Study: Drones kill 1 terrorist for every 50 innocent peoples


#1

America’s deadly double tap drone attacks are ‘killing 49 people for every known terrorist in Pakistan’ | Mail Online


#2

What the hell? I understand the initial drone strike but the “double tap” is going too far. Why would they target the responders?

At any rate, the excessive use of drone strikes keeps Gitmo from getting crowded which is what Obama wants. More bodies = less prisoners.


#3

This is why more terrorists are being spawned each day than are being killed.


#4

Great, another commercial masquerading as a thread.


#5

“I don’t agree with you, therefore you are spamming.”

I can assure you I am not associated with The Daily Mail, a U.K. based company.


#6

This is a flawed study. All strikes are on video and there is NO shortage of them on the internet for viewing, anyone here cannot find them let me know and I will give links.

The target aquistion process IMO is totally out of controll (anyone viewing a video would know that), we are fighting a PeeCee war we all but require the bad guys to kill one of our solider before we engage, this includes drones and other non ground activity.

Just a bunch of liberal BS based upon some college prof has NO earthly idea of any reality spinning numbers and fabricating facts.


#7

All strikes are on video you’re right. But they’re not going to release ones where they kill emergency responders and children to the public. Think about how that would make Obama’s administration look.

If you want a practitioner instead of a college prof then here’s a link to an article that has a retired top terrorism official disagreeing with the drone strike strategy.

Former top terrorism official in CIA criticizes Obama drone attacks


#8

I haven’t been here long enough, so I can’t post the link to the study I read, but here are the numbers for Pakistan for 2012:

Terrorists Versus Civilian Casualties:

Drones killed 234 terrorists, 7 civilians

Suicide blasts killed 758 civilians.

Top terrorist commanders, strategists, and others killed by drones include:

Baitullah Mehsud, commanded 5,000 fighters and responsible for killing thousands of Pakistani’s

Tohir Youlishev, recruited 2,500 fighters and trained them to fight Pakistani and NATO forces

Qari Hussein, top commander and organizer of deadly suicide attacks

Saeed Al-Masri, Financial Chief of Al Qaeda

Qari Zafar, leader who carried out attacks in Lehore, Pakistan

Ilyas Kashmiri, Al Qaeda’s top strategist and commander of the 313 Brigade who planned to assassinate Pakistani General Ashfaq Parves Kayani, and also presented the idea of Mumbai attacks to Al Qaeda.


#9

here is what he says:

“David Grenier was chief of the CIA’s counter terrorism center from 2004 to 2006. **Grenier is not opposed to drone attacks per se but he does oppose the Obama program. **While the Obama administration defends the attacks as very focused and accurate Grenier actually claims the opposite. Grenier claims that the drone policy is far too indiscriminate in its policy. The result could be political instability and even safe havens for a burgeoning terrorist movement. Something of this sort seems to have happened in Yemen although other factors are involved as well.”

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Obammy is using drones far too often.

The many videos have lengthy discussions about the target vs civilians. Military in todays enviro can be charged with murder and even sued. This so called study is BS, smoke and mirrors, not worth the paper its written on. We do NOT have a 1:50 bad guy to good guy kill ratio, sorry…


#10

Grenier is arguing that Obama uses them in a far too indiscriminate manner. Which means that he uses them recklessly and without good intel. I doubt it’s a 1:50 but all I am arguing is that the drone strike policy of Obama is causing some unnecessary blowback due to its recklessness.


#11

Here is the straight dope…we got a dope in the WH, its HIS policy, not the military, not the folks driving the the drones. Just take a look at bammy ME policy of EPIC FAILURE, that speaks volumes.

I am familiar with our target acquisition methods, aerial weaponry and the development and implementation of rules of engagement. I do not see this as a key issue. Granted there is non-combatant deaths, but there is a war going and trust me, CHIT HAPPENS out there. I wish it did not, but we are fighting a group of terrorists who are cowards, hide behind skirts and children. This is not new, we saw all this in Vietnam. That too was a war against terrorism led by the VC.


#12

Right, I don’t blame the military. They do what they are told regardless of it’s a D or an R running the show. I’m blaming Obama’s crap policy. I understand everything you’re saying. It is a war and things will go bad but the way Obama is running the show is just causing more things to go south.


#13

I don’t believe this study for a second. Even if it were true, I call those losses acceptable. Furthermore, I’m not a big fan of drones for attacking the enemy. As surveillance, they are invaluable. For attacks, I prefer boots on the ground, piloted aircraft, or my good old buddy, Arty.


#14

[quote=“17Oaks, post:11, topic:36686”]
Here is the straight dope…we got a dope in the WH, its HIS policy, not the military, not the folks driving the the drones. Just take a look at bammy ME policy of EPIC FAILURE, that speaks volumes.

I am familiar with our target acquisition methods, aerial weaponry and the development and implementation of rules of engagement. I do not see this as a key issue. Granted there is non-combatant deaths, but there is a war going and trust me, CHIT HAPPENS out there. I wish it did not, but we are fighting a group of terrorists who are cowards, hide behind skirts and children. This is not new, we saw all this in Vietnam. That too was a war against terrorism led by the VC.
[/quote]Please don’t quote that troll.

100% agreement. It’s impossible to fight bad guys like this and not expect collateral damage.


#15

That’s sickening. So you would be ok with a team shooting up your street and killing 300 of your neighbors to just get 6 terrorists? You think we will not suffer blowback and increase al qaida membership (insult deleted by PeteS)? (insult deleted by PeteS).


#16

When you opening post is playing the race card you must be holding a one card hand.

I don’t fight wars to kill civilians, that no fun, they just in my way and slow things down.

Let me pass on something else to you: If the bad guys are shooting or setting up and mortar or RPG in the next hooch over from yours and you are an innocent civilian, I suggest you grab you and yours and go hang out at the mall till the gun play is over. If not from this soldiers eyes you are aiding and abetting. When the gun play starts trust me I don’t ask for a voter ID…asking questions first and shooting later is not allowed on my insurance policy…


#17

With you on that. For more reasons than one. War is such a horrible thing and truly hell on earth. I am worried when politicians start becoming Generals of war from a desk in the WH and begin killing by pushing a button.

I have NEVER met a combat soldier of any kind that wants war if they have ever been in war. There is nothing I could write to describe the horror of combat. Its so life changing and impacting that 100% of all soldiers who have ever fought in combat has PTSD and a high % of those in the rear do. 100% of medical people have PTSD.

Only when you see and what war is do you truly want peace…there are no winners in war. So if we sanitize this to the point it becomes unfeeling, unknowing the ONLY result is endless war…


#18

Ohh FYI…there are no local Malls for the civi’s to pack up and run to when the SHTF in their neighborhoods.

Politicians START becoming generals? They** have been since Vietnam. We use joysticks now instead of buttons, and I agree with you because of what you said, we DO NOW** have endless Undeclared unconstitutional war…

We managed to fight Desert Storm without killing mass quantities of civilians in the process, if civilians were harmed it was by bad intel. The general lack of caring or regard for life I see from DC has trickled down to soldiers coming back home. I took care of a guy 6 months ago we had to send straight to the psych ward . He was a Marine Sniper that only could see people as being meat. He wanted to keep killing people so he could see them turn to meat.

I am a former Desert Storm Combat Medic and agree with you 100% about the horror of war that 80% of the people on RO have never experienced yet shake their Red White and Blue pom poms for it from the comfort of their home computer. Before we cheer for another endless war with Iran or Syria, think about what those Red White and Blue Pom Poms did to that Marine Sniper.


#19

In the new recording, al-Shihri states that the reports of his death were used as a cover for the fact that innocent civilians had been killed in the drone strike.

He also expresses full support for the uprising against the Syrian government, calling both Syria’s President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ”evil leaders” - an inconvenient fact that will likely go widely unreported by US corporate media.

As with practically every other Al Qaeda boogie man before him, al-Shihri was reported captured and killed years ago.

So what do you think about our Government now that they are aligning their actions with the wishes of top Al CIAda operatives???
» Another Resurrection For Al Qaeda Boogie Man Who Will Not Die Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!


#20

More Paulbot crybaby tactics…The shares of tinfoil must be going through the roof.