We do make efforts not to kill civilians because we know each one killed will be a propaganda tool and sure, they're times the target gets hit knowing civilians will be killed. The other issues, often civilians support or accept living under tyranny rather than fighting it and sadly a price is paid for that. The bigger fact remains, Muslims mostly kill the majority of Muslims. Sad situation all the way around, but sitting idle and letting such a radical enemy grow only means much worse death and destruction for all down the road.

Of course.
Google. :O:
I also like this one in particular.

Now before the all-time classic "google/random source =/= truth" card gets played by someone - I am aware of that after 15 years in the internet.
In the end, you gotta see for yourself what source you deem trustworthy or not. It is also funny that as soon as someone criticizes the drone program, some people start demanding sources.
When 'official sources' (military) claim numbers and facts regarding drones, these people usually don't question them.

The majority of articles I read about drone operations come to the same conclusion though: Too many civilian casualties.
Question is, why?

Surely not because you can't possibly expect civilians to be hit when putting a Hellfire missile or even a GBU into the dle of a village, a funeral or any crowded place.
I am all for the idea of surgical warfare, also I am very aware of the obvious fact that collateral damage will always exist, however I'm even more aware that prevention of civilian casualties should have priority - not the target.
Assuming the numbers (which vary a lot but are too high in any case) are even just half true, the current operational doctrine *might* be... 'faulty'.

Oh by the way. Go to Apacheclips or other pages like that (if you have a strong gut. It's a dark place, full of ignorance, stupidity and gore-freaks who lost touch with reality a long time ago...) and watch some drone strike material.
It speaks volumes, no need to read charts with numbers who might be true or totally made up.

That sounds a little like "wrong place, wrong time, too bad... on to the weather!".
If your loved one(s) get killed by a drone strike because your neighbor was a terrorist... mh...let's not go there, you see my point I'm sure.

Long story short, I get the feeling that certain lives seem to be taken for more valuable than others and most numbers clearly support this feeling.
Reading what some people wrote in this thread doesn't help.

Ah, let's cute to the chase and nuke 'em all. :doh:

Thanks for those.

That's true. I know nothing at all about the drone strikes, and I was a little surprised to see how many there have been.

I do remember the "collateral damage" arguments when smart bombs were first used, and I remember noting that compared to WW2 bombing standards the precision involved is very good. Still, mistakes are made and innocent people die, which is never a good thing. It's pretty easy to argue both sides of any debate, and people do get caught up in their own feelings and try to dismiss the other side. On the one hand accidents are impossible to eliminate altogether. On the other it's easy to dismiss them as "okay". Collateral damage will happen, but it's never okay.


Anyone who believes firmly in their argument runs the risk of refusing to see any merit in a different viewpoint or any flaws in their own. It seems to be the way our brains operate.

I see I said much the same thing in response, but before I read this part of your post. Well said.

Remember, Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden for fear of civilian casualties. Look how that turned out....

So basically, 9/11 happened because Clinton was a sissy?
I am tempted to claim that a few more circumstances lead to everything Bin Laden related.
How about we blame the CIA/US Gov. for getting in touch with him in the first place, train him, support him and even call him an Allie as long as he was useful to the US?
"Hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette!" :D

Also, this argument still stinks, Armistead, and you might think differently if one of your relatives would be among the drone victims just to get a suspected target.
What if your family would have been at risk from that very particular strike against Bin Laden?
That's what I thought.

I'm sorry for painting this grim scenario, I just try to make my point clear.
Exactly, very well put! :yep:

resent it all you like, the similarities are the problem. There's a reason these guys don't like us and its much the same one that we don't like them.

I'd say it has more to do with facts. It's hard to look in the mirror and see a monster looking back.

Welcome to Subsim, Frömmler, good post as well! :salute:

Yes, it was...

...now, a follow-up question to you Nippelspanner: Your criticisms are valid, but like a lot of broad criticisms abounding, it lacks a certain specificity. What, exactly, and with detail, would you propose as a precise alternative or precise alternatives to the current situation and process. We all know war is bad and killing civilians is intolerable, so how exactly do we fight against an enemy who embeds itself in the civilian population, at times explicitly as human shields? Other than walking up to each of them individually and shooting them one by one, there doesn't seem to be a means of achieving your concept of a "sanitary" war...


<O>

Why should I care if ISIS likes us? Maybe worrying too much about what terrorists think of us is the real problem here. The Chamberlinian attitude that if we just try to get along with them they'll leave us alone is the height of foolishness.

I thought it was obvious.
My complaint is that, in the drone program, collateral damage is accepted - which disgusts me, especially because of the double-moral standards.
First, the US diminishes terror attacks where civilians die as an act of cowardice.
Then, they kill civilians themselves with untouchable drones.
Since the casualties are accepted(!) to happen, it is the same crap these Islamist scumbags do.

Both sides want to destroy each other/pursue their goals.
Both sides accept civilian casualties as long as the 'target' gets destroyed or the 'cause' is enforced.

The only difference is the reason both sides take civilian casualties with a grain of salt.
(Yes, terrorists do care. No terrorist just wants to destroy everyone and everything, he fights for a cause - as stupid as it might be.)

One side hates the negative publicity because it might turn new recruits away.
The other side is afraid to lose the regional influence/trust.
Who is who, though? :hmmm:

I don't know about you, but this attitude just doesn't work out for me.
Does it for you?

Anyways!
Why, according to you, do I have the responsibility to find an alternative to these criminal acts anyways?
It isn't my war, I do not participate in it and it is under no circumstances my responsibility to find a legal and sufficient strategy that
gets the job done while actually respecting the civilian lives involved and that does not contradict with nearly everything the country/military that applies these strategies claims to stand for.

But!

There you go - why is this not an option?
I thought the American military is the best anyways, how hard can it be to take this war of terror, I mean war against terror, to a more personal level and minimize the risk of civilian casualties,
or at least start to not spit on these people by declaring them expendable?
America F yeah... and all that. :hmm2:

What?
High US casualties? Oh...well... maybe err don't join the military?

First line and you already justify what he said, amazing August is amazing! :o

Maybe not worrying too much about what terrorists think of us is the real problem here. :hmm2:
People are not terrorists by birth, they become terrorists for various reasons. Dropping explosives on their families, homes and countries might not exactly help preventing terrorism to flower.

You wouldn't know... :03:

Nipplespanner, you still haven't answered the question: what is your precise solution? All you have said is a rehash of some of the same things I heard back in the 60s and 70s from the war protesters. The main difference is neither the VC nor the NVA were fomenting attacks on US civilians in the US and they were not setting up training and recruiting networks to aid in those attacks...

It must be real hard because even you don't seem to have a practical solution, just platitudes and suspect "moral superiority"...

One thing I was taught a long time ago, if you want to criticize how someone does something, you better have a good alternative to offer; otherwise, all you have is useless words restating the obvious to no constructive end...

Oh, and you are right: it isn't your war...yet. If ISIL and the rest are not stopped, you may have a rather uncomfortable problem with also those middle eastern Muslim refugees entering your country and the Muslim extremists who will use the refugees as a cover for their activities. But, of course, you'll subdue them, their bombings, beheadings and such with your sparkling rhetoric...

Good luck to you and remember, the vile US has sworn to help you, not that you seem to need it by you account...


<O>

There is one potential solution in the pipeline in regards to drone strikes.

ARSS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autono..._Sniper_System

Much less likelihood of collateral damage, although there's still the problem of them hiding in underground places and buildings, but a drone can be on station 24/7 if you rotate them right and unless they build tunnels under the house then they'll have to come out sometime and then pop. :dead:
Equally you have to look at the bullet speed and calibre since once it has hit the target in the head...it might well keep going and hit a small child behind him. So timing and location is everything.

But it's a vast improvement over dropping a Hellfire into a marketplace or a wedding. :yep:

That's the main problem with any of the practical solutions and alternatives. There is always the possibility of a change to a situation between the time a trigger is pulled and when the munition reaches the location of its intended target...

As far as popping the bad guys when they come up for air, the really bad guys are smart enough to fly low and avoid the radar while engineering the activities of their lesser brethren. Remember, Bin Laden stayed indoors out of sight for several years, making it unlikely if not impossible to take an airborne "sniper shot". The same holds true for all the other senior leaders and planners in the Jihad; they stay well out of sight; sometimes the next time they are seen is the only chance you may have to eliminate them...


<O>

Ah yes, I heard this as well of course.
Thing is, I think it is neither right nor realistic.

I criticize the way it is done because it is a crime, nothing less.
According to you, I lose the right to speak out against it because I am no general in the military, able to find another way to deal with it?

I may be wrong but... are you creating a straw man here?
Genuine question since the problem and (off)topic is the knowingly killing civilians to achieve a 'good kill', not what strategy is best.
Again, civilian lives should have priority.
Something tells me you would think differently when you would be among these civilians. Am I right?

If it will be my war some day, I say the same as I say now - stop to willingly kill civilians just to strike a target.

Wrong is wrong.
Nothing to do with moral superiority, just with being a human being with morals at all.

Also, why is it just about the IS all the sudden?
The drone strike problem I'm referring to has nothing to do with IS since it goes way back.
What happened to 15 years of AQA and AQI?
Gone and forgotten? :hmmm:

Hardly, I am not that rhetoric, but thank you.
"If" they do this or that, we will see.
Remember, I never said it is wrong to fight them, I said treating foreign civilians as expendable is.
Remember also that I asked you why kicking their doors in with US ground forces is not an option,
I'm still waiting for your answer on that and I think I have given answers to your questions now, did I?
The vile US have sworn to help me only because it helps them.
You are a smart person, you know that countries don't have friends, only interests.
Let's not act as if our countries are best friends forever. Politicians and lobbies rule both our countries, ruining them in the long run (I think), so don't be so hurt over me not giving a damn about the 'selfless act of comradeship' from the US. It is all a farce anyways - unfortunately!

Indeed!
Thing is, a Hellfire or GBU is totally fine - if not dropped voluntarily on civilians.

It is beyond me how, apparently, so many people don't give a flying jack about this. I'm probably too much of a liberal... or was it communist... marxist maybe?
Wait, I'm German, must be a Nazi then. Or just a tree-hugger afterall for caring about people? All of it maybe? Sissy, softy, ...Mangina?

In the end I don't care what I might be labelled, I don't need to be afraid of not being able to look in the mirror anymore because I'm OK with murdering people.
(Not directed towards you vienna.)

Addendum:
Too bad for Fatma and her kids in the yard next to the target building then... :yeah:

Aye, it's not a perfect answer, and it's going to take a lot of refining but I think that it's going to help a lot in terms of collateral reduction which is, I think, a goal that we should strive towards because it will help reduce the likelihood of radicalisation of the victims relations and/or friends.
At some point we're going to be looking at guided munitions too which will help with the changing situation, guiding the bullet to the target, it might also help with reducing the chance of the bullet going through the target as you could order the bullet to self-destruct when it has hit the target.
In regards to buildings, that's a lot harder, although as we get smaller drones you've got the possibility of shooting through windows, getting camera drones inside and then shooting high powered rifle bullets through the walls. But that's stuff that's going to be more 20 or 30 years down the line...but then again, this war isn't going away any time soon. :hmm2: