Drones, Civilian Deaths and The New York Times

[ScimitarXEdge]

The same Pakistani's who were helping them in the 80's? It wasn't a problem then, but IF their helping them now it is?

This is the same Muj, who were also busy killing one and another in the 90's and even in the 80's. If you want you can find fault in everything.

but Pakistanis weren't helping an Invasion and killings of Muslim afghans in the 80's

you ignore the conditionals

[کیش]

but Pakistanis weren't helping an Invasion and killings of Muslim afghans in the 80's

you ignore the conditionals

So no civilians have died because of the Muj in the 80's? Or they didn't report it back then as their was no Internet and the Muj were the good guys.

[ScimitarXEdge]

or the civilians that died, didn't die because that Mujahideen groups INTENTIONALLY disregarded the fact civilians were there. Now I don't endorse all Mujahideen groups, Khalisiyah and Harakat i Inqilab I Islami are the ones I am speaking for.

[kakargirl]

How about a little restraint?

Casual killing of Afghans? It is unfortunate that these drones have killed 338 civilians but, at the same time, more than 2,300 militants have been killed, many of whom are Uzbeks, Arabs, Punjabis and others. These militants have themselves killed thousands of Afghan tribesmen, including 1500 tribal leaders from Bajaur to South Waziristan. While all this goes on, Pakistan refuses to go into North Waziristan to prove to the world that "there are no terrorists there and everyone being killed is an innocent civilian".

It's a big mess but the fewer foreign terrorists there are, the better it will be for us because it will no longer give NATO an excuse to come to our homeland again.





Which world are you living in, khoray? Global warming is a big hoax created by atheist scientists to push forward their atheistic agenda. Don't believe me? Ask Alchemist.

We blame the Taliban for turning Afghanistan into a stone-age civilization where women were locked away in homes and all freedoms were stifled, including the freedom to go on the internet and make a post on an open forum, which is a right you are enjoying right now in the West but it is something the Taliban would have flogged you for.

We also blame Al-Qaeda for continuously using our soil to carry out the attacks on the American embassies in Africa, the attacks on the USS Cole, the attacks on 9/11 and many other such operations. And when the US came for revenge, they hid themselves with the ISI in Abbottabad, Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore while our Afghan people were being torn to shreds by vengeful American pilots.

And I would be the biggest fool in the world if I were to be on the side of these Al-Qaeda terrorists again who brought all this menace to my homeland and when the time came to fight, they went crying back into the laps of their Punjabi generals and left my people to die.

The US made a mistake by nurturing Al-Qaeda against the Soviet Union and then leaving men like them to rule over us. Now the US is making amends for its mistakes by taking these thugs out. The US is anything but an angel but I won't stop it when its killing my enemies.

And remember: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

I mean to say the global warming wror as a sarcasm.

If you don't mind wror can i ask you a honest question.

What would you do if your family was killed in night raid or the family women were raped and killed?
I hope you don't mind i am asking it as a general question ,i never want any harm to come to anyone.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Actually, there is someone who wrote a research paper on this. In fact, she wrote a whole book on the problem. Her research was based on more than 2,000 face-to-face interviews with people from FATA especially and Khyber Pashtunkhwa. She is an Afridi from FATA. She is of the opinion that the people of FATA support the drone attacks there. Her name's Farhat Taj. Look her up.

In fact, the anti-Taliban laskhars in FATA are very popular:




Moreover, according to Pashtunwali, people given refuge must give up their arms. In the case of the Uzbeks are Arabs in FATA, instead of giving up their weapons, they killed 1,500 Pashtun tribal leaders with the approval of the ISI in order to move in and capture power.

You are being dishonest here. As a proponent of communism, your ilk brought Najib and the Khad into power long before Omar's boys poured out of his madrassah. Your ilk brought dostum, atmar, and a host of khad KGB equivalents to devastate the Afghan country side.

Regarding Farhat Taj... please use her full name as it is equally dishonest of you to hide her affiliations:

FARHAT TAJ ANDERSEN.

Like a Christian missionary, you repeatedly utilize debunked arguments even though you know that they have been dealt with. You just wait for the right time, in the hopes that no one remembers that they are irrelevent.

Here was my previous post on Farhat Taj ANDERSEN:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...anatics-16220/

Huffington Post Outs Taj ANDERSEN


**Well, you guys have been asking for the critical analysis... here you go a break down of the AIRRA data and why perpetuating Farhat Taj ANDERSEN's myths are going to lead to brutal stupidity and continued intervention. The article delves into her data and its absolute lack of nuance and misinterpretion.** See reddened and bolded criticism of the data itself below...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajiha..._b_389408.html

The New York Times - Getting Pakistan Wrong


In her December 5, 2009 New York Times article, reporter Sabrina Tavernise looks to history to explain why many Pakistanis are so critical of America. Unfortunately, Tavernise looks to the wrong history, focusing on Pakistan's trauma after the partition with India. Instead, she should have focused on US support for successive Pakistani military dictatorships.
No doubt, as Tavernise highlights, there are conspiracy theorists in Pakistan, and criticizing America can be a powerful tool to elicit populist support. However, Tavernise's analysis ignores very real grievances regarding American interference in the country.

It is worth noting that the last US-supported military dictator, General Musharraf, left the stage less than a year and a half ago. He allowed the Taliban to fester, ignored burgeoning economic problems, and institutionalized the military's illegal hold over governance. It is easy to forget that Musharraf's reign was the third period of U.S.-supported dictatorship in Pakistani history.

The point is that while some Pakistanis might subscribe to outrageous theories, it is disingenuous to paint such a simplistic picture of the vast majority of Pakistanis. Tavernise's report that Pakistan's media outlets "trumpet" conspiracy theories is incomplete. Even a quick skim of major Pakistani television networks and newspapers reveals a robust national debate.

In this debate, many Pakistani commentators place blame squarely on the Pakistani government for failing to protect its citizens. These commentators also blame Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies for past support of militant organizations.

Tavernise's article isn't the only example of problematic Pakistan analysis at the New York Times. There is also Scott Shane's December 4, 2009 piece, "C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan." Shane's piece deprives American readers of an opportunity to truly evaluate U.S. drone missile attacks.

The article focuses heavily on the thoughts of "one government official," who not-so-surprisingly is an advocate for drone attacks. Shane's article does mention that some counterinsurgency experts question whether the attacks do "more harm than good." However, he doesn't investigate these potential downsides.

Instead, Shane calls Pakistani press reports of hundreds of civilian casualties "sketchy." He gives more space to the same unnamed "government official" who claims that civilian casualties are "just over 20." The piece references a well-researched New America Foundation report claiming that between 260 to 320 civilians have been killed, but then immediately negates the quote with another quote from the unnamed "government official."

Setting aside Shane's dependence on an all-knowing secret government source, the negative consequences of drone attacks are real:

1. CIA drone attacks undermine indigenous Pakistani efforts to combat militants by redirecting popular attention to basic questions of the country's sovereignty.
2. The attacks push militants away from the tribal areas and deeper into Pakistan's urban centers, dispersing previously consolidated forces.
3. The attacks result in significant civilian casualties, which consequently increase anti-American sentiments.
4. Those civilian casualties serve as a powerful recruiting tool for Pakistani Taliban militias.

Shane also presents a partial sketch of a recent Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy report on the views of 550 residents of the tribal areas where drone attacks occur, authored by anthropologist Farhat Taj -- who claims that professionals in FATA view the drone missiles as "liberators." A more careful look at the survey, however, reveals that the report's findings are so split down the middle as to be inconclusive.

When asked whether the drone attacks bring about "fear and terror in the common people," 45% of respondents answered in the affirmative. "Fear and terror" are powerful words. When respondents were asked whether they thought the drone strikes were "accurate in their strikes," 48% answered "No," and 42% believed the missiles increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas. 100 of those approached declined to answer. These results are at best inconclusive, but by no means provide a solid argument in favor of drone attacks.

The New York Times needs to do a better job of reporting on the nuanced and diverse views of Pakistani civilians. Not only that, but the newspaper should also be more independent in its coverage of policies like drone missile attacks. More than two-and-a-half thousand Pakistanis have died in terrorist violence, and some three million Swat and South Waziristan residents have become refugees. Pakistani viewpoints deserve better coverage, and American readers deserve better analysis.

[sanman]

Heh, Pakistani viewpoints get plenty of coverage in the NYT.

It's not "a whole lot of Pakistanis" who have been dying in this war - it's been a whole lot of Pashtuns dying. There are no drone strikes in Lahore, buddy. The Pakjabi generals who really run the country have been treating the Pashtuns as their sacrificial pawns. They are more than happy to fight to the last Pashtun in pursuit of their mad goals - all while shedding fake crocodile tears over lost Pashtun lives.

[kakargirl]

farhat-703393.jpg Farhat Taj Andersen is their spokes person, who is a Christian convert.


So this is Andersen

[JAMALUDEEN]

That's not a contradictory statement in Logic.

e relevant example; if a Politician said I lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, does this mean this statement is also false? In a court of Law Confessions to a crime are legitimate; so if the source is not legitimate because of criminal or fallacious behavior, a confession wouldn't have been admissible.

So since the taliban are not legit, the confessions those taliban members made in those videos and article that you shared cannot be admissable to court as evidence.

Thank you for proving my point.

The point I made is very relevant, since it shows that illegitimacy doesn't mean everything is a lie but that NOT everything is the truth...

Well, since illegitimacy doesn't mean everything is a lie but that not everything is the truth either, then that makes everything neutral, therefore the taliban and the US are both feeding of neutral information..which makes them equally right.

[JAMALUDEEN]

Heh, Pakistani viewpoints get plenty of coverage in the NYT.

It's not "a whole lot of Pakistanis" who have been dying in this war - it's been a whole lot of Pashtuns dying. There are no drone strikes in Lahore, buddy. The Pakjabi generals who really run the country have been treating the Pashtuns as their sacrificial pawns. They are more than happy to fight to the last Pashtun in pursuit of their mad goals - all while shedding fake crocodile tears over lost Pashtun lives.

ScimitarXEdge and sanman.

Just because i'm asking you guys for proof about the taliban does not mean I'm a Pakistani. This is a logical fallacy, it is called the false dilemma fallacy.

Please avoid it next time.

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me the proof i asked in my previous posts.

[sanman]

ScimitarXEdge and sanman.

Just because i'm asking you guys for proof about the taliban does not mean I'm a Pakistani. This is a logical fallacy, it is called the false dilemma fallacy.

Please avoid it next time.

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me the proof i asked in my previous posts.

So can you first outline your position? What are your beliefs about Taliban?
Where do they come from? Who gives them weapons? Who gives them intelligence? Why had Pakistani soldiers been taken prisoner while fighting against Northern Alliance in the 90s? When Americans first bombed Kunduz, why did Pakistan plead with the US to allow their Pak Army soldiers to be airlifted out first?

You say that you are not Pakistani by birth, but how do your beliefs and goals differ from Pakistan's? That's more important. As someone who claims to be a God-fearing person, will you give some straightforward replies on this?

[JAMALUDEEN]

So can you first outline your position? What are your beliefs about Taliban?
Where do they come from? Who gives them weapons? Who gives them intelligence?

My position is pretty neutral towards the whole situation, unfortunately the onus is on you to prove whether the taliban are the creation of Pakistan.

Then you need to provide us solid evidence, whether they get their funding from Pakistan, Iran, or Russia or the US.

Your questions are genuine but you need to provide evidence about each of your questions.

Why had Pakistani soldiers been taken prisoner while fighting against Northern Alliance in the 90s?

No proof. - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.

When Americans first bombed Kunduz, why did Pakistan plead with the US to allow their Pak Army soldiers to be airlifted out first?

No proof - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.

You say that you are not Pakistani by birth, but how do your beliefs and goals differ from Pakistan's?

Still no proof Again, a false dilemma fallacy.

That's more important. As someone who claims to be a God-fearing person, will you give some straightforward replies on this?

Again, you have forgotten to provide proof, which should state whether i am a god-fearing person or not. Funny thing is you and smiterxedge can still not provide me with solid proof, yet your beliefs are so strong against both the US and the Taliban.

[JAMALUDEEN]

All her scholarly work and research have culminated into a book that was very recently published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, an academic publisher. The book isn't an opinion-piece but an academic endeavor to discover the truth.

Home - Cambridge Scholars Publishing

You can download a sample here.

Thanks to Barakzai brother. << What is your say on this topic?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Thanks to Barakzai brother. << What is your say on this topic?

So she has a Norwegian surname and therefore her research methodology is flawed?

My position is pretty neutral towards the whole situation, unfortunately the onus is on you to prove whether the taliban are the creation of Pakistan.

Then you need to provide us solid evidence, whether they get their funding from Pakistan, Iran, or Russia or the US.

Your questions are genuine but you need to provide evidence about each of your questions.




No proof. - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.




No proof - Provide me with proof then i will answer you.




Still no proof Again, a false dilemma fallacy.



Again, you have forgotten to provide proof, which should state whether i am a god-fearing person or not. Funny thing is you and smiterxedge can still not provide me with solid proof, yet your beliefs are so strong against both the US and the Taliban.

The Taliban were not a Pakistani creation but, very soon after their inception, they became allied with the ISI, who provided logistical and political support to them. Ultimately, the Taliban regime became a vassal to the ISI because of their financial dependency. President Ghulam Ishaq of Pakistan openly referred to as the Taliban's Afghanistan as Pakistan's fifth province and a provincial budget was set aside for them just as the budgets for Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan was decided. During the Taliban regime, Kabul never raised the Durrand Line issue, not even once. In fact, the Taliban allowed Pakistani agents to set up training camps for Kashmiri militant groups in Afghanistan, where training was provided to Punjabis, Arabs, Chechens and just about anyone else who wanted to blow stuff up. It is no wonder that Colonel Imam and General Hamid Gul went to the Taliban leadership and the pictures of their honeymoon can be found readily on the internets.

Do you want evidence for all these claims? This is all common knowledge now and no one disputes this but give me the criterea of your "evidence" and I will provide it for every claim that I've made in my post.

Your questions are genuine but you need to provide evidence about each of your questions.

Hahahahahaha! lol..

That made me lol IRL.

[JAMALUDEEN]

So she has a Norwegian surname and therefore her research methodology is flawed?

There is a lot more in that thread, however, I don't know why you would ask me this, because I never said it in the first place.

But BarakzaiAbdali has made some really great arguments in the thread, which i would like you to refute, that is if you wish.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

There is a lot more in that thread, however, I don't know why you would ask me this, because I never said it in the first place.

But BarakzaiAbdali has made some really great arguments in the thread, which i would like you to refute, that is if you wish.

uhh.. If whatever he said is relevant to the discussion at hand, present it here yourself and if I find it to be against the facts, I'll refute it. I'm sorry but I just don't have the time to refute every post on this forum.