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

[Koolblue13]

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.

you really shouldn't refer to yourself as a pacifist.

Also, accusing someone of rhetoric tactics, while talking in circles of it, fools no one.

[JMS]

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.

Again I would ague that the DoD couldn't tell the difference between the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and a Serbian Intelligence building given weeks even months of preparation, yet we are expected to believe they can target individuals every day for 330 days straight without any independent review and get it all right, mostly right, somewhat right?

The CIA is worse.. They missed the entire collapse of the soviet union, the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi WMD program in the first gulf war, and the lack of an Iraqi WMD program in the second Gulf war.. and we are expected to believe they now can look within peoples souls and discern if individuals are Taliban or not from halfway around the globe and hundreds of miles removed from any US troops?

I'll take the Human Rights groups word for it.

 

Human rights groups accuse U.S. of fudging stats of civilian deaths by drone strikes

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International suggest in new reports that the United States is making a concerted and purposeful effort to cover up the number of civilians who have been killed in Yemen and Pakistan by drone strikes in recent months.

Human Rights Watch said in The Washington Post that 57 of the 82 individuals killed by drones in Yemen since 2009 were civilians. Meanwhile, another human rights group, Amnesty International, said that of nine U.S.-led drone strikes in Pakistan between May 2012 and July 2013, four of the attacks saw at least 30 civilians killed, United Press International reported.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/22/human-rights-groups-accuse-us-deaths-drones/#ixzz2yEFeMAIY

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed many civilians, study says

The Obama administration has championed the use of remotely operated drones for killing senior Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders, but the study concludes that only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.

 

 Casualties estimates by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has reported extensively on drone strikes, of 474 to 884 civilian deaths since 2004, including 176 children.

 

The study challenges official versions of three attacks between 2009 and 2011, including a drone strike on March 17, 2011, that killed an estimated 42 people. The gathering was a jirga, a meeting of elders, called to settle a dispute over a chromite mine, the report says.  According to the report, most of those killed were civilians, including elders and auxiliary police. Only about four known members of a Taliban group attended, the study says, citing survivors and newsaccounts. U.S. officials insisted that all the dead were militants, the report says.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/24/world/la-fg-drone-study-20120925

 

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.

Well at least we know for sure they are launching a missile at a house with someone in it.

 

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

I don't think the Military cares. I don't think they are the guys you go to when you want to get a philosophical reading on such a program.  They are the guys you go to to get it done.    We don't ask them to shy away from killing innocent people.. we ask them to live with it when they do.

Yeah I would argue that we have never asked the DoD to make these kinds of decisions before. ever...In WWII we were targeting ball bearing plants and munitions and they were hard enough for us to identify.   Late in the vietnam war and in all the wars since we were targeting buildings and occasionally high value targets like Saddam's motorcade..

Today we are asking the DoD to target hundreds even thousands of individuals in a list which is constantly changing on criteria which isn't well understood without any independent review. Can they do it.. Hell yeah they can do it if we order them too. Does that mean we really want them to be doing it, much less the CIA.. I don't think we do.. Not using a murky arbitrary, unregulated and unreviewed process.    And not using the same rules of engagement they would use if asked to destroy a munitions factory.     Find the target... kill the target...

[nonniey]

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?

Best estimate? You mean worst case estimate. I've seen estimates as high as 700-800 civilian casualties. I've also seen analysis that civilian casualties are markedly lower with drones than any other use of force.

[Riggo-toni]

Actually the CIA predicted the invasion of Kuwait right down to the very day.

[JMS]

Actually the CIA predicted the invasion of Kuwait right down to the very day.

HA!   We were entirely caught off guard and surprised when Saddam went into Kuwait. The CIA was clueless... I think you mean the CIA accurately predicted our invasion of Iraq right down to the very day in the second gulf war.

 

Worse than being clueless Saddam Hussein was about to invade Kuwait, was the fact the CIA missed that he was less than a year away from getting a nuclear bomb. The CIA was again clueless until after the first gulf war was over and we got a look at their nuke program. That's why Cheney and Bush were so dismissive of anything the CIA had to say with regards to Iraq in Gulf War II, cause they had screwed up so bad in the first gulf war Cheney didn't trust them.

 

Improving CIA Analytic Performance: Strategic Warning

Sept. ‘02

 

Strategic warning is an unrelenting, often painful, challenge to both intelligence analysts and policymakers. Major surprises over the decades—that is, failures to warn effectively—include Pearl Harbor (1941), Communist attacks on South Korea (1950), Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), the Iran revolution (1979), and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990).

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/vol1no1.htm

 

 

CIA Failed to See Iraq's Attack Plans, Gates Says : Intelligence: Agency told Bush in 1989 that Hussein would not strike for two to three years.

May 09, 1992

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-09/news/mn-1595_1_intelligence-agencies

[Stugein]

They should have picked a less creepy looking kid.

[JMS]

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?

Well in our last discussion on religious issues with you and LKB, I was starting to suspect my spider hole had been discovered and a drone attack was imminent so I started keeping my kids close. Even I though in my state of agitated anxiety from some form of munition flying threw my window did not take my kid into the small room with me.

So I extrapolated.

[Mocountyskins]

I am not against Drones because I think that they protect our personal and I also understand that there is a cost to war. I also understand that we need to protect out citizens.

 

With all of that being said it is very unfortunate and sad that we kill a great deal of civilians on accident with our drones.  I understand that civilians are always casualties in wars. Vietnam and WWII we napalmed and killed lots of civilians also. Now we are droning them and blowing off kids arms. I know or at least think that sometimes there is no way around doing what needs to be done and I understand the mistakes that are made. It is a ugly part of war and it will always be like this there will never not be any accidental casualties. But what makes me sick to my stomach is how we as a country and people publicly sit on our high horses and scold other regimes for killing their civilians with gas and bombs yet at the same time kids are getting droned and watching their parents bleed to death from our weapons that we use ourselves or that we sell to the highest bidder. And we just act like some kind of moral police trying to regulate everyone else.  I know that there is a cost to war and its a ugly cost I know that and I'm not protesting what is being done. All im saying is why can't leaders publicly acknowledge all the accidents that have happened and take a public moment of silence for the innocent people, instead of pushing this stupid ideal that Americans know better and that is our job to save the world.

[Destino]

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?

Are we talking about war or assassinations?

[Kilmer17]

Are we talking about war or assassinations?

That line blurred years ago.

[Destino]

That line blurred years ago.

Has it or have we simply accepted an obviously laughable argument by people seeking cover to do things normally viewed as unacceptable. We know what war is and we know what it isn't. The war on poverty isn't a real war. The war on drugs isn't a real war. The war on terror doesn't allow the US to send drones into London or to drop bombs in Brooklyn... But it does in countries inconsequential enough for us to simply bully or bribe. We know this but we just choose to accept the rationale because it allows us to keep on wearing the white hat.

[twa]

if I was Brooklyn I wouldn't be too sure of that

 

I think we bribe more than bully,they seem more receptive to it 

[AsburySkinsFan]

you really shouldn't refer to yourself as a pacifist.

Also, accusing someone of rhetoric tactics, while talking in circles of it, fools no one.

Why shouldn't I consider myself a pacifist?

[nonniey]

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

I agree with everything you say except one thing. Don't short shift honor there is a standard of conduct that should be observed and this is where honor comes in.

[twa]

Why shouldn't I consider myself a pacifist?

 

You have been tried by the Island Pacifist council and found wanting 

 

[Koolblue13]

Why shouldn't I consider myself a pacifist?

well, earlier in the thread you defended the drones because they killed less children, than a suicide bomber. Pacifism is more of a zero tolerance thing. Took me a long time to learn that "turn the other cheek" thing.

You have been tried by the Island Pacifist council and found wanting

my opinions have been the same, since before I moved to paradise.

[AsburySkinsFan]

well, earlier in the thread you defended the drones because they killed less children, than a suicide bomber. Pacifism is more of a zero tolerance thing. Took me a long time to learn that "turn the other cheek" thing. my opinions have been the same, since before I moved to paradise.

I have never defended the use of drones in warfare.

What I have done is suggest that that there is a fundamental improvement between the use of a drone and napalm.

I also did not defend the use of a drone BECAUSE they killed less children than a suicide bomber. I said that there is a fundamental difference between a drone pilot and a suicide bomber because of the intent.

Seriously, if you read my posts the way you suggest then I suggest you go back, read them again but maybe try doing so in English.

That's the problem today, no one notices, understands, or appreciates nuance.

[Koolblue13]

I have never defended the use of drones in warfare.

What I have done is suggest that that there is a fundamental improvement between the use of a drone and napalm.

I also did not defend the use of a drone BECAUSE they killed less children than a suicide bomber. I said that there is a fundamental difference between a drone pilot and a suicide bomber because of the intent.

Seriously, if you read my posts the way you suggest then I suggest you go back, read them again but maybe try doing so in English.

That's the problem today, no one notices, understands, or appreciates nuance.

I did reread what you wrote. I do read in English (which was an odd insult) and the lack of an appreciation of nuance, is hardly 'the problem today'.

Perhaps you should reread what you've written, unless you were just in one of your soapbox moods.

[nonniey]

I have never defended the use of drones in warfare.

What I have done is suggest that that there is a fundamental improvement between the use of a drone and napalm.

I also did not defend the use of a drone BECAUSE they killed less children than a suicide bomber. I said that there is a fundamental difference between a drone pilot and a suicide bomber because of the intent.

Seriously, if you read my posts the way you suggest then I suggest you go back, read them again but maybe try doing so in English.

That's the problem today, no one notices, understands, or appreciates nuance.

There really is no nuance involved in your posts. As you stated you clearly object to equating drone pilots to suicide bombers. Some have willfully stretched that into saying you support drone attacks. By saying it was nuanced you are trying to give them an out. I bet they won't take it.

(I was right they didn't take it).

[Mad Mike]

I'm wondering if the artist plans a similar exhibit showing the faces of the people the Taliban have killed or the children they have maimed with acid for the crime of seeking an education.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm wondering if the artist plans a similar exhibit showing the faces of the people the Taliban have killed or the children they have maimed with acid for the crime of seeking an education.

No doubt Mike!

This doesn't rise to the levels of Hanoi Jane, but it certainly confuses the speck in the eye for the log.

I would hate for this artist to ever be in charge of a triage, because their ability to recognize the larger more pressing threats is significant.

[JMS]

There really is no nuance involved in your posts. As you stated you clearly object to equating drone pilots to suicide bombers. Some have willfully stretched that into saying you support drone attacks. By saying it was nuanced you are trying to give them an out. I bet they won't take it.

(I was right they didn't take it).

I think Ashburry was playing a little devils advocate and was instrumental in getting the conversation rolling. I too read his earlier posts in this thread like you did.. But I think when he says he identifies with pacifism you should take his word for it and try to read his posts in that light.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but in the effort to give a valuable, smart, and civil member of the community the benefit of the doubt we should listen with better ears or maybe new ears based on what he's saying.

Else we risk awakening the uncivil Asbury.

[JMS]

I'm wondering if the artist plans a similar exhibit showing the faces of the people the Taliban have killed or the children they have maimed with acid for the crime of seeking an education.

I'm troubled by your line of logic here. You are saying because suicide bombers are so abhorrent, that somehow this excuses us from shooting hundreds of missiles into bedrooms with an alarming rate of innocent casualties over a decade or so... without any independent overview, imminent threat, or even accountability in anyway what so ever?

You're posturing that the artist is offending you when he tries to raise public consciousness of this escalating and globally troubling yet very poorly understood American policy; which you are suggesting we justify by directly comparing to suicide bombers.

What if we did kill more innocent people in Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan than suicide bombers in a given year... Then would you want to know more.. I'm not saying we did because you know we don't keep those kinds of statistics... conveniently... But I'm saying 330 hellfire missiles, basically one per day, for an entire year... probable did kill more innocents in 2012 than did suicide bombers... it would not be out of the question...

Here is another question for you.. Given we don't have any declaration of war here, dont' even have a state of war with Pakistan or Yemen who are both allies, yet are still using drones there... What are you going to think when say 10 years from now the cost of drones drops to something Iran can afford, or Pakistan, or Yemen.. and they decide they want a little payback on the folks in the US who are killing so many of their innocent civilians. Oh and let's assume when they take out Eric Holder they also take out a dozen innocent bystanders who are proximal to him. Would they too be justified?

[Mad Mike]

Afghanistan civilian casualties | News | theguardian.com

 

 

7,559 Afghan casualties were documented by UNAMA, of which 2,754 were deaths and 4,805 were injuries. The Taliban and other anti-government elements have been blamed for 4 out of every 5 civilians who were killed in Afghanistan last year - continuing a rising trend since 2007. The number of civilian deaths resulting from pro-government forces has by contrast fallen by 23%.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) killed the most Afghan civilians according to the UN, accounting for 41% of deaths in conflict. Between 1 January and 31 December 2012, UNAMA recorded 868 civilian deaths from IEDS. More noticeable however, is the number of targeted killings - 698 in 2012, up 62% from 2011 United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan says:

Particularly disturbing were targeted killings of women by Anti-Government Elements demonstrated by the killings of the head and deputy head of the Laghman Department of Women's Affairs in August and December 2012 [...] Civilians continued to be targeted in places including crowded markets, locations where tribal elders gathered and civilian Government offices.

[Mad Mike]

And for the record I'm saying that a really good artist would make a much more intelligent and powerful statement by showing the death toll on both sides of the conflict. Where are the photos of beheadings? Show me the American equivalent of throwing acid into a child's face.

 

I'm saying that nothing is going to change until the Taliban are held accountable for the atrocities they commit. Walking away from Afghanistan and letting them take control would be the far greater crime against innocent people than an occasional drone target gone wrong. (I'm all for improving command & control as well as ROE)