US Killed 700 Civilians in Pakistan Drone Strikes in 2009

[Marko]

‘Year of the Drone Strike’ Netted Only Five Actual Militant Leaders

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/us-killed-700-civilians-in-pakistan-drone-strikes-in-2009/

This is just shocking, I am sure you will agree.

The US gov has in a single year killed 700 completely innocent people. And this is just via the use of drones, so not including special forces and Blackwater operations and eventual strikes via the use of manned aircraft. This in Pakistan. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. Not even in Somalia. But in Pakistan, an actual subservient allied country but whose government actually largely opposes these strikes. The US is totally out of control. Like it or not in these circumstances the Taleban are the protectors of the common folk in the targeted areas. I do not like their politics, but it is the truth.

In such circumstances I think Americans (but also NATO Europeans) have absolutely zero credibility to fearmonger about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez or Hassan Nasrallah or whoever else. You take care of your own government, concentrate your efforts to stop your crazy establishment. Before you make an effort against that any complaining you do about governments elsewhere will rightfully fall on completely deaf ears.

Also I must say that being anarchist libertarians we are extremely well positioned to analyse this sort of happenings in the world as we are much more easily able to decipher the rights and the wrongs and offer our unique insight, but that I am founding that there is far too little of this. There is great amount of knowledge on fundamentals of issues and root causes of conflict and obscure philosophical questions, but as soon as we start to talk about things which are more immediately real the interest and knowledge takes a nosedive. I am finding that your average Paulian, albeit not as ideologically sound has more interest in and knowledge of of many less fundamentalistic issues, such as US foreign policy, than your rank and file Austrian anarchist.

[auctionguy10]

Maybe one day people will acknowledge these dead as human beings just like the rest of us are. But they’re identities are reduced to numbers- there are no names, faces, or any type of emotional connection spoken of when they die. Killed like ants- subhuman.

[Nielsio]

@Marko

Also I must say that being anarchist libertarians we are extremely well positioned to analyse this sort of happenings in the world as we are much more easily able to decipher the rights and the wrongs and offer our unique insight, but that I am founding that there is far too little of this. There is great amount of knowledge on fundamentals of issues and root causes of conflict and obscure philosophical questions, but as soon as we start to talk about things which are more immediately real the interest and knowledge takes a nosedive. I am finding that your average Paulian, albeit not as ideologically sound has more interest in and knowledge of of many less fundamentalistic issues, such as US foreign policy, than your rank and file Austrian anarchist.

I think this is a false perception. It’s exactly like you said: principled libertarians can see the truth of the situation with clear vision. This imperial war and any imperial war is genocide. The reason it may be less discussed among principled libertarians is that there is really nothing to discuss. All the facts about it are just immensely tragic and unhuman.

The principled libertarians are also the only ones who have a clear solution to the problem, because they have the only insight that explains what has been happening all these years, decades, centuries and millenia. The insight is that a monopoly on defense leads to war; i.e. war is a racket. The first man to say that a monopoly on defense leads to war was the first anarcho-capitalist Gustave de Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security.

That’s why other people may spend more time talking about the wars, because they quibble about the proper function of a defense department of a state. Should they bomb three countries or two? You can say that it should only act in defense, but that would be in defense of the state, and the state is defined by state interests. So for the sake of state interest you should bomb three countries not two.

A real defense agency shouldn’t steal in the first place of course. This pretty much ends all discussion and nobody in the main stream media wants to talk about that.

[wilderness]

this is sad. going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents. and if anybody in the u.s. or abroad says these are mistakes then i will again conclude such a person is beyond repair.

the u.s. gov’t is of the great satan.

blessed be to Allah.

Now am I going to be a drone target?

[Marko]

@Nielsio

The principled libertarians are also the only ones who have a clear solution to the problem, because they have the only insight that explains what has been happening all these years, decades, centuries and millenia. The insight is that a monopoly on defense leads to war; i.e. war is a racket. The first man to say that a monopoly on defense leads to war was the first anarcho-capitalist Gustave de Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security.

A real defense agency shouldn’t steal in the first place of course. This pretty much ends all discussion and nobody in the main stream media wants to talk about that.

I know what you mean but here is exactly where we disagree. No I do not think that it is enough to point at the ultimate cause of war and leave it at that.

What would our economics look like if we did the same in the sphere of economics? The ultimate cure of all economic ills is the seperation of economy from the state. To get economy in perfect order all we would need to do would be to seperate the state from the economy. But where would it leave us as anarcho-capitalists, if all we did would be to repeat constantly this little tidbit of information? It would make us irrelevant and our economics void of content.

Take Economics In One Lesson and the Power And Market, these two works weren`t about fundamentalistic issues, they analysed government policies albeit in the abstract, while the whole field of economic history deals with similar analysis of specific policies. Who would claim that there is nothing to talk about in the case of the Great Depression or on central banking?

We would serve our cause greatly if we could offer more of our uniquely powerful insight of this non-fundementalistic variety on imperialism and war. We can offer countless pages on the myth that FDR saved capitalism from itself. When do we similarly debunk imperialism as the last stage of capitalism, shed light on communist countries as inherently peacable, collective security as the road to world peace, terrorists as equaling non-buerocratised fighters, the notions of bombing for peace or spreading liberties (and capitalism) at the point of the gun and reveal thousands and thousands of specific self-serving lies of the empire and of empires in their countless quests for power?

Having fundamentals in order is great but we aren`t very quick to build on them. Right now if you want analysis of the government policies concerning the 1870s deflation even rank anarcho-capitalist are eager to talk about it and stand ready to shower you with information, but if we are talking about 1870s government policies concerning massacring people and wiping out the Indians you are probably sentanced to have to consult someone like the often-wrong Chomsky.

[laminustacitus]

War is tragic, but often necessary. From all of this, the message that I bring is one of hope, no longer are casualties counted in the thousands per diem, the effects of war have been vastly curtailed compared to what it has been in previous centuries, and decades.

@Marko

But in Pakistan, an actual subservient allied country but whose government actually largely opposes these strikes.

Opposes them in the open, but not enough to demand a stop to American attacks. The Pakistani government might be as happy as the Americans about the attacks against the Taliban in Waziristan because that area is controlled by them not the Pakistani government. In fact, to quote The Economist, “if Islamic terror has a headquarters, it is probably Waziristan.”

@Marko

In such circumstances I think Americans (but also NATO Europeans) have absolutely zero credibility to fearmonger about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez or Hassan Nasrallah or whoever else. You take care of your own government, concentrate your efforts to stop your crazy establishment. Before you make an effort against that any complaining you do about governments elsewhere will rightfully fall on completely deaf ears.

Tu quoque much?

@auctionguy10

Maybe one day people will acknowledge these dead as human beings just like the rest of us are.

And people don’t already do this? You are creating a strawman here.

@Nielsio

The principled libertarians are also the only ones who have a clear solution to the problem, because they have the only insight that explains what has been happening all these years, decades, centuries and millenia. The insight is that a monopoly on defense leads to war; i.e. war is a racket.

We already know what leads to war: the fact that men will find any excuse to kill each other. There has never been a human society without war.

@wilderness

going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents.

One question: do you know the size of the missiles used by drones? If you cannot give a good estimate to this without consulting another source, please never speak on this issue again because you obviously do not have enough knowledge to make an assertion like this.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

Opposes them in the open, but not enough to demand a stop to American attacks.

You assume that if Pakistani government wanted to stop these attacks they could. In fact there is no reason to belive this. It is the Pakistani government who must dance to the tune of the US. Last time I checked Pakistan was pressured into carrying out wast offensives against the tribals, the last of which was a massive military manouvre that resulted in 200,000 internal refugees. I doubt a government which is so weak in relation to the empire as to need to carry out such unreasonable demands that are tearing the country apart has any leverage over the empire. You will remember that before the empire got involved in the region Pakistan was content to largely leave the tribals alone.

@laminustacitus

The Pakistani government might be as happy as the Americans about the attacks against the Taliban in Waziristan because that area is controlled by them not the Pakistani government.

Only if they are morons. Seeing how the attacks only kill and maim civilians and inflame the population against them and escalate a conflict they do not even want to be fighting.

@laminustacitus

We already know what leads to war: the fact that men will find any excuse to kill each other. There has never been a human society without war.

What wouldn`t you write to exonerate the warmakers?

[auctionguy10]

@laminustacitus

War is tragic, but often necessary. From all of this, the message that I bring is one of hope, no longer are casualties counted in the thousands per diem, the effects of war have been vastly curtailed compared to what it has been in previous centuries, and decades.

I don’t see how it is necessary in regards to pakistan. And I don’t see how bombing villages is necessary or that it accomplishes anything at all. Maybe you can explain.

@auctionguy10

Maybe one day people will acknowledge these dead as human beings just like the rest of us are.

@laminustacitus

And people don’t already do this? You are creating a strawman here.

Not enough people do- everyone should.

@wilderness

going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents.

@laminustacitus

One question: do you know the size of the missiles used by drones? If you cannot give a good estimate to this without consulting another source, please never speak on this issue again because you obviously do not have enough knowledge to make an assertion like this

Don’t be so boneheaded. The kill count speaks for itself. There is no excuse- and “oops” isn’t even a good attempt at one.

[jmorris84]

@laminustacitus

War is tragic, but often necessary.

Is the “war” that the USA has gotten itself currently involved in, necessary? If so, please explain.

@laminustacitus

From all of this, the message that I bring is one of hope, no longer are casualties counted in the thousands per diem, the effects of war have been vastly curtailed compared to what it has been in previous centuries, and decades.

My understanding is that it is very hard to decipher who is an “enemy” and who is not, in the Middle East right now. The specific targets that the militaries are going after aren’t wearing any type of uniforms and are mixing themselves in with the rest of their society. That being said, it’s not exactly the same as any prior wars where there was essentially a battlefield in which the opposing militants met each other on to fight. That being said, you simply aren’t going to have the same amount of casualties as past wars. Either way, this does not make our current “war” more justifiable then prior ones.

All in all, you appear to be someone who accepts the fact that states will continue to go to war, as they always have and that you have become okay with that. Maybe you are just numb to it all, who knows.

[laminustacitus]

@Marko

@laminustacitus

The Pakistani government might be as happy as the Americans about the attacks against the Taliban in Waziristan because that area is controlled by them not the Pakistani government.

Only if they are morons. Seeing how the attacks only kill and maim civilians and inflame the population against them and escalate a conflict they do not even want to be fighting.

It is not that simple. As long as Pakistan vocally opposes the American drone-attacks, then its government will still maintain much of its legitimacy. Furthermore, you overlook the fact that those associated with the Taliban in Waziristan already are not aligned with the Pakistani government due to historical reasons. In addition, “escalate a conflict”? The Pakistani government may very well launch a military invasion into Waziristan in order to gain back control, the conflict is already extremely escalated so any worries about further escalation are bunk. Honestly, this entire analysis does not even take into consideration the situation in Waziristan, and its historical relations with the rest of Pakistan, but acts as if foreign policy can be done a priori.

@Marko

@laminustacitus

We already know what leads to war: the fact that men will find any excuse to kill each other. There has never been a human society without war.

What wouldn`t you write to exonerate the warmakers?

So I take it that you agree with me, but you still don’t want to admit that war is a part of the human condition.

@auctionguy10

@laminustacitus

War is tragic, but often necessary. From all of this, the message that I bring is one of hope, no longer are casualties counted in the thousands per diem, the effects of war have been vastly curtailed compared to what it has been in previous centuries, and decades.

I don’t see how it is necessary in regards to pakistan. And I don’t see how bombing villages is necessary or that it accomplishes anything at all. Maybe you can explain.

The methods of waging war have changed ensuring both less casualties, and far less collateral damage thus illustrated by the drone-attacks in Pakistan.

@auctionguy10

@auctionguy10

Maybe one day people will acknowledge these dead as human beings just like the rest of us are.

@laminustacitus

And people don’t already do this? You are creating a strawman here.

Not enough people do- everyone should.

An unnamed people don’t do it, but to prove actionguy10’s point it must be true even though no evidence is cited! Honestly, I have yet to meet anyone who does not already believe in this point, and even in Storm of Steel, Ernest Junger expresses the same opinion about the British soldiers that he fights despite the fact that he shows no regret for his actions. An American soldier does not need to feel that the insurgents that he fights are not as human as he is, so it is does not support your thesis to state that he willfully kills enemy insurgents, and the same goes for drone-attacks.

@auctionguy10

@wilderness

going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents.

@laminustacitus

One question: do you know the size of the missiles used by drones? If you cannot give a good estimate to this without consulting another source, please never speak on this issue again because you obviously do not have enough knowledge to make an assertion like this

Don’t be so boneheaded. The kill count speaks for itself. There is no excuse- and “oops” isn’t even a good attempt at one.

Honestly, 700 is not a high kill-count when understood in the context of military history. Furthermore, you assume that all civilian deaths are intentional, in order to prove your thesis you must prove that the kill-count is the result of the intentional targeting of civilians rather than collateral damage.

@jmorris84

@laminustacitus

War is tragic, but often necessary.

Is the “war” that the USA has gotten itself currently involved in, necessary? If so, please explain.

And how is this relating to the soundness of my point?

@jmorris84

@laminustacitus

From all of this, the message that I bring is one of hope, no longer are casualties counted in the thousands per diem, the effects of war have been vastly curtailed compared to what it has been in previous centuries, and decades.

My understanding is that it is very hard to decipher who is an “enemy” and who is not, in the Middle East right now. The specific targets that the militaries are going after aren’t wearing any type of uniforms and are mixing themselves in with the rest of their society.

My point is still very sound, this does not even weaken it a bit.

@jmorris84

That being said, it’s not exactly the same as any prior wars where there was essentially a battlefield in which the opposing militants met each other on to fight.

There is a reason for that, it is no coincidence: the methods of war have changed, which is essentially a part of my original point.

@jmorris84

That being said, you simply aren’t going to have the same amount of casualties as past wars.

Because the methods of war have changed. Its great that you agree with me.

[wilderness]

@laminustacitus

@wilderness

going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents.

One question: do you know the size of the missiles used by drones? If you cannot give a good estimate to this without consulting another source, please never speak on this issue again because you obviously do not have enough knowledge to make an assertion like this.

yeah that’s it. At times it’s nearly every other day that these drones are launching missles. And seeing what 5 was it, militants died, so that means only five drone missile launches or at times they completely miss a person and end up killing 20 innocents instead. lol.

It’s deliberate.

[wilderness]

@laminustacitus

So I take it that you agree with me, but you still don’t want to admit that war is a part of the human condition.

Yeah you like war seeing how you don’t say otherwise. So you are part of the problem as you don’t try otherwise. So you’ll go on and spread your insecurities about the world and human nature.

[laminustacitus]

@wilderness

@laminustacitus

@wilderness

going on the facts of this post i have to conclude this is all deliberate. there’s no way to have that many accidents.

One question: do you know the size of the missiles used by drones? If you cannot give a good estimate to this without consulting another source, please never speak on this issue again because you obviously do not have enough knowledge to make an assertion like this.

yeah that’s it. At times it’s nearly every other day that these drones are launching missles. And seeing what 5 was it, militants died, so that means only five drone missile launches or at times they completely miss a person and end up killing 20 innocents instead. lol.

It’s deliberate.

Thank-you for your admission of ignorance.

[wilderness]

Lam,

peace be with you.

[jmorris84]

@laminustacitus

And how is this relating to the soundness of my point?

Nice dodge.

@laminustacitus

My point is still very sound, this does not even weaken it a bit.

Sure it does.

@laminustacitus

There is a reason for that, it is no coincidence: the methods of war have changed, which is essentially a part of my original point.

The methods of war have not changed. I wouldn’t even go so far as to calling this a war, hence the quotes around my use of the word.

@laminustacitus

Because the methods of war have changed. Its great that you agree with me.

We don’t agree. You’ve failed to comprehend anything that you’ve read. Go back to my initial question and answer it. If you can not then anything else you would have to say on the subject is meaningless, as it is all very relevant to my question. I look forward to your well thought out response.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

It is not that simple. As long as Pakistan vocally opposes the American drone-attacks, then its government will still maintain much of its legitimacy.

Only if ordinary Pakistanis are fools. Do you think ordinary Pakistanis are fools?

@laminustacitus

Furthermore, you overlook the fact that those associated with the Taliban in Waziristan already are not aligned with the Pakistani government due to historical reasons.

Jet they can be radicalised further. And the main argument does not even concern them, but ordinary Pakistanis in government controlled areas who strongly oppose their soverignity being raped in this manner and their unruly countrymen in tribal areas being killed. Not to even touch upon the designs of the US to expand the strikes into non-tribal areas such as the recent threat to conduct attacks in the city of Quetta.

@laminustacitus

In addition, “escalate a conflict”? The Pakistani government may very well launch a military invasion into Waziristan in order to gain back control, the conflict is already extremely escalated so any worries about further escalation are bunk.

Nonsense. Further escalation is always possible no matter how dear the situation already.

@laminustacitus

@Marko

@laminustacitus

We already know what leads to war: the fact that men will find any excuse to kill each other. There has never been a human society without war.

What wouldn`t you write to exonerate the warmakers?

So I take it that you agree with me, but you still don’t want to admit that war is a part of the human condition.

Take it as me saying your relativisation is sickening and downgrading when employed in the function of exonerating the empire and its crimes as what is normal. No, I do not think it is the normal of human behaviour to destroy, murder and butcher. I think there are other reasons that lead to it than some inherent mystical desire of people to kill people.

@laminustacitus

The methods of waging war have changed ensuring both less casualties, and far less collateral damage thus illustrated by the drone-attacks in Pakistan.

Illustrate by what? Illustrated by attacks whose victims have in the wast mayority of cases have been civilians? They only killed 5 worthy targets. (And even in those cases the people killed were no worse than themselves, but possibly even quite a bit better.) The empire is murderous, yout attempt at sanitising it is failing.

@laminustacitus

Honestly, 700 is not a high kill-count when understood in the context of military history.

700 is a very high “kill count” when understood in the context of dead women and children, blown away limbs and mourning relatives. It is a very high kill count when understood in the context of a depraved and sickening scene where people are killed via the use of robots controlled by amoral scumbags half a world away, safely concealed in a Nevada base at absolutely no personal risk to themselves, who after massacring a family or two sit up in their SUV and take a ride to their home in time for dinner and a bed time hug for their own children.

@laminustacitus

Furthermore, you assume that all civilian deaths are intentional, in order to prove your thesis you must prove that the kill-count is the result of the intentional targeting of civilians rather than collateral damage.

“Collateral damage”? Does a nice little sanitised euphemism like that make your opinions bear lighter on your humanity?

Drone operators do not intentionally target civilians but they operate under such procedures as to make them butchers. They have no regard for human life and will zapp people under given any amount of intelligence no matter how spotty or incomplete, and are permitted to blow away anyone walking around armed or otherwise “looking suspicious” and often do (albeit this is more characteristic of Afghanistan).

[Kraig]

Of course it is deliberate, and of course they will say it was just ‘collateral damage’. Lets say I am a terrorist and I bomb a building or whatever so they are trying to kill me, instead of sending in a police force to capture me in my apartment, they send a missile at my apartment. Then they act surprised when my wife, kids, and neighbors died in the process - that is what they are calling an accident. Then they realize I wasn’t even home at the time so the repeat the process at the next building they think I am staying at. Then on top of that you are throwing out any question or sense of justice as to how they know I am even guilty.

[Kraig]

I hate to say it so much but this type of remote warfare is only going to give them MORE reason to try and find ways to attack US cities. It is so disgusting. To think of some guy in Nevada making four times what I make, with my labor taken to pay him, to create his weaons, and he is killing these people by just going to the office every day.

I doubt the operators even see the spotty intelligence, they are just given orders in the form of “rules of engagement” before the mission starts.

[tfr000]

@wilderness

Now am I going to be a drone target?

Soon enough, my friend. Our military hardware always finds its way down into the hands of police. There’s a war on drugs to prosecute, you know. (or whatever the latest excuse for kicking in doors in the middle of the night is)

[Marko]

@tfr000

@wilderness

Now am I going to be a drone target?

Soon enough, my friend. Our military hardware always finds its way down into the hands of police. There’s a war on drugs to prosecute, you know. (or whatever the latest excuse for kicking in doors in the middle of the night is)

And so it happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tHk9Q3Fv6g