Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 636

Thread: US drone strikes in Pakistan

Share             
  1. #21
    Researcher Pksecurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Islamabad
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    323
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Caution: It is not legal to drone US-born terrorists.
    http://passivevoices.wordpress.com/2...ists%E2%80%A6/
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pksecurity For This Useful Post: Aryan_B,Express,Greater China


  2. #22
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    Quote Originally Posted by Pksecurity View Post
    Caution: It is not legal to drone US-born terrorists.
    http://passivevoices.wordpress.com/2...ists%E2%80%A6/
    In fighting evil AIPAC sponsored American regime have become what they were fighting in their disproportionate response to the twin tower attacks
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aryan_B For This Useful Post: Express,Greater China


  3. #23
    Retired AgNoStIc MuSliM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Michigan/Lahore
    Posts
    2,394
    Thanks
    2434
    Pakistan United States
    The rule of law typically goes out the window when it comes to US foreign policy, and that is such a shame and black mark for a nation that, domestically at least, places so much emphasis on constitutionality and the rule of law.
    The Following User Says Thank You to AgNoStIc MuSliM For This Useful Post: Express


  4. #24
    Banned RaptorRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,401
    Thanks
    2211
    China Pakistan
    The Letter to the Times from twelve British parliamentarians reads:

    ”As parliamentarians, we believe that unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks carried out by the United States are dangerously increasing resentment and anger among the people of Pakistan. This results in revenge attacks that could otherwise have been prevented. Since 2004, UAV covert missions – more often referred to as “drone attacks” – have been concentrated within Pakistan, thereby undermining the sovereignty of the nation, an ally to Britain in the war on terror.

    Until very recently the United States refused to acknowledge the existence of such attacks. The Administration rejects allegations about the severity of the mass casualties, which it deems to be “collateral damage”, and instead prefers vaguely to refer to the strikes as “covert intelligence operations”.

    According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, more than 3,000 deaths have occurred as a direct result of these secret strikes since they began in 2004, including hundreds of children and innocent civilians. The North Waziristan region of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas has experienced the heaviest concentration of drone attacks in recent years.

    We urge the United States and Nato to stop these so-called “covert” CIA drone attacks, not least because they play into the hands of the extremists and terrorist recruiters but also
    because they undermine the sovereignty of Pakistan.”

    ----------------
    British parliamentarians condemn US drone strikes as its revealed that RAF pilots controlled US drones over Libya

    RAF pilots flew armed US drones as part of Nato's military effort in last year's Libyan conflict, the Ministry of Defence has revealed. Not related to this thread but interesting...read more about RAF controlled drones
    The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RaptorRX For This Useful Post: AgNoStIc MuSliM,bilalhaider,Express


  5. #25
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Pakistan official slams drones ahead of CIA talks


    ASPEN, Colo. (AP) — Pakistan's ambassador to the United States is calling for an end to CIA drone strikes ahead of an intelligence summit in Washington between the two countries expected next week.

    In a frank debate Friday with White House war adviser Douglas Lute, Ambassador Sherry Rehman said the drone attacks have already succeeded in damaging al-Qaida but are now only serving to recruit new militants. The two were speaking to an audience at the Aspen Security Forum.

    "I am not saying drones have not assisted in the war against terror, but they have diminishing rate of returns," Rehman said, speaking by video teleconference from Washington.

    "We will seek an end to drone strikes and there will be no compromise on that," she added.

    Pakistan's spy chief, Lt. Gen. Zaheerul Islam, is expected to reiterate the demand in his first meeting with CIA Director David Petraeus, at CIA headquarters in Virginia, next week.

    Lute would not comment on the drone program, but U.S. officials have said privately that the program will continue because Pakistan has proved incapable or unwilling to target militants the U.S. considers dangerous.

    A long-sought U.S. apology to Pakistan over a deadly border incident cleared the way to restart counterterrorism talks, in which Pakistani officials say the U.S. also will be asked to feed intelligence gathered by the pilotless aircraft to Pakistani jets and ground forces so they can target militants. While neither side expects much progress, officials from both countries see the return to dialogue as a chance to repair a relationship dented by a series of incidents that damaged trust on both sides. U.S. officials remain angry over what they say is Pakistan's support of Taliban groups, including the militant Haqqani network, who shelter in Pakistan's tribal areas and attack troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

    A key insult for Pakistan remains last year's U.S. Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, conducted without Pakistan's permission.

    Rehman defended Pakistan's arrest of Dr. Shakil Afridi, who has been sentenced to more than three decades in prison for aiding the CIA in tracking down bin Laden by conducting a vaccine program in the military town where the terrorist mastermind turned out to be hiding. U.S. lawmakers have threatened to halt millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan if Afridi is not released, in recognition of his contribution to helping track down bin Laden. Afridi is appealing his sentence.

    "He had no clue he was looking for Osama bin Laden," Rehman countered. "He was contracting with a foreign intelligence agency."

    She added that Afridi's actions put thousands of children at risk because some vaccine programs had to be ended after Pakistani aid workers were targeted by the Taliban.

    She also dismissed as "outrageous" a claim by some lawmakers that Pakistan is harboring al-Qaida or other militants who intend to harm the U.S.

    She said Pakistan's army was working hard to combat the militants, including reporting 52 times to NATO in recent months when militants were spotted crossing into Afghan territory.

    "Pakistan is maxed out on the international border with Afghanistan," she said of Pakistani efforts.

    "Sovereignty has privileges but also comes with responsibilities," countered Lute who called for Pakistan to step up its efforts and to cease "hedging its bets" by supporting the Afghan Taliban.

    The two did agree, however, that Pakistan could help broker an eventual peace deal with the Taliban.

    http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/co...sap=1&nav=5021
    The Following User Says Thank You to Express For This Useful Post: bilalhaider


  6. #26
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    US drone strike kills four in North Waziristan




    MIRAMSHAH: A US drone attack on Sunday killed at least four militants in Pakistan’s restive northwestern tribal area, security officials said.

    The missiles struck a compound in Khushhali Turikhel village of the troubled North Waziristan tribal district on the Afghan border.

    “US drones fired six missiles into a militant compound. At least four militants were killed,” a security official told AFP.

    Local intelligence officials confirmed the attack and casualties.

    Source: Dawn.com
    The Following User Says Thank You to Express For This Useful Post: Superkaif


  7. #27
    Senior Member Mirza44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bishkek
    Posts
    2,399
    Thanks
    1688
    Pakistan Kyrgyzstan
    It's too tearful what's Nato applying these drone attacks.

    I remember the following: Surah Al-Isra.

    And we decreed for the children of Israel in the scripture! Indeed you would do two mischief in the land twice and you will become tyrants and extremely arrogants.
    So, the promise came for the first of the two, we sent against you slaves of Ours given to terrible warfare. They entered the very innermost parts of your homes. And it was a promise completely fulfilled.
    Then we gave you a return of victory over them. And we helped you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in man-power.
    (And We said): "If you do good, you do good for ownselves. If you do evils(you do it) against yourselves." Then, when the second promise came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disgrace your faces and to enter the Mosque(of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that fell in their hands.

    Do this come up with our circumstances?

  8. #28
    Senior Moderator Superkaif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,888
    Thanks
    12096
    UK Pakistan
    CIA drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty, says senior diplomat



    One of Islamabad's most senior diplomats is warning that CIA drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas are weakening democracy and risk pushing people towards extremist groups.

    Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to London and one of Pakistan's top ambassadors, also accuses the US of "talking in miles" when it comes to democracy but "moving in inches".

    In an interview with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Hasan, four years into his second stint in the post, argues that US drone strikes risk significantly weakening Pakistan's democratic institutions. "What has been the whole outcome of these drone attacks is that you have directly or indirectly contributed to destabilising or undermining the democratic government. Because people really make fun of the democratic government – when you pass a resolution against drone attacks in the parliament and nothing happens. The Americans don't listen to you, and they continue to violate your territory," he said.

    But he accepts that Pakistan has little power to stop the strikes other than through public opinion: "We cannot take on the only superpower, which is all-powerful in the world at the moment. You can't take them on. We are a small country, we are ill-equipped."

    The high commissioner's comments appear to be part of a major PR offensive by a Pakistani government keen to see an end to the unpopular drone strikes.

    Last week, Sherry Rehman, Islamabad's ambassador to the US, said: "We will seek an end to drone strikes and there will be no compromise on that." The heads of Pakistan's army and ISI spy service are also lobbying Washington to allow Pakistani forces to carry out any actual strikes against terrorists, based on US intelligence.

    The reason, says Hasan, is that anti-US sentiment is reaching dangerously high levels. "Even those who were supporting us in the border areas have now become our enemies. They say that we are partners in these crimes against the people. By and large you will hardly find anybody who will say a word in support of the United States, because of these drone attacks."

    Hasan insists his country is committed to the war against al-Qaida and extremism, noting the thousands of Pakistani civilians and soldiers who have died in terrorist attacks since 9/11. "We're not opposed to eliminating these al-Qaida chaps. We were not opposed to eliminating Osama bin Laden, because he was declared an international terrorist. If I were there I would have killed him myself."

    The issue, he insists, is the continued violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty by US drones. "This is a violation of the UN charter, it is a clear violation of our territorial sovereignty and national integrity. These drone violations have been taking place since 2004. And the attacks have killed 2,500 to 3,000 people," he said.

    Hasan is also scathing about what he sees as the US's weak commitment towards democracy in Pakistan and Afghanistan, implying there are those in the US government who would still prefer to be dealing with a dictator.

    "They talk in miles in support of democracy, but they move in inches. They say, 'We are fully for democracy, we want democracy, we support the Arab spring, we are opposed to military interference in Egypt'.

    "All of these things are very good. But when it comes to real politics they are different. [The US secretary of state] Hillary Clinton has really supported democracy. But she is one person. There are so many pillars of power in the United States, and they act differently."

    nd he added: 'Ten years down the road you have not even allowed democratic parties to be active, you are not allowing political parties to exist in Afghanistan. How can you have democracy if you don't have political parties?

    He argues that Pakistan can still play a key role in negotiating peace with the Taliban — but that the US has shown little interest in offers of aid: 'When we have been telling them that you must have a dialogue with the Taliban, good or bad, they never listen to us. Now they have started back-door diplomacy and all these backtracks through the Saudis and others. But again they're forgetting one thing.

    Pakistan has been one of the major players in the region, ever since the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. We have had the best relationship with those Afghans, the Taliban or whatever in the past. Couldn't we be a better option for them to deal with those people? No — they never bothered.'

    'Drone strikes won't end the violence'

    With the US and Nato intending to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014, Hasan insists that Pakistan will continue the fight against al-Qaida – but that it cannot accept US drone strikes.

    "Bush's state department said a fortnight before 9/11 that they were opposed to targeted killing [in Israel] because they don't end the violence. And drone strikes won't end the violence, they won't end extremism, they won't end the Taliban and won't end al-Qaida.

    "What you have to do is win the hearts and minds of the people, to solve the local problem there in Afghanistan, to stop the drone attacks in Pakistan so the people can see that yes, they have been stopped, now let's build a relationship, yes let's try to resolve this terrible issue. Let's fight terrorism.

    "And we are a very resilient people, we can fight it."

    CIA drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty, says senior diplomat | World news | The Guardian
    The Following User Says Thank You to Superkaif For This Useful Post: bilalhaider


  9. #29
    Senior Moderator Superkaif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    Posts
    14,888
    Thanks
    12096
    UK Pakistan
    Drone race will ultimately lead to a sanitised factory of slaughter


    The CIA has killed more than 200 children in drone strikes outside of legitimate war zones since 2004, it is alleged. In Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia an estimated total of between 451 and 1,035 civilians were killed in at least 373 strikes according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the most accurate source of "kill statistics".

    Who in their right mind would give a powerful unmanned air force to a covert organisation with such a track record for unaccountable and illegal killing? The number of strikes in Pakistan has dramatically increased from 52 under George W Bush during his five years of conflict to 282 during Obama's three and a half-year watch. Obama is establishing a dangerous precedent that is, at best, legally questionable in a world where more than 50 countries are acquiring the technology.

    This is big business with billions of dollars at stake. Israeli companies are pursuing new drone markets in Asia and Latin America. The US has restricted drone sales to its allies but now, with defence budgets shrinking, companies such as Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are lobbying their government to loosen export restrictions and open foreign markets in South America and the Middle East. Other countries such as India and Pakistan are also hungry for the technology. Russia has unveiled its MiG Skat combat drone with on-board cruise missiles for strikes on air defences as well as ground and naval targets, while Iran demonstrated an armed rocket launched drone, the Karrar, in 2010.

    But it is China that is showing the greatest commercial potential for selling armed drones. The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission noted with concern that China "has deployed several types of unmanned aerial vehicles for both reconnaissance and combat". More worryingly, the Washington Post quotes Zhang Qiaoliang from the Chengdu Aircraft Design and Research Institute as saying, "the United States doesn't export many attack drones, so we're taking advantage of that hole in the market". Given the 10-year spate of CIA drone strikes, what can be said when other countries use drone strikes against perceived threats in other states?

    And this is just the beginning; current drones are like the Wright brothers' prototypes compared with what's coming next. And here is where the real danger resides: automated killing as the final step in the industrial revolution of war – a clean factory of slaughter with no physical blood on our hands and none of our own side killed.

    Using programmed robots with no humans directly in the loop has been high on the agenda set by the US military roadmaps since 2004. And BAE systems has been developing an autonomous combat aircraft demonstrator, the Taranis, for the Ministry of Defence. There are several good military reasons for removing direct human control. Currently drones are used with ease against low-tech communities in a permissive air space. More technologically sophisticated opponents would adopt counter strategies such as jamming satellite signals to render them useless or bring them down. A fully autonomous drone could still seek out its target without human intervention. Other reasons include to take out the pilot – reduced numbers of personnel required to fly them, reduced cost, and faster control time: the 1.5 second delays caused by humans in the loop thousands of miles away means that a drone is powerless against a manned fighter. The speed of an unmanned craft is limited by its structure rather than by human G-force limitations. It can manoeuvre faster and take sharp turns that would injure or kill a human pilot on board.

    The US has been testing the fully autonomous supersonic Phantom Ray and the X-47b will appear on US aircraft carriers in the Pacific by 2015. Meanwhile, the Chinese (Shenyang Aircraft Company) are working on the Anjian (Dark Sword) supersonic unmanned fighter aircraft, the first drone designed for aerial dogfights.

    Hypersonic drones are also on the wishlist. Darpa, the Pentagon's research arm, has the HTV-2 programme to develop armed drones that can reach anywhere on the planet within 60 minutes. In recent tests their Falcon drone flew at a maximum speed of 13,000 mph (20,921.5 kph), about 8.5 times faster than the Russian MiG-25. The hypersonic fully autonomous drones of the future would create very powerful, effective, and flexible killing machines. The downside is that these machines will not be able to discriminate on their targets – there are no programmes capable of distinguishing civilian from combatant. We have records of civilian casualties, including numerous children, from drone strikes when there are humans watching on computer screens and deciding when to fire. Think how much worse it will be when drones deal death automatically. Is this really a technology we want the secret intelligence services of the world to control?

    Drone race will ultimately lead to a sanitised factory of slaughter | World news | guardian.co.uk
    The Following User Says Thank You to Superkaif For This Useful Post: bilalhaider


  10. #30
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    I am confident that if Pakistan were to make a stand on this issue America would cease the drone attacks. Some in our govt are complicit. For example Gillani was telling Americans that they could continue and the noises he was making in the NA was for public consumption in Pakistan according to wikkiileaks shows the depths of depravity that some of our political leaders have fallen to

  11. #31
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,605
    Thanks
    4000
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quite an excellent piece here:

    Is drone war moral?
    UPDATED: A philosopher's arguments in defense of drone strikes are both odious and wrong
    BY MURTAZA HUSSAIN

    “I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer … [but] I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy. I have a duty, and I execute the duty.” By their own accounts, drone pilots spend weeks stalking their targets — observing the intimate patterns of their daily life such as playing with their children, meeting neighbors, talking to their wives — before finding a moment when the family is away to launch the missile that will end their target’s life. Afterward they drive home like any other commuter, perhaps stopping at a fast food restaurant or convenience store before coming home to their families for the night. “I feel like I’m doing the same thing I’ve always done, I just don’t deploy to do it.”

    Recently, the Guardian published a piece about Bradley Strawser, an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., which made the argument that drone strikes are not just moral but that the U.S. should in fact consider itself morally obliged to use them in combat. “It’s all upside. There’s no downside. Both ethically and normatively, there’s a tremendous value … You’re not risking the pilot. The pilot is safe.”

    That the overwhelming majority of Strawser’s argument is based on the reduced potential of physical harm to the aircraft pilot, while precious little concern is given the people on the ground — often completely innocent, who are being killed in huge numbers by these strikes — is certainly abhorrent. But it must also be noted that for all the attention his work is receiving, he is of course a paid employee of an institution devoted to serving the military and his opinion is far from unbiased. His livelihood comes from the very people whom he is tasked with philosophically critiquing, a circumstance far more conducive to obsequious rationalization than moral criticism. At the end of the piece he even expresses his own gratitude for receiving gainful employment in his field of study: “I wanted to be a working philosopher and here I am. Ridiculous good fortune.”

    Of course it would be nearly impossible for Strawser to come to a conclusion that would morally condemn the practice of his own employer, so in that sense it is difficult to fault him for coming to the conclusion he did. But it still does not mean that his philosophical opinions on such subjects are any more credible or less troubling – the employment of philosophers by governments and militaries to legitimize odious policies has a long and ignoble history and should be looked at as what it is: propaganda.

    Having said that, it is worth understanding (from a position less obviously fraught with bias) whether there is in fact a unique moral detriment involved in using remote-operated drones for combat. Drones are obviously not the first major advancement in military technology; the past century alone has brought about a plethora of different tools that have enabled human beings to kill each other with greater effectiveness and with greater detachment than ever before. The days of lining up in rows to fire muskets or charging enemy positions with swords and shields have long since passed, and the physical detachment of launching a cruise missile from great distance is arguably comparable to firing a Hellfire missile from a drone.

    Indeed, humans have been killing each other without even seeing each other’s faces since French Trebuchets launched projectiles at enemies miles away, and the artillery batteries of WW1 were able to inflict death from even longer distances and at even less personal risk. However, notwithstanding Bradley Strawser’s enthusiasm for the unprecedented degree of safety offered to the pilots of remote-operated drones, there are a few factors that make drone warfare particularly insidious and undercut his claims to its inherent morality.

    No Surrender

    Imagine a drone following a man who suddenly becomes aware of its presence. The pilot has orders to treat his target as hostile and is ready to pull the trigger. Frightened and aware of what is imminently coming, the man waves his hands to identify himself as non-threatening and to surrender to his enemy. The man, however, is standing on an embankment in North-Western Pakistan while the pilot who had been stalking him is thousands of miles away in the deserts of Nevada. There is no way to accept his surrender, and if a mistake has been made and this man has been misidentified as a target there is no way for this to be communicated. A pilot in this case would nonetheless be forced to pull the trigger, as there is no identifiable or feasible way for someone to surrender to an unmanned drone.

    Protocol I of the Geneva Convention clearly states that there is a legal requirement to accept the surrender of an individual who expresses the intent to surrender himself. Such a person is literally considered “outside of combat” and thus even if he is a combatant at the point where he surrenders he is as illegitimate a target as any other civilian. Drone warfare, of course, offers no inherent facility to deal with such individuals, save for killing them or conversely allowing them safe passage — the latter being an extremely unlikely outcome in most cases. The oft-horrific result of such a circumstance has been noted by the people most intimately familiar with the program itself. As former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright put it, “To me, the weakness in the drone activity is that if there’s no one on the ground, and the person puts his hands out, he can’t surrender … What makes it worse with a Predator is you’re actually watching it. You know when he puts his hands up.”

    In rationalizing such a scenario, one may perhaps argue that the Geneva Convention provisions that grant the right of surrender are themselves outdated and unsuitable to a new age of warfare. However, very few would be likely to waive this right for their own soldiers who one day may need to surrender, and declaring as antiquated the provisions of the international agreement that was created specifically to prevent a repeat of the mass bloodletting of World War II is a slippery slope.

    No ID

    “It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants, they count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

    Roughly speaking, there are two types of drone strikes that can be carried out: ones where the identity of the target is known and ones where it is not. The latter are known as “signature strikes” – drone strikes that are carried out against targets whose names, ages, occupations and political sympathies are completely unknown but who are still killed based on the opinions of those observing from abroad as to whether they are connected to militant activity. Behavior that may arouse such suspicion includes a group of males meeting together in an area considered hostile, a car driving in an area where militants are believed to be operating and other highly speculative and unverifiable rationales. In the revelations about the Obama administration’s secret “kill lists,” it also came out what exactly the official definition of a “militant” is from the White House’s perspective: “All military-age males in a strike zone.” In other words: Every man killed by a drone is by official definition a militant according to the U.S. government and correspondingly the news organizations who release reports regularly citing “militant” deaths.

    Imagine sentencing someone to the death penalty without even knowing who they are and then after the fact branding them as a criminal and you will have an analogous situation to the drone war being fought in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. By any reasonable standard the tactics entailed in the drone campaign must fit into an accounting of its morality, yet this chilling and apparently integral aspect of drone warfare somehow manages to escape the scrutiny of Strawser. While he claims in his argument that drones are so accurate that they, by necessity, reduce civilian casualties, what he fails to realize in his Panglossian analysis is that in many cases the pilots are not even required to ascertain the identities of their intended targets. As many have noted, this policy of “kill first, ask questions later” is tantamount to extra-judicial murder and the supposed moral benefit of firing accurate missiles is greatly reduced when you don’t even know who is on the other end of them.

    No Cost

    In stark contrast to traditional means of fighting wars, drones are both inexpensive and safe for the military to operate, even on a large scale. The risk of friendly casualties alienating domestic support for the war is almost nil, and the relative unobtrusiveness (at home) of operating these aircraft means that the military can fight wars in multiple countries with the public barely noticing the impact. After all, by the traditional standard of what one would define as a “war,” the United States is indeed at war in Yemen, Somalia and parts of Pakistan; yet few Americans recognize it as being the case and, indeed, neither officially does the United States. That violence can be carried out on such a massive scale with so little scrutiny is one of the most important aspects of the drone war and perhaps its most insidious. In the past governments have often found their ability to wage wars abroad constrained by the citizenry who have borne the brunt of the social pressures these wars inevitably create. As such, the prospect of perpetual war fought on an expanding scale would have been impossible until very recently. Casualties would occur, enormous sums of money would be spent, and upon reaching a breaking point in stress the people would come out into the streets to demand an end to such policies.

    What the low-cost, zero casualties nature of the drone campaign does is compartmentalize the war away from public consciousness by taking away the externalities that would force people to take notice in the first place. That you can fight a drone war in Pakistan that kills thousands of people and terrorizes entire villages into PTSD while barely noticing it at home is something unique in history. Viewed in this light it is no wonder that Americans are so perplexed at Pakistani attitudes toward their country; because even though Pakistanis are intimately acquainted with the magnitude of suffering caused by U.S. policies in their country, most Americans scarcely feel the effects.

    Thus to a degree unprecedented in history the advent of drone warfare has given the government a free hand to wage wars without public constraint and with minimal oversight. What this makes possible is a future in which there are far more wars, which for all their relative unobtrusiveness at home will continue to ravage the lives of people abroad. While such wars may be safer for soldiers, they will engender resentment and retribution as all wars do, and as a whole will make the world a more dangerous place for Americans in the long term.

    President Obama’s “kill list,” which has been cleared so many times that it now includes among its high-value targets Yemeni teenage girls, is a manifestation of this policy of zero-consequence killing. With less public awareness there is necessarily less scrutiny and the war can continue while targeting people under an even wider definition of who constitutes “a threat.” While the people in these countries may be killed out of sight of the U.S. public, those on the receiving end certainly do remember who it was who ended the lives of their family members and are unlikely to be as laid-back toward civilian deaths as philosophers such as Strawser. As the Yemeni lawyer Haykal Banafa put it in a message directed at the president, “Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda.”

    When viewed in complete isolation from other factors, the arguments that Strawser and other apologists for the drone war use about reducing military casualties can certainly be viewed as compelling and valid. As long as they have been fighting wars humans have sought out new technologies that would enhance their ability to kill without putting themselves in harm’s way. That fewer soldiers on one’s own side die in war is certainly a positive moral outcome when viewed in abstraction.

    However, the drone war as a whole can only be viewed as a “moral obligation” if one ignores the massive destruction it continues to wreak upon the lives of those who are being killed by these weapons. Strawser’s analysis neatly brushes aside this group, as his argument can only stand on its own if the victims of drones are classed as immaterial non-humans. Far from being a uniquely moral weapon as Strawser claims, drones by their nature help facilitate more and longer wars, and do not even afford those targeted the ability to surrender or to identify themselves as non-combatants, a right enshrined in the Geneva Convention. While he understandably would like to brush aside these moral qualms about an establishment that has generously employed him as an in-house philosopher, they are nonetheless real and no amount of propaganda can plausibly turn the drone warfare into a “moral obligation” as he attempts.

    Drones are thus not just a new weapon with which to fight conventional wars; they represent a sea change in the way conflicts in general are approached. Low-cost, low-risk killing will mean fewer questions and less scrutiny and ever higher body counts as the number of drones in the air continues to increase exponentially. The real ethical obligation is to remain vigilant against morally cretinous arguments such as the one put forth by Strawser and to fight against the normalization of a new, dangerous and in many respects fundamentally immoral form of warfare. That there is “no downside,” as Strawser claims, is only from the perspective of the military establishment he is a mouthpiece for; for the rest of us the downside is very real.

    UPDATE: Professor Strawser has written a follow-up to his original Guardian article in which he says some of his views in the original article were misattributed or misconstrued. While the piece does not address the issues brought up here about the inherently immoral aspects of the drone war, his piece is still worth reading to give a more complete picture of his own position and the context in which it came about.
    Is drone war moral? - Salon.com

  12. #32
    Member Goebbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    348
    Thanks
    372
    Iran Iran
    Pakistan must but a Optical Gatteling from iran (about 30,000$) and put in in his borders
    it will crush any drone coming
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Goebbles For This Useful Post: Aryan_B,Express


  13. #33
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Goebbles View Post
    Pakistan must but a Optical Gatteling from iran (about 30,000$) and put in in his borders
    it will crush any drone coming
    Pakistan government must simply put foot down and stop this illegal attack. It is simply killing too many innocents.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Express For This Useful Post: Superkaif


  14. #34
    Member einsjam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    149
    Pakistan Australia
    we have to face the truth that drone attacks have certainly eliminated Alqaeda and Taliban's cream. yes they is collateral involved but would the Americans end it? not in the foreseeable future. In fact the trend these days is to build ever more stealthy fighting machines.
    The Following User Says Thank You to einsjam For This Useful Post: Express


  15. #35
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    What I would like to see happening is for Pakistani govt to tell unequivocally to PA stop the drones. I cant help remembering that in Wikileaks it was revealed that in the NA Gillani was paying lip service to drones must stop and at the same time telling the Americans in private to continue.

  16. #36
    Member Pickwickian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,227
    Thanks
    1007
    Pakistan UK
    Quote Originally Posted by einsjam View Post
    we have to face the truth that drone attacks have certainly eliminated Alqaeda and Taliban's cream. yes they is collateral involved but would the Americans end it? not in the foreseeable future. In fact the trend these days is to build ever more stealthy fighting machines.
    Apart from Baitullah Mesud on false intelligence and one other person, the US has not touched Al-Qaeda and its affliates in the Af-Pak border region, that credit goes to the Pakistan Army. Also drones have been counter-productive, it is not a question of "collateral involved", the vast majority have been collateral damage, or does the US have the names of the terrorist killed?
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pickwickian For This Useful Post: Aryan_B,einsjam


  17. #37
    Member einsjam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    149
    Pakistan Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarvin View Post
    Apart from Baitullah Mesud on false intelligence and one other person, the US has not touched Al-Qaeda and its affliates in the Af-Pak border region, that credit goes to the Pakistan Army. Also drones have been counter-productive, it is not a question of "collateral involved", the vast majority have been collateral damage, or does the US have the names of the terrorist killed?
    only baitullah mehsud? really?

    Drone attacks so far have killed commanders like Al Libi, atya abdur rehman, ilyas kashmiri, badar mansoor etc...they have been highly effective and even the pakistani army thinks so otherwise the drone attacks would have met with the same response that the Salala attack generated.

    The question is not about the effectiveness of drone strikes, because even without drones, the intelligence technology employed these days is way beyond the iq levels of average citizenry. Drone attacks are the end process of a sophisticated intelligence operation. without satellite and field intelligence a drone strike cannot practically happen.

    Lastly, Pakistan's problem is not with the drones but the breach of its sovereignty. Something that is nothing but rhetoric garbage and is used by army and govt to keep a different public figure. Behind doors, the reality of the situation is strikingly different.
    The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to einsjam For This Useful Post: Aryan_B,Pickwickian


  18. #38
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10,678
    Thanks
    7341
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by einsjam View Post
    we have to face the truth that drone attacks have certainly eliminated Alqaeda and Taliban's cream. yes they is collateral involved but would the Americans end it? not in the foreseeable future. In fact the trend these days is to build ever more stealthy fighting machines.
    but the question that comes to mind is at what cost sir? Look at the innocent parties involved. We are having our civilians killed. Are the lives of our women and children worth so little? Should we accept this?

  19. #39
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    Quote Originally Posted by einsjam View Post

    Lastly, Pakistan's problem is not with the drones but the breach of its sovereignty. Something that is nothing but rhetoric garbage and is used by army and govt to keep a different public figure. Behind doors, the reality of the situation is strikingly different.
    This is the issue that needs to be resolved. If our govt has allowed them then they should say so.

  20. #40
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    14,322
    Thanks
    8763
    Pakistan England
    Quote Originally Posted by Express View Post
    but the question that comes to mind is at what cost sir? Look at the innocent parties involved. We are having our civilians killed. Are the lives of our women and children worth so little? Should we accept this?
    Important as that is the issue of if our govt is complicit needs to be addressed first

Page 2 of 32 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Drone strikes on trial in Pakistan
    By Hope in forum Pakistan's War
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th May 2013, 18:12
  2. UN: Pakistan 'does not sanction' US drone strikes
    By KingKong in forum Pakistan's War
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 7th April 2013, 07:19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter