CIA demands drones despite 80% civilian death rate

[SecularCauses]

Once again showing your love affair for Russia Today, a completely discredited news source? It is to the socialist lefty scum what Faux News is to the Republicans.

what would you consider credible news sources forgy

"Forgy"? Sorry, but you and the other paranoid users on here are way off the mark. I'm also not Satyr, or any other user name you may dream up. I am and always have been SecularCauses. I've checked the comments of "forgy," and unlike him, I am not a Jew, never have been, never will be, and have no Jewish ancestors to my knowledge. But if paranoia gets you through the night, then feel free to be paranoid.

A credible ews source would be Scientific American, as one example.

[chaz wyman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EBHv0k ... re=g-all-u

Title says it all. The war of cowards...

Once again showing your love affair for Russia Today, a completely discredited news source? It is to the socialist lefty scum what Faux News is to the Republicans.

Give me the number of people killed by drones. What tyou will find is just on the number of people killed, a wide range of figures. The differ by as much as 100%. .

And you know this how?

It's you that looks like a retard.

[SecularCauses]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EBHv0k ... re=g-all-u

Title says it all. The war of cowards...

Once again showing your love affair for Russia Today, a completely discredited news source? It is to the socialist lefty scum what Faux News is to the Republicans.

Give me the number of people killed by drones. What tyou will find is just on the number of people killed, a wide range of figures. The differ by as much as 100%. .

And you know this how?

It's you that looks like a retard.

Since Rick Lewis agreed with me on this point, I take it you are calling him a retard too?

I checked numerous sources before making the comments, and everyone of them stated there was no agreement even on the number dead. Feel free to produce such figures though to prove that your anti-semitic ass is so smart. I have yet to meet any anti-semite who was not a poster-child for sexually dysfunctional drooling idiots.

[Kayla]

A credible ews source would be Scientific American, as one example.

its not a news source certainly not for the news in question

how about a non-retarded answer forgy

[SecularCauses]

A credible ews source would be Scientific American, as one example.

its not a news source certainly not for the news in question

how about a non-retarded answer forgy

I am not another user, and I won't explain this to you again, I simply won't respond to your juvenile paranoia. Scientific American is a news source, and one that does provide news on drones. I realize you think a legit news agency needs to inform us what colored panties Lohan is showing her fans each day, but, believe it or not, there is an enormous amount of news that has nothing to do with movie and music entertainers. From what I could ascertain, no one knows the actual number dead, much less the number of "innocent"dead versus terrorists. That was my point: the Russia Today news does not have a basis for its claim, and is once again engaged in nonsense. There is no difference between civilians and most terrorists anyway, since the vast majority of terrorists are civilians, so it's not even clear what claim is being made.

[RickLewis]

There is no difference between civilians and most terrorists anyway, since the vast majority of terrorists are civilians, so it's not even clear what claim is being made.

Well, presumably it would be quite easy to clear up this dispute over definitions, at least.

When you say "the vast majority of terrorists are civilians", I take it you define anybody not enrolled in the armed forces of an internationally-recognized state as being a civilian? I think other definitions would be possible, but let's go with yours.

If we agree to call anyone not enrolled in the armed forces of an internationally-recognized state a civilian, then the vast majority of terrorists are civilians, just as you say, but the vast majority of civilians are not terrorists. The terms are not interchangeable. We could make this important distinction clearer by talking about "terrorist civilians" and "non-terrorist civilians" (presumably including you and me).

When people complain about "civilians" being killed by drones, they are presumably talking about "non-terrorist civilians". The figures we would like to see if they were available would be the number of non-terrorist civilians killed by drones as against the number of terrorist civilians killed by drones. That would give us something to go on when judging the effectiveness and morality of using drones.

As America is a democracy and ultimately the people must decide these strategic and political disputes, surely it is a duty on the US military to supply the media with estimates as to the ratio, so that their masters (the American public and their elected representatives) can make informed decisions regarding the long-term use of drones?

[SecularCauses]

There is no difference between civilians and most terrorists anyway, since the vast majority of terrorists are civilians, so it's not even clear what claim is being made.

Well, presumably it would be quite easy to clear up this dispute over definitions, at least.

When you say "the vast majority of terrorists are civilians", I take it you define anybody not enrolled in the armed forces of an internationally-recognized state as being a civilian? I think other definitions would be possible, but let's go with yours.

If we agree to call anyone not enrolled in the armed forces of an internationally-recognized state a civilian, then the vast majority of terrorists are civilians, just as you say, but the vast majority of civilians are not terrorists. The terms are not interchangeable. We could make this important distinction clearer by talking about "terrorist civilians" and "non-terrorist civilians" (presumably including you and me).

When people complain about "civilians" being killed by drones, they are presumably talking about "non-terrorist civilians". The figures we would like to see if they were available would be the number of non-terrorist civilians killed by drones as against the number of terrorist civilians killed by drones. That would give us something to go on when judging the effectiveness and morality of using drones.

As America is a democracy and ultimately the people must decide these strategic and political disputes, surely it is a duty on the US military to supply the media with estimates as to the ratio, so that their masters (the American public and their elected representatives) can make informed decisions regarding the long-term use of drones?

I didn't state that the term "civilian" was interchangeable with "terrorist." However, since most terrorists are civilians, by the definition you gave, and it is what I had in mind earlier, then it would be misleading to state that the drones are killing 98% civilians. That percentage of "civilian" deaths would be cnsistent with the drones killing 98% terrorists, or even 99% or 100% terrorists.

But, it is also true that one may not be a terrorist, and may still not be innocent. A cab driver who picks up a terrorist not knowing who he is is not guilty and if killed in a drone attack, I would mark him down as an innocent bystander. Even if he knew the guy was a terrorist, but was just giving him a brief ride, I would still say he could be marked as an innocent. However, if the guy knows whom is driving around, and does so full-time, then even if he is not a terrorist himself, he is not innocent. How are such people being classified by Russia Today?

I disagree that the US is a democracy, I live in a Constitutional Republic. But, I do agree that if the figures are available, that they should be made public. I would also agree if 98% of the people being killed were innocent, that it would be an immoral practice, and I am confident Americans would vote against the process. However, I do believe that the first inquiry to make in evaluating the Russia Today claim is "How do they know?" And from what I can tell, no one has accurate figures from which to work from. Therefore, Russia Today would have been better off using some clear cases of innocent people being killed to suggest to the public that the US government provide accurate figures regarding how many innocent people are being killed.

Now, not to be a nuisance or anything, but it would also be fair for the US military to explain to the public how many soldiers are estimated to have been saved from being killed in taking out the terrorists by the use of these drone attacks. I doubt that if 98% of the dead were innocent that it would make much difference, but logically, that evidence should be considered as well. Additionally, one should also factor in the collateral deaths of innocent people that would take place even if more conventional methods besides the drones were used.

I just think that the program by Russia Today is disingenuous, and that those who are interested in using reason to decide such issues should demand more from any news agency. As far as I can tell, I am the only user here on this site who raised the issue. I thought Socrates taught people to question how people know things? I was just trying to honor the Socratic tradition.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I've never watched Russia Today, but common sense dictates that drones are designed to kill people, and as terrorists tend to look like any other people it's pretty obvious that many others are going to be killed. What a fucking pathetic species we are. I don't see why even one innocent goat should lose its life to one of those things.

[SecularCauses]

I've never watched Russia Today, but common sense dictates that drones are designed to kill people, and as terrorists tend to look like any other people it's pretty obvious that many others are going to be killed. What a fucking pathetic species we are. I don't see why even one innocent goat should lose its life to one of those things.

It's because the terrorist does kill innocent people. Quite often the terrorists being killed have a deeply held religious belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their killing of another person. This is another reason why I am glad I am an atheist. Atheists don't kill in the name of atheism. Maybe for other reasons, but not to please some imaginary friend.

And, what is the difference between killing with a drone, versus a bomb, versus a gun or knife? Dead is dead. When the US went into Pakistan to get Osama, the US did not indiscriminately kill, and even risked the lives of the soldiers on the mission by trying to prevent casualties of innocent people. Although, anyone at that compound was well aware that they were hanging out with a mass murderer.

The US is still experiencing repeated terrorist attacks, primarily by Muslims. Yet, the US would imprison any America who indiscriminately assaulted a Muslim on US soil. We are doing our best to follow a rule of law and remain civilized, but it is easier said than done. What people overlook is the very real human factors involved. The fact is many Americans, including, and especially our leaders, were terrified after 9/11. They didn't know when the next attack would come, when, and whether it would involve biological or chemical weapons. They didn't know if thousands of people would be murdered in another attack. When people are scared, angry, confused, it's easy to do the wrong thing. That does not make Americans demons, it makes us human. Americans would love to have peace with everyone. Americans don't want war. We want to see our children grow up healthy and lead long, productive lives. We don't want to visit their graves because they died in battle in some foreign land. Frankly, I am getting bored with those who demonize America and Americans and forget that we are human, real people with real feelings too. Sure, we make mistakes, but who doesn't? But, I have lived in America my whole life and I know for a fact Americans are not war-hungry people, but quite the opposite.

[Kayla]

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content ... DRONES.pdf

this is very detailed report with lots of references to us government and news sources other than russia today

here is one item from the scientific american on the subject of the drones

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... cyber-war/

it does not exactly endorse their use

[Kayla]

When the US went into Pakistan to get Osama, the US did not indiscriminately kill,

the US used a vaccination program as a cover to determine who was in that compound

this did incredible damage to the vaccination programs in pakistan and will cause incredible number of deaths - and the way infections work the deaths will not even be restricted to pakistan

so yes they killed indiscriminately just not in a direct way

The US is still experiencing repeated terrorist attacks, primarily by Muslims.

fbi disagrees with you

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... error02_05

[SecularCauses]

When the US went into Pakistan to get Osama, the US did not indiscriminately kill,

the US used a vaccination program as a cover to determine who was in that compound

this did incredible damage to the vaccination programs in pakistan and will cause incredible number of deaths - and the way infections work the deaths will not even be restricted to pakistan

so yes they killed indiscriminately just not in a direct way

The US is still experiencing repeated terrorist attacks, primarily by Muslims.

fbi disagrees with you

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... error02_05

The Muslim world has been telling their fellow Muslims not to take vaccinations for years. Any deaths caused by such idiocy is at the heads of the people promoting such nonsense, not the US government. And the FBI stat you referred to stopped covering years after 2005, and we are in the year 2012, so I'm not putting any weight in that report. Furthermore, the Obama administration has given orders to everyone in the executive branch to not mention Islam even when it is a factor in a terrorist attack. That's why one can read the Fort Hood memo on the attack, and despite the fact the attacker yeled out allah is great before opening fire, Islam is not mentioned in the report at all. In other words, you seem to be perfectly okay with having the current administration lie to you.

[Arising_uk]

... Go ahead, and give me the figures for the number of people who have been killed by these drone attacks? No one even has an accurate count. ...

Well, the CIA has the accurate count but won't release it. Why is that?

[Arising_uk]

...
"Forgy"? Sorry, but you and the other paranoid users on here are way off the mark. ...

Of course we are.

[Arising_uk]

I think it understandable why a country would use drones in what they consider a 'war' but the unfortunate side-effect of these things flying over peoples heads 24/7 is that they are the best recruiting sergeant that Al Qaeda and the other fundamentalists could wish for. As its pretty hard to convince those who live under the terror of these things that the Yank is not out to get the Muslim as its in the sky for all to see. The psychological effect upon the kids will be more than enough to make them receptive to the fundamentalist message, let alone when innocents are killed by Hellfire missiles, so its pretty self-defeating if the aim is to defeat terrorism but then I think this is not really the aim of the Yank in the first place.