Drone Strikes

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.

Jonny7

Well I've taken those figures from published studies

What are the real figures so and please provide sources?

As for callous? well I'd disagree, have been following the conflict for almost 10 years now, I'm concerned for all those in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan affected by both wars - hence my view will obviously differ from those who are selectively concerned typically for political reasons alone

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well I've taken those figures from published studies

What are the real figures so and please provide sources?

As for callous? well I'd disagree, have been following the conflict for almost 10 years now, I'm concerned for all those in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan affected by both wars - hence my view will obviously differ from those who are selectively concerned typically for political reasons alone

Yet you still actively agree with drone strikes even though countless innocent men, women and children have been killed.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Yet you still actively agree with drone strikes even though countless innocent men, women and children have been killed.

No I don't agree with drone strikes in the long term as I've explained and given reasons for

However, in the short run, it's a grim choice, but the damage done (in terms of civilians killed and injured) by the militants is significantly higher than the damage done by drones

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

No I don't agree with drone strikes in the long term as I've explained and given reasons for

However, in the short run, it's a grim choice, but the damage done (in terms of civilians killed and injured) by the militants is significantly higher than the damage done by drones

That's just political speak for "It's better to kill one militant and 5 innocent civilians than let the militant go".

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

That's just political speak for "It's better to kill one militant and 5 innocent civilians than let the militant go".

Well it's the reality.

If you have another way to deal with militants who target and kill thousands of church-goers, school-children, university students, teachers ..

Perhaps ignore them? perhaps make fruitless peace deals with religious warriors who have utterly nothing they want to bargain for? perhaps use conventional weaponry that will kill many more innocents?

Wash hands of it and walk away? let someone else deal with the problem?

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well it's the reality.

If you have another way to deal with militants who target and kill thousands of church-goers, school-children, university students, teachers ..

Perhaps ignore them? perhaps make fruitless peace deals with religious warriors who have utterly nothing they want to bargain for? perhaps use conventional weaponry that will kill many more innocents?

Wash hands of it and walk away? let someone else deal with the problem?

Hard to do this when the US insist on ignoring requests of the Pakistani government to NOT kill AQ leaders as there are peace talks starting and then the US goes and hits the people involved with a drone strike.

Jonny7

"peace talks"

You are quite possibly referring to Hakeemullah Mehsud who was leader of the Pakistani Taliban..


"Among other terrorist outrages he had carried out a senselessly brutal suicide bombing campaign against civilians in Pakistan that slaughtered up to 3,000 last year in a slow motion version of 9/11, he led a secessionist terrorist organization that transformed his breakaway region of North Waziristan into a harsh shariah Islamic law prison camp for its long-suffering people, his followers attacked NATO convoys travelling through the neighboring tribal region of Khyber and burnt hundreds of transport trucks, one of his followers tried to set of a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, he deployed a suicide bomber that wiped out a CIA team in Afghanistan in 2009, his Taliban fighters butchered thousands of Shiite "heretics" in their region, he played a key role in the defeat of Pakistani troops that tried to reconquer his secessionist region which is often known as Talibanistan, his followers burnt over 400 schools in Pakistan as part of their anti-education campaign, his forces conquered territory within a hundred miles of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, his followers killed activists who were trying to combat the spread of polio in North Waziristan, and he was actively involved in efforts to overthrow the Pakistani government and enforce a strict Taliban theocracy for all of Pakistan"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/the-killing-of-hakimullah_b_4225444.html


Hakimullah Mehsud rose to notoriety for his attacks on the Pakistan army. In 2007, just as the Pakistani Taliban was establishing itself as the biggest threat to Pakistan's security, he engineered the kidnapping of some 250 Pakistani soldiers in a valley in South Waziristan. The soldiers were held hostage until a prisoner exchange was secured, but the Shias among them were brutally slain.

"Do you know what they did?" a retired army general asked incredulously, before describing Hakimullah Mehsud's trademark brutality. "They would take a sword and cut across both sides of the body. Then they ripped off the Shia soldiers' heads."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/hakimullah-mehsud-leader-of-the-pakistani-taliban-who-was-killed-by-a-us-drone-strike-8921464.html

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

"peace talks"

You are quite possibly referring to Hakeemullah Mehsud who was leader of the Pakistani Taliban..


"Among other terrorist outrages he had carried out a senselessly brutal suicide bombing campaign against civilians in Pakistan that slaughtered up to 3,000 last year in a slow motion version of 9/11, he led a secessionist terrorist organization that transformed his breakaway region of North Waziristan into a harsh shariah Islamic law prison camp for its long-suffering people, his followers attacked NATO convoys travelling through the neighboring tribal region of Khyber and burnt hundreds of transport trucks, one of his followers tried to set of a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, he deployed a suicide bomber that wiped out a CIA team in Afghanistan in 2009, his Taliban fighters butchered thousands of Shiite "heretics" in their region, he played a key role in the defeat of Pakistani troops that tried to reconquer his secessionist region which is often known as Talibanistan, his followers burnt over 400 schools in Pakistan as part of their anti-education campaign, his forces conquered territory within a hundred miles of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, his followers killed activists who were trying to combat the spread of polio in North Waziristan, and he was actively involved in efforts to overthrow the Pakistani government and enforce a strict Taliban theocracy for all of Pakistan"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/the-killing-of-hakimullah_b_4225444.html


Hakimullah Mehsud rose to notoriety for his attacks on the Pakistan army. In 2007, just as the Pakistani Taliban was establishing itself as the biggest threat to Pakistan's security, he engineered the kidnapping of some 250 Pakistani soldiers in a valley in South Waziristan. The soldiers were held hostage until a prisoner exchange was secured, but the Shias among them were brutally slain.

"Do you know what they did?" a retired army general asked incredulously, before describing Hakimullah Mehsud's trademark brutality. "They would take a sword and cut across both sides of the body. Then they ripped off the Shia soldiers' heads."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/hakimullah-mehsud-leader-of-the-pakistani-taliban-who-was-killed-by-a-us-drone-strike-8921464.html

State sponsored assassination at it's finest right there, but when the US does it it's ok. So how many more innocent children do you think should die before drone strikes are stopped?

bumper234

Another day another innocent child gets murdered by the American military.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/world/asia/drone-strike-in-afghanistan.html


The coalition spokesman confirmed that two drone incidents had taken place in Helmand Province on Thursday. The first, in Garmsir District, targeted an insurgent commander traveling on a motorcycle, but missed him and apparently hit civilians; one child was reported killed and two women were severely wounded. 

Jonny7

Selective concern.

Hundreds of men women and children were killed and wounded this month, many by militants and terrorist attacks. Civilian deaths from drones represent a very small percentage of that.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Selective concern.

Hundreds of men women and children were killed and wounded this month, many by militants and terrorist attacks. Civilian deaths from drones represent a very small percentage of that.

So you are basically saying that the death of that child is worth it?

Why no drone strikes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Iran? Most of the 9-11 bombers came from Saudi yet no drone strikes there. Shocking how America can call people terrorists yet commit terrorist acts with impunity.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Why no drone strikes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Situation.

Pakistan is in the midst of a war. More die per month there than in terrorist attacks in Saudi, Iran and Jordan combined in the last 5 years. The militants in the north of the Pakistan are not only killing Pakistani civilians, but also poring across the border into Afghanistan and directly killing civilians there, as well as attacking NATO and US forces.

Pakistan is unable to deal with this problem. Their army simply doesn't have the tech to target the Taliban and groups like Haqanni who shelter in Pakistan. It suits both Pakistan and the US to use drones to target these groups who are responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Other countries like Yemen seek out US help because drones are one of the most effective ways of dealing with violent extremists.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Situation.

Pakistan is in the midst of a war. More die per month there than in terrorist attacks in Saudi, Iran and Jordan combined in the last 5 years. The militants in the north of the Pakistan are not only killing Pakistani civilians, but also poring across the border into Afghanistan and directly killing civilians there, as well as attacking NATO and US forces.

Pakistan is unable to deal with this problem. Their army simply doesn't have the tech to target the Taliban and groups like Haqanni who shelter in Pakistan. It suits both Pakistan and the US to use drones to target these groups who are responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Other countries like Yemen seek out US help because drones are one of the most effective ways of dealing with violent extremists.

The irony of it being that the militants are killing civilians for supporting Americas illegal war. Saying "militants" or "terrorist" in every post does not take away from the fact that YET AGAIN the American military machine has murdered an innocent child by blowing them to bits. And then you wonder where the militants come from?

If that was your little daughter, sister or neice who had been indiscriminately blown to bits would you not be ripe for recruitment into AQ? Dont know what sickens me most, the fact that America gets away with murdering innocent kids or the fact there are people willing to defend these murders.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

The irony of it being that the militants are killing civilians for supporting Americas illegal war. Saying "militants" or "terrorist" in every post does not take away from the fact that YET AGAIN the American military machine has murdered an innocent child by blowing them to bits. And then you wonder where the militants come from?

If that was your little daughter, sister or neice who had been indiscriminately blown to bits would you not be ripe for recruitment into AQ? Dont know what sickens me most, the fact that America gets away with murdering innocent kids or the fact there are people willing to defend these murders.

The militants (for use of a half dozen names and acronyms) and religious extremists who carry out the attacks are deliberately trying to inflict as much damage as possible, this is why they target markets, snooker halls, Shi'ite gatherings and so on.

The US (and Pakistan) are not targeting civilians, they are targeting these very militants. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the conflict, people get caught up. In recent years this has improved a lot, sadly though, it seems unavoidable.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

The militants (for use of a half dozen names and acronyms) and religious extremists who carry out the attacks are deliberately trying to inflict as much damage as possible, this is why they target markets, snooker halls, Shi'ite gatherings and so on.[b/]

Unlike the US drone strikes that target innocent people working in a field

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress

The US (and Pakistan) are not targeting civilians, they are targeting these very militants. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the conflict, people get caught up. In recent years this has improved a lot, sadly though, it seems unavoidable.

So basically you are saying tough ****, people die. What would be the reaction I wonder if it was innocent American children being blown to bits.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

Unlike the US drone strikes that target innocent people working in a field

They aren't targeting innocent people. It's the other way round, innocent people are unfortunately getting killed when militants are targeted.

I wonder if it was innocent American children being blown to bits.

Well if you are going to envoke emotional comparisons..

Any deaths are a tragedy, but it would be a little odd, for example, to be disproportionally blaming the US police for inadvertently killing innocent bystanders whilst trying to deal with a massive school shooting.

And it would definitely be wrong to do so based on political/partisan beliefs (constantly critical of the police)

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

They aren't targeting innocent people. It's the other way round, innocent people are unfortunately getting killed when militants are targeted.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress

Which militant were they targeting?

The family of a 67-year-old midwife from a remote village in North Waziristan told lawmakers on Tuesday about her death and the "CIA drone" they say was responsible. 

"Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day," Rehman said, through a translator. "Some media outlets reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother’s house. Others reported that the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All of them reported that three, four, five militants were killed."Instead, he said, only one person was killed that day: "Not a militant but my mother."

An Amnesty International report, published last week, lists Bibi among 900 civilians they say have been killed by drone strikes, a far higher number than previously reported. The Amnesty report said the US may have committed war crimes and should stand trial for its actions.

The US has repeatedly claimed very few civilians have been killed by drones. It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all applicable domestic and international law". Unofficial reports, however, have suggested that hundreds have been killed in Pakistan alone, with up to 200 children killed.

He said that his mother was not the first innocent victim of drone strike, but that "dozens of people in my own tribe that I know are merely ordinary tribesman had been killed". He said that numerous families in his community and the surrounding area had lost loved ones, including women and children over the years.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress

Which militant were they targeting?

The family of a 67-year-old midwife from a remote village in North Waziristan told lawmakers on Tuesday about her death and the "CIA drone" they say was responsible. 

"Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day," Rehman said, through a translator. "Some media outlets reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother’s house. Others reported that the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All of them reported that three, four, five militants were killed."Instead, he said, only one person was killed that day: "Not a militant but my mother."

An Amnesty International report, published last week, lists Bibi among 900 civilians they say have been killed by drone strikes, a far higher number than previously reported. The Amnesty report said the US may have committed war crimes and should stand trial for its actions.

The US has repeatedly claimed very few civilians have been killed by drones. It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all applicable domestic and international law". Unofficial reports, however, have suggested that hundreds have been killed in Pakistan alone, with up to 200 children killed.

He said that his mother was not the first innocent victim of drone strike, but that "dozens of people in my own tribe that I know are merely ordinary tribesman had been killed". He said that numerous families in his community and the surrounding area had lost loved ones, including women and children over the years.

She wasn't targeted. They aren't using multi-million dollar platforms to target farmers.

This is actually getting surreal.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

She wasn't targeted. They aren't using multi-million dollar platforms to target farmers.

This is actually getting surreal.

So who was targeted? Are you saying it was a misfire? Because there were 2 missiles fired! Will the American government admit that this woman was murdered? Will they hand over the pilot of this drone who fired these missiles and have them stand trial for murder (and possibly war crimes)? Will they explain why a woman working in a field was targeted for elimination and blown to bits?

What's surreal is the fact that the American military are murdering civilians on an almost daily basis and when questioned they just throw in the words militant and terrorist and expect everyone to accept that excuse.

Jonny7

bumper234 wrote: »

So who was targeted? Are you saying it was a misfire? Because there were 2 missiles fired! Will the American government admit that this woman was murdered? Will they hand over the pilot of this drone who fired these missiles and have them stand trial for murder (and possibly war crimes)? Will they explain why a woman working in a field was targeted for elimination and blown to bits?

They don't sit down and plan pre-meditated murder against farmers with weaponry that is designed to cause the least amount of civilian casualties possible.

What's surreal is the fact that the American military are murdering civilians on an almost daily basis and when questioned they just throw in the words militant and terrorist and expect everyone to accept that excuse.

The US nor the UK nor any of the almost 50 nations that have been involved in Afghanistan have any interest in killing civilians. Not for military, political or any other reason.