His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Not a sin !!! but recent statements of IK have not just been criticizing US foreign policy

62

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

^ please direct me to his statements where he has been condemning the US.

63

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Sounds confused man. All he will have to do is withdraw the permission for drone attacks. It will be a bad bad idea to shoot down america plane of which they already have a permission.

But to withdraw the permission he will have to take the permission from the Army, afterall they were the one who gave the permission. Its not his decision to make.

I can challenge anyone that he will never shoot down any american plane. Its just a political statement.

64

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

So Taliban are fighting with Pakistani army funded by Saudis. This kind of Paki vicious mentality I have yet to understand.

65

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Google might help... Hint : Interview with Guardian

66

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

In the interview with guardian he said that taleban are doing jehad against the American forces in Afghanistan. I do not support that statement of his as its afghanistans internal matter. Simply the afghans are resisting foreign occupation, if there were no occupation there'd be no fight against the foreigners there. A large proportion of people fighting NATO considers this to be a jehad even if we like it or not.

Besides have you forgotten the time when Pakistan and US jointly trained and equipped the same people against the USSR, and called them mujahideen? How can the same thing be called jehad against the Russians and terrorism when it concerns the Americans?

67

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

The demand for stopping drones has almost become a synonym for sheilding the Taliban. If this is an incorrect assessment and we are actually speaking for the peaceful civilians in Fata, than what IK is saying wrong?

He visited Akorra Khattak in April 2011 and his stand was no different from his recent statement on Afghan jihad. I think if we do not mix Afghan Taliban and the TTP, than we can easily understand the difference between what's happening in Afghanistan and what the TTP is doing in Pakistan. We cannot say that Afghans were waging jihad against the Soviet forces and are now involved in terrorism against the foreign militaries stationed in Afghanistan. It will be a classic case of contradiction in terms.

As far as the TTP is concerned, IK never said that they are waging a jihad. He stand has been that what they are doing is a reaction to drone attacks. And by saying that drones must stop, he wants to deprive the TTP of their most logical argumentative weapon — retaliation against drone attacks. He is also on record saying that if the TTP still does not stop, than power of the state should be brought into action.

Having said that, I personally believe that IK is not going to all lenghts in criticising their criminal acts. He should have been more expressive while still standing his ground in his logical argument that drones must stop at once.

You are right. Majority of Pakistanis love to hate the US. The anger was widespread and intense, but the reason was religious, not political. I would, however, beg to differ with you if you are trying to imply that the majority actually does not oppose drone attacks.

Even if it is not demanded by the US and by the international community, Pakistan still needs to make sure that its soil is not used as a lunching pad for terror activities in any part of the world. When IK refers to pre-2003 state of affairs, he is merely bringing to the fore a reality which actually existed. And may I also point out that it wasn't only Pakistan overlooking the Taliban, the US was also equally permissive of the menace.

I believe that it is impossible for any human being to be correct all the time, IK is no exception. I disagree with IK on the ownership of the war. But we must have an answer as to how long can we afford to be at war? Fourty-two countries fight with the Taliban only to beseech them to open a political office in Qatar? If the war has to end on a negotiating table in Qatar, than why not skip the military process and start the political endgame?

As far as the TTP is concerned, the IK formula of stick and carrots is no different than the one being mulled by the US and the Nato.

68

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

What ever happened to Khan is un acceptable for a nation of 180 million.. there is no doubt that he is a popular public figure from our country whose interrogation like this by a second rated immigration officer is disgusting and insulting for the entire nation if you subscribe to his views on terrorism-drones or you don't. For this unacceptable treatment our political leadership should unanimously ask for an un conditional apology or otherwise we should detain in the same manner the next dignitary arriving from US to lecture us at our airport for an interrogation..

People who criticize IK's stance do not criticize him for being anti drone. I don't agree with his stance because of his failure to condemn Taliban killers of innocent people. He rather justifies these killers being a product of US drone attacks while to me any justification of these killers is not acceptable for what-so-ever reasons.. Anyone who kills a single innocent person from my country should be simply condemned without any ifs and buts.. period.. including drones and Taliban killers..!!!

69

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

And this man continued his journey for more money .
He insulted the whole nation by not protesting and cancelling the trip .
He is still wandering in US perhaps in search of more money .
His team is spending money on our media to link this insult with drones .
It was a pure funds issue . You should support our foreign office working well on drone issue .

70

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

^ what's achievement of foreign office on the drone issue ?

71

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Drone Strikes to Be Investigated
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 25, 2012
The United Nations is setting up a unit to investigate American drone strikes and other targeted killings of terrorist suspects, Ben Emmerson, the United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said Thursday. The unit would study civilian casualties in such strikes and “seek explanations” from the countries carrying them out and from the nations where they occur, he said. The United States and Israel have carried out far more strikes than any other country.
Drone Strikes to be Investigated - NYTimes.com](Redirect Notice)

Hina for immediate end to drone strikes](Redirect Notice)

https://news.google.com/news/tbn/R1IGNw5KFMAJ/6.jpg
Russia backs Pakistan’s stance on drone strikes

‘Drone attacks illegal, fuel terror’ - Pakistani FM](http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CE0QtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7CV0c-9QPgM&ei=HL6PUOfeKY2JrAf7-YCoBA&usg=AFQjCNGm6BZcPJ2DKuBvhUJir6moyh3EZw&sig2=2lQr_pJwv5CCTHiXLtItNg)

She is doing more today on the issue .

72

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Un is not investigating the attacks on the request of Pakistani government, as far as statements of hina are concerned she can go on, they don't hold any weight, they are only for public consumption.

73

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

This is the news regarding UN investigation. Failure of Pakistan to monitor the impact of drone strikes is forcing the United Nations to act, not a credit of the government. What can be said about the government which does not know the proportion of civilians killed with reference to militants(even after thousands of deaths).

m.guardian.co.uk

The United Nations is to set up a dedicated investigations unit in Geneva early next year to examine the legality of drone attacks in cases where civilians are killed in so-called “targeted” counter-terrorism operations.

The announcement was made by Ben Emmerson QC, a UN special rapporteur, in a speech to Harvard law school in which he condemned secret rendition and waterboarding as crimes under international law. His forthright comments, directed at both US presidential candidates, will be seen as an explicit challenge to the prevailing US ideology of the global war on terror.

Earlier this summer, Emmerson, who monitors counter-terrorism for the UN, called for effective investigations into drone attacks. Some US drone strikes in Pakistan may amount to war crimes, Emmerson warned.

In his Harvard speech, he said: "If the relevant states are not willing to establish effective independent monitoring mechanisms … then it may in the last resort be necessary for the UN to act.

“Together with my colleague Christof Heyns, [the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial killings], I will be launching an investigation unit within the special procedures of the [UN] Human Rights Council to inquire into individual drone attacks.”

The investigation unit will also look at “other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted”. Emmerson maintained that the US stance that it can conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaida or other groups anywhere in the world because it is deemed to be an international conflict was indefensible.

“The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” he said. "It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.

"The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …

“[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.”

Emmerson singled out both President Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney for criticism. "It is perhaps surprising that the position of the two candidates on this issue has not even featured during their presidential elections campaigns, and got no mention at all in Monday night’s foreign policy debate.

"We now know that the two candidates are in agreement on the use of drones. But the issue of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques is an one which, according to the record, continues to divide them.

"I should make it absolutely clear that my mandate does not see to eye to eye with the Obama administration on a range of issues – not least the lack of transparency over the drone programme. But on this issue the president has been clear since he took office that water-boarding is torture that it is contrary to American values and that it would stop.

“… But Governor Romney has said that he does not believe that waterboarding is torture. He has said that he would allow enhanced interrogation techniques that go beyond those now permitted by the army field manual, and his security advisers have recommended that he rescind the existing restrictions.”

The Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, he pointed out, used the technique. "Anyone who is in doubt about whether waterboarding is torture should visit Tuol Sleng, the infamous S-21 detention facility operated by the Khymer Rouge in Phnom Penh.

“Over a period of four years 14,000 people were systematically tortured and killed there. It is now a genocide museum. And right there, in the middle of the central torturing room, is the apparatus used by Pol Pot’s security officials for waterboarding.”

74

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

And statements of a thug have any value ?
Those are just in search of few anti American votes .
MMA will come out to do that in elections in KP .
In Punjab , Sindh and Baluchistan it doesn't work .

75

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

The country is being run by the thug who is more interested in looting tax payer money as compared to governing. That thug is squarely responsible to killing of thousands of people during his reign throughout the country (especially balochistan, fata and KP).

76

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

He may be a thug for you but there is a huge difference between an alleged thug like him and a confirmed thug like Zardari. People give money to IK out of their own will and without any coercion despite propaganda from people like you against SKMT, IKF and what not. Whereas our dear president takes money off us without our permission and will.

so aap apni frustration vent out ker liya karayn k why people give him money as he is thug in your eyes. But facts are facts.

77

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Imran aur Zardari donon aik hain
Imran say Zardari qadray naik hay
عمران اور زداری دونوں ایک ہیں
عمران سے زرداری قدرے نیک ہے

78

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Why even try to have a sensible discussion… ?

NIMH · What are the signs and symptoms of OCD?

79

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

Lets not get carried away. Imran was questioned by INS about his drone's stance. They knew who they are questioning and what are they questioning for. I believe its their right to question anyone and everyone who is trying to enter USA. Their homeland security officials at the airport has even stopped their long time senators and congressmen.

Unfortunately, unlike Pakistan, they do not care who you are. Try imagining Airport security stopping rehman malik or ch nisar or babar ghauri. Next day pora dept suspend ho ga.

80

Re: His name is Khan, and he is not a terrorist

sensible discussion… ?
You people are sick of PPP
You are surprised only due to popularity of PPP
It is simple
People love them .
People favoring the dirtiest politician of the world could be called are sensible , It is the real question .