Common Dreams reports:
The U.S. government's so-called "pinpoint"(NYT paywall) drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are, in fact, leaving wide perimeters of death, as people on the Kill List are targeted--and even reported dead--again and again, according to a report published Monday by the UK-based charity Reprieve.
While drone attacks and their victims are kept secret by the U.S. military and government, Reprieve compiled public information available, most of it from media reports and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, to determine who actually died when the U.S. went after individuals in Yemen and Pakistan between November 2002 and November 2014.
The study examines the cases of 41 people included on a Kill List--a classified U.S. assassination program personally approved by President Obama with no judicial or public oversight. According to the report's findings, up to 1,147 unnamed people were killed in pursuit of these 41 known individuals.
Furthermore, each of these 41 men was reported killed multiple times.
"This raises a stark question," states the study. "With each failed attempt to assassinate a man on the Kill List, who filled the body bag in his place?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:01PM
When they're wondering what is in the body bags, they should already know it's body parts of children. My biggest issue with the whole thing. Apparently the war on terror must include hundreds (possibly more than that) children and their mothers.
Drone strikes are inefficient and don't work. At least when the people operating it treat all the little dots on the screens as nothing more than NPCs that are expendable.
It's been clear for awhile that the US government treats drone strikes and the equipment as one large video game, and the players for whatever reason just simply see nothing human on the other end of the screens. That's my only explanation of how the US can keep on killing normal folks in the world that have nothing to do with terrorism.
I live with terrorists in my country too, and that doesn't make me a terrorist. Heck, I can't be. I don't even vote.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:35PM
You run with terrorists you get hit with terrorists.
The idea that a terrorist can forever escape the consequences of the death and destruction that they continue to impose on others by simply keeping some children around legitimates the human shield concept of warfare.
Be careful what you wish for.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Funny) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:48PM
Right on!
And that especially applies to the terrorists who use flying death robots to rain down bombs on innocent children, too -- amirite?
...wait, wut? Doesn't count if the children have a built-in suntan?
Well, I'll be damned. Never thought of that one....
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:11PM
So how do you deal with terrorist leaders? Let them be? The drone strikes cause collateral casualties, but they are effective with regards to the capabilities of the organizations that are targeted.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Dunbal on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:26PM
Actually it looks like the "terrorists" are the "collateral damage" if you look at the success rate. You realize that the end does not justify the means, right? Otherwise hey why not kill everyone in the country that way you'll be sure to get them...
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:11PM
Because nuking countries would probably get the US nuked in retaliation. The goal is to preserve American lives, the only lives that count, but murdering as many brown people as necessary to get to the terrorists. Brown people don't count, it's just that as I said you can't simply nuke them, so you have to use less efficient means.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 29 2014, @12:00PM
so the only reason you wouldn't nuke other countries is fear of retaliation?
that's good to know since i was under the apparently false impression that there was some kind of moral reason for not nuking other countries
heaven forbid america somehow develops countermeasures to foreign nukes... then there'll be nothing stopping you from nuking every other country that doesn't pander to your demands
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:59AM
The way you deal with terrorists is you try them in court. And the way you deal with war criminals is you try them in court. And unless you want to look silly, you should start with the biggest, meanest, most notorious terrorist and war criminal. Fortunately, he would be easy to locate. He lives near Dallas, and his name is Bush II. ~Anonymous 0x29B1D963
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=ab1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=v5O8
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:33PM
The drone strikes cause collateral casualties, but they are effective with regards to the capabilities of the organizations that are targeted.
Can you please define "effective" in this use? Maybe provide some comparison of terrorist capabilities 2002-2007 (before drones) and 2009-2014 (after drones). Some discussion of how well drones have restrained ISIL, for example. Or the number of terrorist attacks stopped because a particular "leader" was assassinated. I contend that the US assassination program is - at best - as good at stopping terrorist attacks as my anti-tiger charm is at stopping tiger attacks. I suspect that the US assassination program is much more useful to terrorist organizations as a recruiting tool than the "leaders" they have lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:47PM
No doubt your logic is impeccable and well thought out and you'd say the same thing if the terrorist was sitting in a cafe frequented by western tourists, who had no idea there was a terrorist nearby.
I would suggest an alternative theory: the people who decided how and when to do the bombing are the ones most responsible for who gets killed by those bombs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:49PM
Sorry that was meant to be a reply to the person one level up. My Mistake.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 26 2014, @09:51PM
I'm glad that you were too busy that day to take charge of the Sandy Hook response team.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:43PM
You've opened up my eyes. All those women, children, and men at the wedding were not deserving of any mercy or justice. They were within like 50 miles of terrorists!!! It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that every single death, down to the toddlers, was justified because they were terrorists at the wedding. Now I feel better about it. Hmmmm.... those drones are expensive though dude. We already have a bunch of nuclear material lying around. How bout' we just kill em all and let God sort them out instead?
Don't get the impression that the intelligence work is top notch here. The assholes in charge have lowered the bar down so far for what can become a target. There is no situation in which the Pentagon was fully aware of the imminent hundreds of deaths of civilians and still ordered the strike. This was not a situation in which they knew civilians were being used as shields and fired anyways. Intelligence was caught unaware of the casualties, and their natures, in almost every single case in which civilians died. This was because, obviously, that just before the strike got there nobody gave a shit about what was on the ground once the decision was made. Nobody cared to verify targets because they could not ascribe any value whatsoever to the human beings there.
Obviously that doesn't work, and we can't go around offing children at weddings because we *thought* there might be a terrorist there. If you feel that way, then the children have become expendable in the goal of securing America.
Children are not expendable. Not even to fight terrorists. At least not remotely with drones. If you want to risk killing children, then do it face to face over there with soldiers at least. Not drinking a Fresca with central air and heating. So don't bring up logistics and strategy considerations as if it excuses the complete incompetence of the US military in choosing targets for their plethora of advanced weapons platforms. You will never convince me that the target selection and mission operations aren't anything but callous men deciding the fates of others, in ways that no general from World War II would even consider. Those generals were busy leveling Germany too. City by city.
This isn't the 1940s either. We have GPS, surveillance, and weapons systems quite capable of extremely precise targeting and execution. We don't even have an excuse in some cases to damage a wheat field 100 yards away. We can be that *good*. Those generals would have been appalled at the performance of the men under their command if the weapons system were that precise and they could have targeted only factories and Nazi supply lines, and somehow didn't.
Yet, if we are so capable of sophisticated destruction... why are innocent people dying? Explain to me how the billions we've spent on these systems are incapable of not killing women and children at weddings? The entire CIA has no kick ass Virginia farm boys willing to be there and verify targets before firing? Where's the SEALS? Where's Rambo?
It's so wrong from about every conceivable angle, including actual military performance irrespective of mission goals.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frojack on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:24PM
Yes, yes, we all know that every group of terrorists shooting in the at aircraft air is instantly categorize as a wedding.
Run along son, stop being a useful idiot for these people.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:07AM
You're that guy from Robin Hood Men in Tights, aren't you? Let's see...
Yup, that's about as coherent as your ranting.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 27 2014, @06:01AM
You really just digging yourself in with the willful ignorance aren't you?
I guess the lottery payouts for the survivors were the Yemeni government just funding terrorism right? [washingtonpost.com]
* This incident is really just hilarious for people like you. They killed the man's son at the wedding, and they had been actively working on pro-Western goals and defeating terrorists in Yemen. I guess they were double agents!! Thankfully, the father is probably not still pretending to support the US *
Here's some journalism from the other side of the world [aljazeera.com]
You know I initially thought the drone strikes were a very good thing too. Then I kept hearing about the fuckups. One after the other.
I guess you're right... I mean what's a few dead bodies of children and allies as long as get that "reasonable" certainty that a terrorist gets killed?
Pull your head out of your ass. The people using these weapons systems are clueless heartless morons.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:21AM
You will never convince me that the target selection and mission operations aren't anything but callous men deciding the fates of others, in ways that no general from World War II would even consider. Those generals were busy leveling Germany too. City by city.
Their only question would be "How soon can we get this to the front lines?" Smart bombing alone is a game changer. Coupling it with instant feedback, no risk to military personnel, and a considerable loiter time, would make it instantly adopted by any competent general of that era.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:40AM
You misunderstand me. I agree with you.
A WWII general would have jumped at it, that much is obvious.
What I am saying is that the generals bombed entire cities simply because that was the best way to sabotage Germany and win the war. If you told a general that you didn't need to risk the lives of any soldiers, could attack with precision, and reduce all secondary damage and causalities, he would have absolutely. That same general would have marched you to a firing squad personally if you told him that not only the factories got hit, but that 3,456 civilians also lost their lives in the city. Why? That's not what the general asked for.
There is a serious issue with civilian casualties when you have the means and technologies to prevent it. Smart bombing is a game changer. I wish they would actually use it too.
As a final analogy, we are arguing about muskets and sniper rifles. A musketeer could be forgiven for accuracy and accidents. A sniper at average range hitting the wrong target can not. Our "snipers" are making themselves look like retarded Mr. MaGoos. Repeatedly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @03:18PM
But if you merely kill wedding parties and scores of children you're just making things worse. Especially if you are killing people who think they will go to Jannah/heaven if they fight you.
And the other problem is who has the authority and ability to surrender for who? At least when you bombed Japan, the Emperor could say "Japan surrenders" and enough of the Japanese would accept that. When you drone strike a village wedding party, who surrenders? It's likely that after the strike a higher percentage of those in the village are now at war with you. The rest were probably not even your enemies in the first place. What do you really achieve other than giving promotions to a few terrorist lieutenants?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:16PM
The problem is that "smart" bombs are dumb bombs without REALLY good intel on the ground and wadda ya know, terrorists tend not to hang out with non terrorists which makes gathering any type or concrete intel damned near impossible.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:52PM
No doubt your logic is well thought out, and you'd say the same thing if the terrorist was bombed while sitting in a cafe frequented by western tourists, who had no idea there was a terrorist nearby.
Or are you suggesting every one of these victims knew that they were within the blast radius of a terrorist at the time?
I would suggest an alternative theory: the people who decide how and when to do the bombing are the ones most responsible for who gets killed by those bombs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:52AM
You run with terrorists you get hit with terrorists.
I find your lack of empathy disturbing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @06:22AM
Reading threshold set to 1. So pleasant.
And oh so deliciously ironic
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:38AM
Oblig, though not xkxd.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/09/muhammad-isis-iraqs-full-story.html [waitbutwhy.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @06:05AM
1. That's xkcd
2. Linking to a page with 13 unnecessary images, 15 unnecessary stylesheets, and 22 unnecessary scripts to get one 100kB graphic?
Jesus Fucking Christ. Learn how to deep-link.
http://waitbutwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/caliphs-and-imams-1024x731.png [waitbutwhy.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 27 2014, @03:17PM
1. Oh noes, I typoed.
2. I did intend to link to the entire article, not just one image.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:50AM
At least when the people operating it treat all the little dots on the screens as nothing more than NPCs that are expendable.
Maybe this will help: #NotABugSplat [notabugsplat.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Moru on Thursday November 27 2014, @06:55AM
http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ [pitchinteractive.com]
This only goes to the end of 2013 but still scary enough.