Drone Strikes

Be like Nutella

I'll dig out all the sources/leaders killed/civilians killed stats etc later but to begin with - Lyndsay Graham blurted out the figure 4,400 which he was privy to in one of his closed doors committee meetings.

There are only 3 or 4 major works on the subject, starting with Philip Alston's research paper and then the work of his University NYU and Standford who produced the 'living under drones' report and website, and then there's the very comprehensive ongoing excellent work by the BoIJ who have devoted staff and a website to the coverage, or uncoverage should I say, of the despicable drone war. As far as week by week reporting goes - Micah Zenko is the recognized foreign policy expert on the Drone war - blogs for the CFR...wrote a fine paper on the subject.. has positive and negative things to say about Drones and is more than willing to debate if you email him as I have done for years.

Be like Nutella

I find people in general know very few specifics about the drone strikes when it comes down to it and very often just dig their heels into their original uninformed position... not saying you're like them but this is my experience. Then once they watch some of the leading lawyers and human rights experts talk about it in speeches or presentations or read one or two of the better articles written on the subject (which is NOT usually by clueless journalists who know less than you or I) they start to see the issues, the pointlessness, the fact that these attacks are simply blind assassination of unidentified guesses of 'problem' people. When they see how small a problem AQ terrorism is to the US Homeland in real terms and how much overkill and mission creep is involved they start to release their stubborn uninformed opinions and realize there is no supporting this thing 100% there can't be there's too much blatantly wrong with it as a strategy, in terms of human rights, in terms of civilians killed in terms of almost everything the drone war is a steaming pile of bullsh1t and hasn't made anybody safer from anybody else... and eventually provably so.

Be like Nutella

they do it because they can, not because they should and there is a huge amount of genuine pressure from the military industrial complex involved in this thing as well, not getting conspiratorial but anyone who knows anything about the drone industry and its curve upwards in the last 8 years can testify to that fact - there is pressure to buy and use these systems.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'll dig out all the sources/leaders killed/civilians killed stats etc later but to begin with - Lyndsay Graham blurted out the figure 4,400 which he was privy to in one of his closed doors committee meetings.

There are only 3 or 4 major works on the subject, starting with Philip Alston's research paper and then the work of his University NYU and Standford who produced the 'living under drones' report and website, and then there's the very comprehensive ongoing excellent work by the BoIJ who have devoted staff and a website to the coverage, or uncoverage should I say, of the despicable drone war. As far as week by week reporting goes - Micah Zenko is the recognized foreign policy expert on the Drone war - blogs for the CFR...wrote a fine paper on the subject.. has positive and negative things to say about Drones and is more than willing to debate if you email him as I have done for years.

I've been through all the figures, including some biased ones from the US officials (which recent UN report criticises) and from activists and university studies

True figures are hard to come by because many locals do not admit that family members are militants etc

In the last 2 years casualties have dropped off a lot

Jonny7

Sorry Nutella I just think this is stepping into conspiracy land a bit

re the war in Pakistan and strikes there

Militants and Pashtun militias in the North have been pushing south for years, targeting towns and villages - we see little or nothing about this, it's horrific

Many of these towns have little or no protection from the Pak military so they form their own "home guard" so to speak

The militia's have no problem using children as suicide bombers, decapitating town elders and placing their heads on their corpses, blowing up places of worship or just outright assaulting civilian areas

Thousands upon thousands are being killed in this unreported invisible war

Ironically the only attention drawn to it is the hype surrounding drone use

In approx 2009, the Pak mil launched a huge offensive to retake areas and push the militants back.. it had some vague success but hasn't managed to break the militants at all

Now they are pushing back down

They are also crossing the border to fight the religious war in Afghanistan in order to regain control of the country

The US, thanks to operation "Enduring Freedom", originally helped stir the nest and has been the perfect recruitment poster for the Madrassa to pump out brainwashed religious warriors

Now the US can wash it's hands of all this, it's the politically easy option, Obama with a fresh start could have withdrawn Afghan and left it to the wolves, and let the Pak mil deal with their own "domestic" problem

There are approx 28 nations in Afghanistan, they are there to try to ensure the Afghans can hold out - from acid attacks on their children, women being mutilated and the rest of the dark ages **** that is poring over the border

I didn't agree with the war, many don't, but unfortunately there's no time machine, so the reality is what has to be dealt with

For the drone strikes, they are targeting the militants.. at the tacit behest of the Pakistani's so that they can try to cripple forces who are:

-Either fighting and killing thousands on the Northern front (yes it's a war)
-Crossing the porous NW border

There's no black and white here. If Obama pulls the drones, the militants gain confidence, morale, organisation and strength to push further the carnage further south. Afghanistan comes under heavier pressure.

It's the easy option, and one I believe he should take. I have no doubt it will result in more deaths, but ones that are easier to ignore.

Be like Nutella

4 questions:

Do you personally believe/accept that 286 people died from the 364 drone strikes which this table shows over nearly 10 years? or do you think the number is higher or lower in reality?

Do you know how combatants/Militants are categorized by various parties?

Do you know about the Chenagai strike?

Do you know what a signature strike is vs a personality strike?

Be like Nutella

This debate is about drone strikes that have always been argued on the basis that they kill mid to high level terrorist leaders. Nothing else.

- argued on the basis that they kill terrorist leaders - and therefore makes the US safer. That is how it has always been sold.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

4 questions:

Do you personally believe/accept that 286 people died from the 364 drone strikes which this table shows over nearly 10 years? or do you think the number is higher or lower in reality?

It's around 300 to 400 from an aggregate of most counts. They take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. They simply don't target civilians, there's zero purpose nor reason to it. It has no military function, in fact it heavily works against the use the drones. They've redesigned the missiles to affect a smaller area.

Do you know how combatants/Militants are categorized by various parties?

They are aiming to kill the militiants and Taliban, with emphasis on leadership based on every source of information available.

The flip-side is that many men in Pak and Waziristan carry guns, in fact that whole region is basically a gun factory. So you have "innocents" who can be caught up, including the villagers and towns-people who are defending their areas.

Do you know about the Chenagai strike?

Yes, and the Pakistan military carried out the attack, which was highly controversial, bc it targeted a Madrassa. Some conspiracy and activist sites and locals claim it was the Americans.

Do you know what a signature strike is vs a personality strike?

Yeah I've heard of them, I am guessing it's a literal mis-interpretation of military guidelines as being actual doctrine (which often happens)

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

This debate is about drone strikes that have always been argued on the basis that they kill mid to high level terrorist leaders. Nothing else.

True yes

In Somalia and Yemen yes. Al Shabab carried out the market attack on Nairobi, they've been hit several times since.

In Pakistan, much more of a grey area

- argued on the basis that they kill terrorist leaders - and therefore makes the US safer. That is how it has always been sold.

I don't think anyone could stand at a press conference and even begin to try to describe the complexities of the situation to the US people - so yup you're right, that's how it's sold.

It's a dirty grim job that either needs to be dealt with in this fashion or ignored and swept under the carpet

After 911 they've been doing the former

Be like Nutella

Abdul Rehman Yemeni, who was an Arab national with close ties to al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, was the 50th top al-Qaeda leader to have been killed by a US drone in Pakistan since the launching of the deadly drive in 2005.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-146255-50th-al-Qaeda-leader-killed-in-338th-drone-strike

Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

let's assume they're talking sh1t and the ratio is more like 25-1... from your very low figure of 2800 = 120 worthy targets and 2680 women, kids, family members, bystanders, innocents and elderly.

We're talking about since this began in 2004, not in recent times, when the international spotlight has literally changed Obama's strike policy which should be sign enough that something was very wrong with the way it was happening before.

What ratio is acceptable to you? 10-1, 20-1, 30-1 ?

and don't gimme 'you gota break a few eggs' logic coz that's psychopathic.

The vast majority of strikes have been sig strikes (which I think you don't know what they are yet) and there is so much wrong with signature strikes I would have to start another thread to explain the targeting/vetting process.... since the beginning, NOT in conveniently recent times ie last 18 months.

Also you need to look up how they classes combatants in the strike area, again from the beginning... the categorization isn't done anything like you imagine it is. Look it up. Knowing the specifics SHOULD by all logic change your position, maybe not all the way but becoming aware should open your mind to the possibility that your original viewpoint was misguided.

but we can go through the whole thing... I'll explain it in detail later in week if you have any interest or you can go watch a Philip Alston talk or Professor Enemark of Sydney uni or Chris Heynes or read the NYU/Standford paper etc etc

Jonny7

Yes, US officials and the administration are downplaying it, and there are many who are conversely up-playing it for personal and political reasons.

The fact of the matter is that the drones ARE killing innocents.

But it's a war.

Once the drones are withdrawn, the militants are still there, killing thousands.

The Pak army then has to employ conventional methods that will very likely kill many more than the current use of drones

But by that stage those foreigners who vehemently oppose the drones will likely be ignoring the civilian deaths (hands washed of issue) and the locals will have no foreign force to scapegoat

If Obama withdraws the drones, he is indirectly responsible for more deaths from militants, a more powerful enemy in the region and increased pressure on Afghanistan and civilians there.

Anyway I've made my point.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

What ratio is acceptable to you? 10-1, 20-1, 30-1 ?

and don't gimme 'you gota break a few eggs' logic coz that's psychopathic.

You might to seriously reexamine your logic then because your thoughts on Syria seem to run contrary

Jonny7

Pakistan says drones have killed 67 civilians since 2008

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24742037

Literally in the same week that Sharif officially called on the US to end drone strikes

cyberhog

Call for explanation

The latest figures released by Pakistan differ dramatically from previous estimates, but no explanation was given for the apparent discrepancy.

Pakistan's previous estimate was at least 400 civilians murdered by Obama's drones with a further 200 of the total dead likely to be civilians.

How can they go from at least 400 down to 67 and not offer an explanation?

Maybe Pakistan is still secretly colluding with the US and has given in to US pressure to downplay the civilian deathtoll?

Despite repeatedly denouncing the CIA’s drone campaign, top officials in Pakistan’s government have for years secretly endorsed the program and routinely received classified briefings on strikes and casualty counts, according to top-secret CIA documents and Pakistani diplomatic memos obtained by The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html


Pakistan has to make it clear why they have changed their estimate so dramatically otherwise I will consider the figures from independent organisations to be closer to the truth.

MonaPizza

In a revolting display of gutlessness, similar to Bush never attending a single funeral of anyone killed in wars that he sanctioned, a family (victims of American drone strikes) have addressed congress. They travelled halfway around the world from Pakistan to tell of their loss and horror.

FIVE members of Congress showed up for the address.

I thought I had seen contemptuous displays of cowardice like Powell pretending to hold vials of some farcical poison in front of the UN or Rumsfeld saying "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in the North, East, South and West somewhat (!!!)"

But this family, of whom EVERY member of Congress was aware was to address and speak of their nightmare, were further insulted by the weasels in the house not even showing up.

Brave people indeed, congressmen. Vote to kill kids and then don't have the balls to face them when they simply want to say something back.

Nauseating.

bumper234

Here is a twitter feed that lists every drone strike

https://twitter.com/dronestream

Be like Nutella

http://unmanned.warcosts.com/stream?utm_source=bravenew&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=unmanned_nd

Unmanned: America's Drone Wars
link for this documentary will only last today I think

Be like Nutella

- former Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair

" Drone strikes are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating Al Qaeda’s ability to attack us. Al Qaeda officials who are killed by drones will be replaced. The group’s structure will survive and it will still be able to inspire, finance and train individuals and teams to kill Americans. "



For more information on the civilian deaths and their impact:

The London Bureau for Investigative Journalism http://bit.ly/pnLj30


Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies: Micah Zenko January 2013

http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736

- Zenko puts forward a substantive agenda. He argues that the United States should end so-called signature strikes, which target unidentified militants based on their behavior patterns and personal networks, and limit targeted killings to a limited number of specific terrorists with transnational ambitions.

old_aussie

more killed in another successful drone strike.

Revenge by the CIA for the killing of CIA officers?

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A U.S. drone strike killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban Friday, intelligence officials said. The death is a major blow to the group a day after the government said it started peace talks with the militants.
Two Pakistani intelligence officials in North Waziristan also confirmed his death as did two Taliban commanders who said they had seen the remnants of the militant commander's mangled body.
The strike killed four other suspected militants, according to the two Pakistani intelligence officials.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/hakimullah-mehsud-dead_n_4192320.html

Be like Nutella

US drone strikes killed 400 in Pakistan, says UN

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-drone-strikes-killed-400-in-pakistan-says-un-29673225.html

bumper234

MonaPizza wrote: »

In a revolting display of gutlessness, similar to Bush never attending a single funeral of anyone killed in wars that he sanctioned, a family (victims of American drone strikes) have addressed congress. They travelled halfway around the world from Pakistan to tell of their loss and horror.

FIVE members of Congress showed up for the address.

I thought I had seen contemptuous displays of cowardice like Powell pretending to hold vials of some farcical poison in front of the UN or Rumsfeld saying "we know where they [WMD] are. They're in the North, East, South and West somewhat (!!!)"

But this family, of whom EVERY member of Congress was aware was to address and speak of their nightmare, were further insulted by the weasels in the house not even showing up.

Brave people indeed, congressmen. Vote to kill kids and then don't have the balls to face them when they simply want to say something back.

Nauseating.

Even more shocking is Obama was meeting the CEO of weapons manufacturer lockhead martin while this family told their story.


http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201311193857549913

Unre4L

Media reporting that American drone killed the Taliban leader on his way to a peace talk with Pak government, who are protesting at the timing of the bombing.
This is sheer display of American backstabbing. For all these years they dont touch him as he bombs the **** out of Pak civilians but the moment they plan peace talks, Americans bomb him. Now Taliban are promising revenge attacks...on Pakistan.

Interesting thing is that similar event took place in Afghanistan as they planned talks with Taliban.

Meanwhile Obama happily talks of leaving Afghanistan by 2014. What a mess to leave behind and its fully intentional.

Successor to the dead guy was named the same day. Only difference is that there will be no more peace talks. Only blood and American accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough (bleeding).

Jonny7

Unre4L wrote: »

For all these years they dont touch him as he bombs the **** out of Pak civilians but the moment they plan peace talks, Americans bomb him. Now Taliban are promising revenge attacks...on Pakistan.

Actually they've been after this guy for a good while (after killing his predecessors), even the Pakistanis had a bounty on his head

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/03/hakimullah-mehsud

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Actually they've been after this guy for a good while (after killing his predecessors), even the Pakistanis had a bounty on his head

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/03/hakimullah-mehsud

This does not take away from the fact that yet AGAIN the American government has gone against the wishes of a sovereign government and murdered people.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

This does not take away from the fact that yet AGAIN the American government has gone against the wishes of a sovereign government and murdered people.

The wishes? Pakistan allows the drone strikes.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

The wishes? Pakistan allows the drone strikes.

Do you know something the Pakistani interior minister doesn't?

Khan called the drone attack "murder" to the peace effort, but hoped the process could continue. He said he warned the U.S. ambassador previously that American drone strikes should not be carried out while Pakistan was trying to hold peace talks and no Taliban leader should be targeted.

When asked whether he thought the U.S. was trying to deliberately scuttle the peace process, the minister responded: "Absolutely.""The efforts have been ambushed," the minister said

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/world/21012123586939/pakistan-slams-us-for-killing-taliban-leader/

Be like Nutella

Robert Grenier, head of CIA’s counter-terrorism center from 2004 - 2006
Ex CIA station chief Pakistan

“We have been seduced by [drones] and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences.”

“We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan”

Nabeel Khoury, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen from 2004 to 2007

“Drone strikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians,”

Barbara Bodine, U.S. ambassador to Yemen 1997 to 2001.

“Drones are a weapon of terror in many ways, and the kind of hostility this is going to breed may not be worth the counter-terrorism gains”

Be like Nutella

Assertions by Obama administration officials, as well as by many scholars, that these operations comply with international standards are undermined by the total absence of any forms of credible transparency or verifiable accountability. The CIA’s internal control mechanisms, including its Inspector-General, have had no discernible impact; executive control mechanisms have either not been activated at all or have ignored the issue; congressional oversight has given a ‘free pass’ to the CIA in this area; judicial review has been effectively precluded; and external oversight has been reduced to media coverage which is all too often dependent on information leaked by the CIA itself. As a result, there is no meaningful domestic accountability for a burgeoning program of international killing. This in turn means that the United States cannot possibly satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure accountability for its use of lethal force, either under International Human Rights Law or International Humanitarian Law. The result is the steady undermining of the international rule of law, and the setting of legal precedents which will inevitably come back to haunt the United States before long when invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

The Above is a quote from a paper by former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Prof Philip Alston, which can be downloaded from the link below.

The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, Prof Philip Alston
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1928963

Targeted Killings: The US, the UN and Accountability by Philip Alston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtAuI50vgs

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Do you know something the Pakistani interior minister doesn't?

Nope, he's doing his job brilliantly - expressing shock and outrage whena drone strike happens... whilst tacitly in the knowledge that they allow, even help plan, such strikes.

Gets the look good condemning the "Great Satan" whilst at the same time, they knock off another rather unpleasant chap from a group who have a penchant for blinding Pakistani school children and strapping bombs to teenagers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/12/musharraf-admits-permitting-drone-strikes

Of course, if it was an Indian drone, well I wonder how many minutes it would last in Pakistan airspace.

Be like Nutella

Yes it is true that some of what we are calling here 'the Pakistani government' have tacitly allowed the US to do 'some' of the strikes. That is true.

To repetitively focus on that element of this subject just shows you are not willing to deal directly with the fact that hundreds of US drone strikes in Pakistan have killed more than 500 civilians, killed mostly low level terrorists and not made the US any safer than it would have been without these drone strikes.

The US administration has sold the drone strikes to both congress and the US population on the basis that drone strikes kill terrorist leaders and make the US safer which is completely untrue and you know it.

That you agree with the military tool of drone strikes to kill Taliban militants who would cross into AG and kill AG/US troops is drawing your own positives from the use of drone strikes... but is NOT the stated goal of the US drone strike program.

The 400+ drone strikes which the US has carried out have been targeted killings in one form or another, which is illegal under US and international law.

The lack of clear information concerning civilian deaths and the legal contortionism which the US admin has employed since journalists and human rights groups forced this debate into the public, only in the last couple of years, has brought the issue away from the physical reality that the US has been engaged in a messy immoral poorly executed assassination campaign which abused the tool of robotic drones flown by 22 year old so called pilots who operate from total safety with 6 months training from 7000 miles away.

The inability to properly report upon and investigate this targeted killing program is what allows it to continue. I guarantee that IF the actual strike files on at least 50 of the most heinous drone strikes which have killed 20+ people EACH were uncovered to the public, and to congress, showing the open eyed mass slaughter of innocent civilians and family members of the supposedly intended targets - then this program would have been shut down a long time ago.

The CIA run this quasi paramilitary kill program using SOCCOM and JSOC and they own the drones. The CIA is an out of control kill squad now and needs to be slapped back into its box - back to its remit. The only reason the CIA took the lead on this as we know well is that they don't have to answer to anybody if they don't want and their oversight is and has traditionally been laughable. Obama was given an option when he came into office by John Brennan and co which was:

you can't put US troops in harms way any more. We can't go into Pakistan where AQ hide in the mountains but we have to be 'seen' to do something against so called 'Global Terror' so your only option is to use drones - we'll do it through the CIA and nobody will be able to report properly on it so we can get away with it for a few years before the treehuggers start making enough noise and then we'll just change our strategy i.e. slow down the strike freq and maybe reduce the number of blind kills i.e. signature strikes - that was the option they gave him and he took it with both hands even though it went against everything he stood for in his career as a constitutional lawyer. He chose what he thought was the best choice of a bad selection.

He thought that assassinating anyone who even looked like a terrorist in some far away Pakistan mountain region would physically make the US safer and he was wrong... and now he has to answer for it. Him and the 'drone priests' who took him for the ride.

That's the reality.

Out of the 4000+ men women and kids blown to bits by drones since 2004 how many of those people represented a clear and imminent risk to the USA?

There isn't any serious or respected opinion out there in the press or within government or within the think tanks who think that even 100 materially important 'hard to replace' AQ leaders/commanders have been taken off the battlefield that cannot be replaced easily. And what's better as a recruitment drive then the strewn bodies of kids after a drone strike of the double strike on first responders after an initial strike???

The very image of a drone recruits vengeful family members and young impressionable males to turn Jihadist against the US directly.

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Yes it is true that some of what we are calling here 'the Pakistani government' have tacitly allowed the US to do 'some' of the strikes. That is true.

The US administration has sold the drone strikes to both congress and the US population on the basis that drone strikes kill terrorist leaders and make the US safer which is completely untrue and you know it.

I agree and I also think it is important not to understate the part Pakistan is playing in the drone strikes becasue the lies from both sides are fueling the hatred between the two countries.

Two-Faced Allies: Pakistan and the U.S.


It’s an old script. Regardless of whatever cooperation is involved, both countries always find it more useful to paint the other as the villain. The Pakistani government, which in reality is playing a central role in the war on terror, gets to paint itself as the victim of a bullying superpower.

Meanwhile, American officials keep pointing to Pakistan’s “double game” for most of their failures in Afghanistan, while downplaying the fact that, without Pakistan, this war would have been impossible to wage in the first place.

The real root of the dysfunction is not so much deceit between allies as the lies both governments have told their own people. Pakistani and American leaders have systematically and purposefully misled their own publics about the nature and details of their partnership. Each country has used the other as a strategic and convenient punching bag.

The stark disconnect between reality and rhetoric now makes both governments’ pronouncements sound absurd. There have been more than 300 American drone strikes in a remote corner of Pakistan. And while Islamabad continues to denounce these strikes, Pakistani citizens see thousands of trucks carrying huge shipping containers on the highways every day, bringing supplies to the American military in Afghanistan. Likewise, Americans have learned that billions of dollars in aid is still flowing to Pakistan, despite the fact that Osama bin Laden was living a mile away from Pakistan’s main military academy for years.

The resulting confusion is making Americans and Pakistanis hate each other. A Pew Research Center poll in July found that America is more disliked in Pakistan than anywhere else. A Gallup poll a few months earlier found that the countries most disliked by Americans are Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

The lies that were meant to hold Pakistan and America together in a time of war, are now imperiling the alliance they were meant to protect.

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/opinion/two-faced-allies-pakistan-and-the-us.html?_r=0

bumper234

Imran Kahn saying he will block NATO supply routes until drone strikes end in Pakistan


http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-21/imran-khan-vows-to-block-nato-pakistan-supply-route-over-drones


Former Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan vowed to permanently block a supply route to U.S. forces in Afghanistan starting tomorrow as he seeks an end to drone strikes in the country’s northwest, where his party holds power.

Jonny7

I presume as soon as the drone strikes stop Khan will put as much focus onto the militias that are killing many more of his countrymen - I sincerely hope he isn't capitalising on the selective focus on drone deaths which are relatively minor in comparison to casualties inflicted by Pashtun militias rampaging further south

Either way, Khan will have to deal with the Pak authorities whom have authorised the drones strikes, and, like Khan at the same time decry the drone attacks..

Politicking at it's very best

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Out of the 4000+ men women and kids blown to bits by drones since 2004 how many of those people represented a clear and imminent risk to the USA?

The large majority (virtually all in the last two years) have been Taliban/militia leadership and members.

These are the same who kill local Pakistanis for not adhering to strict religious rules, they decapitate elders who don't fall into line with them, they throw acid at and shoot school children. They brainwash and then strap bombs to teenage boys to use them as suicide bombers - whom are then sent to blow up mosques and places of worship in towns and villages who oppose their presence.

The militias and Taliban are crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan where they seek to impose the pre-2000 rule of the Taliban - which involves attacking Afghan villages and towns, killing NATO troops and organising terrorist attacks

They are attacking NATO convoys crossing the Khyber and also conducting large attacks in Pakistan resulting in massive casualties

They aren't exactly popular with Pakistan whom they are currently locked in a war with

However, it's an invisible war and few outsiders care of it's current status, nor it's implications.

Be like Nutella

"The large majority (virtually all in the last two years) have been Taliban/militia leadership and members."

You're very incorrect about the 'total' number killed so far by drones

but correct about the number killed in the last 24 months yes.

Would you like to account for the majority who were killed before the last 24 months? because I can support the general consensus that a massive proportion of those killed before the last 24 months, which represents the vast majority of the total, were civilians who were mostly killed during signature strikes over a 3 year period.

Go look at the facts and come back before we get into a pointless unsupported argument.

last 24 months - yes you are correct - before that? no you are patently wrong and demonstrably so. I'm not going to do the work for you the studies have been done go read them... nobody does see thats the problem right there.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

because I can support the general consensus that a massive proportion of those killed before the last 24 months, which represents the vast majority of the total, were civilians who were mostly killed during signature strikes over a 3 year period.

The statistics show otherwise

New America Foundation statistics correlated by the below
http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis

The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about the covert U.S. drone program in Pakistan in the absence of any such transparency on the part of the American government. This data was collected from credible news reports and is presented here with the relevant sources. It was updated with information from the latest Pakistan strike, which occurred on November 1, 2013.






The Bureau of Investigative Journalism statistics
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

• Total strikes: 370
• Total reported killed: 2,548 - 3,549
• Civilians reported killed: 411 - 890
• Children reported killed: 168 - 197
• Total reported injured: 1,177 - 1,480
• Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
• Strikes under the Obama Administration: 318

The Long War Journal
http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

The statistics show otherwise

New America Foundation statistics correlated by the below
http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan/analysis

The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about the covert U.S. drone program in Pakistan in the absence of any such transparency on the part of the American government. This data was collected from credible news reports and is presented here with the relevant sources. It was updated with information from the latest Pakistan strike, which occurred on November 1, 2013.






The Bureau of Investigative Journalism statistics
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

• Total strikes: 370
• Total reported killed: 2,548 - 3,549
• Civilians reported killed: 411 - 890
• Children reported killed: 168 - 197
• Total reported injured: 1,177 - 1,480
• Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
• Strikes under the Obama Administration: 318

The Long War Journal
http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

So almost a thousand innocent people killed and almost 200 of those were children. Do you think that this is an acceptable number of innocent people to continue drone strikes? What did those 200 children do that they were such a threat to America that they deserved to be blown to bits?

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

So almost a thousand innocent people killed and almost 200 of those were children. Do you think that this is an acceptable number of innocent people to continue drone strikes? What did those 200 children do that they were such a threat to America that they deserved to be blown to bits?

I am countering the point that a large majority of those killed were civilians not militants.

For instance, Pakistan claims 67 civilians have been killed since 2008, with some 2160 militants killed.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am countering the point that a large majority of those killed were civilians not militants.

For instance, Pakistan claims 67 civilians have been killed since 2008, with some 2160 militants killed.

Ok I'll ask in a different way. How many dead children is an acceptable number? What's that magic number of dead innocent children before you would say "hold on this is wrong"

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Ok I'll ask in a different way. How many dead children is an acceptable number? What's that magic number of dead innocent children before you would say "hold on this is wrong"

I can understand opposition based on US intereference in Pakistan but not an overall concern for civilians lives

Civilian deaths caused by drones or by militants?

One is far higher than the other and largely ignored

It's a nasty conflict, and with the drones removed, the Pak army will use conventional weaponry, which will cause many more deaths and injuries to innocents, something that Emerrson pointed out in his recent UN report

I have a suspicion that for some, once the drones are pulled that the conflict will vanish and so will their concern for civilians..

I don't support the drones because I believe they'll always be used as a scapegoat for Pakistan's real problems - and that in the long term that scapegoating has very real effects (recruitment from the Madrassa's, sympathy for the Pakistan Taliban)

However, drones are the most humanitarian way to fight the militants

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

I can understand opposition based on US intereference in Pakistan but not an overall concern for civilians lives

Civilian deaths caused by drones or by militants?

One is far higher than the other and largely ignored

It's a nasty conflict, and with the drones removed, the Pak army will use conventional weaponry, which will cause many more deaths and injuries to innocents, something that Emerrson pointed out in his recent UN report

I have a suspicion that for some, once the drones are pulled that the conflict will vanish and so will their concern for civilians..

I don't support the drones because I believe they'll always be used as a scapegoat for Pakistan's real problems - and that in the long term that scapegoating has very real effects (recruitment from the Madrassa's, sympathy for the Pakistan Taliban)

However, drones are the most humanitarian way to fight the militants

Thats not what I asked. How many dead innocent children does it take before its too many. At what point should the Americans stop using drone strikes?

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Thats not what I asked. How many dead innocent children does it take before its too many. At what point should the Americans stop using drone strikes?

To which I replied "Civilian deaths caused by drones or by militants?"

So far this year alone approx 2821 civilians have been killed by militants and terrorist attacks

The drones - which are targeting those who plan and carry out attacks such as the above, have killed approximately 4 - 20 civilians this year

Now, you can possibly see why the Pakistan government tacitly supports the use of drones as an effective weapon against the militants - and allows the US to use airbases to launch such attacks

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

To which I replied "Civilian deaths caused by drones or by militants?"

So far this year alone approx 2821 civilians have been killed by militants and terrorist attacks

The drones - which are targeting those who plan and carry out attacks such as the above, have killed approximately 4 - 20 civilians this year

Now, you can possibly see why the Pakistan government tacitly supports the use of drones as an effective weapon against the militants - and allows the US to use airbases to launch such attacks

How many innocent children's death's by drone strikes? If a "militant" is in a house and there are innocent people there too do you think it's ok for the US to fire a couple of missiles at that house?

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

If a "militant" is in a house and there are innocent people there too do you think it's ok for the US to fire a couple of missiles at that house?

Nope.

If there are Taliban fighters in a populated area, what is the best way for the Pakistan military to engage and kill them in your opinion?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Nope.

If there are Taliban fighters in a populated area, what is the best way for the Pakistan military to engage and kill them in your opinion?

It's certainly not fire 3 missiles into a building and kill everyone in it anyway. So at what number of dead innocent children should America stop doing this? Another 200? 400? 1000?

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

It's certainly not fire 3 missiles into a building and kill everyone in it anyway. So at what number of dead innocent children should America stop doing this? Another 200? 400? 1000?

Embellishing the situation isn't helping. They have caused very few casualties this year and the last - they don't want to kill civilians or innocents

I agree with the second part - how long should it go on for, but that's closely tied with Afghanistan.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Embellishing the situation isn't helping. They have caused very few casualties this year and the last - they don't want to kill civilians or innocents

I agree with the second part - how long should it go on for, but that's closely tied with Afghanistan.

Yet it still happens


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/world/middleeast/a-yemenis-long-trip-to-seek-answers-about-a-drone-strike.html

What do you think would be the American reaction if Pakistan fired a missile but ended up killing a lot of US citizens (including children)?

Jonny7

If the US withdraws the drones - Pakistan uses conventional weapons to fight the militants which will cause many more civilian casualties - if casualties are the issue here, then logically drones should be supported in the short-term at least

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

If the US withdraws the drones - Pakistan uses conventional weapons to fight the militants which will cause many more civilian casualties - if casualties are the issue here, then logically drones should be supported in the short-term at least

You have solid evidence that boots on the ground (not American troops) would cause more innocent deaths.

Unre4L

Jonny7 wrote: »

The drones - which are targeting those who plan and carry out attacks such as the above, have killed approximately 4 - 20 civilians this year

Thats not even remotely true. I hope someone pays you handsomely for justifying innocent deaths so callously.