Latest U.S. drone strike kills senior militant commander in Pakistan

[News_Editor]

Latest U.S. drone strike kills senior militant commander in Pakistan

2012-02-10 02:28:46 GMT+7 (ICT)

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- At least four suspected militants, including a senior commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's volatile tribal region on Thursday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The latest attack happened on early Thursday morning when a U.S. drone fired two missiles at a suspected militant compound in Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan near the border with Afghanistan.

Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S. operation killed at least four suspected militants, including Badar Mansoor who was a senior militant commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. He was suspected of operating a militant training camp in the region and being involved in numerous attacks throughout Pakistan.

The officials, who described the death of Mansoor as a 'major blow' to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, said the strike completely destroyed the compound and caused heavy damage to neighboring buildings. There were unconfirmed reports that several people were also injured in the attack.

Thursday's strike comes just one day after a U.S. drone killed at least 10 suspects after firing two missiles at a house in the village of Tappi, approximately 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) southeast of Miranshah. The house was allegedly used by fighters of the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani Network, which is one of the top terrorist organizations and threats to U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.

Late last month, U.S. President Barack Obama, for the first time during his presidency, publicly acknowledged that U.S. drones regularly strike suspected militants along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He confirmed that many of these strikes are carried out in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects in tough terrain.

Obama's statements were part of a web interview which was broadcast live on the video-sharing website YouTube and social networking website Google+. The interview was carried out just three weeks after the first U.S. drone strikes of the year, almost two months after its previous attack.

Few details about casualties from the strikes are usually available, but allegations of civilian casualties regularly spark protests in Pakistan. According to the Washington-based think tank New America Foundation, as many as 2,680 individuals were killed as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and early 2012.

And according to a report released by the Conflict Monitoring Center in January, at least 609 people were killed as a result of 75 drone strikes in Pakistan in 2011 alone. The group has documented 303 drone strikes since 2004, with a total death toll of at least 2,661.

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.-led 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.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-10

[flying]

Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan near the border with Afghanistan.

Population 5000

the strike completely destroyed the compound and caused heavy damage to neighboring buildings. There were unconfirmed reports that several people were also injured in the attack.

[Ulysses G.]

At least four suspected militants, including a senior commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were killed

[flying]

At least four suspected militants, including a senior commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were killed

Yes again so we are told by someone who has no name....

Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S. operation killed at least four suspected militants, including Badar Mansoor who was a senior militant commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban.

This is why anyone who has followed these for awhile has seen the same person claimed to be killed more than once.

But it is in line with everything else done in Pakistan..unconfirmed...suspected...under condition of anonimity...etc.

f it is going to be a war then conduct it as such...Otherwise we are basically here over a decade now & the costs are helping

destroy America financially. At some point when the SS checks stop coming a few more folks will say whaaaa happened?

Edited February 9, 2012 by flying

[Steely Dan]

I guess if the sources have no name then their information is not to be relied on, though as a wild guess this is for their own protection, a bit like a wikileaks informant , I hope the same standard of sources being named also applies to claims of collateral damage before hand wringing can ensue.

[chuckd]

At least four suspected militants, including a senior commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, were killed

Yes again so we are told by someone who has no name....

Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the U.S. operation killed at least four suspected militants, including Badar Mansoor who was a senior militant commander with links to both al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban.

This is why anyone who has followed these for awhile has seen the same person claimed to be killed more than once.

But it is in line with everything else done in Pakistan..unconfirmed...suspected...under condition of anonimity...etc.

f it is going to be a war then conduct it as such...Otherwise we are basically here over a decade now & the costs are helping

destroy America financially. At some point when the SS checks stop coming a few more folks will say whaaaa happened?

If we are to follow your suggestion to fight a war like it is a war, the collateral damage will be much, much greater than it is now.

We are fighting an insurgency with entirely different and restrictive rules of engagement.

I don't really think you meant to say what you said, with all the implications involved.

[flying]

If we are to follow your suggestion to fight a war like it is a war, the collateral damage will be much, much greater than it is now.

We are fighting an insurgency with entirely different and restrictive rules of engagement.

I don't really think you meant to say what you said, with all the implications involved.

No I meant it 100% as stated.

But of course Congress must vote on it & declare it

Edited February 10, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

We are fighting an insurgency with entirely different and restrictive rules of engagement.

Quite right. Wars are not won by pretending that the conditions are the same as in other conflicts.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Scott
Changed one to won.

[Credo]

It's not a conventional enemy and so a conventional war can't be fought. I don't think it's prudent to declare war on a host of Middle Eastern Countries and a few in Africa.

[flying]

It's not a conventional enemy and so a conventional war can't be fought. I don't think it's prudent to declare war on a host of Middle Eastern Countries and a few in Africa.

That is the point...But also it is not a war....They can give it the cute name war on terror but it is not a war.

As such it is not definable nor winnable. Terrorism has to be fought another way.

[chuckd]

Uh...You are the one that brought up total war, not me.

As far as I am concerned, the way we are doing it is fine. The use of drones limits collateral damage to a large extent. Total war means exactly that. You are at war with an ideology and the people that support it, therefore killing as many of them as fast as you can accomplishes your goal, which is the successful end of the war. Unfortunately this tends to wipe out entire nations.

By the way, where are you coming up with the "Trillions" of US$ spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The most I have been able to find is $1.38 Trillion spent on both wars from inception through 9/30/2012.

http://costofwar.com...es-and-sources/

http://www.nytimes.c...25bumiller.html

[flying]

Uh...You are the one that brought up total war, not me.

As far as I am concerned, the way we are doing it is fine. The use of drones limits collateral damage to a large extent. Total war means exactly that. You are at war with an ideology and the people that support it, therefore killing as many of them as fast as you can accomplishes your goal, which is the successful end of the war. Unfortunately this tends to wipe out entire nations.

By the way, where are you coming up with the "Trillions" of US$ spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The most I have been able to find is $1.38 Trillion spent on both wars from inception through 9/30/2012.

It is akin to using a sledge hammer to staple two pieces of paper

As for costs a recent study By the Eisenhower Study Group June 2011

Looks at more than just direct costs

attached for your reading

A9902F31d01.pdf

[metisdead]

We are drifting off topic & will probably get deleted but............

Off topic posts removed.