american drones - not so efficient

[Mr.Canada]

Obama is ordering these drone strikes personally giving permission.

[GostHacked]

The actual ratio is around 3.6-1 Terrorist---> Civilian. This is using the maximum reported numbers of killed and civilian* deaths. Not sure what 'reports' you're using. I'm also not always convinced civilian deaths are the result of the actual strike, as often there are numerous sympathetic explosions when the bad guy's ammo stores etc go off. There's numerous examples of this online...

*What exactly is a civilian in Waziristan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Depends on who you talk to, some estimates are with a ratio of 10 civilians for every terrorist.

According to unnamed counterterrorism officials, in 2009 or 2010 CIA drones began employing smaller missiles in airstrikes in Pakistan in order to reduce civilian casualties. The new missiles, called the Small Smart Weapon or Scorpion, are reportedly about the size of a violin case (21 inches long) and weigh 16 kg. The missiles are used in combination with new technology intended to increase accuracy and expand surveillance, including the use of small, unarmed surveillance drones to exactly pinpoint the location of targets. These "micro-UAVs" (unmanned aerial vehicles) can be roughly the size of a pizza platter and meant to monitor potential targets at close range, for hours or days at a time. One former U.S. official who worked with micro-UAVs said that they can be almost impossible to detect at night. "It can be outside your window and you won't hear a whisper," the official said.^[97] The drone operators also have changed to trying to target insurgents in vehicles rather than residences to reduce the chances of civilian casualties.^[14]

A January 2011 report by Bloomberg stated that civilian casualties in the strikes had apparently decreased. According to the report, the U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008, with no civilians killed since August 2010.^[98]

On 14 July 2009, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed. He suggested that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. Byman argues that civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from America. He suggested that the real answer to halting al-Qaeda's activity in Pakistan will be long-term support of Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts.^[13]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/flawed-analysis-of-drone-strike-data-is-misleading-americans/259836/

All sorts of conflicting information regarding the drone strikes.

[DogOnPorch]

http://en.wikipedia....cks_in_Pakistan

Depends on who you talk to, some estimates are with a ratio of 10 civilians for every terrorist.

http://www.theatlant...ericans/259836/

All sorts of conflicting information regarding the drone strikes.

From the same web page:

Total deaths: 3341

Total civilian Deaths: 884

3341/884 = 3.779

[GostHacked]

From the same web page:

Total deaths: 3341

Total civilian Deaths: 884

3341/884 = 3.779

The whole article talks about conflicting information in which the numbers can't be confirmed. But we can ignore that point just to 'prove' your numbers are correct.

[DogOnPorch]

The whole article talks about conflicting information in which the numbers can't be confirmed. But we can ignore that point just to 'prove' your numbers are correct.

They were from YOUR posted web page.

[GostHacked]

They were from YOUR posted web page.

There were lots of numbers on the article, which the title is:

Flawed Analysis of Drone Strike Data Is Misleading Americans

Maybe you missed that part?

[DogOnPorch]

There were lots of numbers on the article, which the title is:

Flawed Analysis of Drone Strike Data Is Misleading Americans

Maybe you missed that part?

No, I didn't miss that part. This is why I quoted the HIGHEST casualty figures. The ratio is more than 3-1 terrorist to 'civilian'. But, I keep Disraeli's quote in mind even if you do not. Many of these Hellfire (et al) strikes cause sympathetic explosions...that means the bad guy's ammo/IED/etc exploding. So perhaps said bad guys shouldn't hang around civilians*. It puts them in danger.

I know the vision that is trying to be portrayed is some poor bedraggled Jihadi sitting down to dinner with his family when KABOOM...the evil Americans murder 'em all in cold blood. Kiddies too. That's not what the numbers show.

* What exactly is a civilian in Waziristan?

Edited October 26, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

as long as you have them justifying it to themselves and believing: "the bottom line is: 'whose 4-year-olds get killed?'", then it's okay.

Good lord.

First of all, it's not even an accurate scenario...to claim that killing four-year-olds in Pakistan is a method of saving four-year-olds here is so specious it defies description.

Second, it's the idea of a moral cretin.

[WIP]

No, I didn't miss that part. This is why I quoted the HIGHEST casualty figures. The ratio is more than 3-1 terrorist to 'civilian'. But, I keep Disraeli's quote in mind even if you do not. Many of these Hellfire (et al) strikes cause sympathetic explosions...that means the bad guy's ammo/IED/etc exploding. So perhaps said bad guys shouldn't hang around civilians*. It puts them in danger.

I know the vision that is trying to be portrayed is some poor bedraggled Jihadi sitting down to dinner with his family when KABOOM...the evil Americans murder 'em all in cold blood. Kiddies too. That's not what the numbers show.

* What exactly is a civilian in Waziristan?

The numbers are complete bullshit when the Obama Administration sets a guideline that any male - 16 and over who is killed in a drone attack, is classified as a combatant, not a civilian! Why not just bomb whole cities and say that there were no civilian casualties? But, maybe they're already heading in that direction, and it's not good to give them any ideas.

[DogOnPorch]

The numbers are complete bullshit when the Obama Administration sets a guideline that any male - 16 and over who is killed in a drone attack, is classified as a combatant, not a civilian! Why not just bomb whole cities and say that there were no civilian casualties? But, maybe they're already heading in that direction, and it's not good to give them any ideas.

What's a civilian in Waziristan? The gun makers?

[Guest American Woman]

The numbers are complete bullshit when the Obama Administration sets a guideline that any male - 16 and over who is killed in a drone attack, is classified as a combatant, not a civilian!

How about a source for your claim?

[GostHacked]

Good lord.

First of all, it's not even an accurate scenario...to claim that killing four-year-olds in Pakistan is a method of saving four-year-olds here is so specious it defies description.

Second, it's the idea of a moral cretin.

But that is part of the whole mantra of the War on Terror, they die so we don't have to. At least that is what we are made to believe.

[Guest American Woman]

But that is part of the whole mantra of the War on Terror, they die so we don't have to. At least that is what we are made to believe.

No. That's what y'all claim is part of the whole mantra of the War on Terror.

[DogOnPorch]

No. That's what y'all claim is part of the whole mantra of the War on Terror.

GH is ripe with the strawman attacks today. Wear rubber boots.

[Mr.Canada]

let's make sure we know that Obama is the one who is signing off on these drone attacks. He is commander and chief of the military. He makes all decisions.

[WIP]

How about a source for your claim?

That would depend whether you accept this puff piece that the New York Times wrote to present 'tough guy' Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in.

It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants

, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

[GostHacked]

No. That's what y'all claim is part of the whole mantra of the War on Terror.

Oh yes right, it was about bringing freedom to other people in a far off land because they hate you for your freedoms.

[Jiblethead]

people should not participate in wars unless they are willing to die in it http://documentaryheaven.com/attack-of-the-drones/

im sure most of u have heard of wikileaks, its only the tip of the iceberg.

[DogOnPorch]

people should not participate in wars unless they are willing to die in it http://documentaryhe...-of-the-drones/

im sure most of u have heard of wikileaks, its only the tip of the iceberg.

Like your handle, Dale.

The French knights were rather pissed that commoners with longbows wasted them in detail at Crecy. Then again at Poitiers...and again at Agincourt. Advantage is the nature of warfare.

Edited November 2, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[WIP]

people should not participate in wars unless they are willing to die in it http://documentaryhe...-of-the-drones/

Interesting link! I'll watch the complete video later - I didn't see anything I wasn't aware of in the first 5 minutes. Your point about engaging in warfare while having no skin in the game...or personal risk should be underlined, because the most dangerous aspect of drone warfare is that it completely eliminates the risk of death, injury or capture by the aggressor, and this makes going to war much too easy!

Personally, I see technology designed for warmaking as the greatest source of evil in itself. Right now, Obama can check names that are given to him on a kill list, and they are assassinated without trial or any due process of any kind. And all this can happen now without the risk of having a plane shot down and a pilot captured.

But, drone warfare is only a step above bombing with fighter jets! I recall reading about prototype drones and future proposals back in the 70's. For the longest time it was an unwritten rule that pilotless aircraft should not be armed, and that was the reason for the long delay before the modern warfare reality....which will be engaged in by others now that the U.S. is making widespread use of airborne assassination....there was already a realization that pilotless warplanes would be no different than having robot soldiers on a battlefield....by taking away any personal risk and also to make the killing even more remote, it makes aggression easier and more common.

Looking back in recent history, Bush 1 started the Gulf War only after assurance from his military planners that Iraq didn't have sophisticated radar and antiaircraft technology capable of shooting down the latest generation of American planes; same with Clinton going to war with Yugoslavia! Rather than risk a handful of U.S. casualties, Clinton authorized an indiscriminate bombing campaign against Yugoslavia rather than put a few troops on the ground to drive the Serbians out of Kosovo. Little is said about war crimes of Democratic presidents in the U.S. because Republicans always have that kneejerk need to be more extreme and further to the right than whatever the Democrat is doing!

im sure most of u have heard of wikileaks, its only the tip of the iceberg.

Since I am old enough to remember Daniel Ellesberg's release of the Pentagon Papers and the media attention the book received when released to the public; the biggest shock to me about Wikileaks is the virtual blackout on U.S. mainstream media and corresponding lack of interest among the public! Everywhere else in the world, they are aware of the key findings. The so called "Arab Spring" uprisings got their start when some of the cables revealed to Tunisians the extent of the looting of the public treasury that their longtime dictator had been carrying out for decades. In this age, most impoverished third world citizens are better informed, and take greater interest in what's going on than the average American!

I've heard BBC investigate reporter - Greg Palast comment a number of times on alternative media that the only place in the world where his reports are not heard regarding: BP's previous oil rig blowout in the Caspian Sea, theft of international aid funds by U.S. hedge fund billionaires, and his most recent report on voting list "caging" is in his home country! They have all been big stories in England, the rest of Europe, and he gets calls from media in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America...but not from the Big U.S. newspapers and news networks.

Edited November 3, 2012 by WIP

[WIP]

s.

Edited November 3, 2012 by WIP

[GostHacked]

Since I am old enough to remember Daniel Ellesberg's release of the Pentagon Papers and the media attention the book received when released to the public; the biggest shock to me about Wikileaks is the virtual blackout on U.S. mainstream media and corresponding lack of interest among the public!

Wikileaks has been subject to marginalization on the Internet. Google searches have been scrubbed, and the reason the MSM is not talking about it, is because they have been ordered (for the most part and many MSM will abide by the orders) by the government to not talk about it. Similar in a way to how China's Tank Man at Tienanmen Square has been scrubbed from search results. There are things in place to make something disappear from the Internet. The technology has existed since the search engines have been in place.

Google is also facilitating in making sure Wikileaks is never heard from again. You can also bet that someone is messing with their DNS records as well. That alone can prevent most people from visiting Wikileaks if they have no idea how to get to the site via IP.

Edited November 5, 2012 by GostHacked

[WIP]

Wikileaks has been subject to marginalization on the Internet. Google searches have been scrubbed, and the reason the MSM is not talking about it, is because they have been ordered (for the most part and many MSM will abide by the orders) by the government to not talk about it. Similar in a way to how China's Tank Man at Tienanmen Square has been scrubbed from search results. There are things in place to make something disappear from the Internet. The technology has existed since the search engines have been in place.

Google is also facilitating in making sure Wikileaks is never heard from again. You can also bet that someone is messing with their DNS records as well. That alone can prevent most people from visiting Wikileaks if they have no idea how to get to the site via IP.

That's very true! This BS about Google and Yahoo "personalizing" their search engines in the interest of sales & marketing alone is just that - bullshit! If they can filter out the information we are searching for in a similar manner that Google admits to applying in China as per their agreement with the Government, then there is no reason why western governments and the very large commercial interests aren't extending favours to Google to apply the same rules with us. I'm surprised that the story of the U.S. National Archive banning Wikileaks made the news....it must have been a slow news day because they will go to whatever the latest stupid story is about the Kardashians before they cover a story on censorship. But, if Google is "personalizing" your searches to leave unfavoured websites and authors off the first page, then they are accomplishing their objective of misinforming 99% of the low-info public without having to cross that line into overt, outright censorship.

The main strategy against Wikileaks was to threaten every company that was forwarding online credit card donations to Wikileaks. That totally illegal action would have taken them completely offline if Wikileaks didn't have supporters in foreign countries and a few millionaires who are interested in keeping the site operating. But this is a precarious situation nonetheless to be beholden to one or a handful of big money donors, rather than the broader world public.

It has been noted from many sides previously that the increasingly concentrated U.S. news media is slowly turning into the equivalent national news TV and newspapers that you find in the average dictatorship. Supposedly, at least as far back as the "special relationship" that the late Sunday morning news anchor Tim Russert had with the power players in Washington, the excuse has been that if they are mean and ask a few questions that politicians aren't prepared for and don't want to answer, they will lose access to them. So, the useless Sunday morning shows, which have almost no public audience, are only on and earn undeservedly large salaries for their hosts because the major sponsors like G.E., Lockheed Martin etc. want to set the pattern for the rest of the network drones to follow throughout the week and base their questions and their phony concerns on (Social Security going broke, the Federal deficit etc.) The American reporters who want to be millionaires, like the Russerts - Sr. and Jr., David Gregory etc. etc. are stenographers, not reporters! Any reporter on a network show or at a major newspaper who makes a politician or a major financial player on Wall Street work up a sweat, is soon out of a job. The best they can do after that is to get a show on one of the cable news channels where they only have access to either the Republican or the Democratic politicos -- and they may be able to sound off there about the other party, but if they criticize their own leaders or worse - criticize the very institutions of power themselves, they are out the door and shut off from having any access to any major U.S. media including PBS and NPR. They only people they can talk to after going rogue, are some foreign press and small fringe, alternative media within the country.

In a sense, the mainstream media is already acting in the manner described by former correspondents of Pravda after the fall of the Soviet Union -- most said there were no clear written rules for what they could discuss or the questions they could ask, but they soon learned to adopt a policy of self-censorship and learn what the red lines were before they crossed the line and got fired or worse. The only thing we have going in our favour today in access to real information is that the U.S. (and Canada of course) have foreign enemies with their own news channels that will highlight those stories that the media over here either ignore or bury. So, I may not hear the bad stuff about Gazprom and the Russian oligarchs if I watch a newscast on RT, but I will hear about the ones on Wall Street, and even stories like the Occupy Wall Street movement starting a relief effort dubbed 'Occupy Sandy' and getting some aid to some of the poorer zones in New York like Staten Island, which FEMA and other relief agencies didn't seem to have at the top of their priority lists. And, without fail, none of the major networks or the New York flagship stations mentioned OWS, because they try to avoid any positive stories about the movement at all costs. As long as commercial media and corporate-funded public media are in the business of self-censorship, whatever they say about the upcoming U.S. Election and related major issues is about as worthy as commentaries on state television in China!

Edited November 5, 2012 by WIP

[GostHacked]

WIP

It's something I have witnessed for a while. And even with my youtube channel. For example the view counts. Two of my vids are stuck , one a 301 the other at 311 counts. Now in most cases that number is reconciled within hours because the counts past 300 have been verified will eventually show up. Both of my mentioned vids have been stuck on that count number for about 2-3 months. All while likes and comment counts have increased during that time. In cases Youtube (aka google) has an interest in skewering results on Youtube as well as general Google searches. Some of the people I have subscribed to have had their results tinkered with as well. Real good information gets low counts while 'fluffy fuzzy kittens' are always in the top tier search results. :/

Youtube is also going to soon force you to use your real name or the name on your email account associated with Google/Youtube. Part of the government wanting us to be honest and open but we get more of the exact opposite from the powers that be.

I guess that can be a whole other topic/thread ... Google scrubbing search results.

[wyly]

Every day we hear of another 5, or 12, or 26 people killed by a suicide bomber somewhere in the middle east. I don't think we are killing far more civilians than that. That we kill some is unfortunate but unavoidable.

everyday? I wee bit of an exaggeration don't you think?...I recall seeing a tabulation of deaths due to terrorism vs US bombing/military interventions and it isn't even close...you're safer living with terrorists than being saved by americans...