Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Smith John]

 

Yup, If you go and fight with those scumbags then you deserve to die like one too. Whenever they come back to their home countries they should be sent right back to where they just came from especally the ones who take their kids with them.

Can we at least move the kids to foster care before sending them back? I kind of feel bad for the children.But yeah, since they are double-traitors at that point, I see no point wasting tax-payers' money on lengthy trials. Just send them back for ISIS to deal with them.

But...but...that would be a breach of their HUMAN RIGHTS!!! We don't want to resort to such cruel and unusual punishment now, do we.

[Greenline]

So would you prefer to be in Raqqa, "capital" of the Islamic State, than in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, full of people like me? Are you serious? If you're serious then there's something wrong with you. Please, tell me I got you wrong...

 

Bloodthirsty extremist? Eroding democracy? REALLY??? Do you really believe what you're saying? You don't even know me.

I would rather live where ever I am currently (Tehran, on and off) rather than either of those sh*tholes. You are a warmonger like Bibi, and to me, just because your kind wears suits and speaks English makes you no different than any other sponsor of terrorism (sponsoring terrorism is also something you like to use to demonstrate the backwardness of these Islamic societies, may I remind you that every regional and global power (US, USSR) has funded and armed factions that would represent their interests? The Middle East of today is one big proxy war, and your colony is just one front for it, that's why it pains you so much when the US reduces military spending. The spending that could go on having what every other developed nation has, a healthcare system, reduced tuition costs and many more programs that help the people rather than kill thousands of miles away, that is why your kind of thinking is dangerous.)

 

 

 

Saddam was a psychopathic, bloodthirsty dictator who posed a threat. The US didn't know that overthrowing him would create more terror.

 

Poor Bush, it's not like he had some of the most powerful agencies in the world at his hands to analyze this situation. Oh wait, he did! It was known before the war that the fall of Saddam would create a power vaccum which was to be filled either by the Gulf Arabs (with a Sunni front) or the Persians (with a Shi'a front). The people of the United States didn't win in this war, nor did the people of Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East. Only our dear friends the defence contractors who were swimming in their millions.

 

 

Oh... and there was a belief that there were some terrorist organizations within Iraqi borders, but guess who put them there? The CIA Operation Cyclone.

 

 

Your way of thinking comes out of a need for the US to support your colony, it is blind to US politics (even though it sufficiently meddles in it) and it is blind to Middle Eastern politics. It's purely for self-conservation of a state that cannot survive in the post-colonial age (similar in a way to Iraq, Syria et al.).

[sivispacem]

The idea that it was unforseen for a power vacuum to exists in the wake of Saddam which would be fought over by both Sunni and Shi'a elements of Iraqi society, with the former comprising most of the old guard and the latter supported by Iran externally and sponsored indirectly by the Coalition, is utterly moronic. I was what, 18? 19? Then and I could have pretty much recited that word-for-word as the likely outcome.

[D- Ice]

Sykes Picot is partially the origin of this mess. It needs to be updated to 21st century.

Well technically, the Sykes-Picot borders where never really in-date.

They were drawn completely arbitrarily from the beginning, ignoring everything but what land each colonial power fancied.

I think the IS' opposition to these borders - something unique amongst virtually all political movements in the Middle-East - is what's getting them most support in the Arab world.

 

Most people are completely opposed to most of their other policies, but the combination of being inherently opposed to Sykes-Picot, uniformly condemning all oppressive Arab regimes (see note 1), and being actually effective in combat to protect Sunnis from Maliki's and Assad's forces (see note 2) means that many people in the Arab world are willing to compromise and support them.

 

Note 1:

Most militant factions in the Middle-East don't uniformly condemn all despots. This even includes some of the most hard-line Jihadists like the Islamic Front (IF), which is supported by Saudi Arabia. During the fighting between the IS and Syrian rebels, the IS put a condition for mediation of the rebel factions stating if they condemn the various Arab and Western governments. None answered, preferring to fight instead, with the exception of Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), who condemned them all. This demonstrated to the Syrian people how those factions were really proxies, losing them massive support.

 

On a side-note (of a side-note ) something similar happens with Western support to factions in the region (with the exception of Kurdistan). While Western support to militant factions will mean better equipment and finances, it also means damaging their reputation as Western puppets. This will in turn mean less local support, less morale amongst fighters, and more defections to the likes of the IS.

 

Note 2:

While Iraq was in the middle of a Sunni rebellion against the central government way before the IS showed up, the local tribal, political, and Islamist factions weren't really achieving anything meaningful. The IS initially sent military advisors and trainers who increased the effectiveness of these factions (Haditha Dam take-over by Anbar tribal rebels prior to IS invasion), winning a lot of support. Then when the IS finally invaded in force, they achieved what the Sunnis have dreamed of, and failed to achieve, for years.

 

Amongst Sunnis of Iraq today, a common reason for supporting the IS is that without them, they will not likely achieve anywhere near the same levels of military success against the central government.

I think the only way some Sunnis have been convinced to fight with the Iraqi regime is that they've been promised near-total autonomy like with Kurdistan.

Edited October 20, 2014 by D- Ice

[Abel.]

It's purely for self-conservation of a state that cannot survive in the post-colonial age (similar in a way to Iraq, Syria et al.).

 

 

 

 

Criticism of Israel's policy is one thing (the current Israeli administration has detractors from within the Knesset/Israeli parliament), but to state outright that Israel "cannot survive" in the modern world is just absurd (Israel is a valuable trading partner for many countries and a significant amount of R&D is done in Israel). Also, comparing Israel with the likes of Iraq and Syria simply doesn't make sense.

 

 

Everything you just said is complete and utter garbage. I could point out why, but it's already been spelled out to you on this very page. You don't seem to care. I don't think you even really believe you are right, how could you?

 

They are still flying these ancient things?

 

That's what happens when you make cuts on the military. Then, there's no money for new jets.

 

 

 

hahahahh oh wow you are f*cking nuts. Honestly I'm more scared of people like you than of ISIS. You're a bloodthirsty extremist, and people like you have been eroding out democracy since the start of the Cold War.

 

 

Where on Earth do you get off calling Palikari a "bloodthirsty extremist", Mel? His political views diametrically oppose yours, yes, but he's always willing to argue without resorting to insults. Palikari and I share certain views regarding Israel and foreign policy, certainly. However we differ on other points (for example, Reagan is amongst his favourite US presidents but he'll forever be tainted in my eyes for his affiliation with Thatcher). I gravitate more towards the left when it comes to domestic policy and he gravitates more towards the right in this area. These differences do not stop us from engaging in discourse in a friendly manner.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Failure

[Stephan90]

 

His political views diametrically oppose yours, yes, but he's always willing to argue without resorting to insults.

 

 

Palikari: "You're living in cloud nice personoo land. "

 

http://gtaforums.com/topic/736890-catalonias-independence-referendum-discussion/page-6

 

 

how again?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Stephan90

[Melech]

Ok, guys, when will you stop attacking and insulting me and start talking about the Islamic State? This thread is not about me, it's about the Islamic State.

 

You don't know what respect and education are. I won't insult you like you're insulting me as I have values and education.

[Mr. House]

Ok, guys, when will you stop attacking and insulting me and start talking about the Islamic State? This thread is not about me, it's about the Islamic State.

 

You don't know what respect and education are. I won't insult you like you're insulting me as I have values and education.

You're being insulted because your practise of supposed education is severely lacking. All of your comments in this thread about the functions of religious extremism and the causes of ISIS are arse backwards.

[Melech]

You're being insulted because your practise of supposed education is severely lacking. All of your comments in this thread about the functions of religious extremism and the causes of ISIS are arse backwards.

You don't know what tolerance and respect are. Any normal person, when he/she doesn't agree with someone, says "I don't agree with you because..." or "I think you're wrong because...", etc. He/she doesn't start insulting and attacking the opponent.

 

This is called EDUCATION.

 

But you think you can insult and attack anyone who doesn't agree with you just because you think you occupy some kind of high moral ground. The end always justifies the means. Sorry, but you don't occupy any high moral ground and you're not better than your opponents.

 

Anyway, I will not answer to any of this sh*t again. This thread is about the Islamic State.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And now, let's get back to the topic.

 

Have you read the "Declaration of the Islamic State"?

 

Here it is: http://myreader.toile-libre.org/uploads/My_53b039f00cb03.pdf

 

Recently I posted pictures of the US Navy and Air Force operations against the Islamic State. Here you have all the videos. The last ones are very similar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2014 by Palikari

[Mr. House]

You don't know what tolerance and respect are. Any normal person, when he/she doesn't agree with someone, says "I don't agree with you because..." or "I think you're wrong because...", etc. He/she doesn't start insulting and attacking the opponent.

This is called EDUCATION.

 

But you think you can insult and attack anyone who doesn't agree with you just because you think you occupy some kind of high moral ground. The end always justifies the means. Sorry, but you don't occupy any high moral ground and you're not better than your opponents.

Education also involves understanding and receiving information. You and various others have a tendency to completely ignore all information presented and continue on a diatribe about how you view the situation, despite a chunk of people constantly screaming at you that the information suggests the opposite. Repeating yourself four times to someone gets tiresome and drains any desire to bother with respectful debate.

[sivispacem]

Palikari- you are every bit as guilty of derailing this thread than anyone else so please don't pretend you aren't. Given your manner I don't think you can justifiably complain about "tolerance" or "respect", nor can you make vague claims of intellectual superiority and expect them to go unchallenged. How about you behave with the maturity you claim to have and, y'know, not rise to what you interpret as attempts to be antagonistic towards you?

[Alhalish]

That's enough. Look, I'm aware of your hatred towards ISIS, in fact, I might share the same amount of enmity that you have.

 

But please, don't you realize what you're doing now? Posting pictures of mutilated infants just to get your points across? How is it any different than the IS showing pictures of war crimes committed by the US government in their propaganda, in order to gather easily brainwashed youth to join their cause?

[Frank Brown]

That's enough. Look, I'm aware of your hatred towards ISIS, in fact, I might share the same amount of enmity that you have.

 

But please, don't you realize what you're doing now? Posting pictures of mutilated infants just to get your points across? How is it any different than the IS showing pictures of war crimes committed by the US government in their propaganda, in order to gather easily brainwashed youth to join their cause?

 

There's no mutilated infant in his link.

[Alhalish]

And? What's the difference? It doesn't disprove my point. It's still a disturbing picture of someone who is about to sever the head of an infant.

 

Fake or not, it's a cheap way to strengthen your argument.

[Max]

I also feel that this topic is not the place to post images from the conflict in a desperate attempt to make a point.

[Melech]

But please, don't you realize what you're doing now? Posting pictures of mutilated infants just to get your points across? How is it any different than the IS showing pictures of war crimes committed by the US government in their propaganda, in order to gather easily brainwashed youth to join their cause?

First of all there's no mutilated infant on the picture I posted, and didn't post it to "get my point across".

 

I'm not forcing anyone to see the picture. In fact, I don't want you to see it if you're a sensitive person. That's why I didn't embed it and just posted info about it. The world must know what these terrorists are doing.

 

I'm not trying to brainwash anyone, but if you're not against IS, then there's something wrong with you: you are a psychopath, a radical Islamist, or both. You said you are against IS, so I don't understand why are you against showing the world IS crimes.

 

Your comment is offensive.

 

I also feel that this topic is not the place to post images from the conflict in a desperate attempt to make a point.

I'm not posting it to make a point, and you don't need pictures to make a point against the IS.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Palikari

[Alhalish]

So quick to brand a person a radical Islamist psychopath... You have let your emotions cloud your judgment.

That's all I have to say to you.

[Melech]

So quick to brand a person a radical Islamist psychopath... You have let your emotions cloud your judgment.

I think you got me wrong.

 

I said that if you support IS you are a psychopathic radical Islamist. I clearly stated you didn't support IS, and I never said you were a psychopathic radical islamist, but IS supporters were.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Palikari

[K^2]

So quick to brand a person a radical Islamist psychopath... You have let your emotions cloud your judgment.

That's all I have to say to you.

That has nothing to do with emotions. If you can't see a problem with IS, there is something objectively wrong with you. This isn't a matter of feelings. It's a matter of simple fact. We can go through all of the branches in that logic, but it still leads to the same conclusion. Palikari has the right of it, whether he makes a good argument or not.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I am using "you" as a generic pronoun here. Not pointing at anyone specifically. Though, I'd probably be able to fit a few names if I go through the topic a bit more carefully. There's always a few.

[sivispacem]

Can we try and limit the number of disturbing/unpleasant videos/images plus discussion of specific individual atrocities? For one, it might be interpreted as encouraging the few oddballs who get off on that kind of thing. Two, it always leads to pointless arguments like the one above. Three, it fills the thread with copy-pasted vitriol which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion aside from making the page slightly more difficult to navigate.

 

We all know the atrocities IS have committed. We don't need a graphic reminder complete with 500-word report cribbed from some sensationalist rag every sodding day to hammers the point home.

[Doc Rikowski]

Is the bombing campaign going to be effective or will simply fail like the drone one in Pakistan?

When the number of "collateral damages" is superior to the one of the actual targets it kinda defeats the purpose of the operation.

Those "collateral damages" who will survive the not so intelligent bombing will certainly lean towards the cause of the targets rather than the cause of the ones that bombed them.

This is what happens when a traditionally obtuse military mind is left dealing with complex issues.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/only-12-pakistani-drone-strike-victims-identified-militants-278080

[sivispacem]

The drone campaign in Pakistan has been pretty successful from the perspective of disrupting the AQ leadership. They've basically become a glorified PR agency thanks to most of their operational command having collapsed.

[Brad]

The drone campaign in Pakistan has been pretty successful from the perspective of disrupting the AQ leadership. They've basically become a glorified PR agency thanks to most of their operational command having collapsed.

 

Similar currents underway in Yemen. Its not just leadership, it is also technically skilled individuals who have clandestine experience, knowledge or in-house bomb-making abilities that can surpass or render ineffective modern security procedures. In fact, that is one of the benefits of this air campaign in the Levant. Not only are the U.S. targetting ISIS, they are targeting al-Qaeda Core and transnational jihadists who are using the power vacuum of Syria and Iraq (more Syria) where they maybe to establish strongholds and areas in which to prep and train operatives to conduct attacks on the West. Most notably, the killing of al-Qaeda operative Muhsin al-Fadhil who is reported to be Ayman al-Zwahiri's senior operative in Syria.

[Doc Rikowski]

The drone campaign in Pakistan has been pretty successful from the perspective of disrupting the AQ leadership. They've basically become a glorified PR agency thanks to most of their operational command having collapsed.

A failure from the human perspective though, like any operation that costs unnecessary loss of innocent lives in the pursuit of a military objective.

In this case the loss of innocent lives has been over any acceptable limit and in terms of image the West is now rightfully considered an indiscriminate mass murderer by the local populations.

But hey! It was successful!

 

I'm sorry but I'm quite sure that the same military objectives could have been achieved with a better use of intelligence, economic means and deploying special forces in specific actions.

That would have happened only if the West and the Pakistani corrupted government had even a minor interest in avoiding civilian victims. They had not.

Nor the West nor the Pakistani corrupted government give a sh*t about a bunch of poor and ignorant beings and that's why our alleged moral superiority is a pile of bs

when you look at the facts rather than at the hypocritical rhetoric of our media and of our politicians.

 

Just imagine the same situation in a Western country. Terrorists hide among the civilian population.

Would we bomb them with drones killing the people that live around the objectives or would we use secret services, police forces and special forces?

 

In the obvious answer to this question is the core of the issue.

We like to think we live in a modern society that respects all people but the reality is that a white dead man is not like a brown dead man.

Our attitude towards the rest of the world is built over factual lies and solid illusions.

This two-faced duplicity and double standards are what fuel the most hate towards us around the world.

Add to that the disrespectful and cowardly way we fight such "wars" to "solve" global problems and you'll know why out there some people wants us dead.

 

EDIT: an example of how language is used to blind our minds.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/21/cleansing-stock-doublespeak-people-killing

 

and on drone war...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416?page=2

Edited October 21, 2014 by Doc Rikowski

[undertaker fan]

Drone attacks in Pakistan are killing too much civillians. The Pak army requested the USA to stop drone attacks its causing the deaths of innocent people. The Pak army has started an operation against the Taliban which is close to success but the USA is still sending drones, the corrupt Prime Minister will not request to stop drone attacks because of his personal investments in USA and all over the world.

[sivispacem]

I don't know what makes you think the levels of collateral damage from unmanned aircraft strikes is higher than the potential collateral damage of using special forces. Whilst there's certainly been an amount of negative impact in terms of increased radicalisation amongst the tribal groups in the region it's been much smaller than many of the nay-sayers have predicted. So has the level of collateral damage, which overall stands at about 10 and between 2008-2013 was around 5%. What males you think SF operations would have a lower civilian casualty rate?

 

Whilst the diatribes that comprise the rest of your post was lovely, I don't really think it contributes anything to the discussion. And the question arising from your comments is "why do you think SF is more efficient in terms of preventing collstoral damage than targeted attacks"?

 

Despite the Pakistani governments public condemnations, they supply the intel for many drone strikes and gain the most from them. They are tacitly encouraged.

[Doc Rikowski]

I believe special forces or undercover agents could hit and kill specific individual targets from close rather than destroying an entire building hoping to catch a couple of terrorists among dozens of innocents, don't you?

 

 

5%? That's not at all the figure that the recent independent study in the article I posted was reporting.

Actually just less than 4% of the targeted resulted in someone having some kind of connection to AQ.

The number of collateral damage is higher than 50%.

 

 

You can disregard the rest of my post cause it would lead us off topic but it is important to understand that military actions can't be separated from their moral implications otherwise we end up with a society lead by military nonsense and violence rather than culture and human progress.

 

 

The Pakistani government is a corrupted government that we support only for strategical reasons and cause we don't usually mess with countries with the bomb.

It doesn't surprise me they support the drone war. They're a bunch of criminals in uniforms.

[Mr. House]

I don't know what makes you think the levels of collateral damage from unmanned aircraft strikes is higher than the potential collateral damage of using special forces. Whilst there's certainly been an amount of negative impact in terms of increased radicalisation amongst the tribal groups in the region it's been much smaller than many of the nay-sayers have predicted. So has the level of collateral damage, which overall stands at about 10 and between 2008-2013 was around 5%. What males you think SF operations would have a lower civilian casualty rate?

 

Whilst the diatribes that comprise the rest of your post was lovely, I don't really think it contributes anything to the discussion. And the question arising from your comments is "why do you think SF is more efficient in terms of preventing collstoral damage than targeted attacks"?

 

Despite the Pakistani governments public condemnations, they supply the intel for many drone strikes and gain the most from them. They are tacitly encouraged.

Much like the level of collateral damage, the amount of drone strike killings that have actually been confirmed Al Qaeda targets since the start of drone strikes floats at around about 10%. Suffice to say, that is not a good number. I severely doubt the number of confirmed Al Qaeda targets would be around 10% with ground troops and if that is the case then the US army is in a dire state. Beyond that, your statistics are incorrect. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has confirmed civilian casualty rate at 20% as do most other independent reports. Even beyond THAT, the overwhelming amount of casualties are listed as 'grey area' at around 70%. Even the most incompetent of administrative facilities would shudder at those numbers.

 

Finally, the UN itself has strongly condemned the use of drone strikes and their effectiveness and Amnesty International have outright called them war crimes. I'm inclined to agree.

 

Ultimately, even if the drone strikes were effective, Pakistani opinion of them is extremely negative. Frankly, they will likely cause more Al Qaeda fighters than they kill.

[sivispacem]

Much like the level of collateral damage, the amount of drone strike killings that have actually been confirmed Al Qaeda targets since the start of drone strikes floats at around about 10%...

 

...Suffice to say, that is not a good number. I severely doubt the number of confirmed Al Qaeda targets would be around 10% with ground troops and if that is the case then the US army is in a dire state. Beyond that, your statistics are incorrect. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has confirmed civilian casualty rate at 20% as do most other independent reports. Even beyond THAT, the overwhelming amount of casualties are listed as 'grey area' at around 70%. Even the most incompetent of administrative facilities would shudder at those numbers.

They're not targeting al-Qaeda in Pakistan; well, not al-Qaeda specifically but a whole range of militant groups and both the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban. If you're referring to the circa 12% identified as militants by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (as you later confirmed), their methodology was to try and use open sources and available member lists for militant organisations to confirm the whether individuals were members of militant groups, which is clearly fallible; hence why they don't claim that these individuals weren't members of AQ and other militants, but that they were unable to determine whether they were. Of course, without access to Pakistani and CIA intelligence we can't determine whether the individuals were suspected to be member of, or were active members of, militant groups, so it's really a question of whose statistics you believe- the BIJ's or the New America Foundation's.

 

The largest study into drone attacks, and what appears to have comprised the primary list which BIJ attempted to validate was the aforementioned New America Foundation's Drone Wars: Pakistan study, which I've linked to below and from which the statistics I've referenced are taken. Now, you're free to dispute the accuracy and validity of their record-keeping and I'll happily concede that their statistics for the numbers of civilian versus militant casualties are wrong, but as a non-partisan, independent organisation with arguably greater access to the details of these attacks I'm inclined to trust them on the matter unless evidence exists to suggest I shouldn't- and the BIJ report isn't a case of "the NAF are wrong in their conclusions" but a case of "we haven't been unable to validate or establish whether many of the targeted attacks against militants disclosed by the NAF did actually kill militants".

 

 

I believe special forces or undercover agents could hit and kill specific individual targets from close rather than destroying an entire building hoping to catch a couple of terrorists among dozens of innocents, don't you?

The overwhelming majority of strikes are conducted against individuals outside, hence why the number of females killed is so low. It really isn't a case of dropping a 500lb LGB on a house any more- it used to be circa 2004 but not these days.

 

 

5%? That's not at all the figure that the recent independent study in the article I posted was reporting.

Well it is the figure provided by the New America Foundation, a independent and non-partisan think tank who have done by far the most extensive study into drone attacks over the last decade. If you average out the confirmed civilian deaths as a proportion of the known militant ones since 2008, it comprises about 5%. Actually, you know what, I'll do the maths:

 

(28+92+16+62)/(223+387+788+517+268+153+10) = 0.0843, so 8.4%.

 

 

Actually just less than 4% of the targeted resulted in someone having some kind of connection to AQ.

Except even the original source for that claim, the Bureau of Investigative Jorunalists, lated ammended it to say:

 

 

Note: This story contains a clarification. 4% of people who have been killed by CIA drone strikes have been named and positively identified as members of al Qaeda by available records. Of the drone strike victims who have been named, 12% are identified as al Qaeda.

 

The number of collateral damage is higher than 50%.

Evidence? That claim isn't even made, let alone evidenced, in either of your sources.

[Mr. House]

They're not targeting al-Qaeda in Pakistan; well, not al-Qaeda specifically but a whole range of militant groups and both the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban. If you're referring to the circa 12% identified as militants by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (as you later confirmed), their methodology was to try and use open sources and available member lists for militant organisations to confirm the whether individuals were members of militant groups, which is clearly fallible; hence why they don't claim that these individuals weren't members of AQ and other militants, but that they were unable to determine whether they were. Of course, without access to Pakistani and CIA intelligence we can't determine whether the individuals were suspected to be member of, or were active members of, militant groups, so it's really a question of whose statistics you believe- the BIJ's or the New America Foundation's.

The largest study into drone attacks, and what appears to have comprised the primary list which BIJ attempted to validate was the aforementioned New America Foundation's Drone Wars: Pakistan study, which I've linked to below and from which the statistics I've referenced are taken. Now, you're free to dispute the accuracy and validity of their record-keeping and I'll happily concede that their statistics for the numbers of civilian versus militant casualties are wrong, but as a non-partisan, independent organisation with arguably greater access to the details of these attacks I'm inclined to trust them on the matter unless evidence exists to suggest I shouldn't- and the BIJ report isn't a case of "the NAF are wrong in their conclusions" but a case of "we haven't been unable to validate or establish whether many of the targeted attacks against militants disclosed by the NAF did actually kill militants".

Fair enough, though the whole who are they targeting thing is rather ugly. The numbers are somewhat immaterial in this aspect, the greatest point of contention is whether they're the most effective way of dealing with the situation and whether they're ultimately justified.

 

Personally I would say the main reason for drone strikes in the first place was to avoid Pakistani public and government ire from having ground troops in the area. I'd say this has largely backfired. Even ignoring the ethical concerns I would say they fail in any aim they hoped to achieve in attempting to avoid ground forces acting in Pakistan. Maybe I'm oversimplifying the reasoning though.