Drone attacks just and legal: White House

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Didn't these saviours of the planet sponsor the Afghan Mujahideen which eventually formed Al Qaeda under the leadership of Bin Laden? Didn't the CIA train, arm, and organize the mercenary army? What's with putting the entire blame on Pakistan, then? Did our own governments sponsor terrorism and mess up in other ways to achieve foreign policy goals? Oh, absolutely. But so did this saint of a nation, in fact it still actively does. It's legal and self-defence on foreign soil but terrorism on US soil, is it?

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

I think most Pakistanis agree with that.

Whether this sentiment is appreciated internationally, is to be seen.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

No one can enter and survive in any country without local help. These animals are responsible for mess in Pakistan as much as US is.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

and I said in the same post:

Now I believe that there are Pakistani side of this as well who think that only they are true muslims and rest of us are infidels and should be killed.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

but how are these drone attacks accurate, out of 2170 civilians which were dead 12.7% were children and women.

  • Pakistan body count run by Dr. Zeeshan who keeps track of all the drone attacks

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

There is a matter of perception, but also the fact that terrorist groups that necessarily weren't focused on Pakistan have become more focused and take revenge by forcing the public to confront the US, so they can do whatever they want in the region. Be it that drones are actually more accurate than artillery barrages by our 'desi' army, the point comes down to what Pakistan wants to do about this area. Right now, Pakistan is taking the ostrich approach and letting whoever do whatever as they damn well please. Sovereign countries take control of the situation, unless if this is our desi way of "controlling the situation".

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Didn't you see Dr. Khan's post (# 30), Rangoli ? ;)

Or Firenze's, 'more loyal and enthusiastic than the master himself' post (#38).

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

I have read those posts Tanvir.

US/NATO have killed more civilians than those who died in 9/11 attacks and the irony is world remains silent! but again why blame others when our very own leaders are spineless and I wouldnt be surprised if these illegal attacks are happening with our military/govt permission.

I think Pakistan is that one and only country where their so called ally is attacking them and then they shamelessly say our interest lies in a stable, prosperous Pakistan .. kia irony hai!

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Expanding CIA Drone Strikes Will Likely Mean More Dead Innocents - Atlantic Mobile

Mostly innocent people killed in drone strikes: PHC CJ - thenews.com.pk

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Thats not the case in fact Punjab has seen worst kind of suicide attacks on high profile military targets during 2007 to 2010, it's now relatively peaceful and that seems to be some sort of settlement between some terror groups and both the Punjab and federal governments. That's the reason why you see DPC dancing around the whole country, Infact punjabi taleban are the most dangerous ones in Pakistan at present and their base is in jhang which is very close to faisalabad. These guys are very where don't underestimate them.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

I agree with you kill all the tribals for the follies of our military strategists.

In 1979 we jumped into American war provided weapons to tribals, trained them, created madrasahs to brainwash them. The war ended but we did not try to bring the people in the mainstream. After 911 Americans attack Afghanistan without any proper planning (they should have discussed with Afghanistan's neighbors prior to launching the war so that they could secure their borders). The result of the war in Afghanistan was that some taleban/alqaeda members crossed they borders into Pakistan. Ok now a few terrorists were in Pakistan who should have been punished, but Musharraf started an operation against whole tribes for crimes of a few (do you know about FCR?). If you push whole tribes to the wall what was Musharraf expecting to get in return?

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

No, they're no longer accurate. They no longer depend on human intelligence, but rely on profiling. A bunch of bearded people in a truck, carrying guns is sufficient grounds for attack. Anyone with an iota of familiarity with the region knows how absurd that criteria is.

Second, there is no oversight. And hence no real concern with attacking civilian targets. Neither Pakistan nor America are "doing" bodycounts.

It's all nice to santaize this and suggest only "bad" people are dying. It's hard to swallow.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

And what is your suggestion? How we're suppose to deal with the bad people? Because 34000 Pakistanis have been killed by these fasadi terrorists. I know you think we should hand country over to them, but thats not going to happen. And foreign terrorists have no business in our country. If they want to fight jihad they should fight in their own bloody countries & anyone who supports these killers should go with them. And, if drones takes them out I'm fine with that, too.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

And one day they will come for you all - and then no one has left to speak out for you all :)

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

The drone mentality - Salon.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html?_r=2&src=tp

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

One of the biggest problems is the psychological issues that the drones are creating for the people I the region.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Reprieve—Drone Summit: Killing and Spying by Remote Control

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Peace conference puts face to drone victims | DAWN.COM

**WASHINGTON: Drone victims are not just figures on a piece of paper, they are real people and that’s why it is important to see what happens on the ground when a missile hits a target, argues Pakistani attorney Shahzad Akbar.
**
“We have to see what exactly is happening on the ground, what is happening to the people,” he told a Washington conference on drones.

“We apologise to the people of Pakistan for the strikes that have killed so many civilians,” said Nancy Maneiar, a peace activist associated with the US-based, anti-war Code Pink Group.

“The CIA needs to be held accountable for their strikes.”

**“Those who order a drone strike act at once “as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners,” said journalist Jeremy Scahill who recently travelled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to observe the consequences of the drone war.

**“This is lawless activity that the US is indulging in around the world,” he said.

**“War on terror is an oxymoron. How can you end terrorism by spreading terror via horrific remote control killing machines,” said Dr Amna Buttar, a PPP MPA from Punjab.
**
“All 190 million people are the victims of this remote-controlled war.”

They were among two dozen peace activists, lawyers, journalists and retired military officials attending a two-day conference, which began in Washington on Saturday.

International peace groups had to lobby hard for Akbar to attend the conference as the US government delayed his visa application for 14 months because he has sued the CIA over drone strikes in Pakistan.

Akbar told an audience of about 300 people from across the United States that it was important to put faces on the drone victims; otherwise people will not understand their plight.

“They feel this imminent threat of being attacked from the sky. And they feel helpless because they have no other place to relocate. Many have no skills, no education, so they cannot relocate to other parts of Pakistan,” he said. Advocate Akbar showed a photo of a teenager named Saadullah, who was helping his mother in the kitchen when a drone hit their home in Fata in 2009. He woke up in a hospital three days later without his legs.

Sanaullah, a 17-year-old pre-engineering student, burned alive in his car during another strike in 2010.

Akbar also showed photos of the Bismillah family: mother, father, a daughter and a son, all killed in a drone strike.

**Other speakers noted that US drone strikes in Pakistan had also killed 168 children. They quoted from recent surveys suggesting the number of ordinary people killed could be 40 per cent higher than previously reported.
**
US officials, however, have rejected such studies as “exaggerated”, and said the “the claims of extensive non-combatant casualties are uncorroborated”.
The “Drone Summit: Killing and Spying by Remote Control,” organised by American human rights groups, noted that there had been a lethal rise in the number of drone strikes under the Obama administration.

President Obama argues that drone strikes are focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists and have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.

Supporters of drone warfare say the drone technology is an accurate and less expensive weapon that minimises risks to US troops and protects America by killing terrorists.

Clive Stafford Smith, founder and director of Reprieve, an organisation that helped secure the release of 65 prisoners from notorious Guantanamo Bay, also highlighted this point.

“We can kill people without any risk to ourselves and that’s why the politicians like it,” said Smith while addressing the drone conference.

Other panellists noted that US drones had the potential to be equipped with heat sensors, Geographic Positioning Systems, licence-plate readers, extremely high resolution cameras, infrared cameras, and facial-recognition software. Coordinated swarms easily could track people’s daily movement from home to the office to a political rally to the grocery store.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

The drones are highly accurate and they can differentiate between terrorists and ordinary people.

Combat stress reaches drone crews - Los Angeles Times

Last April, two U.S. Marines were accidentally killed by Predator fire, and at least 15 Afghan civilians died in a mistaken attack by a Predator and helicopter gunships in February 2010.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

How can one support a program in which only about 5 % of the fatalities have been identified as terrorists, what about the rest? Should the people be punished as they are living in that area, is that their fault? Whats the difference between a drone strike and a taleban terrorist blowing himself up without any knowledge of the people being killed by his action?

PressTV - US drones killed 2,800 civilians in Pakistan in 7 years

Yes its legal and acceptable even if you dont know their identities and carry out signature strikes.

Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor defends drone strikes - Los Angeles Times

Brennan emphasized throughout his speech that drone strikes are carried out against “individual terrorists.” He did not mention so-called signature strikes, a type of attack the U.S. has used in Pakistan against facilities and suspected militants without knowing the target’s name.