It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and "Terrorize" Civilians

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and "Terrorize" Civilians


www.democracynow.org

A new report on the secret U.S. drone war in Pakistan says the attacks have killed far more civilians than acknowledged, traumatized a nation and undermined international law. In "Living Under Drones," researchers conclude the drone strikes "terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities." The study concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United Stat
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Are there crazy people in Pakistan?

OF COURSE!

That's what you get when you destabalize a region, you get crazies!

That's not to say there's alot of islamic indoctrination in Pakistan, there is and I firmly believe that fanaticism is a disease of the mind, but is death the answer?

It's a pretty sad state of affairs and there is only one thing I can say!!

And that is that I think that every president will only get worse and worse.
But I can and will still hope for the opposite and smile everytime I can!

www.democracynow.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Crazy? Nah. They're really sick and tired of drone strikes. Pay attention America because these babies are now in a sky near you!



Pakistanis protest U.S. drone attacks


old.tehrantimes.com...

[

June 6, 2011

Thousands of Pakistanis have staged an anti-U.S. demonstration in the port city of Karachi, calling for an end to U.S. drone attacks, and Washington's interference in the region.

Pakistan's largest religious party, the Jamaat-e-Islami, organized the sit-in demonstration in the country's largest city, Karachi, a Press TV correspondent reported.

“The main message to the U.S. is that they should leave this territory, they have invaded this region for the past eleven years. I can explicitly say, the misery of the people has increased,” said a representative of Jamaat-e-Islami, Syed Munawar Hassan.

He further added that the U.S. mission in war-wrecked Afghanistan has been a complete failure.

The demonstrators called for an end to non-UN-sanctioned U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan and the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

Leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami say that the party's primary objective is the unmasking of the United States' real intentions in the region.

“America has taken control of the Pakistani government. We have gathered to show the U.S. and Pakistani governments that we will not control and tolerate U.S. supremacy,” said Mohammad Hussein Mehnati, the Jamaat-e-Islami leader in Karachi.

On Friday, a U.S. missile attack targeting a militant compound in the South Waziristan tribal region killed at least eight people.

The strike was the ninth to be reported in Pakistan's tribal areas, which are located close to the Afghan border, since a U.S. attack in the city of Abbottabad that allegedly killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in early May.

The Pakistani parliament recently passed a resolution condemning the U.S. attack in Abbottabad and demanding a review of ties with the U.S. and other Western countries.

The resolution also called for an independent investigation into the attack, which the parliament called a unilateral action and a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty.

The resolution said the repetition of such attacks could have dire consequences for peace and security in the region and the world.




Here's another source about this study, CNN for those who need MSM, www.cnn.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I really do pray and wish and hope that something will happen to make things right someday. That the innocent will not need to suffer for the crimes of a few any more. I do believe that there is a force of good out there that can make things right.

Sometimes I feel like we should stop everything. That we need to throw a wrench in this machine that keeps on going, that we keep feeding and in turn takes and destroys. There is no balance in how we live. There is no justice in the ways of war only multiplication of the problem. Planting more seeds of hate for the future.

Father please forgive them for they know not what they do. I truly understand what that means today.

I am not really religious but the more I live and the more I read these books the more they do make sense and they do explain the problems humanity faces.
edit on 26-9-2012 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Don't recall at the moment where I read it, but I've seen the claim that drones are killing something like 50 civilians for every militant.

Will try and find a link, but if that is even remotely true, it is well beyond disgusting and barbaric.

The idea that civilian casualties of that magnitude are found acceptable is truly horrible. Not to mention that the innocent survivors have every motivation to then become hostile militants themselves.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It is a simple, calculated risk.

Somewhere, in someone's mind, the probability of collateral damage does not outweigh the benefit of assassinating a "terrorist."

This is not a defense of the act, of course, but an inescapable consequence of the use of "the means of war" to wage a campaign against the enemy.

In all that the key words are "enemy," "terrorist," and of course, "war." Effecting such states of affairs as the declaration of war, the identification of an "enemy," and whether terrorism is a civil matter or a military one is not in our purview to determine.

Those said to represent, or "lead" us make sch decisions.

Do we really have a voice?

I wonder why it is acceptable to use a missile instead of a squad of officers, perhaps supported by local soldiers? Maybe they don't think that way? Maybe dealing out remote controlled death is too intoxicating of a capability for any government to use.

Yes, wherever their is war their is "Terror".... which is why some folks declare war in the first place.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




I don't think I can ever say it as well as you just did. Starred!



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
what the hell did you think the damn drones were doing... dropping flowers... they're commiting murder and spreading terror every damn day .. no need for a damn study to state the obvious or does that make murder and terror more palatable for the unwashed ..mindless masses ....
edit on 26/9/12 by Expat888 because: correcting translation...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Originally posted by Maxmars
It is a simple, calculated risk.

Somewhere, in someone's mind, the probability of collateral damage does not outweigh the benefit of assassinating a "terrorist."


It's worse than a calculated risk. It's a legal theory:




U.S. Drone Policy: Standing Near Terrorists Makes You A Terrorist

Obama, Becker and Shane write, was angry when informed that the first drone strike after he took office had killed innocent Pakistanis. But one of the measures the administration embraced to prevent future innocent casualties was to embrace a method of counting combatants that would rope in more innocents.

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the Times reports. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."



It's simply breathtaking how far we've come.


And it's not 'someone'.... it's Obama.

Let's be very clear about this!

edit on 27-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
It is a simple, calculated risk.

Somewhere, in someone's mind, the probability of collateral damage does not outweigh the benefit of assassinating a "terrorist."





You can dress a pig anyway you want. It's still a damn pig. They can call drone murders a calculated risk, a theory or anything else -- but these drone strikes are still a crime against humanity.

Not only are we murdering civilians with state-sponsored terror, we are creating PTSD in the victim population. Further, we are creating real terrorists.

This lawlessness and total corruption has completely overtaken Washington. This corruption has apparently overtaken the UN too because there is precious little being done to stop our rogue war machine and intelligence services.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Most of the people killed are children. Drone strikes usually hit schools and hospitals, I don't think anyone can defend the terror strikes



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
There is no 'defense' against the notion that these strikes as part of a "just war."

This debate has been ongoing among humans since further back than western civilization.

We have identified foreign national individuals who, via undisclosed evidence, become designated as 'hostile enemies" in the war against terrorism. The President of our country appears to take the execution of these individuals quite seriously. So much so, that he is reported to have a direct hand in the decision to strike. Some could characterize this in a very negative way; but were we to give the Commander in Chief the benefit of the doubt, there could be an argument made for the honorable idea of his wanting to be certain that the risk of harm to innocents is acceptable.

Unfortunately, only in the politics of diplomacy and warfare is there such a thing as an "acceptable" loss of innocent life. Humans are not numbers, there is no metric to measure exactly what has been lost, because we have no idea how promising or threatening some will be in the future. We can only speculate and suggest possibilities.

For my part, I find the use of such violence abhorrent. But I have witnessed the real world at war; I am personally familiar with the morass of political thespian posturing over, against, or in support of such acts. It is a disheartening thing to watch.

Declaring war on terror was almost an identical ploy as the war against drugs. It coincidentally is quite a profitable venture in terms of the increasing use of 'contracting' private corporations who 'front' for the various 'defense-related' initiatives the new contract clearing house was created to engender (I'm referring to the DHS of course.)

I find terrorism to be a criminal act, and I think explosive strikes against criminals to be a world away from justice. Why don't police and law enforcement officers simply throw a grenade into a brothel to kill a pimp - likely in the exploitation and slavery of their "workers?" because it would be a foolish approach? Because they can't answer to the innocents for what happened? Should we not fire bomb the mafia? Or perhaps just bulldoze a building occupied by a meth-lab, regardless of who is in it? ... "Not on our own soil," you say? Rest assured it is coming.... it is entirely in keeping with the path chosen; firing multimillion dollar weapon systems to "eliminate" a "threat."

When the target is foreign, what true redress is there? To whom does one appeal? "International law?" That would be a cynical and cruel joke. Dead men tell no tales, they say.

Is it terror? Of course it is. It it acceptable - it is to them... they wanted and got war. What you and I think is nothing to them. Just noise from the peanut gallery, and squeals from the lemmings they herd.

Find any member of the political duopoly... and watch them use every ounce of their intelligence to justify why "this has to be done." quickly followed by a "classified" caveat... because "we can't handle their truth!" Which is their way of saying this is none of your business. You think that nice state senator you found so charming and 'good' will change it? Think again. They have a political career to cultivate... and if you resist the duopoly... you will have no such career.

The system's been "gamed."

I find it amusing that some think this is some kind of justification. It's not... it's an "I told you so."

Let the politicians war, and you lose all control. For them, this is "cool."

For my dead comrades, and the permanently embattled people trying to live their lives in peace... it's rape.... and their ain't no brakes on the rape train. Who will stop them if not us?

The Republican and the Democrats MUST go. They've monopolized the last century... and we've descended into personal assassination as a tool of 'civil control.' We've lost some of our most valued freedoms; and we've been told that to question them or their celebrity 'face-men/women' is to question the nation itself and thus you will be "unpatriotic." It's easy when you are the media, you are the corporation, you are someone else's tool.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join