I pit the Taliban

[Terr]

@Crazyhorse

I’m not advocating anything. We have our good causes, they have theirs, and they are justifications to each side for blowing each other up and accepting collateral damage as a necessary cost of the conflict. Both are indoctrinated with value and belief systems that support their actions from their own point of view. The question I answered was not an accurate representation of the issue and my answer was not an attempt to find an end to war.

Ok, so to follow up, do you think that values and “belief systems” should not be judged or placed one above the other, no matter what they are?

[Crazyhorse]

@Terr

Ok, so to follow up, do you think that values and “belief systems” should not be judged or placed one above the other, no matter what they are?

My answer to that would be biased by my own.

It would be better not to shoot children in the head or drop high explosives on them if it can be avoided. You seem to want my definition of what point it becomes unavoidable. I think the threshold should be higher than a child advocating for girls’ education or being a person somewhere within 500 feet of another person who is wanted by the US.

[Terr]

@Crazyhorse

My answer to that would be biased by my own.

It would be better not to shoot children in the head or drop high explosives on them if it can be avoided. You seem to want my definition of what point it becomes unavoidable. I think the threshold should be higher than a child advocating for girls’ education or being a person somewhere within 500 feet of another person who is wanted by the US.

Do you really think that modern weapons used in the war on terror by the US have the “resolution” of 500 feet?

[Crazyhorse]

@Terr

Do you really think that modern weapons used in the war on terror by the US have the “resolution” of 500 feet?

There is already a GD thread on the subject of drones. If I were going to participate in it I would want to read Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan by the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law).

The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

But I chose this thread instead to participate in a little Pit worthy RO so go fuck a cactus.

[Terr]

@Crazyhorse

There is already a GD thread on the subject of drones. If I were going to participate in it I would want to read Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan by the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law).

So I see you got the “within 500 ft” thing out of thin air.

“2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians”. For warfare on terrorists, when they try to blend into the surrounding population, those are impressively precise strikes. Israelis do as well or better at around 15% civilian casualties, but then they have a lot more experience with this, unfortunately.

[Crazyhorse]

@Terr

So I see you got the “within 500 ft” thing out of thin air.

“2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians”. For warfare on terrorists, when they try to blend into the surrounding population, those are impressively precise strikes. Israelis do as well or better at around 15% civilian casualties, but then they have a lot more experience with this, unfortunately.

It’s a figure of speech Einstein. The dead civilians would still be dead whatever “resolution” you consider to be acceptable, right? You think nearly 1/3 civilian casualties by the high count or 1/7 by the lowest, with the rest of the surviving civilian population living in constant terror with drones buzzing overhead for a decade is unavoidable. I don’t.

@Crazyhorse

go fuck a cactus.

[Terr]

@Crazyhorse

It’s a figure of speech Einstein. The dead civilians would still be dead whatever “resolution” you consider to be acceptable, right?

No. A lot more civilians would be dead if the weapons covered the radius of 500 ft.

You think nearly 1/3 civilian casualties by the high count or 1/7 by the lowest, with the rest of the surviving civilian population living in constant terror with drones buzzing overhead for a decade is unavoidable. I don’t.

How do you propose fighting terrorists who hide among civilians then?

[Crazyhorse]

@Terr

How do you propose fighting terrorists who hide among civilians then?

I don’t. Preemtive self defense thousands of miles away in countries we aren’t at war with isn’t “fighting” it’s assassination. At least be honest with yourself about what is going on. We are afraid of someone and hunting them down with robots and killing them before they can attack us, not fighting. In the process thousands of unrelated bystanders are getting killed and maimed, leaving tens of thousands of outraged friends and family, and millions of outraged people being shown the carnage as indoctrination against us while drones continue to buzz over their heads.

I would demonstrate to those that the extremists hide among that we aren’t really the monsters they are being indoctrinated to believe us to be. They and their ilk would die off along with their violent ideology if not for the legions of angry bystanders with amputee relatives we inspire to line up to take their places.

[bldysabba]

@madmonk28

Drones have killed plenty of kids, what’s the difference between the two?

@madmonk28

So if the Taliban in Pakistan decide that killing a child is in their political interests, that is evil. But if the US decides that it is in our political interests to pursue policies that will surely kill children (albeit, unintentionally), that is ok? I’m sure that is great comfort to the parents of the dead children.

The difference…<checks, we’re in the pit, cool>… you fucking retard, is that the Taliban intentionally attack and support attacks on your(and some of their own) civilians as a matter of policy, and then go and use their own civilians as shields to prevent attacks on themselves. They’re depending on idiotic arguments like yours to keep them safe. If they’re happy to hold their own people hostage in their war against the US, I’m happy to assign the blame for civilian deaths to them. And under the circumstances, I think the US attempt to keep civilian casualties to the minimum is commendable.

[bldysabba]

@Crazyhorse

I don’t. Preemtive self defense thousands of miles away in countries we aren’t at war with isn’t “fighting” it’s assassination. At least be honest with yourself about what is going on. We are afraid of someone and hunting them down with robots and killing them before they can attack us, not fighting. In the process thousands of unrelated bystanders are getting killed and maimed, leaving tens of thousands of outraged friends and family, and millions of outraged people being shown the carnage as indoctrination against us while drones continue to buzz over their heads.

I would demonstrate to those that the extremists hide among that we aren’t really the monsters they are being indoctrinated to believe us to be. They and their ilk would die off along with their violent ideology if not for the legions of angry bystanders with amputee relatives we inspire to line up to take their places.

And you’re a fucking idiot too, if you believe that everybody views the attacks as a negative. Cite

As we can see in the table, the majority of Pakistani respondents (across the whole country) are opposed to the drone strikes, with nearly 60% opposed to 40% in favor (among those who answered the question with an opinion). A minority, albeit a significant minority, views the drone strikes as positive.

What you need to do to convince the rest of them is to win the goddamn thing, so you can write the history.

[Crazyhorse]

@bldysabba

And you’re a fucking idiot too, if you believe that everybody views the attacks as a negative. Cite

What you need to do to convince the rest of them is to win the goddamn thing, so you can write the history.

Go fuck a cactus.

[tagos]

@bldysabba

And you’re a fucking idiot too, if you believe that everybody views the attacks as a negative. Cite

What you need to do to convince the rest of them is to win the goddamn thing, so you can write the history.

From your own Pew cite.

‘The next question in the series was concerned with collateral damage. It asks:
For each of the following statements about the drone attacks, please tell me whether you agree of disagree: They kill too many innocent people. This question elicited very strong responses in favor of the assertion that the drone strikes kill too many innocents.The Pakistani average response to this question was 95% who agreed that the strikes killed too many innocents. Only 5% believed that they did not kill too many innocents’

[gamerunknown]

I know you’ve not claimed an equivalence, but even if there were, people would be incapable of seeing one due to the omission bias (or mens rea, for the legally minded). Yeah, the emancipation of women is an absolutely essential element of civilised society. Unfortunately, we’ve not developed to the point where avoiding killing citizens is as essential. Maybe one day we’ll get there: probably not until most or all societies have completed that essential first step.

[John_Mace]

@Loach

Going out on a limb Bo. I think I’ll hold off on my Hitler pitting until the dust settles.

I think we should teach the controversy.

[elucidator]

@madmonk28

…At least the Taliban aren’t such pussies abou it.

You’re right, that’s the least. The very least.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I guess there really are two sides to every story, even if one of them is “no u.”

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

And of course, a spokesperson for the Taliban has already made a statement to the media which in effect says “She lived? Huh. We will certainly kill her next time.”

I’m with the OP. These barbaric religious loonies are a stagnation on the ass of progress, commit overt acts of terror, are psychologically abusive and need to be cut from humanity like the cancer they are. Fuck them and their cacti.

[manila]

People are scum. we think we have evolving standards of decency but seriously we have barely crawled out of the swamp. we will be going through this cycle of of intolerance, hate crimes and savagery for a few millennia yet. Maybe its just our intrinsic nature that we have to hurt, maim and kill each other for not not conforming to our differing superstitions and beliefs.

I fucking despise religion. But even when we evolve out of the need for sky fairies am sure we will find another excuse to kill innocents.

Its scary to think that maybe there are no innocents and left to our own insular tribal affiliations even modern educated mankind will assign a reason to obliterate others of a different hue.

Fuckit. No more drunk posting.

[Kimballkid]

@madmonk28

a dead fucking kid

I, for one, condemn the fucking of kids, especially dead kids.

[Inigo_Montoya]

How about their cacti? I seem to recall seeing that as a major thread point.

The Psy-Ops in me thinks it would be entertaining if the drones carried loudspeakers in addition to missiles, and to break the drone attack into two parts.

Part 1: A cluster of loudspeakers is dropped in the target zone announcing: THE US HAS TARGETED ABBAS BIN ALKELB IN THE VILLAGE OF BUMFUK. HE HAS 30 MINUTES TO SAY GOODBYE TO HIS FAMILY AND TO REPORT TO THE LARGE ROCK JUST SOUTH OF THE VILLAGE FOR AN HONORABLE AND VALOROUS MARTYRDOM. SHOULD HE CONTINUE TO COWER AMONG THE INNOCENTS, HE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DEATHS IN THE DRONE STRIKE 31 MINUTES FROM NOW.

Part 2: A drone bomb goes off in 31 minutes