1. #9261
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Well let's see some data from your end then.
    The wiki article has lots of reputable sources ranging from 20% innocents to much higher and lower. Altough CIA claims there have been zero civilian casulties. I guess they just post-mortem declare everyone that died to have been part of Al-Qaida.

  2. #9262
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    what would you suggest as an alternative? drones are lauded for not risking american soldiers lives.
    How about the country that prides it self on the fairness of due process, have the same respect for the countries we want to be more like us? We are taking our drone targets, from the same government that had Bin Laden down the road from their version of the CIA. This is the competence we are stacking our trust on.

  3. #9263
    A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, released 4 February 2012, stated that from under the Obama administration (2008–2011) drone strikes killed between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 children.
    A Standford University and New York University research supports the accuracy of this Bureau of Investigative Journalism report as well.

  4. #9264
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Sounds like total bullshit.
    Then you cite this shit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    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]
    Way to make it quite clear that you're exercising some very strong motivated reasoning.

  5. #9265
    And that's not even including the unicorns that may have been killed.
    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!

  6. #9266
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    A Standford University and New York University research supports the accuracy of this Bureau of Investigative Journalism report as well.
    Do you honestly, truly believe that you're arriving at the conclusion that these studies are correct because you're well informed about them and think they use the best methods possible and aren't just experiencing confirmation bias?

    I don't hestitate admit I have no sound idea of how many innocents were killed.

  7. #9267
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    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."
    That's his opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.
    Getting closer...

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
    Of course they did, they are the ones providing the targets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    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.
    That is absurd...

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    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.
    That seems more on par to what I was lead to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    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."
    That's any military offensive and is not unique to drones. What sort of literature do you need, to know that people who have their family and friends killed, would want revenge.

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 11:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The wiki article has lots of reputable sources ranging from 20% innocents to much higher and lower. Altough CIA claims there have been zero civilian casulties. I guess they just post-mortem declare everyone that died to have been part of Al-Qaida.
    Why must it be post mortem? They are given the targets by Pakistan government. The none terrorist declaration is what happens post-mortem, because when attacks happen, they are against what is thought and told by Pakistan government, to be terrorist.

    Are you asserting that drones target civilians and than declair them terrorist? Because that's bullshit...

  8. #9268
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    How about the country that prides it self on the fairness of due process, have the same respect for the countries we want to be more like us? We are taking our drone targets, from the same government that had Bin Laden down the road from their version of the CIA. This is the competence we are stacking our trust on.
    so instead we should send police officers to go capture them? its only fair to treat them exactly the same as a u.s civilian criminal.

  9. #9269
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    There is a great deal of inconsistency with the data that is being reported. Mother Jones for example, states that the success rate is 2%, with a combattant death count of "1061 to 1584" out of "1,372 and 2,12", resulting in a civilian, or non-combatant, death rate of ~25%. Their 2% statistic is derived from the percentage of attacks that went after high value targets and suceeded.

    The site DoD Buzz, which one would assume as being for innovative military measures like unmaned drones, posted a scathing article on the innefectiveness of the drones. I take issue with their reporting, however, as they cite the 2% statistic as being the number of combatants killed, with the other 98% that were killed being non-combatants, which is misleading. They're only non-combatants insofar as not being people in positions of power within their military structure.

    The people of Pakistan are, according to all that I could find, against the drones strikes because of their high civilian death count. There are sites that try to explain why the numbers appear as skewed as they are, and I gather that it is due to differing definitions of what is and is not a civilian.

    I can't really make a claim one way or another. The conflicting data leaves me unsatisfied, though I feel more compelled to side with the people on the receiving end than the people launching the strikes, if only because they probably know what's going on better than anybody else.

    If there's anything to take away from this, is that you shouldn't take that link I posted to be definitive proof. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, leaving the waters quite murky.

  10. #9270
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Do you honestly, truly believe that you're arriving at the conclusion that these studies are correct because you're well informed about them and think they use the best methods possible and aren't just experiencing confirmation bias?

    I don't hestitate admit I have no sound idea of how many innocents were killed.
    The key word is innocent. Because we did not have a trial for any of these people, all of them are technicaly innocent. If Pakistan government points out a location of terrorist. We bomb it and one source claims they were innocent, while Pakistan government still claims they were terrorist.

    The number of civilians killed flactuates on knowing and trusting the intelligence gathered that lead to the strike. If you think US government has no credible evidence on any of the targets, you can claim 100% of those killed were civilians.

    Drones are better than all out war, but how many things can you think of that are actually worse than war?

  11. #9271


    Samuel L. Jackson To Voters: 'Wake The up and vote for Obama

    I gotta say I kinda agree with the message.

  12. #9272
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    so instead we should send police officers to go capture them? its only fair to treat them exactly the same as a u.s civilian criminal.
    There's the conundrum of killing people in other countries. The fair thing to do is to target drug cartels and gangs in US. The fair solution is to spend the money on making Detroit look less like a war zone. That's what I see as fair...

  13. #9273
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    The key word is innocent. Because we did not have a trial for any of these people, all of them are technicaly innocent. If Pakistan government points out a location of terrorist. We bomb it and one source claims they were innocent, while Pakistan government still claims they were terrorist.
    I don't think one can say that enemy combatants are innocent in the absence of a trial. I realize it gets very dang tautological to say, "we bombed them, so they were combatants!". I'm not arguing that there weren't innocents folks killed, just that the absence of a trial doesn't make them de facto innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    The number of civilians killed flactuates on knowing and trusting the intelligence gathered that lead to the strike. If you think US government has no credible evidence on any of the targets, you can claim 100% of those killed were civilians.
    Agreed, I'm going to be somewhat skeptical of any claimed numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Drones are better than all out war, but how many things can you think of that are actually worse than war?
    For me, it's that drones are a lot better than all out war for the US. I'm under no delusion that they're better for the people that get hit though. I absolutely would advocate for making very damned sure we're hitting the right people, to the best of our abilities.

  14. #9274
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    There's the conundrum of killing people in other countries. The fair thing to do is to target drug cartels and gangs in US. The fair solution is to spend the money on making Detroit look less like a war zone. That's what I see as fair...
    and meanwhile, what happens to the terrorist groups targeting us and our allies? oh well, lets hope they let sleeping dogs lie?

  15. #9275
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    and meanwhile, what happens to the terrorist groups targeting us and our allies? oh well, lets hope they let sleeping dogs lie?
    Stacking up on red bulls, so they can get wings to fly here and attack us?

  16. #9276
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    I understand that this is common knowledge, but I feel it is pertinent to the conversation. We shouldn't forget that there are still people guiding these drones. How Stuff Works has an article detailing how these drones operate.

    And for some reasoning my spellcheck isn't working.

  17. #9277
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Samuel L. Jackson To Voters: 'Wake The up and vote for Obama

    I gotta say I kinda agree with the message.
    Must say, that's an absolutely fantastic ad.

  18. #9278
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,049
    For me, it's that drones are a lot better than all out war for the US. I'm under no delusion that they're better for the people that get hit though. I absolutely would advocate for making very damned sure we're hitting the right people, to the best of our abilities.
    well yes. it just seems like a lot if this is kneeherk reactions. "Innocents get killed by drones, drones are bad!" they also get killed in raids, in invasions, and in wars. more than with drones i would imagine. maybe if we offer bigger bounties on the terrorists they'll turn themselves in like that one guy?

    ---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 04:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Stacking up on red bulls, so they can get wings to fly here and attack us?
    yeah, we've never been attacked on our own soil before. much less embassies.

  19. #9279
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I don't think one can say that enemy combatants are innocent in the absence of a trial. I realize it gets very dang tautological to say, "we bombed them, so they were combatants!". I'm not arguing that there weren't innocents folks killed, just that the absence of a trial doesn't make them de facto innocent.
    You are absolutely right. I did not mean to imply that it meant they were innocent. It just means opinion is what leads one to think which were innocent/civilian and which were not. I think the flactuating numbers reflect that.

  20. #9280
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Does 9/11 that not count as an attack on our land?

Posting Permissions

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