Drone Victims Recount Horror of Follow-Up Strikes Launched Against People Rescuing Wounded

Kevin Gosztola


Family of Mamana Bibi, 68-year-old grandmother killed in US
drone strike in Pakistan

Human rights organization, Amnesty International, has released a report that presents two case studies on victims of United States drone strikes in Pakistan and also details the practice of signature strikes, which has led to rescuers being killed in follow-up attacks while they are trying to help wounded individuals. Both of the drone strikes detailed in the report, “Will I Be Next?”, occurred in 2012 and were reported. In the aftermath of one of the strikes, there was particular focus on the fact that the US was deliberately attacking civilian rescuers after the first strike was launched against whomever had been targeted.

On July 6, 2012, laborers from the Zowi Sidgi village were gathered in a tent after working a long day in the summer heat. Residents nearby could clearly see four drones were flying overhead. Then, as the Amnesty International report describes, “the sound of multiple missiles” suddenly was heard “piercing the sky, hitting the tent and killing at least eight people instantly.”

Ahsan, a chromite miner who lives in Zowi Sidgi, said, “When we went to where the missiles hit to help people; we saw a very horrible scene. Body parts were scattered everywhere. [I saw] bodies without heads and bodies without hands or legs. Everyone in the hut was cut to pieces.” There was panic, with people running to their homes, to trees, anywhere to escape. Some villagers chose to go see if there were any survivors.


Lawless Drone Killings

Stephen Lendman


Left: Mamana Bibi was killed by a US drone aircraft while tending to her
crops on the afternoon of 24. October 2012. Right: Impact crater left by the
second US drone strike that hit a vacant area of land a few feet from whrere
Mamana Bibi was killed minutes earlier.
(amnestyusa.org)

Two UN reports highlight the problem. More on them below.

Sixteen-year-old Malala Yousafzai is an activist for women's education, a blogger, and Sakharov Prize winner. She's a Pakistan National Youth Peace Prize recipient. She was a 2013 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Desmond Tutu nominated her for the International Children's Peace Prize. On October 16, Canada said it plans to grant her honorary citizenship. Obama invited her to the White House. Perhaps he wishes he hadn't. She took full advantage. She didn't hold back.

"(D)rone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people."

Predator drones sanitize killing on the cheap. Remote warrior teams operate computer keyboards and multiple monitors. They murder by remote control. They target faceless victims. They kill indiscriminately. They do so unaccountably. Studies show mostly innocent civilians are killed. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Drones are instruments of state terror.

A previous article discussed a joint Stanford University International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (SU)/New York University School of Law Global Justice Clinic (NYU) report. It's titled "Living Under Drones." The dominant Washington narrative claims drone strikes are precise and effective. Targeted killings "minimi(ze) downsides or collateral impacts," it says. Doing so makes America safer, it alleges.

False! Drone attacks kill indiscriminately. Mostly noncombatant civilians are affected. "Living Under Drones" exposes what Washington won't say. Obama's a serial liar. He falsely claims drones haven't "caused a huge number of civilian casualties. They're targeted, focused at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans." Hard evidence proves otherwise. On site investigations and eyewitness testimonies are damning.


Why the climate models of global warming are wrong

Steve Goreham

Climate science is in turmoil. Contrary to predictions by the world’s leading climate models and despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures have been flat for 16 years. How can the climate models be wrong?

Last October, the Daily Mail (London) announced that temperature data from the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office showed no global warming for 16 years. In December, an advance chart from the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed a divergence between model projections and actual global temperatures. In January of this year, the Met Office revised its forecast of temperatures down to almost no increase over the next five years.

Media publications that have been staunch supporters of the theory of man-made climate change have noted the model failure. In March, The Economist stated, “The climate may be heating up in response to greenhouse gases less than was once thought.” The New York Times noted in June that the temperature slowdown “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

All major climate models have overestimated the effects of man-made warming. Analysis by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy shows that 44 of the world’s leading climate models projected an average temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C during the last 16 years when measured temperatures were flat. The analysis was recently updated to include 73 of the leading climate models. Not a single model made an accurate forecast.


Health topic page on womens health Womens health our team of physicians Womens health breast cancer lumps heart disease Womens health information covers breast Cancer heart pregnancy womens cosmetic concerns Sexual health and mature women related conditions Facts on womens health female anatomy Womens general health and wellness The female reproductive system female hormones Diseases more common in women The mature woman post menopause Womens health dedicated to the best healthcare
buy viagra online