One in three killed by US drones in Pakistan is a civilian

[Echo In Light]

One in three "militants" killed in US Predator Drone attacks in Pakistan's remote tribal areas is in fact a civilian, according to a report by an American think tank.
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor

The report, by the Washington-based New America Foundation, will fuel growing criticism of the use of unmanned drones in the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, who use Pakistan as a base for attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan. Critics say their use not only takes innocent lives, but amounts to unlawful extra-judicial killing of militants.

Tiedemann found that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians. Their report, The Year of the Drone, studied 114 drone raids in which more than 1200 people were killed. Of those, between 549 and 849 were reliably reported to be militant fighters, while the rest were civilians.

"The true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 per cent," the foundation reported.

The number of drone attacks has increased dramatically since Barack Obama replaced George W Bush as US president early last year.

<snip>

The report said although civilian casualty figures are high, they did not believe their study would cause American commanders to reconsider their use.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html

[dkf]

1. That is actually better than I thought it would be

[lame54]

4. i was about to say the same thing

[Mari333]

2. we are the bad guys

knr

[ixion]

9. indeed

I have seen the 'terrorists', and they are us. :(

[lame54]

3. .

[Soylent Brice]

5. according to the military you're simply referring to "collateral damage".

gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, and all that jazz...

[Powerdot16]

6. That's terrorism

[Mari333]

8. +1000000000000000

[ixion]

11. undeniably

[Echo In Light]

14. +1

[CrispyQ]

25. No shit.

The US government, via it's military arm, is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet.

This story provides a tiny, tiny glimmer of hope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7849223

Welcome to DU, Powerdot16.

[ixion]

7. I really can't begin to describe the sadness I feel when I read stuff like this

knowing that I am paying for innocent people to be blown to bits at a great distance by our high-tech war machines drains my will to live. :(

Can you imagine the outcry if drones from Pakistan were flying around the US, blowing up US citizens at random?

The outcry would be deafening.

And yet these same "peace loving, god-fearing" folk bat nary an eyelash when we do the same to INNOCENT CIVILIANS in a sovereign nation that has done nothing to us.

How screwed up is that? :crazy:

[Mari333]

12. US citizens have a hard time imagining themselves as the bad guys

but we are.

the MSM makes sure we dont see the crimes we commit.

even many Dems turn a blind eye to our homegrown terrorist policies.

[Echo In Light]

20. This psych angle plays a substantial role in coaxing people to dismiss 'conspiracy theories'

[tekisui]

10. Pakistan is unarguably Obama's War. This is his tactic.

[Mari333]

13. this is his war crime.

[Moochy]

26. .

Yes

[951-Riverside]

15. It depends on whos on the ground calling them civilians.

If the numbers are coming from Pakistani sources I don't trust it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. As opposed to our glorious, truth telling, Pentagon?

[Bigmack]

16. I'd like to play the race card here...

and the religious card, too.

Do you think that if the "collateral damage" was white.. say for instance, Brits or Canadians.... that this would go on?

Brown people with the wrong religion. It's a sure thing for "Ooops... sorry about those kids. War is hell."

[bigtree]

17. I think that analysis can be further broken down

. . . to account for the percentage of those killed by drones who actually pose a threat to America beyond our opportunistic military campaign in Afghanistan. For instance, how can it be believed that every dead Afghan identified as 'militant' was doing more than defending his homeland against invasion and from an admittedly corrupt Afghan regime whose military is comprised of no more than 3% Pashtun; expected to regard the rest of the population as equals in their U.S.-led assaults. Who really knows just who it is we are killing? Our own military doesn't even bother to keep a tally on the people they kill.

[Echo In Light]

21. Eggzactly

[Iggo]

18. "Of those, between 549 and 849...

...were reliably reported to be militant fighters, while the rest were civilians."

What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? Out of whose ass did they pull those numbers? And in what reality is "between 549 and 849" reliable?

[CrispyQ]

27. Mr. Fish nails it, once again.

I realize the cartoon states Afghanistan, but it could just as easily apply to Pakistan.

[Robb]

22. On Monday, this report was questioned and ignored.

Monday's post.

On Friday, a story about the study is like a "free beer" sign. :shrug:

[bigtree]

28. Robb . . . New America Foundation?

really? :shrug:

[Robb]

29. Yes, really.

...What report do you think this OP article is referring to??

[bigtree]

30. well, maybe Bergen has some credibility as a journalist

. . . but the line-up there doesn't look like an objective source. Bergen has written extensive pro-Afghanistan occupation articles. I actually don't think they have a correct view of the allegiances of the population we're attacking. Most of the folks at New America identify much too much of the Afghan and Pakistan population as insurgent', in my view. I think this analysis reflects that bias by underestimating what I believe are even greater numbers of 'civilians' being killed as a result or consequence of our offensive activity.

[jonnyblitz]

31. it looks like an "establishment" PR lineup. nt

[Robb]

32. Yes, but look at DU flock to this Torygraph story in the OP.

No one else in this thread even BLINKED.

You're taking a good view of this, don't get me wrong. But I hate when DU ignores source and rallies around stories that reinforce their existing views, regardless of who puts them out.

Makes us look like a bunch of dittoheads being led around by our noses.

[bigtree]

33. I take their responses to the reports

. . . with a more sympathetic eye, perhaps. It's rather easy to find reports and accounts which reinforce administration or military policy and actions. It's more of a challenge to sort through the independent accounts which tend to be more critical. I actually see more Americans inclined to believe the establishment-generated reports and the dribs and drabs which get extracted and circulated as collective 'wisdom'. I've come to value the independent (and functionally more critical) accounts. Of course, the establishment reports are always there to weigh others against.

But the folks here . . . most really do care about the issues they advocate for and against in their posts and responses. I happen to appreciate zealots for peace; for equality; advocates for the impoverished, the sick and injured, the environment, the disabled, the illiterate and the under-educated . . . I think you do as well.

[Robb]

34. Well said. Here's where we differ though:

...I see more and more "establishment" reports working the civilian casualties angle than I ever saw before. I become extra-suspicious when I see a story like this in the Telegraph. It's my own knee-jerk reaction to any ramping-up of rhetoric in the corporate-sponsored press. I didn't trust the MSM's agenda under Bush, and I sure as hell ain't going to trust it now. If they told me the sky was blue in 2003, I'd go out and look.

On the last: I also don't trust zealots of any stripe, even if I agree with them. I'm just a cynical bastard that way, I suppose. Grandpa Dingbat let loose my favorite quote ever years ago: "Never believe anyone who's shouting at you."

[The Green Manalishi]

23. It's not terrorism when *WE* do it.

:sarcasm:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Our high tech terrorism is ever so much more palatable than their crude terrorism.

And, our terrorists don't even have to get they're hands dirty when they dismember people with bombs.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Echo In Light]

35. Bump