VIEW: Drone attacks — myth and reality — Muhammad Zubair

[fd24]

And the latest, from the 'super, duper miraculously accurate with no civilian casualties NATO technology':
Nato air strike kills at least 15 civilians: Afghan officials | DAWN.COM

Maybe they have "redefined what constitutes being a terrorist? - Maybe now, according to the "Law of Obama" children and women are legitimate targets - we better check if there has been any latest statements from the white house.....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Maybe they have "redefined what constitutes being a terrorist? - Maybe now, according to the "Law of Obama" children and women are legitimate targets - we better check if there has been any latest statements from the white house.....

The NYT article made clear that the new depraved US standard for determining civilian casualties is 'posthumously proving that those who died were civilians'.

 

[Awesome]

Comparing PAF sorties with CIA's drone attacks of random people is totally absurd.

PAF is answerable to the Ministry of Defence, which is answerable to the PM. We can fire people from the posts and try them locally if they ever started to kill random people as Obama does (admitted by three dozen white house aides recently).

We have targeted people during ongoing operations and in battlezones. PAF doesn't go about bombing people going about their lives and oh suddenly a missile hits you in the face. Or three guys are doing jumping jacks and they get hit for being suspected to be training militants.

PAF's record is unblemished in the fact that it has followed due process and is answerable to the Parliament, which has its mandate from the people of Pakistan.

To reiterate the most important thing: White house aides have revealed that Obama pretty much targets people randomly.

The NYT article made clear that the new depraved US standard for determining civilian casualties is 'posthumously proving that those who died were civilians'.

How many times has that even happened?

What is the US MO of post attack handling of the media.

US attacks a school

People go like "OMG a school?"

Hillary Clinton calls up Cameron Munter and forces him to declare that 7 out of 10 people killed were militants.

How? 7 of them were adult males which is good enough to be called militants according to the definition of militant that Obama endorsed.

Cameron Munter grudgingly obeys the orders of his superiors.

Every US media outlet is happy once the attack gets Cameron Munter's approval.

How many times has Cameron Munter come on TV to say you know it wasn't 7 out 10 but 6 out of 10.

For that to happen, a guy has to survive the attack. Go through rehabilitation with whatever limbs he has been left with, then travel to Karachi, get the sympathy of some journalist who will highlight his case to the media and then somewhere in their database they might revise 7/10 to 6/10. They still don't go like "Oh we are so sorry for royally screwing up once again, because our President decided its okay to kill all adult males randomly you have to live your life with one less arm".

Its a horrible, horrible situation.

 

[Solomon2]

Yes, because Pakistani forces can be held accountable by their government and the courts for any civilian casualties/damages -

Is there a record of this successfully happening in the past?

so unless the US agrees to allow its personnel involved in drone operations to be summoned, investigated and punished (if necessary) in Pakistani courts -

You're forgetting that as long as these are ops against terrorists Pakistan has no sovereign rights under UNSCR 1373. (Yes, you argue this, but not convincingly.) The proper venue to pursue is through U.S. military and U.S. courts.

, there is no comparison between Pakistani military operations in Pakistan and...US military operations in Pakistan

The crux of the author's argument is that the drone strikes involve less collateral damage than "Pakistani military operations."

PAF doesn't go about bombing people going about their lives and oh suddenly a missile hits you in the face.

The author says different, based on his interviews in Pakistan. On what grounds do you gainsay him?

 

[Pakistanisage]

More zionist propaganda.....

 

[Jango]

The drone strikes are done by a foreign country on our soil. PERIOD. PAF is our own air force which does it in a well marked zone, on specified targets, which are not identified by faulty intelligence or money wanting afghans randomly tagging places, but by the soldier on the ground who recieves fire.

The area is first evacuated. As for the collateral damage, it does happen, because it is a warzone, and the damage is then repaired, I am not going to post links for you, do it yourself. How many homes PA and the government has given to the locals who lost theirs? How many schools built. Bridges built. Facilities given.

And BTW Solomon, I don't really know about the UNSC article and that argument, but according to you, a terrorists is there, then fcuk to sovereignity?

As Asim said, a comparison between CIA drones and PAF sorties is absurd and foolish to the core.

 

[swathi]

As you said collateral damage will occur since it is a war zone, If air power is used in COIN Operations, collateral damage is unavoidable what ever precautions you take, As of drone attacks are concerned collateral damage occurs. But it is not as high as Pakistan members reveal here or it is not as low as Longwarjournal.org statistics.

 

[swathi]

The drone strikes are done by a foreign country on our soil. PERIOD. PAF is our own air force which does it in a well marked zone, on specified targets, which are not identified by faulty intelligence or money wanting afghans randomly tagging places, but by the soldier on the ground who recieves fire.

The area is first evacuated. As for the collateral damage, it does happen, because it is a warzone, and the damage is then repaired, I am not going to post links for you, do it yourself. How many homes PA and the government has given to the locals who lost theirs? How many schools built. Bridges built. Facilities given.

First of all who told you that targets are given by Afghans, ISI Provides intelligence to United States regarding targets, If you want to blame some one regarding sovereignty you please blame your ISI. B) We can compare the strikes PAF and Drones How many high value targets has the PAF taken out, can you list them? C) I am ready to provide the details of senior taliban and al-qaeda commanders killed in drone strikes?

 

[Solomon2]

PAF is our own air force which does it in a well marked zone, on specified targets, which are not identified by faulty intelligence or money wanting afghans randomly tagging places, but by the soldier on the ground who recieves fire.

Wikipedia says that the PAF used Google Earth until the U.S. provided infrared sensors: link

How many homes PA and the government has given to the locals who lost theirs? How many schools built. Bridges built. Facilities given.

According to a PBS documentary, the Pakmil deliberately destroys houses not just of the Taliban but of their relatives, too: link; I doubt these are rebuilt. Bridges are built for military requirements, I suppose.

I wonder what is taught in the rebuilt schools?

And BTW Solomon, I don't really know about the UNSC article and that argument, but according to you, a terrorists is there, then fcuk to sovereignity?

Sovereign obligation not fulfilled => no sovereignty with regards to the obligation not fulfilled.

Have you figured out why that makes you angry?

 

[swathi]

Maybe they have "redefined what constitutes being a terrorist? - Maybe now, according to the "Law of Obama" children and women are legitimate targets - we better check if there has been any latest statements from the white house.....

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/54219-pakistan-army-air-strike-kills-dozens-civilians.html

Why does the Pakistan members tend to avoid these things and blame others. Drone attacks are supported by your own Government ISI and Military establishment. Regarding Collateral damage caused due to drone attacks again i am making it very clear, Collateral damage is un avoidable if air power is used in COIN Operations.

 

[Jango]

First of all who told you that targets are given by Afghans, ISI Provides intelligence to United States regarding targets, If you want to blame some one regarding sovereignty you please blame your ISI. B) We can compare the strikes PAF and Drones How many high value targets has the PAF taken out, can you list them? C) I am ready to provide the details of senior taliban and al-qaeda commanders killed in drone strikes?

Since the US-Pak relations took a dive, and cooperation dropped, local informants have been used on some occasions.

B-And so what if the PAF does not take out high value targets? They have still killed around 25k plus TTP, what about them? And intelligence cooperation has resulted in capture of HVT before.

Wikipedia says that the PAF used Google Earth until the U.S. provided infrared sensors: link

And what is the point here? Soldiers when receiving fire call in an air strike. Air-strikes are in the war-zones, in areas which have been evacuated prior.

According to a PBS documentary, the Pakmil deliberately destroys houses not just of the Taliban but of their relatives, too: link; I doubt these are rebuilt. Bridges are built for military requirements, I suppose.

I wonder what is taught in the rebuilt schools?

So, a degree in terrorism is being taught in these schools? These schools go under the Federal Board of education, and APS systems, under which I have been taught as well.

As for bridges, well you can keep on supposing, while about a 100 villages get connected by a bridge.

And the houses are rebuilt, not all, but as much as can be. Infrastructure is rebuilt.

The case with you is, damn if you do, damn if you don't.

As for the sovereignty thing, you and Agnostic Muslim have gone to great length on this issue, so i will just keep away from that.

 

[truthseer]

As you said collateral damage will occur since it is a war zone, .

American Admission that they believe they're fighting a war in Pakistan on Pakistani soil and not just eliminating terrorists.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/54219-pakistan-army-air-strike-kills-dozens-civilians.html

Why does the Pakistan members tend to avoid these things and blame others. Drone attacks are supported by your own Government ISI and Military establishment. Regarding Collateral damage caused due to drone attacks again i am making it very clear, Collateral damage is un avoidable if air power is used in COIN Operations.

I hear complete and utter rubbish. Collateral damage (And by the way, 6 out of 10 Americans don't even know what it means) is acceptable but not at the level it is now

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is there a record of this successfully happening in the past?

The visit by the COAS and PAF AM to a village targeted on the basis of faulty intelligence, in order to apologize face to face to tribal elders and provide compensation

The continued investigation into the 'missing persons' cases in Pakistan by the higher judiciary.

You're forgetting that as long as these are ops against terrorists Pakistan has no sovereign rights under UNSCR 1373. (Yes, you argue this, but not convincingly.) The proper venue to pursue is through U.S. military and U.S. courts.

The claim that these are 'ops against terrorists' is not yet one established in the ICJ or the UN, they are merely claims by nations currently engaged in bombing and massacring thousands of individuals (many reportedly innocent civilians) in the pursuit of some ill-defined goal.

Until the ICJ and/or UNSC provide clear and explicit legal backing for the US/NATO argument that these are 'operations against terrorists' as well as for the argument that 'the US/NATO has authority to carry out military operations against alleged terrorists in the manner being done today, without the assent of Pakistan', these actions remain illegal and in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

The crux of the author's argument is that the drone strikes involve less collateral damage than "Pakistani military operations."

The author's argument is not substantiate by any evidence, and as pointed out through a handful of links, and the research by various Western and Pakistani organizations, civilian casualties in drone strikes are significant in number.

 

[Solomon2]

The claim that these are 'ops against terrorists' is not yet one established -

It's not contested, either. That's what matters. The U.N. isn't an elementary school teacher whom you have to approach with permission to go pee - not once you're responsible enough to grab a hall pass for yourself.

Until the ICJ and/or UNSC provide clear and explicit legal backing for the US/NATO argument that these are 'operations against terrorists' as well as for the argument that 'the US/NATO has authority to carry out military operations against alleged terrorists in the manner being done today, without the assent of Pakistan', these actions remain illegal and in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

While I doubt that's necessary perhaps there is some merit in Pakistan receiving a public spanking.

The author's argument is not substantiate by any evidence -

Save his own experience and hearsay. I wanted to ask you about that. It wouldn't pass muster in an American courtroom and in isolation I don't think is convincing to Americans but I'm not his audience. Is this really effective at convincing Pakistanis?

 

[Awesome]

Is there a record of this successfully happening in the past?

The due process that exists does not immediately falls upon the Pakistani courts.

The chain of command is followed, the Pak Army is ordered to do a task by the federal government. If they go beyond their mandate, at that point the federal government would have to either take them on, or pass it to the relevant courts.

And of course being an elected government we have control over them. So the issue again comes that there is control over them.

The author says different, based on his interviews in Pakistan. On what grounds do you gainsay him?

Does the article give a break down of sortie by sortie?

Most of them would be used in battlezone areas. Swat was the only residential area where missions were carried out extensively, but we all remember that great pains were taken to vacate the area.

The difference is, they are our people, we care about them. You guys are holding people hostage. Whenever there is a political standoff with the US it starts to randomly executing hostages.