The drone papers

cpwill · Oct 16, 2015

Bob0627 said:
I fully understand your inhumanity.

No, you just don't know what you are talking about, but nonetheless have a strong opinion about it.

Bob0627 · Oct 16, 2015

cpwill said:
No, you just don't know what you are talking about, but nonetheless have a strong opinion about it.

I'm talking about people like you who defend war crimes and war criminals and don't and will never understand those who don't and are vehemently opposed to state mass murder committed under pretense.

jet57 · Oct 16, 2015

American said:
Do you realize that all these people are "civilians"? Where are the military personnel? Terrorists are not military personnel, that's why we have Gitmo. So how many of these "civilians" are really just terrorists?

Is a militiaman a civilian?

joG · Oct 16, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Whistleblower Leaks Trove of Documents on Drones and Obama's Assassination Program

Full documents and reports done by the Intercept after months of investigations, research, etc.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
THE DRONE PAPERS

Jeremy Scahill and the team at the Intercept have done it again! Real, in-depth, investigative journalism! Havent had a chance to read the whole report yet, but so far its very eye opening, intriguing, and disturbing. Thank god we have journalist outlets such as this. What are your guys' thoughts?

The paper is interesting in the way details are interesting within a well known context. This will certainly excite some people that will act as though there were something horrid here and new. Honestly, do you see anything there other than a few details you did not know or strongly expect were happening or anything that is especially worth criticizing i.e. where you would have a better and viable proposal?

cpwill · Oct 16, 2015

Bob0627 said:
I'm talking about people like you who defend war crimes and war criminals and don't and will never understand those who don't and are vehemently opposed to state mass murder committed under pretense.

:lol: Okedoke

notquiteright · Oct 16, 2015

cpwill said:
Well, putting the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the number aside for the moment, it's also a poor measurement. If a target by the name of Abu McKillTheInfidels, who is the leader of the McJihads, is traveling down the road with 4 members of his entourage, one of whom is identified as Omar McTakfiri, one of whom is the driver, and two of whom are body guards, and we are striking the vehicle because we are targeting Abu McKillTheInfidels, then "80% of the targets in that strike will not be the intended target", despite the fact that they are all McJihad group members.

Those IFs again...

Let's IF some shall we... what IF Abu McKillTheInfidels decides to stop and mack-up one of those 72 virgins here on earth rather than wait.... so instead of being on the road when he said a convoy of wedding guests is... they are the only convoy of nice vehicles for miles, what does a drone operator in Nevada know about a wedding party? He only knows the guy who runs the video releases for McJihad is supposed to be on that road.... oops... :shock:

What IF Omar McTakfiri says he will be in a certain apt blg at a certain time for a meeting. Missile wounds him but kills 13 other people who are not Mcjihads.... oops

Now as far as President Obama 'not knowing' what to do with high value targets- What did he send into Pakistan to get Osama??? (hint, not a drone)

Problem with many high value targets is they learn how to evade capture as much as we try and learn how to capture them. It isn't a Tom Cruise or Clancy movie. The likelihood of having a team near enough, and trained/briefed up enough to snag a fleeting target racing across a desert is pretty low.

The allure of using drones was quickly recognized by BushII, politicians and top brass. While they can't question the target before blowing his car/room/ass to bits, they do greatly reduce the cost of maintaining hundreds of strike teams around the world. The other option is thousands of troops stationed in every country McJihad has a branch office in...

eace

cpwill · Oct 16, 2015

notquiteright said:
Those IFs again...

Let's IF some shall we... what IF Abu McKillTheInfidels decides to stop and mack-up one of those 72 virgins here on earth rather than wait...

Then the slant changes and quite possibly so does the targeting solution. Your package is approved with a CDE call, after all.

so instead of being on the road when he said a convoy of wedding guests is... they are the only convoy of nice vehicles for miles, what does a drone operator in Nevada know about a wedding party? He only knows the guy who runs the video releases for McJihad is supposed to be on that road.... oops... :shock:

What IF Omar McTakfiri says he will be in a certain apt blg at a certain time for a meeting. Missile wounds him but kills 13 other people who are not Mcjihads.... oops

Then the bird over Omar McTakfiri redirects. Additionally (and, again, this is important) the package is going to be preapproved on Omar's pattern of life with a pre-set CDE call, and we have eyes-on for drone strikes.

Now as far as President Obama 'not knowing' what to do with high value targets- What did he send into Pakistan to get Osama??? (hint, not a drone)

Because we were willing to risk boots on the ground for Osama Bin Laden - we were willing to invade Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. If you want to start putting boots on the ground for more HVI's, I"m not entirely against that but A) you aren't going to be able to access them as much as we can with drones, B) the operators are going to require more permanent overseas basing that's local C) Those missions are more high risk, so you need to accept higher US casualties D) ground operations also tend to produce more civilian casualties. Now, E) captured HVI's can be interrogated, except F) we have nowhere to do so, since we aren't putting anyone in Gitmo anymore, and anyone who hits US territory gets to lawyer up.

Think, for example, about the difference between the civilian casualties of a drone strike v the civilian casualties (and US casualties) in the battle of Mogadishu.

Problem with many high value targets is they learn how to evade capture as much as we try and learn how to capture them. It isn't a Tom Cruise or Clancy movie. The likelihood of having a team near enough, and trained/briefed up enough to snag a fleeting target racing across a desert is pretty low.

Yup.

The allure of using drones was quickly recognized by BushII, politicians and top brass. While they can't question the target before blowing his car/room/ass to bits, they do greatly reduce the cost of maintaining hundreds of strike teams around the world. The other option is thousands of troops stationed in every country McJihad has a branch office in... eace

Maybe hundreds; but yeah.

Thoreau72 · Oct 18, 2015

cpwill said:
......I'm not really seeing where any of this is particularly controversial, or even new. If you are Abu McJihad's assigned bodyguard, yeah, you're going to die when his car blows up, and we probably won't bother to learn your name. SIGINT is pretty freaking awesome as a "FIND" and "FIX" solution, but you'll have HUMINT playing a role for the FIND and IMINT playing a role for the FIX. Yes, we kill people that we should probably be trying to capture instead. That is because the Obama Administration doesn't know what to do with high-level detainees, so they don't want to take any. It's easier (and safer in the short term) to kill Abu McJihad than it is to grab and interrogate him, especially when you are already trying to close Gitmo.

Of course it's not controversial. In this country today bombing hospitals is not controversial. Taking the country to war under fraud is not controversial. Hell, most people are sufficiently deluded to think it didn't even happen.

Torture is not controversial at all in this age of universal deception. If the POTUS does it, it is legal. Just that simple.

Μολὼν λαβέ · Oct 18, 2015

cpwill said:
......I'm not really seeing where any of this is particularly controversial, or even new. If you are Abu McJihad's assigned bodyguard, yeah, you're going to die when his car blows up, and we probably won't bother to learn your name. SIGINT is pretty freaking awesome as a "FIND" and "FIX" solution, but you'll have HUMINT playing a role for the FIND and IMINT playing a role for the FIX. Yes, we kill people that we should probably be trying to capture instead. That is because the Obama Administration doesn't know what to do with high-level detainees, so they don't want to take any. It's easier (and safer in the short term) to kill Abu McJihad than it is to grab and interrogate him, especially when you are already trying to close Gitmo.

How about when air strikes kill doctors and other innocents? That's what happens when you perform executions half-a**ed.

KABUL—A U.S. airstrike in the Afghan city of Kunduz killed at least 19 people at a hospital run by international medical-aid organization Doctors Without Borders early Saturday,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

cpwill · Oct 18, 2015

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065148568 said:
How about when air strikes kill doctors and other innocents? That's what happens when you perform executions half-a**ed.

It happens when you perform combat operations that aren't half-assed, as well. It happens when you conduct operations that are perfectly well put together, and it happens when you conduct aerial strikes that are fed by awesome, complete intelligence pictures. In war, things break, and people die. When the enemy chooses to militarize civilian positions, they ensure that civilians will be killed and injured. We go to great lengths to minimize the damage that is assured due to the enemy's actions, but the enemy still gets a vote, however much we try to take it from them.

Thoreau72 · Oct 19, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
Wedding party full of terrorists eh?

Just as a man with a hammer sees everything else as being a nail, I suppose that a drone operator sees all the humans as terrorists?

Oozlefinch · Oct 20, 2015

Of course, if we want to solve all this problem with collateral damage through drone strikes, we can simply go back to the way we used to do it before.

Boots on the ground and air strikes by manned aircraft.

Of course, the cry-babies would whine and bitch about that as well. We would be more sure of who we are striking, and putting a round in the X ring by a sniper causses less collateral damage then from a hellfire launched from a drone.

If you notice, the only thing they have in common is complaining about any involvement by the US.

Of course, they also complain when the US does not get involved either. All most ever do is complain.

Thoreau72 · Oct 21, 2015

I think we should strive to be a nation that does not care about these drone strikes and whether or not they kill innocents. Kill 'em all and let the Judeo-Christian "God" sort 'em out. Let's bomb hospitals and let's torture people, and be proud of it. We are, after all, an exceptional blip on the radar screen of the human species.

The drone papers

Si vis pacem, para bellum