Unauthorized US attacks kill 9 in Pakistan

Unauthorized US attacks kill 9 in Pakistan

www.presstv.ir

Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:26PM


At least nine people have been killed and several others wounded in Pakistan in two separate non-UN-sanctioned cross border attacks by US troops.


Pakistani authorities say US forces in the eastern province of Khost shelled the Pakistani border town of Matta Sanga, adding that all casualties are civilians.

The death toll is expected to rise as some of the injured are reported to be in critical condition.

Meanwhile, Pakistani security officials say that a US drone strike killed four people and wounded several others in South Waziristan tribal region on Tue

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is just non sense already.....


the use of these air strikes and aircraft drones by the US forces upon the populations of Afghanistan Pakistan is an act of international state terrorism on the part of the US there has to be a question of the legality of these actions by the US what is there purpose in attacking innocents no wonder everyone else in the world calls them zionists.

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

more to add...

The CIA has significantly stepped up its bombing in Pakistan in recent weeks, carrying out at least 20 non-UN-sanctioned attacks in September.


US officials said on Wednesday that the 20 drone attacks were the highest monthly figure so far.

Reports say that the drone strikes reflect Washington's frustration with Islamabad's failure to wipe out militants in the country's tribal areas.

On Tuesday, two separate non-UN-sanctioned cross-border attacks by US troops in Pakistan killed at least nine people and injured several others. All the causalities were civilians.

The drone attacks, which were initiated by former US president George W. Bush and have continued under President Barack Obama, have drastically increased in recent weeks at a time when devastating floods have taken their toll on the South Asian country.

Tuesday's developments come one day after two helicopters operated by the US forces in Afghanistan crossed into Pakistan's volatile tribal areas, killing at least 50 people.

In a similar incident, US forces killed more than 30 people on Friday.

Islamabad has reacted angrily to the air strikes, calling them a violation of its sovereignty.

source

Nothing to see here. You are getting all worked up over nothing. We are winning hearts and minds here, don't you know?
I will never understand why the US has so many enemies. Must be our freedom, blue jeans, and country music.

reply to post by seridium

It would of been preferable if the sovereign nation of Pakistan had agreed to these airspace violations Im not sure if international law covers these strikes.

reply to post by seridium

the use of these air strikes and aircraft drones by the US forces upon the populations of Afghanistan Pakistan is an act of international state terrorism on the part of the US

If they are targeting civilians,as in this case, then its an "act of War"

Imagine if Canadian drones came over and killed US civilians...

would this be considered an act of war by bombing sovereign soil of PAK and it's civilians? What is PAK gonna do, bomb the US?

Originally posted by seridium


This is just non sense already.....the use of these air strikes and aircraft drones by the US forces upon the populations of Afghanistan Pakistan is an act of international state terrorism on the part of the US...

Bulls$%*!!! Do you even know why the US of A is conducting these cross border air strikes into Pakistan? Do you even know what kind of a war is going on out there? When Pakistan's ISI, the fountainhead of terror, is actively involved in providing shelter/safe havens, arms, ammo, and logistics support to the Afghan Taliban (Haqqani) and therefore avoiding taking any military action against them, what is the alternative?

Do you even know Pakistan's grand strategy in Afghanistan? Have you heard of Pakistan's doctrine of Strategic Depth that they're trying to achieve whatever the cost, in Afghanistan? Do you know the geopolitics being played out there? Do you understand the history of this decades long conflict and the power play going on?

Are you aware that the thousands of American and ISAF casualties in Afghanistan is the result of Pakistan's active support to the Taliban (Haqqani)? Do you for a moment believe that a band of brigands can fight well equipped American and NATO forces for over a decade in Afghanistan without active outside support in terms of weapons/equipment/training/logistics/safe havens? Needless to say, this active support comes from none other than Pakistan's Army and its notorious adjunct, the ISI.

The latest attacks in Pakistan by ground forces with air support killed no civilians. They targeted the Taliban/AlQaeda hideouts in the border areas killing dozens of their fighters.That's because the Pakistan Army is doing sweet nothing. How should they? They're actively supporting them, right?

Talk of Pakistan being in the front line of fighting with the US of A in its war against terror!! The irony of it all!

reply to post by OrionHunterX

Needless to say, this active support comes from none other than Pakistan's Army and its notorious adjunct, the ISI.

Come on mate, Its a know fact that the US gives money to the Taliban useing the excuse that it gives US convoys safe passage..
You either fight the Taliban or support them, the US shouldn't be doing both...

IMO, the US should get the hell out of Afghanistan..No one even knows why they are there anymore..

More innocent lives lost due to american corporate greed, ignorance and fear... U.S foriegn policy in action - give us your hearts and minds or we will burn your damn huts down.. So america .. How many more innocent people will you kill for corporate greed and corrupt democracy ?

It will never stop till the get to the top greedy pieces of you know what.

Yes... Score another one for the good guys.

If your not for us then you are against us, and should be marked as an enemy and a terrorist.

Expect a drone hovering over your house all you unpatriotic nay sayers.

With relations between the US and Pakistan being the way it is, I'm not taking the word of anyone that these were civilians.

It serves Pakistans agenda that unauthorized border crossing attacks happened a few days after issueing a warning about this very same thing. It doesn't serve the US agenda to kill civilians and making a new enemy. Some will say this fits the US agenda perfectly. I will not debate or argue my opinion.

There is no violation of borders as the airstrikes are being launched from a Pak authorized airbase in southern Pakistan. The pakistan gov't claims these are "unauthorized" to shift blame away from it's gov't so it can retain it's tentative grasp on power in the country.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Bulls$%*!!! Do you even know why the US of A is conducting these cross border air strikes into Pakistan? Do you even know what kind of a war is going on out there?

Why don’t you tell us? Neither the Bush or Obama administrations have explained the legal foundations from which the US derives its authority and legitimacy to wage a “war on terror” with no defined boundaries — basically declaring war everywhere, whenever.

Additionally, if the reports are true, these attacks violate the most basic rules of armed conflict, the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Unless you know and explain these questions the accusation put forward by seridium of international state terrorism has more standing than what you’re trying to justify using your self-righteous indignation.

Assuming events occurred as reported, while I personally don’t agree these actions qualify as “international state terrorism,” they are unlawful.

reply to post by aptness


There has been many drone attacks in Pakistan for many years, there were even Predator drones based in Pakistan! So let me ask you this, do you think the Pakistanis allowed it? Could this be considered legal? Perhaps its a smoke screen to keep the Taliban from overthrowing the Pakistani govt. since the Taliban are pissed about the drone attacks that killing them.

reply to post by deltaboy


Agreed. Their situation is a tough one. On the one hand they allow the strikes, on the other they say Hey..... what are you doing? Not an enviable position to be in.

reply to post by deltaboy

There are two distinct incidents reported on the article posted by the OP. The first talks about US forces shelling a Pakistani border town, where it reports “all causalities are civilians.” My comments were mostly directed at that, but my overall comments regarding the war on terror stand. Details aside, there isn’t even consensus on the legality of preemptive war to begin with.

In regards to the drones, I’m aware we have been doing these attacks for many years and I’m aware Pakistan has allowed US to operate the drones in the country, but that doesn’t make their use lawful — permission by the host country for military action doesn’t mean it’s in conformity with international humanitarian law.

One big question, for example, is the fact that the CIA runs a drone program. The CIA is not part of the United States armed forces. Under the rules of armed conflict civilians cannot participate directly in the hostilities. CIA pilots are therefore unlawful combatants, which, ironically, puts them in exactly the same position as people the US has captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo and other sites, and says have no rights.

This means that, at the very least, the civilians piloting the drones can be prosecuted under domestic laws of the countries in which they have caused damages or deaths.

But even more ironic is the fact that if we accept the legal theories presented by the Bush and Obama administrations to prosecute prisoners in Guantanamo, then the civilian pilots — and government officials who have authorized them — are committing war crimes.

Originally posted by aptness
Additionally, if the reports are true, these attacks violate the most basic rules of armed conflict, the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Huh? Are you meaning the ISI supported Taliban attacks against the ISAF or vice versa? What 'basic rules' are you talking about? Are you aware of the secret understanding between the Pentagon and the Pakistan Army of allowing not only drone attacks within Pakistan's borders but also limited pursuit ops? Are you aware that US spec ops teams are presently operating within Pakistan?

So where does your argument stand regarding the US of A 'violating the most basic rules of armed conflict'? There's NO violation. Let's be clear on this. It's action by mutual consent. Period!

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Huh? Are you meaning the ISI supported Taliban attacks against the ISAF or vice versa? What 'basic rules' are you talking about?

I referenced which basic rules I was talking about — the principles of distinction and proportionality.

The principle of distinction says the belligerent parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians, meaning you can attack only those participating in the hostilities.

The principle of proportionality says that any incidental damage caused to civilians must be proportionate and not excessive in relation to the importance of the attack on a military objective. You can’t intentionally launch an attack knowing it will cause a level of civilian casualties that is excessive in relation to the importance of the military attack.

My comments regarding the rules of armed conflict, as I mentioned in my post, were directed at a specific military attack — the shelling of a Pakistani border town — not at the operation of US or NATO troops in Pakistan. If there were targets of military importance in the town a more direct and ‘smart’ attack would’ve be preferable to shelling the town. Were the military targets of such importance that it justified shelling a town, knowing fully well the level of civilian casualties it could cause?

As to your comments on the consent given by Pakistan to US/NATO forces — that in itself does not mean, automatically, military action executed will be in conformity with the rules of armed conflict. As I’ve mentioned in my previous post, permission from the host country for military action does not give such action carte blanche. International humanitarian law must be followed irrespective of permission.