It's a terrible act done by savages and killing innocents is always unjustifiable. Regardless, using drones in general is also lazy and reckless. They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.
[quote]Pakistani Taliban took responsibility for the attack, saying it was retaliation for a Jan. 6 U.S. drone strike that killed two Taliban commanders, and Pakistan's cooperation with such attacks.[/quote]
If it wasn't this it would have been another reason, I doubt they only did this for retaliation against that single drone strike.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39452302]Using drones are is lazy and reckless. They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.[/QUOTE]
Except in this case the drone strike did what it was intended to do, the civilians weren't killed by a drone.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39452302]Using drones are is lazy and reckless. They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't justify killing innocent civilians in retaliation
Especially when the drone strike in question was a success, killing two very important targets to the Taliban
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39452302]Using drones are is lazy and reckless. They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.[/QUOTE]
I hate the use of drones, but I was under the impression that the "double tap" thing was made out to be false?
Especially when the drone strike in question was a success, killing two very important targets to the Taliban
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39452302]Using drones are is lazy and reckless. They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.[/QUOTE]
Nice job spouting the same insane propaganda stuff that you attack others for doing
Drones are the key to America's aggressive foreign policy future. With drones, we can commit ourselves to military operations without the risk of Americans dying - the only thing the people really care about.
A soldier died in combat? Outrage!
A drone fell out of the sky? Doesn't even make the local news.
So much for ending "pointless wars".
I think drones are necessary, if morally grey. How else are we going to kill these commanders?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39452302]Using drones are is lazy and reckless. [/quote] It saves the lives of American soldiers, as well as untold hundreds of thousands of dollars on potentially damaged hardware per op. Of course they're using them. What self-respecting military commander would be able to turn to his troops and say "We have this technology to strike the enemy from hundreds of miles away, but instead of using it, we're going to send a few of you into the line of fire instead!"
It may be a bit unethical, but that's war in a nutshell. War is, always has been, and always will be, a dirty affair on the best of days. People are going to die regardless of what you do, so as a commander, your duty is to keep your own side as unharmed as possible.
[quote]They have an infamous "double-tap" program where they bomb a site, then bomb it again 15-20 minutes later targeting rescuers and emergency services.[/QUOTE]
This is unnecessary though, that much I will agree with.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39452434]I think drones are necessary, if morally grey. How else are we going to kill these commanders?[/QUOTE]
Simple: We send in ground forces.
Risk is too much? Well, perhaps we shouldn't be sending in interventionist forces everywhere which only spawns more of these commanders.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452384]I hate the use of drones, but I was under the impression that the "double tap" thing was made out to be false?[/QUOTE]
"Double-Tap" happens, but not as often as everyone thinks. I'd have to say maybe about 3-4/10 bombings will include a double-tap.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39452434]I think drones are necessary, if morally grey. How else are we going to kill these commanders?[/QUOTE]
Joint operations with other countries, specifically through usage of ground based special ops.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;39452447]"Double-Tap" happens, but not as often as everyone thinks. I'd have to say maybe about 3-4/10 bombings will include a double-tap.
[/QUOTE]
based on...
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;39452447]"Double-Tap" happens, but not as often as everyone thinks. I'd have to say maybe about 3-4/10 bombings will include a double-tap.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
Joint operations with other countries, specifically through usage of ground based special ops.[/QUOTE]
this is Pakistan we're talking about right now, they can barely control their own country
[QUOTE=TestECull;39452442]It saves the lives of American soldiers, as well as untold hundreds of thousands of dollars on potentially damaged hardware per op. Of course they're using them. What self-respecting military commander would be able to turn to his troops and say "We have this technology to strike the enemy from hundreds of miles away, but instead of using it, we're going to send a few of you into the line of fire instead!"
It may be a bit unethical, but that's war in a nutshell. War is, always has been, and always will be, a dirty affair on the best of days. People are going to die regardless of what you do, so as a commander, your duty is to keep your own side as unharmed as possible. [/QUOTE]
Saving lives and saving money isn't the point. It allows America to continue its aggressive foreign policy, at times now even in secret, while the people are either apathetic or ignorant of its usage.
With this, we can have so many more nice wars without bitching populace complaining about it.
9/11 happened because of America's foreign policy. I wouldn't say the near 3,000 Americans who died in those attacks plus the destruction of all those buildings count as "no one died, saved money" when you put [I]everything[/I] in perspective.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452444]Simple: We send in ground forces.
Risk is too much? Well, perhaps we shouldn't be sending in interventionist forces everywhere which only spawns more of these commanders.[/QUOTE]
Not really interventionist in this scenario, considering they had Pakistan's approval.
What would you do? Let them grow unchallenged?
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39452521]this is Pakistan we're talking about right now, they can barely control their own country[/QUOTE]
That's a terrible excuse, really.
In fact, I would theorize that further intervention in Pakistan without that country's help or consent will destabilize it [I]further[/I] instead of help it.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=rilez;39452528]Not really interventionist in this scenario, considering they had Pakistan's approval.
What would you do? Let them grow unchallenged?[/QUOTE]
Not every operation gets Pakistan's approval, else Bin Laden wouldn't have died in the way he did.
As for what I would do, I would stop having America dictate its desires to smaller nations. In return, we can see the lack of marginalized extremists coming about to blow up Americans at home and abroad.
It's a self-perpetuating scenario.
America bombs someone.
Another gets mad, tries to bomb America.
America retaliates by bombing them.
Another gets mad, tries to bomb America.
Rinse and repeat.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452384]I hate the use of drones, but I was under the impression that the "double tap" thing was made out to be false?[/QUOTE]
No, it is an action done by the U.S. acknowledged by [URL="http://livingunderdrones.org/"]academia[/URL] and [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981"]news agencies[/URL]. That is in addition to the U.S' attempts to severely deflate the causality count.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;39452434]I think drones are necessary, if morally grey. How else are we going to kill these commanders?[/QUOTE]
The number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is at just 2%
[QUOTE=TestECull;39452442]It may be a bit unethical, but that's war in a nutshell. War is, always has been, and always will be, a dirty affair on the best of days. People are going to die regardless of what you do, so as a commander, your duty is to keep your own side as unharmed as possible.[/QUOTE]
see, it's exactly this kind of cynical, self-centered thinking that isn't going to help keep casualties down
Whats wrong with drone strikes? Sure it kills people, newsflash, thats the point. Who cares if its 'cowardly'. We aren't living in the 19th century (or any other time before that) where you had to stab your enemy in the throat in order to make sure you weren't a coward for putting a crossbow bolt in his chest.
Its a much better way to kill the 'bad guys' without unnecessary friendly casualties. Hell, drone strikes even lessen the civilian casualties thanks to the increased accuracy they provide.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;39452643]Whats wrong with drone strikes? Sure it kills people, newsflash, thats the point. Who cares if its 'cowardly'. We aren't living in the 19th century (or any other time before that) where you had to stab your enemy in the throat in order to make sure you weren't a coward for putting a crossbow bolt in his chest.
Its a much better way to kill the 'bad guys' without unnecessary friendly casualties. Hell, drone strikes even lessen the civilian casualties thanks to the increased accuracy they provide.[/QUOTE]
"Lessen" is not "eliminate"
And your words are exactly why it'll grow and America is just going to get into more trouble. "No cost to us!" is a shitty view of the world.
[QUOTE=scout1;39452499]based on...[/QUOTE]
Couple of lads I talked to on base back when I was in Afghanistan. Can't prove or deny what they said entirely, but at least they admitted it happened.
Also, noticed it to be slightly irrelephant because I don't know if we do the same stuff in Pakistan as we did in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;39452643]Who cares if its 'cowardly'. We aren't living in the 19th century (or any other time before that) where you had to stab your enemy in the throat in order to make sure you weren't a coward for putting a crossbow bolt in his chest.
Its a much better way to kill the 'bad guys' without unnecessary friendly casualties. Hell, drone strikes even lessen the civilian casualties thanks to the increased accuracy they provide.[/QUOTE]
Why did you devote nearly an entire post to refuting a mythical [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"]argument[/URL]? No one's suggested it was cowardly. I have already outlined the valid reasons in my post above.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452662]"Lessen" is not "eliminate"
And your words are exactly why it'll grow and America is just going to get into more trouble. "No cost to us!" is a shitty view of the world.[/QUOTE]
Lessening our casualties while maximizing enemy casualties is what is smart and efficient, though. Collateral doesn't matter in the long run. Instead of sending soldiers with lives in instead of machines to keep a few civilians from getting accidentally killed, why not just fix our imperialist war policies on the homefront?
Putting a solider at risk for the sake of a civilian is an awful tactic, even if it is more moral.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39452856]Lessening our casualties while maximizing enemy casualties is what is smart and efficient, though. Collateral doesn't matter in the long run. Instead of sending soldiers with lives in instead of machines to keep a few civilians from getting accidentally killed, why not just fix our imperialist war policies on the homefront?
Putting a solider at risk for the sake of a civilian is an awful tactic, even if it is more moral.[/QUOTE]
You, like so many others, are missing the damn point.
Collateral damage happens in every war.
War in general is bad.
These drones will make war "easier" to do for America.
And collateral damage [B]does[/B] matter in the long run because it's things like that that give people the inspiration for 9/11.
And that's only for concern for our own people. That's beside the fact that, [I]you're fucking killing innocent people.[/I]
Weren't the people that said drone strikes were occuring laughed out of SH, being called "conspiracy theorists"?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452876]You, like so many others, are missing the damn point.
Collateral damage happens in every war.
War in general is bad.
These drones will make war "easier" to do for America.
And collateral damage [B]does[/B] matter in the long run because it's things like that that give people the inspiration for 9/11.
And that's only for concern for our own people. That's beside the fact that, [I]you're fucking killing innocent people.[/I][/QUOTE]
So instead of sending in soldiers and putting their lives at risk, just fix the fucking war policies and withdraw altogether.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39452919]So instead of sending in soldiers and putting their lives at risk, just fix the fucking war policies and withdraw altogether.[/QUOTE]
We would be heading in that direction I think if drones were never invented, sadly.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39452952]We would be heading in that direction I think if drones were never invented, sadly.[/QUOTE]
Either way, though, drones are going to prevent friendly losses in the future, and the collateral deaths they cause is going to become less and less with the advancement of technology.
Collateral damage is less important than friendly loss, still, until it causes a massive retaliation.
I don't know how many American lives were saved by drones, since they've only become prevalent in conflict recently, but I'm sure they're more of a blessing than an omen for us.
[editline]2nd February 2013[/editline]
Depending on how much more American losses it would've taken to end the war, I'm sure the alternative is better, was what I was trying to say.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453017]Either way, though, drones are going to prevent friendly losses in the future, and the collateral deaths they cause is going to become less and less with the advancement of technology.
Collateral damage is less important than friendly loss, still, until it causes a massive retaliation.
I don't know how many American lives were saved by drones, since they've only become prevalent in conflict recently, but I'm sure they're more of a blessing than an omen for us.[/QUOTE]
The thing with collateral damage is, anyone in the Middle East that has a gun can be considered "a terrorist" by the US and so a possible target.
This is nice if everyone were in formal, regular armies with identifiable uniforms, but your posts seem to outright ignore this obvious fact.
And if you judge the success or failure of a war by simply comparing the statistics of your losses to that of the enemy, you have a very dehumanized understanding of war itself.
Even if it only kills "a bad guy" (which has a clear definition of....?), the people around him still have to live in the fear of being the next target.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
