Predator drones

[Prestwich_Blue]

It is believed that 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist.

Pakistan suffers the most from Drone attacks and the causalities are believed to be as high as 3,299 which includes 197 children.

It is believed by whom? Please could you quote your source.

Here's a source you might believe: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html</a>

Full study, joint by Stanford and NYU: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-con ... DRONES.pdf</a>

That report does NOT support the assertion that there are 50 civilians killed for every known terrorist.

For a start it uses the same study carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists that I quoted earlier which shows about 1 civilian death per 5 terrorists. The 1-in-50 (not like The Mail to sensationalise anything is it?) relates to what it describes as "high-level" figures. So if a strike takes out 1 high-profile figure who is known to the intelligence agencies and 9 of his fighters who aren't, that only counts as one terrorist death and 9 civilians instead of 10 terrorists in The Mail story.

 

[Skashion]

That report does NOT support the assertion that there are 50 civilians killed for every known terrorist.

For a start it uses the same study carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists that I quoted earlier which shows about 1 civilian death per 5 terrorists. The 1-in-50 (not like The Mail to sensationalise anything is it?) relates to what it describes as "high-level" figures. So if a strike takes out 1 high-profile figure who is known to the intelligence agencies and 9 of his fighters who aren't, that only counts as one terrorist death and 9 civilians instead of 10 terrorists in The Mail story.

I differ from you it seems insofar as I operate under the assumption that you don't target and kill people, with so-called precision weapons and strikes, if you don't have a clue who they are. Unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, they are civilians, they're not terrorists until proven innocent. As I've said, if you know who they are, send in special forces, arrest, try, sentence if found guilty. Drones, especially signature strikes, are a needlessly bloody immoral scattergun method, that prioritises the lives of the soldiers of one nation over the civilians of another nation. As I've also mentioned, the only way to defeat terrorism is to ensure that you remain in possession of the moral high ground, for if you don't, you cannot win. It's clear from the report that ordinary Pakistanis do not see drones as precision weapons ridding them of terrorists, and will create more terrorists than they purport to destroy due to outrage and psychological damage they inflict on innocent people.

 

[adrianr]

That report does NOT support the assertion that there are 50 civilians killed for every known terrorist.

For a start it uses the same study carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists that I quoted earlier which shows about 1 civilian death per 5 terrorists. The 1-in-50 (not like The Mail to sensationalise anything is it?) relates to what it describes as "high-level" figures. So if a strike takes out 1 high-profile figure who is known to the intelligence agencies and 9 of his fighters who aren't, that only counts as one terrorist death and 9 civilians instead of 10 terrorists in The Mail story.

I differ from you it seems insofar as I operate under the assumption that you don't target and kill people, with so-called precision weapons and strikes, if you don't have a clue who they are. Unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, they are civilians, they're not terrorists until proven innocent. As I've said, if you know who they are, send in special forces, arrest, try, sentence if found guilty. Drones, especially signature strikes, are a needlessly bloody immoral scattergun method, that prioritises the lives of the soldiers of one nation over the civilians of another nation. As I've also mentioned, the only way to defeat terrorism is to ensure that you remain in possession of the moral high ground, for if you don't, you cannot win. It's clear from the report that ordinary Pakistanis do not see drones as precision weapons ridding them of terrorists, and will create more terrorists than they purport to destroy due to outrage and psychological damage they inflict on innocent people.

Very good post.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That report does NOT support the assertion that there are 50 civilians killed for every known terrorist.

For a start it uses the same study carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists that I quoted earlier which shows about 1 civilian death per 5 terrorists. The 1-in-50 (not like The Mail to sensationalise anything is it?) relates to what it describes as "high-level" figures. So if a strike takes out 1 high-profile figure who is known to the intelligence agencies and 9 of his fighters who aren't, that only counts as one terrorist death and 9 civilians instead of 10 terrorists in The Mail story.

I differ from you it seems insofar as I operate under the assumption that you don't target and kill people, with so-called precision weapons and strikes, if you don't have a clue who they are. Unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, they are civilians, they're not terrorists until proven innocent. As I've said, if you know who they are, send in special forces, arrest, try, sentence if found guilty. Drones, especially signature strikes, are a needlessly bloody immoral scattergun method, that prioritises the lives of the soldiers of one nation over the civilians of another nation. As I've also mentioned, the only way to defeat terrorism is to ensure that you remain in possession of the moral high ground, for if you don't, you cannot win. It's clear from the report that ordinary Pakistanis do not see drones as precision weapons ridding them of terrorists, and will create more terrorists than they purport to destroy due to outrage and psychological damage they inflict on innocent people.

So on the same basis you presumably accept that the completely indiscriminate rocket strikes on Israeli civilians create a justifiably greater desire to attack the "enemy" among the victims?

 

[BlueMo']

No surprise really.
America is the world leader in terrorism.
Wannabe terror states can only aspire to be so efficient.
Although Israel are no slouches when it comes to the crunch.

 

[Skashion]

[
So on the same basis you presumably accept that the completely indiscriminate rocket strikes on Israeli civilians create a justifiably greater desire to attack the "enemy" among the victims?

Of course. It would be stupid to suggest otherwise.

 

[Josh Blue]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU[/youtube]

A bit of music to finish the thread off.

The end bit is probably the most hard hitting.

 

[whp.blue]

It is believed that 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist.

Pakistan suffers the most from Drone attacks and the causalities are believed to be as high as 3,299 which includes 197 children.

The list of countries that are subject to regular drone attacks are Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia.

The aim is to kill suspected terrorists with precision drone strikes. If the suspected terrorist is in a school then so be it, collateral damage. However to be suspected of being a terrorist you only have to be a Muslim man of military age.

Obama signs every drone strike off personally.

The mainstream media will rarely mention these tragedies and our cowardly government supports the program. People should be up in arms about the tragic loss of human life but nobody seems to care?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4[/youtube]

Chilling evilness.

I would like to point out that 100% of terrorist bombings are normally innocent civilians

also time and time again Pakistan has shown to be a safe haven for terrorists and islamic extremists and whilst the death of any innocent is shocking we cannot allow terrorists in Pakistan to carry on waging a terror war unabated

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

Do we in the west have the right to impose our culture all over the world? Are we not doing to "them" the exact same thing that a lot of people who are of the view that "All Islam is bad" would suggest that they are doing to us?

I will try to give an example that asks the question.

Imagine that it was announced that a country (any country) had gone over to the amazon and discovered two tribes of about 100,000 people each that had lived undiscovered the same way as their ancestors had for the last 3,000 years. Everything about them was a perfect photo of the past.

Once this had been announced one of the first things that people would say is "Leave them alone, we cannot disturb them it will destroy their culture that has survived for so long unblemished and perfect" We would probably agree with this and then send a National geographic camera crew in anyway because they are "experts" and "experts" can interact with a tribe that should not be touched just fine (apparently) ;)

I am betting that not many people would disagree with this as to preserve a culture so pure that it has survived the same must make sense.

Now imagine that one tribe has human sacrifices and also canabilism and some child abuse. But the tribe and the culture survives and has had no impact on our lives up until the point that they were discovered.

Would we have the right to go in and say "you are so far bang out of order it is untrue. Do this or you're fucked" or do they have the right to be left alone.

People say places like China have bad human rights. But are they bad if you are Chinese? What if the culture of China is that the rights that they have are great? Should we impose our way of thinking on anyone and not expect some pushback.

I am very pissed and stoned so apologies if it makes no sense.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

That report does NOT support the assertion that there are 50 civilians killed for every known terrorist.

For a start it uses the same study carried out by the Bureau of Investigative Journalists that I quoted earlier which shows about 1 civilian death per 5 terrorists. The 1-in-50 (not like The Mail to sensationalise anything is it?) relates to what it describes as "high-level" figures. So if a strike takes out 1 high-profile figure who is known to the intelligence agencies and 9 of his fighters who aren't, that only counts as one terrorist death and 9 civilians instead of 10 terrorists in The Mail story.

I differ from you it seems insofar as I operate under the assumption that you don't target and kill people, with so-called precision weapons and strikes, if you don't have a clue who they are. Unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, they are civilians, they're not terrorists until proven innocent. As I've said, if you know who they are, send in special forces, arrest, try, sentence if found guilty. Drones, especially signature strikes, are a needlessly bloody immoral scattergun method, that prioritises the lives of the soldiers of one nation over the civilians of another nation. As I've also mentioned, the only way to defeat terrorism is to ensure that you remain in possession of the moral high ground, for if you don't, you cannot win. It's clear from the report that ordinary Pakistanis do not see drones as precision weapons ridding them of terrorists, and will create more terrorists than they purport to destroy due to outrage and psychological damage they inflict on innocent people.

Yeah but you have to kill them all in order to make sure you kill the few who are the baddies. Women and children need to be exploded to death in order for us to sleep safe at night.

You're so naive sometimes, Skashion.