Skip to comments.World Body to Investigate U.S. Use of Drones (Con'd Use of Drones Leads To Only 1 Conclusion)
Posted on 02/02/2013 5:57:39 PM PST by lbryce
Pakistani villagers offer funeral prayers for people who were reportedly killed by a U.S. drone attack in Miranshah, capital of Pakistani tribal region of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
UNITED NATIONS A U.N. expert on Thursday launched a special investigation into drone warfare and targeted killings, which the United States relies on as a front-line weapon in its global war against al-Qaida.
One of the three countries requesting the investigation was Pakistan, which officially opposes the use of U.S. drones on its territory as an infringement on its sovereignty but is believed to have tacitly approved some strikes in the past. Many Pakistanis say innocent civilians have also been killed in drone strikes, which the U.S. has rejected.
The other two countries requesting the investigation were not named but were identified as two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
It seems for most of his first term he'd be apologizing, bowing, boot-licking for all the horrors perpetrated against innocent people in which America had perceived as its enemy. Only last week, Obama had cut the military budget, in a move I believe is the first time in many decades where the military budget was actually reduced in real dollars.
But yet, his use, facilitation of predator-drones continue unabated, collateral damage, killing of innocent by-standers, entire families wiped out at an alarming rate, all of which as a devout Muslim does not in the least seem to bother him.
I've been wondering a lot about that, the inexplicable dichotomy between his thematic-America hating, the demagoguery in which he characterizes America in the worst, most diabolical terms all while ensconced within the sybaritic environs of his luxo-quarters aboard Air Force One 45,00 feet above sea level.
The egregious hypocrisy that he practices seems lost on him, how on one hand he vilifies America for doing Satan's bidding and yet on the other, his increased use of predator-drones in which he can claim are keeping America safe while eviscerating entire innocent families in the grisly death of a predator drone's fiery crash
How does someone who so strongly identifies with the religion of his ancestors, the memories of studying the Koran in the madrassas of his youth, not experience the minutest sense of guilt with every Muslim child that he has blown up with every predator-drone he launches? The answer eluded me until I realized, I know Obama, I know exactly what he's doing, I know he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows the depth of despair that resonates within with every death brought on by "mistake", he contemplates what goes on in the minds of victims, survivors ,their burning desire of abject hatred for America, the collateral damage that he believes will be repaid ininte times over.
He stops for a moment at what he has spawned and then breaks out in a huge cheek-to-cheek self-congratulating grin.
Complete Title:UN to Obama: Drop Drones? World Body to Investigate U.S. Use of Unmanned Death Planes
I’m sure the U.N. approves of drone strikes against U.S. citizens.
The indiscriminate killing, across sovereign borders is inexcusable. Get one targeted bad guy and who cares about “collateral damage”?
There is no way this is legal. It is about time someone called him to task.
Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (spit)
Yes, we know he does not believe in borders, sovereign or otherwise. He also believes that anyone is an enemy deserving of a death sentence without trial if he says so.
Wait until it starts here.
Sorry about the title mishap. I wanted to say that the continued use of predator-drones by Obama leads to only one conclusion, that Obama wants as much collateral damage as possible towards generating maximum hatred, revulsion towards America that he’s very happy to facilitate.
“The indiscriminate killing, across sovereign borders is inexcusable.”
What you said. +1
to SA: Bullcrap. This is not “indiscrimate killing”. There are no sovereign borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. You can’t find a borderline defined on the ground. The Taliban knows this and so do the Paks. They are killing American troops. Drones even the playing field.
Your arguments are more smoke and mirrors.
Drones are no different that the Maverick TV guided missiles/bombs of Vietnam. That technology increased their accuracy, thus cutting down collateral damage that bombers and fighter-bombers did.
If you knew anything about assymetrical warfare, you would shut up. Otherwise, you are indirectly enabling the enemy to kill our soldiers. Not on my watch. My son was a soldier in OIF. My job was to protect him from the fools in the homefront, like you.
Been doing this since Nam and have no intention of stopping the great “lower information” fools from damaging our war efforts.
I don’t know if the drones do any worse than manned aircraft would. Still this stinks, this non-war war that’s dragging on to infinity. If you are going to wage a war then CONQUER darn it. Not a bunch of sloppy police actions. They must think Barack Obama is a monster over there.
This is a silly rope a dope “war.” The old way would be to conquer Afghanistan, or at least try to.
That’s all the drone strikes in Pakistan are for: PRACTICE FOR HERE. Doesn’t anyone find it odd that a man who can’t even call a terrorist attack a ‘terrorist attack’ is attacking terrorists in Pakistan as part of a war on terror? He can’t even say ‘war on terror’!
You forgot, “Obama death List”.
shalom aleichem: “The indiscriminate killing, across sovereign borders is inexcusable.”
I agree. It violates the Law of Armed Conflict’s principle of distinction by causing the unnecessary and indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. You could probably argue it also violates the other two LOAC principles, military necessity and proportionality, to some degree. That makes President Obama a war criminal.
Winners make the rules and write the history books. However, an immoral act is an immoral act no matter who does it or how it’s portrayed.
Do you discard the possibility that drone attacks might also have a counterproductive effect by #1 not killing enough enemies to destroy their capability to wage war and #2 creating essentially a blood feud between tribes and the US that could very well last for as long as the survivors live?
I’m all for killing the enemy, MadMax, and I even agree civilian deaths are sometimes a necessary part of that. However, I wonder if this is really necessary to achieve victory. The objectives in this endless war on terrorism seem pretty muddled to me.
One of the three countries requesting the investigation was Pakistan, which officially opposes the use of U.S. drones on its territory as an infringement on its sovereignty but is believed to have tacitly approved some strikes in the past... The other two countries requesting the investigation were not named but were identified as two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.Let me help you out -- Russia and China. And to Hell with all three.
I would wager that the drone program would've been shut down some time during the first Obama administration -- with much self-righteous liberal breast-beating. Except for one thing...
Barry gets his kicks out of playing God. He gets to pick the targets...and gets to view the tapes of some camel jockey (and assorted bystanders) being blown to smithereens.
POTUS enjoys directing his very own snuff films...
When a drone attack takes out a Taliban or Al Qaeda of Haqannyi network leader and aides, it degrades their capacity in several ways:
1. Kills off experienced top leaders, strategists, armorers and aides.
2. Creates a climate of fear for them. They never know where we are going to strike. That is why they have to move from house to house and camp to camp on a regular basis.
In Vietnam, the SOGs and Nightfighter helicopters/forces claimed that “We rule the night”. They took that advantage away from both the VC and the PAVN. Caused a lot of defections.
The nights in Vietnam are damned dark when you are out in the boonies. Once the VC ruled the night but when we got smart and started in Special Ops counterinsurgency tactics, the game was changed and the Commies lost, big time.
3. Forget about “blood feuds”. Many tribes work openly for our enemies. They are getting what they gave and some are turning away from the extremists because of it.
Those who are going to be Islamic extremists will find a way to be so without us.
4. The war on terrorism is endless because the ideology is endless, unless you hit the enemy so hard that it takes the fight out of them (Ain’t gonna happen under President Messiah).
However, we are winning the fight in the Philippines against the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic fanatics and even the Communist guerrillas are on the run. Looks like it is also happening in Somalia and parts of Yemen.
In my opinion, we are not hitting some of them hard enough. A JDAM or Hellfire missile is nice. A B-52 raid that totally destroys an enemy encampment is much more demonstrative and destructive. Known as “Death From Above”. - Silent and total.
Look and see what the French do in Mali. If they merely liberate towns and don’t root out Al Qaeda in the Magreb and local affinity groups, then it will be a long war.
If they cut off towns and clean them out once and for all, they will win.
The same for hitting AQ and hostile Tuareg columns of trucks. Bombs and rockets are nice. Napalm eliminated them, totally. Most feared weapon we used in Vietnam.
We are losing men and women in ambushes in Afghanistan because we don’t have napalm in our inventory any more. It is the best weapon to destroy enemy ambushes from the tops and sides of mountains and valleys, as well as to destroy buildings on the ground.
From the films I have seen from Afghanistan, we are nickel and diming the war instead of hitting the enemy with everything we have.
War story from Iraq. My son was, among other things, his squad’s M-249 light machine-gunner. A qualified sharpshooter (qualified at 1,000 yards). Killed some Saddam fedayeen who were using women and children as human shields (when he was allowed to fire back).
One day his unit was under sniper fire from an abandoned building several hundred feet away. He had a hard time zeroing in on the sniper because he kept moving from window to window, firing a short burst, and then moving on again.
My son worked over each window with short bursts but couldn’t really see the sniper. All of a sudden, an American tank came by, fired one shell directly into the building, blowing both it and the sniper up. End of sniping.
My son was pissed because he really wanted to take out this guy. However, the tank shortened the threats to our men and ended the battle with one shot. Moral of the story, blow the shit out of the enemy and let them know that they can’t hide, can’t run, and can’t win.
Word gets around after heavy losses.
The Israelis took heavy losses several years in southern Lebanon by trying to root out Hezbullah from heavily fortified positions in a rocky environment. A couple of napalm strikes would have ended the conflict within a day or two. Trust me, nobody wants to get hit by Nap, and even Islamic fanatics know that when it is used, their time is up and those 72 virgins don’t like making it with “Crispy Critters”.
If we are going to wage a war, we should do it right, the first time. Unfortunately our leaders both political and military are cowards, more afraid of “world opinion” than in taking losses, those of our sons and daughters.
I’m with the grunts, not the brass. The grunts know what the war is really about. It is our job to make sure that they have the weapons and the will to win it.
Believe it or not, I think we’re saying a lot of the same things. There’s nothing wrong with drone attacks per se, but they have to be for a clear cut military purpose. Just killing the enemy isn’t enough, even though drone attacks are clearly doing that.
There has to be a military objective. What’s the end game here? It should be compete and total enemy defeat. You could argue it’s OK to kill 10,000 civilians to kill one enemy soldier in their midst. Unless that soldier is very, very important and his death directly relates to achieving victory, then the attack isn’t justified.
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t know the intelligence behind these drone attacks, but I’m definitely disturbed by them. For one, how do we know our intelligence sources aren’t using US drones for nefarious purposes. Are these people really our enemies, or is there something else going on? For another, we’re apparently killing a lot of civilians in the process.
If this was necessary to victory, then drone attacks might be justified, but what are the victory conditions for this war on terrorism? How do we win? Or, are secretive drone attacks just another aspect of US foreign policy from here on out?
Your conclusion sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me. My guess? I think President Obama knows virtually nothing about the military or fighting a war, so he defers to his advisors. The simplest explanation is mostly likely the correct one. His advisors (and the military no doubt) think the drone attacks are serving some sort of purpose, so they’re advising the president to continue them. President Obama simply continued and expanded Bush’s drone policy, because his administration believed it was effective.
That said, that doesn’t mean the drone attacks are in fact effective. We know they are killing some of the enemy, but this administration has created even more opportunities for Islamic terrorists elsewhere, like in Libya and Eygpt. Before they’re done, we’re likely to have a new caliphate.
What you’re saying sounds reasonable and legitimate and might very well be. But I’m afraid you’re giving Obama too much credit. There are many illustrations that have come to light that make him out to being much more sinister, malevolent, Machiavellian than anyone would ever imagine that gives credence to what I’ve postulated.
Deliberately killing non-involved civilians is always counterproductive. Our targetting of the enemy in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. has been very good, based on good real time intelligence.
You have to go to Bill Roggio’s “Long War Blog” site to read and see about our programs. Same for “Weaselzippers” great film collections from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The films from the helicopters are the best because you often get live-time talk between the pilots/gunners and those doing the targetting.
We are overly cautious in some cases, but that is okay.
Just because someone isn’t carrying a weapon at one point in time, in a battleground, doesn’t mean that he’s not going to carry one down the next block. The same for planting bombs in roads. Our ROE’s say you can’t kill an unarmed enemy eventhough he has committed an act of war against you. BULLSHIT.
Only where you can determine that the Taliban is holding his family hostage, forcing the adult or child to plant a bomb in order to save them, should a “no shoot” order be given. I’d leave the rest of the decision to those on the ground or in the air. We’ve lost too many men and women by not taking out the bomb-planters.
We have also lost the psychological warfare advantage of “instant death” to those who plant the bombs. That is one key advantage we cannot afford to lose.
Our electronic/photographic intelligence is very good in most places, even Afghanistan.
Nobody is going to win by conquering Afghanistan in the traditional sense though the Taliban has the numbers to seize enough territory and small towns and villages to set up a parallel government, much like they did in the 1990’s before the Northern Alliance kicked them out of many areas.
What you are not seeing now are combat reports from Afghanistan. I don’t see the ISAF reports that used to be posted at FR. At least they gave us some insight into combat ops on the ground.
The news media has completely abandoned combat reporting except when a mistake is made
I want to know how many Taliban bomb “facilitators” have been killed or captured; the same for “bomb planters”; how many Taliban “cell” leaders have been killed or captured, etc.
That is the grinding out war that can drive an enemy out of an area if done right.
Nothing on Afghan military forces engaging the enemy. Some good units are but you won’t see reports about them in the MSM, only at Roggio’s site or writings by Michael Yon.
Selective drone attacks will be part of American military tactics from now on. Trust me. They work. Also, they are now, if our politicians don’t even recognize it, part of the military’s “Long Arm” reach strategy, based on President Monroe’s attacks on the Libyan pirates (Tripoli), as well as on U.S. law enforcement tactics in the 1800’s (and well into the 1900’s).
That tactic is the basis for the saying “You can run, but you can’t hide, you can’t escape, you can only surrender or die.”
It is also one of the underpinings of the function of Interpol - more eyes and ears around the world to locate, track and aid in the capture of international criminals and fugitives.
The war on terrorism is going to be a decades long one, but it can be speeded up by taking out key enemy targets as soon as the become designated/located and marked.
The Israelis have been fighting terrorism long before Israel became a state, starting with the Arab raiders of Jewish farming settlements in British Palestine Mandate, from the 1920’s till today.
Even though they suffer daily attacks, their success in defeating them is extraordinarily high. However, at various times in the past, US presidents and their high-ranking advisors have cut-off or suspended US-Israeli intelligence joint operations and sharing.
If you have noticed, the Israelis haven’t bombed any milk factories in the past. We have.
In 1972, I created and coedited the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee study “The Human Cost of Communism In Vietnam”, 1972 (essentially Volume 1 of 3 on the subject). I did a lot of book research as well as first-hand research on the subject, as well as bringing in the best in the field to contribute to the study.
I learned a lot back during the Vietnam war and have not stopped learning, but one thing always remains the same, the enemy will continue to attack you until you destroy him or inflict enough damage to make all but the most die-hard fanatics leave the fight. Then you track them down to the ends of the earth and kill them.
The British did this to the Mau Maus, the Communists in the Malaya war and the US/Philippinos did it to the Huks. Those wars were won because the will was there to do so, and the tactics used were devastating.
Back then there were real military leaders, not the puffs we have today in Dempsey and others.
We are at war. Once we all realize that and what kind of war it is, the methods for fighting will be also realized, and implemented. Then you will be on the long rode to victory.
No, it is you who does not know of what you speak.
No one has ever said that the indiscriminate carpet bombing and napalming of Southeast Asia was “OK”. Quite the contrary.
Your son may be a soldier but why woulkd you assume I wasn’t. You must not talk to many vets.
Our troops have no mission in Afghanistan any more. They are just ducks in a shooting gallery. There because O lacks the guts to pull them, but he will not allow them to do their job while there. He never has.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you have no right or call to tell me to shut up.
This is one area where I actually agree with Zero, although I note the hypocrisy on his part (and the American Left), who complained vociferously about Bush's war policies but have nothing to say about Zero.
I really like that America is killing terrorists with a weapon that causes them so much terror. That is why they’re complaining about it, because it takes away their borders, their safe houses, they cannot operate invisibly and cannot hide. I say keep it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.