168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign

As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years as the CIA has intensified its secret programme against militants along the Afghan border.

This calls into question the "precision accuracy" of drone airstrikes. Either that, or I'm starting to think that if they have the slightest inkling that a "terrorist" may be located in a certain area, they call in a drone strike. What accountability is there for this anyways? It sounds like a license to kill with impunity.

In an extensive analysis of open-source documents, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that 2,292 people had been killed by US missiles, including as many as 775 civilians.


The strikes, which began under President George W Bush but have since accelerated during the presidency of Barack Obama, are hated in Pakistan, where families live in fear of the bright specks that appear to hover in the sky overhead.


In just a single attack on a madrassah in 2006 up to 69 children lost their lives.


Chris Woods, who led the research, said the detailed database of deaths would send shockwaves through Pakistan, where political and military leaders repeatedly denounce the strikes in public, while privately allowing the US to continue.

"All of this means that when things go wrong there is simply no redress for the families of those who have been mistakenly killed."

The research, culled from more than 2,000 news reports, leaked documents and witness statements, show how the drones gradually moved from a rarely used tool, beginning with a single strike in 2004, to a frontline weapon of war.

Unmanned Craft: Check
License to Kill: Check

Oops I screwed up.
Oh, no problem bro


(So urce)

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Maybe the terrorists should quit hiding out on playgrounds.

Just a thought

War on terrorism? More like war on humanity!

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Maybe the terrorists should quit hiding out on playgrounds.

Just a thought

Exactly, because that's where terrorists like to hide. ...


How does one know if they are a terrorist anyways?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Well tell the terrorists to man up and quit hanging out by kids where the children might get hurt. Tell them to come stand out in the desert so we can shoot them with no harm to other people.

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

Well tell the terrorists to man up and quit hanging out by kids where the children might get hurt. Tell them to come stand out in the desert so we can shoot them with no harm to other people.

Ok, but how do we know who is a terrorist? Is there some list Donald Rumsfeld created or something?

How many kids have been killed when the Taliban firebombed schools for allowing girl's to be educated?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Feel free to stick him out there also.

Also the entire cast from Sex in the City

168 children killed by drone strikes. This is wrong.

The problems is that there is no accountability, America is basically putting a massive middle figure up to Pakistan and saying “what you gona do about it?” there is nothing they can do. If this was say 20-30 kids or there about’s I would be saying, regrettable but in war you’re always going to get collateral damage, and this true but jeez 168!. That just shows that they need to think about re-evaluating the use of drones. The people of America should be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue ordering their government to stop these indiscriminate attacks that are killing children if they feel so strongly about it.

However

I am all for the use of drone strikes to naturalise terrorist’s, the problem is that I think this tactic is being used to much and the result is massive avoidable collateral damage. I see it as a kind of catch 22, America and NATO have to protect their own national security but on the other side we have this you can’t avoid collateral damage but you can minimise it and so far they are failing. If Pakistani ISI where more trustworthy it may have been possible to have used Pakistani forces to naturalise these terrorists and thus avoid the more excessive collateral damage caused by a hellfire or tomahawk. With that said I think some of the blame can be put on Pakistan.

There is another problem I think that has been looked over in these statistics and that is the unfortunate use of human shields in some militant groups. Israel has had this problem with groups hiding out in schools and hospitals and it would be ignorant of us to assume that militants on the Pakistani frontier are not doing the same. In those situations however I would hope that the use of drones are not being used, but I would guess if they thought they had Mullah Omar in a hospital they would not hesitate to blow the whole thing up. I am not defending such an action, all am saying is that it is a possibility.

Another possibility is that there have been some more genuine explanations as to why these kids have died, such as being the kids of the terrorist who has been targeted. I heard once about a funeral service that was hit with a hellfire after the people at the funeral started shooting of their AK’s in to the air. And another very sad yet very true possibility is that the reason some kids have been killed is because they themselves have been engaged in terrorist activity, perhaps in training at a terrorist training camp for example. Could be that they have been killed by a drone following intelligence they were about to part-take in a suicide mission.

I am not defending the deaths of children, but if you peek behind the curtains there could be other reasons behind it.

If you want to stop this America the only way is to get your ass’s on to Pennsylvania Avenue and protest until your federal government understands that you would rather protect the children of Pakistan even if it means compromising your own national security.

reply to post by kro32


Stop hiding behind drones and other pakistanis. american soldiers should man up, wear a tshirt over their face, and use only rpgs instead of rely on fancy technology and heavily armored tanks.

Seems naive to me anyone can still believe in the premise.

Terrorist? Really? Soon anyone who even dares to thinks differently will be considered a terrorist, of course, judging from of the comments, not everyone will be at risk.

There are a myriad of reasons for the "war on terror", I assure you none of them have anything to do with them being an actual threat.

Can you imagine a foreign army invading the U.S., then randomly killing our people and god knows what else in the name of "insert here". Fighting back would be an act of terrorism any idiot could understand, because it's not "terrorism", it's defending what's yours. We are the evil in this world, tell yourself whatever you want to stay in denial, but that's the fact.

168 children is a tragedy, but nothing compared to the overall number of people we've murdered. I love my country, I support righteous troops, I don't support evil men who puppeteer our troops and resources for their own gain and dupe the simpleton public to supporting them.

reply to post by gameoverforyou

Stop hiding behind drones and other pakistanis. american soldiers should man up, wear a tshirt over their face, and use only rpgs instead of rely on fancy technology and heavily armored tanks.

Do you have any idea what a bad Idea that is?

There would be a blood bath, in the long run you could probably add a couple of zeros on the end of that 168 children killed.

Really worlds cannot describe what a bad idea that is, did you actually engage some gray matter before you posted it?

reply to post by Paschar0


That's already happening here only it's a lot more subtle and complex. Mandated vaccinations, mandated birth certificates, mandated government-sanctioned indoctrination programs called school that don't teach anything real accept how to obey, economics that forces both parents so the family unit will be broken....it's all good for you, citizen, so obey what we tell you or else something bad might happen.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Right, you're so amazingly smart that you can stoop to such primitive personal attacks while I'm the neaderthal that dares show the hypocrisy of the western world calling other people cowardly terrorists who hide behind children. Please enlighten us some more.

reply to post by gameoverforyou


Its wasn’t a personal attack, it’s just the idea that NATO should surrender all of their technology and turn it into a “fair fight” is just a really bad idea that could not have been thought through. The result would been tens of thousands dead, make it a fair fight so to speak and America would lose almost overnight.

Also

I think that a coward who puts a child between himself and a bullet is a truly evil coward. A coward who puts a flying drone between himself and that same bullet is a smart coward.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by gameoverforyou

 

Its wasn’t a personal attack, it’s just the idea that NATO should surrender all of their technology and turn it into a “fair fight” is just a really bad idea that could not have been thought through. The result would been tens of thousands dead, make it a fair fight so to speak and America would lose almost overnight.

Also

I think that a coward who puts a child between himself and a bullet is a truly evil coward. A coward who puts a flying drone between himself and that same bullet is a smart coward.

edit on 13-8-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

and that's why you people constantly elect smart cowards who put an entire nation in between them and you. keep thinking you're so smart buddy. maybe some day if you repeat it enough you will break through to the other side, but seeing your past comments, I doubt it.

A point of comparison perhaps...

World War II fatality statistics vary greatly. Estimates of total dead range from 50 million to over 70 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II of 62 to 78 million, making it the deadliest war ever. When scholarly sources differ on the number of deaths in a country, a range of war losses is given, in order to inform readers that the death toll is disputed. Civilians killed totaled from 40 to 52 million, including 13 to 20 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 22 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

en.wikipedia.org...

Based on these estimates, between 65% and 67% of the casualties in World War II were civilians.

Using the figures supplied in the OP, the civilian casualties from drones strikes are roughly 34%.

We (as Western forces) have gone from specifically targeting civilians (think the Dresden carpet bombings), to hitting them in error when going after the "bad guys" with precision weapons.

War is never antiseptic...and all accidental deaths are a tragedy...but we are getting better at limiting the collateral damage.

reply to post by gameoverforyou

and that's why you people constantly elect smart cowards who put an entire nation in between them and you. keep thinking you're so smart buddy. maybe some day if you repeat it enough you will break through to the other side, but seeing your past comments, I doubt it.

And how do you know who I vote for?

You keep repeating that I think am smart, I have never made such a claim it might be that it is your perception of me that I am smart in which case I am flattered but don’t try to turn it into a petty insult.

Your original post was not very well thought out, there is no shame in admitting that. All I am saying is that it is a really bad idea for NATO to get rid of all their technology to make this a fair fight, the ramifications would be massive. A bad idea is just a bad idea, I am not meaning this as a personal insult to you, I am sure you have had some very smart ideas but this is clearly not amongst them.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


The number is too low and thats why we have been in Afganistan for 10 years. This entire notion of precision warfare is a joke. It makes war antiseptic. Somehow clean and tolerable. The entire doctrine of the modern military is based on a false premise that delivering a death by 1000 cuts is a reasonable way to win a war. Its not. Had the US military carpet bombed the border lands between Pakistan and Afganistan and the other Taliban strongholds years ago we would be out of there. The fact that the number of children killed is so small is indicative of a failed policy.

This whole notion of a "clean war" is absolutely ridiculous. These watered down rules of engagement are ridiculous. If you are going to engage in war you should bring it to the enemy. It should be an absolute bloodbath. The consequences should be so horrific that you would only engage in war if directly threatened. In other words, if you are not willing to kill a lot of kids, don't go to war.

Our wars today, like every war we have been engaged in since WWII are a joke. They never should have been initiated and have been designed to never end. The best case scenario in Iraq is that in 10 years we have a psuedo ally in the middle east that will more often than not side with the Arab League on matters of global affairs and will have a suspect intelligence community playing both ends against the middle. The best case scenario in Afganistan is that a bunch of combative tribes live in a wasteland with some new roads and schools in it. First, the US will never be out of Afganistan and if we did totally pull out, in 5 years it will be what it was in 1999, which is essentially where it was in 1799 and not far different than it was in 599AD.

The entire issue is this absurd notion of recriprocol warfare. We respond in kind. Why spend $billions on a military if you are only going to respond in kind? If you are going to only respond in kind than you should not respond at all.

Interesting that despite direct proximity to Muslim countries, China and Russia have been relatively immune to terrorist attacks. They have nowhere the level of high tech weaponry that we do. Why is that? Because neither buy into the notion of limited response. They are not interested in working it out or discovering motives. They certainly are not going to waste (yes, waste) having their military build schools and roads in a nation that has attacked them or harbored those who attacked them. They have one component in their arsenal that the US does not have and that is the fear generated by their political leaders. They both have the political will to deliver an extreme response and as a consequence their Muslim neighbors are scared to death of them. If the roles were reversed and the Chinese were looking for Bin Laden for a decade, spending tens of billions of dollars looking to fight his organization and getting jerked around by Pakistan who were clearly hiding him and playing the Chinese for fools, several square miles around the area where he was captured would now be a parking lot.

The entire US military should be halved. They can not have it both ways, needing over 700 bases around the world while at the same time spending hundred of billions on precision weapons which can project war thousands of miles away.

The entire defense establishment, outside of the people serving it is rife with corruption, making Wall Street look like a few gents skimming money off the local school board petty cash fund.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Of course the "strategy" of the U.S. doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't to anyone that looks at it objectively.

The goal is not to "win" anything, the goal is to keep $ flowing and play with power, even Eisenhower recognized some of this decades ago. "Terrorism" is the ideal boogeyman. It can be made into whatever they wish, anything and everything can be justified around it to accomplish their goals. From attacking any number of countries to jack booting our own people.