What's new

America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror: The Guardian

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
22,023
Reaction score
5
America's murderous drone campaign is fuelling terror | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

More than a decade after George W Bush launched it, the "war on terror" was supposed to be winding down. US military occupation of Iraq has ended and Nato is looking for a way out of Afghanistan, even as the carnage continues. But another war – the undeclared drone war that has already killed thousands – is now being relentlessly escalated.

From Pakistan to Somalia, CIA-controlled pilotless aircraft rain down Hellfire missiles on an ever-expanding hit list of terrorist suspects – they have already killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians in the process.

At least 15 drone strikes have been launched in Yemen this month, as many as in the whole of the past decade, killing dozens; while in Pakistan, a string of US attacks has been launched against supposed "militant" targets in the past week, incinerating up to 35 people and hitting a mosque and a bakery.

The US's decision to step up the drone war again in Pakistan, opposed by both government and parliament in Islamabad as illegal and a violation of sovereignty, reflects its fury at the jailing of a CIA agent involved in the Bin Laden hunt and Pakistan's refusal to reopen supply routes for Nato forces in Afghanistan. Those routes were closed in protest at the US killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, for which Washington still refuses to apologise.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner in London, describes the latest US escalation as "punitive". But then Predators and Reapers are Barack Obama's weapons of choice and coercion, deployed only on the territory of troublesome US allies, such as Pakistan and Yemen – and the drone war is Obama's war.

In his first two years in office, the US president more than tripled the number of attacks in Pakistan alone. For their US champions, drones have the advantage of involving no American casualties, while targeting the "bad guys" Bush lost sight of in his enthusiasm to subjugate Iraq. Enthusiasts boast of their surgical accuracy and exhaustive surveillance, operated by all-seeing technicians from thousands of miles away in Nevada.

But that's a computer-game fantasy of clinical war. Since 2004, between 2,464 and 3,145 people are reported to have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan, of whom up to 828 were civilians (535 under Obama) and 175 children. Some Pakistani estimates put the civilian death toll much higher – plausibly, given the tendency to claim as "militants" victims later demonstrated to be nothing of the sort.

The US president insisted recently that the civilian death toll was not a "huge number". Not on the scale of Iraq, perhaps, where hundreds of thousands were killed; or Afghanistan, where tens of thousands have died. But they gruesomely include dozens killed in follow-up attacks after they had gone to help victims of earlier strikes – as well as teenagers like Tariq Khan, a 16-year-old Pakistani boy decapitated in a strike last November after he had travelled to Islamabad to protest against drones.

These killings are, in reality, summary executions and widely regarded as potential war crimes by international lawyers – including the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston. The CIA's now retired counsel, John Rizzo, who authorised drone attacks, himself talked about having been involved in "murder".


A decade ago, the US criticised Israel for such "extrajudicial killings" but now claims self-defence in the war against al-Qaida. These are attacks, however, routinely carried out on the basis of false intelligence, in countries such as Pakistan where no war has been declared and without the consent of the elected government.

Lawyers representing victims' families are now preparing legal action against the British government – which carries out its own drone attacks in Afghanistan – for taking part in war crimes by passing GCHQ intelligence to the CIA for its "targeted killings". Parallel cases are also being brought against the Pakistani government and the drone manufacturer General Electric – whose slogan is "we bring good things to life".

Of course, drone attacks are only one method by which the US and its allies deliver death and destruction in Afghanistan and the wider Middle East, from night raids and air attacks to killing sprees on the ground. The day after last Friday's Houla massacre in Syria, eight members of one family were killed at home by a Nato air attack in eastern Afghanistan – one of many such atrocities barely registered in the western media.

But while support for the war in Afghanistan has fallen to an all-time low in all Nato states, the drone war is popular in the US. That's hardly surprising, as it offers no danger to American forces – the ultimate asymmetric warfare – while supposedly "taking out" terrorists. But these hi-tech death squads are creating a dangerous global precedent, which will do nothing for US security.

A decade ago, critics warned that the "war on terror" would spread terrorism rather than stamp it out. That is exactly what happened. Obama has now renamed the campaign "overseas contingency operations" and is switching the emphasis from boots on the ground to robots.


But, as the destabilisation of Pakistan and growth of al-Qaida in Yemen shows, the impact remains the same. The drone war is a predatory war on the Muslim world, which is feeding hatred of the US – and fuelling terror, not fighting it.

Twitter: @SeumasMilne

American war has been ripped to shreds and I am glad almost everything we have been saying on this forum has been validated by the good writers at Guardian.

175 children killed in the name of this war - I challenge anyone supporting this war to sacrifice just one of their child in the name of war on terror. Until you can't do that, you have no business arguing taking the lives of Pakistani children from their parents.
 
.
Well, it depends on how you view it.

How many people could a terrorist killed in a drone attack kill? Compare that with the number of innocents killed in the drone attacks.

Although, since both sides are presenting their own data, the authenticity of their respective figures is hard to estimate.

I, personally, am in favour of the drone strikes. Pakistan has done little to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure on its soil and it has also time and again refused to act against the terrorists.

Drones are the only option left.

It's actually a classic case worth a full fledged analysis.

1. An atomic power with a large and self-respecting population.

2. Harbours terrorists and gives them a safe haven.

3. Those terrorists come outside that country and kill your people.

4. The atomic power country warns you against taking any direct military action and obviously since it's armed with nukes, you cannot launch a full-fledged invasion of the country. With the kind of people, who incite hate against other countries just to keep their grip strong, at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, it would be suicidal to invade that country.

5. Collecting evidence against hundreds of militants and getting them punished in a court of law will take decades. In fact, Pakistani courts have failed to punish most of the terrorists. Hence, a proper trial in a court is also not feasible.

In the light off the above, what can a country whose people/soldiers are dying because of this state-sponsored terrorism, do apart from resorting to drones?
 
.
See.... western media is not as biased as they say....nice article.:azn:
 
.
What Pakistanis dont realize is following

Why would America give 2 hoots about the impact of drones in Pakistan as long as it keeps its citizens safe (which USA has managed very well since 9/11). For Americans, if a single American life is saved at a cost of 1000 lives lost in Pakistan, its a worthy trade, and thats how it should be. So as long as Pakistan takes preventive measures to curb these terrorists that are perceived as risk by USA or alternatively has a a strong bargaining point against America, such articles wont save it from the ongoing Drone onslaught..
 
. .
they should start by arresting tony blair for war crimes...he will automatically speak against bush later on in the court and provide proof which can lead to the arrest of bush and later on obama.
 
.
Well, it depends on how you view it.

How many people could a terrorist killed in a drone attack kill? Compare that with the number of innocents killed in the drone attacks.

Although, since both sides are presenting their own data, the authenticity of their respective figures is hard to estimate.

I, personally, am in favour of the drone strikes. Pakistan has done little to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure on its soil and it has also time and again refused to act against the terrorists.

Drones are the only option left.

It's actually a classic case worth a full fledged analysis.

1. An atomic power with a large and self-respecting population.

2. Harbours terrorists and gives them a safe haven.

3. Those terrorists come outside that country and kill your people.

4. The atomic power country warns you against taking any direct military action and obviously since it's armed with nukes, you cannot launch a full-fledged invasion of the country. With the kind of people, who incite hate against other countries just to keep their grip strong, at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, it would be suicidal to invade that country.

5. Collecting evidence against hundreds of militants and getting them punished in a court of law will take decades. In fact, Pakistani courts have failed to punish most of the terrorists. Hence, a proper trial in a court is also not feasible.

In the light off the above, what can a country whose people/soldiers are dying because of this state-sponsored terrorism, do apart from resorting to drones?


Spoken like a true chamcha.

Now here is my take on it as a Pakistani, We the Pakistanis will do what is best for our own country. So in plain and simple words the rest of you can go to hell. This is exactly the policy the americans follow, and their spoons preach.
 
. .
If it creates more terrorists, then the Taliban would demand more drone attacks, not less or even stop it.

"If slapping your child motivates you into kicking my ***, you'd ask for more people to slap you child".

Who the heck is talking about what the Taliban want or don't want. It creating more terrorists is a problem for us and us being in problem is a problem for you. The Taliban are sitting pretty and bound to take over Afghanistan the day you leave. You are killing our children, I don't know a parent in the world that won't make it his mission to kill you in response to you killing their child.

That is the most basic common sense argument, if you can't understand that I don't know what you will.

btw, I wonder why do drone attack create terrorists and attacks such as below dont.. May be Pakistani missiles have built in artificial intelligence that bypasses civilians and hence has zero collateral damage :)

12 militants killed in Orakzai air strikes | DAWN.COM

We have conducted two ops where we first gave a general message to all residents to leave the area, get sanitized (for people carrying weapons, and other basic checks) and moved to IDP camps.

First one in Swat was a lesson learning op, second one in SWA was a lot better managed. Then we go in, and fight with the remaining bad guys one on one.
 
.
Well, it depends on how you view it.

How many people could a terrorist killed in a drone attack kill? Compare that with the number of innocents killed in the drone attacks.

Although, since both sides are presenting their own data, the authenticity of their respective figures is hard to estimate.

I, personally, am in favour of the drone strikes. Pakistan has done little to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure on its soil and it has also time and again refused to act against the terrorists.

Drones are the only option left.

It's actually a classic case worth a full fledged analysis.

1. An atomic power with a large and self-respecting population.

2. Harbours terrorists and gives them a safe haven.

3. Those terrorists come outside that country and kill your people.

4. The atomic power country warns you against taking any direct military action and obviously since it's armed with nukes, you cannot launch a full-fledged invasion of the country. With the kind of people, who incite hate against other countries just to keep their grip strong, at the helm of affairs in Pakistan, it would be suicidal to invade that country.

5. Collecting evidence against hundreds of militants and getting them punished in a court of law will take decades. In fact, Pakistani courts have failed to punish most of the terrorists. Hence, a proper trial in a court is also not feasible.

In the light off the above, what can a country whose people/soldiers are dying because of this state-sponsored terrorism, do apart from resorting to drones?

I wonder how much in favour of these drone strikes you would be when the honeymoon is over and the US finds her policies at odd with India. It wouldn't take the US longer then a minute to find terrorists and their safe havens throughout India including the Indian Parliament and drone attacks on India would bring out your true emotions about them.

And boots on the ground have authenticity to claims and not air reconnaissance by a super power that is carrying out illegal attacks. Finally, I don't believe we have to prove anything to an enemy neighbour who is well aware of the truth but speaks in favour of lies and deceit simply because of his natural enmity.
 
.
They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. The report described the top-secret process, which begins with some 100 counterterrorism officials going through biographies and selecting suspects in Yemen and Somalia to be added to the kill list.

Nato takes out Afghanistan Qaida No. 2

The US-led Nato force in Afghanistan killed al-Qaida's second highest leader, Sakhr al-Taifi , in the country in an airstrike in eastern Kunar province, the coalition said on Tuesday. He was responsible for commanding foreign insurgents in Afghanistan. AP Washington: US President Barack Obama was personally making all decisions about a top-secret and expanding 'kill list' of terrorists belonging to al-Qaida and its affiliates hiding in Pakistan and Yemen to be eliminated in stepped-up drone attacks, according to a media report.

"He (Obama) is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go," said Thomas E Donilon , his national security adviser. "His view is that he's responsible for the position of the US in the world. He's determined to keep the tether pretty short," New York Times quoted Donilon as saying.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Obama's evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the chase.

Obama personally prepares 'kill list' of Qaida targets - The Times of India
 
. .
btw, I wonder why do drone attack create terrorists and attacks such as below dont.. May be Pakistani missiles have built in artificial intelligence that bypasses civilians and hence has zero collateral damage :)

12 militants killed in Orakzai air strikes | DAWN.COM

Instead of making smart Alec remarks, ask your self who knows Naxals better in your surroundings, the CRPF or the security forces across the border. Having boots on the ground indeed helps in distinguishing between friend and foe. The PAF air-strikes are usually carried out in the mountainous regions targeting hideouts......a far cry from drone strikes which are often conducted in built up areas.
 
.
Spoken like a true chamcha.

Now here is my take on it as a Pakistani, We the Pakistanis will do what is best for our own country. So in plain and simple words the rest of you can go to hell. This is exactly the policy the americans follow, and their spoons preach.

drone strikes are proof of you guy's doing very well :yahoo:

Instead of making smart Alec remarks, ask your self who knows Naxals better in your surroundings, the CRPF or the security forces across the border. Having boots on the ground indeed helps in distinguishing between friend and foe. The PAF air-strikes are usually carried out in the mountainous regions targeting hideouts......a far cry from drone strikes which are often conducted in built up areas.
CRPF is already doing what they should do , we dont get drone entering in india because of Naxals , so dont say things which are not related .
 
.
Same topic again and again... WHy don't u shoot it, rather than propagating propaganda...
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom