PDA

View Full Version : Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones



Triple C
24 Oct 13,, 04:34
Pakistan briefed on drone hits and picked targets for the CIA, reported Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html).

JAD_333
24 Oct 13,, 06:06
Timely leak.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Oct 13,, 12:28
The reported degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes, if consistent, appears to come close to meeting the Pakistani request for 'joint US-Pakistan drone operations', which raises the question of why there is so much opposition on the US side to take the process one step further and make the process transparent and official (in terms of joint operations)?

Corollary - if the degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes has been (or is) to the extent alleged, then what does that say about allegations that 'Pakistan cannot be trusted to be involved in joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'?

The reality (Pakistani opposition to US drone strikes and US allegations of Pakistani complicity) may be far more 'grey' than made out to be in the public sphere ...

Firestorm
24 Oct 13,, 18:07
The reported degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes, if consistent, appears to come close to meeting the Pakistani request for 'joint US-Pakistan drone operations', which raises the question of why there is so much opposition on the US side to take the process one step further and make the process transparent and official (in terms of joint operations)?

US side? It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...

BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now. :rolleyes:

Blademaster
24 Oct 13,, 18:27
US side? It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...

BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now. :rolleyes:

All I can say about AM is that I wish I had some of his stamina and aptitude for spinning for some highly litigious cases and I would be able to wear out and frustrate my opponents by now. :biggrin:

TopHatter
24 Oct 13,, 19:09
BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now. :rolleyes:

I made a prediction of AM's reaction about a similar (though hypothetical) situation: Secret documents revealing Pakistan's role in something long denied.


All I can say about AM is that I wish I had some of his stamina and aptitude for spinning for some highly litigious cases and I would be able to wear out and frustrate my opponents by now. :biggrin: I actually have a case that I would love for him to represent me and my colleagues on. That kind of stamina would be priceless.

Oracle
24 Oct 13,, 19:10
I made a prediction of AM's reaction about a similar (though hypothetical) situation: Secret documents revealing Pakistan's role in something long denied.

I actually have a case that I would love for him to represent me and my colleagues on. That kind of stamina would be priceless.

If the defence is strong, he would tire you to death. And in the afterlife you'd think, jail time was probably better.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Oct 13,, 19:48
US side?
Yes - the proposals on 'official' joint US-Pakistan drone operations have primarily been made from the Pakistani side, with the US in opposition, as well as most of the members on this board, given their responses when I made similar suggestions.

It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...
If the reports are true, the Pakistani government certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, the US Government needs to explain why it has been lying to its citizens and legislature about 'Pakistani complicity in terrorism', if indeed the reports about all this 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes' are correct.


BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now. :rolleyes:
As does the strident opposition of many opposed to the idea of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistan undermining the program due to complicity'.

Firestorm
24 Oct 13,, 20:32
Yes - the proposals on 'official' joint US-Pakistan drone operations have primarily been made from the Pakistani side, with the US in opposition, as well as most of the members on this board, given their responses when I made similar suggestions.

These "proposals" are meaningless since it is clear that the Drone strikes are already joint US-Pakistani ones. Several people had argued in the old thread(s) as well that the GoP was indulging in equivocation and double-speak regarding this.



If the reports are true, the Pakistani government certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, the US Government needs to explain why it has been lying to its citizens and legislature about 'Pakistani complicity in terrorism', if indeed the reports about all this 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes' are correct.

Perhaps you missed this part of the article



Distrust amid cooperation
The records also expose the distrust and dysfunction that has afflicted U.S.-Pakistani relations even amid the undeclared collaboration on drone strikes.

Some files describe tense meetings in which senior U.S. officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, confront their Pakistani counterparts with U.S. intelligence purporting to show Pakistan’s ties to militant groups involved in attacks on American forces, a charge that Islamabad has consistently denied.

In one case, Clinton cited “cell phones and written material from dead bodies that point all fingers” at a militant group based in Pakistan, according to a Pakistani diplomatic cable dated Sept. 20, 2011. “The U.S. had intelligence proving ISI was involved with these groups,” she is cited as saying, referring to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
...

There's more. Read the whole article please.

cataphract
24 Oct 13,, 21:07
As does the strident opposition of many opposed to the idea of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistan undermining the program due to complicity'.

Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones. :rolleyes: Sure, why don't you ask them for the F-22 while you're at it? It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know. The status quo is working perfectly well for the GoP and the CIA. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Agnostic Muslim
24 Oct 13,, 22:43
These "proposals" are meaningless since it is clear that the Drone strikes are already joint US-Pakistani ones.
If they were 'already joint US-Pakistan drone strikes', then why the opposition to the proposal for 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'? Why not state that 'for all intents and purposes the strikes are joint strikes'?

Several people had argued in the old thread(s) as well that the GoP was indulging in equivocation and double-speak regarding this.
And they had also argued that 'Pakistan could not be trusted with joint US-Pakistan drone strikes', in response to which I had argued, as I have here, that IF the US and Pakistan were in fact cooperating on drone strikes, then allegations of 'complicity' were flawed and 'complicity' could not be used as an excuse for opposing the proposal for 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'.

Perhaps you missed this part of the article
Well, if you believe the report, and the claims of 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes', then the account attributed to Clinton does not appear to have constituted a major issue since 'there was extensive cooperation'. If that 'extensive cooperation' stopped at some point around that time, then that means the Pakistani government was no longer authorizing drone strikes or cooperating with the US on them, which means that the justifications of the legality of US drone strikes on the basis of 'GoP approval for drone strikes' are invalid.


There's more. Read the whole article please.
I did, before my first comment on this thread. Again, either the US and Pakistan were extensively cooperating on drone strikes, which calls into question the US media campaign arguing 'complicity', or the report is exaggerating the extent of the cooperation and Pakistani approval of the drone strikes, in which case my position on the legality of the strikes stands.

Agnostic Muslim
24 Oct 13,, 22:49
Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones.
The Pakistani proposal involved either Pakistani operation of the drones or joint US-Pakistani controlled drone strikes. Neither one of the two proposals requires the sale of US drones to Pakistan (they could have been sold, leased, or remained in US control with Pakistani officials involved at the command centers for the drones). Your interpretation of my comments as 'demanding the US sell Pakistan armed drones' is inaccurate.

It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know.
And if you read those earlier threads I had argued that if that were indeed the case, then people should also accept the fact that the media circus around the 'complicity of Pakistan with terrorists' was also largely exaggerated. Whether the status quo was working or not for the GoP and US, the degree of opposition to my suggestions of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistani complicity' suggested that many posters here did not themselves believe that the US was cooperating with Pakistan on these strikes because that negated their own arguments of complicity. As I said on those threads, you can't have it both ways.

Parihaka
25 Oct 13,, 03:18
All I saw in the report was that Pakistan was being informed of the drone strikes post event, and a piece at the end where American officials outlayed their concerns over tailbunnies being tipped off if the US passed the intel to Pakistan prior to a strike.
Apart from Pakistan's repeated denials of no cooperation with the strikes being undermined, what's new?

cataphract
25 Oct 13,, 03:57
The Pakistani proposal involved either Pakistani operation of the drones or joint US-Pakistani controlled drone strikes. Neither one of the two proposals requires the sale of US drones to Pakistan (they could have been sold, leased, or remained in US control with Pakistani officials involved at the command centers for the drones). Your interpretation of my comments as 'demanding the US sell Pakistan armed drones' is inaccurate.

None of the above scenarios are remotely possible. Even if the CIA was not convinced that someone in the Pakistani establishment was on the Talib side, these drones are state-of-the-art; there is absolutely no way the US would share their operations with Pakistan, especially since you guys are in bed with the Chinese.


And if you read those earlier threads I had argued that if that were indeed the case, then people should also accept the fact that the media circus around the 'complicity of Pakistan with terrorists' was also largely exaggerated. Whether the status quo was working or not for the GoP and US, the degree of opposition to my suggestions of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistani complicity' suggested that many posters here did not themselves believe that the US was cooperating with Pakistan on these strikes because that negated their own arguments of complicity. As I said on those threads, you can't have it both ways.

I'm sure this topic has been done to death in the earlier threads, but there isn't a single power centre in Pakistan. You could have the PA cooperating with the CIA on drone strikes on one hand and the ISI feeding the Haqqanis on the other. So yeah, Pakistan IS having it both ways right now.

Bigfella
25 Oct 13,, 09:47
Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones. :rolleyes: Sure, why don't you ask them for the F-22 while you're at it? It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know. The status quo is working perfectly well for the GoP and the CIA. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Wonder what the going price for an operational US drone is in Beijing?

Blademaster
25 Oct 13,, 12:56
Wonder what the going price for an operational US drone is in Beijing?

The secret is not in the hardware but the software. All the hardware technology necessary to get the drone operating can be found off the shelf of a hardware store or a military surplus store. It s the reconnaissance technology such as the camera and the sighting/targeting/acquisition software and hardware. That can be easily rectified by selling the shell of the drone and replacing the internal ones with downgraded hardware and software and PAF/PA inter alias PLA would be none the wiser.

cataphract
25 Oct 13,, 14:26
Wonder what the going price for an operational US drone is in Beijing?

More than the price of a mangled stealth chopper tail I bet.

Minskaya
26 Oct 13,, 07:52
Pakistan never approved drone strikes on its territory
26 October 2013

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 26 (APP): Pakistan told a U.N. committee Friday that drone strikes resulting in civilian casualties do violate international law, and that Islamabad did not approve such attacks on its territory.
Source (http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=246253&Itemid=1)

An outright lie.

Oracle
26 Oct 13,, 12:12
Another view.


Surveys are also notoriously difficult to carry out in FATA. A 2009 poll in three of the tribal agencies found 52% of respondents believed drone strikes were accurate and 60% said they weakened militant groups. Other surveys have found much lower percentages in favour. But interviews by The Economist with twenty residents of the tribal areas confirmed that many see individual drone strikes as preferable to the artillery barrages of the Pakistani military. They also insisted that the drones do not kill many civilians—a view starkly at odds with mainstream Pakistani opinion. “No one dares tell the real picture,” says an elder from North Waziristan. “Drone attacks are killing the militants who are killing innocent people.”

Drones over Pakistan (Drop the pilot) - The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21588142-surprising-number-pakistanis-are-favour-drone-strikes-drop-pilot)

Officer of Engineers
27 Oct 13,, 03:35
All I saw in the report was that Pakistan was being informed of the drone strikes post event, and a piece at the end where American officials outlayed their concerns over tailbunnies being tipped off if the US passed the intel to Pakistan prior to a strike.
Apart from Pakistan's repeated denials of no cooperation with the strikes being undermined, what's new?Pakistan was involved in target selection and have given intel where their targets would most likely be.

In short, Pakistan has given the US permission to hunt targets authorized by the PoG in Pakistan. What's left unsaid is that the US also used this permission to hunt their own targets in Pakistan, including OBL, without Pakistani approval.

Pakistan was involved in a limited planning stage. She wants to be involved in the operational stage and get a go-no-go. Not going to happen. If Pakistan wants the US to hunt Islamabad's targets, she had to give Washington permission to hunt American targets ... and that's what Islamabad did not want the world to know.

All told, AM's position is fucked.

lemontree
27 Oct 13,, 06:28
If the reports are true, the Pakistani government certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, the US Government needs to explain why it has been lying to its citizens and legislature about 'Pakistani complicity in terrorism', if indeed the reports about all this 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes' are correct.

The drone strikes are in the Haqqani controlled areas, who are strategic assets for Pakistani military in Afghanistan and India.
When some Haqqani or Taliban commander, acts otherwise, he is taught a lesson by the ISI by directing US drones towards them or their assets.

Why else do you think the Haqqanis are using the TTP against the Pakistani establishment?....as retribution for targeting them.

Dreadnought
30 Oct 13,, 21:57
To Flip, Or not to Flip, That is the question....:biggrin:

ISLAMABAD The Pakistani government said Wednesday that three percent of the people killed in U.S. drone strikes since 2008 were civilians, a surprisingly low figure that could alter the highly negative public perception of the attacks.

The number, which was provided by the Ministry of Defense to the Senate, is much lower than past government calculations and estimates by independent organizations. The ministry said 317 drone strikes have killed 2,160 Islamic militants and 67 civilians since 2008.


The attacks are widely disliked in Pakistan, where many people believe they violate the country's sovereignty and kill too many innocent civilians. The Pakistani government regularly criticizes the drone program in public, even though it is known to have secretly supported at least some of the strikes in the past.


Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif pressed President Barack Obama to end the attacks in a visit to the White House last week, but the U.S. gave no indication it was willing to abandon the attacks, which it views as vital to its battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Drone use and civlian casualties have increased.A U.N. expert investigating drone strikes, Ben Emmerson, told CBS News that drones are now the world's weapon of choice, especially since they appear to be better at minimizing civilian casualties than other weapons.


In a special report, Emmerson concludes: "If used in strict compliance with the principles of humanitarian law, they can reduce the risk of civilian casualties by significantly improving overall situational awareness. The ability of drones to loiter and gather intelligence for long periods before a strike, coupled with the use of precision-guided munitions, is therefore a positive advantage from a humanitarian law perspective. "


It's unclear how the Pakistani public will respond to the new government data, and there was also no indication why it seems to differ so much from past government calculations and outside estimates.


Emmerson said earlier this month that the Pakistani Foreign Ministry told him that at least 400 civilians have been killed by the attacks in the country since they started in 2004.


Emmerson called on the government to explain the seeming discrepancy, saying the figures provided by the Foreign Ministry since 2004 indicated a much higher percentage of civilian casualties.


"If the true figures for civilian deaths are significantly lower, then it is important that this should now be made clear, and the apparent discrepancy explained," Emmerson said in an email sent to The Associated Press.


The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London, has estimated that at least 300 civilians have been killed by drones in Pakistan since 2008, while the Washington-based New America Foundation put the figure at 185 civilians. These estimates are often compiled based on media reports about the attacks.


Pakistan's figure for total deaths, 2,227, is lower than some other totals, although not to the same degree as its figure for civilians. The Washington-based New America Foundation has a total of 2,651 people killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since 2008, while the Long War Journal website has 2,493.


Compiling the accurate number of civilian casualties from drone strikes is hampered by the danger of traveling to the remote tribal region where they take place.


The U.S. rarely speaks publicly about the CIA-run drone program in Pakistan because it is classified. But officials have insisted in private that the strikes have killed very few civilians and that estimates from the Pakistani government and independent organizations are exaggerated.


Amnesty International called on the U.S. to investigate reports of civilians killed and wounded by drone strikes in Pakistan in a report released earlier this month that provided new details about the alleged victims of the attacks, including a 68-year-old grandmother killed while farming with her grandchildren.


Mamana Bibi's grandchildren told the London-based rights group that she was killed by missile fire on Oct. 24, 2012, as she was collecting vegetables in a family field in the North Waziristan tribal area, a major militant sanctuary near the Afghan border. Three of Bibi's grandchildren were wounded in the strike, as were several others who were nearby, the victims said. Bibi's relatives testified before members of the U.S. Congress on Tuesday.


An even deadlier incident noted by the report occurred in North Waziristan on July 6, 2012. Witnesses said a volley of missiles hit a tent where a group of men had gathered for an evening meal after work, and then a second struck those who came to help the wounded, one of a number of attacks that have hit rescuers, the rights group said.


Witnesses and relatives said that total of 18 male laborers with no links to militant groups died, according to Amnesty. Pakistani intelligence officials at the time identified the dead as suspected militants.


Contrary to the information outlined in the report, the Pakistani government said Wednesday that there were no civilian casualties in 2012. The government said 21 civilians were killed in 2008, nine in 2009, two in 2010 and 35 in 2011. No civilians have been killed so far in 2013, the defense ministry said.

Amnesty did not immediately respond to request for comment on the government data.


The government also said "terrorist" attacks have killed 12,404 people and wounded 26,881 others since 2002, although these figures were disputed by some of the members of the Senate. The government has been battling an insurgency by the Pakistani Taliban, which seeks to topple the country's democratic system and impose Islamic law. It was not clear if the figure involved only attacks on civilians, or also included attacks on security forces.


A roadside bomb killed five soldiers and wounded three others Wednesday in the South Waziristan tribal area, the Pakistani Taliban's main sanctuary before the army conducted a large ground offensive in 2009, said military officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in line with military policy.


Also Wednesday, a bomb exploded in a market in southwestern Pakistan, killing two people and wounding at least 20 others, said police official Ahmad Raza. The attack occurred in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province. The province is home to both Islamic militants and separatists who have waged a low-level insurgency against the government for decades.

Pakistan gives dramatically lower figure for civilian drone deaths - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57610008/pakistan-gives-dramatically-lower-figure-for-civilian-drone-deaths/)

Parihaka
30 Oct 13,, 22:53
All told, AM's position is fucked.

Totally agree, hence what's new?

Parihaka
01 Nov 13,, 21:17
So, Pakistans release of figures showing low civilian casualties from the drone strikes seems a complete about face by the GoP. I wonder what deal was struck to get their 'cooperation'

Agnostic Muslim
13 Nov 13,, 16:09
Source (http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=246253&Itemid=1)

An outright lie.
Read the statement carefully please, far from being an 'outright lie', the statement is self-evidently true, "drone strikes resulting in civilian casualties do violate international law, and that Islamabad did not approve such attacks on its territory"

Agnostic Muslim
13 Nov 13,, 16:09
More than the price of a mangled stealth chopper tail I bet.
Reports from the US that I linked to in the closed thread on drone strikes indicate that Pakistan returned the tail to the US.

Agnostic Muslim
13 Nov 13,, 16:22
Pakistan was involved in target selection and have given intel where their targets would most likely be. Which means that the claims made by you and various other commentators on this forum, the US government, military and their apologists (that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intel) are largely lies and fabrications. I argued this months ago on the closed thread, that you could not have it both ways, both argue that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intelligence cooperation against Al Qaeda and/or drone strikes while also arguing that the drone strikes were 'legal' despite the lack of Pakistani involvement and approval.

In short, Pakistan has given the US permission to hunt targets authorized by the PoG in Pakistan.Correct, with the emphasis on 'targets authorized by the PoG'


What's left unsaid is that the US also used this permission to hunt their own targets in Pakistan, including OBL, without Pakistani approval.
And those drone strikes are in violation of international law and the UN Charter and my prior arguments on the issue stand.

Pakistan was involved in a limited planning stage. She wants to be involved in the operational stage and get a go-no-go. Not going to happen. To quote you from earlier, 'Pakistan was involved in target selection and provided intelligence on the location of targets' - that would constitute the most critical part of the entire operation with the actual successful launch of weapons from a platform (drone or other) contingent on the earlier target selection and intelligence gathering. The argument that Pakistan is involved in the former but cannot be involved in the latter makes no sense.

If Pakistan wants the US to hunt Islamabad's targets, she had to give Washington permission to hunt American targets ... and that's what Islamabad did not want the world to know.
You are contradicting yourself - your two statements from earlier:

"Pakistan has given the US permission to hunt targets authorized by the PoG in Pakistan"
"the US also used this permission to hunt their own targets in Pakistan, including OBL, without Pakistani approval"

Your second statement above contradicts your statement that, "she had to give Washington permission to hunt American targets" - so which is it?
The US 'hunted her own targets in Pakistan without Pakistani permission' (thereby making those actions illegal given the arguments I made in previous threads) or that 'Pakistan gave the US permission to hunt American targets'?


All told, AM's position is fucked.

Totally agree, hence what's new?
Far from it, as argued above :biggrin:

Dreadnought
13 Nov 13,, 17:23
LIES! LIES! LIES! FABRICATIONS! PROPAGHANDA!

We missed ya JAKE, our comic relief was sadly lacking during your absence.:biggrin:

Dreadnought
13 Nov 13,, 17:36
Pizza........:biggrin:34324

Doktor
13 Nov 13,, 18:28
Pizza........:biggrin:

So that's why USAF inspections were not happy with the doors of the silos being left open (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/air-force-nuclear-silo-doors-opened/) :whome:

Parihaka
14 Nov 13,, 04:38
Which means that the claims made by you and various other commentators on this forum, the US government, military and their apologists (that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intel) are largely lies and fabrications. I argued this months ago on the closed thread, that you could not have it both ways, both argue that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intelligence cooperation against Al Qaeda and/or drone strikes while also arguing that the drone strikes were 'legal' despite the lack of Pakistani involvement and approval.

IIRC the article did not state that Pakistan was given intel prior to the strikes but implied the information regarding strikes was supplied afterward.

Parihaka
15 Nov 13,, 03:30
IIRC the article did not state that Pakistan was given intel prior to the strikes but implied the information regarding strikes was supplied afterward.


The CIA also shared maps and photographs of drone operations in Pakistan that have not previously been shown publicly. The maps contain simplistic illustrations, including orange flame emblems to mark locations of strikes. The photos show before-and-after scenes of walled compounds and vehicles destroyed by Hellfire missiles, some marked with arrows to identify bodies amid the rubble.

The documents indicate that these and other materials were routinely relayed “by bag” to senior officials in Islamabad.
Yep.
The only time it mentions intel provided to Pakistan prior to any potential strike being carried out was this

But Morell was also sent on occasion to confront Pakistan with what U.S. officials regarded as evidence of the nation’s support for terrorist groups. In June 2011, he arrived at the embassy with videos showing militants scrambling to clear materials from explosives plants that the United States had discovered and called to the attention of counterparts in Pakistan.

Rather than launching raids, the Pakistanis were suspected of tipping off the militants, who dispersed their materials in a “pickup truck, two station wagons and at least two motorcycles to multiple locations in South Waziristan,” according to the memo summarizing the meeting with Morell.In other words the intel that was provided was for Pakistan to act on, not as projected drone strikes.

Which means that the claims made by you and various other commentators on this forum, the US government, military and their apologists (that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intel) are largely lies and fabrications. I argued this months ago on the closed thread, that you could not have it both ways, both argue that Pakistan cannot be trusted with intelligence cooperation against Al Qaeda and/or drone strikes while also arguing that the drone strikes were 'legal' despite the lack of Pakistani involvement and approval.


Which means that both your current supposition and previous claims are incorrect

Agnostic Muslim
15 Nov 13,, 10:05
Yep.
The only time it mentions intel provided to Pakistan prior to any potential strike being carried out was this

If the US did not share and coordinate intelligence on potential targets with Pakistan, then there was no 'approval from Pakistan' for unilateral US drone strikes, which means there was no 'explicit agreement', in which case unilateral US drone strikes remain violations of the UN Charter, as I have argued previously. Notification of a drone strike AFTER the strike has been conducted does not automatically imply prior Pakistani approval. The only thing that made this particular report different from others in the past (and therefore made the argument of Pakistani approval for US drone strikes remotely credible) was the implication that the US and Pakistan coordinated and developed intelligence on potential targets prior to the drone strikes actually taking place - absent that intelligence coordination, this article offers nothing to support the position that Pakistani approval for unilateral US drone strikes exists.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Minskaya
15 Nov 13,, 10:18
Again, you can't have it both ways.
Why not? Pakistan believes it can have it both ways.

Despite your neverending apologetic's, the overwhelming majority of WAB members believe Pakistan is a complicit partner in regional terrorism and a complicit partner in the US drone strikes.

Doktor
15 Nov 13,, 11:25
Why not? Pakistan believes it can have it both ways.

Despite your neverending apologetic's, the overwhelming majority of WAB members believe Pakistan is a complicit partner in regional terrorism and a complicit partner in the US drone strikes.

Which makes it even more confusing.

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 13,, 12:08
Dok, the evidence was well before us way before this current leak. Pakistan bragged that she got the Taliban leaders to talk to us. In other words, they knew exactly where to find these fucks. Instead of killing them, they were hiding and protecting them from us. At the same time, she refuses to defend her own borders from the US and has provided intel to where to find the fucks they want dead.

As we said before, Pakistan has both refused to defend her borders and to go to the UNSC ... and now, even the Special Reporter has said that his report is now officially a bunch of lies.

We said it before, the strikes will continue because Pakistan allows it to continue ... and there's nothing AM has put forth that has ever contradicted that claim except Pakistan's own lies.

And here's the kicker. Pakistan has lied to AM and he's too stupid to realize it.

Doktor
15 Nov 13,, 13:02
Col,

I am aware of everything you say, since the topic has been deeply elaborated here, for which I am thankful. The thing that was bothering me why Pakistan is not officially filing complaints where they should, is finally (officially) resolved.

I must admit, tho, the level of lies that come out of Pakistani Army/ISI is stunning. They even don't make sense, but some people still buy it. And that's the confusing part. How can one believe Pakistan is complicit partner to USA, while believing they are complicit partners in terrorism at the same time?

Officer of Engineers
15 Nov 13,, 13:09
Dirty cop syndrome. The Mafia wants their own people in the cops so that they could be warned of things coming down the pipeline. Doesn't stop the dirty cop from issuing speeding tickets or even make a low level Mafia arrest just to keep up appearances. But until you find the dirty cop, everything is on the up and dandy. Does not mean the dirty cop is on our side.

Minskaya
21 Nov 13,, 09:53
Drone attack kills 6 at Pakistan seminary
November 21, 2013

PESHAWAR, Pakistan A suspected U.S. drone attack early Thursday on a religious seminary believed to be linked to the ruthless Haqqani insurgent network killed at least six people and wounded eight, according to police and witnesses. Residents of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province said the drone fired four missiles at the hardline Taleem-ul-Quran seminary in the garrison town of Thall at around 7 a.m., destroying two of the institutions' mud-built walls. The seminary is run by Qari Noor Ullah, a religious leader affiliated with the Haqqani group, and is located near a major Pakistan army garrison. It was not immediately clear who the target was and whether he or they were hit. News reports, citing unnamed security officials, said the dead included Mufti Ahmad Jan and Mufti Hameedullah, both members of the Haqqani network.
Source (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-drone-pakistan-seminary-20131121,0,52940.story#axzz2lGvxKBMW)