Exclusive: Leaked Pakistani report confirms high civilian death toll in drone strikes

What does my eye spy...a document talking about how 147 civilians, not war combatants, were killed by drone strikes. Within that 147, 94 of them were children. So, the government is handing guns over to known terrorists, they're trying to ban guns from the US citizens, all the while killing innocent victims in other countries?

I'm sorry, did you say 'hypocrite'? If not, wake up.

 

Not a single reply? I would imagine that someone would want to comment on this. Especially those who are for this war on terror, how they feel like the US is doing good for all mankind. Not even those who are against these drone strikes are saying anything.

I would love to say I'm surprised, but I'm truly not. How's the royal baby coming along? I'm sure someone has a blow by blow account on how they're coming along...

 

They would only be hypocrites if they were purposely targeting innocents, which of course just as the US always has is not the case.

I wish some people would use their heads and realize that disliking Obama does not mean that every little thing that happens under his watch is a conspiracy or a hypocritical statement.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed as collateral damage due to our invasion under Bush, yet I am utterly convinced that Bush took great pains to try to minimize those numbers as much as possible and in fact since I was actually there I can tell you for fact that US policy is and always will be to protect innocent civilians even with the lives of US soldiers if possible.

147 people is regrettable, but it is also just the nature of a war fought around civilians.

 

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed as collateral damage?

Source?

 

This is a lie. Obama's reports show only one dead citizen dead from drones. Only one that's it. So this report is bullsh!t. These are precision strikes. If Obama says only one innocent killed then its only one. http://raniakhalek.com/2013/06/05/c...ue-who-its-killing-in-targeted-drone-strikes/

 

Did I blame one person or the other? Look at my entire post, I never once mentioned any names. Why? To me, it doesn't matter who is the one ordering it, whose the one running the drones, it's the point that innocent lives are being killed. The reality is the Iraq invasion was bogus and the US should never had been over there. All it was for was to keep the oil flowing and so Saddam couldn't dictate the prices to the world. If you believe anything else, you're lying to yourself.

Here's another reality, this issue goes far deeper than just killing innocents. The US isn't liked because of the drones strikes in places like FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), as it's an insult to their God. It's a religious belief for them, another reasoning on why Osama Bin Laden stated that he attacked the US on 9/11, because the US was in their 'holy land'. The reality is this war needs to end and it's not going to. The US is setting up to start fighting a war in Syria. It's a never ending war, the US will always spur up more terrorists, more tax dollars will flushed down the drain, and this country will continue to go into eternal turmoil because of it.

I'd invite you to read a book about this: "The Thistle and the Drone": How America's War on Terror Become a Global War on Tribal Islam by Ahmed, Akbar. This is a man who was apart of Tribal agency (South Waziristan) to track down wanted men. He talks about how he captured one of the most wanted man without firing a single bullet, without using drones, and tried the man for all of his crimes. It could've been possible that a diplomatic approach could've been used to capture bin Laden. All the US knows is that they knew where bin Laden was, they stormed his house by dropping in Navy Seals by a helicopter, and they killed him.

The harsh reality is the US government's foreign policy is a joke and needs to change. It's much easier to send in drone strikes than actually doing some real work. If they really wanted to end terrorism, they'd start by charging individuals for the crimes that they've committed, not just execute them all.

 

kinda like illegal aliens wont get obamacare?

 

your "work" would result in many more deaths, both American and foreign

and yes you CLEARLY were calling Obama a hypocrite in your op LOL @ you trying to now claim otherwise.

 

Firstly, how would my "work" result in many more deaths? Secondly, not one aspect of that had solely pin pointed on Obama. If you knew half of what I believed in, rather than coming up with your own assumptions, you'd know that my assessment of 'hypocrite' goes a lot farther than just Obama.

Would you care for me to list out all of the politicians that I believe are full of it? I can assure you, you'll have a long list to read up on. War is crap, ANYONE who advertises for such a thing, tells people it's for the greater good of this country, is lying to every single one of us. I'm assuming you served and I thank you for your service, but it's never necessary. If the politicians & the military-industrial complex folks want to wage a war, they can go over and fight a war. Stop sending America citizens over to their death sentence because they get their jollies at the sound of missile launching.

In just that assessment, I'm sure you pick a few politicians that fit that bill, fairly quickly. However, I'm more than welcome to name some.

 

Sorry, I've no interest in debating with someone who truly thinks anyone sends soldiers to war "for the jollies of it"

 

I accept your surrender.

 

He was CLEARLY calling the US hypocritical... though most drone strikes have occurred under Obama. I walked away with the understanding that the US says one thing and does another quite a bit. The values we claim to hold are easily set aside for convenience. It is an overall US attitude really.

The thing that people must come to understand about Obama... is that "Bush did it" isn't a valid excuse. Obama is Bush on steroids. You will find no traction in that argument. Instead... overcome the convenience of complacency and address what your leadership is doing... and how it could possibly be undone... and act before it is too late.

Libya showed us the ignorance of the actions we took there, and are taking in Syria.

We need to walk away from Syria completely, or help Assad destroy the AQ factions.

 

Unfortunately, the US is on the wrong side of the Syrian war, as always. The US is supporting the Free Syrian Army, but most of those folks are going to a known Al Qaeda faction known as 'Al Nusra Front'. Russia, Iran, Iraq, and I believe a few others are siding with Assad in fighting back against the rebels, while the US, France, Britain, and I also believe a few others are siding with the rebels.

It's an overall messed up situation and I don't understand why the government continues to poke it's nose into other peoples business. It just continues to lead to bigger issues than what they originally were in the first place.

 

Obama's CIA said there is only one innocent person killed in drone strikes and Obama doesn't lie. All these people are terrorist. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2224627

 

Maybe obama just likes killing kids....

We know he hates babies, and loves partial birth abortions.

 

/

How do you know? Has Obama shared his top-secret target list with you?

BTW people get targetted and killed by drones due to "suspicious behavior" (criteria they refuse to specifically define). The identities of those shot at are NOT established before, or even after the strike. They kill people without even so much as finding their name.

Therefore "we only target known terrorists" (not your quote but a common type of lie) is actually a very widespread myth.

Obama said that targeting a US citizen with a drone without due process of law is unconstitutional. Panetta admitted that Obama uses no due process. Obama said that people would be terrified if an outside nation were firing missiles or rockets at their country, and that a country has the right to not have to live like that. Obama admits he isn't even really convinced his drone program is legal or constitutional. He admits that the Gitmo proves the USA flouts the rule of law. Obama claimed that having transparency to his drone problem was extremely important and promised to be transparent about it (but he insists on secrecy even from the courts).

Obama is CONSTANTLY running his lips about how he stands for one thing, then he goes and does the complete opposite.

If you think they go to great lengths to protect innocents, why do they do "double-tap" drone strikes? That is, attack a target, then wait a few minutes to a couple hours, then hit the same exact spot again. This has killed medics and good-samaritans responding to an unknown explosion to help people. A lot of medics now admit they can't even go help.

So why would they do that second strike?

 

Drone strikes are only relatively precise weapons. They fire a Hellfire anti-tank missle, which carries a high explosive shaped charge (so it can burn through most tank armor). Anyone/thing near the point of impact will be sprayed with shrapnel, missle casing, the actual blast, plus any secondary explosion from the target - likely if it's a gasoline-powered vehicle or carrying munitions or other explosives.

Compared to a B-52 strike or a MLRS full barrage or rounds from tube artillery, it's a precision weapon. Compared to a sniper rifle in the hands of a marksman, it's a small-area weapon.

Besides all the collateral damage & deaths, Hellfires are v. expensive. We can't afford to play whack-a-mole with them, which is why presumably only priority targets are attacked this way. @ some point, we need to actually sit & talk with our opponents. If we can't negotiate @ all with them, we'll need to evaluate whether the game is worth the candle. We can't bleed men, money & materiel in the Middle East indefinitely.

 

You've just hit the nail right on the head. Folks might not be dying by the initial strike, but they could very well be dying because medics won't go and save them, in fear of being killed.

A very valid assessment and one that has little to no oversight. It's simply 'war sucks, just the aspect that comes along with war'.

 

Presumably, it's the other way around. In fact, this would explain all these continuous strikes (if they are so effective and helpful, why are they only just shooting more and more of them.) The more drone strikes, the more hellfire missiles they can buy and use, which means more taxpayer dollars can be passed to their offense contractor buddies.

A MASSIVE chunk of our military budget is pure waste, and buying weapons we don't need. Cost doesn't deter these congressmen, unless it's a cost that's too low.

 

Every single time we talk about drone strikes and people say we aren't trying to hurt innocents, I ask people to give me ANY explanation for the double-taps.. They never do.

Why do terrorists put secondary explosives on their suicide car bombs? We know exactly why.

The secondary strikes prove terrorism. It's as simple as that. The signature strikes prove we are not just attacking "known" terrorists and militants.

These things are conclusively proven with physical evidence. People just try to pass on the unsubstantiated reassurance from the very politicians who LIED about the program. It may be enough to convince them but we should have higher standards.

 

so now you're claiming that Obama is targeting civilians and that the military is going along with it?

 

That's because there isn't any valid reason. What valid reason could anyone possibly give? To potentially kill any terrorists trying to help their friends from surviving? As you said, it's not that they strike two or three times, not necessarily in rapid succession, but they're waiting some time in between shots to maximize the amount of people they can kill.

This isn't something that the US government should be utilizing as their foreign policy as a means of fighting the war on terror. If one of the known "terrorists" are wanted for a crime, work diplomatically to capture them. If they can't do that, why are they freely able to blow up other countries? They're working diplomatically to get Snowden, I'd love (theoretically speaking) to see the government try and send drones over to Russia and start bombing up the Moscow airport.

People don't even see or want to see reality that's staring at them right in the face. They'd rather take the lie so they can just ignore the facts and say 'That's what the politician told me', then utilize it as an excuse for being numb to the world around them. For me, it's no longer a valid reason anymore. If you can't honestly put facts together and come up with your own valid conclusion, then you're effectively destroying the democracy they're looking for.

 

Bull. If you are a ten year old little girl and just see your older brother get hurt that kid will run to help her brother. Just to be hot by Obama double tap.
The other thing is Obama and the CIA said that only one innocent killed in these attacks. We now know that was an Obama lie.

 

so now you want Diplomatic talks with Afghanistan? LOL I'm sure Afghanistan would LOVE to turn these guys over. The problem is they don't have the ability to do so.

 

Hmmmm...maybe you haven't been following along quite as well as you thought. My statement had nothing to do over the validity of when a child is being killed, as I don't know.

Furthermore, I'm the one that started the thread, I'm aware that 94 out of 147 civilians were children.