RS: Artists install massive poster of child’s face in Pakistan field to shame drone operators

[JMS]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/06/artists-install-massive-poster-of-childs-face-in-pakistan-field-to-shame-drone-operators/

 

 

Artists install massive poster of child’s face in Pakistan field to shame drone operators

An artists collective has unfurled a massive poster showing a child’s face in a heavily bombed area of Pakistan in the hopes that it will give pause to drone operators searching the area for kills.

According to #notabugsplat, named after the description given to kills on the ground when viewed through grainy video footage, the artists – with help of villagers – unfurled the giant poster in a field in the Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa region of Pakistan.

The hope is that it will increase awareness of drone operators of human cost, or ‘collateral damage’, when drones are used to attack targets on the ground.

 

The massive poster is also large enough to be captured by satellites collecting landscapes for online mapping sites.

#notabugssplat claims the installation was done with the help of artists associated with French artist JR’s ‘Inside Out’ movement.

According to the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, the nameless child featured in the poster lost both her parents and two young siblings in a drone attack.

[Riggo-toni]

Gentlemen, we have a new target. ...

[AsburySkinsFan]

I wonder if they also plan on installing similar posters in the market places so the suicide bombers will take into account the human cost of their actions as they stand next to those same innocent children, hearing their laughter seconds before creating silence with their malice.

I won't even post THOSE pictures.

[JMS]

I wonder if they also plan on installing similar posters in the market places so the suicide bombers will take into account the human cost of their actions as they stand next to those same innocent children, hearing their laughter seconds before creating silence with their malice.

I won't even post THOSE pictures.

 

Your post suprises me.

[twa]

I was gonna ask was it the face of a child used as a bomber....probably not

 

the kids get it from both sides unfortunately

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your post suprises me.

Why?

I'm a Pacifist to be sure, but even I recognize that there is a profound difference between when a life is taken in error and when one is taken by an act of absolute and terrifying malice. To argue that these are the same is to argue that the drone pilots intended to kill those children in the same way that a suicide bomber does as they walk up next to that child, seeing them with their mother, hearing their laughter, experiencing their innocence and then in an act of sheer murderous intent they snatch all of that away.

If you want to argue that those actions are equal then I would be left speechless.

At least the suicide bomber isn't left to live with the knowledge of a life taken, he gets to take the cowards way out.

[Burgold]

Relying on the empathy of unmanned drones... I have significant problems w the drone problem, but other than as a pr move this won't budge the needle.

[Koolblue13]

That's silly. Drones don't have feelings.

We've come so far from dropping napalm on Vietnamese villages.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Relying on the empathy of unmanned drones... I have significant problems w the drone problem, but other than as a pr move this won't budge the needle.

"Unmanned drone" though is a bit of a misnomer. These birds are not autonomous, and in fact the point of the photo is to cause the very real, and very human pilot pause.

I agree with you though, I too have a issues with the use of drones, but then is the difference of such a degree as to be wholly different than a pilot sitting in the seat circling at 36,000 feet?

That said, removing the threat of death from one's fighting force has always been part of military strategy. It's what has lead to nearly every defensive advancement every military has ever devised. From armor, to pole-arms, to archers, to, firearms, to hiding behind trees, to tanks, to airplanes, to drones. That said with each "advancement" there has been the critique of the lack of honor shown toward one's adversary.

But then to quote John Steinbeck, "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."

That's silly. Drones don't have feelings.

We've come so far from dropping napalm on Vietnamese villages.

Ummmm....I can't tell if you're just being hugely sarcastic or if you don't know that these drones aren't autonomous....

[Koolblue13]

I know they aren't. I'm being sarcastic. I've been completely consistant in my opposition to drones.

I think they're a chicken **** way to fight a war.

[Kilmer17]

I know they aren't. I'm being sarcastic. I've been completely consistant in my opposition to drones.

I think they're a chicken **** way to fight a war.

Are armored tanks chicken**** too?

 

I love the use of drones.  Why risk US personel if you dont have to.

[Koolblue13]

Are armored tanks chicken**** too?

I love the use of drones. Why risk US personel if you dont have to.

I don't think armored tanks are chicken ****.

Like I said before. Guess we haven't gotten to far ahead of dropping napalm on Vietnamese villages.

[Kilmer17]

I don't think armored tanks are chicken ****.

Like I said before. Guess we haven't gotten to far ahead of dropping napalm on Vietnamese villages.

If enemies use civilians as shields, then no. I dont think we , or should move from dropping napalm on villages.

 

War will always have collateral damage. 

[Corcaigh]

Making the point that we're so much better than those who send suicide bombers to their death is not setting a very high bar.

Drones have killed an estimated 2500 people under Obama's watch. Best estimates suggest close to one thousand of those had no ties to militancy and about 200 were children.

If, during the 70s and 80s the UK killed 1000 innocent US citizens on the US mainland in their desire to eliminate extremist supporters of Irish Republican terrorism (which was slaughtering civilians daily via car bombs in town centers in the UK at the time), how would you have felt about it?

[twa]

If, during the 70s and 80s the UK killed 1000 innocent US citizens on the US mainland in their desire to eliminate extremist supporters of Irish Republican terrorism (which was slaughtering civilians daily via car bombs in town centers in the UK at the time), how would you have felt about it?

 

If we let them operate we by default endanger those around them.....unless we support and defend them(still endanger though).

 

I would hope they have good aim and try to avoid collateral damage personally

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't think armored tanks are chicken ****.

Like I said before. Guess we haven't gotten to far ahead of dropping napalm on Vietnamese villages.

There's hyperbole and then there's blind silliness. The total indiscriminate nature of napalm isn't even close to a legitimate comparison to the modern drones.

But, boy it sure does have a rhetorical effect...even if it is a complete fiction.

But, don't ever let the facts stand in the way of your truth.

Making the point that we're so much better than those who send suicide bombers to their death is not setting a very high bar.Drones have killed an estimated 2500 people under Obama's watch. Best estimates suggest close to one thousand of those had no ties to militancy and about 200 were children.If, during the 70s and 80s the UK killed 1000 innocent US citizens on the US mainland in their desire to eliminate extremist supporters of Irish Republican terrorism (which was slaughtering civilians daily via car bombs in town centers in the UK at the time), how would you have felt about it?

How else do you propose going after those who hide amongst civilians?

Oh and there is a huge difference between a suicide bomber and what these guys are doing.

If you choose to not see it then that's your problem.

[Corcaigh]

Oh and there is a huge difference between a suicide bomber and what these guys are doing.

If you choose to not see it then that's your problem.

Yes, there's a huge difference. But the depravity of the enemy doesn't mean we should not aim for a higher standard than accepting 1000 innocents dead for 1500 targets that may be a threat.

To the broader question of policy ... from where did these 1500 militants who need to be killed from the skies by remote control emerge? With 1500 we're clearly not talking about an elite core of Al Qaeda planners or operatives preparing for the next '9/11' style attack. The majority are local jihadists in the mountains of Pakistan armed with AK-47s. What imminent threat are/were they to the USA? And how many of these militants were themselves radicalized by misguided policy that thinks permanent war in foreign countries is a good idea.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, there's a huge difference.

That's the end of the discussion then as far as I'm concerned.

But the depravity of the enemy doesn't mean we should not aim for a higher standard than accepting 1000 innocents dead for 1500 targets that may be a threat.

So, spending billions on intelligence and surgical strike capability to dramatically increase the precision of strikes in order to see a huge reduction in the number of innocence caught in the middle, rather than just randomly exploding a car in a market isn't "aiming for a higher standard?"

If not then I can't imagine what you would consider as actually aiming higher.

To the broader question of policy ... from where did these 1500 militants who need to be killed from the skies by remote control emerge? With 1500 we're clearly not talking about an elite core of Al Qaeda planners or operatives preparing for the next '9/11' style attack. The majority are local jihadists in the mountains of Pakistan armed with AK-47s. What imminent threat are/were they to the USA? And how many of these militants were themselves radicalized by misguided policy that thinks permanent war in foreign countries is a good idea.

That is a whole other issue, the faces on the ground are aimed at the pilots not the politicians and administration framing the policy.

[Corcaigh]

By aiming for a higher standard I mean accepting that 1000 innocent casualties is an acceptable consequence of a policy when a significant number of the actual targets represent zero threat to the USA.

 

That is a whole other issue

 

It's intertwined. Drone attacks slaughtering innocents radicalize locals which provide more radicals to target .. there and elsewhere.

 

Plenty of smart minds think we are putting ourselves at greater risk though policies such as drone attacks on the scale they have been implemented, as they are creating new radicalized and potentially violent extremists. Even worse, some of them are American citizens who are already here, inside our borders so the billions spent on border security has no impact.

The poster on the ground, through the obvious PR bonanza and that we're discussing it here, is targeting politicians and policy makers MORE than a few individual drone pilots.

[AsburySkinsFan]

By aiming for a higher standard I mean accepting that 1000 innocent casualties is an acceptable consequence of a policy when a significant number of the actual targets represent zero threat to the USA.

Where have you read that this number is acceptable?

Also, as a point of fairness, you (or someone) cited earlier that the intelligence behind these strikes hasn't been seen by the public. Therefore, the last part of your statement is speculative with a heavy bias.

It's intertwined. Drone attacks slaughtering innocents radicalize locals which provide more radicals to target .. there and elsewhere. Plenty of smart minds think we are putting ourselves at greater risk though policies such as drone attacks on the scale they have been implemented, as they are creating new radicalized and potentially violent extremists. Even worse, some of them are American citizens who are already here, inside our borders so the billions spent on border security has no impact.The poster on the ground, through the obvious PR bonanza and that we're discussing it here, is targeting politicians and policy makers MORE than a few individual drone pilots.

The stated objective in the OP says that the image(s) are to remind the drone operators of the human cost of the strikes.

If you're saying that it is instead directed at the politicos then you're going beyond what was stated by the very people responsible for the image. Like your previous post though, the rest is about policy and that's a connected but different topic.

BTW, slaughtering is a highly subjective and heavily ladened rhetorical term in this discussion.

[Bang]

I know they aren't. I'm being sarcastic. I've been completely consistant in my opposition to drones.

I think they're a chicken **** way to fight a war.

There's only one way.

Destroy the enemy with as little expenditure of your own lives as you can.

And it's been that way since the first guy picked up a rock that was harder than his own flesh and smashed his enemy with it.

Every single weapon or defense developed since then has been for that one purpose. 

 

"Honor" in war belongs to he who is alive at the end.

 

~Bang

[JMS]

Why?

I'm a Pacifist to be sure, but even I recognize that there is a profound difference between when a life is taken in error and when one is taken by an act of absolute and terrifying malice. T

 

You surprised me because your post seemed to equate suicide bombings with our drone attacks...  Asking if suicide bombers would receive the same type of pictorial warning,  to me suggested an equivalence between the two.

 

Like if they aren't sweyed by killing children... why should, we kind of thing...

 

Anyway I know you and I know that's not how you meant it.

[twa]

By aiming for a higher standard I mean accepting that 1000 innocent casualties is an acceptable consequence of a policy when a significant number of the actual targets represent zero threat to the USA.

 

 

 

would you say they are zero threat to our allies or our people there?

[JMS]

Relying on the empathy of unmanned drones... I have significant problems w the drone problem, but other than as a pr move this won't budge the needle.

 

I think the point is the pilot of the drone can see the picture,  stating that a child lives in that house even if he is located half a world away from the dwelling.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your surprised me because it seemed to equate suicide bombings with our drone attacks...  Asking if suicide bombers would receive the same type of pictorial warning..

 

Anyway I know you and I know that's not how you meant it.

Oh no, sorry. I just think it's odd that they place the image(s) for the drone pilots, and yet we haven't seen similar efforts to demonstrate the human cost of suicide bombings directed at terrorists. Maybe though, that's an indication that the artists recognize a fundamental difference of mentality between the drone pilots and the terrorists.