One in fifty killed by US killer drones in Pakistan is a known "terrorist".

Benny_Cake · 25-09-2012 05:53PM

Piliger wrote: »

Slurryface wrote: »

Drones don't screw up any more than fighter bombers, these people are so eager to support terrorism, well now they know the price of that support.
You flawed logic appears to infer that if close oor ignore the poor wikle terrowists then they will just go away, get real!

These drones are doing a brilliant job. Forget this garbage from Stanford and New York - they haven't a bloody clue. We need to take out all of these evil Muslim terrorist murderers and the US is the only one with the guts to do it.

I fail to see how killing human beings from the safety of a computer screen shows "guts". The drone campaign is completely undermining the stability of Pakistan which will have consequences as well as allowing the use of military force without any risk of repercussions in terms of public disapproval stateside. It makes waging war just to easy.

It appears that I've partially agreed with Run_to_da_hills so I need to go and lie down now.

twinytwo · 25-09-2012 05:55PM

kowloon wrote: »

As mental as the entire Islamic fundamentalism thing is, it's still pretty ballsy doing anything that results in your certain death. Bad people, probably, cowards? not so much.

walking into a crowd of unarmed women and children and blowing yourself up is as cowardly as it gets................

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 05:56PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I fail to see how killing human beings from the safety of a computer screen shows "guts". The drone campaign is completely undermining the stability of Pakistan which will have consequences as well as allowing the use of military force without any risk of repercussions in terms of public disapproval stateside. It makes waging war just to easy.

It appears that I've partially agreed with Run_to_da_hills so I need to go and lie down now.

A lot of the militants being killed by the drone strikes are trained by Pakistani security forces. There'd be no drone campaign in Pakistan if the Pakistanis themselves weren't in bed with them.

marshbaboon · 25-09-2012 06:00PM

Slurryface wrote: »

That bubba is the price of freedom in our society. Love this "Known Terrorist2 mullarkey too, none of the scum who flew the planes into the twin towers, or who blew up the buses and trains in london and Madrid was a "Known terrorist" until after they killed innocents.
You want to fight terror, then it has to be no holds barred, Pakistan wants to promote terrorism, fine let them accept the consequences.

Piliger wrote: »

These drones are doing a brilliant job. Forget this garbage from Stanford and New York - they haven't a bloody clue. We need to take out all of these evil Muslim terrorist murderers and the US is the only one with the guts to do it.

Right, so, quick question. How is the American killing of innocents any different than the Muslim killing of innocents? If it's to incite fear in the population, as you say, that sounds like terrorism to me.. considering that war hasn't been declared.

Is it because "they started it", and thus America can murder civilians indiscriminately and call it "collateral"? I'm not even going to go into the American arms dealing to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, Enron, or the state of Israel.

America is very like the middle east. You have a certain amount of fundamentalists that want to force their ideals onto the rest of the world, and the innocents that suffer and die because of those ideals.

Yedya · 25-09-2012 06:09PM

kowloon wrote: »

As mental as the entire Islamic fundamentalism thing is, it's still pretty ballsy doing anything that results in your certain death. Bad people, probably, cowards? not so much.

And IED's?

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 06:10PM

marshbaboon wrote: »

Right, so, quick question. How is the American killing of innocents any different than the Muslim killing of innocents? If it's to incite fear in the population, as you say, that sounds like terrorism to me.. considering that war hasn't been declared.

Is it because "they started it", and thus America can murder civilians indiscriminately and call it "collateral"? I'm not even going to go into the American arms dealing to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, Enron, or the state of Israel.

America is very like the middle east. You have a certain amount of fundamentalists that want to force their ideals onto the rest of the world, and the innocents that suffer and die because of those ideals.

America doesnt deliberately target innocents they target the militants. The Islamist militants like to target innocents specifically however so its not like for like.

karma_ · 25-09-2012 06:19PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

America doesnt deliberately target innocents they target the militants. The Islamist militants like to target innocents specifically however so its not like for like.

That's all well and good, until that is you read the definition of a militant according to the US administration.

all military-age males in a strike zone"

If Cork were a strike zone and you were over the age of 16 and male I have news for you pal, you're a militant.

czx · 25-09-2012 06:37PM

karma_ wrote: »

If Cork were a strike zone and you were over the age of 16 and male I have news for you pal, you're a militant.

Then why would they bother conducting tactical strikes? What does the US have to gain by targeting civilians?

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 06:43PM

karma_ wrote: »

That's all well and good, until that is you read the definition of a militant according to the US administration.

If Cork were a strike zone and you were over the age of 16 and male I have news for you pal, you're a militant.

But they are not hitting every random male over the age of 16. These strikes are not conducted randomly. A lot of surveillance and reconnaissance will be carried out. There conditions for carrying out a strike, for example seeing someone carrying weapons.

Im not saying they get it right everytime but it isnt mindless blowing up of everything as so many people like to portray it.

c_man · 25-09-2012 06:45PM

Woo Obama, four more years of this, woo.

karma_ · 25-09-2012 06:46PM

czx wrote: »

Then why would they bother conducting tactical strikes? What does the US have to gain by targeting civilians?

Yeah mate, heres something I won't be doing - having a conversation with yourself about anything, I've seen a canine make more progress chasing his tail.

czx · 25-09-2012 06:47PM

karma_ wrote: »

Yeah mate, heres something I won't be doing - having a conversation with yourself about anything, I've seen a canine make more progress chasing his tail.

Thought so.

karma_ · 25-09-2012 06:49PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But they are not hitting every random male over the age of 16. These strikes are not conducted randomly. A lot of surveillance and reconnaissance will be carried out. There conditions for carrying out a strike, for example seeing someone carrying weapons.

Im not saying they get it right everytime but it isnt mindless blowing up of everything as so many people like to portray it.

Well the reason they use this definition, it's to make their success rate appear more accurate, if they deem every male over 16 to be a militant then they won;t have to face the same level of criticism. No doubt they do get actual terrorists, but this completely glosses over the horrific civilian casualties.

c_man wrote: »

Woo Obama, four more years of this, woo.

c_man, the most depressing is that Romney would be much much worse.

Remmy · 25-09-2012 06:49PM

The other forty nine are freedom fighters .

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2012 06:53PM

c_man wrote: »

Woo Obama, four more years of this, woo.

Another four years of Drone Frenzy and no doubt he will turn on his own people with them.

enfant terrible · 25-09-2012 06:53PM

and the way the news covers the deaths

‘A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis.’

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 06:54PM

karma_ wrote: »

Well the reason they use this definition, it's to make their success rate appear more accurate, if they deem every male over 16 to be a militant then they won;t have to face the same level of criticism. No doubt they do get actual terrorists, but this completely glosses over the horrific civilian casualties.

The number of civilian casualties from these strikes vary wildly depending on the source.

While the american definition of militant may be used to gloss over civilian casualties we have to balance that with the possibility that relatives of victims may not admit their relative was involved with the militants when reporting their death.

Getting a real figure is almost impossible.

czx · 25-09-2012 06:57PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Another four years of Drone Frenzy and no doubt he will turn on his own people with them.

Like Judgement Day, ya?

karma_ · 25-09-2012 06:58PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The number of civilian casualties from these strikes vary wildly depending on the source.

While the american definition of militant may be used to gloss over civilian casualties we have to balance that with the possibility that relatives of victims may not admit their relative was involved with the militants when reporting their death.

Getting a real figure is almost impossible.

None of which makes drone strikes any more morally palatable.

TwoShedsJackson · 25-09-2012 06:58PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Another four years of Drone Frenzy and no doubt he will turn on his own people with them.

No doubt.

Also on that site: Anal tattoos may be hazardous to your health

UFO Mothership stalks International Space Station?

Slurryface · 25-09-2012 06:58PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Another four years of Drone Frenzy and no doubt he will turn on his own people with them.

A very infantile statement

Slurryface · 25-09-2012 07:00PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

and the way the news covers the deaths

‘A bomb went off in Kandahar today, killing two British servicemen, three UN relief workers and a whole bunch of Pakis.’

Link to that shameful statement if one exists

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 07:00PM

karma_ wrote: »

None of which makes drone strikes any more morally palatable.

The actions of the militants arent morally palatable either. I wonder how many innocents have died due to their actions.

karma_ · 25-09-2012 07:01PM

Slurryface wrote: »

Link to that shameful statement if one exists

It's a Frankie Boyle joke.

karma_ · 25-09-2012 07:01PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The actions of the militants arent morally palatable either. I wonder how many innocents have died due to their actions.

I didn't argue they were fella.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 25-09-2012 07:04PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

America doesnt deliberately target innocents they target the militants.

Can still be considered a criminal act though if reckless or careless planning is involved that leads to excessive civilian deaths, even if the target itself is legitimate.

Article 8, "War Crimes", of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court mentions this.

Section 2b (iv) states that:

[SIZE=-1]Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;[/SIZE]

Link: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

pablomakaveli · 25-09-2012 07:05PM

karma_ wrote: »

I didn't argue they were fella.

I know but some people who have posted on this thread let their hatred of america blind them to this fact.

czx · 25-09-2012 07:07PM

[SIZE=-1]''Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians[/SIZE]''

How can you say that they have such knowledge?

Richard Hillman · 25-09-2012 07:09PM

The average drone strike would happen at a compound in the ****hole of nowhere. The high value targets would usually have their own compund and bring their families with them. Others in these compounds would be people that are assisting and supportive of the high value targets. If a drone strike targets a compound with a couple of high value targets, it would probably kill about 30 people. If 30 people are killed, you may have 1 high value target, 20 guys who are assisting the high value target and 9 of the high value targets family.

In conclusion. If the high value target is bringing his family around with him, then he doesnt hold their lives in high esteem and the rest of the dead are probably people who are assisting and are members of the High Value Targets terrorist group.

Nato are not going around high population areas in Pakistan dumping bombs on random places. The majority being killed are probably terrorists and the family of the terrorist.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2012 07:09PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

No doubt.

Also on that site: Anal tattoos may be hazardous to your health

UFO Mothership stalks International Space Station?

Not on this site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKh8kdBLVI

One in fifty killed by US killer drones in Pakistan is a known "terrorist".

Comments