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

[QUOTE=Apache249;47124425]The article actually made no comparison to the Jordanian pilot, so no, it was an issue with the poster.[/QUOTE] [Quote] Mohammed’s older brother Maqded said he “saw all the bodies completely burned, like charcoal” – undoubtedly quite similar to the way the Jordanian combat pilot [/Quote] ___ [QUOTE=Apache249;47124425] 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.[/QUOTE] If your issue with the article was a wrongfully placed comparison betwix the Jordanian pilot and the kid, then why even get into the specifics of the missile in the first place? You could have stated your issue by posting a description of a Thermobaric weapon and then proved the conclusion false. Instead you vied to make this steaming tongue in cheek pile of informativeness. [QUOTE=Apache249;47123886]I wasn't aware that the Predator/Reaper is armed with a flamethrower. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Also regarding thermobarics in the first place, sometimes the reaction isn't complete and so you end up with an area doing a slow burn instead of an insta incineration. [Quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Effect[/url] - If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. [/Quote]

[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] It wasn't US, it was the drone! (no seriously, why do you guys use automated weapons then blame the weapon for innocent kills)? But it's same shit with human soldiers so my point is kind of pointless.

[QUOTE=Prismatex;47124200]Terrorists don't spring up overnight. Islamic terrorism is a direct consequence of Western meddling in the Middle East.[/QUOTE] hate to tell you but ISIS was funded completely by saudi's government not the US.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;47124636]hate to tell you but ISIS was funded completely by saudi's government not the US.[/QUOTE] And it arose out of AQIA, which was a direct response to the US invasion of Iraq, which also had the effect of utterly destabilizing the Middle East. The Saudi government has also been supported to a great degree by the US and other Western countries.

[quote] It was 2011 when “an unmanned combat drone killed his father and teenage brother as they were out herding the family’s camels.” In the strike two weeks ago, Mohammed was killed along with his brother-in-law and a third man.[/quote] Sounds to me like there is a family business. And it isn't actually herding camels.

[QUOTE=GeeOhDee;47124400]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] Take no action and the terrorists continue to kill innocent people; take action and end up killing innocent people in the process, and in turn make more terrorists (hopefully less than you killed though). I would argue there's no "right" decision, nor is there a clear best decision. However, at this point, it seems that just leaving the terrorist be to terrorist their own part of the world isn't a winning strategy because it just allows them to grow stronger and makes it easier for them to build up the resources needed to make their part of the world bigger. So, while the US drone campaign may not be a perfect solution due in large part to collateral damage, I don't think it's a particularly bad solution given the situation.

[Quote=The Guardian] "The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur. Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not."[/quote] [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] no excuse [editline]11th February 2015[/editline] [quote=The Guardian] A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November. [/quote]

[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] Context is important, for example: Running someone over because you suck at driving. Is much different from: Running someone over because you had intelligence that told you a terrorist would be on that part of the side walk at a given time and not knowing when, or even if, you would have another opportunity to kill said terrorist in the future (or how much damage they would do before you got your next chance) and then unintentionally killing a civilian who was also on the side walk at the same time.

Hellfire missiles are anti-tank and anti-structure weapons. They don't carry incendiary warheads. If the guy writing the article had done just a little bit of research, he'd come across as one hell of a lot more credible and a lot less of an idiot. Still, he does have a point about propaganda in the West.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;47124820][editline]11th February 2015[/editline] no excuse [editline]11th February 2015[/editline][/QUOTE] What is your solution then? Just let them do whatever the fuck they want in the middle east and hope they don't decide to come over to the US or wherever and conduct more terrorist attacks. Never mind the normal people who live in the middle east and get fucked over by the terrorists? The world sitting on its hands and hoping the problem just goes away isn't going to solve anything, and the longer these terrorist groups left to fester the harder they will be to get rid of; just look at the IS.

Also, the idea that any sort of collateral is ever acceptable is a load of complete and utter horse shit. It's like considering it acceptable to hit your mother with the shotgun blast that took out the home invader. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] [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] If you killed someone close to me, the excuse "It was an accident, I was aiming for someone else" wouldn't save your life. Your reasoning is stupid.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47124893]Also, the idea that any sort of collateral is ever acceptable is a load of complete and utter horse shit. It's like considering it acceptable to hit your mother with the shotgun blast that took out the home invader. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] If you killed someone close to me, the excuse "It was an accident, I was aiming for someone else" wouldn't save your life. Your reasoning is stupid.[/QUOTE] You try to minimize collateral damage while balancing personnel risk. Collateral is literally unavoidable when you are engaging in combat situations. Drones negate the personnel risk factor while providing minimal collateral at the cost of slightly less confirmation on kills.

[QUOTE=deadoon;47125039]You try to minimize collateral damage while balancing personnel risk. Drones negate the personnel risk factor while providing minimal collateral at the cost of slightly less confirmation on kills.[/QUOTE] The point I was trying to make went entirely over your head, eh? [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] I'm sure it'll be a big fuckin' comfort to the family who just lost a child to 'collateral damage' that no US personnel were ever at risk during the operation.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125048]The point I was trying to make went entirely over your head, eh?[/QUOTE] Your point is inconceivable. A war without collateral in any way is practically impossible.

[QUOTE=deadoon;47125060]Your point is inconceivable. A war without collateral in any way is practically impossible.[/QUOTE] Send a sniper, an assassin or a saboteur. It's as much a violation of another nation's borders as drone strikes are.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125064]Send a sniper. It's as much a violation of another nation's borders as drone strikes are.[/QUOTE] Boots on the ground, evacuation post kill required, increased risk, long term position needed, set up time and cost. You can't just call in a sniper and have him arrive within hours, you cannot have them see the entire city simultaneously, they are useless against hardened targets, a moving target is an iffy proposition, and you would need to have intel on where the target [B]will be[/B] in order to get him there properly.

[QUOTE=deadoon;47125072]Boots on the ground, evacuation post kill required, increased risk, long term position needed, set up time and cost. You can't just call in a sniper and have him arrive within hours, you cannot have them see the entire city simultaneously, they are useless against hardened targets, a moving target is an iffy proposition, and you would need to have intel on where the target will be in order to get him there properly.[/QUOTE] All acceptable costs and risks when compared to the cost of killing innocent women and children 'by accident'.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125076]All acceptable costs and risks when compared to the cost of killing innocent women and children 'by accident'.[/QUOTE] Like I said balancing risk and collateral damage. A sniper, especially a lone sniper team, requires far more preplanned actions to occur than a drone strike. You cannot get a sniper in position for something tomorrow, let alone the same day like a drone. You are literally not reading everything I said. Those scare quotes you are using are really telling of your bias.

[QUOTE=deadoon;47125090]Like I said balancing risk and collateral damage. A sniper, especially a lone sniper team, requires far more preplanned actions to occur than a drone strike. You cannot get a sniper in position for something tomorrow, let alone the same day like a drone. You are literally not reading everything I said. Those scare quotes you are using are really telling of your bias.[/QUOTE] It's called 'perspective'. You should look the word up, you may find it illuminating. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] Unless you're implying that the lives of brown people half way across the world are somehow worth less than the lives of American soldiers.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125101]It's called 'perspective'. You should look the word up, you may find it illuminating. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] Unless you're implying that the lives of brown people half way across the world are somehow worth less than the lives of American soldiers.[/QUOTE] Never implied that, however I would rather not risk them unless necessary. A sniper requires too much support to be able to act truly independently. Best case scenario, we get the target, get out and everyone is happy and no-one knows. Worst case: dead sniper, dead support, evac killed, and the target survives injuries if he was hit at all. For drones, Best case: Target killed, drone survives and returns to base. Worst case, drone fucks up and crashes into an orphanage. What did I say about risking personnel again?

[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] [video=youtube;RXb7vh5YFm0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXb7vh5YFm0[/video]

[QUOTE=deadoon;47125130]Never implied that, however I would rather not risk them unless necessary. A sniper requires too much support to be able to act truly independently. Best case scenario, we get the target, get out and everyone is happy and no-one knows. Worst case: dead sniper, dead support, evac killed, and the target survives injuries if he was hit at all. For drones, Best case: Target killed, drone survives and returns to base. Worst case, drone fucks up and crashes into an orphanage. What did I say about risking personnel again?[/QUOTE] If you're talking about efficiency, let me put it to you this way. To send those drones in costs a huge amount of money, as well as their maintenance and fuel. Each missile costs over a hundred thousand dollars, unless I'm very much mistaken. Sending in a sniper team would be infinitely cheaper. Also, every time the drone 'crashes into an orphanage', hundreds of willing new recruits rise up to join the enemy's cause. Ergo, the sniper team's the best option every time.

Alright then, the US will stop bombing ISIS because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting ISIS get away with no punishment or resistance against it?

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;47125165]Alright then, the US will stop bombing ISIS because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting ISIS get away with no punishment or resistance against it?[/QUOTE] Certainly fewer than the bombs have killed, trust me.

[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] Maybe drones should be used so often then

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;47125165]Alright then, the US will stop bombing ISIS because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting ISIS get away with no punishment or resistance against it?[/QUOTE] "Alright then, Israel will stop bombing Gaza because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting Terrorists get away with no punishment or resistance against it?"

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;47125165]Alright then, the US will stop bombing ISIS because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting ISIS get away with no punishment or resistance against it?[/QUOTE] It's naive to think military action from the us against isis will REALLY help

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125101]It's called 'perspective'. You should look the word up, you may find it illuminating. [editline]12th February 2015[/editline] Unless you're implying that the lives of brown people half way across the world are somehow worth less than the lives of American soldiers.[/QUOTE] Those civilians are at risk regardless of if it's a drone strike, a sniper team (you know, if shit doesn't go exactly to plan and they end up having a firefight or some such), or a nuke because they are already there. Sending in more people into the area is an additive action; it's putting more people in total at risk. Nevermind, beyond the time it takes to deploy a sniper team vs. a drone and other logistical issues, a sniper team is going to have a much harder time getting to the target undetected and actually killing them, especially if they are in anurban area.

[QUOTE=Muskof;47125176]"Alright then, Israel will stop bombing Gaza because of possible collateral damage. I mean, who cares about the countless innocent people that will die by letting Terrorists get away with no punishment or resistance against it?"[/QUOTE] Since most of FP considers Israel borderline genocidal, that analogy doesn't help whatever point you may have been trying to make at all.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47125153]If you're talking about efficiency, let me put it to you this way. To send those drones in costs a huge amount of money, as well as their maintenance and fuel. Each missile costs over a hundred thousand dollars, unless I'm very much mistaken. Sending in a sniper team would be infinitely cheaper. Also, every time the drone 'crashes into an orphanage', hundreds of willing new recruits rise up to join the enemy's cause. Ergo, the sniper team's the best option every time.[/QUOTE] So getting them actually into the combat zone, and out of it, especially with no support bases, will cost more? Dunno about you but a helicopter is a whole hell of a lot more expensive of a n asset generally, with the pilot, co pilot and the squad in the back to assist. Also, it isn't all about money. Planning as I have said is actually a far more limiting factor. You simply cannot get a sniper team in place as fast as you can a predator. You need reliable intel in which you know exactly where the target will be and at what time, and also know that he will be standing still at one point. One movement wrong and woops, guess all of that planning and setup was wasted. Guess we gotta use the drone on a now escaping target that we have lost confirmation on and will likely cause even more collateral.