41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

[Luiz 4,253]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

 

The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.

 

 

 

Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.

However many Americans know who Zawahiri is, far fewer are familiar with Qari Hussain. Hussain was a deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban, a militant group aligned with al-Qaida that trained the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, before his unsuccessful 2010 attack. The drones first came for Hussain years before, on 29 January 2008. Then they came on 23 June 2009, 15 January 2010, 2 October 2010 and 7 October 2010.

 

Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children, none of whom it meant to harm.

A new a--lysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing†– they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November.

 

Reprieve, sifting through reports compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, examined cases in which specific people were targeted by drones multiple times. Their data, shared with the Guardian, raises questions about the accuracy of US intelligence guiding strikes that US officials describe using words like “clinical†and “precise.â€

The a--lysis is a partial estimate of the damage wrought by Obama’s favored weapon of war, a tool he and his administration describe as far more precise than more familiar instruments of land or air power.

 

“Drone strikes have been sold to the American public on the claim that they’re ‘precise’. But they are only as precise as the intelligence that feeds them. There is nothing precise about intelligence that results in the deaths of 28 unknown people, including women and children, for every ‘bad guy’ the US goes after,†said Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson, who spearheaded the group’s study.

Some 24 men specifically targeted in Pakistan resulted in the death of 874 people. All were reported in the press as “killed†on multiple occasions, meaning that numerous strikes were aimed at each of them. The vast majority of those strikes were unsuccessful. An estimated 142 children were killed in the course of pursuing those 24 men, only six of whom died in the course of drone strikes that killed their intended targets.

 

In Yemen, 17 named men were targeted multiple times. Strikes on them killed 273 people, at least seven of them children. At least four of the targets are still alive.

Available data for the 41 men targeted for drone strikes across both countries indicate that each of them was reported killed multiple times. Seven of them are believed to still be alive. The status of another, Haji Omar, is unknown. Abu Ubaidah al-Masri, whom drones targeted three times, later died from natural causes, believed to be hepatitis.

 

The data cohort is only a fraction of those killed by US drones overall. Reprieve did not focus on named targets struck only once. Neither Reprieve nor the Guardian examined the subset of drone strikes that do not target specific people: the so-called “signature strikes†that attack people based on a pattern of behavior considered suspicious, rather than intelligence tying their targets to terrorist activity. An a--lytically conservative Council on Foreign Relations tally assesses that 500 drone strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan have killed 3,674 people.

 

 

[Didymus 34,380]

It's truly awful, I've been following this for a few years and it's just baffling how this whole thing is handled.

 

More people should know about this and take a stand. This only increases the chances for future messes.

[Jonna Lee 384]

this is so sickening :wtf:

[xoxo cupcakke 4,781]

That is sad but war is ugly. No war be peaceful, no war be safe. Everyone is both the victim and the culprit somehow in some way. Also, though, this journalists use of whom is incorrect. You only use whom when it is an object of an sentence. In the case of a subject, you use who if they are performing an action

[lego 44,165]

And here you have some people who want to nuke the whole ME, only to kill group of 8,000.

[Guest]

Isn't it always the same? The bigger force wants to hunt the terrorist and 'accidentally' kills innocent civilians. It's just sad :(

[Didymus 34,380]

That is sad but war is ugly. No war be peaceful, no war be safe. Everyone is both the victim and the culprit somehow in some way. Also, though, this journalists use of whom is incorrect. You only use whom when it is an object of an sentence. In the case of a subject, you use who if they are performing an action

 

[uo111 5,283]

Pointing out that civilians are killed in conflicts is like pointing out that the sky is blue. 9/11 killed 3000 innocent people and injured 6000 more just because, there wasn't even a target. I'd say 3000 just because is less reasonable than 1147 to 41.

 

The thing is, if terrorist were in the US we would hunt them down and incapacitate them ourselves. If Middle Eastern countries hunted down the terrorist within their borders, drone strikes wouldn't even be necessary. But they can't/won't and so their civilians pay the price.

 

Then again, I'm sure if we just left the terrorist alone they wouldn't kill more than 1147 people, right? They are just misunderstood.

[Didymus 34,380]

There are other solutions than violence.. The ironic thing is that Obama said this yesterday about Ferguson:

 

"I've never seen anything change [for the better] through violence."

 

All this is doing is increasing hatred against the US and providing other terrorists with proof that the West deserves to perish.

[EXCXSXE 0]

Pointing out that civilians are killed in conflicts is like pointing out that the sky is blue. 9/11 killed 3000 innocent people and injured 6000 more just because, there wasn't even a target. I'd say 3000 just because is less reasonable than 1147 to 41.

 

The thing is, if terrorist were in the US we would hunt them down and incapacitate them ourselves. If Middle Eastern countries hunted down the terrorist within their borders, drone strikes wouldn't even be necessary. But they can't/won't and so their civilians pay the price.

 

Then again, I'm sure if we just left the terrorist alone they wouldn't kill more than 1147 people, right? They are just misunderstood.

 

I was going to say exactly this about 9/11. 

It's ugly, but necessary. Their groups kill civilians on purpose, and call those who perpetrate it martyrs. These people cannot exist and maintain power in a peaceful world.