'US drone' hits Pakistan

[Happy Face 29]

At least 45 people have been killed after missiles were fired from a US "drone" at the funeral of a suspected Taliban commander of the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan, Pakistan officials have said.

 

The attack by the unmanned aircraft was carried out in the village of Najmarai in the Makeen district on Tuesday, Pakistani intelligence officials and witnesses said.

 

"Three missiles were fired by drones as people were dispersing after offering funeral prayers for [Taliban commander] Niaz Wali," an intelligence official told the Reuters news agency.

 

"I saw three drones, they dropped bombs," Sohail Mehsud, a resident of Makeen, said.

 

The funeral was being held for the commander and six other fighters killed earlier in the day in a suspected US drone attack on what Pakistan officials said was a "Taliban training centre".

 

Tuesday's attacks came as the Pakistani army was preparing to launch an offensive against Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

 

US denial

 

Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said: "There are reports that Mehsud himself was at the congregational prayer and escaped the attack.

 

"However, we are told that a number of people present at that particular moment were [also] killed.

 

"There were unconfirmed reports that the death toll is much higher because a number of the bodies are badly mutilated."

 

Pakistan officially objects to strikes on its territory by the pilotless US aircraft.

 

Questioned about the reported attacks, a US defence department said: "There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan."

 

Pakistan's military mounted an operation earlier this month against Mehsud in South Waziristan, launching air raids and artillery barrages against suspected Taliban bases in the region.

 

The missile raids came on the same day that Qari Zainuddin, a key rival of Mehsud, was assassinated in the northwestern town of Dera, police said.

 

Zainuddin, a Taliban commander, had spoken out strongly against Mehsud and may have been about to mount a challenge against him.

 

Potential backlash

 

Al Jazeera's Hyder said Tuesday's attack was likely to cause considerable anger in the country.

 

"It may play into the hands of elements like Mehsud because the attack took place on a funeral - there are cultural sensitivities," he said.

 

"Such attacks are likely to complicate the situation for the Pakistani military because they have to be equally sensitive to public opinion in that area - something that is not going to be helped by the drones."

 

Mehsud, an al-Qaeda ally, was accused of plotting the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a former Pakistani prime minister, in 2007.

 

The US government had offered a reward of $5m for information leading to his location or arrest.

 

There have reportedly been more than 20 US drone attacks against targets in Pakistan so far this year, although Tuesday's strikes are the deadliest to date.

 

Frequent attacks by pilotless US drone aircraft have been heavily criticised by Pakistani leaders for killing innocent civilians and infringing upon national sovereignty.

 

The US considers Pakistan's tribal region, of which South Waziristan is a part, a hideout from where al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters launch attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/200...4230395712.html

[Park Life 71]

Probably one of the quickest ways of facilitating a religious Govt takeover of Pakistan.

[Craig 6700]

was about to post:

 

[parky]Conspiracy[/parky]

 

But he beat me to it...

[Park Life 71]

was about to post:

 

[parky]Conspiracy[/parky]

 

But he beat me to it...

 

 

It's a bit silly targeting funerals...They really don't like that and the military regime in Pakistan is very vulernable.

[The Fish 10972]

Isn't this the beginning of the "EagleEye" film starring Shia Leboeuf?

[Happy Face 29]

Isn't this the beginning of the "EagleEye" film starring Shia Leboeuf?

 

Robots killing people? I think it was Terminator.

[The Fish 10972]

 

no, there was some precursor to the main "plot" where the leader of some random terrorist faction is at a funeral and they use drones to attack it, it later turns out it wasn't him...

 

or something.

[Happy Face 29]

3 days before the attack....

 

 

The new American commander in Afghanistan said he would sharply restrict the use of airstrikes here, in an effort to reduce the civilian deaths that he said were undermining the American-led mission.

 

In interviews over the past few days, the commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said the use of airstrikes during firefights would in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun.

 

Even in the cases of active firefights with Taliban forces, he said, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas — the very circumstances in which most Afghan civilian deaths have occurred. The restrictions will be especially tight in attacking houses and compounds where insurgents are believed to have taken cover.

 

“Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly,” General McChrystal told a group of his senior officers during a video conference last week. “We can lose this fight.”

 

“When we shoot into a compound, that should only be for the protection of our forces,” he said. “I want everyone to understand that.”

 

The statements by General McChrystal signaled the latest tightening of the rules for using airstrikes, which, while considered indispensable for protecting troops, have killed hundreds of civilians.

 

They have also angered the Afghan government, which has repeatedly criticized American and NATO forces for not taking enough care with civilian lives.

 

In December, the American commander at the time, Gen. David D. McKiernan, issued guidelines ordering his soldiers to use force that was proportional to the provocation and that minimized the risk of civilian casualties.

 

General McChrystal’s new guidelines follow a deadly episode last month in the Afghan village of Granai, where American airstrikes killed dozens of civilians.

 

The episode highlighted the difficulties facing American officers under fire, as they are forced to balance using lethal force to protect their troops with rules restricting the use of firepower to prevent civilian deaths.

 

The episode, on May 4, began when a large group of Taliban fighters attacked a group of about 200 Afghan soldiers and police officers and American advisers. During the firefight, which began just after noon and carried on into the night, the Americans on the ground called for air support.

 

American fighter jets, and then bombers, came to the scene, dropping a number of 500- and 2,000-pound bombs. The bombs succeeded in ending the attack, but they did much more damage as well.

 

A Pentagon report estimated that at least 26 civilians had been killed in the airstrikes. It concluded that American personnel had made significant errors, including violating procedures, that led to those deaths. Among those errors, the report said, was a failure by the American personnel to discern whether Afghan civilians were in the compound before they attacked.

 

Other credible estimates of civilian deaths in Granai ranged much higher. An investigation by a Kabul-based group, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, said that at least 86 women and children had been killed, and as many as 97 civilians altogether. The Afghan government said 140 civilians had been killed.

 

The Pentagon report did not dispute the conclusions reached by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and referred to its “balanced, thorough investigation.”

 

The deaths in Granai make up part of the huge rise in civilian casualties that are characterizing the war in Afghanistan.

 

A United Nations report found that the number of Afghan civilians killed in 2008 was 40 percent higher than in 2007. The Taliban and other insurgents caused the majority of the civilian deaths, primarily through suicide bombers and roadside bombs.

 

The changes highlighted by General McChrystal go to the heart of what went wrong in Granai. In that case, there were at least four airstrikes: the first by F-18 fighters and the other three by a B-1B bomber. The report found that it was the last two airstrikes that probably caused the civilian deaths.

 

In those cases, the report found, the bomber’s crew tracked suspected Taliban fighters as they entered a building, and then attacked without determining whether civilians were inside. The report said there were probably civilians inside those buildings when they were destroyed.

 

Under the rules that General McChrystal outlined, those strikes would almost certainly be prohibited. They would be prohibited, the general said, even if it meant letting some Taliban get away.

 

Referring to airstrikes, General McChrystal said, “If it is just to defeat the enemy, then we are not going to do it, even if it means we are going to step away from that firefight and fight another time.”

 

According to the Pentagon report, the B-1B dropped five 500-pound bombs and two 2,000-pound bombs. The initial airstrikes, carried out by four F-18 fighters-bombers, the report said, killed insurgents but no civilians.

 

Ahmad Nader Nadery, the director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, said Sunday that the American response in Granai was “disproportionate.” And he said he was pleased by the changes outlined by General McChrystal.

 

“We are looking forward to seeing the new guidelines, and actually seeing how they would be translated into practice,” he said.

 

Last September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered new rules specifically to defuse tensions over Afghan civilian deaths.

 

During a recent visit to Kabul, Mr. Gates said the American military would quickly apologize and offer compensation to survivors in cases of civilian deaths, even in advance of formal investigations to determine exactly what had happened.

 

“I think the key for us is, on those rare occasions when we do make a mistake, when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly, and then carry out the investigation,” Mr. Gates said after a meeting with President Hamid Karzai.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/as...rikes.html?_r=1

 

Say one thing, do another.

[Park Life 71]

I think they release a lot of PR like that for public consumption, but as we see the indiscriminate strikes will continue. Attacking a funeral ffs!!

[Fop 1]

Say one thing, do another.

 

 

Yup, just look at WW2. The Nazi's killed a lot of innocent people, the Allies killed more.

[Park Life 71]

Say one thing, do another.

 

 

Yup, just look at WW2. The Nazi's killed a lot of innocent people, the Allies killed more.

 

Is that true?

[Fop 1]

Say one thing, do another.

 

 

Yup, just look at WW2. The Nazi's killed a lot of innocent people, the Allies killed more.

 

Is that true?

 

Aye, including in-direct deaths and missing, although it gets a bit iffy with the USSR in all contexts. You didn't have the sort of reporting and account you have these days, so if anything numbers are probably unestimated.

[The Fish 10972]

I think they release a lot of PR like that for public consumption, but as we see the indiscriminate strikes will continue. Attacking a funeral ffs!!

 

Just a hypothetical; If you had categroical proof that your target who was directly responsible for the attack of September 11th, if he was coming out of obscurity for one day and he was to be at a funeral, would you strike?

[Happy Face 29]

I think they release a lot of PR like that for public consumption, but as we see the indiscriminate strikes will continue. Attacking a funeral ffs!!

 

Just a hypothetical; If you had categroical proof that your target who was directly responsible for the attack of September 11th, if he was coming out of obscurity for one day and he was to be at a funeral, would you strike?

 

I think they all commited suicide mate.

 

[The Fish 10972]

You know what I mean, they were just the bullets, someone else fired the gun.

[Happy Face 29]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

[Happy Face 29]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

[Fop 1]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

He'd have just forgiven them.

 

 

So what do you think should done then?

[Kid Dynamite 7182]

The irony being 9/11 will be forever remembered as the greatest atrocity committed in our lifetime, complete with hollywood movies, tribute albums and memorials. But about ten times as many innocent afghans and iraqis have been murdered and its put down as collateral damage

[Guest alex]

The irony being 9/11 will be forever remembered as the greatest atrocity committed in our lifetime, complete with hollywood movies, tribute albums and memorials. But about ten times as many innocent afghans and iraqis have been murdered and its put down as collateral damage

Quite.

[Happy Face 29]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

He'd have just forgiven them.

 

 

So what do you think should done then?

 

Who? When?

[Fop 1]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

He'd have just forgiven them.

 

 

So what do you think should done then?

 

Who? When?

 

If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it?

[Happy Face 29]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

He'd have just forgiven them.

 

 

So what do you think should done then?

 

Who? When?

 

If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it?

 

So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area?

 

I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal.

 

How about you?

Edited June 25, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

There's huge debate as to the rights and wrongs of government sponsored targeted assassinations.

 

I don't think hoying 49 civillians into the mix helps the argument for it.

 

How about if they'd just rounded them all up and imprisoned them all for a couple of years?

 

He'd have just forgiven them.

 

 

So what do you think should done then?

 

Who? When?

 

If they have firm intelligence of a Taliban commander's position, what should be done about it?

 

So this exact scenario? In Pakistan? In a civillian area?

 

I think it's pretty clear from my earlier posts that I'd prefer the approach espoused by General McChrystal.

How about you?

 

 

He seems to be mostly talking about air strikes in firefights, that's not the same thing as knowing exactly where a Taliban leader will be, and if it it were it's not said what would be done.

 

So like Fop said if they know exactly where a Taliban leader will be - what do you think they should do about it?