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

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

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:


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

The lunatics certainly have taken control of the asylum.

The problem therein is what qualifies as a valid target. There is a massive problem when you can qualify for that just for being a male over 16, innocence or guilt has nowt to do with it.

As for Bloody Sunday, well the British state stood by the assertion that those who died on Bloody Sunday were valid targets for 40 years.

Royal Irish

Taken from a more credible source then what Run to the hills gets his news from.

Over the life of the drone program in Pakistan, which began with a relatively small number of strikes between 2004 and 2007, the estimated civilian death rate is 16%.
And in the Obama administration, between 1,507 and 2,438 people have been killed in drone strikes. Of those, 148 to 309, or between 10% and 12%, were civilians, according to the New America Foundation data.

The drop in the number of civilian casualties since 2008 came as a result of several developments, one of which was a directive issued from the White House just days after President Obama took office, to tighten up the way the CIA selected targets and carried out strikes. Specifically, Obama wanted to evaluate and sign off personally on any strike if the agency did not have a "near certainty" that it would result in zero civilian casualties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html

karma_

Royal Irish wrote: »

Taken from a more credible source then what Run to the hills gets his news from.



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html

That's what some of us are saying, the figures are a load of ****é, if you're a male over 16 then you are presumed guilty and do not even qualify as a civilian. Shades of Vietnam all over again.

Pottler

Anybody who has watched the wikileaks video footage of American Apache helicopter gunships chain-gunning a camera crew (their camera and mic looked like a "rocket launcher"-yeah right)and then chain-gunning the civilians(including women) who go to their aid and laughing about it should have no real doubt that there are few saints in the Us military machine. The piece-de-resistance is the APCs who arrive on the scene driving over the dead and injured with their tracks. Pretty much sums up the attitude of the US.

wes

Royal Irish wrote: »

Taken from a more credible source then what Run to the hills gets his news from.



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html

Those figures were debunked ages ago:

Analysis: CNN expert’s civilian drone death numbers don’t add up

Following recent revelations by the New York Times that all military-aged males in Waziristan are considered fair game by the CIA in its drone strikes, many US journalists have been reassessing how they report on deaths in the attacks.

So when CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen produced a graph claiming that no civilians have been killed in Pakistan this year by US drones, his views were bound to attract criticism. Conor Friedersdorf, a columnist at The Atlantic, accused CNN and Bergen of running ‘bogus data‘, for example.

Bergen is also a director of the New America Foundation, which for more than three years has run a database on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan and produces estimates of numbers killed. That data is the most frequent source of statistics for the US media, including CNN itself. So the accuracy of its material is important.

Yet there are credible reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan this year. And unlike the New America Foundation the Bureau actively tracks those claims.

Click here for full article

Your credible sources claims are simple factually incorrect, and have been debunked.

wendell borton

Before 9/11 when clinton was in power the CIA had the location of bin laden and had a change to get bin laden with a strike. But it was decided against because there would have been civilian casualties; bad PR and all that.
It is a bit of a crude analogy, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make a omlette.

wes

wendell borton wrote: »

Before 9/11 when clinton was in power the CIA had the location of bin laden and had a change to get bin laden with a strike. But it was decided against because there would have been civilian casualties; bad PR and all that.
It is a bit of a crude analogy, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make a omlette.

So attacking funerals and rescue workers in a double tap attack are ok, even thought the US condemned such thing as terrorism themselves, when done by other groups? As I said earlier, as per the US's own logic, what they do is terrorism.

hatrickpatrick

"Terrorist" probably being defined as "anyone who's ever made a slightly critical post about US foreign policy in an online blog or discussion forum"...

Pottler

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

"Terrorist" probably being defined as "anyone who's ever made a slightly critical post about US foreign policy in an online blog or discussion forum"...

After participating in this thread, I'm half expecting a drone strike on my "legitimate target" a55 in the morning. I am of course, joking.. honest I am...Mr Yank, Sir..

long range shooter

Zebra3 wrote: »

Off the top of my head....

"Muslim Indonesia" carried out those atrocities while backed by the United States.

"Muslim Iraq"? Haha. Clueless. Secular Iraq would be more accurate. And yes, Iraq invaded Iran (a country that the US helped overthrow the democracticlly eleceted government). Iraq during their war on Iran gassed Iranian civilians and military which was against international law.

Go on, guess who supported Iraq during their aggresive war on Iran.

USA,UK and Australia supported the Christians in Indonesia after Muslim gunmen slaughtered thousands of innocent people in East Timor.
The reason for this is because Islamist organizations like the Jemaah Islamiyah and Laskar Jihad was trying to impose sharia law upon christians in Indonisia and neighbouring Islands.
These organisations are also behind the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005,where alot of western people was also killed in the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings


USA did overthrow the Iranian democratic in fear of Irans goverment would ally with the soviet union.
The reason was that Iran started to establish trade routes between Iran and the Soviet Union and the caspian sea,and the realitionship was growing stronger between the soviet union and Iran.
The cold war was still at its height during this time.
Iraq was not only supported by USA.
UK,France,Italy,Israel,Soviet union,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Singapore,Germany,Egypt,Jordan and Yugoslavia supported Iraq during the conflict and China,North Korea and the soviet union supported Iran during the conflict.
And yes gas was used and is not according to international law,but neither is international terrorism supported by Iran.
And neither was the siege of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980,and several other terrorist attacks done by qods forces of the iranian army of the guardian of the islamic revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

nachocheese

Ugh, thinking of America's international antics makes my blood boil worse than words can say.

From the concentration camp that is Guantanamo Bay to the drone strikes in Pakistan, if the US has proved one thing about it's place on the world stage in the past few decades it is that they are terrorists and nothing but.

Run_to_da_hills

nachocheese wrote: »

Ugh, thinking of America's international antics makes my blood boil worse than words can say.

From the concentration camp that is Guantanamo Bay to the drone strikes in Pakistan, if the US has proved one thing about it's place on the world stage in the past few decades it is that they are terrorists and nothing but.

Not to mention the hundreds of yet to be filled Fema concentration camps that are dotted throughout America.

nachocheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not to mention the hundreds of yet to be filled Fema concentration camps that are dotted throughout America.

Yep.

Those camps and Obama signing the NDAA to allow indefinite holding of US citizens, coupled with things like the NSA setting up that huge datacentre, means there is some very fun times to come in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"

golden lane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not to mention the hundreds of yet to be filled Fema concentration camps that are dotted throughout America.

is it time to send all the usa companies home......all those irish people making profits for american shareholders, who pay tax to support the drones......yes, get them out......

Run_to_da_hills

nachocheese wrote: »

Yep.

Those camps and Obama signing the NDAA to allow indefinite holding of US citizens, coupled with things like the NSA setting up that huge datacentre, means there is some very fun times to come in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"

Those that survive the hollow point bullets will no doubt be rounded up and interned indefinitely in these places. Martial law is only around the corner.

pablomakaveli

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those that survive the hollow point bullets will no doubt be rounded up and interned indefinitely in these places. Martial law is only around the corner.

Then i suppose it isnt long til Obama reveals himself as the Anti-Christ then.

nachocheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those that survive the hollow point bullets will no doubt be rounded up and interned indefinitely in these places. Martial law is only around the corner.

Can't have the plebs, who the US (now foolishly) armed from the get go, rising up aganist the elite, ya know?

Peanut

These drone attacks are a dark stain on so-called western values. Unbridled assassinations in a foreign country not at war is a recipe for disaster - not just for the recruitment potential, but also civil unrest blaming the government for collusion with the attackers.

I have a strange feeling that the negative repercussions of what's currently being done are only going to be realised much later.

archer22

Piliger wrote: »

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

Would you feel the same if the British started using this tactic in Ireland to sort out the real IRA ?.

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In this case you have joystick warriors operating these drones at distance with no official military training the than a miss spent youth playing video games

Is there anythign at all to back that up or is it another made up "fact"

Run_to_da_hills

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is there anythign at all to back that up or is it another made up "fact"

This Video "Murder by Joystick" explains a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69u-a7R5kTc

On a similar note.

Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone.

When asked by CNN what process he uses to make the life or death decisions to deploy the drones to kill a “militant,” President Obama listed five criteria:


• First, “It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws.”

• Second, “It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative.”

• Third, “It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”

• Fourth, “We’ve got to make sure that in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties.”

• And fifth, “That while there is a legal justification for us to try and stop [American citizens] from carrying out plots … they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process.”

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/13/obama-lists-his-five-criteria-for-death-by-drone/

Zebra3

long range shooter wrote: »

USA,UK and Australia supported the Christians in Indonesia after Muslim gunmen slaughtered thousands of innocent people in East Timor.
The reason for this is because Islamist organizations like the Jemaah Islamiyah and Laskar Jihad was trying to impose sharia law upon christians in Indonisia and neighbouring Islands.
These organisations are also behind the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005,where alot of western people was also killed in the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Bali_bombings


USA did overthrow the Iranian democratic in fear of Irans goverment would ally with the soviet union.
The reason was that Iran started to establish trade routes between Iran and the Soviet Union and the caspian sea,and the realitionship was growing stronger between the soviet union and Iran.
The cold war was still at its height during this time.
Iraq was not only supported by USA.
UK,France,Italy,Israel,Soviet union,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Singapore,Germany,Egypt,Jordan and Yugoslavia supported Iraq during the conflict and China,North Korea and the soviet union supported Iran during the conflict.
And yes gas was used and is not according to international law,but neither is international terrorism supported by Iran.
And neither was the siege of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980,and several other terrorist attacks done by qods forces of the iranian army of the guardian of the islamic revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

So America supported Iraqi war crimes. At least we can agree on that. Yet they somehow think they have the right to police the world? :rolleyes:

long range shooter

Zebra3 wrote: »

So America supported Iraqi war crimes. At least we can agree on that. Yet they somehow think they have the right to police the world? :rolleyes:[/QUOt

Yes in the fight against international terrorism
still ongoing

:rolleyes:

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

USA did overthrow the Iranian democratic in fear of Irans goverment would ally with the soviet union.
The reason was that Iran started to establish trade routes between Iran and the Soviet Union and the caspian sea,and the realitionship was growing stronger between the soviet union and Iran.
The cold war was still at its height during this time.
Iraq was not only supported by USA.
UK,France,Italy,Israel,Soviet union,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Singapore,Germany,Egypt,Jordan and Yugoslavia supported Iraq during the conflict and China,North Korea and the soviet union supported Iran during the conflict.
And yes gas was used and is not according to international law,but neither is international terrorism supported by Iran.
And neither was the siege of the Iranian embassy in London in 1980,and several other terrorist attacks done by qods forces of the iranian army of the guardian of the islamic revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

So there was a time war between the 1950's and the 80's?

Zebra3

long range shooter wrote: »

Yes in the fight against international terrorism
still ongoing

:rolleyes:

Ok, great logic, let the people who support and carry out war crimes fight international terroroism.

Would be a bit like letting drug dealers patrolling the streets of Ireland to keep the peace. :rolleyes:

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

So there was a time war between the 1950's and the 80's?

Yes the cold war

long range shooter

Zebra3 wrote: »

Ok, great logic, let the people who support and carry out war crimes fight international terroroism.

Would be a bit like letting drug dealers patrolling the streets of Ireland to keep the peace. :rolleyes:

I am sure Al qeada would be delighted to hear that

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those behind it then, just like the Nazis launching their V1 "Doodlebugs" against London remotely from a great distance. In this case you have joystick warriors operating these drones at distance with no official military training the than a miss spent youth playing video games

Wow, everything you said there was a lie.
Simply stunning.

Piliger

SuperInfinity wrote: »

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.

I think that that deserves the accolade of the most evil post of the year. You really know how to win an argument.

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

Yes the cold war

No. I think there was a hole though, and its in your knowledge of the situation.

Piliger

archer22 wrote: »

Would you feel the same if the British started using this tactic in Ireland to sort out the real IRA ?.

F***ing right I would. Wipe every one of those nasty scum off the face of the earth, along with their apologists. Capture the rest and send them to Guantanamo where all of these excuses for human beings should be kept until they die of old age. It's a war and none of them should be released until it's over.

hooradiation

Piliger wrote: »

I think that that deserves the accolade of the most evil post of the year. You really know how to win an argument.

I just love his condemnation of drones as "unnatural".
While posting on an internet discussion forum, using a computer.

RGM

Hope you don't mind that that I've dragged in my dead horse to beat, but just a friendly reminder that the actions of the American government should not be confused with the actions of the American people.

At least, not for all of us.

If even 30 percent of Americans disapprove of something, that's over 90 million people. So please don't lump us all together.

Pottler

hooradiation wrote: »

Wow, everything you said there was a lie.
Simply stunning.

No it wasn't. The only stunning thing is that you picked the one pick-proof post he made and picked at it. Which makes you a bit dubious. To me, anyway.:);)

czx

Nodin wrote: »

You manage to the job ok without them though.

No. I don't get involved with the sticky business of the North.

czx

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

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?

How do you say that there is a lack of knowledge?
I don't know, but we sould not do nothing.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Those behind it then, just like the Nazis launching their V1 "Doodlebugs" against London remotely from a great distance. In this case you have joystick warriors operating these drones at distance with no official military training the than a miss spent youth playing video games

hooradiation wrote: »

Wow, everything you said there was a lie.
Simply stunning.

Everything? Well would not be too far off in that statement.

Both as I said before both these unmanned military devices operate and kill people from great distances from "base".

A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot a World Away

If you can play a video game, you can fly a drone.

czx

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Everything? Well would not be too far off in that statement.

Both as I said before both these unmanned military devices operate and kill people from great distances from "base".

A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot a World Away

If you can play a video game, you can fly a drone.

what's your problem?

Run_to_da_hills

czx wrote: »

what's your problem?

Its his problem.

czx

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its his problem.

You need to RElax.

dttq

Dolmio Pants wrote: »

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

fyp

dttq

Slurryface wrote: »

No more cowardly than flying planes into an office block, planting car bombs, blowing up trains and buses.
What you also seem to miss is that these drones are no less effective than using convential fighter bombers.
personally I have zero problem with them being used, you have to fight fire with fire!

Cities in the West, including New York, London, Madrid etc are subjected to extremely rare terrorist attacks. Cities, towns and villages across the Middle East are constantly either been bombed into the ground on a weekly basis, or threatened with bombing by the so called freedom loving and liberating yanks and their western allies.

Jelly 292

I know its simplistic , and I'm no liberal pinko , but really come on,

What the fuk is the west doing there? just using the place as a giant sandbox for their new toys? whats wrong with ARMA ffs??

EVERYBODY know the coalition are leaving soon and we all know whats gonna happen next ( short , brutal civil war, return to Talib style sh1te) not say I want that but its reality.

Killing folks from 7000 miles away. Welcome to the future, its unavoidable.

I saw a stat once, to drunk to link, in WW1, 90% casualties were Military. in 2010 90% of casualties are civilian.

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

No. I think there was a hole though, and its in your knowledge of the situation.

Read about the Iran-Iraq war you will find your answer there.Or should we just call it even like the last time?

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

Read about the Iran-Iraq war you will find your answer there.Or should we just call it even like the last time?

You're leaping from the US part in the overthrow of the Iranian Government in the 1950's to the war in the 1980's. You present a narrative thats at best incoherent.

Zebra3

Piliger wrote: »

F***ing right I would. Wipe every one of those nasty scum off the face of the earth, along with their apologists. Capture the rest and send them to Guantanamo where all of these excuses for human beings should be kept until they die of old age. It's a war and none of them should be released until it's over.

But will you happily allow that situation to happen and your family to end up as "collateral damage"?

Run_to_da_hills

Without a doubt these will be developed in America. It also wouldn't surprise me too if these could be developed to hone in on their suspected targets through GSM phone coordinates.

Killer drones just keep getting smaller. The Army wants to know how prepared its defense-industry partners are to build what it calls a “Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System.” It’s for when the Army needs someone dead from up to six miles away in 30 minutes or less.

How small will the new mini-drone be? The Army’s less concerned about size than it is about the drone’s weight, according to a recent pre-solicitation for businesses potentially interested in building the thing. The whole system — drone, warhead and launch device — has to weigh under five pounds. An operator should be able to carry the future Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System, already given the acronym LMAMS in a backpack and be able to set it up to fly within two minutes.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/suicidal-drone-6-miles-away/

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

You're leaping from the US part in the overthrow of the Iranian Government in the 1950's to the war in the 1980's. You present a narrative thats at best incoherent.

The New York Times recently leaked a CIA report on the 1953 American-British overthrow of Mosaddeq, Iran's Prime Minister.
It billed the report as a secret history of the secret coup, and treated it as an invaluable substitute for the U.S. files that remain inaccessible.
But a reconstruction of the coup from other sources, especially from the archives of the British Foreign Office, indicates that this report is highly sanitized.
It glosses over such sensitive issues as the crucial participation of the U.S. ambassador in the actual overthrow; the role of U.S. military advisers; the harnessing of local Nazis and Muslim terrorists; and the use of assassinations to destabilize the government.:D

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

The New (......)rnment.:D

And that unattributed unacknowledged c&p from wiki is meant to mean or signify what, exactly?

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

And that unattributed unacknowledged c&p from wiki is meant to mean or signify what, exactly?

Well nothing seems to satisfiy your knowledge,maybe you should start a new site;)thats better than wiki.:D
Maybe you are wondering about the 1979 overthrow of Irans last Monarch and the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini instead??:D