View Full Version : More women & children killed by US Drones
As far as I am aware the USA is not engaged in a war against Pakistan, neither has the UN issued a resolution allowing the US to carry out raids against that country. So why do we keep hearing about civilians being killed by USA “drone” attacks
In the latest reports it has emerged that five women and four children (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425) were killed by these devices, which are supposedly being used because of their accuracy, thus eliminating such “mistakes”
This latest attack follows the killing in March of 40 people (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12769209), mostly civilians, in the North Waziristan area of Pakistan.
The Pakistan authorities estimate that “hundreds of civilians” have been killed by drone attacks.
So if the world is shocked (rightly so) when Gaddafi and Assad order their forces to kill unarmed civilians, why is their so similar outrage when the US is killing unarmed women and children on a regular basis.
Have we have become so used to these killings, that they do not even make regular news items.
More importantly by ignoring these killings are we condoning the US killing people without even the slightest protest?
The two scenarios are different. Gaddafi and Assad are deliberately targeting the civilian population. The US are not. Although the use of drones does offer a degree of accuracy with respect to ordnance, that accuracy is irrelevant unless the intelligence that the US receives is also accurate. For example, the US commanders get info strongly suggesting that a meeting of Taliban will take place at a certain time. US attack, but it was a family having dinner. It could be that this information that is sent to mislead the US, it could be that it was just bad intelligence. To make matter more complex it could be that a meeting would be taken place with civilians as a human shield and then the US has a difficult decision to make. Do the attack, killing civilian too or do they leave it and hope the get the targets another time, by which time many more would have been killed.
So if the world is shocked (rightly so) when Gaddafi and Assad order their forces to kill unarmed civilians, why is their so similar outrage when the US is killing unarmed women and children on a regular basis.
The US may well have killed countless civilians in their strikes, but they were not deliberately targeting them. That is one, and in my opinion the biggest, difference.
Another is the goal of the people firing the shots. Gaddafi is shooting to prevent democracy, the Americans say they are trying to promote it.
That said, I don't believe we should be involved in what I see as a civil war/revolution in Lybia. Nor should we be forcing our chosen method of government on others either.
More importantly by ignoring these killings are we condoning the US killing people without even the slightest protest?
More importantly for whom?
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]The two scenarios are different. Gaddafi and Assad are deliberately targeting the civilian population. The US are not.
The US may well have killed countless civilians in their strikes, but they were not deliberately targeting them. That is one, and in my opinion the biggest, difference.
Does it matter if the US were not deliberately attacking civilians.? The end result is the same i.e. innocent people of Pakistan are being killed by a country who their country is not at war with, and the rest of the world just stands by and let it happen
We are constantly being told how accurate present day rockets are, and how they can hit a target with pin point accuracy. How then can they get it wrong so many times.?
As for US intelligence, do you really take that seriously? This is a country remember that dreamt up the Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam was supposed to have.
A country which incarcerates people for years without trial Guantánamo Bay for wearing the wrong type of watch.
”..That said, I don't believe we should be involved in what I see as a civil war/revolution in Lybia. Nor should we be forcing our chosen method of government on others either. .”
Because of the weakness of other countries, the US will get all the regime changes it wants in the Middle East & Africa.
Remember also that petrol prices are increasing in the USA, that has got to stop, there is an election on the horizon
Does it matter if the US were not deliberately attacking civilians.? The end result is the same i.e. innocent people of Pakistan are being killed by a country who their country is not at war with, and the rest of the world just stands by and let it happen
Of course it matters if you are trying to compare the US in pakistan to what is happening in Lybia. Intent is a major difference. If you want to treat them as two separate issues then no, maybe not.
Remember also that petrol prices are increasing in the USA, that has got to stop, there is an election on the horizon
I don't think I'll be as cynical and say it's all to do with winning the election, but of course economical factors are going to be a major influence on the policies of any country.
Of course it matters if you are trying to compare the US in pakistan to what is happening in Lybia. Intent is a major difference. If you want to treat them as two separate issues then no, maybe not. .
If the chances of killing civillians in a drone attack were miniscule, then I may be tempted to agree with you, i.e. there was no intent. However, given the vast scale of civilian casualities it seems that the scenario being played out is that the US will launch drones to attack insurgents, irrespective of the risk of "collateral damage" i.e deaths on innocent Pakistanis who just happen to live in close proximity of a targetted site
oldmarine
26-Apr-11, 18:31
During WW2 while fighting the battle on Okinawa against the Japanese Empire, I was part of a force that was trying to flush enemy Japanese soldiers out of caves. The Japanese troops responded by forcing old men, women and children out of the caves in front of them firing at we troops making it very difficult to hit the Japanese soldiers. If we would have had a civilian press reporting these incidents, instead of combat photographers and reporters the news would have appeared much differently in the presses. War certainly has change over the years.
Oldmarine - we can only salute your experience and your participation in one of the most terrible and great events of the 20th century. The message has been there all along - war is hell, the rules get changed, and there is suffering far beyond the times when countries sent their armies to fight in isolation on a battlefield. You had to live with that - and in your combat zone, death was something you no doubt confronted on an hourly basis. That gives you the right to speak, and us to listen.
The people who target Afghan families must have had some sort of discussion beforehand. It is hard to see how that discussion would not have included some figures on how this would increase the likelihood of injury, mutilation and death among innocent bystanders. After all, if there are no drones nobody suffers from drone-related injuries.
The people who are using drones are little better than war criminals.
Walter Ego
26-Apr-11, 21:15
The people who target Afghan families must have had some sort of discussion beforehand. It is hard to see how that discussion would not have included some figures on how this would increase the likelihood of injury, mutilation and death among innocent bystanders. After all, if there are no drones nobody suffers from drone-related injuries.
The people who are using drones are little better than war criminals.
But you can use that logic in any conflict.
No war = no civilian casualties = good.
Flawed to say the least.
Alba.gu.brath
26-Apr-11, 21:35
War has always happened and civilians will get killed , before we had 24/7 news it was just not reported that civilians were being killed . Look at the numbers of civilians the British Empire killed in the last 300 years there was no press to report that.
"..The people who are using drones are little better than war criminals.."
No you are wrong. We "the goodies" don't have war criminals, only the baddies have them.
Our war criminals are regarded as heroes and get rewarded for the carnage they cause by getting chests full of medals, even though they are thousands of miles away from the killing fields.
Walter Ego
27-Apr-11, 12:28
No you are wrong. We "the goodies" don't have war criminals, only the baddies have them.
Our war criminals are regarded as heroes and get rewarded for the carnage they cause by getting chests full of medals, even though they are thousands of miles away from the killing fields.
Here we go again.
More drum banging. Pity, had the makings of an intelligent thread.
I'm outta here.
weezer 316
27-Apr-11, 13:06
No you are wrong. We "the goodies" don't have war criminals, only the baddies have them.
Our war criminals are regarded as heroes and get rewarded for the carnage they cause by getting chests full of medals, even though they are thousands of miles away from the killing fields.
Im not sure your making much sense in your posts anfield. People die in conflict and they do it at a rate not much more than innocent people killed in civilian life. And to even question the accuracy of these weapons is utter madness, they are literally hitting sheds from 1000 miles away in some cases. The alternative is carpet bombing a la vietnam or even ww2.
Im not sure your making much sense in your posts anfield. People die in conflict and they do it at a rate not much more than innocent people killed in civilian life. And to even question the accuracy of these weapons is utter madness, they are literally hitting sheds from 1000 miles away in some cases. The alternative is carpet bombing a la vietnam or even ww2.
You can not compare deaths caused in ordinary civilian life, and civilian deaths caused by pre-meditated bomb attacks.
We are contantly being told how accurate modern day weapons are, only last week it was announced that drones would be deployed in Libya because they are "uniquely suited for urban areas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13166441)".
Why then, if these weapons are so accurate, are they responsible for the killing of a massive number of innocent people in Pakistan & Afghanistan
Here we go again.
More drum banging. Pity, had the makings of an intelligent thread.
I'm outta here.
Walter, the very nature of a public forum is that everyone is entitled to put forward their point of view. If you do not agree with that persons viewpoint then argue against it, and don't throw your toys out of the pram
weezer 316
27-Apr-11, 15:39
You can not compare deaths caused in ordinary civilian life, and civilian deaths caused by pre-meditated bomb attacks.
We are contantly being told how accurate modern day weapons are, only last week it was announced that drones would be deployed in Libya because they are "uniquely suited for urban areas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13166441)".
Why then, if these weapons are so accurate, are they responsible for the killing of a massive number of innocent people in Pakistan & Afghanistan
Again you are being inconsistent. We cant compare between civilian and military casualties apparently but these drones kill "massive numbers" of people. Now to call the number massive you are clearly basing it on civilian death rates, or are you just saying the number is massive.
If you want to compare the casualties, then compare it with other military theatres. Then your massive numbers become absolutely tiny.
Again, you cant question the accuracy if these weapons anymore than you can question the accuracy or top surgeons. People die in surgery all the time in "massive" numbers yet clearly it is actually only very small numbers when considering alternatives
Rallying to defend my "faulty" logic.
I was suggesting that the military brass must have made some cacluations re civilian deaths before launching the drones. It is not a matter of saying that I am advocating a pull out.
But what I am saying is that I cannot make a decision because - like the rest of us - I have never been privy to the councils of war. So my inclination would be to abandon the strategy on the grounds that the British, Canadian and American peoples have never given their consent to this thing, being done in their name.
This is not a pacifist position; I am not opposed to war; but I am opposed to war-mongering secrecy.
Why then, if these weapons are so accurate, are they responsible for the killing of a massive number of innocent people in Pakistan & Afghanistan
Again, you cant question the accuracy if these weapons anymore than you can question the accuracy or top surgeons. People die in surgery all the time in "massive" numbers yet clearly it is actually only very small numbers when considering alternatives
I imagine it's all relative.
The weapons used are very accurate. Or so the experts say. And I doubt anyone on here is expert enough to know otherwise.
But you can't quantify the "massive number" of innocent deaths without knowing the reason they were struck, or indeed accurate numbers of missiles that have been fired.
The reason for the deaths is unknown. Did the missile miss, or was it aimed in the wrong direction? Was intelligence wrong? Maybe it hit where it was intended to, but that target was wrongly identified.
If 1000 missiles are fired, and 999 hit their target, even if the one that misses kills 100 people you cannot deny that the weapon is 99.9% accurate.
Without facts and figures, the argument is flawed.
I don't doubt that the targets are 'legitimate' based on the intelligence; however if the intelligence is obviously being consistently flawed then there should be a suspension of these attacks until the information being used to plan the attacks can be properly verified. To continue the attacks knowing that the intelligence is often wrong is criminal.
I don't doubt that the targets are 'legitimate' based on the intelligence; however if the intelligence is obviously being consistently flawed then there should be a suspension of these attacks until the information being used to plan the attacks can be properly verified. To continue the attacks knowing that the intelligence is often wrong is criminal.
Again, it's all relative.
We can't class it a "consistently flawed" or "often wrong" without knowing the numbers involved. What percentage of the intelligence is wrong? And what percentage of bombs are mistakenly aimed at civilian targets? We don't know.
For something to be criminal, it must be against the law. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal by international law, I don't believe the US is deliberately targeting civilians. But, whilst I doubt they'll admit it, I'm sure they've got a number of deaths they're willing to accept as "Collateral damage".
Again you are being inconsistent. We cant compare between civilian and military casualties apparently but these drones kill "massive numbers" of people. Now to call the number massive you are clearly basing it on civilian death rates, or are you just saying the number is massive.
If you want to compare the casualties, then compare it with other military theatres. Then your massive numbers become absolutely tiny.
Again, you cant question the accuracy if these weapons anymore than you can question the accuracy or top surgeons. People die in surgery all the time in "massive" numbers yet clearly it is actually only very small numbers when considering alternatives
You appear to be overlooking one very important fact.. Pakistan is not at war with the US
If you look at the link in OP you will see that Pakistani authorities state “..militants have been killed in the raids, but hundreds of civilians have also died..”
Now I don’t know about you, but to me hundreds of civilians being killed is a massive amount of people, especially when their country is not at war with anyone
Your linking the accuracy of rocket attacks with the precision of surgeons is ridiculous. If a surgeon makes a mistake he does not kill people in the surrounding wards , unlike the masses of people killed when missiles hits the wrong target.
I imagine it's all relative.
The weapons used are very accurate. Or so the experts say. And I doubt anyone on here is expert enough to know otherwise.
But you can't quantify the "massive number" of innocent deaths without knowing the reason they were struck, or indeed accurate numbers of missiles that have been fired. .
We do have some idea of how many drone raids were carried out, my OP links to a BBC page which states “..More than 100 raids were reported last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425)..”
So if hundreds of civilians were being killed by this number of attacks then it is pretty conclusive to me that either, US intelligence is badly flawed, or that they are just picking random targets and hoping for the best.
For something to be criminal, it must be against the law. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal by international law, I don't believe the US is deliberately targeting civilians. But, whilst I doubt they'll admit it, I'm sure they've got a number of deaths they're willing to accept as "Collateral damage".
Again we must remember that Pakistan is not at war with the US, so surely all these attacks are against International Law.
We do have some idea of how many drone raids were carried out, my OP links to a BBC page which states “..More than 100 raids were reported last year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13167425)..”
So if hundreds of civilians were being killed by this number of attacks then it is pretty conclusive to me that either, US intelligence is badly flawed, or that they are just picking random targets and hoping for the best.
Ah, but there's more to the story than you're quoting.
Yes, the report does indeed say "more than 100 raids were reported last year", but it also says "The US does not routinely confirm it conducts drone operations in Pakistan". From that we can only assume there were more than the 100 reported, but in truth, without real facts and figures, we'll never know.
Whether the intelligence is flawed or not, I'll stand by my original assumption that, if the experts say the weapons are very accurate, they probably are.
Again we must remember that Pakistan is not at war with the US, so surely all these attacks are against International Law.
I don't know how international law works.
But Pakistan is definately a warzone, even if it is not at war. I'm sure many armies have fought over the years on soil belonging to a country on which no war has been declared.
I've got to be honest and say I'm far more concerned about the Israelis bombing and shelling Palestinians, and building settlements on Palistinian land than US efforts in Pakistan. I certainly think there is more to question, legally, there.
Again, it's all relative.
We can't class it a "consistently flawed" or "often wrong" without knowing the numbers involved. What percentage of the intelligence is wrong? And what percentage of bombs are mistakenly aimed at civilian targets? We don't know.
For something to be criminal, it must be against the law. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal by international law, I don't believe the US is deliberately targeting civilians. But, whilst I doubt they'll admit it, I'm sure they've got a number of deaths they're willing to accept as "Collateral damage".
I wonder if you would be so pedantic if it was your family getting blown to pieces? It's not a video game you know.
I wonder if you would be so pedantic if it was your family getting blown to pieces? It's not a video game you know.
I don't think I was being pedantic, just realistic. If we can't quantify the scale of the issue we can't possible use terms such as "consistently flawed" or "often wrong" without figures. Unless we're trying to be sensationalist, or even misleading.
I wonder if you would be so against the strikes if your family were blown to pieces in the twin towers?
And I'm well aware it's not a video game thanks.
But as oldmarine has pointed out, civilian casualties in warzones are not new. We just hear a lot more about them nowadays. The big problem is deciding where the "greater good" crosses the boundary with "unacceptable collateral damage".
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.