What's new

Droning on and on

Parul

BANNED
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
10,347
Reaction score
0
Country
Russian Federation
Location
India
For us to make any progress on drone attacks, we have to be honest to ourselves. Our leaders misguide us and leave us with expectations that they have no intention of fulfilling. We also have to understand the context of the problem and appreciate the fact that if this matter is taken to the Security Council, as declared by Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, we may well not see any solution in the short term.

The whole debate on drones has to be turned on its head. In 2011, this newspaper, in exclusive cooperation with the UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, revealed that 2,200 people had been killed in over 290 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004. The toll has risen since then.

The Bureau has worked tirelessly to reveal the human side to the drone attacks. At its worst, there was a drone strike every four days under the Obama Administration. Many leading publications in the West refused to publish the report. But we did. And today, that report is one of many that is helping shape the debate on drone attacks.

For the American government, and to a large extent the American public, drones are a solution and not a problem. The use of technology has helped that country achieve its strategic objectives without loss of human life on their side. But the problem is that lives are lost in large numbers on this side, many of them women and children.

And yet, in President Barack Obama’s address in May to the US National Defence University, while he conceded that civilian deaths due to drone attacks would “haunt us as long as we live”, the US would continue to take action where home governments do not or will not act against what the US defines as terrorists.

This arrangement has suited Pakistan’s security establishment so far. More so, because it has been unable or unwilling to attack the high value targets on its own. But there are a number of problems with this. First, that the terrorists defined by the US may not be the same as those defined by Pakistan. Second, that the civilian cost of such drone attacks is high. And third, that the immediate fallout of such attacks has been in the form of suicide bombings on Pakistanis. So, we need to act.

Last week, in his opening speech to parliament, Imran Khan stated the obvious — that drone attacks must end. Drone attacks have been the cornerstone of the PTI’s election campaign. So, it is not surprising that this statement was made. More surprising was what came after that.
In the same speech, Imran Khan announced a major policy change without a blink of an eye — that the change in the drone attack policy should be done through diplomatic channels and not by shooting them down.

Now let us put the record right, till last month Imran Khan was insisting that drones would be shot down if his party came to power. He said this in political speeches and also in interviews. So, his claim in his speech to parliament that he himself was not in favour of shooting them down sounds somewhat inconsistent.

More worrisome is Imran Khan’s insistence that the political leadership has been behind the continuation of such attacks. He has called for the PM and the army chief to sit down with the chief ministers (so that his party has some input) to evolve a policy on drones. He has excluded the president in this. This is political grandstanding at its best. And it is not honest.

In reply, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has continued the Sharif government’s policy of being ambiguous on the matter. One is reminded of the manner in which the Pakistan Peoples Party government handled the investigation of the killing of their leader, Benazir Bhutto. Loud claims and noises but nothing else. Perhaps, the biggest failing of the PPP government was that despite the passage of five years, we are still clueless about who killed Benazir Bhutto.

We fear the same fate on the drone attacks. That we will make no headway. We need to sit down and weigh the pros and cons of drone attacks and then enter into meaningful discussion with the US government on this. We also need to show that we, too, are serious about fighting terrorism and also come up with something to back this up. If this does not happen, the on-ground situation will remain the same in the years to come. And that will be another tragedy.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 24th, 2013.

Droning on and on – The Express Tribune
 
. .
Only 300 drone strikes since 2004, while more than 13000 PAF air strikes on FATA since 2004.
Drones are precise, less destructive power with less collateral damage. While PAF bombardments are indescriminate, more destructive with great collateral damage.
 
.
Only 300 drone strikes since 2004, while more than 13000 PAF air strikes on FATA since 2004.
Drones are precise, less destructive power with less collateral damage.
oh realy? How many innocent are killed per militants?
While PAF bombardments are indescriminate, more destructive with great collateral damage.
How did you come to this conclusion? :pop:
 
. .
F-16 bombardment (look at the size of bombs).
f16bombing.jpg


5007253517_79c55b9248_z.jpg
 
.
Drone missile is small but accurate and guided one. Usually destroys relatively smaller targets like vehicles and one or two rooms of a house.

Drone%2BStrike.jpg
 
.
Shut up Pak-one, one is controlled by Pakistan who strike only when they definitely know there are militants hiding out there.

The other is controlled by a random white dude in Virginia who can't tell the difference between normal locals never mind identifying militants.

You are illogical in every post you make on top of being a racist.
 
.
Shut up Pak-one, one is controlled by Pakistan who strike only when they definitely know there are militants hiding out there.

The other is controlled by a random white dude in Virginia who can't tell the difference between normal locals never mind identifying militants.

You are illogical in every post you make on top of being a racist.

You would be surprised to hear that militant hideouts for drones are find out by local spies hired by ISI... ISI shares the info with CIA...the local spy after full confirmation drops the small chip into the house of militant or attach it to his vehicle...the drone then responds to that chip...
The collateral damage in drones is usually family members of that militant.

F-16 when drops bombs, in addition to militant hideout, i would also be screwed up along with other several homes. Most of the time air strikes are simply on villages which are under taliban control. Also before any major operation, entire villages in the area are first annihilated with bombardments so that taliban cant use it for cover...heavy artillary and tanks are also used to destroy any building in sight during operation.
 
. .
Only 300 drone strikes since 2004, while more than 13000 PAF air strikes on FATA since 2004.
Drones are precise, less destructive power with less collateral damage. While PAF bombardments are indescriminate, more destructive with great collateral damage.

Sad to note that.
 
.

To be fair, neither are guns, bombs, drone guided missiles, and so on. It's more of a contest of which is capable of causing less collateral damage. Right now, drones are winning, which is why Pakistan wants to build it's own armed drones, but there is literally no evidence that Pakistan has done so, or is capable of doing so.
 
.
Only 300 drone strikes since 2004, while more than 13000 PAF air strikes on FATA since 2004.
Drones are precise, less destructive power with less collateral damage. While PAF bombardments are indescriminate, more destructive with great collateral damage.

and how many times have PAF bombardment caused civilian deaths as compared to drones?, hmmmm
 
.
Only 300 drone strikes since 2004, while more than 13000 PAF air strikes on FATA since 2004.
Drones are precise, less destructive power with less collateral damage. While PAF bombardments are indescriminate, more destructive with great collateral damage.

i think pak shouldve bombed them even more. im surprised they are doing less. these terrorists have to die we dont want to vring them back to society.

and how many times have PAF bombardment caused civilian deaths as compared to drones?, hmmmm
@Pak-one

bro this guy is a freaking fraud ill be surprised if he is even a pakistani, he is a afghani i think.
he is a bigot, he hates punjabis for some reason and says punjab went to war with india not pakistan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
You would be surprised to hear that militant hideouts for drones are find out by local spies hired by ISI... ISI shares the info with CIA...the local spy after full confirmation drops the small chip into the house of militant or attach it to his vehicle...the drone then responds to that chip...
The collateral damage in drones is usually family members of that militant.

F-16 when drops bombs, in addition to militant hideout, i would also be screwed up along with other several homes. Most of the time air strikes are simply on villages which are under taliban control. Also before any major operation, entire villages in the area are first annihilated with bombardments so that taliban cant use it for cover...heavy artillary and tanks are also used to destroy any building in sight during operation.


can you please give us an examples of where pakistan strikes have killed innocent civilians and annihilated entire villages?
please just give me 3 such examples and all pakistanis here will start taking you seriously instead of as a joke.

Drone missile is small but accurate and guided one. Usually destroys relatively smaller targets like vehicles and one or two rooms of a house.

Drone%2BStrike.jpg

so you want drone strikes?

F-16 bombardment (look at the size of bombs).
f16bombing.jpg


5007253517_79c55b9248_z.jpg


the doesnt drop bombs like that.
most of the times they use helicopters like in the video.
also pay attention to how our army turns these terrorists and their supporters to dust.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom