Obama administration lied about drone targets

pjl44

If the Stanford/NYU study forced you to question how precise these drone strikes were, well...um...apparently it's because their targeting isn't as precise as you may have been lead to believe.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/obama_a ... e_targets/

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/09/1 ... thers.html

gimmesometruth27

i have said many times on here that use of drones for anything other than recon should be illegal. they are too inaccurate, and i believe that it is unethical to have someone halfway across the world piloting a weapon to rain death down upon targets with large numbers of innocent civilians. it is the definition of dishonorable.

and to give those "pilots" medals for their service is just offensive to me. to get a medal you should have to risk your life. these people are desk jockeys and they risk nothing.

brianlux

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have said many times on here that use of drones for anything other than recon should be illegal. they are too inaccurate, and i believe that it is unethical to have someone halfway across the world piloting a weapon to rain death down upon targets with large numbers of innocent civilians. it is the definition of dishonorable.

and to give those "pilots" medals for their service is just offensive to me. to get a medal you should have to risk your life. these people are desk jockeys and they risk nothing.

Totally agree. It's also the definition of modern warfare. It's all wrong.

PJPOWER

So is this what people refer to as a "responsible" administration?

JimmyV

The innocents who are killed along with the intended target, the so-called "collateral damage", continue to be my only issue with the drone program. For that reason this news is disturbing.

But, I do continue to believe that the drone issue as a whole is overblown. I don't particularly care which jihadist works for which faction today, or what that faction called itself on 9/11. I only care that they not be allowed to carry out their plans. If drones accomplish that then I will continue to support the program.

It is also worth noting that if we were to send strike teams in every time we identified one of these targets there would still potentially be innocents caught in the crossfire. Eliminating the drones would not eliminate the "collateral damage".

JimmyV

Also, I often think back to this story. Imagine bin Laden is killed in 2000 and 9/11 never happens. Many (most?) of us would have never known the evil his organization was capable of. Have one of these drone strikes prevented the next 9/11? I think it is just too easy to condemn them. I realize I am in the minority on that, both on the board and in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... s=PM:WORLD

"The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.

With the technology available in 2000, it would have taken three to seven hours to strike the Tarnak Farm site with cruise missiles or bombs, U.S officials said.

In 1998, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist training camps in eastern in Afghanistan where intelligence suggested bin Laden might be. In the time it took for the cruise missiles to reach their target, officials say bin Laden moved to another location. That attack killed at least 21 Pakistanis, but missed bin Laden. "

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

Also, I often think back to this story. Imagine bin Laden is killed in 2000 and 9/11 never happens. Many (most?) of us would have never known the evil his organization was capable of. Have one of these drone strikes prevented the next 9/11? I think it is just too easy to condemn them. I realize I am in the minority on that, both on the board and in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... s=PM:WORLD

"The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.

With the technology available in 2000, it would have taken three to seven hours to strike the Tarnak Farm site with cruise missiles or bombs, U.S officials said.

In 1998, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist training camps in eastern in Afghanistan where intelligence suggested bin Laden might be. In the time it took for the cruise missiles to reach their target, officials say bin Laden moved to another location. That attack killed at least 21 Pakistanis, but missed bin Laden. "

I would say, that with the amount of damage that is done to our reputation and standing throughout the middle east as we drone strike these "terrorists" we are more than likely simply delaying the next 9/11 rather than re-examining and possibly eliminating the possibility of the next 9/11 by looking at our foreign policy and seeing if actual policy changes might work better.

I don't think it will ever be possible that we will be free from hatred, but there are terrorist groups that talk and terrorist groups that act. I am afraid the way we do things keeps them acting rather than talking. Much harder to call us the great satan when all we do is supply the regions with good will rather than bombs and displays of force.

the wolf

brianlux wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i have said many times on here that use of drones for anything other than recon should be illegal. they are too inaccurate, and i believe that it is unethical to have someone halfway across the world piloting a weapon to rain death down upon targets with large numbers of innocent civilians. it is the definition of dishonorable.

and to give those "pilots" medals for their service is just offensive to me. to get a medal you should have to risk your life. these people are desk jockeys and they risk nothing.

Totally agree. It's also the definition of modern warfare. It's all wrong.

My gut reaction is to agree with you both, and on the surface level I do for the most part, morally speaking.

I'm sitting here today though, and just trying to look at this from a different perspective and what I started thinking about was this.... Our enemies today, don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings, so..... ?
How do you combat that?

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Also, I often think back to this story. Imagine bin Laden is killed in 2000 and 9/11 never happens. Many (most?) of us would have never known the evil his organization was capable of. Have one of these drone strikes prevented the next 9/11? I think it is just too easy to condemn them. I realize I am in the minority on that, both on the board and in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... s=PM:WORLD

"The possibility that the figure in the tape might have been bin Laden helped speed the decision to arm the Predator drone aircraft with "Hellfire" missiles, which can be fired by remote control, officials said.

With the technology available in 2000, it would have taken three to seven hours to strike the Tarnak Farm site with cruise missiles or bombs, U.S officials said.

In 1998, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on suspected terrorist training camps in eastern in Afghanistan where intelligence suggested bin Laden might be. In the time it took for the cruise missiles to reach their target, officials say bin Laden moved to another location. That attack killed at least 21 Pakistanis, but missed bin Laden. "

I would say, that with the amount of damage that is done to our reputation and standing throughout the middle east as we drone strike these "terrorists" we are more than likely simply delaying the next 9/11 rather than re-examining and possibly eliminating the possibility of the next 9/11 by looking at our foreign policy and seeing if actual policy changes might work better.

I don't think it will ever be possible that we will be free from hatred, but there are terrorist groups that talk and terrorist groups that act. I am afraid the way we do things keeps them acting rather than talking. Much harder to call us the great satan when all we do is supply the regions with good will rather than bombs and displays of force.

It is possible you are right. But we have been called the Great Satan for much longer than there have been drone attacks. I don't believing discontinuing them would cause that monicker, and the hatred that goes along with it, to go away.

Idris

the wolf wrote:

I'm sitting here today though, and just trying to look at this from a different perspective and what I started thinking about was this.... Our enemies today, don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings, so..... ?
How do you combat that?

How to combat it?

First Find out 'Why' our enemies don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings.

gimmesometruth27

the drones are just inflaming tensions. it makes them hellbent on revenge, thus making us less safe.

the wolf

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

the drones are just inflaming tensions. it makes them hellbent on revenge, thus making us less safe.

I get that, and like I said, I agree.

But we are now in a very "snake eating it's tail" type of thing here. We stop using the drones, we have more
possible attacks that will lead us to all out war. We use the drones to get these people that would attack us given the chance, and we create more enemies.

I don't know what the answers are and won't pretend to, but as mentioned above, drones could be preventing the next 9/11 type of situation, which ultimately led to countless deaths all over the world of innocents.

Basically, it's a fucked situation.

And just to be clear, for the most part I'm just playing devil's advocate here, if for nothing else, to make ME think more about this.

gimmesometruth27

what gives us the right to fly these things over a sovreign country anyway?

Jason P

Idris wrote:

the wolf wrote:

I'm sitting here today though, and just trying to look at this from a different perspective and what I started thinking about was this.... Our enemies today, don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings, so..... ?
How do you combat that?

How to combat it?

First Find out 'Why' our enemies don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings.

Why? In much part due to a simple book.

mikepegg44

JimmyV wrote:

It is possible you are right. But we have been called the Great Satan for much longer than there have been drone attacks. I don't believing discontinuing them would cause that monicker, and the hatred that goes along with it, to go away.

right, but it is just one more instrument we use to impose our force over the region. Less tools in use, less hatred. It is easy to rally supporters when we drop bombs and impose our will on a region we don't "own" (for lack of a better term)

No matter the good we think we are doing, and I am sure some of it has saved a number of lives, it seems like it keeps us in a perpetual state of paybacks...someone has to break the cycle and I think it should be us.

Idris

Jason P wrote:

Idris wrote:

the wolf wrote:

I'm sitting here today though, and just trying to look at this from a different perspective and what I started thinking about was this.... Our enemies today, don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings, so..... ?
How do you combat that?

How to combat it?

First Find out 'Why' our enemies don't seem to have a problem flying airplanes full of innocents into buildings.

Why? In much part due to a simple book.

Some of it, but not 'much' or most of it. Come on now, I'm fairly sure years of US Hegemony etc is the main cause.

Does the simple book give em the (so called) courage to do those things, sure, but it's not the root cause.

pjl44

the wolf wrote:

How do you combat that?

I think, for the most part, by leaving them alone. When you don't have a defined mission or any way of measuring success, you're essentially chasing your tail. Who exactly are we fighting? "Terrorists?" Who are they, where are they, and how do we know we've "defeated" them? Part of the complexity is that these people who would mean to do us harm aren't in one specific country or region, but all over the world.

Right now I'd say most Americans don't give Brazil a whole lot of thought. Imagine if, over the next year, there were Brazilian tanks and Brazilian troops scattered across our country. Brazilian drones flying overhead, taking people out. Think some anti-Brazilian sentiment might be stirred up? If someone tried to recruit you to join an anti-Brazilian militia tomorrow, you'd think they were some sort of racist nut. If the scenario I laid out was occurring, it doesn't seem so unreasonable. Given that I have no idea how we "defeat terrorism," I'd rather see us back off and give them less ability to recruit.

the wolf

pjl44 wrote:

the wolf wrote:

How do you combat that?

I think, for the most part, by leaving them alone. When you don't have a defined mission or any way of measuring success, you're essentially chasing your tail. Who exactly are we fighting? "Terrorists?" Who are they, where are they, and how do we know we've "defeated" them? Part of the complexity is that these people who would mean to do us harm aren't in one specific country or region, but all over the world.

Right now I'd say most Americans don't give Brazil a whole lot of thought. Imagine if, over the next year, there were Brazilian tanks and Brazilian troops scattered across our country. Brazilian drones flying overhead, taking people out. Think some anti-Brazilian sentiment might be stirred up? If someone tried to recruit you to join an anti-Brazilian militia tomorrow, you'd think they were some sort of racist nut. If the scenario I laid out was occurring, it doesn't seem so unreasonable. Given that I have no idea how we "defeat terrorism," I'd rather see us back off and give them less ability to recruit.

I agree with you. It's a gamble though yeah? The whole chasing your tail thing is exactly where I am with all of this.
Is it too late to back off though? Has the damage been done?

Idris

the wolf wrote:

Is it too late to back off though? Has the damage been done?

I don't think it's ever too late to stop killing people.

pjl44

the wolf wrote:

I agree with you. It's a gamble though yeah? The whole chasing your tail thing is exactly where I am with all of this.
Is it too late to back off though? Has the damage been done?

Definitely to some degree, but what choice do we have other than figure out an approach going forward? If we continue on the same path, what do we hope to accomplish? When there's no easy answer, I tend to err on the side of economic and foreign policy safety. As far as I can tell the past decade has been spent bleeding money and good will.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Idris wrote:

the wolf wrote:

Is it too late to back off though? Has the damage been done?

I don't think it's ever too late to stop killing people.

no, it isn't, but it would be odd for the US to take a position of peace and indifference at this point. how would a schoolyard of angry and bitter kids react if the bully all of a sudden stopped bullying? probably attack thinking it was a sign of weakness to make sure it doesn't start bullying again.

neither side will stop until everyone is eliminated. basically everyone involved in this shit is a fucking terrorist now.

Idris

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

no, it isn't, but it would be odd for the US to take a position of peace and indifference at this point. how would a schoolyard of angry and bitter kids react if the bully all of a sudden stopped bullying? probably attack thinking it was a sign of weakness to make sure it doesn't start bullying again.

neither side will stop until everyone is eliminated. basically everyone involved in this shit is a fucking terrorist now.

It would be odd for the US to take a position of peace , at 'any' point considering it's bloodied history.

As far as a sign of weakness, well, we should at least try it, while keeping ourselves wary.

But (I feel) Mostly that a Sign of weakness is an ego thing. I don't wanna look weak cause I may get attacked. So I'm just gonna continue attacking. kinda backwards logic.

But we clearly see that war is not the answer, so perhaps it's time to try other methods. Feel me?
-

The US needs to take a couple steps back before moving forward,

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Idris wrote:

It would be odd for the US to take a position of peace , at 'any' point considering it's bloodied history.

As far as a sign of weakness, well, we should at least try it, while keeping ourselves wary.

But (I feel) Mostly that a Sign of weakness is an ego thing. I don't wanna look weak cause I may get attacked. So I'm just gonna continue attacking. kinda backwards logic.

But we clearly see that war is not the answer, so perhaps it's time to try other methods. Feel me?
-

The US needs to take a couple steps back before moving forward,

I mean that, as much as I hate to say it, the US has become the world police, whether we like it or not. I really believe that if the US wasn't feared/respected/hated as much as it is, that another Hitler may have emerged already.

Idris

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I mean that, as much as I hate to say it, the US has become the world police, whether we like it or not. I really believe that if the US wasn't feared/respected/hated as much as it is, that another Hitler may have emerged already.

Sadly another 'hitler' has emerged, it's us. What I mean by that is, we are 'the bad guys'.

Nothing Hitler did, was any worse than what the US has done through out it's years. In fact, Hitler learned a few things from the US, to go a little deeper, we supported Hitler and the Nazis, via our industries (for example)

We are only the worlds police cause we think we are above everyone else, we are not the worlds police cause we are the 'good' guys. It's because we want control, so we can enhance our own position and power.
-

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Idris wrote:

Sadly another 'hitler' has emerged, it's us. What I mean by that is, we are 'the bad guys'.

Nothing Hitler did, was any worse than what the US has done through out it's years. In fact, Hitler learned a few things from the US, to go a little deeper, we supported Hitler and the Nazis, via our industries (for example)

We are only the worlds police cause we think we are above everyone else, we are not the worlds police cause we are the 'good' guys. It's because we want control, so we can enhance our own position and power.
-

while I vehemetly oppose american foreign policy, I would never compare them in any serious context to hitler. the US is not committing genocide of any kind that I know of. I know the US are not the "good guys". All I'm saying is that they've created a position for themselves in the world where so much of the world depends on them that they have become the necessary evil.

Idris

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

while I vehemetly oppose american foreign policy, I would never compare them in any serious context to hitler. the US is not committing genocide of any kind that I know of. I know the US are not the "good guys". All I'm saying is that they've created a position for themselves in the world where so much of the world depends on them that they have become the necessary evil.

I agree with the 'all im saying' part. You are right, the US is a necessary evil, but they are only 'necessary' cause we refuse to truly change these conditions. We keep on supporting the same corrupt system of oligarchs.
-

Hitler killed innocent people, the US killed/kills innocent people. Does it matter that the US now does it with Depleted Uranium and drones? Cancers rising, the skin of people melting off etc etc. Things that we have done that will destroy the lives of generations of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's really the same thing,

I mean, the US has supported governments that have wiped out entire villages. You know, it just goes on and on.