yes our military is always ready to spread its legs but usually it is for more money. I find it hard to believe that to get one killed army will simply agree to let US kill as many as they want and when they want. There is lot of information missing in between.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
I doubt this BS, more propaganda than lies, yes our military is always ready to spread its legs but usually it is for more money. I find it hard to believe that to get one killed army will simply agree to let US kill as many as they want and when they want. There is lot of information missing in between.
It seems to be a mixture of both, money plus they had a few people they wanted to be killed as well. The role of Pakistan Army was disgraceful in this as no army allows collateral damage like this.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
What saddens me is that the Pakistan Army gets away with all this BS each and every time.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Targeted Killing Comes to Define War on Terror](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/world/targeted-killing-comes-to-define-war-on-terror.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0)
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
When the US needed Pakistani support for the drone strikes they lay low as Pakistanis put the blame squarely on them. Now as they are withdrawing their troops, suddenly they have started to highlight Pakistani role in the campaign.
WASHINGTON — Even as its civilian leaders publicly decried U.S. drone attacks as breaches of sovereignty and international law, Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency secretly worked for years with the CIA on strikes that killed Pakistani insurgent leaders and scores of suspected lower-level fighters, according to classified U.S. intelligence reports.
Dozens of civilians also reportedly died in the strikes in the semi-autonomous tribal region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan that is a stronghold of al Qaida, Afghan militants, other foreign jihadists and a tangle of violent Pakistani Islamist groups.
Copies of top-secret U.S. intelligence reports reviewed by McClatchy provide the first official confirmation of joint operations involving drones between the U.S. spy agency and Pakistan’s powerful army-run Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, as well as previously unknown details of that cooperation. The review takes on important significance as the administration reportedly is preparing to expand the use of drones in Afghanistan and North Africa amid a widespread debate over the legality of the strikes in Pakistan.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/188063/us-secret-cia-collaborated-with.html#storylink=misearch?storylink=addthis#storylink=cpy
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Obama’s drone war kills others not just al Qaida leaders | McClatchy
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
The drone war is not Obama’s or America’s. As "]this article](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/world/asia/origins-of-cias-not-so-secret-drone-war-in-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&#hMMdoIP,3) clearly proves, there wouldn’t have been a drone war if ISI hadn’t asked for it
"
The ISI and the C.I.A. agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the C.I.A.’s covert action authority — meaning that the United States would never acknowledge the missile strikes and that Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.
Mr. Musharraf did not think that it would be difficult to keep up the ruse. As he told one C.I.A. officer: “In Pakistan, things fall out of the sky all the time.”
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
What this article proves is that you can skip lots of accurate information to show the colors or story of your taste.
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
Do you really think that america gets pakistani approval now for drone strikes? The cat is out of the bag and no one can control it now except america. I don’t even think that imran khan’s orders, if given, would be followed to the letter in shooting down drones if and when he comes to power…
Re: Drone attacks just and legal: White House
If wars were as simple as Black/White, we'd all be next in line to become Chiefs. The fact of the matter is, what you see is far from what the truth is. The truth never gets out, it just gets released overtime. For every one true fact you read, it will be laced with a Hundred lies for propaganda purposes.
The last 10 years have been nothing short of a Sledge Hammer to an Ant Hill. If that is not injustice, I'm not sure what the definition of the word is anymore.
If you support the remote-controlled murder of 98 civilians out of 100, for the sake of 2 miscreants, your conscience should have a very big problem with that. If it does not, you approve of the murder under the guise of "Mission Accomplished" every day that a drone strike goes off. Be ashamed. Being an accomplice to a crime in any court of law is considered as if you were a part of the crime. Then consider the fact that there's a court that no one can appeal to. How will the so-called muslim Leaders of today be on that day!