Pakistani Taliban leader possibly killed in U.S. drone strike

[Wallaby]

Flying you know only too well that some on here will not believe anything the west does is bad. Even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing they will just try and find a way to justify it.

The whole point is that there is no evidence presented on this issue - just spin,speculation, smears and personal insults as per usual.

I rest my case.

[GentlemanJim]

Flying you know only too well that some on here will not believe anything the west does is bad. Even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing they will just try and find a way to justify it.

The whole point is that there is no evidence presented on this issue - just spin,speculation, smears and personal insults as per usual.

The whole point is that you have been told where to look and advised to watch the whole series. You are an adult, feed yourself! If you are too lazy then what can be done? If you want to be educated on a subject good or bad then follow up. It is people like you that are the Governments dream, you believe what they tell you and what they show you and then put your head in a bucket, content that that is the facts. If you have a hunger for knowledge you would go and find out more, if you just want to believe what your Government tell you then there is nothing anyone on here can do to help you.

[Ulysses G.]

Flying you know only too well that some on here will not believe anything the west does is bad. Even when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing they will just try and find a way to justify it.

The whole point is that there is no evidence presented on this issue - just spin,speculation, smears and personal insults as per usual.

The whole point is that you have been told where to look and advised to watch the whole series.

I aready looked where flying said to look and there was nothing but the suggestion, that maybe, possibly someone is planting devices to pinpoint terrorists and no evidence who.

In other words, a lot of unsubstantiated baloney and finger pointing, but no facts to back up the usual baseless claims.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[yawg]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

[Pakboong]

This particular predicament seems to have, more than anything else, to do with the various US service branches having been ordered to stop doing human intelligence back in the 1970s to save money. Pretty much all HUMINT(Human Intelligence) whereby our guys spy on their guys on a decentalized basis to target the enemy routinely was discontinured. Necessary human spying was greatly reduced to a point where pretty much all such efforts were done by machines then called (SIGINT) signals intelligence. The traditionalists are still whining about this some 40 years later.

NSA and the CIA were expected to bridge the gap left behind.

Plans to use Global Hawk technology started back in the late 50s but was not widely used until the war on terror got into full swing.

An unintended consequence of these separate policy and technology changes actually became a big one in that civilians, otherwise considered spies were forced into use to target and destroy an enemy.

I think it was a big mistake but that is the kinds of stuff that happens when you try to reduce casualties of your own troops to the rock bottom minimum. The real test will be if these civilians ever end up as a defendent in a war crimes trial.

[flying]

The real test will be if these civilians ever end up as a defendent in a war crimes trial.

Interesting thought

[koheesti]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

[beechguy]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

That's not the way those programs work.

[GentlemanJim]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

[koheesti]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

If you think they are flying around multi-million dollar drones all day just to fire very, very expensive missiles at anyone with an AK-47 YOU are the one dreaming.

[GentlemanJim]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

If you think they are flying around multi-million dollar drones all day just to fire very, very expensive missiles at anyone with an AK-47 YOU are the one dreaming.

That is not what I said is it? I said they don't differentiate, which you appear to consider they would take time to do so. And what of the Journo's and their children? Did the operators take time to differentiate there, even when no weapons were being carried?

[Ulysses G.]

If you think they are flying around multi-million dollar drones all day just to fire very, very expensive missiles at anyone with an AK-47 YOU are the one dreaming.

Hallucinating is more like it. They are not allowed to just fire whenever they feel like it.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

If you think they are flying around multi-million dollar drones all day just to fire very, very expensive missiles at anyone with an AK-47 YOU are the one dreaming.

Hallucinating is more like it. They are not allowed to just fire whenever they feel like it.

So what did the guys in the Apache do?

[flying]

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

What you say of course makes sense in a normal circumstance.....or not ( see below)

But remember these folks normally need their side arms which is why they carry them.

It is ultimately THEIR country.

To say they need to somehow have ESP as to which section of THEIR country may erupt into a crossfire & not flaunt? their needed side arms

sounds ........well......a bit pompous

In your example of a human shooting in the world in the direction shots are coming from....

That can go both ways

The coalition need to also realize if they shoot then both targeted enemies & normal LEGAL weapon carrying folks

may return fire. Look at where they live & the distance shots are fired from....How do the Legal weapon non combatants know

who the heck is shooting at them? This is a tribal country.

I would not be surprised if a thorough investigation was carried out they may find many small battles are a matter of confusion on the

coalitions part. Seeing guys with weapons moving on a valley floor they open fire from a distance....Those on the floor return till an end is met.

Then the coalition if successful claims they killed *suspected* terrorist.

This is a problem...no?

Another example is if a cop in the world is being shot at in a populated area he may well not fire back as he is trained to not endanger

innocent lives.

He also does not just open fire on the thousands of folks he sees in States where citizens are legally allowed to open & concealed carry weapons. Like Arizona for instance.

Do you think that would fly in Arizona if a cop kill a law abiding gun carrying citizen? Then the cop said well he should be careful where he flaunts that weapon!

No.....It would be called negligent homicide... Yet in Pakistan.Afghanistan,Iraq whether by Drone or rifle your lucky if called collateral damages....or worse *suspected* terrorist

Edited January 23, 2012 by flying

[koheesti]

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

What you say of course makes sense in a normal circumstance.....or not ( see below)

But remember these folks normally need their side arms which is why they carry them.

It is ultimately THEIR country.

To say they need to somehow have ESP as to which section of THEIR country may erupt into a crossfire & not flaunt? their needed side arms

sounds ........well......a bit pompous

In your example of a human shooting in the world in the direction shots are coming from....

That can go both ways

The coalition need to also realize if they shoot then both targeted enemies & normal LEGAL weapon carrying folks

may return fire. Look at where they live & the distance shots are fired from....How do the Legal weapon non combatants know

who the heck is shooting at them? This is a tribal country.

I would not be surprised if a thorough investigation was carried out they may find many small battles are a matter of confusion on the

coalitions part. Seeing guys with weapons moving on a valley floor they open fire from a distance....Those on the floor return till an end is met.

Then the coalition if successful claims they killed *suspected* terrorist.

This is a problem...no?

Another example is if a cop in the world is being shot at in a populated area he may well not fire back as he is trained to not endanger

innocent lives.

He also does not just open fire on the thousands of folks he sees in States where citizens are legally allowed to open & concealed carry weapons. Like Arizona for instance.

Do you think that would fly in Arizona if a cop kill a law abiding gun carrying citizen? Then the cop said well he should be careful where he flaunts that weapon!

No.....It would be called negligent homicide... Yet in Pakistan.Afghanistan,Iraq whether by Drone or rifle your lucky if called collateral damages....or worse *suspected* terrorist

It IS the Afghans' country and they along with everyone else there needs to be alert on a daily basis because of the fighting that has been going on the past ten years with the coalition, the previous 12 years before that with the Taliban/Norther Alliance/others and the previous 10 years before that with the Soviets. So pretty much all Afghans born after 1978 have never known anything but war. If they haven't figured it out yet, sorry to be crass, but it might just be Darwinism in action. Even old dogs eventually learn to look before running out into the street.

A cop is trained not to endanger lives so he won't shoot into a crowd. They have to decide what is more dangerous and if the risk is worth it or not. If the guy in the crowd is causing mayhem by firing wildly with an AK-47, you bet your ass the cop will fire at him despite who may be next to him. With the target in Afghanistan, these Taliban and terrorists leaders are too dangerous to let escape so unfortunately for the civilians nearby, they are in the line of fire.

As for the Arizona cop, I'm not sure that's a good example. People in America are getting shot by police all the time for looking like they have a gun pointed at the cops when they don't. Most of the population knows not to point objects at the cops or to drop whatever is they are carrying when a cop with a gun pointed at them tells them to. Those that don't, get shot. More Darwinism at work. The police never just shoot anyone without getting a warning first. Sadly, in a war zone giving a warning means the target gets away.

Edited January 23, 2012 by koheesti

[flying]

Sadly, in a war zone giving a warning means the target gets away.

Therein lies a problem.....shoot first then tag the target *suspected* ?

[GentlemanJim]

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

What you say of course makes sense in a normal circumstance.....or not ( see below)

But remember these folks normally need their side arms which is why they carry them.

It is ultimately THEIR country.

To say they need to somehow have ESP as to which section of THEIR country may erupt into a crossfire & not flaunt? their needed side arms

sounds ........well......a bit pompous

In your example of a human shooting in the world in the direction shots are coming from....

That can go both ways

The coalition need to also realize if they shoot then both targeted enemies & normal LEGAL weapon carrying folks

may return fire. Look at where they live & the distance shots are fired from....How do the Legal weapon non combatants know

who the heck is shooting at them? This is a tribal country.

I would not be surprised if a thorough investigation was carried out they may find many small battles are a matter of confusion on the

coalitions part. Seeing guys with weapons moving on a valley floor they open fire from a distance....Those on the floor return till an end is met.

Then the coalition if successful claims they killed *suspected* terrorist.

This is a problem...no?

Another example is if a cop in the world is being shot at in a populated area he may well not fire back as he is trained to not endanger

innocent lives.

He also does not just open fire on the thousands of folks he sees in States where citizens are legally allowed to open & concealed carry weapons. Like Arizona for instance.

Do you think that would fly in Arizona if a cop kill a law abiding gun carrying citizen? Then the cop said well he should be careful where he flaunts that weapon!

No.....It would be called negligent homicide... Yet in Pakistan.Afghanistan,Iraq whether by Drone or rifle your lucky if called collateral damages....or worse *suspected* terrorist

It IS the Afghans' country and they along with everyone else there needs to be alert on a daily basis because of the fighting that has been going on the past ten years with the coalition, the previous 12 years before that with the Taliban/Norther Alliance/others and the previous 10 years before that with the Soviets. So pretty much all Afghans born after 1978 have never known anything but war. If they haven't figured it out yet, sorry to be crass, but it might just be Darwinism in action. Even old dogs eventually learn to look before running out into the street.

A cop is trained not to endanger lives so he won't shoot into a crowd. They have to decide what is more dangerous and if the risk is worth it or not. If the guy in the crowd is causing mayhem by firing wildly with an AK-47, you bet your ass the cop will fire at him despite who may be next to him. With the target in Afghanistan, these Taliban and terrorists leaders are too dangerous to let escape so unfortunately for the civilians nearby, they are in the line of fire.

As for the Arizona cop, I'm not sure that's a good example. People in America are getting shot by police all the time for looking like they have a gun pointed at the cops when they don't. Most of the population knows not to point objects at the cops or to drop whatever is they are carrying when a cop with a gun pointed at them tells them to. Those that don't, get shot. More Darwinism at work. The police never just shoot anyone without getting a warning first. Sadly, in a war zone giving a warning means the target gets away.

Why have you suddenly started talking Afghanistan. Flyer has presented a fairly comprehensive post and the subject of it, like this thread, is Pakistan. Why are you now switching to Afghanistan? It is normal for the tribesmen in Pakistan to carry weapons to protect themselves and their family. How do you tell the difference between 5 of them through bino's 1km away and 5 Taliban. Every time we here 'killed .....suspected terrorists', means that intel have screwed up, if they have even been involved. We kill terrorists or not. We can't kill innocent people, legally carrying weapons just because we cant be bothered to check it out and then say they were suspected terrorists. How convenient.

[koheesti]

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

What you say of course makes sense in a normal circumstance.....or not ( see below)

But remember these folks normally need their side arms which is why they carry them.

It is ultimately THEIR country.

To say they need to somehow have ESP as to which section of THEIR country may erupt into a crossfire & not flaunt? their needed side arms

sounds ........well......a bit pompous

In your example of a human shooting in the world in the direction shots are coming from....

That can go both ways

The coalition need to also realize if they shoot then both targeted enemies & normal LEGAL weapon carrying folks

may return fire. Look at where they live & the distance shots are fired from....How do the Legal weapon non combatants know

who the heck is shooting at them? This is a tribal country.

I would not be surprised if a thorough investigation was carried out they may find many small battles are a matter of confusion on the

coalitions part. Seeing guys with weapons moving on a valley floor they open fire from a distance....Those on the floor return till an end is met.

Then the coalition if successful claims they killed *suspected* terrorist.

This is a problem...no?

Another example is if a cop in the world is being shot at in a populated area he may well not fire back as he is trained to not endanger

innocent lives.

He also does not just open fire on the thousands of folks he sees in States where citizens are legally allowed to open & concealed carry weapons. Like Arizona for instance.

Do you think that would fly in Arizona if a cop kill a law abiding gun carrying citizen? Then the cop said well he should be careful where he flaunts that weapon!

No.....It would be called negligent homicide... Yet in Pakistan.Afghanistan,Iraq whether by Drone or rifle your lucky if called collateral damages....or worse *suspected* terrorist

It IS the Afghans' country and they along with everyone else there needs to be alert on a daily basis because of the fighting that has been going on the past ten years with the coalition, the previous 12 years before that with the Taliban/Norther Alliance/others and the previous 10 years before that with the Soviets. So pretty much all Afghans born after 1978 have never known anything but war. If they haven't figured it out yet, sorry to be crass, but it might just be Darwinism in action. Even old dogs eventually learn to look before running out into the street.

A cop is trained not to endanger lives so he won't shoot into a crowd. They have to decide what is more dangerous and if the risk is worth it or not. If the guy in the crowd is causing mayhem by firing wildly with an AK-47, you bet your ass the cop will fire at him despite who may be next to him. With the target in Afghanistan, these Taliban and terrorists leaders are too dangerous to let escape so unfortunately for the civilians nearby, they are in the line of fire.

As for the Arizona cop, I'm not sure that's a good example. People in America are getting shot by police all the time for looking like they have a gun pointed at the cops when they don't. Most of the population knows not to point objects at the cops or to drop whatever is they are carrying when a cop with a gun pointed at them tells them to. Those that don't, get shot. More Darwinism at work. The police never just shoot anyone without getting a warning first. Sadly, in a war zone giving a warning means the target gets away.

Why have you suddenly started talking Afghanistan. Flyer has presented a fairly comprehensive post and the subject of it, like this thread, is Pakistan. Why are you now switching to Afghanistan? It is normal for the tribesmen in Pakistan to carry weapons to protect themselves and their family. How do you tell the difference between 5 of them through bino's 1km away and 5 Taliban. Every time we here 'killed .....suspected terrorists', means that intel have screwed up, if they have even been involved. We kill terrorists or not. We can't kill innocent people, legally carrying weapons just because we cant be bothered to check it out and then say they were suspected terrorists. How convenient.

Didn't realize at the time I was switching countries.

You can criticize the targeting process all you want (won't change a thing) but you should at least know what it is that you're criticizing. From what I gather, some innocent people are killed in a drone strike (collateral damage) and the both of you take that to mean that the drone operators are simply launching expensive missiles at anyone with a gun. Unlike you, I don't think that's the case. I seriously doubt there is some soldier in the field with binoculars looking for people carrying rifles to launch drone attacks on. Geez. I think (and would hope) that there is some pretty good actionable intelligence that the target ("suspect" as the press likes to call them) is one of our enemies and not just a simple farmer protecting his sheep from Taliban who have been hiding in the mountains too long. If the opportunity is there to kill only the targets themselves, I'm sure they take it. If not, and they are considered too dangerous to let escape, then they take them out while trying to minimize collateral damage if possible. We read these press reports of drone attacks that kill "suspected" innocent people (be honest, none of us really know who was killed, only the children could be innocent), but what we don't read about are how many times attacks have been aborted because they weren't sure about the intel or the target was in a very populated place like a market or a mosque. If the USA were as evil as you'd like to believe, the number of civilian casualties would certainly be higher.

I realize that mistakes by the USA (and coalition) are made. I realize that there are some bad apples among the soldiers who commit war crimes. I can admit all that. I the mistakes and bad apples are few and far between. Some of you who support the other side however ALWAYS assume the worst from the US side. You think every soldier would commit war crimes given the chance or that every drone attack is aimed at innocent people. You think people like me are misinformed because we believe "everything the gov't says" or "everything the media reports" and at the same time you think you are well-informed because you believe everything you read that reports negatively on the US & Coalition forced or some crap from a conspiracy newsletter without question. You'll believe the CIA is the ultimate evil and as proof you show a video of CIA operatives telling their story. Uh, ok.

[Ulysses G.]

You think people like me are misinformed because we believe "everything the gov't says" or "everything the media reports" and at the same time you think you are well-informed because you believe everything you read that reports negatively on the US & Coalition forced or some crap from a conspiracy newsletter without question.

But the conspiracy newsletters are so well researched.

[Wallaby]

I don't know how you come to your view when the CIA is not accountable. How do you know what people are criticizing is wrong? How do you know how they get their targets. How do you know how they decide whether to bomb or not?

All we are basing our view on is what is available. You seem to basing your view on what you think they should be doing instead of what they ARE doing on the evidence available. We all use assumptions because there is so little in the public domain about the drone strikes.

You also refer to 'suspected innocents'. With all due respect, that is not a normal way of thinking. Everyone IS innocent, not 'suspected innocent, unless proven otherwise. The term they actually use is 'suspected terrorist'.

I don't think anyone is saying that all drone attacks kill innocents. But the truth is we do know that they kill and have killed innocents. Who is accountable for those decisions? Sometimes we don't hear about drone attacks for months and then the best description we get is 'suspected terrorists'. If they are only suspected terrorists then why the hell are they being bombed?

You hope there are some pretty good actionable intelligence before they decide to bomb away but how would you know? Do those that make the decisions err on the side of caution or do they think that if a person is a highly sought after terrorist then if innocents are killed it is acceptable............only to then find out that terrorist wasn't actually there, so lets just say 'suspected terrorist'.

[Wallaby]

You think people like me are misinformed because we believe "everything the gov't says" or "everything the media reports" and at the same time you think you are well-informed because you believe everything you read that reports negatively on the US & Coalition forced or some crap from a conspiracy newsletter without question.

But the conspiracy newsletters are so well researched.

And it is plain for everyone to see that the pro US newsletters are not so well researched. That's why we find it difficult to fathom anyone would actually believe them.

[chuckd]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

I received that video in an e-mail long before I ever heard of Assange or Manning. It was out before the two of them tried to save the world.

You must not have been on the mailing list.

[GentlemanJim]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

I received that video in an e-mail long before I ever heard of Assange or Manning. It was out before the two of them tried to save the world.

You must not have been on the mailing list.

Well perhaps that is information you should give to the appropriate security agency as that particular video was one of the reasons for charges being brought against them, for which they would go to prison and you would do nothing about.

[Scott]

Please keep the discussion civil.

[chuckd]

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

I received that video in an e-mail long before I ever heard of Assange or Manning. It was out before the two of them tried to save the world.

You must not have been on the mailing list.

Well perhaps that is information you should give to the appropriate security agency as that particular video was one of the reasons for charges being brought against them, for which they would go to prison and you would do nothing about.

One among 250,000 other reasons.

It isn't fair to say I would do nothing about it. I would roundly applaud their going to prison.

[GentlemanJim]

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

I received that video in an e-mail long before I ever heard of Assange or Manning. It was out before the two of them tried to save the world.

You must not have been on the mailing list.

Well perhaps that is information you should give to the appropriate security agency as that particular video was one of the reasons for charges being brought against them, for which they would go to prison and you would do nothing about.

One among 250,000 other reasons.

It isn't fair to say I would do nothing about it. I would roundly applaud their going to prison.

So should the person that emailed the video to you go to prison? And if you emailed it on to anybody else then do you deserve prison time? Spreading what is claimed to be confidential video footage. What is the difference here? The scale? The principle seems the same.

[chuckd]

I received that video in an e-mail long before I ever heard of Assange or Manning. It was out before the two of them tried to save the world.

You must not have been on the mailing list.

Well perhaps that is information you should give to the appropriate security agency as that particular video was one of the reasons for charges being brought against them, for which they would go to prison and you would do nothing about.

One among 250,000 other reasons.

It isn't fair to say I would do nothing about it. I would roundly applaud their going to prison.

So should the person that emailed the video to you go to prison? And if you emailed it on to anybody else then do you deserve prison time? Spreading what is claimed to be confidential video footage. What is the difference here? The scale? The principle seems the same.

Not if all the parties sending and receiving those same e-mails were authorized to receive them. Not the same at all.

Manning was authorized to receive them but he was not permitted to forward them to any person or persons not holding the appropriate US security clearance. Assange had no such clearance.

See the difference?

[GentlemanJim]

Well perhaps that is information you should give to the appropriate security agency as that particular video was one of the reasons for charges being brought against them, for which they would go to prison and you would do nothing about.

One among 250,000 other reasons.

It isn't fair to say I would do nothing about it. I would roundly applaud their going to prison.

So should the person that emailed the video to you go to prison? And if you emailed it on to anybody else then do you deserve prison time? Spreading what is claimed to be confidential video footage. What is the difference here? The scale? The principle seems the same.

Not if all the parties sending and receiving those same e-mails were authorized to receive them. Not the same at all.

Manning was authorized to receive them but he was not permitted to forward them to any person or persons not holding the appropriate US security clearance. Assange had no such clearance.

See the difference?

But it is two technically completely different cases. Manning breached his written contract, Assange had no such written contract with the US security system and is not within it's jurisdiction. If you were a serving member of the military at that time then sending the video via email using an insecure system was also a breach of the handling of confidential information on your part. If you were sending via secure means then a) I am unlikely to have been on the same mailing list, and why are you telling us about it?

So were you a serving member of the military/intelligence service at the time, with a need to know?

[Pakboong]

I have travelled in Pakistan for two and a half months. There you can see heavily armed men on the streets almost everywhere as a matter of course. Those are mostly Pashtuns, members of the free tribes of Pakistan, not terrorists.

When the US drone operators see those they automatically think "terrorists" and kill them, often along with their families.

I highly doubt the drone operators are looking for just anyone with a gun. Like you say, almost everywhere someone is carrying one so that would be a poor requirement for targeting. Now, if you are an innocent local carrying a AK-47 and happen to be close to where someone is shooting at Coalition forces and are spotted, you'll probably be a target. But anywhere in the world if one human with a gun is being shot at and he sees another human with a gun in the same direction as where the bullets are coming, he's probably going to shoot back first and ask questions later. Just in this case the return fire is not a bullet, it's a missile. All the more reason for the people on the ground to be more careful where they flaunt their weapons. Not like drone strikes are something new.

Well be thankful. If it wasn't for Messers Assange and Manning we would never have seen the Apache shoot up a bunch of journalists and their children (the kids were not collateral damage, they were seen getting in the van), non of whom were carrying weapons nor were they near anybody carrying weapons. In fact the only thing carrying weapons in the vicinity was an .......Apache!

If you think the drone operators take time to distinguish between a gun carrying local tribesman and a member of the Taliban you are dreaming.

As Flying pointed out several times in earlier posts, the targeting is usually done by agents using sources on the ground. The quality of this work will vary greatly and errors will be made. The quality of the source and the quality of the agent who handles him as well as many other variables which really are difficult to control have everything to do with the operation.

Air Force pilots are being trained to operate the drones. The intelligence comes from a source on the ground and passed to the drone control by a Civilian CIA handler. The handler does not exist officially so how to you manage accountabilty with this ugly scenario?

[Scott]

For those that are interested in Julian Assange, this topic is running: