american drones - not so efficient

[bud]

these drone attacks are as cowardly as lining 50 people up in front of a firing squad just so they can kill 1 so-called terrorist.

the double standard and hypocrisy by those who, in one breath are so outraged by terrorist attacks committed by 'those people', while at the same time, they defend these savage attacks which leave so many more innocent civilians killed or maimed, is astounding.

of the 98% innocent people being killed by american drones in pakistan, i wonder how many of their family members will now be turning to groups who want to take revenge on the west.

Edited October 1, 2012 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

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

Is Obama President in this scenario?

I keeeed, I keeeed...

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/klaq.com/files/2012/08/Triumph-the-Insult-Comic-Dog.jpg

[eyeball]

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.

Most probably had all the moral and ethical background they needed to tell the difference between right and wrong by the time they graduated kindergarten.

Edited October 1, 2012 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

Most probably had all the moral and ethical background they needed to tell the difference between right and wrong by the time they graduated kindergarten.

I didn't think y'all had anything.

[bud]

I didn't think y'all had anything.

hey look, i am responding by pressing reply, otherwise, i have added nothing.

[Guest American Woman]

these drone attacks are as cowardly as lining 50 people up in front of a firing squad just so they can kill 1 so-called terrorist.

You referenced those numbers in your opening post, too, taken from your link to MailOnline: 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.

I have no idea where they came up with the "1 in 50" statistics as this is what the report actually says:

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through midSeptember 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

the double standard and hypocrisy by those who, in one breath are so outraged by terrorist attacks committed by 'those people', while at the same time, they defend these savage attacks which leave so many more innocent civilians killed or maimed, is astounding.

The statistics in the report don't confirm your claim that "these savage attacks" have killed or maimed more innocent civilians than terrorist attacks have.

of the 98% innocent people being killed by american drones in pakistan, i wonder how many of their family members will now be turning to groups who want to take revenge on the west.

Except 98% of the people killed by drones weren't "innocent people." According to the report, 2% of those killed were “high-level” targets,* but that is not saying that the other 98% were innocent people; the report does not say that at all. I think it's a safe bet that a small minority of the military casualties in WW2 were Generals, so I would wager that the "2% high-level targets" would be in line with such statistics. In other words, just because most of the deaths weren't "high-level targets" doesn't mean that the majority weren't militants/terrorists. In other words, your claim is flat out false, given the actual statistics in the actual report.

*edited to add: In retrospect, this must be the data that MailOnline's erroneous headline/claim was taken from.

Edited October 2, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Manny]

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

Not you on that part. I don't know if it would be better. I suppose it would be. But it's probably more better for you than it is for them.

Anyway not talking about you personally of course, AW. These things are all hypothetical.

The real problem in war is often, once it starts its a hard thing to shut off again. What is the criteria that determines when enough is enough, and the hostilities cease? It's when the money runs out. Well now what

[Guest American Woman]

Not you on that part. I don't know if it would be better. I suppose it would be. But it's probably more better for you than it is for them.

I think it's better all the way around. To kill civilians and show no regret would hardly be the acceptable thing to do in my mind, from anyone's POV.

Anyway not talking about you personally of course, AW. These things are all hypothetical.

I appreciate that.

The real problem in war is often, once it starts its a hard thing to shut off again. What is the criteria that determines when enough is enough, and the hostilities cease? It's when the money runs out. Well now what

There are a lot of real problems with war, and I think first and foremost is the fact that we humans don't have all of the answers. What is right and what is wrong is rarely black and white, and sometimes something is wrong for one reason but right for another. In the end, all we can do is what we think is right for the most people, while trying to protect the innocent as best we can.

There's a lot of criticism for actions that will knowingly kill some civilians, but as I pointed out, no war has been able to avoid that. I think the question is: how many would ultimately end up being killed if we did nothing? And furthermore, should the fact that the militants are embedded with civilians prevent us from fighting back when they kill our innocent civilians?

I searched for and read the report in question because I couldn't believe that the claim was true. I do not read such a claim in any media outlet and just believe it without seeing it for myself. I could not believe that the U.S. government would engage in a war tactic that killed 50 more civilians than targets/militants. I also could not accept such an action if it were true; I would be appalled that so many innocent people had died just to get a handful of terrorists/militants. Such an action would go against everything we promised, strive for, and stand for.

I was relieved, and not surprised, to find out that the "just one in 50 victims of America’s deadly drone strikes in Pakistan are terrorists" claim was not only false, but totally and completely wrong in that by far the majority of those killed are terrorists/militants.

Why do people make and/or choose to believe such outrageously false claims? What good is it doing?

It's sometimes all too easy to see and criticize actions that kill innocent civilians, but how many more would have been killed but for the actions?

Take, for example, the deaths due to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the total deaths in both cities were much less than the total of the deliberate civilian deaths at the hands of the Japanese in Nanking alone. The U.S. is criticized for dropping the bombs, but if the Japanese hadn't been stopped, how many more innocent civilians would have ultimately been killed? And which is more moral/ethical - to have the power to stop such people and not use it, resulting in a higher number of deaths - or to use the power, knowing innocent people are going to be killed?

As I said, such things are rarely black and white, and I'm sure the decisions are often not easily made.

[bud]

double post.

Edited October 2, 2012 by bud

[bud]

You referenced those numbers in your opening post, too, taken from your link to MailOnline: 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.

I have no idea where they came up with the "1 in 50" statistics as this is what the report actually says:

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through midSeptember 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

The statistics in the report don't confirm your claim that "these savage attacks" have killed or maimed more innocent civilians than terrorist attacks have.

Except 98% of the people killed by drones weren't "innocent people." According to the report, 2% of those killed were “high-level” targets,* but that is not saying that the other 98% were innocent people; the report does not say that at all. I think it's a safe bet that a small minority of the military casualties in WW2 were Generals, so I would wager that the "2% high-level targets" would be in line with such statistics. In other words, just because most of the deaths weren't "high-level targets" doesn't mean that the majority weren't militants/terrorists. In other words, your claim is flat out false, given the actual statistics in the actual report.

*edited to add: In retrospect, this must be the data that MailOnline's erroneous headline/claim was taken from.

good pick up about the statistics. since the same study was repeated by other outlets like the independent and LA times, i didn't look deep into the information provided.

perhaps their 1 in 50 statistic, included those who have been maimed and injured as well. regardless, i have no intention of posting false information and welcome any correction.

[Mr.Canada]

Who cares. Afghans have killed over 2,000 allies, they get what they deserve. If you're so concerned about these poor people who shelter terrorists then why not go to Afghanistan and donate your time and money to the Taliban. They are so hard done by right? Lol, the Taliban stand for the exact opposite of what the socialists stand for yet they are on their side instead of ours...lol...hilarious.

[Moonlight Graham]

I have no idea where they came up with the "1 in 50" statistics as this is what the report actually says:

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through midSeptember 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.

Ya I checked too, the OP article seems completely bogus in its claim. Unless Bud can prove otherwise. I thought maybe they were referring to some stat about only double-tap strikes killed that amount, but doesn't seem so.

[eyeball]

Lol, the Taliban stand for the exact opposite of what the socialists stand for yet they are on their side instead of ours...lol...hilarious.

I don't know about that, the Taliban are amongst the most conservative people on the planet.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know about that, the Taliban are amongst the most conservative people on the planet.

It is no doubt Western-centric to think the Taliban think in terms of right and left. More like who is right and wrong.

[cybercoma]

It doesn't concern me. It's war. People die in war. They hate us anyways. I don't care.

It's disturbing that you can just shrug your shoulders at innocent deaths like this. Very disturbing.

"It's war. Oh well."

Is it just that you don't ever have to worry about a war breaking out on Canadian soil that you can be this insanely cold about others' deaths?

[cybercoma]

Well I cannot support a nation that hides terrorists and offers to kill a citizen of a foreign nation for exercising free speech.

So their government makes decisions and shrug your shoulders when civilians are murdered because of them?

I wonder if you would feel the same way if innocent Canadians were killed because of things our government does.

[Mr.Canada]

So their government makes decisions and shrug your shoulders when civilians are murdered because of them?

I wonder if you would feel the same way if innocent Canadians were killed because of things our government does.

They are already kidnapped and beheaded. So it's already taking place.

[eyeball]

It is no doubt Western-centric to think the Taliban think in terms of right and left. More like who is right and wrong.

I wasn't thinking in terms of right and left. Take China's leaders for example, they're probably even more conservative when it comes to the relationship between the government and the governed.

[DogOnPorch]

They are already kidnapped and beheaded. So it's already taking place.

Well, Robert McNamara said we should show empathy to our enemies. I agree with that. I think the trouble is that the word 'enemy' has now become non-PC. Canada doesn't have enemies. Just friends it hasn't won over yet.

[DogOnPorch]

I wasn't thinking in terms of right and left. Take China's leaders for example, they're probably even more conservative when it comes to the relationship between the government and the governed.

Sure. But, my point is that as Westerners, we view things a Western way and thus are subject to its biases.

[eyeball]

Sure. But, my point is that as Westerners, we view things a Western way and thus are subject to its biases.

Try thinking like an Earthling for a change.

[Mr.Canada]

Try thinking like an Earthling for a change.

Sorry not all cultures and countries are equal. Nor do they all think the same way. Your simplistic, Utopian view of the world is completely naive.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[DogOnPorch]

Try thinking like an Earthling for a change.

Non sequitur. You are no more capable of thinking like an 'Earthling' than myself or anyone else. If you born in India, there would have been a excellent chance you'd be Hindu as your parents likely were. But, you know that.

As Dawkins argued, we don't apply politics to children but we sure apply religion.

[Guest]

America has begun drawing up potential targets in Libya ahead of a possible retaliatory strike with drones or special forces following the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, it was claimed.

This from today's Telegraph. I hope they don't kill any innocent civilians, but I wouldn't want them to not try and kill those responsible for the attacks.

[bud]

I hope they don't kill any innocent civilians, but

people can learn a thing or two about your moral standard. especially those uncivilized people.