Top Menu

U.S. Bombs and Kills 168 Pakistani Children, Why Are the Pakistanis Such Ungrateful and Cruddy Allies?

Many Americans wonder why Pakistan is such an ungrateful and cruddy ally.  Do any of them stop to think that perhaps the U.S. is an even cruddier ally?  At least Pakistan doesn’t kill our children.  File this away under Why They Hate Us:

Study: CIA drones strikes have killed 168 children

The Obama administration says a year of drone strikes in Pakistan killed zero civilians; outside experts disagree

By: Justin Elliot

Based on international and Pakistani news reports and research on the ground, the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has issued a new study on civilians killed by American drones, concluding that at least 385 civilians have been killed in the past seven years, including at least 168 children.

Here’s a taste of the report, which can be read in full here (warning: graphic images):

Pakistani father Din Mohammad had the misfortune to live next door to militants in Danda Darpakhel, North Waziristan. His neighbours were reportedly part of the Haqqani Network, a group fighting US forces in nearby Afghanistan.

On September 8 2010, the CIA’s Reaper drones paid a visit. Hellfire missiles tore into the compound killing six alleged militants.

One of the Hellfires missed its target, and Din Mohammad’s house was hit. He survived. But his son, his two daughters and his nephew all died. His eldest boy had been a student at a Waziristan military cadet college. The other three children were all below school age.

An Obama administration official told ABC that these numbers are “way off the mark” — but, tellingly, did so on the condition of anonymity, meaning he or she will be protected from any accountability.

Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Scott Shane has an important articlereviewing the same issue and in particular Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s claim in June that for the previous year CIA drone strikes hadn’t caused “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” Shane finds that basically every outside observer — including those of all ideological stripes — finds this claim to be preposterous:

Others who question the C.I.A. claim include strong supporters of the drone program like Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal, who closely tracks the strikes.

“The Taliban don’t go to a military base to build bombs or do training,” Mr. Roggio said. “There are families and neighbors around. I believe the people conducting the strikes work hard to reduce civilian casualties. They could be 20 percent. They could be 5 percent. But I think the C.I.A.’s claim of zero civilian casualties in a year is absurd.”

Brennan issued a new statement to the Times suggesting that the CIA has merely “not found credible evidence of collateral deaths” from the drone strikes:

“Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq, and we will continue to do our best to keep it that way,” Mr. Brennan said.

Given that the drones are operated remotely, it’s far from clear how the CIA even knows who is being killed in many of these strikes.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Bombs vs. Children | Angel of the Lord()

  • Pingback: Bombs Vs. Children | False Dimensions()

  • Mosizzle

    “Hmmm, I thought the point of the article was to spin Pakistani outrage being over human rights violations not sovereignty issues.”

    No, the point of the article is that the illegal bombings conducted by America in Pakistan are an important factor in why many Pakistanis don’t like Americans.

    How Pakistan’s military campaign fits into this is beyond me. Perhaps you’re trying to say that since Pakistan is fighting the Taliban in the North West, Pakistanis should stop whining about a foreign power murdering their kids. In that case, Americans should stop whining about Muslim terrorists because they have no problem invading and occupying Muslim countries.

    The fact is that many Pakistanis are genuinely not happy about Americans bombing their country and this definitely does not help relations between both countries. Pakistan’s military campaign is also opposed by a lot of Pakistanis as well, many of whom are calling for an end to hostitlities. Bare in mind that America is also supporting and to some extent funding this war and this is also giving the impression that much of the instability that has resulted is also America’s fault.

  • Ahmed

    The Sudan analogy is rather stupid. Then again, a lot of what you say often is.
    We all know that violent Jihadis (the one that would perform suicide bombings) consider the West and Shias as their worst enemies, and so they will naturally target those than fellow Sunni Muslims in Sudan who they do not perceive as a threat.
    And those Muslims who are not violent Jihadis and do not like what happened in Darfur, they would not be suicide bombing buses because, er … they’re not violent Jihadis!

    And if you truly think the article was not concerned with “sovereignty issues”, you are more dumb than I had previously imagined.

  • JengaBob

    Hmmm, I thought the point of the article was to spin Pakistani outrage being over human rights violations not sovereignty issues.

    What I find ‘curious’ is when people are ‘ok’ with gross human rights violations if their side commits the actions but are indignant over much lesser perceived abuses.

    I suppose that’s why we don’t see foreign Jihadis traveling to Sudan to suicide bomb buses in response to the government’s orchestrated ethnic cleansing against fellow Muslims in Darfur.

    Then again, to acknowledge the reality of selective outrage would put the Leftist narrative in a tail spin. “It’s all about politics!” Except when it’s not.

  • Sunny

    Stupid Americans… Always sticking their noses where they dont belong.

  • Danios

    @JengaBob:

    I’ve never heard of CAMP, and nice that you quote a forum post as your source.

    Gallup did conduct a survey asking Pakistanis about their opinion of the government’s military offensive in Waziristan: only a very slim majority (51%) supported it.

    What’s more interesting, however, is your bafflement over the fact that Pakistanis would support their government’s military operating within Pakistan’s borders, but oppose foreign armies like the U.S. from doing so.

    Does it take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure out why people would not want foreign armies operating in their country? If, for example, during the 1960’s the U.S. government dispatched the national guard to quell violent protests in certain states, do you think it would be “curious” if some Americans supported the government’s action but would oppose Soviet troop deployment in the same region to do the same thing?

    Only an ignorant Islamophobe like yourself would find it “curious.”

  • JengaBob

    We no longer need to speculate – 67% of Pakistanis polled support military operation in North Waziristan, even as over three million civilians were displaced by previous military campaigns:

    http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/85071-67-want-military-operation-north-waziristan-poll.html

    Also curious, the article seems to say people affected by Paksitan’s brutal assault on unarmed, peace loving tribal peoples are more likely to support the drone attacks and military operations against the militants:

    “Approximately, 25 percent of the respondents had been displaced people. This condition significantly influenced their opinions on military strategies and the use of drones; they generally support these operations more than do the non-displaced in their respective agencies in the tribal areas,” it read.

    What’s curious, however, is why Pakistanis are ‘ok’ with their government conducting war against peaceful peoples of the tribal territories but oppose the drone strikes – even though the strikes cause far fewer casualties and displace less civilians than Pakistani military assaults.

    Curious and curiouser.

  • NassirH

    “Hey, I’m trying to understand the logic behind why Pakistanis are ‘ok’ with their government’s brutal assault against a defenseless people but are enraged at occasional precision airstrikes that are much more effective at targeting and eliminating militants with a minimum loss of civilian life than the Pakistani military is.”

    Whoa, so you were lying when you claimed that the premise of the article—that Pakistanis don’t like drone raids—was wrong? Now you concede that Pakistanis are indeed partial to American bombs being dropped on their country. The fact is that you just had an axe to grind against Loonwatch (simply because it has exposed frauds like Spencer and Geller numerous times) and Muslims in general. You couldn’t care less about hundreds of thousands of Muslims being displaced, as evidenced by your support of the “Reconquista of Anatolia.”

  • Mosizzle

    “What about widespread torture carried out by the Pakistani military? Bombing of homes belonging to the Taliban or the 100′s of thousands of people internally displaced due to the fighting?”

    All actions that Pakistanis believe are happening due to American pressure on the government to crack down on militants. All of these actions have ironically created more militants than Pakistan has ever faced in its 60 year history…

  • JengaBob

    The fact that Pakistanis don’t like militants somehow means that they’re okay with having American bombs dropped on them? Ehh?

    Hey, I’m trying to understand the logic behind why Pakistanis are ‘ok’ with their government’s brutal assault against a defenseless people but are enraged at occasional precision airstrikes that are much more effective at targeting and eliminating militants with a minimum loss of civilian life than the Pakistani military is.

    I would say it’s hypocritical to say one is ‘ok’ but oppose the other.

  • JengaBob

    Sadly, Pakistani military killed a few civilians but it doesn’t even compare to hundreds by US drones.

    Woah, hold on there. Are you actually trying to tell me the drone attacks have killed more civilians in the tribal territories than the Pakistani military operations have?

    What about widespread torture carried out by the Pakistani military? Bombing of homes belonging to the Taliban or the 100’s of thousands of people internally displaced due to the fighting?

  • NassirH

    JengaBob is a firm believer in the “theory” that white Christians can do no wrong. Seriously, he’s trying to prove that Pakistanis aren’t mad at the United States for its drone raids. Anyone who has been to Pakistan and can read Urdu, however, will tell you that this is completely false and that the outrage is palpable.

    His “proof” is a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.

    Kushboo: “There is growing resentment among Pakistanis against the militants there. There’s no doubt about that.”

    JengaBob: “So you’re saying Pakistani military bombing raids in the tribal regions enjoy the support of the Pakistani populace, basically blowing the premise of this article out of the water?”

    The fact that Pakistanis don’t like militants somehow means that they’re okay with having American bombs dropped on them? Ehh? (The premise of the article being that drone raids fuel anti-American sentiment.)

    According Politco—which is usually regarded as relatively unbiased—drone raids fuel “anti-American sentiment.” The evidence is again overwhelmingly against JengaBob’s quaint theories, but as usual he prefers to rape logical fallacies instead of dealing with the facts.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0711/unsuggested_reading_4ce7c50b-3b6c-423a-a605-e9dd8569e24a.html

  • Mosizzle

    “Is Pakistan’s military operations in the tribal territories similarly fueling resentment among most Pakistanis”

    I know quite a few Pakistanis who are appalled by the military’s human rights abuses in the area but also regard the terrorists as being wrong as well. Many Pakistani parties are calling for the military to withdraw and stop fighting other people’s wars…

  • Khushboo

    ^Bob, do you really think Pakistanis would support anyone killing their family members/friends?! Sadly, Pakistani military killed a few civilians but it doesn’t even compare to hundreds by US drones.

  • JengaBob

    ^ So you’re saying Pakistani military bombing raids in the tribal regions enjoy the support of the Pakistani populace, basically blowing the premise of this article out of the water?

  • Khushboo

    ^There is growing resentment among Pakistanis against the militants there. There’s no doubt about that.

  • JengaBob

    Is Pakistan’s military operations in the tribal territories similarly fueling resentment among most Pakistanis or are Pakistanis supporting their military bombing villages in the tribal areas?

  • Khushboo

    ^I honestly don’t know what Anj said that caused so much resentment. Let’s keep our tempers in check folks. It is Ramadan!

  • Sam Seed

    I don’t see why Dan and Sulayman oops I mean Political Assassin are attacking Anj, he or she made a valid point.

  • AJ

    Thats the number that US killed officially. This doesn’t include the casualities of suicide bombings that CIA funds.

  • Anj

    @ political arseassin
    sticks and stones son!
    I don’t see your contribution anywhere?

Powered by Loon Watchers