Skip to comments.In Swat Valley, U.S. drone strikes radicalizing a new generation
Posted on 04/16/2013 7:55:17 PM PDT by RC one
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on drones, British lawyer Ben Emmerson, recently visited Pakistan and told me: "The consequence of drone strikes has been to radicalize an entirely new generation."
The New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan, drones have killed between 1,953 and 3,279 people since 2004 -- and that between 18% and 23% of them were not militants. The nonmilitant casualty rate was down to about 10% in 2012, the group says.
A study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that since 2004, Pakistan has had 365 drone strikes that have killed between 2,536 and 3,577 people -- including 411 to 884 civilians.
U.S. President Barack Obama has maintained the strikes are necessary for defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, but others including Emmerson have their doubts.
He said: "Through the use of drones you may win the immediate battle you are waging against this particular faction or that particular faction ... but you are losing the war in the longer term."
Emmerson's legal insights will form the basis of his report to the U.N., expected later this year. For the United States, at least, it could make for a damning read.
Emmerson says the drone strikes are illegal under international law as they violate Pakistan's sovereignty and fly in the face of Pakistani government calls for them to desist -- and that they also legalize al Qaeda's fight against America.
He said: "If it is lawful for the U.S. to drone al Qaeda associates whereever they find them, then it is also lawful for al Qaeda to target U.S. military or infrastructure where ever (militants) find them."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Is the Swat Valley ruled by the Sultan of Swat?
Hell, the next REAL president will just nuke all those SOB`s into Camel dust.
Emerson is full of crap. “Lawful” is what countries decide. Terrorists are stateless actors, like pirates. What he is describing may be termed some sort of moral justification, but “moral” and “lawful” are not the same thing.
in all their talk aobut Boston, has anyone in the media asked whether it was done as revenge for one of Obama’s drone attacks?
Maybe someone’s son or wife was killed in one of them.
Instead of wondering if it was some tea party or rightwing guy maybe it might actually be a direct result of something Obama did.
I won’t be holding my breath,
Let a cook break that down.
Being a cook, I'm going to round some numbers. Call it 4000 dead. and at 10 people and one of my brother's in law (the .9) for nice round 11 toasties per strike.
If you take the worst case of 884 civies, and divide that by the number of drone strikes. That's 2 and half 'civilians' per strike.
So we are at 8 and a half bad guys killed per stike, assuming (and I don't) that 'civilians' are good guys.
Not bad numbers. Continue as you were.
perhaps, but that’s also a lot of family members and people who could be out for revenge.
they take honor and blood feuds and revenge very seriously over there.
just something to think about
Those folks have been “radicals” since time immemorial.
sure he will.
But how many Afghans have come here to blow us up. And then compare that to the number of Saudis.
We are using drones in the wrong place.
Don't want no trouble, don't start none.
Or we'll finish it.
As I said, maintain course and heading.
I don't buy that wishy-washy crap. Sell it to someone else.
We take murdering our citizens who were not doing anything to those cretins very seriously too. That is why we try to kill as many as we can to keep them from doing it again.
If they are angry because we don’t just let them kill us at will, well they will just have to be angry. Maybe before too long they will die angry.
If we didn’t nuke anyone after 9/11, what makes you think they would do it now?
If there was an army in your country, you would take up arms against them. Just like they are.
We went into Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda. We accomplished that years ago.
We are nation building in a place that will never adopt our way of doing things. And if the only reason we are in their country is because they are shooting at us....that’s a dumb reason to be there.
drone strikes are ineffective at destroying the enemy or his resolve to fight. They create more enemies and they increase his resolve to fight. How would you feel if someone blew up your child or your nephew or your brother or sister and then called it acceptable collateral damage? Would you want to stop fighting or would an insatiable demonic blood rage well up inside of you? In WW2, we took the lives of women and children but we also took the enemies means of fighting and his will to fight and compelled him to surrender. obama is doing the opposite afaic.
By 2018 the Taliban will have stolen a couple of the Pakistani nukes.
Muzzies are always radicalized. It’s the way of Allah.
And how are these retards going to use them?
Sounds like it knocked the fight out of about 4000.
How are drones different than an F-16 with a pilot? They use the same weapons.
There's some logical, not-out-of-the-box thinking.
I've already planted a Nuke Howto for Idiots out there. ;)
We left them alone after we helped them beat the Russians. That got us 911. Just leaving them alone is not an option.
If I had gone out and murdered some innocent Americans, I would not expect them to spare me or anyone with me unless I was crazy and had no sense of responsibility.
“We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators’ educational levels is available - the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 - 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.
The 1993 World Trade Center attack involved 12 men, all of whom had a college education. The 9/11 pilots, as well as the secondary planners identified by the 9/11 commission, all attended Western universities, a prestigious and elite endeavor for anyone from the Middle East. Indeed, the lead 9/11 pilot, Mohamed Atta, had a degree from a German university in, of all things, urban preservation, while the operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, studied engineering in North Carolina. We also found that two-thirds of the 25 hijackers and planners involved in 9/11 had attended college.
Of the 75 terrorists we investigated, only nine had attended madrassas, and all of those played a role in one attack - the Bali bombing. Even in this instance, however, five college-educated “masterminds” - including two university lecturers - helped to shape the Bali plot.
Like the view that poverty drives terrorism - a notion that countless studies have debunked - the idea that madrassas are incubating the next generation of terrorists offers the soothing illusion that desperate, ignorant automatons are attacking us rather than college graduates, as is often the case. In fact, two of the terrorists in our study had doctorates from Western universities, and two others were working toward their Ph.D.”
They're discovering blood feuds are a double-edged sword. Besides, we're not really engaging in a blood feud with them. They're being targeted because they're plotting terror attacks or in league with terrorists. The moment they stop, we stop.
It's also pretty normal to scream defiance while under attack. Japanese and German civilians did the same thing, but submitted meekly after their governments surrendered.
In practice, most Muslims appear to take their religion with a grain of salt. Think of how few suicide attackers have materialized despite the promise of a paradise filled with virgins just waiting to be deflowered. Don't get me wrong - they're bigoted troglodytes to a man, but it's clear that religious shibboleths are insufficient to overcome the universal fear of death.
4,000 what? terrorists? Doubtful. If anything, it incited 10 times as many people to become terrorists.
How are drones different than an F-16 with a pilot?
drones and F16s don't win wars. Resolve wins wars. When has killing your enemies women and children destroyed his resolve? When was the last time we won a war btw?
I know that many terrorists are educated, especially in engineering. They are mostly Saudi, and not Taliban.
I am aware that muslims from many countries have gone to A-stan to fight the “Great Satan”. I can’t see them obtaining a nuke, let alone having a realistic platform for detonation. We have multiple countermeasures for just such an occasion.
I don’t think pin pricks are going to be any more helpful, not even an eternity of pin pricks.
I should add, I’m not downplaying the seriousness of terrorism. I just don’t believe they’ll get a nuke, nor do I believe we will nuke them.
If you bring your relatives into the field, then your relatives are acceptable collateral damage. They're angry at us not for inflicting collateral damage on them, but for defying the will of Allah, which is that we submit like the accursed infidels we are, hand over all our loot and join the long parade of slaves acquired via the jihad since the time of Muhammad.
Do you think we’re killing 9-11 terrorists still?
I lost a family because I went back to the war when 9/11 happened.
I'm still losing former brothers in arms, and men I've fed meals to, to that war.
Don't start none, won't be none.
All the Arab Street understands is force.
I think we're plowing that soil where they originally grew from. That's good enough.
Kill them until they stop attacking us. If that means there’s not a house cat left, I’m fine with that.
Boston could be about most anything.
Best to eschew muzzies domestically and internationally.
Terrible idea for arm them in Syria through that arms dealer Ben Gahzi.
Boston could be about most anything.
Best to eschew muzzies domestically and internationally.
Terrible idea to arm them in Syria through that arms dealer Ben Gahzi.
Are they really bringing their relatives onto the field when we target them in their homes? We get intel that says so and so is going to be someplace at such and such a time and there will be innocents in the vicinity and then Obama gives the order to proceed. It isn’t as if they’re chaining up women and children around a barracks building or something. We are the visitors. It’s their home field and there are innocents all over the place and we determine that it’s OK to kill them if it gets us so and so. You’re trying to church it up so you can morally justify it. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
I’m not crying and I’m not your sweetheart cookie; furthermore, I served too and in the infantry so don’t throw your service in my face and expect me to get all weak kneed.
It may be true that they have been radicalized, but they overlooked one tiny thing.
*I’ve* been “radicalized.
Especially when they blew up my friend in the basement of the E-ring of the Building on 9/11.
Eff them. HHC’s husband.
Congressional Research Service Feb. 13, 2013
“Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the
security of its nuclear arsenal. In addition to overhauling nuclear command and control structures
since September 11, 2001, Islamabad has implemented new personnel security programs.
Moreover, Pakistani and some U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations about a
procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A. Q. Khan, Islamabad has taken a
number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of nuclearrelated
technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as strengthened export
control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation
programs have improved Pakistans security situation in recent years.
However, instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into
question. Some observers fear radical takeover of a government that possesses a nuclear bomb, or
proliferation by radical sympathizers within Pakistans nuclear complex in case of a breakdown
of controls. While U.S. and Pakistani officials continue to express confidence in controls over
Pakistans nuclear weapons, continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards.
For a broader discussion, see CRS Report RL33498, Pakistan-U.S. Relations, by K. Alan
Kronstadt. This report will be updated.”
Ever see the show Bomb Squad Afghanistan?
Go watch an episode and then come back here and spout that!
I take it very seriously over here!
As you were..
Thanks for the info and link.
all I’m saying is that Boston could just as easily be retaliation for these drone strikes as it could be for taxes, or the second amendment, or whatever other right wing cause the media wants to attribute it to. I really didn’t want to discuss the morality of it but that seems to be the direction everyone wants to go with it. What. ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.