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

[News_Editor]

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

2011-11-04 07:43:07 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- A series of new U.S. drone strikes killed at least three suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal region on Thursday morning, officials said.

The U.S. drone strikes targeted a compound in the mountainous region of Darpakhel Sarai, just outside Miranshah which is the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan region. The building was allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Intelligence officials said at least three suspected militants were killed as a result of the airstrike, but other details were not immediately released. It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes.

Earlier this week, on Sunday and Monday, at least nine suspected militants were killed when U.S. drones also carried out a series of airstrikes in North Waziristan. The strikes targeted two vehicles and a compound.

Days earlier, on Friday, an estimated 2,000 people gathered and protested against the U.S. drone strikes during a demonstration outside the country's parliament. Angry protesters claimed that the strikes have killed more innocent lives than those of militants.

As of the end of October, more than 70 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan had killed at least 544 people this year, according to a report by the Conflict Monitoring Center. The report showed that the two deadliest months were March and June when 89 and 117 people were killed, respectively. Some of the deadliest attacks were carried out on July 11 and 12 when four air strikes killed 63 people.

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

But 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 2011-11-04

[flying]

U.S. drone strikes killed at least three suspected militants...........

The building was allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Intelligence officials said at least three suspected militants were killed as a result of the airstrike, but other details were not immediately released. It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes.

Days earlier, on Friday, an estimated 2,000 people gathered and protested against the U.S. drone strikes during a demonstration outside the country's parliament. Angry protesters claimed that the strikes have killed more innocent lives than those of militants.

Usual CIA precision....short on facts...long on alleged, suspected, not known details....Yet they are sure they only kill known militants?

[chuckd]

U.S. drone strikes killed at least three suspected militants...........

The building was allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Intelligence officials said at least three suspected militants were killed as a result of the airstrike, but other details were not immediately released. It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes.

Days earlier, on Friday, an estimated 2,000 people gathered and protested against the U.S. drone strikes during a demonstration outside the country's parliament. Angry protesters claimed that the strikes have killed more innocent lives than those of militants.

Usual CIA precision....short on facts...long on alleged, suspected, not known details....Yet they are sure they only kill known militants?

Do you have any information to pass on that this specific strike killed anybody except "suspected" militants?

[bkkjames]

U.S. drone strikes killed at least three suspected militants...........

The building was allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Intelligence officials said at least three suspected militants were killed as a result of the airstrike, but other details were not immediately released. It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes.

Days earlier, on Friday, an estimated 2,000 people gathered and protested against the U.S. drone strikes during a demonstration outside the country's parliament. Angry protesters claimed that the strikes have killed more innocent lives than those of militants.

Usual CIA precision....short on facts...long on alleged, suspected, not known details....Yet they are sure they only kill known militants?

Do you have any information to pass on that this specific strike killed anybody except "suspected" militants?

What do they do with the people who are 'known militants' - kill them twice?

[flying]

U.S. drone strikes killed at least three suspected militants...........

The building was allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network.

Intelligence officials said at least three suspected militants were killed as a result of the airstrike, but other details were not immediately released. It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes.

Days earlier, on Friday, an estimated 2,000 people gathered and protested against the U.S. drone strikes during a demonstration outside the country's parliament. Angry protesters claimed that the strikes have killed more innocent lives than those of militants.

Usual CIA precision....short on facts...long on alleged, suspected, not known details....Yet they are sure they only kill known militants?

Do you have any information to pass on that this specific strike killed anybody except "suspected" militants?

All we have or ever will is the OP

It was not known if anyone inside the building survived the airstrikes

Because not surprisingly the CIA has a dont ask because we wont tell policy ...nor do we keep records nor do we pass any on to Congress

I wish I was kidding about that but I am not.

As they said on a National Geographic program it is the worst kept secret in the history of the US

The CIA refuses to confirm or deny whether it has any records at all relating to targeted killings using drones, even though the CIA’s involvement in the drone program is widely acknowledged. And other government agencies flatly refuse to release documents explaining the government’s asserted legal basis for conducting targeted killings

Slippery gestapo slope

[Pakboong]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

[Steely Dan]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

Yes indeed I wonder just how far the attempts at moral equivalence can go. The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of. They engage in brainwashing the young and impressionable to become suicide bombers for their cause, so anyone who stoops that low can't cry foul if their opponents use weapons against them that they disapprove of.

As far as CIA operatives go, I'm sure if the job of spotting and zapping militants was outsourced there would be many patriotic Americans with internet connections who would be only too happy to press the button at first sighting of a bearded bloke with a rocket launcher - I know I would.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Steely Dan

[flying]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

That program I saw on National Geographic showed something I had not seen before.

It basically is all CIA as far as the drones in Pakistan goes....But what I did not know is they

sometimes pay...mostly kids to drop a small device near the home of the person they deem *suspected*

The device looked quite tiny...Not much bigger than the small non touch screen Ipods.

The kid puts the device outside the home in a gutter pipe or under a rock etc.

This device paints the target for the drone that later comes & shoots hellfire missiles at the painted target location.

So I guess brainwashing kids goes both ways depending on who is using them today

Edited November 4, 2011 by flying

[Pakboong]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

Yes indeed I wonder just how far the attempts at moral equivalence can go. The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of. They engage in brainwashing the young and impressionable to become suicide bombers for their cause, so anyone who stoops that low can't cry foul if their opponents use weapons against them that they disapprove of.

As far as CIA operatives go, I'm sure if the job of spotting and zapping militants was outsourced there would be many patriotic Americans with internet connections who would be only too happy to press the button at first sighting of a bearded bloke with a rocket launcher - I know I would.

I would surely recommend these characters, whoever they are, shave their beards and not pick up anything that could look like a rocket launcher. I guess, I had hoped for a little more sophistication in selecting targets.

[Steely Dan]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

That program I saw on National Geographic showed something I had not seen before.

It basically is all CIA as far as the drones in Pakistan goes....But what I did not know is they

sometimes pay...mostly kids to drop a small device near the home of the person they deem *suspected*

The device looked quite tiny...Not much bigger than the small non touch screen Ipods.

The kid puts the device outside the home in a gutter pipe or under a rock etc.

This device paints the target for the drone that later comes & shoots hellfire missiles at the painted target location.

So I guess brainwashing kids goes both ways depending on who is using them today

Do any of the kids so employed have their innards and those of bystanders blown over a 50 yard radius? Thought not.

[Pakboong]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

That program I saw on National Geographic showed something I had not seen before.

It basically is all CIA as far as the drones in Pakistan goes....But what I did not know is they

sometimes pay...mostly kids to drop a small device near the home of the person they deem *suspected*

The device looked quite tiny...Not much bigger than the small non touch screen Ipods.

The kid puts the device outside the home in a gutter pipe or under a rock etc.

This device paints the target for the drone that later comes & shoots hellfire missiles at the painted target location.

So I guess brainwashing kids goes both ways depending on who is using them today

Do any of the kids so employed have their innards and those of bystanders blown over a 50 yard radius? Thought not.

Putting this kind of responsibility off on kids is a bit of a stretch IMO. A CIA operative having a kid from the local village selecting targets, based upon what criteria? I suspect that if a kid is caught doing this, he would probably prefer the quicker death of having his innards blow away.

[Steely Dan]

I would surely recommend these characters, whoever they are, shave their beards and not pick up anything that could look like a rocket launcher. I guess, I had hoped for a little more sophistication in selecting targets.

And I'm sure a degree more sophistication is indeed applied, however that was not the picture you were painstakingly trying to weave, so I thought I'd help you along a little.

[flying]

Putting this kind of responsibility off on kids is a bit of a stretch IMO. A CIA operative having a kid from the local village selecting targets, based upon what criteria? I suspect that if a kid is caught doing this, he would probably prefer the quicker death of having his innards blow away.

That was my first thought when I saw it....

It would not take too much thought if the kid was caught with the transponder to imagine what would be his fate.

So yes to Steely I would say no not much difference....his innards get displaced either way.

Except maybe one way would be stopped in there were no invaders to suicide bomb present.

Pakboong

I did not mean to suggest the kids select the targets...only paint them after being bribed by CIA operatives

Edited November 4, 2011 by flying

[Steely Dan]

Pakboong

I did not mean to suggest the kids select the targets...only paint them after being bribed by CIA operatives

Proof?

[flying]

Pakboong

I did not mean to suggest the kids select the targets...only paint them after being bribed by CIA operatives

Proof?

Proof??? :lol:

Read back.....On the show the CIA rep was half laughing saying they can not confirm or deny Drones period.

Yes it is the worst kept secret in US history.

Then again you know National Geographic....probably some tin foil group

They were the ones showing the kids & telling/interpreting their story

[Pakboong]

I would surely recommend these characters, whoever they are, shave their beards and not pick up anything that could look like a rocket launcher. I guess, I had hoped for a little more sophistication in selecting targets.

And I'm sure a degree more sophistication is indeed applied, however that was not the picture you were painstakingly trying to weave, so I thought I'd help you along a little.

I do appreciate the help. I was attempting to generalize about the fundamental rules of war and target selection. Soldiers have protection for collateral damage built into their job based upon rules of warefare. An intelligence operative, is not a soldier and does not have that protection. If the CIA operator is captured, he is treated as a spy and is not protected by the Geneva Convention. It would therefor behoove that operative to make sure of his targets. The OP suggests that we are using civilians to kill suspects. Not within the rules of war. The word "suspected" whatever is the issue at least for me.

[Steely Dan]

Proof??? :lol:

Read back.....On the show the CIA rep was half laughing saying they can not confirm or deny Drones period.

Yes it is the worst kept secret in US history.

Then again you know National Geographic....probably some tin foil group

They were the ones showing the kids & telling/interpreting their story

Children's translated testimony is your 'proof' then. Not wishing to put down Nat Geographic by the way but I am intrigued enough to be downloading all 1GB of the video, which does not happen instantly on my connection.

P.S If it were just a case of dropping a locating device near a suspected perp a trained monkey could do that, and no tinfoil hat required for believing that one.

[flying]

Children's translated testimony is your 'proof' then. Not wishing to put down Nat Geographic by the way but I am intrigued enough to be downloading all 1GB of the video, which does not happen instantly on my connection.

P.S If it were just a case of dropping a locating device near a suspected perp a trained monkey could do that, and no tinfoil hat required for believing that one.

Not my proof.....Not sure whats your problem....You asked...As I stated from the beginning it was a National Geographic program

Who cares? I mentioned it in passing to Pakboong that it was something I saw & had never heard of that before.

Yes download it.... watch it ...pass what judgment you want on it...What ever floats your boat

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.

Edited November 4, 2011 by flying

[flying]

Your in luck...

Someone already has it on you tube

it is about 4:25 on this you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KrmJI-1xyE&feature=related

Edited November 4, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of.

Don't bring that up though. It is so much easier pointing fingers at your own forces.

[craigt3365]

The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of.

Don't bring that up though. It is so much easier pointing fingers at your own forces.

+1

[koheesti]

Your in luck...

Someone already has it on you tube

it is about 4:25 on this you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KrmJI-1xyE&feature=related

The interviews are interesting, the backing video is pretty crap. Talking about the drone strikes straining US-Pakistan relations but yet we still cooperate - while showing video of George Bush and Musharaf? Reenactments mixed in with file footage of various protests or strikes that might even be in Iraq? Sloppy, I'd be surprised if NatGeo produced it.

[Wallaby]

The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of.

Don't bring that up though. It is so much easier pointing fingers at your own forces.

+1

And rightly so when our own forces claim the moral high ground.

[Steely Dan]

The enemy (and I consciously refer to them as such) have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to murdering anyone who they disapprove of.

Don't bring that up though. It is so much easier pointing fingers at your own forces.

+1

And rightly so when our own forces claim the moral high ground.

Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles. - Chesterton.

[luckizuchinni]

I am always curious as to who actually suspects the dead were militants, insurgents, terrorists, etc.. Could it be a simple matter of a CIA operative behind a computer console in some remote locating making a judgment regarding whether or not the persons appearing before their eyes looks like bad guys. I am pretty sure there is not a lot of US human intelligence gathering in the region so it has to be signal intelligence and I guess you can argue as to what you see on your computer screen as being definitive intelligence gathering. The images are not really that clear but I have only seen replays on the internet which are digital imaging but not that clear at all.

It is pretty hard to tell if the guy on the other end of the screen actually looks suspicious.

That program I saw on National Geographic showed something I had not seen before.

It basically is all CIA as far as the drones in Pakistan goes....But what I did not know is they

sometimes pay...mostly kids to drop a small device near the home of the person they deem *suspected*

The device looked quite tiny...Not much bigger than the small non touch screen Ipods.

The kid puts the device outside the home in a gutter pipe or under a rock etc.

This device paints the target for the drone that later comes & shoots hellfire missiles at the painted target location.

So I guess brainwashing kids goes both ways depending on who is using them today

Wow, that is stretching an analogy!

One side convinces or sometimes tricks kids into blowing themselves up while the other side pays a kid a drop off a transponder. Oh yes, that is the exact same thing.

[cdnvic]

One inflammatory post removed. If you wish to continue debating these matters you need to treat other posters with more respect.

[chuckd]

A touch of melodrama from the last link provided above...

______________________________________________________

"Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer, points to a consequence: A young man named Tariq was killed in a drone strike with his 12-year old cousin, Waheed Khan, while driving their aunt home.

“Tariq was a good kid, and courageous,” Stafford Smith writes. “My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.”

______________________________________________________

[flying]

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/2011/11/05/cia-to-curtail-drone-attacks.html

[Scott]

A post which violates fair use policy has been removed. Replies to the post have also been removed.

When posting something from another source, quote only the first three sentences to the article and then a link to the remainder of the article. Quoting more can be an infringement of copyright laws.

Do not quote an article that violates fair use, as your post will be deleted.

[flying]

Anyway here is a link with no quotes for any that may read & be confused.

CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are

Edited November 5, 2011 by flying