Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14

iacardsfan · Dec 13, 2013

Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14 - CNN.com

A U.S. drone mistakenly targeted a wedding convoy in Yemen's al-Baitha province after intelligence reports identified the vehicles as carrying al Qaeda militants, two Yemeni national security officials told CNN on Thursday.
The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured, nine in critical condition. The vehicles were traveling near the town of Radda when they were attacked.

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.

SBu · Dec 13, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14 - CNN.com

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.

According to a story I saw, there were a couple tribal elders present among the dead as well. Could be more than meets the eye here, or could be elimination of political rivals. Either way, if we rely on Yemeni intelligence, you have to be willing to accept 'mistakes' like this.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 13, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14 - CNN.com

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.

That is exactly why the Jihadis are so scary and effective - they are said to be nationless. The 9/11/2001 crew were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen yet we went to war in Afghanistan, had a side adventure in Iraq and zapped UBL, years later, in Pakistan. For every $200 IED, suicide bomber or sniper attack we respond with $1 million in military raids and about the same in foreign aid. The never ending war on terror is mighty profitable for the MIC - let's roll!

DDD · Dec 14, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
That is exactly why the Jihadis are so scary and effective - they are said to be nationless. The 9/11/2001 crew were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen yet we went to war in Afghanistan, had a side adventure in Iraq and zapped UBL, years later, in Pakistan. For every $200 IED, suicide bomber or sniper attack we respond with $1 million in military raids and about the same in foreign aid. The never ending war on terror is mighty profitable for the MIC - let's roll!

This is the exact formula for failing Vietnam. You invested millions of dollars they used mud, feces, tunnels, and free snakes. Cannot you wise up from this sort of engagement?

Jango · Dec 14, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14 - CNN.com

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.

We're not supposed to think of matters in those terms though. We're supposed to think that every foreign policy / military action the state undertakes is flawlessly executed and morally just. Anything contrary, as an American, is counter to our education and anti-American.

Serenity · Dec 14, 2013

The officials said that 14 people were killed and 22 others injured, nine in critical condition.

The use of drones is an emotional issue for many of us. For me, i find it disturbing to realise that someone possesses the power to kill someone by merely commanding that it be done, without trial, without due process, and without anything more than pushing buttons on a computer screen thousands of miles away. Humans make mistakes and sometimes they get it wrong. A loss of just one innocent life is a pretty big price to pay don't you think?

We need to put ourselves in these peoples shoes and ask ourselves how would you feel if something like this happened to American citizens on American soil by another country. If you would be ok with it then i guess that's up to you but i wouldn't be ok with it in my Country and i'm not ok with it in theirs.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 14, 2013

DDD said:
This is the exact formula for failing Vietnam. You invested millions of dollars they used mud, feces, tunnels, and free snakes. Cannot you wise up from this sort of engagement?

It would appear not because of the hard lobbying by those now profitting from this system. As with nearly all federal spending, there are those that have come to depend on it for their incomes.

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...d-wedding-party-yemen-killing-least-13-a.html

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14 - CNN.com

Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.

It finally got some media coverage this time huh? This isn;t the first "mistake", and yes it is creating more 'terrorists";
hence the term Perpetual War.

John McCain said it would take "100 years" to win this so called war when he ran for POTUS
at this rate that will be a minimal time frame. Fact Checker - McCain's '100-year war' (fact check)

Why is the CIA still running this program? Why "no comments" from the US on targeting?
How about the fact we droned a CHILD in Pakistan on Thanksgiving day?

More importantly when are the American people going to say ENOUGH????

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

Serenity said:
The use of drones is an emotional issue for many of us. For me, i find it disturbing to realise that someone possesses the power to kill someone by merely commanding that it be done, without trial, without due process, and without anything more than pushing buttons on a computer screen thousands of miles away. Humans make mistakes and sometimes they get it wrong. A loss of just one innocent life is a pretty big price to pay don't you think?

We need to put ourselves in these peoples shoes and ask ourselves how would you feel if something like this happened to American citizens on American soil by another country. If you would be ok with it then i guess that's up to you but i wouldn't be ok with it in my Country and i'm not ok with it in theirs.

because we call it a war
or whatever it's called now (Global War on Terrror=GWOT). It was "Kinetic Strikes" during Libya - not wanting to call it a war.

We just make this stuff up, since Congress either passes an outdated authorization, or hands it of as "executive action".
Another by product of the Imperial/Unitary president.

DDD · Dec 14, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
It would appear not because of the hard lobbying by those now profitting from this system. As with nearly all federal spending, there are those that have come to depend on it for their incomes.

So while they profit the country incurs debt, lives are lost, and assymetric approaches are exchanged at the battlefield! Who is they? Cannot "they" be isolated and contained?

ttwtt78640 · Dec 14, 2013

DDD said:
So while they profit the country incurs debt, lives are lost, and assymetric approaches are exchanged at the battlefield! Who is they? Cannot "they" be isolated and contained?

They are defense contractors, those that supply high cost mil-spec war toys and those that get the "nation building" contracts. Don't you find it odd that the F35 is "built in over 30 states" and that the F22 was never used in combat? They lobby the congress critters and make campaign contributions to keep those DOD dollars flowing their way. USA, USA, USA...

iacardsfan · Dec 14, 2013

ttwtt78640 said:
That is exactly why the Jihadis are so scary and effective - they are said to be nationless. The 9/11/2001 crew were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen yet we went to war in Afghanistan, had a side adventure in Iraq and zapped UBL, years later, in Pakistan. For every $200 IED, suicide bomber or sniper attack we respond with $1 million in military raids and about the same in foreign aid. The never ending war on terror is mighty profitable for the MIC - let's roll!

The best analogy I have heard yet is we are playing whack-a-mole with terrorists. We go in one place to rid them of terrorists, and then once we temporarily flush them out there they just move on. I think it is clear that the use of drones is just making scores of enemies.

iacardsfan · Dec 14, 2013

SBu said:
According to a story I saw, there were a couple tribal elders present among the dead as well. Could be more than meets the eye here, or could be elimination of political rivals. Either way, if we rely on Yemeni intelligence, you have to be willing to accept 'mistakes' like this.

My main point is why do we feel the need to use drones at all. Then we wouldn't have to worry a about flawed intel program anywhere.

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

iacardsfan said:
The best analogy I have heard yet is we are playing whack-a-mole with terrorists. We go in one place to rid them of terrorists, and then once we temporarily flush them out there they just move on. I think it is clear that the use of drones is just making scores of enemies.

it's a good point, and we use them on "militants" - whatever that means. not just high value terrorists.

Our so called signature strikes: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/the-signature-strikes-program/?_r=0

Toward the end of a May 27 article in The Times about President Obama’s speech in which, among other things, he mentioned setting new standards for ordering drone strikes against non-Americans, there was this rather disturbing paragraph:

“Even as he set new standards, a debate broke out about what they actually meant and what would actually change.
For now, officials said, ‘signature strikes’ targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.”
As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, those two sentences seem to contradict the entire tenor of Mr. Obama’s speech,

And yes the Yemeni INTEl can be a cellphone call from someone in the field - I would imagine faulty data used for revenge,

ONLY way to use these is : 1. "high value" targets only 2. cross checked, or exacting INTEL. 3. limited use.

we are doing none of these as of now

ttwtt78640 · Dec 14, 2013

iacardsfan said:
The best analogy I have heard yet is we are playing whack-a-mole with terrorists. We go in one place to rid them of terrorists, and then once we temporarily flush them out there they just move on. I think it is clear that the use of drones is just making scores of enemies.

Just as the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" will last forever so will the "war on terror". They all have their fan bases that depend on these wars continuing for their incomes/profits.

notquiteright · Dec 14, 2013

DDD said:
This is the exact formula for failing Vietnam. You invested millions of dollars they used mud, feces, tunnels, and free snakes. Cannot you wise up from this sort of engagement?

We COULD learn from Vietnam, and I believe we did... however what we learned was more self delusion and scapegoating. Delusion in many forms- from 'we always won' to 'we have solved the problem of Vietnam'. Throw in 'the liberals stabbed our troops in the back' (never mind many CONs would NEVER allow their kids to go into the jungle) and you have the soup we quaffed while nursing our wounded pride over the war we couldn't win.

I have read quite a few sci-fi books where an Empire dictates to the rest, a way to live and system to govern. Everything from economic to internal politics is set and approved by the 'Empire'. Many who support the Empire do so thinking it is for the greater good of the world/solar system/galaxy. The Imperial Forces have a HUGE tech advantage over the inhabitants of the other worlds, yet these 'crazy' rebels fight the massive Empire with often little more than sheer guts, and a bit of luck, and some intangible called a 'force'.

Sometimes as an ex-Imperial Trooper I can't help but wonder if many who are on the receiving end of our high tech attacks have heard of the books in the "Dune" or "Star Wars" series...

DDD · Dec 14, 2013

notquiteright said:
We COULD learn from Vietnam, and I believe we did... however what we learned was more self delusion and scapegoating. Delusion in many forms- from 'we always won' to 'we have solved the problem of Vietnam'. Throw in 'the liberals stabbed our troops in the back' (never mind many CONs would NEVER allow their kids to go into the jungle) and you have the soup we quaffed while nursing our wounded pride over the war we couldn't win.

I have read quite a few sci-fi books where an Empire dictates to the rest, a way to live and system to govern. Everything from economic to internal politics is set and approved by the 'Empire'. Many who support the Empire do so thinking it is for the greater good of the world/solar system/galaxy. The Imperial Forces have a HUGE tech advantage over the inhabitants of the other worlds, yet these 'crazy' rebels fight the massive Empire with often little more than sheer guts, and a bit of luck, and some intangible called a 'force'.

Sometimes as an ex-Imperial Trooper I can't help but wonder if many who are on the receiving end of our high tech attacks have heard of the books in the "Dune" or "Star Wars" series...

The point is though that, if a certain goal can be achieved by cheaper means then the one to make highest expenses loses the war. Why cannot you compete with cheapness to war? Why cannot you be cheaper than those at the other side?

SBu · Dec 14, 2013

iacardsfan said:
My main point is why do we feel the need to use drones at all. Then we wouldn't have to worry a about flawed intel program anywhere.

A couple points:

1) Drones are the future of warfare (period).
2) If we aren't developing, then someone else will eventually and then we're behind the power curve
3) Drones are cheaper than training people to be in a cockpit, and don't require all of the life support systems that manned aircraft need
4) Drones are politically correct because if one crashes, no one dies on board
5) Drones can loiter miles overhead for long periods of time

We don't need to use drones, but it makes sense given the above points. Drones don't kill people, people do. So it sounds like your beef is more about the process of determining targets rather than the method by which they are struck. After all, a drone overhead is only as dangerous as the commands that are sent to it.

dirtpoorchris · Dec 14, 2013

annata said:
it's a good point, and we use them on "militants" - whatever that means. not just high value terrorists.

Our so called signature strikes: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/the-signature-strikes-program/?_r=0

And yes the Yemeni INTEl can be a cellphone call from someone in the field - I would imagine faulty data used for revenge,

ONLY way to use these is : 1. "high value" targets only 2. cross checked, or exacting INTEL. 3. limited use.

we are doing none of these as of now

Wtf kinda wording is that in the quote?? "Pressumed to be an extremist"

So if dude sees some farmer on a cam and called in "Hey I think this guy might be an extremist" Can the decider go, "You pressumed it, fire."?

apdst · Dec 14, 2013

DDD said:
This is the exact formula for failing Vietnam. You invested millions of dollars they used mud, feces, tunnels, and free snakes. Cannot you wise up from this sort of engagement?

And those tactics failed, too.

DDD · Dec 14, 2013

apdst said:
And those tactics failed, too.

Cheap or multi mil tactics failed too?

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

dirtpoorchris said:
Wtf kinda wording is that in the quote?? "Pressumed to be an extremist"

So if dude sees some farmer on a cam and called in "Hey I think this guy might be an extremist" Can the decider go, "You pressumed it, fire."?

yes. that is the criteria for "signature strikes" ( their behavior/profile fits the 'signature' of a terrorist/militant).
We use signature strikes in Yemen too - although that article is about Pakistan.

From all I know - despite Obama's so called "reset" on the NYT link I posted - nothing really has changed.
Not the frequency, not the criteria, not the fact this is still run by the CIA.

If you noticed lately the US does a lot of "no comments", and true to form, STILL no comment on this international incident.
We just wait for the body parts to be scraped off the road/reload/ and do it again.

anatta · Dec 14, 2013

The American military commander called President Hamid Karzai to apologize for a drone strike in southern Helmand Province, which the military conceded had killed and wounded civilians, a coalition official said on Friday.

“He talked to President Karzai directly, expressed deep regrets for the incident and any civilian casualties, and promised to convene an immediate joint investigation to determine all the facts of what happened,” a coalition spokesman said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with official policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/world/asia/drone-strike-in-afghanistan.html

this was the drone strike that killed the child.
Since karzai is holding up the SOFA agreeement, we will say "gee we're really sorry about that -deep regrets"
-so we can keep our bases in Afganistan.

The difference in Yemen, is their president actively supports our drone useage -there is some kind of civil war/unreast
( too lazy to look it up);so we have a willing partner in Yemen.

Amd AQAP is considered to be some kind of elevated "terrorist" threat - which leaves US drone happy, and unrepentant.

iacardsfan · Dec 14, 2013

SBu said:
A couple points:

1) Drones are the future of warfare (period).
2) If we aren't developing, then someone else will eventually and then we're behind the power curve
3) Drones are cheaper than training people to be in a cockpit, and don't require all of the life support systems that manned aircraft need
4) Drones are politically correct because if one crashes, no one dies on board
5) Drones can loiter miles overhead for long periods of time

We don't need to use drones, but it makes sense given the above points. Drones don't kill people, people do. So it sounds like your beef is more about the process of determining targets rather than the method by which they are struck. After all, a drone overhead is only as dangerous as the commands that are sent to it.

Lets get this straight: you think we can fall behind technologically by not using drones when we have the capability of blowing up the entire world with our nuclear capabilities multiple times over?

Yemen says U.S. drone struck a wedding convoy, killing 14

iacardsfan

SBu

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

DDD

Jango

Serenity

Stay Human

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

anatta

anatta

anatta

DDD

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

iacardsfan

iacardsfan

anatta

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

notquiteright

DDD

SBu

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos

apdst

DDD

anatta

anatta

iacardsfan