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

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
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.
Intelligence gathering, the DHS, and FBI wouldn't just up and vanish and bad people would not take over the US or kill your family.

I've been there done that and then some. Still might get one more go at it before we exit the Ghan so I'd say I've sacrificed more than a you ever could friend.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
One of the biggest problems with the US is that either we do not prevent our politicians from going to war, we do not force them to declare it or that we do not have the will to fight a total war. This is the reason why we have been involved in so many half-assed wars that we can't even win.

We have become saturated with war and it is treated far too casually. As a result we see it was a distant thing and are willing to accept perpetual war because it's not a huge deal. This allows a low simmer rather than a full boil.

We need to get back to the point where, if we as a country decide to go to war, we do it totally or not at all. If we do go to war and accept a total war we need to stop being such pussies about the result of it.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,145
938
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.

Panem et Circenses!

Wars as Circenses for the brainless US citizenry.....
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,940
3,173
136
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).
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.
Thanks for pointing out some flaws in my logic. My opinion on this topic has changed somewhat due to your well reasoned responses.:thumbsup:
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Intelligence gathering, the DHS, and FBI wouldn't just up and vanish and bad people would not take over the US or kill your family.

I've been there done that and then some. Still might get one more go at it before we exit the Ghan so I'd say I've sacrificed more than a you ever could friend.
I've never heard anyone say "the Ghan." More popularly referred to as "the Stan." Are you Navy?
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I've never heard anyone say "the Ghan." More popularly referred to as "the Stan." Are you Navy?
I'm career Army, got tired of people asking who Stan was. Both on forums or talking to civilians here in DC.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I always called it asscrackistan. I was in Kabul and later in Khost
Yea there have been ample different names troopers called both or even the areas they were operating from. In my one deployment where I was a fobbit we called LSA Anaconda mortarville, then my 3rd tour we called TalAfar the shit house.
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,278
165
106
45
Who gives a crap about those "innocent" victims? As long as I can wait for 21 hours on line to get a new iPhone without fear of a suicide bomber or plane falling on me, America can just keep on bombing the hell out of those so-called people as much as they want.

If they want us to stop killing them, they should stop killing us.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Who gives a crap about those "innocent" victims? As long as I can wait for 21 hours on line to get a new iPhone without fear of a suicide bomber or plane falling on me, America can just keep on bombing the hell out of those so-called people as much as they want.

If they want us to stop killing them, they should stop killing us.
Except we are the interlopers; came in and disrupted their lifestyle.

We went in to kick out the Taliban fro power.
It was done.

then we expanded the scope to nation building. Nation building only works when people are willing to start new.

These people are not; the government that we are forcing on them is a carbon copy of what existed previously.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Intelligence gathering, the DHS, and FBI wouldn't just up and vanish and bad people would not take over the US or kill your family.

I've been there done that and then some. Still might get one more go at it before we exit the Ghan so I'd say I've sacrificed more than a you ever could friend.
The FBI isn't in the region, but you should know that. I'm also glad you were there and did that. Now why don't you go down the list of posters and tell us what they've sacrificed? Kids brag.

You still haven't given an alternative. You may be career Army, but you don't seem to know anything about how things work, what is possible on the ground, and what is not. I'm sure the FBI will send out a team to take out terrorists with snipers. There might even be a game mod for it.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
This helps explain why we kill so few "innocent" people:

Link

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
So basically if you are a male, and are breathing, you are automatically considered a combatant. Well, no wonder the CIA claims that we never kill innocents with a definition like that.

But don't worry, your family can complain and present evidence after you are dead to have you retroactively changed back to innocent bystander. :eek: I'm sure that is a great relief to the families involved.

And no one has mentioned the intentional targeting of drone strikes with a 2nd strike, to catch rescue personnel? Or targeting funerals?

Funny thing about that:

FBI warns for terrorists doing that exact thing

Anyone remember Eric Rudolf? He planted two bombs at the abortion clinics, to try and catch first responders with a second bomb.

And the IRA did that as well.

So targeting rescuers and funerals is OK for us when we do it, but we got the idea from terrorists doing it, and it's not OK for them. Um, what?
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,278
165
106
45
Yea there have been ample different names troopers called both or even the areas they were operating from. In my one deployment where I was a fobbit we called LSA Anaconda mortarville, then my 3rd tour we called TalAfar the shit house.
Nice to know that, the people we send to those countries, have little or no respect for the people they were sent to help out.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
The FBI isn't in the region, but you should know that. I'm also glad you were there and did that. Now why don't you go down the list of posters and tell us what they've sacrificed? Kids brag.

You still haven't given an alternative. You may be career Army, but you don't seem to know anything about how things work, what is possible on the ground, and what is not. I'm sure the FBI will send out a team to take out terrorists with snipers. There might even be a game mod for it.
Bragging and saying I've interacted with the locals are two different things, anyone who brags is either lying about what they saw or have never served.

I know full well how it works, your saying we need to be there killing people while I say we should be dealing with issues here at home and remove ourselves from the situation.

Conducting a war on terror is exactly the same thing as a war on drugs, a never ending scenario that only compounds the problem creating an even greater divide than the one that already exists.

One side is a mature, and economically viable route the other is the exact opposite. On one side we have an endgame with conclusion and the other a never ending war in which there are no winnable scenarios.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Nice to know that, the people we send to those countries, have little or no respect for the people they were sent to help out.
But 90% of us didn't start out that way. We showed up bright eyed and bushy tailed to help these people until we realized that they hate us. They'll purposely crash their cars into your trucks so that they can file a claim for cash compensation. They beg for schools and hospitals but then leave them abandoned because they really just wanted to be paid to shoddily construct them. They are simply taking advantage of us, and helping the bad guys kill us at every opportunity.

They don't view what we're doing as some grand act of charity. They think we're the worlds biggest suckers, because we are.

Launch the most devastating attack against American soil in 50 years? Have hundreds of billions in foreign and military aid!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Bragging and saying I've interacted with the locals are two different things, anyone who brags is either lying about what they saw or have never served.

I know full well how it works, your saying we need to be there killing people while I say we should be dealing with issues here at home and remove ourselves from the situation.

Conducting a war on terror is exactly the same thing as a war on drugs, a never ending scenario that only compounds the problem creating an even greater divide than the one that already exists.

One side is a mature, and economically viable route the other is the exact opposite. On one side we have an endgame with conclusion and the other a never ending war in which there are no winnable scenarios.
What I am saying is that the problems we face (some of which are own making) are highly complex and that there are several issues involved. I'll assume you are who you say so this will make it easier. As you have seen this is a no win scenario. The initial military action was well executed and we assumed control of key areas. We should have done maximum damage to the enemy and got out. We should have realized that we weren't going to make Little Americans out of people, especially in Afghanistan, which you realize from being there doesn't have a Western notion of a federalist government. Have you heard anyone say "the President of Kabul"? That's a jab at Karzai and you probably know that too. There isn't a cohesive people as a nation and I don't remember there ever having been one. So right there applying social engineering is a given failure.

So the powers that be had no clue going in. Then they send precious resources on some crazy war with Iraq which doens't make your job any easier. Clueless political leadership- we've seen that before.

OK so it sucks. We shouldn't be in the position we are. We are. That means that we deal with what we have.

"Winning hearts and minds" isn't going to happen and it never was. Still there are significant threats which aren't going to be discussed in the open. We see the results and they aren't pretty, but you ought to have some idea how intelligence functions. They aren't going to come out and give specifics which could compromise their operations. If there was an attack it's because the various factors were weighed and almost certainly information was provided by people who would suffer and you know what "suffer" means. You don't put your operatives in peril from both a moral and professional obligation perspective. Does that mean I'm happy with the consequences? Hardly. I do know that the CIA and other agencies which were gutted by ideologues in the Bush days have regained a substantial portion of their functionality, but they still aren't going to tell you or I what the hell is going on.

One could argue that no threat regardless of the magnitude warrants any action and that we must entirely withdraw to our own borders and hope "the bad men" don't take over, but I'd argue that the first is foolish and the second someone elses mental instability. I don't like either, thanks.

There are real threats going on in real time. That does not mean we should be indiscriminate nor ignore the many factors which all play together.

This campaign was a cluster that we were handed and we have to choose among all evil options, but we have to choose. Do we no nothing if there is a high confidence that there is a serious and substantial threat? If the answer is no then we just withdraw and accept the consequences whatever they may be. If yes then you know talking someone out of this isn't going to happen. Sending teams in to take out selected targets is so problematic that it's not done except in rare cases. We learned that decades ago.

None of this implies or suggests abandoning long term efforts by other means. I've seen enough to know I don't want perpetual conflict and if there's a peaceful way to settle it I'm all for it. That however does not address what may be happening this instant.

Hopefully this gives a better idea of my perspective, and again if you have constructive suggestions I'd love to hear them.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
In case anyone actually cares about facts, the Mail article linked by the OP flagrantly misrepresents what is in the Stanford/NYU report.

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

98% "innocent civilians" is nowhere in this report. It cites numerous statistics from various investigations and media reports. One such report says that only 2% of those killed were militant leaders, while at least 20x more were foot soldiers. Most reports cited in this study show civilian casualty rates around 5-20%.

The report is highly critical of the drone strikes. However, the Mail has lied about its contents. It has to be a lie since the article is 5 days old and remains uncorrected.

Go back to your opinions by all means. This was just a brief reality check for those who do not like to check sources.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,229
26
91
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.
Really? Go walk around Baltimore in the wrong colored T-shirt at night. Report back.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
431
126
In case anyone actually cares about facts, the Mail article linked by the OP flagrantly misrepresents what is in the Stanford/NYU report.

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

98% "innocent civilians" is nowhere in this report. It cites numerous statistics from various investigations and media reports. One such report says that only 2% of those killed were militant leaders, while at least 20x more were foot soldiers. Most reports cited in this study show civilian casualty rates around 5-20%.

The report is highly critical of the drone strikes. However, the Mail has lied about its contents. It has to be a lie since the article is 5 days old and remains uncorrected.

Go back to your opinions by all means. This was just a brief reality check for those who do not like to check sources.

- wolf
I suspected as much because it is the Daily Mail, but thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. So much for optimistic pessimism?

Really? Go walk around Baltimore in the wrong colored T-shirt at night. Report back.
I have to ask out of curiousity: What colour is the wrong colour?
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
Really? Go walk around Baltimore in the wrong colored T-shirt at night. Report back.
As I said I would have to go way out of my way, and that would be just random acts of violence at best a terror attack of opportunity as opposed to targeted strategic acts meant to invoke terror. Do you not understand what the KKK actually did?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS