U.S. drone strike kills suspected Taliban commanders in Pakistan

[Ulysses G.]

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/video-annotated-predator-drone-attack

I video feed for a standard predator drone attack in Afganistan.

I wonder how many of that crew were reported as "innocent civilans".

Edited October 31, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

I do find it interesting that many posters here seem more than willing to believe any source that gives a contrary view to the U.S government line, even when the sources they cite are more often than not merely internet opinion or conspiracy sites. This is especially ironic when Pakistan has a long history of journalists being murdered for not towing the party line.

Also in light of the self evident contempt for human life shown by the Pakistani regime, and sadly many of it's people I have to view the shrill complaints as to the humanitarian issue of drone attacks being a likely sign that they are actually having an effect on the people who they are intended to, this includes official Pakistani government protests in light of the obvious double game they are playing.

The same notion hit me while watching the SDS protest the Viet Nam war way back in the 60s.

[flying]

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/video-annotated-predator-drone-attack

I video feed for a standard predator drone attack in Afganistan.

I wonder how many of that crew were reported as "innocent civilans".

Good question !

This is the same targeting system as the drones but with the actual operator at a closer proximity .

Seems after all even when the eyes are right there on the scene they do not guarantee success. Imagine when the eyes are thousands of miles away...

For instance...Shows how dangerous it can be to carry a camera....

After all you can be thought to have carried a weapon.

It has a shoulder strap after all.

The men executed were in fact later identified as Reuters camera men.

The men executed from the van trying to help evacuate the wounded were just that….men trying to help the wounded

The children were...children of the men trying to help evacuate the wounded.

[Ulysses G.]

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/video-annotated-predator-drone-attack

I video feed for a standard predator drone attack in Afganistan.

I wonder how many of that crew were reported as "innocent civilans".

Good question !

They were out in the middle of nowhere carrying a bomb that exploded prematurely. The point is that they were not "innocent civilians", but if not for the little mishap with the IED, the usual suspects would have claimed that they were.

[Wallaby]

http://www.popsci.co...or-drone-attack

I video feed for a standard predator drone attack in Afganistan.

I wonder how many of that crew were reported as "innocent civilans".

Good question !

This is the same targeting system as the drones but with the actual operator at a closer proximity .

Seems after all even when the eyes are right there on the scene they do not guarantee success. Imagine when the eyes are thousands of miles away...

For instance...Shows how dangerous it can be to carry a camera....

After all you can be thought to have carried a weapon.

It has a shoulder strap after all.

The men executed were in fact later identified as Reuters camera men.

The men executed from the van trying to help evacuate the wounded were just that….men trying to help the wounded

The children were...children of the men trying to help evacuate the wounded.

I believe that video came out through Wikileaks and caused a lot of stress to the US govt. Investigations proved what Flying says is correct. Also, the people in the van were actually a man taking his children to school when he saw the 'incident' and made a split fatal decision to go to their aid.

Certainly not the way to endear the US to the people it is trying to 'help'.

[flying]

They were out in the middle of nowhere carrying a bomb that exploded prematurely. The point is that they were not "innocent civilians", but if not for the little mishap with the IED, the usual suspects would have claimed that they were.

Probably not...meaning none would claim innocents as the case was obvious...But, You did ask

Since you knew why ask?

Instead the claims of civilians killed & injured in other cases is obvious when targeting a home

among other homes, schools , tribal elders meetings etc.

Edited November 1, 2011 by flying

[Wallaby]

http://www.popsci.co...or-drone-attack

I video feed for a standard predator drone attack in Afganistan.

I wonder how many of that crew were reported as "innocent civilans".

Good question !

They were out in the middle of nowhere carrying a bomb that exploded prematurely. The point is that they were not "innocent civilians", but if not for the little mishap with the IED, the usual suspects would have claimed that they were.

That is so wrong on so many fronts. Even the US acknowledges they got it wrong and is diammetrically opposed to your view.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but you are not correct. Try watching the video that I commented on before making erroneous accusations.

http://www.popsci.co...or-drone-attack

[maidu]

It's understandable that terrorists and others in the region hate drone bombs. They're killing machines without a brain, without feeling, with infinite patience and strike without any warning. Terrorists can only pray they had the same technology. Throughout military history, there have always been instances of superior weapons coming on the scene, and those with inferior weapons crying "unfair!" or "come out and fight like a man!"

Also, terrorist sympathizers are always going to play the 'innocent death' card. It's the easiest game for them to play. And sure there are innocents killed and maimed, and that's highly regrettable, but by and large, the majority of kills are the bad guys. If women are worried about their children's health, they should go away from the bad guys (of course they can't easily split, because it's a male-dominated part of the world, where females are treated worse than stray dogs).

[koheesti]

1) the innocents killed in neighboring houses were somehow linked to the *suspected* terrorist...They were not.

...

It is the same as the analogy I posted earlier saying...If a murderer is holed up in a house next to you... is it all right

for authorities folks claiming he is a *suspected* murderer to then missile strike his house killing your family next door as well?

"Neighboring houses"? "Next door"?

Does the OP - or any of the other threads about drone killings - mention hitting surrounding buildings? I thought that the "innocents" killed were with the targeted people at the time, not living next door or down the street. Does anyone know just how big these missiles are the drones are launching and what kind of blast radius there is?

[flying]

Does the OP - or any of the other threads about drone killings - mention hitting surrounding buildings? I thought that the "innocents" killed were with the targeted people at the time, not living next door or down the street. Does anyone know just how big these missiles are the drones are launching and what kind of blast radius there is?

They are hellfire missiles.

You can google them & see

As for buildings...You can google drone attacks & see where some have occurred.

In fact in the US today on National Geographic TV Channel there was a good show called CIA Confidential

Today's show dealt mainly with drones operated by the CIA in Pakistan

Edited November 1, 2011 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

Throughout military history, there have always been instances of superior weapons coming on the scene, and those with inferior weapons crying "unfair!" or "come out and fight like a man!"

It is kind of ironic. Terrorists and their apologists calling drones "unfair".

[flying]

It is kind of ironic. Terrorists and their apologists calling drones "unfair".

War is war no doubt...even if in this case it seems murky as to declaration & country involved.

That aside there was a time when the US had honor & followed certain guidelines.

Whether they be Geneva Conventions or just plain humanitarian based morals.

That all went out the window with the patriot act. Suddenly it is the ends justify the means law.

Build prisons off US soil & torture with techniques the US previously hung Japanese soldiers for using.

Yet they claim....well these guys dont have uniforms...they are not a real army yada yada yada.

Then you have the extra legal killing that we are talking about here. Those too fall by the wayside in this new

version of anything is justified war.

No it is not fair vs unfair. It is ethical vs unethical.

Fight if that is what you need to do. If this enemy who must be extremely powerful to hold up

the supposedly greatest military on earth for over a decade is the declared enemy then go for it.

But these extra legal killing are not shrugged off by the American people. At least not the thinking folks I know.

At the end of the day we will see what this has cost. On that show on National Geographic today they said

it is laughable that the CIA acknowledges none of it. The reporter said it is the worst kept secret in US History.

Edited November 1, 2011 by flying

[Steely Dan]

It's understandable that terrorists and others in the region hate drone bombs. They're killing machines without a brain, without feeling, with infinite patience and strike without any warning. Terrorists can only pray they had the same technology. Throughout military history, there have always been instances of superior weapons coming on the scene, and those with inferior weapons crying "unfair!" or "come out and fight like a man!"

Also, terrorist sympathizers are always going to play the 'innocent death' card. It's the easiest game for them to play. And sure there are innocents killed and maimed, and that's highly regrettable, but by and large, the majority of kills are the bad guys. If women are worried about their children's health, they should go away from the bad guys (of course they can't easily split, because it's a male-dominated part of the world, where females are treated worse than stray dogs).

The death of 'innocents' card has become a bit of an industry, which requires enablers to have any effect. Of course should the drones be removed this would either lead directly to more U.S casualties if the job was carried out using other methods, or it would lead to the terrorists being able to operate with even more impunity and the local community as a whole would suffer their fundamentalist laws as a result.

[flying]

The US followed the Geneva Convention when it was dealing with sovereign nations that had signed it too.

Illegal combatants have no rights at all under the Geneva Convention and purposely violate it constantly. The drones are the perfect solution when dealing with barbaric terrorists with no regard for with International law or human lives or human rights.

Yes & the hanging of Japanese soldier for doing the same as we did?

Situational ethics

As for no regard for life/human rights....There seems to be no shortage of that with both groups of terrorists fighting

[Ulysses G.]

The US followed the Geneva Convention when it was dealing with sovereign nations that had signed it too.

Illegal combatants have no rights at all under the Geneva Convention and purposely violate it constantly. The drones are the perfect solution when dealing with barbaric terrorists with no regard for with International law or human lives or human rights.

Yes & the hanging of Japanese soldier for doing the same as we did?

The Geneva Convention allows for the death penalty for war crimes. It does not allow for terrorists targeting and killing innocent civilians to advance their political agenda.

If you are going to bring up the Geneva Convention it is not a good idea to try justifying terrorism because these vicious criminals are not covered by it.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

The Geneva Convention allows for the death penalty for war crimes. It does not allow for terrorists targeting and killing innocent civilians to advance their political agenda.

If you are going to bring up the Geneva Convention it is not a good idea to try justifying terrorism because these vicious criminals are not covered by it.

More situational ethics

Most Americans do not need a piece of paper to tell them torture is wrong.

Extra legal killings are wrong

And yes Terrorism is wrong

Nuff said I know where you stand

Edited November 1, 2011 by flying

[Wallaby]

The Geneva Convention allows for the death penalty for war crimes. It does not allow for terrorists targeting and killing innocent civilians to advance their political agenda.

If you are going to bring up the Geneva Convention it is not a good idea to try justifying terrorism because these vicious criminals are not covered by it.

More situational ethics

Most Americans do not need a piece of paper to tell them torture is wrong.

Extra legal killings are wrong

Nuff said I know where you stand

Yes Flying. It seems that because there is no actual law against it then it will be done. Not only Americans, but most of the world knows it is wrong and to think GWB actually authorised it!!!!

The US labels them illegal combatants, they do that so they can get away with torturing them. Just great isn't it. Go into their country, bomb the hell out of them and when they decide to fight back they will be tortured because of how the US decides to label them.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. After the way the US has treated prisoners they have absolutely no right to cry foul when similar happens to their own.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been deleted.

Please stay on the topic, not on the poster.

And another post deleted.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Scott
added another deletion

[Ulysses G.]

The US labels them illegal combatants, they do that so they can get away with torturing them.

They call them illegal combatants because they do not wear uniforms as required by the Geneva Convention and because they purposely attack and kill innocent civilians - as well as torturing them and cutting off their heads to make a political statement.

The terrorists could also legally be called spies for not wearing a uniform and shot on sight which exactly is what the drones are doing. Trying to excuse terrorist murderers using the Geneva Convention is the height of absurdity.

[luckizuchinni]

The Geneva Convention allows for the death penalty for war crimes. It does not allow for terrorists targeting and killing innocent civilians to advance their political agenda.

If you are going to bring up the Geneva Convention it is not a good idea to try justifying terrorism because these vicious criminals are not covered by it.

More situational ethics

Most Americans do not need a piece of paper to tell them torture is wrong.

Extra legal killings are wrong

Nuff said I know where you stand

Yes Flying. It seems that because there is no actual law against it then it will be done. Not only Americans, but most of the world knows it is wrong and to think GWB actually authorised it!!!!

The US labels them illegal combatants, they do that so they can get away with torturing them. Just great isn't it. Go into their country, bomb the hell out of them and when they decide to fight back they will be tortured because of how the US decides to label them.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. After the way the US has treated prisoners they have absolutely no right to cry foul when similar happens to their own.

To both flying and wallaby, it seems that most of the later posts to which you take offense have to do with drone strikes, yet you keep refering to torture in your responses.

Actually, I agree completely with the arguments against the torture. I don't believe we should resort to physical torture, although some "trickery" which some people claim in "mental torture" might be OK and is certainly not torture. I think we should keep to the Geneva Convention even if the enemy does not.

I don't say we should not keep these guys in prison. They are combatants and are fighting us. We should keep them locked up as long as it takes to somehow achieve peace (although I really don't see that happening anytime soon.)

However, drone strikes, and that is what this thread is about, saves NATO lives, combats terrorism, and does lessen civilian casualties when compared to other forms of combat. It is "surgical" when compared to almost anything else.

I feel saddened by any collateral injury and death. But frankly, given the enemy (and don't for a minute think the targets are not the enemy--if you do, you don't understand these people), I don't know how we can prosecute fighting them in a cleaner, less dangerous to others not targeted, method.

[flying]

However, drone strikes, and that is what this thread is about, saves NATO lives, combats terrorism, and does lessen civilian casualties when compared to other forms of combat. It is "surgical" when compared to almost anything else.

I feel saddened by any collateral injury and death. But frankly, given the enemy (and don't for a minute think the targets are not the enemy--if you do, you don't understand these people), I don't know how we can prosecute fighting them in a cleaner, less dangerous to others not targeted, method.

None of these actions are ending anything quicker...They are in fact worsening them & creating ever more enemies...

Also this is the same argument that would drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian area to end a war quicker isn't it?

You will find that those that accept collateral damages have no qualms about such actions.

The important point that is overlooked .....Actually NEVER looked at because it would require removal of force thus exposing reasons for applying force/staying in these countries....

The fact is that for fighting to end the cause needs to be looked at. By cause I do not mean a single event one side chooses to call the start.

Edited November 1, 2011 by flying

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. The topic is about drone strikes.

[Pakboong]

However, drone strikes, and that is what this thread is about, saves NATO lives, combats terrorism, and does lessen civilian casualties when compared to other forms of combat. It is "surgical" when compared to almost anything else.

I feel saddened by any collateral injury and death. But frankly, given the enemy (and don't for a minute think the targets are not the enemy--if you do, you don't understand these people), I don't know how we can prosecute fighting them in a cleaner, less dangerous to others not targeted, method.

None of these actions are ending anything quicker...They are in fact worsening them & creating ever more enemies...

Also this is the same argument that would drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian area to end a war quicker isn't it?

You will find that those that accept collateral damages have no qualms about such actions.

The important point that is overlooked .....Actually NEVER looked at because it would require removal of force thus exposing reasons for applying force/staying in these countries....

The fact is that for fighting to end the cause needs to be looked at. By cause I do not mean a single event one side chooses to call the start.

I keep reminded as we assume we are civilized and the pesky Pakistanians (or other ..ininans) are the bad guys, when Mark Twain referred to his lifetime, "Among the most humorous findings of my lifetime is the white man's notion that he is less savage than the savages". We all do this daily. The face of the bad guy du jour changes but we don't.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Pakboong

[Scott]

I am not going to be drawn into the argument of who is the most off-topic in this endless argument.

You cannot stay on-topic so this thread is

CLOSED