Talk:Drone strikes in Pakistan

I oppose the merging of these two articles as "Drone_attacks_on_Pakistan_by_the_United_States_of_America" drone missile attacks are different from "List_of_American_missile_strikes_in_Pakistan" missile attacks as this Drone_attacks article bespeaks about the increased use of drones in warfare. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

this topic deserves more detailed coverage as a dedicated detailed article as it is one of the main current campaigns in the war on Terrorism. most of the info in the List has been incorporated in this article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article not editable ? I think 2009 death figures should be put in plain numbers instead of text, so it would be more clear that the numbers are increasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.190.38 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I'll leave this up for a week before I move it, but I think the title should just be "Drone attacks on Pakistan by the United States," as the actual article for the United States of America is just United States. Thoughts? AP1787 (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would change it to "Drone Attacks in Pakistan by the United States". "On" implies it is an attack on the country itself. These appear to be coordinated attacks on Taliban and AQ targets. Thoughts?--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

these attacks are ON the sovereign territory of Pakistan with most casualties being innocent Pakistani citizens. They are considered a violation of sovereignty by many people in Pakistan including the government. so IN I think is not accurate and could be construed as pushing US POV and sugarcoating the issue. it is very apparent that Pakistanis consider these attacks as an attack on their country and want these stopped asap.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ergo, IN Pakistan. They are not an attack on Pakistan's military, its infrastructure, or any other object that has a military application. And please save the lecture, I have about as much "pull" on dictating American foreign policy as you do. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask how important would it be for Pakistan to authorize these American incursions into Pakistan's airspace?

Prior to, and following, the invasion of Normandy American and British aircraft bombarded sites in occupied France. They did so with the approval of the Free French government in exile. So this was not an act of war -- even if the bombardment killed French civilians at the same time.

Some people suggest that the Pakistan's government's repeated protestations that the drone attacks are not authorized are insincere, and that they really want the USA to continue the strikes, and that the protestations are for domestic political consumption. If we have references to that effect, let's include them. Treating those protestations as if we knew they were insincere is, I suggest, a serious mistake. That is, I suggest, what the proposed rename would imply -- that the attacks on Pakistani territory had the approval of the Pakistani government. It is, I suggest, a serious lapse from WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to imply permission we can't document. Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are actually asking me to presume they are not authorized, Geo Swan? That they are not launched from within Pakistan itself? Have you heard of Diane Feinstein? This is too simple. Thanks for the attempted parallel with WWII. Apples and oranges. As stated, it should be "IN" Pakistan. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

yes the drones are launched from Shamsi. but did Pakistan authorize the shooting?? They have repeatedly said that they do not want any drone attacks and have never said they would not allow the drone flights (presumably for intelligence gathering). you are just assuming that Pakistan has agreed to the drones attacking targets when all public statements emanating from Pak are to the contrary. yes attacks on Pakistani citizens are attacks ON pakistan even though the pakistani military and civil infrastructure is not targeted. what would you call if Chinese fired a missile on some dissidents who were given asylum in USA ( AKA terrorists) living in LA ?? and please do not assume that I have no control over US policy. you do not know what I do in real life do you ??? :-)Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, would you please consider responding to what your correspondents actually wrote? You seem to have skipped over my final paragraph, in its entirety.

"Some ... suggest ... Pakistan's ... protestations ... are insincere ... If we have references to that effect, let's include them. Treating those protestations as if we KNEW they were insincere is, I suggest, a serious mistake.

If you can supply references that claim Pakistan's protestations are insincere, please provide them now.

Even if you were to find references that indicated that Pakistan's protestations were insincere, unless you were able to find a leaked copy of a secret treaty where Pakistan's government secretly agreed to the opposite of its publicly stated policy positions whatever references you found would be the commentators opinion, and would have to be stated as such, not represented as an unequivocal fact. Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1 included a link to the following article -- but he did so in an obfuscated manner. I will supply the link in a unobfuscated manner below, because it is a good reference. It could be used to state that authoritative commentators have challenged the sincerity of the Pakistani government's protestations that the drone attack are unauthorized. However, it does not unequivocally establish that the protestation are insincere. I believe both President Bush and President Obama have stated that they are prepared to use force, inside Pakistan, without regard to whether Pakistan has given its authorization. Geo Swan (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noah Shachtman (2009-02-13). "Senator: U.S. Launches Drone War on Pakistan, From Pakistan". Wired magazine.

You miss the point yet again. The drone attacks originate IN Pakistan from US bases IN Pakistan. One has a rather difficult point trying to make an argument that this is a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and are attacks "on" Pakistan when the attacks come from withIN their own territory. Put plainly, I don't really need to show "insencerity" of protest when the drone attacks come from withIN Pakistan's own territory from bases whereIN Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place. Getting it now? The title of this article is misleading. Do you now understand the point? I certainly hope so. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that "Pakistan waived their own sovereignty to allow such bases to exist in the first place..." is merely a point of view, a controversial one you may share with the Senator. But the Senator is not a senior Pakistani official. Since Pakistani cabinet members continue to insist that the attacks are not authorized it would be a serious lapse from neutrality for us to write that they actually are authorized, or to rename the article to imply the attacks are authorized. Geo Swan (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A point of view? Please, share with us what "points" you have that allowing a foreign military and intelligence to operate freely from one's own territory is an act that does not waive sovereignty. As for the title, it merely describes the drone strikes "IN" Pakistan, not "on" Pakistan. I apologize if this does not comport with your "point of view", but it better describes the situation from a neutrality standpoint than the implications of the title as presently titled. The attacks do not come from "outside" of Pakistan's territory, they come from withIN it. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. This stuff is difficult to understand. Maybe if you try re-reading the counterpoints more closely you will understand where the flaws in your position are. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Difficult? Not really. The counter-points are simply unpersuasive and easily disposed of. Ta'.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yachtsman. by your reasoning 9/11 was an attack in USA not ON USA since the attacks originated in USA and used US manufactured and owned aircraft. you completely dont get the point yourself. the attacks are ON pakistan ( the Targets of the attacks are Pakistani citizens without express consent of Pakistani Government.) just because Pakistanis have allowed US bases to operate ( for supporting the Afghan mission) does not mean the have waived their sovereign rights. US bases exist in a lot of countries including South Korea and Phillipines. dont keep on making arguments which are not making any sense to 2 other editors thankyou.Wikireader41 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By my reasoning, 9/11 was an attack on two targets by terrorists who flew airplanes into them utilizing commercial aircraft that had been hijacked. The United States did not provide the means for the attack to occur by agreeing with a foreign government or entity to set up an airport where the flights took place. As for "making sense", I don't think there exists any real confusion on this point. South Korea and the Phillipines have these things called "treaties" with the United States and its military for use of these bases, and their presence constitutes a waiver of sovereignty in that regard. The same thing applies to Pakistan, which by treaty allows the United States to operate air bases from within its own territory. The deaths of civilians would be, by Pakistan's logic, a violation of that agreement, but it would still not constitute an attack "on" Pakistan when the means of delivering the strike is located within Pakistan itself by their own agreement. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

yachtsman1. again you are confusing the issue of Pakistan allowing the attacks. they never have to the best of our knowledge and routinely deny this notion. they allowed the drones to take off from Shamsi and maybe even shoot in Afghanistan. so what would you say if I said that CIA "hijacks" these drones routinely after they take off and illegally uses them to shoot inside Pakistan. the triggers are pulled in Nevada not in Pakistan and not by Pentagon but by CIA officers who also fly them for bulk of the mission. all in all the key issue here is whether an attack on Pakistani Citizens is an attack ON Pakistan or not. other issues are not even worth debating. who gave the permission ( an illegal dictator or a popular elected govt), was permission given under coercion, was the alternative for Pakistan to be blown into stone age as Musharraf seems to have said in his memoirs. we could debate all this endlessly. I would even argue that an attack clearly sanctioned ( and it is not) by an unpopular government/ dictator against its own citizens would still be an attack ON that country. As far as making sense let me be very clear you are not making any sense to me whatsoever. so do not say there is no confusion. thank youWikireader41 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, please re-read the first three words of your last comment:

"By my reasoning..."

We can offer our personal opinions here on talk pages, if we are doing so to discuss how best to edit the article. But our personal opinion should never be inserted into article space. You are free to quote the skepticism Senator Diane Feinstein expressed about the sincerity of Pakistan's denials that it had authorized the US attacks. I encourage you to do so.

But there is no defense, within policy, for changing the name of this article based on your personal reasoning. Doing so is an injection of your personal reasoning into article space -- a very clear violation of policy.

There are times when my personal conclusions are at odds with what all of our WP:RS say. As a good faith contributor to the wikipedia my choices are to take a vacation from articles on those topics, or stick with what the WP:RS say. Sometimes this is an effort.

In this instance it is your turn. Your personal opinion is at odds with what our WP:RS say. If you are going to work on the article you have to respect the official position the Pakistani government has offered. If you can't do that I recommend you take a vacation from working on the article. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Geo Swan. This will confirm that your "personal reasoning" has not been employed, it is only others who have done so. Thank you also for directing my attention to a response to a post that used the term.

If you are going to work on any article, a title must reflect reality, and the reality is that the attacks by drones are coming from withIN Pakistan's own territory. Your point has now changed, and the attacks are said not to be "sanctioned" for use on Pakistani civilians. If you have a link showing that these drone attacks come from outside of Pakistan's territory, I encourage you to show them to me.

WP:RS does not support your position in the slightest, by the way, but thanks for the link. I would suggest you review it in light of your own use of primary sources.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:VER. You wrote: "If you are going to work on any article, a title must reflect reality..." Sorry, this advice of your is at odds with WP:VER. I don't define the "true reality". You don't define the "true reality". Remember "verifiability, not truth". We have discussed two thing that are verifiable. (1) the official position of the Pakistani government is that the attacks on Pakistan are not authorized; and (2) some WP:RS, including the Senator, are skeptical about Pakistan's official position. You have offered nothing to challenge the verifiable official position. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the long and interesting debate above, which includes many "ins and outs," it is quite obvious that the article's title should be changed, as per Yachtsman1. To a new and uninformed reader of this entry, the preposition "on" instantly implies and denotes an attack on the country itself, not rogue targets which would be located "IN" Pakistan. I think a proposal should be made and discussed by a wider group of Wikipedians. JEN9841 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)