Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years [View all]Catherina
(35,568 posts)64. Whose innocents? Only the invading soldiers with lethal weapons from our side?
Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik reported last year that there had been 336 drone attacks on Pakistan alone over the previous eight years, claiming 2,300 victims. Some 80 percent of those killed were innocent civilians.
US Research admits this. The corporate media admits this. Everyone except the apologists and the warriors working in the Department of Predatory Drones admits this. There's no way anyone who's looked into this can make the claim that drones save lives with a straight face, unless the other victims' lives don't count.
(CNN) -- ...
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."
It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."
...
drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."
It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."
...
drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes
The warmakers are lying again. What a surprise.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I would have to say Dwight Eisenhower was the best President in my life time.
xtraxritical
Feb 2013
#73
Surely collateral damage will be held to an acceptable level for only then could
indepat
Feb 2013
#35
16 is almost grown, esp in tribes. He was no "young child." US says he wasn't the target,
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#111
Not anymore. He knew by that date that his dad had been killed in a drone attack. He was hardly
Honeycombe8
Feb 2013
#117
If his father had not brought him to Yemen, this would not have happened
Freddie Stubbs
Feb 2013
#75
Nevertheless, he was. I was responding to your post that he was not your normal 16yo. n/t
Mojorabbit
Feb 2013
#11
I am confused. Are you saying he deserved it because of his training and his father?
rhett o rick
Feb 2013
#15
Then why did the Press Secretary make that disgusting comment about his father?
tavalon
Feb 2013
#22
Absolutely sick and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#59
Sure they do, that little sperm should have seen the danger and swam the other way.
Autumn
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, he was meeting with folks that knew his dad that were connected with al Qaeda.
Tx4obama
Feb 2013
#33
This happened well before the last election. Why are you up in arms about it now?
harmonicon
Feb 2013
#34
Where is the culpability for the adults he was with?? He was with known terrorists!
hue
Feb 2013
#39
Hey, don't let actual facts ruin an emotionally manipulating story designed to portray
Yavin4
Feb 2013
#47
Perfectly said. This story unsettles me, but for me, the most important issue is why in hell
Number23
Feb 2013
#49
I know he wasn't targeted. But to be honest, that doesn't make his situation less tragic to me
Number23
Feb 2013
#53
no, but if we had done away with the ground war and used drones it would have cut down
JI7
Feb 2013
#56
Whose innocents? Only the invading soldiers with lethal weapons from our side?
Catherina
Feb 2013
#64
You don't need to be 'concerned' to point out that it was said this kid was collateral damage.
randome
Feb 2013
#89
"should have (had) a far more responsible father" = sick, disgusting. *they* killed him.
HiPointDem
Feb 2013
#99
Sad thing is, as Wikileaks revealed, they went after al-Awlaki because OBL was old news
Catherina
Feb 2013
#113