Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Air strike kills 15 civilians in Yemen...

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:23:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?

I'm not saying it's not a tragedy, I'm asking what your point in posting this was. Was it to say, this happened, it is bad and therefore we should stop? Was it to say this is tragic, but necessary in the global war on terror? Only to inform? Perhaps something else?
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:23:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?

I'm not saying it's not a tragedy, I'm asking what your point in posting this was. Was it to say, this happened, it is bad and therefore we should stop? Was it to say this is tragic, but necessary in the global war on terror? Only to inform? Perhaps something else?

The bolded portions were the ones that hit me the most. This... policy, is one of the most ill thought out policies America has used to counter 'global terror'. What exactly is this achieving? There is no quelling of terrorists, and IF I was a Yemeni al-queda member, I can see my job of recruiting becoming loads easier after this.

IF the tables were turned, and a Chinese drone or whatever was 'mistakenly' dropped on the US, killing as much as a single US citizen- the entire dynamics would have changed. This devaluation of life based on geography is what's the saddest part in all this.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:44:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:39:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:23:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?

I'm not saying it's not a tragedy, I'm asking what your point in posting this was. Was it to say, this happened, it is bad and therefore we should stop? Was it to say this is tragic, but necessary in the global war on terror? Only to inform? Perhaps something else?

The bolded portions were the ones that hit me the most. This... policy, is one of the most ill thought out policies America has used to counter 'global terror'. What exactly is this achieving? There is no quelling of terrorists, and IF I was a Yemeni al-queda member, I can see my job of recruiting becoming loads easier after this.

Quelling terrorists isn't the goal of drone strikes. Drone strikes are only used to neutralize imminent threats when no other alternative is viable -meaning, kill people who are actively planning to harm America or its allies and cannot be captured or killed by other means. Drone strikes only happen after the US receives actionable intelligence (meaning information that is almost certainly accurate) to minimize civilian casualties. And the recruitment argument is spurious at best, and irrelevant at worst -because the US can and will neutralize every threat against it.

IF the tables were turned, and a Chinese drone or whatever was 'mistakenly' dropped on the US, killing as much as a single US citizen- the entire dynamics would have changed. This devaluation of life based on geography is what's the saddest part in all this.

The tables wouldn't be turned because the United States does not conspire to commit terrorist acts against China. Recognize the distinction between a state actor and a terrorist. If you don't understand what that means, I would encourage you to learn.
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:50:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Vile, barbaric Saudi courts" --but it's perfectly okay that the US slaughters a wedding party.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:50:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"Vile, barbaric Saudi courts" --but it's perfectly okay that the US slaughters a wedding party.

If you can't see the distinction between those two cases, then we have nothing to talk about.
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:58:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:55:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:50:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"Vile, barbaric Saudi courts" --but it's perfectly okay that the US slaughters a wedding party.

If you can't see the distinction between those two cases, then we have nothing to talk about.

What's the distinction? US justice vs. Saudi justice? Oh, you guys are at war ... with wedding parties.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:58:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:55:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:50:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
"Vile, barbaric Saudi courts" --but it's perfectly okay that the US slaughters a wedding party.

If you can't see the distinction between those two cases, then we have nothing to talk about.

What's the distinction? US justice vs. Saudi justice? Oh, you guys are at war ... with wedding parties.

I'm going to assume you're just trying to get a rise out of me. I can not believe that you are that stupid.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:44:45 PM, YYW wrote:


The bolded portions were the ones that hit me the most. This... policy, is one of the most ill thought out policies America has used to counter 'global terror'. What exactly is this achieving? There is no quelling of terrorists, and IF I was a Yemeni al-queda member, I can see my job of recruiting becoming loads easier after this.

Quelling terrorists isn't the goal of drone strikes. Drone strikes are only used to neutralize imminent threats when no other alternative is viable -meaning, kill people who are actively planning to harm America or its allies and cannot be captured or killed by other means. Drone strikes only happen after the US receives actionable intelligence (meaning information that is almost certainly accurate) to minimize civilian casualties.

Bet those 15 people really were planning to drop bombs on US after attending the wedding. All those dozens of Yemeni civilians HRC identified had been killed, they were innocent. The 'actionable intelligence' is a propoganda that has been repeated enough to make it somewhat believable. There have been 286-890 civilians killed in Pakistan alone , including around 170 children.

And the recruitment argument is spurious at best, and irrelevant at worst -because the US can and will neutralize every threat against it.

US is creating the threats.

That is what the issue is. It is going out there, killing civilians, and acting surprised when people hate it.

It can neutralize the threats, I'm not questioning it's ability. The path it has taken to neutralize the threats is horrific and inhuman and useless. That is what the point is.

IF the tables were turned, and a Chinese drone or whatever was 'mistakenly' dropped on the US, killing as much as a single US citizen- the entire dynamics would have changed. This devaluation of life based on geography is what's the saddest part in all this.

The tables wouldn't be turned because the United States does not conspire to commit terrorist acts against China. Recognize the distinction between a state actor and a terrorist. If you don't understand what that means, I would encourage you to learn.

I do know the difference. That wasn't the point of the analogy. Even Yemen doesn't plot to attack US, if you're going to nit-pick. That's al-queda.

What does the fact that SOME Yemeni terrorists *might* plot to attack US, has any bearing on the killing of the civilians? Who is US to go on and kill civilians of countries and get off scott free? To kill *soldiers* of other countries and get off scott free? How can anyone in good conscience defend it?
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:04:15 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:44:45 PM, YYW wrote:


The bolded portions were the ones that hit me the most. This... policy, is one of the most ill thought out policies America has used to counter 'global terror'. What exactly is this achieving? There is no quelling of terrorists, and IF I was a Yemeni al-queda member, I can see my job of recruiting becoming loads easier after this.

Quelling terrorists isn't the goal of drone strikes. Drone strikes are only used to neutralize imminent threats when no other alternative is viable -meaning, kill people who are actively planning to harm America or its allies and cannot be captured or killed by other means. Drone strikes only happen after the US receives actionable intelligence (meaning information that is almost certainly accurate) to minimize civilian casualties.

Bet those 15 people really were planning to drop bombs on US after attending the wedding. All those dozens of Yemeni civilians HRC identified had been killed, they were innocent. The 'actionable intelligence' is a propoganda that has been repeated enough to make it somewhat believable. There have been 286-890 civilians killed in Pakistan alone , including around 170 children.

You don't know that they were innocent -even if that's how it was reported. Civilian casualties are always a tragedy, but they are in many cases unavoidable. The anti-drone rhetoric makes it seem as if the United States kills civilians just because it can -and that's an idiotic argument because under no circumstances would that ever be the case. Terrorists -i.e. the people who we are trying to stop from harming innocents- target innocent people. The United States does not.

And the recruitment argument is spurious at best, and irrelevant at worst -because the US can and will neutralize every threat against it.

US is creating the threats.

That is what the issue is. It is going out there, killing civilians, and acting surprised when people hate it.

That is not even remotely close to true. There was a paper that came out of U Chicago that tried to make that argument, and it only got published because of the argument it was making. It was horribly written and its reasoning followed in kind. And yet, the logic of that paper (I couldn't find a link, otherwise I'd put here) is the groundwork of all the "anti-drone" arguments we see.

It can neutralize the threats, I'm not questioning it's ability. The path it has taken to neutralize the threats is horrific and inhuman and useless.

If I took the time to explain to you why you're wrong, would it make any difference?
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:40:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:20:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 2:04:15 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:44:45 PM, YYW wrote:




Bet those 15 people really were planning to drop bombs on US after attending the wedding. All those dozens of Yemeni civilians HRC identified had been killed, they were innocent. The 'actionable intelligence' is a propoganda that has been repeated enough to make it somewhat believable. There have been 286-890 civilians killed in Pakistan alone , including around 170 children.

You don't know that they were innocent -even if that's how it was reported. Civilian casualties are always a tragedy, but they are in many cases unavoidable. The anti-drone rhetoric makes it seem as if the United States kills civilians just because it can -and that's an idiotic argument because under no circumstances would that ever be the case. Terrorists -i.e. the people who we are trying to stop from harming innocents- target innocent people. The United States does not.

I am not making that argument. And I hope you're not getting that off my arguments.

Regardless of the intentions, the citizens are getting killed. It doesn't matter that the US doesn't want to kill them, people ARE getting killed. As a direct result of US action. They are unavoidable because the 'path' taken by the US to counter these terrorist allows for killing of innocent civilians.


And the recruitment argument is spurious at best, and irrelevant at worst -because the US can and will neutralize every threat against it.

US is creating the threats.

That is what the issue is. It is going out there, killing civilians, and acting surprised when people hate it.

That is not even remotely close to true. There was a paper that came out of U Chicago that tried to make that argument, and it only got published because of the argument it was making. It was horribly written and its reasoning followed in kind. And yet, the logic of that paper (I couldn't find a link, otherwise I'd put here) is the groundwork of all the "anti-drone" arguments we see.

Just because a paper couldn't formulate the argument correctly doesn't mean the argument is fallacious. I am assuming that IF the argument it made laid to the groundwork for the anti drone arguments, it would have some compelling case. In any case, could you message me the paper of you find it?

It can neutralize the threats, I'm not questioning it's ability. The path it has taken to neutralize the threats is horrific and inhuman and useless.

If I took the time to explain to you why you're wrong, would it make any difference?

Obviously.

I hope youre not assuming that Im making the case because Im not from the US, or reading this as an anti- US rhetoric or something. I'm only against this policy adopted by the US, apart from it- as a country, its great.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:50:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
YYW is everything wrong with American foreign policy.

He assumes everyone this administration is targeting is a "terrorist", despite the fact the he has no evidence to believe so, as the government shows nobody this "evidence" except whoever is pulling the trigger.

Also, I find it amusing that he thinks these strikes are acceptable, since there MIGHT be SOMEONE down there, plotting to attack America. Fine. Then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with Yemen sending drones to the US, and destroying your neighborhood, because someone there MIGHT have been supporting US attacks on Yemen (aka, plotting against Yemen).

Through studies and release of classified cables, it has been shown that a significant amount of Drone strikes are carried out on faulty info, killing MANY civilians, and creating MANY more enemies then we might have killed. The US has also attempted to deflate the actual number of civilian deaths, both through underreporting and blaming it on the Taliban or "honor killings".
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 6:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:50:27 PM, HPWKA wrote:
YYW is everything wrong with American foreign policy.

He assumes everyone this administration is targeting is a "terrorist", despite the fact the he has no evidence to believe so, as the government shows nobody this "evidence" except whoever is pulling the trigger.

Also, I find it amusing that he thinks these strikes are acceptable, since there MIGHT be SOMEONE down there, plotting to attack America. Fine. Then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with Yemen sending drones to the US, and destroying your neighborhood, because someone there MIGHT have been supporting US attacks on Yemen (aka, plotting against Yemen).

Through studies and release of classified cables, it has been shown that a significant amount of Drone strikes are carried out on faulty info, killing MANY civilians, and creating MANY more enemies then we might have killed. The US has also attempted to deflate the actual number of civilian deaths, both through underreporting and blaming it on the Taliban or "honor killings".

I love my country, but sometimes I feel like people who want to blow us up have every reason to want that. If some drone from Yemen killed my family, I would probably be pissed at Yemen. Would I feel like blowing them up? I don't know, maybe.

You are very correct in saying that we are "creating MANY more enemies then we might have killed. " Because, I'd imagine, the people whose family and friends died in that drone strike are now mad at the US, and might feel like blowing us up. They probably weren't terrorists, and now they are. Who knows?

I've slowly begun to realize that the US just needs to take on a little more of an isolationist approach to things. It served us best in the late 30s--early 40s, when we weren't sticking our nose into other people's business. We only joined a war when people tried to blow us up--and then we just blew them up even more and put them back in their place . We weren't blowing wedding parties to bits. All the crap the US does today--no wonder people hate us.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

Another case of poor intelligence.

The worst part is, is most people aren't going to see it as the consequence of poor intelligence, but rather the "tyranny" of some mythically "atrocity-causing U.S. imperialism", and just breed more hatred of the country, and more terrorists against it.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:40:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 9:34:41 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

Another case of poor intelligence.

The worst part is, is most people aren't going to see it as the consequence of poor intelligence, but rather the "tyranny" of some mythically "atrocity-causing U.S. imperialism", and just breed more hatred of the country, and more terrorists against it.

Yeah... I don't think that'd be their fault, tbh. The worst part for me still is that innocent are being killed. US is an outsider, of course they won't 'understand', they have no ties to the US.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:39:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:23:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?

I'm not saying it's not a tragedy, I'm asking what your point in posting this was. Was it to say, this happened, it is bad and therefore we should stop? Was it to say this is tragic, but necessary in the global war on terror? Only to inform? Perhaps something else?

The bolded portions were the ones that hit me the most. This... policy, is one of the most ill thought out policies America has used to counter 'global terror'. What exactly is this achieving? There is no quelling of terrorists, and IF I was a Yemeni al-queda member, I can see my job of recruiting becoming loads easier after this.

I haven't looked at the issue closely, but if these drones were truly an attempt to kill terrorists, it's an extremely poor replacement for covert HUMINT (i.e. CIA intel). With covert ops, there's far less blowback and far more precision in how we eliminate terrorist threats. After all, who better to engage in counter-terrorism than the world's largest terrorist organization?

I'm under the impression that many of these drone strikes are indeed CIA operations. That just makes the effort all the more farcical.

Finally, I can't agree more with your position that these operations are actually creating terrorists rather than killing them off. All of this open encroachment and killing of non-combatants (i.e. murder) only stirs resentment and hatred against the US. After all, we in the US waged war in the Middle East with hundreds of thousands of troops over 3000 civilians killed in 9/11. Can we not expect similar, reciprocal backlash?

IF the tables were turned, and a Chinese drone or whatever was 'mistakenly' dropped on the US, killing as much as a single US citizen- the entire dynamics would have changed. This devaluation of life based on geography is what's the saddest part in all this.

Agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My goodness... it just amazes me when the ignorant opine on things of which the are ignorant. Not talking about you, Cermank, btw.

It's late on the east coast and I'm tired. Remind me to talk about this later.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:39:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 11:27:12 PM, YYW wrote:
My goodness... it just amazes me when the ignorant opine on things of which the are ignorant. Not talking about you, Cermank, btw.

It's late on the east coast and I'm tired. Remind me to talk about this later.

Not looking to start a flame-wae here.

I'll ping you for the substantial comment.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 11:39:09 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 11:27:12 PM, YYW wrote:
My goodness... it just amazes me when the ignorant opine on things of which the are ignorant. Not talking about you, Cermank, btw.

It's late on the east coast and I'm tired. Remind me to talk about this later.

Not looking to start a flame-wae here.

I'll ping you for the substantial comment.

Yeah, a flame war isn't going to happen. I just don't give a sh!t... but I will say that tomorrow I'll be more likely to write something worth reading. Just too tired tonight.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:27:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok, time to counter ignorance and bullsh!t.

No one likes drone strikes. No one (at least in academia or the Obama administration) that drone strikes are a good thing, a desirable option or a method which is not anything more than the least worst option. The reason why the United States uses drone strikes is because it is easier for the American people to bear the moral implications of drone strikes than to tolerate the death of American soldiers. Drone strikes enable the United States to achieve indispensable goals (and I use the word indispensable purposefully -that is, goals that we cannot not achieve) upon receiving what's called "actionable intelligence." If you don't know what actionable intelligence is, you might research it. Drone strikes represent, then, a compromise between goals that must be achieved, and protecting US soldiers' lives.

The kinds of goals that must be achieved for which drone strikes are used are under these conditions: when the United States intelligence community receives information that there exists in some place, an imminent threat. Imminent means that in the absence of doing something, American lives or security objectives almost invariably will be compromised. So, something must be done. However, even if something must be done, when doing it itself is a choice between committing ground troops to some theater of combat or using drones that do not require boots on the ground, the Obama administration chooses drone strikes because it's the least worst option by their decision making calculus. They are explicitly protecting American soldiers lives over even the lives of presumably innocent civilians, then, because unlike soldiers, drones do not discriminate between civilians and combatants within the strike proximity. However, the flip side to that is that it is probably the case that fewer innocents will be killed in the long run with drones than with a land invasion. If you want evidence of that, compare the death toll in Iraq as a result of US occupation to some of the things that the Obama administration has done in Yemen. As such, when you're weighing civilian casualties, you have to consider the number of civilians who would likely be killed if troops were on the ground versus the number of civilians who would necessarily be killed if they were in the blast proximity of a drone strike. Usually, though not always, drones do far less damage to both sides. (I know that's kind of at odds with what I said above, but that's the reality of combat -it's murky at best.) Sometimes mistakes are made, though, but let's talk about those for a minute.

Now, the arguments that people make against drone strikes usually begin with a statement of the fact that at times there are civilian casualties that result from drone strikes. Almost always, the people who are killed aren't necessarily civilians (by the fact that they're women or children under the age of 18) -but even assuming that's true, those arguments never consider the number of innocent people who would be killed given some alternative means of achieving the kinds of goals I outlined earlier. It's not up for debate that the goal must be accomplished -because if it was, we wouldn't even be talking about drone strikes or other methods. So, the question then becomes: how do we do what we must and at the lowest possible cost of civilian life? Usually, drone strikes are the least worst option -even if civilians in small numbers (and fifteen is an incredibly small number, compared to, for example, the number of casualties in Vietnam, Iraq, or especially WWII as a result of allied engagement).

The arguments against drone strikes which posit that drone strikes are a "recruitment tool" AQAP, or AQ generally use to gather people to their cause is also nonsense. It's speculative at best, and almost wholly ungrounded with any real evidence of any kind at worse. It's a popular argument because it looks like, on the surface, something of common sense. And no one is arguing that drone strikes wouldn't be a traumatic thing for people to experience. But, usually the people who would be incited to violence (adolescent and young male adult muslim fundamentalists) would already be "recruitable" whether the United States employed drone strikes or not. Moreover, it is empirically not the case that given some other alternative strategy -like a land engagement with active troops- that that would be any less likely to serve as a recruitment tool of the same kind.

If you take what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, it would at least appear that the presence of ground troops actually far more dramatically increases the probability of militants organizing against the United States or its interest because if there are boots on the ground, then there is an enemy that can be targeted. That is just not the case with drones. And, even if drone strikes make people angry, that doesn't mean that they're going to actually be able do anything about it. So, the argument that "the United States is creating more threats by countering imminent threats" ignores the reality that overwhelmingly more threats would be created by countering imminent threats by alternative means.

This really isn't that complicated. It just requires that people look past the fog of their own nonsense and understand why. I'm not saying that anyone has to like drone strikes -I certainly don't- but it would be nice if people didn't say stupid things or jump to stupid conclusions because they ground their reasoning on a combination of nonsense or irrationality.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:29:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean really, it takes a special kind of ignorance to argue that the United States would do anything to amplify the threats against itself or its interests -and most of the people that I see doing it have absolutely no background in security studies, no background in international relations, no background in international politics and no background of any meaningful sort in military operations. The fact that a person would even make the argument that the United States would do anything to amplify the threat of terrorism is sufficient to indicate that any such person has utterly no understanding of the situation at hand, or the thing they're pretending to know something about.
Tsar of DDO
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:32:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:21:37 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:11:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:01:52 PM, Cermank wrote:
... by mistake.

Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

http://www.reuters.com...

And so?

Have we really become that immune?

Yes. Unfortunately it's more shocking to see illegal whaling in the North Pacific than it is to hear about 15 people being vaporized by drone attacks. It's pretty nauseating.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:38:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:29:52 PM, YYW wrote:
I mean really, it takes a special kind of ignorance to argue that the United States would do anything to amplify the threats against itself or its interests -and most of the people that I see doing it have absolutely no background in security studies, no background in international relations, no background in international politics and no background of any meaningful sort in military operations. The fact that a person would even make the argument that the United States would [intentionally] do anything to amplify the threat of terrorism [meaning, the US would take some action that is intentionally more harmful to its interests than other options which would be less harmful to its interests] is sufficient to indicate that any such person has utterly no understanding of the situation at hand, or the thing they're pretending to know something about.

And one more thing:

I'm not asking anyone to agree that the Obama administration's rationale for using drones is without flaw. I'm also not asking anyone to feel good about drone strikes. I just want people to understand why they occur, how they occur, and what the implications of their occurrence both are and are not. I can pretty much tell when a person writes -basically anything- about security issues when they have any background at all in what they know about -and that's the risk of posting nonsense online. There is a very real risk that you will meet someone who actually knows what you pretend to know.

But, even if a person truly and wholly believes what they're saying it's astonishing to me that anyone would make any argument which means that the United States would do something that is more harmful to their interests than other available options -which is exactly what the "drones amplify terrorist threats" argument comes down to. Sure, maybe it does to a certain extent -but not more than other available options to achieve the same or similar ends. That is the reality that every single person who makes such an argument ignores every single time they posit that line of reasoning.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 2:15:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:27:27 PM, YYW wrote:
Ok, time to counter ignorance and bullsh!t.


Goodness.

Okay, I'm going to... not be condescending. (unlike you)

Let us first talk about "imminent threat". The person does not have to be a 'inevitable threat to American lives', as you so eloquently put it. A person is an imminent threat if there is an ""informed, high-level" government of@257;cial determines that the target has been recently involved in activities that pose a threat of violent attack and "there is no evidence suggesting that [the target] has renounced or abandoned such activities.' This is picked directly from the DoJ white paper.

So yeah, actionable intelligence loses its appeal when even people who 'symphatise' with the terrorists pose an *imminent threat*. By this definition *you* are a terrorist, because you are espousing speech targetted at convincing people to kill Yemenis, and show no intent of stopping. But of course, Americans aren't terrorists- so you're clean. This very issue was raised by Brazil in the recent UN meet, and was answered with the very detailed procedure required to kill off people. But a detailed procedure (meaning you have to ask more people for permissions) doesn't mean much if you have your basic definitions so vague, when the very standards are vague, depending on your interpretation of terms like 'informed, high level government official'.

Secondly, terrorists are not idiots. When you have constraints like 'drones cannot be dropped on schools/ temples/ mosques/ public places'- guess where they set their base? Yep. And the direct impact of this? People don't send their kids to schools, and you have Malalas. Did you read the letter this Talibani member wrote to Malala? It's insightful. So in order to protect your soldiers, you are destroying the entire generation of people in countries like Pakistan/ Yemen. Add that to the collateral damage.

Moving on, the combat vs drones- with technology like the one you boast of- and with the cooperation of local government ( given they allowed drones), you still have to depend on killing. Your argument hinges on, 'If we must kill, drones are preferable'. You agree that you can't morally justify it- except that it is better than the alternative- you are viewing the situation from the tinted US lens.

You don't even know if the people you are killing are legit targets, and the fact of whether or not they planned to attack the US is irrelevant. So when you talk about indispensable action to be taken by the US, it doesn't really stand any ground. When you talk about how the civilians aren't really innocent, it doesn't stand any ground because your very definition of innocence is encompassing. When you talk about less collateral damage, you fail to take into account the additional burden you are placing on these countries by interfering and cutting off their very source of human development.

The world does not revolve around the US. The objective of 'protecting' its soldiers does not give it the right to do anything it wants, just to ensure that its end goals are met. US has complete rights over its land. It has right to negotiate with the governments of other countries, and ask them to hand over the targets. It has the right to force them to hand it over if they don't cooperate using economic sanctions, like all the other countries do. But US does not get to destroy a country because someone somewhere hates it.

I'm going to go study limits now and try to forget how angry this post made me.