One in fifty killed by US killer drones in Pakistan is a known "terrorist".

Slurryface

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Another four years of Drone Frenzy and no doubt he will turn on his own people with them.

A very infantile statement

Slurryface

enfant terrible wrote: »

and the way the news covers the deaths

‘A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis.’

Link to that shameful statement if one exists

pablomakaveli

karma_ wrote: »

None of which makes drone strikes any more morally palatable.

The actions of the militants arent morally palatable either. I wonder how many innocents have died due to their actions.

karma_

Slurryface wrote: »

Link to that shameful statement if one exists

It's a Frankie Boyle joke.

karma_

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The actions of the militants arent morally palatable either. I wonder how many innocents have died due to their actions.

I didn't argue they were fella.

Mr Cumulonimbus

pablomakaveli wrote: »

America doesnt deliberately target innocents they target the militants.

Can still be considered a criminal act though if reckless or careless planning is involved that leads to excessive civilian deaths, even if the target itself is legitimate.

Article 8, "War Crimes", of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court mentions this.

Section 2b (iv) states that:

[SIZE=-1]Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;[/SIZE]

Link: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

pablomakaveli

karma_ wrote: »

I didn't argue they were fella.

I know but some people who have posted on this thread let their hatred of america blind them to this fact.

czx

[SIZE=-1]''Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians[/SIZE]''

How can you say that they have such knowledge?

Richard Hillman

The average drone strike would happen at a compound in the ****hole of nowhere. The high value targets would usually have their own compund and bring their families with them. Others in these compounds would be people that are assisting and supportive of the high value targets. If a drone strike targets a compound with a couple of high value targets, it would probably kill about 30 people. If 30 people are killed, you may have 1 high value target, 20 guys who are assisting the high value target and 9 of the high value targets family.

In conclusion. If the high value target is bringing his family around with him, then he doesnt hold their lives in high esteem and the rest of the dead are probably people who are assisting and are members of the High Value Targets terrorist group.

Nato are not going around high population areas in Pakistan dumping bombs on random places. The majority being killed are probably terrorists and the family of the terrorist.

Run_to_da_hills

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

No doubt.

Also on that site: Anal tattoos may be hazardous to your health

UFO Mothership stalks International Space Station?

Not on this site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKh8kdBLVI

pablomakaveli

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Can still be considered a criminal act though if reckless or careless planning is involved that leads to excessive civilian deaths, even if the target itself is legitimate.

Article 8, "War Crimes", of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court mentions this.

Section 2b (iv) states that:


Link: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

That would basically cover deaths of civilians due to negligence which someone should be charged for if that was the case. I'd completly agree with that.

Piliger

pablomakaveli wrote: »

America doesnt deliberately target innocents they target the militants. The Islamist militants like to target innocents specifically however so its not like for like.

Exactly right. An unfortunate few innocent bystanders is worth the vast majority of accurate terrorists. This is a war.

pablomakaveli

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not on this site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKh8kdBLVI

Is that from Fox News?

(The same network that is opposed to Obama)

OurLadyofKnock

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Why are you posting this $hite in AH? Pi$$ off back to Conspiracy Theories you loon.

Ah yes, "Conspiracy Theorist" - perhaps the most over-used phrase ever.

Very boring at this stage. But carry on if is the last thing holding your delusions of the world being run by cuddly teddy bears together.

Bet you were first in line to pay the houshold charge too...

Goodboy! Goodboy!!! Here is another 'impartial' Government or Corporate Press Release for ya. There's a good boy.

"Woof~Woof!"

Dolmio Pants

Dolmio Pants wrote: »

I personally believe that a fifth of U.S. of Americans cannot locate it on a map, like, such as, the Iraq.

If you gave me a map of the world, I'd have a hard time pointing Iraq out. I'd give a good guess, but it'd probably be wrong.

pablomakaveli

Piliger wrote: »

Exactly right. An unfortunate few innocent bystanders is worth the vast majority of accurate terrorists. This is a war.

A bad attempt to twist my words into something i never said or even hinted at.

czx

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Ah yes, "Conspiracy Theorist" - perhaps the most over-used phrase ever.

Very boring at this stage. But carry on if is the last thing holding your delusions of the world being run by cuddly teddy bears together.

Bet you were first in line to pay the houshold charge too...

Goodboy! Goodboy!!! Here is another 'impartial' Government or Corporate Press Release for ya. There's a good boy.

"Woof~Woof!"

Pretty good phrase for dealing with people who call others sheeple tbh

Mr Cumulonimbus

czx wrote: »

[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]How can you say that they have such knowledge?

Real time video and satellite imaging ability.

czx

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Real time video and satellite imaging ability.

So you're saying that they have the ability to positively ID civilians and they still shoot regardless?

OurLadyofKnock

To be fair most people really are mindless sheep.

Look at the circulation of the Sunday World, the ratings for X-Factor and celeb shows, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Irish **** walking around in British soccer jersies contastantly going "us and we" when talking about Liverpool, Celtic, Man U, Scunthorpe are "Irish" clubs because some dipso sports hack in the Daily Star told them.

The sheeple term is pretty spot on I am sad to report.

Run_to_da_hills

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Is that from Fox News?

(The same network that is opposed to Obama)

A pro Obama news channel would be telling you that theses drones would be used for hunting rabbits, just like the recent DHS purchase of millions of hollow point bullet rounds. :rolleyes:

And the sad thing is that Americans would believe it.

pablomakaveli

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A pro Obama news channel would be telling you that theses drones would be used for hunting rabbits, just like the recent DHS purchase of millions of hollow point bullet rounds. :rolleyes:

Well id just disregard both fox and the pro obama source in that case then.

czx

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

To be fair most people really are mindless sheep.

Seems to be the reason some people believe in CTs. A need to validate their perceived superiority.

czx

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And the sad thing is that Americans would believe it.

They're just stupid, mindless sheep, right?

enfant terrible

czx wrote: »

They're just stupid, mindless sheep, right?

Silly yanks why can't they be more like us sophisticated europeans.

czx

enfant terrible wrote: »

Silly yanks why can't they be more like us sophisticated europeans.

Do you think the same for the folks in the Middle East?

Mr Cumulonimbus

czx wrote: »

So you're saying that they have the ability to positively ID civilians and they still shoot regardless?

No. Such technical aids should be helping to decide whether to shoot or not in the first place. If they were "shooting regardless" whats the point of them at all?

czx

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No. Such technical aids should be helping to decide whether to shoot or not in the first place. If they were "shooting regardless" whats the point of them at all?

So what you qouted is pointless in that they don't have prior knowledge that they are targeting civilians

wes

long range shooter wrote: »

1. Muslim Turkey has expelled approximately 1,500,000 Greeks from its empire in the east and replaced them with Turks. They have massacred approximately 2 million Armenians and replaced them with Turks in the west.

Muslim Turkey? Your taking the piss right? There is no way you are aware of the above and not aware who Ataturk was.

Ataturk who was the leader of the Turkish nationalist movement who was running the the show at the time was an Atheist..... So I take it by your logic, we can now blame Atheists then? Otherwise, your a massive hypocrite. (BTW, I don't think Atheists should be blamed, just showing how silly the claims being made are).

long range shooter wrote: »

2. Muslim Turkey has invaded and occupied northern Cyprus, displacing the Greeks living there.

Again, showing that you haven't a clue. Turkey is a secular state.

Won't bother with as you have clearly shown that you can't even get your whatabotery right. So no point in addressing the rest of it.

Run_to_da_hills

enfant terrible wrote: »

Silly yanks why can't they be more like us sophisticated europeans.

I guess Europeans would be far more vigilant about the past.

SuperInfinity

I've said it before and I'll say it again: these drones are monstrous, horrific killing machines. They aren't natural, they are an abomination.

The "pilots" are sitting at home developing a playstation mentality about killing civilians. When it becomes so easy to just press a button and make a problem go away, humans fail to comprehend completely what they're doing.

At least in the old days, if you were going to kill someone whether evil or not, you generally had to take some risk to do it. You had to put your own life out there. In the old days, there was some pride and dignity associated with the job, I'd be able to have some respect for that, and if you didn't believe in what you were doing, you wouldn't be there. Soldiers wouldn't go into a war that they were terribly opposed to ethically. Nowadays, it's all too easy.

At least before, there was some resistance to complete US control over the world. If you were a peace-loving Arab trying to protect your family you could get out a rocket launcher and try to blast those ****ers to kingdom come. You'd have a chance. You'd put the fear of god into the enemy if nothing else, even if you die they might think twice the next time. Now even if you kill one, it doesn't matter, they just keep going. Nothing was lost to the US.

Come on, who could really believe the US is doing anything good over there? The US is a joke.

I know who I'd shoot down if I had my own personal drone... every US soldier, and the higher up the better, Obama being the biggest target of all.

Nodin

czx wrote: »

Seems to be the reason some people believe in CTs. A need to validate their perceived superiority.

You manage to the job ok without them though.

Mr Cumulonimbus

czx wrote: »

So what you qouted is pointless in that they don't have prior knowledge that they are targeting civilians

You're being a bit misleading here.

My original point was intended to deal with the outcomes of planned attacks. Technical aids can reduce the incidences of the lack of knowledge being an excuse when civilian casualties occur, but not eliminate it entirely obviously.

But I'd ask you how many civilian casualties need to occur before lack of knowledge becomes a poor excuse?

wendell borton

One in fifty is propably quite a high succes rate compared to other wars, look at dresden, nagasaki etc. etc. who many innocent people killed there. To this day people are still dying in cambodia and Laos from bombs droped there during the war in vietnam.

kowloon

twinytwo wrote: »

walking into a crowd of unarmed women and children and blowing yourself up is as cowardly as it gets................

I'd argue it's a horrible thing to do, but not necessarily cowardly. I'd imagine it takes a bit of bravery to overcome your fear of exploding.

My point is, people love to brand the bad guy a coward because they don't like the motive. It's not always wise to underestimate the enemy.

Yedya wrote: »

And IED's?

If it's one you have to set off in person and results in your death I suppose it counts. I'm not sure if that's what you mean though.

Slurryface

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again: these drones are monstrous, horrific killing machines. They aren't natural, they are an abomination.

The "pilots" are sitting at home developing a playstation mentality about killing civilians. When it becomes so easy to just press a button and make a problem go away, humans fail to comprehend completely what they're doing.

At least in the old days, if you were going to kill someone whether evil or not, you generally had to take some risk to do it. You had to put your own life out there. In the old days, there was some pride and dignity associated with the job, I'd be able to have some respect for that, and if you didn't believe in what you were doing, you wouldn't be there. Soldiers wouldn't go into a war that they were terribly opposed to ethically. Nowadays, it's all too easy.

At least before, there was some resistance to complete US control over the world. If you were a peace-loving Arab trying to protect your family you could get out a rocket launcher and try to blast those ****ers to kingdom come. You'd have a chance. You'd put the fear of god into the enemy if nothing else, even if you die they might think twice the next time. Now even if you kill one, it doesn't matter, they just keep going. Nothing was lost to the US.

Come on, who could really believe the US is doing anything good over there? The US is a joke.

I know who I'd shoot down if I had my own personal drone... every US soldier, and the higher up the better, Obama being the biggest target of all.

They aren,t natural??? your kidding right?
Is flying planes into tower block natural? how about blowing up trains in Madrid and London, is that natural?

Nodin

Slurryface wrote: »

They aren,t natural??? your kidding right?
Is flying planes into tower block natural? how about blowing up trains in Madrid and London, is that natural?

Whats that to do with anything?

Bradidup

Slurryface wrote: »

They aren,t natural??? your kidding right?
Is flying planes into tower block natural? how about blowing up trains in Madrid and London, is that natural?

I don't think that there is many that still believes in those stories that we were lead to believe from main stream media channels.

karma_

Nodin wrote: »

Whats that to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing, although its a staple debating tactic of the pro-war lads.

Manic Moran

I think one in fifty is a reasonably good ratio. I have to say, I have never known ahead of time who it was I was shooting at. Usually such identification would only happen afterwards.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think one in fifty is a reasonably good ratio. I have to say, I have never known ahead of time who it was I was shooting at. Usually such identification would only happen afterwards.

Yeah, it's brilliant - IF what you're trying to do is kill WAY more civilians than actual terrorists. Fúck sake like.

SuperInfinity

If I did an exam and I got 2%, would you consider that a successful outcome? Don't be absurd. I can only hope you're being sarcastic.

karma_

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I can only hope you're being sarcastic.

If only.

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah, it's brilliant - IF what you're trying to do is kill WAY more civilians than actual terrorists. Fúck sake like.

One in fifty dead being "known terrorists" does not mean that all 49 others were innocents. I don't need to know somebody's name to know they're a valid target.

To Alcohol

Collateral damage. One of the risks of hanging with terrorists.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

One in fifty dead being "known terrorists" does not mean that all 49 others were innocents. I don't need to know somebody's name to know they're a valid target.

That's it disparage the innocent dead while your at it, seen it before with Bloody Sunday, didn't wash with me then and still doesn't.

Wee Willy Harris

wendell borton wrote: »

One in fifty is propably quite a high succes rate compared to other wars, look at dresden, nagasaki etc. etc. who many innocent people killed there. To this day people are still dying in cambodia and Laos from bombs droped there during the war in vietnam.

and reduced some of the worlds most pretty, graceful women to prostitues for pittance in the process.. and their daughters, thats what they returning to plunder in hindsight.

They just wanted to get that little girls clothes famously off

ejmaztec

To Alcohol wrote: »

Collateral damage. One of the risks of hanging with terrorists.

Or in the case of the Birmingham 6 for example, one of the risks of being Irish in the UK during the troubles. The upside was that they didn't have drones then.

pablomakaveli

Nodin wrote: »

You manage to the job ok without them though.

It always seems like you contribute more passive aggressive remarks than actual debate to some threads.

Manic Moran

karma_ wrote: »

That's it disparage the innocent dead while your at it, seen it before with Bloody Sunday, didn't wash with me then and still doesn't.

First question:

What has Bloody Sunday got to do with the price of emeralds in Afghanistan?

Second question:

When did I disparage the dead?

I quote the article in the OP:

found barely two per cent of their victims are known militants

I made the correct observation that one need not be a 'known terrorist' to be a valid target. A drone operator may not know the names or passtimes of the people he's shooting at, and he doesn't need to as long as he's confident that the target of his ordnance is a legitimate target.

NTM