1. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Does this 'technically' include, or is it a precursor to, drone attacks on U.S soil?




  2. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    Read the whitepaper yourself: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

    The first sentence says "in a foreign country". Is it a precursor to killing American citizens on American soil? I'm not sure. AFAIK that is already possible and legal if they are deemed enemy combatants(that's not simply a label given to undesirables, its backed by intelligence research into the person). More realistically I think they would first pursue arrest.
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Thanks. I think it refers in the main to Drone usage as killing of terrorists by conventional armed forces is pretty much established in Afghanistan/Iraq anyway and the CIA assassin squads are now out in the open...


    It appears to widen the scope geographically and there are already reports of Drones in Mali etc.

    Obama appears to be pushing the envelope on this quite rapidly... massive increases in Drone strikes and general usage... not very much concern for 'collateral damage'... dead innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Was interesting to note they already had the 'baby drones' with tazers in the U.S . I think 'enemy combatants' covers a large remit but we will see
  4. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    Why do you think those are US drones...?

    Where do you get the impression they are increasing in frequency? They happen every few days at most frequent. It's terrible that innocent people are being killed, but it's important to keep perspective here: the collateral damage is actually a lot less than conventional warfare.


    Frankly I don't get the hysteria around drones. Why don't folks learn how to build their own, and in the process learn their limitations if you're so afraid of what they can do. If a small UAV can hit a moving target with a tazer, I'll be surprised.
  5. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    "Massive increases" ? Hyperbole?

    Actually, drone strikes in Pakistan have been decreasing for the last few years- They peaked in 2010 with 117, 64 in 2011, 46 last year and 8 so far this year


    Drone strikes in Yemen have increased- from 2 in 2010, to 10 in 2011 to 42 last year:


    The use of drones actually is the best tool for limiting "collateral damage" as potential targets can be watched over hours to verify to a greater degree and to allow time to strike when the risk for civilian casualties is minimal or non-existent.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned



    Do you run a PR agency?


    Massive increase?... Yes. Hyperbole?... No.


    Hyperbole?... Yes. Outright misrepresentation of facts?... Yes.

    Apparently it is not merely me being hypersensitive or alarmist or practicing hyperbole...



    Seems one of us have our facts wrong... I wonder who? Perhaps more to the point... Why?
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  7. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    There are more drone strikes under Obama than Bush - that is true...part of the reason is a shift from traditional air strikes (planes) to drones...part of it is a deliberate campaign. But they have decreased substantially over the last few years in Pakistan

    No- stating that Drones have the potential to limit civilian casualties more that any other air-delivery method is not hyperbole or a misrepresentation of facts. Try again.

    In 10 strikes in Yemen in 2010- 0 civilian casualties, 5 strikes so far this year- 0 casualties.

    In Pakistan- since 2010 1541 "enemies" killed versus 59 unintentional civilian deaths.

  8. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned


    Sandy Hook:

    Pakistan... and wherever: "Bug Splats"

    "Who will avenge the blood of these Pakistanis?"

    U.S certainly knows how to create 'terrorists'... Never ending war? Was that a plan?
  9. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Never ending war? same as it ever was.

    It definitely sucks when innocent people die...and war is miserable.

    But using drones is the best option for limiting civilian casualties if you are going to attack.

    ...as opposed to...say...a suicide bomber.
  10. jvnk08

    jvnk08 Active Member

    The quoted statistic defeats your own point.

    Comparatively it is a "massive increase". You need to understand how the exponential function works though. In doing so, you'll see these drone strikes are still fairly rarely used.

    I don't think you understand how devastating conventional munitions are in comparison. Additionally, the Taliban do a better job of killing civilians than the US ever will.

  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Seriously... you think I do not understand that Obama has drastically increased the amount of strikes and flying times of Predator drones in relation to Bush.

    Fairly rarely used... They are used in Pakistan because Pakistan will not allow foreign troops on their soil, (despite the seal team incursion) and the U.S can't just stand back and watch so they brokered a deal to fly drones as Pakistan President 'Doesn't really care about collateral damage'.

    I am perfectly aware of the damage conventional munitions do. The fact is, the U.S and U.N have no right being there at all... Israel has no right stealing land from Syria or Lebanon... The whole lot are banksters fraudsters criminals who could not care less about the people. Land grab, money grab and power grab... thats it.

    They don't even care about U.S citizens... so why on earth would they care about anyone else.

    Well even the U.N think they are pretty sensational and are looking into them... but then I suppose they must be biased?


    And this is just Pakistan...and U.S is not even at war with them!
  12. truthbearer

    truthbearer New Member

    I've been searching the Web on polls on this - just to see who are for or against the use of drones. I saw one on eQuibbly though: http://www.equibbly.com/disputes/using-drone-strikes-to-assassinate-u-s-citizens

    What strikes me is this line taken from their debate: "If they're an enemy of the U.S. by virtue of having declared war on the U.S. and demonstrated by their words and actions that they are a serious threat, they should no longer be considered American citizens in the eyes of the law. They should be taken out by any means possible to protect the truly innocent."

    So, it's like saying that anyone who is a suspected terrorist can be killed.. but will this really solve the problem, or harbor more anti-American sentiments? Does the end justify the means?

    Technology is not the question. The very issue here is ethics because we're talking about taking lives, human life for that matter.