Drone policy

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Alexis »

Doc wrote:Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day. Continues to target and kill civilians around the world. Believing that somehow all it has to do is tap tap tap tap tap tap..... its way to victory.
This is a tangent compared to the issue at hand, but actually the strategy of Bin Laden, as he publicly expressed it, is smart and even has a real chance of working out.

See OBL's speech in May, 2004
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

(...)

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)



(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Alexis »

Doc wrote:
Alexis wrote:Congrats, Droney! You've nailed it:
- lack of accountability & lack of oversight
- resulting of course in the basic question not being asked: how beneficial the drone killing program is for the US Nation
- resulting in a manifestly counterproductive policy being continued

:arrow: Those ARE the issues
Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.
Well Doc, it seems we agree on that.
My point being that it's not the precise way of the killing which creates a problem, but "lack of accountability & lack of oversight" resulting in continuation of a policy which is counterproductive, in addition to immoral as you rightly point out.
User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Alexis »

Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:Speaking of which, the question of HOW this killing program is done by contrast is NOT an issue.

If the killings were done by artillery, by hit-and-run commando teams, by manned fighters, or by knights on horses with swords, the issues would be exactly the same. The way of the killing is a question of efficiency, and military people just like everybody prefer efficiency and low risk to wastefulness and high risk... hey who wouldn't?

Using drones may seem "unfair" to an adversary who has none. That's an old story: every military innovation has some shrieking "unfairness" and "cowardice"...
- those cowards fight with long bows instead of hand-to-hand!
- they use cannons instead of long bows like us, how unfair!
- they use machine guns, what an unfair and coward way of war!
- they shoot us with drones instead of coming within range of our AK-47, the cowards!
- etc.
You are incorrect here, and essentially just copying the "War Nerd" ranting that was posted earlier.
I had not seen it was posted in this thread. But yes, I had read it and agreed with it.
In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military. Pursuing that goal is nothing unprecedented.
The level of risk to the drone controller is down in an unprecedented way, yes, meaning that this particular goal of risk reduction has been reached with unprecedented success. Nothing wrong with that.

Note incidentally that the risk to drone operators (the people who actually launch and retrieve it) is not necessarily down to zero: depends where the drone is launched from, it might be from a place where they could be targeted.

My point again is that this policy is wrong because no authority oversights who gets targeted, why, and with what risk of death of bystanders, and because counter-insurgencies are not won just by killing a few people here and there (making the policy counter-productive), not because the killings are done with drones. It would be no more and no less wrong were it done through another military means than drone strikes.
Also worth noting that drones would be impotent against any technologically advanced opponent, they can only be used against the poorest people, with impunity.
Not exactly: drones are being improved to be stealthy, providing a protection against many militaries even relatively advanced. And even if some of the drones are brought down, that wouldn't prevent their use, no more than an attacking army is prevented from action by the risk that some of its soldiers or hardware would be lost.
And the perception that Americans use this methodology because they are cowards is widespread, regardless of whether or not you think it is valid.
On this I think you are right.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Ibrahim »

Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.



Note incidentally that the risk to drone operators (the people who actually launch and retrieve it) is not necessarily down to zero: depends where the drone is launched from, it might be from a place where they could be targeted.
Not by the people currently targeted by drone warfare. At present it is used against people who have no means of defending themselves against them.


My point again is that this policy is wrong because no authority oversights who gets targeted, why, and with what risk of death of bystanders, and because counter-insurgencies are not won just by killing a few people here and there (making the policy counter-productive), not because the killings are done with drones.
No disagreement there. Though this is intended to be the focus of any discussion of drones. I.e. the nature of the debate is political and philosophical, not technological.




Also worth noting that drones would be impotent against any technologically advanced opponent, they can only be used against the poorest people, with impunity.
Not exactly: drones are being improved to be stealthy, providing a protection against many militaries even relatively advanced. And even if some of the drones are brought down, that wouldn't prevent their use, no more than an attacking army is prevented from action by the risk that some of its soldiers or hardware would be lost.
Maybe. I think scrambling the communication between drone and controller is the obvious weak point that any advanced opponent would be able to exploit, but we are speaking largely hypothetically on this detail. If America/Israel actually attack Iran we may get a test case of this theory to go with the larger human tragedy.


And the perception that Americans use this methodology because they are cowards is widespread, regardless of whether or not you think it is valid.
On this I think you are right.
It certainly violates the traditional "rules" of tribal warfare in many of the places they are deployed. And while I'm not enough of a connoisseur machismo to say whether or not it is cowardly in some objective sense I will say it doesn't strike me as being at all similar to raising the flag at Iwo Jima or a Regiment de Ligne rallying to protect their Eagle.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.
A given result presumably being the desired strategic and political outcome
Note incidentally that the risk to drone operators (the people who actually launch and retrieve it) is not necessarily down to zero: depends where the drone is launched from, it might be from a place where they could be targeted.
Not by the people currently targeted by drone warfare. At present it is used against people who have no means of defending themselves against them.
Much like the three thousand people that died on 911.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.
A given result presumably being the desired strategic and political outcome
Care to expand on that?


Note incidentally that the risk to drone operators (the people who actually launch and retrieve it) is not necessarily down to zero: depends where the drone is launched from, it might be from a place where they could be targeted.
Not by the people currently targeted by drone warfare. At present it is used against people who have no means of defending themselves against them.
Much like the three thousand people that died on 911.
Actually not the same at all. The 3000~ victims (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) who died on 9/11 had the most expensive military on Earth to protect them, but it failed to protect them. The peasants and children massacred by U.S. drones have nothing to defend them even under optimal conditions and preparedness. They are erased by a literal bolt from the blue.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.
A given result presumably being the desired strategic and political outcome
Care to expand on that?
You are saying the same thing as Alexis with different words.


Note incidentally that the risk to drone operators (the people who actually launch and retrieve it) is not necessarily down to zero: depends where the drone is launched from, it might be from a place where they could be targeted.
Not by the people currently targeted by drone warfare. At present it is used against people who have no means of defending themselves against them.
Much like the three thousand people that died on 911.
Actually not the same at all. The 3000~ victims (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) who died on 9/11 had the most expensive military on Earth to protect them, but it failed to protect them. The peasants and children massacred by U.S. drones have nothing to defend them even under optimal conditions and preparedness. They are erased by a literal bolt from the blue.
Bolt out of the blue huh? Interesting choice of words The skys were exceptionally blue on 911. By the same token the people of the tribal areas of Pakistan have Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI to protect them. Were the people killed on 911 targeting anyone with drones at the time that they needed protection the strongest military on earth? Were the children killed on 911 little great satans? When OBL issued his Fatwa that Americans and Jews should be killed where ever they are found was God on his side?

You still have not condemned the 911 attacks that I have ever seen. You do come up with some real lew lews as to why you haven't But that still does not change the fact that you have not.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.
A given result presumably being the desired strategic and political outcome
Care to expand on that?
You are saying the same thing as Alexis with different words.
It seems you misunderstood one or both positions.


Actually not the same at all. The 3000~ victims (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) who died on 9/11 had the most expensive military on Earth to protect them, but it failed to protect them. The peasants and children massacred by U.S. drones have nothing to defend them even under optimal conditions and preparedness. They are erased by a literal bolt from the blue.
Bolt out of the blue huh? Interesting choice of words The skys were exceptionally blue on 911. By the same token the people of the tribal areas of Pakistan have Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI to protect them.
Well, that comment is debatable, but even assuming it was accurate none of those groups have the ability to prevent drone strikes even if they knew about them. The US has the technology to easily prevent the majority of the casualties of 9/11.

Were the people killed on 911 targeting anyone with drones at the time that they needed protection the strongest military on earth? Were the children killed on 911 little great satans? When OBL issued his Fatwa that Americans and Jews should be killed where ever they are found was God on his side?
They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.



You still have not condemned the 911 attacks that I have ever seen. You do come up with some real lew lews as to why you haven't
Please provide evidence of this false and unsubstantiated accusation. Notably the second part, as naturally you can't prove what you claim to have not seen.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Osama/BushW/Harry Truman/Frederic William/Frederic the Great

Post by monster_gardener »

Alexis wrote:
Doc wrote:Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day. Continues to target and kill civilians around the world. Believing that somehow all it has to do is tap tap tap tap tap tap..... its way to victory.
This is a tangent compared to the issue at hand, but actually the strategy of Bin Laden, as he publicly expressed it, is smart and even has a real chance of working out.

See OBL's speech in May, 2004
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

(...)

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)



(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.
Thank You VERY Much for your Post, Alexis....

You are probably right....

But IMVHO Osama took a big risk.......

What would have happened if Bush W. had proved to have a Harry Truman in him....... ;) :twisted:

Not wise to presume what a Chaos Monkey armed with a Nuke will do.........

Sometimes you can't tell.......

Frederick William had a hard time with Frederick the Great as a youngster......

IIRC Fred ran off with a boyfriend :shock: at one point.......

The boyfriend IIRC was named Kathy ;) oops I mean Kathe IIRC and got himself/herself executed..... :(

Fred had to watch :shock: :o :twisted: :roll: and was given a timeout ;) in the lockup.........

But before he died, Frederick William rejoiced and told Freddy:

"There IS a Frederick William in you" ......

And he was right.......

Thanking G_d I didn't live in Prussia in those times.........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by noddy »

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/n ... flights-us
The records show that the Air Force has been testing out a bunch of different drone types, from the smaller, hand-launched Raven, Puma and Wasp drones designed by Aerovironment in Southern California, to the much larger Predator and Reaper drones responsible for civilian and foreign military deaths abroad. The Marine Corps is also testing drones, though it chose to redact so much of the text from its records that we still don't know much about its programs.

The capabilities of these drones can be astounding. According to a recent Gizmodo article, the Puma AE (“All Environment”) drone can land anywhere, “either in tight city streets or onto a water surface if the mission dictates, even after a near-vertical ‘deep stall’ final approach.” Another drone, Insitu’s ScanEagle, which the Air Force has flown near Virginia Beach, sports an “inertial-stabilized camera turret, [that] allows for the tracking of a target of interest for extended periods of time, even when the target is moving and the aircraft nose is seldom pointed at the target.” Boeing’s A160 Hummingbird (see photo above), which the Air Force has flown near Victorville, California, is capable of staying in the air for 16-24 hours at a time and carries a gigapixel camera and a “Forester foliage-penetration radar” system designed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). (Apparently, the Army has had a bunch of problems with the Hummingbird crashing and may not continue the program.)

Perhaps the scariest is the technology carried by a Reaper drone the Air Force is flying near Lincoln, Nevada and in areas of California and Utah. This drone uses "Gorgon Stare" technology, which Wikipedia defines as “a spherical array of nine cameras attached to an aerial drone . . . capable of capturing motion imagery of an entire city.” This imagery “can then be analyzed by humans or an artificial intelligence, such as the Mind's Eye project” being developed by DARPA. If true, this technology takes surveillance to a whole new level.
ultracrepidarian
Crocus sativus

Re: Osama/BushW/Harry Truman/Frederic William/Frederic the G

Post by Crocus sativus »

monster_gardener wrote:.
Alexis wrote:.

Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)

(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.

.

You are probably right....

But IMVHO Osama took a big risk .......

What would have happened if Bush W. had proved to have a Harry Truman in him....... ;) :twisted:

Not wise to presume what a Chaos Monkey armed with a Nuke will do.........

Sometimes you can't tell.......

.

:lol: Friedrich der Große .. very interesting man .. Dresden rebuilt very nicely, Frauenkirche rebuilt with original stones (were numbered), palace and all the museums .. Deutschland at it's best

but

Monster,

Days of that "haberdasher" behind us .. now, using nuke signing own demise

in fact, to ferment an armageddon, those silly action may be provoked



.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

noddy wrote:
Perhaps the scariest is the technology carried by a Reaper drone the Air Force is flying near Lincoln, Nevada and in areas of California and Utah. This drone uses "Gorgon Stare" technology, which Wikipedia defines as “a spherical array of nine cameras attached to an aerial drone . . . capable of capturing motion imagery of an entire city.” This imagery “can then be analyzed by humans or an artificial intelligence, such as the Mind's Eye project” being developed by DARPA. If true, this technology takes surveillance to a whole new level.
Ah, the all-seeing eye. I wonder what existing problem this is going to solve, against an opponent who couldn't easily down it. Anyway cool names, no argument there.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.
Reduction of risk to one's soldiers to get a given result. That is a basic goal for the military.
No, the basic goal of a military is to produce the desired strategic and political outcomes, and the drone campaign is failing to do that even before we address my parochial ethical qualms.
A given result presumably being the desired strategic and political outcome
Care to expand on that?
You are saying the same thing as Alexis with different words.
It seems you misunderstood one or both positions.[/quote]

I understood just fine. Alexis said A basic goal. You implied she said THE basic goal.

The number one goal of any military is to win. With most the idea is to win with as few losses of your military as possible. Trying to spare as many civilians as possible is an option that some nations take and others simply do not care about. The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.


Actually not the same at all. The 3000~ victims (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) who died on 9/11 had the most expensive military on Earth to protect them, but it failed to protect them. The peasants and children massacred by U.S. drones have nothing to defend them even under optimal conditions and preparedness. They are erased by a literal bolt from the blue.
Bolt out of the blue huh? Interesting choice of words The skys were exceptionally blue on 911. By the same token the people of the tribal areas of Pakistan have Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI to protect them.
Well, that comment is debatable, but even assuming it was accurate none of those groups have the ability to prevent drone strikes even if they knew about them. The US has the technology to easily prevent the majority of the casualties of 9/11.

Were the people killed on 911 targeting anyone with drones at the time that they needed protection the strongest military on earth? Were the children killed on 911 little great satans? When OBL issued his Fatwa that Americans and Jews should be killed where ever they are found was God on his side?
They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... da_attacks
1 Early 1990s

1.1 February 1993 World Trade Center
1.2 1994 Bojinka, Philippine Airlines Flight 434

2 1998 U.S.-embassy bombings
3 2000 USS Cole bombing
4 September 11, 2001, attacks
5 October 2002 Bali bombings
6 November 2003 Istanbul attacks
7 May 2004 Khobar massacre
8 July 7, 2005 London transport bombings
9 June 2, 2008 Danish-embassy bombing
10 September 20, 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing
11 December 2009 Northwest Airlines Flight 253
12 Dec 30, 2009
13 October 2010 cargo plane bomb plot
14 Iraq attacks

14.1 August 2003 Imam Ali Mosque bombing
14.2 February 2004 Irbil bombings
14.3 March 2004 Iraq Ashura bombings
14.4 April 2004 Basra bombings
14.5 July 2005 Musayyib bombing
14.6 September 2005 Baghdad bombings
14.7 November 2005 Khanaqin bombings
14.8 April 2006 Buratha Mosque bombing
14.9 November 2006 Sadr City, Iraq bombings
14.10 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing
14.11 March 2007 Tal Afar bombings
14.12 April 2007 Baghdad Iraq bombings
14.13 August 14, 2007 Yazidi community Iraq bombing
14.14 August 2009 Baghdad bombings
14.15 October 2009 Baghdad bombings
14.16 April 2010 Baghdad bombings
14.17 May 2010 Iraq attacks
14.18 November 2010
14.19 January 2011 Iraq suicide attacks
And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible. Which was exactly why Iraqi Sunni Arabs turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Bin Laden and AL Qaeda feels it is the duty of all Muslims to die for Al Qaeda's cause.

If you want to try to deny that --- then go on, make my day.


You still have not condemned the 911 attacks that I have ever seen. You do come up with some real lew lews as to why you haven't
Please provide evidence of this false and unsubstantiated accusation. Notably the second part, as naturally you can't prove what you claim to have not seen.
Your above statement that the US military has killed more civilians than Al Qaeda is just on example.

From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: It seems you misunderstood one or both positions.
I understood just fine. Alexis said A basic goal. You implied she said THE basic goal.

The number one goal of any military is to win. With most the idea is to win with as few losses of your military as possible.
So you already concede that winning is secondary to minimizing casualties. E.g. the Vietnamese defeated the US, or the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, with relative disregard for their own casualties. However, the US drone campaigns are failing, so the fact that the pilots melting children via remote control are safe doesn't really enter into the equation. Unless you want to give them a medal for being especially safe while they fail.



Trying to spare as many civilians as possible
The US and Israel always claim this, but the claim is laughably transparent propaganda. The US is so concerned about civilians that it murders them daily pursuing ineffective strategies, and often in theaters that we know for a fact they are about to abandon anyway. Yet you torturously attempt to defend this rather than admitting that the US could, if it wanted, just stop killing all of these people for no benefit.


The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.


The US has been one of the most enthusiastic murderers of (foreign) civilians in the modern era, and the first to utilize massive firebombing campaigns, and famously nuclear arms, on civilian populations, all within living memory. At best you can say that other people would have been as murderous if they could have at the time.



They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.
A false claim produced by what I'm sure you know is selective counting. You conveniently exclude the many thousands killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not to mention the knock-on deaths due to instability created by the invasions, but I don't even need to add them to dwarf the AQ kill list. How many videos of American PMCs firing into civilian vehicles for fun have leaked so far? You believe this to be a rare occurrence? Then we have legitimate accidental killings by US occupation forces, all the "shock and awe" collateral damage, all the people slain in the urban fighting in Fallujah, and so on. Then all the people murdered by militias or tribes paid by the US to counter other militias backed by Iran or containing Baathists. And this is just Iraq. I don't think you're even thinking through these claims before you make this, you are so obviously incorrect here.


And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
Absolutely correct. These days the US just doesn't care if it kills civilians, and even so the US has killed far more than Bin Laden without even trying to.





You still have not condemned the 911 attacks that I have ever seen. You do come up with some real lew lews as to why you haven't
Please provide evidence of this false and unsubstantiated accusation. Notably the second part, as naturally you can't prove what you claim to have not seen.
Your above statement that the US military has killed more civilians than Al Qaeda is just on example.
It does not prove the false claim you made above, and is in fact unrelated to it.

From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: It seems you misunderstood one or both positions.
I understood just fine. Alexis said A basic goal. You implied she said THE basic goal.

The number one goal of any military is to win. With most the idea is to win with as few losses of your military as possible.
So you already concede that winning is secondary to minimizing casualties. E.g. the Vietnamese defeated the US, or the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, with relative disregard for their own casualties. However, the US drone campaigns are failing, so the fact that the pilots melting children via remote control are safe doesn't really enter into the equation. Unless you want to give them a medal for being especially safe while they fail.
I said no such thing as you are well aware. Shame on you Ibrahim. No matter how effective the drone campaign are at killing members of the higher ups in Al Qaeda And they have been very effective at that. The idea of double tapping target sites is wrong. As is the intentional targeting of civilians as the primary target by Islamists is even more wrong. Two wrong do not make a right. However apparently in your book there is only one wrong to be discussed here. Are you going to tell me to start another thread where I may end up being banned? :evil:



Trying to spare as many civilians as possible
The US and Israel always claim this, but the claim is laughably transparent propaganda. The US is so concerned about civilians that it murders them daily pursuing ineffective strategies, and often in theaters that we know for a fact they are about to abandon anyway. Yet you tortuously attempt to defend this rather than admitting that the US could, if it wanted, just stop killing all of these people for no benefit.
The US has spent trillions and lost many US military personnel in order not to kill civilians. Al Qaeda intentionally kills civilians Targets them with bombs Cuts off their heads. Cuts off hands. Throws acid in the faces of girls that just want to go to school. And in general act like filthy pigs. But somehow you can't bring yourself to own up to that.


The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.


The US has been one of the most enthusiastic murderers of (foreign) civilians in the modern era, and the first to utilize massive firebombing campaigns, and famously nuclear arms, on civilian populations, all within living memory. At best you can say that other people would have been as murderous if they could have at the time.
WWII is an ancient war by today's standards.
They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.
A false claim produced by what I'm sure you know is selective counting. You conveniently exclude the many thousands killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not to mention the knock-on deaths due to instability created by the invasions, but I don't even need to add them to dwarf the AQ kill list.
The primary murders in Iraq were Islamist. They even bragged about killing civilians That is was their honor that they were killed by Car bombs and Suicide bombs.

How many videos of American PMCs firing into civilian vehicles for fun have leaked so far?[/quote

Those were not US military. How many videos of murderous Islamic thugs are there out there saying Ally Akbar as they killed?



You believe this to be a rare occurrence? Then we have legitimate accidental killings by US occupation forces, all the "shock and awe" collateral damage, all the people slain in the urban fighting in Fallujah, and so on. Then all the people murdered by militias or tribes paid by the US to counter other militias backed by Iran or containing Baathists. And this is just Iraq. I don't think you're even thinking through these claims before you make this, you are so obviously incorrect here.
The over whelming majority of dead civilians died at the hands of Muslims. There is no diversion you can make that can distract from that fact.


And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
Absolutely correct. These days the US just doesn't care if it kills civilians, and even so the US has killed far more than Bin Laden without even trying to.
Except you are lying about who killed more by a large margin.

You still have not condemned the 911 attacks that I have ever seen. You do come up with some real lew lews as to why you haven't
Please provide evidence of this false and unsubstantiated accusation. Notably the second part, as naturally you can't prove what you claim to have not seen.
Your above statement that the US military has killed more civilians than Al Qaeda is just on example.
It does not prove the false claim you made above, and is in fact unrelated to it.
I made no false claim and it does show that you play with half truths as much as you can.

From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.
Is it ? My judgement from what you write says it is true. Just because of the way you so blatantly ignore what Al Qaeda does and refuse to address it.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Put the Problem in Bear and Dragon Suits.........

Post by monster_gardener »

Crocus sativus wrote:
monster_gardener wrote:.
Alexis wrote:.

Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)

(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.

.

You are probably right....

But IMVHO Osama took a big risk .......

What would have happened if Bush W. had proved to have a Harry Truman in him....... ;) :twisted:

Not wise to presume what a Chaos Monkey armed with a Nuke will do.........

Sometimes you can't tell.......

.

:lol: Friedrich der Große .. very interesting man .. Dresden rebuilt very nicely, Frauenkirche rebuilt with original stones (were numbered), palace and all the museums .. Deutschland at it's best

but

Monster,

Days of that "haberdasher" behind us .. now, using nuke signing own demise

in fact, to ferment an armageddon, those silly action may be provoked



.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Azari.
Days of that "haberdasher" behind us .. now, using nuke signing own demise
You may be right but maybe not........

Especially IMVHO if the Haber Dasher is a Bear or Dragon....

What do you think Uz would have done if Russia used Nukes in Chechenya?.....

Especially after let's say a combo Moscow Opera House & Belsan School Jihadi Operation on Steroids?.....

Probably not that much beyond a stiff diplomatic note....... ;)

Maybe we would boycott the Olympic Games the next time they are held in Moscow...... :twisted:

Uz isn't all the world......

I imagine some Jihadis would try to take revenge but how effectively.......

If Putin put it that if he had more trouble from Jihadis, pilgrims would need lead suits for the Haj........


Say the Dragons get tired of problems in Tibet.........

Or if they buy that $1 quit claim deed for Afghanistan and have problems similar to what we Uz Eagle Cowboyz and Russian Bears have had........

And Dragon Fire results in either case.........

Richard Gere might lead a protest for Tibet...... ;)

Otherwise might well be Burma Shave........

Especially if Endo's Anecdote etc. is Indicative.......


And I'm afraid :shock: there might be celebrations about Afghanistan like the ones the Palis did after September 11, 2001 ;) :evil:

If we did anything at all beyond another Stiff Diplomatic Note.......

I could be wrong.........

Probably should hope that I am.........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Taboo »

Alexis wrote:
Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)



(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.
Heh. But America is perfectly capable of going bankrupt on its own, without foreign help. All that Bin Laden acomplished at the cost of countless American and Afghan lives is half a measly trillion in extra debt, in 11 year. We can do that to ourselves in 6 months!

http://costofwar.com/
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by monster_gardener »

Taboo wrote:
Alexis wrote:
Bin Laden is dead.

As for his aim and dream to help push America into bankruptcy and catastrophe the way the Soviet Union was brought towards catastrophe, he nevertheless might still win. (*)



(*) I cannot prevent myself from admiring the man, enemy as he was. Boasting publicly in full knowledge of your enemy about what is your strategy to trick him to his demise, that requires extreme confidence in stupidity and hubris of the enemy leaders. Confidence that has alas proven justified.
Heh. But America is perfectly capable of going bankrupt on its own, without foreign help. All that Bin Laden acomplished at the cost of countless American and Afghan lives is half a measly trillion in extra debt, in 11 year. We can do that to ourselves in 6 months!

http://costofwar.com/
Thank you VERY Much for your post, Taboo.
Heh. But America is perfectly capable of going bankrupt on its own, without foreign help. All that Bin Laden acomplished at the cost of countless American and Afghan lives is half a measly trillion in extra debt, in 11 year. We can do that to ourselves in 6 months!
Sadly that sounds about right........... :roll:

Good Post.....

Thanks for the different perspective........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: So you already concede that winning is secondary to minimizing casualties. E.g. the Vietnamese defeated the US, or the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, with relative disregard for their own casualties. However, the US drone campaigns are failing, so the fact that the pilots melting children via remote control are safe doesn't really enter into the equation. Unless you want to give them a medal for being especially safe while they fail.
I said no such thing as you are well aware. Shame on you Ibrahim. No matter how effective the drone campaign are at killing members of the higher ups in Al Qaeda And they have been very effective at that.
Its exactly what you just argued. Furthermore the drone campaign has clearly been a failure, and AQAP is resurgent in no small part because of the failure of the drone campaign.


The idea of double tapping target sites is wrong. As is the intentional targeting of civilians as the primary target by Islamists is even more wrong.
Why are you so interested in "double-tapping" but not the civilians killed in a single strike? What is the moral difference? Al Qaeda bombs things knowing full well it will kill civilians, the US bombs people knowing full well it will kill civilians. What's the difference?


However apparently in your book there is only one wrong to be discussed here.


The thread is about drone strikes. Thus, within the thread I only talk about drone strikes. Or did until you changed the subject.

Are you going to tell me to start another thread where I may end up being banned?
I will be banned long before you. But you do or say whatever you have the courage to do or say. Don't we all?


The US and Israel always claim this, but the claim is laughably transparent propaganda. The US is so concerned about civilians that it murders them daily pursuing ineffective strategies, and often in theaters that we know for a fact they are about to abandon anyway. Yet you tortuously attempt to defend this rather than admitting that the US could, if it wanted, just stop killing all of these people for no benefit.
The US has spent trillions and lost many US military personnel in order not to kill civilians. Al Qaeda intentionally kills civilians Targets them with bombs Cuts off their heads. Cuts off hands. Throws acid in the faces of girls that just want to go to school. And in general act like filthy pigs. But somehow you can't bring yourself to own up to that.
The US military/PMC kills civilians, burns them or explodes them with missiles, shoots them, rapes and murders them, fires into their cars for fun, urinates on corpses, detains and tortures without evidence. This is all fact. I see no difference between them, or at least some of them, and al Qaeda in terms of actual conduct. Your claim that I deny that al Qaeda murders civilians is blatantly false, so nothing more to say about that except to await your apology.

What you seem to really stress is that the US doesn't mean to kill civilians. Yet it keeps doing it, so I guess they must be totally incompetent instead of malicious. It doesn't really interest me why they keep doing it, but it would be nice if they stopped. It would help fight extremism too, but apparently killing civilians and intended targets with drones is more important than actually preventing terrorism. Almost like somebody profits from it... oh wait.

The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.


The US has been one of the most enthusiastic murderers of (foreign) civilians in the modern era, and the first to utilize massive firebombing campaigns, and famously nuclear arms, on civilian populations, all within living memory. At best you can say that other people would have been as murderous if they could have at the time.
WWII is an ancient war by today's standards.
You said "traditionally." I was simply correcting you on the historical record. Did you mean "traditionally" since... what year exactly?

They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.
A false claim produced by what I'm sure you know is selective counting. You conveniently exclude the many thousands killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not to mention the knock-on deaths due to instability created by the invasions, but I don't even need to add them to dwarf the AQ kill list.
The primary murders in Iraq were Islamist. They even bragged about killing civilians. That is was their honor that they were killed by Car bombs and Suicide bombs.
Nonetheless, the US killed huge numbers of civilians in Iraq, and in fact armed and paid some of those groups that eventually turned out to contain extremists, so arguably many of the gangland-style killings and bombings done by various Iraqi militias are also the fault of the US.

Besides, you are moving the goalposts. I was simply stating the fact that the US military has killed more civilians that al Qaeda has, but after realizing that I'm correct you have started referring to "Islamists" to try and pad your false numbers.

How many videos of American PMCs firing into civilian vehicles for fun have leaked so far?[/quote

Those were not US military.
That is correct, they were ex-US military paid by the US government to provide military services in Iraq. Feel better now?

How many videos of murderous Islamic thugs are there out there saying Ally Akbar as they killed?
Lots. Feel better about the murders and rapes PMCs commit in the name of the US government now? No need to worry if your tax dollars are funding evil so long as some AQ guy elsewhere is just as bad.



You believe this to be a rare occurrence? Then we have legitimate accidental killings by US occupation forces, all the "shock and awe" collateral damage, all the people slain in the urban fighting in Fallujah, and so on. Then all the people murdered by militias or tribes paid by the US to counter other militias backed by Iran or containing Baathists. And this is just Iraq. I don't think you're even thinking through these claims before you make this, you are so obviously incorrect here.
The over whelming majority of dead civilians died at the hands of Muslims
.

Again, you are moving the goalposts because you know that your initial claim was false. Don't feel bad for trying this or getting caught, I see it all the time.

Moreover, you are comforting yourself with moral relativism. As long as US armed forces murder 1000 babies and various swarthy extremists murder 1001 babies you don't need to worry, you're "better than them." I see this all the time as well.



And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
Absolutely correct. These days the US just doesn't care if it kills civilians, and even so the US has killed far more than Bin Laden without even trying to.
Except you are lying about who killed more by a large margin.
No, not at all. This is another false and dishonest accusation, as you well know. You will recall that I was referring specifically to al Qaeda, in fact specifically to OBL, and the US military has slaughtered far more civilians than that abruptly retired terrorist.

I made no false claim and it does show that you play with half truths as much as you can.
This is yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.

From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.
Is it ?
Obviously.

you so blatantly ignore what Al Qaeda does and refuse to address it.
Yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.
User avatar
Taboo
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Taboo »

The US military/PMC kills civilians, burns them or explodes them with missiles, shoots them, rapes and murders them, fires into their cars for fun, urinates on corpses, detains and tortures without evidence. This is all fact. I see no difference between them, or at least some of them, and al Qaeda in terms of actual conduct. Your claim that I deny that al Qaeda murders civilians is blatantly false, so nothing more to say about that except to await your apology.
All of these things have happened. As we were discussing in another thread, the US is a rather violent culture even at home (5 time the average eurasian murder rate). So when you take 200,000 young male Americans (the highest risk group for violence) it is to some degree unavoidable that some of them will misbehave (Okinawa rape cases jump to mind).

But to go from there to arguing that it is US Armed Forces policy (official or unofficial) to "rape civilians", "shoot into their cars for fun", have their soldiers "urinate on corpses" is a bit of a stretch.

Even in the drone program, I doubt you can make the argument that the objective of the drone pilots is to "kill as many civilians as you can", or "randomly fire into wedding parties for shits and giggles."

So yes, the US AF have more than their fair share of murderous psychopaths, but it is far from Armed Forces policy to tolerate or even less to encourage them. The Marines caught urinating on dead Taliban were faced with court martial. The guy who went on a shooting rampage, ditto.

Are there plenty of cases we have not heard about? May well be.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Droney is exactly right

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote: So you already concede that winning is secondary to minimizing casualties. E.g. the Vietnamese defeated the US, or the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, with relative disregard for their own casualties. However, the US drone campaigns are failing, so the fact that the pilots melting children via remote control are safe doesn't really enter into the equation. Unless you want to give them a medal for being especially safe while they fail.
I said no such thing as you are well aware. Shame on you Ibrahim. No matter how effective the drone campaign are at killing members of the higher ups in Al Qaeda And they have been very effective at that.
Its exactly what you just argued. Furthermore the drone campaign has clearly been a failure, and AQAP is resurgent in no small part because of the failure of the drone campaign.
Ibrahim watching you constantly spin what I said gets real old. I said the drone strikes have been highly effective at killing high ranking members of AL Qaeda. In that sense it has not been a failure. What it has failed at is winning hearts and minds. I suspect that Obama doesn't give a hoot about that. As long as he can show he is killing high ranking members of Al Qaeda. But now the election is over so it will be interesting how much longer it will be before he declares total victory over Al Qaeda and ignores the folks he has POed in Pakistan. But Hey I didn't break it and I am not buying it.


The idea of double tapping target sites is wrong. As is the intentional targeting of civilians as the primary target by Islamists is even more wrong.
Why are you so interested in "double-tapping" but not the civilians killed in a single strike?


A double tap infers that civilians are going to be killed. It is possible to be sure on the first strike that the bad guys will be there. Not too many drive ambulances for example.
What is the moral difference? Al Qaeda bombs things knowing full well it will kill civilians, the US bombs people knowing full well it will kill civilians. What's the difference?
That's my point about double taps.


However apparently in your book there is only one wrong to be discussed here.

The thread is about drone strikes. Thus, within the thread I only talk about drone strikes. Or did until you changed the subject.
Yeah I know how much you like to compartmentalize things so you only have to talk about what you want too. I am not buying that either.

Are you going to tell me to start another thread where I may end up being banned?
I will be banned long before you. But you do or say whatever you have the courage to do or say. Don't we all?
Well I certainly hope you are not banned. And I would be surprised and disappointed if you were.
The US and Israel always claim this, but the claim is laughably transparent propaganda. The US is so concerned about civilians that it murders them daily pursuing ineffective strategies, and often in theaters that we know for a fact they are about to abandon anyway. Yet you tortuously attempt to defend this rather than admitting that the US could, if it wanted, just stop killing all of these people for no benefit.
The US has spent trillions and lost many US military personnel in order not to kill civilians. Al Qaeda intentionally kills civilians Targets them with bombs Cuts off their heads. Cuts off hands. Throws acid in the faces of girls that just want to go to school. And in general act like filthy pigs. But somehow you can't bring yourself to own up to that.
The US military/PMC kills civilians, burns them or explodes them with missiles, shoots them, rapes and murders them, fires into their cars for fun, urinates on corpses, detains and tortures without evidence. This is all fact. I see no difference between them, or at least some of them, and al Qaeda in terms of actual conduct. Your claim that I deny that al Qaeda murders civilians is blatantly false, so nothing more to say about that except to await your apology.
Finally.
What you seem to really stress is that the US doesn't mean to kill civilians. Yet it keeps doing it, so I guess they must be totally incompetent instead of malicious. It doesn't really interest me why they keep doing it, but it would be nice if they stopped. It would help fight extremism too, but apparently killing civilians and intended targets with drones is more important than actually preventing terrorism. Almost like somebody profits from it... oh wait.


The drone strikes aside, as they come from the current US regime, In Sherman's words War is hell. People inherently die. Smart bombs fail. Incorrect information is acted on. Bad apples come along. The middle east needed change and now change is happening. It is re-arraigning itself as it badly needed. After 911 Muslim were in some quarters throwing candy to children in celebration. Bin Laden was a hero. Last time I checked Bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't all that popular any more.

Those quarters brought war to the US and killed those three thousand people nearly as much as Bin Laden did by their support. Bin Laden lost that support when he started killing Muslims and not just Americans.

But as I said change is working in the ME. Maybe it will work out well maybe it won't.
The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.


The US has been one of the most enthusiastic murderers of (foreign) civilians in the modern era, and the first to utilize massive firebombing campaigns, and famously nuclear arms, on civilian populations, all within living memory. At best you can say that other people would have been as murderous if they could have at the time.
WWII is an ancient war by today's standards.
You said "traditionally." I was simply correcting you on the historical record. Did you mean "traditionally" since... what year exactly?
Since at least Vietnam.

They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.
A false claim produced by what I'm sure you know is selective counting. You conveniently exclude the many thousands killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not to mention the knock-on deaths due to instability created by the invasions, but I don't even need to add them to dwarf the AQ kill list.
The primary murders in Iraq were Islamist. They even bragged about killing civilians. That is was their honor that they were killed by Car bombs and Suicide bombs.
Nonetheless, the US killed huge numbers of civilians in Iraq, and in fact armed and paid some of those groups that eventually turned out to contain extremists, so arguably many of the gangland-style killings and bombings done by various Iraqi militias are also the fault of the US.

Besides, you are moving the goalposts. I was simply stating the fact that the US military has killed more civilians that al Qaeda has, but after realizing that I'm correct you have started referring to "Islamists" to try and pad your false numbers.
No I am fine with saying Al Qaeda and affliated groups have killed 10,000's of thousands. Not as many say as Saddam killed. But certainly more civilian deaths have occurred at the hands of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is true in many other parts of the ME Africa, Indonesia, and India in the case of affiliated groups. In Afghanistan the Taliban have killed many. In Pakistan the native Pakistan Taliban with their ISI handlers. In Iraq more were killed in Sunni-Shia violence after Al Qaeda in Iraq's defeat there. Iran certainly played a larger part in that.

How many videos of American PMCs firing into civilian vehicles for fun have leaked so far?[/quote

Those were not US military.
That is correct, they were ex-US military paid by the US government to provide military services in Iraq. Feel better now?
As I recall they were hired by the Hilary Clinton State dept. In any case they were not in the military chain of command.

How many videos of murderous Islamic thugs are there out there saying Ally Akbar as they killed?
Lots. Feel better about the murders and rapes PMCs commit in the name of the US government now? No need to worry if your tax dollars are funding evil so long as some AQ guy elsewhere is just as bad.

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really widh to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria?



You believe this to be a rare occurrence? Then we have legitimate accidental killings by US occupation forces, all the "shock and awe" collateral damage, all the people slain in the urban fighting in Fallujah, and so on. Then all the people murdered by militias or tribes paid by the US to counter other militias backed by Iran or containing Baathists. And this is just Iraq. I don't think you're even thinking through these claims before you make this, you are so obviously incorrect here.
The over whelming majority of dead civilians died at the hands of Muslims
.

Again, you are moving the goalposts because you know that your initial claim was false. Don't feel bad for trying this or getting caught, I see it all the time.[/quote]
Moreover, you are comforting yourself with moral relativism. As long as US armed forces murder 1000 babies and various swarthy extremists murder 1001 babies you don't need to worry, you're "better than them." I see this all the time as well.[/quote]

No I don't agree that my Initial claim is false. You wish compartmentalize as I said before. That allows you wiggle room to claim moral equivalency where it does not exist. I am not buying it.
And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
Absolutely correct. These days the US just doesn't care if it kills civilians, and even so the US has killed far more than Bin Laden without even trying to.
Except you are lying about who killed more by a large margin.
No, not at all. This is another false and dishonest accusation, as you well know. You will recall that I was referring specifically to al Qaeda, in fact specifically to OBL, and the US military has slaughtered far more civilians than that abruptly retired terrorist.[/quote]

Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim. Talk about moving goal posts.

795 people died in one single car bomb attack in Iraq as I recall. Mental retard persons were being smuggled into Iraq from Saudi arabia as well as other places to drive those bombs. Many drivers were found to be tied to the car bombs they were driving. Members of their families held hostage in order to assure that they would go through with the attacks. At one point a bomber waited at a street corner while US troops gave out candy to Iraqi children Waited for more children to show up so as to kill more of them.
I made no false claim and it does show that you play with half truths as much as you can.
This is yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.[/quote]
TIB.jpg
TIB.jpg (20.56 KiB) Viewed 1567 times
From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.
Is it ? [/quote]

Obviously.[/quote]

So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.

you so blatantly ignore what Al Qaeda does and refuse to address it.
Yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.[/quote]

Yet another non denial denial.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc you had bit of a meltdown there, plus you didn't format the quotes properly, so I'm just going to point out the most relevant points.


Feel better about the murders and rapes PMCs commit in the name of the US government now? No need to worry if your tax dollars are funding evil so long as some AQ guy elsewhere is just as bad.
Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians
First, the US acts with full knowledge that their attacks kill civilians, and continues to order such attacks, so your claim about civlian deaths being "unintentional" or the US "trying not to" is a transparent excuse. They could stop doing it at any time, yet they choose not to. You defend that choice and excuse the killings.


Second, any member of the US military who knowingly kills a civilian is exactly the same as any member of al Qaeda who kills civilians, and the defense of the US military murdering civilians is exactly the same as defending al Qaeda murdering civilians. There is no moral difference between what you are trying to do in this thread (excuse US murder) and somebody like Anwar al-Awlaki defending and celebrating al Qaeda.


Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim.
This is false, though I can't tell if you are being dishonest or simply cannot follow the conversation. What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.


Doc wrote:So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
Actually I didn't state that, I simply pointed out that your accusations were baseless and probably motivated by prejudice. My positions, regardless of your mischaracterizations, have always been consistent. We did make progress, however, in that I've gotten you to expose some of your prejudices and your moral/intellectual tics. I suspect we will see more of the same in the future. Not really your fault, so no need to apologize.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:Doc you had bit of a meltdown there, plus you didn't format the quotes properly, so I'm just going to point out the most relevant points.
Diverting again I see.


Feel better about the murders and rapes PMCs commit in the name of the US government now? No need to worry if your tax dollars are funding evil so long as some AQ guy elsewhere is just as bad.
Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians
First, the US acts with full knowledge that their attacks kill civilians, and continues to order such attacks, so your claim about civlian deaths being "unintentional" or the US "trying not to" is a transparent excuse. They could stop doing it at any time, yet they choose not to. You defend that choice and excuse the killings.


Second, any member of the US military who knowingly kills a civilian is exactly the same as any member of al Qaeda who kills civilians, and the defense of the US military murdering civilians is exactly the same as defending al Qaeda murdering civilians. There is no moral difference between what you are trying to do in this thread (excuse US murder) and somebody like Anwar al-Awlaki defending and celebrating al Qaeda.[/quote]

What I have pointed out time and time again is that US policy,with the exception of the double tap drone policy is to avoid killing civilians where ever possible. That is why smart bombs now are filled with concrete rather than explosives. The kinetic energy only bombs cause much less co-lateral deaths. Show me where Al Qaeda gives a hoot about reducing co-lateral deaths. Particularly of non Muslims. Which I suppose by your definition of Racism is racist in the extreme.

The part of my really YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE
Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really widh to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria? Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really wish to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria?
I guess you don't :lol:


Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim.
This is false, though I can't tell if you are being dishonest or simply cannot follow the conversation. What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.
Now you are just lying Ibrahim.


Doc wrote:So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
Actually I didn't state that, I simply pointed out that your accusations were baseless and probably motivated by prejudice. My positions, regardless of your mischaracterizations, have always been consistent. We did make progress, however, in that I've gotten you to expose some of your prejudices and your moral/intellectual tics. I suspect we will see more of the same in the future. Not really your fault, so no need to apologize.
So you are then indeed in favor of a caliphate which makes your charges that I am prejudiced absolutely baseless.

Or is it that you were against the caliphate before you were for it? Or was it you for the Caliphate before you were against it? Gee that would be really consistent wouldn't it.

what was said:
Doc wrote:From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.

Ibrahim wrote:Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.

Doc wrote:Is it ?
Ibrahim wrote:Obviously.
Doc wrote:So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
So it is obviously laughable that you are not in favor of a caliphate and now you didn't say that you are not in favor of a caliphate. :lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
First, the US acts with full knowledge that their attacks kill civilians, and continues to order such attacks, so your claim about civlian deaths being "unintentional" or the US "trying not to" is a transparent excuse. They could stop doing it at any time, yet they choose not to. You defend that choice and excuse the killings.


Second, any member of the US military who knowingly kills a civilian is exactly the same as any member of al Qaeda who kills civilians, and the defense of the US military murdering civilians is exactly the same as defending al Qaeda murdering civilians. There is no moral difference between what you are trying to do in this thread (excuse US murder) and somebody like Anwar al-Awlaki defending and celebrating al Qaeda.
What I have pointed out time and time again is that US policy,with the exception of the double tap drone policy is to avoid killing civilians where ever possible.
Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors. Classic MIC.

The administration and senior military leadership know they can get away with this because half of the population will actively make excuses for their killing of civilians, as you are here.





Doc wrote:
Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim.
This is false, though I can't tell if you are being dishonest or simply cannot follow the conversation. What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.
Now you are just lying Ibrahim.


I'm afraid that you are rather obviously wrong here. I will reproduce my original statement on this detail, from several posts above this one. Anyone can verify that I am telling the truth and you are not:

Ibrahim wrote: Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
I await your apology for falsely accusing me of lying.





Doc wrote:So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
Actually I didn't state that, I simply pointed out that your accusations were baseless and probably motivated by prejudice. My positions, regardless of your mischaracterizations, have always been consistent.
So you are then indeed in favor of a caliphate
I did not say that. You are simply oscillating between different false statements.

To be fair I'm leading you around by the nose a bit, its actually an old Jesuit trick.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
First, the US acts with full knowledge that their attacks kill civilians, and continues to order such attacks, so your claim about civlian deaths being "unintentional" or the US "trying not to" is a transparent excuse. They could stop doing it at any time, yet they choose not to. You defend that choice and excuse the killings.


Second, any member of the US military who knowingly kills a civilian is exactly the same as any member of al Qaeda who kills civilians, and the defense of the US military murdering civilians is exactly the same as defending al Qaeda murdering civilians. There is no moral difference between what you are trying to do in this thread (excuse US murder) and somebody like Anwar al-Awlaki defending and celebrating al Qaeda.
What I have pointed out time and time again is that US policy,with the exception of the double tap drone policy is to avoid killing civilians where ever possible.
Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors. Classic MIC.

The administration and senior military leadership know they can get away with this because half of the population will actively make excuses for their killing of civilians, as you are here.





Doc wrote:
Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim.
This is false, though I can't tell if you are being dishonest or simply cannot follow the conversation. What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.
Now you are just lying Ibrahim.


I'm afraid that you are rather obviously wrong here. I will reproduce my original statement on this detail, from several posts above this one. Anyone can verify that I am telling the truth and you are not:

Ibrahim wrote: Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
I await your apology for falsely accusing me of lying.

OH so now you are going to say it was only the 3000 you were talking about.

AS per usual you are full of it Ibrahim.


Again the part of my reply YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE
Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really widh to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria? Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really wish to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria?

Doc wrote:So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
Actually I didn't state that, I simply pointed out that your accusations were baseless and probably motivated by prejudice. My positions, regardless of your mischaracterizations, have always been consistent.
So you are then indeed in favor of a caliphate
I did not say that. You are simply oscillating between different false statements.

To be fair I'm leading you around by the nose a bit, its actually an old Jesuit trick.
Jesuit trick my arse. You mean you are not answering anything. You just talk in circles. Yes I know that Ibrahim. Others see that as well. :lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Post Reply