Fresh U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan kill 4

[News_Editor]

Fresh U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan kill 4

2011-08-17 00:38:26 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- The latest U.S. drone strikes in the volatile tribal region of Pakistan killed at least four people on Tuesday, officials said.

The U.S. drone fired two missiles against a compound and a parked vehicle in Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan region, the Nation reported. The launched missile reportedly struck near a girls' school, killing four people and injuring at least two others.

It was not immediately known if the casualties were militants or civilians. Last Wednesday, at least 21 suspected members of the Haqqani Network were killed during air strikes from U.S. drones in the same area.

And earlier in the month, on August 1 and 2, U.S. drone strikes killed four people in South Waziristan, and then another four in North Waziristan the following day.

In the first seven months of the year, 51 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed at least 443 people, according to a report by Conflict Monitoring Center. The report showed that the two deadliest months were June and July, when 117 and 73 people were killed respectively. One of the deadliest attacks was carried out on July 11 and 12, when four air strikes killed 63 people, the report said.

Controversy has surrounded the drone strikes as local residents and officials have blamed them for killing innocent civilians and motivating young men to join the Taliban. Details about the alleged militants are usually not provided, and the U.S. government does not comment on the strikes.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said in its annual report that the U.S. drone strikes were responsible for 957 extra-legal killings in 2010. Since August 2008, there have been over 250 drone attacks which have reportedly killed more than 1,500 people in North and South Waziristan alone.

Pakistan's Afghan border, which the United States considers to be the most dangerous place on Earth, is known to be a stronghold of the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani Network, considered one of the top terrorist organizations and threats to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-08-17

[flying]

It was not immediately known if the casualties were militants or civilians

This is the kind of thing I hate to read.

This whole drone program is dubious at best.

The whole report spells it out quite clearly.

How this can be said to be necessary or making the US a safer place is beyond me.

[pauljones]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

[slapout]

The observation that the casualties, whether military/civilian ?? is unknown points to a questionable result which is not known by the author. Some might refer to this as 'media spin' on the question of results of drone use as the reader is prompted to question, same. The mention of a (near by) girls school, seems to have been incorporated into the article for the same result in mind.

Some people in the public and private sector, who have access to public media, go to great lengths to influence the readers toward their own private agenda.

[flying]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

Ever consider the reasons why some may want to strap on a bomb?

Not to mention I know of no trains or buses that go from Pakistan to the USA

Do these unfunded wars make us here in the USA any safer or more of a target?

Do they help or speed up the current bankruptcy of the US?

What is the outcome you hope for by spending billions in $$$ & thousands of America's childrens lives doing this.

What are you really afraid of? The TERRORIST the media depicts?

Some people in the public and private sector, who have access to public media, go to great lengths to influence the readers toward their own private agenda.

How many deaths do you deem acceptable? Also the same Q to you....What do you hope your country (if your a US citizen) accomplishes by these attacks?

Does it make you feel safer or more likely a target of hatred?

If someone killed your family/children etc while in pursuit of *suspected* terrorist would you be ok with that? Or seek revenge?

Edited August 17, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

Agreed. Terrorism needs to be exterminated. War is a messy business, but necessary sometimes.

[flying]

War is a messy business, but necessary sometimes.

Agreed but I am not sold on this ones necessity.

Nor am I certain if it is in fact a war. If so were is the funding outlined?

Who exactly are the enemies? Are they the same enemies we seem to be aiding in other spots like Libya under different names?

Again what is in it for America?

Increased safety or increased danger?

Decreased deficit or increased? http://costofwar.com/en/

Do we sleep better at night?

For every innocent we kill how many terrorist are born?

How will we know when we won?

Will the victory be the same as Vietnam?

Edited August 17, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Who exactly are the enemies?

Bin Ladin and al qaeda. At least one down so far.

[flying]

Who exactly are the enemies?

Bin Ladin and al qaeda. At least one down so far.

As they say Up2U

Funny the supposed killing of OBL did not cut spending 1 cent

In fact quite the opposite.

Today here in the US they released the new increases in

Military Procurement etc. costs & a few others.

Staggering to say the least

Humanitarianism aside......

Hopefully all those that support these things will enjoy their

devalued currency to its fullest. They also showed the new homes of the contract winners & they sure are enjoying your continued support.

As we continue to spend that which does not exist

(I could have sworn you previously claimed to be against that?)

fighting suspected enemies that exist & expand mainly due to these actions.

Something tells me the prize at the end of this one (not that a clear end will ever come)

will make the prize that came at the end of Vietnam seem sweet in comparison.

Here is another opinion fresh off the press.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MH18Dj01.html

Edited August 17, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Here is another opinion fresh off the press.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MH18Dj01.html

"The killing of Osama Bin Laden did not put cuts in national security spending on the table, but the debt-ceiling debate finally did. And mild as those projected cuts might have been, last week newly minted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was already digging in his heels and decrying the modest potential cost-cutting plans as a "doomsday mechanism" for the military."

Why would killing Bin Ladin immediately reduce spending? He is a very important terrorist, but hardly the only one.

I am against wasting money, but defense against those that wish us harm is usually money well spent.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[bkkjames]

What's fresh about it?

Why not title it like the UFC, Drone Strike 146 'pre-occupation' or DS 222 'collateral damage'.

[Scott]

Basically, the problem is that everyone is for cuts, except for the things they don't think should be cut.

[slapout]

" Wasting Money" seems to be a battle cry through out the developed world today. Seemingly what is considered wasted today, by many, was considered well spent a generation or so ago. Comparison of war costs from past conflicts to present is a given as costs increase. Send everyone out armed with clubs and you can get the costs down to some peoples goal, maybe.

There are just too many people, agendas, bleeding heart groups, and conflicts in the world today, to fund to those involved satisfaction. I certainly have no acceptable solution to all the real problems, much less those imagined. These are man made problems, thus mankind is capable of finding solutions. But, until we can get those power hungry, greedy components out of the equations, I doubt much head way will be made.

[flying]

Actually in my case I never say wasted money or money well spent...nor do I say I am for cuts of this but not that.

What I do say is I am against spending what we DO NOT HAVE & what DOES NOT EXIST

Every time they increase the money supply thru digitizing or printing you may think it has no

effect other than to increase their spending & raising some number they call the deficit. But that is ignorance & while it may be bliss for now the effect is taking hold & will be felt by all.

Funny how most folks actually look what they have to spend before they shop.

But some including our government do not.

Why they even pretend to have a budget is beyond me.

Even with last years increase of 2T they blew thru it in 6 months.

As I said before hopefully those that back this kind of stupidity with crocodile tears or

false patriotism will not cry soon when the results are truly felt in their devalued currency.

That is just the logical/monetary side of it. We have not even mentioned the lack of humanitarianism in this whole faceless form of drone killing both suspected & innocents. In a country we are not at war with.....

I have said it before & will say it again. If China suddenly decided to invade the US because they were chasing a group that is considered by them to be terrorist. Saying as we do.... sorry but we must be here going down your streets kicking in doors looking for these folks & yes sorry but of course a few of you who have no ties will get whacked as collateral damage.....So Solly

Yeah we would be ok with that

[chuckd]

I have said it before & will say it again. If China suddenly decided to invade the US because they were chasing a group that is considered by them to be terrorist. Saying as we do.... sorry but we must be here going down your streets kicking in doors looking for these folks & yes sorry but of course a few of you who have no ties will get whacked as collateral damage.....So Solly

Yeah we would be ok with that

Sorry, but I must disagree with you on this one.

I would expect the US and our local State governments to be a lot more responsive to terrorist hunting than the government of Pakistan has proven to be. There would be little need for the Chinese (or any other) government to invade the US and begin house to house hunts when a simple, legal request for assistance would probably produce results.

It also wouldn't be too smart on the part of the Chinese. Remember we have the Second Amendment.

[flying]

It also wouldn't be too smart on the part of the Chinese. Remember we have the Second Amendment.

Exactly & the people who lose family members through collateral damages are just as smart in other countries.

I understand what your saying about governments cooperating

But look at the people whose doors are kicked in & ask them if they agree.

It would be no different here & why will it be different there?

Wrong is wrong no matter what back room deals are done.

Before we get too far off the crux of the matter....We must remember what one government considers terrorist does not mean all governments will agree with.

Even if our government in the example did agree with China does not mean the citizens subject to it would agree to be subjected. We talk about rights yet in some countries we deem hiding spots of terrorist we recognize none.

Edited August 18, 2011 by flying

[zydeco]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

If some government accidentally, or unaccidentally, fired a rocket that killed members of my family, I would spend the rest of my life trying to make sure they received payment in kind. The fact that the US government is too stupid to see that everyone of these attacks likely creates a battalion of people intent on revenge says everything about that government's hubris and indfference to the real world beyond its own borders.

[lovetotravel]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

If some government accidentally, or unaccidentally, fired a rocket that killed members of my family, I would spend the rest of my life trying to make sure they received payment in kind. The fact that the US government is too stupid to see that everyone of these attacks likely creates a battalion of people intent on revenge says everything about that government's hubris and indfference to the real world beyond its own borders.

What about the terrorists that are funded or supported by governments? Or governments that turn a blind eye to the problems and let the terrorist organizations do what they please? What if one of those terrorist organizations killed one of your family members? What would you do then? Interesting question.

[adder]

It was not immediately known if the casualties were militants or civilians

This is the kind of thing I hate to read.

This whole drone program is dubious at best.

The whole report spells it out quite clearly.

How this can be said to be necessary or making the US a safer place is beyond me.

State sponcered Terrorism .

[slapout]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

If some government accidentally, or unaccidentally, fired a rocket that killed members of my family, I would spend the rest of my life trying to make sure they received payment in kind. The fact that the US government is too stupid to see that everyone of these attacks likely creates a battalion of people intent on revenge says everything about that government's hubris and indfference to the real world beyond its own borders.

I think those people bent on Jihad and/or revenge, as well as those who instruct them, have been around much longer than Coalition troops have been deployed. To blame a government for an accidental death and then propose spending a life time for payback is almost as frightening as the suicide bombers, scattered around the world. Doubt that you or like thinking people get many social invites.

[Ulysses G.]

I think those people bent on Jihad and/or revenge, as well as those who instruct them, have been around much longer than Coalition troops have been deployed. To blame a government for an accidental death and then propose spending a life time for payback is almost as frightening as the suicide bombers, scattered around the world. Doubt that you or like thinking people get many social invites.

Hear, hear.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[zydeco]

I'd much rather see a drone kill them before they strap on a suicide bomb and get on a train or bus.

Good work CIA.

If some government accidentally, or unaccidentally, fired a rocket that killed members of my family, I would spend the rest of my life trying to make sure they received payment in kind. The fact that the US government is too stupid to see that everyone of these attacks likely creates a battalion of people intent on revenge says everything about that government's hubris and indfference to the real world beyond its own borders.

I think those people bent on Jihad and/or revenge, as well as those who instruct them, have been around much longer than Coalition troops have been deployed. To blame a government for an accidental death and then propose spending a life time for payback is almost as frightening as the suicide bombers, scattered around the world. Doubt that you or like thinking people get many social invites.

I suppose I don't hold the lives of my family as cheaply as you do yours.

[flying]

I think those people bent on Jihad and/or revenge, as well as those who instruct them, have been around much longer than Coalition troops have been deployed. To blame a government for an accidental death and then propose spending a life time for payback is almost as frightening as the suicide bombers, scattered around the world. Doubt that you or like thinking people get many social invites.

Hear, hear.

We can say many things as we are not the ones subjected to these drones.

To equate the fury of losing family members unjustly with the possible lack of social invites speaks volumes.

Yet the simple logic of allowing *OUR* government to continue with these activities makes us just as guilty.

Some of you actually agreeing with it also makes me wonder.

UG not to pick on you but lets use an example of something I know your passionate about.

If the last actual attack on Israel was 10 years ago by Palestine

Would you condone Israel attacking random spots all over Palestine from that point onwards? Even though not a single attack since

the one 10 years prior had occurred on Israeli soil?

How about their neighbor Egypt? What if they thought some involved in the attack of Israel 10 years prior were now in Egypt?

Is it then Ok to send Israeli drones into Egypt? Collateral damages no problem?

Now add to that scenario that over the course of the 10 years that this action is occurring it creates half of the total deficit of Israel that is helping to put Israel into a position of financial collapse....Still a good idea for you?

Would the world stand for it?

Would you?

[Ulysses G.]

I do not get your point. The drone attacks are on active terrorists, planning current attacks on innocent civilians.

However, the US attack on Libya does fall into your reasoning and I do not understand why we are there.

[Scott]

Here's a clue: The thread is about Pakistan.

The thread isn't about Israel, Egypt or Libya. It's also not a fireside chat with UG.

Stay on topic please.

[flying]

Here's a clue: The thread is about Pakistan.

The thread isn't about Israel, Egypt or Libya. It's also not a fireside chat with UG.

Stay on topic please.

Sorry that is exactly what the fireside chat was about. :jap:

Hence the 1st line.... "We can say many things as we are not the ones subjected to these drones."

Sometimes folks use an analogy to explain a point

Please delete though if you feel otherwise.

Edited August 19, 2011 by flying

[flying]

I do not get your point. The drone attacks are on active terrorists, planning current attacks on innocent civilians.

So basically it is acceptable to send Drones Into Pakistan because

there are terrorist there "planning" attacks? If so there are many places in the world that

fit that description as acceptable targets.

As for innocent civilians yes I agree civilians are innocent & why all these drones that destroy them

are not acceptable to me.

Edited August 19, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I do not get your point. The drone attacks are on active terrorists, planning current attacks on innocent civilians.

So basically it is acceptable to send Drones Into Pakistan because

there are terrorist there "planning" attacks?

Basically, yes.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

I think the drones are only 'unacceptable' as they belong to an outside agency, the Pakistanis have been murdering each other with great gusto by more conventional means, yet nobody appears to give two hoots.

http://news.yahoo.com/violence-pakistani-city-kills-39-2-days-110032425.html

[Ulysses G.]

As they purport to be our "allies" they should not object to us lending them a hand.