Predator drones flown from base in Pakistan: US Senator ! WHO IS LYING

[batmannow]

GEO World
Afghan women, children amid 16 killed in US Army air strikes
Updated at: 1237 PST, Wednesday, February 18, 2009

KABUL: At least sixteen persons including women and children were killed in US Army air strikes in Afghanistan.

Afghan police officials said that the US fighter planes bombed the outskirts of Heart, which resulted in the death of 16 persons including six women and to children. Police said that three among the dead apparently look like militants, but the others were civilians.

However, US Army claimed that the militants’ commander Ghulam Yahya Akbari was targeted in air strike killing 15 militants including Ghulam Yahya. Police said that Commander Ghulam Yahya was not included among those killed.

 

[S-2]

From the Washington Times-

Did Blabbermouth Feinstein- Washington Times Op-Ed

She's a naughty gal. Tricky too.

 

[XYON]

ali1156

You are Absolutely right. The exact location is 27°50'49.90"N, 65° 9'37.93"E

Some Google shots:

These shots are absolutely the same as have been posted earlier by another poster here who wrongly identified this as Shahbaz AFB (Post #27). In his photo the Reapers were seen parked on the tarmac. This proves the point that this base was being used by the US Forces during 2002-2004 for aerial recon only. It is highly unlikely that the same base is being used for CIA operated Reaper UCAV's at the present times. At this time the base when reviewed closely on Google Earth although seems typical of a US developed infrastructure in a very remote location (for safety) for the USAF personnel. The base also has an excellent quality living quarters for the base personnel. This is more of a forward operating base for the USAF C-130's, C-17 Galaxy Transporters. The structure at the end of the runway indeed shows protected sheds for most likely the Reaper (due to the huge wingspan) but nothing else parked on the runway? Why would be the US so stupid enough to park the Reapers on the Tarmac in the 2006 shot while having nothing in the 2009 shots? The base also seems to be minimally operated and on stand-by mode rather than active mode.

Why not send a reporter from these many channels to put this theory to rest once and for all times? DUNYA, EXPRESS NEWS, DAWN anyone listening? Do some investigative reporting for a change guys!

 

[Ratus Ratus]

From the Washington Times-

Did Blabbermouth Feinstein- Washington Times Op-Ed

She's a naughty gal. Tricky too.

I just realised her name is Diane Feinstein not Diane Frankenstein.
Must have been that video that got me confused.

Well just goes to show that the modern politician is just that a polly not a statesperson.

 

[S-2]

It's one thing to sit on these committees from the other side of the aisle but to find yourself chairwoman requires a subtle but serious shift in rhetoric. Words really matter now.

She'll get better, assuming a gaff. I'm still very unsure one way or the other but perversely quite pleased nonetheless.

 

[XYON]

It's one thing to sit on these committees from the other side of the aisle but to find yourself chairwoman requires a subtle but serious shift in rhetoric. Words really matter now.

She'll get better, assuming a gaff. I'm still very unsure one way or the other but perversely quite pleased nonetheless.

This old broad is being used by the CIA for classic SMOKE & MIRRORS diplomacy! Nice try to put the onus of the UCAV's on Pakistan instead of the CIA!

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Let me just say the story is not new from my perspective. I know you posted something about thinking this was the case back whenever, (too far back to check post). But even then it was about, as well as it was CIA not US mil, in the appropriate circles, I don’t know about.

It was a big gaff and possibly she should get the appropriate talking to about being a bit more intelligent, especially as it is an intelligence committee.

 

[XYON]

Let me just say the story is not new from my perspective. I know you posted something about thinking this was the case back whenever, (too far back to check post). But even then it was about, as well as it was CIA not US mil, in the appropriate circles, I don’t know about.

It was a big gaff and possibly she should get the appropriate talking to about being a bit more intelligent, especially as it is an intelligence committee.

Its not a GAFF my friend but a deliberate and carefully protracted statement with the right timing to have the desired effect! Smoke & Mirros! Smoke & Mirros!

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Its not a GAFF my friend but a deliberate and carefully protracted statement with the right timing to have the desired effect! Smoke & Mirros! Smoke & Mirros!

Fine.
So these planes are or are not flying out of Pakistan?
So the CIA or some alien is actually flying them, who?

Stop the 'Smoke and Mirrors' thing, I might get suspicious you are smoking the wrong, (low grade), stuff.

 

[batmannow]

The Robot Proxy War
Bush's man-hunting machines—and Obama's.

By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Oct. 27, 2008, at 7:50 AM ET
slate.com
In less than three months, Barack Obama will be president of the United States. How will he change our border war in Pakistan? Not much. We'll keep fighting insurgents there the way we're fighting them today: with aerial killing machines.


Last year, Obama declared that under his presidency, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." John McCain criticized Obama's policy as rash, suggesting it would undermine the Pakistani government. The United States should try covert action in Pakistan "before we declare that we're going to bomb the daylights out of them," said McCain. A month ago, in their first debate, McCain again condemned Obama's position, arguing that the next president should "work with the Pakistani government," not "attack them."
Today, the New York Times reports what's actually going on along the Pakistani border. The report, based on interviews with U.S. and Pakistani officials, exposes the Obama-McCain debate as a charade. We're already getting actionable intelligence about terrorist targets in Pakistan. We're already blasting them. And the Pakistani government is working with us to facilitate these attacks. The covert action, the cooperation, and the aerial assaults aren't competing options. They're the same thing.


Here's the crux of the Times story:[/I]

The White House has backed away from using American commandos for further ground raids into Pakistan after furious complaints from its government, relying instead on an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the Central Intelligence Agency against militants in the Pakistani mountains. … [A]ttacks by remotely piloted Predator aircraft have increased sharply in frequency and scope in the past three months. Through Sunday, there were at least 18 Predator strikes since the beginning of August. … Once largely reserved for missions to kill senior Arab Qaeda operatives, the Predator is increasingly being used to strike Pakistani militants and even trucks carrying rockets to resupply fighters in Afghanistan. Many of the Predator strikes are taking place as deep as 25 miles into Pakistani territory. …

So forget McCain's feigned dismay that Obama would send missiles deep into Pakistan. President Bush is doing that already. Is Bush thereby jeopardizing the Pakistani government? Far from it. He's substituting missiles for ground troops to appease and protect the government. According to the Times,

A senior administration official said Sunday that no tacit agreement had been reached between the sides to allow increased Predator strikes in exchange for a backing off from additional American ground raids, an option the officials said remained on the table. But Pakistani officials have made clear in public statements that they regard the Predator attacks as a less objectionable violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

Is Pakistan outraged by the missiles? Hardly. The Times reports:

As part of the intensified attacks in recent months, the C.I.A. has expanded its list of targets inside Pakistan and has gained approval from the government in Islamabad to bolster eavesdropping operations in the border region, according to United States officials. … Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, told the Council on Foreign Relations this month that there was cooperation between the two countries in deploying "strategic equipment that is used against specific targets."

Maybe this explains how our drones have nailed a series of enemy nests over the past four weeks. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. And that's not even counting all the hits we scored in early September. (Update: While I was writing this, the drones struck again, this time nailing a Taliban commander who was paying his respects to the families of people killed in a previous drone strike.) What, exactly, is our mysterious upgraded surveillance capability? Nobody's telling, but I have my theories.

Many things will change when Obama is elected. Other things will stay the same. And then there's a third category: things that are profoundly changing, and will continue to change, regardless of who's president. One of these things is anti-terrorist warfare. The war on terror is becoming a war between madmen and machines. A few years ago, jihadis had the upper hand because they didn't mind killing or dying. Now they're being blown away by remote-control pilots who can't be killed. The machines in the sky don't bleed, and they spare us the difficulties of an official troop presence. Pakistan has become the world's first robot proxy war.
There was a Democratic president before Bush. Acting on intelligence, Bill Clinton sent missiles into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden, and he didn't ask permission first. Under similar circumstances in Pakistan, Obama would do the same thing. The difference is that Clinton had to fire his missiles from thousands of miles away. Obama can do it from overhead.

 

[Zovc]

In a shocking discovery reports have emerged from simply Google Earth images evidence of three drones parked on an airfield in some remote destination within Baluchistan, the images were captured by orbiting satellites and archived within Google Earth data warehouse to suddenly be discovered recently. Though there is no denying that during the Musharraf regime bases were rented out to the American army costing them a massive deficit to the tune of $10 Billion. But what probably irks the nation is that the Pakistani government have categorically denied that the Pakistani bases are being used to launch drones-

Omar Qureshi who writes for The News broke this discovery locally in Pakistan

The picture of the drones on the Pakistani soil, taken in 2006, has three drones, all Global Hawks. The picture has coordinates and they can be vaguely read as 27 degrees, 51 minutes North; 65 degrees, 10 minutes East. These coordinates place the strip not far from the nearby Jacobabad airbase which is around 28 degrees north, 68 degrees east.

One can easily verify the authenticity of the picture taken in 2006 with the 2009 image found online on Google Maps by merely inserting the following coordinates [27.854811, 65.167975] [or follow this LINK] in satellite mode

 

[Patriot]

This is Jacoabad Airbase AFAIK.It was rented to US for few years and these are Reapors not Predators.

 

[fatman17]

In a shocking discovery reports have emerged from simply Google Earth images evidence of three drones parked on an airfield in some remote destination within Baluchistan, the images were captured by orbiting satellites and archived within Google Earth data warehouse to suddenly be discovered recently. Though there is no denying that during the Musharraf regime bases were rented out to the American army costing them a massive deficit to the tune of $10 Billion. But what probably irks the nation is that the Pakistani government have categorically denied that the Pakistani bases are being used to launch drones-

Omar Qureshi who writes for The News broke this discovery locally in Pakistan



One can easily verify the authenticity of the picture taken in 2006 with the 2009 image found online on Google Maps by merely inserting the following coordinates [27.854811, 65.167975] [or follow this LINK] in satellite mode

these drones were at jacobabad during the time-line stated as the US was using Jacobabad AB for ops in afghanistan. these drones were not used for attacks on pak soil but were used for afghan ops. - lets not create any sensationalism!

 

[roadrunner]

One could add further that drone attacks under Musharraf's regime were minimal.

Drone attacks under the current regime increased many fold suggesting a change of strategy between Musharraf and Mr "democratically elected" 10%.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Also, a distinction should be made between drones used only for surveillance and those that are also armed. Armed drones were not used in the early stages of the Afghan War. The drones used from 2002 to ~ 2007 were not armed. Even now many of the drone missions use non-armed surveillance drones. So the Pak Army may have given permission for surveillance missions initially, and continue to authorize surveillance missions from Pak airfields because the PA also wants the intelligence from the surveillance missions. Armed missions may or may not launch from Pak bases today, and may or may not have been part of the "official" basing deal. We can't tell from some of the old news reports now being given as "evidence" of Pak complicity in drone strikes because the drones in those old reports were surveillance only models.