Pakistan to continue diplomatic pressure to stop U.S. drone attacks

[News_Editor]

Pakistan to continue diplomatic pressure to stop U.S. drone attacks

2011-04-14 05:09:36 GMT+7 (ICT)

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday said that the diplomatic pressure will continue to stop United States drone attacks.

According to the APP news agency, Gilani assured Pakistan's National Assembly that pressure 'was being applied' after Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, leader of the opposition, said the government should make an honest and sincere effort to stop U.S. drones strikes.

"Diplomatic channels are being used to compel the United States to stop drone attacks as these are counter-productive to the nation," said the Prime Minister.

Earlier this day, U.S. drones in Pakistan, which are operated by the CIA, killed at least six suspected militants in Angoor Adda, South Waziristan. The four missiles targeted a vehicle near Pakistan's Afghan border.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry strongly criticized the strikes in Angoor Adda and remarked that these attacks engender more support for militants and undermines the government's counter-terror campaign.

PM Gilani said that the U.S. drone strikes united militants and tribal people. This consequence affects the government as "no war has been won without support of the people."

"Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are united against the drone attacks and these are not in favor of both the countries," added Gilani. "The Afghan war cannot be won without the support of Pakistan."

Last March, Pakistan dropped out of a planned trilateral meeting with Afghanistan and the United States due to the continuing U.S. drone strikes near the Afghan border, which the United States considers to be the most dangerous place on Earth and a stronghold of the Taliban's Haqqani Network.

On March 17, more than 40 civilians were killed in North Waziristan when U.S. missiles hit a residential area where local elders were meeting. The incident increased tension within the Pakistan-U.S. alliance.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-04-14

[flying]

Enough really is enough

The lack of humanitarianism is overwhelming.

This acceptance of collateral damages whether they be in Afghanistan, Libya or Pakistan is over the top already....long ago actually.

If Humanitarianism is not enough of a reason to stop how about the ongoing bankruptcy of a once great nation?

Idiots are in charge & are in desperate need of removal.

[koheesti]

A more realistic observation is that letting small amounts of collateral damage stop military action in a time of war is ridiculous. Innocent civilians getting killed has always been a part of war. Something like 15,000 French civilians died during D-Day in June 1944. Some here think we would have been better off if we had skipped it all together.

Edited April 14, 2011 by koheesti

[flying]

letting small amounts of collateral damage stop military action in a time of war is ridiculous. Innocent civilians getting killed has always been a part of war.

So we are now at war with Pakistan? Libya? Or Afghanistan for that matter?

Hopefully someday you & yours will not also be on the receiving end of the accepted collateral damages.

I just don't see it as acceptable in the above mentioned incidents at all.

As an aside would you also say the dead in the 9-11 twin towers were collateral damages or murder?

My guess is those on the receiving end always see it as unjust murder & rightfully so.

Remember all areas mentioned are not at war ...declared or otherwise.

These excursions in no way are comparable to the 1944 you mentioned.

Edited April 14, 2011 by flying

[geriatrickid]

Yes, the free world is doing battle with Pakistan, the refuge of extremist terrorist groups.

Political sensitivities preclude me from relating my views on Pakistan and its nationals.

[flying]

Yes, the free world is doing battle with Pakistan, the refuge of extremist terrorist groups.

Political sensitivities preclude me from relating my views on Pakistan and its nationals.

Who is this free world you speak for? Is this a declared war on Pakistan by the *free* world you speak of?

Is political sensitivities a new catch phrase for hatred? Or is it just assumed & justified by claiming all Pakistani nationals are hiding extremists?

While we are at it what exactly is an extremist? Does anyone in the *free* world qualify for that title also?

Would the bombings done by the *free world* via drone or missiles all be humanitarian bombings then? Or possibly be viewed by the "not free"? world as extremist/terrorist/terror inflicting?

Edited April 14, 2011 by flying

[Carib]

Yes, the free world is doing battle with Pakistan, the refuge of extremist terrorist groups.

Political sensitivities preclude me from relating my views on Pakistan and its nationals.

It must be the same political sensitivities which are valid for not relating my views for the other side.

[geriatrickid]

Yes, the free world is doing battle with Pakistan, the refuge of extremist terrorist groups.

Political sensitivities preclude me from relating my views on Pakistan and its nationals.

It must be the same political sensitivities which are valid for not relating my views for the other side.

I am keeping it civil.

[Steely Dan]

"Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are united against the drone attacks and these are not in favor of both the countries," added Gilani. "The Afghan war cannot be won without the support of Pakistan."

The Afghan war wouldn't have been necessary in the first place had it not been for Pakistan playing a double game. I think drones are far preferable to risking carbon based life forms in that region considering what happened to the U.N mission in Kabul recently.

[Wallaby]

"Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are united against the drone attacks and these are not in favor of both the countries," added Gilani. "The Afghan war cannot be won without the support of Pakistan."

The Afghan war wouldn't have been necessary in the first place had it not been for Pakistan playing a double game. I think drones are far preferable to risking carbon based life forms in that region considering what happened to the U.N mission in Kabul recently.

Buy using drones that have killed so many innocents it would certainly seem that lives in that region aren't worth much. If the troops were serious and genuine about limiting civilian deaths they would do the right thing and send in ground troops to keep those deaths at a minimum. But somehow I think they consider putting the lives of troops in danger far more important than civilian deaths.

Time for them to just leave.

[flying]

The Afghan war wouldn't have been necessary in the first place had it not been for Pakistan playing a double game. I think drones are far preferable to risking carbon based life forms in that region considering what happened to the U.N mission in Kabul recently.

Buy using drones that have killed so many innocents it would certainly seem that lives in that region aren't worth much. If the troops were serious and genuine about limiting civilian deaths they would do the right thing and send in ground troops to keep those deaths at a minimum. But somehow I think they consider putting the lives of troops in danger far more important than civilian deaths.

Time for them to just leave.

Exactly & what SD said is far from true that carbon life forms are not at risk....But as you say they seem to consider some carbon forms more worthy of the right to life than others & therein lies the rub/ shame

Edited April 14, 2011 by flying