U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan

Post Reply New Topic

okay--so someone's sure to accuse me of being not too tightly wrapped. (wouldn't be the first time.) but Democracy Now's been reporting this, and--regardless of whether you agree with the program's political bent or not---its reporting is both careful and investigative.

apparently, the US gov't. has launched a series of attacks on Pakistan. the (stated) target has to do with Taliban cells along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. since the Taliban is a largely guerilla force--and guerilla forces by definition tend to live among civilians--many civilians are dying.

horrifying (IMO) but not "strange." (at least considering US "policies" in re: to the Muslim world.) what makes this strange: the US forces consist largely of unmanned drones.

according to DN, the drones are in turn operated by a rather high-tech form of remote control (rather like the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) and who's being recruited to operate them?

largely: gamers.

i know there's a lot of gamers at this site; also know there's a high degree of gaming interest in the AS/ASD/NLD community.

IMO: this is not the way to go in Pakistan. it seems to be creating more radicals by the minute. also: a lot of innocent people are losing their lives.

also: the PTSD suffered by those involved in "remote" operations tends to be just as severe as among those who have seen direct contact. (at times, even more severe.)

if any of the above are areas of interest/activism to you, please get the word out.

thanks, thanks, thanks.

?

Might have this wrong but it sounds like you've only just heard about this. The US has been using drones for at least a year if not two or three.

Drones that kill our enemies without risking troops.

Our tax dollars at work.

ruveyn

go away ruveyn

Its damn shame that civilians have to die for this cause it means that it hurts diplomacy when we lose the hearts and mind of the populace but it should also show them that sympthizing with the taliban will only hurt them and they are not their friend and are only using them as a human shield so that when we attack there is collateral damage ,they hate us for that and then more radicals.This trend of the military targeting gamers and in proximty ASD ASP And others is disturbing to the dangerous effects PTSD could have on one already suffering from a mental illness.But using the drones is the only way around pakistans refusal to search for terrorist there and they a certainly aren't doing enough.Even more disturbing is that it is known that pakistan is in the possestion of nukes.

to my knowledge never in the history of warfare has a guerilla force used the local population as a human shield. A guerilla force is at the mercy of the civilian populace: if they support the guerillas they either say nothing and/or provide support, if against they turn them in at the first opportunity.

I find the image of taleban fighters hiding and sneaking around in amongst a wedding party hilarious. I suppose they're waiting for an American patrol to wander over a mountain range, across international borders and to were the wedding party is before, to the shock of all present, they pull out AK-47's and RPG's. Sounds like a Python sketch.

Well exhausted, what i read about what goes on in the tribal areas would still produce radicals wether or not there was any intervention. =/ . Last i heard, they were using the youth section of the villages they hold hostage to bolster their ranks, which is where their minds are easily manipulated. =/

Titus, there are fundamental differences between Guerilla and terrorist groups. Guerrilleros usually don't hide their presence to the group. They have something that allows to tell them apart (like a armband), that is not the same case with terrorists, although they do use the same guerrilla tactics, only to cause greater psychological distress amongst the victims.

About the nukes, you can rest assured regarding that, the army is always keeping a rather good hold on those, and they have a history in Pakistan to overthrow the current government if it smells too much of corruption. <.< That is until human rights are so heavily restricted that they want the "diplomatic" governement back. <.< Why do you think Bush supported Musharraf even though he was being akin to a dictator? :p I know that recently there should have been a shift in power regarding the administration of the country, but i have not heard wether or not they'd cooperate with the US or anyone else. The pakistan army "should" have returned to the tribal zones in order to weed them out, but meh... Those regions have been a pain in the ass for both sides.

It should still be noted that even the tribal chiefs don't even approve of the talibans, i read that they even asked the Afghan prime minister to help them (but that was from the time at which Musharraf was in power...so meh again) <.<

And last thing, didn't you know that the US army was using ultra realistic first person shooter games to lure in gamers into their ranks? <.< So hum yeah.... Not suprised reading all this.

the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 1940's-era technology. I think they had a time and an altimiter, but that's about it.

Yeah, we've been flying over there for years. Everyone up there knows about it. There's even an Arabic word (well, maybe Urdu... that escapes me that the local populace refers to them by.

The Taliban stay glued to local populace, to make sure that they can't be killed without collateral damage.

I'm well aware there are fundemental differences phil. The Taleban (capital T) is a group removed from holding state power in Afghanistan which, because it has learned it takes a pasting every time it tackles NATO/US head on, uses Guerrilla warfare to engage. The taleban (small t), it seems to me, is a term use by the media and government to refer to all non-NATO/affiliated groups who bear arms, the Taleban, the Pushtun (sp.?) tribes etc etc which for the most fight in the manner of guerilleros. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group which engenders/deposits cells in host countries whose overriding tactic is suicide attacks, (Jean Baudrillard offers an excellent discussion on terrorism) and, as you say, hide their activities from the populace. The only time guerrilleros, to my knowledge, live and act among the populace is in the urban environment, which again is with their knowledge, like you say; non-urban groups hide as far away from populated areas as supply lines allow (thers probably a beter way of putting that).

The terrorist act is one directed against a target that is military and/or civilian, achieves maximum publicity/dissemination among the target populace, in order to further strategic goals. If the US command fully accepts that using drones to kill 'terrorists' is one which will kill civilians, that is furthers strategic ends and propagates the idea that sheltering potential targets will lead to your death is this policy not terroristic?

This however is a secondary question to the one at hand, which ties into my first paragraph, are the drones targeted against guerilla commanders or terrorists? The former is to accept that to defeat a guerilla campaign requires that you become elbow deep in the blood of both your enemy and civilians, the latter is to cut of the head of the hydra.

"The terrorist act is one directed against a target that is military and/or civilian" Not entirely true, in fact it's not directed at any one in particular, it's indiscriminate. There's little planning when it comes to making explosive cars but they still want it to make the most casualties as possible. And sadly, as the legend goes, hydra heads tend to regrow, especially when the hierarchy within this kind of organisation is so well planned out. And i think it's Pashtuns <.< (confirmed after checking Wiki)

This is why the american administration is so stupid. They're only creating the next wave of terrorists with stupid policies and tactics like these.

hmm. That sentence seems tautological. I think we may be heading toward the same conclusions from different semantic points though. 'No-one in particular' is in a sense covered by "miltary and/or civilian'', it sort of also covers the lack of discrimination between a military target and a civilian one.

anyway, back to the topic....

Well, that could be flimsy, but what about the animals that wander the street or are used to pull stuff? It's not too far fetched, and they're definitely not civilians (last i checked).

The true question we must ask is that if there is an ethical or moral way to fight and enemy like this,modern blitkrieg like tactics dont work in a country thats not a nation state.Then again war is hardly ethical or moral.

Well, how do you fight an enemy you can't identify as such?

Kill them all and let God sort out the bodies.

ruveyn