Drones, and the victims they cause

[Karee 4,191]

we're at war with pakistan?

No.

[decocker 7,198]

With every country we want the oil/gold or other natural resources from. All under the pre-text of installing democracy in those countries. Since when did we become so arrogant to decide on other country's internal affairs?

since manifest destiny.

[decocker 7,198]

No.

but you said we were and we should expect collateral damage.

[GandD 5,966]

since manifest destiny.

I think the Monroe Doctrine really brought us into our prime. Big fan of ol' Teddy Roosevelt though.

[Karee 4,191]

but you said we were and we should expect collateral damage.

I said we were at war with Pakistan? I don't recall saying that.

[decocker 7,198]

I said we were at war with Pakistan? I don't recall saying that.

who were you referring to in talking about drones and being at war? (and not breeding new terrorists, i think, is pretty damn important.)

It's a war. There's collateral damage. That's just the way it is. Worrying about generating future terrorists is silly. It's been mentioned in this thread about Dresden, Tokyo etc. Lots of innocent people died in those bombings. Where were those future terrorists? You don't want drones wiping out your village and your families? Simple, stop harboring the enemy.

[Karee 4,191]

who were you referring to in talking about drones and being at war? (and not breeding new terrorists, i think, is pretty damn important.)

Ohh yes, we are at war with terrorists and those that harbor them. Do a little research on North and South Waziristan. You'll find that although technically within the borders of Pakistan, Pakistan's military itself will not enter this area. I think they've tried a few times with disastrous results. They may have a few isolated outposts here and there, but no real control. So in reality it is sort of a lawless area with no control by anyone. Although publicly Pakistan denounces these drone strikes, I'm sure privately they help the U.S. in any way they can to carry them out.

Now, if we were carrying out drone strikes on Islamabad or Karachi, then that would be an entirely different story.

[decocker 7,198]

Ohh yes, we are at war with terrorists and those that harbor them. Do a little research on North and South Waziristan. You'll find that although technically within the borders of Pakistan, Pakistan's military itself will not enter this area. I think they've tried a few times with disastrous results. They may have a few isolated outposts here and there, but no real control. So in reality it is sort of a lawless area with no control by anyone. Although publicly Pakistan denounces these drone strikes, I'm sure privately they help the U.S. in any way they can to carry them out.

oh yes, the war on terrorists and those the harbor them. how could i forget? carry on, no more oopsies on schools though, really unnecessary.

[Karee 4,191]

oh yes, the war on terrorists and those the harbor them. how could i forget? carry on, no more oopsies on schools though, really unnecessary.

Unfortunately, errors in targeting occur at times. I doubt that the schools themselves were targeted on purpose. Hopefully the people that reside in this area will figure out that it's not a good idea to assist the people that carry out attacks on soldiers/ civilians/schoolchildren etc. across the border in Afghanistan. I kinda doubt it, but it would be nice. Until then, they can expect more of the same. I think it's one of the Obama administration's greatest successes actually.

[decocker 7,198]

Unfortunately, errors in targeting occur at times. I doubt that the schools themselves were targeted on purpose. Hopefully the people that reside in this area will figure out that it's not a good idea to assist the people that carry out attacks on soldiers/ civilians/schoolchildren etc. across the border in Afghanistan. I kinda doubt it, but it would be nice. Until then, they can expect more of the same. I think it's one of the Obama administration's greatest successes actually.

i found this big picture look interesting..

My link

[Karee 4,191]

i found this big picture look interesting..

My link

Mother Jones.

I took the time to look at it anyway. 75.7% of the deaths are "Other" What is other? "Killing people in Pakistan with flying robots" No. Not biased at all.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Could someone please tell me why explosives delivered via drone cause more innocent deaths than those delivered by other means?

[decocker 7,198]

Could someone please tell me why explosives delivered via drone cause more innocent deaths than those delivered by other means?

do they cause more?

[decocker 7,198]

Mother Jones.

I took the time to look at it anyway. 75.7% of the deaths are "Other" What is other? "Killing people in Pakistan with flying robots" No. Not biased at all.

no, that is not even what mj said other was.. your bias is showing.

The data is legit; it comes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, but as Emma Roller at Slate notes, the designers present it weirdly, claiming at the beginning of the interactive that fewer than 2 percent of drone deaths have been "high profile targets," and "the rest are civilians, children and alleged combatants." At the end of the visualization, you find out that a majority of the deaths fall into the "legal gray zone created by the uncertainties of war," as Brian Fung put it at National Journal.

But the "legal gray zone" itself is alarming enough—highlighting the lack of transparency surrounding the administration's drone program—as are the discrepancies in total numbers killed. It's between 2,537 and 3,581 (including 411 to 884 civilians) killed since 2004, if you want to go with the BIJ. Or it's between 1,965 and 3,295 people since 2004 (and 261 to 305 civilians), if you want to believe the Counterterrorism Strategy Initiative at the New America Foundation. Or perhaps it's 2,651 since 2006 (including 153 civilians), according to Long War Journal. (The NAF and Long War Journal base estimates on press reports. BIJ also includes deaths reported to the US or Pakistani governments, military and intelligence officials, and other academic sources.)

[Karee 4,191]

no, that is not even what mj said other was.. your bias is showing.

I know. My bias. I'm just another RWNJ that supports Obama's policies. Wait.. What?? Now I'm all confused.