DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Horrifying Report on Civilians Killed by U.S.

Very long piece, so I will just link, but a Times investigation visited 150 U.S. airstrike sites in Iraq, finding an average of 31X the reported civilian casualties, with numerous and repeated classifications of civilians as ISIL members.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...-share&_r=0

Obama killed a lot of innocent people, that's for sure.

Obama's drone policy was sadistic and criminal, but this modus operandi preceded him (though he escalated far worse than his predecessors- we murdered a 16 year old American citizen under Obama), and continues under Trump, who is still following Obama's military procedures to a T.

I wish they would clean up how the military uses drones as it relates to civilian casualties, but i support the practice.

Bummer for them

You can't criticize Obama on this. The Democrats will hate you for pointing out his flaw and the cons will simply shrug their shoulders.

And the commie makes stuff up.

Please, tell us the commie way to approach this with regards to civilian casualties.

“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”

Well the commie way would not to be the strong arm of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention how irregular it would be to fight a war halfway across the globe in the first place.

Now, if you want to know what I'd change to the program, then here you go:

I would only allow weaponize drones in countries that we are doing frequent ground operations in. So Yemen and Somalia would be illegal to drone. I'd also replace the US Military Force Act. Maybe do some other things, but that's just off the top of my head.

the world has seen how commies act, and it ain't good, especially when it comes to the way civilians are treated.

anyway, it's called the AUMF, not the US Military Force Act, and that isn't the problem anyway.

the problem is when we decide strike the target. that's to do with intelligence and other factors, even weather is a factor when deciding to strike a target, ground forces, air, or drones.

the window of opportunity closes and opens really fast when it comes to military operations, so intel has to be quick, and generals/president have to be even quicker when it come to deciding when to strike and when not to.

So that's the big (maybe biggest) problem when it comes to drone strikes and other air strikes.

the other big problem is the reporting. first, the US Military definitely under reports civilian casualties. that's not even up for debate.

however, the problem with the KIND of people we are fighting is that there is no clear way to distinguish between ISIS fighters and normal civilian population. the locals on ground could easily count a terrorist as a civilian casualty simply because they were unaware of that person's ties to terrorist organizations. or, it could be reported differently because they know people like you will eat up the propaganda of US Forces being completely out of control, when that isn't the case or lacks a ton of context.

^^^ this right here might trigger you and others. but it's the truth. i remember we were getting a briefing before or next mission. we've had women suicide bombers attack checkpoints, only to be counted as a civilian casualty by the local community. it happens all the time.

so the difference between military and local reporting will always be contentious.

however, at the end of the day, drones serve a purpose of not putting american lives at risk. we've had plenty of civilian casualties due to ground operations, and while every single civilian death sucks, unfortunately that's war. however, we have to do what we can to limit that number as much as possible.

but drones serves to at least not put american lives at risk. it's quick, it's cost efficient, and military operations have become way more efficient because of it.

I'm glad the Republican-lite came to tell us that drone program is alright and we just need better intel after being triggered because I attacked the Democrats stance on this as business as usual. lol

yes he did.
It was one of his policies that I really hated.

i gave you a well thought out response and you responded with a FB worthy comment like a typical 23- year old.. Glad Arch is roasting you in the other thread right now.

Sorry, these are the most banal comments on the subject matter. Unlike you, I've been aware of this subject. I actually re-read your post twice, because I couldn't find your opinion on civilians killed by the US. Sorry, Rumsfeld, we already know we need to figure out the known-unknowns and unknown unknowns. Sorry if you don't like it when I make fun of your banal statements like I do when Cons on here post theirs.

again, i gave you a well thought out response and yet all you can do is throw insults.

I know guys like PDF have somehow gave you the courage to try and get creative with your mud slinging, but the reality is that you haven't said much of anything past "civilian casualties = bad"

you didn't even know the proper term for the AUMF, yet got the nerve to claim you know anything more than me on the subject. you say you want it gone but haven't said why. you say you want the drones strikes stopped in Yemen and Somalia yet haven't given an substantial reason why.

all you have given is talking points. So if i'm Rumsfeld, then you're trump, because you say a whole lot of useless crap.

i've came out you plenty of times for you to know better than to think i care whether you attack the cons or me on this board. but chalk it up to you being Trump and being unaware of your surroundings, i guess.

So I didn't say anything past "civilian casualties = bad", but then you talk about my post and say you want more reasons for actions that would limit civilians casualties? That's funny. Well, I'll incline.

Yes, I didn't remember the AUMF off the top of my head like Google does. But let me give you my reason, by quoting the passage of the law that I have problems with.



The AUMF is currently the justification of many of our foreign engagements in Somalia and Yemen (but with hopes that Niger and others will allow us to weaponize the drones in their country). And allowing us to hunt for a single person or organization, is the legal chicanery of something like RICO laws. We should cut off fighting in Yemen and Somalia, for different reasons, but ultimately the same, so we can get out of our wars, especially the ones we're fighting for the Saudis.

that's odd seeing as i had no problem knowing what the actual policy was called.

maybe its cause i actually know what i'm talking about what it is.

I support the current language in the AUMF as is, as the commander in chief should be able to authorize such on-the-spot strikes/operations without congressional approval.

but that's the problem when talking to you about any sort of military operations however meny years i've been discussing things with you: you will mention all of the bad and none of the good.

i can list quite a few goods, but here's the big one:

without AUMF, we don't get Osama Bin Laden.

if you're argument is to get out of wars, thats fine but you're off base using the AUMF as an example, seeing as how that has never stopped our country from being in war after war after war.

in order for military ops to be successful, the decisions to pull the trigger must be calculated, but also swift. AUMF allows the POTUS to authorize strikes/ops for a specific purpose, but it does not give the POTUS power to start full scale wars. full scale wars have been accomplished by our government without the AUMF, and will continue to do so even if the AUMF is gone. We need the AUMF because going through congress for strikes is inefficient and cost lives.

the pro's outweighs the con's when it comes to AUMF, especially when it comes to national security and protecting american military lives.

Yemen and Somalia have organizations killing their civilian population left and right. while some strikes have added to that total, the reality is that we have taken out important targets because of it.

we should've never been in Yemen to begin with. I have no desire to help the Saudis in their Proxy wars and hissy fits with Egypt since...when? the 1930's or 60's? i admit i haven't read up with the story in a few years so my history might be off since i'm going off memory.

regardless, the terrorist organizations are there in Yemen, so US support of the Saudi-led coalition will probably not go away anytime soon. but we are there, and might as well be there until it's done.

as far as Somalia goes, we have AFRICOM there in djibouti, so asking the US military to vacate Somalia with al-shabab and ISIS right there on a neighboring state is a pipe dream and bad policy ideas on your part.

but you're looking at this from a carebear still in college perspective instead of a real world military operation one, which this is.

Can you give any concrete way? Or are you just going to continue talking in Republican-lite banalities?

we've been over this already in previous threads about the pros and cons of drones.

for calling me republican lite, you sure do like going around in circles like republicans.

i mean damn we just carried out 3 drone strikes in 24 hours again Al shabaab and ISIS in somalia.

i've given you concrete reasons why drones are good, and i've also given you reasons why it needs a lot of improvement.

at this point you're closing your ears going "alalalalalalala" simply because you have no rebuttal for any of it. please step your game up.

You've listed why, but not one single way of how. This is why the Democrats are Republicans lite. They're all talking points, no policy points.

You want to spend all this time attacking hastily, ill-described policy, putting far more effort reading into my posts than I do making them. I mean, I'm not going to give you my middle eastern policy over a 3 paragraph post though. Over 3 bowls? Hell, by the end, I might convince you to look into Anarchoosyndicationalism. So I'm sorry if I just want to keep it to drone policy.

Also, I didn't think I'd have to mention the pros and cons of every topic, but obviously drones are a great thing. They've already revolutionized so much, but still has promise for a lot. Drones are cool.

bro you must be on one right now.

you've been lacking specifics this entire time, yet all of a sudden demand specifics.

i didn't spend all this time attacking anything. i spent all this time trying to have an actual discussion with you, but so far all you can do is whine about republican lite and other useless drivel that means jack crap.

i've been talking policy and reasons why. you haven't done ANY counter points, any rebuttals to anything i've actually said.


i mean, look at this crap:



followed by:


so you're whining (wrongly) about me not talking policy, then make some half ass excuse why you don't want to talk policy.

i've been talking policy and operations this entire time. you've been hurling insults and posting like some dude who's been binge watching Viceland TV.

again, step your game up.

Nobody wants to hear about djibouti!

j/c

As always, civilian casualties are a part of war. They have been throughout history. It's a very sad fact of war, but a fact none the less. Our government really isn't any different than any other government as to the fact they wish to minimize those numbers. They will try to make those numbers out to be much smaller than they really are.

What people really need to do, IMO, is not act like we're so different than other nations in this regard. Like the rest of the world, each nation will use its own propaganda to make them look like the good guy and the enemy look like the bad guy. We see it in the slanted history books in our own educational system.

This doesn't change the fact that civilian deaths are a terrible part of war. It's an evil that is never justified. But it's been, is and will always be a part of war.

Did we?

I mean, this investigation clearly shows we've been blatantly lying. These strikes are admittedly being carried out under faulty intelligence. Over a five month period, 90% of our drone strikes did not hit their intended targets. NINETY.

And the answer appears to have been "just say they were ISIS".

I'm not claiming to have any idea what happened in Somalia yesterday, but I have trouble taking anyone at their word after reading this and the companion pieces that have followed.

If this was happening in our backyards, we wouldn't be talking about it this way.

Since it was a joint mission with the Somalian military, I’d say yes.



Lying about casualties? Yes. Lying about the strikes themselves? There’s no purpose behind doing that.

What’s the success rate since we’ve been using drones overall? While what you posted is alarming, that’s like saying the Seahawks like 90% of their games in October.... but still finished the season 11-5. While it certainly needs to be fixed, just like CHS you will harp on the negatives and completely ignore the positives, which ends up being nothing more then sensationalism on your end.

This also ignores the ground operations that fail. The op that trump authoritzed ended up killing civilians and didn’t even get the main target. Dude was talking trash on social media after the op failed to kill him. Then the military and administration tried to spin it saying “oh well we got other terrorist and intel”.

Failed ops is part of war.

So I take what people say with a grain of salt when they harp on drone strikes and nothing else, because that’s the only aspect of the topic they half assed researched, while ignoring everything else that goes into it.



Appears isn’t the same as facts. So you’ve gone from raw stats to speculative feelings.



Which speaks to the problem with having discussions like this. If you already have a natural distrust of military operations, then nothing i say is gonna convince you otherwise. Being prior military, I’m more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially being part of active military operations when I deployed. So I’m aware that most wont agree with me but it’s whatever.



Now this is nothing more than fear mongering. Obviously it’s not happening in our backyard so this point simply has no merit. These are overseas operations and as such, the bulk of Americans have no reason to talk about it any differently. This particular Hypothetical doesn’t really help your argument.

This thread is about an article detailing how our military would launch a drone strike, kill civilians, and then classify them as ISIS. 90% of strikes were civilians killed, but the government claimed it as a strike against ISIS.

Do you think they suddenly reversed course?

Again, I don't know what happened yesterday. But to trust their word is to be obtuse.



What defines a success rate? We're murdering thousands of innocent people. That has consequences.



When an overwhelming number of your ops have failed, to the point where it's possible to suggest that even successful ones are blind luck...maybe look in the mirror.



Read the article. There are quite literally examples of us killing civilians and saying "just say they were ISIS".

This isn't a new development, either. Scahill has been documenting it for years. In many scenarios, people pissed at their neighbors or looking to best a rival will tell U.S. intelligence "that guy's ISIS", and we kill them. We're using billions of dollars to be unpaid mercenaries for agrarian squabbles.



You're missing my point.

If a drone from say, Saudi Arabia took out your neighbor's daughter and blowing off his wife's right arm, would you say "well, hey...Saudi Arabia is trying their best to keep casualties down"?

Or would you be inclined to want to harm Saudi Arabia?

i'm not sure if you intentionally went of your way to avoid commenting on the meat of my post, but let me try this again.

Failed ops is part of war. the only way to not have failed ops is to not be at war to begin with. however, in our current timeline of human history, that is not possible.

Drone operations, as well as military operations overall, must be cleaned up, tweak, whatever term you want to use, that way we limit the number of civilian casualties.

i don't know how many different ways i can explain that to you.

however, the benefits far outweigh the cons, and as the major benefit of Drones is to run ops with as little american lives at risk as possible, that makes it successful.

drone strikes aren't close to the only reason for civilian casualties, so i stand by my comments when i say that you and others only harp on drone usage because you simply don't know about all the other aspects of military operations. so you complain about this because it's the new toy the military likes to use at a high rate.

i didn't miss your point, btw. i simply don't agree with you. please learn the difference. your hypothetical doesn't work simply because no foreign militaries are running those sort of ops in our country. and it will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

if it's a problem, then Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Somalia, and other nations that make use of our program should to request the US to stop.

as i've said before, i typically give the benefit of the doubt to the us military when it comes to this. i never said they didn't underreport civilian casualties, i never said they play with numbers, i never said the drone program is without fault. i never said i blindly trust them. so when you say "trust their word is to be obtuse" translates to "PDR puts words in swish mouth because he is arguing something he already admitted to not knowing much about".

so again, i simply said the benefits outweigh the cons, and i have provided reasons to why not only in this thread, but multiple other threads dealing with the topic.

so don't cherry pick my post. you've been doing that to posters since you been here, purposely spinning and moving the goal post the moment the debate gets a bit hard for you. you did it to Arch, you tried pulling the same nonsense in the bernie thread, and now you're doing it here.

the only way to avoid civilian casualties is to avoid war altogether. if you want to discuss that, then i'm more than happy to as i have some decent ideas.

but if you and CHS are only gonna whine about drone strikes and not military ops overall with regards to the AUMF, and talk all negatives and none of the positives, then you wasn't looking for a discussion; you are simply looking to lecture.

You're pretending like failed ops is some kind of minor unfortunate byproduct. It's not. It's the bulk of the outcome.

If you kill 90 innocent people for every 10 bad guys, you don't have much standing to argue "well, look, war is hell, but on the bright side we killed 10 bad guys".

that's false and now you're spreading false narratives like Fox news. i'm not pretending to do anything, and you claiming as much only further enforces the opinion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

as you've already admitted in certain aspects of this conversation.



right, so once again you took a certain time frame that enforces your perspective without looking at the entire picture.

Obviously when it comes to conversating with you i have to repeat myself like a parrot. so i've already answered your 90% comment with this:



which means my comments clear still apply here. you're once again trying to harp on something i've already admitted was alarming and a huge problem.

remember when you copied and paste your response to 40? yea, looks like i have to do the same with you as well. it's ok, i'm use to it around here.

lets do it again:



see that part where it says "while what you posted is alarming"?

that means that i agreed with your stat that it's a problem. however, i will not use a cherry picked time frame and use that as a catalyst for why you have a problem with military ops as a whole.

i'm not sure how many different ways i have to tell you that the program needs to be tweakedt. But once again PDR, you decided to cherry pick the post and spin it to whatever it is your arguing. Which begs the question if you actually know what is you're arguing. i've seen complaining, but no solutions.

so this other part of my post seems accurate to end with:




i'm sure whatever you're gonna respond with, i already have the answer somewhere in my prior post. this is becoming a theme with you.

What is your alternative to using drones ?

I don't disagree that the number of innocent civilians are unacceptable but what are some viable alternatives ?

Be thankful rough men do violence in the name of your protection so that things like this do not happen in this country . Doesn't make it right but .......

I completely agree, and this is one of those times where pointing out “both sides” is in order.

I love my fellow liberals to death, but they have a seriously hard time realizing that you can’t have peace with terrorist organizations that have no intentions on wanting peace.

They will point to the number of military bases around the world as some sort of evidence that the US military is an imperialist fighting forces, yet forget that the military itself doesn’t make those decisions; the US government does.

Also, most countries have directly ASKED us to be there, whether a permanent US presence, or by way of supporting their operations.

The flip side to that is conservatives wanting to use the military like some bouncers kicking out drunk chicks at a nightclub. Every little thing, and conservatives want to bomb bomb bomb the problem away. You know who’s tired of the US military being used like mercenaries?

The US military.

As a non-military person myself, I think one of the big issues is that people tend to overestimate the abilities of our "technology"... can we fire these things with accuracy like never before? Yes we can. Can we hit damn near anything we are aiming at from miles away? Yes we can.

But one, we still miss once in a while... and two, even if we hit what we were aiming for, does it still create a sizeable blast radius that kills anything in close proximity? Yes it does.

I think the issue goes way beyond drone use v. alternative.

The main problem here is intelligence. In the case of the U.S., it's an oxymoron.

I used the example of what's often documented by Scahill and others - Guy A is angry at his neighbor, Guy B. So Guy A seeks out U.S. intelligence officials and says "Hey, Guy B is working with ISIL". Maybe he even gets his friend, Guy C, to vouch. And then we drone strike Guy B, killing his family.

Our intelligence is so weak and lost that instances like this happen all the time. If you can't find your enemy, precision bombing isn't going to help you.

And if I had to list an alternative to drones, it would be "get the hell of out the Middle East". Using drones creates more people to use drones against. And it's not like this is something that's necessitated by national security - for the most part, we're doing the work of multinational oil corporations and Saudi Arabia (and now Russia and whoever else dupes Trump into doing their work for them).

In what kind of culture, does a neighborly dispute end in you lying to a foreign power so they will drone strike your neighbors entire family into oblivion and risk killing countless other people?

I know we have some problems in the US but holy fosheezus.. who would do that? Kind of flies in the face of the "they are really just like us, they have just suffered under this oppressive regime...." argument...

I'd be curious as to how you come up with that conclusion.



Myself, I think having 10 layers or so of "intelligence" passed up, and up, and up before any actionable authority to attack is a big issue.

I only base that on friends first hand experience. 1 of them is a Colonel - works at the Pentagon.

The Iraq War is a pretty good place to start.

Drones...

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/11/21/u...goes-viral.html