Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on | Heather Linebaugh | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Interesting take from an actual drone pilot. Turns out they're not as precise as the government would have us believe, as if there was any doubt, and they don't simply target militants since they sometimes have no idea who they're targeting at all. Again, as if there was any doubt.
Having no idea who a terrorist (suspected) is is not the same thing as targeting an innocent. Not as precise? What precisely does that mean?
They're purposefully targeting people that they don't know are militants, and then lying about it. That is targeting innocents, however you want to spin it.
If the powers that be asked the same questions while fighting WW II, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese....Remember this one fact. Peace is maintained at the barrel of a gun.Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program aka drones I wish I could ask them a few questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"
Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.
I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on | Heather Linebaugh | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Interesting take from an actual drone pilot. Turns out they're not as precise as the government would have us believe, as if there was any doubt, and they don't simply target militants since they sometimes have no idea who they're targeting at all. Again, as if there was any doubt.
As general Patton said, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.".
"Country" might be an outdated concept in some conflicts, but drones are the best way to reach that objective. If you think missiles from a fighter jet or bomber are going to cut down on "collateral damage", you're just stupid.
If you think those are the only options then you're just stupid.
If you think missiles from a fighter jet or bomber are going to cut down on "collateral damage", you're just stupid.
This.
But we also need to ask ourselves what our objectives are, and whether we are achieving them.
It's true that we could send troops in harms way or, we could just get on our knees and bend over I suppose. I guess you would prefer the latter.If you think those are the only options then you're just stupid.
And I guess you would prefer just killing random people and pretending they're terrorists.
Having no idea who a terrorist (suspected) is is not the same thing as targeting an innocent. Not as precise? What precisely does that mean?
They're purposefully targeting people that they don't know are militants, and then lying about it. That is targeting innocents, however you want to spin it.
If that scenario happens it is a fluke. Targeting known entities and getting assholes meeting with known entities is more like it.
I wonder how many others are killed or hurt when targets get hit. It is doubtful an unknown entity gets targeted often. There has to be a justification for targeting. There is a process to follow
you're just spinning hysteria and bullshit
If the powers that be asked the same questions while fighting WW II, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese....Remember this one fact. Peace is maintained at the barrel of a gun.Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program aka drones I wish I could ask them a few questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"
Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.
I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on | Heather Linebaugh | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Interesting take from an actual drone pilot. Turns out they're not as precise as the government would have us believe, as if there was any doubt, and they don't simply target militants since they sometimes have no idea who they're targeting at all. Again, as if there was any doubt.
Why is this? Because human beings given the opportunity will take advantage of the weak.
This bore out when Neville Chamberlain thought it best to institute a policy of appeasement toward Hitler's Nazi Germany....
Like it or not, war is an ugly business.
The death maiming and destruction..Then there is the business side of war.
It sucks, but cannot be avoided sometimes. I'd much rather be on the giving side rather than receiving end.
Did you know that the name given to one of our nuclear missile projects is "Hallmark"?
They named it this because of the commercial tag. "When you care enough to send the very best"..
BTW, I'm not buying the story. Not in full anyway.
These are weapons. Sometimes weapons do not work as intended. Hence the term "casualty of war".
As general Patton said, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.".
"Country" might be an outdated concept in some conflicts, but drones are the best way to reach that objective. If you think missiles from a fighter jet or bomber are going to cut down on "collateral damage", you're just stupid.
If you think those are the only options then you're just stupid.
Advanced technology in weaponry saves lives.
If that upsets you, too bad.
It's true that we could send troops in harms way or, we could just get on our knees and bend over I suppose. I guess you would prefer the latter.
And I guess you would prefer just killing random people and pretending they're terrorists.
People are not killed at random. That would be a war crime.
we're not doing war crimes.
What you ignore is that these combatants with cowardice, use civilians as shields.
Would you prefer tea and cookies?
A sunny day with temperatures in the mid 70's angers the far left.
So are you admitting to code pink as being a far left organization? or this another lame attempt by you to just post random info and claim it supports your assertions when it does not?
Of course Code Pink is a far left organization. You claimed the far left is not angry about collateral damage, so I showed you that you are quite wrong.
Yes, please check them out. Actually read them instead of letting the voices in your head speak for me.
You made an assumption that in the next 5,000 years we would not be able to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.
I challenged that assumption.
That is not claiming "the government has a 5000 year plan to deal with nuclear waste".
My God, you are dense!
Oh my!
"Ok show the plans and the cost projections for the next 5000 years to up keep this waste. "
Just like that thread you got caught and you got caught on this thread posting links and making claims that were untrue.
Just admit you have nothing! Which would be the first time posting the truth for you.
If the powers that be asked the same questions while fighting WW II, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese....Remember this one fact. Peace is maintained at the barrel of a gun.Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program aka drones I wish I could ask them a few questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"
Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.
I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on | Heather Linebaugh | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Interesting take from an actual drone pilot. Turns out they're not as precise as the government would have us believe, as if there was any doubt, and they don't simply target militants since they sometimes have no idea who they're targeting at all. Again, as if there was any doubt.
Why is this? Because human beings given the opportunity will take advantage of the weak.
This bore out when Neville Chamberlain thought it best to institute a policy of appeasement toward Hitler's Nazi Germany....
Like it or not, war is an ugly business.
The death maiming and destruction..Then there is the business side of war.
It sucks, but cannot be avoided sometimes. I'd much rather be on the giving side rather than receiving end.
Did you know that the name given to one of our nuclear missile projects is "Hallmark"?
They named it this because of the commercial tag. "When you care enough to send the very best"..
BTW, I'm not buying the story. Not in full anyway.
These are weapons. Sometimes weapons do not work as intended. Hence the term "casualty of war".
Yes the far left controls the senate and the WH and the drone strikes have intensified and collateral damage is ten fold of that before Nov 2008.
Sure the far left cares and anyone believing that is just a far left Obama drone.
Are you drinking earlier than usual, because we have had folks on this forum divided on the issue forever but not because of political affiliation.
I supported Bush on this. I support Obama. There are righties and lefties who oppose that on the Board.
Kill the bad guys from the next continent if we can without risking our folks.
Yes the far left controls the senate and the WH and the drone strikes have intensified and collateral damage is ten fold of that before Nov 2008.
Sure the far left cares and anyone believing that is just a far left Obama drone.
Are you drinking earlier than usual, because we have had folks on this forum divided on the issue forever but not because of political affiliation.
I supported Bush on this. I support Obama. There are righties and lefties who oppose that on the Board.
Kill the bad guys from the next continent if we can without risking our folks.
this should just be extended to those who play the knock out game. Shoot them save a lot of time and money. Maybe a napalm strike on an inner city. Nah, let's just keep exporting our bombing de jour. I am surprised the faith that those on the left place in the same CIA that they were excoriating for water boarding. But it makes sense. The left screamed about water boarding and what happens? They just start killing them.
The real problem with drones:
Spy Chips Guiding CIA Drone Strikes, Locals Say | Danger Room | Wired.com
Ten days later, 19 year-old Habibur Rehman made a videotaped confession of planting such devices, just before he was executed by the Taliban as an American spy. I was given $122 to drop chips wrapped in cigarette paper at Al Qaeda and Taliban houses, he said. If I was successful, I was told, I would be given thousands of dollars.
But Rehman says he didnt just tag jihadists with the devices. The money was good so I started throwing the chips all over. I knew people were dying because of what I was doing, but I needed the money, he added. Which raises the possibility that the unmanned aircraft Americas key weapons in its covert war on Pakistans jihadists and insurgents may have been lead to the wrong targets.
One much-disputed Pakistani media report claimed that the drones have killed hundreds of civilians, just to take out a few militants. Thats unlikely. But whats indisputable is that the robotic planes (and the innocent deaths theyre alleged to cause) have become increasingly controversial, both in Pakistan and in America
