U.S. drone strikes kill at least 16 militants in South Waziristan

[News_Editor]

U.S. drone strikes kill at least 16 militants in South Waziristan

2011-11-17 18:53:28 GMT+7 (ICT)

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- At least sixteen suspected militants were killed on Wednesday when a U.S. drone launched a series of airstrikes in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region, officials said on Thursday.

The air strikes were carried out in the Babar area of Sararogha Tehsil in South Waziristan, within the territory of the Mehsud tribe. Political administration and intelligence sources from the area told the Express Tribune that around two dozen Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants were hiding in the area.

The U.S. drone fired six missiles at a compound in the area, killing 16 suspected militants, of which officials said at least two were TTP members. Taliban sources confirmed that Abdul Nasir and Abdul Mukhlis ran two militant compounds in the area.

The latest U.S. airstrikes came just a day after at least six suspected militants were killed in the Miranshah Bazaar area of Miranshah, the capital of Pakistan's North Waziristan, on Tuesday.

And earlier this month, on November 3, a series of U.S. drone strikes targeted a compound allegedly linked to the Afghan Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network in the mountainous region of Darpakhel Sarai, just outside Miranshah. The airstrikes left at least three suspected militants killed.

The November 3 airstrikes happened just days after more than 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 have 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 2011-11-17

[koheesti]

Awww, just when I thought they finally stopped using "suspected"...

[Steely Dan]

Awww, just when I thought they finally stopped using "suspected"...

Which begs the question, where are the usual suspects or have they given up complaining about due process?

[flying]

Awww, just when I thought they finally stopped using "suspected"...

The thing you need to understand is "suspected" is all that can be said.

Also realize this news is reported by PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS)

It is never really reported here in the US

Because the CIA who are controlling the drone strikes in Pakistan

decide who are suspects & justifying targeting...

They will neither confirm nor deny that the drones even exist. As said many times it is the worst kept secret in US history.

Lastly some (not you) who think nothing of these murders calling it instead... due process <sic>.

Yet the perpetrators of the strikes do not even acknowledge they occur.

So it is quite the stretch to be called due process.

[bkkjames]

What is a suspected militant_is this a notch below being suspected terrorist?

[Ulysses G.]

What is a suspected militant

PC Newspeak for radical terrorists.

[bkkjames]

What is a suspected militant

PC Newspeak for radical terrorists.

Ok thanks got it: militant = thinking about doing something, terrorist = once they have done something

[flying]

Ok thanks got it: militant = thinking about doing something, terrorist = once they have done something

If only it were true...

Seems many did not think or do anything yet they cease to exist

Iraq troops killed 30,000

Iraq civilians killed 864,531

Afghanistan troops killed 8587

Afghanistan civilians killed 8813

At least 919,967 people have

been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq

since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

[Scott]

I think we will stick to the topic of drone strikes, not to all things military.

[koheesti]

Ok thanks got it: militant = thinking about doing something, terrorist = once they have done something

If only it were true...

Seems many did not think or do anything yet they cease to exist

Iraq troops killed 30,000

Iraq civilians killed 864,531

Afghanistan troops killed 8587

Afghanistan civilians killed 8813

At least 919,967 people have

been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq

since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates.

http://www.unknownne...casualties.html

1) that Iraqi civilian death count is close to 10x too high. Even if true, 95% were killed by insurgent/terrorists/various pissed off Arabs.

2) I fully support the drone strikes - BUT I also wonder what is up with all this "suspected" stuff. Launching rockets at someone you have no real proof of guilt on isn't kosher. Who is actually calling them "suspected"? The media? If so, they are either putting their own editorial spin on it OR they have been conditioned to call all criminals "suspects" until a court says otherwise. It gets ridiculous when - for example - a lone gunman shoots up a bunch of people, the police surround him, capture him alive and the media still calls him the "suspect" when everyone knows he did it and he even admits to it. But, in the Land of Lawsuits - better safe than sorry.

[Wallaby]

Yeah kind of odd to me too. With all the resources available to the US why do they still refer to them as 'suspects'. They can't be afraid of any lawsuit as the 'murder' occured on foreign soil and the US isn't too keen on any of it's citizens being extradited to any other country to face justice.

Surely with all the superior technology the US tells the world it has it wouldn't bomb any innocents so why not just call it as it is. Killed x amount of terrorists and x amount of people we don't know about but must have been terrorists because they were in the vicinity.

[Pakboong]

Our study shows that the 283 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 70 in 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals, of whom around 1,424 to 2,209 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. Thus, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 17 percent. In 2010, it was more like five percent.*

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

If the information at the above link is true, 17% were not militants.

[fritter1970]

Good work fellas. Get some!

[koheesti]

Yeah kind of odd to me too. With all the resources available to the US why do they still refer to them as 'suspects'. They can't be afraid of any lawsuit as the 'murder' occured on foreign soil and the US isn't too keen on any of it's citizens being extradited to any other country to face justice.

Surely with all the superior technology the US tells the world it has it wouldn't bomb any innocents so why not just call it as it is. Killed x amount of terrorists and x amount of people we don't know about but must have been terrorists because they were in the vicinity.

IS it the US gov't calling them "suspects" or the media?

[flying]

Yeah kind of odd to me too. With all the resources available to the US why do they still refer to them as 'suspects'. They can't be afraid of any lawsuit as the 'murder' occured on foreign soil and the US isn't too keen on any of it's citizens being extradited to any other country to face justice.

Surely with all the superior technology the US tells the world it has it wouldn't bomb any innocents so why not just call it as it is. Killed x amount of terrorists and x amount of people we don't know about but must have been terrorists because they were in the vicinity.

IS it the US gov't calling them "suspects" or the media?

Again...The government or more exactly in this case the CIA will neither confirm nor deny any use of Drones in Pakistan

As such it has to be the media who has to assume they were suspects.

Sorry to sound overly simplistic but that is the truth of it.

[koheesti]

Yeah kind of odd to me too. With all the resources available to the US why do they still refer to them as 'suspects'. They can't be afraid of any lawsuit as the 'murder' occured on foreign soil and the US isn't too keen on any of it's citizens being extradited to any other country to face justice.

Surely with all the superior technology the US tells the world it has it wouldn't bomb any innocents so why not just call it as it is. Killed x amount of terrorists and x amount of people we don't know about but must have been terrorists because they were in the vicinity.

IS it the US gov't calling them "suspects" or the media?

Again...The government or more exactly in this case the CIA will neither confirm nor deny any use of Drones in Pakistan

As such it has to be the media who has to assume they were suspects.

Sorry to sound overly simplistic but that is the truth of it.

That's fine, makes me feel a lot better about it. The people giving the OK apparently know they are terrorists. It's just the media who doesn't and at the end of the day, what the former knows is more important when it comes to targeting people.

[Wallaby]

Yeah kind of odd to me too. With all the resources available to the US why do they still refer to them as 'suspects'. They can't be afraid of any lawsuit as the 'murder' occured on foreign soil and the US isn't too keen on any of it's citizens being extradited to any other country to face justice.

Surely with all the superior technology the US tells the world it has it wouldn't bomb any innocents so why not just call it as it is. Killed x amount of terrorists and x amount of people we don't know about but must have been terrorists because they were in the vicinity.

IS it the US gov't calling them "suspects" or the media?

Again...The government or more exactly in this case the CIA will neither confirm nor deny any use of Drones in Pakistan

As such it has to be the media who has to assume they were suspects.

Sorry to sound overly simplistic but that is the truth of it.

That's fine, makes me feel a lot better about it. The people giving the OK apparently know they are terrorists. It's just the media who doesn't and at the end of the day, what the former knows is more important when it comes to targeting people.

How do you know the people giving the OK know they are terrorists? When they don't acknowledge the use of the drones they can murder who they like.

[koheesti]

That's fine, makes me feel a lot better about it. The people giving the OK apparently know they are terrorists. It's just the media who doesn't and at the end of the day, what the former knows is more important when it comes to targeting people.

How do you know the people giving the OK know they are terrorists? When they don't acknowledge the use of the drones they can murder who they like.

There are a lot cheaper and less scrutinized ways to go about "murdering" just anyone you feel like. These aren't some psycho grunts shooting cheap bullets into some poor civilian. These are expensive weapons that require authorization and a lot of people in different places. That's how I know.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Please stay on the topic, which is drone strikes.

[flying]

There are a lot cheaper and less scrutinized ways to go about "murdering" just anyone you feel like. These aren't some psycho grunts shooting cheap bullets into some poor civilian. These are expensive weapons that require authorization and a lot of people in different places. That's how I know.

Actually that is not true authorization is sidestepped via the patriot act.

With these Drone strikes the mere fact that the CIA does not need to confirm nor deny the use of it to America is proof of that.

Edited November 19, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

There are a lot cheaper and less scrutinized ways to go about "murdering" just anyone you feel like. These aren't some psycho grunts shooting cheap bullets into some poor civilian. These are expensive weapons that require authorization and a lot of people in different places. That's how I know.

Actually that is not true authorization is sidestepped via the patriot act.

With these Drone strikes the mere fact that the CIA does not need to confirm nor deny the use of it to America is proof of that.

Please post the section of The Patriot Act that allows it. I have it on my hard drive somewhere and I have read the whole thing but I don't remember anything about actions (drone or otherwise) against terrorists in foreign lands where we are at war in there. It has been a few years since I've read so I might have forgotten or maybe it is a recent amendment?

[flying]

Please post the section of The Patriot Act that allows it. I have it on my hard drive somewhere and I have read the whole thing but I don't remember anything about actions (drone or otherwise) against terrorists in foreign lands where we are at war in there. It has been a few years since I've read so I might have forgotten or maybe it is a recent amendment?

I also have it .....

Congrats on reading all 342 pages of it. I know even Judge Napolitano said none could even himself unless they have all the US law books in front of them & then took years & went line by line because it is a maze of laws citing laws....... But again amazing to hear you accomplished it.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)- The CIA's major intelligence responsibilities are (1) to clandestinely collect foreign intelligence, (2) to conduct counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities related to foreign intelligence and national security matters, and (3) to develop the necessary technical collection systems required for carrying out the (1) and (2) responsibilities.

The CIA operates within and outside the United States in accordance with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Title 50 of the US Code, Executive Order 12333, and the USA Patriot Act.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

Edited November 19, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

Please post the section of The Patriot Act that allows it. I have it on my hard drive somewhere and I have read the whole thing but I don't remember anything about actions (drone or otherwise) against terrorists in foreign lands where we are at war in there. It has been a few years since I've read so I might have forgotten or maybe it is a recent amendment?

I also have it .....

Congrats on reading all 342 pages of it. I know even Judge Napolitano said none could even himself unless they have all the US law books in front of them & then took years & went line by line because it is a maze of laws citing laws....... But again amazing to hear you accomplished it.

It is mostly double spaced and well spread out. It is not difficult to find the passage that you are interested in - or disprove things people have been told the Patriot Act allows the gov't to do. I notice what you posted says the CIA operates within several Acts and Executive Orders yet you claim it's only the Patriot Act that allows the CIA to launch drone attacks without giving any reason.

BTW - Do you disagree with SEC. 102 of H.R.3162?

[flying]

BTW - Do you disagree with SEC. 102 of H.R.3162?

Without going any further off topic I will just say

the Patriot<sic> Act is an affront to the US Constitution (Bill Of Rights)

As such I agree with NONE of it.

[Scott]

A series of posts concerning the Patriot Act have been removed. Such a discussion will move the thread into an off-topic discourse that is beyond the limits of this thread.

[Wallaby]

That's fine, makes me feel a lot better about it. The people giving the OK apparently know they are terrorists. It's just the media who doesn't and at the end of the day, what the former knows is more important when it comes to targeting people.

How do you know the people giving the OK know they are terrorists? When they don't acknowledge the use of the drones they can murder who they like.

There are a lot cheaper and less scrutinized ways to go about "murdering" just anyone you feel like. These aren't some psycho grunts shooting cheap bullets into some poor civilian. These are expensive weapons that require authorization and a lot of people in different places. That's how I know.

So you DON'T know, you only believe and trust the US govt blindly and implicitly.

[Credo]

I doubt that most of them are terrorists, but I believe most of them are militants.

[flying]

I doubt that most of them are terrorists, but I believe most of them are militants.

It would be a tough call in places like Waziristan where they all dress alike &

carrying a AK-47 is commonplace & does not make them Terrorist

This recent article puts the civilian killings at 32%

It also claims soon it will be all software driven with no human input.

As Philip Al­ston, the United Na­tions Spe­cial Rap­por­teur on Ex­tra­ju­di­cial, Sum­mary or Ar­bi­trary Ex­e­cu­tions rec­og­nizes: ‘Not even the Amer­i­can pub­lic, let alone the in­ter­na­tional com­mu­nity, knows when and where the CIA has au­tho­rized the kill, the cri­te­ria for in­di­vid­u­als who may be killed, how the CIA in­sures killings are legal, and what fol­low-up there is when civil­ians are il­le­gally killed. It fol­lows that the in­ter­na­tional law re­quire­ments of trans­parency and ac­count­abil­ity are com­pre­hen­sively vi­o­lated.’

http://www.nationofchange.org/kucinich-ever-expanding-use-drones-kill-unaccountable-immoral-and-definition-inhuman-1316878659

Edited November 20, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

That's fine, makes me feel a lot better about it. The people giving the OK apparently know they are terrorists. It's just the media who doesn't and at the end of the day, what the former knows is more important when it comes to targeting people.

How do you know the people giving the OK know they are terrorists? When they don't acknowledge the use of the drones they can murder who they like.

There are a lot cheaper and less scrutinized ways to go about "murdering" just anyone you feel like. These aren't some psycho grunts shooting cheap bullets into some poor civilian. These are expensive weapons that require authorization and a lot of people in different places. That's how I know.

So you DON'T know, you only believe and trust the US govt blindly and implicitly.

And you DON'T know but trust the media reports blindly and implicitly. Or you trust your favorite webiste, blogger, talking head on TV bliindly and implicitly.

But yes, I trust our drones are not being used to simply blow up houses of regular people for shits and giggles. You might have some psycho-soldier with a machine gun or grenade do things like that, but a weapons system like this won't be IMO.