Drone strikes in Pakistan

This is an interactive graph showing all of the known drone strikes in Pakistan.

It is a stunning graphic, with chilling implications.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

It shows 3115 deaths, with only 47 (1.5%) high value targets. After loading, you can scroll over each of those "buried" at the bottom of the screen for complete statistics on the specific strikes. Also includes 535 civilians, and 175 children (4X the number of high value targets).

Notable is the number of "Other" casualties. 2358 (75.4%). These are alleged militants, which the US government designates as any male of military age present within the areas drones surveil. As a male, that is a rather frightening definition, IMHO.

Here's a link to the article in The Verge:

The Verge

That's just 1 country.

Honestly, I'm not completely sure what to think, though it does make me think- a lot.

The drone program has been administered under the CIA, which makes it an entirely covert operation, with no records or accountability to the public. It (theoretically) can be used like a hit squad, without rules of engagement, procedures, sunshine regulations, or political impact of a military operation. It also avoids the issue of US casualties.

I'm not sure how programs like this encourage our relations with people groups who already have a strained relationship with us.

Thoughts? (no politics).

Interesting. I didn't look but how do they get their numbers? And how do they confirm. I'll check it later. At work right now. No boss in sight!

New World Order?

In reply to vwcorvette:

They get their numbers from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a watchdog organization that has been gathering eyewitness accounts from within Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Associated with a Stanford Law School organization called "Living under Drones". The findings are based on a report by the Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic

It's in the link.

Admittedly, it is likely a very educated, but biased view, but they do supply the details on every strike, so I would assume those are verifiable.

Since the usual M.O. of militant terrorists does not include dressing in an identifiable uniform or otherwise identifying themselves as a combatant or non combatant, there is no way to be sure that only 44 high value targets were hit. Could have been many more. The FBI and CIA can only do just so much. For all they know, there are others at least as powerful as bin Laden or al-Awlaki whose names they have never heard.

Also, as proven in Somalia (among other places) their MO includes hiding with civilians in order to take advantage of the civilized world's reluctance to kill civilians and to very cynically be able to make PR hay out of instances where innocent bystanders are injured or killed.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Or could be even less.

If we're so hot at finding these guys, maybe we should go detain them, maybe give them a trial before killing them and those unfortunate enough to be nearby (like their children or other innocent people).

This is the kind of stuff that makes me not want to work on "defense" projects / products.

Yep, it sure could be less.

I think these berkeleyers need the same kind of trial they gave all those people in:

1) the WTC,

2) the Pentagon,

3) Flight 93,

4) the Spanish train bombings,

5) the London bus bombings,

6) the Berlin disco bombings,

7) the USS Cole,

8) the Beirut Marine barracks,

9) the Nigerian hotel bombings,

10) the Lockerbie bombings,

11) the Reid shoe bombing, unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot,

12) the Times Square car bomb, again unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot,

etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

End thread.

Well, on a positive note, there seems to be a distinct reduction in the number of attacks since the peak which occurred around 2010.

How many of these strikes are coordinated with ISI? If that's the case, I'd think CIA would have a better chance of catching the baddies.

Perhaps the ISI/CIA believes that capturing may be not be as effective as instilling fear in the populace that if you join, befriend, or host a terrorist group, you won't be arrest, you'll be killed.

There are estimates of nearly 30,000+ civilians killed in terrorist bombing in Pakistan since 2004. http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/16/attachments/Crawford%20Pakistan%20Casualties.pdf

The ISI is probably just as interested killing the bad guys as what we are, and you can bet they probably hand the CIA lots of information.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

You think every person in the country played a roll in that?

Here's a cute URL; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html

I bet all these folks who weren't even alive with that stuff happened are responsible. Also, the Reid shoe bomber? What? Why are you referencing stuff like that?

It's like the burden of proof doesn't matter to America anymore. Just go light up someone in the wrong part of the world with a drone strike because... shoe bomber?

A drone is only a tool like a gun, tank or Intel.

914Driver wrote: A drone is only a tool like a gun, tank or Intel.

Or a spoon: http://tribune.com.pk/story/355788/inmate-uses-spoon-to-kill-and-disfigure-friend/

Not even one tenth the number it needs to be. berkeley em, berkeley there mommas, berkeley there daddy's berkeley all of em'. They need to swing those drones over France on the way back just for being such Bob Costas's.

berkeley em' all!

nicksta43 wrote: Not even one tenth the number it needs to be. berkeley em, berkeley there mommas, berkeley there daddy's berkeley all of em'. They need to swing those drones over France on the way back just for being such Bob Costas's. berkeley em' all!

I was gonna hold back but now I'm gonna say what I've been thinking for a long time, it's fair game now.

When does this cross the line into genocide against the people of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region?

I have to assume nicksta was kidding.

Being in a group in the wrong part of the world could incite a bombing out of the blue - effectively instilling terror among the populace - so it would be fair game to strike back at the source of this in any way shape or means you could muster. Rinse/repeat at will. You can randomly shift viewpoint to either side too.

914Driver wrote: A drone is only a tool like a gun, tank or Intel.

As are land mines, mustard gas, and nuclear weapons. I suppose that wars are rarely fought with fairness or sportsmanship in mind.

Mitchell wrote:

914Driver wrote: A drone is only a tool like a gun, tank or Intel.

As are land mines, mustard gas, and nuclear weapons. I suppose that wars are rarely fought with fairness or sportsmanship in mind.

Wars are fought with rules of engagement, policies, procedures, International treaties, and accountability.

THAT was my entire point.

Drones may be tools, but the US drone program as it is currently implemented has no guidelines at all. It is an elite covert hit force that is taking out enormous quantities of innocents.

Mitchell wrote:

914Driver wrote: A drone is only a tool like a gun, tank or Intel.

As are land mines, mustard gas, and nuclear weapons. I suppose that wars are rarely fought with fairness or sportsmanship in mind.

The funniest thing about rights, freedoms, etc etc. All just words, abstract concepts that can be taken away at a moments notice.

You know what I say to people getting caught in the middle? Collateral damage. It truly does suck, but if they had the means, they'd be doing it back to us (of course, the sheer stupidity of anyone attacking the us in a clandestine fashion is ridiculous, but I digress).

A drone strike takes hours. A capture operation takes days. Nobody wants to wait for a capture to get together, only to find the target gone by the time they get there, and have the target turn out to be behind the next 9/11.

HiTempguy wrote: You know what I say to people getting caught in the middle? Collateral damage. It truly does suck, but if they had the means, they'd be doing it back to us (of course, the sheer stupidity of anyone attacking the us in a clandestine fashion is ridiculous, but I digress).

The whole region isn't made up of wannabe terrorists who just lack the resources to pull off an attack, it's mostly innocent people minding their own business with a few terrorists mixed in.

Although at this point, they may indeed want to strike back at the people running the planes that have killed so many of their neighbors.

Curmudgeon wrote: Yep, it sure could be less. I think these berkeleyers need the same kind of trial they gave all those people in: 1) the WTC, 2) the Pentagon, 3) Flight 93, 4) the Spanish train bombings, 5) the London bus bombings, 6) the Berlin disco bombings, 7) the USS Cole, 8) the Beirut Marine barracks, 9) the Nigerian hotel bombings, 10) the Lockerbie bombings, 11) the Reid shoe bombing, unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, 12) the Times Square car bomb, again unsuccessful only because the guy was an idiot, etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

Pakistan, dude. Pakistan. The drone strikes referenced are in Pakistan.

Your references are all over the map, with many varied people and groups claiming responsibility (mostly not Pakistan).

The "berkeleyers" you are referencing are, in fact, many different varied "berkeleyers". How about we just blow all the "berkeleyers" off the map?

GameboyRMH wrote: Although at this point, they may indeed want to strike back at the people running the planes that have killed so many of their neighbors.

BINGO.

At what point does this form of "preemptive" action become an extremely effective tool for raising up an endless army of suicidal lunatics filled with such a hatred for the US that they will stop at nothing to inflict as much pain as possible on as many of our citizens as possible for murdering their innocent sons and daughters?

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."