Irfan Sir I have gone through the video link that you have posted, now I am a new member on this forum but I will try to provide my response in a satisfactory manner.
Let us look at the idea of hitting terrorists wherever they may be and at all costs. "Wherever they maybe" is rather valid since the very nature of these organisations allows them to coordinate international operations from remote areas and to use said areas as bases- Bill Roggio from the LWJ says as much, in fact he seems to consider these drone strikes as inefficient as opposed to more standard means and yet in the same breath asserts that he is not advocating a US invasion of FATA and other areas such as NW- this is a stand which confuses me. Regardless of that these terrorists do need to be taken out wherever they may be holed up. BUT when we come to the part which says "at all costs" then we need to pause, as Chris Woods points out- the figures pertaining to civilian casualties which are provided by the US govt. and its agencies are laughable- EVEN if the exactitude of the empirical figures are disputed only a fool would imagine that the no. is not in the high hundreds if not thousand. As such drone strikes are unethical no matter which UN convention any one digs up and IF I were sitting at the ICJ and this case came up I'd have to award the case to Pakistan regardless of the circumstances.
Now your specific question seems to be answered within the video itself. The US govt. is selective about the information it releases and while international Reuters, the Pak media and perhaps even some rare US journos may be reporting on every drone strike that occurs..such news items are rarely heeded. You also seem to want to delink the perceptions about the GOP and the country of Pakistan itself from this situation- unfortunately in my opinion that is not possible. Sir you have to understand that the perception in the Western world is one where the whole of Pakistan is painted as terrorist central, now personally I'd agree with said perception if it was limited to insinuating that a majority of terrorist orgs. find havens in Pakistan for whatever reason but I cannot agree with the idea that Pakistan is a "nation of terrorists"- the last bit is simply ridiculous. The inaction of the GOP does not help either, even if Western nationals take interest in such affairs (which is a rarity in itself lest one of their soldiers is killed) when they mine through the net or the news sources for info on the whole drone affair the one thing that surely boggles them is the muted reaction of the GOP on the whole issue. This leads to a certain perception that hey if the GOP doesn't care then obviously the drones must be serving some good purpose or in the least they don't seem to be very harmful, it also reinforces the US govt.'s stance that they are highly effective against terrorists and do not cause too much collateral damage.
Also most of the reactions against the drone campaign that comes from official sources in Islamabad seems to majorly deal with the fact that they are a contravention of Pakistan's sovereignty. Now honestly the sovereignty angle will be very hard to sell, forget to the Indian people or the Indian bloggers you were referring to but even to the most liberal westerners. The first question raised would be that if Pakistan will not act against such elements then what choice are other nations left with- this is an argument that has been beaten to death but more importantly the average joe in the US is not going to care for another nation's sovereignty or breach thereof if he believes that such drone attacks help safeguard his life- and this is a belief that the US govt. has spent a lot of time and resources in cultivating.
Even more importantly, yet again as stated by Bill Roggio, the undefined nature of the conflict and the combatants involved makes it all the more easier for the US govt. to get away with the rising toll that its drones are taking on the civilian populace. Some of the facts (which are true) such as the inability of the GOP to enact an appreciable amount of control over the regions of FATA and NW make it easier for the US govt. to state that since the GOP cannot take any actions there or is unwilling to do so then it has to step in and clean the place up, this argument seems to find many buyers in the US and the western world. The impersonal nature of drone strikes also adds to this, whereas many in the Human Rights orgs. site this as a hugely problematic characteristic of drones leading to various legal and moral questions, for the average US citizen- all he hears is that an American or NATO soldier will not be endangered in such ops. so any civilian casualties are acceptable after-all at least their soldiers are not getting blown up during such ops. The combatants involved, that is to say the terrorists are not covered by the standard rules and laws pertaining to an armed conflict- trying them in a court of law would be next to impossible. Often times the information and proof gathered against them would be inadmissible in the court of law since such information is gathered by intelligence agencies rather than law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies can very rarely site their sources or reveal classified info. This leads to the obvious justification of targeting terrorists or alleged terrorists without due process- a justification which I agree with but I must stress again that declaring "all males in the vicinity as targets" is poles apart from targeting alleged terrorists- in the first case you are deliberately engaging in killing civilians who you have declared to be fare game just because they were unfortunate enough be in a certain place at a certain time- no legal cover can be provided to such actions at all.
This is a classic case of propaganda which happens to be circumstantially corroborated by some ground realities and truths which allows the US govt. to discard a nuanced approach and go for the drones. Unless the perception about Pakistan that seems to dominate the western narrative changes and the GOP itself takes a much tougher stand on these strikes there will not be much of a shift in the realities that exist in Pakistan with regard to the drone campaign- perceptions of people over the world be damned.
To conclude, in my opinion, an Abbottabad style raid such as op. Neptune Spear which did not produce any civilian casualties is highly desirable (as long as it doesn't lead to hundreds of civilians dying as a direct result of actions of the soldiers involved- note soldiers and not the terrorist who may just resort to using human shields or taking hostages such as in the case of the Lal Masjid op. or 26/11) but a drone which averages 5-6 terrorists along with 30 or so civilians is just not going to be acceptable- at least not to me personally leave alone the Pakistani people. At the same time I cannot agree with the argument that all nations must respect the sanctity of Pakistan's sovereignty in this case since unfortunately Pakistan has indeed been home to far too many terrorists which have struck other nations and caused massive death tolls and damage, also because according to the GOI and even some Pakistanis themselves Pakistan has also dabbled in state sponsorship of terrorism in the past. BUT the extreme loss of innocent lives cannot be condoned at any costs. If the US is serious about its commitment to rooting out terrorism then as Bill Roggio pointed out it must do so by taking on the ideology that drives them and any state sponsorship that they may be enjoying and not by simply trying to "keep them off balance" and in the process murdering scores of civilians.
)
. that is, a revenage of North West State of Pakistan is a man/human first who is angry with US for the way he lost his family in drone attacks, and then he looks for anyone who may help him take revenge, whether religious terrorists or not. see this video, by the very first question, he asked, "do the drone attacks making America safer?" and the answer was, "NO, and it making 10 times more terrorists." a specialist answer 
