By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
The U.S. media is indulging in war mongering "yellow journalism" by repeating baseless allegations that Syria is behind the "car bombing" of a popular Lebanese nationalist, while the evidence suggests that the assassination was carried out using a guided missile launched from a plane - a precision penetration bomb - a "targeted killing" technique perfected by Israel.
"An enormous car bomb blasted the motorcade of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri," The New York Times reported with authority from Beirut about the Valentine's Day massacre of Lebanon's billionaire ex-premier and at least 11 others, including 6 of his bodyguards. The Times, however, presented no evidence to support its allegation that a "car bomb" had killed the popular Lebanese nationalist. The bomb had directly struck Hariri's car in the motorcade and "ripped a 30-foot crater in the street" of one of Beirut's wealthiest sections.
Hariri was a well-known philanthropist and "the symbol of both Lebanon's political and economic renaissance," The Daily Star, Lebanon's English language paper wrote, "and his shocking death leaves the country facing an uncertain economic future."
Hariri was the driving force behind the return of foreign investment after Lebanon's 15-year civil war. Solidere, the company he founded, played a key role in rebuilding Beirut's downtown area. "Ironically," the Star reported, Hariri was killed in the waterfront hotel district he had rebuilt.
In addition to being behind Lebanon's reconstruction, Hariri was credited with stabilizing the Lebanese pound for the first time in 14 years. He kept inflation low and investments flowing in. Lebanon hosted more than 1 million Arab visitors in 2004 and had recovered its status as the Arab world's preferred holiday destination - largely thanks to Hariri.
"Responsibility for the bomb was uncertain," The Chicago Tribune opined, "but everything points to Syria and its agents." The Tribune ran the Times article on its front page. As for what "everything" was that "points to Syria," the Tribune presented its evidence: "The timing and the sheer size of the explosion - an estimated 650 pounds of dynamite that left a crater 30 feet wide and 9 feet deep - point to Syrian involvement," the Tribune wrote. "This was no amateur job."
MOB - AND U.S. MEDIA - BLAME SYRIA
"Mob blames Syria for Hariri assassination," ABC News reported. "[Lebanon's] Interior Minister Suleiman Franjieh, [a Maronite] suggested that, based on the crater in the middle of the road and preliminary reports, the attack may have been carried out by a suicide bomber who rammed Hariri's motorcade with a vehicle laden with explosives," the U.S. mass media network reported.
However, no evidence has been found to indicate that a "suicide bomber" or "a vehicle laden with explosives" were involved in the killing of Hariri.
A now-missing Palestinian living in Lebanon taped a claim of responsibility on behalf of a previously unheard of group called "Victory and Jihad in Greater Syria. Military experts, however, quickly dismissed the Palestinian's claim saying the magnitude of the blast suggested it was the work of a technically sophisticated group, with access to high-tech explosives.
The U.S. administration of President George W. Bush was quick to point fingers at Syria. "We condemn this brutal attack in the strongest possible terms," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "This murder today is a terrible reminder that the Lebanese people must be able to pursue their aspirations and determine their own political future free from violence and intimidation and free from Syrian occupation," McClellan said.
That Syria was the "target" of American criticism was "unmistakable," the Times reported, although McClellan and other administration spokesmen admitted they had no concrete evidence of Syrian involvement.
"NO EVIDENCE"
"We're going to turn up the heat on Syria, that's for sure," a senior State Department official told the Times. "It's been a pretty steady progression of pressure up to now, but I think it's going to spike in the wake of this event. Even though there's no evidence to link it to Syria, Syria has, by negligence or design, allowed Lebanon to become destabilized."
On February 15, the UN Security Council requested an urgent report into the "terrorist" assassination and urged Syria to pull its 14,000 troops out of Lebanon. While Lebanon wants a Swiss investigation, the UN will reportedly send its own investigation team.
Bush ordered the U.S. Ambassador in Damascus, Margaret Scobey, to return. Before she left, Scobey delivered a message of "concern and outrage" to the Syrian government.
"U.S. officials were careful not to lay public blame for the atrocity directly on Syria," The Times of London wrote, "…but they left little doubt as to whom they viewed as the ultimate culprit."
WHO IS THE ULTIMATE CULPRIT?
But is Syria the ultimate culprit? Why would Syria murder Hariri, the architect of Lebanon's post-war reconstruction and prosperity? And why would anybody, let alone Syria, murder Hariri in such a spectacular way?
Like the 9/11 attacks, the murder of Hariri appears designed to influence world public opinion and provide a necessary casus belli to build a case and justify aggression against Syria. Why would Syria want to bring condemnation and war upon itself? Who is really interested in de-stabilizing Lebanon and Syria?
The assassination "has cast a giant cloud over Lebanon's immediate political future," The Daily Star wrote. "This outrage brings back memories of 1975 and the death of popular leader Maarouf Saad, who like Hariri came from Sidon. The murder of Saad came just three months before the start of the civil war and is still seen by many as the catalyst to the apocalyptic events which enveloped this country for 15 years."
While Israel was briefly mentioned as a possible suspect in the bombing, the mainstream media has completely ignored that possibility. The evidence, however, indicates that the Hariri bombing may have been a guided missile attack from the air, a common method of "targeted killing" perfected by Israel.
Israel has killed an untold number of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with precision guided bombs and missiles launched from the air. Last March, in one such targeted killing, the Israeli military used a guided missile to kill the quadriplegic and wheelchair-bound spiritual head of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
"Reports from the scene said Sheikh Yassin was being pushed in his wheelchair when he was directly hit by a missile," the BBC reported on March 22, 2004.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon dismissed accusations that Israel was involved in the murder of Hariri.
"I think that it will be unnecessary at all to answer what has been said about the Israeli participation or responsibility to what is going on in Lebanon," Sharon said when asked about the charges.
AN UGLY CRIMINAL ACT
Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa strongly condemned the attack. "This is an ugly criminal act," al-Sharaa said. "We condemn those who are sowing sedition in Lebanon. We hope that the Lebanese people in these difficult times will be cohesive and strong and reject any internal sedition or outside interference."
Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad "expressed his deep sorrow" and described the assassination of "a man Syria considered a friend and an ally in the region" as a "horrendous atrocity." Hariri's legacy is that of "a man who helped rebuild a nation ravaged by civil war and a protector of peace between his people," a Syrian government statement said.
"This heinous act," the statement read, "…aims at destabilizing Lebanon and creating chaos, hostilities, and a sense of insecurity… This tragedy is not only a national loss for Lebanon but also for Syria and the Arab world."
While the U.S. media portrays Hariri and Syria as foes, his last press release, issued on the day of his death, suggests otherwise: "We are most keen on preserving relations with Syria and protecting its interests," Hariri said, "this stems from our deeply rooted national and pan-Arab convictions."
WHAT CAR BOMB?
The bombing of Hariri's motorcade occurred in broad daylight in an exclusive section of Beirut's waterfront known as the Corniche. There are, however, no eyewitness reports or physical evidence to substantiate the claim that a suicide car bomber attacked Hariri's car.
Based on the size of the crater, estimated to be 30-50 feet across and 9-10 feet deep, an expert told American Free Press that the car bomb would have had to have been several tons in size, not the reported "650 pounds of dynamite."
The crater also shows that a ruptured water pipeline, dirt, and rubble were thrown up and out from the center of the crater, suggesting that the actual detonation occurred at some depth below the surface of the street.
Keith A. Holsapple, an expert on craters and professor of engineering mechanics at the University of Washington, examined the photographs of the Beirut crater for AFP. "There is no doubt," Holsapple said, "at least a several ton bomb would be required if it were delivered by a vehicle and detonated above the surface."
"A 50-foot crater in a wet soil would require on the order of 6 tons of ANFO (ammonium nitrate fuel oil) if the explosion were just above the surface," Holsapple said. "If the bomb was detonated just below the surface, that bomb weight is reduced to about 2 tons, and if a penetrator weapon was used, the weight would be on the order of 1 ton, to within a factor of two." A larger bomb would be required if the soil was "essentially dry at depths at the time of the event," he added.
But there is no evidence that a large vehicle carrying tons of explosives smashed into Hariri's vehicle and it is highly improbable that someone buried two tons of explosives under the street hoping that Rafik Hariri would drive by. So where was the bomb?
DEATH FROM ABOVE
There is some evidence indicating that the explosion that killed Hariri detonated under the street directly below his car.
The crater that resulted suggests that a precision guided aerial bomb struck Hariri's car, passing through it and penetrating into the road - before exploding. This is also indicated by the condition of Hariri's corpse. The lower part of his body was reported to be badly mangled and damaged while his head and torso were recognizable.
"If a penetrator weapon was used," Holsapple said, "the weight would be on the order of 1 ton, to within a factor of two." A penetrator weapon is an aerial bomb, such as a bunker-buster type, which is a guided weapon that is designed to penetrate the surface before exploding.
On an information webpage entitled, "Bombs for Beginners," the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) explains how aerial bombs create craters: "The cratering effect is normally achieved by using a GP [general purpose] bomb with a delayed fuzing system. This system allows bomb penetration before the explosion. Since the explosion occurs within the surface media the energy of the blast causes the formation of a crater," it says.
A 1-ton penetrating bomb, silent and unseen, would explain the huge crater and the fact that there is no evidence of a truck bomb attacking Hariri's motorcade.
Sam Hamod, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, wrote, "We must do as they do in other criminal cases, look at who had the most to gain from the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri. The Lebanese had a lot to lose, as did the Syrians.
"No matter where else you look, no one else had anything to gain except Israel and the U.S.," Hamod wrote. "America quickly pointed the finger at Syria, as did Israel, which was tantamount to convicting themselves because they are the only two countries that would gain by creating unrest in Lebanon."
GBU-24 E/B
GBU-24E/B, an Enhanced Paveway Laser Guided Bomb, is a precision-guided hardened target penetrator used to destroy hardened aircraft hangers and underground bunkers. It integrates a Global Positioning System and a ring laser gyro inertial measuring unit (IMU) to the already fielded GBU-24B/B "Paveway III" with the existing laser guidance. A new guidance and control unit has been modified to incorporate GPS electronics, GPS antenna, IMU and software for precision GPS/INS guidance. Testing of this system began in late 1999.
Specifications
Mission Close air support, interdiction, offensive counter air, naval anti- surface warfare
Targets Mobile hard eg Tanks , armoured cars etc, fixed soft, fixed hard
Service Air Force, Navy
Program status Operational
First capability 1983
Guidance method Laser (man-in-the-loop)
Range Greater than 10 nautical miles
Development cost Not available - Air Force officials stated that development cost was not available because they do not have records covering the development period.
Production cost $729.138 million
Total acquisition cost Not available
Acquisition unit cost Not available
Production unit cost $55,600
Quantity 13,114
Platforms A-6
A-10
F-14
F-15
F-16 - Planes only sold to the Israelis and the Saudis
F/A-18
F-111
Mossad, the CIA and Lebanon
The assassination of Rafiq Hariri: who benefited?
By Bill Van Auken
17 February 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The US media has responded predictably to the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, echoing the bellicose threats of the Bush administration against Syria and amplifying unsubstantiated charges that the regime in Damascus was the author of the killing.
Leading the pack was the Washington Post, which editorialized on Wednesday that “The despicable murder of Mr. Hariri benefits no one outside the rogue regime in Damascus—and the world should respond accordingly.”
The editorial acknowledged that the “crudeness of the killing and the denials by the government of Bashar Assad will cause some to wonder whether it has been framed for a crime it may have desired but did not commit.” But the Post hastened to assure its readers that the assassination was “the panicked act of a cornered tyrant,” terrified by the forced march to democracy which Washington has supposedly initiated in the Middle East with the recent elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
“Crude” is the appropriate designation for the Post’s arguments, which amount to nothing more than war propaganda. The newspaper’s charges are both unsupported and nonsensical. Their transparent purpose—much like the stories about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”—is to promote the policy of aggression which the Bush administration is pursuing in the Middle East.
The Post’s brief against Damascus is based on the well-known detective’s maxim: to discover who committed a crime, ask the question, “Who benefits?” Washington’s newspaper of record asks the question in order to supply its predetermined answer: “the rogue regime in Damascus.”
But precisely how has Syria benefited from the murder? Its immediate concrete consequences are mass demonstrations organized by anti-Syrian political forces in Lebanon demanding that Damascus withdraw its troops from the country, a ratcheting up of Washington’s threats of anti-Syrian military aggression, and the prospect of Lebanon descending into civil war.
That the assassination of Hariri would produce such consequences—all of them extremely threatening to the Syrian government of Bashar Assad—was hardly unforeseeable. Whatever else may be said about the Baathist regime in Damascus, it is committed to its own survival and its leaders are not insane.
What of the acknowledged doubt—summarily dismissed by the Post—that the Syrian regime is being “framed” for a crime it did not commit? Curiously, the newspaper gives no indication of who might be responsible for such a frame-up. Here, however, the question of “who benefits” is definitely worth pursuing.
The powers that most clearly stood to advance their strategic aims by having Hariri assassinated and blaming the crime on Syria are the US and Israel. Among those who play the game of speculating who organized the car bombing in Beirut, the smart money is undoubtedly on Washington and Tel Aviv.
Under pressure from Washington, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1559 last September, demanding that Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon. This political fact sheds light on the decision of the White House, before the blood on Beirut’s streets had dried on Monday, to issue a statement blaming Damascus. This entirely unsupported charge was followed by instructions to Washington’s ambassador to slap the Syrian regime with a demarche and leave the country.
In the midst of Washington’s provocative moves against Syria, for which the killing of Hariri supposedly provided justification, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared, with consummate cynicism, that the US was making no presumptions as to the authors of the crime. “We’re not laying blame,” she said, “It has to be investigated.”
The US media went beyond adopting an uncritical attitude to the US response, treating the bellicose statements of the Bush administration as though they constituted, in and of themselves, some kind of proof of Syrian culpability. “US Seems Sure of the Hand of Syria,” read the headline in the New York Times. NBC’s Middle East correspondent wrote that the recall of the US ambassador represented “the first indication that the US knows something about Syrian involvement in the assassination attempt.”
It indicated nothing of the kind. Rather, it suggested that Washington was prepared in advance to seize upon Hariri’s death as a pretext for escalating its threats against Damascus.
The Bush administration has in place extensive plans for military action against Syria. Unable to crush the resistance in Iraq—and unwilling to acknowledge that it is a manifestation of popular hostility to the US occupation—the Pentagon has long accused the Syrian regime of harboring a “command-and-control” center of Iraqi Baathists that is supposedly masterminding the attacks on US forces. The logic of the US colonial venture in Iraq, far from Bush’s fanciful talk of burgeoning democracy throughout the Middle East, leads to new wars of conquest against any and all regimes that fail to collaborate with Washington.
Various Middle East “security” experts have been quoted in the media describing Syria as “low-hanging fruit” in Washington’s military pursuit of hegemony in the region. The regime is viewed as isolated and vulnerable.
Washington also hopes to use the assassination to pursue French support for US strategic aims in the Middle East. France, the former colonial power in Lebanon, has its own fish to fry, and joined the US in supporting the UN resolution demanding a Syrian troop withdrawal. Secretary of State Rice urged closer collaboration in her visit to Paris earlier this month, calling for an end to the divisions provoked by the US war in Iraq.
The maneuvers against Syria manifest as well the unprecedented coordination of US and Israeli policy in the region. Damascus is a primary target because it has provided sanctuary to Palestinian groups that have opposed Israel, including the Islamist organization Hamas. It has also failed to curb the growing influence of the Lebanese Shiite movement, Hezbollah, which forced Israeli troops out of southern Lebanon after 20 years of occupation. It is hoped in both Washington and Tel Aviv that either forcing Syrian troops out of Lebanon or carrying out “regime change” in Damascus will undermine Hezbollah’s position and open the door for renewed Israeli control on both sides of its northern border.
Tel Aviv calculates that the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon or the toppling of the Baathist regime in Damascus could bring to power a Lebanese government more amenable to Israeli demands. In particular, both want Lebanon to grant citizenship to the estimated 400,000 Palestinian refugees inside that country, a move that would effectively abrogate their right—never recognized by Israel—to return to the homes from which they were expelled in the course of the creation and expansion of the Zionist state.
The timing of the assassination, barely a week after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas announced their truce in Egypt, is noteworthy. It is quite possible that any limited concessions the Israeli regime may agree to make as part of the “peace process” with the Palestinians will be repaid by Washington giving the green light for Israeli provocations and military actions against Syria.
US officials tied to Israel planned attack on Syria
The killing of Hariri has set the stage for the implementation of plans for US aggression against Syria that have long been nurtured by a group within the US administration that is closely tied to Israel and the right-wing Likud bloc, in particular. Prominent among them is David Wurmser, Vice President Dick Cheney’s adviser on the Middle East. Wurmser played a leading role in the creation of a Pentagon intelligence unit that sought to fabricate a case for linking the Iraqi regime with Al Qaeda in the months leading up to the US invasion.
In 1996, Wurmser co-authored a report drafted for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” It called for a repudiation of the “land for peace” formula that had served as the basis for Middle East peace negotiations, in favor of a plan to “roll back” regional adversaries. It advocated the overthrow of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and recommended Israeli strikes against “Syrian targets in Lebanon” and within Syria itself.
The co-authors of the report included Douglas Feith, the current undersecretary for policy at the US Defense Department, and Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.
In 2000, Wurmser helped draft a document entitled “Ending Syria’s Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?” It called for a confrontation with the regime in Damascus, which it accused of developing “weapons of mass destruction.” Among those signing the document were Feith and Perle, as well as Elliott Abrams, Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East, who was recently appointed deputy national security advisor.
This document urged the use of US military force, claiming that the 1991 Persian Gulf War had proven that Washington “can act to defend its interests and principles without the specter of huge casualties.” It continued: “But this opportunity may not wait, for as weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities spread, the risks of such action will rapidly grow. If there is to be decisive action, it will have to be sooner rather than later.”
If one asks the question, “Who benefits?” the answer is clear. The destabilization of Lebanon, the mobilization of the US-backed opposition to the pro-Syrian government in Beirut, and the vilification of Damascus all serve to advance US and Israeli strategic plans long in the making.
It is not just a question of motive, however. Israel has a long history of utilizing assassination as an instrument of state policy. The Israeli regime has not infrequently carried out acts of terror and blamed them on its enemies.
Among the more infamous examples was the so-called Lavon Affair, in which the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad organized a covert network inside Egypt which launched a series of bombing attacks in 1953. The targets included US diplomatic facilities, and the attackers left behind phony evidence implicating anti-American Arabs. The aim was to disrupt US ties to Egypt.
In its long history of assassinations of Palestinian leaders, many of them carried out in Beirut, the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to implicate rival Palestinian factions.
Car bomb killings in Beirut are a regular part of Mossad’s repertoire. In the 1970s and 1980s, when the Israelis invaded Lebanon, such bombings were a fact of daily life, and many of them were attributed to Israel.
Among the more recent killings is that of Elie Hobeika, an ex-Lebanese cabinet minister and former Christian warlord, in January 2002. He was killed along with three bodyguards by a remote-controlled car bomb on a Beirut street. Hobeika, who participated in the massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982, had announced just days earlier that he was prepared to testify on the role played by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the killings.
Last June, a Lebanese magistrate indicted five Arabs who were said to be working for Mossad in connection with a plot to assassinate Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. At least one of the defendants testified that Mossad had organized the Hobeika assassination.
In May 2002, Mossad carried out the assassination of Mohammed Jihad Jibril, the son of Ahmed Jibril, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer commented cynically at the time, “Not everything that blows up in Beirut has a connection with the State of Israel.”
In August 2003, Ali Hassan Saleh, a leader of Hezbollah, was assassinated in Beirut. Israel denied any knowledge of the killing, but it was seen throughout Lebanon as a Mossad operation.
Since 2002, Mossad has been headed by Meir Dagan, who formerly commanded the Israeli occupation zone in Lebanon. Sharon reportedly gave Dagan a mandate to revive the traditional methods of Mossad, including assassinations abroad.
Washington has itself revived the methods of “murder incorporated” that were historically associated with the CIA, boasting of assassinations of alleged Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen and elsewhere.
While the Washington Post and other US media outlets echo the White House in denouncing Syria as a “rogue regime” guilty of the Hariri assassination, the two governments responsible for the great bulk of the killing and political murders in the Middle East are Israel and the United States.
In contrast to the jingoist propaganda of the American press, it is worth noting the editorial comment published Wednesday by the Daily Star, the Beirut English-language daily, dealing with the broader political implications of the assassination.
“The fact that within just hours of the murder five distinct parties were singled out as possible culprits—Israel, Syria, Lebanese regime partisans, mafia-style gangs, and anti-Saudi, anti-US Islamist terrorists—also points to the wider dilemma that disfigures Lebanese and Arab political culture in general: the resort to murderous and destabilizing violence as a chronic option for those who vie for power,” the newspaper stated. It continued, “That madness has now been even more deeply institutionalilzed and anchored in the modern history of the region due to the impact of the American-British invasion of Iraq and the new wave of violence it has spurred.”
The murder of Rafiq Hariri constitutes a brutal warning that the US war in Iraq is only the beginning of a far broader campaign of military aggression aimed at crushing resistance to US and Israeli domination. This escalating militarism is creating the conditions for a conflagration throughout the region.
US drones take combat role
By Keith Somerville
BBC News Online
The killing of six suspected members of the al-Qaeda network by America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Yemen on Monday has drawn attention again to the US ability to use hi-tech weapons to attack its enemies.
The six were killed when their car was hit by a missile fired by a CIA unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or drone, according to unnamed sources.
The BBC's Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says that the CIA has been using Predator drones armed with anti-tank missiles in Afghanistan.
It is likely that this was the sort of drone used in the Yemen attack. It could have been launched by US forces in Djibouti, across the Red Sea from Yemen.
On 25 October, the US Defense Department admitted for the first time that it was using armed drones to attack targets which threatened US and British air patrols over southern Iraq.
In the past, drones have been used as a cheap form of aerial reconnaissance which avoided endangering pilots' lives
The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, said the advantage of using Predator drones in combat was that they could remain in the air for long periods and then respond immediately if they spot hostile targets.
New role in Afghanistan
The use of unmanned aircraft carrying cameras or sensors to gather intelligence started in the 1950s and has developed steadily since then.
Initially, they had a limited range, could only stay in the air for short periods and were prone to communications and control problems.
Today, according to Jonathan Marcus, the American Global Hawk UAV can loiter over the battlefield for up to 24 hours at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet (18.3 km), providing real-time intelligence to commanders who may be far away from the scene of the engagement.
But the war against al-Qaeda and the Taleban led to drones being specially adapted to carry weapons - notably Hellfire anti-armour missiles.
Reports from Afghanistan said that drones had been able to locate key al-Qaeda or Taleban leaders, but ground or air attack units had then been unable to follow up with successful combat missions.
Henceforth the capability to attack targets was identified as a valuable addition to the drone's usefulness.
The adapted drones were used in Afghanistan and now in Iraq and, it is presumed, in the attack against al-Qaeda suspects in Yemen.
Widely used intelligence tool
The United States is far from being the only country to use drones.
Israel is a major producer and user of military drones, using them for reconnaissance of its borders and to gather military intelligence about its Arab neighbours' military capabilities.
In June, Pakistan shot down a drone being used by the Indian military along their border. It is believed that Israel had sold India Hunter and Searcher drones in the late 1990s.
Those UAVs are like very large model aircraft and carry cameras and sensors rather than weapons.
Two years ago, the Iraqi news agency reported that the country's air defences had shot down an Iranian drone which had intruded into its air space.
Key weapon against Iraq
The US used drones in the Balkans in 1999 and lost at least one of them due either to hostile fire or control problems resulting from a build up of ice on their wings.
Drone
Drones were initially used for intelligence gathering
Afghanistan was the first conflict in which drones are known to have been used as weapons platforms.
Now they are being used against al-Qaeda and their use is likely to expand in the future because of their flexibility and because they do not directly put US personnel at risk in attacks on targets.
It is thought that after the extensive bombing campaign there, the US has been building up its stockpile of UAVs ahead of any conflict with Iraq, where the drones could play a major role as part of the US arsenal of so-called smart weapons.
Taken from: US drones take combat role
No comments:
Post a Comment