Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook' condemned by human rights groups - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38597080]And you don't understand that I know other people in the military too (funny that), and make a ton of connections and friends with people in high places. We don't automatically assume that they are combatants, we can't afford to. We keep a healthy suspicion of anyone and everyone going just to prepare for anything to happen, as in an ambush or a suicide attack, for instance. Also, if it was nothing personal, then why rely on personal insults? I like how you basically just called me what amounts to "Sheeple."[/QUOTE]I didn't call you anything, I said you were being ignorant because you are. And you accuse me of being a wackpot conspiracy theorist to discredit me, more willful ignorance.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38597538]I didn't call you anything, I said you were being ignorant because you are. And you accuse me of being a wackpot conspiracy theorist to discredit me, more willful ignorance.[/QUOTE] Someone is slightly paranoid. I never called you anything of the sort.

[QUOTE=dass;38593908]Apparently, you have to kill people nicely. This is just like hollow points in war. You can't use them because it will increase the risk of fatalities in a war. ....what the fuck is war supposed to do then? I thought you went to war to (in a simple answer) kill people, not give them a bruise good enough to come back.[/QUOTE] Hi, late answer, but the best way to win a war would be to pretty much wound everyone and kill nobody.

Unfortunately, when thousands of people would be better off with their tormentors dead, it may be the humane thing most humane thing we can do. Are we seriously supposed to police the world and imprison every bad leader through a direct occupation of territory? It's insanity. We kill people either way, and the primary benefit to drone assaults is how easy it is to 'pull out'. You don't have the monetary investment of an entire army base sitting in the desert to kill a man, you simply fly overhead, press release, and end the conflict. Being humane isn't always pretty. To be humane is to hold beliefs and have action that are beneficial to humanity.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38597714]Someone is slightly paranoid. I never called you anything of the sort.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] I like how you basically just called me what amounts to "Sheeple."[/QUOTE]herp derp, i c wat did there

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598022]herp derp, i c wat did there[/QUOTE] I wasn't implying anything other than what you called me means the same thing as a tired term that I personally dislike, but whatever floats your boat. You may not be a whacko conspiracy theorist, but you are certainly paranoid enough to be one. Chill out, don't jump to conclusions there Evil Knievel.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38598064]I wasn't implying anything other than what you called me means the same thing as a tired term that I personally dislike, but whatever floats your boat. You may not be a whacko conspiracy theorist, but you are certainly paranoid enough to be one. Chill out, don't jump to conclusions there Evil Knievel.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you see, this is what I meant about you being so defensive. I don't know what I've said that constitutes paranoia, in your mind. Civilians die from drone strikes, if you have to fight to repress this obviously true fact from your squeaky clean bleached-white conscience, that's fine with me but it doesn't change the facts.

So is it the drones' history of allegedly killing far more than required or the fact that they are unmanned weapons that bothers these people? Because if it's the latter I have zero sympathy for these groups, where the alternative would be to risk American soldiers. [editline]ajlkya[/editline] Even if it's the former in that case, I'd still find their outcry strange. Is it a point of ignorance then? The systems by which the drones acquire and deliver munitions to their target is perfectly sound. It shouldn't be the drones in this case that you should be protesting against, it should be their application (aka: "be more goddamn careful, ok?")

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38598160]Aside from the fact that these people are complaining about nothingSo is it the drones' history of allegedly killing far more than required or the fact that they are unmanned weapons that bothers these people? Because if it's the latter I have zero sympathy for these groups, where the alternative would be to risk American soldiers. [editline]ajlkya[/editline] Even if it's the former in that case, I'd still find their outcry strange. Is it a point of ignorance then? The systems by which the drones acquire and deliver munitions to their target is perfectly sound. It shouldn't be the drones in this case that you should be protesting against, it should be their application (aka: "be more goddamn careful, ok?")[/QUOTE] So you have no sympathy... for the generals in the army that send these troops out to battle? Smart logic you have there.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598177]So you have no sympathy... for the generals in the army that send these troops out to battle? Smart logic you have there.[/QUOTE] No sympathy for the human rights groups' cause. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. (also I'm not sure why backing out of a partial, trashed edit actually submitted the edit to the post. fixed.)

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38598191]No sympathy for the human rights groups' cause. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. (also I'm not sure why backing out of a partial, trashed edit actually submitted the edit to the post. fixed.)[/QUOTE]Soldiers enlist for the military knowing the risk beforehand. Your logic is that sending them into battle where their lives are at risk is some terrible practice that must be avoided at all costs. That's what a military does.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598218]Soldiers enlist for the military knowing the risk beforehand. Your logic is that sending them into battle where their lives are at risk is some terrible practice that must be avoided at all costs. That's what a military does.[/QUOTE] You are correct and incorrect. Just because they agree to that risk, that does [B]not[/B] mean that those in charge (at every level) will take unnecessary risks or go through with overly and wastefully risky plans. If you can turn 10% risk into 0% risk then you're going to turn it into 0% risk. No question about it. This applies to the military more than anything.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593940]yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people[/QUOTE] yeah lets throw flowers at them instead [editline]26th November 2012[/editline] oh wait someone might be allergic to those

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38598268]yeah lets throw flowers at them instead [editline]26th November 2012[/editline] oh wait someone might be allergic to those[/QUOTE] Lets just kill as many civilians as we can get away with in the name of the 'war on terror', creating more terrorists in the long run and creating a state of never-ending perpetual war that the private military and weapons manufacturing companies can get filthy rich off of- oh wait, that wouldn't be any change at all.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598360]Lets just kill as many civilians as we can get away with in the name of the 'war on terror', creating more terrorists in the long run and creating a state of never-ending perpetual war that the private military and weapons manufacturing companies can get filthy rich off of- oh wait, that wouldn't be any change at all.[/QUOTE] You're really just too ignorant to continue arguing with. [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38593883] How about you read the part where it says drones minimize collateral damage and reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm? Of course it isn't "humane" but it sure as shit is better than hundreds of civilian casualties due to direct military intervention.[/QUOTE] [editline]26th November 2012[/editline] Here's a situation: A terrorist leader is found to be living in a town. Say a small town of 500. And lets also say this is 30 years ago; no drones. The old fashioned way to get to him would be to send in a fairly sizable force, here's a bullshit ballpark size: A couple infantry heavy companies. The technology for accurate and precise targeting of individuals from the air has not existed for that long. Now that could be roughly 200-300 soldiers moving through and around this town to neutralize a group that is headed by one man. Anyway: you could drop leaflets on the town telling the civilians to leave if they want to live, like we did in Fallujah, but that didn't stop some 550-650 civilians who chose to stay from dying amidst the bombs, artillery, mortars, and stray rounds. So you have a sizable amount of the population choosing to stay. And where do they go once the bombs start dropping and firefights break out on the streets they live on? They stay in their homes. And where are the soldiers fighting? They're not fighting in the middle of the street; they're fighting in these homes. And so are the insurgents. I'm willing to guarantee you that more deaths will come from an invasion like that than the collateral damage caused by a [B]single[/B] hellfire, maverick, 1,000lb bomb, etc.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2. And, if anything. Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.[/QUOTE] V2 rockets (Nazi missiles) used an extremely primitive remote control sometimes. I don't know if it's included in the Geneva convention, but the technology was there.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38598375]You're really just too ignorant to continue arguing with.[/quote] I wasn't arguing anything. Certainly not with you. [quote]Here's a situation: A terrorist leader is found to be living in a town. Say a small town of 500. And lets also say this is 30 years ago; no drones. The old fashioned way to get to him would be to send in a fairly sizable force, here's a bullshit ballpark size: A couple infantry heavy companies. The technology for accurate and precise targeting of individuals from the air has not existed for that long. Now that could be roughly 200-300 soldiers moving through and around this town to neutralize a group that is headed by one man. Anyway: you could drop leaflets on the town telling the civilians to leave if they want to live, like we did in Fallujah, but that didn't stop some 550-650 civilians who chose to stay from dying amidst the bombs, artillery, mortars, and stray rounds. So you have a sizable amount of the population choosing to stay. And where do they go once the bombs start dropping and firefights break out on the streets they live on? They stay in their homes. And where are the soldiers fighting? They're not fighting in the middle of the street; they're fighting in these homes. And so are the insurgents. I'm willing to guarantee you that more deaths will come from an invasion like that than the collateral damage caused by a [B]single[/B] hellfire, maverick, 1,000lb bomb, etc.[/QUOTE]Or you could, you know, not get involved because it's not even necessary. And even if you do decide to get involved, there's diplomatic actions which a retarded militarist like yourself would probably never even realize is an option.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598519]I wasn't arguing anything. Certainly not with you. Or you could, you know, not get involved because it's not even necessary. And even if you do decide to get involved, there's diplomatic actions which a retarded militarist like yourself would probably never even realize is an option.[/QUOTE] Of course. So complain about that not drones.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38598519]I wasn't arguing anything. Certainly not with you. Or you could, you know, not get involved because it's not even necessary. And even if you do decide to get involved, there's diplomatic actions which a retarded militarist like yourself would probably never even realize is an option.[/QUOTE] Well, when diplomacy fails, we send in the force. I also highly doubt that a terrorist cell leader would turn from his firmly entrenched views and practices so easily. If we splash him, then the community would benefit due to the fact that there is not a person that executes them for going to school or cutting off body parts at random there anymore.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38598677]Well, when diplomacy fails, we send in the force. I also highly doubt that a terrorist cell leader would turn from his firmly entrenched views and practices so easily. If we splash him, then the community would benefit due to the fact that there is not a person that executes them for going to school or cutting off body parts at random there anymore.[/QUOTE] you're right, but also unrelated i've never seen a militarist pony fag.

If the target is in the area with the drone being the only asset nearby then we'll use it. Even if the drone is on a recon mission it will probably be armed to provide CC's with an extra option to engage if necessary. The F2T2EA cycle establishes PID and possible collateral damage concerns. Same applies if a ground force is in the area. Except we still need to obtain eyes on and assess the area for strike options if the ground force is unable to engage. The order to engage is given when we are completely sure it's the target we're after. The standard hellfire is efficient enough to take out the target while keeping collateral concerns at a minimum. Civilians would literally have to be standing less than 10 feet away to be affected by the blast ring. Engagement is necessary if the "civilians" are aware of the threat imposed by the target. The media loves reporting on civilian deaths, but I've seen strikes where civilians are using themselves as human shields to try to prevent us from conducting the strike. But with them doing so would label them as a target as well.

killing civilians is ok if they aren't compliant eh?

[QUOTE=Falchion;38599842]killing civilians is ok if they aren't compliant eh?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=l33tkill;38599703]I've seen strikes where civilians are using themselves as human shields to try to prevent us from conducting the strike. But with them doing so would label them as a target as well.[/QUOTE] We don't confirm everything from one source. "There's a civilian standing next to our target, let's nail them both"...Which is completely wrong. The "civilian" would have to be connected to the target in some way where it could hinder their operations even further (thus establishing further PID on the "civilian" would take place). Second in command, HV contacts, dealers, and even "body guards" who follow the target anywhere they go. If the person who's connected to the target gets killed, then typically the organization that the target is associated with will report the "connection" as a civilian. Thus using the "civilian" death as propaganda aimed toward the misuse of drones. So going back to my previous quote, the "civilian" would have to be deliberately placing themselves near the target. Which would be confirmed through multiple sources. Otherwise a strike wouldn't be appropriate.