PESHAWAR: Of the 44 predator strikes carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians. According to the statistics compiled by Pakistani authorities, the Afghanistan-based US drones killed 708 people in 44 predator attacks targeting the tribal areas between January 1 and December 31, 2009. For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die. Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...-700-killed-in-44-drone-strikes-in-2009-am-01 also I wonder that can USA bomb and kill anyone and at any place who it suspects of 'terrorism' ? are there any legal basis which allow such indiscriminate attacks on other countries ? how can arbitrary extrajudicial executions like these be carried out ?
Ask the victims of the twin towers attack. When you harbor criminals of this magnitude, such things happen.
Notice his news article has no credible sources? Here are some other numbers that contradict highly: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/10/analysis_us_airstrik.php 404 AlQueda/Taliban vs 5 civilians
why don't you also try asking same to victim of us and isreali attacks? @obamanation how is your source more credible ?
So even though you have no quoted source, you consider it more credible because it establishes a belief system you would like to spread. That is called propaganda. Your eyes must be brown, and I think you know why.
What ? are you blind ? are Pakistani authorities no source? they are your allies in war of terror and you are not even ready to acknowledge their existence ? and news in a mainstream newspaper is itself a source, I can't go out and figure out the validity of each news on my own self
What Pakistani authority? How does your article carry any more credence than the one I posted? Dawn.com a mainstream newspaper? LOL If mainstream coverage makes the news real then here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...ccess-of-predator-airstrikes-in-pakistan.html So once again, what makes your report credible?
what do you want? should the newspaper give out the cellphone numbers ? of-course your world just starts and ends with usa and isreal and only the zionist controlled media of usa is mainstream
Ahh there it is. Your source is more credible because it doesn't come from the "Zionist controlled media" even though in the previous post you wrote "news in a mainstream newspaper is itself a source". Do you read what you put to print? Here we have an article from unnamed "Pakistani Authorities" which alleges a 700 to 5 civilian to enemy combatant kill ratio. These may be the same Pakistani Authorities dealing with divided loyalties between the Taliban/Al Queda and the rest of Pakistan. Perhaps the same Pakistani Authorities dealing with what is practically a civil war. Or perhaps the Pakistani Authority we are dealing with is a Taliban sympathetic tribal leader in the border regions near Afghanistan. To be fair, we don't know who we are talking about because they don't make it clear. On the other side we have a source which is actively quoted by major, though western, media sources as having a kill ratio of 404 to 43 combatants to civilians. Obviously, one or both is incorrect. Perhaps what you should have done, instead of blindly following the numbers you preferred to believe in, was to do a bit of research and see if you could get more information. What you would have wound up with is this: http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/post...e_war_takes_a_toll_on_militants_and_civilians The article cites both your sources, and the sources used by the western media outlets, and attempts to reconcile those numbers with every bit of information available. What they came out with was this: I know, I know, this doesn't support "the narrative" you would like published and distributed, but it reeks of the truth. Something I feel confident you are not the slightest bit interested in.
and you think that to be mainstream you should be from Zionist controlled media" that is why you loled on the idea of DAWN being a mainstream newspaper there is a world outside North America and lot of people live there! may be may be may be? your sources don't mention about any authorities however this article by DAWN does that area is not accessible to western journalists so why should we take their word for it ? just because their skin is white and their name does not contain Muhammad bin ? http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/post...e_war_takes_a_toll_on_militants_and_civilians this one had something really funny polling by the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy you know these think-tanks and NGO who run on money provided by west are definitely very credible and serve their masters really well NEVER bite the hand that feeds you is their moto
New, I want to take a moment to thank you for your posts and your ideology. When you apply your logic in public, I have to figure the average person with an IQ over 70 can see the the madness/blindness which grips you. From a purely logical perspective, the idea that a missile strike that takes out a single Taliban or Al Queda leader kills ONLY civilians in addition to that leader is idiotic. One would have to assume/believe that each of these leaders surrounds himself with ONLY innocent civilians, which would completely cripple their ability to lead. The number 5 obviously has no truth to it based on reasoning alone, yet you cling to it like you do your Quran. You've substantiated my position in a more powerful way than I could ever have done. Keep it up.
It's not as though the United States has quickly given themselves a rep of responding with deadly force abroad or anything <dripping with sarcasm> - we're the only country that can say that we've successfully launched a nuclear campaign against a warring nation. 190 innocents is more than I would like, but to have the five most likely people in the world to kill thousands time and time again? Either side has its vengeance and its woes. Best to stay here on DP while the world sorts itself out.
OK, since you only believe in white zionist controlled media so here is some news for you, which also has the name of source David Kilcullen: who served in Iraq as a top advisor to U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. He's one of the counter-insurgency warrior/theorists who designed Petraeus' successful "surge" of troops into the streets of Baghdad. who told this to House Armed Services Committee "Since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they've given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/opinion/oe-mcmanus3 So, given various sources, we might not agree on exact number but the point is CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES HAVE OCCURRED even if 1% innocents are dying due to illegitimate strikes over a sovereign country, can we justify these killings ? isn't this terrorism in itself ? can USA bomb and kill anyone and at any place who it suspects of 'terrorism'? are there any legal basis which allow such indiscriminate attacks on other countries ? how can arbitrary extrajudicial executions like these be carried out ?
You mean you only believe news, regardless of the source, that suits your interests. I actually listen to almost every news source, and try to use logic and reasoning skills to separate fact from spin. 1) 14 is not 5, as your Dawn.com article indicates. Once again, one of the two sources would need to be wrong 2) Dr. Kilcullen's testimony came with spin of its own. One has to remember that his testimony came at a time when the president was weighing the option of going with a purely Predator Drone based Afghanistan strategy, vs. a 30-40k troop increase in the region at the cost of 2 billion a year. One needs to "sensationalize" the ineffectiveness of drones when selling 30-40k new troops to Congress. Absolutely. Its a documented fact the Taliban are hiding behind civilians. What you are asking for is the same thing you ask for in Palestine. A war without civilian casualties. We work like hell to avoid them, but complete avoidance is impossible. 1) Be thankful Obama/Biden didn't win that argument, or you'd have drones dropping bombs on you with a 40% civilian casualty rate for the next 15 years, until we got tired of it and left. 2) Be thankful we aren't like the people you support, or we would go out of our way to target civilians. 3) Be thankful Obama just sent 30,000 more troops into the zone to stabilize the region which will unquestionably save civilians from the cruel mercies of the Taliban. Yes. Look at Yemen. As if you didn't know, we get the intelligence on where to drop those bombs by, you guessed it, local residents who are most likely god fearing Muslims. Perhaps you should question the leaders of the 48 OTHER COUNTRIES in Afghanistan, besides the US. Be sure to provide a return address so they can get back to you.
Since Al Qeada is not really an actual Military and after all are Mercenary Civilians with intention to carry out brutal attacks on innocent people, then there you go, 700 "civilians" (Al-Qeadas) are killed, good job drones.
logic and you so now you want 1-1 correlation between every source isn't it enough the lot of civilians did lose their lives ? great, so he was telling lies to congress yeah, I understand it is necessary for you to kill civilians, just as it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill civilian so is it necessary to kill hundreds of civilians by drone attacks that in itself is a terrorist action will you tell that are there any legal basis which allow such indiscriminate attacks on other countries ? how can arbitrary extrajudicial executions like these be carried out ? not from the other, because the goon leading the pack of criminals in Afghanistan is usa
well us drone attacks can never solve problems of Pakistan.... Pakistani military operation have high ratio of success... and it is going really fantastic till now (if u exclude US drone attacks). I condemn these attacks, US drone attacks merely creating hate among Pakistani people for US and other people... My friend lives in SWAT, according to him on Pakistani military operation they happily left their homes.... But when u talk about waziristan etc. people hate of operations...all is due to US drone attacks have filled their harts with hate against US and Pakistani govt. itself. So IMO if US let the Pak army to do all on their own then we can have gr8 success, as Pakistanis themselves can better understand the problems of the people who are not extremist but are being exploited by foreign people.... (everyone knows by whom)