Drone Strikes

cyberhog

More on the story of drones, by the people who live under them.

"Because drones are at a certain remove, there is a sense of uncertainty, a sense that you can't control this," Tahir says, describing the attitude among the people who live in Waziristan. Already haunted by the legacy of British colonialism and the laws it left behind, this part of the Tribal Areas is now ruled with a brutal fist by the Pakistani military and various insurgent groups. But the buzz of the drones, sometimes seven or eight overhead a day, signals another kind of indeterminate power. "Whether its true or not, people feel that with militants there is some degree of control. You can negotiate. There is some cause and effect. But there is no cause and effect with drones. It's an acute kind of trauma that is not limited to the actual attack."

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/wounds-of-waziristan-the-story-of-drones-by-the-people-who-live-under-them-video



Communities in Yemen are also being subjected to the same psychological torture.

Peter Schaapveld, a psychologist sent by British Charity REPRIVE to south Yemen to investigate the symptoms, uncovered some dire statistics.

Out of his pool of survivors, he found 70 percent to be suffering from formal post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and virtually all were suffering from some symptoms of PTSD.

Schaapveld warns that as long as they continue living under a drone threat, their symptoms will only worsen.

"There is basically a breakdown of society as a result of this," he said. "Children were not going to school, or if they were the school teachers did not understand PTSD and sent them home. They were not benefiting from an education, and this is storing up problems for later."

"Where there was a strike on the market area, daily commerce was starting to break down," Schaapveld added. "People were not going to the markets, because to meet in those areas meant they might be subject to another strike."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/201365122319329623.html


Once again the US proves it can be just as brutal as any dictatorship. Not only are Obama's drones killing many innocent civilians they are also making children too afraid to go to school and adults unable to work. The US is clearly guilty of collective punishment on the civilian populace in these countries.

Amerika

I don’t condemn the Obama administration’s use of drones. But I don’t get the utter hypocrisy. Is there any doubt that if the current drone policy were executed by the George W Bush administration, democrats, the media, experts, and most of the international community would be demanding Bush and Cheney be delivered to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity? Instead, we have the mouse that roared with little more than token admonishment against the Obama administration.

Jonny7

The Bush admin took the primary decisions which led to the current situation

People blame Obama's handling of the issue, however they see it as a headache that was inherited rather than instigated

Be like Nutella

Unmanned: America's Drone Wars - streams Oct 30th - here's the link
http://unmanned.warcosts.com/

Be like Nutella

1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), which states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” This ban on assassination still stands.

Assassination by the US government has been illegal since 1976

Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder. These murders are also the textbook definition of assassination, which is murder by sudden or secret attack for political reasons.

_______________________________

Of 67,844 global terror deaths in last 5 yrs,

84 were Americans

2008: 33 of 15,709
2009: 9 of 15,311
2010: 15 of 13,193
2011: 17 of 12,533
2012: 10 of 11,098

According to the current US Military Law of War Deskbook, the law of war allows killing only when consistent with four key principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity. These principles preclude both direct targeting of civilians and medical personnel but also set out how much “incidental” loss of civilian life is allowed. Some argue precision-guided weapons like drones can be used only when there is no probable cause of civilian deaths. But the US military disputes that burden and instead directs “all practicable precautions” be taken to weigh the anticipated loss of civilian life against the advantages expected to be gained by the strike.

Even using the more lenient standard, there is little legal justification of deliberately allowing the killing of civilians who are “incidental” to the killings of people whose identities are unknown.

___________________________


Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright

“These drones, you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for: targeted assassination, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not been convicted of anything.”


retired Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center Robert Grenier

“One wonders how many Yemenis may be moved in the future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to US military actions against them.”

There is incredible danger in allowing US military and civilians to murder people anywhere in the world with no public or Congressional or judicial oversight. This authorizes the President and the executive branch, according to the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.


Drone strikes in Pakistan have NOT made the USA any safer. They have created a deep pool of hatred and vengeance, of fathers without sons and sons without fathers. So many of those droned were not even known by name to the CIA before they were destroyed.

• Osama Haqqani
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2012
• Waheed Ullah
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 31/10/2011
• Atif
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 22/04/2011
• Naeem Ullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 18/10/2010
• Naila
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 24/02/2010
• Ayeesha
Child, 3, Reported civilian, Died 08/01/2010
• Wajid Noor
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 03/01/2010
• Syed Wali Shah
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2009
• Noor Syed
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 14/02/2009
• Azaz-ur-Rehman
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 23/01/2009
• Khalilullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Najibullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Baacha Rahman
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shaukat
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Hizbullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Kitab Gul
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Talha
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Naimatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shehzad Gul
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Wilayat Khan
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Qari Almzeb
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Saifullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Khalid
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Mohammad
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ilyas
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Sohail
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Asadullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shoaib
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ismail
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jamshed Khan
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Alam Nabi
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Rahmatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jannatullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Luqman
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Mohammad Salim
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Bakht Muneer
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Numair
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Darvesh
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Aziz
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 01/12/2005

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/namingthedead/the-dead/?sorted-by=newest-to-oldest&gender=child&location=any&reported_status=any&lang=en

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder.

Therefore firing shells at the enemy is also premeditated murder

AKA all war is premeditated murder

Be like Nutella

If you've re-read your post and stand by it then I can't debate with you if you genuinely think they are the same thing? The logical disconnect is horrendous.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

• Osama Haqqani
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2012
• Waheed Ullah
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 31/10/2011
• Atif
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 22/04/2011
• Naeem Ullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 18/10/2010
• Naila
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 24/02/2010
• Ayeesha
Child, 3, Reported civilian, Died 08/01/2010
• Wajid Noor
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 03/01/2010
• Syed Wali Shah
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2009
• Noor Syed
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 14/02/2009
• Azaz-ur-Rehman
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 23/01/2009
• Khalilullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Najibullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Baacha Rahman
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shaukat
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Hizbullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Kitab Gul
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Talha
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Naimatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shehzad Gul
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Wilayat Khan
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Qari Almzeb
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Saifullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Khalid
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Mohammad
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ilyas
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Sohail
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Asadullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shoaib
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ismail
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jamshed Khan
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Alam Nabi
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Rahmatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jannatullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Luqman
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Mohammad Salim
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Bakht Muneer
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Numair
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Darvesh
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Aziz
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 01/12/2005

Not having a go here Nutella, any death from that pointless conflict is a tragedy, however to single out certain deaths and ignore others does come across as partisan thinking

We don't hear about deaths caused by Pakistan military nor the militants themselves - this far exceeds the deaths and injuries caused by drones

Be like Nutella

the point of listing some of the children who were blown up by drones by joystick 7000 miles away was twofold: 1) they're kids and that's disgusting and morally abhorrent and 2) I wanted people to notice how many of those kids died on the same day in one single strike.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

If you've re-read your post and stand by it then I can't debate with you if you genuinely think they are the same thing? The logical disconnect is horrendous.

The Pakistan military is in a war with militants

It has the option of using airstrikes, artillery and frontal assault

All of which are far worse than the use of drones to fight these militants.

Pakistan officials tacitly allow the US to fight this war with them and for them and in this way, whilst their politicians decry this in order to score political points

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

the point of listing some of the children who were blown up by drones by joystick 7000 miles away was twofold: 1) they're kids and that's disgusting and morally abhorrent and 2) I wanted people to notice how many of those kids died on the same day in one single strike.

Selective outrage

Why is more abhorrent than the killing of civilians in far higher numbers with much worse weaponry?

If a house in a village contains militants it is preferential not to engage, however if it has to be done, which is the more effective weapon -

a guided missile specifically redesigned to do a contained surgical strike

a ground to ground missile with a cruder payload and far less accuracy

an artillery strike


The first option is by far the best option for such a scenario barring a perfect world where it doesn't have to happen

Be like Nutella

This is not a debate about the Pakistani military or any other nation who is in a live fire conflict in its own territory which is its own business and a totally different subject. This is only about the 350-400 US Drone attacks which have been carried out in the last 10 years which have happened in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen in areas which cannot be reasonably considered areas of armed conflict between the US and an enemy. The vast majority of drone attacks have been 'signature strikes' which I am sure you are aware of, which is a strike carried out from 7000 miles away on an unknown person or group of people which will in most cases result in loss of innocent life i.e. collateral damage and in the vast majority of cases will not kill any type of AQ or Taliban leader but instead kills low level 'troops', innocent by standers, family members, women and kids all of whom make no damn difference to the overall military/anti-terrorist objective. Firing shells in a live conflict is not similar in any way to flying a robotic drone from 7000 miles away to a location inside a state with which you are not at war to fire missile on people whom you don't even know the identity of which will very likely in almost every case kill innocent by standers, all based on a hunch using a very lax set of rules which allow you to target and basically surprise assassinate people based on whether they match up with a rule book/playbook you have.

Be like Nutella

I don't think there is a physical difference between killing somebody with a shell or blowing them up with a hellfire missile from a drone, no. But that has nothing to do with anything.

Be like Nutella

I also agree with you that blowing up thousands of more people is bad, again nothing to do with anything.

Be like Nutella

Of 67,844 global terror deaths in last 5 yrs,

84 were Americans

2008: 33 of 15,709
2009: 9 of 15,311
2010: 15 of 13,193
2011: 17 of 12,533
2012: 10 of 11,098

0.12 of 1% of global deaths by terrorism

where is the proportionality?

Be like Nutella

Jonny7 wrote: »

It has the option of using airstrikes, artillery and frontal assault

untrue

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Bush admin took the primary decisions which led to the current situation

People blame Obama's handling of the issue, however they see it as a headache that was inherited rather than instigated

Of course the Obama drone policy is Bush’s fault. The Obama administration deserves no culpability. Why would anyone think otherwise! Never mind Obama has not just continued some of the same anti-terrorism policies as the Bush administration, but has actually expanded upon them. Obama has authorized more than 300 overseas drone strikes against suspected terrorists as president compared to the roughly 50 strikes under Bush. And I don’t recall the Bush administration claiming that they had the power to assassinate any person, including American citizens on American soil, because they merely suspected them of being involved in a terrorist plot… as the current administration claims. Nor do I remember Bush claiming his actions, unlike the broad new powers being asserted by Obama, not being subject to any oversight by Congress or the judiciary or international law.

Be like Nutella

I thought Bush and Cheney and the neocon string pullers i.e. Wolfy, Perle etc were all global embarrassments and caused massive harm to human civilization as a whole not to mention the idiotic cringe fest that Bush Jr was in the eyes of every sentient human on earth however, Obama is to blame for the drone war, not bush - Obama took the 'easier' drone option and ran with it thanks to a few people around him who convinced him when he came into office that he could no longer politically argue boots on the ground anywhere anymore and so drones were the way to go, as long as they were kept quiet, and on a leash - neither of which happened in the end - although they were kept mostly quiet and away from the press who had no clue about drones until last few years. Anyway point being - Obama is certainly personally to blame for the overuse and abuse of drones as weapons and the 4-5000 people who have been blown up by them so far, the vast majority under his orders and watch. Of that number it is thought only 50 or so AQ and Taliban guys of any real worth have been killed.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I don't think there is a physical difference between killing somebody with a shell or blowing them up with a hellfire missile from a drone, no. But that has nothing to do with anything.

I think you are missing my point here

A shell is far more inaccurate and likely to cause a lot of innocent casualties, this is something we've seen to hideous effect on the suburbs of Homs and Aleppo in Syria

A drone is a more surgical weapon

If the job is going to be done anyway, it's a far "safer' weapon by a country mile

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I thought Bush and Cheney and the neocon string pullers i.e. Wolfy, Perle etc were all global embarrassments and caused massive harm to human civilization as a whole not to mention the idiotic cringe fest that Bush Jr was in the eyes of every sentient human on earth however, Obama is to blame for the drone war, not bush - Obama took the 'easier' drone option and ran with it thanks to a few people around him who convinced him when he came into office that he could no longer politically argue boots on the ground anywhere anymore and so drones were the way to go, as long as they were kept quiet, and on a leash - neither of which happened in the end - although they were kept mostly quiet and away from the press who had no clue about drones until last few years. Anyway point being - Obama is certainly personally to blame for the overuse and abuse of drones as weapons and the 4-5000 people who have been blown up by them so far, the vast majority under his orders and watch. Of that number it is thought only 50 or so AQ and Taliban guys of any real worth have been killed.

Where do you get these figures from?

Be like Nutella

I'll dig out all the sources/leaders killed/civilians killed stats etc later but to begin with - Lyndsay Graham blurted out the figure 4,400 which he was privy to in one of his closed doors committee meetings.

There are only 3 or 4 major works on the subject, starting with Philip Alston's research paper and then the work of his University NYU and Standford who produced the 'living under drones' report and website, and then there's the very comprehensive ongoing excellent work by the BoIJ who have devoted staff and a website to the coverage, or uncoverage should I say, of the despicable drone war. As far as week by week reporting goes - Micah Zenko is the recognized foreign policy expert on the Drone war - blogs for the CFR...wrote a fine paper on the subject.. has positive and negative things to say about Drones and is more than willing to debate if you email him as I have done for years.

Be like Nutella

I find people in general know very few specifics about the drone strikes when it comes down to it and very often just dig their heels into their original uninformed position... not saying you're like them but this is my experience. Then once they watch some of the leading lawyers and human rights experts talk about it in speeches or presentations or read one or two of the better articles written on the subject (which is NOT usually by clueless journalists who know less than you or I) they start to see the issues, the pointlessness, the fact that these attacks are simply blind assassination of unidentified guesses of 'problem' people. When they see how small a problem AQ terrorism is to the US Homeland in real terms and how much overkill and mission creep is involved they start to release their stubborn uninformed opinions and realize there is no supporting this thing 100% there can't be there's too much blatantly wrong with it as a strategy, in terms of human rights, in terms of civilians killed in terms of almost everything the drone war is a steaming pile of bullsh1t and hasn't made anybody safer from anybody else... and eventually provably so.

Be like Nutella

they do it because they can, not because they should and there is a huge amount of genuine pressure from the military industrial complex involved in this thing as well, not getting conspiratorial but anyone who knows anything about the drone industry and its curve upwards in the last 8 years can testify to that fact - there is pressure to buy and use these systems.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I'll dig out all the sources/leaders killed/civilians killed stats etc later but to begin with - Lyndsay Graham blurted out the figure 4,400 which he was privy to in one of his closed doors committee meetings.

There are only 3 or 4 major works on the subject, starting with Philip Alston's research paper and then the work of his University NYU and Standford who produced the 'living under drones' report and website, and then there's the very comprehensive ongoing excellent work by the BoIJ who have devoted staff and a website to the coverage, or uncoverage should I say, of the despicable drone war. As far as week by week reporting goes - Micah Zenko is the recognized foreign policy expert on the Drone war - blogs for the CFR...wrote a fine paper on the subject.. has positive and negative things to say about Drones and is more than willing to debate if you email him as I have done for years.

I've been through all the figures, including some biased ones from the US officials (which recent UN report criticises) and from activists and university studies

True figures are hard to come by because many locals do not admit that family members are militants etc

In the last 2 years casualties have dropped off a lot

Jonny7

Sorry Nutella I just think this is stepping into conspiracy land a bit

re the war in Pakistan and strikes there

Militants and Pashtun militias in the North have been pushing south for years, targeting towns and villages - we see little or nothing about this, it's horrific

Many of these towns have little or no protection from the Pak military so they form their own "home guard" so to speak

The militia's have no problem using children as suicide bombers, decapitating town elders and placing their heads on their corpses, blowing up places of worship or just outright assaulting civilian areas

Thousands upon thousands are being killed in this unreported invisible war

Ironically the only attention drawn to it is the hype surrounding drone use

In approx 2009, the Pak mil launched a huge offensive to retake areas and push the militants back.. it had some vague success but hasn't managed to break the militants at all

Now they are pushing back down

They are also crossing the border to fight the religious war in Afghanistan in order to regain control of the country

The US, thanks to operation "Enduring Freedom", originally helped stir the nest and has been the perfect recruitment poster for the Madrassa to pump out brainwashed religious warriors

Now the US can wash it's hands of all this, it's the politically easy option, Obama with a fresh start could have withdrawn Afghan and left it to the wolves, and let the Pak mil deal with their own "domestic" problem

There are approx 28 nations in Afghanistan, they are there to try to ensure the Afghans can hold out - from acid attacks on their children, women being mutilated and the rest of the dark ages **** that is poring over the border

I didn't agree with the war, many don't, but unfortunately there's no time machine, so the reality is what has to be dealt with

For the drone strikes, they are targeting the militants.. at the tacit behest of the Pakistani's so that they can try to cripple forces who are:

-Either fighting and killing thousands on the Northern front (yes it's a war)
-Crossing the porous NW border

There's no black and white here. If Obama pulls the drones, the militants gain confidence, morale, organisation and strength to push further the carnage further south. Afghanistan comes under heavier pressure.

It's the easy option, and one I believe he should take. I have no doubt it will result in more deaths, but ones that are easier to ignore.

Be like Nutella

4 questions:

Do you personally believe/accept that 286 people died from the 364 drone strikes which this table shows over nearly 10 years? or do you think the number is higher or lower in reality?

Do you know how combatants/Militants are categorized by various parties?

Do you know about the Chenagai strike?

Do you know what a signature strike is vs a personality strike?

Be like Nutella

This debate is about drone strikes that have always been argued on the basis that they kill mid to high level terrorist leaders. Nothing else.

- argued on the basis that they kill terrorist leaders - and therefore makes the US safer. That is how it has always been sold.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

4 questions:

Do you personally believe/accept that 286 people died from the 364 drone strikes which this table shows over nearly 10 years? or do you think the number is higher or lower in reality?

It's around 300 to 400 from an aggregate of most counts. They take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. They simply don't target civilians, there's zero purpose nor reason to it. It has no military function, in fact it heavily works against the use the drones. They've redesigned the missiles to affect a smaller area.

Do you know how combatants/Militants are categorized by various parties?

They are aiming to kill the militiants and Taliban, with emphasis on leadership based on every source of information available.

The flip-side is that many men in Pak and Waziristan carry guns, in fact that whole region is basically a gun factory. So you have "innocents" who can be caught up, including the villagers and towns-people who are defending their areas.

Do you know about the Chenagai strike?

Yes, and the Pakistan military carried out the attack, which was highly controversial, bc it targeted a Madrassa. Some conspiracy and activist sites and locals claim it was the Americans.

Do you know what a signature strike is vs a personality strike?

Yeah I've heard of them, I am guessing it's a literal mis-interpretation of military guidelines as being actual doctrine (which often happens)

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

This debate is about drone strikes that have always been argued on the basis that they kill mid to high level terrorist leaders. Nothing else.

True yes

In Somalia and Yemen yes. Al Shabab carried out the market attack on Nairobi, they've been hit several times since.

In Pakistan, much more of a grey area

- argued on the basis that they kill terrorist leaders - and therefore makes the US safer. That is how it has always been sold.

I don't think anyone could stand at a press conference and even begin to try to describe the complexities of the situation to the US people - so yup you're right, that's how it's sold.

It's a dirty grim job that either needs to be dealt with in this fashion or ignored and swept under the carpet

After 911 they've been doing the former

Be like Nutella

Abdul Rehman Yemeni, who was an Arab national with close ties to al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, was the 50th top al-Qaeda leader to have been killed by a US drone in Pakistan since the launching of the deadly drive in 2005.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-146255-50th-al-Qaeda-leader-killed-in-338th-drone-strike

Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

let's assume they're talking sh1t and the ratio is more like 25-1... from your very low figure of 2800 = 120 worthy targets and 2680 women, kids, family members, bystanders, innocents and elderly.

We're talking about since this began in 2004, not in recent times, when the international spotlight has literally changed Obama's strike policy which should be sign enough that something was very wrong with the way it was happening before.

What ratio is acceptable to you? 10-1, 20-1, 30-1 ?

and don't gimme 'you gota break a few eggs' logic coz that's psychopathic.

The vast majority of strikes have been sig strikes (which I think you don't know what they are yet) and there is so much wrong with signature strikes I would have to start another thread to explain the targeting/vetting process.... since the beginning, NOT in conveniently recent times ie last 18 months.

Also you need to look up how they classes combatants in the strike area, again from the beginning... the categorization isn't done anything like you imagine it is. Look it up. Knowing the specifics SHOULD by all logic change your position, maybe not all the way but becoming aware should open your mind to the possibility that your original viewpoint was misguided.

but we can go through the whole thing... I'll explain it in detail later in week if you have any interest or you can go watch a Philip Alston talk or Professor Enemark of Sydney uni or Chris Heynes or read the NYU/Standford paper etc etc