While the media talks about the Jordanian pilot, the US burns a 13-year-old to death - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Muskof;47123990]Nothing, what justified the killing of the 13-year old?[/QUOTE] I don't know. They thought he was a terrorist? I am just a civilian. Not much I can say except it's a damn shame if he wasn't. So, about those thousands of civilians that were murdered by your forces last summer?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47123931]The point is that it's insanely hypocritical to devote hours and hours of outraged news coverage when somebody else does it and act like we have clean hands and moral authority.[/QUOTE] Ah, that lovely combination of 'accidental collateral damage is totally the same as executing a prisoner of war by burning him like the fucking Inquisition' and 'you're doing bad things so you can't comment on bad things other people do'. And even that's assuming that the article is right and the kid was innocent. I'm guessing with his close relatives having been insurgents, the chances that he [I]just so happened[/I] to get mistakenly hit by a weapon with a ~7% collateral damage rate is pretty low.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47124009]I don't know. They thought he was a terrorist? I am just a civilian. Not much I can say except it's a damn shame if he wasn't. So, about those thousands of civilians that were murdered by your forces last summer..[/QUOTE] There are active camps in Gaza right now, run by Hamas that indoctrinate children into becoming terrorists and suicide bombers, so it's safe the assume that the children are terrorists. Is it okay to just go and kill them now?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47123931]The point is that it's insanely hypocritical to devote hours and hours of outraged news coverage when somebody else does it and act like we have clean hands and moral authority.[/QUOTE] The drone strike included an accidental casualty of someone who was not meant to be targeted. The military is feeling the pain, and the operators of the drone are probably feeling awful. The bombing did not go through with the intention of harming civilians. The Jordanian pilot was executed barbarically on video to scare people and make a point.

Snip

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47123852]Yeah because calculating collateral damage and preventing it is so easy from a drone. Quit acting like the US deliberately killed the kid. It was an unfortunate mistake that can happen when we use drones.[/QUOTE] The same sort of mistakes happen when you have boots on the ground too. I'd like to see some sort of statistical breakdown regarding the no. of civ casualties in operations involving drones vs boots on the ground.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;47124045]The same sort of mistakes happen when you have boots on the ground too. I'd like to see some sort of statistical breakdown regarding the no. of civ casualties in operations involving drones vs boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] Throw manned aircraft into the mix too. People like to demonize drones, but I bet the statistics are very similar. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] Because in the end, you're shooting the same weapons at the same targets using the same guidance systems.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47124043]Are you serious? Unless you strap a bomb to your body, or carry a weapon with hostile intent, you're not a terrorist. And don't claim that all the civilians killed 'were terrorists'. I don't care if you're being indoctrinated or not. It's [B]murder [/B]to kill a kid because he may join Hamas when he's older. I don't blame him, his land has been stolen and people bullied by your government. Same could be said for ours, though.[/QUOTE] Well, atleast you understand the similarity and hypocrisy, I'm not sure how much of those 1500 civilians were the actual terrorists or militants. (which doesn't make them civilian anymore) but I can assure you that the Israeli government doesn't kill civilians deliberately. The civilians that were killed were Collateral damage, just like that 13-year old kid.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47123945]Here are my questions: If you KNOW, for a fact, drone assassinations are going to kill civilians and you okay them anyways, aren't you in effect saying "Yes killing civilians is okay"? This is even before the first drone strike happens btw. After the drone strikes happen, and you have the intelligence data showing that yes, civilians are being killed by the drones, and you keep doing it, can you really call the civilian deaths accidents? Shouldn't we at least have the balls to stop hiding behind "We didn't mean it" as an excuse?[/QUOTE] I suppose the answer depends on how one defines accidents; perhaps unintentional is a better term because the US isn't intentionally trying to kill civilians. If "we didn't mean it" is the truth, so I see no better reason to "hide behind".

[QUOTE=Maloof?;47124045]The same sort of mistakes happen when you have boots on the ground too. I'd like to see some sort of statistical breakdown regarding the no. of civ casualties in operations involving drones vs boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] A ridiculously small proportion. Drone strikes have incurred lower rates of collateral damage than any other military action in our nation's history. [img]http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/files/2014/11/Drone-strikes-statistics_11.21.14-smaller2.jpg[/img] An average of [b]13%[/b] collateral damage. The Iraq Body Count project puts the civilian casualty rate of the Iraq War at 77%. Vietnam was 67%. WW2 was 60-67%. Airstrikes aren't much better. For all that people complain about drones, and for all the (legitimate, I must say) arguments about them distancing us from conflict, they're a much, much cleaner alternative to boots on the ground.

I forgot, when did we declare war on Yemen? Oh wait :v:

[QUOTE=catbarf;47124092]A ridiculously small proportion. Drone strikes have incurred lower rates of collateral damage than any other military action in our nation's history. [img]http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/files/2014/11/Drone-strikes-statistics_11.21.14-smaller2.jpg[/img] An average of [b]13%[/b] collateral damage. The Iraq Body Count project puts the civilian casualty rate of the Iraq War at 77%. Vietnam was 67%. WW2 was 60-67%. Airstrikes aren't much better. For all that people complain about drones, and for all the (legitimate, I must say) arguments about them distancing us from conflict, they're a much, much cleaner alternative to boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] not to mention that in pretty much every conflict from WW2 up to the end of the cold war, bombing cities full of people from the air was a legitimate tactic that was used on a regular basis i look at these numbers and you'd see civilian death tolls several times this in a single day

[QUOTE=catbarf;47124092]A ridiculously small proportion. Drone strikes have incurred lower rates of collateral damage than any other military action in our nation's history. [img]http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/files/2014/11/Drone-strikes-statistics_11.21.14-smaller2.jpg[/img] An average of [b]13%[/b] collateral damage. The Iraq Body Count project puts the civilian casualty rate of the Iraq War at 77%. Vietnam was 67%. WW2 was 60-67%. Airstrikes aren't much better. For all that people complain about drones, and for all the (legitimate, I must say) arguments about them distancing us from conflict, they're a much, much cleaner alternative to boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] A. Estimates like that are inherently a crapshoot because, at the end of the day, the military's numbers are full of shit and as an independent reporter it is extremely difficult to get an accurate count of who is a "militant" and who isn't. B. I think the "cleaner" image of drone warfare is why it's proliferated to so many countries. Countries we wouldn't be killing ANYBODY in if we didn't have them. If a new weapon is only half as deadly as the old one, but you use it against twice as many people, are you really coming out ahead?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47124007]No, it's fucking not! What, you think because we have less ritual about the whole thing it's better? Because we push a button instead of lighting a match? Hell, we even go on TV and give speeches about why our killings are justified.[/QUOTE] Not really. In one the IS burned a prisoner alive; aside from the fact the person was a prisoner (and thus no longer a threat), they had a range of more quick and humane options with which to kill him with. In the other a drone strike targeting someone ends up unintentionally killing a civilian due to the lack of precision of both intelligence and the weapons platform itself. The operator of the drone in all likelihood wasn't think "I need to make sure to kill that kid as well, I'm sure he'll be a terrorist one day if he isn't already". But, you know what, I'm sure we could always go back to carpet bombing cities to destroy a target so that we can be doubly sure civilian deaths are unintentional.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47124107]A. Estimates like that are inherently a crapshoot because, at the end of the day, the military's numbers are full of shit and as an independent reporter it is extremely difficult to get an accurate count of who is a "militant" and who isn't. B. I think the "cleaner" image of drone warfare is why it's proliferated to so many countries. Countries we wouldn't be killing ANYBODY in if we didn't have them. If a new weapon is only half as deadly as the old one, but you use it against twice as many people, are you really coming out ahead?[/QUOTE] but those are [I]from[/I] independent reporters some using crowdsourced data, some using official data from FIA requests, some using local news sources. they all average out to similar values though, which gives them validity

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47124119]Not really. In one the IS burned a prisoner alive; aside from the fact the person was a prisoner (and thus no longer a threat), they had a range of more quick and humane options with which to kill him with. In the other a drone strike targeting someone ends up unintentionally killing a civilian due to the lack of precision of both intelligence and the weapons platform itself. The operator of the drone in all likelihood wasn't think "I need to make sure to kill that kid as well, I'm sure he'll be a terrorist one day if he isn't already". But, you know what, I'm sure we could always go back to carpet bombing cities to destroy a target so that we can be doubly sure civilian deaths are unintentional.[/QUOTE] Well, good luck with your "It's okay because it was unintentional!" defense next time you accidentally run over somebody. As for treatment of prisoners, we might not burn them to death, but we do lock them up forever with no trial and regularly torture them. Not [I]that[/I] much better.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47124095]I forgot, when did we declare war on Yemen? Oh wait :v:[/QUOTE] Terrorist play by different rules than traditional armies; if countries are unwilling or unable to suppress terrorists who target areas beyond the borders of that country, should other countries be expected to sit by and allow it? I will say that the ease at which the US carries out drone strikes without any real sense of public awareness or general oversight is worrying.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47124146]Well, good luck with your "It's okay because it was unintentional!" defense next time you accidentally run over somebody. As for treatment of prisoners, we might not burn them to death, but we do lock them up forever with no trial and regularly torture them. Not [I]that[/I] much better.[/QUOTE] Well if you want to use that analogy, remember that there's a difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter, not to mention that if it clearly [I]was[/I] an accident (ie the guy jumps out in front of you at the very last possible second) you'd be cleared of any wrongdoing.

[QUOTE=Apache249;47123886]I wasn't aware that the Predator/Reaper is armed with a flamethrower. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mecaguy03;47123958]Im pretty sure hellfires dont actually burn people alive, and that whoever said they did doesnt know what a thermobaric weapon or shaped charge is.[/QUOTE] How exactly are these posts pertinent to the discussion? The thread is about someone being incinerated and the fact the OP used the improper terminology is the bit that bothers you? Wow.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;47124171]How exactly are these posts pertinent to the discussion? The thread is about someone being incinerated and the fact the OP used the improper terminology is the bit that bothers you? Wow.[/QUOTE] Yellow journalism doesn't bother you?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47124159]Terrorist play by different rules than traditional armies; if countries are unwilling or unable to suppress terrorists who target areas beyond the borders of that country, should other countries be expected to sit by and allow it? I will say that the ease at which the US carries out drone strikes without any real sense of public awareness or general oversight is worrying.[/QUOTE] Fuck international boundaries, we can go and kill whomever we want, wherever we want!

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47124159]Terrorist play by different rules than traditional armies; if countries are unwilling or unable to suppress terrorists who target areas beyond the borders of that country, should other countries be expected to sit by and allow it? I will say that the ease at which the US carries out drone strikes without any real sense of public awareness or general oversight is worrying.[/QUOTE] Terrorists don't spring up overnight. Islamic terrorism is a direct consequence of Western meddling in the Middle East.

[QUOTE=Apache249;47124188]Yellow journalism doesn't bother you?[/QUOTE] The information wasn't that far off base to begin with one second he was there the next he's gone. Why would arguing semantics outside of a community that deals with those kinds of semantics make any sense? If your posting on /k/ then by all means, but here it's just trivial and TBH to me it seems the two of you just wanted to flex your knowledge skills.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;47124213]The information wasn't that far off base to begin with one second he was there the next he's gone. Why would arguing semantics outside of a community that deals with those kinds of semantics make any sense? If your posting on /k/ then by all means, but here it's just trivial and TBH to me it seems the two of you just wanted to flex your knowledge skills.[/QUOTE] There is nothing trivial about locking a man in a cage, dousing him in accelerant, and setting him ablaze. There is nothing trivial about an innocent child killed in a drone strike. That being said, the notion that he was trying to make, that the two incidents are somehow [I]identical[/I], is completely absurd. [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] and the information was very much so off base, it wasn't even in the same ballpark. Go back and read my posts and maybe you'll see why

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47124095]I forgot, when did we declare war on Yemen? Oh wait :v:[/QUOTE] You're not, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Yemen#US_air_attacks]you're working with the Yemeni government[/url]. You didn't really buy that the US does whatever it wants regardless of the local government? [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47124146]Well, good luck with your "It's okay because it was unintentional!" defense next time you accidentally run over somebody. As for treatment of prisoners, we might not burn them to death, but we do lock them up forever with no trial and regularly torture them. Not [I]that[/I] much better.[/QUOTE] That is actually a good defence, culpable driving certainly won't get you the same sentence as if you kidnap and torture someone to death. On a related note, I'm curious on your opinion of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem]Trolley problem[/url] in ethics. Is it always a catch-22 for you or do you see the collateral from inaction as better than the significantly lower collateral from action?

[QUOTE=Apache249;47124261]and the information was very much so off base, it wasn't even in the same ballpark. Go back and read my posts and maybe you'll see why[/QUOTE] Again, the specifics on how he died (explosion versus incineration) don't really matter when the main theme is a casualty by collateral damage. It's a trivial specific that would only be applicable to people knowledgeable about that sort of thing. What you are doing now is similar to another post I seen a while back, the guy found it prudent to correct a bit of the article on the Aroura shooting, he demonstrated that the gear in one of the pictures was actually a chest rig and not an armor carrier. It's pointless; it's correction for the sake of seeming knowledgeable about a subject with little impact on the overarching situation. [QUOTE=Apache249;47124261]There is nothing trivial about locking a man in a cage, dousing him in accelerant, and setting him ablaze. There is nothing trivial about an innocent child killed in a drone strike. That being said, the notion that he was trying to make, that the two incidents are somehow [I]identical[/I], is completely absurd. [/Quote] That's an entirely separate issue, and has nothing to do with my point.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;47124330]Again, the specifics on how he died (explosion versus incineration) don't really matter when the main theme is a casualty by collateral damage. It's a trivial specific that would only be applicable to people knowledgeable about that sort of thing. What you are doing now is similar to another post I seen a while back, the guy found it prudent to correct a bit of the article on the Aroura shooting, he demonstrated that the gear in one of the pictures was actually a chest rig and not an armor carrier. It's pointless; it's correction for the sake of seeming knowledgeable about a subject with little impact on the overarching situation. That's an entirely separate issue, and has nothing to do with my point.[/QUOTE] If the main issue is collateral damage, then why did he make a direct connection to a prisoner of war who was executed by being burning alive?

[QUOTE=Apache249;47124346]If the main issue is collateral damage, then why did he make a direct connection to a prisoner of war who was executed by being burning alive?[/QUOTE] That's an issue with the article. My point was needless correction on the specifics of hellfire missiles and warheads / charges and the like, comparing the guy that burned to death to almost instant incineration was a bit asinine though.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47123852]Yeah because calculating collateral damage and preventing it is so easy from a drone. Quit acting like the US deliberately killed the kid. It was an unfortunate mistake that can happen when we use drones.[/QUOTE] Where were you during math class? So if terrorists kill innocent people, you're going to turn around and kill innocents while trying to kill those terrorists.... because they killed innocent people? So now we've got more deaths on our hands. And this is exactly what a terrorist would want. For us to react, and end up hurting more innocent people.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;47124394]That's an issue with the article. My point was needless correction on the specifics of hellfire missiles and warheads / charges and the like, comparing the guy that burned to death to almost instant incineration was a bit asinine though.[/QUOTE] The article actually made no comparison to the Jordanian pilot, so no, it was an issue with the poster. And there are huge differences between the two deaths. These aren't trivial differences. The article is misleading and wrong. The poster is misleading and wrong. Why are you okay with that?