Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Pakistani drone strikes kill 1 confirmed terrorist for every 50 deaths

  1. Jan 22, 2013 #1

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    From a report four month ago:

    Confirmed Terrorist casualties
    1/50 = 2%
    Child casualties:
    176/3325 = 5%

    Of course, this counting method doesn't use Obama's convenient method of "all military aged males in the region". I wonder how much this contributes to their recruitment rate.

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/15340/drone-strikes-in-pakistan-have-killed-thousands-of-civilians

    Representative Dennis Kucinich claims: "Drone strikes are stirring up anti-American sentiment to the point where al-Qaeda is actually being empowered.”

    http://xrepublic.tv/node/1628 [Broken]

    Yemen officials are getting fed up with civillian death in Yemen:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/22/us-drone-strikes-criticised-yemen-minister
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 22, 2013 #2
    The drone strikes kill many civilians in the process of killing an "enemy" combatant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

    As the link puts it, the civilian casualty in war will always be high because of battlefield layouts. The days of certain areas of battle are gone, and it is a different field of war we are in. We no longer fight in a field where the civilian population is nonexistent.

    End the war, and stop the drones. I disagree with drones but the people getting frustrated over the drone program don't realize or don't want to realize that this is the product of war, and as such, happens more often when the battlefield is undefined and the "enemy" is using different tactics to fight a technologically advanced government.

    Of course you can add more people to the field to strike areas of interest but that also calls for more resources and bodies in the field and many lines of communication to which could alert the "enemy."
     
  4. Jan 22, 2013 #3

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Drones are certainly great for us in terms of short-term outcome. 49:1, though, is a bout 5x what your wiki link reports as normal (10:1). But numbers are numbers. The particularly unsettling part is, on a subjective level, how much it terrorizes the civilians of Pakistans.

    Just imagine.. unmanned machines constantly flying over head. You never know when one is going to hit you (in Yemen they recently completely missed the target, hitting as car full of civillians nearby).

    There's only so many degrees of separation. How much are we contributing to the recruitment pool?

    Of course, I can't think of an alternative that the CIA/DOD would be willing to pursue, but that doesn't mean we should just stay quiet about it and go about our business, either.
     
  5. Jan 22, 2013 #4

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I don't follow the drone news very closely. But I believe I came out in favor of Obama continuing the strikes in Pakistan. I read recently that an American child was killed by one in Yemen a while back. There was of course, a lot of media outrage. I researched the killing, and discovered the child was 16, and was sitting next to a known terrorist when the incident occurred.

    You are probably correct, that it would feel really creepy with unmanned drones flying over my head. I do though, feel very comfortable having manned McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagles being scrambled and flying over my house once in awhile. They were the only aircraft allowed to fly in town following 911.

    The silence of no commercial aircraft, following 911, was very creepy, also.

    I will research your links at a later time, as glossing over them, they strike me as, media outrage.

    ps. I hate politics, and being old, I forget whether or not I like certain presidential candidates:
    I'm ex-military. I don't like doves, nor hawks.

    According to wiki, and therefore unreliable:
    pps. I get my news from Al Jazeera:

    1 in 4. Getting better.

    Gee willikers, and if you get on a bus, to go to school, and you are a 15 year old girl, the Taliban comes to assassinate you. I'd stay home from school too.

    And yes, I still remember Vera Lynn.

    Do you remember the Thanksgiving twins?

    Sorry if my post seems somewhat flippant, but that's just the way I am. My life's path has skewed my perception of everything.

    ppps. "Impossible Dreamer" link from above is defunct. Sorry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iCDr-sPBE ​
     
  6. Jan 22, 2013 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The 50:1 ratio (2%) is a really bad misquote of the referenced study. The actual ratio (range), highlighted in a nice, big, impossible to mix box on the second page of the Executive Summary is 14%-34%.

    Locked pending moderation.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Pakistani drone strikes kill 1 confirmed terrorist for every 50 deaths
  1. To: The Terrorists (Replies: 161)

  2. Death is (Replies: 194)

Loading...