Nobel Peace Drones

open quoteA U.S. drone attack in Pakistan killed 23 people this morning, and this is how The New York Times described that event in its headline and first paragraph:

NY Times knows they were militants

When I saw that, I was going to ask how the NYT could possibly know that the people whose lives the U.S. just ended were “militants,” but then I read further in the article and it said this: “A government official in North Waziristan told Pakistani reporters that five children and four women were among the 23 who were killed.” So at least 9 of the 23 people we killed — at least — were presumably not “militants” at all, but rather innocent civilians (contrast how the NYT characterizes Libya’s attacks in its headlines: “Qaddafi Troops Fire Cluster Bombs Into Civilian Areas”).

Can someone who defends these drone attacks please identify the purpose? Is the idea that we’re going to keep dropping them until we kill all the “militants” in that area? We’ve been killing people in that area at a rapid clip for many, many years now, and we don’t seem to be much closer to extinguishing them. How many more do we have to kill before the eradication is complete?

Beyond that, isn’t it painfully obvious that however many “militants” we’re killing, we’re creating more and more all the time? How many family members, friends, neighbors and villagers of the “five children and four women” we just killed are now consumed with new levels of anti-American hatred? How many Pakistani adolescents who hear about these latest killings are now filled with an eagerness to become “militants”?

The NYT article dryly noted: “Friday’s attack could further fuel antidrone sentiment among the Pakistani public”; really, it could? It’s likely to fuel far more than mere “antidrone sentiment”; it’s certain to fuel more anti-American hatred: the primary driver of anti-American Terrorism. close quote (Read more from salon.com)

One comment

  1. This posting quotes the New York Times. In the last ten years the times has gone from news to spouting ideology. Simply put, you cannot believe the truthfulness or accuracy of anything printed in the New York Times what ever your viewpoint is.

    So basing any commentary on “The New York Times” is wrong headed. Then the quotes on killing civilians by “A government official in North Waziristan told Pakistani reporters” is fool hardy. There is nothing to support the varacity of statement.

    The news media promotes antagonism and animosity to sell its news. Truthfulness is not a factor in these reports.

    Ed K

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*