US drone attacks in Pakistan mapped in interactive detail

[Thanatos]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...s-pakistan-map

This is an excellent map that details, for those interested, the place of each drone attack. You can zoom in and out quite a bit, and can click on the site of each attack to see how many were killed in the explosion, including how many civilians died in every one.

The current tally, after 330 strikes, is listed at 3,247 deaths, including up to 852 civilian deaths, a whopping 25%.

Comments?

[alexanderswift]

The US needs some better drones.

Edit: Or maybe just better intel.

[hellheaven1987]

The current tally, after 330 strikes, is listed at 3,247 deaths, including up to 852 civilian deaths, a whopping 25%.

So surprise.

[JP226]

So surprise.

Let's see your pissant 3rd world country that can barely compete in the olympics do better...

[IZob]

Let's see your pissant 3rd world country that can barely compete in the olympics do better...

What does the Olympics have to do with partly failed drone attacks from the US?

[Ussaid the Hashshashin]

What does the Olympics have to do with partly failed drone attacks from the US?

Maybe it is just the over-excitement of him.

[s.rwitt]

What does the Olympics have to do with partly failed drone attacks from the US?

The most effective tool we have for taking out Taliban and AQ leadership in otherwise practically unreachable Pakistan is "partially failed"? Why? Because it pisses off some villager that's going to hate anyone outside of his tribe no matter what?

[frozenprince]

Or the Talib and Al-qaeda could stop using civilians as nothing more than human shields. But of course we should just stop using drone strikes all together because they unfortunatly use people as human shields, even though that would just make them ALWAYS use human shields. And we would just end up having to never fight or kill MORE people.

It's deeply unfortunate that so many people have to die, but it's not the fault of the US that the people the Talib claim to be fighting for are nothing more than meat shields.

[hellheaven1987]

Or the Talib and Al-qaeda could stop using civilians as nothing more than human sheilds.

Still better than certain government fabricated false claim in order to violently violating other country's sovereignty.

[frozenprince]

Still better than certain government fabricated false claim in order to violently violating other country's sovereignty.

Really? It's better that people are being used by terrorists as nothing more than a tool to save their own skins?

It's funny because neither of you realized 25% is the highest guess, assuming all civilians claimed by Pakistan (which is generally overblown) actually existed. Hence the words "up to 852".

The really funny part is 25% is incredibly low considering the Taliban's habit of keeping their families with them in the middle of a war where they know they're being hunted.

What? Pakistan could have LIED? I'm shocked. Really.

[s.rwitt]

The US needs some better drones.

Edit: Or maybe just better intel.

So surprise.

It's funny because neither of you realized 25% is the highest guess, assuming all civilians claimed by Pakistan (which is generally overblown) actually existed. Hence the words "up to 852".

The really funny part is 25% is incredibly low considering the Taliban's habit of keeping their families with them in the middle of a war where they know they're being hunted.

-----------------

Still better than certain government fabricated false claim in order to violently violating other country's sovereignty.

Because the Pakistani government isn't complicit in the drone strikes, amirite?

[alexanderswift]

It's funny because neither of you realized 25% is the highest guess, assuming all civilians claimed by Pakistan (which is generally overblown) actually existed. Hence the words "up to 852".

The really funny part is 25% is incredibly low considering the Taliban's habit of keeping their families with them in the middle of a war where they know they're being hunted.

I did realize, that doesn't change the fact civilians are getting killed when they don't need to be. I can't imagine very many ways this could be justified but please go ahead.

[motiv-8]

I did realize, that doesn't change the fact civilians are getting killed when they don't need to be. I can't imagine very many ways this could be justified but please go ahead.

We don't get to choose how and with whom our enemy travels. If you have suggestions for alternatives, then by all means present them for due consideration, but making sweeping moralist arguments doesn't serve for good discussion. Expecting us to allow our enemy to smuggle their people and weapons into the country where they target markets, schools, and people trying to reach a peace agreement is not going to fly either.

[motiv-8]

Well, there's no doubt existing that civilians have been and are killed in drone strikes, even with good intelligence information. Drawing political arguments based on the fact is where it gets pretty fuzzy.

It's interesting to see how the vast majority of the strikes are along well-known routes by which fighters and supplies for the Taliban in Afghanistan are trafficked.

[s.rwitt]

I did realize, that doesn't change the fact civilians are getting killed when they don't need to be. I can't imagine very many ways this could be justified but please go ahead.

I've done it too many times on these boards. I'm more interested in hearing how you would do things if you were in charge of the fight against the Taliban/AQ.

Then I'll decide whether I want to bring up the consequences that would result from allowing Taliban/AQ leadership safety as long as they continued to surround themselves with civilians or the consequences of allowing them to continue to plan and carry out IED campaigns that kill far more civilians than drone strikes ever will.

[alexanderswift]

I've done it too many times on these boards. I'm more interested in hearing how you would do things if you were in charge of the fight against the Taliban/AQ.

Sigh, it's just feeding them good press. Using raids similar to Bin Laden is the most effective method obviously but it's all politics. Killing civilians with rockets is bad press so on and so on you've heard it all before I'm sure.


Edit: Ah you edited your post, again raids would be more efficient. Again it's politics, drone strikes are also inefficient since you can't capture anyone using them.

[s.rwitt]

Sigh, it's just feeding them good press. Using raids similar to Bin Laden is the most effective method obviously but it's all politics. Killing civilians with rockets is bad press so on and so on you've heard it all before I'm sure.


Edit: Ah you edited your post, again raids would be more efficient. Again it's politics, drone strikes are also inefficient since you can't capture anyone using them.

No, it's not just giving them good press. It's devestating their leadership to the point that Bin Ladin was more worried about the strikes than anything else we're doing. Also, the Bin Ladin raid generated so much controversy that it seriously harmed our relations with Pakistan. Now imagine that controversy happening every time we identified a mid-level Taliban leader. Not to mention the danger it puts our people in.

The fact that you'd call them inefficient considering the amount of damage it's done to our enemies is interesting to me.

[alexanderswift]

No, it's not just giving them good press. It's devestating their leadership to the point that Bin Ladin was more worried about the strikes than anything else we're doing. Also, the Bin Ladin raid generated so much controversy that it seriously harmed our relations with Pakistan. Now imagine that controversy happening every time we identified a mid-level Taliban leader. Not to mention the danger it puts our people in.

The fact that you'd call them inefficient considering the amount of damage it's done to our enemies is interesting to me.

Fair enough. I'm too tired to come up with a coherent counter argument and you clearly know more about this than I.


Edit: I'm just trying to say (Though admittedly not articulating it very well) that drone strikes alone won't take down the Taliban and the civilian casualties aren't doing either side any good.

[hellheaven1987]

Then I'll decide whether I want to bring up the consequences that would result from allowing Taliban/AQ leadership safety as long as they continued to surround themselves with civilians or the consequences of allowing them to continue to plan and carry out IED campaigns that kill far more civilians than drone strikes ever will.

Sureeeeeee, I am taking it means US the human right champion loves civilians so much that ready to invade Pakistan now to solve this IED problem?

[Dalarna3]

Woo, I love looking at all the people my country has killed.