Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says - Polidicks

[quote](CNN) -- Farmers are on their way to tend their crops when a missile slams into their midst, thrusting shrapnel in all directions. A CIA drone, flying so high that the farmers can't see it, has killed most of them. None of them were militants. It's a common scenario, a United Nations human rights researcher said Friday in a statement on drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal region of North Waziristan. Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson just returned from the region, where he listened to residents talk about terrifying encounters with one of America's weapons in the war on terror. [B]"Adult males carrying out ordinary daily tasks were frequently the victims of such strikes," the statement from the U.N. office for human rights said.[/B] Some Pashtun men dress the same as Taliban members from the same region, hence the drone operators mistake them for terror targets, the statement said. It is also customary for Pashtun men to carry a weapon, making them virtually indistinguishable from militants to an outsider. The United States has 8,000 drones, unmanned planes and helicopters flown by a remote control. They are outfitted with a video camera to help the operator spot targets and often armed with weapons used to neutralize them. President Barack Obama has told CNN that a target must meet "very tight and very strict standards." CIA director John Brennan has said that only in "exceedingly rare" cases have civilians been "accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes." Reports by independent groups corroborate Emmerson's account, concluding that drones mistakenly target and kill a significant number of civilians. [B]The New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan, drones have killed between 1,953 and 3,279 people since 2004 - and that between 18% and 23% of them were not militants. The nonmilitant casualty rate was down to about 10% in 2012, the group says.[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url]

What a surprise.

Why does Pakistan let them do this?

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39921637]Why does Pakistan let them do this?[/QUOTE] Because its a fragmented nation that hasn't 100% control and unity of itself. [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] And America does what it pleases.

If this is such a massive issue drones should only be used to support ground troops who have already properly identified the targets.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;39921672]If this is such a massive issue drones should only be used to support ground troops who have already properly identified the targets.[/QUOTE] You'd think that, but I guess the Obama administration doesn't care.

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39921637]Why does Pakistan let them do this?[/QUOTE] Because the US gives it $billions in aid

drones are a good idea right guys

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39921637]Why does Pakistan let them do this?[/QUOTE] 1. Pakistan does not have control of much of its northern regions. These tribal areas have no allegiance to Pakistan and Pakistan can not control them. 2. The US has been denied placing troops into Pakistan. The legal way around this is to run drones that Pakistan can not locate or shoot down. 3. Both sides hate the Taliban and AQ running the tribal areas. It's mutually beneficial. Pakistan cares little for the people in those regions. As long as the US keeps to the tribal areas, then they could care less.

And now the relatives of these men will be angry at the west and will go off and join terrorist organisations. And the whole cycle continues.

skynet

[QUOTE=squids_eye;39921672]If this is such a massive issue drones should only be used to support ground troops who have already properly identified the targets.[/QUOTE] The most common arguement against this I see is that sending in troops puts American soldiers at risk, along with things like cost (Which should not factor into human life, but whatever), and political repercussions of what is essentially an invasion. But guess what, soldiers volunteered to die. Oh they may have other reasons, wanting to protect their country and babies and freedom and all that, but at the end of the day, their job is to fight and die for their nation. Mohammed and Hassan the local green grocers did not volunteer to die. I would rather a thousand dead soldiers then a hundred dead civilians, because it is the soldiers job to die.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39921849]drones are a good idea right guys[/QUOTE] They [i]are[/i] a good idea, but it's a case of great plan (kill militants) shit execution, literally.

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39921637]Why does Pakistan let them do this?[/QUOTE] Who says they let them? Pakistan has been demanding the U.S. to cease for ages now.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39921879]And now the relatives of these men will be angry at the west and will go off and join terrorist organisations. And the whole cycle continues.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Senseless violence. Fighting fire with fire

Duh. Our standards for drone strikes appear to be any gathering of more than a few men, with at least one weapon between them. I can't imagine what it's like trying to go about your life knowing there are drones circling overhead waiting for you to do anything that gives them an excuse to murder you.

For what it's worth, a 10% civilian casualty rate is [i]way[/i] better than what we had in Somalia or Iraq. In the Iraq war, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War]about [i]three times[/i][/url] as many civilians as combatants were killed. Whether we should be over there in the first place is a serious question, but don't say that having boots on the ground would reduce collateral damage because statistically the opposite is true.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39922554]For what it's worth, a 10% civilian casualty rate is [i]way[/i] better than what we had in Somalia or Iraq. In the Iraq war, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War]about [i]three times[/i][/url] as many civilians as combatants were killed. Whether we should be over there in the first place is a serious question, but don't say that having boots on the ground would reduce collateral damage because statistically the opposite is true.[/QUOTE] Yeah the Iraq war had more civilain casualties it was a war. As far as I'm aware the USA isn't at war with Pakistan.

There was a study I heard of that claimed that there was more collateral with non drone strikes than with drone strikes. I can't vouch for it since I do not have the source. And even if that were the case, the issue of precision bombing in general, humans in the machines or not, is still pressing.

uhhh... ok [url]http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones/2012[/url] 5 civilian deaths in total in 2012. 200-300 dead militants [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] granted, there were more civilian deaths in previous years, but it's gone down drastically due to better intelligence.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39921967]The most common arguement against this I see is that sending in troops puts American soldiers at risk, along with things like cost (Which should not factor into human life, but whatever), and political repercussions of what is essentially an invasion. But guess what, soldiers volunteered to die. Oh they may have other reasons, wanting to protect their country and babies and freedom and all that, but at the end of the day, their job is to fight and die for their nation. Mohammed and Hassan the local green grocers did not volunteer to die. I would rather a thousand dead soldiers then a hundred dead civilians, because it is the soldiers job to die.[/QUOTE] "“When I was taking a seminar in political science and philosophy at Princeton, learning why democracy was better than all those other forms of government, a main reason was that the public was linked to its wars,” Singer says. “It was both making the decisions and bearing the costs. But what happens if those links are changing in a way that philosophers could never have imagined?” " [url]http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2012/12/12/pages/7919/index.xml?page=1[/url]

well i for am TOTALLY SHOCKED by this UNEXPECTED FINDING

Unmanned drones are a scary thought. Basically, a guy just sits in a comfy chair with a moniter in front of him and steers a missile that can and will kill many people. That sort of detachment from the situation irks me.

[QUOTE=MacaroriCheeze;39923281]Unmanned drones are a scary thought. Basically, a guy just sits in a comfy chair with a moniter in front of him and steers a missile that can and will kill many people. That sort of detachment from the situation irks me.[/QUOTE] I would rather have a robot take fire than having a platoon of infantry on the ground getting the shit.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;39923349]I would rather have a robot take fire than having a platoon of infantry on the ground getting the shit.[/QUOTE] Who cares if the robot can't tell the difference between an insurgent with a rpg or a farmer with a stick.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39923438]Who cares if the robot can't tell the difference between an insurgent with a rpg or a farmer with a stick.[/QUOTE] You realize the drones have people behind them right

[QUOTE=MacaroriCheeze;39923281]Unmanned drones are a scary thought. Basically, a guy just sits in a comfy chair with a moniter in front of him and steers a missile that can and will kill many people. That sort of detachment from the situation irks me.[/QUOTE] Because this [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/45/Lancaster_I_NG128_Dropping_Blockbuster_-_Duisburg_-_Oct_14,_1944.jpg/220px-Lancaster_I_NG128_Dropping_Blockbuster_-_Duisburg_-_Oct_14,_1944.jpg[/IMG] or this [IMG]http://www.1914-1918.net/PIX/9point2how.jpg[/IMG] are just so face-to-face and personal, right? They're nothing like pulling a lever or pressing a button from miles away from the target, no sir. The idea of killing someone from far away without seeing them or being at risk is clearly a totally new thing that never existed before drones. [/sarcasm] If anything, seeing a person through a camera before making the decision to push that button is [i]less[/i] detached than adjusting a gun according to map coordinates and firing.

For all you people against drones, I'd love to hear your alternative. Simply leaving would be the dumbest thing to do.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;39925115]For all you people against drones, I'd love to hear your alternative. Simply leaving would be the dumbest thing to do.[/QUOTE] Simply leaving would not antagonize people in the Middle East to fly planes into skyscrapers.

[QUOTE=scout1;39923572]You realize the drones have people behind them right[/QUOTE] Yeah and what a good job they're doing.