Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Killing Civilians: Obama’s Drone War in Pakistan


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#31 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:18 AM

NVM.

Edited by Edler0023, 16 December 2012 - 01:34 AM.

  • 0

#32 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

An act of self-defense? More on the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan

Posted on November 2, 2012by understandingempire

The legality of drone strikes in Pakistan – an act of self defense?
A state’s right to use force is set out in the United Nations Charter, the rules of customary international law, and in general principles of international law – collectively ‘jus ad bellum’. Below I very briefly summarize how these are relevant to U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.
Jus ad bellum
Initially, when the U.S. began its drone campaign in Pakistan in 2004, it provided no legal justifications for the strikes, and ironically perhaps, Pakistan claimed responsibility for the first attacks. It wasn’t until March 2010 that Harold Koh, Legal Adviser of the Department of State, set out a legal justification (for more ‘on the record speeches’ on the legality of the drone wars see here). Koh argued that:
(1) The U.S. may use force under its inherent right to self defense, under international law.
(2) The U.S. is engaged in a continuous armed conflict with al-Qa’ida and associated forces.
(3) Individuals part of this armed group are belligerents and therefore lawful targets
(4) Congress authorized the use of all necessary force in the 2001 AUMF
(5) Practices for targeting are extremely robust
Self-Defense?
The drone strikes are conducted in Pakistan’s sovereign territory, thus, the question is whether the U.S. has a right to use force against Pakistan. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force between member states unless (a) the Security Council authorizes it to restore international peace and security (B) a state may respond in self-defense if an armed attack occurs.
Yet according to Article 51, acts of self-defense must be reported to the Security Council. This has not occurred. And neither has Pakistan attacked the U.S.
For the Afghanistan invasion of 2001, the Taliban was treated as the de facto ruling government of the state, and directly harbored al-Qa’ida. Thus the alliance between state and non-state actor was sufficient under international law to legitimate the U.S. to use force against Afghanistan. The situation in Pakistan is markedly different. The government routinely condemns militants and has previously been at war with them, as in the case of the Swat offensive of 2009. Likewise, the Pakistani Taliban has frequently retaliated against Pakistan’s law enforcement, killing military personnel by the thousands.
Security Council resolution 1368 stated that the September 11, 2001 attacks granted the U.S. the right to self-defense. However, it was not determined who was responsible for the attacks; moreover, none of the individuals involved in those terrorist attacks were Pakistani or of Pakistani origin. Pakistan has never attacked the U.S.
If there was an imminent threat emanating from Pakistan it would be down to the Pakistani government to eliminate it. If not, the U.S. could act in self-defense so long as met the conditions of the ‘Caroline Principle’, part of international customary law. The Caroline incident of 1837 established that there must be a “necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation”. The use of force in pre-emptive defense must also be proportional. Targets in Pakistan are often chosen well in advance, and are scrutinized by all kinds of bureaucrats. This casts severe doubt on how ‘necessary’, ‘instant’ and ‘overwhelming’ the use of pre-emptive force is
.
Conclusion: the U.S. does not have a right to use force against Pakistan, either under the UN Charter or international customary law.

Armed Conflict with al-Qa’ida?
Al-Qa’ida certainly uses force. But it is not a state (nor a ‘liberation movement’), and has a global geography of adherents that are not easily identifiable. Under current international law and current legal frameworks, a state cannot therefore engage in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida. Failure to satisfy this condition explains why the CIA is in control of drone strikes in Pakistan, since it removes American military personnel from direct legal responsibility. Outside of an armed conflict, peacetime criminal law should prevail. Human rights remain constant at all times.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)
U.S. domestic law has no bearings on assessing the legality of the strikes under international law.

About the author
My name is Ian Shaw and I’m a research fellow at the University of Glasgow. I was awarded a PhD in geography from the University of Arizona in 2011.
Posted ImageI research the ongoing geopolitical transformations associated with the rise of U.S. drone warfare

Definition of terrorism
NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons
  • 1

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#33 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,926 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:56 PM

The problem is Pakistan isn't controlled by its citizens, its controlled by its military through the ISI.
Its 'leaders' are probably getting big fat wads of cash so they could care less.
  • 0

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

 


#34 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:11 PM

It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.


And then, just above - another quote from another article"

It quotes figures from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), which says that from June 2004 to mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2,562 and 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 to 881 were civilians, including 176 children.

Which is about 23% Civilian casualties. This is a number that is incredibly high, but believable. Still, compared to the statistics of using Nuclear weapons, Napalm, other weapons of mass destruction, all out invasion.... That number is much preferable to the other alternatives. Perhaps prove me wrong by suggesting a different option?



Honestly, from the article you quoted, using common sense and looking at other factors, I have no idea how you can ever use any sense of logic and not question the statement "98% of casualties from drones are civilian".

I'm pretty sure your math is wrong. Stop posting propaganda material and post something helpful.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#35 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:12 AM

This is a huge mess. If Pakistan had someone else in power other then Zardari, there is no question there would be violent retaliation by the government. (Imagine if Musharraf was in power, these drones would be shot down) I place blame on the current government of Pakistan as well - Zardari, the most corrupt and most useless politician in the history of politicians/leaders.


Droning the tribal areas seems pointless to me, but that's because I have an idea about the kind of people that have lived in that area for thousands of years. These Pashtuns are known as a 'warrior race', the British at their peak couldn't deal with them - it's said that more British soldiers died in Waziristan in comparison to the other parts of British India. Bombing their villages and firing at their women and children will not solve this conflict, these guys will not sit back.

How does the US determine who is a militant and who is not? These people that they're droning, the Pashtuns in Waziristan - every single Pashtun in the tribal area will be armed, there is no debate around that, it's a fact especially if you are familiar with the area.

These drones generate more anti-Americanism, more anger, more hatred, and more violence. And violence against who? Against people IN Pakistan, not in the US. Reason? The Pakistani Army is also in the tribal areas, on the ground. It makes it seem like the US drones and Pak army are working as one, "mercenary army of the US" - huge issue.

Elections in Pakistan are around the corner, if Imran Khan wins, droning is done. He is openly anti-drone, and incredibly familiar with the tribal regions being a Pashtun himself. He has stated that his first step if he wins is to disengage from America's war, take $0 in aid and put an end to drone strikes. Let's see what happens.

Lol

Imran Khan. Corrupt ex cricketer will save Pak.

The govnt in Pak is neutered regardless whos in power. Largely due to their promotion of the ISI and the extemist.

Absolute borderline failed state because of this.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#36 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:59 AM

Lol

Imran Khan. Corrupt ex cricketer will save Pak.

The govnt in Pak is neutered regardless whos in power. Largely due to their promotion of the ISI and the extemist.

Absolute borderline failed state because of this.


I never said he'll save Pakistan - I said the US will have a hard time droning Waziristan due to his policies. What's better then a corrupt ex cricketer? A gangster running the country from London? Or an ex convict who embezzles aid?
  • 0

#37 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:00 AM

And as usual, people on CDC fail to understand the tribal areas that I speak of.
  • 0

#38 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:57 AM

I never said he'll save Pakistan - I said the US will have a hard time droning Waziristan due to his policies. What's better then a corrupt ex cricketer? A gangster running the country from London? Or an ex convict who embezzles aid?


None of them run the country. Thus they have little say in the running of the country as far as the ISI is concerned.

The bombing of militants suits the ISI just fine. Just as long as they get to further line their pockets.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#39 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,985 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:46 AM

Posted Image


Heads up! lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,350 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:40 PM

Civilian Death Ratio: http://en.wikipedia...._casualty_ratio

Pre 1800s war: < 10%
WWI: 40%
WWII: 60%
Korean War: 195%
Vietnam War: 182%
1982 Lebanon War: 500%
Chechen War: 700%
Iraq war: Unknown - 300% to > 1000% http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Iraq_War


Conclusions?
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#41 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:48 PM

Civilian Death Ratio: http://en.wikipedia...._casualty_ratio

Pre 1800s war: < 10%
WWI: 40%
WWII: 60%
Korean War: 195%
Vietnam War: 182%
1982 Lebanon War: 500%
Chechen War: 700%
Iraq war: Unknown - 300% to > 1000% http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Iraq_War


Conclusions?


Even the CLAIMED 98% civilian death rate is a huge jump compared to the actual 23%... I dunno apparently my math is wrong.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#42 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,350 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

Even the CLAIMED 98% civilian death rate is a huge jump compared to the actual 23%... I dunno apparently my math is wrong.


How long did it take for reliable figures come out for the other wars?

Certainly not while they were ongoing. The US was known to have misrepresented casualty rates on both sides during the Vietnam War.

I suggest taking everything regarding an ongoing war with a grain of salt. And then assume it's much worse in reality.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#43 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,985 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:56 PM

War has evolved.

Guerrilla warfare is more appealling to a vastly-outgunned enemy. And the enemy in that case will include armed civilians.

People may whine about a few drone-caused deaths here and there, but on the other hand, there have been no friendly deaths related to these attacks. Isn't that a good thing?

Scale is also important. While people might point out that the civilian death ratio is on the rise (flawed figures, imo), the overall casualty count is pretty damn low for this drone battle/war/whatever. To get the same objective accomplished in the WW2 era, for example, it would require the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men and a tremendous financial burden.

I also lol at 'illegal war'. As if warlords have ever been concerned if their attacks have been legal. 'Oh snap, we can't nuke Japan to end the war because they might sue us!'

Hello? It's war. Damn dirty hippies.
  • 0
Posted Image

#44 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:04 PM

How long did it take for reliable figures come out for the other wars?

Certainly not while they were ongoing. The US was known to have misrepresented casualty rates on both sides during the Vietnam War.

I suggest taking everything regarding an ongoing war with a grain of salt. And then assume it's much worse in reality.


The 23% is from the TBIJ, not the US. The 98% comes from screwed reasoning (2% of those killed are high value targets, therefore the rest must be civilians).

Its not difficult to imagine that 2% easily could be high value targets, and even if the rest were civilians/innocent bystanders, like I said, that's still much better.


Granted, those stats you quoted are for the entire war, and we're supposed to be specifically talking about Drone strikes, I still however stand by my original statement that using Drones is the lesser of two evils and anyone who is spreading propaganda about Obama killing civilians isn't helping the situation.


Side note: I'm surprised the numbers for WWII are that low.
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#45 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:12 PM

Civilian Death Ratio: http://en.wikipedia...._casualty_ratio

Pre 1800s war: < 10%
WWI: 40%
WWII: 60%
Korean War: 195%
Vietnam War: 182%
1982 Lebanon War: 500%
Chechen War: 700%
Iraq war: Unknown - 300% to > 1000% http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Iraq_War


Conclusions?


Question


Are there any statistics on US 'friendly-fire' casualties in World War 2?


Answer
This site --->
http://members.aol.c...erwar/ff/ff.htm
lists American ff casualties at 18%
If 406,000 Americans were killed, that places the friendly fire death toll at roughly 78,000.


And sixty years later the problem still happens with a lack of proper fire control by US troops.
Example the 4 dead and 8 wounded Canadian soldiers who were bombed by the USAF in 2001, in Afghanistan. Two F16 pilots attacked the Canadians as they were conducting a live fire range exercise. The pilots claimed that they were "under fire" from the ground. The aircraft were flying at 20,000 feet, and the ground fire was at ground targets, with small arms weapons, not anti-aircraft missiles. No infantry weapon can reach 20,000 feet of altitude.
The AWACS controller told the F16's to "hold your fire" but they didn't listen, and four young Canadians died as a result.
Just one modern example of how dangerous it is to be near U.S. army troops when you are a "friendly force".

There was a saying in WW2
When the Germans shoot, The British duck
When the British shoot, the Germans duck
When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks.


I could post statistics like these for every war America has been invovled in .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 18 December 2012 - 02:34 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#46 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:26 PM

What I believe is that the end does not justify the means, the US has a criminal justice system , where a person is brought to trial and proven innocent or guilty , not summarily executed because he is thought to be guilty , and at the same time innocent people are killed in that process.

When Terrorists 'Killed' In Drone Strikes Aren't Really Dead

If you are relying upon the nutjob Rachel Marsden for anything, you are in serious trouble.

See:
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867360
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867518
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#47 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

If you are relying upon the nutjob Rachel Marsden for anything, you are in serious trouble.

See:
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867360
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867518



My thoughts exactly.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#48 Edler0023

Edler0023

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,024 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 10

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:41 PM

None of them run the country. Thus they have little say in the running of the country as far as the ISI is concerned.

The bombing of militants suits the ISI just fine. Just as long as they get to further line their pockets.



Not arguing against you when it comes to the ISI - there's a reason its political wing was disbanded couple of years ago by the Pakistani government, shady as hell. At the same time, I do believe that the public has been made aware with more information on the ISI compared to other agencies who secretly do the exact same in other countries.
  • 0

#49 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:46 PM

If you are relying upon the nutjob Rachel Marsden for anything, you are in serious trouble.

See:
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867360
http://forum.canucks...ost__p__8867518


Wet do you seriously think that i am relying on one article by rachel marsden to form my view that the Us drone strikes on pakistan are illegal , immoral and should be stopped now ?

If so then your ability to think rationaly must be called into question.

let us have a look at her claim that fahd mohammed al-quso wasreported killed in a drone strike in 2010 and then in another drone strike in 2012

THE TELEGRAPH

Terrorist on FBI most wanted list 'killed by drone'

One of the FBI's most wanted terrorists was killed alongside a Briton by a drone attack in Pakistan last month targeting al-Qaeda operatives planning a Mumbai-style attack in Europe, according to reports.






Posted Image


Image 1 of 2
Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso allegedly met two of the September 11 hijackers and was said to be involved in the bombing of the USS Cole
Posted Image


Image 1 of 2
The report may cause further strains in the tense US-Pakistan anti-terror alliance, which has been tested by intensified US drone strikes in tribal regions Photo: AFP/GETTY






By Duncan Gardham, Alex Spillius in Washington and Rob Crilly in Islamabad
9:17PM BST 06 Oct 2010



One of the FBI's most wanted terrorists was killed alongside a Briton by a drone attack in Pakistan last month targeting al-Qaeda operatives planning a Mumbai-style attack in Europe, according to reports.

Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso, 35, allegedly met two of the September 11 hijackers and was said to be involved in the bombing of the USS Cole. He was thought to be with the radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen but reports from Pakistan suggested he had been killed there.

Another senior al-Qaeda commander Sheikh Fateh al-Masri, also known as Abdul Razzaq, was also reported killed in the drone attack in Datta Khel, near Miranshah in North Waziristan.

A Briton, named as Abdul Jabber, who had joined al-Qaeda with his brother, was also reported killed in the attack on September 8.

Meanwhile, the White House has made an unprecedented public criticism of Pakistani efforts against terror, accusing Islamabad of avoiding "direct conflict" with the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda militant

In a report being sent to Congress this week, the Obama administration also admitted that the US troop surge in Afghanistan has so far achieved only modest success.

In unusually blunt language that indicated a high level of frustration with the Pakistani government, the report said that Pakistani military operations were particularly lamentable in North Waziristan, the tribal area which is regarded as the global centre of al-Qaeda and a refuge for the Afghan Taliban.
"The Pakistani military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or Al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan," the report said, calling the move "as much a political choice" as military prioritization.
It continued that Pakistani operations against militants in neighbouring South Waziristan were progressing "slowly" with soldiers staying too close to roads.
The report may cause further strains in the tense US-Pakistan anti-terror alliance, which has been tested by intensified US drone strikes in tribal regions. Pakistani authorities have reported more than two dozen attacks in the region over the last month which have killed more than 140 people. The increase in drone strikes has been linked to a terror plot targeting Europe. A US missile yesterday killed another five people in North Waziristan, just hours after the Taliban blew up more Nato tankers bound for Afghanistan.
The tankers have been vulnerable since Pakistan ordered a vital border crossing to be closed to Nato convoys in response to a Nato helicpoter killing two Pakistani soldiers close to the Afghan border.
Anne Patterson, the US ambassador to Pakistan, however apologised on Wednesday for the "tragic accident" and said they would work with the Pakistan government to prevent future accidents

And here we go , he must have resurrected

By
Phil Hirschkorn /
CBS News/ May 7, 2012, 1:31 PM
Who was Fahd al-Quso?










Posted Image
Al Qaeda figure Fahd al-Quso was killed, along with an aide, in an airstrike in the southern Shabwa province, Sunday, May 6, 2012./CBS/AP(CBS News) NEW YORK - The al Qaeda terrorist killed in a CIA drone missile strike in Shabwa, Yemen this past weekend was one of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.


Fahd Mohammad Ahmed Al-Quso, 37, from Yemen, was most notorious for being an alleged planner of the terrorist attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors and blew a 40-foot hole in the side of the warship 12 years ago.
Top al Qaeda figure killed in Yemen air strike
The U.S. Government had offered up to $5 million for information leading to Quso's capture after placing him on the "most wanted" list in May 2003.

Quso had trained in al Qaeda camps in the 1990s, according to federal prosecutors who brought an indictment against him nine years ago.
Quso's co-defendant in the Cole indictment, Jamal al-Badawi, allegedly bought the boat and a truck to tow it to Aden harbor and rented a safe house to store it. One of Quso's jobs in the plot, according to the indictment, was to retrieve and hide the car and trailer used to tow the attack boat into position.

On Oct. 12, 2000, the day on which two al Qaeda suicide bombers struck the Cole, Quso was meant to videotape the attack in the hills above the Port of Aden for use in al Qaeda propaganda. Quso failed to do so, later telling an FBI agent who interrogated him in Yemen that he had overslept.


Posted Image
In this Oct. 20, 2000 file photo, a small boat guards the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, following a terror attack that killed 17 U.S. sailors./AP Photo/Hasan Jamali


Quso, Badawi, and eight others were initially caught by Yemeni authorities but escaped from a Yemeni prison in 2003. Yemeni police recaptured Quso in 2004.

Though Quso was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the Cole attack, the Yemeni government released him after three years, in 2007, and refused to hand him over to the United States, due to the lack of an extradition treaty.

Quso and Badawi would have faced the death penalty if convicted in a U.S. trial. Quso reportedly survived a U.S. cruise missile air strike targeting him in 2009.

Quso's one-time al Qaeda handlers are among the top terrorist captives now in U.S. custody - Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri, and Walid bin Attash, a.k.a. Khallad.

The alleged top planner of the Cole attack, Nashiri was al Qaeda's chief of operations on the Arabian Peninsula until his capture in 2002. He currently resides in the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and is undergoing a military commission similar to the proceeding that began for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 operatives over the weekend.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tries to "orchestrate drama" at Guantanamo trial
Long slog ahead in 9/11 trial at Guantanamo Bay
Inside the Guantanamo courtroom
9/11 "mastermind," others back before Guantanamo judge

Nashiri, Quso, and Badawi were also implicated in an earlier al Qaeda attempt to bomb another warship, the USS Sullivans in January 2000, which failed when the small boat sunk under the weight of its explosives.



In Depth

Who are 5 accused 9/11 plotters »
Posted Image


Khallad, also detained at Guantanamo, is one of the five men facing a military commission for the 9/11 attacks. He was reputed to be Nashiri's deputy for al Qaeda operations in the Arabian Peninsula a decade ago and was allegedly a central figure in the Cole plot.

According to the 9/11 Commission, Quso was "close friends" with Khallad, who flew scouting flights on U.S. airlines throughout Asia starting in 1999, supervised some hijacker training inside al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, and met with hijackers in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur in early 2000.

In January 2000, Quso (along with a fellow Cole conspirator) allegedly delivered $36,000 to Khallad in Bangkok, according to the Cole indictment. The 9/11 Commission reported that it had "insufficient evidence" to find whether this money made its way into the hands of the first two hijackers to enter the U.S. - Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - who were among those at a crucial al Qaeda summit that Khallad attended in Kuala Lumpur.

Quso invoked the Cole attack in an al Qaeda propaganda video released on May 26, 2010, six months after the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) sent Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with an underwear-bomb on a Detroit-bound flight. (Abdulmutallab was sentenced to life in prison earlier this year.)

In the video, reviewed by CBS News, Quso threatened that the "mujahideen," or Muslim holy warriors, would fight Americans anywhere, even inside the U.S., and had many would-be martyrs in their ranks.

"Fighting the Americans is a legitimate matter. We will fight them wherever we find them. We destroy their ships that are docking off our shores the same way we destroyed USS Cole," Quso said.

"We bomb their embassies and consulates like we did in Nairobi and Dar al-Salam," referring to al Qaeda's 1998 twin truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.

"Better still, we shall take our fight to the heart of your land, launch pre-emptive strikes, and kill their troops in their secure bases the way mujahid hero Nidal Hassan did in Fort Hood," Quso continued in the video. "Aircrafts will also be legitimate targets. We got many people like Umar al-Farouk, and the attempts shall continue."
© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

You have not commented on the topic , all you have done is try to discredit me by trying to smear the writer of an article i posted , and this has backfired on you as i have illustrated by this post .

If you use the words serious trouble in relation to a debate on the internet , what adjectives would you use to describe killing of innocent women and children by these drone strikes , or do you call into question the living under drones report .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 18 December 2012 - 12:28 AM.

  • 2

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#50 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,065 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 18 December 2012 - 04:33 AM

Question


Are there any statistics on US 'friendly-fire' casualties in World War 2?


Answer

And sixty years later the problem still happens with a lack of proper fire control by US troops.
Example the 4 dead and 8 wounded Canadian soldiers who were bombed by the USAF in 2001, in Afghanistan. Two F16 pilots attacked the Canadians as they were conducting a live fire range exercise. The pilots claimed that they were "under fire" from the ground. The aircraft were flying at 20,000 feet, and the ground fire was at ground targets, with small arms weapons, not anti-aircraft missiles. No infantry weapon can reach 20,000 feet of altitude.
The AWACS controller told the F16's to "hold your fire" but they didn't listen, and four young Canadians died as a result.
Just one modern example of how dangerous it is to be near U.S. army troops when you are a "friendly force".

There was a saying in WW2
When the Germans shoot, The British duck
When the British shoot, the Germans duck
When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks.


I could post statistics like these for every war America has been invovled in .


I have no idea what this point has to do with Drone strikes, but its a well known fact (and has been for years) that blue on green (or is green on blue?) fire is a major factor in allied casualties. In fact... now that I think about it, it pretty much furthers the point that Drones are much more preferable in the field then "allied ground forces".

I'm also not sure how those articles you posted justify the drivel you posted earlier by that gossip columist (more importantly, I have no idea how you got 2 pluses for those articles) but ok, I will however, ask one more time, in the vain attempt to believe you're not a troll...

Can you provide a better solution? (Not to be condescending, but....) Or are you just going to keep posting emotionally charged propaganda pieces written by people who are barely one step above "blogger" ? (I mean seriously, can we have some standards here people?)



Edit: PS you said at the end "I could post statistics like these for every war...."

What statistics did you actually post in the first place? All I read is 1 story, and a cute little saying. No wait, sorry, in your entire 5 paragraphs you mentioned 4 killed... good job for managing to get some "facts" and "statistics" in there.

Edited by Dral, 18 December 2012 - 04:40 AM.

  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#51 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,812 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 18 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

Using drones are asymmetric compared to sending a couple of uncapped brigades of soldiers and Marines to get the job done.

Edited by jmfaminoff, 18 December 2012 - 12:05 PM.

  • 0

#52 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

Too bad they didnt drone the ???? who shot ans killed the 6 polio eradication workers.

Shot one of the women in the back.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.