U.S. Drone Strike Kills 20 People in Pakistan (3 Children)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

U.S. drone strike kills 20 people in Pakistan
Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:11pm EDT

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Missiles fired from a U.S. pilotless drone aircraft killed 13 militants and 7 civilians in Pakistan's North Waziristan on Monday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

They said the missiles were fired at a militant hideout. Most of the militants killed were members of the Afghan Taliban. Four women and three children were among the dead, said the officials.

"The missiles hit a militant compound and a house adjacent to it. We have confirmed reports of 20 dead," said one of the intelligence officials.

Another official said members of the al Qaeda-linked Haqqani network -- one of the most effective militant forces fighting Western troops in Afghanistan -- had been using the compound.

Read more: http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE67M44U20100823?ca=rdt

---

WikiLeaks has blood on it's hands! Oh, wait...

[Vehl]

1. this trend is really annoying. it just sends more people to the ranks of the terrorists..

and not to mention all those civilian deaths...


and this while the entire country is almost flooded to the brim with millions displaced?
the person who planned such an attack during this time needs a darwin medal.

it boggles my mind!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. How about a Nobel Peace Prize? n/t

[Dr.Phool]

2. I see the aid has arrived.

[thereismore]

4. Reality makes us all into cynics. Great comment. nt

[Nihil]

39. Laugh? Cry? Decisions, decisions ...

"Why do they hate us?"

[MARALE]

69. My thoughts exactly

How can they spin this? Making more room for the displaced people??? Horrible.

[L0oniX]

3. Even if the enemy was the broad side of a big red barn they would kill civilians.

[defendandprotect]

5. Notice .... as they say, in the end, all war is a war on women and children ....

[wtmusic]

6. So all the men were militants. Wonder how they knew that from 1,200 feet up.

I also wonder how tolerant the American public would be if law enforcement here used drone strikes.

Oh, they're poor brown non-Christians who don't speak English? Nevermind.

[Pavulon]

9. Facial recognition in some cases

they see weapons etc. Without seeing the footage no idea. This is not law enforcement it is military activity authorized by the executive branch.

[Downwinder]

14. Ought to ba able to tell the difference between male and female,

children an adults.

[Pavulon]

18. Consider the idea that the knew they were there and determined

the lives of the targets worth the lives of their family.

[Downwinder]

19. In an air conditioned trailer in Nevada that should be a Command decision. n/t

[Pavulon]

20. Try 1600 Penn. Put the buck with the people who run the war

not the military that carries out orders from the executive branch and is funded by the legislative.

[Downwinder]

21. With a military that gets everything they want,

I figure it is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

[Pavulon]

22. CIA is running those operations and they require authorization

that gives them the legal authority to kill people. That's how its done. Military procedure is not the same as killing some guy in yemen or pakistan.

[Downwinder]

25. If that had peen a manned craft it would need Command authorization

if civilians were present. A drone pilot would need similar authorization.

[PacerLJ35]

32. Most of the MQ-1/MQ-9 ops in Afghanistan are USAF-operated

[Pavulon]

35. I was under the impression

that this was a Pakistan operation and those events not in military AO were CIA "owned". At any rate the call happened because the military or CIA has been authorized by the civilian command of the Unites States to target people.

Its not a CWO in an Apache making the call, its well up the food chain.

EDIT: on reading your other posts you are probably aware of that. Point I was trying to make is the CIA (or USAF) are following a command structure, not just taking pot shots. Historically the CIA requested Executive sign off on lethal operations, especially post church commission.

Many of these posters are completely unaware of the basics of how the government control of military works.

[PacerLJ35]

55. Right

There's a specific ROE to follow prior to "pulling the trigger", especially in Afghanistan. They tightened the ROE quite a bit, so shots aren't being taken unless someone in the command structure gives it a green light...and that includes CAS operations responding to a TIC (troops in contact).

From talking to others, it seems most people think these "drones" (they are more accurately described as remotely-piloted aircraft) go roaming around shooting at anything that moves. That is inaccurate. They know exactly what they are shooting at...problem is, they can't see everything in the nearby area, inside buildings or adjacent vehicles, etc. That's where most civilian casualties come from...we are fighting an insurgency, and they live, work and plan in areas that have civilians.

There is also a part of the international war laws that accepts known civilian casualties so long as the actual target is one of military necessity (ie, top guy for the Taliban, etc). The theory behind that is if we take out highly valued military targets, even if it kills a couple civilians, it may hasten the end of the war and the suffering overall (this was the concept behind strategic bombing in WWII). Regardless of whether you think that concept works or not, there is still a very real tragedy involved...but then again, war in general is a tragedy because even if it's only combatants being lost, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters are being killed on both sides.

As tragic as civilian deaths are, most that occur on behalf of the US military are not considered war crimes by the letter of the laws of armed conflict. To date, those that were purposeful were investigated and people were charged (and convicted). It is not a national war crime unless the US knows about it and does nothing to prosecute those involved.

Back to the MQ-1s and MQ-9s...there are a handful that operate in Afghanistan that are CIA-owned. Most, however, are not CIA. The border region is full of both USAF and CIA orbits.

[wtmusic]

16. Kinda like the Wikileaks video where they identified a camera as an AK

and killed 12 civilians?

WTF does the fact that it's authorized by the executive branch have to do with anything? Means we get to kill brown people? :eyes:

[Pavulon]

17. Means someone either did not see them or determined

the lives of the people they were targeting was worth the civilian casualties...

ON Edit: Comment flipped. The reuters guys were embedded and were killed when the armed men they were with were killed. Open closed, reuters does not claim otherwise.

[wtmusic]

24. "Worth the civilian casualties" my ass.

Of course if you happened to be related to one of those civilians you'd be singing a different tune. I suppose the kids that were shot were "embedded" too...

:puke:

[Pavulon]

36. Sorry to be the one to introduce you to reality. Who do you think makes those calls

the military? Nyet. Those decisions are authorized by the executive branch. The military did not just show up on its own.

The kids are a byproduct of war. From ancient greece to modern war, civilian death will be a byproduct of conflict. Those conflicts are ordered by the executive and funded by the legislative. Those folks are doing exactly what they said they would when you elected them.

[ronnie624]

44. Irrelevant to the moral implications of waging aggressive war.

The U.S. is not waging war against the Taliban because they "kill Americans", as you have said in the recent past. The U.S. corporate political power establishment, has an interest in securing military, political and economic influence in this region of Asia. Empires are driven by a desire to control resources and markets, and to exercise strategic advantage over potential rivals. Concern for human rights has never in history played a part in the motives for imperialism. The gut-wrenching fear of China as an emerging super power, is what is really motivating neocons, corporatists and other rightists in their campaigns of violence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Pavulon]

48. Dude a Democrat authorized that op. Now get real.

the CIA has historically required written authorization to kill people. So if you a Piper (we are building a pipe to steal all the vast riches from one of the shittiest places on earth) or one of the America is an evil empire crowd we are pretty much at a loss.

Just remember you get that freedom here, you dont in china (well maybe with a bribe big enough). My concern is china implodes and we have no one to borrow money from.

[Downwinder]

52. Lets see how you feel when they are your children.

[Pavulon]

56. I went to funerals in September 01. If I were a taliban or alq commander

my kids and wife would stay with my parents.. But that does not seem to be how they play.

[Prometheus Bound]

26. "See weapons". In a heavy weapon culture where all men carry guns, where would you not see weapons?

20 million AK 47's in public use in Pakistan

[Pavulon]

37. Since I dont have gun camera footage,no way to know

Unless they just fired on a wedding party they were targeting someone. Now if that someone was worth the cost in civilian lives is another thing we dont know.

[sabrina 1]

60. What a ridiculous statement. They just push buttons as if they

were playing a video game from somewhere here in the U.S. and they killed hundreds of civilians, children and women with those monstrous, cowardly toys over the past year.

They have no idea who they are killing and they depend on their 'informants' who often finger people they have a personal dispute with and are no more terrorists, in their OWN COUNTRIES btw, than the children they are killing.

This is what Wikileaks Docs confirmed, what they have been denying.

Drones are criminal and the methods used to identify who they are killing are criminal.

Your attitude towards the lives of people in other countries is what has made the U.S. the enemy to so many nations and then we whine like babies when a relative or friend of those we are killing decides to strike back.

Drones should be banned. One day, as a result of the numbers of innocent people they have killed, I believer they will be.

[PacerLJ35]

33. The decision to fire is a process, not a snap decision

It's not like the movies. One reason why the MQ-1 and MQ-9 are used is because of their loiter capability. They will sit in an orbit and literally watch the objective area for a very long time. Often the situation is assessed by ground controllers too (such as a JTAC).

Bottom line: They don't just pump missiles into a building "just because", or because "we think they might be bad". They know the people in the building are bad guys...problem is you can't see EVERYONE, so if there are non-combatants around, it's impossible to know the location of everyone in and around a building.

[wtmusic]

43. Wrong.

They, in fact, do not "know" the people in the building are bad guys. They "think" the people in the building are bad guys, and they're not willing to get their boots on the ground and risk injury to themselves to find out for sure, so they blow the fucking building up and no one except for the families knows any better.

That's putting the value of your life above someone else's, and everyone except arrogant Americans knows it. It's also dishonorable and cowardly.

[PacerLJ35]

61. So...how many Predator pilots do you know?

I've got a few good friends that "fly" them...not to mention a close family friend was the CAOC director and was one of the people responsible for making the call to take a building out or not.

Hearing it from those that do it...or reading about it in a magazine...I'm sure you'll argue that you know all because you googled it.

[EFerrari]

53. Yes, they do. We've all seen the film, remember? nt

[PacerLJ35]

62. I'm guessing you mean the AH-64 video from Wikileaks...

Apples and oranges. The MQ-1/MQ-9 aircraft are AFCENT-controlled assets and are controlled by the CAOC and an air component commander. The AH-64 is considered an organic aviation asset that belongs to the ground commander.

All shots from the Predator/Reaper aircraft comes from a well-defined command chain that gives the crew a green light or not.

Please, claim all day that you understand this subject better than I. The handful of DUers on this board that recognize you're speaking out your rear can figure it out.

[Prometheus Bound]

68. Well, shit, why don't they use the same system in the US.

"They know who the bad guys are"

You could just do away with courts and prosecutors and judges and lawyers and all that shit, and just let the cops kill whoever their informants say the bad guys are.

[PacerLJ35]

73. Civil law enforcement is not the same as fighting a war

In the court system, people are being tried for allegedly breaking laws. It's a vastly different game when you're engaged in open warfare.

Thanks for comparing apples to Tuesday.

[Prometheus Bound]

76. The US is not at war with Pakistan.

[PacerLJ35]

78. Oh, I never knew that

(sarcasm alert). If you haven't figured it out, the Pakistani military is trying to help us find Taliban militants in the border region. Politics aside, that's the only reason why they've had their troops in that part of their country. We aren't fighting the Pakistani government, and I'm quite aware of the situation there.

[Prometheus Bound]

79. The Pakistan govt has repeatedly condemned them because they violate the country's sovereignty

Also pointing out that killing 140 innocents for every terrorist hardly help the cause.

Man, don't defend this shit. It is vile in every way.

[Plucketeer]

8. I'm sure glad

we don't have a third warfront going! :sarcasm:

[OhioChick]

10. Every time "civilians" are killed, expect their families to join militant ranks. n/t

[Kringle]

13. 'civilians' ... Taliban codespeak for trainees .nt

[IndianaGreen]

15. Saith the neocons!

The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan have critized the loss of civilian lives in our ill-conceived Predator drone attacks, which also happen to be a war crime.

[primavera]

51. Good thing we're getting those terrorist babies! - n/t

[Egnever]

50. If these folks were hanging out with the militants

isnt it likely they already joined?

[EFerrari]

54. The Pentagram calls all dead people "militants" --

until the families show up missing some kids and women and old people.

[Jefferson23]

11. The damn Congress needs to hold hearings on the use of these drones. n/t

[golfguru]

12. Collateral damage?

[midnight]

23. End this war. K&R......

[daleo]

27. Saving kids from floods with one hand

Killing them with missiles fired from drones with the other.

Crazy.

[kpete]

28. Amid flooding, CIA resumes Pakistan drone campaign

Source: MSNBC


Amid flooding, CIA resumes Pakistan drone campaign
Some fear the air strikes are coming at the worst possible moment


By Michael Isikoff National investigative correspondent
NBC News

After a little-noticed, weeks long disruption caused by the monsoons that devastated Pakistan, the CIA in recent days has picked up the pace of its missile strikes against Islamic militants with back-to-back attacks against terror targets that have killed at least 11 people in the country’s northwest region.

But the air strikes have raised fresh concerns among some Pakistani officials that the agency is resuming its lethal campaign at the worst possible moment, in the midst of a humanitarian crisis that has submerged one sixth of the country and left at least six million people homeless.

The U.S. government was building substantial good will inside Pakistan by rushing food and helicopters and pledging $150 million — more than any other country — to assist with flood relief, one senior Pakistani official told NBC.

But “all that could go down the drain” if the agency continues with aggressive air strikes right now, said the official who asked not to be quoted criticizing the U.S. “It’s one thing if they were getting some high value targets. But there are many in Pakistan, particularly in the religious parties, who are going to look at this and say, ‘here we have the worst national calamity in the history of our country and the U.S. is responding by conducting’ ” lethal military attacks.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38823715/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

[Vehl]

29. Is the CIA this clueless?

I really don't get it...its almost as if they want to make more enemies and nullify the goodwill US gained due to its flood aid.
why not wait a week or so before the flood issue is gone? at the very least???

[Angry Dragon]

30. What is the CIA doing waging war??

I thought that was a job for the military??

[Pavulon]

38. The CIA takes orders from the Executive, just like the rest

of the forces there.. Some "rouge" agent did not make the call.

[lib2DaBone]

31. The goal is to make the U.S. hated..keep us embroiled in a religious war...

[ShamelessHussy]

34. but they didn't mean to kill the children, so that makes it OK, in the eyes of the Hawks

not sure the folks on the ground see it the same way though.

[wtmusic]

42. See upthread, we have the right to decide whether their deaths are "worth" it

* WARNING * American arrogance/ethnocentrism on display...

[ronnie624]

45. American exceptionalism

is the bedrock for that poster's world view, like tens of millions of other U.S. Americans. Such a belief makes it easy to exempt oneself from the moral strictures placed on others. It is fundamentally illogical and irrational, therefore every conclusion derived from it is illogical as well.

[wtmusic]

46. +1...you said it better. nt

[Pavulon]

47. which is why it hads been part of every millitary since war was invented

morality is just not part of that call. Are you saying we are the first to kill civilians in war. Guess history was not big where you were educated.

edit:grammar

[ronnie624]

49. There are moral implications

to invading countries that have never attacked you, and proceeding to murder civilians en mass. I have seen you, yourself, moralizing over attacks against others, especially when the U.S. is the victim, which is a blatant contradiction of your current position: morality doesn't matter. You embrace a double standard, and it is inherently illogical.

History is interesting, but I would never use it as a current moral guide. I don't know how you can conclude that because atrocities like aggressive war are part of the historical record, they are perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to commit now. That's just weird.

[Pavulon]

57. Don't kill 3000 people during the first aerial attack on the US

and not expect a war. No morality there. They refused to give him up, we kill them. The responsible parties should be killed no matter where they are unless they are under constitutional protection. Bankers, imams involved, logistics guys, all are equally responsible and are military targets. I do think it is a waste of time to kill their infantry as there will always be more.

There is a limited supply of people who contribute money and logistics, smart and wealthy people may be more inclined not to play in a game where the get electrocuted in a hotel room.

Its quite simple, any one part of that operation or planning similar operations is subject to death from a military operation.

At no point have I brought morality into this conversation.

[ronnie624]

58. U.S. political and corporate elites do not seek revenge.

They are after resources, emerging markets and strategic advantage, plain and simple, just as empires always have been. Prattle about our leaders avenging 3000 victims of an "aerial attack" by the Taliban is nonsensical in the extreme.

The Taliban did not refuse to give up bin Laden. The U.S. government did not want him, because it would have ruined their pretext for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq.

You sound like all the babbling Fox 'news' viewers I know. A good portion of your message doesn't even make any sense to me.

[Kringle]

59. how many people, other than OBL, get to choose what country hosts their trial .nt

[ronnie624]

70. I give up. How many? n/t

[PacerLJ35]

63. Laws of Armed Conflict

It's not just an American thing. At least the US gives a crap about civilians in the first place. Having been to many other countries and seen how they do things, I'm utterly convinced that among nations, we are among the few that actually tries to spare civilians when we can.

Go to war against Russia, China or any other world power and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PacerLJ35]

74. So you're saying that the people prosecuting the war don't give a crap about civilians at all...

[ronnie624]

77. I don't have to say it. The historical record says it all.

The slaughter of ten million civilians over the last 60 years by U.S. military interventions makes the issue perfectly clear.

[PacerLJ35]

80. I'd say something specific to your post but I'll withhold comment

Because it's not very nice. You wish to paint a broad brush on those who serve in uniform, so be it.

I've been in the military for 18 years, in both the Army and the Air Force. I have yet to see anyone that wantonly desires to kill people for no reason.

But I'm sure you're much more educated about the mindset of the American military force, being that you've probably read about it on the internets...me? I've only got my measly 18 years being in the military and serving with thousands of others in uniform...so what do I know, right?

I can tell you now that much of what you read does NOT reflect the ground truth. I don't know if I should laugh or cry when ever I see internet geniuses like yourself declare that those of us who have been there, done that are mindless drones that don't have a clue. It is absolutely pathetic that our country has gotten to the point where people would rather read an article written by someone with an agenda (regardless of whether they are from the left or right) rather than listen to the people actually out there.

I'm quite sure many people on DU think I'm some kind of right-wing guy because I'm always arguing against those that wish to paint military folks as evil and ill-intentioned, but the truth is much different.

I'm very sick of living in a country where you are either on "this" side, or "that" side, and those that refuse to fit into one or the other mold get heckled by both sides for being traitors.

I'm tired of being a person who believes in the individual rights of people (ie, pro-gay rights, etc), taking care of your environment (ie, responsibility) and being compassionate for others (ie, supporting true assistance programs)...but because I'm not willing to denounce the military as a bunch of murderous thugs, I'm painted in that right-wing corner.

Why do I believe what I believe? Because I base my beliefs not in the writings (and rantings) of other people, but in my own life experiences. I've seen troops who had bloodlust, and ironically the other soldiers always did think they were weird. The cheering you hear on some of the videos? It's because earlier that day, a Humvee got blown to bits and someone's kid got mauled, and the AH-64 Apache finally took out the guys that killed them. You look at that situation from a more geopolitical vantage point of "we shouldn't be there"...the guys cheering look at it from a much more localized and personal vantage point..."we got the guys that killed our friends and colleagues". You weren't there and didn't have to watch the carnage, so you feel inclined to get on your high horse and philosophize over foreign policy theory, while these guys are living a very real and terrifying reality. I don't judge those guys because I've been in those situations before where I was getting chased across the sky by an SA-16 missile...and dammit if another aircraft took out the shooters I'd be cheering too. Maybe later I'd have the time to reflect on the bigger picture, but in that moment I'd be happy that the bastards that were trying to end my life and the lives of those on my aircraft are dead. Imminent danger and stress tends to alter your view of things.

Anyways, I'm sure this whole post was a waste of my typing ability and time, at least on you. Continue to jump on internet websites and be the virtual protector of whatever it is that makes you feel so superior and morally correct. Feel free to cast judgment of others in situations that, while you may feel quite educated about, you probably don't know a fraction about the ground truth.

\rant off

[ronnie624]

81. If you look closely enough,

you'll notice my messages are critical of U.S. foreign policies that are harmful to working class people both here and abroad, those who formulate such policies, and those who support them.

The people who serve within the ranks of the U.S. military are not responsible for the policies that have placed them in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. The military is a tool for those who wield state power. It is how the tool is used by political and corporate elites to accumulate wealth and power, at the expense of the common people, that I have a problem with. It would be pointless to level any sort of vitriol at military personnel, as they do not make state policy, which is why I never do it.

The founders of our country have endowed us with the freedom to speak against the injustices committed by our government, and have informed us that we have an obligation to do so. My government's policies have brought great harm to millions of people throughout the world. I intend to take advantage of the freedom the founders thoughtfully bestowed.

[lunatica]

40. Was this one of those 3 am calls?

Was there a President in the 20th Century who didn't have blood on his hands? Not just by extension, but by executive order?

I hate thinking like this. But I have to, because I hate believing in lies more. If people say the Administration is directly involved that means only one thing to me.

[Bragi]

41. Such courage! Congressional Medals for everyone!

Imagine the bravery it takes to sit in a trailer in Kansas, click your joystick, and massacre 17 people 8 thousand miles away?

[PacerLJ35]

64. It doesn't take bravery...and the guys flying those things know and understand that

Most of them won't even ask for an Air Medal (Air Medals aren't given out for bravery, they only mark having flown 20 combat missions). To imply that the guys flying the Predators and Reapers are racking up medals for valor is disingenuous...because they aren't.

If anything, the big issue in their community today is how do they handle the stresses that arise from knowing they pulled the trigger and sent a missile into a building causing death, and then go home to their spouse and children every day. It's an unnatural thing for anyone to do.

[Bragi]

67. the medals were black humor

You write: If anything, the big issue in their community today is how do they handle the stresses that arise from knowing they pulled the trigger and sent a missile into a building causing death, and then go home to their spouse and children every day. It's an unnatural thing for anyone to do.

I appreciate it must be hard to spend your day looking at a screen and killing people on the other side of the world, and then it's off to little league baseball.

As with torturers, the mental stress resulting from spending one's time routinely inflicting horrific harm on other humans must be almost unbearable, and eventually result in the break down of anyone who experiences a normal range of emotions.

The usual antidote to this seems to be to try to dehumanize, and/or demonize, the victims so as to reduce natural empathy with the victims, and the feelings of guilt associated with inflicting harm on others.

Sadly, the other alternative -- stop ordering people to do things the human psyche cannot withstand -- seems to be unacceptable to the people giving the orders, and their political supporters.

The result is that everyone loses. Such is the glory of war.

[PacerLJ35]

75. Your post...

First off, comparing the guys that fly Remotely Piloted Aircraft with torturers is a bit much. I have friends that fly RPAs, and they are not violent people. They have a mission to do, and I asked one of them about their job...I asked if he felt wrong for doing what he does, and he said no, because 99% of the time they know who they are taking out, and they are local Taliban leaders, groups of Taliban and others that they have accurately identified. People that he has watched going through villages killing civilians for just about anything...

He has yet to be involved in any kind of action that has resulted in civilian deaths. As he put it, our public back home thinks that every Predator strike kills dozens of civilians, when in actuality that's pretty rare. He said there are dozens of such strikes each week, and only the ones that result in civilian deaths wind up in the news, leading those that don't have much of an idea of the reality to believe that the "drones" go out mowing down anyone and everyone.

He does have friends of his that have been involved in such tragedies and everyone deals with it in their own way. An accident is an accident but it takes on a new meaning when somebody you didn't intend on harming loses their life.

But what do I know...

[Kringle]

65. body count number is BS

it is like trying to put...

10? or 100?

jigsaw puzzles back together...

with half? or 99%? of the pieces missing

[Evasporque]

66. Compound was identified by dozens of people on roof tops

training in facilities partially submerged in the back waters of a remote river basin.

The camp was cleverly disguised as a flood village.

[Rex]

72. Well...I'm sure the Pentagon will agree with me when I say those kids

would have grown up to be our enemy one day...so better to take them out now then wait. Saves money. Wow, mass murder was never this easy. Thanks M$M, you do your part. Give the kid at the joystick a medal! :sarcasm: