How is it different to kill a civilian with a drone than to kill him with an assault rifle or an aerial bomb?
Perhaps we should contact the local LEO's so we can serve a warrant for their arrest? Oh wait, there isn't anything resembling law in those areas. Capture operations simply aren't always possible, especially in Pakistan where we can't put people on the ground.
Its unfair that we should be able to use our technology to kill the enemy w/o any chance for him to protect himself or to respond. Clearly, the UN needs to address this, as this situation is intolerable.
/sarcasm
Pakistani civilians aren't the targets.Pakistani civillians are the enemy? that explains alot
Pakistani civilians aren't the targets.
Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.
Show this to be trueThe government of Pakistan has repeatly ask for intelligence from the U.S regarding where these people are so it can go and take them out themselves. These requests have largely fallen on death ears.
Show this to be true.Given that the ratio of civillian to terroist deaths in these attacks is 50 to 1....
How would it be any "better" -- in terms of the 'legal' argument under discussion -- if the unmanned drones were replaced with manned aircraft?i think its fair to say this is a tactic that needs rethinking.
Yes, those aircraft are totally autonomous robots with no semblance of human supervision whatsoever.
Oh, wait, look over there. What do I see? Why, I see a man sitting at a console flying the machine and supervising it's every move.
Why, gee, that RPV is JUST LIKE an airplane with a pilot in it.
Is it illegal for a man in an F-18 to kill terrorists in the ground?
No, of course not.
So it's not illegal for a man in a trailer a hundred miles away flying a Predator drone to kill someone.
It's not all we do, but we certainly do it. The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty,
SHow this to be true.But it is pretty much the only thing we've hit.
By definition all terrorists are civillians.
Also, who cares?
The contention isn't what is doing the killing, it's who is being killed. Predator drone usage, especially in Pakistan, has resulted in significant civilian death with limited affect on insurgents and terrorists.
Or a suicide vest.
It's not that we can fully avoid civilian causality, it's how caviler we're going to be about it. Do we just say "**** it" and glass the entire region? Or do we try to limit what and who we hit. With the drones, I'm not sure exactly the argument, but it seems that the contention is that you're mostly hitting civilian areas and targets with them.
SHow this to be true.
Yeah, try reading the friggin' post, then spending a couple years thinking about it before you admit that have no clue what was said.
To paraphrase the great philosopher Archie Bunker, would it make a difference if they were shot by RPV's or F-18s, or if we threw them out the window?
If yes, explain.
Try to make sense if you attempt this task.
So....ummm.....you think it's cool to run around bombing civilian populations and targets with no real affect towards our own safety (well no real positive affect that is)? Interesting.
I care because I don't think the United States should run around killing civilians.
Maybe that's just me, my morals coming through there. But it seems counter-productive and unjust to run around killing people just cause we can.
So dumb deflect is all you have left. K, noted.
My morals were shaped by actually being a US military vet.
So dumb deflect is all you have left. K, noted.
Indeed. If we were so rich in disposable fanatics and so poor in equipment that suicide vests made strategic sense for our forces, I would probably be advocating them-- or at least defending their use. Certainly don't fault the enemy for using the best tactics at his disposal.
Yes, but that argument doesn't make sense. If we have and use precision weapons, why would we be wasting the bullets to use them against people who are not a threat to us?
It's the same problem as every other guerrilla war, and the reason why guerrilla tactics are so effective against enemies with the need to preserve their public image. Noone can tell the difference between civilians and combatants-- so the military is compelled to employ "better safe than sorry" tactics and the guerrillas claim that anyone whose corpse isn't still clutching a weapon was a civilian.
Personally, I'd be fully in favor of committing genocide by air strike if our "allies" weren't a bunch of damned hypocrites-- no offense intended, our own government is just as bad-- and our civilians weren't completely spineless.
In other words, you're incapable of understanding the topic and are just spamming.
Thanks for the confession.
The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty, not that the base use of them is wrong or illegal.
An accusation of an event does not qualify as proof of that event.It's the basis of the contention.
Yes... and I asked you to show that to be true.The arguments from Pakistan and the complaints are all about how civilians have taken the brunt of the damage.
The claim is that airstrikes from unmanned aircraft are killing civilians in numbers far larger than legitimate targets. That claim needs to be supported before there is any discussion as to what needs to be done about it.You know, this whole "I'm gonna kill a **** load of people, and you have to prove that I'm hitting all the right ones" is a dumbass argument. You need to prove that you are hitting significant terrorist and military target while minimizing civilian causality.
No I responded just fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?