EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
One in Three Killed by US Drones in Pakistan Is a Civilian, Report Claims
One in three "militants" killed in US Predator Drone attacks in Pakistan's remote tribal areas is in fact a civilian, according to a report by an American think tank.
The report, by the Washington-based New America Foundation, will fuel growing criticism of the use of unmanned drones in the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, who use Pakistan as a base for attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan.
Critics say their use not only takes innocent lives, but amounts to unlawful extra-judicial killing of militants.
The report by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann found that 32 per cent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 were civilians.
Their report, The Year of the Drone, studied 114 drone raids in which more than 1200 people were killed. Of those, between 549 and 849 were reliably reported to be militant fighters, while the rest were civilians.
"The true civilian fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 32 per cent," the foundation reported.
The number of drone attacks has increased dramatically since Barack Obama replaced George W Bush as US president early last year.
There were 45 drone attacks during Mr Bush's two terms of government, compared with 51 during the first year of Mr Obama's new administration. In the first two months of this year, up to 140 "militants" have been killed.
Despite the controversy surrounding the scale of civilian deaths, and public opposition from Pakistan's government, the Obama administration has increased its reliance on drones to target "high-value" Taliban and al-Qaeda figures.
Since last autumn, they have killed the Taliban's notorious leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan, and more recently, it is claimed, his successor Hakimullah Mehsud.
In 2008, Pakistani intelligence sources said they had killed Rashid Rauf, the British al-Qaeda militant behind the 2006 transatlantic airliner bomb plot.
Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri is believed to had a lucky escape when a drone struck a compound he had recently left.
Taliban leaders this week confirmed another of their top leaders Mohammed Qari Zafar had been killed in north Waziristan.
He was believed to have organised the 2006 bombing of the American embassy in Karachi.
The report said although civilian casualty figures are high, they did not believe their study would cause American commanders to reconsider their use.
"Despite the controversy drone strikes are likely to remain a critical tool for the United States to disrupt Al Qaeda and Taliban operations and leadership structures," it concluded.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
89 Comments so far
Show AllThe real number is a lot higher.
It's really easy to call a civilian male a "militant fighter." You could apply this label to anyone with an opinion of any sort. And that is what the "American think tank" does. It dissappears dead victims of American bombs by calling most of them militants.
This article appears to be an example of military propaganda disguised as anti-war propaganda. It'd be like criticizing the Nazis for killing "up to 100,000 Jewish civilians."
qatzlok 9:18 Exactly, Why would a USA army general say it was 80-90% percent, if it were 33% ?
It took 16 drone strikes before Meshud was hit.
Who is funding this "think tank"?
Glenn, which USA general said that 90% of the victims were "civilians?"
Also, the "non-civilian" victims of drone attacks... are they uniformed soldiers who are at war with the United States?
When did Pakistan officially declare war?
Or is the expression "civilian casualties" supposed to convince us that there are victims who "deserve" to get killed by unmanned drones?
This article is Orwellian spin from a Pentagon spin tank. The people who are being killed are ALL civilians and ALL innocent.
In doing God's work, the US/Israel/British elite are demonstrating the ugliness of a gnostic foreign policy.
I was agreeing completely with you,as in exactly. The 80-90% was a retired general quoted in a CD article which one,five months ago? I can only guess at authors,
Scahill,Hersch, Klien ...?
See Blue Pilgrim post above ---- 97%
"In doing God's work, the US/Israel/British elite are demonstrating the ugliness of a gnostic foreign policy."
If they are doing God's work, then that God is one mean motherf****r.
That's just it. No one knows "what God would do."
If they did, they'd be God themselves.
Which they aren't.
Modern industrial warfare and colonization are examples of the *stewardship* of elites who think they are gods - that they can recreate the earth by working towards "their dreams." Their socially-constructed, geocentric dreams.
Their dreams are everyone else's nightmare because everyone else usually has to *get out of the way.* In some cases, even the earth itself has to get out of the way and make room for "the dreams."
Christians need to start asking themselves:
Who would Jesus bomb?
So that ratio of 1 civilian to 2 militants (which is probably way understated...) is still smaller than any other air war in history. I am not defending it, but the statement that it is a war crime and indiscriminate is relative. An argument that carries more weight is that it is illegal because it is in Pakistan or that it is simply killing in general that is wrong.
What's a "militant?" Someone who has an opinion?
Is it okay to kill Pakistanis who have opinions?
Even if the report is underestimating the number of civilians and inflating the number of militants killed it is still a ghastly report. I noticed that Obama has sent 51 drones compared 45 for all of Bush's tenure. Doesn't this make the apologists for Obama themselves war criminals by aiding and abetting Barak?
Gary
"When I'm getting ready to reason with a man, I spend one-third of my time thinking about myself and what I am going to say -- and two-thirds thinking about him and what he is going to say."
-- Abraham Lincoln
The day will come when another country is able to fly drones over the U.S.
They too will claim militants, insurgents and enemy combatants were killed.
Only then will Americans awaken from their slumber and finally care.
Actually, a few decades ago someone did fly over the usa and drop bombs from military aircraft. They even did it before the 'official' declaration of war had arrived.
The usa called that action a 'date which will live in infamy'...
IOKITUSADI.
It's OK if the usa does it.
"The day will come when another country is able to fly drones over the U.S."
Even worse: the day will come when Americans themselves can fly drones over their own country. And with drones, you can always blame someone else for it. False flags become really easy.
Worse still: that day is already here.
imagine your local police department needing some...
This madness is DAFT, the Defense against Future Terrorism.
This was caused by Public Law 107-40, the declaration of war (against future enemies) which continues to be ignored (and thus the problem continues).
The US militaries have been given the mission to prevent future terrorism. They do that by:
1. killing 'terrorists' after they have identified themselves by attacking US or allied troops ("militant behind the 2006 transatlantic airliner bomb plot", "was believed to have organised the 2006 bombing").
2. killing 'civilians' and 'militants' before they become future terrorists.
As long as P.L. 107-40 exists, this insanity and murder will continue, in AfPak and other places, for this is a global and forever war.
As long as P.L. 107-40 is ignored, it will exist.
I suggest yet again that we show America that this is DAFT and needs to end before it ends us.
The world will become a more fit place to live when the U.S. military-industrial complex has been reduced to a size that it can easily be drowned in a bathtub.
The world will become a more fit place to live after we have drowned people like Grover Norquist in his own bathtub.
Pakistan military will be able to extort another billion bucks from US because of Pak civilians dying.
It's very profitable to be in charge of a national military and sell out your own nation for profit.
Swiss banks must be bulging with Pak general staff officers' bribe accounts.
It's bribery, not extortion. Bribery is part of U.S. war plans. The "surge" that "worked" in Iraq was a surge of money. The same is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Meanwhile, our infrastructure, schools, health care, public safety and domestic economy is crumbling for lack of resources.
"Meanwhile, our infrastructure, schools, health care, public safety and domestic economy is crumbling for lack of resources."
I guess you hadn't heard: America has a "new" motto.
GUNS BEFORE BUTTER!
:(
About all you can say to this report is "DUH"
When you have this kind of fighting, the opposition is mixed in with the civilian population, they hide in the civilian population, they are the civilian population for God's sake.
Of course the civilian casualties are high. My guess is that its around 45 to 55%. If the official figures are about 30%, add 15 ton 29 % for the military fudge factor.
All I see are articles about this or that being bad, trying to make absurd comparison's to other wars, where are the articles about stopping these wars, where are the articles about why we are not withdrawing, why we are still there in the first place?
When are we going to start taking this President to task for continuing this war? Because he said he would? He's lied about almost everything else, so what defense is that?
Why isn't every journalist out there going after the cost of these occupations?
if person a kills person b when person a is in no immediate danger from person b, that is murder...
this is murder...
murderers may have multiple motivations...murder solves many problems...murder knows no country...we are all potential victims of these drones...
does no one else imagine them being flown by computer program, as opposed to human?
no soul to bargain with, or to look into the eyes of the target...
we don't have much time...
The U.S. Drones are nothing more than murdering, non- suicide bombers sent by Obomba. He is now just as guilty as Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice and the rest of the fascists of war crimes.
What's the difference between a martyr attack and a drone attack? They send martyrs, we send drones. We send drones, they send martyrs. Innocent civilians are "collateral damage" in both cases. Both are immoral, and both are terrorism.
Ending "dumb" wars? Obama's new slogan is "No, we can't."
"What's the difference between a martyr attack and a drone attack?"
In the case of a suicide attack, the perpetrator demonstrates that they are willing to sacrifice their own life for the sake of a (presumably) objective good for others.
In the case of a drone attack, the perpetrators have insulated themselves completely from any kind of sacrifice.
This is an important distinction that I think makes drone attacks similar to anonymous well poisonning. Any prick can do it, and for just about any reason - selfish or otherwise.
The elites have traditionally used uneducated or impoverished soldiers as their drones. The mechanical drone marks a new low in elite integration into their own societies. These bots do the work that no one with a conscience could stomach.
I don't know that it's constructive to try to draw a distinction between the heroic and the brainwashed. That's "in the eye of the beholder." The more important point is that killing civilians is immoral, and it's terrorism, no matter what label you put on it.
Drone attacks are cowardly. The martyr believes enough in what he is doing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Drone attacks are state sponsored terrorism!
This is a debate I didn't intend to start. I only meant to equate drone attacks with 9/11. Both have killed innocent civilians, both are immoral, both are terrorism. It's a concept that most Americans can readily appreciate.
As some have now pointed out, a martyr is distinct from a drone because "the martyr believes enough in what he is doing to make the ultimate sacrifice." Yes, that is a distinction, but a dangerous one. Are kamikazes morally superior to drones because the pilots die? Are soldiers who kill civilians with assault rifles and helicopter gunships morally superior to drones because some of them come home in body bags?
Are martyrs courageous? Or are they reprehensible and brainwashed, like the religious zealots who murder abortion doctors?
[This is a debate I didn't intend to start.]
And it's one that has so many features to the issue that it's hard (if not impossible) to settle the debate.
From my POV, the reason that the 'martyr' dies is most important. While dying for your beliefs might make you a martyr, choosing to die and taking others with you doesn't.
"Change you can believe in."
That now ranks up there with "The Check is in the mail" and "I'll respect you in the morning."
Paul,
Well said.
Chelsea
The response of the US military: "Hell! Two out of three ain't bad!"
q
Apologies to Jim Steinman.
Two out of three would be extremely good for remote missile strikes into civilian areas - if it were true.
Of course, there is no way that is true. I would not believe that if I saw it on CNN. Try the link from bluepilgrim above to get something more realistic.
The Big Lie...
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440
Friday, April 10, 2009
By Amir Mir
LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.
[...]
10 out of 60 would be 16% - still nowhere near two-thirds.
The figures that you provide may not say much for the predators' effectiveness or our military capabilities but the number that concerns the MIC is the 60, not the 10. Whether the predators hit their targets or not, someone is still making money on these satanic devices.
q
the pertinent numbers are 14:687 97% civilian kill rate.
Eighteen bucks an hour on the line, making predators. Nice work if you can get it. Got a family to feed you know. Too bad Iraqis and Afghans have to die so I can put bread on the table but what the hell, you know? No one said life (or death) would be fair.
"blahblahblah....killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders"
There seem to be an awful lot of "Al Qaeda" brand leaders wherever American bombs fall.
Could it be that the US is simply killing all the "leaders" in this part of the world? I mean, it is usually the local leaders who are the problem for the colonizers.
So I'm thinking that the words "Al Qaeda" are attached to these "successful" killings to cover up the fact that Imperial Headquarters can never tolerate local leadership in resource colonies and their allies.
I am glad that Nelson reports an assessment of civilian deaths, for this is some way of confronting the deaths of innocents.
But I fear the discussion of civilians may come across as granting some scrap of legitimacy to murders of irregular forces defending a homeland.
Were someone to invade the United States, would Americans consider it fine that the invader were to kill Marines, since they are, after all, soldiers?
Any figure for the % of civilians in a US airstrike in Afghanistan is fictional. No legitimate government exists in Afghanistan, only the US' poppy-floated puppet and the irregular and disunited forces of resistance.
At one or another level, the resistance comprises most of the population. If it did not, it would cease to exist.
This report is about civilian deaths in Pakistan.
But it's a valid point. When someone's country is invaded they may be civilians normally, and yet take up arms to defend themselves and their neighbors -- and still be civilians as opposed to military. If I shoot someone who broke into my house, in self defense, that doesn't make me a cop.
Wake up. Our Corporate Controlled Congress is breaking into your house in the dead of night.
But at least, for the moment, they crawl in and out through my cable and don't blow up the kitchen on the way.
A well hidden fact is that two decades ago the Afghan Parliment voided the Durand line agreement as being imposed under the force of arms by the British.
Thus the Afghans rightfully consider the Pastun area in Pakistan to be part of the original British divided Afghanistan.
Point taken, and I apologize.
But is there a valid government in Pakistan? Not that this voids my error, but the circumstances seem in this aspect about the same.
One in three? Or, two in three?
Even if you believe the numbers compiled by New America Foundation (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_America_Foundation), this article's emphasis is suspect.
The headline says "one in three" killed are civilians. But, if you do the math, their numbers show that between 32% and 66% of those killed are civilians. The headline and text should say "one or two, out of every three" killed are civilians. They de-emphasize the point that a two-thirds majority of deaths may well be civilians.
I just ran across http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/ -- Jim M. Craven's web site. It's amazing. his latest entry is "Capitalism: A System Run By and For Psychopaths" and the link which still work are well worth looking at.
Making a chack list comparing the traits of 'compensated psychopaths' and Obama is more than a little disturbing.
There are also two great videos which lay it all out at
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6021855461931304170#
Politics, Sociology, Economics – Professor Jim M. Craven – “Globalization” 1/2
and http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-400682110018416321#
part 2
It's long been accepted that the functional insane were one in five. Psychopaths are estimated (by Canadian expert Robert Hare) to be, in the United States, around 300,000. About the same as for schizophrenics.
And see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means
>>Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.<<
Why does that sound familiar?
Gary
“Insanity is hereditary; you can get it from your children”
-- Sam Levenson
Gary
"Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships."
And women just LOVE them.
When did our Corporate Controlled Government start this unconstitutional war against the Pakistani people? And why.