Drone Assassinations

[tenni]

For those who have an interest in the nasty world of Geo politics. For those after 9/11 who wondered why the US was attacked and probably will be again. The USA government is not innocent by any means for consequences that befall its people.

This article is adapted from “The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth,” to be published by Penguin Press on Tuesday.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/revealed-the-secret-deal-that-launched-drone-assassinations/article10828181/?page=1

On a hot day in June 2004, the Pashtun tribesman was lounging inside a mud compound in South Waziristan, speaking by satellite phone to one of the many reporters who regularly interviewed him on how he had fought and humbled Pakistan’s army in the country’s western mountains. He asked one of his followers about the strange, metallic bird hovering above him.

Less than 24 hours later, a missile tore through the compound, severing Muhammad’s left leg and killing him and several others, including two boys, ages 10 and 16. A Pakistani military spokesman was quick to claim responsibility for the attack, saying that Pakistani forces had fired at the compound.

That was a lie.

Muhammad and his followers had been killed by the CIA, the first time it had deployed a Predator drone in Pakistan to carry out a “targeted killing.” The target was not a top operative of al-Qaeda, but a Pakistani ally of the Taliban who led a tribal rebellion and was marked by Pakistan as an enemy of the state. In a secret deal, the CIA had agreed to kill him in exchange for access to airspace it had long sought so it could use drones to hunt down its own enemies.

That back-room bargain, described in detail for the first time in interviews with more than a dozen officials in Pakistan and the United States, is critical to understanding the origins of a covert drone war that began under the Bush administration, was embraced and expanded by President Barack Obama, and is now the subject of fierce debate. The deal, a month after a blistering internal report about abuses in the CIA’s network of secret prisons, paved the way for the CIA to change its focus from capturing terrorists to killing them, and helped transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organization................
......The debate pitted a group of senior officers at the Counterterrorism Center against James L. Pavitt, the head of the CIA’s clandestine service, and others who worried about the repercussions of the agency’s getting back into assassinations. Tenet told the 9/11 commission that he was not sure that a spy agency should be flying armed drones.

John E. McLaughlin, then the CIA’s deputy director, who the 9/11 commission reported had raised concerns about the CIA’s being in charge of the Predator, said: “You can’t underestimate the cultural change that comes with gaining lethal authority.

“When people say to me, ‘It’s not a big deal,’” he said, “I say to them, ‘Have you ever killed anyone?’ It is a big deal. You start thinking about things differently,” he added. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, these concerns about the use of the CIA to kill were quickly swept aside.

After Muhammad was killed, his dirt grave in South Waziristan became a site of pilgrimage. A Pakistani journalist, Zahid Hussain, visited it days after the drone strike and saw a makeshift sign displayed on the grave: “He lived and died like a true Pashtun.”

Major-General Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan’s top military spokesman, told reporters at the time that “al-Qaeda facilitator” Nek Muhammad and four other “militants” had been killed in a rocket attack by Pakistani troops.

Any suggestion that Muhammad was killed by the Americans, or with American assistance, he said, was “absolutely absurd.”
.................................................. .................................................. .......................

Most us knew about the use of drones in Pakistan....but did we understand?

[OverNeath]

Do you ever post anything that doesnt stir some shit? Its a fact that there will never be "world peace" There are too many sociaties with too many different ways of life for world peace to breaknout,sad but true,BUT, If the use of drones saves ONE american servicemans life......Bombs Away

BTW. I sense a very anti American attitude in a good many of your posts. Dont feel like you ever need to come here, ok?

[Young pussy and dope]

I'm for the drone attacks they kill terrorists or people like the guy in the article who work with terrorists, and they protect military personnel and people from other countries who are fighting overseas.

[tenni]

Overneath
You are aware that this is not a US site but a site owned by a Canadian and that there are posters from all over the world on this site. This article is also in the New York Times today. At least now the US media is not censored like it was when the article events was started.

My own personal views do involve opposing anti imperialistic desires of the US and keeping it up front as to what your country did and continues to do as far as repression and assassinations.

Have you ever thought that one societies terrorists are someone else's freedom fighters? I suspect that the Pushtans did not see him as a terrorist.

[OverNeath]

The New York Times? Really? The Times is the most liberal rag in the country,and would just as soon see America as a socialist country. Again, If a drone strike saves a single American life or ANY life for that matter,I'm good with it. I honestly dont care where the owner of this site is from, that has nothing to do with anything. I was just suggesting that YOU not bother coming to America. :2cents:

[Annika L]

The New York Times? Really? The Times is the most liberal rag in the country,and would just as soon see America as a socialist country. Again, If a drone strike saves a single American life or ANY life for that matter,I'm good with it. I honestly dont care where the owner of this site is from, that has nothing to do with anything. I was just suggesting that YOU not bother coming to America. :2cents:

ANY life? Really? Even lives of terrorists? Lives of people you hate? Be careful what you wish for...but if you meant it, I wouldn't oppose you. But do you mean net? I mean if they take out 25 terrorists, but only save 18 American lives (whether or not that includes people you despise), that would still seem a net loss of life that throws your statement into doubt.

The NYT is also one of the most prominent and mainstream US media outlets. If it's that much more liberal than its market, one wonders how it survives.

[darkeyes]

Brave hey? Usually innocent civilians that cop it.. how 2 win friends and influence peeps... and every bit as much a terrorist act as ne suicide bomber.. more.. def more cowardly.. cos the bomber sits miles away safely tucked up drinking cuppa tea and eating a bun and having a natter wiv 'is m8s...!

[darkeyes]

The New York Times? Really? The Times is the most liberal rag in the country,and would just as soon see America as a socialist country. Again, If a drone strike saves a single American life or ANY life for that matter,I'm good with it. I honestly dont care where the owner of this site is from, that has nothing to do with anything. I was just suggesting that YOU not bother coming to America. :2cents:
..and u wudnt know a socialist if 'e or she got up and slapped ya in the face...liberalism and socialism r not the same thing.. they r very far from being the same thing... I am a socialist and the wishy washy politics of the NY Times is a long long way from coming close 2 socialism... can c ur not ver liberal ne way warning peeps off from visiting the US.. have been btw... only 1ce not long back.. liked the lil bit I saw and most of the peeps.. but met quite a few reactionary individuals like u who tried 2 tell me wot socialism is and how nasty ole Obama is a socialist.. fell off me stool laffing... they didn't hav a clue wot socialism wos either... socialism to peeps like u is a word to frighten babies... shooting drones at peeps now... not a ver nice thing 2 do... bit hit and miss innit? Cos ur country dus it, it must be rite hey? My country dus things like that an' all and they r no betta... suggest u question a bit more the wys and wer4's... liberals do.. socialists serpently do...whoever runs the place.. my country rite or wrong... wot a fucking ethos... the taliban and other groups think ther faith is rite..and they do wot they do for much the same reason as the US, UK and other countries do wot they do... both cant b rite.. but both can serpently b fucking wrong....

[Neonaught]

I'm not surprised the people who are making war on the US are upset about our use of drones. They have been highly effective and have made being the #2 man in al-Queda the most dangerous job in the world. Having been a military medic I am all for anything that limits our troop's exposure while simultaneously accomplishing the mission. Is there colateral damage? Yes. Ever seen what a single 155mm artillery round does? I can tell you that it's a helluva lot less surgical. If these people don't want their families put at risk, they should not conduct operations using them as shields. Drone operations are expensive. A single Hellfire missile costs almost $70K so you can bet that mission planners are not shooting at low-value targets. This a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy. He wears no uniform, has no single government that can be held accountable for his actions and has no respect for the Law of War (yes, there is such a thing). How would you propose we fight him?

[Tabu61]

....I thought this was a site about bisexuality....

[jamieknyc]

....I thought this was a site about bisexuality....
Maybe the drones are bi ..... ;)

[tenni]

“I'm not surprised the people who are making war on the US are upset about our use of drones.”


Just who was making war on the US in 2004 when drones began to be used by the US to assassinate people? I am not making war on the US nor was Muhammad, the Pashtan leader. I think that you need to remember who invaded whom. The US invaded Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden supposedly. This after the US supported the Muhajadim (Talaban) when the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. The US clearly was supporting Pervez Musharaff in 2004 when the US CIA began using drones to assassinate Musharaff’s enemies. Mursaharaff has just returned to Pakistan after fleeing it due to criminal charges connected to his corrupt government.


“If these people don't want their families put at risk, they should not conduct operations using them as shields.”


The article indicates that Muhammad and the children were in his home. Muhammad had nothing to do with Al Qaeda according to reports. This is once again, the US CIA supporting puppet governments that do the US bidding. This is a probable cause of 911.


How is this murdering of children different from the 911 murder of innocents? Or coming to your house and assassinating you for what you did as a medic?


“A single Hellfire missile costs almost $70K so you can bet that mission planners are not shooting at low-value targets. “


There are many reports of these drones killing innocent people in a vehicle similar to the targeted person. The murdered victims were not even targeted people let alone of a low value. $70K is nothing compared to the entire US military business costs in the US. The US taxpayers are spending money to assassinate people in other countries but get upset when their people are assassinated?

Who determines who should be assassinated? It is one thing to seek out Osama bin Laden and another to assassinate others that most people in the US have no awareness of.


Why are you not concerned about your CIA becoming assassins again? There is no public accountability for these assassination by the US CIA.

[OverNeath]

Just who was making war on the US in 2004 when drones began to be used by the US to assassinate people?

That was 3 years after 9/11/2001. Remember 9/11?, Where islamic terrorists killed close to 3000 people? After 9/11, war was declared on islamic extremists/terrorists.


but a Pakistani ally of the Taliban
ANY terrorist was fair game after 9/11. The taliban were deemed to be terrorists so they were targeted. Do I like the idea that there is always collateral damage on innocent individuals?..NO, I dont, but until something comes along more accurate,thats a sad fact of war.

[darkeyes]

ANY terrorist was fair game after 9/11. The taliban were deemed to be terrorists so they were targeted. Do I like the idea that there is always collateral damage on innocent individuals?..NO, I dont, but until something comes along more accurate,thats a sad fact of war.
The US and UK are deemed terrorist by not just the Taliban but by many Islamic (among many others, ideological as well as faith inspired) groups around the world and not just those considered terrorist by those two countries governments... it so happens I agree with them.. but then I am a pacifist and deem all forms of warfare terrorist. However since people like u deem we must have warfare to impose faith or ideology upon others, u should not be surprised when out of faith in God, which many place before country, men and women and even children as they do, pick up stones and spears to fight an infinitely technologically superior state based ideological and heretical foe which they consider godless or worse, armed with guns... they did it against the French and British, the Spanish and Dutch among others, and now they do it against the west led by the US.. only for spears and stones read suicide bombs and for guns read drones among many other very sophisticated big boys toys. U may not like the faith or the practice of it or the ethos behind it .. but then they do not like the US or the UK and their practice of statehood, religion and economics...so who is right and who is wrong? I would argue both, for both spread unnecessary terror and suffering in the name of some form of belief although the ultimate end is not belief but the imposition of power over the defeated and the creation of a world in a form they wish to see.

..as for 9/11, it was an evil and barbaric act... but no more or less evil and barbaric than the dropping of Atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or the firestorms of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo... the western war on "terror" did not begin with 9/11 although that was its declared date.. it had been fought long before 9/11 and brutal and evil as that day was, to the perpetrators it was as justified an act of war as those bombings of German and Japanese cities in the 1940s. People in war fight with the weapons to hand in ways they believe will gain them the maximum success and it is often out of despair and desperation.. war is brutal, cruel, nasty, evil and stupid... all acts of war are in my opinion crimes against humanity, but simply because we happen to live in organised nation states does not make the actions of our governments and militaries any more justifiable, any more right or wrong than the actions of the leadership and footsoldiers of what the west likes to call terror groups, for the reality is that both sides are terror groups, and both need condemning and each is as responsible for appalling war crimes as the other, and we, whether we support state or faith or ideology or who, like me support none, or at least none I believe worth warring over, are complicit in allowing it to be. Some however, are more complicit than others. We are all guilty...

[chook]

Do you ever post anything that doesnt stir some shit? Its a fact that there will never be "world peace" There are too many sociaties with too many different ways of life for world peace to breaknout,sad but true,BUT, If the use of drones saves ONE american servicemans life......Bombs Away

BTW. I sense a very anti American attitude in a good many of your posts. Dont feel like you ever need to come here, ok?

Mate...........Wake up and smell the coffee no matter who posts what in here, it always turns into a shitfight, and please dont forget one very important thing..........America aint the only one fighting terrorists, but we wont go into how other countries were dragged in hey!!!!!



Cheers Chook :yikes2:

[Young pussy and dope]

Mate...........Wake up and smell the coffee no matter who posts what in here, it always turns into a shitfight, and please dont forget one very important thing..........America aint the only one fighting terrorists, but we wont go into how other countries were dragged in hey!!!!! Cheers Chook :yikes2: They were not dragged in or forced to do this; but instead they went willingly and wanted to do this along with the United States.

[tenni]

“ After 9/11, war was declared on islamic extremists/terrorists.”


Shouldn’t we now reflect upon what we were told and whether we should still believe it? Drones are used to assassinate people in a similar way that the radical extremists under the guise of Islam did their nasty deeds on 911. The connections between the assassination of Muhammad and 911 are non existent. The Invasion of Iraq(weapons on mass destruction myth) and Afghanistan were done under the disguise of a war on terrorism. I believe that we need to be more critical of the use of the word terrorist when giving permission for drones to assassinate anyone.


Protecting your country from terrorism is valid. How you protect them seems open to abuse as in the use of drones by the CIA to randomly assassinating leaders in other countries. The use of drones in Pakistan is still happening as far as I know. Al Qaeda cells are suppose to be in greater number than ever before and in many more countries. Why?


“ANY terrorist was fair game after 9/11.”


Wasn't it any Muslim was fair game to accuse being a terrorist? "Fair” seems to be a questionable reference to what happened after 911 globally. The fair game after 911 was any Muslim regardless of evidence could be called a terrorist and the US people believed it without legal trials or evidence. Add US torture methods and even confessions should be looked at with skepticism. Of the Muslims placed illegally in Guantanimo very few were found guilty of terrorism or anything else. The CIA kidnapped several Canadians of a Muslim background and turned them over to states that used torture on the innocent men just because they were Muslim and were accused of speaking to other Muslims. Some of the US hysteria over terrorism seems like a similar reaction to communist phobia in the 1950-70. Both are boogymen to justify wrong doings. It would be nice if we could not be racist and discriminate based on religion and ethnicity. When will we ever learn?


“They were not dragged in or forced to do this; but instead they went willingly and wanted to do this along with the United States.”


That is a matter of perspective that you may want to do more research on and in particular non US based media. Some of the countries that entered Afghanistan went because they are NATO countries and when the US called for help the treaty compells them to assist. They did this for several reasons not connected to fighting terrorism in a foreign country and not on US soil(the intent of the NATO treaty) The countries who went with the US into Iraq hardly went willingly, except for Tony Blair’s Britain unless you consider bribery for some of the small nations(sending less than 20 military personnel and never were placed in dangerous places). Many of the British people seemed to oppose being in Iraq.


More closely to the thread topic, which countries are stepping forward supporting the US use of drones in Pakistan?

14658

[darkeyes]

They were not dragged in or forced to do this; but instead they went willingly and wanted to do this along with the United States.
Now it all depends on what u mean by went willingly... the government of my country involved itself willingly in the Iraq war yet overwhelmingly the people of the UK never thought it the right thing to do and protested in vast numbers to try and stop it.. they felt that we had been dragged into an quasi-imperialist adventure for which there was no justification... the armed forces went willingly to war I assume because that's what they had been signed up to do... similarly, the attacks on and invasion of Afghanistan have never been popular for much the same reason and that little fracas is even more unpopular than ever... so it depends who u consider "they" to be...

..tenni is right too about Afghanistan.. while the government involved the UK willingly in the war in Afghanistan from the very beginning, it was the US invocation of the clause about attack one attack all which compelled other NATO member states to involve themselves in that war.. so some countries were dragged into a war they did not like because of treaty obligation very dubiously I may add since Afghanistan didnt attack the US... whether the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were based in the country justifies that invocation is a very dubious argument indeed.. it was a clause which the US could not invoke when invading Iraq because Al Qaeda was even more loathed by Saddam than by Bush and had no presence in the country... Iraq had never attacked the US... which is why the justifications for that war kept changing before during and after the conflict...

[tenni]

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-boston-marathon-and-u-s-drone-attacks-a-tale-of-two-terrorisms/

To murder several runners (and one child) using bombs at a sporting event is terrorism.

To murder 175 children using military drones is U.S. policy.

We should accept neither. We should fight against both.

List of children killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen:
Compiled from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/) reports
PAKISTAN
Name | Age | Gender
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male
YEMEN
Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19

[Footy]

ANY life? Really? Even lives of terrorists? Lives of people you hate? Be careful what you wish for...but if you meant it, I wouldn't oppose you. But do you mean net? I mean if they take out 25 terrorists, but only save 18 American lives (whether or not that includes people you despise), that would still seem a net loss of life that throws your statement into doubt.

The NYT is also one of the most prominent and mainstream US media outlets. If it's that much more liberal than its market, one wonders how it survives.
New York is a liberal state. The NYT is one of the mainstream US papers, but it still skews left, just like Fox News, one of the most mainstream news channels, skews right. It's not like the media in our country is all the same. Our media sources are incredibly biased and disagree with each other on a lot of stuff. That's the consequences of freedom and competition.