Girl that stood up to taliban asks nobel peace prize obama to cut back on droning

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Malala Yousafzai, the girl who defied Taliban orders not to go to school which resulted in her being retributively shot by the group, has met with US president Barack Obama.

‘I thanked president Obama for the United States’ work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,’ she said.


‘I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact.’

http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/12/malal...dent-against-pakistani-drone-attacks-4143608/

This girl was actually recently nominated for the nobel peace prize but lost. Obama however was handed it for no reason at all. This girl puts obama to shame. He should give her his unjustly awarded peace prize.
 
She was brave standing up to the Pakistani Taliban and the Commander of the US Death Drones.

I think she would have gotten the Peace Prize if Mister Red Line hadn't pushed chemical weapons inspectors into the spotlight with his lousy war-mongering.

She was robbed by O-BOMB-YA.
 
my article is about her meeting with obama. yours is not. retard.

It wasn't my post it was annata and it did mention the meeting with Obama.

In a statement released after the meeting, Malala said she was honored to meet with Obama, but that she told him she's worried about the effect of U.S. drone strikes. (The White House statement didn't mention that part.)

"I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees," she said in the statement.

"I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.
If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impac

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/1...#storylink=cpy
 
my article is about her meeting with obama. yours is not. retard.
I did post under the same thread (for once trying to keep spurious thread counts down..), but the idea is "thread worthy" in itself.

This:
CIA didn't always know who it was killing in drone strikes, classified documents show

The CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes in Pakistan over a 14-month period, an NBC News review of classified intelligence reports shows.

About one of every four of those killed by drones in Pakistan between Sept. 3, 2010, and Oct. 30, 2011, were classified as "other militants,”
the documents detail. The “other militants” label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed, prompting questions about how the agency could conclude they were a threat to U.S. national security.

The uncertainty appears to arise from the use of so-called “signature” strikes to eliminate suspected terrorists -- picking targets based in part on their behavior and associates. A former White House official said the U.S. sometimes executes people based on “circumstantial evidence
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite

we did the same thing in Yemen, relying on cell phone "suspected militants" called in by locals. Think they might have abused that ?

The "signature strikes" were the absolute horror story of our drone wars; though horrors abound
 
The “other militants” label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed, prompting questions about how the agency could conclude they were a threat to U.S. national security
freaking Brennan, his "kill list" and Obama relying on the CIA for "discressionary targeting"
 
So did O-BOMB-YA heed this courageous young girls' call?
we still lauch drone into Waziristan with frighting regularity from Afgani based sites. Still a shit load of "collateral damage" Here is some US Bullshit:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/kids-killed-drones-us-pushes-back/story?id=19759808

American officials are disputing the findings of a secret Pakistani government report, the first known internal Pakistani assessment of America's lethal drone program, that says U.S. drones killed scores of civilians in a three-year span and that nearly 100 of those were children.

The Pakistani report, obtained and published this week by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, details 75 drone strikes and their alleged collateral damage between 2006 and 2009. Of 746 people killed by drones in that period, the BIJ report says, at least 147 "are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children."

The government report, titled "Details of Attacks by Nato Forces/Predators in FATA" (Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas), is described as being derived from reports from "an extended network of government contacts" in the areas of the drone strikes, including local officials. Some information is drawn from paid informants, the BIJ said.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secretive drone program, told ABC News they believed the Pakistani government's findings are unsubstantiated.

"The notion that the United States has undertaken operations in Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Pakistanis is ludicrous," a U.S. official said. "There is no credible information whatsoever to substantiate the report's distorted figures."

The official called the report's methodology into question, calling the information "indirect input from a loose network of Pakistani government and tribal contacts… far from authoritative."

The U.S. government has previously acknowledged accidentally killing civilians in its drone program since 2004, but put the total number at closer to 50. U.S. officials made that admission in 2011 when the BIJ published their own data on drone strikes, alleging 385 civilians had been killed in Pakistan since 2004 and that 168 of those were children. As with the new report, the U.S. officials called into question the methodology that led to those findings.

"We see the battlefield in real time; the Bureau of Investigative Journalism doesn't," a U.S. official said in 2011. "This group's allegations about individual strikes are, in every case, divorced from the facts on the ground."

The new Pakistani government report alleges that most of the children killed between 2006 and 2009 died in a single strike on a religious school in October 2006. The Pakistani report put the dead at 80 children, according to the BIJ. Local news reports at the time put the figure at 69.

In 2011, the U.S. official estimated that American drone strikes had taken out approximately 2,000 suspected militants, including high-level terror leaders, and this February, following criticism over the deaths of four Americans by drone strike – only one of whom was actually targeted -- the White House defended the kill program.

"We conduct these strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing, actual threats, to stop plots, to prevent further attacks and, again, to save American lives," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said then. "These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise
 
Department of "Well duhhh": http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com/search?q=pakistani+civilian+drone

Pakistan approved U.S. drone strikes in secret deal struck in 2004, according to a report in the New York Times. (I've linked to Khaama press.) According to the report, the Pakistani intelligence service first agreed to the deal in order to achieve the targeted killing of Taliban leader Nek Muhammad.





Under the agreement, ISI and CIA agreed that US would never acknowledge the missile strikes under the “covert action authority” and that Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.
This comes as Pakistani officials have long been criticized US for violating its sovereignty through drone strikes however New York Times stated that it was Muhammad’s rise to power that forced them to reconsider their line of thought and eventually allow Predator drones.

The covert drone war begun under the Bush administration and was further expanded during president Barack Obama’s leadership under the ISI-CIA “back-room bargain”. CIA changed its focus from capturing terrorists to killing under the deal which helped transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organization, The New York Times added in its report.
http://www.khaama.com/pakistan-allowed-us-drone-strikes-in-a-secret-deal-with-cia-1558
I will just add that it has been obvious all along to everyone with one brain cell to rub against another that the ISI knew about, authorized and supported the U.S. drone campaign, and pretended to be outraged for the sake of public opinion. What ought to be most disturbing to Americans, however, is that the U.S. has entered into a secret war with essentially no congressional approval or oversight, or public debate. Few people seem to care
 
It wasn't my post it was annata and it did mention the meeting with Obama.



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/1...#storylink=cpy

nope nope nope, not going to let you move the goalposts.

1) you linked me to YOUR op
2) your OP did not mention the things claimed in this thread
3) you went out of your way to say what I was referencing was "really really old" further implying that you were referencing a link you provided two days ago, and NOT the comment annata posted a mere 30 minutes before my thread.

So in actuality, you thought I was talking about what you posted two days ago, and now you are trying to cover your shame about being wrong by pointing to a comment made by annata 30 minutes prior to this thread.

Lastly, even with annatas comment, this thread topic is different than your OP, and it warrants its own separate discussion thread.

tomtard wrong on every count. ouch.
 
nope nope nope, not going to let you move the goalposts.

1) you linked me to YOUR op
2) your OP did not mention the things claimed in this thread
3) you went out of your way to say what I was referencing was "really really old" further implying that you were referencing a link you provided two days ago, and NOT the comment annata posted a mere 30 minutes before my thread.

So in actuality, you thought I was talking about what you posted two days ago, and now you are trying to cover your shame about being wrong by pointing to a comment made by annata 30 minutes prior to this thread.

Lastly, even with annatas comment, this thread topic is different than your OP, and it warrants its own separate discussion thread.

tomtard wrong on every count. ouch.

Jeez, I was being ironic and taking the piss for all the times you said something was old. I know it was only a bit earlier. For fucks sakes, if you are going to dish it out you ought to be able to take it. To use your own phrase, stop being such a blubbering vagina.
 
I did post under the same thread (for once trying to keep spurious thread counts down..), but the idea is "thread worthy" in itself.

This:
CIA didn't always know who it was killing in drone strikes, classified documents show

The CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes in Pakistan over a 14-month period, an NBC News review of classified intelligence reports shows.

About one of every four of those killed by drones in Pakistan between Sept. 3, 2010, and Oct. 30, 2011, were classified as "other militants,”
the documents detail. The “other militants” label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed, prompting questions about how the agency could conclude they were a threat to U.S. national security.

The uncertainty appears to arise from the use of so-called “signature” strikes to eliminate suspected terrorists -- picking targets based in part on their behavior and associates. A former White House official said the U.S. sometimes executes people based on “circumstantial evidence
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite

we did the same thing in Yemen, relying on cell phone "suspected militants" called in by locals. Think they might have abused that ?

The "signature strikes" were the absolute horror story of our drone wars; though horrors abound

I would still like somebody to tell me what the alternative is to using drones? Using Special Forces is incredibly dangerous and likely to provide valuable propaganda value if it goes wrong, think Black Hawk Down.
 
Poor Malala....I expect she will get blasted to pieces by our boot licking lefties that adore the messiah
for daring to question his omnipotent wisdom.......Rana, Darla, Christiefan, Tekkychick, etc....

I also expect to not hear a word of this on any news newwork except Fox and maybe CNN
 
Back
Top