american drones - not so efficient

[Moonlight Graham]

So you believe that natural human behaviour is wrong and immoral.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Having a natural desire to take out a pistol and shoot the idiot who just cut you off on the highway is wrong and immoral. Having the natural desire to sexually assault the hot woman next to you in the elevator is immoral and wrong. The natural desire to kiss your girlfriend is not wrong or immoral.

Again, you take everything out of context and generalize things into your own pre-made stereotypes. Welcome back!

[Moonlight Graham]

So you understand why we attacked in response. In fact, I bet you believe that "they had it coming/asked for it," right?

Flipping this around, if you support NATO attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11, do you understand why Muslim terrorists acted in response to perceived grievances vs the West?

[WIP]

if the deaths of innocent civilians matter to you, then this latest study is quite alarming:

Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists – while the rest are innocent civilians, a new report claimed today.

The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.

And the authors lay much of the blame on the use of the ‘double-tap’ strike where a drone fires one missile – and then a second as rescuers try to drag victims from the rubble. One aid agency said they had a six-hour delay before going to the scene.

The tactic has cast such a shadow of fear over strike zones that people often wait for hours before daring to visit the scene of an attack. Investigators also discovered that communities living in fear of the drones were suffering severe stress and related illnesses. Many parents had taken their children out of school because they were so afraid of a missile-strike.

link

are nobel peace prizes ever taken back?

Just a thought -- the worst part of drone warfare is that it makes starting wars and attacking suspected enemies even easier and painless for the aggressor than when they had to risk manned aircraft. If a drone gets shot down...who cares? There's no pilot to worry about, because he's thousands of miles away in a protective bunker. It's another example of how technology makes actions more remote, and therefore more willing to commit acts of evil. After the Vietnam War, the veterans who served in the Army or the Marines and had to do ground fighting, were much less willing to advise committing troops for future conflicts than the flyboys - the guys flying overhead at 10,000 feet and dropping bombs on the enemy. I suspect that part of the reason came from that much more remote perspective to war that the bomber crew had, compared to the grunt looking for Vietcong in the jungles.

Same thing happens in other applications of technology - most people would be reluctant to buy cheap Iphones or clothing if they discovered it was being produced in a sweatshop factory in their hometown that kept employees as prisoners working 12 to 16 hours a day. But, as long as it's happening in China....half way around the world...who cares! Same with all the good people who don't mind buying the cheapest meat and dairy products produced at factory farms that raise animals in appalling conditions that would get someone thrown in jail if they kept their cats and dogs in similar conditions....but, out of sight, out of mind! So, this drone technology makes committing evil against nameless, faceless people our governments declare to be enemies so remote, that few people take notice. Unarmed drones are already starting to be put to use in U.S. cities. I wonder if they'll start putting bombs on them in the future to take out enemies on the home front.

[Guest Manny]

And you love them and cry crocodile tears for their dead, while Canadian soldiers were given ridiculous RoE which the enemy used to its advantage, and then were accused of being "war criminals" by the left via Richard Colvin and his NDP and Liberal allies.

I love who? I am a loving person in general, but I am not a fool. If you act like an asshole to me or threaten me, I know what to expect. I'm not gonna hug you, believe me.

But besides that, I never said our soldiers were war criminals. The people in Ottawa, perhaps.

[Guest Manny]

It's always easiest to cause the greatest damage when targeting and attacking unarmed men, women, and children out of the blue. Literally.

Wow that's so true. That's how the terror part works.

But isn't this thread about the same thing? How many civilians have been killed by American Drones? I've never heard of a number.

Point is, is it eye for an eye? You killed our civilians, now, we're gonna kill your civilians?

[eyeball]

So you believe that natural human behaviour is wrong and immoral. This is unsurprising, coming from a leftist. This basic philosophical point of departure is form the foundation of your support for and justifications of massive government coercion of individuals: because human nature not only can be, but must be perfected. Truly frightening.

Yes it is. But I guess that's just more human nature for you.

By your tokens 9/11 was an entirely natural response and you guys on the right are not human.

So that begs the question exactly what are you?

[Guest Manny]

So that begs the question exactly what are you?

Come on, I think it's pretty clear who we're dealing with here.

[kraychik]

Having a natural desire to take out a pistol and shoot the idiot who just cut you off on the highway is wrong and immoral.

That's certainly not a natural desire.

Having the natural desire to sexually assault the hot woman next to you in the elevator is immoral and wrong.

This is also not a natural desire, unless of course you're demented.

The natural desire to kiss your girlfriend is not wrong or immoral.

There's something very wrong with you when you can lump the previous two examples of what you perceive as natural inclinations to the desire for consensual romance. You're just revealing the contempt the left has for humanity, which is how you justify tyrannical governments. This is exposed through your sincere belief that the desire to murder people who don't drive defensively is as "natural" as wanting to engage in consensual romance with one's girlfriend or boyfriend.

[kraychik]

By your tokens 9/11 was an entirely natural response and you guys on the right are not human.

Manny was the one suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a "natural response" to perceived transgressions, not I. Unlike most of the left, I don't hold humanity in contempt and believe that it needs to be coerced into perfection by mastermind bureaucrats ("experts", according to people like Michael Hardner) via a tyrannical government.

[eyeball]

Unlike most of the left, I don't hold humanity in contempt and believe that it needs to be coerced into perfection by mastermind bureaucrats ("experts", according to people like Michael Hardner) via a tyrannical government.

Did you happen to notice where I agreed with you that the thought of massive government coercion of individuals to perfect humanity is as you say truly frightening?

BTW how do you feel about the state coercing perfection in people who enjoy...using heroin for example?

This is not a trick question.

[PIK]

I love who? I am a loving person in general, but I am not a fool. If you act like an asshole to me or threaten me, I know what to expect. I'm not gonna hug you, believe me.

But besides that, I never said our soldiers were war criminals. The people in Ottawa, perhaps.

You must mean the libs for sending our people there underequipt. All harper did was fullfill our mandate and gave the troops the proper equiptment.

[Guest American Woman]

Flipping this around, if you support NATO attacking Afghanistan in response to 9/11, do you understand why Muslim terrorists acted in response to perceived grievances vs the West?

There's a huge difference between an "attack" and "perceived grievances." You think it's understandable that every citizen in every country who "perceives grievances" against another country would form an organization and attack and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in response? That's not something I find "understandable" at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Wow that's so true. That's how the terror part works.

But isn't this thread about the same thing? How many civilians have been killed by American Drones? I've never heard of a number.

Point is, is it eye for an eye? You killed our civilians, now, we're gonna kill your civilians?

Nope, because the point of the drone attacks most definitely is not to kill civilians. We have never targeted, tried to, or purposely killed even one civilian. We regret the death of civilians; we do not aspire to kill them. It is not our goal to kill as many civilians as possible; it is our goal to kill as few civilians as possible.

[dre]

And you love them and cry crocodile tears for their dead, while Canadian soldiers were given ridiculous RoE which the enemy used to its advantage

This biggest problem with the ROE is that we are engaging "enemies" over there at all.

[eyeball]

Nope, because the point of the drone attacks most definitely is not to kill civilians. We have never targeted, tried to, or purposely killed even one civilian. We regret the death of civilians; we do not aspire to kill them. It is not our goal to kill as many civilians as possible; it is our goal to kill as few civilians as possible.

Yes but given the sheer number of times you've failed at that, you've long since crossed the line that marks the difference between negligence and criminal negligence.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes but given the sheer number of times you've failed at that, you've long since crossed the line that marks the difference between negligence and criminal negligence.

Gosh. I didn't realize that you were in the position to determine that.

[Guest Manny]

Manny was the one suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a "natural response" to perceived transgressions, not I. Unlike most of the left, I don't hold humanity in contempt and believe that it needs to be coerced into perfection by mastermind bureaucrats ("experts", according to people like Michael Hardner) via a tyrannical government.

Not sure if I said that precisely, but I would say it's a natural response to hate the people who are killing you/ your people.

[Guest Manny]

Nope, because the point of the drone attacks most definitely is not to kill civilians. We have never targeted, tried to, or purposely killed even one civilian. We regret the death of civilians; we do not aspire to kill them. It is not our goal to kill as many civilians as possible; it is our goal to kill as few civilians as possible.

I know that but it does not stop the US military from killing when they know civilians would be killed, even though there is no certainty that any targets of value would be killed. The attitude seems to be, when in doubt, kill. Just like the old adage, it's easier to apologize after the fact than it is to ask for permission! So the apology comes practically before the act takes place. That rings hollow.

In any case there's no way in the world that people in another country would understand and accept the apology. They are not blind to how these things are being done.

[Guest American Woman]

I know that but it does not stop the US military from killing when they know civilians would be killed, even though there is no certainty that any targets of value would be killed.

They wouldn't be using the drones if there were no "targets of value."

Every nation, in every war, has acted knowing that civilians would be killed. I don't know why people expect this war to be any different. The fact of the matter is, civilians will be killed no matter what. The goal is to act in such a way that results in the least casualties. How many would continue to die but for taking out key targets in the war on terror? How many more would die if we were less aggressive and the war dragged out longer? We don't have the answers to these questions. Some people think they do, but they don't. Can you tell me, for example, how much longer WWII would have lasted in the Pacific and how many more civilians would have died but for the atomic bomb bringing it to an end?

The attitude seems to be, when in doubt, kill.

If that were the attitude, I don't doubt that this war would have been over long ago.

Just like the old adage, it's easier to apologize after the fact than it is to ask for permission! So the apology comes practically before the act takes place. That rings hollow.

Not every situation is the same. War is what it is, and to pretend otherwise doesn't change the reality.

In any case there's no way in the world that people in another country would understand and accept the apology. They are not blind to how these things are being done.

Who is expecting them to? Do you think it would be better if we never expressed our regret?

[Moonlight Graham]

That's certainly not a natural desire.

This is also not a natural desire, unless of course you're demented.

There's something very wrong with you when you can lump the previous two examples of what you perceive as natural inclinations to the desire for consensual romance. You're just revealing the contempt the left has for humanity, which is how you justify tyrannical governments. This is exposed through your sincere belief that the desire to murder people who don't drive defensively is as "natural" as wanting to engage in consensual romance with one's girlfriend or boyfriend.

Uhm, aren't all instinctual desires "natural"? I guess the only desires you think are natural are the ones you agree with.

[eyeball]

Gosh. I didn't realize that you were in the position to determine that.

I bet most civilized members in the court of public opinion could have determined this.

[DogOnPorch]

The...I guess...neat thing is that there are numerous videos available showing these strikes in action. It's not strafing school buses. But, it's quite common for 'civilians' to assist or at least be aware of operations of the 'baddies'. Too close to a Hellfire strike or the IED being planted goes off sympathetically and suddenly the neighborhood goes boom.

[kraychik]

Uhm, aren't all instinctual desires "natural"? I guess the only desires you think are natural are the ones you agree with.

So now you're asserting that wanting to murder someone who isn't driving defensively is "instinctual". Even better, a man wanting to rape a woman in an elevator is also "instinctual". Somehow you place the above "natural" desires in the same category as the desire for consensual romance with one's girlfriend or boyfriend.

[Guest American Woman]

I bet most civilized members in the court of public opinion could have determined this.

I would love to know how/where they got the information to make such a determination. IOW, I'd like to know how they are qualified to make such a judgement, how they are drawing their conclusion, other than by the "feel good" methodology.

[Moonlight Graham]

There's a huge difference between an "attack" and "perceived grievances."

Perceived grievances by Muslims/Arabs often include attacks by Western militaries against innocent civilians.

an example going back the OP quote:

"Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists – while the rest are innocent civilians, a new report claimed today.

The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’."

You think it's understandable that every citizen in every country who "perceives grievances" against another country would form an organization and attack and kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in response? That's not something I find "understandable" at all.

Why not? Western militaries have killed tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians in the middle-east over the decades. But of course, when middle-easterns kill a few thousand innocent civilians in NYC or London or Madrid, that causes us to become angry and launch military campaigns in response. Yet it's somehow incomprehensible when middle-easterns are killed and private orgs or individuals launch strikes vs the West because their states don't have the will or capability to launch conventional military attacks in return. This is a double-standard. What exactly gives states legitimacy to launch wars but not non-state actors?

I don't believe in the tactics terrorists use, but I also don't believe in many of the tactics the West uses as well. If "Just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists while the rest are innocent civilians" then that is completely unacceptable. It may be that the US military has no desire to kill civilians (so they say) but they certainly don't seem to care if they happen to do so in some circumstances when going after targets, and brush off the dead innocent civilian as "collateral damage".

What if al-Qaeda had targeted a few specific defense company CEO's working in the WTC because they blamed them responsible for deaths, but the WTC attacks killed these CEO's but also took out the other 3000 innocent civilians as "collateral damage". Would this be ok?

If the Chinese military attacked a few US military targets in US a city and happened to kill 300 innocent US civilians in the process, what would Americans do? Sit on their thumbs and gladly take it?

Edited October 1, 2012 by Moonlight Graham