More U.S. drone strikes kill at least 3 in Pakistan's tribal region

[lovetotravel]

Interesting article. Pretty much as I expected. I did see the WSJ reference to a US decision to pull back on the strikes.

Yes I thought so....This part especially is as un-Constitutional as can be.

And because the drone war remains a classified CIA program, the CIA will not have to account for its actions to anybody, least of all the U.S. or Pakistani publics.

The WSJ article.... I just saw this today?

http://www.dawn.com/...ne-attacks.html

I watched that video. Very interesting. But it did say the US was participating with significant help from the Pakistanis. I remember reading in Wikileaks about the Saudis who asked the US to "cut the head off the snake" in Iran. There's more tot his than any of us will ever know.

[flying]

I watched that video. Very interesting. But it did say the US was participating with significant help from the Pakistanis. I remember reading in Wikileaks about the Saudis who asked the US to "cut the head off the snake" in Iran. There's more tot his than any of us will ever know.

Actually all the quotes you had in your post referred to the link I re-posted here

It got confusing because the article was deleted for quoting more than 3 lines....but the replies remained.

But yes I agree with your mention of Saudi....There is more to it

Edited November 5, 2011 by flying

[GentlemanJim]

Here is a small blurb on it....Not sure if there is more than one episode...But the one I saw had this bomber on it too.

#

CIA Confidential: Inside the Drone War

They were the invisible warriors in Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya. But drones, the CIA's elusive, unmanned counterterrorism war planes, add a new level of danger for CIA operatives in the field. After a string of drone attacks on key al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, an undercover Taliban sympathizer penetrates deep into the heart of drone war headquarters and detonates a suicide vest, killing seven of the CIA's most effective officers.

Uh, I think you or whomever wrote this quote needs to get their facts straight. The seven killed were not "drone warriors," nor were they killed for that reason. They were killed in Khost, Afghanistan, at a base used by the local PRT. Their main job, as much as can be determined, was in the infiltration of the Taliban. The suicide bomber who killed them was in fact a person who portrayed himself as a turncoat.

But that is not what the quote says! So who needs to check facts?

[luckizuchinni]

Interesting article. Pretty much as I expected. I did see the WSJ reference to a US decision to pull back on the strikes.

Yes I thought so....This part especially is as un-Constitutional as can be.

And because the drone war remains a classified CIA program, the CIA will not have to account for its actions to anybody, least of all the U.S. or Pakistani publics.

The WSJ article.... I just saw this today?

http://www.dawn.com/...ne-attacks.html

I watched that video. Very interesting. But it did say the US was participating with significant help from the Pakistanis. I remember reading in Wikileaks about the Saudis who asked the US to "cut the head off the snake" in Iran. There's more tot his than any of us will ever know.

I have no problem with the drone attacks per se. No matter what some posters here think, they do save lives, both NATO and Pakistani/Afghan. However, this article, if accurate, is troublesome. I would like to know what creates the suspicion of association. What are the standards?

Not knowing who someone is is in and of itself not a damning fact. Most soldiers have no idea on who they are firing and often cannot even see them. But without knowing just what the parameters are for launching a strike, I cannot pass judgment. My background is military, not CIA. I know the military's rules of engagement and how that works. I do not know the CIA's rules of engagement.

I am not writing here that I think the CIA is wrong. But this is the first post I have read in this or related threads which brings a degree of concern to the surface.

The part about no one being held accountable is not true, though. The CIA is not a rogue agency. They are held accountable, just not usually through the press or to the public at large. They are held accountable to the president, to congress, and sometimes to the courts.

[luckizuchinni]

Here is a small blurb on it....Not sure if there is more than one episode...But the one I saw had this bomber on it too.

#

CIA Confidential: Inside the Drone War

They were the invisible warriors in Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently Libya. But drones, the CIA's elusive, unmanned counterterrorism war planes, add a new level of danger for CIA operatives in the field. After a string of drone attacks on key al-Qaida and Taliban leadership, an undercover Taliban sympathizer penetrates deep into the heart of drone war headquarters and detonates a suicide vest, killing seven of the CIA's most effective officers.

Uh, I think you or whomever wrote this quote needs to get their facts straight. The seven killed were not "drone warriors," nor were they killed for that reason. They were killed in Khost, Afghanistan, at a base used by the local PRT. Their main job, as much as can be determined, was in the infiltration of the Taliban. The suicide bomber who killed them was in fact a person who portrayed himself as a turncoat.

But that is not what the quote says! So who needs to check facts?

" an undercover Taliban sympathizer penetrates deep into the heart of drone war headquarters" seems like that is what it is saying to me, and that is with what I took issue. Khost is and was not "drone war headquarters,"

[flying]

But that is not what the quote says! So who needs to check facts?

" an undercover Taliban sympathizer penetrates deep into the heart of drone war headquarters" seems like that is what it is saying to me, and that is with what I took issue. Khost is and was not "drone war headquarters,"

Actually I mentioned it before but the post got deleted.

The quote you have taken issue with is from the National Geographic site. If you feel strongly about the wording you can email them...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/schedule/api/ngc/2011/10/31/

That aside....

The suicide bombing occurred at base Camp Chapman a key facility of the Central Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan it is located near the eastern Afghan city of Khost. One of the main tasks of the CIA operatives stationed there at the base was to provide information for drone attacks against targets in Pakistan. So basically they are the eyes & ears on the ground.... Some would say a form of headquarters

So perhaps not drone war headquarters...what ever that is but really....???

Is it down to that?

Edited November 6, 2011 by flying

[Scott]

I believe the deleted post has this link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/

Here are the first 3 sentences:

The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.

[flying]

I believe the deleted post has this link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/cia-drones-marked-for-death/

Here are the first 3 sentences:

The expansion of the CIA’s undeclared drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan required a big expansion of who can be marked for death. Once the standard for targeted killing was top-level leadership in al-Qaeda or one of its allies. That’s long gone, especially as the number of people targeted at once has grown.

No actually I had another post deleted...by cdnvic I think?

It was right after luckizuch posted his original complaint about the National Geographic blurb.

That post had the same National Geographic link in it that this last one I posted had.

The link you mention is still here

Edited November 6, 2011 by flying

[chuckd]

Here is a link to the murder of the CIA officers in Khost.

______________________________________________________

Al-Qaida double-agent killed CIA officers

By Robert Windrem and Richard Engel

NBC News

updated 1/4/2010 4:57:16 PM ET

The suicide bombing on a CIA base in Afghanistan last week was carried out by a Jordanian doctor who was an al-Qaida double-agent, Western intelligence officials told NBC News.

Initial reports said that the attack, which killed seven CIA officers, was carried out by a member of the Afghan National Army.

According to Western intelligence officials, the perpetrator was Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, 36, an al-Qaida sympathizer from Zarqa, which is also the hometown of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant Islamist believed responsible for several devastating attacks in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34687312/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/al-qaida-double-agent-killed-cia-officers/#.TrZCOfTRLv8

[Pakboong]

” International law experts dispute whether the “war on terror” — a phrase that has, at any rate, been stripped from the Obama administration lexicon — meets that threshold in a way that justifies targeting militants in countries like Pakistan, which we are not at war with. Many international lawyers, particularly on the left, argue that absent sustained fighting on an active, recognizable battlefield, drone killings are illegal — especially when executed by CIA operatives, who are not members of the armed forces and who are not trained in the law of armed conflict."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-tortured-logic-of-obamas-drone-war

The rules of war only seem to matter to the loser.