Drone policy

[Taboo]

Hopefully, there are fewer weddings at sea to accidentally hit...

Would it apply to gay marriages enabling Somal pirates blown out of the water by a drone to claim that they were just celebrating a gay marriage at sea

Must resist making joke about the newly wed gay spouses being nothing but-a-pirate.

[Taboo]

If it is true that 2%, or even 20% of the deaths are the actual people being sought, that is a terrible indictment of current US policy. Especially as these attacks are carried out with little or no civilian oversight, no trial, no appeal, nothing.

However, I am always wary of taking "aggrieved husbands and fathers" stories at face value. The US is facing hostiles in the tribal region, and they understand perfectly well that by portraying strikes as a weapon that kills almost exclusively civilians, they are scoring political points against the Americans, making it more difficult to continue the attacks.

1. It doesn't make it difficult to continue the attacks, nobody in America cares.

The fact that we're arguing about it seems to indicate that is not so. True, I'm in Russia and you're (presumably) in Canada, but that's not the point. The attacks and the claims of dastardly deeds by the CIA regularly get coverage on US newspapers.

2. What do you think they are lying about? The US government already decided that all men were "militants" no matter what, so their assumed lying would be about the innocence of their wives, daughters, babies, and grandfathers killed by Hellfire missiles. Safe to assume they are on the level most of the time.

When did the US decide that? IF they did, wouldn't carpet-bombing the villages be more effective? Or simply going in there with 1000 marines and killing everyone with a penis?

Actually the weddings are struck on purposes. There is now evidence to suggest that the CIA organized the wedding and selected the bride for Anwar al-Awlaki in order to facilitate its strike on him.* Anyone else killed in the attack? Well the young men we automatically call militants (like his teenage son, also a US citizen) but the women, children and old men? Oh well, they had to die. It was necessary for your safety.
*checking up on this, he was hit in his car en route to a gathering related to the wedding, so relatively fewer civilian casualties in this attack. Perhaps the Pentagon predicted that killing a US citizen would raise more questions than the average strike.

I see you retracted this. Good. It was starting to sound like one of those paranoid Pakistani "CIA shot 14-year old Malala, not the Taliban who claimed responsibility."

[Ibrahim]

If it is true that 2%, or even 20% of the deaths are the actual people being sought, that is a terrible indictment of current US policy. Especially as these attacks are carried out with little or no civilian oversight, no trial, no appeal, nothing.

However, I am always wary of taking "aggrieved husbands and fathers" stories at face value. The US is facing hostiles in the tribal region, and they understand perfectly well that by portraying strikes as a weapon that kills almost exclusively civilians, they are scoring political points against the Americans, making it more difficult to continue the attacks.

1. It doesn't make it difficult to continue the attacks, nobody in America cares.

The fact that we're arguing about it seems to indicate that is not so. True, I'm in Russia and you're (presumably) in Canada, but that's not the point. The attacks and the claims of dastardly deeds by the CIA regularly get coverage on US newspapers.

But there isn't even a rumble to stop it, just coffee talk. Neither candidate in the current election has anything bad to say about anything the US government or military is doing. This is not Vietnam.

2. What do you think they are lying about? The US government already decided that all men were "militants" no matter what, so their assumed lying would be about the innocence of their wives, daughters, babies, and grandfathers killed by Hellfire missiles. Safe to assume they are on the level most of the time.

When did the US decide that?

The story came out earlier this year, based on internal memos between (IIRC) the office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House. It is their official counting method, whenever a strike takes place they count the number of "military age males" and list them as "militants" killed in the attack.

IF they did, wouldn't carpet-bombing the villages be more effective? Or simply going in there with 1000 marines and killing everyone with a penis?

This is the strangest argument that I keep bumping up against. Somehow it is a given that the US must kill people, and killing civilians in large numbers is an inevitable part of that, therefore the only quibble is over methodology. This makes no sense to me, I really don't understand the thought-process behind you adding this comment, or what you think it means.

Actually the weddings are struck on purposes. There is now evidence to suggest that the CIA organized the wedding and selected the bride for Anwar al-Awlaki in order to facilitate its strike on him.* Anyone else killed in the attack? Well the young men we automatically call militants (like his teenage son, also a US citizen) but the women, children and old men? Oh well, they had to die. It was necessary for your safety.
*checking up on this, he was hit in his car en route to a gathering related to the wedding, so relatively fewer civilian casualties in this attack. Perhaps the Pentagon predicted that killing a US citizen would raise more questions than the average strike.

I see you retracted this. Good.

That is a dishonest misrepresentation of my post. Fact: drone strikes are frequently made against weddings, funerals, and similar gatherings, killing large numbers of civilians. Fact: Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in such a strike, on route to such a gathering, in an attack that also killed a smaller number of civilians. Fact: it is being reported that the CIA organized the gathering which he was struck en route to, in order do draw him out.

I only corrected the detail on when he was killed.

It was starting to sound like one of those paranoid Pakistani "CIA shot 14-year old Malala, not the Taliban who claimed responsibility."

Not sure why you would conflate my accurate and reasoned criticism of the systematic mass-killing of civilians by the US with hypthothetical excuse-making about a Taliban attack on a girl which I was already critical of in another thread.

This kind of racist muddling of all acts and statement by and any all "Muslims" worldwide, and the lazy dismissal of all critiques with some random counterexample of a cruel act elsewhere in the world, actually proves my earlier point about most people not caring about this issue whatsoever.



There are two cliche responses to this issue:

1. People need to be killed, and civilians are going to die, and that's just the way of the world, so there's no point complaining about it. (popular with armchair warriors)

2. The people we are killing are vicious animals who kill one another anyway, so there is no real problem with killing a few more. (popular with racists)

I guess there is a third option, which is disbelieving that there is any problem here at all, and that the government is only striking the right people for the right reasons, and few if any civilians are killed (popular with the incurious)

[Taboo]

But there isn't even a rumble to stop it, just coffee talk. Neither candidate in the current election has anything bad to say about anything the US government or military is doing. This is not Vietnam.

Interesting analogy. If the allegations of mass atrocities against civilians are true, it is a valid question as to why the American people are not more actively criticizing the Administration.

Here are some theories:
1) Vietnam was not perceived as having attacked America, the way Al-Quaeda and their Taliban enablers have been. Therefore, it was easier for leftist intellectuals to portray the Vietcong as a victim of imperialist capitalist aggression.

2) In 11 years of presence in Afghanistan, there hasn't yet been a picture yet like the naked burning girl, or the man about to be shot in the head. Whether this is because US forces really are better behaved, because there are fewer journalists to document them, or because the US has just gotten that much better about managing PR is debatable. Quite the contrary, the Taliban seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying their public image in the West, being famous for genuflect-all: shooting artillery shells at Buddha statues, beheading women adulteresses, banning female education, suicide bombs at funerals (apparently the CIA has been taking notes), and most recently in Pakistan for shooting 14-year old girls.
Given all that it is hardly surprising that the US public is less then well-disposed towards the Pashtun Taliban.

3) No draft, a lot fewer US dead than Vietnam, and presumably a lot fewer local dead overall. Vietnam casualties were 50k for the US, 1-2M for the Vietnamanese, while in Afghanistan there have been 2k US dead, and an unspecified nr of Afghan deaths, probably under 200k, if not even under 50k. Perhaps there is a psychological threshold that hasn't been passed. The total number of civilians killed in drone attacks is put by most sources at under 1000, I think.

4) When it comes to drone attacks, the psychological factor is not the same, since you can't photograph a US brute bayoneting a little girl, regardless of the fact that the girl ends up just as dead.

5) Obama is a left-wing president, so most bleeding heart socialists who would otherwise scream in outrage are keeping mum.

6) Perhaps you are right, and the US public simply does not care one whit either way.

The story came out earlier this year, based on internal memos between (IIRC) the office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House. It is their official counting method, whenever a strike takes place they count the number of "military age males" and list them as "militants" killed in the attack.

After some searching, I came up with an Russian propaganda website arguing this and a number of radical left groups in the US, who are all relying on a NYT article citing unnamed US officials. Still, wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Nonetheless, I expect this to be about people hit while moving on roads in trucks. I don't think the US targets weddings and funerals in the majority of the strikes, but individual vehicles or compounds.

IF they did, wouldn't carpet-bombing the villages be more effective? Or simply going in there with 1000 marines and killing everyone with a penis?

This is the strangest argument that I keep bumping up against. Somehow it is a given that the US must kill people, and killing civilians in large numbers is an inevitable part of that, therefore the only quibble is over methodology. This makes no sense to me, I really don't understand the thought-process behind you adding this comment, or what you think it means.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. If the US truly thought that all military-age males in Waziristan are enemy fighters, killing 5 of them at a time by drone would make no sense. Carpet-bombing would make sense. US is not carpet-bombing, but using small-sized explosives launched from drones. Therefore, the US cannot think that all military-age men in the area are enemy fighters. These tactics only make sense for targeted surgical strikes.

Nonetheless, it may be true that the CIA wants to make the president sleep better at night by pretending that all men killed by a drone attack on a vehicle or building are militants. I think that's a pretty dodgy proposition, even though it is reasonable to expect people getting in the same car with an armed militant to be aware of taking some risk even if they're not active militants.

Fact: drone strikes are frequently made against weddings, funerals, and similar gatherings, killing large numbers of civilians

I am sorry, but I disagree with you here. I don't see this as a fact. One or two attacks might have happened in a decade of war. But I certainly don't think this happens frequently. If you wish me to change my mind, you should provide some independent sources.

I only corrected the detail on when he was killed.

Well, that makes all the difference. A terrorist being killed on an isolated road on the way to a wedding is not the same as having a bomb dropped on 1000 guests just as they're throwing rice at the bride.

you would conflate my accurate and reasoned criticism of the systematic mass-killing of civilians by the US

Again, how is it in the US' interest to butcher civilians? A systematic mass-killing is something the Nazis and Soviets did, using ditches and extermination camps. It is something the Nazis, the British and the Americans did, using carpet bombing with incendiaries against population centers. A small number of civilians (under 3000 even by the most exaggerated counts, and most likely under 300) dying in attacks directed at known militants would not in my book constitute "systematic mass-killing of civilians."

[Jnalum Persicum]

.


extrajudicial murders for years to come



.

[Ibrahim]

But there isn't even a rumble to stop it, just coffee talk. Neither candidate in the current election has anything bad to say about anything the US government or military is doing. This is not Vietnam.

Interesting analogy. If the allegations of mass atrocities against civilians are true, it is a valid question as to why the American people are not more actively criticizing the Administration.

People are lazier, more cynical, and more self-interested than they were (or at least pretended to be) in the 1960's.

Here are some theories:
1) Vietnam was not perceived as having attacked America, the way Al-Quaeda and their Taliban enablers have been. Therefore, it was easier for leftist intellectuals to portray the Vietcong as a victim of imperialist capitalist aggression.

Hard to imagine that peasants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, etc are perceived as a greater threat to Americans than the looming specter of international communism in the 1960's. Plus, Tonkin and all that.

2) In 11 years of presence in Afghanistan, there hasn't yet been a picture yet like the naked burning girl

Hoosier says that would make great TV and Americans would love it, and I'm not sure he's wrong.

Whether this is because US forces really are better behaved, because there are fewer journalists to document them, or because the US has just gotten that much better about managing PR is debatable.

Not really, given all the Ab Ghraib/corpse pissing/red bull and whiskey fueled civilian massacres, and so on that make the news.

Quite the contrary, the Taliban seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying their public image in the West, being famous for genuflect-all: shooting artillery shells at Buddha statues, beheading women adulteresses, banning female education, suicide bombs at funerals (apparently the CIA has been taking notes), and most recently in Pakistan for shooting 14-year old girls.
Given all that it is hardly surprising that the US public is less then well-disposed towards the Pashtun Taliban.

We aren't talking about the US killing the Taliban, we are talking about the US killing large numbers of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, etc. The logic is also faulty here, as you are positing that Americans are disgusted by Taliban behavior such as the treatment of women and the destruction of monuments, and thereby must counteract them by engaging in the same behaviors, famously destroying Babylonian ruins in Iraq, and, as concerns us presently, killing and maiming women and children.

3) No draft, a lot fewer US dead than Vietnam,

This is certainly a factor. Ultimately, the lack of risk is what makes this new technology so popular.

The total number of civilians killed in drone attacks is put by most sources at under 1000, I think.

According to wikipedia, citing several studies, drone casualties in Pakistan alone are listed as between 1886 and 3191. The article Hans cited in this thread put the accuracy of these strikes (in terms of legit targets vs. civilians) as something like %8.

4) When it comes to drone attacks, the psychological factor is not the same, since you can't photograph a US brute bayoneting a little girl, regardless of the fact that the girl ends up just as dead.

True. It would almost be more respectable if US troops were bayoneting people.

5) Obama is a left-wing president, so most bleeding heart socialists who would otherwise scream in outrage are keeping mum.

Clearly false, as it is the left wing which is most critical of this issue. Moreover, I would argue that this policy, among others, proves that Obama is not a left-wing President, but that is another subject.

The story came out earlier this year, based on internal memos between (IIRC) the office of the Secretary of Defense and the White House. It is their official counting method, whenever a strike takes place they count the number of "military age males" and list them as "militants" killed in the attack.

After some searching, I came up with an Russian propaganda website arguing this and a number of radical left groups in the US, who are all relying on a NYT article citing unnamed US officials. Still, wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Nonetheless, I expect this to be about people hit while moving on roads in trucks. I don't think the US targets weddings and funerals in the majority of the strikes, but individual vehicles or compounds.

So you don't have any information at all then, but you assume the most positive scenario possible.

Curious, why not just go to the NYT story instead of reading a precis on "Russian propaganda sites?"

IF they did, wouldn't carpet-bombing the villages be more effective? Or simply going in there with 1000 marines and killing everyone with a penis?

This is the strangest argument that I keep bumping up against. Somehow it is a given that the US must kill people, and killing civilians in large numbers is an inevitable part of that, therefore the only quibble is over methodology. This makes no sense to me, I really don't understand the thought-process behind you adding this comment, or what you think it means.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. If the US truly thought that all military-age males in Waziristan are enemy fighters, killing 5 of them at a time by drone would make no sense. Carpet-bombing would make sense. US is not carpet-bombing, but using small-sized explosives launched from drones.

This is laughable. What are they going to carpet-bomb? That aside, they think (correctly) that they can get away with drones strikes whereas larger-footprint methods would attract more attention.

Therefore, the US cannot think that all military-age men in the area are enemy fighters.

Nobody said they believed that, rather that they claim that so that their appalling statistics are improved.

Nonetheless, it may be true that the CIA wants to make the president sleep better at night by pretending that all men killed by a drone attack on a vehicle or building are militants. I think that's a pretty dodgy proposition,

Nobody is making that proposition. The labeling of all "military age males" slain in these strikes is purely a propaganda move. If we assume your surgical strikes on moving vehicles, it can immediately change "1 target, 7 civilians killed) into "8 militants" killed with an arbitrary wave of the hand.

Fact: drone strikes are frequently made against weddings, funerals, and similar gatherings, killing large numbers of civilians

I am sorry, but I disagree with you here. I don't see this as a fact. One or two attacks might have happened in a decade of war.

Shocking level of credulity here.

If you wish me to change my mind, you should provide some independent sources.

I'm not too worried about hanging your mind, but I'm interested to know what you think a "credible source" is? Apparently you don't like the NYT, you don't think Afghans are credible. Who do you trust?

I only corrected the detail on when he was killed.

Well, that makes all the difference. A terrorist being killed on an isolated road on the way to a wedding is not the same as having a bomb dropped on 1000 guests just as they're throwing rice at the bride.

This does not justify your original mischaracterization. I retract nothing.

you would conflate my accurate and reasoned criticism of the systematic mass-killing of civilians by the US

Again, how is it in the US' interest to butcher civilians?

It isn't in the US interest, rather its a reflexive response based on fear and poor intelligence. The only beneficiaries are defense contractors and extremist recruiters in the countries that are being struck by these attacks.

A systematic mass-killing is something the Nazis and Soviets did, using ditches and extermination camps. It is something the Nazis, the British and the Americans did, using carpet bombing with incendiaries against population centers. A small number of civilians (under 3000 even by the most exaggerated counts, and most likely under 300) dying in attacks directed at known militants would not in my book constitute "systematic mass-killing of civilians."

This is part of the armchair-warrior justification I was discussing earlier. First, you minimized the number based on nothing, and then you declare that it isn't a big enough number to worry about "in your book." You also assert, again without any evidence, that the actual targets of the strikes are absolutely "known militants," even though US military intelligence is known to have detained and tortured plenty of innocent people. Basically you're saying this is a worthwhile thing to do, based solely on the tautology that the US wouldn't do it otherwise. As though self-destructive or pointless policies are unheard of among governments.


But I think your attitude is typical of many Westerners casually interested in military history or contemporary military affairs. You don't really know what's going on, but you are sympathetic to soldiers are military stuff in general, and you don't really like or care about the victims, so just assume that it must be a good thing.

[Ibrahim]

It's all about the draft. Americans dont' mind killing, in fact, as you can see from they derive a patriotic sense of sexual gratification from our nation's prowess at killing. But they cannot handle dying. That's the difference between Vietnam and now. As Milo would say, "We're not killing anybody anyone cares about."

Among the "lowest common denominator" version of the general public, I think there is certainly a sports-fan mentality at work. The people who cheer when a player is injured at a sporing event would also cheer when some browns are killed in a country they couldn't find on a map because, hey, "those people" messed with 'Merica.

I don't think these people are influential on a policy level, but there is a core of the American population - say %20 or %30 - that a President could count on to support anything. Pre-emptive nuclear strike on Tehran, torture, internment camps, you name it.



ST raises a good question in our previous exchange though, and one that what more in my mind when I started the thread, and that is do any of these policies even benefit the US? I've given up on morality and something that really sways or motivates people in the present political climate, but even the most hardened hawk would probably agree that such strikes should be halted if they were actually harmful to American interests.

[TurkishJew]

2) Quite the contrary, the Taliban seem to be doing a pretty good job of destroying their public image in the West, being famous for genuflect-all: shooting artillery shells at Buddha statues,
"

Please note that the Taliban did not shoot artillery shells at the Buddha statue. It appears that they manually installed the explosives near the head of the giant statue (175 feet), as shown in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-z6sTs3pU

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... video.html

.

Very bad .. very bad

justifies others, other powers do same

Think of nuclear bomb dropped on Japan

@ that time, nobody had it, and nobody could do it

but now, most nations can do it

and see what a difficulty west is in now re nuclear bomb

pretty much any nation having nuclear bomb can do anything without being afraid

Drones are low tech, easy and low cost to built .. come in many size

Sky the limit for what evil intentions they could be used

in few yrs, this could be much bigger headache than Nuclear stuff (radioactive stuff much easier to detect, and comes always with signature (finger print), not so drone)

As said, stupid idea, you feel good for a few yrs, later you pay throw the nose

Basically, now, America, officially, kills political opponents, worldwide .. well .. others could do same .. it becomes legit .. this stupid idea started with Zionist killing Palestinians political leaders .. and ? ?


.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Azari.........

You have some points but........

Basically, now, America, officially, kills political opponents, worldwide ..

Old news..... At least as old as the Old Man of the Mountain and the Assassins.........

And really earlier...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud

If you want something more recent try AyaToilet Khomeni's Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie and anyone connected with the Satanic Verses...... Remembering that Japanese Translator who was killed by Murderous Muslim Maniacs........



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi

Or for something closer to the Afghan Home where the Drones now roam........

Remembering that Northern Alliance leader who was killed by Al Queda Tallywackers right before September 11, 2001......

They too used a 'drone'..... a fake video camera filled with explosives.......

Monster ,

you miss the point

yes,

the Assasans, Alamut mountain

and

poor Rushdi

and and

but

that episode condemned by most

on the other hand

Obama gettin "Nobel Price" for doing same as that Khomeini FATWA or Assasans

not same

Yes, bad things & guys, Hitler, Tchigiz, Stalin, Opium War and and and

but , getting a "Nobel Price" and American people loving it, another thing

and

come a time, you can't go German : we did not know .. YOU KNOW everything


You lowering the bar day in day out .. making criminal, for animal reserved actions,
salonfähig, socially acceptable.

Not good for humanity, not at all

and

those killed by drones represent schools of thought, they must be beaten by opposing school of thought, killing them does not stop what they preaching .. that is why, Mc Cain saying, Al Qaida is
well and alive

If you know their position, if so, you can get them alive and put on TV and show their school
rubbish .. that is how this things going to be defeated and not just dropping a missile on them.


.

You are right....... The bar is dropping.......... We are heading for a Phillip K. Dickensian World.........


.

YES , pretty much so

.

The story of The Man in the High Castle, about daily life under totalitarian Fascist imperialism, occurs in 1962, fifteen years after the end of a longer Second World War (1939–1947 in this history). The victorious Axis Powers — Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany — are conducting intrigues against each other in North America, specifically in the former U.S..

.

.

[Ammianus]

At the risk of offending some good and honest people in the US I can't help thinking that the US has become a very dangerous and immoral country, and American people - as long as they don't stop their murderous rulers - as accomplice to the crimes carried out by those rulers. What puzzles me is the inability of those many honest Americans in stopping what is happening.

We elect people who say they will scale it back and then they don't, or they do it so slowly that it's barely perceptible and then they leave the office to someone who is a warmonger. The last President who actually went after the war machine was Jimmy Carter and he got remembered as an incompetent buffoon by the machine that he went after.

Attack the CIA and the Iranians will hold hostages until the inauguration day of the next President.

Perhaps something due with JuggNil's assertion and defense of the mainstream bureaucratic establishment and the survival of its mandarin class no matter who's elected Caesar?

[Ammianus]

It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?

I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.

Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.

Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.

*guffles*

I remember about 2-3 years before the full extent of Obama's drone wars became known, you were on record in Spengler's forum crowing about a new pivot from Bush's bomb em invade em campaigns in favor of quick in n out, deadly pinpoint strikes that minimizes civilian casualties compared to Emperor Bush's brutish incompetence. The current drone wars accomplish just that, with no cost to US lives and even at the maximum extent of innocent deaths, is still several magnitudes less than what happened in Afghanistan/Iraq. In this sense I really don't what your complaining about.

Perhaps, I don't know, instead of hoisting yourself to a suspect cause, no matter how brief it was, you should stuck with a broader point. Don't beat around the bush. The methods, drones, black ops, spec ops, mercs, joe six pack grunts, don't matter in the end, it's the conception and policy behind them that matters. No amount of tinkering with all these sundry methods will ever amount to anything satisfactory to civil libertarians or international "peaceniks". Mistakes will be made, innocent people will still be killed in alarming numbers, and local anger continued to be stirred up. The only way out of this is to forswear the whole War on Terror thing, specifically the War part. You were actually on target with that point 4 years ago, and is still sticking with it, so that's that. I just don't understand your sudden "detour" with that spec ops thing and not realizing how it invalidates the former until now.

[Enki]

My suggestion was like the strike that got Bin Laden, not an aerial bombing campaign.

Being able to protect ourselves is not mutually exclusive to holding back and not meddling in order to minimize the need to do so.

Probably the best example historically is our first post revolution conflict where 100 Marines went in and took out the Barbary Pirates that were attacking our Mediterranean trade.

[monster_gardener]

.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... video.html

.

Very bad .. very bad

justifies others, other powers do same

Think of nuclear bomb dropped on Japan

@ that time, nobody had it, and nobody could do it

but now, most nations can do it

and see what a difficulty west is in now re nuclear bomb

pretty much any nation having nuclear bomb can do anything without being afraid

Drones are low tech, easy and low cost to built .. come in many size

Sky the limit for what evil intentions they could be used

in few yrs, this could be much bigger headache than Nuclear stuff (radioactive stuff much easier to detect, and comes always with signature (finger print), not so drone)

As said, stupid idea, you feel good for a few yrs, later you pay throw the nose

Basically, now, America, officially, kills political opponents, worldwide .. well .. others could do same .. it becomes legit .. this stupid idea started with Zionist killing Palestinians political leaders .. and ? ?


.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Azari.........

You have some points but........

Basically, now, America, officially, kills political opponents, worldwide ..

Old news..... At least as old as the Old Man of the Mountain and the Assassins.........

And really earlier...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud

If you want something more recent try AyaToilet Khomeni's Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie and anyone connected with the Satanic Verses...... Remembering that Japanese Translator who was killed by Murderous Muslim Maniacs........



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Igarashi

Or for something closer to the Afghan Home where the Drones now roam........

Remembering that Northern Alliance leader who was killed by Al Queda Tallywackers right before September 11, 2001......

They too used a 'drone'..... a fake video camera filled with explosives.......

Monster ,

you miss the point

yes,

the Assasans, Alamut mountain

and

poor Rushdi

and and

but

that episode condemned by most

on the other hand

Obama gettin "Nobel Price" for doing same as that Khomeini FATWA or Assasans

not same

Yes, bad things & guys, Hitler, Tchigiz, Stalin, Opium War and and and

but , getting a "Nobel Price" and American people loving it, another thing

and

come a time, you can't go German : we did not know .. YOU KNOW everything


You lowering the bar day in day out .. making criminal, for animal reserved actions,
salonfähig, socially acceptable.

Not good for humanity, not at all

and

those killed by drones represent schools of thought, they must be beaten by opposing school of thought, killing them does not stop what they preaching .. that is why, Mc Cain saying, Al Qaida is
well and alive

If you know their position, if so, you can get them alive and put on TV and show their school
rubbish .. that is how this things going to be defeated and not just dropping a missile on them.


.

You are right....... The bar is dropping.......... We are heading for a Phillip K. Dickensian World.........


.

YES , pretty much so

.

The story of The Man in the High Castle, about daily life under totalitarian Fascist imperialism, occurs in 1962, fifteen years after the end of a longer Second World War (1939–1947 in this history). The victorious Axis Powers — Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany — are conducting intrigues against each other in North America, specifically in the former U.S..

.

.

Thank you VERY Much for your reply, Azari.


The Man in the High Castle is one of PKD's masterpieces and thank you for the mention, but its Earth is a comparatively low tech world despite the German space colonization mentioned *...........

What I was thinking about more was some of PKD's nightmare tech devices...... Most famously the androids but also darts that homed in on brainwaves (The Electric Ant) and machers (imagine a camouflaging land based drone in IIRC The Penultimate Truth)


*A joke from the TMHC: Germans on Mars are demanding proof of Aryan ancestry going back ~ 14 generations from the 2 head Martians who live there

The mainstream Nazis/Germans are planning a more or less "conventional" nuclear attack on the Japanese which the Italians and dissident German and Nazi factions are trying to prevent..........

[Enki]

The next generation of military designers will have been raised on comic books, sci fi films and video games. What they will create is beyond the things we fear today. They will see the device used by the evil mastermind and think, "Hey, that's a great idea, I could build that."

We are 50 years out from WMDs with the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons in multiple different disciplines. Biowarfare, Computer viruses that can shut down capital markets, Robot armies. It's all here at a very low level. Predator drones and the Stuxnet virus are the PRIMITIVE versions of these capabilities.

[Milo]

I posted elsewhere about the research into quadrotor 'micro drones'.
We may be on the verge of a miniaturization revolution in weapons, similar to he transition from 'big iron' computers to personal computers.
Imagine present day drones as support platforms, some acting as an AWACS type system and others as carriers for micro drones, all networked to the people sitting far away in comfort, using coordinating software that helps predict the trends etc.
At that point the strikes will be truly pinpoint.
At that point war as we know it will no longer exist, for those of us who live in the 'suburb countries'. When global south leaders displease us enough, we will have them killed, with no collateral casualties or any destruction of property.
Many a Muslim poobah makes a practice these days of keeping women and children around them at all times. But a micro drone could be directed to recognize just one person and kill them on contact. The inevitable resulting practice of the poobah's goombahs killing some family members, in order to provide the necessary casualties/drama will be much less credible. (I'm sure this goes on now but using micro drones will throw it into stark relief.)
Until we get this right we're going to kill a few human shields but it's worth it to put the advantages back to the side of civilization.
So, as I said, we can look forward to a great future!
And you lot that aren't playing the game can either start playing or not genuflect with us!

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

.

I posted elsewhere about the research into quadrotor 'micro drones'.

We may be on the verge of a miniaturization revolution in weapons, similar to he transition from 'big iron' computers to personal computers.

Imagine present day drones as support platforms, some acting as an AWACS type system and others as carriers for micro drones, all networked to the people sitting far away in comfort, using coordinating software that helps predict the trends etc.

At that point the strikes will be truly pinpoint.

At that point war as we know it will no longer exist, for those of us who live in the 'suburb countries'. When global south leaders displease us enough, we will have them killed, with no collateral casualties or any destruction of property.

Many a Muslim poobah makes a practice these days of keeping women and children around them at all times. But a micro drone could be directed to recognize just one person and kill them on contact. The inevitable resulting practice of the poobah's goombahs killing some family members, in order to provide the necessary casualties/drama will be much less credible. (I'm sure this goes on now but using micro drones will throw it into stark relief.)

Until we get this right we're going to kill a few human shields but it's worth it to put the advantages back to the side of civilization.

So, as I said, we can look forward to a great future!

And you lot that aren't playing the game can either start playing or not genuflect with us!

.

Can not believe how stupid one can be not to see dangers these gimmicks represent

Now, even petty criminals, can buy in hobby shops small electric drones that can spy for all kind of purposes, for drug trade, for burglary, for rubbery, for murder, for terrorism and and and

This thing has the potential to become a much bigger nuisance than all those arms in civilian hands

Now, people should close shot their shatters before going to bed, maybe a quad-rotor 'micro drones' watching you and your wife from outside

Every day we hear sillier thing introduced

well


.

[Milo]

.

.

I posted elsewhere about the research into quadrotor 'micro drones'.

We may be on the verge of a miniaturization revolution in weapons, similar to he transition from 'big iron' computers to personal computers.

Imagine present day drones as support platforms, some acting as an AWACS type system and others as carriers for micro drones, all networked to the people sitting far away in comfort, using coordinating software that helps predict the trends etc.

At that point the strikes will be truly pinpoint.

At that point war as we know it will no longer exist, for those of us who live in the 'suburb countries'. When global south leaders displease us enough, we will have them killed, with no collateral casualties or any destruction of property.

Many a Muslim poobah makes a practice these days of keeping women and children around them at all times. But a micro drone could be directed to recognize just one person and kill them on contact. The inevitable resulting practice of the poobah's goombahs killing some family members, in order to provide the necessary casualties/drama will be much less credible. (I'm sure this goes on now but using micro drones will throw it into stark relief.)

Until we get this right we're going to kill a few human shields but it's worth it to put the advantages back to the side of civilization.

So, as I said, we can look forward to a great future!

And you lot that aren't playing the game can either start playing or not genuflect with us!

.

Can not believe how stupid one can be not to see dangers these gimmicks represent

Now, even petty criminals, can buy in hobby shops small electric drones that can spy for all kind of purposes, for drug trade, for burglary, for rubbery, for murder, for terrorism and and and

This thing has the potential to become a much bigger nuisance than all those arms in civilian hands

Now, people should close shot their shatters before going to bed, maybe a quad-rotor 'micro drones' watching you and your wife from outside

Every day we hear sillier thing introduced

well


.

I don't see how ignoring the technology will make things better. If what you say is true about the technology being accessible to almost anyone, and I think it is, then it is urgent that it be developed and investigated in depth.

[Ibrahim]

It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?

I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.

Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.

Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.

*guffles*

I remember about 2-3 years before the full extent of Obama's drone wars became known, you were on record in Spengler's forum crowing about a new pivot from Bush's bomb em invade em campaigns in favor of quick in n out, deadly pinpoint strikes that minimizes civilian casualties compared to Emperor Bush's brutish incompetence. The current drone wars accomplish just that, with no cost to US lives and even at the maximum extent of innocent deaths, is still several magnitudes less than what happened in Afghanistan/Iraq. In this sense I really don't what your complaining about.

Oh make no mistake, the current drone campaigns are less destructive than the Bush II invasions and occupations (not to mention detention and torture policies). But so what? One of those wars is over, and another scheduled to end, and the torture is no longer official and defended US policy, so that just leaves the detention issue which other states are complicating for the US by refusing to accept these individuals.

So with all of that taken care of the drone campaigns are what we are talking about now because 1. they are happening now and 2. there is no reason why the need to be happening or conducted in this manner except that the Executive Branch/Pentagon/CIA say so, and don't ask questions, you bleeding heart lefty.

Perhaps, I don't know, instead of hoisting yourself to a suspect cause, no matter how brief it was, you should stuck with a broader point. Don't beat around the bush. The methods, drones, black ops, spec ops, mercs, joe six pack grunts, don't matter in the end, it's the conception and policy behind them that matters.

The medium is the message. The policy is the same as it ever was, but the methods are different, and this new methodology needs a new debate. But certainly us foreign policy and the conduct of the US military (along with some allies) are rotten to the core and purely destructive, both to the US and obviously to others caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The damage isn't worth the few thousand Taliban or "al Qaeda" fighters killed. Americans (or anyone else) are in more danger, not safer. Just a cursory glance at Pakistan in 2000 and Pakistan today proves that point.

No amount of tinkering with all these sundry methods will ever amount to anything satisfactory to civil libertarians or international "peaceniks". Mistakes will be made, innocent people will still be killed in alarming numbers, and local anger continued to be stirred up. The only way out of this is to forswear the whole War on Terror thing, specifically the War part. You were actually on target with that point 4 years ago, and is still sticking with it, so that's that. I just don't understand your sudden "detour" with that spec ops thing and not realizing how it invalidates the former until now.

The point with "spec ops" is that this was the method to get, and confirm the death of, known bad guys like OBL. Drones could theoretically be used the same way, except they aren't. Instead of targeted assassinations we're getting the equivalent drive-by shootings.

But in general I've been against everything the US has done since the initial invasion of Afghanistan to take out the known "al Qaeda" bases, with the exception of air support in Libya which had a very specific and limited goal. You want to minimize the damage that the US is going to do. Less is good, but none is better.

[Ibrahim]

I posted elsewhere about the research into quadrotor 'micro drones'.
We may be on the verge of a miniaturization revolution in weapons, similar to he transition from 'big iron' computers to personal computers.
Imagine present day drones as support platforms, some acting as an AWACS type system and others as carriers for micro drones, all networked to the people sitting far away in comfort, using coordinating software that helps predict the trends etc.
At that point the strikes will be truly pinpoint.

"Sure we're killing children now, but just wait until later." Moreover, you placidly assume that whomever the government decides to strikes is the right target, when we now know the limits of Western intelligence to accurately detain or kill the right person.

At that point war as we know it will no longer exist

Good luck with that.

When global south leaders displease us enough, we will have them killed, with no collateral casualties or any destruction of property.

Unless they manage to find a way to jam communications with your tiny microdrone buzzing around in their building. But what are the odds of anybody inventing anything like that?

Other than that this supremacists fantasy is airtight.

Many a Muslim poobah makes a practice these days of keeping women and children around them at all times.

Dumbest statement in the thread so far. Everybody has women and children around them.

Until we get this right we're going to kill a few human shields but it's worth it to put the advantages back to the side of civilization.

You are not on the side of civilization, as your defense of child-murder in this thread demonstrates. But don't worry, the rest of us civilized folks will keep people like you in check.

And you lot that aren't playing the game can either start playing or not genuflect with us!

Why wouldn't someone want to genuflect with us? The U.S. failed in its wars, and the drone campaign, leaving aside the moral quandries that not everyone recognizes, demonstrates American fear and weakness, not strength. "We'll blow up a guy and some kids, maybe it helps, we don't know and don't ask us for proof." Its pretty much a joke to the kind of people you are theoretically trying to target. Not to mention a propaganda and recruiting aid for them. And they don't care about shredded children any more than you do.

Giap had the West figured out.

[monster_gardener]

My suggestion was like the strike that got Bin Laden, not an aerial bombing campaign.

Being able to protect ourselves is not mutually exclusive to holding back and not meddling in order to minimize the need to do so.

Probably the best example historically is our first post revolution conflict where 100 Marines went in and took out the Barbary Pirates that were attacking our Mediterranean trade.

Thank you VERY MUCH for your post, Tinker..

That is a fairly good example......... Unfortunately Tobias Lear queered our pitch on doing the job thoroughly............

In agreeing to pay a ransom of $60,000 for the American prisoners, the Jefferson administration drew a distinction between paying tribute and paying ransom. At the time, some argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. William Eaton, however, remained bitter for the rest of his life about the treaty, feeling that his efforts had been squandered by the State Department diplomat Tobias Lear. Eaton and others felt that the capture of Derna should have been used as a bargaining chip to obtain the release of all American prisoners without having to pay ransom. Furthermore, Eaton believed the honor of the United States had been compromised when it abandoned Hamet Karamanli after promising to restore him as leader of Tripoli. Eaton's complaints generally fell on deaf ears, especially as attention turned to the strained international relations which would ultimately lead to the War of 1812.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barb ... and_legacy


I like much better the way Andrew Jackson settled the Southeast Asian Muslim Pirates after they captured an American Spice Trade ship and murdered most of the crew......

Jackson sent a frigate with instructions to negotiate compensation if possible but to otherwise chastise them severely.....

Burned the pirate town to the ground, killed the Muslim Pirate King/Emir or whatever the creep was.... and most of his men.......
Had to repeat a few time IIRC but that's Milo Doctrine......

[monster_gardener]

If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?

Not occupying foreign countries and propping up brutal dictators?

Any statistics on drone usage and accuracy, strikes and civilians killed?

Last I heard it was about 80% civilian casualties to terrorist.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Tinker.

And for the memory/idea jog.

Remembering September 11, 2001........

19 Malignant Malicious Muslim Jihadis die....... Most or all by their own actions except for a few killed by the heroes on heroic Flight 93.......

2,977 Victim die.........

2995 total deaths......... of which 99.40% were innocent casualties......

Probably more if you count rescuers now dying from breathing the toxic gases and fumes..........

Might be interesting to tabulate further.........

Maybe we can help the Jihadi's PR by killing more of them & preventing them from killing more of us..

[noddy]

http://mashable.com/2012/10/24/students ... ted-plane/

The sky’s the limit for 3D printing. Two students at the University of Virginia 3D-printed and assembled a plane. When it successfully took off, their unmanned plane became just the third 3D-printed drone to ever fly.

3D printing is a revolutionary technology, which some speculate could have an impact similar to that of the personal computer. In fact, new potential applications for 3D printers seem to be appearing every week.

The technology has been used to design artificial legs, wounded animals are getting plastic beaks, and even meat could be soon 3D printed.

Steven Easter and Jonathan Turman, two third-year engineering students at University of Virginia for the MITRE Corporation, a federally funded research and development center, designed and assembled the plane this summer. The result of their work is a 6.5-foot wingspan drone, entirely built with 3D-printed parts.

The students proved that 3D printing can bring manufacturing cost down and still deliver a quality product. “To make a plastic turbofan engine to scale five years ago would have taken two years, at a cost of about $250,000,” David Sheffler, a U.Va. Engineering School alumnus and 20-year veteran of the aerospace industry who helped the two students, told UVAToday. “But with 3D printing, we designed and built it in four months for about $2,000.”

[monster_gardener]

It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?

I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.

Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.

Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.

*guffles*

I remember about 2-3 years before the full extent of Obama's drone wars became known, you were on record in Spengler's forum crowing about a new pivot from Bush's bomb em invade em campaigns in favor of quick in n out, deadly pinpoint strikes that minimizes civilian casualties compared to Emperor Bush's brutish incompetence. The current drone wars accomplish just that, with no cost to US lives and even at the maximum extent of innocent deaths, is still several magnitudes less than what happened in Afghanistan/Iraq. In this sense I really don't what your complaining about.

Oh make no mistake, the current drone campaigns are less destructive than the Bush II invasions and occupations (not to mention detention and torture policies). But so what? One of those wars is over, and another scheduled to end, and the torture is no longer official and defended US policy, so that just leaves the detention issue which other states are complicating for the US by refusing to accept these individuals.

So with all of that taken care of the drone campaigns are what we are talking about now because 1. they are happening now and 2. there is no reason why the need to be happening or conducted in this manner except that the Executive Branch/Pentagon/CIA say so, and don't ask questions, you bleeding heart lefty.

Perhaps, I don't know, instead of hoisting yourself to a suspect cause, no matter how brief it was, you should stuck with a broader point. Don't beat around the bush. The methods, drones, black ops, spec ops, mercs, joe six pack grunts, don't matter in the end, it's the conception and policy behind them that matters.

The medium is the message. The policy is the same as it ever was, but the methods are different, and this new methodology needs a new debate. But certainly us foreign policy and the conduct of the US military (along with some allies) are rotten to the core and purely destructive, both to the US and obviously to others caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The damage isn't worth the few thousand Taliban or "al Qaeda" fighters killed. Americans (or anyone else) are in more danger, not safer. Just a cursory glance at Pakistan in 2000 and Pakistan today proves that point.

No amount of tinkering with all these sundry methods will ever amount to anything satisfactory to civil libertarians or international "peaceniks". Mistakes will be made, innocent people will still be killed in alarming numbers, and local anger continued to be stirred up. The only way out of this is to forswear the whole War on Terror thing, specifically the War part. You were actually on target with that point 4 years ago, and is still sticking with it, so that's that. I just don't understand your sudden "detour" with that spec ops thing and not realizing how it invalidates the former until now.

The point with "spec ops" is that this was the method to get, and confirm the death of, known bad guys like OBL. Drones could theoretically be used the same way, except they aren't. Instead of targeted assassinations we're getting the equivalent drive-by shootings.

But in general I've been against everything the US has done since the initial invasion of Afghanistan to take out the known "al Qaeda" bases, with the exception of air support in Libya which had a very specific and limited goal. You want to minimize the damage that the US is going to do. Less is good, but none is better.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

The medium is the message. The policy is the same as it ever was, but the methods are different, and this new methodology needs a new debate.

Marshall McLuhan of Canada..........

So are Drones a cool medium or a hot medium?

Herbert Marshall McLuhan, CC (July 21, 1911 – December 31, 1980) was a Canadian philosopher of communication theory. His work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory, as well as having practical applications in the advertising and television industries.[1][2]

McLuhan is known for coining the expressions the medium is the message and the global village, and for predicting the World Wide Web almost thirty years before it was invented.[3] ..................


"Hot" and "cool" media

In the first part of Understanding Media, McLuhan also stated that different media invite different degrees of participation on the part of a person who chooses to consume a medium. Some media, like the movies, were "hot"—that is, they enhance one single sense, in this case vision, in such a manner that a person does not need to exert much effort in filling in the details of a movie image. McLuhan contrasted this with "cool" TV, which he claimed requires more effort on the part of the viewer to determine meaning, and comics, which due to their minimal presentation of visual detail require a high degree of effort to fill in details that the cartoonist may have intended to portray. A movie is thus said by McLuhan to be "hot", intensifying one single sense "high definition", demanding a viewer's attention, and a comic book to be "cool" and "low definition", requiring much more conscious participation by the reader to extract value.[54]

"Any hot medium allows of less participation than a cool one, as a lecture makes for less participation than a seminar, and a book for less than a dialogue."[55]

Hot media usually, but not always, provide complete involvement without considerable stimulus. For example, print occupies visual space, uses visual senses, but can immerse its reader. Hot media favour analytical precision, quantitative analysis and sequential ordering, as they are usually sequential, linear and logical. They emphasize one sense (for example, of sight or sound) over the others. For this reason, hot media also include radio, as well as film, the lecture and photography.

Cool media, on the other hand, are usually, but not always, those that provide little involvement with substantial stimulus. They require more active participation on the part of the user, including the perception of abstract patterning and simultaneous comprehension of all parts. Therefore, according to McLuhan cool media include television, as well as the seminar and cartoons. McLuhan describes the term "cool media" as emerging from jazz and popular music and, in this context, is used to mean "detached."[56]

This concept appears to force media into binary categories. However, McLuhan's hot and cool exist on a continuum: they are more correctly measured on a scale than as dichotomous terms.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_M ... l.22_media

The point with "spec ops" is that this was the method to get, and confirm the death of, known bad guys like OBL. Drones could theoretically be used the same way, except they aren't. Instead of targeted assassinations we're getting the equivalent drive-by shootings.

So I understand you to be saying that Drones are OK if used properly?......

I'm not sure....... Slippery slope, Blow Back and all that.

But allowing that you may be right....... What are your standards for proper Use of Weapons drone?

Details?

You may not be alone on the Left in this.........

Ian Banks of The Culture seems to be endorsing drones in the book "Look to Windward" where drones 'on steroids' are used to kill some nasty racist (actually casteist) would be mass murderers in an especially nasty way.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_to_Windward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_Weapons

[Hoosiernorm]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... s/QGjycNt4

Only 1500 signatures

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... s/QGjycNt4

Only 1500 signatures

.

.

Stop the drone strikes.

Stop the authorization of the drone strikes in the Middle East that kill nearly fifty civilians for every terrorist suspect. Stop making America an assassin of innocent children. End the practice of counting every adult male in the area as an enemy combatant.

.

That is not bad at all .. 50 woman & children for (maybe) 1 terrorist suspect

Was expecting @ least 100 to 1

1,500 signed the petition ? ? so many ? ? ?

Look Hoosie .. said many times, Barak Hussein, one does not know whose values he has .. Kenya ? Hawaii ? Muslim ? Africa ? some say Jooooz raised him, some say Mormons

@ least with W. Bush we knew for sure his mindset

well

don't hold your breath, be happy with even 1,500 signatures


.