Drone attacks..

[eastbank]

@eastbank

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that drones are 'doing the trick'? Or is that just wishful thinking? They are certainly impressing military buyers around the world, 'doing the trick' for future sales. But of course that is too far fetched to be based un reality.

Are special forces snipers engaged in Pakistan? Shooting those that plant roadside bombs there in order to catch out the troops who are simply not stationed there?

 

 

they do work...we get them into the air then the yanks take control from their base in nevada...its like a computor game but for real...they home in on their target and the next minute its gone...no need for troops on the ground..it is the future for warfare against the taliban...they hate them and the yanks love them...a bit pricey mind but damn worth it...if they save lives..the camera footage is unreal...the one with those on the back of the truck with rocket launcher...bang and there gone...

the snipers operate all over the area...the drones point them in the right direction...pity we didn't have them when hitler was on the loose...

[mj.scuba]

I think the predator drones are a really good idea.

They are cheaper to operate and maintain than conventional aircraft, they can be deployed quicker, closer to the enemy and it means pilots are not being put in harms way.

[sharrowman]

@treatment

 

erm, what?

 

@eastbank

 

again, your assertion that they are succesful is not evidence of the fact

 

@mjscuba

 

absolutely right. but on what intelligence do they operate? How are they accountable to the geneva conventions? Who collects data about collateral damage?

[eastbank]

I think the predator drones are a really good idea.

They are cheaper to operate and maintain than conventional aircraft, they can be deployed quicker, closer to the enemy and it means pilots are not being put in harms way.

 

 

it does exactly that....the name predator tells the story...the yanks love them...but our government should have them instead of foot patrols....bugger the cost...fill the skies with them....

[eastbank]

@treatment

 

erm, what?

 

@eastbank

 

again, your assertion that they are succesful is not evidence of the fact

 

@mjscuba

 

absolutely right. but on what intelligence do they operate? How are they accountable to the geneva conventions? Who collects data about collateral damage?

 

if they didn't work..then why are the yanks building them as fast as they can...as i said the yanks love them...fighting the taliban from nevada...how safe is that...

[mj.scuba]

@treatment

 

erm, what?

 

@eastbank

 

again, your assertion that they are succesful is not evidence of the fact

 

@mjscuba

absolutely right. but on what intelligence do they operate? How are they accountable to the geneva conventions? Who collects data about collateral damage?

 

They would only operate or act on the same intelligence as a strike from a conventional aircraft. It's only the method of delivery that differs.

As far as I know it's common for strikes to be recorded and even reconnaisance aircraft (or satellites) to do another sortie to take photos to assess the damage.

[sharrowman]

@eastbank and @mjscuba

 

It is indeed because they work that the, ahem, yanks both love 'em and build 'em. It is because they work, and because they represent such good value for money that they will sell like hot cakes all over the world. The missions they are flying now have more to do with marketing than they do with the nebulous and dubious war on terror.

 

Of course this brings up moral questions all of it's own. But even if these machines were flying missions wholly in support of a 'war on terror' why are there operations clouded in secrecy? There is no official accountability for their strikes, no publicly accessible records of their succes or failure. Unlike strikes by conventional aircraft where if you have the will you can check what the results of a strike were (with appropriate awareness of bias).

 

 

These strikes are in contravention of the geneva convention and are under investigation by Philip Aston at the UN Human Rights Committee as extra judicial killings.

 

Perhaps to put them in context, a young man in Dewsbury is under surveillence for his extreme views, the CIA are informed. A month later from 30,000 feet a volley of bombs is dropped and kills the target. His mum dies too, but she was a sympathiser. His gran dies, she was an enemy combatant and harboured the insurgent. etc etc

 

Some time later it is revealed that intelligence sources were making payments to locals for information pertaining to the whereabouts of combatants.

 

For a few years salary in Pakistan I'd probably tell the CIA my neighbour was a baddy.

[Entwhistle]

The problem as stated in the OP is that even if they can hit exactly what they are fired at every time, the intelligence that the target is based on comes from the same people that claimed there were WMD's in Iraq etc.

 

Besides which, the USA says it is not at war, making these attacks murder in the most culpable degree. If you are not at war with someone, they MUST be tried, not just killed out of hand, else why bother fighting the terrorists, as you are showing that you basically have the same morality as they do (or rather, don't).

 

The bones of what you are saying then is that all suicide bombers are murderers. I must agree with you entirely on that one!

[Treatment]

The Yanks use them because in a one-on-one troop situation they will take casualties, by using these weapons they take advantage of their technical superiority.

 

They have learned from Iraq, a few weeks and light casualties to get to Baghdad, and then a hammering when they occupied it.

 

Never lead with your chin.

[Entwhistle]

The allies are soon to make major advances into the Helmand province. They have widely publicised this in order to avoid killing civilians. Such publicity is obviously detremental to the allies since it detracts from any surprise element. Such is the commitment of the allies to avoid killing civilians.