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

[Kilmer17]

How many civilian casualties are acceptable per 100 enemy killed?

[JMS]

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.

 

Unfortunately,  dropping napalm on civilians is not at all a complete fiction for the United States.

 

[Corcaigh]

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

If a missile fired from a drone hits my neighborhood and kills innocent men, women and children, I think slaughtering is a pretty accurate term.

'Slaughtering as acceptable collateral damage' if you believe in the policy.

[twa]

How many civilian casualties are acceptable per 100 enemy killed?

 

depends on who the enemy is and who the civilians are, the areana changes it quite a bit....as does the weapon needed

[Corcaigh]

How many civilian casualties are acceptable per 100 enemy killed?

Good question. Kinda depends on the enemy.

Bin Laden ... maybe a hundred, who knows.

A tribal peasant thug in the mountains of Pakistan with an AK-47 ... zero. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[twa]

If a missile fired from a drone hits my neighborhood and kills innocent men, women and children, I think slaughtering is a pretty accurate term.

'Slaughtering as acceptable collateral damage' if you believe in the policy.

 

if they need drone strikes in your hood ya might think about moving

Good question. Kinda depends on the enemy.

Bin Laden ... maybe a hundred, who knows.

A tribal peasant thug in the mountains of Pakistan with an AK-47 ... zero. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

yep, but do you really think we target single peasant thugs by design?

[JMS]

How many civilian casualties are acceptable per 100 enemy killed?

 

When we bombed Berlin in WWII there was no real choice... If we wanted to bomb the enemy we had to bomb the civilians...

I would argue today the choice is a much finer one....

 

Today we have the ability to bomb a single house on a single street and leave the houses on either side alone... we have the ability to destroy a car driving down the street and leave the other cars alone...

 

So I ask you... would you bomb a house to kill a guy,  if that house had an innocent kid in it...   Or would you mandate we wait until he was alone?...   I mean we have that ability.. to target an individual...

 

Given we really know nothing about how this target was chosen anyway...    There is no evidence, court or independent review for this guys death sentence anyway.   Somebody wants him dead, and thousands of times a year Obama checks off on it.   Is he making informed opinions?   Is his evidence accurate?    Really who knows,  very likely... nobody knows.

[Corcaigh]

if they need drone strikes in your hood ya might think about moving

 

Maybe they could hang out in their summer place in the Hamptons, until this nastiness is all over.

 

yep, but do you really think we target single peasant thugs by design?

Local Taliban warlords and their henchmen are apparently the majority of drone targets. There just aren't that many Al Qaeda leaders living in the mountains of Pakistan.

[Kilmer17]

Good question. Kinda depends on the enemy.

Bin Laden ... maybe a hundred, who knows.

A tribal peasant thug in the mountains of Pakistan with an AK-47 ... zero. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I trust that those type of judgements are being made every time.

 

I dont believe we are simply sending in drones to bomb for every single person on the planet we dont like.

[JMS]

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.

 

No I think that's an indication that suicide bombers target innocent civilians so they wouldn't be moved by such a pictorial warning.   That's why we find them abhorant.

 

While most Americans believe we don't intend to kill innocents.,   Which I really think is a fiction given how many innocents we are killing...      The facts lead me to believe we've adopted a military position as Israel has had for many decades now...   We don't target innocents,  but we don't shy way from killing folks we want to just because they are proximal to innocents either..  Largely because we can hide that from our citizenry who would be rightfully morally outraged by such a tactic...

 

It's like targeting a bank full of innocents to kill a bankrobber..   We wouldn't tolerate it for a minute in this country.   and used to think our politicians wouldn't suggest it before we heard from our attorney general last year that he believed he already had the right to do that.

[JMS]

I don't believe we are simply sending in drones to bomb for every single person on the planet we don't like.

 

I think your worst case scenario is optimistic.     I think we already have documented evidence in some cases drone attacks were conducted on the homes of folks who our informants didn't like.   Guys entirely unrelated to us all together.

 

What kind of quality control do you think realistically occurs when the CIA/DoD is ordering 8000 drone missions a year and 330 of those result in firing a missile.

 

I mean these are the same guys who missed the fall of the soviet union,  the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Iraqi WMD program in both the first and second gulf wars....  The same guys who accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Unfortunately,  dropping napalm on civilians is not at all a complete fiction for the United States.

Just because it happened in the past does not mean that this is the same thing.

The is little to no parallel between napalm and modern drone strikes.

How many civilian casualties are acceptable per 100 enemy killed?

Zero

[AsburySkinsFan]

When we bombed Berlin in WWII there was no real choice... If we wanted to bomb the enemy we had to bomb the civilians...

I would argue today the choice is a much finer one....

60 years ago we fire bombed entire cities, today it is a single missile strike on a house. As a pacifist even I recognize the difference in scale and am thankful for it. Do I like it? No, but is it far better than if was even 20 years ago? Yes.

 

Today we have the ability to bomb a single house on a single street and leave the houses on either side alone... we have the ability to destroy a car driving down the street and leave the other cars alone...

So I ask you... would you bomb a house to kill a guy,  if that house had an innocent kid in it...   Or would you mandate we wait until he was alone?...   I mean we have that ability.. to target an individual...

You do of course realize that these folks intentionally surround themselves with women and children for precisely this reason right? It is a tactic they choose.

 

Given we really know nothing about how this target was chosen anyway...    There is no evidence, court or independent review for this guys death sentence anyway.   Somebody wants him dead, and thousands of times a year Obama checks off on it.   Is he making informed opinions?   Is his evidence accurate?    Really who knows,  very likely... nobody knows.

Again, speak to policy and implementation which is not the topic in the OP.

[Kilmer17]

Just because it happened in the past does not mean that this is the same thing.

The is little to no parallel between napalm and modern drone strikes.

Zero

That's simply unrealistic.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's simply unrealistic.

Read his question again....how many civilian deaths are "acceptable" is what was asked.

Zero is my answer.

We've already advanced from the time of fire bombing cities to targeting specific houses...that's a reduction of about 125,000%.

Even still, just like police officers, we cannot "accept" civilian deaths...ever.

[JMS]

Just because it happened in the past does not mean that this is the same thing.

The is little to no parallel between napalm and modern drone strikes.

Zero

 

Really,  I don't think the statistics bear that statement out...  I think what the statistics show is our tactics have remained unchanged all that's changed is which tool we use to conduct the attack...

60 years ago we fire bombed entire cities, today it is a single missile strike on a house. As a pacifist even I recognize the difference in scale and am thankful for it. Do I like it? No, but is it far better than if was even 20 years ago? Yes.

 

You do of course realize that these folks intentionally surround themselves with women and children for precisely this reason right? It is a tactic they choose.

 

Again, speak to policy and implementation which is not the topic in the OP.

 

 

60 years ago we had to fire bomb an entire city to strike a single target.   Today we don't, today we can selectively target individual buildings.    But that's really more about the evolution of the technology not our tactics using that technology...

 

60 years ago we didn't have the ability to eliminate civilian casualties.. today we do.   But other than technology I don't think our rules of engagement have changed along with our technology...  If the target is in the building fire in the hole... we don't wait until we know our target now limited to an individual is alone...  we could... we have that technology... but we don't.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really,  I don't think the statistics bear that statement out...  I think what the statistics show is our tactics have remained unchanged all that's changed is which tool we use to conduct the attack...

Tools that have a precision strike ability that far surpasses anything dreamed of 40 years ago.

Come on this is like comparing surgery with a broadsword and surgery with a scalpel and refusing to admit the fundamental improvement.

[Kilmer17]

Read his question again....how many civilian deaths are "acceptable" is what was asked.

Zero is my answer.

We've already advanced from the time of fire bombing cities to targeting specific houses...that's a reduction of about 125,000%.

Even still, just like police officers, we cannot "accept" civilian deaths...ever.

 

Ok.

 

How many Civilian casualties should we tolerate per 100 enemy kills?

 

Do you think it's a smart war tactic to avoid any action that COULD lead to civilian casualties?

[JMS]

You do of course realize that these folks intentionally surround themselves with women and children for precisely this reason right? It is a tactic they choose.

 

When fully half of the people we are killing have no relation to the taliban...  Much less know anything about when they are being targeted..   I think it's kind of nieve to suggest  these folks are surrounding themselves with innocents...

 

I mean you think the guy takes his kid into the outhouse with him..   We could get him in the outhouse..  

 

I just don't think our rules of engagement have evolved as much as our technology has.

Tools that have a precision strike ability that far surpasses anything dreamed of 40 years ago.

Come on this is like comparing surgery with a broadsword and surgery with a scalpel and refusing to admit the fundamental improvement.

 

I would argue It's like comparing surgery during the 1880's which also had scalpels with surgery today...

 

The difference wasn't the instruments it's how you use them...   Yes in both cases the results are way better than using a broad sword.   But in 1880 we hadn't really adapted to the potential of the instruments we had access too...

 

I think our technology has changed since WWII, and yes everybody is better off for that.   But I don't think our rules of engagement have.    I think we still bomb when it suits us,  not when we are absolutely certain no innocent will be taken down by our actions...   We didn't have that capability in WWII,  we do today,  but we aren't fully utilizing it.

[twa]

 

Maybe they could hang out in their summer place in the Hamptons, until this nastiness is all over.

 

Local Taliban warlords and their henchmen are apparently the majority of drone targets. There just aren't that many Al Qaeda leaders living in the mountains of Pakistan.

I hear the Hamptons are nice

 

A warlord or his inner circle certainly certainly makes it more cost effective and differs from a peasant.

 

a peasant with a IED would be cost effective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok.

 

How many Civilian casualties should we tolerate per 100 enemy kills?

Zero...but remember I'm a pacifist so I can do that.

 

Do you think it's a smart war tactic to avoid any action that COULD lead to civilian casualties?

From war fighting strategy, no. War fighting is a near impossible balance between rules of engagement and the need to accomplish a mission. In that respect, many war fighting decisions are highly utilitarian.

[twa]

 

 

I just don't think our rules of engagement have evolved as much as our technology has.

 

 

I am of a very different opinion, the ROE have advanced greatly(especially for the DOD) the intelligence still is lagging a bit.

 

I wish they were laxer

[JMS]

Ok.

 

How many Civilian casualties should we tolerate per 100 enemy kills?

 

Do you think it's a smart war tactic to avoid any action that COULD lead to civilian casualties?

 

Hell Kilmer is this even a war in Afghanistan?   I mean we are targeting folks from thousands of miles away who aren't proximal to any munitions factory, any act of terror,  or any attack on US personnel or  interests..      We have claims these are bad guys,  but there are no independent reviews for those claims...

 

These guys could be located 100 miles from the nearest American troops and most of them have never been 5 miles removed from their own village and yet we still find it OKie Dokie to zap them with a hellfire missile because hell why not...

 

This is unprecedented display of extra judicial assassinations conducted remotely so we Americans don't have to get our hands dirty...   When the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in the 1970's they used to go through villages and take out leaders...  Intellectuals,  teachers,  anybody who was outspoken.      That's kind of what we are doing here..    We are taking out anybody and everybody who we deem as a threat, regardless of whether they've actually been associated with a threat on us....

 

We add a joy stick and a remote capability on it and today we do what a few decades ago we would find abhorrent.    Add a computer interface and all the sudden our morals seem to have changed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

When fully half of the people we are killing have no relation to the taliban...  Much less know anything about when they are being targeted..   I think it's kind of nieve to suggest  these folks are surrounding themselves with innocents...

Ok, read what you just wrote half of the people killed have no relation... First, that means that for every 1 target that is killed 1 civilian is killed. You say that they have no relation to the target, but you yourself cannot support this claim. It isn't like they are bombing a market with the target in it. They launch a missile at his house with him in it, anyone else inside stands a statistically high probability of knowing why the bomb just blew up the house.

 

I mean you think the guy takes his kid into the outhouse with him..   We could get him in the outhouse..

Wow, they probably never thought of that. BTW, how is it that you know they don't?

 

I just don't think our rules of engagement have evolved as much as our technology has.

Agreed.

 

I would argue It's like comparing surgery during the 1880's which also had scalpels with surgery today...

I'm specifically comparing napalm (which you mentioned) to the surgical missile strike.

 

The difference wasn't the instruments it's how you use them...   Yes in both cases the results are way better than using a broad sword.   But in 1880 we hadn't really adapted to the potential of the instruments we had access too...

 

I think our technology has changed since WWII, and yes everybody is better off for that.   But I don't think our rules of engagement have.    I think we still bomb when it suits us,  not when we are absolutely certain no innocent will be taken down by our actions...   We didn't have that capability in WWII,  we do today,  but we aren't fully utilizing it.

Maybe, but to state things as if they aren't a massively more precise, and reducing innocent deaths is a fiction.

.   When the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in the 1970's they used to go through villages and take out leaders...  Intellectuals,  teachers,  anybody who was outspoken.      That's kind of what we are doing here..    We are taking out anybody and everybody who we deem as a threat, regardless of whether they've actually been associated with a threat on us....

Wow....just wow. I just don't even......

Honestly, if you believe that the US is doing the same thing that the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia then shame on you for not tying yourself to the White House gate in protest.

[Kilmer17]

Zero...but remember I'm a pacifist so I can do that.

 

From war fighting strategy, no. War fighting is a near impossible balance between rules of engagement and the need to accomplish a mission. In that respect, many war fighting decisions are highly utilitarian.

 

Hell Kilmer is this even a war in Afghanistan?   I mean we are targeting folks from thousands of miles away who aren't proximal to any munitions factory, any act of terror,  or any attack on US personnel or  interests..      We have claims these are bad guys,  but there are no independent reviews for those claims...

 

These guys could be located 100 miles from the nearest American troops and most of them have never been 5 miles removed from their own village and yet we still find it OKie Dokie to zap them with a hellfire missile because hell why not...

 

This is unprecedented display of extra judicial assassinations conducted remotely so we Americans don't have to get our hands dirty...   When the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in the 1970's they used to go through villages and take out leaders...  Intellectuals,  teachers,  anybody who was outspoken.      That's kind of what we are doing here..    We are taking out anybody and everybody who we deem as a threat, regardless of whether they've actually been associated with a threat on us....

 

We add a joy stick and a remote capability on it and today we do what a few decades ago we would find abhorrent.    Add a computer interface and all the sudden our morals seem to have changed.

Well that's a different discussion. 

 

I happen to agree that we should take out every threat we can.  But I also understand the idea that there should be checks and balances to those decisions.

 

I accept civilian loss of life as an unfortunate part of war.  I dont condone targetting civilians.  But sometimes they will die as part of a broader attack, or as collateral damage ina  surgical strike.

 

Was it wrong that we killed more people than just OBL when we found him?