First U.S. drone strike under new Pakistan prime minister kills seven

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan | Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:52pm EDT

(Reuters) - A U.S. drone strike killed seven people and wounded three in northwest Pakistan late on Friday, security officials said, in the first such attack since the swearing-in of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister this week.

In his inaugural address to parliament, Sharif called for an immediate end to U.S. drone strikes on militants, which many view as a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty.

The bombing comes 10 days after a similar U.S. drone attack killed the Pakistani Taliban's second-in-command, Wali-ur-Rehman, and six others in a major blow to the militant group.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Friday's attack was on a compound near the Afghan border in North Waziristan region, 45 km (25 miles) west of the regional capital Miranshah. At least two missiles were fired from the unmanned aircraft and the death toll could rise, the sources said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-pakistan-drone-idUSBRE95615Q20130607

[John2]

1. So why don't

we take a different view on these Drone strikes in Pakistan, and what critics are calling illegal? This different view, would be, all sovereign countries', Governments have the responsibility to protect their land and citizens from Foreign aggression, if they are capable of it. Are we to assume, the Pakistani Government does not have that capability to protect their own people? Why place blame on the U.S. if they do?

That capabilty would include air defenses and an air force with early warning capabilities to intercept such aggression. Either the Armed Forces of Pakistan are incompetent or they have some kinda agreement with the U.S. for these attacks. If they do have such an agreement, then this would be all legal. So which is it? Pakistan needs to stop hiding behind their grievances and protect their own people and territory. It is very simple to do so.

[Ash_F]

3. The US is exclusively attacking an ethnic minority in a separatist region that wants independence.

Forget all the nonsense about protecting the US homefront. They are helping the central Pakistani Government. The targets are being given to the US by the Pakistani Government themselves. The problem is that even Pakistanis who support a unified Pakistan are divided on this method of maintaining control. Some support it, the most powerful of whom being the elite that stand to loose financially in the Balkanization of the country. There are many elite in the US who have also invested much in the Pakistani economy.

The tide is starting the turn in public opinion as more and more reports come out of the killing of women and children as farmhouses get bombed in the middle of the night while people sleep. That is why you see some politicians denounce the program, but not all want it gone. They need to be careful because Pakistan is still somewhat democratic and they can loose power if too overzealous.

It is worth noting that ethnic Pashtuns(the seperatists) tend to be pretty far to the right socially(sharia and all that) but this is not the rule and it is somewhat racist that they get charactarized as such in the media. I don't support these peoples' ideals, nor necessarily think they should get their own nation. However, I don't think they need to be summarily killed without process because they want an independent nation. Many centrist and liberal Pakistanis feel the same.

Imagine a hypothetical future where China came over and started slaughtering secessionist teabaggers because a Balkanized USA would threatened their investments in this country. The unfortunate truth is that lot of Dems would support it, particularly if social discord had spiraled to the point it has in Pakistan. But most would have reservations, particularly if it was done in such a visibly brutal manner. It's not that crazy a scenario either, we've already had one of the most brutal civil wars in history and foreign nations with interests did jump in. Almost jumped in hard.

[former9thward]

4. Most countries can not protect themselves against U.S. air strikes.

You certainly can't be that naïve are you?

[Eugene]

2. Angry Pakistan summons envoy after U.S. drone strike kills nine

Source: Reuters

Angry Pakistan summons envoy after U.S. drone strike kills nine

By Saud Mehsud
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan | Sat Jun 8, 2013 6:57am EDT

(Reuters) - A U.S. drone strike killed nine people in northwest Pakistan, security officials said, prompting newly sworn-in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to summon America's envoy on Saturday to protest against such attacks.

The missile strike, on a compound near the Afghan border in the North Waziristan region late on Friday, was the first U.S. drone attack in Pakistan since Sharif was sworn in on Wednesday. There was no information about the victims.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

"It was conveyed to the U.S. charge d' affaires that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the drone strikes, which are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," the ministry said in a statement.

"The importance of bringing an immediate end to drone strikes was emphasized."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-pakistan-drone-idUSBRE95707520130608

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. How can people sing "Home of the Brave"

.
.
.

When they allow their military to slaughter from afar?

This "collateral damage" term USA invented for killing civilians near suspected enemies is disgusting imo.

and "land of the free"??

just because one is not in jail does not make you "free".

ask anyone on welfare . . . .

CC

[Socal31]

6. So does this mean they will stop supplying the intel for the targets?

Anyone who thinks the drone strikes under the previous Prime Minister were not approved by Pakistan is naiave. Hell, they let the CIA build a Predator base on Paki soil.

Now, if this PM is to be taken at face value, those days could be over. Maybe someone will get the point that when you kill 2 Jihadis and 3 innocent people with a Hellfire, the rest of the village tends to come over and see what the commotion is about. Now you have people who could have been ambivalent about the United States previously, becoming angry enough to take up arms against us. Just as if a country were to strike my neighbor's home, my emotional reaction would be strong.

I was no math major, but if we create 5-6 new anti-US radicals for every 1-2 legitimate targets that are taken out, the solution to the equation is "clusterfuck."