The Three Faces of Drone War

Users who are viewing this thread

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Drones kill more innocent civilians than actual criminals. These are aerial weapons to avoid fist to fist fight with the enemy and save one's own casualties. It seems somewhat like throwing stones at others by those who live in glass houses. Is it really so?? What if the enemy too got hold of this technology and drone you as well as his enemy?? If droning is a valid reason for killing enemies plus 15 times the number of civilians will it be just for the weaker enemy to lay land mines to block its enemy and his allies from advance?? What if your neighbor thought to be a terrorist gets droned and your house and family get killed in default??
let's see how far drones are good and bad as weapons of ' selective killing'??



The Three Faces of Drone War

Speaking Truth From the Robotic Heavens
By Pratap Chatterjee

Enemies, innocent victims, and soldiers have always made up the three faces of war. With war growing more distant, with drones capable of performing on the battlefield while their “pilots” remain thousands of miles away, two of those faces have, however, faded into the background in recent years. Today, we are left with just the reassuring “face” of the terrorist enemy, killed clinically by remote control while we go about our lives, apparently without any “collateral damage” or danger to our soldiers. Now, however, that may slowly be changing, bringing the true face of the drone campaigns Washington has pursued since 9/11 into far greater focus.

Imagine if those drone wars going on in Pakistan and Yemen (as well as the United States) had a human face all the time, so that we could understand what it was like to live constantly, in and out of those distant battle zones, with the specter of death. In addition to images of the "al-Qaeda" operatives who the White House wants us to believe are the sole targets of its drone campaigns, we would regularly seephotos of innocent victims of drone attacks gathered by human rights groups from their relatives and neighbors. And what about the third group -- the military personnel whose lives revolve around killing fields so far away -- whose stories, in these years of Washington’s drone assassination campaigns, we’ve just about never heard?

Click here to read more of this dispatch.
 
  • 107
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
168.84z
Maz at least you started this thread in the right section...your claim has already been proven false in other threads..then you start a thread about it...not a good idea.
Its shows dishonesty and denial on your part..not something you want in the general section...so a good move on your part{in that regard}
Here is an idea..start a thread and take a truthful position your evident frustration level will decrease...take this thread for instance..your first post is not all caps..soon you will be aggravated and use the cap lock which is poor forum etiquette..
Attempted insults will ensue..which actually make me laugh rather than upset me...As stated prior these American bashing threads just dont work out for you.

A good thread for you would be.
"I live in the most dangerous city in the world come visit you fucking americans..we hate your American policy of killing terrorist leaders"
Honesty works every time.

;)
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
.....................................

A good thread for you would be.
"I live in the most dangerous city in the world come visit you fucking americans..we hate your American policy of killing terrorist leaders"
Honesty works every time.

;)


It would, but the decision rests with his Taliban handler and truth wouldn't be on his agenda.
I expect a lot more nonsense from mazHur Butt, Taliban poet philosopher, racist pervert.
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Reasons to Assess Civilian Casualties

Published Date: April 10, 2014
Download Report
View Online
The U.S. government has described its drone campaign in Pakistan and elsewhere as causing minimal civilian casualties. However, available data–open source data on Pakistan drone strikes, as well as data on air operations in Afghanistan, including drone operations–points to higher casualty numbers than suggested in official statements. Besides their importance to U.S. ethical principles regarding the conduct of war, civilian casualties from U.S. operations also affect national security, fueling threats to the U.S. while simultaneously limiting freedom of action and complicating relations with other nations.

One possible reason for this discrepancy between U.S. government statements and other reports is that civilian casualties from air strikes can be difficult to recognize when they occur. For example, recognition–and thus acknowledgement–of civilian casualties was a challenge in U.S. operations in Afghanistan, and is likely to be even more difficult for operations without a ground force in remote locations such as western Pakistan. This paper explains why official U.S. estimates for civilian casualties caused by drone strikes in Pakistan could reasonably be too low. Factors include an irregular enemy, the challenge of misidentifications, the tendency of air-based assessments to produce inaccurate assessments of resultant harm, and processes that assign civilian status to casualties more narrowly than in applicable international law.

Official statements also feature a common description of the drone platform as surgical with respect to civilian casualties. This suggests a misunderstanding of how civilian casualties occur. The characteristics of a weapon platform–in this case drones–are not the only factor in reducing civilian casualties; other factors like planning and training must be taken into consideration in claims of precision and discrimination. This point is illustrated in Afghanistan, where analysis showed that engagements by drones (2010- 2011) were ten times more likely to result in civilian casualties than engagements from manned platforms. In that case, failure to recognize and mitigate factors besides the platform in the targeting process resulted in an increased risk to civilians from the use of drones, despite some desirable characteristics of those systems.

CNA Corporation analyzed publically available data to determine the likelihood of civilian harm per strike in the drone campaign in Pakistan. From this data, we see that the U.S. has improved its ability to reduce civilian casualties during drone strikes in Pakistan over the past several years, as measured in the percentage of strikes causing civilian casualties and the number of civilian casualties occurring per incident. However, there remains room for improvement, as drone strikes conducted since 2011 still appear to cause civilian casualties about 8 percent of the time, though this number decreased sharply in 2013. An assessment process could improve this rate, and such a process is briefly outlined at the end of this paper. (A forthcoming paper will provide both additional analysis and a model of an overall assessment process.)

Civilian casualties are one consideration in the debate concerning which department or agency of the U.S. government would be best suited for continuing the drone campaign. We observe that drone strikes in Pakistan were more likely to cause civilian casualties on average than drone strikes by military forces in Afghanistan. Although there are key differences in the two campaigns, this observation warrants further examination (also reserved for a subsequent paper).

Overall, it is both possible and worthwhile for the U.S. to conduct an independent assessment of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. This assessment could be provided to the legislative and executive branches to improve transparency and permit proper oversight of these operations. This would also help ensure that official U.S. statements reflect operational realities, helping to guard the credibility and reputation of the U.S. In addition, a process could be put into place to respond to drone-strike civilian casualties with consequence management actions–including amends–when they occur from such strikes. This practice could adapt successful U.S. measures taken in Afghanistan, and would be consistent with recent legislation governing military operations.

Collectively, an assessment process for civilian harm, coupled with measures to address such harm when it is caused, would demonstrate the U.S. concern for civilians while also reducing grievances that can exacerbate threats to the U.S. in the longer term. These initiatives would help the U.S. demonstrate its stated commitment to the responsible use of force and to do all it can to minimize civilian harm in its operations.
Maz at least you started this thread in the right section...your claim has already been proven false in other threads..then you start a thread about it...not a good idea.
Its shows dishonesty and denial on your part..not something you want in the general section...so a good move on your part{in that regard}
Here is an idea..start a thread and take a truthful position your evident frustration level will decrease...take this thread for instance..your first post is not all caps..soon you will be aggravated and use the cap lock which is poor forum etiquette..
Attempted insults will ensue..which actually make me laugh rather than upset me...As stated prior these American bashing threads just dont work out for you.

A good thread for you would be.
"I live in the most dangerous city in the world come visit you fucking americans..we hate your American policy of killing terrorist leaders"
Honesty works every time.

;)


- See more at: http://www.cna.org/research/2014/drone-strikes-pakistan#sthash.PN1egwx4.dpuf





You talk total nonsense..blaming all the time. I could also say the same but what I am stating here is NOT what I say but the whole world is saying...
Any discussion about America sounds bitter to you but you are least ashamed to bad mouth others and their cultures. You are living in a fool's paradise....
All that which goes around is IMPORTANT and it would be dishonest for us to discard it by just terming it 'American bashing'....No, it isn't...learn to listen to others too and keep a heart for difference of opinion.
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/...ise-afghanistan-yemen-201431217135611844.html
Emmerson said the US military had reduced attacks against armed groups, limiting strikes to high-value targets in response to the country's growing criticism of the programme. The total number of recorded strikes in 2013 was down to 27 from a peak of 128 in 2010, he said.

Pakistan says drone strikes hamper efforts to hold peace talks with the Taliban and breach national sovereignty.

20131117135550673621_3.jpg
Read more of our coverage of military and civilian drones
However, rights group Amnesty International said that Emmerson's report may not be a definitive study of all drone strikes, and is based on the information that was available to him.

"Last year there were some reports that specific drone strikes resulted in civilian casualties [in Pakistan], but owing to the prevailing secrecy of the US programme and restrictions on access to these remote and lawless areas, it was impossible for us to investigate these claims further," said Mustafa Qadri, Amnesty's Pakistan researcher and co-author of the group's report into civilian casualties in the country.

He added that it was "impossible to give absolute answers because of legal issues of who may and may not be a 'combatant' or otherwise be lawfully targetable" without the US being fully transparent about their operations.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Reasons to Assess Civilian Casualties

Published Date: April 10, 2014
Download Report
View Online
The U.S. government has described its drone campaign in Pakistan and elsewhere as causing minimal civilian casualties. However, available data–open source data on Pakistan drone strikes, as well as data on air operations in Afghanistan, including drone operations–points to higher casualty numbers than suggested in official statements. Besides their importance to U.S. ethical principles regarding the conduct of war, civilian casualties from U.S. operations also affect national security, fueling threats to the U.S. while simultaneously limiting freedom of action and complicating relations with other nations.

One possible reason for this discrepancy between U.S. government statements and other reports is that civilian casualties from air strikes can be difficult to recognize when they occur. For example, recognition–and thus acknowledgement–of civilian casualties was a challenge in U.S. operations in Afghanistan, and is likely to be even more difficult for operations without a ground force in remote locations such as western Pakistan. This paper explains why official U.S. estimates for civilian casualties caused by drone strikes in Pakistan could reasonably be too low. Factors include an irregular enemy, the challenge of misidentifications, the tendency of air-based assessments to produce inaccurate assessments of resultant harm, and processes that assign civilian status to casualties more narrowly than in applicable international law.

Official statements also feature a common description of the drone platform as surgical with respect to civilian casualties. This suggests a misunderstanding of how civilian casualties occur. The characteristics of a weapon platform–in this case drones–are not the only factor in reducing civilian casualties; other factors like planning and training must be taken into consideration in claims of precision and discrimination. This point is illustrated in Afghanistan, where analysis showed that engagements by drones (2010- 2011) were ten times more likely to result in civilian casualties than engagements from manned platforms. In that case, failure to recognize and mitigate factors besides the platform in the targeting process resulted in an increased risk to civilians from the use of drones, despite some desirable characteristics of those systems.

CNA Corporation analyzed publically available data to determine the likelihood of civilian harm per strike in the drone campaign in Pakistan. From this data, we see that the U.S. has improved its ability to reduce civilian casualties during drone strikes in Pakistan over the past several years, as measured in the percentage of strikes causing civilian casualties and the number of civilian casualties occurring per incident. However, there remains room for improvement, as drone strikes conducted since 2011 still appear to cause civilian casualties about 8 percent of the time, though this number decreased sharply in 2013. An assessment process could improve this rate, and such a process is briefly outlined at the end of this paper. (A forthcoming paper will provide both additional analysis and a model of an overall assessment process.)

Civilian casualties are one consideration in the debate concerning which department or agency of the U.S. government would be best suited for continuing the drone campaign. We observe that drone strikes in Pakistan were more likely to cause civilian casualties on average than drone strikes by military forces in Afghanistan. Although there are key differences in the two campaigns, this observation warrants further examination (also reserved for a subsequent paper).

Overall, it is both possible and worthwhile for the U.S. to conduct an independent assessment of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. This assessment could be provided to the legislative and executive branches to improve transparency and permit proper oversight of these operations. This would also help ensure that official U.S. statements reflect operational realities, helping to guard the credibility and reputation of the U.S. In addition, a process could be put into place to respond to drone-strike civilian casualties with consequence management actions–including amends–when they occur from such strikes. This practice could adapt successful U.S. measures taken in Afghanistan, and would be consistent with recent legislation governing military operations.

Collectively, an assessment process for civilian harm, coupled with measures to address such harm when it is caused, would demonstrate the U.S. concern for civilians while also reducing grievances that can exacerbate threats to the U.S. in the longer term. These initiatives would help the U.S. demonstrate its stated commitment to the responsible use of force and to do all it can to minimize civilian harm in its operations.



- See more at: http://www.cna.org/research/2014/drone-strikes-pakistan#sthash.PN1egwx4.dpuf





You talk total nonsense..blaming all the time. I could also say the same but what I am stating here is NOT what I say but the whole world is saying...
Any discussion about America sounds bitter to you but you are least ashamed to bad mouth others and their cultures. You are living in a fool's paradise....
All that which goes around is IMPORTANT and it would be dishonest for us to discard it by just terming it 'American bashing'....No, it isn't...learn to listen to others too and keep a heart for difference of opinion.

Not only do you not read the material you link to, you don't even read the material you quote:

From your quote:

From this data, we see that the U.S. has improved its ability to reduce civilian casualties during drone strikes in Pakistan over the past several years, as measured in the percentage of strikes causing civilian casualties and the number of civilian casualties occurring per incident

Exactly what I claimed.

And your Taliban and al Qaeda friends are desperate to see drone usage stopped.



edit: you are an idiot :D
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/...ise-afghanistan-yemen-201431217135611844.html
Emmerson said the US military had reduced attacks against armed groups, limiting strikes to high-value targets in response to the country's growing criticism of the programme. The total number of recorded strikes in 2013 was down to 27 from a peak of 128 in 2010, he said.

Pakistan says drone strikes hamper efforts to hold peace talks with the Taliban and breach national sovereignty.

20131117135550673621_3.jpg
Read more of our coverage of military and civilian drones
However, rights group Amnesty International said that Emmerson's report may not be a definitive study of all drone strikes, and is based on the information that was available to him.

"Last year there were some reports that specific drone strikes resulted in civilian casualties [in Pakistan], but owing to the prevailing secrecy of the US programme and restrictions on access to these remote and lawless areas, it was impossible for us to investigate these claims further," said Mustafa Qadri, Amnesty's Pakistan researcher and co-author of the group's report into civilian casualties in the country.

He added that it was "impossible to give absolute answers because of legal issues of who may and may not be a 'combatant' or otherwise be lawfully targetable" without the US being fully transparent about their operations.


Translation: Your article is inconclusive and your argument doe not address al Qaeda..
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Not only do you not read the material you link to, you don't even read the material you quote:

From your quote:



Exactly what I claimed.

And your Taliban and al Qaeda friends are desperate to see drone usage stopped.



edit: you are an idiot :D


Xactly what you 'prophesied'...instead of hundreds you are killing by scores,,,that's a 'substantial' reduction in drone attacks resulting in civilian deaths...Good but should even one innocent civilian die due to your act and why shouldn't you be tried for killing and war crimes??

I wouldn't like to open up your links and won't bother to read and reread your unending series of blaming and aspersions...

Whetever you whine about has already been argued thoroughly in all threads but you just wanna argue merely for the sake of argument which is bad......
Clean your mind first of shit , stop blaming me for not being one you are obsessed with...only then I might take you seriously...

My time is precious and I don't want to waste my time explaining things over and over again to idiots....
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Translation: Your article is inconclusive and your argument doe not address al Qaeda..


A picture is worth a thousand words!!!

10thAn_4.jpg
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Xactly what you 'prophesied'...instead of hundreds you are killing by scores,,,that's a 'substantial' reduction in drone attacks resulting in civilian deaths...Good but should even one innocent civilian die due to your act and why shouldn't you be tried for killing and war crimes??

I wouldn't like to open up your links and won't bother to read and reread your unending series of blaming and aspersions...

Whetever you whine about has already been argued thoroughly in all threads but you just wanna argue merely for the sake of argument which is bad......
Clean your mind first of shit , stop blaming me for not being one you are obsessed with...only then I might take you seriously...

My time is precious and I don't want to waste my time explaining things over and over again to idiots....


No stats there, only vague speculation that you put in your google search terms.
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Perhaps all the terrorist organizations is the reason for the drones maz?

60 and counting
http://www.offtopicz.net/index.php?threads/78046/


I have NO idea about the terrorist orgs,,,,,I just know you were firstly after Al Quaida and now it is Taliban..

Your war on terrorism is a political stunt and if it keeps going on it will give rise to more terrorism and that is what they say is counterproductiveness of your fake war!
 
78,866Threads
2,185,216Messages
4,953Members
Back
Top