The morality of drone attacks

Started by Hemingway, June 02, 2012, 03:53:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hemingway

I read an article in the newspaper today ( or was it yesterday? ), where someone suggested that my country's decision to spend something like $40 billion on fighter aircraft, instead of drones, was technologically backwards. This seemed to me like a poorly thought-out statement, though I couldn't quite say why. It did remind me of something I heard last week, which was Chris Hedges asking "what is the moral difference between a drone attack and an IED?"

Hedges, among others like Noam Chomsky, see no difference between the two. They've both stated, quite plainly, that drone attacks are terror, perpetrated by the US and its allies. I suppose being one of those allies is what made me react to the statement in the newspaper, knowing what such drones could be used for. I do find their arguments quite compelling, and the logic sound. The only compelling argument I can see against the comparison is that IEDs by definition are indiscriminate, while with a drone you can at least target combatants. That doesn't really quite hold up when you consider how frequently civilians are killed by drones as well, however ( accurate numbers are understandably difficult to come by, and major news organizations appear to have very little to say on the matter, but here's an article from The Guardian ).

That said, I'm not immune to counter-arguments, and I'd very much like to hear what other people have to say. I don't want to be wrong, after all.

Beguile's Mistress

Personally, I think there is a big difference between the two because of the intentions for their use.  IEDs target anything and everything, friend or foe, unless you are warned in advance of their placement.  They've killed and injured humanitarian personnel as well as members of military convoys.  They are used primarily by forces that work in opposition to the established government in their country.

Drones as employed by the US are monitors used for surveillance as well as taking out the enemy with selective targeting.  They aren't meant to be used to inflict terror on innocents or to ambush legitimate forces.


Shjade

Quote from: Hemingway on June 02, 2012, 03:53:09 PM
I read an article in the newspaper today ( or was it yesterday? ), where someone suggested that my country's decision to spend something like $40 billion on fighter aircraft, instead of drones.

...um...someone suggested what about your country's decision to buy aircraft instead of drones?
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Hemingway

#3
Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on June 02, 2012, 04:17:07 PM
Drones as employed by the US are monitors used for surveillance as well as taking out the enemy with selective targeting.  They aren't meant to be used to inflict terror on innocents or to ambush legitimate forces.

Yet that's precisely what they do. It seems like rather a technical distinction to say that one is intended to maim and kill innocents, while the other one only does it as a side effect.

In both cases, you're given no warning. In both cases, there's no risk to the user of the weapon. In both cases, innocents are killed - regardless of intent. Unfortunately, I can't find any good studies of the psychological effects of living under the threat of drone strikes, but imagine, if you will, if the roles were reversed: American and other western soldiers were being targeted by highly advanced weapons which they could not fight back against, which could strike at any time, killing anyone, civilians included. I simply can't imagine that intent would prevent that from being labeled terrorism.

Quote from: Shjade on June 02, 2012, 05:11:21 PM
...um...someone suggested what about your country's decision to buy aircraft instead of drones?

It's fixed.

Shjade

Quote from: Hemingway on June 02, 2012, 05:12:07 PM
Yet that's precisely what they do. It seems like rather a technical distinction to say that one is intended to maim and kill innocents, while the other one only does it as a side effect.

Arsenic and chemotherapy can both kill you. One is intended to do this. The other does it as a side effect.

They may both be poisons, but the reasons for their use do make them distinctly different.

Any violence is frightening. That doesn't make all violence terrorism.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

gaggedLouise

#5
Droning is essentially about taking out any person (or structure, building, power line etc) that the owner of the drones deems to be bound up with terrorist purposes, or just finds it useful for other reasons (propaganda, inciting terror, creating spin etc) to get rid of. There is no transparency and no requirement to try to find out who or what the powers-that-be are really striking at. If the drone is aimed at, and strikes, a school and fifty innocent people perish, it's very unlikely that there would be any military inquiry into why the school was hit. Because somebody claimed that it was associated with a movement claimed to be a terrorist network? Because some terrorists were supposed to be hiding there? Or just to create fear and demoralize the locals? I don't see how any discussion would be happening over those questions, nor any military inquiry, unless vital facts are retrieved by the work of civilians on the spot and perhaps by strenuous, intelligent and honest reporters - and that breed does not have a huge backing among today's news media. Also, as any effort to recover the truth about a "dirty attack" of this kind would likely have to rely on the locals and perhaps on persons from an armed force having the allegiance of those local folks, and which force/army was the ultimate butt of the bombing campaign, the coverage would then be easy to pass off, for the instigator power (the US, in today's world) as "the lies of the enemy".

I can see why droning looks convenient and sometimes necessary to fight a stealthy and often non-uniformed enemy in a country that is poorly known or mapped, but it often does involve both violation of the territorial rights of countries whose governments one is not fighting, and real gross disregard for human life - just dropping bombs and missiles at whatever you think is the right goal. And by extension, it carries considerable risks of

*leading to war crimes and rogue killings
* giving an excuse for retaliation by the other side (propaganda value to your enemy)
*destabilizing an ally by doing much more on their soil and in their airspace than one really had a deal to do. (example: Pakistan)
*demoralizing one's own armed forces, and even more, the home front, if rogue attacks and cover-up become known (as during the Vietnam war, with the abusive warfare, gang rapes, fire bombings and killings back then).

It's a very troublesome tactic and if it continues, other major powers (Russia, China, india, perhaps even Iran) will soon be trying their hands at their own drone systems - and using the same kind of excuses as the U.S. is bandying about now.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Hemingway

Quote from: Shjade on June 02, 2012, 05:21:19 PM
Arsenic and chemotherapy can both kill you. One is intended to do this. The other does it as a side effect.

They may both be poisons, but the reasons for their use do make them distinctly different.

Any violence is frightening. That doesn't make all violence terrorism.

Where did you get the idea that chemotherapy kills you as a side effect?

That bit of light-heartedness out of the way, that is a very bad analogy for a variety of reasons. First of all, you're comparing two very obviously different things. You're comparing cancer treatment and poison, with two different weapons or tactics of war. There's no parallell there. Unless you're suggesting that the people being targeted by drone strikes actually consent to it, and so it's really a treatment. Which would be wrong on so many levels.

Now, your second point touches upon the problem inherent in the term "terrorism", which is that it's applied very generally and lacks a clearly delimited definition. It's generally defined as something like "using fear to accomplish military or political aims", which could be applied to just about anything. Which I suppose is the long way of saying that if drone strikes, by that definition, are not acts of terrorism - to what extent are using IEDs terrorism?

Florence

I don't get the big moral issue. Does it matter if someone is killed by a drone or a man? I think they should be used with more precision and not set loose in areas filled with innocents, but to say that using drones in general is immoral seems a bit extreme to me.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Callie Del Noire

It's not the drones that are the problem.. it's two other things.

The lack of Humint.. or Human Intellience ie.. eyes on the ground guiding stuff in (what sources we had in the area strangely dried up about ..oh six months after Julian Assange's leaks of the diplomatic cables.. but he insists it's pure coincendenc) and let's be honest.. we've not had good humint in the region since the Russian's called it quits and left.. oh yeah.. we didn't follow through with our promises to help.

Two. Rules of Engagement. The ROE or Rules of Engagement look to be very.. fluid if the article is remotely consistent. 100 plus strikeS? That's a lot of stuff to clarify and assess.

Hemingway

The issue is not that civilians are being killed, that's simply to illustrate that, like IEDs, they are essentially indiscriminate weapons. As are all weapons, I suppose, but I think we can agree that there's more potential for collateral damage with a drone strike than with rifles. That's really neither here nor there. The points you brought up could be applied to roadside bombs just as easily.

The point, as I laid it out in my earlier post, is that IEDs and drone strikes are similar in more ways than not, and that if one can be labeled a weapon of terror, then so can the other. That is to say that if an IED attack that kills only soldiers can be called a "cowardly" attack ( as it has ), then so can a drone strike. And if one can be called terrorism, then so can the other.

gaggedLouise

#10
Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 02, 2012, 06:16:08 PM
It's not the drones that are the problem.. it's two other things.

The lack of Humint.. or Human Intellience ie.. eyes on the ground guiding stuff in (what sources we had in the area strangely dried up about ..oh six months after Julian Assange's leaks of the diplomatic cables.. but he insists it's pure coincendenc) and let's be honest.. we've not had good humint in the region since the Russian's called it quits and left.. oh yeah.. we didn't follow through with our promises to help.

Two. Rules of Engagement. The ROE or Rules of Engagement look to be very.. fluid if the article is remotely consistent. 100 plus strikeS? That's a lot of stuff to clarify and assess.

Agree with almost every word here, except the first sentence - of course the lack of reliable indigenous networks on the ground is one of the key reasons why the US feels compelled to use drones and drone strikes: you can't get the kind of watertight information you'd need from people on the ground, and get it on a running basis. But the lack of info also makes the hits, and the choice of targets, that much more haphazard. Or just prone to mislabelling a target for easy convenience, to make it appear like something legit: "terrorist hideout" instead of a rural market or seasonal grazing farmhouse, a paramilitary convoy instead of a tribal caravan. Sen from the air, the difference could be minimal, and in any case you don't get the locals to state their point of view about who is affiliated to "the terrorists".

Almost nothing in a modern war has such a power to shock the ordinary folks watching what's going on (and supporting either side) as innocents being killed or wasted for no valid reason. The massacres in Syria over the last months, and in this week, gave fresh proof of this. So if it turns out, against the word of the military and the executive VIPs, that innocent men, women and children are being blown up just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or know the wrong people, the reaction is going to be very angry and outraged. In Syria it looks practically certain the massacres have been made on the orders of Assad and his buddies, though not by his regular army. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we only have the word of the military to vouch for that the people being killed are real enemies. Most often, we just have the silence of the armed forces, and a vague promise that "if nothing is said in detail, then it means the drone offensive is going according to plan, and it's just fine". To many people, me included, that's not enough.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on June 02, 2012, 06:42:46 PM
Agree with almost every word here, except the first sentence - of course the lack of reliable indigenous networks on the ground is one of the key reasons why the US feels compelled to use drones and drone strikes: you can't get the kind of watertight information you'd need from people on the ground, and get it on a running basis. But the lack of info also makes the hits, and the choice of targets, that much more haphazard. Or just prone to mislabelling a target for easy convenience, to make it appear like something legit: "terrorist hideout" instead of a rural market or seasonal grazing farmhouse, a paramilitary convoy instead of a tribal caravan. Sen from the air, the difference could be minimal, and in any case you don't get the locals to state their point of view about who is affiliated to "the terrorists".

Almost nothing in a modern war has such a power to shock the ordinary folks watching what's going on (and supporting either side) as innocents being killed or wasted for no valid reason. The massacres in Syria over the last months, and in this week, gave fresh proof of this. So if it turns out, against the word of the military and the executive VIPs, that innocent men, women and children are being blown up just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or know the wrong people, the reaction is going to be very angry and outraged. In Syria it looks practically certain the massacres have been made on the orders of Assad and his buddies, though not by his regular army. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we only have the word of the military to vouch for that the people being killed are real enemies. Most often, we just have the silence of the armed forces, and a vague promise that "if nothing is said in detail, then it means the drone offensive is going according to plan, and it's just fine". To many people, me included, that's not enough.

You need assets in place to observe and designate. We have ROEs that require Air Force/Navy aircraft to SEE their targets (Due to tragedies such as shooting down an Airliner in the Gulf) despite having missiles with an Over the Horizon capacity.

You have aircraft listening on ALL manner of frequencies (I know.. I worked on them) .. but to do the job proper.. you need a forward observer. IE. a person on the ground making the call. It's been done, by the gentlemen of Specwar units of the Navy/Army/Marines/Air Force have done it in Afganistan and places elsewhere.

We've been myoptic and short sighted too long about human assetts since the 'tech curve' started up, a school of thought sponsored by such idiots as Donald Rumsfeld.

A marine Major pointed it out bluntly. It takes feet on the ground to hold a piece of land, and a Army Sergeant Major agreed with him. It's is been the philosophy of the civilian intelligence agencies (Typically by the stuffed suits that run them) that technical intelligence from phone taps, radio eavesdropping, and spy satellites.

It was due in part to that short fall, that we had the total intelligence failure of 9/11. Oh there were many other issues but the fact that it costs MONEY to cultivate a spy in rival organizations,. That and the consistent prgrogression of failure to protect what human assets we have.

For example, the outing of No-Offical Cover (NOC) Agent Valerie Plame by the White House. We're not just talking about the revelation of Valerie's own identity but the fact that within hours of her outing in that leak, you can bet that people she spent years building trust with were subjected to a 'eventful life'. One measured in days at most if not simply one that ended with a bullet behind the ear.

The leak by Julian Assange, despite his claims to the contrary, most likely led to simlar deaths. Even if it didn't (which I doubt) I showed we couldn't be trusted to keep these things private and discrete.

As for 'terrorist hideouts', you know where a friend of mine found one when we live in Ireland? A pub. Another was a chips shop. Terrorists know better than to hide in the 'lonely farm house out in the middle 'o nowhere' when they can hide in public.

gaggedLouise

#12
Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 02, 2012, 07:12:10 PM
You need assets in place to observe and designate. We have ROEs that require Air Force/Navy aircraft to SEE their targets (Due to tragedies such as shooting down an Airliner in the Gulf) despite having missiles with an Over the Horizon capacity.

You have aircraft listening on ALL manner of frequencies (I know.. I worked on them) .. but to do the job proper.. you need a forward observer. IE. a person on the ground making the call. It's been done, by the gentlemen of Specwar units of the Navy/Army/Marines/Air Force have done it in Afganistan and places elsewhere.

Agree, but I wanted to have it in print here that I think Hemingway is right in saying that drones are a special, hard problem in themselves, even before there are definite, proven cases of innocent civilians getting hit and killed. That's why I singled out your first sentence - not because I would be thinking it was some hugely offensive bit as such.

And you can bet innocents have been hit, just like they were hit by the "smart bombs" in Iraq.


QuoteAs for 'terrorist hideouts', you know where a friend of mine found one when we live in Ireland? A pub. Another was a chips shop. Terrorists know better than to hide in the 'lonely farm house out in the middle 'o nowhere' when they can hide in public.

My point was just that: the choice of what place to drop a missile on, when you have to go on robot plane camera intelligence (how reliable is a stream of air photos taken in a country like Afghanistan?), maybe coupled with some rumours from other competing factions on the paramilitary scene, that choice IS going to be, let's say, arbitrary. Tactically, ethically and in terms of if it's the "right spot". In many cases it's going to be, just as if your buddies had dropped a bomb on the Irish pub. Of course they would never have done that in the Irish case: the price, in terms of credibility and lives lost, would have been much too high. And in a European city, there would have been too many (English-speaking!) witnesses and reporters for the army to be able to gain control of the story once it had led to a massacre. In Afghanistan, Iraq and in many other places in the Middle East, journalistic access is very restricted and most of the media report what they are shown and explained by NATO armed forces.

There are no pubs in Helmand, for obvious reasons. But any house or structure that looks kinda plausible from the air could be touted as a terrorist hideout if you wished to.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Which comes back to the two issues I said earlier.

Better intelligence and more stringent ROEs.. I'll add another. Someone other than the DAMN CIA needs to be making the warshots, I'm willing to bet that would increase accountability a LOT.

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 02, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
Which comes back to the two issues I said earlier.

Better intelligence and more stringent ROEs.. I'll add another. Someone other than the DAMN CIA needs to be making the warshots, I'm willing to bet that would increase accountability a LOT.

Absolutely - and let's not make this a hen-or-egg issue, please? I mean, the difficulties of intelligence are a big factor - but the lack of realtime, spoken, on-the-ground intelligence is also part of the reason why drone strikes are being used. No one in the CIA would want to use drones if they were trying to track down an outfit that operated only in Britain and France. they would know it was the wrong way to enter the problems of tracking people down in those countries.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on June 02, 2012, 09:46:06 PM
Absolutely - and let's not make this a hen-or-egg issue, please? I mean, the difficulties of intelligence are a big factor - but the lack of realtime, spoken, on-the-ground intelligence is also part of the reason why drone strikes are being used. No one in the CIA would want to use drones if they were trying to track down an outfit that operated only in Britain and France. they would know it was the wrong way to enter the problems of tracking people down in those countries.

Truth be told.. I'm more ill at ease with the CIA doing it than the military.

Shjade

Quote from: Hemingway on June 02, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
As are all weapons, I suppose

This was my point, whether you liked the analogy or not. Weapons are weapons; it's what you're doing with them that matters. Neither IEDs or drone strikes are inherently tools of terrorism. Goals and results determine that.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Shjade on June 03, 2012, 05:51:29 PM
This was my point, whether you liked the analogy or not. Weapons are weapons; it's what you're doing with them that matters. Neither IEDs or drone strikes are inherently tools of terrorism. Goals and results determine that.

And point of view. One man's 'defense of the homeland' is another man's act of terror.  That is the slippery slope we're on. Remember not everyone in Afghanistan is the Taliban.. in fact they've been oppressed by the Taliban longer than we were threatened by them

Hemingway

Quote from: Shjade on June 03, 2012, 05:51:29 PM
This was my point, whether you liked the analogy or not. Weapons are weapons; it's what you're doing with them that matters. Neither IEDs or drone strikes are inherently tools of terrorism. Goals and results determine that.

There's very obviously nothing inherently "terrorist" about either of them. Just as there's nothing inherently terrorist about flying a plane into a building; it could be for the filming of a movie, or an accident. If you ignore the context and content, then, of course. But a defense like that could be used to justify anything from nuclear weapons to ethnic cleansing.

But, like I've said, that's completely ignoring the context. It doesn't really have anything to do with reality. The reality being that drone strikes are being used in such a way that there's no discernible difference between them, and roadside bombs. And the reality is that when a bomb goes off and kills half a dozen soldiers, it's condemned as a cowardly attack, yet when a drone strike kills the same number of "assumed insurgents" ( a line I actually read in the newspaper today ), that's great news, business as usual. The basic contention is that if such a thing as an IED can be called a cowardly terrorist weapon, then so can a drone strike.

And, so we're clear, if terrorism means anything like:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorismviolent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

Then I think they both can be called terrorism.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 03, 2012, 06:20:02 PM
And point of view. One man's 'defense of the homeland' is another man's act of terror.  That is the slippery slope we're on. Remember not everyone in Afghanistan is the Taliban.. in fact they've been oppressed by the Taliban longer than we were threatened by them

You're entirely right in pointing out that what is and is not terrorism depends on your point of view. That's hardly a justification, though, I'm sure you'll agree. And, again, the problem is the hypocrisy and doublethink of waging a "war on terror", with means that, had the roles been reversed, would've been labeled as terrorist.

kylie

Quote from: HemingwayWhere did you get the idea that chemotherapy kills you as a side effect?
"Side effects" for something as drastic as chemotherapy, can be very extensive.  I have a friend who underwent chemo for 9 months.  He started in relatively good overall condition (among cancer patients), yet he frequently remarked that the chemo itself had extremely debilitating effects, which would require further recovery/ caution time after the whole process.  He would often say things like, "which is killing me faster, the cancer or the chemo..."  When you combine the effects of chemo and the existing problems of cancer, it seems there is something of a gamble whether the chemo ultimately "works," or effectively exacerbates the problem.  It may be true that damage or death without chemo was most likely, but it's also true that chemo itself can open a person up to other risks, and possibly to life-threatening situations.

Here is a list of side effects of chemo.  In particular, see the paragraph near the end on "Long-term side effects."

   // point of evidence digression over.
     

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Hemingway on June 03, 2012, 06:26:19 PM

You're entirely right in pointing out that what is and is not terrorism depends on your point of view. That's hardly a justification, though, I'm sure you'll agree. And, again, the problem is the hypocrisy and doublethink of waging a "war on terror", with means that, had the roles been reversed, would've been labeled as terrorist.

You know what my first clear memory of an act of Terrorism was?

January, 1979. I got up after sleeping something like 20 hours after flying into Ireland. I got up in time for the news. My first exposure to the press style of the folks at RTE. I saw a burning car, blown up by a radical  group.

The crime? A man, protestant, married a catholic.

They were newly married and expecting a child.

Terrorism is the use of violence to invoke fear and push your outlook on a person.

Drone strkes aren't in and of themselves terror, IEDs aren't either. (We used similar methods during WWII). It's the intent behind it.

Radicals know they will never have control except by violence, so they make others fear them.

vtboy

With respect to noncombatant deaths, the distinctions among drones, piloted warplanes and IEDs are elusive. No matter the degree of care exercised in their use, from time to time all inflict casualties on noncombatants. So, too, do ground troops. And, sometimes, of course, no care to avoid civilian deaths is exercised at all.

"Terrorism," like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder, and may even be an unalienable aspect of modern warfare. Perhaps this is as it should be, since the waging of war is frequently an endeavour in which entire populations participate, or at least one which is tolerated by entire populations. Grant and Sherman understood how ephemeral the difference between civilian and military activity can be. I am by no means certain that meaningful distinction can be made between civilians who vote in war regimes, crank out weapons in their factories, and raise food for armies and the front line soldiers who fire the weapons and carry out the their government's orders. This would seem to hold especially true for those nations which conscript their young or otherwise coerce their military enlistment through social pressures. 

Few doubt the application of the "terror" label to the World War II bombings of Shanghai, Guernica, and London, but many bridle at its use to describe the more complete and effective carnage at places like Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These killings were indiscriminate and, to whatever extent the cities may have encompassed military targets, the primary purpose of the bombings was not to cripple military capacity so much as it was to inflict such horror on the enemy population that its will to go on fighting -- or supporting the fighting -- would be broken.

That sounds a lot like terrorism to me. But, unless and until war is eliminated, I think there is little that can, and perhaps little that should, be done about it. Perhaps the only inoculation possible against the horrors of war is to make sure everyone understands he will receive his portion. 

patrickstarfish

im  skeptical   of  how  moral   a  machine  piloted  by a    man/woman   viewing others from   screens  etc and    decide without  due  process or  proper   constitutional  law    to   find evidence  to  convict  or target  individuals  is even ethical argument    conversation.  More importantly  this seems   highly dehumanizing   in general  of a  spin on the subject.  I  can not  in good  morality  say    someone who i never met  nor  know  motivations of   is   or  should be subject  to  someone   else  from a completely  different culture  to  be  judged as terrorist. This  of  course seems to be a sad trend in america the enemy  is bad  and that  is that  think  beyond terms of enemy ally. Think common  man in  afghanistan trying to feed his  kid then boom he is dead  now   a  family  that was once  2  parents is now one leaving broken families  in  distraught   saddness. Bin  laden    knew this   an that's why the war on terror is  a  lost war   by the west  we  are occupying  countries  killing  innocents  an  al  quida  goes an recruits  bitter  victims  of  drone attacks  to  fight  for them  morality  of  drone  attacks aside  as  long as the  argument  is  ethics  or  morality  of(set   military tactic) instead  of    what  is the end  goal  or  is  this  really  a   just war  is  not the debate inevitably  the real issue will never  be dealt with.

Shjade

Quote from: Hemingway on June 03, 2012, 06:26:19 PM
There's very obviously nothing inherently "terrorist" about either of them. Just as there's nothing inherently terrorist about flying a plane into a building; it could be for the filming of a movie, or an accident. If you ignore the context and content, then, of course. But a defense like that could be used to justify anything from nuclear weapons to ethnic cleansing.

But, like I've said, that's completely ignoring the context.

It's at a point like this that a number of people might point out that completely ignoring context (in this case, deciding to interpret my even-handed approach to labeling both drone attacks and usage of IEDs as being "equal" with regard to potential terrorism as "a defense" - what it's meant to be defending, I have no idea) to accuse someone else of completely ignoring context is ironic.

It's actually hypocrisy.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Hemingway

#24
Quote from: Shjade on June 06, 2012, 03:17:19 AM
It's at a point like this that a number of people might point out that completely ignoring context (in this case, deciding to interpret my even-handed approach to labeling both drone attacks and usage of IEDs as being "equal" with regard to potential terrorism as "a defense" - what it's meant to be defending, I have no idea) to accuse someone else of completely ignoring context is ironic.

It's actually hypocrisy.

I've read and re-read this post and your previous one, the one I responded to, and I can't for the life of me figure out how there's anything ironic or even remotely hypocritical about what I said. The only thing I could possibly think of to change is to suggest that there actually is something "inherently terrorist" about a drone strike.

The reason I responded to what you wrote is that it's saying, or at least seems to be saying, that these things are not inherently tools of terrorism because they can be used ( or not used ) in ways that wouldn't necessarily count as terrorism. The problem is that the context of this whole thread is drone strikes ( and IEDs used ) against people. That's why it says "drone attacks" and not "drones". If I'm still missing something, do let me know.

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 04, 2012, 01:45:50 AM
Drone strkes aren't in and of themselves terror, IEDs aren't either. (We used similar methods during WWII). It's the intent behind it.

Radicals know they will never have control except by violence, so they make others fear them.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but here we go.

I'm not sure I agree that intent matters. I know that terrorism is generally defined as being something like the deliberate use of fear, but I think we can agree that whether you intend to cause fear as a primary goal, or it's just an unintended ( I won't get into whether it's an unintended or intended side effect her, but I'll mention that I think there's reason to wonder about that, too ) side-effect, the result is the same.

Now, perhaps I ought to clarify here, though I believe I've at least mentioned this before, that the reason I care is that anything that's labeled as "terrorist" is seen as morally repulsive. My contention here would be that the actual act is more important than the label we apply to it, and that two more or less identical acts, one of which is carried out primarily to spread terror and the other doing so only as a side-effect, are morally repulsive in equal measure.


RubySlippers

Quote from: Hemingway on June 02, 2012, 06:38:07 PM
The issue is not that civilians are being killed, that's simply to illustrate that, like IEDs, they are essentially indiscriminate weapons. As are all weapons, I suppose, but I think we can agree that there's more potential for collateral damage with a drone strike than with rifles. That's really neither here nor there. The points you brought up could be applied to roadside bombs just as easily.

The point, as I laid it out in my earlier post, is that IEDs and drone strikes are similar in more ways than not, and that if one can be labeled a weapon of terror, then so can the other. That is to say that if an IED attack that kills only soldiers can be called a "cowardly" attack ( as it has ), then so can a drone strike. And if one can be called terrorism, then so can the other.

We are at war, the Congress in modern terms authorized it and the commander-and-chief is executing it using many assets among them drones. In war there is always collateral damage its sad but true all we can do is try to not have that be higher than necessary.

And all war is terrorist in nature as in you want the enemy to fear, in WW2 I'm sure our enemy feared us more than a few times. I would say that can be in context a good thing to it makes other not necessarily want to attack you.

gaggedLouise

#26
Quote from: RubySlippers on June 06, 2012, 12:27:46 PM
We are at war, the Congress in modern terms authorized it and the commander-and-chief is executing it using many assets among them drones. In war there is always collateral damage its sad but true all we can do is try to not have that be higher than necessary.

And all war is terrorist in nature as in you want the enemy to fear, in WW2 I'm sure our enemy feared us more than a few times. I would say that can be in context a good thing to it makes other not necessarily want to attack you.

Well, the trouble is the US is not at war with Pakistan, nor with the legit government of Afghanistan. They are your allies, and they "own" the territorial rights to their own countries and airspaces. I know the situation is a bit twisted because Pakistan is not really the most reliable ally, and has been an on-off recruitment area for the Talibans and for al-Qaeda, but from an international law standpoint (which the US has long since bound itself to) there's no question about it: the governments at Kabul and Islamabad are entitled not to have missiles dropping down at sixes and sevens in their countries without these governments having been given a say in the matter.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

#27
Quote from: gaggedLouise on June 06, 2012, 03:52:33 PM
Well, the trouble is the US is not at war with Pakistan, nor with the legit government of Afghanistan. They are your allies, and they "own" the territorial rights to their own countries and airspaces. I know the situation is a bit twisted because Pakistan is not really the most reliable ally, and has been an on-off recruitment area for the Talibans and for al-Qaeda, but from an international law standpoint (which the US has long since bound itself to) there's no question about it: the governments at Kabul and Islamabad are entitled not to have missiles dropping down at sixes and sevens in their countries without these governments having been given a say in the matter.
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent. 

grovercjuk

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 06, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent.

          The message that it sends to the world is that if you are a low tech military weak country then the US will do as it wishes. If you on the other hand are a high tech military powerful country then the US will respect your borders. A doctrine that appears to be that might is right can lead to unfortunate responses by other countries. ie China and Russia.

            But returning to the question the difference in my opinion is that the intent of a Drone is to kill only the target where as an IED is more kill the target and any one around. And having intelligence on the ground although it eliminates some of the risk does not totally eliminate it. We have had the case in Afghanistan  for example where a British Army sniper killed a British soldier because he thought he was planting an IED and in fact the soldier was examining it owing presumably a communication breakdown.   

          Mistakes happen and people die in combat situations   but hopefully the Drone commanders can say we attempt not to kill civilians,                   

Callie Del Noire

Believe it or not, the actual technology to make a functional drone isn't that difficult to acquire. It's making a high end drone with gear from over the counter that is the trick. I haven't directly seen or handled that sort of gear, but a LOT of the sensor tech isn't that hard to get or build from gear you can buy. Add in the fact that you can find people who WILL sell you that gear, and a drone is a HELL of a lot easier to make than say.. a strike aircraft.

Include a smaller logistical footprint, the ability to deploy a small scale drone makes for a very interesting option for any group with access to the talent and resources to build it.

Needless to say that this is most likely a technical analyst's nightmare. Imaging a self guided missile that you could deploy from a box van, launch from a football pitch and control via data control links such as a cell phone or such. Drop one into an area and you take out a LOT of material/people for a relatively small cost.

'First world terrorists' like racist groups could more easily get the materials and work without raising too much of an alert.

That is one of the reasons I get twitchy about the indiscriminate (in my opinion) use of drones by non-military groups such as the CIA. I think the oversight should be more regulated, the Rules of Engagement should be more harsh. I dislike the idea of non-military control by groups like the CIA because oversight is harder to maintain behind the wall of secrecy.


OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 06, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
THAt is the issue that was making me twitchy about it! Thank you!   It's the US disregard to sovereignty that had me worried. Our RoE pretty much ignores it.

The US Defense Secretar in India pretty much blew that off this week and I have to admit that worries me. It sets a dangerous precedent.

An interesting point.  However, this whole issue (especially in the Pakistan drone strikes) is sovereign nations not upholding their responsibilities to prevent their territory from being used as a base for groups to carry out criminal acts against others.  Sovereignty involves responsibilities, not just rights.  If Pakistan would police its own territory and shut down the bases insurgents use to carry out attacks cross-border into Afghanistan, the drone strikes would not be necessary.

Callie Del Noire

#31
Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on June 09, 2012, 10:17:52 AM
An interesting point.  However, this whole issue (especially in the Pakistan drone strikes) is sovereign nations not upholding their responsibilities to prevent their territory from being used as a base for groups to carry out criminal acts against others.  Sovereignty involves responsibilities, not just rights.  If Pakistan would police its own territory and shut down the bases insurgents use to carry out attacks cross-border into Afghanistan, the drone strikes would not be necessary.

So, you're arguing that any country that doesn't act to restrain terrorists from crossing borders to attack other countries is all the justification you need to make that drone strikes (and other actions) are justified.

This argument could be used as justification for some of the following actions:

-The Ulster Defense Forces could for most of their existence could have charged across the border (or called for RAF Drones) to strike at IRA sites in the Republic of Ireland.
-The Spanish army could make strikes against Basque Nationalists hiding in France.
-The Italians could move against Red Army forces hiding outside their country.
-The Israelis could conduct drone strikes against Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and areas in the Palestinian authority with legal authority.

Sorry, you're argument didn't work when we invaded Laos during Vietnam and are still questionable when the Pakistani authorities have trouble enforcing law and order in the border provinces. Drone strikes aren't making it any easier for the government to make in roads with the tribals.

Incidentally how can it be wrong when the Israeli forces do similar actions and still be justified by us when we do it?

We can't circumvent local authority because it doesn't work well. We should assist and aid them, work and coordinate with them. To do so as we're doing it.. leaves them weakened, and might I remind you we don't want the Taliban getting further footholds in their country. A nuclear Taliban isn't something we want.

Note: Sorry..that came out overly snarky.. I'm trying to fix.

RubySlippers

If this is an issue of sovereingty take the matter to the Security Council and have a vote on this, that is where this has to be dealt with. Of course they must get passed our veto override which means we can in effect do what we want to that is the benefit of being in the Big 5 Club. Or go to the World Court and we can then ignore them and do what we want. Face it this is a classic case is its okay because no one is there to really stop us from making it legal. If other nations don't like it like China or Russia they have military clout they can move forces in and say - stop it - and likely we would. I hardly think with a division or two of crack Chinese forces we would go there.

I don't see anyone bothering to act against the US on this so it must be fine in the end.

Hemingway

But someone is acting against the US, very likely as a result of volatile US foreign policy.

Silverfyre

I'm beginning to think you should sign all of your posts with "Americcccaa! Fuck Yeah!" there, Ruby.  ::)

The whole idea of national sovereignty and morality is such a subjective argument that it makes little sense to me to use it as a basis of comparison or justification.  The whole thing is a mess, that's the only thing I know we can all agree upon here.   I, for one, am just glad that Osama Bin Laden and the other members of extremist terrorist cells that have been taken out by drone attacks or other means are dead and not around to continue their terrorist tactics on the United States or any other country.  While there will always be others, at least they will no longer do any harm (save for what they might inspire as "martyrs" or what have you). 

Does that mean I think drone attacks should continue unabated?  No.  Does that mean I think the US should ignore the UN sanctions or protests?  No.  It just seems to be me that trying to justify them based on such subjective and idealistic notions is a bit pointless.  Just my two cents though.


OldSchoolGamer

#35
Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 09, 2012, 10:30:44 AM
So, you're arguing that any country that doesn't act to restrain terrorists from crossing borders to attack other countries is all the justification you need to make that drone strikes (and other actions) are justified.

This argument could be used as justification for some of the following actions:

-The Ulster Defense Forces could for most of their existence could have charged across the border (or called for RAF Drones) to strike at IRA sites in the Republic of Ireland.
-The Spanish army could make strikes against Basque Nationalists hiding in France.
-The Italians could move against Red Army forces hiding outside their country.
-The Israelis could conduct drone strikes against Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and areas in the Palestinian authority with legal authority.

Sorry, you're argument didn't work when we invaded Laos during Vietnam and are still questionable when the Pakistani authorities have trouble enforcing law and order in the border provinces. Drone strikes aren't making it any easier for the government to make in roads with the tribals.

Incidentally how can it be wrong when the Israeli forces do similar actions and still be justified by us when we do it?

We can't circumvent local authority because it doesn't work well. We should assist and aid them, work and coordinate with them. To do so as we're doing it.. leaves them weakened, and might I remind you we don't want the Taliban getting further footholds in their country. A nuclear Taliban isn't something we want.

Note: Sorry..that came out overly snarky.. I'm trying to fix.

The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on June 22, 2012, 04:11:21 PM
The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?

So.. how do you define terrorism.. because EVERY ONE of the cases I cited happened. In at least one case in the last 30 years. The French drug their feet on Basque nationals till they did actions IN France.. the IRA, and more militant groups than them, did actions from Ireland. (I have actually had a picnic on an IRA land mine.. it was detonated a week later and killed something like 20 soldiers).

If you follow some of the arguments in other countries say.. we in the US support acts of terror in their homelands..and do nothing about it.

Pakistan has long had issue in the tribal lands.. do you honestly think that by ignoring the government rather than offering them access to our intel and assets that they could have FINALLY taken control of the region?

And for the four cases I cited..there is MORE than enough evidence, political message traffic and time to prove that ALL the 'hosting' countries did NOTHING.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on June 22, 2012, 06:57:48 PM
So.. how do you define terrorism.. because EVERY ONE of the cases I cited happened. In at least one case in the last 30 years. The French drug their feet on Basque nationals till they did actions IN France.. the IRA, and more militant groups than them, did actions from Ireland. (I have actually had a picnic on an IRA land mine.. it was detonated a week later and killed something like 20 soldiers).

If you follow some of the arguments in other countries say.. we in the US support acts of terror in their homelands..and do nothing about it.

Pakistan has long had issue in the tribal lands.. do you honestly think that by ignoring the government rather than offering them access to our intel and assets that they could have FINALLY taken control of the region?

And for the four cases I cited..there is MORE than enough evidence, political message traffic and time to prove that ALL the 'hosting' countries did NOTHING.

We've given Pakistan a little under $18 billion in military and economic aid over the last decade.  I'd hardly call that "ignoring the government" there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._Financial_aid_to_Pakistan_since_9.2F11

Zeitgeist

Regarding the indiscriminate feature of a drone strike: We are all well are aren't we that the bad guys we target in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen intentionally mingle themselves in with innocents with the understanding they too will be killed and the subsequent negative press and perceptions follow. They (terrorists) have few ways to counter drone attacks, and so the only means they have is to make it as costly for us execute.

It is the terrorists who indiscriminately surround themselves with civilians, not drone attack operations.

kylie

#39
Quote from: Zeitgeist
Regarding the indiscriminate feature of a drone strike: We are all well are aren't we that the bad guys we target in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen intentionally mingle themselves in with innocents with the understanding they too will be killed and the subsequent negative press and perceptions follow. They (terrorists) have few ways to counter drone attacks, and so the only means they have is to make it as costly for us execute.
As far as what's taken for "bad," this is a sort of chicken and egg discussion.  If the US had a deeper history and more support in Pakistan (toss in a smidge of Afghanistan support/Pashtun tribes as the three are not entirely separate groups), and if the US was willing to risk more boots on the ground, then it wouldn't need to rely so heavily on drones to begin with. 

     However the US doesn't have those things.  It isn't fixing those things very well.  It has a  messy diplomatic status in the region.  The drone campaign  isn't improving locals' views of the US, and again: We're not putting people on the line (either in rural Pakistan, or on the cosmopolitan international news/policy circuit) to fix that.

Quote from: Paul, Fricker, and Williams url=http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/practice-makes-perfect/htmlDespite the fact that the CIA may be waging the most precise “bombing” campaign in history, it is nonetheless alienating millions of average Pakistanis. Pakistanis are prone to conspiracy theories and there is little chance that U.S.-based researchers can shift the paradigm in this country that drones almost exclusively kill innocent Pakistani civilians.

Moreover, as long as the U.S. government continues to conduct the campaign in secret, refusing to divulge any information on it or even acknowledge that it carries out these strikes at all, its officials cannot even enter the conversation. Unfortunately, as Christine Fair has observed, this leaves the field free for the very groups who are being targeted to report the impacts on the ground and to frame the strikes for the Pakistani public. [67] In-so-far as the American objective is to isolate and degrade Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates, this represents a serious problem. [68] To the degree the target groups are able to disseminate a common sense of victimhood to the Pakistani public, it is America rather than its enemies which is likely to be increasingly isolated in the Pakistani political conversation. Thus, for all the best intentions, the unprecedentedly accurate covert CIA drone strikes may lead to a strategic setback even as they gain a tactical success by surgically killing hundreds of FATA-based Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists every year.
Sounds like the sort of game we played and lost with Ho Chi Minh: There's no question the US can keep on bombing, provided there are bases and Pakistani military doesn't intervene (unless someone cut the funding, or domestic opinion gets fed up).  All that remains to be seen, is just how much support Al Qaeda/Taliban etc. can draw regardless -- or partly even because of the same bombing -- and for how long.

     In short, the US isn't especially willing to take risks with personnel when there's a distanced technical solution.  It isn't willing to come down off the high horse, release more data on sensitive technology, and discuss or "negotiate" how people in other circumstances -- whether civilian or militant -- actually experience and perceive remote bombings.  So naturally, the guerrillas do what they can in response.  American coldness and "body count" cost-benefit analysis on the issue comes off in Pakistan as aloofness and exceptionalism.

     I'm also not clear that the guerrillas really have options other than to shelter with civilians and/or sympathetic locals.  The area is highly rugged terrain.  The US drones are going to come down hard on any suspected target camp they find, assuming they aren't saving too many people for negotiation or bribery potential.  What else are people scurrying around in the mountains for weeks going to do, if they don't take shelter in populated areas?  If the area resembles other steep parts of Pakistan that I've seen, there are really not that many choices of where to stay -- at least in the more rural parts.  I suppose they could disperse more and live off the land for a time, but it could be difficult to supply and coordinate operations that way.  But once you have a guerrilla operation where you have to stay even partially dispersed and you're technically outgunned, I think none of this is really surprising.

     So as to who's the "bad guy" since it seems you must have just one...  The US can operate with relative impunity in sending bombs after its opponents...  They tend to regard that as "bad" too, I think.  Is it good and "moral" to expect them to capitulate on all their goals because they can't survive and fight without involving a local population?  Even while the US can't bomb without at least sometimes striking the same population?  I think that question is more about what you see as worth fighting for -- and less about how the fighting is done. 
     

Callie Del Noire

#40
You know kylie, that fits with has been nagging at me. The location where the strikes is very very distance and inaccessible, the taliban has standing with the target audience (the locals and muslim populations elsewhere) and it's hard to disprove a negative.

Ex: 'Do you still beat your wife sir?'

The CIA's very nature goes against protecting themselves against this sort of thing. Which is why I am against them running the drone strikes. These are military weapons, and the DoD should run them.

By allowing the CIA to use them you got no standing at all with the Muslim population.. (the 20 or so Pakistani soldiers that were killed earlier this year by accident.. nothing came of it.. I'm willing to be the man who did the strike, the one who authorized it..and everyone in the chain of choices leading up to it are all still working.)

Friendly fire.. isn't. And like it or not.. the Pakistani government are our allies. We lose standing twice on that.

Accountability as well as some measure of transparency, along with a strongly defined set of Rules of Engagement (RoE) are needed. The CIA nature can't do that..the DoD has shown at least SOME Muslim nations that they will be accountable for their actions and can be more visible and still be able to function.

Giving the spooks the drones was a mistake. They should stick to providing intell and let the gunslingers be a separate issue.

Apple of Eris

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on June 22, 2012, 04:11:21 PM
The difference between this and most of the examples you give is that in the case of the Pakistanis, they're not even trying.  I'm not expecting perfection.  But yes, I think if a country willfully and habitually fails to crack down on terrorists within its borders, other nations impacted by the terrorism do have the right to execute surgical cross-border strikes.  If the host nation is trying in good faith to eliminate terrorists but needs additional resources, then yes, I'm all in favor of aiding the sovereign authority rather than taking matters into our own hands.  But the Pakistanis aren't trying...bin Laden lived right under their noses, complete with compound and harem of slave-girls, for how long now?

And what about a nation that provides AID to terrorist groups? For example: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/report_us_trained_terror_group/
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8537567.stm
or
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/06/201062074140996374.html

or I suppose I could look up the statistics on how much money the IRA gained from backers in the USA, or Contras, or how the United States sponsored the 1973 overthrow of the legitimate government of Chile which led to the murder of thousands, or their backing of the Shah in Iran...

So should these countries start bombing us now, given that we harbored and aided terrorists? I don't see where the United States is the nation that has the moral authority to decide who is or is not a terrorist. We bomb Afghanistan and Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, then condemn Russia when they crack down on Chechnya, or invade Georgia to "protect Ossetians from Georgian oppression", while patting ourselves on the back for bombing Serbia for their involvement the the various Balkan wars of the 90s.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't pursue enemies that threaten or attack us, I'm just saying the whole concept of calling them terrorists and so forth and the label of war on terror is just fundamentally flawed.

I apologize for this being a bit jumpy and all that, I'm rather highly medicated at the moment. :)
Men are those creatures with two legs and eight hands.  ~Jayne Mansfield
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, then call whatever you hit the target. ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Ons/Offs
Stories I'm Seeking

grovercjuk

Although it is not strictly to do with morality it is interesting to think where using drones will take us.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2012/06/29/the-dangers-of-drone-nation/

Callie Del Noire

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367047/yemen-airstrikes-punish-militants-and-civilians

Heard this on NPR this afternoon on the way to the gas station. This sums up why a strict 'standoff' position around Drones is a losing one. You need people on the ground. Physical assetts in place and intel that isn't scrubbed from an electronic warfare platform managed by an office in Bahrain or Virginia.


OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on July 09, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/06/156367047/yemen-airstrikes-punish-militants-and-civilians

Heard this on NPR this afternoon on the way to the gas station. This sums up why a strict 'standoff' position around Drones is a losing one. You need people on the ground. Physical assetts in place and intel that isn't scrubbed from an electronic warfare platform managed by an office in Bahrain or Virginia.

And the fact Muslim jihadists love to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields doesn't help matters either.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
And the fact Muslim jihadists love to hide behind women and children and use them as human shields doesn't help matters either.

You know some of those women and children are their family and they come home to them. You're looking at this from a Western point of view where military men are separate from the rest of the population. They are doing the same thing our forefathers did during the revolutionary war.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on July 10, 2012, 03:26:54 PM
You know some of those women and children are their family and they come home to them. You're looking at this from a Western point of view where military men are separate from the rest of the population. They are doing the same thing our forefathers did during the revolutionary war.

Wrong.

Our forefathers did not walk into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up.  Our forefathers did not deliberately and knowingly use women and children as human shields.  Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 08:02:54 PM
Wrong.

Our forefathers did not walk into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up.  Our forefathers did not deliberately and knowingly use women and children as human shields.  Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

I wasn't talking about the suicide bombing..which there isn't a hell of a lot of in YEMEN, but they did work on the same 'staging from their homes' our forefathers did. And some our the forefather actions were less than.. civil too.

Shjade

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 08:02:54 PM
Our forefathers thought that human life had intrinsic value.

Yes. Specifically, they thought it held value equal to the amount they paid to own that human life to work the fields for them.

If you want the moral high ground, you're going to have to look somewhere other than American history. Our forefathers were dicks.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on July 10, 2012, 08:26:32 PM
I wasn't talking about the suicide bombing..which there isn't a hell of a lot of in YEMEN, but they did work on the same 'staging from their homes' our forefathers did. And some our the forefather actions were less than.. civil too.

What noble cause are these Islamists fighting for?  The right to have nine year old brides?  The right to keep women as chattel?  The right to mutilate and kill people for bullshit religious reasons?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any moral equivalency between these cretins and the people who founded America.  And I'm not nominating the Founders of America for sainthood.  They had their foibles, to be sure.  But considering they lived in the 18th century, I think at least to a limited extent they ought to be graded on a curve.  It's one thing to grow up in an era where people didn't know any better.  Quite another to deliberately and wantonly cling to violent atavism in modern times.

TheGlyphstone

You also have to keep in mind that we won. By the technological and logistical standard of the day, the colonial rebels were terrorists, as unpleasant as that might be. If we had lost the American Revolution and persisted as English colonies (I doubt we would have survived to this day as British territory, but a lot longer than we did), the Founding Fathers and their like would very likely be reviled in history books as vicious, murderous terrorists no better than the modern-day (de)evolution.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
What noble cause are these Islamists fighting for?  The right to have nine year old brides?  The right to keep women as chattel?  The right to mutilate and kill people for bullshit religious reasons?

You know.. you really don't know these people. Have you talked to a muslim? Have you listened to an Arab, Persian, Yemani, Pakistani talk about their homes and family? Yes, there are some of these things you speak of.. just like you got people here in the US who won't let their daughters go out unescorted, cut their hair, wear makeup and refuse to let them wear anything but fully covering dresses and talk to 'unfaithful folk' (their words..not mine. I went to school with them).

Cultural and Religious intolerance are alive and well here in the US. Don't assume that we hold the high ground. Let's do a quick tally. Who trained Bin Laden and his nut jobs. We did. Who let the Shah of Iran and Saddam kill their political rivals by the truckload. We did. Hell we supplied Saddam with the reagents for his gas warfare program.

Consider this.. when you look at some of the BIGGEST atrocities done in that area.. who supported the regimes doing them? Oh that's right.. WE DID.  We supported killers, psychotics, and people who were perfectly wiling to do things out of Hitler's playbook. Because they were there to make sure the Russians didn't win or were willing to back our companies over the competition.

Look at it from the point of view of the folks that we so quaintly classify as 'collateral damage'. Your neighbor might be a member of the people who are up in arms (they might be just fighting.. or muscling down your village). Along comes an air strike and hammers the building flat, taking out a block or so. Maybe killing members of your family or just destroying your livelihood and home.

One side, the folks who bomb you, never follow up or do anything. To them, you don't exist.

The other side comes up and says 'sorry about your losses, here is something to help you out.' Maybe in the past they put a boot to your neck and threatened you but now they are there in moment of need.

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
Sorry, but I'm not seeing any moral equivalency between these cretins and the people who founded America.  And I'm not nominating the Founders of America for sainthood.  They had their foibles, to be sure.  But considering they lived in the 18th century, I think at least to a limited extent they ought to be graded on a curve.  It's one thing to grow up in an era where people didn't know any better.  Quite another to deliberately and wantonly cling to violent atavism in modern times.

Consider this before you put ALL folks in that side of the world as rabid frothing at the brain islamists. The people of Pakistan had a FEMALE president. She was a moderate. She's dead now, odds are killed either by those men you think represent everyone over there. (Or perhaps one of the people WE are supporting). I don't see a female president (or vice president) over here.

And some of those cretins, the ones I talked to.. listened to or worked with.. speak five or more languages, have the equivalent of two degrees and literally worked their way up from the stone age to the modern age. The folks of the Middle East might be a bunch of rabid nutjobs to you, but I'll let you know most of them simply want the same things we want. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A lot of the regimes out there are heavy handed and use our support to stomp on their rivals. Consider this, if you are working off the intel provided by 'allies' in the field, might be using us to help their version of the Hatfields looking to take out the McCoys in the next valley.

Without physical assets in the field, and follow up efforts our efforts with the drones are doing as much harm as good. You can feel free to sneer at their culture and highlight the bad without considering the good but you only perpetuate the stereotypes that prevent us from winning hearts and minds in the region. Smart bombs, drones, and air strikes from carriers don't win ground.

I've had my say.. I've tried to show what I thought was the fault of our policies. Without better reporting, rules of engagement, physical involvement and attempting to defuse the issues that the enemy uses in the region we will never win this fight. And right now we let FEAR guide our hands rather than thought. America's policies in the area are ruled by fear, our leaders use the threat of a war unlike any we've ever fought to do things that we'd have never considered before 9/11.

I served my country. I've seen the people the media and fear mongers say we should fear.. and I say this. We are doing this wrong and we will LOSE more if we continue to fight this way.

I'm done..clearly reasoned discussion has no place in further discussion and the refusual to see the people in the Middle East as anything but primative savages won't allow the consideration that we can work things differently.

So, before I start doing more than screaming at the screen and taking a long walk before posting.. I cede this thread to those who have already made up their minds about those we face.

Elias

#52
Quote from: Hemingway on June 02, 2012, 05:12:07 PM
Yet that's precisely what they do. It seems like rather a technical distinction to say that one is intended to maim and kill innocents, while the other one only does it as a side effect.

In both cases, you're given no warning. In both cases, there's no risk to the user of the weapon. In both cases, innocents are killed - regardless of intent. Unfortunately, I can't find any good studies of the psychological effects of living under the threat of drone strikes, but imagine, if you will, if the roles were reversed: American and other western soldiers were being targeted by highly advanced weapons which they could not fight back against, which could strike at any time, killing anyone, civilians included. I simply can't imagine that intent would prevent that from being labeled terrorism.

It's fixed.

I don't understand anything you're trying to argue here. I mean why are fighter jets any different from drones, the aiming systems are the same, someone is behind a drone they are just safer, away from any form of danger, do you think fighter jets don't maim and kill innocents? That's what war is. I would also like to point out that IEDs, mines these things have already taken more lives than anything the drones have or ever will.

They exist for the sole purpose of spreading terror. If Drones spread terror its no more than a normal fighter jet, or a well trained American soldier with a machine gun. They are making war LESS horrifying not more. Whether thats good or bad is an entirely different conversation.

Shjade

Quote from: OldSchoolGamer on July 10, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
What noble cause are these Islamists fighting for?  The right to have nine year old brides?  The right to keep women as chattel?  The right to mutilate and kill people for bullshit religious reasons?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any moral equivalency between these cretins and the people who founded America.  And I'm not nominating the Founders of America for sainthood.  They had their foibles, to be sure.  But considering they lived in the 18th century, I think at least to a limited extent they ought to be graded on a curve.  It's one thing to grow up in an era where people didn't know any better.  Quite another to deliberately and wantonly cling to violent atavism in modern times.

Man, that doesn't sound like a colonialist attitude at all. I'm glad we've all modernized beyond the point of thinking we're better than other people simply because they have different cultural values from ourselves and no longer feel we have the obligation, much less the right, to go around "civilizing" other groups until their values resemble our own to our satisfaction.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Hemingway

Quote from: Elias on July 10, 2012, 11:39:53 PM
I don't understand anything you're trying to argue here. I mean why are fighter jets any different from drones, the aiming systems are the same, someone is behind a drone they are just safer, away from any form of danger, do you think fighter jets don't maim and kill innocents? That's what war is. I would also like to point out that IEDs, mines these things have already taken more lives than anything the drones have or ever will.

They exist for the sole purpose of spreading terror. If Drones spread terror its no more than a normal fighter jet, or a well trained American soldier with a machine gun. They are making war LESS horrifying not more. Whether thats good or bad is an entirely different conversation.

The main difference is that a drone is virtually invisible, flies at a considerably higher altitude than other aircraft, and makes virtually no sound.  The difference between a drone and some attack aircraft is about the same as the difference between a roadside bomb and a man throwing hand grenades. Give or take.

I'm sure drones are making war less horrifying for one side of the conflict, anyway. The other, not so much. And not for the civilians caught in between, either.


Elias

Civilians have been caught in the crossfire since the beginning of time, the idea of worrying about the civilians is an incredibly recent phenomena, Vietnam was the first time it became the basis for controlling the policies that went along with conflict. Drones are designed in part to keep people safe and the American military does everything in its power to avoid the loss of civilians in the conflicts they enter. Do people still die yes. But most of that has to be blamed on the other side, because they remain monstrous in their tactics. When the government messes up they make public apologies deal with riots and their own people demand more from them. This is the best you could ask for.

I dont understand why so many of you think war is supposed to be civilized.


Hemingway

Quote from: Elias on July 11, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
I dont understand why so many of you think war is supposed to be civilized.

I don't understand why you say that so casually.

I think I spelled out my point quite clearly earlier, but for the sake of clarity, I'll do so again. What I want to draw attention to is, and has always been, the hypocrisy of waging a war "on terror", when the tools used to fight that war are no more and no less civilized than the tools its supposedly a war against. That war as a whole is horrible and that it ought to be our aim to be rid of it for good is certainly my opinion, but that's a topic for another debate.

Elias

Quote from: Hemingway on July 11, 2012, 11:35:21 AM
I don't understand why you say that so casually.

I think I spelled out my point quite clearly earlier, but for the sake of clarity, I'll do so again. What I want to draw attention to is, and has always been, the hypocrisy of waging a war "on terror", when the tools used to fight that war are no more and no less civilized than the tools its supposedly a war against. That war as a whole is horrible and that it ought to be our aim to be rid of it for good is certainly my opinion, but that's a topic for another debate.

My point was just as clear. Drones minimize the terror of war, the tools of REAL terrorists maximize it. I think your dislike for the war itself has more of an effect on your arguments than even you may realize. A couple of jets dropping cluster bombs seems more terrifying than anything a drone does.

Hemingway

Quote from: Elias on July 11, 2012, 12:06:16 PM
My point was just as clear. Drones minimize the terror of war, the tools of REAL terrorists maximize it. I think your dislike for the war itself has more of an effect on your arguments than even you may realize. A couple of jets dropping cluster bombs seems more terrifying than anything a drone does.

Yes, I suspect my dislike of war has a great deal of influence on how I view violence.

Again, I don't think drones minimize the terror of war. Rather, what I think they do is dehumanize war. To us it seems less terrible because we don't hear about intense fighting on the ground and soldiers dying. We rarely hear about the people killed in drone attacks, though, because getting the information and getting accurate numbers is difficult, even impossible.

As to whether bombing is more terrifying than drone attacks, I'm not so sure. The thing about drone attacks that makes it similar to a roadside bomb is the uncertainty, the lack of warning, and the impossibility of fighting back. Nevermind how realistic fighting back would be. And anyway that's irrelevant, because the same could be said about a bomber compared with an IED. Most of this I've already said in previous posts.

Shjade

Quote from: Hemingway on July 11, 2012, 12:39:16 PM
Again, I don't think drones minimize the terror of war. Rather, what I think they do is dehumanize war.

Technically dehumanizing war would be reducing its terror, given that removing the human element means you're removing the element that can experience terror.

Problem is, only one side is experiencing the effect.
Theme: Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe
◕/◕'s
Conversation is more useful than conversion.

Hemingway

Quote from: Shjade on July 11, 2012, 12:57:36 PM
Technically dehumanizing war would be reducing its terror, given that removing the human element means you're removing the element that can experience terror.

Problem is, only one side is experiencing the effect.

Something like that. I suppose what I mean by dehumanizing it is that it's not removing the essential brutality and horror of it, simply shielding us from it.

Apple of Eris

One side uses IEDs, the other side uses Smart Bombs, Cluster Munitions, and 'Land Mines' (all of which are ED's, just they're not 'improvized').

I highly doubt that to the survivor of a missile strike on his convoy, the knowledge that the strike came from an drone is any more or less terrifying than a strike from an IED.

Either way you're fighting violence and terror with violence and terror, that just is not a winning strategy. It may seem satisfying to the bloodthirsty folks who want revenge, and I'm not saying perpetrators of violence shouldn't be brought to justice, but to say that well this guy is evil cuz he made a bomb out of a clock and some old socks and it killed six soldiers and a few old women is somehow worse than the guy who is flying the drone that blows up six 'militants' and a few old women is to me, a load of horse stuff.
Men are those creatures with two legs and eight hands.  ~Jayne Mansfield
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, then call whatever you hit the target. ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Ons/Offs
Stories I'm Seeking

Psi

I look at it this way..

IED's - are equivalent to Land Mines..    They are not targeted, are triggered by anything that meets x criteria and are a risk to both sides - unless they are avoided by prior knowledge.

Drones - while still ED, are targeted, and there should be controls over when they can be utilised, there is still someone in control.   Is it any different to a fighter plane launching a missile on laser control?   There is still a human in the loop over whether the device is triggered or not, and it can be aborted.

Arguments like this have been debated over time..  Think about the introduction of archery to warfare, where previously the combatants had to close to within arms reach.   Or the introduction of crossbows or firearms..   The scope of war must change, and while I would wish we didnt need it, I would rather the side I belong to, to have the most modern weapons possible.   The longer our own troops can last, the more efficient they are, the more we are protected by them when they are defending our countries