Few flaws in your arguments.
1. If we are not told how many civilians die, how can you come with an accurate number such as 40,000. I need a source for that number because even most liberal estimates before have shown few hundred dead.
A few hundred dead, LOL!
You cannot be serious.
War in North-West Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
13,000+ Taliban killed
All we have is the numbers the Pakistani military provides, since independent media is banned from accessing the conflict and counting the bodies.
According to this site, 7,000+ civilians (confirmed) have been killed.
Pakistan Assessment 2010
Approximately 3 million have been made homeless.
WE don't have sources because Pakistan's ruthless generals won't let independent researchers to access the conflict.
WHY? If Pakistan's military is so great and superior to Israel, why can't we count the bodies?
Everyone and their mothers know how Pakistan rolls. They don't **** around.
Villages accused of hosting Taliban militants are bulldozed without question.
But because Pakistan is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it is immune from attack and international criticism.
It can do as it pleases. It could bomb and kill 100 civilians next week, and not a peep from anyone.
2. If PA didn't like acknowledging civilians dying, why would it do it with the airstrike in questions?
3. The airstrike was a rare one and such incidents are not common.
Again, your opinion is based on an absence of media coverage. Pakistan's media is not free. Journalists cannot criticize Pakistan's military performance. BBC was thrown out by the Pakistani military.
Why?
4. Pakistan's refusal to allow independent observers is because we would have to provide extra security for them when the military is already stretched.
Oh bullshit. Journalists are in war zones all the time. Thousands of journalists are in the West Bank/Gaza/Lebanon without fear. As long as they know the military isn't going to target them for being journalists, everything is honky dory.
I interacted with journalists all the time. They go to and from the checkpoints on an hourly basis.
journalists are in iraq, sudan, somalia, etc...
5. The high respect and approval of PA in militant-infested areas negates your points about lots of civilians dying.
Well why do Pakistani's want to believe their military is a ruthless force?
War is always a moral outrage. But considering the way the Taliban fights and how evil they are, and how difficult it is to differentiate between civilian and soldier, it's outrageous to infer only a couple "hundred" civilians have died.
6. You ignored my point about Israel killing civilians as state policy and nothing such as Pakistan.
LOL! Proof please? Israel has the lowest combatant/civilian ratio on the planet. We subsidize our enemies. We agree to controlled cease-fires and deliver them humanitarian aid.
Hell, we even let wounded Hamas use our hospitals.
Don't even dare accuse Israel of having a state policy of killing civilians when Pakistan kills more civilians in a month than Israel does in 6 decades.
7. I also asked you for source on 10,000/15,000 honour killings each year, as even most liberal estimates give numbers such as 500 each year.
I've posted sources in other threads.
At least
9,000 in one part of Pakistan.
Ending the silence on 'honour killing' | Society | The Observer
This isn't unique to Pakistan. Honor killings are the leading cause of death for women in the muslim world. Honor killings happen all the time in the West Bank.
I've personally visited crime scenes. It is disgusting.