Latest U.S. drone strike in Pakistan kills 18

[News_Editor]

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- A United States drone attack in Pakistan's volatile tribal region killed at least eighteen, local media reported Wednesday.

The attack took place in the Danday Darpa Khel area of North Waziristan, not far from the Afghan border, when the unmanned vehicle launched missile strikes against a residential compound and a vehicle. Earlier reports said seven had been killed in the attack, while Geo News later reported a higher death toll at eighteen.

The attack came around one month after the last U.S. drone attack in the region, which took place during the first week of June in the Shawal tehsil area, also in North Waziristan. The attack killed at least seven suspected militants.

In late May, reports indicated that another U.S. drone strike near Miranshah, the main town of North Waziristan, 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.

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 death toll, including the number of civilians 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].)

[Rust Never Sleeps]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

[rijb]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

All killings are. Watch a movie if you want a fair fight.

[lannarebirth]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

Agreed.

[Credo]

Yeah, let's get boots on the ground because that causes a lot of lives to be saved.

[jamhar]

Got no problems with drone strikes.

And apparently neither does the Pakistani military

The drones in use are not very stealthy and very slow,

90% of the strikes are in a 40 mile radius area,

and they can loiter for days making them an easy target for any SAM, or send a F!6 for one

but the Pakistani military has yet to take down a drone.

The US could not operate there without the permission, active or passive, of the Pakistani military

If the Pakistani were so worried about their sovereignty

They could easily clear that space of drones in no time.

But they haven't,

because they privately support the strikes

while publicly criticizing the US.

Its a complex relationship to say the least

Its OK, the US is use to it. It comes with the territory.

This is all just one mans opinion

[F430murci]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

[NeverSure]

Got no problems with drone strikes.

And apparently neither does the Pakistani military

The drones in use are not very stealthy and very slow,

90% of the strikes are in a 40 mile radius area,

and they can loiter for days making them an easy target for any SAM, or send a F!6 for one

but the Pakistani military has yet to take down a drone.

The US could not operate there without the permission, active or passive, of the Pakistani military

If the Pakistani were so worried about their sovereignty

They could easily clear that space of drones in no time.

But they haven't,

because they privately support the strikes

while publicly criticizing the US.

Its a complex relationship to say the least

Its OK, the US is use to it. It comes with the territory.

This is all just one mans opinion

I don't think you are considering the RQ-4 Global Hawk which flies at an altitude of more than 60,000 feet at a speed of 500+ kmh and is beyond the reach of any ground missile. It could probably shoot down any non-NATO fighter that came after it. It can stay airborne for at least 24 hours and hit targets with pinpoint accuracy.

It is stealth and they can't see it anyway.

And let's not forget the MQ-9 Reaper.

And I agree that the Pakistanis like what they do, but have to decry it for political reasons.

This is occurring in that no man's land which is lawless and which even the Pakistani's don't dare go into in places.

[antfish]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

[Steely Dan]

MQ-9 Reaper, now that's a great name, reminds me of a Blue Oyster Cult song.

[midas]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

The USA has such an abysmal record regarding Iraq and Afghanistan ( and even the war in Vietnam is hardly anything to be proud of). How can anyone be sure the people they kill indiscriminately using drones have been correctly identified as being the guilty parties?

[jamhar]

BOC! I even like the SNL version of that song! (gimme more cowbells!!!)

Nope I didnt forget about the global hawk. Regardless of the platform, they are most likely firing the missile of choice, the Hellfire. That has an operational range of 5 miles. So regardless of the platform, you have to get close to the target to engage.

Have they even tried to arm the global hawk yet? thats like trying to put missiles on the U2....... Deliver a $70K missile using a $250M UAV?? . DONT DO IT!

I do agree that the US takes a beating because of political reasons. Like i said, we know the score. We can take it. As long as we can complete the mission!

Thanks for the article on the guardian. I'm always looking for opposing viewpoints. Initially i have to say that its conclusion doesn't pass the smell test. but i'll look at the data objectively and evaluate. Generally numbers dont lie, but people can lie about the numbers. Anyhow Thanks for the article. I'm looking forward to reading it!

[jamhar]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

The USA has such an abysmal record regarding Iraq and Afghanistan ( and even the war in Vietnam is hardly anything to be proud of). How can anyone be sure the people they kill indiscriminately using drones have been correctly identified as being the guilty parties?

"abysmal" Nice. We'll take it. ask the Taliban how they like it.

How can we tell who we are hitting? just the way we knew when we used man air strikes.

You probably forgot that the discussion was man strikes vs UAV strikes.

and finally........We have a WINNER!!!

IF you're digging deep enough to bring up Vietnam, I KNOW you're desperate!

Thank you , i'm going to sleep well tonight!

[NeverSure]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/us-drone-strikes-afghan-civilians

If civilians don't want to be killed, they can stay away from terrorist leaders. My parents taught me that a good way to stay out of trouble was to choose my friends I hung out with carefully.

How do you ID a civilian from a bad guy when they all live together and dress alike?

I think it's fair for people to dislike drone strikes. I also happen to like them. Put boots on the ground in that area and you'll lose a lot of good NATO men.

[NeverSure]

BOC! I even like the SNL version of that song! (gimme more cowbells!!!)

Nope I didnt forget about the global hawk. Regardless of the platform, they are most likely firing the missile of choice, the Hellfire. That has an operational range of 5 miles. So regardless of the platform, you have to get close to the target to engage.

Have they even tried to arm the global hawk yet? thats like trying to put missiles on the U2....... Deliver a $70K missile using a $250M UAV?? . DONT DO IT!

I do agree that the US takes a beating because of political reasons. Like i said, we know the score. We can take it. As long as we can complete the mission!

Thanks for the article on the guardian. I'm always looking for opposing viewpoints. Initially i have to say that its conclusion doesn't pass the smell test. but i'll look at the data objectively and evaluate. Generally numbers dont lie, but people can lie about the numbers. Anyhow Thanks for the article. I'm looking forward to reading it!

The US has accurate missiles with ranges of up to 14 miles such as the Maverick. And remember, the higher they are fired from, the greater the range.

The Global Hawk, at 60,000+ feet altitude is basically for reconnaissance. It has optics that are almost unbelievable. It is more likely that another stealth drone would then be sent in to fire the missile(s) and it also can't be hit from the ground or seen by a fighter. That might be a Reaper.

I know of no confirmed case of a drone being shot down. A few have crashed but I haven't seen any evidence that they were shot down. I could be wrong about that, but I haven't seen any evidence myself.

I any event they work, and they save allied lives.

[folium]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

And the alternative is....?

Denying our armed forces the best technology to get an unpleasant job done more effectively......pathetic & gutless?

[F430murci]

The use of drones, pathetic and gutless.

And the alternative is....?

Denying our armed forces the best technology to get an unpleasant job done more effectively......pathetic & gutless?

I wonder if the same people calling drones gutless and pathetic call those that set off bombs in front of school and shopping centers gutless and pathetic.

I suppose they think fighting to the death with knives would be brave. I would call that pretty dang stupid when you have drones and can do it without risking injury.

[jamhar]

The US has accurate missiles with ranges of up to 14 miles such as the Maverick. And remember, the higher they are fired from, the greater the range.

......

......

"I any event they work, and they save allied lives."

Dont want to get into a pissing contest to see who can agree more

Except to say that I did completely forget about the Maverick

Altho there's been no reports of the Predator A, B or C being outfitted with mavericks.

Maybe its warhead is overkill? (excuse the pun), and they want to limit civi damage as much as possible?

Speaking of the Predator C, now theres a sexy UAV!

GA_Avenger

AESA surveillance, 6500lb payload, (3500 payload internal) Thats a shitload of hellfires!

internal turbofan, internal payload.... this UAV maybe difficult to see.

400mph cruise, 18hr range, and 50kft ceiling all for $15M a copy

The boys at GA have been busy!

[F430murci]

Drones do kind of freak me out a bit though. I keep think of the movie Terminator for some reason.

[simple1]

Anyone interested in the collaboration and protection provided by Pakistani security agencies for the Taliban and Haqqani Network should read Matt Waldman's study "The Sun in the Sky". Very senior Pakistani officials have facilitated the release from Pakistani detention of Taliban and Haqqani leaders. A great deal of double speak coming out of Pakistan in their relations with the US and to protect their interests in Afganistan and foil the Indian government projects & influences within the Karzi government.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/05/19/afghanistan-india-pakistan-karzai-idINDEE94I03K20130519

[mania]

If civilians don't want to be killed, they can stay away from terrorist leaders. My parents taught me that a good way to stay out of trouble was to choose my friends I hung out with carefully.

How do you ID a civilian from a bad guy when they all live together and dress alike?

I think it's fair for people to dislike drone strikes. I also happen to like them. Put boots on the ground in that area and you'll lose a lot of good NATO men.

When I was young I would see things on the news about certain cultures living in deserts & how

at times they were starving & in need of aid. I use to always wonder why the heck they don't just move.

Go were there is good soil & you can grow food.

When I got older I realized they could not as the option was not open to them.

When I hear this option you, & many others before you,mention about folks not living by terrorist I think the same to some degree.

One- we do not know that they even know who is who. Anymore than you or I know all our neighbors

here in Thailand or back home in the USA

Two- we have seen many reports of how a target is painted & how the CIA relies on info given to them

Three- we know this is not in actuality a US military mission at all but a CIA mission with no accountability/oversight for the most part

Again haunted by the "Top Secret" handcuffs

Yes of course a country loses some when they put boots on the ground ( if that would even be allowed )

But if the cause is just why wouldn't they?

How do you ID a civilian from a bad guy?

Have you just given credence then to how they paint a target for a drone to strike & it could be faulty?

If not then I imagine you would use the same methods you use to kill from above when on the ground & seeking your enemy

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

[Credo]

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

"...the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians.." The answer to that probably depends on which side of the divide you are on.

I don't think we are creating more extremists. If nothing is done, they will just view the west as being weak. Remember, their mission is to kill us or convert us. I am really not keen on either of those things happening.

[jamhar]

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

Nice words RNS, but I'm not sure what you are advocating

Are you advocating diplomacy? with whom exactly? From what i can gather, the fractional cells advocate "death to america"

Where do you suggest diplomacy to start on that one? I'm all ears.

I recall after 9/11 that our goal was to take to war to our foes, not have the battle occur on US soil

On that objective, the war has be fairly successful, with a hiccup or two.

Many lives lost, some ours lots of theirs

Many civilian causalities, some ours, lots of theirs (nothing here to be proud of, just the facts)

But that's war.

So the war continues.

now with drones so that we can reduce their civilian causalities and danger to our troops

we are getting more efficient, that's what we do.

If you have a silver bullet to stop this mess, please stand up and say somethng

because this war is costing lives and dollars we dont need to be spending on this

but until then, the war will continue, either on US soil, or abroad.

i rather have it abroad than on US soil.

[Loptr]

The Imperialists at work again... The US people will have to start a revolution to end these atrocities that are committed in the name of "democracy". What a sad state of affairs.

[Loptr]

Got no problems with drone strikes.

And apparently neither does the Pakistani military

The drones in use are not very stealthy and very slow,

90% of the strikes are in a 40 mile radius area,

and they can loiter for days making them an easy target for any SAM, or send a F!6 for one

but the Pakistani military has yet to take down a drone.

The US could not operate there without the permission, active or passive, of the Pakistani military

If the Pakistani were so worried about their sovereignty

They could easily clear that space of drones in no time.

But they haven't,

because they privately support the strikes

while publicly criticizing the US.

Its a complex relationship to say the least

Its OK, the US is use to it. It comes with the territory.

This is all just one mans opinion

Really? I guess you think they are ok as long as the don't take place in your back yard and kill your children. You won't to wait very long before you will be watching the skies when you go outside.

[Loptr]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

The USA has such an abysmal record regarding Iraq and Afghanistan ( and even the war in Vietnam is hardly anything to be proud of). How can anyone be sure the people they kill indiscriminately using drones have been correctly identified as being the guilty parties?

"abysmal" Nice. We'll take it. ask the Taliban how they like it.

How can we tell who we are hitting? just the way we knew when we used man air strikes.

You probably forgot that the discussion was man strikes vs UAV strikes.

and finally........We have a WINNER!!!

IF you're digging deep enough to bring up Vietnam, I KNOW you're desperate!

Thank you , i'm going to sleep well tonight!

No you changed the topic. The original topic was killing innocents with drone strikes.

[jamhar]

Really? I guess you think they are ok as long as the don't take place in your back yard and kill your children. You won't to wait very long before you will be watching the skies when you go outside.

You bomb us, we bomb you back.

Not to difficult to understand.

Not worried about any drones over the US sky's, If that's what you're getting at.

we already have police helicopters, drones are those with the pilots somewhere else.

[mania]

Nice words RNS, but I'm not sure what you are advocating

I recall after 9/11 that our goal was to take to war to our foes, not have the battle occur on US soil

but until then, the war will continue, either on US soil, or abroad.

i rather have it abroad than on US soil.

A bit simplistic but one must wonder which came first the chicken or the egg?

It is not like Terrorism started from one side only & started on 9/11

If one reads back a wider view will be given that many things possibly led up to 9/11

It is in fact hard to disseminate all the info available & really make an

unbiased decision, at least for me it is. Which sources does one trust?

Both sides tell a story & it is up to each to read & decide

As for the war remaining abroad It has always been that way from well before 9/11

I think that is part of the cause & not a part of any solution.

But those that become rich from it as always have no complaints. Supplying armies is big business

& business in the US is very good for a long time now

That it (war/attack ) came for a day on 9/11 to the US is a terrible thing yes. But others have lived a whole life that

was filled with nothing but days like that & not completely of their own making.

Cause & effect will continue until it is stopped.

It is deciding true cause that is the hard part. The effect is a given.

[simple1]

You never hear of drone attacks against Pakistani security people who are training, funding, supplying and providing safe havens for the Taliban & Haqqani. Why is this? Seems to me there is a great deal of bullshit baffles brains going on. Something is terribly wrong with the info being fed to mainstream media.

Many informed people have documented that Pakistani security agents select targets in Afghanistan for terrorist attacks. It is stated that the terrorists actually get paid a reward for each NATO personnel killed; all funded by Pakistan & groups in the Gulf countries. As I've said do some basic research by reading "Sun in the Sky" and "War against the Taliban" that quote and name very high level sources, yet US & NATO appear to be powerless to address the root cause.