List of children who have been killed by U.S. drones

[DogOnPorch]

Again...as it should be.

[Guest American Woman]

That's what I thought, too...but I'm not finding any direct mention of these apparent families left behind...other than cryptic articles like yours. Lots of stuff from the parents, mind you.

Now that you mention it, I find it odd, too, that there's been nothing about - or from - the wives and/or children left behind. I never realized that I really know nothing about them. Just ordered a book - 'Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It' - which sounds like an interesting read. According to one of the customer reviews, "Atta, like the others, is misogynistic; women are shunned and held in contempt." Hardly the stuff marriages are made of. Link

[DogOnPorch]

Now that you mention it, I find it odd, too, that there's been nothing about - or from - the wives and/or children left behind. I never realized that I really know nothing about them. Just ordered a book - 'Perfect Soldiers: The 9/11 Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It' - which sounds like an interesting read. According to one of the customer reviews, "Atta, like the others, is misogynistic; women are shunned and held in contempt." Hardly the stuff marriages are made of. Link

Atta was also the oldest...@ 33 I believe.

[GostHacked]

Can't help but wonder if they left their kids* at home during their al queada training. We already know that Khadr didn't.

*And by kids, I mean sons - as the list of the children killed by drones in Pakistan is comprised of males, but for two females.

We can always talk to the CIA to see how militants are armed, and how it comes back to bit them in the ass.

[Guest American Woman]

Atta was also the oldest...@ 33 I believe.

It does make sense that they wouldn't have been married, as most of them were on the young side, and devoted to their cause. I read about a girlfriend of one, who was, apparently, quickly put into a witness protection program after the attacks.

[DogOnPorch]

It does make sense that they wouldn't have been married, as most of them were on the young side, and devoted to their cause. I read about a girlfriend of one, who was, apparently, quickly put into a witness protection program after the attacks.

I guess we could always ask the ladies over at Flashdancers...perhaps the hijackers told their life stories to one of the older dancers.

[GostHacked]

http://www.amazon.com/Maisto-Fresh-Metal-Tailwinds-Endurance/product-reviews/B004JFMOGK/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Love the responses.

This is a great replica of the Predator Drone. My only problem with it is that the scaled-down 1:97 casualty figures of innocent women and children, with the accompanying blood spill kit, is sold separately and costs twice as much as the model drone.

How is my daughter supposed to learn how to protect our freedoms by killing scores of total strangers when this drone package doesn't include Arab casualty accessories? Instead of making "bugsplats" for liberty, she's playing with the drone as if it's a commercial aircraft. Shame on you, Maisto.

Show some customer service by updating this product to include Arab casualty figurines with detachable limbs. I would also love a Father and Son box-set featuring Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and a deluxe Wedding Party massacre playset.

[DogOnPorch]

Again...what's a civilian?

[GostHacked]

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

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.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

[Guest American Woman]

the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ikes/index.html

So what percentage of total casualties do you think the high brass accounted for in WWII?

And what do you make of the 1:4 civilian to military casualties with drones compared to the 10:1 civilian to military ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century? It's a tremendous improvement, obviously.

Edited January 25, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

So what percentage of total casualties do you think the high brass accounted for in WWII?

Almost irrelevant. Different war, different century. WWII was a global war, and lots of crap happened and civilians were deliberately targeted on both sides. I am not discounting it, nor ignoring it, or downplaying it.

These deaths are preventable, but like Rogers Waters said, 'We play the game with the bravery of being out of range'.

Edited January 25, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Almost irrelevant. Different war, different century. WWII was a global war, and lots of crap happened and civilians were deliberately targeted on both sides. I am not discounting it, nor ignoring it, or downplaying it.

It's totally relevant. You don't honestly believe that the majority of those in terrorist organizations are "high level," do you?

These deaths are preventable, but like Rogers Waters said, 'We play the game with the bravery of being out of range'.

It's not about the bravery of face to face conflict - it's about the most effective means of accomplishing the goal with the least amount of civilian causalities and military causalities on our side.

[DogOnPorch]

What's out of range of terrorism?

[Topaz]

American Woman, I read what you said and I like to know if you care at all about these people dying?

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, I read what you said and I like to know if you care at all about these people dying?

What have I said that makes you wonder that?

[WWWTT]

I think it's how he got his Nobel peace prize!

That a boy Shady,criticize Obama for acting like a republican.

How dare an afirmative action president (code for "I don't like black people with power") act like Bush or Cheney or Romney!?!?!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Too bad....if some groups want to have a global jihad....then global jihad it shall be

Carefull what you wish for #2

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

American Woman, I read what you said and I like to know if you care at all about these people dying?

I doubt any republicans or any Americans on this site cares.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt any republicans or any Americans on this site cares.

Wouldn't the "republicans" already be Americans in this context ?

[Guest American Woman]

Wouldn't the "republicans" already be Americans in this context ?

I think he's saying that no Republicans care; there's not a caring Republican in the whole country. He's also saying that no Americans on this board care, even if we aren't a Republican. So there are two sets of Americans who don't care - Republicans and Americans who post on MLW.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for the clarification.....sometimes it is not clear what he is saying. I think Democrats are allowed to pilot the drones, and we know that the Commander-in-Chief is a Democrat !

Oh, and just to add some perspective to the issue, Americans actually kill more of themselves each year regardless of party affiliation. I guess the terrorists and their sympathizers here would not like Chicago, and they don't even use drone strikes !

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for the clarification.....sometimes it is not clear what he is saying.

The funny thing is, I almost said exactly what you said - and then I did a double take and figured it out.

I think Democrats are allowed to pilot the drones, and we know that the Commander-in-Chief is a Democrat !

Perhaps they post on this board? lol

Oh, and just to add some perspective to the issue, Americans actually kill more of themselves each year regardless of party affiliation. I guess the terrorists and their sympathizers here would not like Chicago, and they don't even use drone strikes !

And Chicago has strict gun laws. Imagine that.

At any rate, apparently the reality that drones kill a lot less civilians than conventional warfare means nothing; no bravery involved. Or some such thing.

[WWWTT]

Thanks for the clarification.....

Your getting "clarification" from American Woman???

Good luck #2

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Wouldn't the "republicans" already be Americans in this context ?

Perhaps if you think that no one other than an US citizen can be a republican,then you would be right.

But once again,you are wrong.

Don't try thinking about it,you'll only get more confused #2

WWWTT