Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
It's an endless war. Thouse who think that an operation can wipe them off, should first check iit out with the US and the Nato if they managed to win it in Afghanistan.
Inshallah this insurgency will end very soon. Kyani (read my post at #56) is after them and will finish each one of these 'maut ke saudagar'.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Biggest losers in this mess are civilians. Getting killed from different sides, with different excuses.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Inshallah this insurgency will end very soon. Kyani (read my post at #56) is after them and will finish each one of these 'maut ke saudagar'.
why do you people keep recycling this same old lie that we will finish them soon. when???? just admit you can't finish them with violence. the current superpower of the world admits it, why can't you guys do the same?
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Ahan. This is what he said quite recently when everyone was angry at Genaral death: “The national leadership has decided to give dialogue a chance to deal with the issue of terrorism and Pakistan army fully supports this process…The nation and the political leadership have to determine the parameters for holding such a dialogue… this process should bring unity among the nation instead of leading to a division,” (Force to be used as last resort, says Kayani - DAWN.COM)
I don’t what exactly you are trying to prove. Even in the extract you posted, Kiyani is clear about giving negotiation a chance which really is the main issue at the moment. The military supports peace talks and want it to succeed, that’s the bottom line. I don’t think there’s any confusion that in case the peace talks fail, force will be used. Imran’s said it and Kiyani believes that too, so looks like there is a plan in place.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Brother, your thinking is nice and positive. Anyhow, I believe that most of what you wrote is based on illusive beliefs. I only wish that you are right in thinking that TTP would get satisfied with what Pakistan can offer them, regardless of that is appropriate for Pakistan or not.
You are right to assume that drones have made them vulnerable all the time and obviously drones must be haunting TTP leadership even when they are sleeping. Anyhow, just think:
1: If Taliban agree to become law abiding citizen, and stop using Pakistani soil for their wars outside Pakistan, then drones would stop anyhow. So, surety against drones is meaningless for TTP unless it stops while they can keep doing what they do (create fitna and fasad in Pakistan and abroad). Obviously, with their fitna and fasad on-going, drones could not stop even if it was in the hands of Pakistan to stop. Worse is that drones may stop once Americans would leave the area, but that stoppage would follow with Pakistan own bombings in the area to kill Taliban and their leadership (with probably higher civilian casualties).
2: FATA already has better financial package per head then rest of Pakistan. On the other hand, financial package was never demand of TTP (that has large number of elements from Punjab).
3: Compensation is not TTP demand … as they can loot and plunder at will, so have no shortage of funds. Anyhow, compensation for drone victims is fine as long as victims compensated are civilians, but if government would start compensating terrorists then that would backfire. It would be payment to those who killed and brought misery to innocent Pakistanis in thousands.
4: Infrastructure and hospitals: Again this is not TTP demand, rather they are blowing hospitals, schools and other infrastructure in FATA and even in settled areas.
5: TTP wants withdrawal of Pakistan army from their area of influence, but their this demands is to increase their fitna and fasad in the area using force, without getting challenged by armed forces. That demand would be useless if they would like to live within law of Pakistan.
6: Many people do not know (due to dishonesty of politicians and anchors on TV and other media), that Pakistan support to NATO forces in Afghanistan is not due to phone call or request from USA, but due to UN resolutions (1368, that asked all members to help eradicate terrorism from Afghanistan and later UN resolutions after UN resolution 1368).
Pakistan being member of UN has obligation to follow UN resolutions, as UN is body that gives protection to Pakistan in international arena. Even Pakistani border is recognised international border due to UN charter, including sea water and many other rights that Pakistan has in international laws. So, outright withdrawal of support from ‘war against terrorism’ would make Pakistan guilty of not accepting UN resolutions and that means sanctions that Pakistan could not afford.
On the other hand, why Pakistan should withdraw logistic support Pakistan gives to war against terrorism in Afghanistan, as Pakistan is victim themselves, getting terrorized by TTP and other sectarian outfits, and need world help to fight these terrorists.
UN Resolution 1368 (on Sept 11 attack passed in UN on Sept 12, a day after the attack) on fighting terrorism, especially terrorism originating from Afghanistan (and USA called Pakistan to comply with UN resolution):
clause 3 of UN resolution 1368: Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine how a bunch of terrorists taking up arms against state (Pakistan) can dictate Pakistan national and international policies? If TTP can do that now, then tomorrow TTP again or another thugs like TTP would rise up to demand some other changes in Pakistan national and international policies.
7: Again, TTP has no such demand as they shown capability to attack prisons and get their arrested thugs released. On the other hand, if TTP can get their criminals released then what would stop any other armed thugs to ask for same?
The demands you put down that Pakistan can ask TTP terrorists is nothing that Pakistan should ask anyone. Rather, all what you mentioned should be state duty (not duty of thugs) to implement or use force to get it implemented, punishing those creating obstacle in implementation.
So, why Pakistan should beg Taliban for what is duty as well as right of Pakistan state? Do you mean Pakistan has become so weak that they could not force implementation of things that is duty of Pakistani state to implement, and thus have to beg Taliban for permission? If Pakistan is so weak, then why Taliban should care for Pakistan anyhow?
Even though I do not think Pakistan should make such demands … rather Pakistan demand should be asking TTP to throw their arms and surrender or get prepared to die … but even if Pakistan foolishly make such demands (as such demands would only encourage terrorists of every kind in Pakistan to expect surrender of Pakistan in front of their terrorism), i do not think TTP would accept any of Pakistan’s demand … let see the demands you put down and what Pakistan should really do about them.
1: Instead of asking TTP to end attacks, shouldn’t Pakistan make them end attacks?
2: Surety against foreigners using FATA as their base: Should Pakistan as state ask Taliban for that or use their own writ to make sure of that? … and if they are so incapable of establishing their writ, then what right they have to form government?
3: Protection for schools and other infrastructure: Is that duty of Taliban or Pakistan government?
4: Tribal elders? Or should it be state law, police and judiciary? … On the other hand, where is TTP standing in this respect, as they do not even respect tribal elders or even tribal laws and code of conduct.
5: TTP declaration: Is Pakistan as state a banana country that they need declaration and protection from thugs?
6: Why TTP should stand by a state who begs them … and that also against their own kind? Again, is it right for state to beg terrorist organisations to stand by state or at least do not help other terrorists?
7: Support for polio drive … Does Pakistan have to take TTP permission for polio drive in the country? Isn’t it a sad situation when state want permission from terrorist organisation to support them eradicate polio in the country?
If Taliban would become unarmed law abiding citizen, drones would not be problem anyhow. So, no need to talk on drones (we should remember that all drone strikes are happening with Pakistani consent anyhow).
As for Taliban shariah imposition, that is no-no, as their Shariah is neither Islamic nor acceptable to majority of Pakistanis (Sunni, Shia and others). Only a selected group of Deobandis and ahle-hadith may accept their deviant laws. On the other hand, it is unlikely TTP would accept Islamic laws that is acceptable to Pakistani Muslim.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Can those who think we cannot reach an agreement with Taliban answer my question REALISTICALLY? Can we win this war?
I do not think Pakistan can reach agreement with Taliban ... as any agreement with Taliban would be not just surrendering Pakistani sovereignty to Taliban, but it would be surrendering Pakistan to Taliban.
I think Pakistan can win this war with Taliban ... Pakistan only need will to defeat them. Anyhow, if Pakistan is so weak that Pakistan cannot win the war against Taliban (that I think is untrue), then Pakistan should take help from other countries ... even let army of other countries to come and fight for Pakistan ... so that, Pakistan can get rid of this fitna from Pakistan forever.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Why do you care? Its not like it affects you in anyway. Its like asking the US what they can offer the Taliban and they have been negotiating for the past 2 years.
I care because it affects me. I consider Pakistan as my country of birth where someday I intend to move back. I have properties and investment in Pakistan. I give huge amount of tax in Pakistan every year (compared to other Pakistanis). I have my family members in Pakistan.
On the other hand, these Taliban thugs do not even consider Pakistan as their country. They think all Muslim countries are their country, and they want to fight and die for these countries. For them Pakistan is just a convenient place from where they can launch Fitna and Fasad all over the world.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
I think Pakistan can win this war with Taliban ... Pakistan only need will to defeat them. Anyhow, if Pakistan is so weak that Pakistan cannot win the war against Taliban (that I think is untrue), then Pakistan should take help from other countries ... even let army of other countries to come and fight for Pakistan ... so that, Pakistan can get rid of this fitna from Pakistan forever.
Your arguments in post#65 are all logical. Sovereignty is not all about getting others to respect you, it also means writ inside the borders. But unfortunately we have come to a point where the state is challenged left, right and center. Be it thugs in Karachi, Maolanas of Lal Masjid or TTP, the state has made a joke out of itself.
But irrespective of what we think, the fact of the matter is that the collective wisdom of the elected leadership has arrived at an understanding that the state should sit with the TTP on a negotiating table. When you make up your mind to initiate dialogue, we always know that it's all about give and take, however unpleasant it may be.
As far as I am concerned, I just want the state to act resolutely, be it war or dialogue. Talk to them sincerely within the ambit of the constitution with stick in one hand and carrots in the other hand.
For the time being, we should let the collective wisdom of our elected leaders to prevail. If this option fails — which isn't on now anyway — the state will have no option but to smoke them out of their den. And for that purpose, I fully agree with your suggestion that Pakistan should welcome even international force to get things straight.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Peace talks with TTP over, Chaudhry Nisar laments****
ISLAMABAD: Lamenting the end of peace talks, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan alluded to a larger conspiracy aimed at disrupting talks with the Taliban, culminating in the drone strike on Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Chief Hakimullah Mehsud.
Briefing members of parliament on the status of talks with the TTP, the interior minister said the prospect of dialogue with the militants was “unfortunately” no longer possible.
He said the team formed to initiate the dialogue was meant to set off to meet the TTP today, but all hopes of dialogue had come to an end with the killing of Mehsud.
Nisar commended all the political parties for uniting to pursue peace talks, and showing patience despite ongoing attacks. He said evidence had been gathered for the Qissa Khawani attack, the Peshawar church attack and the killing of Major General Sanaullah Niazi, adding that the timing of these acts of terrorism was suspect.
He also thanked the Army which, “went the extra mile” to protect the peace dialogue, despite the grave security situation that was developing.
The interior minister did however blast the local media for its irresponsible reporting on the issue of peace talks, adding that he remained silent during “dangerous” misreporting and leaks at the time due to the sensitive nature of the issue.
What next?
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
This situation has an interesting parallel to the background to the Battle of the Camel.
On the one hand, a side which demands that a group of killers be brought to justice/killed.
On the other hand, a side which believes that for the greater good and to try to stop further conflict, that the killers not be pursued.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Showdown of PML-N vs PTI begins. PTI says they will negotiate regardless of Fed, PML-N says no negotiation, PTI says will stop NATO supply, PML-N tota Najam says that will be rebellion.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
There is no denying that the ultimate goal for all parties concerned here is to bring peace to the region that the common folks so desire. We have been working with Pakistani authorities and the military to achieve that. The fact remain that the enemy has been on attack even after the APC in Pakistan. The death of General Sana of Pakistani Army, the attacks on the church and the Qissa Khawani Bazaar happened just after that. If the enemy had been serious about peace they would have ceased their attack, but did they?
Peace and stability in Pakistan is simply vital to the region’s peace and stability. We simply cannot over accentuate Pakistan’s importance in the region. We stand by Pakistan in its efforts to bring peace to its people. The U.S. state department spokesman said: "The issue of whether to negotiate with TTP is an internal matter for Pakistan.” The official further added: “More broadly, the United States and Pakistan continue to have a vital, shared strategic interest in ending extremist violence so as to build a more prosperous, stable, and peaceful region.”
Abdul Quddus
DET-United States Central Command
(http://www.centcom.mil/ur)
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
u people have caused enough havoc in the world, ttp is a grain of sand compared to your evil doing.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
This situation has an interesting parallel to the background to the Battle of the Camel.
On the one hand, a side which demands that a group of killers be brought to justice/killed. On the other hand, a side which believes that for the greater good and to try to stop further conflict, that the killers not be pursued.
More like hazrat ali's truce with Ameer muawiya that was rejected by the Kharjiites?
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
Your arguments in post#65 are all logical. Sovereignty is not all about getting others to respect you, it also means writ inside the borders. But unfortunately we have come to a point where the state is challenged left, right and center.
If we have come to this point (due to khariji allies among us, including on this forum) that we are willing to start making "requests" to Taliban to spare us, then why do we get so furious when a foreign country attacks the areas which are not under our control anyway?
Where is the breach of sovereignty in that case?
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
I have to agree with Saleem with points he mentioned. IK has started to annoy me about this issue. He wants to talk to same savages who killed thousands of Pakistanis. What is the use of 5th or 7th largest army in the world..if you cannot take care of these rats.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
This year the drones have been few and in between and have targeted high profile targets, if similar strikes were carried out during the past 9 years I dont think many people would have had issues. Its the signature strikes which they carried out between 2009 to 2012 which has cemented the notion of people that the US is killing civilians/militants indiscriminately.
‘Signature Strikes’ and the President’s Empty Rhetoric on Drones | Arianna Huffington]('Signature Strikes' and the President's Empty Rhetoric on Drones | HuffPost Latest News)
**On March 17, 2011, four Hellfire missiles, fired from a U.S. drone, slammed into a bus depot in the town of Datta Khel in Pakistan’s Waziristan border region. An estimated 42 people were killed. It was just another day in America’s so-called war on terror. To most Americans the strike was likely only a one-line blip on the evening news, if they even heard about it at all.
But what really happened that day? Who were those 42 people who were killed, and what were they doing? And what effect did the strike have? Did it make us safer? These are the questions raised, and answered, in a must-watch new video just released by Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Foundation.
The attack was what has come to be called a “signature strike.” This is when the CIA or the military makes the decision to fire based not on who the targets are but on whether they are exhibiting suspicious patterns of behavior thought to be “signatures” of terrorists (as seen on video from the drone). Given that the CIA is killing people it’s never identified based on their behavior, one would assume a certain rigor has gone into defining the criteria for the kinds of behavior that get one killed.
So what’s a signature behavior? “The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40,” former ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter told the Daily Beast’s Tara McKelvey. “My feeling is one man’s combatant is another man’s – well, a chump who went to a meeting.” The New York Times quoted a senior State Department official as saying that when the CIA sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp.**
That day in Datta Khel, the signature behavior was a meeting, or “jirga,” which is an assembly of tribal elders who convene to settle a local dispute. In this case, a conflict over a chromite mine was being resolved. And, in fact, the elders had informed the Pakistani army about the meeting 10 days in advance. “So this was an open, public event that pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area knew about,” says Stanford law professor James Cavallaro in the video.
Pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area. But not U.S. intelligence. Or the head of the CIA. Or the president. Or the guy in Virginia or Nevada or some other undisclosed location pressing the button on the drone controller.
And so, almost all the tribal elders of the area were killed by the drone missiles. Akbar Ahmed is a retired Pakistani ambassador to the UK and now a professor at American University. “It’s feeding into the sense that no one is safe, nowhere is safe, nothing is safe,” he says in the video. “Even a jirga, the most cherished, the most treasured institution of the tribal areas. So we cannot even sit down and resolve an issue – that is not safe anymore.” As professor Cavallaro put it, “the loss of 40 leaders on a single day is devastating for that community.”
And far from building stability in places like Pakistan, something the administration talks a lot about, in fact the strike actually removed, in one fell swoop, the most stabilizing forces in an entire community.
Jalal Manzar Khail was at his nearby home that day and remembers the attack, which also claimed four of his cousins. Khail’s six-year-old son was later afraid – not unreasonably – to sleep in their house. “We cannot go home,” Khail recounts his son saying. “We have to spend the night in the tree.” Khail adds, “Convey my message to Americans: The CIA and America have to stop … they’re just creating more enemies and this will last for hundreds of years.”
Khail’s message is not uncommon. “At the end of almost every interview I did,” Greenwald told me, “the person would say, ‘Please tell President Obama I am not a terrorist and he should stop killing my family.’”
There was a time when President Obama might have been more receptive to that message. In the book Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Daniel Klaidman recounts another drone strike just days after President Obama had been inaugurated. Among those killed were a pro-government tribal elder and two of his children. Obama “was not a happy man,” an official told Klaidman.
The concept of the signature strike was then explained to him. “Mr. President,” said CIA deputy director Steve Kappes, “we can see that there are a lot of military-age males down there, men associated with terrorist activity, but we don’t always know who they are.” Obama responded, “That’s not good enough for me.”
It would appear that he has since warmed to the concept. It’s unknown how many have died – combatants or civilians – in signature strikes, since the administration still doesn’t acknowledge that they happen. In February, Robert Gibbs told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that when Gibbs became Obama’s press secretary he was told not to acknowledge the drone program at all. “You’re not even to discuss that it exists,” Gibbs remembers being told.
Of course, since then, given how increasingly ludicrous – and insulting to the country – this stance appeared, the administration has acknowledged the drone strikes, though not much more. But estimated numbers have been compiled by other sources. As Klaidman points out, by the time Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize 11 months into his presidency, he’d already ordered more drone strikes than George W. Bush had in his entire presidency. By the end of 2012, he’d ordered six times as many strikes in Pakistan as Bush had. One study, conducted by professors from Stanford (including Cavallaro) and NYU, found that from 2004 to 2012, between 474 and 881 civilians were killed in Pakistan drone strikes. This includes 176 children – the subject of another Greenwald video, which I encourage you to watch. For fiscal year 2013, the administration has requested $26.16 billion for the drone program – at least that’s the portion that we know about.
In a speech in May at the National Defense University, President Obama gave what was billed as a major national security address meant to clarify his policy on drones, surveillance, and Guantanamo. It seemed to signal a transition in his approach. “With a decade of experience to draw from,” he said in the hour-long address, “now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions – about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them.” In parts of the speech he even made a good case against the use of drones:
… force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.
He also admitted that “U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties.” This was a far cry from the claim made in 2011 by John Brennan, at the time the president’s chief counterterrorism advisor, that “there hasn’t been a single collateral death” from the strikes. He later amended this to say there’s been no “credible evidence of collateral deaths.” This ridiculous claim was demolished in an article in Foreign Policy by Micah Zenko, who concluded that Brennan either doesn’t get the same briefings given to other administration officials or he doesn’t have Internet access. Or “he was lying.” In any case, it didn’t stop his confirmation as director of the CIA.
In his speech, President Obama also allowed that “America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty.” Pakistan might differ on that one. After the Datta Khel strike, some of the victims’ families filed suit, resulting in a ruling by the Pakistan court that the strikes are illegal.
In fact, the president opened his speech by proclaiming that “our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world.” Well, the world’s a big place. And there are some places where our standing has larger implications for our national security than others. In Pakistan, for instance, according to a recent Pew Foundation poll, 74 percent consider the U.S. to be an enemy. In the last year of the Bush administration, the U.S. was regarded favorably by 19 percent of the Pakistan people. By 2012, that had fallen to 12 percent. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and now a scholar at Brookings, says the strikes are “deadly to any hope of reversing the downward slide in ties with the fastest growing nuclear weapons state in the world.”
The president also claimed that “conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage.” Wrong again. In the Guardian last week, Spencer Ackerman reports on a study by Larry Lewis, of the Center for Naval Analysis, that found that drones strikes in Afghanistan were 10 times more likely to cause civilian casualties than strikes from manned fighters. “Drones aren’t magically better at avoiding civilians than fighter jets,” said study co-author Sarah Holewinski. “When pilots flying jets were given clear directives and training on civilian protection, they were able to lower civilian casualty rates.”
In his speech, President Obama also said that “we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom.” The hard-earned wisdom the drone study was based on – data in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2011 – was presumably available to the administration. Had the White House been interested in finding out which method was safer, they could have. But they chose not to and instead just repeated the self-serving, conventional – and demonstrably wrong – “wisdom.” It’s hard to grant the mantle of actual wisdom to that kind of decision-making.
But the president also said that he was going to explore “other options for increased oversight,” and that he’d signed “clear guidelines” for “oversight and accountability” just the day before. “Before any strike is taken,” he declared, “there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.”
Though signature strikes were not mentioned, some assumed language like “near certainty” and “highest standard” meant they were no longer going to be used. That assumption was proven wrong as just days later an administration official told the New York Times that signature strikes will continue in Pakistan, a statement the Times’ Andrew Rosenthal wrote “seem[ed] to contradict the entire tenor of Mr. Obama’s speech.”
Two weeks later, on June 9, a drone struck a vehicle in Yemen, killing not only several supposed militants, but also a boy named Abdulaziz. He was 10 years old. “Near certainty” and those new “clear guidelines” apparently weren’t enough for Abdulaziz. The administration refused to comment on the boy’s death, or the strike itself. So much for accountability and transparency. And just last week, a strike in Waziristan killed 16 people and wounded five others.
In addition to asking some of those “hard questions” about the war on terror, it’s time to start admitting some clearly obvious hard truths. And one of those is that the assumption that drone strikes make us safer – even when they’re on target and used with a threshold of absolute certainty – just isn’t true. So, it’s not a choice, as the administration would have us believe, between safety and compassion. “As Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives,” said Obama in his speech. “To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties.” As if those are our only choices – killing boys like Abdulaziz or doing nothing.
The president continued: “Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.”
But he says that as if “the terrorists” are some set pool of people, and all we have to do is find them and kill them. Yes, given that terrorists target civilians, how about policies that don’t create more terrorists in the first place? After that strike in Datta Khel, what do you suppose happened to the support of any moderate or pro-American or pro-democracy leaders in the community? (I’m speaking of the ones who weren’t killed, of course.) Was their standing enhanced? Did the strike help them make their case?
Sure, we killed some people. Some of them were undoubtedly “bad guys” – but has this made us safer? In the video, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says it’s not about casualty numbers. “The Vietnam body count as a metric was flawed,” he says, “and the drone strikes are the same way … Tell me how we are winning if every time we kill one, we create 10? That’s not a metric that tells you if you’re winning. What tells you if you’re winning is if Muslims decide not to support the radical fringe.” David Kilcullen, former senior advisor to General David Petraeus, agrees: “[T]he blowback and the aspect of political destabilization – those things ultimately do make us less safe.”
It seems clear that the White House doesn’t want debate on this issue any more than it welcomed debate, as the president claimed, on the NSA’s surveillance program after the Snowden revelations. What the administration seems to want is to make speeches in which they claim good intentions, high standards, and a commitment to transparency – and then declare everything else classified and off-limits.
That’s why Greenwald’s new video is so valuable. It gives us a glimpse, even if the White House won’t, of what’s being done in our name. “We are working,” Greenwald told me, “to use the video to get Congress to introduce legislation to ban signature strikes.” So watch it, and then start the debate the president claims to want. The missiles from the drones might be exploding in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen, but the fallout will impact us here at home for years to come.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
If we have come to this point (due to khariji allies among us, including on this forum) that we are willing to start making "requests" to Taliban to spare us, then why do we get so furious when a foreign country attacks the areas which are not under our control anyway? Where is the breach of sovereignty in that case?
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
but what about the precision drones? they can track a rat in latrines according to posters on this very forum..
No they can not track by themselves. It needs exact coordinates to hit the target. Once coordinates are found then you can watch on monitor tens and thousands of miles away how drone targets precisely like it targeted "the biggest maut ka saudagar" in the history of Pakistan. A news item said before his death that he was hiding in sh!t hole being afraid of drone. The moment he came out from that sh!t hole, he was gone with the wind.
Giving exact coordinates of the target is another story.
Re: Why cry over the death of our worst enemy?
No they can not track by themselves. It needs exact coordinates to hit the target. Once coordinates are found then you can watch on monitor tens and thousands of miles away how drone targets precisely like it targeted "the biggest maut ka saudagar" in the history of Pakistan. A news item said before his death that he was hiding in sh!t hole being afraid of drone. The moment he came out from that sh!t hole, he was gone with the wind.
Giving exact coordinates of the target is another story.
that's why 2000 civilians died... precision strikes. same lame excused used by pro-west chamchays