• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

US kills 49 innocent civilians for every 1 terrorist via drone strikes.

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

Can someone explain why they believe this will work? I want one of the neoconservatives (or pro war crowd) to tell me how they think this will play out for the end game.

You people laughed at the term blowback yet here is a perfect example of how our actions are causing people to be fucking pissed at the United States.

They simply cannot win diplomatically, or through means of common war. They turn to terrorism because as it turns out that is the only thing that seems to get our attention away from American Idol.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Im a republican technically but I am against the war. I can tell you what a conservative will say though:
Blah blah blah patriot acts blah blah fight terrorism no matter the cost blah blah it doesnt matter if we provoked them theyre still evil blah blah 'MURICA
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
So diplomacy won't work but you want safety for terrorists who put others at risk. OK make us safe with the understanding that the terrorists cannot be appeased. Go.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
heres a question for you:

Who is the current president?

Thats right a democrat. Why dont you ask one of you liberal buddies, maybe Obama, he is very fond of drone attacks, and personally gives kill orders.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
The term civilian is badly misused in these situations.

And how many people is the terrorists killing.

The terrorists need to know that they are not safe wherever they go to ground.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,708
9
81
The term civilian is badly misused in these situations.

And how many people is the terrorists killing.

The terrorists need to know that they are not safe wherever they go to ground.
That's fucking stupid.

Let's just nuke the entire continent huh?
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,777
3
0
That's fucking stupid.

Let's just nuke the entire continent huh?
If you want humanity to reach the stars and continue supporting things like gender equality you'd better wrap your head around doing some very, very distasteful shit.

There is a clash of civilizations going on, or rather a clash of civilization vs. outright bronze age barbarism.

Pick a side and grow a set.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
This cannot be worth it. There is a need to restrict the ability of terror organizations to operate without impunity, but we're playing into their hands here.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
dont you guys understand... if we aren't at war. our economy will fail!!!

it's close to failing now and we're still at war.. which is why we are about to go to war with iran as well... it's more a matter of saving our economy..


this is horrible, i know. but the truth.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
That's fucking stupid.

Let's just nuke the entire continent huh?
They do not have a regard for life that another culture might have.

However the leadership has the sense of self preservation and typically act as the brains while letting the brawn do the work and martyrdom.

Eliminate the threat early so they do not bite you a second time.

You play by their game rules, you will lose; we can not understand/abide by those rules. They go against our grain and becomes s weakness that they will exploit.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
This cannot be worth it. There is a need to restrict the ability of terror organizations to operate without impunity, but we're playing into their hands here.
They care not about the value of life as our culture does.

You have to chop off the head whenever available. The rest of the body will eventually die. If you have a mutant that grows another head, off that head goes also and game the neck to make it harder to grow back.

The home grown terrorist are coming because they have nothing to live for. No future for themselves except the promise of payments to help take care of their family. Those payments come from a head that needs to be chopped.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
I think we should do everything possible to limit civilian deaths, which could mean modifying how we do drone strikes somewhat. But to be honest, I absolutely think we should keep doing them as the "best" solution to a non-trivial problem of fighting militants hiding among people in a region Pakistan refuses to police themselves. Drone strikes might be less than ideal, but sending in troops would be worse (and likely impossible) and Pakistan doesn't seem very likely to do anything themselves. What's the solution?

And I wonder how big a grain of salt we should take this report with. The article says nothing about their methodology, and the numbers are a BIT hard to believe. Given that drone attacks aren't reported to kill all that many people each, the numbers in the article suggest many, many attacks during which NO militants are killed.
 

shabby

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,748
20
81
Eliminate the threat early so they do not bite you a second time.
Great idea, how about we use drone strikes in the good old U.S. of A. to eliminate potential threats with no due process and see how the people like it.

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Assuming that those numbers are right (and they're not) that's 50 of them dead at the cost of none of our own. Seems like a pretty winnable situation.

In reality drone strikes are carefully targeted from a variety of intelligence sources. They don't strike if there are too many civilians around. Ultimately though, if those civilians are family or friends of a terrorist leader, I'm not going to shed any tears over their deaths.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,641
670
126
I wonder about that too. If people are knowingly giving aid and comfort they may not be planting the bombs but they certainly are enabling it.
They are as much a terrorist as any doing that thus they open themselves as a target.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Or the way they count civilians is distorted
The article uses the phrase "known militants" to describe the 2% terrorist numbers. The apparent assumption being that everyone is a civilian except those who the people behind the study can confirm are militants.

Their numbers could be right, but the underlying assumption of the study seems to be that most militants can be identified as such by the researchers.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,346
11,288
126
That's fucking stupid.

Let's just nuke the entire continent huh?
It would end things faster. Thats how we beat Japan. We used conventional bombing, they didnt give up. Prolonged things forever.

If we arent gonna nuke the mid-east, we need to just fucking leave. We arent getting much done at this point.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,855
3,081
136
You'd think by now even the most uninformed villagers and occupants of areas known to be havens for America's sworn enemies would think twice about being anywhere near those terrorists.

And let's not be naive about those folks who live with and around those terrorists. They know those guys are in the area, and they also know those Predators are up in the sky just waiting for a chance to take those terrorists out. We can assume then that these folks are willing to take the risk of rubbing elbows with these known "jihadists" in their midst over telling these bad guys to get out of Dodge, as it were.

Then there's the idea that these terrorists are hiding in populated areas knowing their presence may lead to the unintended deaths of non-combatants should they experience "death from above".

So it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement between the terrorists and the "civilians" who tolerate their presence that bad things can happen around the terrorist leadership and there is also acceptance of the consequences of that tacit agreement.

How that agreement gets used as a political football whenever a predator strike with collateral damage occurs is where the problem lies, propaganda wars being what they are and all.

I can therefore conclude that whatever happens as a result of a predator strike is deemed acceptable by the terrorists who hide in heavily populated areas and the people who live with the risk of accepting these "high value targets of opportunity" in their midsts.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
You'd think by now even the most uninformed villagers and occupants of areas known to be havens for America's sworn enemies would think twice about being anywhere near those terrorists.

And let's not be naive about those folks who live with and around those terrorists. They know those guys are in the area, and they also know those Predators are up in the sky just waiting for a chance to take those terrorists out. We can assume then that these folks are willing to take the risk of rubbing elbows with these known "jihadists" in their midst over telling these bad guys to get out of Dodge, as it were.

Then there's the idea that these terrorists are hiding in populated areas knowing their presence may lead to the unintended deaths of non-combatants should they experience "death from above".

So it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement between the terrorists and the "civilians" who tolerate their presence that bad things can happen around the terrorist leadership and there is also acceptance of the consequences of that tacit agreement.

How that agreement gets used as a political football whenever a predator strike with collateral damage occurs is where the problem lies, propaganda wars being what they are and all.

I can therefore conclude that whatever happens as a result of a predator strike is deemed acceptable by the terrorists who hide in heavily populated areas and the people who live with the risk of accepting these "high value targets of opportunity" in their midsts.
I feel like your view of life in the tribal areas of Pakistan isn't entirely realistic. Tribal villagers likely lack the ability to do much about the militants living amongst them, even if they know who they are. And it's not like they can just load up the family into the SUV and head to their place in the city if they want to get out of the area.

The civilians are probably mostly unfortunate collateral damage, however many are really being killed (and I'm sure the number isn't zero, at the very least). The real issue is that the government of Pakistan is doing basically nothing to protect their own people from the militants running around the tribal regions of the country. Either the government is unable to do anything, or unwilling to do so (I'd lean more towards the latter, to be honest).
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
You'd think by now even the most uninformed villagers and occupants of areas known to be havens for America's sworn enemies would think twice about being anywhere near those terrorists.

And let's not be naive about those folks who live with and around those terrorists. They know those guys are in the area, and they also know those Predators are up in the sky just waiting for a chance to take those terrorists out. We can assume then that these folks are willing to take the risk of rubbing elbows with these known "jihadists" in their midst over telling these bad guys to get out of Dodge, as it were.

Then there's the idea that these terrorists are hiding in populated areas knowing their presence may lead to the unintended deaths of non-combatants should they experience "death from above".

So it seems to me that there is a tacit agreement between the terrorists and the "civilians" who tolerate their presence that bad things can happen around the terrorist leadership and there is also acceptance of the consequences of that tacit agreement.

How that agreement gets used as a political football whenever a predator strike with collateral damage occurs is where the problem lies, propaganda wars being what they are and all.

I can therefore conclude that whatever happens as a result of a predator strike is deemed acceptable by the terrorists who hide in heavily populated areas and the people who live with the risk of accepting these "high value targets of opportunity" in their midsts.
Right, so when Klansmen or some other domestic terrorists move in to your city, you are going to move away immediately, abandoning your property and your job. You're just making stuff up to justify collateral damage.
War sucks, innocent people are always killed along with the baddies. The subsequent outrage inspires more to join the baddies. When we pretend that war doesn't kill innocent people we ultimately devalue human life across the board.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I feel like your view of life in the tribal areas of Pakistan isn't entirely realistic. Tribal villagers likely lack the ability to do much about the militants living amongst them, even if they know who they are. And it's not like they can just load up the family into the SUV and head to their place in the city if they want to get out of the area.

The civilians are probably mostly unfortunate collateral damage, however many are really being killed (and I'm sure the number isn't zero, at the very least). The real issue is that the government of Pakistan is doing basically nothing to protect their own people from the militants running around the tribal regions of the country. Either the government is unable to do anything, or unwilling to do so (I'd lean more towards the latter, to be honest).

You ought to consider that tribal society psychology based on familial ties means that if a leader accepts terrorists then the rest accept it too, not out of fear, but because it is right. Thats a hard thing to counter.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The point is and remain, American's just love drone strikes, because no US lives ar being risked on the battlefield. Even when we kill a bunch of innocent civilians and babies, we still manage to say, oh well, Coalateral damage is excusable because no American lives are lost.

But when similar tactics are used inside of the USA we clearly think of the injustice and will not permit it. Think of Ruby Ridge and Waco. Or think of grandma, who may happen to walk into a US Walmart to shop at the same time a drone tracked foreign terrorist does the same. In a foreign country most US citizen's knee jerk reaction is to blow up the Store and everyone in it because the certainty of killing the terrorist is worth killing any number of innocent civilians.Grandma should have known better and not associated with terrorists.

But if we did the same on US soil and killed your grandma as a result, US civilian fury would be tearing the heads off of any US idiot who remotely authorized the drone strike.

And even if that somewhat happened after Ruby Ridge, when Tim McVeigh or Foreign terrorists extract the same revenge, we justify our self by either saying what happened? or they just hate our freedoms.

Drones are simply US terrorist tactics that inspire foreign terrorist tactics. We in the USA are supposed to be able to say, we don't let the ends justify the means and therefore we are superior. But it fails to meet the snif test of logic. BUT WE IN THE USA BELIEVE MIGHT MAKES RIGHT as our US foreign policy cred is now at near zero all over the world.

Are we winning yet?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY