roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
RR - PAF dosnt operate attack helicopters the PA does.
Whether it's PAF or PA isn't going to change my point.
unfortunately in any war / armed action there will be collateral damage and by the time what you say can be arranged, the intended targets will be gone. i suggest read up on the several articles posted on the drones attack to understand "why what is going on is going on".
That's simply not true. A drone has some advantages. They might be quieter, and tracking individuals using aerial surveillance does present advantages, but they clearly have in many cases got the wrong targets. I personally have my doubts about the validity of some of the claims coming from the US that this or that militant was killed in the strike. There's no accountability in this process, and people are relying on the word of the US against the tribals. I would prefer a neutral assessment.
Regarding the need for drones again, yes, use drones for surveillance. If they are able to pick and track a target to a house, they can be used to track a target for enough time to launch attack helicopters and direct them to the target. If a target is lost track of, it is better than blowing up innocent people. One has to visualize themselves in their own position before being so callously gung-ho.
"then surround the targets, and offer the chance to surrender if innocent."
the prople who are innocent have left the area!
Noone had been evacuated from Mir Ali, North Waziristan. It was fully populated with lots of innocent people. Unless you want to group your countrymen as guilty people, then such a blanket statement is silly.
"The use of drones really is not necessary"
why would are indomitable president ask the US to supply pakistan with the predator drones?
I don't know. If it's Zardari we can only guess he's thinking of selling them to another country with 10% commission.