U.S. drone strike kills suspected Taliban commanders in Pakistan

[News_Editor]

U.S. drone strike kills suspected Taliban commanders in Pakistan

2011-10-28 05:52:02 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- An air strike carried out by a U.S. drone in Pakistan's tribal region on Thursday morning killed several suspected Taliban commanders, officials said.

The U.S. drone reportedly launched the air strike against a vehicle in the Azam Warsak area of Pakistan's South Waziristan region, killing at least five suspected militants, security sources told the Nation.

The double cabin van was reportedly carrying several militants from the village of Tora Gola to the nearby area of Azam Warsak when the U.S. drone launched six missiles. In addition to the killed militants, four were believed to have been injured.

According to reports, among the five people killed is the brother of Maulvi Nazir, a leading militant of the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan. At least four of the killed militants were believed to be high-ranking commanders in Maulvi Nazir's Taliban faction.

The Maulvi Nazir group is the main militant group operating in South Waziristan, but it has not been known for being anti-government. The group has mostly attacked Uzbeks and in 2009 it joined two rival warlords, Baitullah Mehsud and Hafiz Gul Bahadur, to fight American-led security forces as it does oppose foreign influence in the country.

Earlier this month, U.S. drone strikes were launched on October 13, 14 and 15, killing at least 17 militants in the same area. The air strikes were carried out in the Darpakhel area of Pakistan's North Waziristan and in the Dandey Darpakhel village, both located near Miranshah. Two senior Haqqani Network leaders were killed during the strikes.

As of October, a total of 70 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed at least 544 people this year, according to a report by Conflict Monitoring Center. The report showed that the two deadliest months were March and June when 89 and 117 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.

Since U.S. forces killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on May 2 in Pakistan's Abbottabad, more than 30 drone strikes have been carried out in the country's tribal regions.

The U.S. has considered Pakistan's Afghan border to be the most dangerous place on Earth. The area 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.

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.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-10-28

[flying]

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.

Amazing

The US can invade & go to war for over 10 years over what they saw as 3000 innocents being killed on 9/11

Yet they do not feel bad about killing many more innocents in their quest as long as it is in another country.....Amazing....Disgusting

[rijb]

Would you be as 'disgusted' if another country killed those people? Where's your 'disgust' for the killings in other parts of the world?

[Scott]

Your opinion on the OP is welcomed. Opinions on other posters are not.

Please stay on the topic.

[flying]

Would you be as 'disgusted' if another country killed those people? Where's your 'disgust' for the killings in other parts of the world?

Yes I would but...Let me be clear about what disgusts me the most about these....They are done in the name of OUR country......& my disgust for any killing of innocents resides in the same place as this one....Thanks

Please also note in my post on this as well as previous Drone related topics I do not decry the militants being targeted.

But what I protest & underlined in this original post was the "Extra-Legal" killings. That is a nice word for murder of innocents period.

Extra-Legal = Beyond the authority of the law

Edited October 28, 2011 by flying

[Steely Dan]

Funnily enough the success of drone attacks has increased since the U.S have stopped giving operational details to Pakistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15445047

Evidence of Pakistan's support for the Taliban is also plain to see at the border where insurgents are allowed to cross at will, or even helped to evade US patrols.

And the recent drone attacks in Pakistan have become increasingly effective as intelligence has been withheld from the Pakistanis, claims Mr Riedel.

"At the beginning of the drone operations, we gave Pakistan an advance tip-off of where we were going, and every single time the target wasn't there anymore. You didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to put the dots together."

I'm sure in light of the obvious double game Pakistan are playing posters here would agree that it is nonsensical for the U.S to give aid money to said Country.

[flying]

I'm sure in light of the obvious double game Pakistan are playing posters here would agree that it is nonsensical for the U.S to give aid money to said Country.

It is nonsensical for a country on the brink of default/bankruptcy to be giving financial aid to any country period.

Food & medical supplies to those in need no problem.

So I agree....Lets start cutting financial aid at the top recipients & work our way down shall we?

[rijb]

Would you be as 'disgusted' if another country killed those people? Where's your 'disgust' for the killings in other parts of the world?

Yes I would but...Let me be clear about what disgusts me the most about these....They are done in the name of OUR country......& my disgust for any killing of innocents resides in the same place as this one....Thanks

Please also note in my post on this as well as previous Drone related topics I do not decry the militants being targeted.

But what I protest & underlined in this original post was the "Extra-Legal" killings. That is a nice word for murder of innocents period.

Extra-Legal = Beyond the authority of the law

I respect your perspective on the loss of innocent lives. However, when I see the term 'high ranking commanders', I'm reminded that this was a result of war, not a random attack by the US government.

I'm a veteran and I hate war. But, I despise terrorism even more. Both disgusting efforts put innocents in the crossfire.

[Steely Dan]

I'm sure in light of the obvious double game Pakistan are playing posters here would agree that it is nonsensical for the U.S to give aid money to said Country.

It is nonsensical for a country on the brink of default/bankruptcy to be giving financial aid to any country period.

Food & medical supplies to those in need no problem.

So I agree....Lets start cutting financial aid at the top recipients & work our way down shall we?

Well if we are now flying a financial flag rather than a moral one perhaps return on investment should be considered.

[bkkjames]

Perhaps fixing the title 'done'?

[metisdead]

Perhaps fixing the title 'done'?

It's been done, the title is now fixed.

[flying]

I'm sure in light of the obvious double game Pakistan are playing posters here would agree that it is nonsensical for the U.S to give aid money to said Country.

It is nonsensical for a country on the brink of default/bankruptcy to be giving financial aid to any country period.

Food & medical supplies to those in need no problem.

So I agree....Lets start cutting financial aid at the top recipients & work our way down shall we?

Well if we are now flying a financial flag rather than a moral one perhaps return on investment should be considered.

Actually I thought it more of a common sense flag. Only reason I mentioned it was in response to your post about it.

As for return on investment....I guess that is a fail too.

Because at the end of the day does it make Americans safer? No actually it does not.

[flying]

I respect your perspective on the loss of innocent lives. However, when I see the term 'high ranking commanders', I'm reminded that this was a result of war, not a random attack by the US government.

I'm a veteran and I hate war. But, I despise terrorism even more. Both disgusting efforts put innocents in the crossfire.

Yes I respect yours too.

I also despise terrorism & terrorist should be brought to justice.

But at the same time we cannot call folks who kill innocents in one place terrorist & folks who kill innocents in another place warriors at war.

Not to mention the basic lack of common sense in a un-manned drone firing upon a populated area that may contain *suspected terrorist*

With blatant disregard for anyone who may be in the area.

Also the numbers themselves do not add up.

Over a decade ago an act of violence which took 3000 lives occurred. It was enacted not by a country but by 19 men

Saudi Arabia (fifteen hijackers), United Arab Emirates (two hijackers), Lebanon (one hijacker) and Egypt (one hijacker)

It in no way justifies what has happened since. Nor does it address any of the possible reasons it occurred in the first place.

I am not saying there is a law of one for one but common sense must prevail at some point one would hope.

[Ulysses G.]

Using drones saves lives on both sides compared to normal airstrikes. War is an ugly thing, but so is allowing terrorists to keep on killing indiscriminately.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Using drones saves lives on both sides compared to normal airstrikes. War is an ugly thing, but so is allowing terrorists to keep on killing indiscriminately.

The numbers in the OP do not agree...

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.

Normal air strikes?? Drones are air strikes.

If you mean bombings as in carpet bombing... We are not at war with a country.

Saving lives on both sides sounds quite hollow if your innocent life is the one sacrificed.

If your neighbor is deemed a murderer...Is it then ok if the authorities in their quest of that murderer...then bombs his house & in the process kills you or your wife & children in their pursuit? After all it will save future lives if the murderer is killed.

As for allowing terrorist to keep on killing indiscriminately....How do you think the US drones are viewed by the families of the innocents killed?

Edited October 28, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

I put a lot of the blame on Pakistan. All these years they've been tipping off the (mostly foreign) Taliban and terrorists but leaving their own innocent citizens behind to be killed. I also would dispute what makes the others so innocent in the first place? They are in a war zone. They are hanging out with people with weapons either on them or nearby who they know are probably being targeted by those drones. Yet they stay there. They may be innocent or they may be part of support infrastructure or they may be guy with a bomb next month. If they are family - women and children - then blame the Taliban/terrorists for keeping them around.You know you are being hunted by a military power with high-tech weapons yet you hide out among your family?

Edited October 28, 2011 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

"Normal" airstrikes using airplanes would kill far more non-combatants than drones and putting terrorists out of commission with drones means that going to war is usually not necessary which also saves many lives.

Drones are scaring the piss out of the terrorist scum as it is not just their brainwashed followers and the innocent civilians that they target who are going to pay the price for their actions for a change. The terrorists will pay and sooner, rather than later.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

Those are some pretty amazing replies....

Koheesti you said...

I also would dispute what makes the others so innocent in the first place? They are in a war zone.

The reason would be they live there...It is *their* home & country. As for war zone? I know of no war against Pakistan...Do you?

Also these folks live a hair out of the stone age. Folks who you think are poor in Bangkok would look like rich folks next to them. The same folks in Bangkok cannot even afford to move for floods. Think how much less the folks in Pakistan can move to accommodate drones??? From a country they are not at war with?????

Even saying it out loud sounds insane.

UG...what can I say it is clear by your replies your ok with it all.How you seem to think a missile or missiles into a populated area is any more just than bombs from planes is not the point at all. Everyone pays in stupidity such as this...both sides.

But to both of you all I can say is I think it is quite insane & counter productive.

This so called war which is not a war creates more terrorist than it ever found.

It in no way makes America safer...Even now look where is our States National Guardsmen. Not that the reason we are there has to do with National Security...Does not take a brain surgeon to know that.

It is un-winnable 10x over Vietnam & while we spend American lives far over the amount we lost on 9-11

& as we take many more lives from innocents on the other side all we accomplish is the creation of more hatred towards the US. Hatred from folks who did not hate us before. This so called war/policing action has no winnable end & the US generals there have said the same.

No problem by your replies...

We disagree on drones & the war/policing actions in general.

Edited October 29, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

When mankind stops solving its problems with violence and warfare no one will be killed, but it does not seem that will happen any time soon.

Until then democratic countries will just have to do the best that they can to control hate filled terrorists, dictators and fascists who do not care who they hurt or kill.

[flying]

When mankind stops solving its problems with violence and warfare no one will be killed, but it does not seem that will happen any time soon.

Until then democratic countries will just have to do the best that they can to control hate filled terrorists, dictators and fascists who do not care who they hurt or kill.

True but who will stop invaders who have the means to conduct extra-legal killings?

If it is about security/defense that would be easily accomplished. After all it has been over a decade now.

What is the desired outcome? What is the goal? Is there an attainable one? In most thinking minds the answer is no including the generals who have to sit there.

So knowing that... who are the hate filled terrorist at the end of the day?

Edited October 29, 2011 by flying

[Steely Dan]

If you actively aid and abet terrorist groups you lose any moral right to cry foul if other nations take action against such terrorists even if doing so compromises your own sovereignty. A state has responsibilities as well as rights and by ignoring said responsibilities causes harm to it's own citizens due to it's own actions and ideology.

[Ulysses G.]

So knowing that... who are the hate filled terrorist at the end of the day?

In this particular case the hate filled terrorists were Taliban and now there are 5 less of them.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

If you actively aid and abet terrorist groups you lose any moral right to cry foul

If that is true then a few nations have no more rights after Libya or the original Afghanistan vs Russia skirmish & others

The US especially has used terror groups for their own means when it suited them. They just did not call them terrorist when they were useful.

Look at any of the recently famous ones & see if they were not at one time the tools of the US/CIA

A state has responsibilities as well as rights and by ignoring said responsibilities causes harm to it's own citizens due to it's own actions and ideology.

Actually that is exactly my point when I say the US or more so the CIA in Pakistan causes more harm/risk to its own citizens due to its actions.

Edited October 29, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

Those are some pretty amazing replies....

Koheesti you said...

I also would dispute what makes the others so innocent in the first place? They are in a war zone.

The reason would be they live there...It is *their* home & country. As for war zone? I know of no war against Pakistan...Do you?

HEY!!!! Don't take my post out of context.You chopped it off in the middle. I can easily do the same to your posts and you wouldn't like the results.

Edited October 29, 2011 by koheesti

[Scott]

I can do some serious chopping too and you won't like it.

Keep it civil and do not mess with other poster's quotes in such a way as to alter the meaning.

[flying]

Those are some pretty amazing replies....

Koheesti you said...

I also would dispute what makes the others so innocent in the first place? They are in a war zone.

The reason would be they live there...It is *their* home & country. As for war zone? I know of no war against Pakistan...Do you?

HEY!!!! Don't take my post out of context.You chopped it off in the middle. I can easily do the same to your posts and you wouldn't like the results.

I am sorry I do select parts of posts to save bandwidth/space & usually only quote the section my post is replying to.

It was not my intent to take anything out of context & I will include your whole post below.

But it does not change my answer nor your context which I assumed was

1) the innocents killed in neighboring houses were somehow linked to the *suspected* terrorist...They were not.

2) that they are in a war zone...They are not

3)That they are hanging with people with weapons....Most folks in tribal areas have weapons...but again this report/OP said nothing of weapons in the first place

4)That they support terrorism....That is not proven in any way by their proximity to the *suspected*

I know you said they *may* be this & they *may* be that but is that a good enough reason to kill them?

It is the same as the analogy I posted earlier saying...If a murderer is holed up in a house next to you... is it all right

for authorities folks claiming he is a *suspected* murderer to then missile strike his house killing your family next door as well?

Here is your original post if I have somehow misread its intent I apologize & did not respond to intentionally misrepresent what you said. The sentence I quoted was the jist of it IMHO

I put a lot of the blame on Pakistan. All these years they've been tipping off the (mostly foreign) Taliban and terrorists but leaving their own innocent citizens behind to be killed. I also would dispute what makes the others so innocent in the first place? They are in a war zone. They are hanging out with people with weapons either on them or nearby who they know are probably being targeted by those drones. Yet they stay there. They may be innocent or they may be part of support infrastructure or they may be guy with a bomb next month. If they are family - women and children - then blame the Taliban/terrorists for keeping them around.You know you are being hunted by a military power with high-tech weapons yet you hide out among your family?

Edited October 29, 2011 by flying

[luckizuchinni]

Would you be as 'disgusted' if another country killed those people? Where's your 'disgust' for the killings in other parts of the world?

Yes I would but...Let me be clear about what disgusts me the most about these....They are done in the name of OUR country......& my disgust for any killing of innocents resides in the same place as this one....Thanks

Please also note in my post on this as well as previous Drone related topics I do not decry the militants being targeted.

But what I protest & underlined in this original post was the "Extra-Legal" killings. That is a nice word for murder of innocents period.

Extra-Legal = Beyond the authority of the law

Just because they were extra legal does not mean that the dead were innocent civilians. It only means that there was no legal process taken before the killing was done.

[flying]

Just because they were extra legal does not mean that the dead were innocent civilians. It only means that there was no legal process taken before the killing was done.

Sorry you have confused the term extrajudicial killings with the term extra legal killings.

[flying]

Just because they were extra legal does not mean that the dead were innocent civilians. It only means that there was no legal process taken before the killing was done.

Sorry you have confused the term extrajudicial killings with the term extra legal killings.

Then again I would say your definition of no legal process taken before killing could be ascribed to all drone deaths.....Hence their claims,headlines always read *suspected* killed + the usual collateral damages.

It is the collateral damages that I originally spoke out against. Not to imply I am fine with any of it being done in our countries name & with our countries tax dollars. Ever creating more hatred towards our country with the blowback that is created in the form of more terrorist

[Ulysses G.]

The Muslim radicals hate the West already and intend to bring it down. There is no "creating more hatred" and no turning it around. They are the enemy and have to be treated as such.