One in 3 killed by drones in Pakistan is a civillian

[almantimes2]

My mistake, I don't really have a clue who is a civilian and who isn't and neither does anyone else, except maybe the Taliban and they lie more than the US government

 

[rp08orbust]

I don't believe the civilian death rate is that low for a second.

 

[Liberty Star]

It's way worse than that:

60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians

Apr 8, 2009 ... The number of the Pakistani civilians killed in those 50 attacks stood at ... Of the 50 drone attacks, targeting the Pakistani tribal areas ...
www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440

 

[almantimes2]

Zero

 

[torchbearer]

For every terrorist we kill, we kill 50 civilians.
How many of those civilian's relatives are then obligated to revenge their loved ones by attacking the U.S.?

 

[Liberty Star]

damn

Yep, these "air attacks" are very racist in nature considering the "collateral damage" of over 97% civilians killed. They are creating many more terrorists of tomorrow for our children to deal with.

 

[BlackTerrel]

How could anyone possibly know that?

 

[amy31416]

How could anyone possibly know that?

You really have no clue?

I'd suggest you do some research, but I don't think you actually want to know, you just want to cast doubt and ever-so subtly support the wars.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1771/1/ <---- Nine (9) children, allegedly shot by either US troops or mercenaries while handcuffed

http://www.truthout.org/where-are-this-wars-heroes-military-and-journalistic57406

 

[Zippyjuan]

News Flash- civilians get killed in wars along with enemies.

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

A study called 'The Year of the Drone" published in February 2010 by New America Foundation found that in a total of 114 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and early 2010 approximately between 834 and 1,216 individuals had been killed, about two thirds of whom were thought to be militants and one third were civilians.[159]

 

[torchbearer]

News Flash- civilians get killed in wars along with enemies.

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

then we need to talk about this more.

 

[BlackTerrel]

You really have no clue?p/quote]

No I don't. How could anyone know whether someone killed by a drone was a civilian or not?

I'd suggest you do some research, but I don't think you actually want to know, you just want to cast doubt and ever-so subtly support the wars.

Not really. I'm just skeptical when people claim to know stuff that seems far fetched to me. Whether it supports my agenda or not.

 

[someperson]

News Flash- civilians get killed in wars along with enemies.

lol enemies. What a joke. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that a 33% failure rate, in this case, is acceptable, especially when those figures are likely misrepresenting individuals who have even tangential association with "the Taliban" as militants. Either way, it's an abomination.

 

[amy31416]

You really have no clue?p/quote]

No I don't. How could anyone know whether someone killed by a drone was a civilian or not?



Not really. I'm just skeptical when people claim to know stuff that seems far fetched to me. Whether it supports my agenda or not.

How could *anyone* know whether someone killed by a drone was a civilian or not? It's the military's effing JOB to discern that. If there's no way to know who a civilian is, then how in god's name could they even begin to know who the "terrorists" are? Even I'm not so cynical as to think they're randomly firing on people most of the time. Jesus man, use your head.

Unless you're one of those who subscribe to the "every Muslim is a terrorist/future terrorist" camp, then I guess I can see why you'd be so stumped by this.

Here's a hint to start your research: The good sites tell you the methods that they use to determine who was and wasn't a combatant.

 

[Zippyjuan]

lol enemies. What a joke. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that a 33% failure rate, in this case, is acceptable, especially when those figures are likely misrepresenting individuals who have even tangential association with "the Taliban" as militants. Either way, it's an abomination.

That number is considerably lower than in other wars. By a fairly large amount. There is no such thing as a clean war where only bad or deserving people die. One third not being actual targeted people means that two thirds were intended targets. Given the nature of weapons, this is very low. Even a shoot out at a bank heist can have more civilian deaths than robber deaths.

World War II reportedly had 50 million casualties- of which over 30 million were considered civilians. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm

Are civilian deaths or casulties (not necessarily just deaths) undesirable? Sure. Are they avoidable? No. Not in a war. Far more people were killed in Baghdad by suicide bombers in the past month or so.

 

[catdd]

You can't compare a world war to what the government is doing now. How do they even know who the enemy is or what it looks like?
Are these drone hits happening inside villages or in the mountains? Or both?
This is not a real war, it's more like hunting season on people.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It is easier, not harder, to avoid killing civilians vs enemies if you can tell the differences so civilian casualties should be even higher (as a percentage) in the wars today-not lower which we see here.

 

[catdd]

The civilian death too could be much higher than reported. Who is keeping track, the military? They don't even know who they just killed with a drone strike; could have been a boy tending sheep with a stick that looked like a gun.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You are right that accurate numbers are difficult. They could be higher or lower. But they will never be zero.

 

[pcosmar]

News Flash- civilians get killed in wars along with enemies.

[]

You are right that accurate numbers are difficult. They could be higher or lower. But they will never be zero.

That is a good reason to NOT be there without a clearly defined purpose and a known and Identifiable enemy.

And last I knew, we are not at war with Pakistan.

 

[OrganDonor]

It's way worse than that:

I was sad looking at the 33%

I guess I dont need any proof to believe its much worse than that.