Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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

        An outright lie.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          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
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
              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.

              Cheers!...on the rocks!!

              Comment


              • #22
                To Flip, Or not to Flip, That is the question....

                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
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  All told, AM's position is fucked.
                  Totally agree, hence what's new?
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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'
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                      Source

                      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"
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                        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.
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          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.
                          Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                          Totally agree, hence what's new?
                          Far from it, as argued above
                          Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 13 Nov 13,, 17:37.
                          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            LIES! LIES! LIES! FABRICATIONS! PROPAGHANDA!

                            We missed ya JAKE, our comic relief was sadly lacking during your absence.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Pizza........
                              Attached Files
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                Pizza........
                                So that's why USAF inspections were not happy with the doors of the silos being left open :whome:
                                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X