CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are.

This is a shocking find . I didn't know this but the CIA is killing people just by suspicion of association to terrorist.

Photo below is from the news story

.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”

.

The artical goes on to say,

The Journal reports that the growth in clusters of people targeted by the CIA has required the agency to tell its Pakistani counterparts about mass attacks. When the agency expects to kill 20 or more people at once, then it’s got to give the Pakistanis notice

How can they know how many are going to be killed and still give notice?

Fundamentally, though, it’s a question of policy: whether it’s acceptable for the CIA to kill someone without truly knowing if he’s the bombsmith or the laundry guy.

The Journal reports that the CIA’s willingness to strike without such knowledge — sanctioned, in full, by President Barack Obama — is causing problems for the State Department and the military.

The Cia is a filth spot and I hope it burries The Administration who has approved this lawlessness. The link below is to the full story.

www.wired.com...

CIA does what ever the hell they want. They are the real Government. They sell drugs, spy on you, any thing goes. Dont be so surprised.

u didnt know that ,really?
second line
dont wanna get in trouble
but #
yes the usa has been blowing up people without trial
so who are the [george bush prenounsation] trrreerreist
i would tell u but i would be labelled a speech impeachement myself

Through the collateral damage of innocents the CIA are likely creating more terrorists. Some kid's parents get taken out either due to suspicion or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and guess what? That kid wants to get back at the oppressors when he grows up. Cycle repeats, blood money keeps flowing.

Whether or not this article is from a source with an established "anti-American" agenda (I don't think Wired is), and assuming facts have not been embellished or sensationalized, this is a terrifying development.

Somehow though, I am not surprised, considering the general direction this Nation's foreign policies are heading.

It's not just drones, and it's not just the CIA.
This happens on the ground too.

I guess the worst part about drones, rather than bullets, is that drones have no conscience, and the "pilots" never look at them eye to eye. Besides, the pilots can be home to the wife and kids, just in time for dinner after a strike.

reply to post by inivux


The original article mentioned on the Wired page is from the Wall Street Journal.

reply to post by CherubBaby

The Journal reports that the CIA’s willingness to strike without such knowledge — sanctioned, in full, by President Barack Obama — is causing problems for the State Department and the military.

Nothing burns my bridge more than this issue of drones right now. Free roaming death angels that know no boundaries of International Law, Geography or Morality.

I think they like to find people gathered in groups. Some kind of dark return to the ethos of Viet Nam when more bodies meant more dead VC.

"If they run, they're VC. If they stand still they're well disciplined VC."-- Door Gunner , from the movie Full Metal Jacket.

reply to post by CherubBaby


The areas the drones are hitting are the parts inside Pakistan where the Pakistani government wont even go. They, Pakistani government, have made several deals with the extremists in those areas.

They attack cross border into Afghanistan.

Is there any reason we shouldnt respond? They dont seem to care who they target, so why not return the favor?

Well they shouldnt hate our freedoms and they shouldnt of have done 911. That will teach em.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CherubBaby

 

They dont seem to care who they target, so why not return the favor?

Because we are supposed to be the "civilized" ones.

How about that Obama? He was a real winner huh? And a Peace Prize recipient to boot!

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by CherubBaby

 

They dont seem to care who they target, so why not return the favor?

Because we are supposed to be the "civilized" ones.

How about that Obama? He was a real winner huh? And a Peace Prize recipient to boot!

I said it about Obama during the election, and have repeated it to people in these forums. What a person knows and says as a candidate for President, and what that personknows and says after he becomes President are completely different.

Its easy to criticise and make accusations, but once you get all the puzzle pieces things can change very quickly.

As far as being civilised I believe we are. We could easily just use B-52's and carpet bomb the region. The enemy we are engaged with doesnt use open warfare tactics. There are no tank divisions, an airforce, naval assets etc etc etc.

When we look at the complete picture, we must realize at some point its not always going to be the 101st air assault or the 82 airborne being engaged. Sometimes its going to be an unmanned drone, or a busboy with a silencer at the cafe in Khyber pass.

The death of civilians, while tragic and should be limited at all costs, only takes into account US / allied actions. I find it interesting that people will sing that song, and only that song, while refusing to even acknowledge that the Taliban / Al Queida and several other groups of the same caliber purposely place civilians in harms way to use as propoganda among other things.

So I get why people want to drag Bush / Obama before the criminal court. I just dont see how those arguments are anything but cowardice when they ignore the same "crimes" on the flip side of the coin.

Justice is either universal or its not. Since the arguments to date are not universal, then the enemy gets the plague or our drone strikes, whichever gets to them first.

reply to post by Xcathdra

a busboy with a silencer at the cafe in Khyber pass.

LOLololololo.....

reply to post by Xcathdra


If we bomb indiscriminately we only compound our problems. For every person that dies, terrorist or not, there are going to be survivors. If these people have human emotions, they're gonna want a little payback. So for every "terrorist" we kill, 4 or 5 more spring up. It makes sense to limit the number of new terrorists we create or pretty soon we'll be ass deep in the swamp in alligator country.

I'm not denying the atrocities committed by the Taliban or al-Qaeda at all; I'm simply saying that we are supposed to be better than them. If they want to kill women and children, let that be on their heads and their souls; but as an American I don't want any part of it. I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund a program that uses lethal force indiscriminately.

Finally, I don't care how you spin it; there's nothing justifiable about shooting a missile into a crowd of unknowns because a target is thought to be there. Wait until the target leaves the area and is on his own, that's all I'm asking.

i'm glad both governments found common ground. diplomacy does work. blowing up 19 or less, without trial or evidence doesn't warrant approval.

20 or more a heads up courtesy email is sent.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Looks like a UAV.

Originally posted by OldCorp
If we bomb indiscriminately we only compound our problems. For every person that dies, terrorist or not, there are going to be survivors. If these people have human emotions, they're gonna want a little payback. So for every "terrorist" we kill, 4 or 5 more spring up. It makes sense to limit the number of new terrorists we create or pretty soon we'll be ass deep in the swamp in alligator country.

The flip side to the coin deals with how those deaths occur and are reported. How can it be claimed that we dont know who we are killing, when we dont know the names of the people killed? As far as creating terrorists I agree, however its a 2 way street. Whats to say civilians arent intentionally misled or forced to be present with targeted members? Whats to say they arent threatened with the loss of their lives if they dont make the claims family members / non terrorists were killed by an American UAV?

People seem to ignore the fact that tactic has been used in the past, both in Iraq and afghanistan, with another incident in Yemen. Even before the US presence in Afghanistan, any person who didnt comply with the Taliban were executed. Why would that tactic change with a Us invasion? If anything the Taliban / Al Queida can run up the body count on their side by their own actions and simply for the others to make the claim that the west did it?

Originally posted by OldCorp
I'm not denying the atrocities committed by the Taliban or al-Qaeda at all; I'm simply saying that we are supposed to be better than them. If they want to kill women and children, let that be on their heads and their souls; but as an American I don't want any part of it. I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund a program that uses lethal force indiscriminately.

A valid concern and point however I dont want my tax dollars being spent on DNA analysis and massive cleanup because planes were hijacked. i dont want my tax dollars being spent on rebuilding embassies in Africa due to bombings. I dont want my tax dollars being spent on plugging the whole in the side of the USS Cole.

I am however ok with my tax dollars being used in a manner that protects our shores and our citizens. Al Queida should have looked long term before the attacks occured, and the Taliban should ave looked down the road when we wanted Bin Laden turned over.

*- A person goes to downtown detroit and watches a peace protest, listening to the people talking about turning the other cheek while engaging in dialogue. Once the speech is done, the guy watching walks up to the speaker and as hard as they can jacks him in the face, sending him to the ground.

The protestor gets up off the ground and is ready to attack the guy who hit him, when the guy who hit him starts telling the protestor to tunr the other cheek, engage in dialogue etc. The protestor backs down and starts to talk, when the guy jacks the protestor in his fface again, sending him back to the ground. Again he gets up and is ready to attack when the guy again uses the turn the other cheek speech the protestor gave. The protestor again backs down, and again, the guy jacks him in the face and he goes down to the ground.

Moral of the story - There are times, rare times, when a line must be drawn and the battle joined. People must understand that there will be times where the only option left is war.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Finally, I don't care how you spin it; there's nothing justifiable about shooting a missile into a crowd of unknowns because a target is thought to be there. Wait until the target leaves the area and is on his own, that's all I'm asking.

edit on 11/8/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

Again a fair point, but again how do we know that the drone strikes are killing innocent civilians? I find it interesting that when information comes out that is difficult to substantiate people will believe it at first glance only because it targets the Us government and its actions.

Its one thing to make a stand based on right and wrong given the totality of corcumstances. Its something else entirely when half of the picture is ignored because it doesnt blame the US. Its compounded when the view is based on personal feelings that are hidden underneath a different and totally unrelated issue.

Like how countries try to run the blockade into Gaza, arguing its a humanitarian crisis and they only want to delvier supplies. If thats the case, then why dont they use Egypt or Isreali ports to ensure the supplies get in?

The excuse of aid for gaza is in fact hijacking that issue in order to engage Israel in conflict.

If they truely were concerned about the Palestinians, then they would be ok getting supplies to them by established means.

Originally posted by randomname
i'm glad both governments found common ground. diplomacy does work. blowing up 19 or less, without trial or evidence doesn't warrant approval.

20 or more a heads up courtesy email is sent.

Our Constitution does not apply to foreigners in another country.
Its not a civil or criminal action that took place, but a hostile engagement between 2 sides who are at war.

If you find yourself under attack, are you going to defend yourself or call for a time out to those trying to kill you so you can file charges as well as an amicus brief?

If you are walking down the street and you hear gunshots zipping by your ears your going to look to see whats going on. When you turn around you see 10 people walking towards you, with 1 person in that crowd being the gunmen what are you going to do?

Stand there and be killed because unarmed people are blocking your site path and you dont have a clean shot?
Or would you return fire while trying to seek cover. If no cover is present, then what do you do? do you return fire or run the zig zag movement?

Generally those are the views. People seem to be under the impression that action cannot be taken until they are shot at first. People also are under the impression that unarmed people dont pose a threat. Are they being forced by the gunman to surround him? Or, are they part of the plan (members of a terrorist group) who are looking to matyr themselves solely for propoganda purposes on their side?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Justice is universal in the afterlife not this world.And not certainly in USA.

I love how you try to justify murder war or no war.