Farhat Taj ANDERSEN gets it wrong again

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One of Taj ANDERSEN's main contentions is that the tribal people, en masse, are advocates of the drone attacks. She has been shown to be utilizing shady means and statistical approaches and then to infer conclusions suited to her forgone conclusions. To remind you:

"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."

http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...ndersen-16188/

So now, more case examples from the BBC (that bastion of Taliban support) provides glimpses into the actual situation (in diametric contradiction to what Taj ANDERSEN propagandizes)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15553761

Direct names are given of youngsters who were killed and direct statements are taken from tribal folks in regard to their dramatically negative opinion of the drone strikes.

"After the missile strike on Monday, Pakistani officials said four suspected militants had been killed.
If the strike actually killed two young boys - as appears to be the case - it's unlikely anyone will ever be held to account."

In regard to what the elders want or represent:

"When tribal elders from the remote Pakistani region of North Waziristan travelled to Islamabad last week to protest against CIA drone strikes, a teenager called Tariq Khan was among them."

Independently, the NY Times stated the following the other day regarding the opinions of elders:

"Osama bin Laden was thought to have been hiding in the tribal areas, too, said a tribal elder reached by telephone in the Haqqani stronghold of North Waziristan. Instead, Bin Laden was killed by American commandos in Abbottabad, a small city deep in Pakistan that is home to a top military academy. Whether he was there with the knowledge of Pakistan’s spy agency is still unclear.
'The Americans have taken the hell out of us through drones all these years trying to target O.B.L.,” said the elder, referring to Bin Laden, and not wanting to be named for fear of his safety. “But they found him in Abbottabad. The same will happen with the Haqqanis, too.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/wo...&smid=fb-share

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Undoubtely, the swan song of the Marxists will be:
Lets talk about Taliban sending youths to conduct suicide bombings. Lets talk about market place bombs.

Lets not, because they are irrelevent to this discussion and its an assinine attempt to deflect criticism. It wont work.

Those are irrelevent points. They are basically separate discussions to be had about separate phenomena.

To attempt to say that the drone attack occurs because the Taliban blows up market places allows for the reverse criticism to be leveled: Market places are blown up because Rasmussen, NATO, and Western powers are there.

Indeed, Matthew Hoh's Afghan Study Group analyses place a greater support for that conclusion:

"The push went badly, since villagers rebelled, turning to the Taliban to get rid of the outsiders. And so the cycle began. We add more troops, which strengthens the Taliban and weakens support for the government. Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence."

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

The drones on the other hand, dont have that excuse. The best/worst contention would be that the drones are over KP and FATA skies because foreign fighters enter Afghanistan from there... hence its the same effect. Once again, erroneous conclusion attempting to link to mutually exclusive concepts.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The BBC article in full;

When tribal elders from the remote Pakistani region of North Waziristan travelled to Islamabad last week to protest against CIA drone strikes, a teenager called Tariq Khan was among them.
A BBC team caught him on camera, sitting near the front of a tribal assembly, or jirga, listening carefully.
Four days later the 16-year-old was dead - killed by one of the drones he was protesting against.
In his final days, Tariq was living in fear, according to Neil Williams from the British legal charity, Reprieve, who met him at the Jirga.
"He was really really petrified," said Mr Williams, "and so were his friends. He didn't want to go home because of the drones. They were all scared."
Tariq carried with him the identity card of his teenage cousin, Asmar Ullah, who was killed by a drone. On Monday he shared his fate.
Tariq's family say he was hit by two missiles as he was driving near Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan.
The shy teenager, who was good with computers, was beheaded in the strike. His 12-year-old cousin Wahid was killed alongside him.
The boys were on their way to see a relative, according to Tariq's uncle, Noor Kalam, who we reached by phone.
He denied that Tariq had any link to militant groups. "We condemn this very strongly," he said. "He was just a normal boy who loved football."
The CIA's drone campaign is a covert war, conducted in remote terrain, where the facts are often in dispute.
The tribal belt is off limits to foreign journalists. Militants often seal off the locations where drone strikes take place. The truth can be buried with the dead.
After the missile strike on Monday, Pakistani officials said four suspected militants had been killed.
If the strike actually killed two young boys - as appears to be the case - it's unlikely anyone will ever be held to account.

There are no confirmed death tolls but several independent organisations estimate that drones have killed more than 2,000 people since 2004. Most are suspected to be militants.
Many senior commanders from the Taliban and al-Qaeda are among the dead. But campaigners claim there have been hundreds of civilian victims, whose stories are seldom told.
A shy teenage boy called Saadullah is one of them. He survived a drone strike that killed three of his relatives, but he lost both legs, one eye and his hope for the future.
"I wanted to be a doctor," he told me, "but I can't walk to school anymore. When I see others going, I wish I could join them."
Like Tariq, Saadullah travelled to Islamabad for last week's jirga. Seated alongside him was Haji Zardullah, a white-bearded man who said he lost four nephews in a separate attack.
"None of these were harmful people," he said. "Two were still in school and one was in college."
Asghar Khan, a tribal elder in a cream turban, said three of his relatives paid with their lives for visiting a sick neighbour.
"My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," he said. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban."

Legal challenges
Viewed from a drone, any adult male in the tribal areas can look like a target, according to Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who is taking on the CIA.
The use of drone missiles has soared
"A Taliban or non-Taliban would be dressed in the same way," he said. "Everyone has a beard, a turban and an AK-47 because every person carries a weapon in that area, so anyone could be target."
Mr Akbar is suing the CIA for compensation in the Islamabad High Court, and plans to file a Supreme Court action.

He claims the US is getting away with murder in North Waziristan.
It's a view shared by Reprieve, whose Director Clive Stafford Smith has been meeting drone victims in Pakistan.
"What's going on here, unfortunately, is murder," he said.
"There's a war going on in Afghanistan, but none here in Pakistan, so what the CIA is doing here is illegal."
The CIA would doubtless say otherwise, if it were prepared to discuss the drone programme, but US officials are usually silent on the issue.
In a rare public comment two years ago, the then director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, defended the use of drones.
"We have targeted those who are enemies of the United States," he said. " When we use it, it is very precise and it limits collateral damage."
But the damage is not limited enough, say opponents like Mr Stafford Smith, who is gathering evidence about civilian deaths. From a shopping bag he produced a jagged chunk of metal - a missile fragment - believed to have killed a child in Waziristan in August of last year.

"I have a three-year-old son myself, and the idea that this thing killed someone very much like my little Wilf really tugs at your heart strings," he said.
Mr Stafford Smith says drones are changing the nature of modern warfare.
"If you are trying to surrender and you put your hands up to a drone, what happens?" he asks.
"They just fire the missile, so there are all sorts of Geneva Conventions issues which are not being discussed."
Campaigners also warn that drone strikes are counter-productive, generating more radicalism and more hatred of the West. They say the drone strikes are a Taliban recruiting tool.
At Tariq Khan's funeral, many mourners spoke out against the US, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.
But Washington is unlikely to heed the anger here. Under President Barack Obama, the use of drone missiles has soared - there's an attack on average every four days.
Increasingly, these remote-controlled killers are Washington's weapon of choice.

[Soldat_Amir]

Barakzai, I have met with many IDPS from South Waziristan, especially from the Maseed areas in DI Khan, and I can say very clearly, most people did not oppose the drone attacks, as a matter of fact, they are too scared to oppose the truck loads of Arabs/Uzbeks who bring fear to them.

Obviously one will oppose the killings of innocent people due to drone attacks, but they do the job well, and have eliminated many unsavory figures both from TTP and Al Qaida.

Why don't you make a visit to Badar/Momi Karamay, my mothers village, everyone can remember how two small Maseed boys were beheaded by Uzbeks, with no objection from the local Taliban.

I even interviewed, the Local Militia, led by Zainudeen Mahsud at the time, I have photos with them too, most of them, were former aids of Baitullah, and they told me stories of how barbaric these foreigners are, how they would extort the locals and brainwash them with force.

Its very easy to mock a writer by using her name Barakzai, but from my time spent there, I saw absolutely no objection towards the Drones, obviously I was told in secret, as most people are too scared to speak out, cos ISI are everywhere, even amongst the IDPS too.

Deera Manana.

[Toramana]

People of FATA call them Ababils for an analogy with the old tale and their importance to them...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

People of FATA call them Ababils for an analogy with the old tale and their importance to them...

According to HER once again. Thats my point, you pashtun marxists have your own Osama Bin Ladin and Lady Al Qaeda equivalents... they basically are your prophets and their words are law. She stated it, so in your mind, this must be the case. I read that stupid article by taj ANDERSEN and found it to be bereft of quality.

Actually, lets look at the evidence from a nonpartisian uninvolved party as to what the Wazirs call the drones.

"US drone strikes are a unique form of conflict-related violence in Pakistan. Strikes occur without any warning and are often outside areas of ongoing Pakistani military operations. Many locals refer to the drones as bangana—a form of the Pasthun word for “wasp,” in reference to the ubiquitous buzzing sound of the drones."

The source?

The humanitarian organization CIVIC page 59:

http://www.civicworldwide.org/storag...10%20final.pdf


Here is corroborating evidence from the Gaurdian in Lodon:

"The Pashtun tribesmen have several nicknames for the drones that endlessly circle over their mud-walled mountain villages. Some call them "wasps" or "mosquitoes", after the low buzz emitted by the pilotless aircraft's small engines.
But the most telling name is "bangana" – the Pashto word for a thunderclap – after the terrifying impact of a laser-guided Hellfire missile as it slams into a building, often obliterating everyone inside."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...bama-increased


So please dont bring me more bull-sh-it from this mentally handicapped agenda laced lady.

[Alchemist]

F.T. Anderson makes the same type of arguments as Soldout Amir. Are they related?
I mean she lives in England and says she is aware of ground realities in Waziristan. Then makes the argument that Drone Attacks are necessary because AQ and Taliban are a menace.
What is the difference between Taliban/AQ (aka the axis of evil) and NATO if they both kill civilians in the process of targeting each other? If the people choose one way or the other then it means that the people want to be dominated in any case and have no sovereignty of their own regardless.
Could it be that because she is a Christian convert that she feels safer with NATO? or that Soldout is an atheist and feels threatened to have a religious regime in FATA?

I don't understand this AIRRA. Pakistanis seem to think that it is a Northern Alliance think tank created to destabilize Pakistan. But how could it be NA if it is situated in FATA and it's members are concerned with pashtun interests.

I am reading some of their papers..and I think "what the heck? Did Toromana write this?"

For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the
Indian subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian peninsula. This continental drift is
not physical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian
identity for an Arab-Muslim one

And then they have a paper by CFR (funded by the Rockefellers) hosted on their page....with conflicting messages that counter arguments in other papers....the CFR paper says that it is not in the interest of the US to bother with the rebuilding efforts...then another paper says Taliban activities hinder the rebuilding process and the only focus of the US should be to kill off AQ in order to protect it self ... but I don't see how the Taliban is a threat to America? So really...they just say "Islam is the problem....arabs are the problem...and NATO is a solution"....but why? Do they question their assumptions? No...because they are white washed colonized patsies...that's all I can get it from it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

F.T. Anderson makes the same type of arguments as Soldout Amir. Are they related?
I mean she lives in England and says she is aware of ground realities in Waziristan. Then makes the argument that Drone Attacks are necessary because AQ and Taliban are a menace.
What is the difference between Taliban/AQ (aka the axis of evil) and NATO if they both kill civilians in the process of targeting each other? If the people choose one way or the other then it means that the people want to be dominated in any case and have no sovereignty of their own regardless.
Could it be that because she is a Christian convert that she feels safer with NATO? or that Soldout is an atheist and feels threatened to have a religious regime in FATA?

I don't understand this AIRRA. Pakistanis seem to think that it is a Northern Alliance think tank created to destabilize Pakistan. But how could it be NA if it is situated in FATA and it's members are concerned with pashtun interests.

I am reading some of their papers..and I think "what the heck? Did Toromana write this?"



And then they have a paper by CFR (funded by the Rockefellers) hosted on their page....with conflicting messages that counter arguments in other papers....the CFR paper says that it is not in the interest of the US to bother with the rebuilding efforts...then another paper says Taliban activities hinder the rebuilding process and the only focus of the US should be to kill off AQ in order to protect it self ... but I don't see how the Taliban is a threat to America? So really...they just say "Islam is the problem....arabs are the problem...and NATO is a solution"....but why? Do they question their assumptions? No...because they are white washed colonized patsies...that's all I can get it from it.

Investigate the names on AIRRA's board... Pashtun Marxists galore. Her assinine articles always begin with: "I was in talk talking to a tribal leader (wink wink) but I cannot tell you his name (wink wink) and he told me that The Taliban were eating babies.... can you dig it??? Babies???"

She usually pops up once an American (usually white) writes a piece that generally tells other Americans: "Hey man, what the heck are we doing wasting our time in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan when all we really need to do is hit hard with some punitive smashing hit and then haul out of there?" She gets agitated and starts in with "I knoooow, because I was there! and they told me they LOOOOOVE drones... they called them ababeeeel" Reader shrugs and says: "video proof or some reference please." She responds: "Oh but I cannot do so dear. That would result in th Taliban killing my source."

The folks here get all ansy and usually sh-it a brick when we emphasize her last name. The hilarious thing is that she DEEMPHASIZES it in asian press but lists it in Europe. Why? Because she knows no FATA pashtun especially with ghairath is going to see her as a representative sample of FATA women as not a one would ever give their daughter willingly to a farangee." So then the retarded as heck answer here was: "ooooh but maybe her husband is a convvvvert." Yeah, suuuuure, he's a convert and her writings sure support that she has even a modicum of Islamic thought between her two ears? THeir response? "Oh its because she knows you'll use it for ad hominem." Thats idiotic. She hides it, yet simulataneously harps on her supposed, but nonexistent Pashtun street cred. If she had honesty in her, she would attach that name bright and bold after her first name and let the chips fall where they may. But, true to her poor form, she drops the ANDERSEN in the Muslim and asian press circles.

Every source that takes a nonbiased view at the same data or in the same direction sees the word 180 degrees apart from her vision.

Also, no one thinks AIRRA is northern alliance funded. Everyone knows its the Marxists at it again, still smarting from when their golden cow Najib got strung up.

Trust me, we know that when Saleh says something he comes right out in the press and says it... he doesnt need some mentally handicapped deficiency data generator that idiotically claims that the FATA folks yearn for killing machines from up above.