A Quickie: The Latest Death By Drones Spin

As if ‘1-in-3’ justifies it, today’s papers were filled offering as fact the claim by the New American Foundation report:
One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian

One in three? Maybe Dawn ought to look at it’s own report by the same reporter only 20 days ago which states ‘For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die”; Or it’s own Blog! For additional comparison, let’s see some previous news reports from different sources:

60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians
Well that does equal 1 in 3!

Unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist
Well that does equal 1 in 3!

For each Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist killed by US drones, 140 innocent Pakistanis also had to die,” the newspaper reports. “Over 90 per cent of those killed in the deadly missile strikes were civilians, claim authorities.”
Well that does equal 1 in 3!

NYT: 700 people had been killed in those attacks and 98 per cent of them were civilians, which is 50 civilians for each militant eliminated.
Well that does equal 1 in 3!

Of course the only people who would agree to these numbers are ISPR (according to which not a single civilian has ever been killed by the mercenary forces aka Pakistan Army), the baboos and those in Government, like the Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Hamid Saeed Kazmi. The only thing he felt wrong about all this was:
‘Irresponsible reporting on drone attacks humiliating country’

(Am glad they shot this bastard! I only wish they’d get this one in the head)

Advertisements

5 Responses to “A Quickie: The Latest Death By Drones Spin”


  1. 1 Observer March 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Sorry for posting it here, but did you see this?

    Please also watch 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

  2. 2 nota March 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    @Observer
    You want me to watch ONE FULL HOUR of Zaid Hamid? Please do give me a summary if you can.

    (I did start watching part one but he seems to be going off a tangent and accusing those raising the question as having an agenda against Islam, “fasadi”, etc. and accusing them of doing exactly what he is doing)

  3. 3 nota March 6, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    @Observer
    Interesting — he says he does not accept the courts verdict because:
    1. it was not a shariat court
    2. It was a court under agnraiz law with “angraiz lawyers”
    Huh?

    BTW: I do remember him screaming against the ‘Sufi Muhammad deal’ which demanded Shariat courts. Hmmmm!

  4. 4 Observer March 7, 2010 at 11:19 am

    He, he..he. Sorry for asking you to watch him. I also stopped at no. 1 since I didn’t have any clue about those people/verdicts he was referring to.

    It is also “interesting” that he is referring to his witnesses as “beta” could you please read this and that 🙂 Maybe this is the kind of “shariat court” he is in search for with “mature” people to handle his case.

    Do you know the scholar he is referring to?

    “I do remember him screaming against the ‘Sufi Muhammad deal’ which demanded Shariat courts. Hmmmm!”

    Don’t be so sensitive 🙂 It’s “only” about having two sets of rules 😉

  5. 5 Taukeer March 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Dawn is the lowest of the low. Looks like it is bidding for $50million! Such shameless morons. It would have been funny if people were not dying.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: