Predator Bots: U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan

reason infographic

Sources:

New America Foundation
Bureau of Investigative Journalism
USA Today
Department of Defense

Comments

[Spencer]

That drone strikes by year info-graphic looks like 2010 is giving us the finger in defiance. And I thought I had a good 2010- thanks Obama.

[Injun, as in from India]

That was my very first thought. The chart is giving us the middle finger.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Yes, a finger, that’s what it looks like.

[R C Dean]

I thought it was a Viagra ad.

“If you have a warboner lasting more than one administration . . . .”

[JW]

Conflgrapism.

We have more than a few patients around here.

[Paul.]

Always nice to read how many children have been killed in a fun, easy to read infographic.

[Injun, as in from India]

I once saw pictures of drone victim kids, and was haunted by it for days.

[PapayaSF]

Perhaps I’m cold-hearted about this, but those deaths are an inevitable result of terrorists hiding among civilians, or living at home with their families. According to my understanding of the Geneva Convention (not that terrorists follow it), when combatants hide among civilians, any deaths or injuries to those civilians are not the fault of the attacking force, but the fault of the combatants hiding among them.

Plus, given the fact that terrorists lie all the time, I would not put it past them to put some kid’s body in the wreckage and claim he was killed by the drone strike, or even to murder a child and do that.

I also suspect that every terrorist meeting hit by a drone magically becomes a “wedding party.” Maybe there were some real wedding parties hit, but it’s hard to know.

And if it’s a terrorist getting married, or a terrorist’s family getting killed in other drone strikes: pure karma, baby. They should have considered that before they went terrorizing, and everyone on Earth should know that associating with terrorists can get you killed. It’s self-defeating to try to follow every Marquess of Queensberry Rule when the people attacking you do not.

That said, my proposal would be to stop drone strikes until the next the terror attack, then hit ’em hard, and then stop. Repeat after each terror attack. Make sure everyone understands that we are reacting to specific actions, not just running some low-intensity endless war, even if that’s what it amounts to.

[R C Dean]

Plus, given the fact that terrorists lie all the time, I would not put it past them to put some kid’s body in the wreckage and claim he was killed by the drone strike,

The Palis do this all the time.

[John Titor]

Your logic for murdering innocent civilians is ‘pure karma, baby?’.

I guess all those people killed on 9/11 were just ‘pure karma, baby’ for their association to the United States after its actions in the Middle East.

Of course, such a position also ignores the fact that, people may begin to sympathize with terrorists’ objectives the more you bomb their local communities.

[John Titor]

And for the record, I’m not even against the deaths of civilians in wartime. I think its an inevitable and unfortunate result of military conflict that can’t be avoided altogether. What disgusts me is shitty attempts to rationalize it into being morally acceptable behaviour rather than necessary sin.

[PapayaSF]

First, if you are married to a terrorist, or giving him aid, you aren’t really “innocent.” If you are the child of a terrorist, OK, I’ll say innocent, but I mourn for them about as much as I mourn for the children of top Nazis we killed when we bombed Berlin.

Your 9/11 comparison is inapt. We aren’t just blowing up random locations in Pakistan, trying to maximize casualties. We are trying to target terrorists who are hiding among civilians.

Yes, there may be some increase in sympathy for terrorists due to our fighting them. That’s inevitable, but not the crucial factor. Terrorists can also lose sympathy when they are defeated, and gain it when they seem to be winning. Al Qaeda got a lot more popular immediately after 9/11.

I think “morally acceptable behavior” can certainly be “necessary sin.” Morality is not an all or nothing issue. There are shades of gray. When your mortal enemy tries to kill you in any way possible, that may not be a reason to ignore all the laws of war when fighting back, but it should be taken into account on the margins.

[John Titor]

Except your argument hinges on responsibility being placed on people for their associations. I won’t be surprised if you refuse to hold your own people to the same standards you hold the people living next door to a terrorist, but you’re just constructing excuses to justify killing innocent people.

Anyone with associations to the United States are responsible for their government’s behaviour and thus their deaths can be brushed off as a morally acceptable response. That’s your logic when applied consistently and not to just the certain groups you dislike.

Pure karma, baby.

[PapayaSF]

Nope, not the same thing. I am not advocating killing Pakistanis because they are Pakistanis or because they are in Pakistan. I am advocating killing people who are attacking the US, and those people directly helping them, and explaining why the killing of people near those targets is legally and morally the fault of the combatants hiding among them.

We are already doing quite a lot to avoid innocent casualties. You may think we should do more, and I may agree, depending on the details. But just saying “innocents are dying!” is not enough of an argument for unilateral pacifism in the face of aggression.

[JW]

Perhaps I’m cold-hearted about this

Heart, brain. Whatever.

pure karma, baby

Good old Papaya. Always ready to collectivise those brown people who have the temerity to not be dead yet, for our convenience.

when combatants hide among civilians, any deaths or injuries to those civilians are not the fault of the attacking force, but the fault of the combatants hiding among them.

Stupid peasants. Why don’t they pack up their meager belongings and move to a nicer neighborhood?

[PapayaSF]

I am not “collectivizing brown people.” I am saying that if you live next to a target in a war, you may get hit. And if you willingly host terrorists at war with the US in your home or village (as many do), you deserve it if you do get hit.

Yes, it sucks to be some poor peasant when Al Qaeda or the Taliban move into your village. Throughout history, it sucks when any army shows up. But what’s your alternative, JW? “Oh, they are among civilians, so we’ll have to leave them alone”? There are perverse incentives there. Send in ground troops? Very risky and expensive and diplomatically problematic. Nuke the whole place? Overkill and collectivizing and hugely problematic. Drone strikes are the limited, compromised, try-to-avoid-killing-civilians response.

[JW]

Yes, it sucks to be some poor peasant when Al Qaeda or the Taliban move into your village.

It sucks even more when you have an opposing, occupying force not really giving a shit who they kill.

I’m trying to understand what makes someone like you so indifferent to another’s suffering, bloodthirsty and callous. A complete lack of empathy? What disorder is that a symptom of?

You lost your entire family to a bombing? They were blown to bits in front of your eyes? You child lies in bloody parts in front of you? Aw, that’s too bad. We were trying to blow up a very bad man next door, m’kay? Trust us. Now run along.

The alternative? I dunno, the whole thing is a head scratcher. Maybe we shouldn’t be bombing them and their terrorist-hiding wedding parties? Perhaps it’s none of our fucking business?

Drone strikes are the limited, compromised, try-to-avoid-killing-civilians response.

[citation needed] If they actually are, if there is some actual concern for civilian causalities, then they’re being deployed incompetently.

[PapayaSF]

If I got upset over every bit of bloodshed in the world, I’d be catatonic under the bedcovers. Yeah, war sucks. Life sucks. Selective empathy is a survival trait.

Perhaps it’s none of our fucking business?

Do I have to remind you of the thousands of terror attacks against the US and our allies in recent decades? “Minding our own business” is not a practical option when you are being attacked.

No, I don’t need a citation. It’s obvious to anyone who thinks about it for 10 seconds. We could send the B-52s and flatten Pakistan if we wanted to. We aren’t. We are doing much less. Of course drones are a compromise.

[JW]

Do I have to remind you of the thousands of terror attacks against the US

It’s hard to forget them as I travel across the smoking, desolated landscape of the US. Wait, did you mean Bizarro US?

and our allies in recent decades?

That’s their problem.

“Minding our own business” is not a practical option when you are being attacked.

We aren’t being attacked. Sell your delusions somewhere else.

It’s obvious to anyone who thinks about it for 10 seconds.

Maybe you should think for 11 seconds. 10 clearly isn’t enough for you.

[Bgoptmst]

I understand and respect your point. Two thoughts:

1) We have two drone programs. A military one via (JSOC) and a CIA program. In my mind there is a huge difference in a military drone program and essentailly a program that is based off justifying breaking the assasination ban.

2) I am under the impression through some reading I have done that often times the innocents killed aren’t necessarily supporting terrorism. Once case that comes to mind from a book about AQ in Yemen is the death of a bunch of bedouins sharing a camp with a few AQ operatives. Arab hospitality essentially made them a target, which I don’t think is the same thing as supporting terrosim.

[Pope Jimbo]

Do you apply the same logic to SWAT raids? Fuckers get what they deserve for letting druggies use their house? You have to flash bang a few kids to let them know you mean business and that hanging out with druggies is a baaaaad idea?

[PapayaSF]

No, I don’t. Domestic law enforcement is a different issue. Druggies aren’t terrorists at war with the country, trying to murder as many as possible and impose a theocratic tyranny. Police are (or should be) required to go much, much further to avoid innocent casualties.

[hamilton]

Especially brown children. We’re good at that.

[DesigNate]

Huh, look at that. Even at his lowest, Obama did six times as many strikes as Bush. Great peacemaker, that guy.

[hamilton]

Who’s the lone yellow “civilian status” dude in the middle of all the red militant dudes? Yellow Dude is just asking for a dronin’ hanging out with those guys.

[Almanian!]

I blame the Ferguson, MO police. Cause – racism.

[GILMORE]

re: the chart

“UH WELL THIS WAS BUSH’S POLICY YOU CANT COMPLAIN OBAMA WAS LIKE TRYING TO UNDO IT JUST LIKE THE NSA AND TORTURE AND STUFF SO LIKE YOU CANT EVEN COMPARE IT CAUSE BOOOOSH! IRAQ~!!!”

[khaniam]

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
http://www.wixjob.com

[The Other Kevin]

This infographic does prove, without a doubt, that Bush started it, therefore we can disregard everything from that point forward.

[Catatafish]

So is the infographic based on the data from Reprieve in contradiction to the one next to it or is there some wordsmithing going on in regards to “intended target” vs. “militant?”

[Puddin' Stick]

The actual data is classified so sources will vary.

[Jason Keisling]

The left represents militant leaders whereas the right is total militants.

[Catatafish]

Danke.

[Puddin' Stick]

Where are Tony, American Socialist, and Jackand Ace?

[JW]

JackandAss.

Get it right, willya?

[David Wall]

Reason has not even mentioned this man’s hacking. Guess it doesn’t fit the narrative.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/02/…..index.html

[David Wall]

Take that back–H&R Feb. 27. Still not much. The guy was a hero for free speech and an American. Killed by Islamists.

[Overt]

This is a pretty good example of “Give the government a more politically feasible way to fuck you and they’ll run with it.”

Previously, the only way to deal with terrorists in Pakistan was to send troops or pay off the Paki’s to do it. That has become politically unfeasible. Obama himself ran largely on the idea that we should not be invading other countries. Is it any wonder then that he has stepped up the shadow war? Drone strikes, NSA surveillance. These are all tools for the exact same ends: defeating declared enemies. But Obama chose the ones that are less visible and less politically inflammatory.

We have seen for a long time that making a dangerous activity safer doesn’t necessarily improve things. Boxing gloves increased the number of shots boxers take to the head, increasing brain damage. The modern football helmet increased head-to-head tackles. Tazers increased the number of times cops bring down perps and the advent of the drone has increased, not decreased our (violent) meddling in more countries than we ever invaded during the Bush years.

[alinenache]

terror against terror http://waltherpragerandphiloso…..error.html

[noukica]

I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
http://www.work-mill.com

[noukica]

I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
http://www.work-mill.com

[web tasar?m]

interest (: apk indir