Over Kill: Aiming for Two Militant Leaders in Pakistan, U.S. Drone Pilots Killed 233 People, including 89 Children | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Over Kill: Aiming for Two Militant Leaders in Pakistan, U.S. Drone Pilots Killed 233 People, including 89 Children

The U.S. drone program in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen is referred to as “targeted killing” of those deemed to be a danger to American interests. President Barack Obama even said in a speech on May 23, 2013, “[B]y narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” Instead, the Central Intelligence Agency attacks are anything but targeted; hundreds often die in the multiple attempts to kill each individual.

A study (pdf) by Reprieve, a group that works against the death penalty and other government killing, showed that not only are many innocent lives lost in the attacks, but the actual targets are often missed. That can result in some being “killed” multiple times. Reprieve found 41 men whose deaths had been reported multiple times but remained alive while as many as 1,147 civilians in the kill zone died.

Ayman al Zawahiri, the current leader of al-Qaeda, has been the target of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan at least twice. A total of 76 children and 29 adults have died for the sake of getting al Zawahiri, but he’s still alive. Still, the body count there is less than in the six attempts to kill Qari Hussain, a deputy commander of the Tehrike-Taliban Pakistan. One hundred twenty eight people, including 13 children, died before the CIA was able to kill Hussain.

Another target, Fahd al Quso, got around so much that he was reported killed in both Yemen and Pakistan. In four attempts to kill him, 48 people died before al Quso finally did.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

The question thinking Americans must ask right now is, how do alleged "radicals" become radicalized against the US and the West?!?

Is it because there is some degree of transparency in their government, and votes actually count during elections?

Is it because people can work for decent wages, and are able to take care of their families, which have the advantage of low-cost, world-class medical care and a competitive education which can give that country a real, tangible edge in future generations?

I would strongly suggest, not at all.

When people are trapped with a US-imposed tinpot dictator, who has some material or geostrategic advantage to offer, and understands that the US will provide any means necessary to suppress even peaceful protest, people get angry at the US.

The Kingdom of Bahrain is a perfect case in point. Bahrain, home to the US Navy's 5th fleet, is ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa monarchy, but the majority of Bahrain's people are Shiite Muslim.

When there were peaceful demonstrations a couple of years ago, where Bahrain's people were asking for a move toward a Constitutional monarchy, not only were they attacked, arrested,tortured, and jailed, after a kangaroo court hearing; the first responders who gave them medical aid were also attacked, arrested,tortured, and jailed after a kangaroo court hearing.

To say that the people of Bahrain are not particularly happy with their government, and profoundly unhappy with the US government for supporting it, is like saying the Titanic hit a little ice.

And IF a true revolution comes to this country which cannot be put down by either the Bahraini or Saudi military, I will be willing to bet you that executives of the US State Department, the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House will collectively have that glazed "deer in the headlights" look, claiming they never saw it coming.

President Kennedy said it best: "when peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable."

As a Christian pacifist, I abhor violence, and would never advocate its use; I can understand, however, how violence becomes the ultimate, collective response to how people are brutally treated by a leadership more interested in US "foreign aid" ( read: bribery to keep the people "in their place"), and which generally never gets to the people who desperately need it, (as in the case with Yemen), than with improving the lot of their citizens. The citizens of Yemen are not happy, particularly in light of the fact that that US drone attacks are killing innocent men, women, children, and the medically fragile in their country.

These slaughtered innocents have names; they have families and friends who loved them.

And if some of these people were at the end of their collective rope, and became radicalized, it is the US foreign policy of supporting despots against their own people, while butchering the innocent, which has put them there. I cannot, morally, support a US foreign policy which does this.

And the most painful irony here, is that this is a foreign policy approach which is ultimately doomed to fail. You may want to ask the citizens of Cuba, Chile, or Iran about that, if you have the guts to do so.

To get what they want economically and geopolitically, the Chinese and Russian leadership are making deals; to get what the US government wants, it is waging wars, which appear to be on the verge of some massive and brutal escalation across the globe.

What is wrong with this picture?!? BLOODY EVERYTHING!!

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA