Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) 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...... If you accept the source and references (Student paper report in 2012 - 3 years ago) as credible then you will believe what you may. That is your choice. Edited October 18, 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.
Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 Doubters may refer to other sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff "Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target" Huffington Post http://www.inquisitr.com/1637460/u-s-drone-strikes-96-5-of-targeted-assassinations-in-middle-east-missed-terrorists-killed-civilians/ "New data reveals that U.S drone strikes across the Middle East only killed around 3.5% of the terrorists they were targeting, while the rest of the casualties were civilians, including children." http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/drone-papers-whistleblower/ "Up to 90 pct of U.S. drone strikes hit the wrong target, major leak reveals." If you key in "US drones not hitting targets" into Google you may find other references. 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.
GostHacked Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 All you have to do is listen to the news once in a while to see how effective the drones are with getting the terrorists. I seriously doubt killing 10 civilians to get a single terrorist is worth it. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 Doubters may refer to other sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff "Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not The Target" Huffington Post http://www.inquisitr.com/1637460/u-s-drone-strikes-96-5-of-targeted-assassinations-in-middle-east-missed-terrorists-killed-civilians/ "New data reveals that U.S drone strikes across the Middle East only killed around 3.5% of the terrorists they were targeting, while the rest of the casualties were civilians, including children." http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/drone-papers-whistleblower/ "Up to 90 pct of U.S. drone strikes hit the wrong target, major leak reveals." If you key in "US drones not hitting targets" into Google you may find other references. Funny but 2 out of the 3 new sources all ref to your original source.....and the other one uses a source that you have discounted.....as it was used by students....I guess it is believe what you want to......but one source repeated several times does not make it fact.... 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.
Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 Funny but 2 out of the 3 new sources all ref to your original source.....and the other one uses a source that you have discounted.....as it was used by students....I guess it is believe what you want to......but one source repeated several times does not make it fact.... I have no intention of having you believe anything. Believe what makes sense to you. I am satisfied with my references. If you are not, then please ignore my post. As to sources, if you Google Eric Snowden you will find about 37 million references - all from some aspect of his release of information. Yes, there are many repeats. 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.
TimG Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 I have no intention of having you believe anything. Believe what makes sense to you. I am satisfied with my references. If you are not, then please ignore my post.A lie repeated a million times is not more credible because it was repeated. You have one source for your claims and a bunch of links back to that same source. There are at least 3 different sources with much lower estimates for civilian casualties. A reasonable person would consider the full range of estimates before jumping to conclusions. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) I am satisfied with my references. If you are not, then please ignore my post and/or post your own references. I do not jump to conclusions, I set upon them when I feel I have had sufficient information. Edited October 18, 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.
TimG Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 I am satisfied with my references. If you are not, then please ignore my post and/or post your own references.So you are satisfied that others have posted references that show that your claims are most likely BS created to generate maximum outrage? Quote
Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 I am satisfied that you are more concerned about dicrediting what I have posted than what the facts to be. If you feel that what I post is BS to gain maximum outrage and/or am in some kind of conspiracy with some of the largest media outlets in the world then please feel free to believe it. "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.” - John Lydgate I assume that it is safe to place TimG into my "not pleased with Big Guy posts" column. I will try not to allow that to keep me up at night. Thank you for your reply. 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.
TimG Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 I am satisfied that you are more concerned about discrediting what I have posted than what the facts to be.Excuse me? You are the one ignoring the links that provide radically different estimates of the facts. You have simply refused to acknowledge that your facts may not actually be facts. Once those alternate facts were posted the onus is on you to provide a rational argument for why your facts should be considered more accurate. Your response that a million google links reference your source is not argument. An argument would dig into the methodology used in each and discuss why your preferred source has a better methodology. Without such an argument 3 sources trump 1 which means it is reasonable to assume that your source is BS because it is an outlier. Quote
Big Guy Posted October 18, 2015 Author Report Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) For a start, the reference which disputes mine is over 3 years old. There have been three years of drone action since then. And I am not going to excuse you but will stop spending any more time on you. You seem intent for some reason to discount what I posted. Please discount what I posted, call it BS or whatever you want to call it and decide whatever you want to decide. I really do not care. You have never been a fan of Big Guy and I will have to live with that. I have now missed two touchdowns by Seattle while dealing with your concerns. I find the football game far more enjoyable and plan to not miss any more action. Good night. Edited October 19, 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.
Guest Posted April 8, 2016 Report Posted April 8, 2016 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. 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. I made the last post here. You never replied. If you want to argue the point, as you seem to based on your posts in Waldo's update, go ahead. Quote
BC_chick Posted April 8, 2016 Report Posted April 8, 2016 I made the last post here. You never replied. If you want to argue the point, as you seem to based on your posts in Waldo's update, go ahead. Yeah, like I said, you're indifferent to it. A means to an end. 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 April 8, 2016 Report Posted April 8, 2016 Yeah, like I said, you're indifferent to it. A means to an end. you don't see that if the end is saving lives and destroying those who would take them, the means might have to somewhat beyond those you might employ for lesser tasks? The OP states 90% innocent lives lost. There are those who argue the point, but let's assume it is the case. At what percentage are you on board? Quote
BC_chick Posted April 8, 2016 Report Posted April 8, 2016 you don't see that if the end is saving lives and destroying those who would take them, the means might have to somewhat beyond those you might employ for lesser tasks? The OP states 90% innocent lives lost. There are those who argue the point, but let's assume it is the case. At what percentage are you on board? It's not about what I think is the magic number. You responded to Waldo that 'life is cheap' and then asked where on earth he would draw the conclusion that you're one of the people who felt that way. I reminded you that you have said so before too. You said on his update and you said it on this thread. 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 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 April 8, 2016 Report Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) It's not about what I think is the magic number. You responded to Waldo that 'life is cheap' and then asked where on earth he would draw the conclusion that you're one of the people who felt that way. I reminded you that you have said so before too. You said on his update and you said it on this thread. I see. You realise the "oopses" was a quote from Big Guy's OP, right? Given that, what exactly is it that you disagree with me about? When you said this: Forget military laws and conventions of war, on a moral level, are you seriously ok with 9 out of 10 collateral-damage ratio? I answered, 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. What do you do? Do you wail? Do you stay awake nights? Edited April 9, 2016 by bcsapper Quote
Big Guy Posted April 13, 2016 Author Report Posted April 13, 2016 Those who are interested in Drone warfare and Afghanistan may be interested in an article by a "whistle blower" who operated drones and his reaction to the job. "There's no physical danger from the enemy and that's what makes the job so tough. If you're in danger, if someone is pointing a gun at you, you can justify - in your own mind - shooting someone. But if you're sitting in Kandahar, you're confronted with a screen where you watch people day in, day out - you might even start to realise they're not bad people." "It hit me when I was in Kandahar airbase, on one side you have a McDonald's and down the road there's kids begging for water. Those people lived an austere life, and we're sitting there from the comfort of the joystick, resolved in the idea that we're killing bad guys. Maybe they're not bad guys. Maybe we just need fewer bombs and more communication between cultures." http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/04/confessions-air-force-drone-technician-afghanistan-160406114636155.html 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.
jacee Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 One person's story: I am in the strange position of knowing that I am on the Kill List. I know this because I have been told, and I know because I have been targeted for death over and over again. ... I am from Waziristan, the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I am one of the leaders of the North Waziristan Peace Committee (NWPC), which is a body of local Maliks (or community leaders) that is devoted to trying to keep the peace in our region. We are sanctioned by the Pakistan government, and our main mission is to try to prevent violence between the local Taliban and the authorities. ... I am in England this week because I decided that if Westerners wanted to kill me without bothering to come to speak with me first, perhaps I should come to speak to them instead. Malik Jalal Tuesday 12 April 2016 ... To date, 51 people have died in US drone strikes near this man. I don't think the drone attacks are just ill advised, nor inexact. I think the intention is to outrage innocent people against the US, cause them to fight back. Then the US war machine has real 'enemies' ... a real war ... and real profits . Blatant warmongering ... killing innocent people intentionally ... to generate future profits. . Quote
eyeball Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 To date, 51 people have died in US drone strikes near this man. . It's only a matter of time until people in the US start dying from drone attacks as well - probably to outrage them and cause them to fight back. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 13, 2016 Report Posted April 13, 2016 No worries...once the Drone Wars start, the USA will happily share the profiteering with Canada, just as it always has (e.g Vietnam War). UAVs are the perfect compliment to all those LAVs that Liberal party Canada is building for Saudi Arabia. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jacee Posted April 14, 2016 Report Posted April 14, 2016 No worries...once the Drone Wars start, the USA will happily share the profiteering with Canada, just as it always has (e.g Vietnam War). UAVs are the perfect compliment to all those LAVs that Liberal party Canada is building for Saudi Arabia. So you get my point. . Quote
Argus Posted April 16, 2016 Report Posted April 16, 2016 For a start, the reference which disputes mine is over 3 years old. There have been three years of drone action since then. And I am not going to excuse you but will stop spending any more time on you. You seem intent for some reason to discount what I posted. Please discount what I posted, If you are seeking an echo chamber where people will stand and applaud every time you spout some nonsensical bit of opinionated datum you have come to the wrong place. Here we examine the likely truthfulness of sources and discount what seems to be obvious falsehood. You will find a less challenging audience on sites where pro-capitalist, pro-western opinions are banned. Might I suggest you go there and repost your theories? 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 April 16, 2016 Report Posted April 16, 2016 So you get my point. . I think he is mocking your point. 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 April 16, 2016 Report Posted April 16, 2016 The OP states 90% innocent lives lost. The OP has no basis on which to make that statement. Further, even if one assumes a certain number of people are killed who are merely standing around the intended target one cannot assume these are 'innocent'. It's more likely they are other terrorists. 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 April 16, 2016 Author Report Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) ... Might I suggest you go there and repost your theories? Certainly, as long as you promise to go where I say you can go. Edited April 17, 2016 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.
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.