Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


This is what the report actually says:

PDF format

The number of civilian casualties—meaning deaths and injuries—is significant in Pakistan, though exact figures are unknown due to insecurity and government restrictions on information. In 2009, an estimated 2,300 civilians were killed in terror attacks alone with many more injured. Counting losses from Pakistani military operations and U.S. drone strikes, civilian casualties in Pakistan likely exceed in number those in neighboring Afghanistan.

reply to post by projectvxn

Just like every death in Iraq is the fault of US action alone. Right?

That is mostly correct.

Great deflection BTW

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


It's actually incorrect. It isn't deflection, it's an observation I've made of how these numbers are "calculated" by the America bashing crowd around here.

Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq were caused by sectarian violence and terrorist organizations.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Please explain how my own source contradicts me, and which statement of mine it contradicted.

I'm assuming you read the whole source and nowhere in it did it say that thousands of Pakistani civilians have died at the hands of American drone strikes since 2004?

I know, I've read it before. [I tend to read up on the topics I'm interested in]

The post in question is here. Remember these are your words.

Enjoy.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Are you really denying the thousands of Pakistani civilians that are being murdered by U.S. drone strikes? I think you are purposely denying the facts in the hopes that none of us will call you out on it.

War Related Death and Injury in Pakistan, 2004-2011

Pakistan is at war. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are several interrelated armed conflicts underway in Pakistan. By this report's conservative estimate about 35,600 Pakistanis have been killed from 2004-2010 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded this year. Specifically, from January to through August 2011 about 400 have been killed in drone strikes, and another 500 killed in 2011 by militant suicide attacks. Since 2004, perhaps as many or more civilians may have died due to armed conflict in Pakistan as have died in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is concentrated in the Northwest, but the bloodshed not infrequently affects civilians throughout the rest of the country

Meanwhile after the flaw in your post was pointed out to you, you had to go back and edit it.

Bad form

I forgot to point out that not all the deaths in this paper are from drone attacks as it clearly says. I will edit more sources for dead civilians in just a moment.

edit on 11-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

reply to post by projectvxn

No legitimate government allows their country to be bombed.

Originally posted by projectvxn
We have money they wanted and got from us to fund their military.

So youre saying that the US is bribing the Pakistani government in order to allow the murder of their citizens. Again, no legitimate government allows their country to be bombed...

Bu this idea that the Pakistani government gave their "permission" is ridiculous. What are their choices? Say no and risk a US lie campaign only to have their entire country attacked and occupied?

The US government has made it very clear what happens if you dont cooperate. Iraq was blatant. The new MO is a "citizen uprising" with NATO conveniently intervening.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by projectvxn

 

No legitimate government allows their country to be bombed.

Well apparently the Pakistani Government isn't legitimate then.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Did you just find that sentence and ignore the rest of what I said?

The Pakistani government has been playing both sides of this conflict for some time now. They are making money off of it by the billions.

The fund AQ/Haqqani/Taliban forces, US fights them and pays the Pakistanis to "fight" them as well. Instead they take a small chunk of that money and funnel it to terrorist groups who not only attack US troops and Afghan civilians, but were responsible for this too:

en.wikipedia.org...

You need to do more homework on how Pakistan has been functioning within this conflict even before it officially started.

reply to post by projectvxn


Youre premise is that they are getting paid to allow the killing of their citizens, so we agree, the Pakistani government is not legitimate.

Im taking it a step further are arguing that they have little choice.

The Mumbai attacks? The Mumbai attacks were carried out by CIA, David Headley...

reply to post by SLAYER69


I guess you must have missed pages 11, 12, and 13...and a few pages after that if you're feeling up for it.

Read them and you will then be able to admit that my statement was not contradicting to the information in the report

The flaw of mine you pointed out wasn't really a flaw. I just wanted to make sure to point out that I wasn't claiming that all 40 thousand of the estimated casualties were considered to be drone strike victims. I just didn't want anyone trying to turn it around on me and try to make it seem like I was implying that.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Youre premise is that they are getting paid to allow the killing of their citizens, so we agree, the Pakistani government is not legitimate.

Im taking it a step further are arguing that they have little choice.

They always had a choice.

The fact is the ISI and the Pakistani military BENEFITS from this chaos.

The only people who don't benefit is the US and Pakistani/Afghan civilians.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Then why did you say this:

Are you really denying the thousands of Pakistani civilians that are being murdered by U.S. drone strikes? I think you are purposely denying the facts in the hopes that none of us will call you out on it.

Seems like you were implying that thousands of deaths are caused by these drone strikes. And not just deaths, as in unfortunate and unintended, but MURDERED. As in premeditated and deliberately targeted.

Anti-American propaganda at it's best.

reply to post by projectvxn


How does the US not benefit? It perpetuates the Trillion dollar/year war-for-profit industry....

It allows the building of the empire abroad and the domestic police state here at home...

Thats exactly the goal.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Sure if you take everything Alex Jones says as gospel.

reply to post by gladtobehere

The Mumbai attacks? The Mumbai attacks were carried out by CIA, David Headley...

More Alex Jones garbage.

Hopefully some good will come from the peace talks between Pakistan and the Taliban.

Of course that's as long as the USA actually WANTS peace in that region...

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I guess you must have missed pages 11, 12, and 13...

Read them and you will then be able to admit that my statement was not contradicting to the information in the report

AGAIN from your own source...

The drone attacks are unpopular in Pakistan because they are associated with civilian casualties
and violations of Pakistan's borders.20 Although the attempted targeting may be precise, there is a concern that too many civilians are killed for each high level militant that might be killed. As Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution argued in 2009, "Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but . . . for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died."21 Until recently Pakistani officials have denied that they gave permission for the drone strikes....

However, a Pakistani Major General, Ghayur Mehmood, told reporters recently, "Most of the targets are hardcore militants. The number of innocent people being killed is relatively low.

The flaw of mine you pointed out wasn't really a flaw. I just wanted to make sure to point out that I wasn't claiming that all 40 thousand of the estimated casualties were considered to be drone strike victims. I just didn't want anyone trying to turn it around on me and try to make it seem like I was implying that.

Yeah ok...

Run with that one

reply to post by pez1975


Since when is war about comparing balance sheets?

If you go to war just for body counts, you're doing it wrong - but you may be officer material!

If you go to war for revenge, you're doing it wrong again - but enjoy your bitter old age!

War isn't about balance sheets, body counts, or revenge. It's far too serious an enterprise for such frivolities.

War is about stopping people from doing further harm to your own. You stop when they are no longer able, not when you think you've "gotten even".

reply to post by SLAYER69


You're picking and choosing and ignoring other important portions of the report.

, "Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but . . . for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died."

Ten civilians for every dead militant is pretty high percentage. Graphs starting on page 10 point out the estimated dead for reach region. You conveniently left those out of your quoted snippets. Are only certain portions of the report worthy of your scrutiny? I'm even being kind enough to point them out to you, after you claimed to have read the report.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by buster2010

 

Funding 9/11, haboring Osama bin Laden. Funding, arming, training, and providing vital strategic intelligence to the Taliban and associated forces.

The CIA are also suspected of participating in these exact same activities, in fact it's pretty much common knowledge.

You should fly your own drones over CIA HQ then, and try to gather some sort of evidence to go along with the innuendo. Be forewarned - the CIA may threaten to shoot it down, and you may have to go to war with them in that case.

reply to post by projectvxn

So the Indian government listens to Alex Jones?

David Headley, Mumbai Terror Suspect, Was 'Rogue US Secret Agent'

Indian investigators, who have been denied access to Mr Headley, suspect that he remained on the payroll of the US security services — possibly working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)…

Yah, I'm sure he was a "rogue" agent. Mmm hmm,

THERE are faint whispers on both sides of the divide whether the CIA could have perpetrated the Mumbai blasts on 13/7, which resulted in 19 deaths and 130 injured. These quiet voices in both India and Pakistan are raising the spectre of suspicion on the CIA. On the Indian side the voices are muted, but the rumblings are audible. Asif Mohammad Khan, MLA of Delhi Assembly leader stated on Sunday that he suspected Mossad-CIA handiwork in the triple Mumbai serial blasts. He hinted that the collusion of Israeli and US intelligence agencies cannot be ruled out in the coordinated bomb attacks at three different locations on Wednesday evening in India’s business capital, Mumbai.

dailymailnews.com...