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

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


You realize the charts are conflicting with each other right?
AGAIN, Your own source confirms that.

Not only that but Pakistan in 2009 alone [Not to mention 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2010] killed more of their own civilians in one year than all of the NATO caused civilian causalities between 2004-2011 combined.

I chose the highest estimate from the chart you provided shown below. One should seriously ask themselves, just who exactly are the Pakistanis bombing, shelling and shooting at that's causing all them civilian causalities? Oh yeah, the same people we are striking at with Drones.

Remember, I'm not making this up.
This is from your own source.

NATO Caused casualties between 2004-2011 2586
Pakistan Caused civ/casualties for 2009 Alone 6329

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by nenothtu

Have you got any solid figures applicable to the drone strikes in Pakistan?

edit on 2011/12/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The charts make a lot more sense if you read the report.

I did not. Instead, I read an executive summary, presented here. I'll read the full report when I get time, but I don't expect it to deviate materially from the summary.

The hard numbers presented are an upper limit of 775 for the period 2004-2011, and a lower limit of 385, for "civilians". The figures for total people killed are 2292 - 2863.

"Thousands of civilians killed" is quite a stretch, unless, of course, one is counting combatants killed as "civilians", which is technically accurate, I suppose. After all, they are not "military", they are mere "militants". Either way, they don't mind doing a little killing themselves, and so are being dealt with.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The both of you are refusing to acknowledge the material I have represented and resort to unproven claims that the data is conflicted without describing your claims. Each graph has a detailed description. Surely now you are willing to admit that thousands of Pakistanis have died of drone strikes. I will properly address this tomorrow I'm going to sleep.

Hopefully you might have taken the time to read the report by then

Refusing to acknowledge material while claiming it to be conflicted is blatantly blind ignorance.

Originally posted by milkyway12

The US should also have the Ability to attack any entity that posses a threat to the Civilian population which that threat has killed a few thousand civilian Americans already. That Entity just so happens to be harbored by Pakistan. If you leave them , we will be back there in another 10 years. With a few more thousand dead .. or maybe 10s of thousands. Probably several dirty bombs next time.

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Interesting....But, by that logic one could say:

Since the US should have the ability to attack any entity that poses a thread to the civilian population which that entity has attacked already, the US should be allowed to wipe out every single human on the Earth since any human on Earth is a potential threat.

Iranians, Pakistanis, 'terrorists'.. whoever... they're all people. Americans are people. Therefore, since Americans and Terrorists both have the same physiology.. you know.. brains, hearts, lungs, etc, then AMERICANS could potentially want to pose a threat to other Americans....

...w...wait a sec.. Americans have already killed other Americans.. and they do every day! We're all terrorists!! Ahhh god run for the hills! Wait, other humans could already be there, and they must be terrorists, since they're human like Al-Quaeda! Don't run for those hills, Al-Quaeda is in those hills! Ohh lordy! Where to run, Al-Quaeda Terrorists everywhere!

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Hopefully you might have taken the time to read the report by then

Refusing to acknowledge material while claiming it to be conflicted is blatantly blind ignorance.

Ok Giggles cut the crap.

Ever since you posted that link it has been used repeatedly to disprove your claim.
Talk about Blatant ignorance. Even when you have the quotes and charts contradicting your claims from your own source right in front of you, staring you in the face you still think you're making a point...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Are you in the twilight zone? The source supports my claim and you know it.

What part of my claim is untrue. All you have done is portray my words incorrectly while being selective in the information you choose to acknowledge.

Are you denying mass Pakisani civilian deaths for drone strikes?

reply to post by nenothtu

Let Pakistan shoot a few drones down and see how long it takes for the US to FIND a place in Pakistan.

They don't have to shoot. If Iran shares their "findings" they can capture a whole fleet and stop the slaughter of their countryman without firing a shot. Unlike America who has been raining hell fire on Pakis from those very same drones. Oh, thats right, you said thats OK as long as its from the air. Not too "invasive" and all.

reply to post by nenothtu

Fly in, fly over, fly out. Not quite in the same league with a ground invasion.

Yes isn't it convenient. We have all these marvelous means to not invade countries any more. Like Aircraft from foreicn bases and carriers, they aren't really invading, just flying over. And Cruise missiles from subs off shore, they just kind of fly into and woops,"crash" into another country. And drones hell forget them, they are just RC toys on a "Fly By". I could even haul up some artillery and shell your country form outside and that isn't really "invasive" either is it?

What era are we from? Horse back? Miss the old days? When a warrior could feel the quivering death throws upon his blade? Arrrrrgh, the barbarians are at the gate!

"Raise the draw bridge! Archers to the towers! Boil some oil! Repel the invaders!!!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I don't think he's denying that US drone strikes have killed thousands of Pakistani's.

I think what he IS trying to say is that US Drone strikes have only killed, at most, 2586 Pakistanis in the span of almost 7 years, whereas Pakistan have killed 6,329 civilians in only the span of ONE year while trying to fight the same enemy the US has been trying to fight.

*Shrug*

Lets switch the tables a second to add some perspective here. What if pakistan started launching drones in the US to target people they deemed a threat. Now even if the US accepted this, let's say that one civilian was killed. What if we go further and over the course of time thousands are killed? We know the American people wouldn't stand for even one civilian casualty, there would be uproar.

The reaction of Pakistan since the Nato airstrikes - leave the shamsi air base, no more supplies, border crossing closed and any drones would be shot - what would you expect? These actions are more than reasonable for any country. If the tables were turned the US would have declared war by now!

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Going by your logic, Pakistan has the right to attack the terrorists in the USA. The American military is a terrorist organization that constantly attacks Pakistani citizens.

US military is a terrorist organization. You and every ass-hat that starred your post is wrong. But hey, keep on rockin' with your bad selves.

Hey, where was Osama hiding out? I musta forgot. You know, don't you?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Let Pakistan shoot a few drones down and see how long it takes for the US to FIND a place in Pakistan.

They don't have to shoot. If Iran shares their "findings" they can capture a whole fleet and stop the slaughter of their countryman without firing a shot.

How is it you are proposing they would accomplish that?

Unlike America who has been raining hell fire on Pakis from those very same drones. Oh, thats right, you said thats OK as long as its from the air. Not too "invasive" and all.

No. I didn't say it was OK because it was from the air. I said it was OK because they are killing the enemy. I said that here:

What makes it alright is that there's nothing wrong with it. You close with and destroy your enemy. It matters nary a bit where they are, you go to them to close with them. If folks don't want their countries invaded, don't harbor someone's enemies.

It doesn't matter if that is done from the air, the ground, the sea, or Earth orbit, as long as it's being done.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Fly in, fly over, fly out. Not quite in the same league with a ground invasion.

Yes isn't it convenient. We have all these marvelous means to not invade countries any more. Like Aircraft from foreicn bases and carriers, they aren't really invading, just flying over. And Cruise missiles from subs off shore, they just kind of fly into and woops,"crash" into another country. And drones hell forget them, they are just RC toys on a "Fly By". I could even haul up some artillery and shell your country form outside and that isn't really "invasive" either is it?

What era are we from? Horse back? Miss the old days? When a warrior could feel the quivering death throws upon his blade? Arrrrrgh, the barbarians are at the gate!

"Raise the draw bridge! Archers to the towers! Boil some oil! Repel the invaders!!!

Doesn't matter. It matters not at all what era - it's been done in all of them, and will continue to be done in all that come.

Doesn't matter if it's done with a drone, a Tomahawk (either missile or little axe), an ICBM, or a rock.

Doesn't matter how it's done, as long as it IS.

Close with and destroy the enemy. that's the name of the game.

I simply realize ... it would literally take me writing a dissertation to the ATS community for the community to understand what my opinions are (Clearly) and how i have come to understand them.

I simply cannot / do not have the desire to complete a 20 page report to explain every single detail dealing with : law , history , the responsibility of an American citizen , constitutional basis , and accepted moral rights.

It took 2 years , and over 60 credit hours to understand the basis of a human beings responsibility to protect his own life and his family's life.

Defensive warfare is impossible to win because you are not conquering or defeating an enemy. You are maintaining defensive positions when an engagement is won. You simply must go on the offensive to win a war regardless if you began or are the defender in the war. Take the French for an Example in World War 2.

Defense is a good strategy to gather , and centralize your forces. If you want to win and defeat the enemy. You must eliminate the enemies means to conduct operations against your nation, or simply annihilate the opposing force.

I simply do not wish to write this information in such an extent , and if you wish to learn about warfare , there is a college specialization termed , "Military Science and Diplomacy".

In this presentation i would have to present : judicial rulings , constitutional basis , historical warfare campaigns , strategies conducted in historical campaigns , analyze the economic and military structure and power of the nations , the morals and values of the population which change , and how we can apply history to modern science of war.

I did not know this thread would get this big or i would have presented my information in a more understandable format.

----------

Also , why do people keep telling me to go , "Join the service and fight on the front line"? How would you know what i have done and have not? That does not help with the argument in any way , and causes thread malformation when insults are passed. If you insult me , insult my opinion. I do have my share of insults , but i do not presume to know what you know and how you know , or why you know it. I simply relay that some opinions are purely emotional and have no historical basis.


PS: Yes , my typing is horrid. I tend to type very fast and i will think ahead and sometimes forget to even put words that are needed into sentences. I am also bad about proofreading simply because i rarely do it. Though others spelling / typing does not bother me. Only thing that bothers me is when they do not put spaces between paragraphs or ideas. To help make it easier to read.

reply to post by nenothtu

They don't have to shoot. If Iran shares their "findings" they can capture a whole fleet and stop the slaughter of their countryman without firing a shot.

How is it you are proposing they would accomplish that?

Didn't Iran "capture" the drone by hacking guidance and bring it down by controlled means? Thats what I meant.
That information is priceless. I bet the drone fleet is grounded right now.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Babbleman

 

Pakistan is a cesspool by harboring and supporting extremist groups.

Deal with that!

It's well known that the CIA funded Al-Qaeda at the beginning... so in essence this states that the US not only harbours terrorists (doesn't have to be on their own soil)... but they also train them.

So who is to say that that Pakistan is a cesspool by harboring and supporting extremist groups.
When its more documented that the United Stated is a cesspool by harboring and supporting extremist groups.

?

I mention that it doesn't have to be on their own soil, because i think we all know the obvious... look at Guantanamo. Its based outside of the US for one reason... a loophole in the legal system so that human rights can be abused without breaking "american law". So why should i not believe that the USA are training terrorist cults in a similar fashion elsewhere, rather than interrogating alleged terrorists... they are most likely creating them as it seems.

reply to post by milkyway12

Hey milkyway...

I did not know this thread would get this big or i would have presented my information in a more understandable format.

You did just fine. What a thread. It is a hot subject right now. Good job.

reply to post by nenothtu

Doesn't matter. It matters not at all what era - it's been done in all of them, and will continue to be done in all that come.

By warmongers and Barbarians and conquerers.

Close with and destroy the enemy. that's the name of the game.

Game? War is not a game. But the US has yet to take as much as it has given. When our cities are rubble and everyone we know is missing or dead, then tell me the name of the game.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Here , let me dumb down my logic for you.


Are you seriously thinking i wouldnt shoot back at the guy who was in some one elses property across the street after he killed a couple of people walking down the street

What if he was defending himself against those two people who were trying to kill him?

and then continues shooting at me saying he will kill more families?

What you heard him say was, they were trying to kill his family, and he assumed you were one of "them"
after you came out with your gun. One of your shots grazed a young child inside that property.

Then the cops wont do anything to kill this man because they are afraid of him.

Maybe he called the cops.

It is my responsibility to defend my home. I cant simply go inside and wait , he will come. I best keep him away from my Family so i can control him better.

Because you were inside your home you did not know what was really going on outside.

I'll take one step further.

I'm driving on your street, I see you shooting at some man running and yelling, I see two other dead bodies, and I assume you shot them and are attempting to kill a third man. I assume you are some psycho high on PCP, so I proceed to ram you with my car. Did I get it right?

Originally posted by intrptr

Didn't Iran "capture" the drone by hacking guidance and bring it down by controlled means? Thats what I meant.
That information is priceless. I bet the drone fleet is grounded right now.

I dunno. It was my understanding that they fried the electronics with Russian equipment, rather than "hacking" the guidance system. Nor do I know if the fleet is grounded. I seriously doubt it, but I'd imagine there's a mad dash on to install some shielding.