US Drone strikes in Pakistan are illegal under international law.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You have no proof of this statement. None. Nada. It's just your opinion and irhabi sympathy shining through.

TS,

IMO, refusal to accept US predator strikes and that the victims are primarily combatants has more to do with a general opposition to the perceived US violations of Pakistani sovereignty and an extreme distrust of the US rather than any 'Irhabi sympathies'.

Of course there are those who do have 'Irhabi sympathies' and oppose the strikes, but opposition to the strikes does not automatically imply 'Irhabist/extremist support'.

 

[TruthSeeker]

TS,

IMO, refusal to accept US predator strikes and that the victims are primarily combatants has more to do with a general opposition to the perceived US violations of Pakistani sovereignty and an extreme distrust of the US rather than any 'Irhabi sympathies'.

Of course there are those who do have 'Irhabi sympathies' and oppose the strikes, but opposition to the strikes does not automatically imply 'Irhabist/extremist support'.

Yes, of course it does not "automatically" imply irhabi sympathy. To know for sure we would have to get metalfalcon down to Gitmo and subject him to some coercive interrogation. However, metalfalcon is very quick to emotionally condemn any and all US actions in the WoT and to impugn the most horrific motives to us. So I "feel" that what he said shows that he is sympathetic to the irhabis who are the targets of drone strikes. The constant repetition of the unproven canard that women and children are the primary victims of these strikes is exactly what the irhabis want their friends to do.

 

[spsk]

You have no proof of this statement. None. Nada. It's just your opinion and irhabi sympathy shining through.

You mean to say American forces do not kill any innocents They have killed millions in Iraq. If you don't know about a popular site called Google pls let me know I can guide you to find that out and sorry for off topic response...

 

[roadrunner]

Yes, of course it does not "automatically" imply irhabi sympathy. To know for sure we would have to get metalfalcon down to Gitmo and subject him to some coercive interrogation. However, metalfalcon is very quick to emotionally condemn any and all US actions in the WoT and to impugn the most horrific motives to us. So I "feel" that what he said shows that he is sympathetic to the irhabis who are the targets of drone strikes. The constant repetition of the unproven canard that women and children are the primary victims of these strikes is exactly what the irhabis want their friends to do.

Nothing is proven yet. Media reports say on the whole, " a house of alleged miscreants was blown up". Alleged has become proven all of a sudden?

Some "Truthseeker" you turned out to be.

 

[S-2]

Like Asim and others, you make these statements with certitude, fully crediting your view and discrediting ours.

I make no claim that true innocents don't die. I'm saddened that men would welcome these militants into their homes and, in the process, expose their wives and children to attack. No doubt.

I have no doubt that others gather at times about these men-carrying the cachet of rogue brigand warriors of some local mythology. They too can be swept up in the maelstrom. Fair enough though untested by actual numbers provided by any of you. Can you do so? Without such, there's no basis whatsoever to make any judgement.

Oddly enough, the hue and cry from your nation shows no sympathy for the hell, havoc, and mayhem underwhich afghani civilians have been subjected as a result of the presence of these men within Pakistan. None.

Still, that leaves unanswered the results of PREDATOR's attacks upon these "miscreants". We've had no effect and no results, eh? I've seen a lot of names of important men bandied about. Haven't you?

Actually, neither roadrunner nor you are in position to know what these men have done in their past nor their future intended plans. Neither anybody else here. Thus, you've little credibility to evaluate "effect".

roadrunner's simplistic "cause and effect" rationales remain woefully and pathetically full of holes. Worse, the central underlying premise behind these attacks- the absence of a Pakistani gov't writ inside the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan makes impossible for NATO (specifically America) to ignore it's responsibilities to protect itself and Afghanistan.

Until your nation removes the threat posed by the defeated taliban army of Afghanistan and reasserts control and responsibility over all it's lands, I'm comfortably certain that PREDATOR will continue. PREDATOR, therefore, is a dead issue in the absence of such a writ of control.

Again, I encourage families to not house these men. When you aid and abet the enemy, you become so yourself. That seems reasonable, wouldn't you agree? Doing so, naturally, then makes you and those for whom you're responsible as targets too.

Please fight these men with everything that you can and drive them away from you. If you cannot, run to the hills with your families and tell the nearest authorities. Maybe they'll help.

Anyway, whatever you do, don't be within 100ft. of these men at any time. You are vulnerable.

I hope that helps. It seems clear and easy to understand.

There. My conscience is clear.

The next time there's a suicide bomb in a Jalalabad market, I hope your's is too. There's a real fine chance it came from Pakistan.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You mean to say American forces do not kill any innocents They have killed millions in Iraq. If you don't know about a popular site called Google pls let me know I can guide you to find that out and sorry for off topic response...

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again, I encourage families to not house these men.

I doubt families in the wilds of FATA are logged onto def.pk reading your words of encouragement and advice.

I do not agree with your argument that they invite this upon themselves, since an environment in which the respective positions and actions of NATO vis a vis the Taliban can be fairly analyzed and well informed conclusions on what course of action to take arrived at, does not exist in these regions.

The locals (non combatants), even those sheltering, cannot be blamed.

 

[TruthSeeker]

There. My conscience is clear.

The next time there's a suicide bomb in a Jalalabad market, I hope your's is too. There's a real fine chance it came from Pakistan.

S-2 has stated very well my thoughts on these drone strikes as well. I second his remarks. So, there. My conscience is clear as well.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, of course it does not "automatically" imply irhabi sympathy. To know for sure we would have to get metalfalcon down to Gitmo and subject him to some coercive interrogation. However, metalfalcon is very quick to emotionally condemn any and all US actions in the WoT and to impugn the most horrific motives to us. So I "feel" that what he said shows that he is sympathetic to the irhabis who are the targets of drone strikes. The constant repetition of the unproven canard that women and children are the primary victims of these strikes is exactly what the irhabis want their friends to do.

TS:

There is a difference between people like Warraich, who would actually applaud the Taliban and their actions, and those like RR for example, who condemn the atrocities of the militants, but at the same time also condemn what they perceive as indiscriminate bombing by the US resulting in collateral damage.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The next time there's a suicide bomb in a Jalalabad market, I hope your's is too. There's a real fine chance it came from Pakistan.

I'd say Pakistan has probably lost far more people in 'bombings' than Afghanistan has, so I fail to see your point, if there is one.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nothing is proven yet. Media reports say on the whole, " a house of alleged miscreants was blown up". Alleged has become proven all of a sudden?

Some "Truthseeker" you turned out to be.

Roadrunner, the news article that started this thread says:

"A suspected US missile strike hit the house of a militant leader in northwest Pakistan on Sunday killing at least five people, security officials said."

So, by your standards, it is only alleged that the US did this strike. We only have a suspicion that the explosion was caused by a US missile. So let us not assume that the US is responsible. Right?

 

[TruthSeeker]

TS: There is a difference between people like Warraich, who would actually applaud the Taliban and their actions, and those like RR for example, who condemn the atrocities of the militants, but at the same time also condemn what they perceive as indiscriminate bombing by the US resulting in collateral damage.

I understand your point. And I admit that I sometimes get confused about the various nuanced positions of the anti-US posters. Just as they can't distinguish that I do not support what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, even though I am an American. I have thought about trying to keep a list of where the various players stand, like Pashtun vs. roadrunner or silverfalcon or metalfalcon, etc. but it seemed like too much work.

My apologies to you, metalfalcon, if I placed you in the Wariach/Pashtun irhabi camp undeservedly!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just as they can't distinguish that I do not support what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, even though I am an American.

Yes, I have learned over the years that the positions of Americans can be quite nuanced as well ...

Not all Americans are ideologically driven to 'salt and glaze the earth' in far off lands when things don't look like they are going your way ..

 

[S-2]

"I'd say Pakistan has probably lost far more people in 'bombings' than Afghanistan has, so I fail to see your point, if there is one."

There is a point but no doubt you fail to see it. Willfully so, sir.

I'd say you need to get in line with metalfalcon, roadrunner, and others here who pontificate with the same certitude but absolutely lack even a "long war journal's" account of our wanton, though hapless slaughter. I await some basis for comparison. The raids are clearly itemized. The supposed enemy dead. Why not the innocents too?

Meanwhile, even you haven't accused our drugged-up PREDATOR controllers of INTENTIONALLY targeting your families. Human Rights Watch has had no such qualms doing so about the taliban, though, assuming you've read my postings of their study.

I find their work generally credible.

So we KNOW that there have been countless instances of targeted attacks on afghan civilians as a result of these studies and from where many have originated.

"...an environment in which the respective positions and actions of NATO vis a vis the Taliban can be fairly analyzed and well informed conclusions on what course of action to take arrived at, does not exist in these regions."

No kidding? Lot of fat words by you to suggest that the Pakistani government is nowhere to be seen in the Islamic Republic of Pashtunistan. Don't hold your breath awaiting that well-informed community discussion.

I know we're not.

 

[S-2]

"They have killed millions in Iraq."

Can you provide a source for this information that American combat forces have killed millions in Iraq? Thanks.