Pentagon to triple the number of drones

[DieselDragRacer]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aUYvb_D1LBzM

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Will that triple the number of innocent civilians killed?



Just askin'

 

[SIG600]

Good god, please tell me you're just flame baiting.

 

[Huggyu2]

Rez,
You are an ass.
Although you know a great deal about the airlines and unions, you are woefully ignorant, it appears, in this area.
While many on here disagree with you, you at least seem to be well versed in commercial ops and can put together coherant posts.
I am very surprised by your sudden, inaccurate, and inflammatory remark.
If you aren't embarrassed by your post, you have a problem.

Just sayin'...

 

[JungleJett]

Good god, please tell me you're just flame baiting.

He is not. His hate for the military and anything related to it is well documented.

The guy takes being a doosh bag to a...ho........notha........level.

misspelled as not to be auto moderated.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Deadly drone strikes in Pakistan

Two suspected US drone missile strikes have killed at least 12 people in a tribal region of north-west Pakistan, Pakistani security officials say.
The missiles targeted a compound described as a Taliban training centre, about 30km west of Miranshah the main town in North Waziristan.
Officials say the first strike killed seven people. Five died in a second attack as they searched for bodies.
It is the fourth suspected US drone attack in North Waziristan in a week.
North and South Waziristan are a major sanctuary for al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
Hundreds of people, many of them civilians, have been killed in drone attacks since mid-2008. Top Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was among them.
Pakistan has publicly criticised drone attacks, saying they fuel support for the militants. The US military does not routinely confirm drone attacks, but analysts say the US armed forces and CIA in Afghanistan are the only forces capable of deploying drones in the region.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/8444012.stm

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Missiles fired by U.S. drones kill at least 14 in Pakistan


[SIZE=-1]12:00 AM CST on Wednesday, February 3, 2010

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Associated Press, The New York Times [/SIZE]


ISLAMABAD – Eight U.S. Predator drone aircraft fired at least 17 missiles at suspected militant positions along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan on Tuesday, killing at least 14 people in an exceptionally heavy barrage, security officials said.
The targets included houses, cars and bunkers in North Waziristan, a region dominated by militants battling U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence officials said.
The late-night missile strikes were the latest in an intensified CIA-led campaign in Pakistan, reflecting a U.S. belief that the eight-year war in Afghanistan cannot be turned around without the destruction of militant safe havens across the border.
The CIA has launched more than 70 missile attacks into the tribal region over the last 18 months, killing scores of militants but also many civilians, according to accounts from witnesses and Pakistani officials.
The strikes increased after an attack Dec. 30 on a CIA base in Afghanistan killed seven CIA employees and a Jordanian.
North Waziristan is the base for the most aggressive Afghan Taliban faction, led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin. The U.S. military believes the Haqqani group is the most dangerous and ideologically committed of the Taliban factions.
The Associated Press, The New York Times

 

[SIG600]

Congrats, you're citing the press as your sole source of education. Wow.

Here's a headline for you... every news paper in the world on 9/12/2001.

 

[JungleJett]

Congrats, you're citing the press as your sole source of education. Wow.

Here's a headline for you... every news paper in the world on 9/12/2001.

Again, he is anti-military..and his history proves it. Ignore him. He thought about joining but his sack never dropped.

 

[DieselDragRacer]

Will that triple the number of innocent civilians killed?



Just askin'

I hope so because collateral damage in places like Afghanistan turns the people against the Taliban that much faster.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Congrats, you're citing the press as your sole source of education. Wow.

Is the press not a valid source of information in our free society? Don't you defend the Constitution including a free press?

Are you saying these reports are false? Clarify truth here for me.

Here's a headline for you... every news paper in the world on 9/12/2001.

You are suggesting that the killing of civilians on 9/11 was wrong, so therefore the killing of Afghan, Pakistani and Iraq civilians (arguable more than on 9/11) is right?

 

[JungleJett]

Show proof of this statement" so therefore the killing of Afghan, Pakistani and Iraq civilians (arguable more than on 9/11) is right?"

Show me the numbers of civilians that have been killed by UAV attacks that exceed those killed on 9/11. You are big on "facts" so I am sure you will be able to provide some.

 

[JungleJett]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...Post:3d766962-9a07-4949-9909-05fde309416f&plc


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25936

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_12_46/ai_95791152/

I would also recommend some youtube vids of UAV's whacking dudes about to kill Americans or coalition forces. Then there are the ones where they thump insurgents getting ready to kill not only NATO forces..but civilians as well.

It is much easier for someone of your questionable character to continually point out and highlight tragic mistakes and ignore successes....again, your disdain for the military is noted. DB.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Show proof of this statement" so therefore the killing of Afghan, Pakistani and Iraq civilians (arguable more than on 9/11) is right?"

Show me the numbers of civilians that have been killed by UAV attacks that exceed those killed on 9/11. You are big on "facts" so I am sure you will be able to provide some.

Not specifically drone attacks, however do you dispute that we have killed more civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan than were killed on 9/11.

Regardless, we've killed innocent by standers. JOSC has a policy ... if they find a target and there are say 15 other people there... 16 are going to get killed.....


Well... let's take it out a bit more... have any civilians been killed by US forces? And if so, is it justified. If so, how is it justified. Or is this something we just don't talk about?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...Post:3d766962-9a07-4949-9909-05fde309416f&plc

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25936

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBP/is_12_46/ai_95791152/

I would also recommend some youtube vids of UAV's whacking dudes about to kill Americans or coalition forces. Then there are the ones where they thump insurgents getting ready to kill not only NATO forces..but civilians as well.

It is much easier for someone of your questionable character to continually point out and highlight tragic mistakes and ignore successes....again, your disdain for the military is noted. DB.

what is the point of UAVs over haiti? That humanitarian and other UAV flights trumps killing innocent civilians? You can't award yourself the benefits and discard the responsbility...

So we don't question.... questionable acts by our own govt? How do we self correct? How do we ensure that what we are doing is proper and moral?.... if we never question......

 

[SIG600]

Regardless, we've killed innocent by standers. JOSC has a policy ... if they find a target and there are say 15 other people there... 16 are going to get killed.....

Are you F'ing kidding me? Where the hell do you get your information. Holy hell you are stupid. Having just gotten back from Afghanistan (again) I'm intimately familiar with the ROE, as well I spent some time at the CAOC and again am very familiar with the decision making process when it comes to kinetic activities and your statements couldn't POSSIBLY be any further from the truth. Wow your mother should slap you

 

[CrewDawg]

Regardless, we've killed innocent by standers. JOSC has a policy ... if they find a target and there are say 15 other people there... 16 are going to get killed.....

Tell that to the families of countless soldiers who have been killed because of the stringent ROE we must follow. Tell that to Marcus Luttrell who lost his whole seal team and nearly died himself due to following the rules and conscience (although he disagreed with the decision). Also don't forget the sixteen guys killed, when their helicopter was shot down trying to rescue Luttrell.

No news channels ever talk about the times when our military does the right thing which, in turn, gets our people killed. In war, sometimes the wrong people get killed which is a tragedy. But to talk like we don't do everything we can to avoid this, is complete ignorance. So why don't you just stick to talking about the 121 world where you actually know what you're talking about.

It seems the news only shows the stories of the bad and never the good. It's amazing that most Americans don't even know that there have been 6 MOH recipients in the current war. Instead we get to hear about Tiger Woods banging ever chick he can or what the latest is on the Jersey Shore. No wonder the current generation of kids are so screwed up....these are their role models!

 

[Col Reb]

JOSC has a policy ... if they find a target and there are say 15 other people there... 16 are going to get killed.....

Who is JOSC, and when did he tell you his policy?? Also, I'm sure you consider AQ and TB to be innocent civilians...Thankfully, you have no part in national security (other than consistently exercising your 1st amendment right to bash people who do). I'm just glad that we live in a country where someone like you doesn't have the right to keep me from speaking what I think.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So... we don't kill innocents?

 

[SIG600]

That requires a discussion of the ROE that we can't go into here. But the answer is a resounding no. We go to extreme measures to ensure civilian safety before kinetic activity. Stop believing everything you read in the press. Regardless of what you believe, they have their own agenda.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

That requires a discussion of the ROE that we can't go into here. But the answer is a resounding no. We go to extreme measures to ensure civilian safety before kinetic activity. Stop believing everything you read in the press. Regardless of what you believe, they have their own agenda.

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

 

[SIG600]

You should thank God you live in a country that condones your free speech. Talking to you is more painful than slamming my head against a wall. It's war, people die. Not all of them deserve it. Why don't you go to a VFW and punch a WWII vet for carpet bombing Japan or Germany? You obviously know more than the rest of us.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You should thank God you live in a country that condones your free speech.

What if I am an atheist? Who should I thank? You?

Talking to you is more painful than slamming my head against a wall.

Does that mean the truth hurts? That it is uncomfortable?

It's war, people die. Not all of them deserve it.

you just told me not to believe the press... that it wasn't true that innocents die, but now, they do and they don't deserve it?



Well not really war, in the legally declared sense... but physically and in the real sense.... sure...

Why don't you go to a VFW and punch a WWII vet for carpet bombing Japan or Germany? You obviously know more than the rest of us.

I don't think those guys fooled themselves in what they were doing. They recognized the ugly truth in it. Perhaps that is why the Greatest Generation didn't talk much about it... they came back home and did the best they could in getting back to civilian life. Those guys have class.

 

[Kuma]

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

In general, the press is always wrong about everything. Whenever they are reporting about something that I know a lot about (say aviation) they make remarks and describe details that I shake my head and say to myself..."they do not know what they are talking about". Based on 40+ years of thinking that, I am pretty sure that they convey about 40% truth and 60% hyperbole.

With that being said, during times of war civilians are often hurt, maimed and killed. That is sad. They may or may not be totally "innocent" but the fact remains that they get hurt or killed during war. In the crusades, thousands died from blunt force and the cutting of a blade. In world war I, thousands died from chemical attack, during WWII millions died from the firebombing of cities, V-missiles into metropolises, and attempted genocide of an entire religious sect. Recently, Ethiopia and Eritrea killed millions of each other over tribal concerns.

While I agree that death and pain for the innocent is wrong, drones change the scale drastically. Twelve killed in Pakistan? Twelve? Among them were multiple known terrorists and agents?

More drones mean more intel. More intel means more situational awareness, more SA means less "innocents" get hurt. Some will always get hurt.

This is the price of trying to rid the world of terrorist bastards who would kill thousands to make their point heard.

 

[Hobit]

This message is hidden because Rez O. Lewshun is on your ignore list.

 

[Kharma Police]

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

If only ALPA pilots following the ALPA Code of Ethics were flying those drones, then no civilians would have been killed.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

In general, the press is always wrong about everything. Whenever they are reporting about something that I know a lot about (say aviation) they make remarks and describe details that I shake my head and say to myself..."they do not know what they are talking about". Based on 40+ years of thinking that, I am pretty sure that they convey about 40% truth and 60% hyperbole.

With that being said, during times of war civilians are often hurt, maimed and killed. That is sad. They may or may not be totally "innocent" but the fact remains that they get hurt or killed during war. In the crusades, thousands died from blunt force and the cutting of a blade. In world war I, thousands died from chemical attack, during WWII millions died from the firebombing of cities, V-missiles into metropolises, and attempted genocide of an entire religious sect. Recently, Ethiopia and Eritrea killed millions of each other over tribal concerns.

While I agree that death and pain for the innocent is wrong, drones change the scale drastically. Twelve killed in Pakistan? Twelve? Among them were multiple known terrorists and agents?

More drones mean more intel. More intel means more situational awareness, more SA means less "innocents" get hurt. Some will always get hurt.

This is the price of trying to rid the world of terrorist bastards who would kill thousands to make their point heard.

Also, the drones add a new factor to warfare... it is clean... the drone team isn't on site weilding the same weapon.. it is defintely an unfair fight. (war isn't fair... just an observation...).

Also, drone operations is based upon intel. Intel isn't always accurate. Meaning, if you are on the battlefield facing your enemy you know who your enemy is... he is right there with a similar weapon trying to kill you.


So if civilian deaths in war are unfortunate, but acceptable, is it also acceptable if "they" kill my family and claim all is fair in war?

Finally, when does it all end? Or is this the way it has always been and always will be? Our grandchildren are simply fodder for the war machine?

 

[zippy]

Also, drone operations is based upon intel. Intel isn't always accurate. Meaning, if you are on the battlefield facing your enemy you know who your enemy is... he is right there with a similar weapon trying to kill you.


So if civilian deaths in war are unfortunate, but acceptable, is it also acceptable if "they" kill my family and claim all is fair in war?

Finally, when does it all end? Or is this the way it has always been and always will be? Our grandchildren are simply fodder for the war machine?

You appear to have some background in aviation... was it acceptable when aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade center? Would it have been acceptable if the shoe bomber, or the Nigerian were sucessful in blowing up the aircraft they were on in flight? Is it acceptable for things like that to continue to happen?

In the perfect world, there would be no conflict, no hunger or poverty but the world is far from perfect. Hopefully one day it will be, but it is going to be a very long time.

War is not fair, and War is not perfect. As previously stated, use of kinetic weapons in the current conflict minimized the number of casualties on the recieving end (even if you believe that those killed surrounding the target are "innocent")... you fear about the youth being fodder for the war machine... imagine the increase of casualties on all sides if the United States replaced drone attacks with what you support... face to face combat between forces on the ground.

It is very easy to blindly criticize something you fear and don't understand. You have the right to publicly cry out against the operations of the US military... for that right, you are welcome.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You appear to have some background in aviation... was it acceptable when aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade center? Would it have been acceptable if the shoe bomber, or the Nigerian were sucessful in blowing up the aircraft they were on in flight? Is it acceptable for things like that to continue to happen?

No these acts are not acceptable... are the acts committed by the US against innocent civilians acceptable?

In the perfect world, there would be no conflict, no hunger or poverty but the world is far from perfect. Hopefully one day it will be, but it is going to be a very long time.

I like the way you think, but it is flawed in that you put the responsibility of a better world onto the shoulders of future generations. Perhaps guys landing on Normandy or flying B-17 missions over Germany assured themselves that what they were doing was worth it so future generations won't have to go to war... yet here we are...
killing each other.

War is not fair, and War is not perfect. As previously stated, use of kinetic weapons in the current conflict minimized the number of casualties on the recieving end (even if you believe that those killed surrounding the target are "innocent")... you fear about the youth being fodder for the war machine... imagine the increase of casualties on all sides if the United States replaced drone attacks with what you support... face to face combat between forces on the ground.

Actually I don't support war at all. I already gave at the office and my kids aren't available to a society that believes our children are born to die in war.

It is very easy to blindly criticize something you fear and don't understand. You have the right to publicly cry out against the operations of the US military... for that right, you are welcome.

What don't I understand...???? at the start of this post I agreed that 9/11 and shoe bomber attempts are unacceptable... so now the question becomes are our attacks acceptable....?? Why is what they did unacceptable and what we do acceptable? One could argue that they started it with 9/11, however, I am willing to say thay "they" will say it we started it before 9/11. That is the problem with war... and when does it end?

Isn't real democracy the ability to question ourselves and our actions? What seems concerning... is not questioning. If we desensitize ourselves or ignore or even refuse to accept the truth, is that really moral? If we want the benefit of victory, as a free society should not also accept the responsibility?

 

[chignutsak]

We are blowing up militants. Great. While doing so, innocents will inevitably be part of the tally, no matter what elaborate precautions are taken. Fog of war and all of that. Let's say we take out some bad guy commander, but in doing so, take out a dozen or so women and children along with the bad guy. They have made a value judgment and essentially said their lives are worthless. Bureaucrats safe at HQ and idiots posting on internet boards might say that is an acceptable trade-off. But you have (further) enraged hundreds, if not thousands, of locals. They will be even more resolute and determined against occupiers. Instead of getting one step closer to your goal by taking an important bad guy out, you have now escalated the conflict, and their hatreds of us and everything we stand for, just as it may seem to us.

Remember, most of these folks are illiterate. They don't give one rat's azz about our Constitution, our government, 9/11, or have access to Faux News, MSDNC, or moronic blogs. They are instead concerned about day-to-day survival, which means basic subsistence and staying on the good side of the local tribal chieftain. Whether or not said chieftain is viewed by the US as a good or bad guy is completely meaningless to them; if it takes hemp, poppies, or pomegranates to keep chief happy, so be it. When does it end? It doesn't. If war is your business, then I suppose you are a happy camper. But tell me something, are you ready to send your sons and daughters to war in order to prop up contractor's stock price's? You damn well better, their blood is needed.

I, for one, am glad that an end game is supposedly near. We, as a nation, cannot afford an open-ended commitment to this area. There is NO upside to this, unless you are a UAV contractor.