1. #9241
    Well Mexico is in more or less a state of internal warfare.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  2. #9242
    Right, that's why I used them as an example. If domestic criminals were powerful, difficult to bring in, very dangerous, and posed an ongoing (nearly existential) threat, I'd be OK with taking them out in a targeted fashion. I think Mexican druglords are far more analogous to Al-Qaeda leaders than any actual US example can be.

  3. #9243
    Yeah I was just pointing out I think Mexico's cartel problems have expanded past what I would call a usual criminal situation. I still view civilian trials as the best way to deal with terrorists and the like when its possible though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  4. #9244
    I agree completely. I'd always rather have a terrorist go to trial than have them targeted for killing.

  5. #9245
    The Lightbringer bergmann620's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    3,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    If it could be shown to a reasonable level of certainty that they couldn't be arrested and posed a threat to the public, I'd be fine with taking them out.

    You only have a right to a trial if you're actually going to stand trial. I don't see a lot of international terror suspects turning themselves in for trial.
    As described by former US officials who participated, it is conducted not by military generals but by cia officers who are guiding drones from offices in Langley, Virginia, that kill people in a country with which the US is not at war.
    President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute.
    One of the approximately ten lawyers in the CIA’s counterterrorism unit would review intelligence information and draft a memo asserting that an individual posed a risk to the security of the United States. After weighing the evidence in the memo, Rizzo, who retired in December 2009, would sign his name, noting that he “concurred.” The strike was then authorized.
    Tallies from leading Pakistani media organizations report that as many as eighteen hundred civilians and mid- and low-level fighters have been killed in attacks since Obama took office, as compared to the twenty “high-value” militants the US managed to kill in that period, according to New America Foundation researchers.
    The CIA operatives who launched the strike had been trying to kill a man thought to be al Qaeda’s number-two leader, Ayman al Zawahiri, but he escaped. Eighteen people were killed, and Shah took pictures of jagged, metal pieces from the missile that had exploded, as well as the fresh graves.

    A January 24 Washington Post story cast the incident in a somewhat celebratory tone, saying it was “the first tangible sign of President Obama’s commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups.”

    The news articles mentioned only briefly the most disturbing part of the story: the drone struck the wrong target. Rather than being a militant, the homeowner had been a tribal elder who had attempted to organize a peace movement and was just the kind of person that CIA operatives had been hoping to encourage in their efforts to fight extremism. The supposed Taliban hideout was actually an eight-bedroom house that had cost $21,000 to build, a fortune in a country where the average annual income is roughly $500. The deaths of the father and others, along with the property destruction, left the family, including an eighteen-year-old son, destitute. The teenager called for revenge.
    We don't even know who we're killing half the time.
    Life: bergmannity.com/ | Gaming: indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat

  6. #9246
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

    And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.

  7. #9247
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

    And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.
    what would you suggest as an alternative? drones are lauded for not risking american soldiers lives.

  8. #9248
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

    And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.
    You mean we shouldn't be acknowledging reality? Mistakes happen in war, period - saying they don't is tantamount to saying you don't understand the real issues.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  9. #9249
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Do more intelligence gathering before going and making more enemies? "Mistakes were made" rings hollow.

    You know, if, during the presidency of George Bush, somebody told me that Democrats would be defending the deaths of innocents in the war in the Middle East, I would have called them crazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    You mean we shouldn't be acknowledging reality? Mistakes happen in war, period - saying they don't is tantamount to saying you don't understand the real issues.
    My point isn't that it doesn't happen, it's that it isn't an excuse.

  10. #9250
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Do more intelligence gathering before going and making more enemies? "Mistakes were made" rings hollow.

    You know, if, during the presidency of George Bush, somebody told me that Democrats would be defending the deaths of innocents in the war in the Middle East, I would have called them crazy.

    My point isn't that it doesn't happen, it's that it isn't an excuse.
    so no amount of mistakes are acceptable?

  11. #9251
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    They shouldn't be brushed away with an excuse.

  12. #9252
    I am Murloc! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    5,928
    i mean, ideally that would be the case. but this isnt an ideal world. "Just do better" also rings hollow. ultimately its a gamble: do we go after this guy now or allow him to continue his nefarious deeds until we're 1000% sure?

  13. #9253
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    They shouldn't be brushed away with an excuse.
    They aren't, and you're belittling the issue by saying that are.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  14. #9254
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.

  15. #9255
    Scarab Lord cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    4,554
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    i mean, ideally that would be the case. but this isnt an ideal world. "Just do better" also rings hollow. ultimately its a gamble: do we go after this guy now or allow him to continue his nefarious deeds until we're 1000% sure?
    Precisely.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 09:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.
    On an "olive branch" level, I'm glad you both looked for and then posted this info. I'm also delighted that the "failure" rate is much lower than previously reported.
    The less you know, the more you believe.


    Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hate, religion, war, or violence.
    I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.

  16. #9256
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    I'm not unreasonable. Or at least I don't try to be.

  17. #9257
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    We don't even know who we're killing half the time.
    That's a reason to get better at identifying targets, not to stop killing targets.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 07:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.
    Holy shit, I'm generally a proponent of drone strikes and didn't realize the number was that low. That's pretty amazing that we've come so far in war that an action with an incredibly low fatality rate for innocents and zero risk for American troops is something that's debated. In any previous decade, the vast, vast bulk of people would have said, "fuck it, let's always use that then".

  18. #9258
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    so no amount of mistakes are acceptable?
    When we are the ones starting the wars, no amount of mistakes should be acceptable. After all, it was our choice to put our selfs in a position for the mistakes to happen. The drones better not fail, because no one attacked us to put us in such a position, but our selfs.

  19. #9259
    Error rate of 0.04%? Sounds like total bullshit.

    Wikipedia:

    Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[12] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[13] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[14] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[15] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that experts disputed and have called absurd.[12] Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[16][17][18] Barbara Elias-Sanborn has also cautioned that, "as much of the literature on drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlement."[19]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2012-09-28 at 11:39 PM.

  20. #9260
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Error rate of 0.04%? Sounds like total bullshit.
    Well let's see some data from your end then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •