• 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.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
Unfortunately virtually everything concerning drones & their usage is classified, but I'll just say these things are technological marvels. You can read the lettering on the orphanage signs before the hellfire hits.
Personally I think the name Reaper for a military aircraft is just awesome.
 

infoiltrator

Senior member
Feb 9, 2011
704
0
0
There are limited means of attacking terrorists.
Alexander the Great faced this problem.
His response was, kill everyone within reach, guilty or not. Till the attacks stopped, or the locals killed the terrorists for fear of reprisal.

Ever look up the "collateral damage" of WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam.
There is even a case to be made for each terrorist being responsible for more than 50 local deaths if they survive.

Does this suck, yes.
Is it better than sending Americans in to get "up close and personal." Is it?

The rules of war are do not lose.

The major question is are more terrorists being killed than made.
 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
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.
And obviously that's a problem too, if that's what's going on there. Given the obvious danger in doing that, I find it a little hard to believe terrorists would be willingly sheltered by all that many groups in the area...but I could certainly see it happening.

Overall though, I'm not sure how much the reason the militants are freely running around the area actually matters when it comes to drone strikes. The fact is that they definitely are doing so, and Pakistan (either on the federal or tribal level) can't or won't do much of anything about it. If there is a better way than drones to take them out, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it...and so would our government, I'm sure.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
Are you saying racial violence is exclusive to whites?
I would have to REALLY go out of my way to feel threatened by a racial based terror organization in this country. The same can't be said for blacks in large swaths of the country as early as 50 years ago, and his point was that they were a terrorist organization dumb-ass.
 

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
1
0
You really don't know anything about this which is evident from this statement.

The real world problem is that there aren't many options. I wish there were, but there are not.

You do not just send in "elite forces" in and they do not just sit around. This isn't Big Trouble in Little China where people just go in and out like the wind. It's just big trouble.
And when you did send in the best of the best they crashed one of their space age helicopters and then there was the debacle of Jimmy Carter's raid. Dangerous dangerous work.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,641
670
126
I would have to REALLY go out of my way to feel threatened by a racial based terror organization in this country. The same can't be said for blacks in large swaths of the country as early as 50 years ago, and his point was that they were a terrorist organization dumb-ass.
There is a difference between a hate group and terrorists and they fall in the hate group area these days like it was talked about and not what was in the past.

Talking about then there was another terrorist group called the black panthers that you would feel threatened then if you ran into them.
 
Last edited:
Jun 19, 2004
24,142
1,586
126
Does no one have a problem with attempting to use statistical analysis with current military operations? Attempting to manage military operations by the bottom line? Really? I think the folks who have concerns first need to read some history then, they need to understand the current issues and goals.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,394
3,035
126
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.
Thats fucking stoopid!! These terrorists are not entitled to due process...grow a pair dude!
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
And obviously that's a problem too, if that's what's going on there. Given the obvious danger in doing that, I find it a little hard to believe terrorists would be willingly sheltered by all that many groups in the area...but I could certainly see it happening.

Overall though, I'm not sure how much the reason the militants are freely running around the area actually matters when it comes to drone strikes. The fact is that they definitely are doing so, and Pakistan (either on the federal or tribal level) can't or won't do much of anything about it. If there is a better way than drones to take them out, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it...and so would our government, I'm sure.
Ah, easy. Pull out of Afghanistan, stop all foreign aid and the drone strikes. They don't want to grow balls to deal with their own terrorists? Then suffer the consequences. Then they will probably cry about how foreign powers screw them over by abandoning them while at the same time wanting them back to fix it like a true hypocrite.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,708
9
81
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.
This is exactly the kind of shit that creates terrorists in the first place.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,886
201
106
The key problem is the lack of law and order in the area. Once we have intel we can't just tell the Pakistani government to have the terrorists arrested. At best they do nothing at worst they let the terrorist know and compromise our source. You don't see us using drone strikes in many other areas, maybe Yemen too but that's with the co-operation of the government there.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
This is exactly the kind of shit that creates terrorists in the first place.
As I said to LL, many of us would love a viable alternative. Letting terrorists alone isn't it. The social and political structures will not allow diplomatic solutions as the terrorists are often friends or family.

Provide a workable solution which does not permit the free operation of terrorists.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
As I said to LL, many of us would love a viable alternative. Letting terrorists alone isn't it. The social and political structures will not allow diplomatic solutions as the terrorists are often friends or family.

Provide a workable solution which does not permit the free operation of terrorists.
I gave you the 2 choices you just choose death debt and war.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Ah, easy. Pull out of Afghanistan, stop all foreign aid and the drone strikes. They don't want to grow balls to deal with their own terrorists? Then suffer the consequences. Then they will probably cry about how foreign powers screw them over by abandoning them while at the same time wanting them back to fix it like a true hypocrite.
That would be fine, I suppose, if terrorists actually stayed put. That really never seems to work out though. So the fact that Pakistan (and Afghanistan) can't get their shit together is unfortunately our problem too.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
That would be fine, I suppose, if terrorists actually stayed put. That really never seems to work out though. So the fact that Pakistan (and Afghanistan) can't get their shit together is unfortunately our problem too.
I wouldn't think of that way though. Even if the U.S invasion of Afghanistan was a grave mistake (for us) we aren't there to conduct Holocaust 2.0, far from it. We gave them god knows how many billions in aid, provided security and the dirty work of fighting the terrorists. Heck its not like the terrorists weren't there even before we arrived. They are enjoying one of the best deals in human history. They have no right to say we aren't doing enough, even worse still treat us with scorn and hatred.

I'm not from the U.S, just using "we" for the sake of convenience.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I wouldn't think of that way though. Even if the U.S invasion of Afghanistan was a grave mistake we aren't there to conduct Holocaust 2.0, far from it. We gave them god knows how many billions in aid, provided security and the dirty work of fighting the terrorists. Heck its not like the terrorists weren't there even before we arrived. They are enjoying one of the best deals in human history. They have no right to say we aren't doing enough, even worse still treat us with scorn and hatred.

I'm not from the U.S, just using "we" for the sake of convenience.
I wouldn't think any occupied nation would agree with you. I have had conversation with both Iraq and Afghanistan civilians and most if not all did not agree with us being there. They just can't do anything about it and live with it.

If China invaded the United States, overthrew our government and had martial law all the while providing "relief" for her citizens after government services ceased we surely would not think they are here for our betterment.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
There are really two separate arguments here. One is whether the study's conclusions are accurate, and the second is whether they would be acceptable if they are accurate.

On the first question, I'm skeptical of the methodology used in this study. For one, I think family members of high ranking terrorists fall into a grey area and should be counted as a third category. The DOD probably has much better data but I doubt they will release anything.

On the second question, I certainly would not consider 49:1 acceptable but as a said above, I am very skeptical of this number. However, I do believe that special ops and drone strikes are essential to keeping us safe, and are preferable to the alternatives which are increased domestic security and full scale occupations of countries that harbor terrorists.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
I wouldn't think any occupied nation would agree with you. I have had conversation with both Iraq and Afghanistan civilians and most if not all did not agree with us being there. They just can't do anything about it and live with it.

If China invaded the United States, overthrew our government and had martial law all the while providing "relief" for her citizens after government services ceased we surely would not think they are here for our betterment.
What's done has already been done, if they want to live in the past and hold grudges forever then they will also get stuck in that pitiful state forever. They have to move on just like East Asia after brutal occupation by Japan. Just think of how many bombings were committed by their OWN people to their own people while the US forces were still around. Imagine how much worse they will get when the US eventually leave if they themselves don't do anything about it, by then no amount of blame games can change that.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
There is a difference between a hate group and terrorists and they fall in the hate group area these days like it was talked about and not what was in the past.

Talking about then there was another terrorist group called the black panthers that you would feel threatened then if you ran into them.
It might not have been palatable back then to call them such and terrorism wasn't a popular term back then to begin with. However, in hind sight the KKK without a doubt used terrorism as a tactic beyond what most other hate groups did although you could probably extend it to other ones.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
we've heard this liberal idiot speak before. They called it "saved or created". Pull numbers out of your arse and get the willing accomplices to spin them into pseudo speak facts. No body's buying your BS.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
I wouldn't think any occupied nation would agree with you. I have had conversation with both Iraq and Afghanistan civilians and most if not all did not agree with us being there. They just can't do anything about it and live with it.

If China invaded the United States, overthrew our government and had martial law all the while providing "relief" for her citizens after government services ceased we surely would not think they are here for our betterment.
Are you kidding? The Afghans are begging us to stay. Us staying means we continue to give them money and build stuff for them, and they can continue to treat us with scorn and help the terrorists kill us. It's a win win for them, as we're us chumps, giving them free stuff and making ourselves available as targets.

We should bail out, burn everything down that we built and let the drone strikes rain.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
I wouldn't think any occupied nation would agree with you. I have had conversation with both Iraq and Afghanistan civilians and most if not all did not agree with us being there. They just can't do anything about it and live with it.

If China invaded the United States, overthrew our government and had martial law all the while providing "relief" for her citizens after government services ceased we surely would not think they are here for our betterment.
That's all well and good. Afghanistan didn't leave us much in the way of options either. Iraq was just plain stupid at best, criminal at worst. Like I just said you can perhaps gain forgiveness by allowing terrorists to strike, but please let it be you and the ones that you care about. Perhaps that can be your noble sacrifice. Until you make that committment and it's accepted as worthy we'll have to deal with what is, not what should have been.

Do I like it? Not one bit. Go and make peace and we'll all thank you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY