Big Guy Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) The Americans have been boasting about their technologically superior drone program. Some guy in a chair in Phoenix Arizona controls an armed drone over Pakistan, drops a bomb remotely and takes out some terrorists. The American guy is safe, the terrorists is dead and everybody is happy!! The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ The good news is that 35 of them were the intended targets and the bad news is that 165 were “oopses”. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. Hello! That means that 9 out of every 10 folks that are wiped out by drones are “collateral damage”. We might understand when a bomb on a terrorist camp takes out the camp and unfortunately two or three innocent bystanders are killed. But 9 out of 10 ???? In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse. And the Americans wonder why most of the rest of the world does not like them. Edited October 15, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Shady Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 Most of the rest of the world is made up of tin pot dictators and totalitarian regimes. Also, what are innocent bystanders doing at a terrorist camp? Toasting marshmallows? Regardless, I agree that the Nobel peace prize president has significantly ramped up the drone killing program and that innocent casualties need to be taken into greater consideration. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Most of the rest of the world is made up of tin pot dictators and totalitarian regimes. Also, what are innocent bystanders doing at a terrorist camp? Toasting marshmallows? Regardless, I agree that the Nobel peace prize president has significantly ramped up the drone killing program and that innocent casualties need to be taken into greater consideration. So why is the west so comfy with Saudi Arabia? Quote
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Yeah, "oopses" happen. It's a shame, but such is war. On the plus side, at least the guy on our side is safe. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Most of the rest of the world is made up of tin pot dictators and totalitarian regimes. That's an objectively false statement, not to mention arrogant as hell. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) ....And the Americans wonder why most of the rest of the world does not like them. No, that is projection of a Canadian value. "Please Love Us ® " Many Americans know exactly why some of the rest of the world does not like the USA, while also making it their #1 emigre destination. Edited October 16, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Shady and anyone else that feels it ok to kill anyone in the ME, how would u feel if THEY had drones and sent them to North America? Just remember the US and maybe Israel stated this mess in the ME. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Posted October 16, 2015 Yeah, "oopses" happen. It's a shame, but such is war. On the plus side, at least the guy on our side is safe. I assume that this reply is tongue in cheek. But being accurate only 1 out of 10 times? It is like the police coming to a site of a bank robbery. They attack and the robber is killed but another 9 folks in the bank are also taken out. But the police continue the policy and program because the 10% success rate is acceptable. That make any sense? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Depends. How many people was the bank robber going to kill? Quote
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Yeah, "oopses" happen. It's a shame, but such is war. On the plus side, at least the guy on our side is safe. Forget military laws and conventions of war, on a moral level, are you seriously ok with 9 out of 10 collateral-damage ratio? Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 It always amazes me that people could have such callous disregard for human life that they can say "oops, shit happens" when innocent people get massacred. Quote
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Forget military laws and conventions of war, on a moral level, are you seriously ok with 9 out of 10 collateral-damage ratio? Of course not. Neither are the Americans, one assumes. The Isrealis are not okay with hitting civilians when they respond to a Hamas rocket, either, I suppose. Air Strike aimed at ISIS will kill innocents as well. What do you propose? Take more care? Sure. Try harder? Sure. Stop? Only if that's strategically the right thing to do. Quote
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) It always amazes me that people could have such callous disregard for human life that they can say "oops, shit happens" when innocent people get massacred. It always amazes me that people think you can fight a war without innocent casualties. Edit> I'm curious. How much sleep do you actually lose? Edited October 16, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
cybercoma Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 What has been accomplished in a decade and a half of war against terror? Is the world any safer from terrorism today than it was then? That is the question. For all those innocent lives lost, what has been accomplished. I'll take your point that war is going to have innocent casualties, but when those lives are lost with absolutely no progress made whatsoever, that's a pretty disgusting toll to pay for nothing. Quote
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 What has been accomplished in a decade and a half of war against terror? Is the world any safer from terrorism today than it was then? That is the question. For all those innocent lives lost, what has been accomplished. I'll take your point that war is going to have innocent casualties, but when those lives are lost with absolutely no progress made whatsoever, that's a pretty disgusting toll to pay for nothing. In order to know it was for nothing you would have to know the outcome of any action taken differently over the last decade and a half. It's like arguing over whether or not Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. The only way to know for sure would be to know the result of not dropping them. I pick sides. Innocent lives lost in error and resulting in no (perceived) progress are still less disgusting than those killed deliberately, progress or not, Quote
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Of course not. Neither are the Americans, one assumes. The Isrealis are not okay with hitting civilians when they respond to a Hamas rocket, either, I suppose. Air Strike aimed at ISIS will kill innocents as well. What do you propose? Take more care? Sure. Try harder? Sure. Stop? Only if that's strategically the right thing to do. Fine, but as far as the OP is asserting - is a system worth using when its miss to hit ratio is 9 to 1? Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Fine, but as far as the OP is asserting - is a system worth using when its miss to hit ratio is 9 to 1? Would I like to see a better ratio? Of course I would. Do I want them to stop doing it? Not unless they deem it no longer necessary. Quote
BC_chick Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I'll take that as a yes. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Guest Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I'll take that as a yes. Well, you're asking the wrong question. Better questions would be: Is a system worth using if it achieves your goals? How much collateral damage are you willing to accept in order to achieve those goals? Edit> I suppose an even better one would be: What would the result in terms of innocent lives lost be if you stopped trying to reach your goals, but that's impossible to answer. Edited October 16, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
Argus Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 That's an objectively false statement, not to mention arrogant as hell. No, actually it's not. Most of the world's nations are not democracies of any sort. Some are semi-democracies, or false front democracies, like Russia, say, or Turkey, but the majority are dictatorships of various brands. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 Shady and anyone else that feels it ok to kill anyone in the ME, Neither he nor anyone else has said anything remotely like this. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 But being accurate only 1 out of 10 times? It is like the police coming to a site of a bank robbery. They attack and the robber is killed but another 9 folks in the bank are also taken out. But the police continue the policy and program because the 10% success rate is acceptable. That make any sense? . Your posts rarely make sense because they're almost always based on a single source, which is often way out there on the political spectrum. You don't appear to have the ability to differentiate this from the mainstream news sources which are more careful about their data. The following is taken from a study by Columbia School of Law, which both analyzed known drone strikes in Pakistan, and collated the numbers from other organizations which had tried to do the same. It found the vast majority of victims of drone strikes were terrorists. •The Bureau of Investigative Journalism Total killed: Counting the Bureau’s own figures on a strike by strike basis, we counted a range of 473 to 669 total individuals killed (compared to the Bureau’s own total count of 473-663) o Civilians: A range of 68 to 157 civilians killed (the Bureau reports an upper range of 154 civilians) • New America Foundation: o Total killed: A range of 366 to 599 total individuals killed (consistent with New America’s own tally) o Militants: 331 to 524 militants killed (New America reports a range of 336 to 535) o Civilians:A range of 3 to 9 civilians killed (consistent with New America’s own tally) o Unknown:A range of 32 to 66 unknowns killed (New America reports a range of 27 to 58) •The Long War Journal: o Total killed: A range of 438 to 478 total individuals killed (Long War Journal reports 435 total) o Militants: A range of 421 to 475 militants killed (Long War Journal reports 405) o Civilians: A range of 3 to 38 civilians killed (Long War Journal reports 30) http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Big Guy Posted October 17, 2015 Author Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) There have been a number of interesting investigations of drone efficiency in the Middle East. The students from the Columbia School of Law prepared an interesting (if flawed report) 3 years ago in 2012. While it is not stated if they were given a fail or pass on the project it must have been good practice for when they graduate. Serious researchers would never use a student paper to try to prove a position. There is no question of the dismal rate of success of the American drone program: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 This is a verified report of 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground. Now this newspaper has only been around for about 100 years and a daily readership of 200,000 people - so some bright lights may prefer student paper results over this publication. The Intercept publication has also stated, "Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, a top intelligence official in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says in a forthcoming interview on Al Jazeera English that the drone war is creating more terrorists than it is killing. He also asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create the Islamic State and that U.S. soldiers involved in torturing detainees need to be held legally accountable for their actions." Now the bright lights on this board obviously understand better of what is happening in the Middle East than Army Gen. Mike Flynn. I suggest that the bright lights confine their brilliance to the sand box in which the Canadian federal election is being discussed. Any serious discussion of world affairs requires more tolerance, understanding and maturity. Edited October 17, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
dre Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 It always amazes me that people could have such callous disregard for human life that they can say "oops, shit happens" when innocent people get massacred. Hawks pretty much HAVE to do that, because civilians have been the primary damaged party in every war in history. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 There have been a number of interesting investigations of drone efficiency in the Middle East. The students from the Columbia School of Law prepared an interesting (if flawed report) 3 years ago in 2012. While it is not stated if they were given a fail or pass on the project it must have been good practice for when they graduate. Serious researchers would never use a student paper to try to prove a position. There is no question of the dismal rate of success of the American drone program: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 This is a verified report of 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground. Now this newspaper has only been around for about 100 years and a daily readership of 200,000 people - so some bright lights may prefer student paper results over this publication. The Intercept publication has also stated, "Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, a top intelligence official in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says in a forthcoming interview on Al Jazeera English that the drone war is creating more terrorists than it is killing. He also asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create the Islamic State and that U.S. soldiers involved in torturing detainees need to be held legally accountable for their actions." Now the bright lights on this board obviously understand better of what is happening in the Middle East than Army Gen. Mike Flynn. I suggest that the bright lights confine their brilliance to the sand box in which the Canadian federal election is being discussed. Any serious discussion of world affairs requires more tolerance, understanding and maturity. So are you saying that the students did not get it right, students from the Columbia law School, and part of the Human rights Clinic, produced a damning report towards the US and the use of drones.....on this topic, and yet you have written off as false....no good, shit it was written by students, students who happened to use 3 very credible sources...... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.