Report: Top Pakistani Taliban Leader Killed In U.s. Drone Strike

[News_Editor]

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- A United States drone strike on Wednesday reportedly killed a top terrorist suspect in Pakistan, local media reported.

The airstrike occurred near Miranshah, the main town of Pakistan's tribal region of North Waziristan, near the Afghan border, when a small house was reportedly hit by two missile strikes.

The strike reportedly killed six people, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander Wali-ur-Rehman, who was set to succeed Hakimullah Mehsud to lead the country's Taliban forces. However, death toll in drone strikes have been difficult to verify.

The total number of deaths caused by drone strikes in 2012 stood well over 300, according to the Washington-based think tank New America Foundation, and as many as 3,239 individuals have been killed as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan alone between 2004 and January 2013.

TTP militants have launched attacks against both Pakistani military forces as well as civilians in different parts of the country. Local media outlets have cited foreign news agencies of the killing, but the Taliban has denied Wali-ur-Rehman's death.

U.S. drone strikes have become relatively common during President Barack Obama's tenure in which the unmanned aircraft have targeted suspected militants, their hideouts, and training facilities. However, the number of civilians also killed during such attacks has remained uncertain.

Over a year ago, in January 2012, President 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.

Pakistan's government has been public in its stance against 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 publicly on the strikes.

However, the U.S. has used them as an important tool in their fight against terrorism. In June 2012, al-Qaeda deputy leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed when an unmanned U.S. drone fired at least two missiles at a compound and a nearby pickup truck in the village of Hesokhel, located in the Mir Ali district just east of Miranshah. It was the most serious blow to al-Qaeda since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden during a secret military operation in the Pakistani city of Abbotabad in May 2011.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[Scott]

This was reported on the radio on BBC this morning as well.

[Ulysses G.]

I agree that we need to minimize civilian casualties, but drones are one of the most effective weapons in the war on terror. Congrats on getting rid of another Taliban leader.

[Sing_Sling]

Six killed . . . one of whom was the suspected terrorist. I wonder who else was killed . . . children again, perhaps?

[GentlemanJim]

Stand by for pay back!

[Credo]

Yup, shouldn't use those nasty drones. Should send in ground troops and then have air cover. Instead of 6 killed, it would be more like 60.

My mother always told me to chose my friends wisely. In that part of the world, chose who you hang out with wisely as well.

You can bet if they thought someone was HIV+ in that part of the world, they wouldn't allow him within 10 Km of anyone. People might want to use the same mindset with militants and terrorists.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Credo

[SteeleJoe]

Stand by for pay back!

No doubt if we'd stop killing Jihadis, they'd no longer be any problem to anyone...

In any case, let's make sure we never use force or we might make someone angry.

[F430murci]

Yup, shouldn't use those nasty drones. Should send in ground troops and then have air cover. Instead of 6 killed, it would be more like 60.

My mother always told me to chose my friends wisely. In that part of the world, chose who you hang out with wisely as well.

You can bet if they thought someone was HIV+ in that part of the world, they wouldn't allow him within 10 Km of anyone. People might want to use the same mindset with militants and terrorists.

Yep, for sure, but some people want to keep their panties in a wad and complain about anything. I'd say drones 28 terrorists whackos 0 and it's only in the first quarter.

[simple1]

Stand by for pay back!

I watched an interview with the ex head of one of the UK intelligence agencies and a member of COBRA on BBC HARDtalk program yesterday. In his opinion the "War on Terror" will go on for generations - did not explore his opinion on the level of intensity as and when US/NATO forces withdraw from Islamic countries. Seems their is a bit of bullshit baffles brains as NATO airpower and Special Forces will be available e.g. Afghanistan. They discussed the policy of drones & he stated the obvious that it's a lot better to take on Islamic radicals offshore, as opposed to onshore.

I guess that some people would not be aware that the Pakistani government does actually authorise drone attacks by the US. Don't believe the number of instances has been reported in the media and most definately not general info for the Pakistani population.

Edited May 30, 2013 by simple1

[uptheos]

I agree that we need to minimize civilian casualties, but drones are one of the most effective weapons in the war on terror. Congrats on getting rid of another Taliban leader.

It is indeed unfortunate about civilians and I guess the apologists will condemn it, not minding that the terrorist if let escape would happily kill hundreds/thousands of innocent men, women and children.

[Credo]

No doubt the War on Terrorism will go on for generations. It was actually going on long, long before 9/11, when it was given a name and a face. It might change, but it will go on.

[geriatrickid]

One way of avoiding some of the deaths of the terrorists friends and family members is if the terrorists stop hiding out with these people in an attempt to avoid justice being served. I have to wonder about the "purity" of such people if this is the man arranged for the young girl to be shot in the head.

[simple1]

No doubt the War on Terrorism will go on for generations. It was actually going on long, long before 9/11, when it was given a name and a face. It might change, but it will go on.

As a point of detail the interviewee, quoted 1998 as the commencement date - the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa. For some reason did not use the timing of PLO affiated or Hizbollah terrorist attacks e.g. suicide bombing of US Marines in 1983 in Lebanon.

[Mosha]

Six killed . . . one of whom was the suspected terrorist. I wonder who else was killed . . . children again, perhaps?

Nope a bit of research would have given you this on BBC

A senior Taliban source in Miranshah told the BBC that Waliur Rehman died in the strike, which killed at least six suspected militants./.

[Mosha]

Trouble is it's like pulling sharks teeth. There is always another ready to take it's place.

[uptheos]

Trouble is it's like pulling sharks teeth. There is always another ready to take it's place.

When you are trying to eradicate a disease it's not easy, many suffer before a total cure is found.

[Naam]

take a wild guess how many "top Taleban leaders" were killed in total

[AhFarangJa]

I agree that we need to minimize civilian casualties, but drones are one of the most effective weapons in the war on terror. Congrats on getting rid of another Taliban leader.

It is indeed unfortunate about civilians and I guess the apologists will condemn it, not minding that the terrorist if let escape would happily kill hundreds/thousands of innocent men, women and children.

+1 not to mention that these "Taliban" have no respect for their own women and children, who would simply be called "martyrs"

[simple1]

take a wild guess how many "top Taleban leaders" were killed in total

Depends on your definition of top leaders. However a detailed breakdown at this URL

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes-hvts.php

[SteeleJoe]

No doubt the War on Terrorism will go on for generations. It was actually going on long, long before 9/11, when it was given a name and a face. It might change, but it will go on.

As a point of detail the interviewee, quoted 1998 as the commencement date - the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa. For some reason did not use the timing of PLO affiated or Hizbollah terrorist attacks e.g. suicide bombing of US Marines in 1983 in Lebanon.

Not sure if it's you or him but there seems to be a bit of confusion of terms.

"Terrorism" certainly didn't begin in 1983, it began thousands of years before. Not even modern terrorism began in Lebanon.

The "war on terror" (a ridiculous term though not a ridiculous goal) is harder to specify: there was woefully little action in response to the attack of the Marine barracks (or the bombing of the US Embassy that preceded it, or the concurrent French barracks or to their incidents). Ronald Reagan may have seemed gung go - and his admirers and hagiographers like to see him as heroic - but his administration was rather prostrate in the face of terror* (Osama bin Laden et al even cited Lebanon in their belief the US would be cowed by a major attack(s).)

Though his tactics, strategy and execution were mostly awful, one can argue that the WoT began in earnest with Bush though in fact, in contradiction with many lies and distortions put out by many on the right, Clinton did indeed start the effort in a serious way. So I'd say the interviewee arguably got it about right...

*It's only recently that SOMEONE took out the animal responsible for many of the atrocities in the 80's (a target I used to dream of when in the military and who played a small part in my decision to join up) including those mentioned.

Edited May 30, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Publicus]

Another one bites the dust.

Prez Obama has decimated al Qaeda, principally by using drones. Drone attacks are what we see. The effective attacks would be impossible however without superb intelligence in all respects, on the ground in particular.

We have a successful formula here.

The extremists have become helpless against it.

[SteeleJoe]

Another one bites the dust.

Prez Obama has decimated al Qaeda, principally by using drones. Drone attacks are what we see. The effective attacks would be impossible however without superb intelligence in all respects, on the ground in particular.

We have a successful formula here.

The extremists have become helpless against it.

I point this out only because it is very, very common that people conflate the Taliban with al Qaeda (and one or both with the Mujahadeen): this was an attack against the Pakistani Taliban, not al Q - a separate entity.

And the drones have indeed been used effectively - though obviously in way at times not without some legitimate reasons for concern or criticism - against both groups.

Kudos for pointing out the role of intel and I'd like to specific that much of that is through the very dangerous work of special operations (military and paramilitary) guys on the ground in addition to the people connecting dots in their more comfortable and safe offices.

Edit to Add:

The formula is successful but intrinsically limited and not without some unwanted but virtually unavoidable repercussions that are deleterious in strategic terms. I think that those repercussion are or can be ultimately worth incurring given the gains made, but not without a corresponding effort to tactically counteract them in ways that are not confined to use of force.

And I'm not sure I'd go as far as "helpless"...

Edited May 30, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[simple1]

No doubt the War on Terrorism will go on for generations. It was actually going on long, long before 9/11, when it was given a name and a face. It might change, but it will go on.

As a point of detail the interviewee, quoted 1998 as the commencement date - the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa. For some reason did not use the timing of PLO affiated or Hizbollah terrorist attacks e.g. suicide bombing of US Marines in 1983 in Lebanon.

Not sure if it's you or him but there seems to be a bit of confusion of terms.

"Terrorism" certainly didn't begin in 1983, it began thousands of years before. Not even modern terrorism began in Lebanon.

The "war on terror" (a ridiculous term though not a ridiculous goal) is harder to specify: there was woefully little action in response to the attack of the Marine barracks (or the bombing of the US Embassy that preceded it, or the concurrent French barracks or to their incidents). Ronald Reagan may have seemed gung go - and his admirers and hagiographers like to see him as heroic - but his administration was rather prostrate in the face of terror* (Osama bin Laden et al even cited Lebanon in their belief the US would be cowed by a major attack(s).)

Though his tactics, strategy and execution were mostly awful, one can argue that the WoT began in earnest with Bush though in fact, in contradiction with many lies and distortions put out by many on the right, Clinton did indeed start the effort in a serious way. So I'd say the interviewee arguably got it about right...

*It's only recently that SOMEONE took out the animal responsible for many of the atrocities in the 80's (a target I used to dream of when in the military and who played a small part in my decision to join up) including those mentioned.

The guy was being interviewed about Woolwich & Islamic radical terror. I thought it interesting he did not include the timeline for major terror attacks related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, may be just did not want to take the interview off focus.

[SteeleJoe]

No doubt the War on Terrorism will go on for generations. It was actually going on long, long before 9/11, when it was given a name and a face. It might change, but it will go on.

As a point of detail the interviewee, quoted 1998 as the commencement date - the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa. For some reason did not use the timing of PLO affiated or Hizbollah terrorist attacks e.g. suicide bombing of US Marines in 1983 in Lebanon.

Not sure if it's you or him but there seems to be a bit of confusion of terms.

"Terrorism" certainly didn't begin in 1983, it began thousands of years before. Not even modern terrorism began in Lebanon.

The "war on terror" (a ridiculous term though not a ridiculous goal) is harder to specify: there was woefully little action in response to the attack of the Marine barracks (or the bombing of the US Embassy that preceded it, or the concurrent French barracks or to their incidents). Ronald Reagan may have seemed gung go - and his admirers and hagiographers like to see him as heroic - but his administration was rather prostrate in the face of terror* (Osama bin Laden et al even cited Lebanon in their belief the US would be cowed by a major attack(s).)

Though his tactics, strategy and execution were mostly awful, one can argue that the WoT began in earnest with Bush though in fact, in contradiction with many lies and distortions put out by many on the right, Clinton did indeed start the effort in a serious way. So I'd say the interviewee arguably got it about right...

*It's only recently that SOMEONE took out the animal responsible for many of the atrocities in the 80's (a target I used to dream of when in the military and who played a small part in my decision to join up) including those mentioned.

The guy was being interviewed about Woolwich & Islamic radical terror. I thought it interesting he did not include the timeline for major terror attacks related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, may be just did not want to take the interview off focus.Ah, well then he WASN'T talking about "the war on terror" but rather Islamist terrorism. It mostly began in the 80's but the Palestinians and their fight with Israel has little to do with the Lebanon bombings per se and the actions of al Fatah (et al) in the 70s was not Islamist terror: those guys were not acting with an Islamist ideology - and indeed would not be looked upon kindly by the Islamists of today in many ways as they were largely secular and more Marxist than anything else.

"Terrorism committed by Muslims" isn't at all the same thing as "Islamist terrorism". An action can be the former without being the latter (though theses days it rarely, if ever, is).

EDIT to Add:I tried not to go on too long in this post and as a result oversimplified a bit but at the risk of continuing to do so I will add that any examination of modern Islamist terror needs to go back to the watershed year of 1979: the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan being two of the most crucial catalysts.

Edited May 30, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Naam]

Another one bites the dust.

Prez Obama has decimated al Qaeda, principally by using drones. Drone attacks are what we see. The effective attacks would be impossible however without superb intelligence in all respects, on the ground in particular.

We have a successful formula here.

The extremists have become helpless against it.

"Official Sub-Honorary Expert 3rd Class"

indeed!

[Publicus]

Another one bites the dust.

Prez Obama has decimated al Qaeda, principally by using drones. Drone attacks are what we see. The effective attacks would be impossible however without superb intelligence in all respects, on the ground in particular.

We have a successful formula here.

The extremists have become helpless against it.

I point this out only because it is very, very common that people conflate the Taliban with al Qaeda (and one or both with the Mujahadeen): this was an attack against the Pakistani Taliban, not al Q - a separate entity.

And the drones have indeed been used effectively - though obviously in way at times not without some legitimate reasons for concern or criticism - against both groups.

Kudos for pointing out the role of intel and I'd like to specific that much of that is through the very dangerous work of special operations (military and paramilitary) guys on the ground in addition to the people connecting dots in their more comfortable and safe offices.

Edit to Add:

The formula is successful but intrinsically limited and not without some unwanted but virtually unavoidable repercussions that are deleterious in strategic terms. I think that those repercussion are or can be ultimately worth incurring given the gains made, but not without a corresponding effort to tactically counteract them in ways that are not confined to use of force.

And I'm not sure I'd go as far as "helpless"...

I'd noted that "the extremists" are helpless.

You're not comfortable with the notion of "helpless," which I can accept.

"The extremists" includes all of 'em. We've hit the extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the horn of Africa and in other places. There are different groupings of 'em, but I'm confident that you would recognize my choice of words and characterization, i.e., extremist mass murderers is what they are.

[F430murci]

Heard he was # 2 on television here in States. Something is working well now. Seems like we had a heck of a problem getting top command early on. Now they are falling pretty rapidly.

Eventually, they will get the drift and not want to be in command lest they get a visit by Mr. Drone. Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

They had their chance to run around in the dirty PJs preaching Allah and smoking the Afghan top commodity, opium, with impunity, but they screwed up, killed the wrong innocents and now they will pay the price.

[SteeleJoe]

Another one bites the dust.

Prez Obama has decimated al Qaeda, principally by using drones. Drone attacks are what we see. The effective attacks would be impossible however without superb intelligence in all respects, on the ground in particular.

We have a successful formula here.

The extremists have become helpless against it.

I point this out only because it is very, very common that people conflate the Taliban with al Qaeda (and one or both with the Mujahadeen): this was an attack against the Pakistani Taliban, not al Q - a separate entity.

And the drones have indeed been used effectively - though obviously in way at times not without some legitimate reasons for concern or criticism - against both groups.

Kudos for pointing out the role of intel and I'd like to specific that much of that is through the very dangerous work of special operations (military and paramilitary) guys on the ground in addition to the people connecting dots in their more comfortable and safe offices.

Edit to Add:

The formula is successful but intrinsically limited and not without some unwanted but virtually unavoidable repercussions that are deleterious in strategic terms. I think that those repercussion are or can be ultimately worth incurring given the gains made, but not without a corresponding effort to tactically counteract them in ways that are not confined to use of force.

And I'm not sure I'd go as far as "helpless"...

I'd noted that "the extremists" are helpless.

You're not comfortable with the notion of "helpless," which I can accept.

"The extremists" includes all of 'em. We've hit the extremists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the horn of Africa and in other places. There are different groupings of 'em, but I'm confident that you would recognize my choice of words and characterization, i.e., extremist mass murderers is what they are.

I know who you mean when you say extremists and I have no problem with that as a generic term for a whole range of groups. No reason to pretend (other than obfuscation) I had any issue with that word or that anything I wrote would suggest I did.

I'm also well up to speed on where and how we've applied this tactic and others and fairly knowledgeable in regards to the various permutations of Islamist groups and the degree to which they are and aren't interconnected, but thanks. (It's been an interest of mine - professionally to a small degree but much more a personal one - for about 30 years).

My points were, clearly:

1) al Qaeda - who you specified - is NOT the Pakistani Taliban, but this strike was on the latter and not the former.

2) the extremists, in my opinion, are NOT helpless.

[F430murci]

Trouble is it's like pulling sharks teeth. There is always another ready to take it's place.

When you are trying to eradicate a disease it's not easy, many suffer before a total cure is found.

A lot of truth and wisdom there. Perhaps diseases of the mind are the most dangerous and impossible to eradicate safely or without collateral damage. Sad, but realistic fact of life for centuries.

[Ulysses G.]

Unfortunately, humans like these have to be absolutely beat into the ground. Overwhelming force is the only thing they comprehend or respect.

That seems to be the case with radical Islamic terrorists all over the world.