posted February 21, 2013 10:39 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted February 21, 2013 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Actually this administration's body count is far lower than the last's, whose drones killed far more civilians...2004-8 33% drone deaths were ci vilians as opposed to 2% since '09...

Which is not to excuse either one.

---

One day, you will realize that Obama screwed you the same as he screwed the high information voter.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted February 21, 2013 06:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Sticks and stones, ami

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted February 21, 2013 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Actually this administration's body count is far lower than the last's, whose drones killed far more civilians...2004-8 33% drone deaths were ci vilians as opposed to 2% since '09...

Which is not to excuse either one.

---

Where do you get this information, kat?

It's really easy for them to just say that whoever they killed with a drone was a terrorist, so I have to wonder how they arrived at that 98% "accuracy."

posted February 21, 2013 08:43 PM            

Just wanted to add some quotes from the Wiki article on drone strikes in Pakistan:

quote:

---

The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3] These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terror campaign, seeking to defeat Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan.[3] Most of these attacks are on targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama.[4] Some media refer to the series of attacks as a "drone war".[5][6]

Pakistan's government publicly condemns these attacks, but has secretly shared intelligence with the United States[7] and also allegedly allowed the drones to operate from Shamsi Airfield in Pakistan until 21 April 2011, when 150 Americans left the base.[8] According to secret diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights, but in 2008 requested Americans to increase them.[9] However, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, "drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens."[10] The strikes are often linked to anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan.

---

^ Makes it sound like you're conveniently a "terrorist" if you object to the CIA bombing the hell out of your country and children.

quote:

---

The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that some experts disputed.[11] The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[17][18][19]

---

quote:

---

As of January 2013, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:[2][17]

Total strikes: 362
Total reported killed: 2,629 – 3,461
Civilians reported killed: 475 – 891
Children reported killed: 176
Total reported injured: 1,267 – 1,431
Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
Strikes under the Obama Administration: 310

---

posted February 21, 2013 10:28 PM            

quote:

---

The New York Times has also published a key investigation exploring how the Obama Administration runs its secret 'Kill List' – the names of those chosen for execution by CIA and Pentagon drones outside the conventional battlefield.

The Times' report also reveals that President Obama "embraced" a broadening of the term "civilian", helping to limit any public controversy over "non-combatant" deaths.

As the Bureau's own data on Pakistan makes clear, the very first covert drone strikes of the Obama presidency, just three days after he took office, resulted in civilian deaths in Pakistan. As many as 19 civilians – including four children – died in two error-filled attacks.

---

quote:

---

It is often been reported that President Obama has urged officials to avoid wherever possible the deaths of civilians in covert U.S. actions in Pakistan and elsewhere. But reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane reveal that Obama "embraced" a formula understood to have been devised by the Bush administration:

"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

So concerned have some officials been by this "false accounting" that they have taken their concerns direct to the White House, according to the New York Times.

---

The whole article is worth reading:

Report: Obama embraces disputed definition of 'civilian' in drone wars

posted February 21, 2013 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
... as best I recall anyone over the age of 15 was automatically a "combatant." So in short the 2% would be children (in any case it's no surprise the numbers went drastically down once the new definitions under Obama were in place).

---

That does seem to be what's going on: all military-age males are combatants.

Sick, isn't it?

posted February 22, 2013 12:04 AM            

I don't know what "most" Americans think either, but it is also natural for many to have some level of disconnect from peoples they know little about in countries they have never been to...which is ONE reason many americans are complacent about our warring in places far out of their daily experience, and this helped enormously to get us involved in iraq, vietnam and several other places.

The article i mentioned quoted some pakistanis in situ.

posted February 22, 2013 01:36 AM            

However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.

"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."

The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.

Again, i don't like these things anymore than you do, the deaths or the use of drones...it is more robot-creep toward a life where machines do everything for us and our humanity is at risk of evaporating through the resulting depersonalization of our acts.

However it is possible to become too cynical too. Many of the most dastardly depts and organizations are riddled with people trying to make them better, or doing what THEY think is the best option. Many a politician who is seen to be doing the wrong thing is trying to do the right thing in a very complex situation. And sometimes from OUR perspective it looks like things are getting worse when they are actually being worked on in ways that are not so visible.

But again, all these articles and investigations rather contradict the "top secret" accusations being laid at the program. Funnily i don't remember hearing about drones at all when bush was in the office, no info and no complaints...

posted February 22, 2013 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:

I don't know what "most" Americans think either, but it is also natural for many to have some level of disconnect from peoples they know little about in countries they have never been to...which is ONE reason many americans are complacent about our warring in places far out of their daily experience, and this helped enormously to get us involved in iraq, vietnam and several other places.

---

I know we all have some level of disconnect, and I didn't mean to suggest that ALL Pakistanis are like my one friend~ just saying it's harder to be apathetic about attacks on a country when you know all too well how nice the people can be. And when you think, "Is he dead yet?"

Many Americans are not just apathetic about Pakistan, but they are strongly anti-Muslim, and probably think, "The fewer, the better." So they may even be glad if there is a war of attrition against them.

posted February 22, 2013 08:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
"So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."

---

Is that the average under Bush? At what point in 2012 was this percentage calculated, I wonder?

That statistic seems unbelievable to me. CNN doesn't have its own investigative reporting department, they hire out think tanks to come up with numbers, and pardon me for being skeptical of any group with "New America" in its name...I just see that as a nod to the Project for the New American Century. And the NAF is headed by big brother Eric Schmidt, so it's not like we can say, "This comes from an impartial group with no agenda."

The following two quotes are from wikipedia:

quote:

---

The New America Foundation believes that between zero and 18 civilians have been killed in drone strikes since 23 August 2010 and that overall civilian casualties have decreased from 25% of the total in prior years to an estimated 6% in 2010. The Foundation estimates that between 277 and 435 non-combatants have died since 2004, out of 1,374 to 2,189 total deaths.[104][/b]

---

Between zero and 18?

The back and forth between wildly varying estimates and precise statistics looks downright crazy. The list of terrorists ought to be given to Congress in advance, and compared with the list of the deceased. If we didn't mean to hit the person, assume they are not a terrorist. How hard is that?

quote:

---

On 7 June 2012, after a four-day visit to Pakistan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for a new investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan, repeatedly referring to the attacks as "indiscriminate," and said that the attacks constitute human rights violations.

---

Indiscriminate...or with a 98% accuracy rate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
Again, i don't like these things anymore than you do,

---

Good to know because...

quote:

---

In a February 2012 poll of 1,000 US adults, 83% of them (77% of the liberal Democrats) replied they support the drone strikes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
However it is possible to become too cynical too. Many of the most dastardly depts and organizations are riddled with people trying to make them better, or doing what THEY think is the best option. Many a politician who is seen to be doing the wrong thing is trying to do the right thing in a very complex situation. And sometimes from OUR perspective it looks like things are getting worse when they are actually being worked on in ways that are not so visible.

---

Well I grant you, that's possible, but with the overall trend looking like we are headed fast towards a draconian, martial law police state, I don't have much time to sympathize with, or consider the plight of, the good people who are trying to slow the process down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
the article makes the very good point that WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE DIE from the drones is not the only nasty aspect...just having them in the sky so much of the time and never knowing when they will strike is taking its toll on people's sanity and quality of life.

---

posted February 22, 2013 09:38 AM            

Innocents die, often horribly.
Many more innocents suffer.

I'm not sure if drones cut down on that because they help to eliminate heat-of-the-moment actions or if they exacerbate it by further dehumanizing targets, but they're just as awful.

I would say that no one deserves any more condemnation or praise for their use than they would receive for the use of other weapons of war.

posted February 22, 2013 11:03 AM            

but as the proverb goes,

just when the caterpillar thought the world was about to end, it became a butterfly.

nothing is inevitable or permanent. whatever the polls say there are a great many people, AMERICANS, who are on the case..and the american revolution was carried out by a very small percentage of the population.

as to sources, none of them are totally accurate, for a variety of reasons, that is why a wide sample, including the so called? liberal mainstream media and state-owned press worldwide, is important.