What's new

Kiyani Demands US Limit Drone Attacks and Operations

And while people keep repeating the taliban lie that drones kill more innocents than they do targets public anger will continue to grow.



The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
Here's even a better one on the effectiveness of drone strikes:


http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...tegy-afghanistan-pakistan-17.html#post1552733

Most of those killed in drone attacks were terrorists: military

Dawn
By Zahir Shah Sherazi

MIRAMSHAH: In a rather rare move, the Pakistan military for the first time gave the official version of US drone attacks in the tribal region and said that most of those killed were hardcore Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and a fairly large number of them were of foreign origin.

General Officer Commanding 7-Division Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood said in a briefing here: “Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.

“Yes there are a few civilian casualties in such precision strikes, but a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”


The Military’s 7-Dvision’s official paper on the attacks till Monday said that between 2007 and 2011 about 164 predator strikes had been carried out and over 964 terrorists had been killed.

Of those killed, 793 were locals and 171 foreigners, including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.
 
.
If the people being killed are mostly terrorists, then why can't we conduct the strikes ourselves? Why does the US expect us to trust them completely while it shows no faith in our Military?

Let's kill the terrorists. But let's do it ourselves without the US involved.
 
.
And while people keep repeating the taliban lie that drones kill more innocents than they do targets public anger will continue to grow.

The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan

With an editor who is an ex-soldier, how can the source be considered neutral or independent?
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies sounds a bit fishy to me.

The two people who I hear using the term "protect the democracy" most often are Pres. Obama and Pres. Zardari.
So instead of protecting the republic, they both say they want to protect democracy.

Seems like the Foundation is also confused.


:lol: :lol:
 
.
1) They know that they might not get Drones, they are not asking Drones to start anti terrorist operations, they are trying to use the occasion to get a technology which will come handy against India.
They do not need drones because they have foot soldiers on Ground. Even if they need to use drones, they can do it like today, ask US for their help. I am positive they will oblige you, did they ever denied you? Then why do you need the technology. You do not have a valid argument.

Why is India so insecure about something that Pakistan does not even have in its arsenal? Why is India acquiring military hardware? By your own assumption India can just ask Russia for help, can't it?

Please try to see this from a neutral perspective. Pakistan needs the technology to maintain sovereignity over its own airspace and stop reliance on the US. We face a threat and we need the technology to defeat it.

And how can you justify your claim that the drones will be used against India? Don't you have the necessary defence systems in place?
India should refrain from making everything India-centric.
 
.
General Officer Commanding 7-Division Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood said in a briefing here: “Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that

and who's responsible for these myths and rumors? Pak gov't and it's army. They wanna remain all coyish and secretive about such big foreign/terror policy, of course myths and rumors will be set ablaze.

Many would agree that drones are quiet effective against AQ/taliban. And the last drone strike, a day or two after Pasha's visit to the US, seems like a very clean and clear hit - indicative of resumption of cooperation between the ISI and CIA. An SUV hit in the remote area and 17 AQ members killed. Intel provided by ISI and CIA promptly acted, one would safely assume.

But one can also safely presume this joint cooperation will be short lived - once again. Some $hit is gonna happen again and it'll be the same thing.
 
.
Why U.S.-Pakistan Relations Are Not As Bad As They Seem
Posted on April 16, 2011
By Ron Moreau

Ever since CIA contractor Raymond Davis shot and killed two Pakistanis in the street, U.S.-Pak relations have spiraled downward. But as Ron Moreau reports from Islamabad, the situation is hardly as dire as many think.


No question: The partnership between U.S. and Pakistan appears to be in free fall. Over the past week, Pakistan has pressured the U.S. to slash the number of CIA officers, contractors, and U.S. Special Operations operating inside the country. That follows the drama over CIA contractor Raymond Davis who shot and killed two men on a Lahore street, back in January.

Joint operations between the CIA and Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency—the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI—have been on ice since. Pakistan has demanded a halt to the U.S.’s drone attacks, but rather than heed the Pakistanis’ request, another U.S. drone hurled missiles at South Waziristan yesterday. Pakistani leaders? Enraged.

But for all the talk of how serious the rift between the two countries has become—on its front page, the New York Times said the relationship was near collapse—the reality behind the schism doesn’t quite match the hype. Talking to officials on both sides makes it clear that intense talks are underway about the future of the U.S. in Pakistan, but according to a senior U.S. diplomat in Pakistan who couldn’t speak on the record, the U.S. is not being asked to drastically reduce its footprint. Surely this dust up could ultimately be debilitating to the partnership, but serious negotiations are continuing to find an acceptable way forward.

For Pakistan, the breaking point came with the Davis incident. The CIA contractor seems to have been operating without Pakistan’s knowledge. His crime unleashed a wave of anti-U.S. demonstrations, but more importantly it embarrassed the ISI. “There were just too many CIA movements and operations going on without our knowledge,” a senior ISI officer told The Daily Beast. “It made us look as if we were not in charge.”

In recent years, joint intelligence operations have led to the capture and killing of scores top al Qaeda and Taliban operatives. If U.S.-Pakistan cooperation were in fact to fizzle, clearly such operations would be compromised. Take, for instance, the 120 U.S. Special Operations troops who are training Pakistani paramilitary forces to patrol the tribal area. Losing them would mark a major setback for Pakistan’s flailing counter-insurgency effort.

To shore up the rift, the ISI’s director, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, flew to Washington this week to meet with CIA director Leon Panetta. Preliminary reports from their meeting suggest that Pakistan’s demands aren’t as unbridled as one might expect. Pasha reportedly made no specific demands on the withdrawal of U.S. personnel. He did not ask for a halt to, or even a reduction in, drone attacks. Instead, Islamabad’s chief concern seems to be more transparency as to what the U.S.’s hundreds of embassy, intelligence, and military personnel are up to day in and day out.

Rather than shoving each other away, talks in Washington and Islamabad suggest both sides are leaning toward a workable solution. “It’s really irrelevant to talk about numbers,” says the senior U.S. diplomat. “The idea of a reduction in cooperation or reduction in [the U.S.] footprint is fluid right now.” In other words, while no one has a clear picture of where the negotiations are heading, it’s unlikely that there will be a dramatic downsizing.

Strange as it may sound, part of the problem is plain old bureaucracy. Lack of coordination among the ISI, the Interior Ministry, and the Pakistani embassy in Washington has thrown diplomatic visas into disarray. As a result, some U.S. officers and officials are falling into illegal status in Pakistan by overstaying their visas. The inconveniences are ruffling feathers, but such diplomatic skirmishes are more procedural than political.

And the fact is that still the fight goes on. U.S. officials readily admit that tensions have been mounting, but U.S. advisers and Pakistani forces are continuing the battle against the Pakistani Taliban, the fierce group that’s been trying to regain a foothold in Mohmand tribal agency. “On the military side the military cooperation has continued even while there are discussions of what the [U.S.] footprint should look like,” the senior U.S. diplomat says. “Over the past three to four weeks it [cooperation] has gone up and down. But by and large the military cooperation on special issues has really been really good.”

Western diplomats in Pakistan largely agree that the driving force behind the move to reduce and rein in the huge American presence is Pakistani Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. A strong Pakistani nationalist, Kayani is determined to reassert as much control as possible over U.S. intelligence and military operations in the country. He and his fellow commanders fear that some of the unilateral U.S. intelligence activity could be aimed at gathering sensitive information on the details and whereabouts of the country’s more than 100 nuclear weapons.

Kayani also has to attune his actions to the politics within his own high command. He has to strike a balance between the sometimes conflicting views of his core commanders. Some are said to be both nationalist and anti-Western, while others believed to be less suspicious of and more open to the West. So to some degree Kayani has to appear to be standing up to the U.S. without subverting what is a beneficial relationship both economically and militarily to Pakistan.

It’s clearly not going to be easy to repair the rift. “It’s got a lot of band-aids over it,” says the U.S. official. “Scar tissue is forming.” But both sides seem to be doing their best to ensure that a series of compromises can save the relationship from further harm. “There is a real desire on both sides to continue it [the relationship] and move it forward. This is a relationship you can’t wad up and throw away on either side,” the official adds. Washington is hoping that Islamabad continues to see it that way.

Ron Moreau is Newsweek’s Afghanistan and Pakistan correspondent and has been covering the region for the magazine the past 10 years. Since he first joined Newsweek during the Vietnam War, he has reported extensively from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

This post originally appeared at The Daily Beast.
 
.
Why is India so insecure about something that Pakistan does not even have in its arsenal? Why is India acquiring military hardware? By your own assumption India can just ask Russia for help, can't it?

Please try to see this from a neutral perspective. Pakistan needs the technology to maintain sovereignity over its own airspace and stop reliance on the US. We face a threat and we need the technology to defeat it.

And how can you justify your claim that the drones will be used against India? Don't you have the necessary defence systems in place?
India should refrain from making everything India-centric.

Brother don't take offence but here's the Indian point of view. Jihadis were created to fight America's war in AFghanistan. Later they were used against India (including IC-814 hijack). Indians think if America provides Pakistan with drones they may as well use it against India. The other thing is American's want to keep leverage with Pakistan. If they provide Pakistanis with drones Pakistanis will target anti Pakistan groups but won't target other terror groups that the US feels need to be targeted.
 
.
If drone attacks are completely stopped I believe Pakistan army can win this war because they will gain upper moral ground as long as they continue the terrorists have a reason to gain sympathies of the locals!!!!!!

Bring down a couple of drones using PAF. That will send a message to the US.
 
.
Bring down a couple of drones using PAF. That will send a message to the US.

you must be kidding heheheh ...... i mean you are asking pak arm forces to attack his own master ...... dog will never attack to his master .... slave is always a slave ............ may ALLAH forgive us for our wrong deeds .........
 
.
you must be kidding heheheh ...... i mean you are asking pak arm forces to attack his own master ...... dog will never attack to his master .... slave is always a slave ............ may ALLAH forgive us for our wrong deeds .........

Don't be harsh on youself. The people are not to be blamed. In the end peace will win over war and terror.
 
.
Brother don't take offence but here's the Indian point of view. Jihadis were created to fight America's war in AFghanistan. Later they were used against India (including IC-814 hijack). Indians think if America provides Pakistan with drones they may as well use it against India. The other thing is American's want to keep leverage with Pakistan. If they provide Pakistanis with drones Pakistanis will target anti Pakistan groups but won't target other terror groups that the US feels need to be targeted.

The groups that the US wants eliminated are in Afghanistan. How are we going to attack them there? And yes, we will target those groups who seek to destablize Pakistan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is what we want the tech for, no lies there.

As for anti-India sentiments, I can't say for sure, but the situation in Kashmir and demolition of the Babri Mosque are some of the main factors contributing to those sentiments. If India can work on these issues, then the recruiters won't have a leg to stand on. India has the opportunity to protect itself from terrorism, but it all depends on whether it wants to take the advantage.
 
.
The groups that the US wants eliminated are in Afghanistan. How are we going to attack them there? And yes, we will target those groups who seek to destablize Pakistan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is what we want the tech for, no lies there.

As for anti-India sentiments, I can't say for sure, but the situation in Kashmir and demolition of the Babri Mosque are some of the main factors contributing to those sentiments. If India can work on these issues, then the recruiters won't have a leg to stand on. India has the opportunity to protect itself from terrorism, but it all depends on whether it wants to take the advantage.
Babri Mosque? That matter is sub judice. As if India and Pakistan were great friends before Babri. What about bombs targetting people praying in mosques in Pakistan? What about the red mosque? Please don't bring the Babri mosque in India Pakistan equation. As for Kashmir, India has territory issues with China as well. But they don't create or send militant groups to India. They trade with India in high volumes.
 
.
^^ Terrorist activities are crimes and there's no commendation for them. Again, this is why we need better technology and equipment to deal with this threat effectively.

But read last part of my previous post. I was speaking about India getting the opportunity here. Take away the fuel and the fire will stop.
The criminals of the Babri incident still roam free. If we were to adopt the Indian way of justice, then the alleged criminals behind the Mumbai attacks should also go free.

Kashmiri suffering will always be the crux of the India Pakistan equation, there's no separating it.

Why doesn't India leave terrorism out of the equation and move towards a lasting peace? :lol:
 
.
^^ Terrorist activities are crimes and there's no commendation for them. Again, this is why we need better technology and equipment to deal with this threat effectively.

But read last part of my previous post. I was speaking about India getting the opportunity here. Take away the fuel and the fire will stop.
The criminals of the Babri incident still roam free. If we were to adopt the Indian way of justice, then the alleged criminals behind the Mumbai attacks should also go free.

Kashmiri suffering will always be the crux of the India Pakistan equation, there's no separating it.

Why doesn't India leave terrorism out of the equation and move towards a lasting peace? :lol:

Aren't red mosque , Data Darbar etc criminals roaming free?
 
.
We are already dealing with the very guys who did it.
As for Red Mosque, there are two points of view: one is that there were extremists inside, second says they were innocent. Taking action either way is risky.

But you haven't given a reasonable point why the drones are a threat to India. The Predator doesn't even carry enough armament to present a risk to Indian security and is only really effective for highly tactical strikes on smaller targets.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom