Poll shows Indians support CIA's murderous drone strikes

[fd24]

That's what Pakistanis dont want to discuss about.Why created monsters and still supporting in the name of good/bad terrorists? When US wants to kill them they cry about sovereignty and human rights.

It's similar when there trash is rotting at home and risking health(to home and neighbourhood) but the home people dont wanna clean it but when some neighbour tries to clean it then blame tresspassing and intereference.

The alleged monster you are talking about was created by the USA and matured and groomed by them until it suited them. When it didn't then they lashed out. Nobody is disputing the bad has to be removed - no sane person would want terrorists to not be removed from their society.
The point is the USA entitled to kill innocent people whilst removing these terrorists and the legality of this. In fact to change the parameters and definition of what is a legitimate target (an adult over the age of 18) says it all. The USA are fully aware that they are murdering innocent parties hence Obama wouldn't have the need to change their definition.
The rest of your trash in your post shows clearly your mindset and perhaps an insight to the wet dreams you have. I think before talking about trash in your neighbors land - have a look at your own trash and stop being so obsessive.

 

[Caine]

Actually, some people are taking the case to US courts and to the UN. But it won't amount to much because the strikes are occurring outside US soil on non-US citizens, so the US Constitutional restrictions do not apply. The US administration will simply cite 'national security' as a prerogative to unilaterally justify its actions.

Strikes outside US should not be a hindrance to a formal complaint for UN by Pakistan against USA. Wonder why there are none. Something to think about.

Might makes right; when you are a superpower, you can do what you want regardless of legal 'technicalities'.

As I said, this is not a criminal case as far as we are concerned. Its a war with a non nation state (The terrorists holed up in Pakistan territory). We are fighting it as best as we can since its first of its kind and there are no written rules. Wars have been fought before any conventions existed to regulate them. This is one of those.

That was to refute your claim that collateral damage will be tolerated if US lives are at stake. There is no instance where US courts have authorized indiscriminate aerial raids on US citizens.

The "claim" was that collateral damage acceptance is lower when the US citizens are a part of that collateral damage. Your example does not apply

 

[Developereo]

Strikes outside US should not be a hindrance to a formal complaint for UN by Pakistan against USA. Wonder why there are none. Something to think about.

Again, some people are taking this to the UN, but, like I wrote, it's pointless because the US will do what it will do.

Might makes right.

As I said, this is not a criminal case as far as we are concerned. Its a war with a non nation state (The terrorists holed up in Pakistan territory). We are fighting it as best as we can since its first of its kind and there are no written rules. Wars have been fought before any conventions existed to regulate them. This is one of those.

We're going in circles. For the last time, until the US declares war on Pakistan, this is not a war zone and those rules of combat do not apply. The UN mandate becomes void once you leave Afghanistan's airspace.

The "claim" was that collateral damage acceptance is lower when the US citizens are a part of that collateral damage. Your example does not apply

This is what you wrote. Now read it again, keeping Waco in mind. Acceptance of collateral damage in that case was not "significantly lower".

But if possibility of US citizens getting killed is involved, the acceptable threshold of collateral damage will be significantly lower.

 

[fd24]

We're going in circles. For the last time, until the US declares war on Pakistan, this is not a war zone and those rules of combat do not apply. The UN mandate becomes void once you leave Afghanistan's airspace.

Agree mate but just remember You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink...

 

[Caine]

Again, some people are taking this to the UN, but, like I wrote, it's pointless because the US will do what it will do.

Might makes right.



We're going in circles. For the last time, until the US declares war on Pakistan, this is not a war zone and those rules of combat do not apply. The UN mandate becomes void once you leave Afghanistan's airspace.

The war is on Taliban terrorists and we are going after them where they are. Everything else is just irrelevant. If Pakistan feels our actions are in violation of its sovereignty it should complain to the UN. Which it has not, since Pakistan's sovereignty in those regions really does not exist. And hence Pakistan will not be able to substantiate its claim in UN. Hence no complaint so far.

This is what you wrote. Now read it again, keeping Waco in mind. Acceptance of collateral damage in that case was not "significantly lower".

Guess its the way I wrote it and the way you read it... Let me rephrase

"But if possibility of US citizens getting killed is involved (as a part of collateral damage), the acceptable threshold of (that)collateral damage will be significantly lower."

 

[Developereo]

Agree mate but just remember You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink...

Many people finally accept that what America is doing is illegal outside a declared war zone, but their defence eventually comes down to "might is right, so what are you going to do about it?"

"But if possibility of US citizens getting killed is involved (as a part of collateral damage), the acceptable threshold of (that)collateral damage will be significantly lower."

That is even worse!!!!

If an American citizen should be killed because he was wandering around a war zone, then that's his tough luck. But to be killed by an American missile outside a declared war zone is something that can be taken to court. To be killed just for being in the same building as a criminal is not acceptable.

 

[fd24]

Many people finally accept that what America is doing is illegal outside a declared war zone, but their defence eventually comes down to "might is right, so what are you going to do about it?"

I would go into detail of what can be done but i would be going off topic. On topic - frankly no disrespect to what this poll tells us as regards to Indian opinion - i couldn't care less. It wouldn't change ground reality of the facts and these are - the US will do as they please and if they want they will change "the rules and laws to suite their means" - after all they are accused, judge and of course jury...

 

[Developereo]

I would go into detail of what can be done but i would be going off topic. On topic - frankly no disrespect to what this poll tells us as regards to Indian opinion - i couldn't care less. It wouldn't change ground reality of the facts and these are - the US will do as they please and if they want they will change "the rules and laws to suite their means" - after all they are accused, judge and of course jury...

Pakistan can't stop the US but, like I wrote before, it must document each and every death to make sure that the civilian victims are never forgotten. Eventually -- it may take decades -- there will be a way to hold the US administration accountable for its actions.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

america is doing the right thing, terrorists should be killed one by one.

Does that include American terrorists in Washington who have killed millions of innocent civilians throughout the world? Do they deserve to be killed as well?

What is your definition of terrorism, do you even know what terrorism means?

 

[TaimiKhan]

Im sorry but you form a tiny minority who do.

The Indians also see the MASSIVE rallies of difa e Pakistan and jamaat with people cheering on the Jehad on India and ghazwa e hind.

So do forgive the Indians...we have been suffering on account of Pakistani non state actors for decades now.

180M people we have and if 1M join a rally doesn't represent the sentiments of 180M. Majority of Pakistanis are trying to earn a livelihood for their families in villages and cities, who have no interest in things related to India, all they care is economic progress and money for their families. The defa-e-pakistan types have nothing else to do other then what they are doing, and they don't represent the people of Pakistan. If you take such rallies as a measure of what Pakistanis think, well then i also have lot of hate filled speeches coming from your side, but i do believe they are not representing the 1B Indian people.

And we have also suffered greatly at the hands of NSAs which India supported. So, i guess we are mutual in the suffering wise, but we have received more damage then you guys have.

 

[Saif_ullah]

Do Pakistan oppose when terrorist kiils Indian Civillians????....

Dude we are talking about India not about pakistan right now so plzz stick to the topic

 

[Caine]

If an American citizen should be killed because he was wandering around a war zone, then that's his tough luck. But to be killed by an American missile outside a declared war zone is something that can be taken to court. To be killed just for being in the same building as a criminal is not acceptable.

As I said, we treat this as a war zone and not a chase to apprehend a criminal. And just like in your examples, of the Davidians, these court cases will amount to naught, even if any are brought about.

And I see the confusion on the collateral damage. I meant to say unacceptable threshold and missed out the UN part of it.. My bad...

 

[Kaniska]

bt u admit that india hates indian muslims + musims worldwide ?

Indians hate every one who challenge its nation....The person can be Hindu terrorist group like LTTE/ULFA or Chrstian Terr group of NE or Islamic terrorist group of JK. So terrorism does not have a religion...Again i must i hate COL Purohit too..if it is proved that he is behind any terrorist activity in my nation.....

So your theory that Indian hate muslim should be repharsed..as Indian hate Terrorists that might be the case where majority are brainwashed muslims....

 

[Aktavist_KKWC]

Not surprising at all. Majority of Indians support their nations state terrorist oppression of Kashmir. India's second biggest party is a fascist BJP.

 

[Hello_10]

Small numbers and very close but who care......

Indians who have an opinion tend to support American drone strikes (32 per cent approve, 21 disapprove), but nearly half (47) do not offer a view on this question.

Meanwhile, the British are almost evenly divided (44 per cent approve, 47 disapprove), the survey said.

Europe/Middle East are opposed against drones.

alot of countries opposed drones except high percent US only.

I may put my finding on this poll as follows:

1st, this poll clearly state that Indians are those who have least knowledge about the drone attacks on Pakistan, only 21+32=53% knew what its all about and rest couldnt give their opinion as they simply dont know. this way, we find only 32% Indian supporting drone attacks and rest either dont know or dont support, which is still very less as compare to others

2nd, we first have to find out the 'Indians' based in India or in Western countries. As, Indians are found fully supporting to the countries they are living in right now, who support their NATO's nations for this War on Terror, even if its the drones who have terrorized this region. these Non Resident Indians based in Western nations worry for their countries only, they are living in and generally dont care about the Indian Nationals living in India

3rd, its mainly about "Power" of Western Media who is very active in India. and also western nations were found funding key Indian media people to do positive publicity about West in India and at the same time they have targeted Indian national interests by all means. those who might have voted while living in India would be those who were influenced by these media people, or by the western media directly, or, by those Indian media people who work in behalf of West in India

as, from my side I may say, none from India would support bombing on the residential areas of Afghan in chase of just 1-2 militants