U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would anyone object to having Obama tried as a war criminal? Bush and co., Kissinger, Cheney etc. as well obviously, but if it were possible I mean.

If so why?
 
GruntOfAction said:
I'm seriously hoping one of these drones goes rouge and "accidentally" shoots the White House when only one person is there. Take a wild guess who?
Click to expand...
It would be kind of ironic if it should happen that they have to eliminate a target on american soil and then have a drone that proceeds to shoot at arriving ambulances.
 
zmoney said:
child please. not even comparable to killing kids. The shit in the OP is far worse than killing that dude. And it's not like that dude was some guy in Kansas bitching about the government, he was actively involved in and supporting terrorist attacks on the US and was a national security threat.
Click to expand...

NQIPv.png
 
Has any other source weighed in on this? I'm headed home so I can't read the report yet but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's website seems to suggest a slightly less than objective take on world events. Just a very quick glance though.
 
They're obviously targeting someone important at the funerals. The government doesn't just see a funeral, laugh, and spend a couple million to shoot a missile at it. No doubt that there are going to be other HVT's at the funeral of some AQ member. As long as the operational gain reasonably compares to the civilian loss and civilians aren't the specific target then there is no problem. For some reason people think that these are police actions and not military operations. They aren't going to roll up in a black and white, slap the cuffs on them and read rights, if anyone bears arms or provides aid and comfort they can and should be killed. American soldiers put themselves to the hazard by wearing a uniform and carrying their weapons in the open, if the enemy chooses not to and consistently uses woman or children as shields and puts them into harm's way then it is their own fault for those deaths.
 
Actually reading the article it doesn't seem like we just attack funeral's for the hell of it.

On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

“A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,” according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent. “True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.”

The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. . . .

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders.
Click to expand...

They attacked that because a target was going to be there. Its not like were just lighting people up who show up after a funeral.
We were attacking targets who happened to be at funerals. And its up for debate whether are actions there are helping or hurting us but its really silly to do like Glenn Greenwald does and paint us to the same indiscriminate attacks that don't have a target.

Then again this is the same guy who defended the Manning leaking so I'm going to go out on a limb and saying he's got an agenda.


Angry Fork said:
Would anyone object to having Obama tried as a war criminal? Bush and co., Kissinger, Cheney etc. as well obviously, but if it were possible I mean.

If so why?
Click to expand...
Yes, because he's not a War Criminal.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Has any other source weighed in on this? I'm headed home so I can't read the report yet but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's website seems to suggest a slightly less than objective take on world events. Just a very quick glance though.
Click to expand...

Their database of sources is mostly respectable, established news organizations: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/pakistan-drone-strikes-the-methodology2/
Our media sources for this study include:

From Western media – CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox News, Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

From Pakistani media – Dawn, Express Tribune, The Nation, Pajhwok and Geo TV.

From non-mainstream media – New America Foundation, Long War Journal, WikiLeaks and Amnesty International, amongst others.
Click to expand...
I really don't see much room to debate the figures used without challenging one of those outlets (and the reporters on the stories). If we hold ourselves to just those numbers it looks pretty damning:
Total reported killed: 2,383 - 3,019
Civilians reported killed: 464 - 815
Children reported killed: 175
Total reported injured: 1,149-1,241
Total strikes: 312
Obama strikes: 260
Click to expand...
 
KHarvey16 said:
Has any other source weighed in on this? I'm headed home so I can't read the report yet but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's website seems to suggest a slightly less than objective take on world events. Just a very quick glance though.
Click to expand...

Yea, I wouldn't doubt that this has happened but I'm sure as hell not going to take everything this place says as absolute fact. We'll never know the real truth most likely.

Just like any other internet "news" site out there where there's a bias that people don't consider when reading these articles.

The more interesting article is the Lieutenant Colonel who went out of the chain of command and wrote all about his take on the war in Afghanistan and how it's not going as well as reports say and how the locals have no urge to change and have made secret deals with the Taliban for peace. Now that's a good read with the truth even if the Colonel has his own reasons for the article.
 
Advance_Alarm said:
They're obviously targeting someone important at the funerals. The government doesn't just see a funeral, laugh, and spend a couple million to shoot a missile at it. No doubt that there are going to be other HVT's at the funeral of some AQ member. As long as the operational gain reasonably compares to the civilian loss and civilians aren't the specific target then there is no problem. For some reason people think that these are police actions and not military operations. They aren't going to roll up in a black and white, slap the cuffs on them and read rights, if anyone bears arms or provides aid and comfort they can and should be killed. American soldiers put themselves to the hazard by wearing a uniform and carrying their weapons in the open, if the enemy chooses not to and consistently uses woman or children as shields and puts them into harm's way then it is their own fault for those deaths.
Click to expand...
Dude.
 
GruntOfAction said:
I'm seriously hoping one of these drones goes rouge and "accidentally" shoots the White House when only one person is there. Take a wild guess who?
Click to expand...

i'll all for free speech. but opinions like these are trouble.
in a year, gaf will be labelled an extreme terrorist website.
this is why we can't have nice things.
 
Not to completely dismiss the topic at hand, but you must look upon reports of this scale with some skepticism until more facts emerge. The original article ("bureau of investigative reporting") reports that no numbers are given by the CIA on how many civilian (or otherwise) casualties have occurred. They then go on to give large estimates on civilian casualties with no source other than "research". One account is from a local reporter. I would venture to guess that most of their research is from eye witness accounts or extrapolation from some witnessed events.
 
And this is why I cannot vote in good conscience for Obama this year. There are extremely distasteful things about all the candidates, so yeah. I fucking hate politics in this country.
 
Advance_Alarm said:
They're obviously targeting someone important at the funerals. The government doesn't just see a funeral, laugh, and spend a couple million to shoot a missile at it. No doubt that there are going to be other HVT's at the funeral of some AQ member. As long as the operational gain reasonably compares to the civilian loss and civilians aren't the specific target then there is no problem. For some reason people think that these are police actions and not military operations. They aren't going to roll up in a black and white, slap the cuffs on them and read rights, if anyone bears arms or provides aid and comfort they can and should be killed. American soldiers put themselves to the hazard by wearing a uniform and carrying their weapons in the open, if the enemy chooses not to and consistently uses woman or children as shields and puts them into harm's way then it is their own fault for those deaths.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's unethical.
 
Evlar said:
Considering we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians during World War 2 and didn't investigate any of the brass on the Allied side, I would say quite a few.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it this time.

el retorno de los sapos said:
Maybe you should learn what is and isn't a war crime

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380
Click to expand...

Like I said, how many civilian deaths until the UN has the right to investigate? Not that they ever would, I'm just saying though. If a million civilians are killed is it okay if the US says they were all in military zones?
 
demolitio said:
Yea, I wouldn't doubt that this has happened but I'm sure as hell not going to take everything this place says as absolute fact. We'll never know the real truth most likely.

Just like any other internet "news" site out there where there's a bias that people don't consider when reading these articles.

The more interesting article is the Lieutenant Colonel who went out of the chain of command and wrote all about his take on the war in Afghanistan and how it's not going as well as reports say and how the locals have no urge to change and have made secret deals with the Taliban for peace. Now that's a good read with the truth even if the Colonel has his own reasons for the article.
Click to expand...

Well we don't know if that really is policy to return and shoot rescuers. We don't know if the civilians that were killed were really civilians (not that there are many sources that I'd trust to tell me one way or the other). Also, most of the missions the drones are involved in are not attacks but surveillance, and we don't know if the article's statistic about drone strikes really means strikes or missions.

If it is US policy, then it's disgusting.
 
absolutely disgusting, but this isnt the first time ive heard something like this.

off topic, but where did the "they hate us for our FREEDOMSS!!11" stuff come from? was there a specific speech or something from where this became a meme? or just general shit barfed out by right wingers?
 
Angry Fork said:
Doesn't mean it's okay to ignore it this time.



Like I said, how many civilian deaths until the UN has the right to investigate? Not that they ever would, I'm just saying though. If a million civilians are killed is it okay if the US says they were all in military zones?
Click to expand...

There is no number... That's not how war crimes work. If their being used as human shields it isn't a war crime. Does it suck, yes, is it illegal? no.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of these people whose funeral they're going to and who they're with.
 
Choke on the Magic said:
I wouldn't object to anyone "trying", but last time I checked war criminals are usually on the losing side of war.
Click to expand...

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"​
 
effingvic said:
absolutely disgusting, but this isnt the first time ive heard something like this.

off topic, but where did the "they hate us for our FREEDOMSS!!11" stuff come from? was there a specific speech or something from where this became a meme? or just general shit barfed out by right wingers?
Click to expand...

Lines like this

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
Click to expand...

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
Click to expand...

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
 
Advance_Alarm said:
They're obviously targeting someone important at the funerals. The government doesn't just see a funeral, laugh, and spend a couple million to shoot a missile at it. No doubt that there are going to be other HVT's at the funeral of some AQ member. As long as the operational gain reasonably compares to the civilian loss and civilians aren't the specific target then there is no problem. For some reason people think that these are police actions and not military operations. They aren't going to roll up in a black and white, slap the cuffs on them and read rights, if anyone bears arms or provides aid and comfort they can and should be killed. American soldiers put themselves to the hazard by wearing a uniform and carrying their weapons in the open, if the enemy chooses not to and consistently uses woman or children as shields and puts them into harm's way then it is their own fault for those deaths.
Click to expand...

Kinyou said:
No it's not. It's unethical.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of a hippy like you and hope that non-violent means can solve these situations. That is not my stance but the relevant international law.

"Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target."
 
Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"​
Click to expand...

Does this happen to be on Netflix streaming?

It brings up an interesting point.
 
effingvic said:
where did the "they hate us for our FREEDOMSS!!11" stuff come from? was there a specific speech or something from where this became a meme? or just general shit barfed out by right wingers?
Click to expand...

The 'freedom' rhetoric has been used by politicians and presidents in times of conflict for many decades now. It isn't new

Choke on the Magic said:
Does this happen to be on Netflix streaming?
Click to expand...

Not sure, I don't have Netflix, but it is available on YouTube
 
Evlar said:
Yes, this is exactly the kind of hamster-wheel thinking process that travels from "some muslim somewhere once said..." to "every brown person HATES OUR FREEDOMSS!!"
Click to expand...

Who the heck is saying every brown person said that? Terrorists, the people where going after said that.

Nobody that I know of is in favor of killing or even just hating all "brown people." But those lines clearly show that a certain subset of people hate us because we are free and don't follow their 8th century morality.


Jason Raize '75 - '04 said:
The 'freedom' rhetoric has been used by politicians and presidents in times of conflict for many decades now. It isn't new
Click to expand...
Who have we fought that has been freer than Americans?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

reddit purge ongoing, targeting porn and trans subs
14
2K
MayauMiao replied
Florida could let homeowners shoot down drones over their property
35
647
DeepEnigma replied
Anyone have any Drone recommendations?
9
333
Kenneth Haight replied
Mysterious massive drones scattered all over in New Jersey and Pennsylvania over the past week or so. No local officials or FBI knows what's going on.
4 5 6 7 8
367
30K
violence replied
Do you think there are any police departments in the U.S. these days without body cams ?
2
177
Mistake replied
Top Bottom