I do not think that this could be true, I mean why America will do so with his own people? I am thinking positive in this case, but may be someone else can throw some light on this.

People will think twice about acting against the invaders if it means their entire family becomes a target.

Making the world safe for vulture capitalism.

The NYU Student Tweeting Every Reported US Drone Strike Has Revealed A Disturbing Trend

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12

survey the scenes and pick out obvious targets. If a high value target shows up at a rescue or funeral, that person shouldn't be killed on the spot, but he or she certainly shouldn't be allowed to go on without being tracked. At an appropriate time that wouldn't cause civilian deaths, that person should be eliminated.

I'm not convinced that US mission planners deliberately use successive strikes for the purpose of killing rescue workers and civilian onlookers.

<<In the latest incident, the first missile struck the compound in Hesokhel before dawn, killing three militants, security officials said. A second missile then killed 12 more militants who had arrived at the scene, they added.>> - BBC

<<In the incident, which occurred shortly after 10 p.m., two missiles struck the compound in the residential area followed by another four missiles that were fired 10 minutes later, the officer said. The death toll rose from nine to 20 as people who had gathered at the site after the first strike were hit in the second, the officer said.>> - CNN

<<"When the first missile hit the building, I heard cries for help and ran towards it, but militants stopped me at a distance. When they started rescue work, another missile hit," a local tribesman said about Thursday's strike.>> - AFP

Targets are frequently struck multiple times to maximize the chance for the mission's success. This has always been so in modern war. It's tragic that rescue workers and civilians are sometimes killed when the U.S. military strikes at targets in populated areas, but I've seen no compelling evidence that demonstrates that targeting rescue workers and onlooking civilians is the objective of U.S. drone strikes. The drone operator who expressed deep regret over killing civilians as part of his job said nothing which indicated that that was the objective. Bombardiers for the past 60 years have expressed similar regrets over civilian deaths that occur as a consequence of carrying out missions against military targets.

In almost every way civilian deaths compromise our strategic mission in the region. They endanger US soldiers and civilians by creating animosity. They grow the ranks of our enemies. They degrade support for the military mission in general and for the drone program in particular. They make the drone program increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and jeopardize its continuation. They seriously degrade our relationships with the countries in the region and make it much harder to operate in many other ways.

Deliberately targeting rescue workers and civilian onlookers is not only immoral and illegal, but is highly counterproductive to our broader military and foreign policy goals.

I'm not convinced that these tragic deaths are the result of a deliberate policy, but are rather the awful and inevitable consequences of using high explosives in populated areas.

For sheer, brute, lethality the unprecedented bombardment with B-52s over heavily populated areas around Phnom Penh and other parts of Cambodia was almost immeasurably more destructive to life and property than what we have now with Predator drones. Nixon's strategy and objectives in ordering bombing in Cambodia and Laos were almost the same as Obama's today, which is to strike at support networks. It failed miserably in south east Asia for many of the same reasons that it may be failing in central Asia today.