Breaking: U.S. drone strike accidentally killed 2 hostages

originally posted by: NYCUltra
Obama administration
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

Source

Iraq Invasion and Occupation..
1 man targeted based on false evidence (Saddam Hussein)
Between 100,000-500,000 Iraqi civilians
4,491 U.S. service members
en.wikipedia.org...

Afghanistan invasion and occupation
1 man targeted (Osama Bin Laden)
At least 21,000 Civilians
2,357 U.S. Service Members
costsofwar.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

Now...these are numbers and don't speak to morals, justification or anything else. It is MATH.

I don't think there is a question as to whether targeted drone strikes cost less ...dramtically LESS.. innocent lives with infinitely less risk to US Soldiers than the previous Policies and are more effective than Invasions and Occupations.

That said, it can be asked whether we should be doing it at all? It can be asked ..For that family that lost an innocent child to a drone strike, do the numbers matter? It can be asked ...are we furthering hatred of the US with the drone policy and creating future risk of terrorist strikes? Are we radicalizing formerly peaceful civilians in the Middle East? Are the protocols for authorizing drone strikes too loose? Is there something fundamentally morally askew when the direct risk to US Soldiers is removed from the war equation?

But as to the question is the drone policy "better" than invasion and occupation as measured in US Troop Causalities and Innocent civilian lives lost? That question has been dramatically and indisputably answered IMO.

originally posted by: Xeven
I just don't understand how any educated human would "Convert" to Islam. It is nearly ludicrous to believe in..

If you look at the snapshot bio I provided you see hints of the evolution. Born in CA to Jewish parents that isolated themselves and homeschooled Adam. They were goat farmers and converted to Islam...changed their name from Pearlman to Ghadan. No technology etc. The boy was lost from birth and was made an "infidel" outsider in his own country by his parents and fed self loathing of his own Jewish ancestry.

Bottom line is that there is mental illness in this world. This scenario is easier to imagine with children growing up in war torn, violent, desperate, loveless places...but even in the USA, the right kind of warped, isolated upbringing can create terrorist recruits. In those scenarios their Western background and English skills offers terrorists a propaganda win and they rise through the ranks quicker than the average recruit.

Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: Indigo5

I knew someone would post the ground war stats, but the topic is drone strikes. So the question is if they are as accurate and efficient as claimed. The drone strikes they are conducting serve an entirely different purpose than a ground war for a regime change where you would actually have to fight 1,000s of enemy soldiers and combatants in mountainous terrain or urban warfare . They are also not a substitute for a ground war as many believe. We aren't at the stage of robotic warfare on Terminator scale yet. It's just a tool in the arsenal of a larger. IMO

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Unfortunate, but war is messy. Collateral damage is to be expected. I'm not debating the US involvement in the region. I'm just stating that as long as things are being blown up, people will get hurt, intentionally or unintentionally.

My problem with the above is that this is not a declared war. It is an invasion of a sovereign nation by outside interests.
Besides that rest assured you are correct, people do indeed die from bombs and those folks most certainly did not "expect" to be bombed by some aggressor half way around the world for no reason given.

Nobody should be getting blown up at all there, does anyone even know why there are armed forces located there today?
Regards, Iwinder

I was intentionally separating my comment from that part of the debate by adding the sentence "I'm not debating the US involvement in the region. "

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This incompetant Prog admin can't pull squat for black missions without getting someone KILLED.

Pres. Obama has successfully used Spec Ops more so than any recent president and likely any president in history.

I can't see how you can say that with any certainty whatsoever. I think the fact that most of their missions remain classified is a sign that no one can really conclude anything. Also, I believe that no president has a right to get credit for any of their missions when they just give the green light after presented with the mission itself. Maybe it appears that way because their are more media reports of the high profile missions during his administration. Also, most importantly, I think Spec Ops are at their highest point in effectiveness and have way more capabilities and growth since 9/11 under Bush. The fact that he embraces them speaks more to their efficiency than any self serving agenda you might claim.

originally posted by: NYCUltra
a reply to: Indigo5

I knew someone would post the ground war stats, but the topic is drone strikes.

Yes and the comparison is warranted if you believe in the premise that action needs to be taken and those actions fall on a spectrum of military commitment and outcomes.

If you believe that no action should be taken, that's cool. Just citing the reality of comparison numbers here.

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
This incompetant Prog admin can't pull squat for black missions without getting someone KILLED.

Pres. Obama has successfully used Spec Ops more so than any recent president and likely any president in history.

I can't see how you can say that with any certainty whatsoever. I think the fact that most of their missions remain classified is a sign that no one can really conclude anything. Also, I believe that no president has a right to get credit for any of their missions when they just give the green light after presented with the mission itself.

I said he has successfully USED Spec Ops...aka "employed" "utilized" etc.

I did not assign him credit for those specific missions?

Interviews with present and former Spec Ops have consistently explained that Pres. Obama has used Spec Ops significantly more than his predecessors. Budgets, directives etc. originating from the WH with regards to Spec Ops also indicate the same.

As far as classified/declassified...Rescue missions involve civilians...success or failure and those are hard to keep secret when Joe Civilian returns home.

So that can be counted.

I don't really have a need to convince you, I am just providing data and facts and links...hold onto your beliefs or views...makes no difference to me.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NYCUltra
a reply to: Indigo5

I knew someone would post the ground war stats, but the topic is drone strikes.

Yes and the comparison is warranted if you believe in the premise that action needs to be taken and those actions fall on a spectrum of military commitment and outcomes.

If you believe that no action should be taken, that's cool. Just citing the reality of comparison numbers here.

I think you are missing the point of my post. I never said no action should be taken. Drone strikes have different goals than a ground war. Drone strikes just can't do the job for a regime change.

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NYCUltra
a reply to: Indigo5

I knew someone would post the ground war stats, but the topic is drone strikes.

Yes and the comparison is warranted if you believe in the premise that action needs to be taken and those actions fall on a spectrum of military commitment and outcomes.

If you believe that no action should be taken, that's cool. Just citing the reality of comparison numbers here.

I think you are missing the point of my post. I never said no action should be taken. Drone strikes have different goals than a ground war. Drone strikes just can't do the job for a regime change.

I was not missing your point. I don't see regime change as an effective goal to address terrorist threats. To the contrary, recent history has shown that the insurgencies it creates and instability is a potent fertilizer for terrorism.

With Afghanistan we asked the governing Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden...they refused...we invaded. The initial goal was not regime change. In the end we found OBL in Pakistan, which highlights the futility of confusing terrorist targets as "regimes" or "nations".

If you want to make a case for Regime Change as a strategy to combat terrorism, which by definition has no geographical borders or official government...You are welcome to that view as well.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So why isnt there a huge uproar against Obama for killing innocent civilians?

Everyone screams about how convservatives and right wingers are murdering war mongers...

But not a word when crap like this happens under Obamas watch, and its NOT the first time.....


He makes a habit of making decisions that cost the lives of innocent people......

2 reasons....

1. It does no good. People were outraged when a 16 year old American Citizen was killed in Yemen for the sins of his father, no one listened and no one cared. So why bother now?

2. Obama is also not up for reelection- so the typical talking heads will say nothing about anything he does from this point on- unless it is to push an Agenda for the upcoming election cycle. Now is the time that our media begins laying out the future talking points and "differences" between Dems and Repubs. So expect more gay rights issues. Expect more abortion talk. Expect more racial issues and expect more talk of "domestic terrorist", "lone wolves" and "sovereign citizens". Do not expect to hear much at all about innocent people dying in the various conflicts the USA is currently involved in because, quite frankly, BOTH sides of the isle are in agreement on the issue.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NYCUltra
a reply to: Indigo5

I knew someone would post the ground war stats, but the topic is drone strikes.

Yes and the comparison is warranted if you believe in the premise that action needs to be taken and those actions fall on a spectrum of military commitment and outcomes.

If you believe that no action should be taken, that's cool. Just citing the reality of comparison numbers here.

I think you are missing the point of my post. I never said no action should be taken. Drone strikes have different goals than a ground war. Drone strikes just can't do the job for a regime change.

I was not missing your point. I don't see regime change as an effective goal to address terrorist threats. To the contrary, recent history has shown that the insurgencies it creates and instability is a potent fertilizer for terrorism.

With Afghanistan we asked the governing Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden...they refused...we invaded. The initial goal was not regime change. In the end we found OBL in Pakistan, which highlights the futility of confusing terrorist targets as "regimes" or "nations".

If you want to make a case for Regime Change as a strategy to combat terrorism, which by definition has no geographical borders or official government...You are welcome to that view as well.

I know what happened already. I'm not even talking about terrorism strategy and I'm not even proposing one. I'm talking about drone strikes. You brought in statistics for two ground wars with 1,000's of ground troops as if that was a valid comparison to just drone strikes. You might disagree with a strategy for a regime change (not that I agree with it either), but I find it hard to believe that you think, given the goal of a regime change, that just performing drone strikes would have been a solution. Same for Afghanistan, they did have to take the Taliban from power and attempt to replace it with a "stable" govt. Even with that, at that time you need ground forces even if its special ops calling in airstrikes. Again, only drone strike there would not have done the job. So, the stats you put out are just not a good comparison when put in context. Since drone strikes are mainly for valued targets a more valid comparison would be something with civilian casualties in a special forces operation vs. a drone strike. I'm just talking about on that level.

Sorry, it was no accident.
Somebody pushed that button to unleash a hellfire.
Somebody gave the command as well.
That is not an accident.

but Mr. President..what about all the non-American families you blew to pieces? Do you accept responsibility for all the Pakistani kids you've killed?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Indigo5

While tragic , this end is possibly a more merciful end.

True.Beats beheading with small blade I suppose.