5 ms·

Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a st

Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

Dove 14y ago
All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
- n3rdy 14y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
  - Dove 14y ago
    This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you. In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians. I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.
    - accountswu 14y ago
      "If true, that's horriffic..." Would you support drone attacks to kill mass murderers that happen to reside in your neighborhood? It is too hard to oppose murder via drones when some colored people are being killed over there.
    - n3rdy 14y ago
      > I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence. I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common. The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed.. so if someone is saying its only 2%, how do 5% of these deaths turn out to be children? http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-strikes-are-caus_b_2224627.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-stri... The military is denying that the number of children killed is that high. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casualties-off-mark/story?id=14290464#.UNbJDG9m7Kc http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casua... If our government would share their data with the organizations that did these investigations, maybe it would show they were wrong, but I doubt it. We know the precise number of military causalities, we even know the precise number of police officers injured or killed, our government is meticulous about reporting on those, but try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere. If they won't accurately report how many of us are killed by police, what are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties any more accurately?
- accountswu 14y ago
  You're a wolf in a Dove's clothing. Can Obama kill you and then claim you are a militant leader? Your survivors will then have to prove that you are innocent, if they fail to prove your innocence we can all assume you were a terrorist.

Dove 14y ago

All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!

n3rdy 14y ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
- Dove 14y ago
  This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you. In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians. I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.
  - accountswu 14y ago
    "If true, that's horriffic..." Would you support drone attacks to kill mass murderers that happen to reside in your neighborhood? It is too hard to oppose murder via drones when some colored people are being killed over there.
  - n3rdy 14y ago
    > I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence. I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common. The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed.. so if someone is saying its only 2%, how do 5% of these deaths turn out to be children? http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/ http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-strikes-are-caus_b_2224627.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-stri... The military is denying that the number of children killed is that high. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casualties-off-mark/story?id=14290464#.UNbJDG9m7Kc http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casua... If our government would share their data with the organizations that did these investigations, maybe it would show they were wrong, but I doubt it. We know the precise number of military causalities, we even know the precise number of police officers injured or killed, our government is meticulous about reporting on those, but try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere. If they won't accurately report how many of us are killed by police, what are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties any more accurately?
accountswu 14y ago
You're a wolf in a Dove's clothing. Can Obama kill you and then claim you are a militant leader? Your survivors will then have to prove that you are innocent, if they fail to prove your innocence we can all assume you were a terrorist.