Claim:80% Of Drone Attack Victims Are Innocent Civilians

[FaninAma]

If true is this accepatable? Anybody old enough to remember the left's outcry about civilian casualties in the Vietnam War......Lt. Calley's court marshall in the Mi Lai massacre?

http://www.infowars.com/pakistan-interior-minister-80-killed-by-drones-are-innocents/

Personally I think the drone program is supplying the impetus for the next wave of even more vicious terrorists who will be seeking revenge for decades.

[olevetonahill]

Those stats are all supplied by a Government that Love/Hates us
While Im sure there are innocents Killed and injured I doubt the ratio is that high.

But just like the Death penalty here, If only ONE truly inocent is killed then its Not worth the risk

[Midtowner]

It's tough to make that call... is the killing of some 4-year-old in Waziristan worth saving the life of a 4-year-old in the U.S.? Do we have the right to make that call?

I support drone strikes in certain cases, but when we kill civilians or American citizens without the due process of law, I think that's over the top.

[olevetonahill]

So then you support the Death Penalty.

[8timechamps]

It's a tragedy anytime innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. However, I like the idea that bad guys can't hide in places they used to be able to hide, knowing that there could be an eye in the sky watching.

Also, I'd like to see a study done that shows how many lives were spared because of the use of drones. Of course such a study would be almost impossible.

[pphilfran]

Are we at war? If so, then the goal is to win the thing with the minimal loss of US life...

[olevetonahill]

Are we at war? If so, then the goal is to win the thing with the minimal loss of US life...

Not with Pakistan

[pphilfran]

Then it isn't our business...

[Sooner5030]

I've been amazed at what drones have been able to do. I never used the small ones as theater policy required that I recover it when it goes down. Instead....i'd just piggy back on higher assets for coverage.

I'm a little conflicted on their use though.......alot of us will not be so pro-drone once everyone has them. It's only a matter of time before the State expands their use in domestic affairs, foreign states the same.....and individuals or non-government actors.

I'm pretty sure some drug cartels are already using them to not only gather intel but also actually transport product.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not with Pakistan

You'd know as well as anyone, we weren't at war with Laos or Cambodia either.

[olevetonahill]

You'd know as well as anyone, we weren't at war with Laos or Cambodia either.

Precisely, Its a bad deal all around when a country that says they yer frien shelters yer enemies

[8timechamps]

I've been amazed at what drones have been able to do. I never used the small ones as theater policy required that I recover it when it goes down. Instead....i'd just piggy back on higher assets for coverage.

I'm a little conflicted on their use though.......alot of us will not be so pro-drone once everyone has them. It's only a matter of time before the State expands their use in domestic affairs, foreign states the same.....and individuals or non-government actors.

I'm pretty sure some drug cartels are already using them to not only gather intel but also actually transport product.

There's the rub. When the first Iranian drone is sold to a terrorist group, then used on civilians, the drone war won't be the same. It's only a matter of time.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Funny, the "anti-war" left was all over Bush for Iraq and Afganistan. Obama increases drone strikes to an all time high, assassinating an American citizen without trial and killing civilians at a checkpoint in Pakistan, and there's not one f*cking peep about it.

Both sides are slaves to the MIC, with drone manufacturers being the latest to get their government cheese.

[Soonerjeepman]

It's a tragedy anytime innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. However, I like the idea that bad guys can't hide in places they used to be able to hide,

THAT is the exact thing the enemy does...seriously, did we NOT learn that from Vietnam? Early on, a neighbor of my brother came back...he was a tanker. He said the enemy finally figured out to dress like civilians and mix among them. They knew the US would not kill civilians. He had his tank, crowd around, all the sudden a guy came running up with a grenade launcher or something like that. Course they gunned him down. He said that was the worst part, NO KNOWING who was the enemy.

Unfortunately $hit happens. Was it fair 3K INNOCENT people lost their lives on Sept 11? No, but these jackwagons don't fight fair. I'm all for the US taken care of business to protect OUR soldiers and country.

[pphilfran]

There is no such thing as a civilized war...when we go to war our goal should be to level the country...destroy the enemy will...and you do so until they cry uncle...

If we don't have the nutsack to to do just that then there is no reason to go to war...

If we followed those parameters we would be in a lot less wars....

[yermom]

well, when the war is on "terror" it doesn't work like that

it's not like everyone we are fighting speaks German like the good old days

[jk the sooner fan]

war is hell....

[jk the sooner fan]

war is hell....

i.e. messy

to compare what Calley did - during a period of an extremely unpopular war - to surgical drone strikes - is a bit of a reach

however, i dont know what the figures are - but A LOT of innocent French people died during the liberation of France.........A.......LOT
the collateral damage was.........well, A LOT


so yes, i'm ok with the unintended consequences of our drone strikes - and i dont believe for a minute that those people need another reason to hate us - they've had the same one for 800-1000 years - why on earth would they need a new one?

[JohnnyMack]

I fully support the use of drone strikes to take out the Honey Boo-Boo clan.

[BoulderSooner79]

...
I'm a little conflicted on their use though.......alot of us will not be so pro-drone once everyone has them. It's only a matter of time before the State expands their use in domestic affairs, foreign states the same.....and individuals or non-government actors.
...


Nailed it. The drone issue seem like one that is easy to justify at first, but the long term scares the bejeezus out of me. A lot of the Pakistan population hates our azzes. Nothing wrong with that, but Bin Laden was a friggin hero over there and they protect those terror cells like family. Using drones there seems rational given there is a real enemy and the government at least passively protects them. But is it worth it if we end up filling the skies in our country for law enforcement or other big government purposes? Each new purpose will be justified at the time.

[pphilfran]

well, when the war is on "terror" it doesn't work like that

it's not like everyone we are fighting speaks German like the good old days

The war on "terror" is going to lead us into damn near any country on earth...there is always going to be some bad guy or group that we must kill, destroy, or eliminate...a never ending battle...

So we stick our nose in every place it shouldn't be and pizz off even more groups which adds more to the terror list so we can go expand the "war on terror" even more...

[rock on sooner]

Do we shelf the drones and depend on manned flight to find the
bad guys? Do we not even look for the bad guys? Do we put
boots on the ground to look for the bad guys? I think the answer
is obvious. Drones are a weapon of our military, just like jets,
subs, 15" inch guns on battleships and every other killing device.

To worry about everyone else getting them is useless. They will,
so long as there is people willing to pay.

No, we aren't at war with Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia but that's
where the bad guys hide, so that's where we should look for them
and hook them up with the vestal virgins. I'd a lot rather put a
million dollar drone in harm's way than a priceless GI, but that's
just me.

[pphilfran]

Do we shelf the drones and depend on manned flight to find the
bad guys? Do we not even look for the bad guys? Do we put
boots on the ground to look for the bad guys? I think the answer
is obvious. Drones are a weapon of our military, just like jets,
subs, 15" inch guns on battleships and every other killing device.

To worry about everyone else getting them is useless. They will,
so long as there is people willing to pay.

No, we aren't at war with Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia but that's
where the bad guys hide, so that's where we should look for them
and hook them up with the vestal virgins. I'd a lot rather put a
million dollar drone in harm's way than a priceless GI, but that's
just me.

Do you think we will ever actually eliminate terrorist organizations?

How many countries should we "drone" and how many years should we continue to do it?

Why do so many dislike the US? Could it be that we overstep out bounds?

We had one friggin attack a decade ago and we are going to look for the villains for how many more decades and how much money are we going to spend looking for a small handful of terrorists?

If they don't have another attack on US soil they have won...we have spend billions upon billions to help make the US people safe in the airline industry alone...and if the terrorist organizations were so organized they could bomb us again tomorrow and not break a sweat...I bet they sit around and laugh at our overzealous actions that attempt to stop their activity...

[rock on sooner]

Do you think we will ever actually eliminate terrorist organizations?

How many countries should we "drone" and how many years should we continue to do it?

Why do so many dislike the US? Could it be that we overstep out bounds?

We had one friggin attack a decade ago and we are going to look for the villains for how many more decades and how much money are we going to spend looking for a small handful of terrorists?

If they don't have another attack on US soil they have won...we have spend billions upon billions to help make the US people safe in the airline industry alone...and if the terrorist organizations were so organized they could bomb us again tomorrow and not break a sweat...I bet they sit around and laugh at our overzealous actions that attempt to stop their activity...

Lots of truth in your post. No, I don't think we will ever eliminate
those organizations. I do think we can relegate most to almost
non sequiter. As to how many and how long, the obvious answer
is as many as needed for as long as it takes, mostly because a
group did the unthinkable and hit us hard, dark and dirty. It is
unfortunate they're not in uniform and in marked territory. We
could (and would) create another Germany and another Japan.

Maybe at some time in the future someone will come to their
senses and figure out a way to gracefully get out of the Islamist
world and go about out business, leave the Middle East to its own
devices and peace might break out. Probably not in our lifetime,
though.

It's been years but the time I spent in Pakistan created an indelible
image in my mind of a self serving, duplicitious people/society that
is unworthy of even a U.S. paper cut.

[olevetonahill]

Peace aint gonna ever happen in that part of the world they been killing each other since Time began

[rock on sooner]

Peace aint gonna ever happen in that part of the world they been killing each other since Time began

Fair statement, Vet, but if we can stay out of it then it can be regional and
not affect the rest of the world, like it does now...

[diverdog]

So who determines these are innocent civilians? Seems to me if you harbor terrorist you are a target.

[SoonerProphet]

So who determines these are innocent civilians? Seems to me if you harbor terrorist you are a target.

that might beg the question as to who determines who are the terrorists.

[olevetonahill]

So who determines these are innocent civilians? Seems to me if you harbor terrorist you are a target.

Ima take a stab at sayin ANY 4 year oldf is Innocent , They may grow up to be Crazyassed suicide bombers but they innocent right now,

[FaninAma]

I fully support the use of drone strikes to take out the Honey Boo-Boo clan.

And all the television executives who put her and other morons on the television. In fact, it could be another real life TV program....Drones hunting morons.

[KantoSooner]

Well, considering that we torched Dresden and Tokyo with incendiaries back in WWII with far, far greater loss of life than the nuclear bombings, and that a significant number of those dead were children of tender years, and considering that we, as a people were not notably less moral or ethical back in the 1940's than we are today, I'm really perplexed at the concern over civilian drone casualties.
If the target is a high enough value a-hole, the person making the decision has to ask and answer to himself at least: Is killing this a-hole worth killing the five schoolkids who are capering around him? If you were talking OBL, then I would hope the answer would have come about as fast as it took to press 'enter' on the weapon release. If the target was nameless teenaged suicide bombing trainee on exercise field in East Bumphuque Pakistan, then not so much.

To my knowledge, the drones are not attacking autonomously; there's a human in the loop who makes the go/no-go decision.

There's also a healthy follow on conclusion to be drawn by local tribespeople: offer hospitality to a-holes and maybe Mr. Hellfire Missile comes through my roof tonight. Mebbe better course of action to just keep my yap shut when it's hinted that Mr. Haqqani and his 14 near and dear friends would like to sleep inside tonight. Mebbe just mumble something about it being the missus' time of month and you wouldn't want such proud jihadi's to be made impure....here have a coupla of blankets....gets cold out this time of year.

As to future generations? In a couple of centuries, they'll get tired of playing 'Cowboys and Muslims'. Those who are left will.

[diverdog]

Well, considering that we torched Dresden and Tokyo with incendiaries back in WWII with far, far greater loss of life than the nuclear bombings, and that a significant number of those dead were children of tender years, and considering that we, as a people were not notably less moral or ethical back in the 1940's than we are today, I'm really perplexed at the concern over civilian drone casualties.
If the target is a high enough value a-hole, the person making the decision has to ask and answer to himself at least: Is killing this a-hole worth killing the five schoolkids who are capering around him? If you were talking OBL, then I would hope the answer would have come about as fast as it took to press 'enter' on the weapon release. If the target was nameless teenaged suicide bombing trainee on exercise field in East Bumphuque Pakistan, then not so much.

To my knowledge, the drones are not attacking autonomously; there's a human in the loop who makes the go/no-go decision.

There's also a healthy follow on conclusion to be drawn by local tribespeople: offer hospitality to a-holes and maybe Mr. Hellfire Missile comes through my roof tonight. Mebbe better course of action to just keep my yap shut when it's hinted that Mr. Haqqani and his 14 near and dear friends would like to sleep inside tonight. Mebbe just mumble something about it being the missus' time of month and you wouldn't want such proud jihadi's to be made impure....here have a coupla of blankets....gets cold out this time of year.

As to future generations? In a couple of centuries, they'll get tired of playing 'Cowboys and Muslims'. Those who are left will.

Man you are one smart mtherfer. I really enjoy reading your post. :)

[pphilfran]

Well, considering that we torched Dresden and Tokyo with incendiaries back in WWII with far, far greater loss of life than the nuclear bombings, and that a significant number of those dead were children of tender years, and considering that we, as a people were not notably less moral or ethical back in the 1940's than we are today, I'm really perplexed at the concern over civilian drone casualties.
If the target is a high enough value a-hole, the person making the decision has to ask and answer to himself at least: Is killing this a-hole worth killing the five schoolkids who are capering around him? If you were talking OBL, then I would hope the answer would have come about as fast as it took to press 'enter' on the weapon release. If the target was nameless teenaged suicide bombing trainee on exercise field in East Bumphuque Pakistan, then not so much.

To my knowledge, the drones are not attacking autonomously; there's a human in the loop who makes the go/no-go decision.

There's also a healthy follow on conclusion to be drawn by local tribespeople: offer hospitality to a-holes and maybe Mr. Hellfire Missile comes through my roof tonight. Mebbe better course of action to just keep my yap shut when it's hinted that Mr. Haqqani and his 14 near and dear friends would like to sleep inside tonight. Mebbe just mumble something about it being the missus' time of month and you wouldn't want such proud jihadi's to be made impure....here have a coupla of blankets....gets cold out this time of year.

As to future generations? In a couple of centuries, they'll get tired of playing 'Cowboys and Muslims'. Those who are left will.

:)

[5thYearSooner]

So y'all don't like US drones killing people (bad guys or normal guys) in Pakistan? What is that country doing about it? They want US to stop drones but they want money but they also want to hide the most wanted terrorist in their f*!king army barracks and play dumb.

[KantoSooner]

Man you are one smart mtherfer. I really enjoy reading your post. :)

I hope you're being at least partly tongue in cheek. Mostly I just copy down what's running around inside my head.

It's loud like that all the time in here.

[yermom]

as previously mentioned, Dresden, etc... weren't exactly shining examples in our history with the loss of civilian life. there is a reason that isn't the way it's done anymore, isn't there? i wouldn't say it's a difference in ethics, it's a difference in visibility

with the drone strikes we are talking about assassinations. these aren't people in combat. they are people killed without due process. hopefully those giving the orders and following them are to be trusted... the civilian casualties are just ****ty icing on the ****cake

[KantoSooner]

Due process is something owed to a person charged with a crime. Terrorism is different than crime and it's prepetrators don't cooperate by staying within our police jurisdictiions and subordinating themselves to our criminal laws.
They are more akin, historically, to pirates, who were liable to being hung at the pleasure of the captain who was able to capture them.
Terrorists are, strictly speaking, not 'people' under the law, they are outlaws and thus are due no process whatsoever. You kill them where and as you find them. As you would a rabid dog, and you counsel those who do this service to mankind to worry no more about it than you would in shooting a snake in your yard.

[FaninAma]

So y'all don't like US drones killing people (bad guys or normal guys) in Pakistan? What is that country doing about it? They want US to stop drones but they want money but they also want to hide the most wanted terrorist in their f*!king army barracks and play dumb.

So, if one of the FBI's Most Wanted List were living in your neighborhood would you want a drone to blast him as he was walking down the street while your kids were playing outside?

Let's make it more realistic. Let's say you were living and working in a foreign country that refused to extradite him. Would you want a drone to hunt him down while he was in close proximity to your family? If not why do you feel it is okay to do the same thing to other families in other countries?

This is a bull **** policy. We should have never gotten entangled in the middle east in the first place.

Kanto, you are still empowering somebody in the military or our intelligence service or the administration to be judge, jury and executioner. Do you really feel comfortable with that policy? I don't.

[yermom]

Due process is something owed to a person charged with a crime. Terrorism is different than crime and it's prepetrators don't cooperate by staying within our police jurisdictiions and subordinating themselves to our criminal laws.
They are more akin, historically, to pirates, who were liable to being hung at the pleasure of the captain who was able to capture them.
Terrorists are, strictly speaking, not 'people' under the law, they are outlaws and thus are due no process whatsoever. You kill them where and as you find them. As you would a rabid dog, and you counsel those who do this service to mankind to worry no more about it than you would in shooting a snake in your yard.

so who gets to deem someone a "terrorist"?

you trust the government a little more than i do

[rock on sooner]

Regarding the assassination comment and due process..I'm pretty
sure you're talking about the one avowed anti-American American
that was taken out. A lot of voices squawked about killing an American
without a trial, etc. My viewpoint is substantially different...this guy
was known to be planning/helping to plan killing Americans...imo, no
difference, none, from the 19 who were on the planes on 9-11. Taking
him out was preventive medicine. Searching out and taking out Taliban,
Haqqani, Al Queda leaders is the same. If it can be done without putting
our people in harm's way, then do it.

These leaders are known, they are self proclaimed enemies of America.
They state they want to kill Americans anywhere they can. To sit back
and wait for them to do it is the real criminal act, imo. If we know who,
what, where,why and when, then it seems prudent to address the targets,
with extreme prejudice.

[KantoSooner]

Ah, trust in government becoming an issue, is it?

Well, we can do away with government entirely or we can limit the scope of governmental action to only those things that people like to have done to them and that would solve the issues of government becoming overbeariing.

It wouldn't solve either crime or terrorism, however. There are some subset of the human race who will do horrendous things either to achieve some goal or for the sheer bloodyminded hell of it.

Now, we can have, basically, one of two responses to this fact of life. First we could say that this was the responsibility of the individual. You would just have to defend yourself. I said it was a rational option, not that it would be terribly effective. Second, you can create a special group within your society whose job it is to counter people who want to do these bad things. Call them police, military, intelligence or whatever.

We've taken the latter approach. You might not feel comfortable not being involved in the decision making process, but there is one. And, typically, the more lethal the decision, the more involved and manpower intensive it becomes. Partly this is to thoroughly review the decision and make sure it is really what we collectively want to do with an eye to the justice of it and with an eye to the legality of the decision. Just because you and I are not involved does not mean such a process does not occur or that it is casual.

Be very careful that, when you take the fashionable position of distrusting our government, you don't back yourself into the logically untenable position of distrusting all government or delegated authority.

And, yes, I probably do trust our government more than you seem to. Not that it's ever going to be perfect and not that I will not double down and keep my own options open (30+ years living overseas rammed home the message that the businessman in foreign lands who expects to hear marine choppers coming to the rescue when he falls into the shiite is one very naive person), but by and large, our government really does care about 'collateral damage' and legality. More so, mostly, than those who strive to hurt us.

[yermom]

i wasn't trusting the government before it was in fashion ;)

still, labeling things under "national security" and monopolizing information, etc... are scary things. and then when you add the ability to just erase people or lock them up indefinitely, it sure leaves open the way for lots of evil to be perpetrated when someone comes into power that might not have the same views as you.

[KantoSooner]

You're absolutely right, but when you have a judge okaying or not, a herd of lawyers who are forced to go on the record as having okayed it, a bunch of career bureaucrats signing off and a bipartisan committee of legislators signing off on the list of names to be ex'ed if we get the chance...if you have all of that, I submit that the Star Chamber concerns are diminished a bit.
So far, I haven't heard of anyone droned out of existence or locked up in Gitmo or anywhere else under pretense of national security who didn't richly deserve it. Frankly, we should never have acknowledged Gitmo, period, nor who we held there or anywhere else in connection with post 9/11 terrorism. Get them to where you need them to be, get the information they have on board, do a voice print, take the finger prints and then it's deep water swimming lessons with about 150 lbs of anchor chain around their ankles.
When you have these things that look like human beings who are utterly beyond the pale, you treat them like the noxious beasts that they are and exterminate them.

Merry Christmas.

[5thYearSooner]

So, if one of the FBI's Most Wanted List were living in your neighborhood would you want a drone to blast him as he was walking down the street while your kids were playing outside?


No. But if my government is protecting him and lying about it, then I'd be pissed at my government more than the drone for what ever happens. And before that happens I would get the hell out of there.


Let's make it more realistic. Let's say you were living and working in a foreign country that refused to extradite him. Would you want a drone to hunt him down while he was in close proximity to your family? If not why do you feel it is okay to do the same thing to other families in other countries?
Of course not. I want my country to protect me and my family before they take him out. If I had to die for my country then I guess I'm one of the thousands of soldiers out there.( I know its easy to say but like anyone here I wouldn't wish it on my or anyone else's family). But I don't think in this context there are many US citizens working in NW Pakistan unless they are military related in which case they know the risks.

Overall I think the concept of drones is better than sending soldiers to hunt them down. As far as the claim 80% are innocent, Id like to not believe that. I don't know the truth.

Having said that the Pak government should act. The problem is the government is just a puppet with military running the show. The top brass dont even care for thier own soldiers. The only way the military survives is because of radical Islam.

So I dont like innocent civilians to suffer but you also cant just leave the job in the middle. Dont repeat the same mistakes that wer done 20 years ago.