US Drone strikes in Pakistan are illegal under international law.

[spsk]

So, psugumar, Sir, can you read English well? Do you know what the word "most" means? If not, I can suggest that there are online English dictionaries that can help you out. Yes, your response was completely off-topic and insulting as well. He said that "Most of the causalities in each strike are women and children." That was what I was responding too, not some general indictment of how many innocents the US have killed.

Sorry for another off topic post...

Sir please go through the link
Iraq Body Count project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is far less than real counts but still can prove you how your military is killing thousands of people there .Please do not argue your buys did not do that, Civilian casualties is result of your invasion and you are responsible for the mass killings too.Even these number just remind me bloody wars in history ! .

Military cannot take out terrorists alone without harming civilians if civilians are kind of human shield and nobody directly going to aim to kill civilians . Any military operation outside country would involve this much of civilian deaths!!! After all they are not "your civilians".

 

[roadrunner]

So this thread has gotten fairly philosophical, and I'll keep the tone.
To all Trolls:

The problem with war is not necessarily that people die, and certainly not that warriors die. All of this is to be expected. What makes it so painful is that so much is broken that should be whole. Children are separated from their parents, years of blood, sweat and toil disappear in a puff in a fire stoked by intransigent political differences that in retrospect will probably seem absurd. People make decisions based on limited data, and lives are destroyed because of it. It all seems so stupid.

When people join their nation's military, they sign up knowing that they will be asked to kill. The rest of the story though, they rarely think about. Its not the dead people who matter, it is their families, their nation, their culture. The warriors made their choices, but in the end, they aren't the ones who pay, are they?

No one wants to believe that what they did probably just made things worse, no one wants to be involved in the death of a way of life. But that is the choice you make when you decide to participate in a modern war. Technology broadens the scope of who is, and is not, a target.

Armies do not meet at an appointed time and place, throw the best they have at each other until all there forces are destroyed, and call it a day.

So, we create a narrative. "Good Guys" in this corner, "Bad Guys" in that corner. The "Good Guys" act like this, the "Bad Guys" act like that. Of course, it is all just a convenient little lie that helps us sleep at night, but hey, ya gotta believe in something right?

Ask yourself, do I believe what I do so that I can sleep at night, or because that is what any rational person would think? Objectivity is impossible, but it is worth a try.

Of course, this is terribly off topic, and will probably be moved or deleted, but I hope the relevant parties see it.

Nothing wrong with it. I agree!

Though I would say the receiving end of the aggressor has no choice but to fight. It all depends on who people classify as the aggressor. It gets hazy at this point with people throwing arguments back and forth. I would say Iraq was a classic case of US aggression though. The eventual pullout was an admission of this.

 

[roadrunner]

After all they are not "your civilians".

Very true. I don't think the US is alone in this. If it were say Jordan being a superpower, going to "liberate" the Americans of oppression or nookular weapons, I wouldn't like the Jordanians to be doing the killing of what are foreign civilians to them. They would not be particularly mindful, especially if they've been indoctrinated with the Muslims/Americans are animals brainwashing etc etc. The Untermenschen always exist in any war.

 

[roadrunner]

Image magnification? Signal intercepts and/or triangulation? HUMINT? All of the aforementioned? That you haven't considered these strikes happening at any hour, to include daylight, nor the possible means of viable target I.D. confirms your amateurish perspectives, an emotional clinging to your position or both.

Rubbish. HUMINT is already accounted for. "Human intelligence" is just that. People getting tipped off here or there to settle scores in places. You've plainly forgot how certain religious laws work in Pakistan, or why they do not work, I should say. Or perhaps you didn't know, despite thinking you know all there is to know about Pakistan.

HUMINT does not give real time unless they are following the target around. If there was any valuable target, i doubt they'd be so inept as to let themselves be tracked by a bunch of peasants.

Image magnification is all well and good. But it did not work very well in the Apache video which is supposedly as sophisticated as it gets. You cannot see what you're targeting in a house, let alone from a Predator.

Triangulation. Wow. Keep plotting your vertices.

Signal intercepts offer some valuable information, but only so long as the targte does not move. A signal is intercepted, a predator takes off, the target disposes his phone near a house of local X, then local X's house gets blown up. It's very simple stuff, you don't get.

If you want these things to be successful, you need ground monitoring by forces. Something like the Russians did with Dudayev. That WAS a successful take-out. You should learn something from them.

 

[Kasrkin]

”Thanks for your interesting views. They don't merit addressing seriously-“

Neither do yours ofcourse; given the amount of material you provide (none) to substantiate your clumsy accusations. But on the other hand your more blatant attempts at trolling do merit some checking; so do it yourself or someone else will.

”I can agree that we don't see eye to eye on… sovereign responsibilities.”

Yup, we sure don’t… particularly when we it comes to your selective, and often hypocritical, interpretations. Good day.

 

[S-2]

"HUMINT does not give real time unless they are following the target around."

I see. Thank you, roadrunner. I had assumed it would be real time at a stake-out for a target but I guess not.

"i doubt they'd be so inept as to let themselves be tracked by a bunch of peasants."

Silly peasants. Thank you. You read like you've given this the serious thinking of a professional.

"Image magnification is all well and good. But it did not work very well in the Apache video which is supposedly as sophisticated as it gets."

Always something new around the corner but, again, apparently you've got a handle on the technical capabilities of PREDATOR so I'm sure you're correct.

"You cannot see what you're targeting in a house, let alone from a Predator."

Could PREDATOR see men exiting a car, standing around chatting and then entering a house if it had been following the car? I don't know and rely upon your thoughts here.

"Triangulation. Wow. Keep plotting your vertices."

I see. Bad idea, huh?

"A signal is intercepted, a predator takes off, the target disposes his phone near a house of local X, then local X's house gets blown up. It's very simple stuff, you don't get."

So launch on alert, eh? No loiter capabilities. I dunno but, again, you read as a calm dispassionate professional who's thought these matters through.

"If you want these things to be successful, you need ground monitoring by forces. Something like the Russians did with Dudayev. That WAS a successful take-out. You should learn something from them."

We can only hope to be so good.

 

[Tang0]

Nothing wrong with it. I agree!

Though I would say the receiving end of the aggressor has no choice but to fight. It all depends on who people classify as the aggressor. It gets hazy at this point with people throwing arguments back and forth. I would say Iraq was a classic case of US aggression though. The eventual pullout was an admission of this.

Who ends up as the aggresor is determined by who ends up writing the history books.

The whole point of that post is that it is a waste of time to try and moralize any of this. The whole idea of a war is that: "Based on faith, group A's (My group) rights and values are more important than group B's rights and values, as such, violence against group B is justified to preserve the lives, property, and way of life of group A"

Once we start with that assumption, constructive discussion about morality is impossible. Troll A swore an oath to one of those groups, so he represents that group in these discussions, many people have deep connections to a different group, and believe the contrapositive of Troll A. This results in Troll B.

Troll A + Troll B = MASSIVE_WASTE_OF_TIME

As such, we should use this forum as a place to discuss facts, exchange data, and in general, do useful stuff, rather than waste time discussing the morality of a decision, and trying to belittle the viewpoint we disagree with.

Don't Feed the Trolls!

 

[lowe1941]

US Missile Attacks On Pakistan To “Dramatically Increase”: Report
Officials briefed on the plans say Obama to raise military conflict to new levels of intensity

Steve Watson / Infowars.net | Monday, March 9, 2009

A British newspaper says that officials in contact with the US State Department have been briefed on plans to intensify military attacks on Pakistan, despite strong objections to the policy from the Pakistani government.

A new offensive would see a dramatic increase in Predator drone attacks on Taliban targets, reports the London Telegraph, which says it learned of the plans from State Department contacts and senior diplomats.

The report states:

President Barack Obama on Sunday admitted that the US military was pushing for talks with the Taliban, but officials consulted on the plans said the military conflict would be raised to new levels of intensity before talks could begin. “There will be talks but the Taliban are going to experience a lot of pain first, on both sides of the border,” said one senior Western diplomat.

Pakistani authorities have consistently voiced opposition to cross border missile strikes, which have killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

Obama is seemingly oblivious to this given his statement last week that “it’s very important for us to reach out to the Pakistani government and work with them more effectively.”

It seems that the new president is forging ahead with his campaign promise to shift the focus of the war on terror into Pakistan, stepping up the policy of unmanned airstrikes which have been ongoing for years.

Obama has also recently beefed the U.S. military role in Pakistan beyond that pursued by the Bush administration and �expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan,� according to the New York Times, with an increase in missile attacks by drone aircraft.

Pakistani officials also believe that the drones are taking off from Pakistani airfields, a claim that has been backed by chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein.

Obama recently demanded a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.

He has also promised to to send at least 17,000, and eventually perhaps as many as 30,000, extra troops to Afghanistan - over seven years after the U.S. invaded in 2001.

Meanwhile, despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force of 50,000 troops in perpetuity.

All this within just two months of Obama�s inauguration on the back of an election campaign won on the basis of changing the warmongering policies of the Bush administration!

As alluded to in the London Telegraph report, the intensification policy comes via the new special U.S. representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. A prominent member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and a consummate insider, Holbrooke has been dubbed “Obama’s Neocon”.

US Missile Attacks On Pakistan To “Dramatically Increase”: Report

Heres some reasonable assumptions.

In the 8 years since 9/11/2001 US has considerable CIA assets in Pakistan both in the number of agents and members of the military of security forces of Pakistan that are passing on reliable information concerning targets and whom are well paid for their services...

The USA is not wasteing hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions just targeting civlians for the fun of it... for the most part these are high value targets...

In addition to information on the ground the drones can watch targets for as many as 20 hours,, and in relays for days, some times from the point of planting a roadside bomb in Afgan till they return to their bases in Pakistan...

The USA useing drones to take out these targets is killing far few civlians then would happen if Pakistan were using their military to do the same thing...

Some thing you might want to consider from the USA point of view,,the USA sees these people as part of the same organization that kill 3000 americans in cold blood on 911,and will do the same again if the get the opportunity ,,if Paksitan is seen as protecting these people then Pakistan is going to be seen as an enemy of the USA...not only is Pakistan not going to get any foreign aid from the USA,,, there is not going to be any trade between the USA and Pakistan... The USA will will prohibit any one that does business such as banking with the USA from doing business in Pakistan...and life will get more uncomfortable and complicated for Pakistans like me living in the USA..

 

[Metallic]

U.S. drone kills at least 7 in Pakistan tribal area
25 March 2009

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) – A missile strike believed to have been launched by a U.S. drone aircraft killed at least seven militants, including foreigners, in a tribal region of northwest Pakistan on Wednesday, intelligence officials and Taliban sources said.

The strike occurred in Makeen, an area of South Waziristan known as a stronghold of Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

"Two missiles struck two vehicles carrying militants and from information we have received, some guests were among the dead," an intelligence official in the region told Reuters using the common euphemism for foreign fighters.

The official who requested not to be identified said he did not know the nationalities of the foreigners.

U.S. drones have carried out more than 30 strikes since early 2008 when the United States, frustrated by an intensifying Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan getting support from the Pakistani side of the border, began attacking with greater frequency.

There has been no let-up under President Barack Obama's administration, with seven strikes since Obama took office in late January.

Pakistan's civilian government, elected a year ago, and the army have complained that the U.S. missile strikes are counterproductive and civilian casualties fuel support for the militants.

The drones, which have mostly struck in the North and South Waziristan regions on the Afghan border, have killed several mid-level al Qaeda members.

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was considering broadening its covert strike in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province bordering Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Post all UAV strikes in FATA related news here please, unless someone has a reason why we shouldn't.

A strike taking out OBL, Zawahiri, Mehsud etc. would obviously warrant its own thread, but the rest can go in here to avoid the same discussion time and time again.

 

[osamaziadxb]

U.S. drone kills at least 7 in Pakistan tribal area
25 March 2009

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) – A missile strike believed to have been launched by a U.S. drone aircraft killed at least seven militants, including foreigners, in a tribal region of northwest Pakistan on Wednesday, intelligence officials and Taliban sources said.

The strike occurred in Makeen, an area of South Waziristan known as a stronghold of Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

"Two missiles struck two vehicles carrying militants and from information we have received, some guests were among the dead," an intelligence official in the region told Reuters using the common euphemism for foreign fighters.

The official who requested not to be identified said he did not know the nationalities of the foreigners.

U.S. drones have carried out more than 30 strikes since early 2008 when the United States, frustrated by an intensifying Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan getting support from the Pakistani side of the border, began attacking with greater frequency.

There has been no let-up under President Barack Obama's administration, with seven strikes since Obama took office in late January.

Pakistan's civilian government, elected a year ago, and the army have complained that the U.S. missile strikes are counterproductive and civilian casualties fuel support for the militants.

The drones, which have mostly struck in the North and South Waziristan regions on the Afghan border, have killed several mid-level al Qaeda members.

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was considering broadening its covert strike in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan province bordering Afghanistan.

the drone attacks r not killing militants but producing more n more militants..this is the fact..officials r saying that drons r killing militants ,actually every1 in FATA is militant ..every body has their own weapon alltime...
there r no foren militants living in FATA area..US r blaming all time but they havent give us any evidence about the presence of foreners..
only we r watching at drones n saying "yeah these r foreners"

 

[roadrunner]

the drone attacks r not killing militants but producing more n more militants..this is the fact..officials r saying that drons r killing militants ,actually every1 in FATA is militant ..every body has their own weapon alltime...
there r no foren militants living in FATA area..US r blaming all time but they havent give us any evidence about the presence of foreners..
only we r watching at drones n saying "yeah these r foreners"

Every man and child in FATA has a weapon. I don't think the Americans have grasped that it is legal there to carry one yet. To id a militant by the posession of a weapon in FATA of all places is just going to result in civilian casualties.

 

[osamaziadxb]

i have with my two eyes seen that they r killing militants (ofcorse) but two or three in nos with several civilians..
we can recognize civilians with weapon but drones cant bcz they r robots..

 

[BaburCM]

These Americans are the biggest fools ever. They actually think that by adding more fuel to the fire they will be able contain it. It's only going to create more unrest and problems. Any Tom, Harry and Dick can see it coming. If they want to see Pakistan explode half of the world will go with us. To be short, this tit for tat is going to have huge consequences for everyone.

 

[S-2]

"If they want to see Pakistan explode half of the world will go with us."

That is SOOOO Baburish... Just don't think it'll be our half and can't say I'll miss some of you so wail away, stud, if it must because...

...PREDATOR, of course, will continue defending the afghan peoples interest as best it can in lieu of the Pakistani army being able to stop the war made upon Afghanistan by Mehsud, Nazir, Bahadur and many, many others from your lands.

Long sentence but it says it all beautifully, if I say so myself Mr. Proof-provider.

Where are my documents about Baluchistan?

Thanks.