35 votes

A Graphic Showing Every One of the 284 Reported Drone Strikes in Pakistan

Glad to see this information released in an easy to process graphical form. Blue circles represent drone strikes approved by the Obama administration. Red circles represent drone strikes approved by the Bush administration. The lighter shades represent situations where more civilians were killed than militants (be sure to zoom out so you can see all the activity).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here's a very good article

which documents the civillian terror caused by our drone strikes. It looks like a good bit of research was done to gather this evidence and it is well worth the read. I posted it on my facebook last month and got NO RESPONSE from my neocon friends/family... apparently they don't mind this at all, even if it is Obama doing it.


Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Is it any wonder

why the whole world hates us?


Thanks to Obama

We'll probably be next. After all he has okayed 30,000 drones to be used here in the US.



While the map is a good visual, there are MANY serious problems with it.

A good summation of the most prominent among them can be found here:


Far from being illuminating for Obama/drone apologists, this map will actually mislead them to wrongly conclude that the tactic has been succesful.

See the article linked above for a deconstruction.

Thank you for posting.

I believe it is critical to make this type of information obvious to the general public in order to stop ignorance and indifference towards our drone war. With so many innocent civilians being slaughtered by the hand of the US, I'm afraid our country is now being recognized as the bad guys of the world. With a viral effect, our "enemies" are growing. We must stop our violence now.

There is one problem with this graphic

Though it is not the fault of its creator. ALL adult male victims are considered to be "militants" when these numbers are reported regardless of whether or not there is evidence to support that claim. One would have to conclude that the TRUE number of civilians killed is MUCH higher than we are being led to believe.

Ron Paul convert from the Heart of Dixie

Violating sovereignty = act of war

One drone strike by a foreign power on US soil would receive a military response. Hundreds of strikes would ignite a war.

How the hell do we get away with this? What are we achieving?

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

You are accurate

In your assessment, we have committed an act of war against the people of Pakistan.

This country was founded on the principle that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life..."

This principle was so important and fundamental to this country that it was specifically stated in the 5th amendment, "No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..." This principle holds true for all people across the globe, not just those born in the USA, because this principle existed before this country did.

The purpose of the amendment was to force the president to abide by this principle. The president, by accepting office, swears an oath to abide by the 5th amendment. By violating this fundamental principle he has violated his oath of office, and any person holding any office who has no intention of abiding by their oath of office should not have office and should be removed from such office.

So who has standing in a court of law to remove this person from their office? That is the fundamental flaw in the constitution, it has no teeth.

Good point

I was going to simply say that this graph makes it look like most killed were direct enemies, even though the definition of "militants" is any male that happened to be nearby, but your observation is more acute. Maybe they simply don't have the means to fight back.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine