A very thought provoking article in today's Guardian newspaper. Who watches the watchmen?
The CIA's unaccountable drone war claims another casualty
If Tariq Aziz, the 16-year-old soccer fan I met last week in Pakistan, was a dangerous Taliban terrorist, let the CIA prove it
Pratap Chatterjee
guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 15.41 GMT
Article history
Tariq Aziz (centre, second row) attending a meeting about drones strikes in Waziristan, held in Islamabad, Pakistan on 28 October 2011. Three days later, the 16 year old was reported killed by a drone-launched missile. Photograph: Pratap Chatterjee/BIJ
Last Friday, I met a boy, just before he was assassinated by the CIA. Tariq Aziz was 16, a quiet young man from North Waziristan, who, like most teenagers, enjoyed soccer. Seventy-two hours later, a Hellfire missile is believed to have killed him as he was travelling in a car to meet his aunt in Miran Shah, to take her home after her wedding. Killed with him was his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan.
Over 2,300 people in Pakistan have been killed by such missiles carried by drone aircraft such as the Predator and the Reaper, and launched by remote control from Langley, Virginia. Tariq and Waheed brought the known total of children killed in this way to 175, according to statistics maintained by the organisation I work for, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
The final order to kill is signed allegedly by Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA headquarters. What evidence, I would like to know, does Mr Preston have against Tariq and Waheed? What right does he have to act as judge, jury and executioner of two teenage boys neither he nor his staff have ever met, let alone cross-examined, or given the opportunity to present witnesses?
It is not too late to call for a prosecution and trial of whoever pushed the button and the US government officials who gave the order: that is, Mr Preston and his boss, President Barack Obama.
There are many people whom I know who can appear as witnesses in this trial. We – a pair of reporters, together with several lawyers from Britain, Pakistan and the US – met the victim and dozens of other young men from North Waziristan for dinner at the Margalla hotel in Islamabad on Thursday 27 October. We talked about their local soccer teams, which they proudly related were named for Brazil, New Zealand and other nations, which they had heard about but never visited.
The next morning, I filmed young Tariq walking into a conference hall to greet his elders. I reviewed the tape after he was killed to see what was recorded of some of his last moments: he walks shyly and greets the Waziri elders in the traditional style by briefly touching their chests. With his friends, he walks to a set of chairs towards the back of the hall, and they argue briefly about where each of them will sit. Over the course of the morning, Tariq appears again in many photographs that dozens of those present took, always sitting quietly and listening intently.
Tariq was attending a "Waziristan Grand Jirga" on behalf of drone strike victims in Pakistan, which was held at the Margalla hotel the following day. As is the Pashtun custom, the young men, each of whom had lost a friend or relative in a drone strike, did not speak. For four hours, the Waziri elders debated the drone war, and then they listened to a resolution condemning the attacks, read out by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer from the Foundation for Fundamental Rights. The group voted for this unanimously.
Neil Williams, a volunteer from Reprieve, the British legal charity, sat down and chatted with Tariq after the jirga was over. Together, they traveled in a van to the Pakistani parliament for a protest rally against drone strikes led by Imran Khan, a former cricketer, and now the leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf political party.
The next day, the group returned home to Waziristan. On Monday, Tariq was killed, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.
The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariz Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.
Attending that jirga, however, were Clive Stafford Smith and Tara Murray, two US lawyers who trained at Columbia and Harvard. They tell me, unequivocally, that US law is based on the fact that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Why was Tariq, even if a terrorist suspect, not offered an opportunity to defend himself?
Let me offer important alternative argument – the US government has a record of making terrible mistakes in this covert war. On 2 September 2010, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin, the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan, in a drone strike. There was only one problem: Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, subsequently interviewed Muhammad Amin and confirmed that he was alive and well and living in Pakistan in March 2011.
The man who was killed was Zabet Amanullah, who was out campaigning in parliamentary elections – along with nine of his fellow election workers. This was confirmed by exhaustive research conducted by Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who had met with Zabet Amanullah in 2008. The error could have been avoided, Clark points out in her report, if US military intelligence officers had just been "watching election coverage on television", instead of living in its "parallel world" remote from "normal, everyday world of Afghan politics".
If Barack Obama's CIA believed in justice and judicial process, they could have attended the Islamabad jirga last Friday and met with Tariq. It was, after all, an open meeting. They could have arrested and charged Tariq with the help of the Pakistani police. If a prosecution is ever mounted over the death of Tariq, those of us who met him on several occasions last week would be happy to testify to the character of the young man that we had met. But if the CIA has evidence to the contrary, it should present it to the world.
Unless the CIA can prove that Tariq Aziz posed an imminent threat (as the White House's legal advice stipulates a targeted killing must in order for an attack to be carried out), or that he was a key planner in a war against the US or Pakistan, the killing of this 16 year old was murder, and any jury should convict the CIA accordingly.
Completely agree. It's unjustified, and worse than that, its cowardly..
Oh I'm sure the usual bullgak will be trotted out: "It was a mistake, bad intelligence, misfiring Drone etc etc" Disgraceful, and no one will be held accountable. Itll just be swept under a carpet of red-tape and apologists....
Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
A group of Pakistanis met in Islamabad late last month to discuss the impact of U.S. drone strikes in their communities. One of the attendees was a 16-year-old boy named Tariq Aziz, who had volunteered to learn photography to begin documenting drone strikes near his home. Within 72 hours of the meeting, Aziz was killed in a U.S. drone strike. His 12-year-old cousin was also killed in the Oct. 31 attack. "People were aware of the threat to them. Yet they volunteered—Tariq, in particular, because he, at his age in that remote community, was familiar with computers, was excited about the idea of being able to document the civilian casualties," says reporter Pratap Chatterjee, who met Aziz days before he was killed. As part of a larger investigation on the CIA-led U.S. covert drone war, Chatterjee and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that drone strikes in Pakistan have killed at least 392 civilians, including 175 children. "I question as to whether the CIA is really attempting to identify people before they kill them," he says. "It would have been so easy for the CIA, the ISI, to come question these kids, to have taken them aside, even put them in jail or interrogated them... But instead they chose to kill them."
"It would have been so easy for the CIA, the ISI, to come question these kids, to have taken them aside, even put them in jail or interrogated them... But instead they chose to kill them."
We couldn't get the ISI to detain Osama and they warn militants of drone strikes every time we authorize them through the 'proper channels'. This is the unfortunate consequence of war and conflict, this boy wasn't the first to die in this war and won't be the last. It's heart breaking, but there are no good options and doing 'nothing' doesn't decrease the number of youths killed. Just the reasons and the killers.
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
The article is so biased I can't tell if he was in the wrong place at thw wrong time, a bad guy supporter, a bad guy himself, in a bad guy vehicle, or what. But by the end of the article I did know that aT that point I didn't care.
I don't believe he was either innocent, or that he was travelling to his aunts house.
Even if you don't believe that the government care about innocent lives (they probably don't very much) they most definitely do care about money. Why launch hellfire missiles at boys who are merely visiting their aunts?
The US/UK do at least attempt to take the moral high ground. We train our forces well, demand that they not shoot innocent people, impose strict ROE on all of our forces, and have due process and criminal trials for those that we deem to have acted irresponsibly. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of our military strikes are intelligence led. You think they waste good money by just dropping ordanance willy nilly on anybody and everyone?
I don't think that our government's are faultless and shining beacons of light, but I trust them far more than Pakistan's government.
I don't think our soldiers and intelligence operatives are entirely competent and blameless, but I trust them far more than their Pakistani counterparts.
I don't trust The Guardian, a ridiculously left leaning rag, that recently had to print an apology, to that marvel of journalistic integrity, The Sun!
I don't trust Pratap Chatterjee, author of Halliburton's Army: How A Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized The Way America Makes War, Iraq, Inc : A Profitable Occupation and Gold, Greed, and Genocide.
I care nothing for this boys life. I trust our intelligence community more than I trust any of the above, and I presume that he deserved it. There is no smoke without fire, and in the intelligence world, that is very very often the case. You mix in bad circles, you tend to get a bad reputation.
And on the very slim chance that he didn't, well, its regrettable, but there's a war on don't you know.
It might be a column with the author expressing a personal opinion But surely Tareeq Aziz was a threat to US national security
Watch what you say chaps lest the CIA decide to take it upon themelves to silence your dissenting voice. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with their legitimate and most noble practice of remotely liquidating teenagers.
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
You can't avenge every wrongful death in a war. Wars directly result in civilian casualties and a dismissal of the rule of law. Given the authorization procedures involved in actually firing a missing from a drone its highly likely that the boy was in the vicinity of suspected militants. Given his line of chosen activities it's likely he was doing it for one of them (if the article can be believed at all). The ISI has been doctoring media coming from the area for a decade and most people experienced with casualty reports from Pakistan would take a report such as this with a grain of salt the size of a truck.
mattyrm wrote: I don't believe he was either innocent, or that he was travelling to his aunts house.
Even if you don't believe that the government care about innocent lives (they probably don't very much) they most definitely do care about money. Why launch hellfire missiles at boys who are merely visiting their aunts?
The US/UK do at least attempt to take the moral high ground. We train our forces well, demand that they not shoot innocent people, impose strict ROE on all of our forces, and have due process and criminal trials for those that we deem to have acted irresponsibly. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of our military strikes are intelligence led. You think they waste good money by just dropping ordanance willy nilly on anybody and everyone?
I don't think that our government's are faultless and shining beacons of light, but I trust them far more than Pakistan's government.
I don't think our soldiers and intelligence operatives are entirely competent and blameless, but I trust them far more than their Pakistani counterparts.
I don't trust The Guardian, a ridiculously left leaning rag, that recently had to print an apology, to that marvel of journalistic integrity, The Sun!
I don't trust Pratap Chatterjee, author of Halliburton's Army: How A Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized The Way America Makes War, Iraq, Inc : A Profitable Occupation and Gold, Greed, and Genocide.
I care nothing for this boys life. I trust our intelligence community more than I trust any of the above, and I presume that he deserved it. There is no smoke without fire, and in the intelligence world, that is very very often the case. You mix in bad circles, you tend to get a bad reputation.
And on the very slim chance that he didn't, well, its regrettable, but there's a war on don't you know.
mattyrm wrote: I don't believe he was either innocent, or that he was travelling to his aunts house.
Even if you don't believe that the government care about innocent lives (they probably don't very much) they most definitely do care about money. Why launch hellfire missiles at boys who are merely visiting their aunts?
The US/UK do at least attempt to take the moral high ground. We train our forces well, demand that they not shoot innocent people, impose strict ROE on all of our forces, and have due process and criminal trials for those that we deem to have acted irresponsibly. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of our military strikes are intelligence led. You think they waste good money by just dropping ordanance willy nilly on anybody and everyone?
I don't think that our government's are faultless and shining beacons of light, but I trust them far more than Pakistan's government.
I don't think our soldiers and intelligence operatives are entirely competent and blameless, but I trust them far more than their Pakistani counterparts.
I don't trust The Guardian, a ridiculously left leaning rag, that recently had to print an apology, to that marvel of journalistic integrity, The Sun!
I don't trust Pratap Chatterjee, author of Halliburton's Army: How A Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized The Way America Makes War, Iraq, Inc : A Profitable Occupation and Gold, Greed, and Genocide.
I care nothing for this boys life. I trust our intelligence community more than I trust any of the above, and I presume that he deserved it. There is no smoke without fire, and in the intelligence world, that is very very often the case. You mix in bad circles, you tend to get a bad reputation.
And on the very slim chance that he didn't, well, its regrettable, but there's a war on don't you know.
What Matty the Peacenik said.
It's reassuring to know that so few of you care about 'that boys life'. The lack of compassion in conservatism is as strong as ever. It's good to know that you people have a role in maintaining the world order. I can't imagine what would happen if you all had hearts as big as your bullets. Now mind you that would still be a very small heart, but the levels of compassion required for feeling bad about a slain 12 year old who wanted practice with his camera doesn't require much more then that.
mattyrm wrote: I don't believe he was either innocent, or that he was travelling to his aunts house.
Even if you don't believe that the government care about innocent lives (they probably don't very much) they most definitely do care about money. Why launch hellfire missiles at boys who are merely visiting their aunts?
The US/UK do at least attempt to take the moral high ground. We train our forces well, demand that they not shoot innocent people, impose strict ROE on all of our forces, and have due process and criminal trials for those that we deem to have acted irresponsibly. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of our military strikes are intelligence led. You think they waste good money by just dropping ordanance willy nilly on anybody and everyone?
I don't think that our government's are faultless and shining beacons of light, but I trust them far more than Pakistan's government.
I don't think our soldiers and intelligence operatives are entirely competent and blameless, but I trust them far more than their Pakistani counterparts.
I don't trust The Guardian, a ridiculously left leaning rag, that recently had to print an apology, to that marvel of journalistic integrity, The Sun!
I don't trust Pratap Chatterjee, author of Halliburton's Army: How A Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized The Way America Makes War, Iraq, Inc : A Profitable Occupation and Gold, Greed, and Genocide.
I care nothing for this boys life. I trust our intelligence community more than I trust any of the above, and I presume that he deserved it. There is no smoke without fire, and in the intelligence world, that is very very often the case. You mix in bad circles, you tend to get a bad reputation.
And on the very slim chance that he didn't, well, its regrettable, but there's a war on don't you know.
What Matty the Peacenik said.
It's reassuring to know that so few of you care about 'that boys life'. The lack of compassion in conservatism is as strong as ever. It's good to know that you people have a role in maintaining the world order. I can't imagine what would happen if you all had hearts as big as your bullets.
Actually bullets are really small so the comparison is pretty off. Now my ass is, in fact huge. That could be what you were tryig to mean.
IN the end, if you write an article that sounds like it was published by suicidebomber.com it better be entertaining, because if my funmeter is low, I'm just not gonna care.
Here's the fun part. I believe absolutely nothing in that article, other than a missile may or may not have been fired at someone. but to your point, even then, I don't care.
Military Intelligence?! Riiiight. You know what, a 12 year old kid is most likely innocent, as is his cousin. Wether or not they were travelling to an Aunts house is pretty much not important. As for the Armed forces not wasting money? Behold some truly wasteful American Spending:
- According to the GAO, the Pentagon could save $184.5 billion by 2015 if they stopped buying military parts and equipment that are never used or are obsolete if they made some simple enhancements to their purchasing processes.
- The V-22 Osprey aircraft is way over budget, way behind schedule, and falling way short of the benefits it was supposed to deliver. Cancelling it and stopping the wasteful money drain would save over $6 billion by 2015.
- The Space Tracking Surveillance System satellite system has failed to deliver on its promises, is behind schedule, and suffers significant cost overruns. More importantly, its job can be handled by much less expensive, proven technology, according to an internal Defense Department analysis.
- Canceling this program would save about $5 billion by 2015.
- The same logic applies to the Expeditionary Force Fighting Vehicle which is 14 YEARS behind schedule and is viewed in its current state as "highly unreliable." Cancel this program and save over $16 billion by 2015.
This was after just 3 minutes of Google-Fu. Sorry Matty, but the money saving angle, it's just not there.....
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Military Intelligence?! Riiiight. You know what, a 12 year old kid is most likely innocent, as is his cousin. Wether or not they were travelling to an Aunts house is pretty much not important. As for the Armed forces not wasting money? Behold some truly wasteful American Spending:
Prove it.
Prove the kid was there.
Prove the kid wasn't with someone else worth putting a drone strike to.
I think its pretty damn relevant where the vehicle was heading, who was driving it, who was in it, and what vehicles they were with when and if a hit actually occurred.
Your rant about military spending is ommitted, though interesting in revealing its bias.
Here's the fun part. I believe absolutely nothing in that article, other than a missile may or may not have been fired at someone. but to your point, even then, I don't care.
Here's the fun part. I believe absolutely nothing in that article, other than a missile may or may not have been fired at someone. but to your point, even then, I don't care.
I see you have chosen your side in the class war!
I'm Frazzled, and I'm a 96.5784878256145687192471669544448541%er!
The V-22 Osprey aircraft is way over budget, way behind schedule, and falling way short of the benefits it was supposed to deliver. Cancelling it and stopping the wasteful money drain would save over $6 billion by 2015.
Whats the date on this? Air Force and the Marine Corp are using the Osprey to full effect in Southern Afghanistan (Myself as eye witness and sent S/M on these flights)
- According to the GAO, the Pentagon could save $184.5 billion by 2015 if they stopped buying military parts and equipment that are never used or are obsolete if they made some simple enhancements to their purchasing processes.
Now that something I'm not arguing. I believe as we were redeploying home that we were selling the up armor Frag 5-7 Humvees to the ANA. I will beg to differ there are two sides on equipment/vehicles in the US and what we use in theaters. So equipment that are brought to maintain in the US is more then likely not used in Iraq/Afghanistan.
The same logic applies to the Expeditionary Force Fighting Vehicle which is 14 YEARS behind schedule and is viewed in its current state as "highly unreliable." Cancel this program and save over $16 billion by 2015.
What vehicle is this? Stryker Hybrid? New edition to the MRAP family? Never heard of this please clarify if you can
The Space Tracking Surveillance System satellite system has failed to deliver on its promises, is behind schedule, and suffers significant cost overruns. More importantly, its job can be handled by much less expensive, proven technology, according to an internal Defense Department analysis.
Not in my lane to comment on this since I'm more fimiliar with Blue Force Tracker, GPS, and RFID
Here's the fun part. I believe absolutely nothing in that article, other than a missile may or may not have been fired at someone. but to your point, even then, I don't care.
I see you have chosen your side in the class war!
I'm Frazzled, and I'm a 96.5784878256145687192471669544448541%er!
Hey im not exactly "conservative" in the American sense am i? I merely said we have due process and don't drop bombs on people for nothing.
Seriously.. we don't don't. One lone grunt hasn't the authority to drone bomb anyone and everyone he wants guys. Think about what your saying!
We have due process and intelligence led ops because we know that killing innocent people leads to further radicalisation. It's not because we care. its because its tactical sound and we know how much the hearts and minds angle matters.
seriously.. Joe public seems to think that some fat semi literate US private just gets to sit in a chair drinking coffee and bombing the gak out of everyone and everything like he's playing battlefield 3 with cooler graphics! ;-)
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Completely agree. It's unjustified, and worse than that, its cowardly..
Oh I'm sure the usual bullgak will be trotted out: "It was a mistake, bad intelligence, misfiring Drone etc etc" Disgraceful, and no one will be held accountable. Itll just be swept under a carpet of red-tape and apologists....
How sad.....
Drones don't misfire, it not that it couldn't happen, it's just that it doesn't. I doubt the CIA has the same constraints as military drones, but targets cannot be solely identified by the imaging sensors on the drone itself. Weirdly everybody looks pretty much the same in IR. The difference really is that the CIA isn't generally held accountable for the collateral damage they cause. However I doubt this person was a blameless innocent if he was personally targeted.
In other words, this likely wasn't a mistake; the kid was probably not innocent; and no one will be held feet to the fire.
I couldn't care less about this kid. His age is irrelevant, I've seen 9 year olds emplace and detonate bombs. Innocence isn't limited by age. A 15 year old "probably" fired the rocket that killed two of my friends in Najaf, in other words. He's 16, so what: feth him.
Drones don't misfire, it not that it couldn't happen, it's just that it doesn't. I doubt the CIA has the same constraints as military drones, but targets cannot be solely identified by the imaging sensors on the drone itself. Weirdly everybody looks pretty much the same in IR. The difference really is that the CIA isn't generally held accountable for the collateral damage they cause. However I doubt this person was a blameless innocent if he was personally targeted. In other words, this likely wasn't a mistake; the kid was probably not innocent; and no one will be held feet to the fire.
As far as I'm aware from previous research into the firing guidelines, the U.S. military and intelligence services do not fire on people below the observed age of 15. I could be misremembering this though. They also don't waste the missiles on lone operatives when they aren't observably guilty of fiddling with IEDs or when they aren't a target of import. Theres too much gray area in determining whether a lone individual is a militant. It's vastly more likely he was in a group that included adult members believed radicalized if this occurred at all.
I couldn't care less about this kid. His age is irrelevant, I've seen 9 year olds emplace and detonate bombs. Innocence isn't limited by age. A 15 year old "probably" fired the rocket that killed two of my friends in Najaf, in other words. He's 16, so what: feth him.
Innocence is the first and most saddening casualty of war. Once lost it can never be regained. It's pretty sad that you can't feel compassion for a 12 year olds death. That the situation has driven that feeling from you and that you were placed in a situation where you had to kill youths is pretty awful. That's no excuse for acts that wantonly take lives without due process or proper recourse though, and the CIA is hardly a transparent organization with a flawless history in that field.
Realistically though a 12 year old can not correctly operate an rpg-7.
I couldn't care less about this kid. His age is irrelevant, I've seen 9 year olds emplace and detonate bombs. Innocence isn't limited by age. A 15 year old "probably" fired the rocket that killed two of my friends in Najaf, in other words. He's 16, so what: feth him.
I agree. No matter what the age if a kid picks up a weapon and decides to play "Kill an American" Day then I will not lose sleep seeing a 12-18 yrs old kid with a weapon lying dead knowing that some soldiers probaly met their end either dead or maimed. Its not that I'm cold hearted. Its fact. I've zipped cuff a lot of youngster and turn them over to the ANA for "process" with no regret.
12 year old who wanted practice with his camera doesn't require much more then that
Its a major concern when there's a military presence in the area IE FoB, convoy route, vehicles
Realistically though a 12 year old can not correctly operate an rpg-7.
Mate, they might be pretty gak shots, but you only have to get it pretty close when its an RPG! I went to Sierra Leone and let me tell you, in gak hole countries, them lads start early!
I couldn't care less about this kid. His age is irrelevant, I've seen 9 year olds emplace and detonate bombs. Innocence isn't limited by age. A 15 year old "probably" fired the rocket that killed two of my friends in Najaf, in other words. He's 16, so what: feth him.
I agree. No matter what the age if a kid picks up a weapon and decides to play "Kill an American" Day then I will not lose sleep seeing a 12-18 yrs old kid with a weapon lying dead knowing that some soldiers probaly met their end either dead or maimed. Its not that I'm cold hearted. Its fact. I've zipped cuff a lot of youngster and turn them over to the ANA for "process" with no regret.
You should loose sleep over it. That's pretty fethed up. It's a sign of psychosis to lose emotional connection to the struggles of others or violence directed at them. Especially when it's something you are present for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Realistically though a 12 year old can not correctly operate an rpg-7.
Mate, they might be pretty gak shots, but you only have to get it pretty close when its an RPG! I went to Sierra Leone and let me tell you, in gak hole countries, them lads start early!
They're also awful soldiers who are notoriously worthless in combat.
Its a major concern when there's a military presence in the area IE FoB, convoy route, vehicles/quote]
What are you convoying through tribal Pakistan again? Last I checked it was missiles that were already in the air and not much else.
ShumaGorath wrote:
They're also awful soldiers who are notoriously worthless in combat.
Indeed they are. But its easy for internet tough guys to say that Shuma.
Needless to say I would be most amused if those three fethers were armed as it and ripped to the tits on wobbly eggs and you noticed them as you walked round a corner, would you turn back or happily stroll past them?
Plus, its a moot point. I mean, I said its unfortunate when kids get fragged and im not arguing its great like AT there, but he is essentially correct. Chronology has no bearing on your terrorism status, and if a kid of 15 is happily going to become a suicide bomber, then sadly we should frag him before he blows himself up on a crowded bus.
And lose no sleep over it. Its the poor little bastards parents fault for breeding hatred into the little scamp!
mattyrm wrote: seriously.. Joe public seems to think that some fat semi literate US private just gets to sit in a chair drinking coffee and bombing the gak out of everyone and everything like he's playing battlefield 3 with cooler graphics! ;-)
ShumaGorath wrote:
As far as I'm aware from previous research into the firing guidelines, the U.S. military and intelligence services do not fire on people below the observed age of 15. I could be misremembering this though. They also don't waste the missiles on lone operatives when they aren't observably guilty of fiddling with IEDs or when they aren't a target of import. Theres too much gray area in determining whether a lone individual is a militant. It's vastly more likely he was in a group that included adult members believed radicalized if this occurred at all.
Oh please do tell me: what are the "firing guidelines" for drone operators?
Realistically though a 12 year old can not correctly operate an rpg-7.
This is you talking out of your poop chute. It's mind numbingly simple to correctly operate an RPG. You might even manage it with strenuous coaching.
Albatross wrote:This thread really reflects well on nerds and their sense of social adjustment.
Surely nothing but off-handed comments should be expected in response to such an obviously biased article.
It honestly reads more like a Blog than professional journalism.
Mate, have you read the Guardian?!
Its not that article, its the whole damn paper!
Tomorrow's scoop "being vegan and sporting a beard, brown chords, a save the whales button and a tye dye shirt makes you more likely to have children with a genius level IQ"
Oh please do tell me: what are the "firing guidelines" for drone operators?
Extensive and tailored to the mission? I know what I've read in articles and seen in documentaries of the crews. I pretty explicitly stated that I could be misremembering and that the CIA program is a lot less transparent then what is familiar in Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe me or not, I don't honestly care. The guidelines appear to be pretty straightforward and logical. Firing missiles at random 12 year olds with cameras as they walk the desert alone is a pretty stupid thing to do from an operational standpoint and I have a hard time believing the firing would be authorized in that situation. I know you love to pretend to know what every man woman and drone in the mideast smells like, but you don't know the firing protocols of drones any better then I do.
But hey, since you do. Please do tell me: what are the "firing guidelines" for drone operators? (note that the pilots don't fire without permission and that the operation crews involve dozens of people and intelligence services).
This is you talking out of your poop chute. It's mind numbingly simple to correctly operate an RPG. You might even manage it with strenuous coaching.
Albatross wrote:This thread really reflects well on nerds and their sense of social adjustment.
Surely nothing but off-handed comments should be expected in response to such an obviously biased article.
It honestly reads more like a Blog than professional journalism.
Funny thing is, it reads quite similarly to a fair amount of the American journalism that I've read - in terms of naked appeals to emotion, especially. If this was about some poor American guy who lost his house in the credit crunch and then had to sell his car to pay for cancer medicine or something, and it was written in the same style, you'd be lapping it up like a sick puppy. Just face it, you people are the world's bad guys for now - we had our turn (and don't you all just love reminding us about it!), now it's yours. I like America and Americans, but I can't help but think that your nation suffers from a strange kind of collective naivete. Your politicians and citizens ask questions like 'why do they hate us?' Do you honestly expect your nation to swagger around the world dispensing summary justice to anyone your government sees fit, and for that to go un-protested? Of course the guy who wrote that is pissed, your government probably (let's be real) murdered that kid, and he wants to know why. If there's a reason, let's hear it. The USA is not at war with Pakistan, so why should the rest of the world just accept 'meh, collateral damage' as the reason for this kid's death? And the worst part is, so many of you seem to think it's perfectly fine that your government can kill who it wants, as long they live in a smelly country. In fact, some of you seem to find it hilarious.
If you want to stop terrorism, you guys need to sort your heads out, because it's the perception of that sort of attitude on your parts by young Muslims that leads to radicalisation. You guys have changed, man. You used to be cool. What happened?
Oh please do tell me: what are the "firing guidelines" for drone operators?
But hey, since you do. Please do tell me: what are the "firing guidelines" for drone operators? (note that the pilots don't fire without permission and that the operation crews involve dozens of people and intelligence services).
They follow the same ROE as ground forces with some additions. There is no exhaustive protocol for each mission as in the duration of the flight several missions may be serviced and you can expect the crew to remember the Conop for every mission. Shoot/ no shoot in non time sensitive and unconfirmed targets requires a specific authorization. Troops or civilians in contact loosens those restrictions to a much lower level. I won't "note" anything, specific SOPs are generally sensitive and vary widely from unit to unit and service to service. A pilot is always authorized to fire in cases of imminent danger. Watch fewer movies.
This is you talking out of your poop chute. It's mind numbingly simple to correctly operate an RPG. You might even manage it with strenuous coaching.
I'm also not a twelve year old. Are you?
I feel like this point virtually makes itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @albatross I'm going to interspace your quotes without the quote markers and alternate lines. Sorry.
If there's a reason, let's hear it.
Despite my lack of concern over this kids death I very much want to know WHY. I also assume from my own experience that there is a reason.
The USA is not at war with Pakistan, so why should the rest of the world just accept 'meh, collateral damage' as the reason for this kid's death?
You shouldn't. In the era of the Internet, global media, and near Real time reporting the citizens and leaders of other nations should hold each other accountable. Especially the US, UK, CAN, AUS, NZ. If you have to ask why you don't need to know.
And the worst part is, so many of you seem to think it's perfectly fine that your government can kill who it wants, as long they live in a smelly country.
It has to do with perspective, BTDT is a terrible attitude among those in the know. But it's also a valid point when dealing with those that have not. If you've ever had to deal with the people at large in say Iraq, your sympathy for thier plights and belief in their better nature fades quickly. It's not hard to apply that attitude to similar (perceived) nations. How many days do you think you could count and collect bodies in the streets of Baghdad before you just assumed all Iraqis were smelly, murderous donkey-caves who kidnap, torture, murder, and unceremoniously dump thier neighbors in the streets if they think they can get away with it.
In fact, some of you seem to find it hilarious.
It's not funny it's fact. jhonny hajj tries to kill you and all your friends. If you kill him first, and he turns out to be a kid, that's just too bad. I do have laughs at the expense of some of the Iraqis I came into daily contact with. Just like anyone else they do funny gak. Is it funny that they smell, sometimes. I met an Indian construction worker in Iraq who was one of the smelliest mofos I've ever been around. Probably one of the smartest too. I know for sure he spoke his native dialect ( which I think was Hindi but can't guarantee), English, French, German, Russian, Arabic, and Farsi. His boss told me he spoke 11 distinct languages, he poured concrete for a living in Iraq. Smelly brown people aren't inherently evil, just the ones trying to kill me. If I get the upper hand, it's called the last laugh for a reason.
I'm with Albatross. Child soldiers and the deaths of children in war are not something I am happy seeing joked about in OT.
God's sake, threads get locked for much less than this on other topics.
The fact that some of you repeatedly state you don't care about some kid's death is really depressing. It's possible to acknowledge that a child soldier is a danger and a threat that may need to be removed to ensure the safety of soldiers on our side, but it's a fething tragedy. It's possibly the worst tragedy of war in my mind. It's terrible that these kids are getting used in this way (and they are, I don't doubt it, especially young boys) but you lose the moral high ground if you don't care about it. And you start digging yourself a hole if you joke about it.
As to the original story, well, there's an argument to be made that drone strikes aren't a good thing because things like this are excellent points for recruiters for your enemies, regardless of the reason behind it. I'm not well up on it, I freely admit. But something's gotta be motivating these young men to go and fight hopeless battles.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: This was after just 3 minutes of Google-Fu. Sorry Matty, but the money saving angle, it's just not there.....
Actually the US canceled its Comanche attack helicopter project due to budget and limited the amount of F-22s the USAF would receive until they improved the system.
Why did they cancel the Comanche helicopter when its supposed to be better than the current Apache? Drones are so much cheaper and if they crash the pilot doesn't die nor can they be captured if they do survive the crash.
Also, now that our B-2 bombers have been modified we can fly them over the north pole to finally get at those Coca-Cola stealing polar bears, either that or bomb Russia from a different flight path. I can assure you that both options lead to bombs being dropped on something red, with stealthiness.
My bad, the Comanche was supposed to replace the Kiowa, Cobra, Iroquois, and Cayuse.
It was supposed to be a light helicopter used for recon, but was scrapped after two were made. Again, the drone was clearly the cheaper and better option for any type of recon.
I feel that I should point out that I'm not some sort of bleeding heart, and that I do in fact support the West's war on terror for the most part - or at least, I feel that Militant Islam throughout the world should be combated. It's our generation's fascism, or communism. It's a global problem with no easy solution.
The thing is, we have to realise what motivates young men or women in the middle east, south-east Asia, north Africa (sub-saharan Africa too, for that matter) and the Indian sub-continent, not to mention in our own countries, to strap on a bomb and go for a walk in a crowded place. It's stuff like the OP. You have to realise that people are going to criticise the methods that the USA and her allies use in this war, because they are deserving of criticism. It's a dirty conflict. I accept that my government occasionally has to do some pretty shady things - illegal and immoral things at times. Hey, I'm British! We pretty much wrote the book on dirty wars. Look at Northern Ireland - torture, assassinations, massacres, terrorist groups.... And that was just OUR guys!
In the end, you have to take ownership of it, accept it as part of the game and keep your dignity by accepting that sadly, sometimes unsavoury methods are necessary. Celebrating or denying makes things worse. Sticking your fingers in your ears and just going 'la, la...bias...la,la...liberal propaganda...' isn't going to win the war on terror. Dialogue and understanding (and the occasional judicious application of extreme violence) will. And it CAN be won. Once again, look at Northern Ireland. I was back there a few months ago, and it's a completely different place to when I was a kid in the 80s. I went for nights out in in pubs that a bloke like me wouldn't have left alive just 20-odd years ago. No-one ever seriously hoped that NI would be where it is now just a few decades after Bloody Sunday and Omagh. They've decommissioned the military base in my old home town, which would have been unthinkable not that long ago.
Albatross wrote:
I like America and Americans, but I can't help but think that your nation suffers from a strange kind of collective naivete. Your politicians and citizens ask questions like 'why do they hate us?'
Not all of us ask that, only the stupid ones...
As for Brits? You have cool accents and have spawned a s*it load of cool bands so I guess you get a free pass on all the skeletons in your political/military/colonial closet...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
That looks like the bus stop I used to live by in Worcester mass.
Albatross wrote:
I like America and Americans, but I can't help but think that your nation suffers from a strange kind of collective naivete. Your politicians and citizens ask questions like 'why do they hate us?'
Not all of us ask that, only the stupid ones...
As for Brits? You have cool accents and have spawned a s*it load of cool bands so I guess you get a free pass on all the skeletons in your political/military/colonial closet...
In reaction to America using unsavory methods in international affairs.
The commanche was scrapped for a number of reasons. The primary reason being that John Q. Insurgent doesn't care that the helicopter is stealthy 'cause it blows up just the same when hit by an RPG-7. The commanche was supposed to sneak up and find/fix/destroy Soviet command and control elements and mobile AA emplacements like ZSU 23-4s and Tunguskas.
Looking at the cost/benefit ration, Commanche would have replaced our entire fleet of OH-58D Kiowa helicopters with fewer, but hilariously more expensive Commanches. The Scrapping of the Commanche project led to the development of the AH-64 Apache Longbow Block III program, an upgrade (and continued maintenance support) of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior fleet, the purchase of the LUH-72 Lakota for use in disaster relief, counter-drug, and CONUS medevac, as well as continued upgrades to the UH-60A/L and CH-47 D/F fleet.
The drones in question (Reaper, Predator, Global Hawk) are air force programs that were already in development when the Commanche program was shown the door.
You should loose sleep over it. That's pretty fethed up. It's a sign of psychosis to lose emotional connection to the struggles of others or violence directed at them. Especially when it's something you are present for.
The difference between you and me is I've actually seen and participated in combat when both sides are committed to killing to each. I HOPE none of you all ever find out what taking another life in anger is. It will change you. Except in my cases they were engage to kill my men and me. I did/have not killed an innocent nor my men. Being constantly involved in combat one developes a Emotional Disconnect to the reality of the situation. It becomes normal hence what we're use to over there we bring back and not readjust since we're condition to a very high uptempo (say Hello to PTSD). As for me losing sleep over it. I know what signing the dotted line could mean. I also know I lead and mentor young troops. I set the example for them to follow. I also know what to look for when one of mine is in distress because I have been there myself. I will not condone not allow a 5/2 Stryker incident to happen on my watch (Squad in 5/2 Stryker that were doing thrill kills). I also dealt with when one of mine knows for a fact they killed someone. I make sure that individual is watched and to seek help if needed. Same situation when my troops knew someone who will not being going home with them. Don't prejudge me till you stand and walk in my boots. Which I hope you never will.
Realistically though a 12 year old can not correctly operate an rpg-7.
I seen first hand they do. I also seen them caught with a 8 volt battery and two wires leading to a command detonated IED. One thing I know and it doesn't matter the age and I'm so glad they do....is pull the pin out of the RPG protile
SGT Scrufft
Forgot about the Kiowa Warrior to that went into effect after comanche went down. Which I'm glad it did.
Sooo....You're saying the USA has 'daddy issues'?
Nope but if you need me to be I can be your big brother 8)
Frazzled wrote:Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
I agree.
I mean, ti's sad that the kid got killed, but this article is so biased it makes my brain hurt even when I'm TRYING to be sympathetic to their point of view.
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
Ever consider that the target wasn't the 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin, that they were just collateral resulting from an attack on the intended target? its unfortunate circumstance, I don't think many americans would be complaining about the loss of two teenagers if they died in an explosion targeted against OBL. In any case, a Hellfire missile costs 70k USD. The Pentagon/Langley isn't going to give weapon release authorization for two teenagers unless they have a reason to. Its not like the old days when troops would just go marauding about randomly, killing everything in their way just for gaks and giggles.
It's reassuring to know that so few of you care about 'that boys life'. The lack of compassion in conservatism is as strong as ever. It's good to know that you people have a role in maintaining the world order. I can't imagine what would happen if you all had hearts as big as your bullets. Now mind you that would still be a very small heart, but the levels of compassion required for feeling bad about a slain 12 year old who wanted practice with his camera doesn't require much more then that.
You ever hear of a circle of compassion? Basically its a sociological theory which more or less states that a humans only apply compassion within a 'circle', i.e. a group/organization/demographic that they associate themselves with. Most peoples circles don't extend to encompass the whole human race, and in fact, most circles are exclusive rather than inclusive. Tariq and his cousin are not within my circle of compassion as unfortunate as that sounds.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Military Intelligence?! Riiiight. You know what, a 12 year old kid is most likely innocent, as is his cousin. Wether or not they were travelling to an Aunts house is pretty much not important. As for the Armed forces not wasting money? Behold some truly wasteful American Spending:
- According to the GAO, the Pentagon could save $184.5 billion by 2015 if they stopped buying military parts and equipment that are never used or are obsolete if they made some simple enhancements to their purchasing processes.
- The V-22 Osprey aircraft is way over budget, way behind schedule, and falling way short of the benefits it was supposed to deliver. Cancelling it and stopping the wasteful money drain would save over $6 billion by 2015.
- The Space Tracking Surveillance System satellite system has failed to deliver on its promises, is behind schedule, and suffers significant cost overruns. More importantly, its job can be handled by much less expensive, proven technology, according to an internal Defense Department analysis.
- Canceling this program would save about $5 billion by 2015.
- The same logic applies to the Expeditionary Force Fighting Vehicle which is 14 YEARS behind schedule and is viewed in its current state as "highly unreliable." Cancel this program and save over $16 billion by 2015.
This was after just 3 minutes of Google-Fu. Sorry Matty, but the money saving angle, it's just not there.....
Awesome bro! You're so well informed that you don't even know what you're talking about!! The EFV was cancelled over a year ago. The V-22 hasn't been over-budget, behind schedule or falling short of any of its promises in over a decade, we have over 100 of the damn things... Leave the budget debates to the big boys, eh?
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) (formerly known as the Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle) is an amphibious assault vehicle that was being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps. It is launched at sea, from an amphibious assault ship beyond the horizon, able to transport a full Marine rifle squad to shore. It would maneuver cross country with an agility and mobility equal to or greater than the M1 Abrams.
The EFV was designed to replace the aging AAV-7A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV),[2] which entered service in 1972,[3] and was the Marine Corps' number one priority ground weapon system acquisition. It has three times the speed in water and about twice the armor of the AAV, as well as superior fire power. The vehicle was planned to be deployed in 2015;[4] however, on 6 January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he recommends the EFV program be canceled.[5][6] The program, which is projected to cost $15 billion, has already cost $3 billion.[7][8]
The Marines have asked for the EFV to be canceled in favor of the Assault Amphibian Vehicle Service Life Extension Program, the Marine Personnel Carrier and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.[9]
Might want to read a bit more into the EFV before one lining it with conviction
Op-Ed Contributor
For Our Allies, Death From Above
By CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH
Published: November 3, 2011
Times Topic: Predator Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
LAST Friday, I took part in an unusual meeting in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad.
The meeting had been organized so that Pashtun tribal elders who lived along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier could meet with Westerners for the first time to offer their perspectives on the shadowy drone war being waged by the Central Intelligence Agency in their region. Twenty men came to air their views; some brought their young sons along to experience this rare interaction with Americans. In all, 60 villagers made the journey.
The meeting was organized as a traditional jirga. In Pashtun culture, a jirga acts as both a parliament and a courtroom: it is the time-honored way in which Pashtuns have tried to establish rules and settle differences amicably with those who they feel have wronged them.
On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.
The next day, the jirga lasted several hours. I had a translator, but the gist of each man’s speech was clear. American drones would circle their homes all day before unleashing Hellfire missiles, often in the dark hours between midnight and dawn. Death lurked everywhere around them.
When it was my turn to speak, I mentioned the official American position: that these were precision strikes and no innocent civilian had been killed in 15 months. My comment was met with snorts of derision.
I told the elders that the only way to convince the American people of their suffering was to accumulate physical proof that civilians had been killed. Three of the men, at considerable personal risk, had collected the detritus of half a dozen missiles; they had taken 100 pictures of the carnage.
In one instance, they matched missile fragments with a photograph of a dead child, killed in August 2010 during the C.I.A.’s period of supposed infallibility. This made their grievances much more tangible.
Collecting evidence is a dangerous business. The drones are not the only enemy. The Pakistani military has sealed the area off from journalists, so the truth is hard to come by. One man investigating drone strikes that killed civilians was captured by the Taliban and held for 63 days on suspicion of spying for the United States.
At the end of the day, Tariq stepped forward. He volunteered to gather proof if it would help to protect his family from future harm. We told him to think about it some more before moving forward; if he carried a camera he might attract the hostility of the extremists.
But the militants never had the chance to harm him. On Monday, he was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.
My mistake had been to see the drone war in Waziristan in terms of abstract legal theory — as a blatantly illegal invasion of Pakistan’s sovereignty, akin to President Richard M. Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia in 1970.
But now, the issue has suddenly become very real and personal. Tariq was a good kid, and courageous. My warm hand recently touched his in friendship; yet, within three days, his would be cold in death, the rigor mortis inflicted by my government.
And Tariq’s extended family, so recently hoping to be our allies for peace, has now been ripped apart by an American missile — most likely making any effort we make at reconciliation futile.
Clive Stafford Smith, an American lawyer, is the director of Reprieve, an organization that advocates for prisoners’ rights.
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
The article is so biased I can't tell if he was in the wrong place at thw wrong time, a bad guy supporter, a bad guy himself, in a bad guy vehicle, or what. But by the end of the article I did know that aT that point I didn't care.
What are you saying here Frazzie? Bomb the brown guys, its doesn't matter because they come from terroristland.
Congratulations, you have just helped vindicate the extremists.
They follow the same ROE as ground forces with some additions. There is no exhaustive protocol for each mission as in the duration of the flight several missions may be serviced and you can expect the crew to remember the Conop for every mission. Shoot/ no shoot in non time sensitive and unconfirmed targets requires a specific authorization. Troops or civilians in contact loosens those restrictions to a much lower level. I won't "note" anything, specific SOPs are generally sensitive and vary widely from unit to unit and service to service. A pilot is always authorized to fire in cases of imminent danger. Watch fewer movies.
That sounds wonderful. Very informative/vague and interestingly it conflicts in virtually no way with anything that I've said while being utterly uninformative. Its as if you magically restarted exactly what you were quoting except you threw in jargon and acronyms to flesh out the paragraph.
As for the pilot/our troops being in danger, I'm not sure how some kid in tribal Pakistan is endangering someone immediately. Unless we're in the practice of stealth choppering all around there now the nearest engagement was probably quite a fair distance away. So now that we've cleared up that you don't actually know the specifics of drone operations (how a piloted drone in a different country can follow the same rules of engagement as you did on the ground while prosecuting a mission of observation and assassination is beyond me), how about we drop the pretense and just state that the kid was probably with other militants at the time? Unless our military is truly incompetent there is little reason to believe we would have fired a hellfire at a lone 12 year old with a camera in Pakistan.
I seen first hand they do.
I have trouble believing that a 12 year old wouldn't have trouble operating a weapon that is three quarters of his height and probably a third of his weight. One that his arms would be too short to load appropriately without placing the weapon on the ground every time and one which requires a minimum level of training so that the user doesn't kill his friends with the backblast. A child can do virtually anything that an adult can do and I don't doubt that they've fired the weapon in the past, but this strains credulity from a physical and logical standpoint.
The difference between you and me is I've actually seen and participated in combat when both sides are committed to killing to each. I HOPE none of you all ever find out what taking another life in anger is. It will change you. Except in my cases they were engage to kill my men and me. I did/have not killed an innocent nor my men. Being constantly involved in combat one developes a Emotional Disconnect to the reality of the situation. It becomes normal hence what we're use to over there we bring back and not readjust since we're condition to a very high uptempo (say Hello to PTSD). As for me losing sleep over it. I know what signing the dotted line could mean. I also know I lead and mentor young troops. I set the example for them to follow. I also know what to look for when one of mine is in distress because I have been there myself. I will not condone not allow a 5/2 Stryker incident to happen on my watch (Squad in 5/2 Stryker that were doing thrill kills). I also dealt with when one of mine knows for a fact they killed someone. I make sure that individual is watched and to seek help if needed. Same situation when my troops knew someone who will not being going home with them. Don't prejudge me till you stand and walk in my boots. Which I hope you never will.
The normality of your condition doesn't make it less meaningful or impactful. I am hopeful that upon completion of your duties you can return to normal life, whenever that is. I won't pretend to know what you've seen, but I know that anyone who has seen that kind of combat and who composes himself without emotion towards what they have seen is suffering from something. Emotional detachment isn't an uncommon coping mechanism, but it's not something you want to maintain for extended periods of time and it's not something you should carry like a badge of honor. An unfeeling soldier is a good soldier, but a lack of compassion in war leads to atrocities and the willingness of men to do them.
You ever hear of a circle of compassion? Basically its a sociological theory which more or less states that a humans only apply compassion within a 'circle', i.e. a group/organization/demographic that they associate themselves with. Most peoples circles don't extend to encompass the whole human race, and in fact, most circles are exclusive rather than inclusive. Tariq and his cousin are not within my circle of compassion as unfortunate as that sounds.
I've read the theory and it's fairly sound as a low level. The issue I have with using that theory to justify detachment is that while we are designed to function around a small tribal group the actual reality of modern society doesn't fit our evolved tendencies. Compassion is theoretically taught at a basic level by the society, and a failure to expand that circle of compassion is a failure of the society to correctly rear its people to interact within said society. While I'm understanding of the reasons for peoples detachment I am not particularly forgiving of it. It is at a basic level lazy to forsake the world outside your direct frame of reference, it's unhelpful to the world at large to carry on in a fashion devoid of compassion towards those with whome you do not have direct contact. The human races means to inflict damage upon itself are too great in this day and age for people to operate only on a micro scale while dispassionately observing the world from afar.
Orlanth wrote:Congratulations, you have just helped vindicate the extremists.
Because American foreign policy, how its implemented and American citizens support of it is the sole reason that Islam has extremists. There were none at all in the entirety of the 1425ish years that Islam has been around until recently. None whatsoever.
Orlanth wrote:Congratulations, you have just helped vindicate the extremists.
Because American foreign policy, how its implemented and American citizens support of it is the sole reason that Islam has extremists. There were none at all in the entirety of the 1425ish years that Islam has been around until recently. None whatsoever.
While you are being facetious I will like to point out that things are getting visibly worse and US policy has a lot to do with that. The attitude of kill them at will and/or support Israel doing same is winning few friends in the Middle East and elsewhere and is transparently morally bankrupt to most of the rest of the world. Even 'club dictator' states in Africa can see the right and wrong over this one.
Things are getting worse in spite of western progress. The increase of rights and humanism that marks post war western politics doesn't appear to apply to 'Ay-rabs' half the time. Jews in the Ottoman Empire gave far better rights than Palestinians do today and that was in the bad old Victorian days. The double talk of the freedom lovin, good ole' US of A is not lost on these people. Islam has its dogmas but religious dogma is not listened to without a secular catalyst.
In a lot of the middle East the US is seen as a bunch of murderous bigots with blatantly lobsided views on the value of people depending on racial identity. The point that this can describe a number of other countries in the Middle East is no excuse, not if you want to make out you are morally better than they are. After all being on a moral par with Islamic extremism isn't normally seen as a compliment.
The normality of your condition doesn't make it less meaningful or impactful. I am hopeful that upon completion of your duties you can return to normal life, whenever that is. I won't pretend to know what you've seen, but I know that anyone who has seen that kind of combat and who composes himself without emotion towards what they have seen is suffering from something. Emotional detachment isn't an uncommon coping mechanism, but it's not something you want to maintain for extended periods of time and it's not something you should carry like a badge of honor. An unfeeling soldier is a good soldier, but a lack of compassion in war leads to atrocities and the willingness of men to do them.
Badge of Honor eh? LoL Besides being physicaly hurt from a IED that flipped my MATV I knew I was going to get nailed with PTSD and TBI. I've seen the worst thing humans can do to each other and its something I rather not be open about it. I've compassion for my soldiers and I also have compassion towards the prisoners/suspect. I make sure they get proper medical care and water before they process on into a holding facility. You are just arm chairing the moral high ground and what your perception of right and wrong. What you think is not applying in this situation. The Insurgents are quite willing to use the kids against house either as suicide bombers or fighters. Its hard to tell the age of the person due to the man robes. Once a kid is killed by a unit the insurgents are hoping it work against us to make us pause before firing. Till you actually do a tour or two then you will become more like us
I have trouble believing that a 12 year old wouldn't have trouble operating a weapon that is three quarters of his height and probably a third of his weight. One that his arms would be too short to load appropriately without placing the weapon on the ground every time and one which requires a minimum level of training so that the user doesn't kill his friends with the backblast. A child can do virtually anything that an adult can do and I don't doubt that they've fired the weapon in the past, but this strains credulity from a physical and logical standpoint.
The weapon is already loaded for him. Its what we call a pray and spray so all he has to do is pop up and squeeze the trigger and run. He sure as hell not going to stand there after firing it to load it again for another shot. Either there is another loaded one nearby or he has a buddy that will hot load him. Its simple but effective. RPG is not that freaking heavy anyway. In fact
Weight
7 kg (15 lb)
Length
950 mm (37.4 in)
I see no issue with a 12 yrs old handling the weapon. I'm just grateful the little bastage keeps forgetting to pull the arming pins
Badge of Honor eh? LoL Besides being physicaly hurt from a IED that flipped my MATV I knew I was going to get nailed with PTSD and TBI. I've seen the worst thing humans can do to each other and its something I rather not be open about it. I've compassion for my soldiers and I also have compassion towards the prisoners/suspect. I make sure they get proper medical care and water before they process on into a holding facility.
That's more then you were implying earlier. Don't come off distant and dismissive of violence if you don't want people to assume bad things.
You are just arm chairing the moral high ground and what your perception of right and wrong. What you think is not applying in this situation. The Insurgents are quite willing to use the kids against house either as suicide bombers or fighters. Its hard to tell the age of the person due to the man robes. Once a kid is killed by a unit the insurgents are hoping it work against us to make us pause before firing. Till you actually do a tour or two then you will become more like us
Go back and reread my posts. I've yet to disprove of this drone strike or the conflict that brought it into being. I dislike the cavalier attitude you showed towards child killing and I still do.
The weapon is already loaded for him. Its what we call a pray and spray so all he has to do is pop up and squeeze the trigger and run. He sure as hell not going to stand there after firing it to load it again for another shot. Either there is another loaded one nearby or he has a buddy that will hot load him. Its simple but effective. RPG is not that freaking heavy anyway. In fact
Weight
7 kg (15 lb)
Length
950 mm (37.4 in)
I see no issue with a 12 yrs old handling the weapon. I'm just grateful the little bastage keeps forgetting to pull the arming pins
Read a bit farther down the wiki. The launcher is about two thirds of the weapons weight, the grenade itself is between 5 and 10 pounds and sticks a foot out the front. A 4 foot long 25 pound weapon would be difficult to utilize and aim properly for a 4.5 foot tall 80 pound child.
If you've seen it I wont tell you you haven't any longer. I'm aware of children being used as suicide bombs and for IEDs, but I've never heard of a twelve year old or younger being utilized as some sort of RPG firing solution. It seems like a bad idea. Those things don't grow on trees, why not give it to a 15 year old instead? The physical limitations of pre teens shouldn't be lost on the insurgents.
Some types of RPGs are single-use disposable units similar to the RPG-22;
Ahem
The launcher is designed such that the rocket exits the launcher without discharging an exhaust that would be dangerous to the operator
All with about 3 minutes of browsing on my military sites, and looking through my War Machine magazines.
Yes, the backblast may be quite hard, and yes aiming would also suffer, but the reason why child soldiers are used is because there is less chance of US troops hitting back.
Some types of RPGs are single-use disposable units similar to the RPG-22;
Ahem The launcher is designed such that the rocket exits the launcher without discharging an exhaust that would be dangerous to the operator
All with about 3 minutes of browsing on my military sites, and looking through my War Machine magazines.
Yes, the backblast may be quite hard, and yes aiming would also suffer, but the reason why child soldiers are used is because there is less chance of US troops hitting back.
They could be using the pope, once an RPG has been fired at them there is exceptionally little chance that US soldiers won't fire back if able. An RPG can't be used by a child in a clandestine fashion like a grenade or suicide bomb. I just don't see much purpose in giving the weapon to a child over a larger fighter. Expendibility maybe, but that's about it.
Well, you don't really use a thing like an rpg to be sneaky, do you? Its about the size of a LAW, and even on an adult, you aren't going to hide the fact you've got an rpg.
It's about tactics, not hiding it, plus of course you are probably going to have adults with the children in an extended combat situation.
Doctadeth wrote:Well, you don't really use a thing like an rpg to be sneaky, do you? Its about the size of a LAW, and even on an adult, you aren't going to hide the fact you've got an rpg.
It's about tactics, not hiding it, plus of course you are probably going to have adults with the children in an extended combat situation.
If its about tactics and not guile why does the child have the rpg?
See above - The reason child soldiers are used against the USA is because of the Geneva convention and because the hope that the troops won't open fire on the child soldier because of his AGE.
Doctadeth wrote:See above - The reason child soldiers are used against the USA is because of the Geneva convention and because the hope that the troops won't open fire on the child soldier because of his AGE.
He's fired an RPG. If they were at all capable of catching his age before doing so it's not likely to matter after several hundred rounds are sent in his direction.
ShumaGorath wrote:So now that we've cleared up that you don't actually know the specifics of drone operations (how a piloted drone in a different country can follow the same rules of engagement as you did on the ground while prosecuting a mission of observation and assassination is beyond me), how about we drop the pretense and just state that the kid was probably with other militants at the time?
Yes, let's drop the pretense. In my 8 years operating UAVs I somehow managed to pick up bits and pieces of "the specifics of drone operations" I've briefed and executed hundreds of sorties. I'm going to make the wild guess your qualifications for commenting on drone operations are somewhat...less legitimate. My experience on the ground is limited to liaisons to supported units to integrate data sharing devices. However that "limited" experience is worlds apart from your armchair commentary on countries you"ve never been to, wars you've never fought, and operations you'll never participate in. So pretenses being dropped you don't have a fething clue what you are talking about. I am glad however you decided to step on your dick and tell me I have no idea how to execute my chosen profession. It makes it tha much sweeter everytime I look at another of your posts, roll my eyes, and remember how the omnipotent Shuma put me in my place.
I'm also not in the habit of giving out specific information, like ROEs, sensitive or not. It's bad for business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doctadeth wrote:Well, you don't really use a thing like an rpg to be sneaky, do you? Its about the size of a LAW, and even on an adult, you aren't going to hide the fact you've got an rpg.
It's about tactics, not hiding it, plus of course you are probably going to have adults with the children in an extended combat situation.
Are you referring to a LAW as a specific weapon or the M72? If the latter the Law is about the size of my forearm, ok a little longer, unopened it's pretty easy to hide. I may have missed your point but I just wanted to throw out that an RPG is much larger than a LAW.
Yes, let's drop the pretense. In my 8 years operating UAVs I somehow managed to pick up bits and pieces of "the specifics of drone operations" I've briefed and executed hundreds of sorties. I'm going to make the wild guess your qualifications for commenting on drone operations are somewhat...less legitimate.
Internet searches and documentaries like I said up front. It was bullet point one.
My experience on the ground is limited to liaisons to supported units to integrate data sharing devices. However that "limited" experience is worlds apart from your armchair commentary on countries you"ve never been to, wars you've never fought, and operations you'll never participate in.
I have never been off the continent!
I am glad however you decided to step on your dick and tell me I have no idea how to execute my chosen profession. It makes it tha much sweeter everytime I look at another of your posts, roll my eyes, and remember how the omnipotent Shuma put me in my place.
I wield a scary amount of power.
I'm also not in the habit of giving out specific information, like ROEs, sensitive or not. It's bad for business.
Is that why you stated that the rules of engagement for drones are identical to the ones on the ground, despite them being vastly different in both writ and execution? The obfuscation factor? I'll admit, I thought you were inexperienced with drone operations beyond being in the theater and were talking out of your ass. I stated in my opening post on the subject that in my previous research into it, which I stated amounted to clickity clack keyboard typing and news docs, that I remembered there being a cutoff for what was considered a valid age of insurgent for targeting purposes and that is was 15. I also said I could of been misremembering it. I still could be. You would know better then I, but then you've been utterly vague in clarifying and have yet to actually disagree with anything I've said. Simply the fact that I appear to be saying it.
I mean, hey, lets see whats got you all boondoggled!
Extensive and tailored to the mission? I know what I've read in articles and seen in documentaries of the crews. I pretty explicitly stated that I could be misremembering and that the CIA program is a lot less transparent then what is familiar in Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe me or not, I don't honestly care. The guidelines appear to be pretty straightforward and logical. Firing missiles at random 12 year olds with cameras as they walk the desert alone is a pretty stupid thing to do from an operational standpoint and I have a hard time believing the firing would be authorized in that situation. I know you love to pretend to know what every man woman and drone in the mideast smells like, but you don't know the firing protocols of drones any better then I do.
Look at that, papers and docs and an implicit trust that you're not doing a really really bad job up there mopping up extremists in pakistan from the skies. Hell, I even accidentally got you and jihadin mixed up which I apoligize for. He was the smell guy. You responded with:
They follow the same ROE as ground forces with some additions. There is no exhaustive protocol for each mission as in the duration of the flight several missions may be serviced and you can expect the crew to remember the Conop for every mission. Shoot/ no shoot in non time sensitive and unconfirmed targets requires a specific authorization. Troops or civilians in contact loosens those restrictions to a much lower level. I won't "note" anything, specific SOPs are generally sensitive and vary widely from unit to unit and service to service. A pilot is always authorized to fire in cases of imminent danger. Watch fewer movies.
That ROF thing bit me, since you don't follow the same ROE. You're in a drone in the sky with no personal threat. You can not assess the situation in the same way or under the same guidelines. Those additions must be an entirely different book, especially considering the international usage of the drones and how the ROE are theater specific. The movie thing was neat. After this post I basically assumed you were a ground pounder. These assumptions get me sometimes! Other then those quibbling bits you basically copied 'Extensive and tailored to the mission' and added slang.
That sounds wonderful. Very informative/vague and interestingly it conflicts in virtually no way with anything that I've said while being utterly uninformative. Its as if you magically restarted exactly what you were quoting except you threw in jargon and acronyms to flesh out the paragraph.
As for the pilot/our troops being in danger, I'm not sure how some kid in tribal Pakistan is endangering someone immediately. Unless we're in the practice of stealth choppering all around there now the nearest engagement was probably quite a fair distance away. So now that we've cleared up that you don't actually know the specifics of drone operations (how a piloted drone in a different country can follow the same rules of engagement as you did on the ground while prosecuting a mission of observation and assassination is beyond me), how about we drop the pretense and just state that the kid was probably with other militants at the time? Unless our military is truly incompetent there is little reason to believe we would have fired a hellfire at a lone 12 year old with a camera in Pakistan.
This is back to the pakistan thing (where the ROE are very different since were not even in a conflict there officially). I claim you're as ignorant as I am and I go back to hoping that we wouldn't spend that much money and effort on killing a kid with a camera. I'm not in your shoes. I don't get to have fun with drones. I didn't pretend I did. Despite being omnipotent I can't control drones so it's up to you to enlighten us and not bait everyone along with your drone controlling secret superpowers.
Thats the history of this argument in a teacup! I narrowly avoided pie in my face by being explicit and up front about what I knew and thought I knew in the beginning. Honestly I'm having a harder time dodging the pies with the airline joke then this thing.
I see there's a bit of an issue on actual age. We're all use to carrying driver license that pretty much state your birth date. Unlike the kids in Afghanistan where they don't carry ID cards. I've seen some young ones fight us. Now back to the 12 and the RPG. The weight of the weapon is centered on the should for a even load. It is not nose heavy. Its just seems your offended that we snuffed some kids life thoughout the deployments that went into combat against us and I don't feel remorse is not your issue. Its my issue. I've no issue on wrapping my mind around the fact the insurgents use kids in combat.
Give you an idea on my perception now. If you were in a severe vehicle accident with your wife and kid and I was on scene. I will move with a purpose calmly and collectively adminster first aid to you from my medic bag. If your alive and screaming but no arterial blood showing I move on. Your wife is unconcious and breathing I move on. Your kid is unconcious, breathing, blood out his ears I will stabalize his body, I will move back to your wife to ensure she is still breathing. I move to you to ensure pressure from the seatbelt is not impeding blood flow on your lower limb. BINGO we got a arterial blood but what..your wife goes in convulsion and blood coming up. I hand you the torniquet which is Dummy proof on how to use and incubate your wife with a endo tube. Wait a minute....I smell gas....I hear someone yell fire....I grab the kid the first as stable as I could and move away from the scene. You both die from the explosion. Why the kid? Why not. Will I feel remorse you died. I'm to harden on death so no issue. Willl the kid hate me for saving his parents. I could care less. I acted appropiately given the situation I was in. There was nothing else I can do AFTER THE FACT
I see there's a bit of an issue on actual age. We're all use to carrying driver license that pretty much state your birth date. Unlike the kids in Afghanistan where they don't carry ID cards. I've seen some young ones fight us. Now back to the 12 and the RPG. The weight of the weapon is centered on the should for a even load. It is not nose heavy. Its just seems your offended that we snuffed some kids life thoughout the deployments that went into combat against us and I don't feel remorse is not your issue. Its my issue. I've no issue on wrapping my mind around the fact the insurgents use kids in combat.
Nor do I. They can hold an AK47 and they can almost use it. I'm not particularly offended that kids were killed. What offended me wasn't that in this situation a little boy with a camera was theoretically killed by what amounted to a flying niko rc car with missiles while in his home country. A country that we are theoretically not at war with. What offended me is that people were amused or didn't care.
Give you an idea on my perception now. If you were in a severe vehicle accident with your wife and kid and I was on scene. I will move with a purpose calmly and collectively adminster first aid to you from my medic bag. If your alive and screaming but no arterial blood showing I move on. Your wife is unconcious and breathing I move on. Your kid is unconcious, breathing, blood out his ears I will stabalize his body, I will move back to your wife to ensure she is still breathing. I move to you to ensure pressure from the seatbelt is not impeding blood flow on your lower limb. BINGO we got a arterial blood but what..your wife goes in convulsion and blood coming up. I hand you the torniquet which is Dummy proof on how to use and incubate your wife with a endo tube. Wait a minute....I smell gas....I hear someone yell fire....I grab the kid the first as stable as I could and move away from the scene. You both die from the explosion. Why the kid? Why not. Will I feel remorse you died. I'm to harden on death so no issue. Willl the kid hate me for saving his parents. I could care less. I acted appropiately given the situation I was in. There was nothing else I can do AFTER THE FACT
That's a good description of the benefits of emotional numbness during life or death situations. Surgeons and conflict zone medical professionals deal with that on a daily basis. You were in a unit that had to fight child soldiers? I can't fault you for defending yourself and your buddies. That's a far cry from dispassionately approving of the death of a kid because he might of known someone. That implies a type of mania that is far less productive.
That ROF thing bit me, since you don't follow the same ROE. You're in a drone in the sky with no personal threat. You can not assess the situation in the same way or under the same guidelines.
Having held both ROEs side by side the difference between air and ground ROEs are negligible. The ground ones don't have time limits and the air ones don't have show shout shove shoot. The criteria for engaging remains uniform hostile forces, acts, or intent. Again your backside is allowed to do what your mouth slit was meant for. Accessing the situation doesn't require personal threat, if I walk down the street and see a quikie mart employee being robbed with a gun I'm in no personal danger, but should I acess that there is a credible threat to his life; I am permitted by law to shoot and kill his assailant. The ROE functions in the same way to protect life and property, personal threat or even presense are not required.
The movie thing was neat. After this post I basically assumed you were a ground pounder. These assumptions get me sometimes! Other then those quibbling bits you basically copied 'Extensive and tailored to the mission' and added slang.
I pretty specifically said that there was no way you could expect a crew to remember the specifics of every mission in a sortie, so no attempt is made to do so. The same brief is presented on route recons as raids. I've spent my fair share on the ground with supported units to gain a healthy appreciation.
Having held both ROEs side by side the difference between air and ground ROEs are negligible. The ground ones don't have time limits and the air ones don't have show shout shove shoot. The criteria for engaging remains uniform hostile forces, acts, or intent. Again your backside is allowed to do what your mouth slit was meant for.
I'm having trouble actually believing that the rules of engagement for an air force drone pilot are the same as those of an army soldier. Something about one being a 30 foot prop plane piloted from hundreds of miles away while the other is a dude on foot with a gun. You could certainly be entirely correct and pie would be all over the place but until you post something other then your word I'm going to continue talking out of the backside. These back and forths are learning experiences. Shared exchanges of information. Present some information so that I can feel wrong. At least I'll have learned something. Stop just assuring me that two things that would at face value appear to be very different are in fact the same.
Accessing the situation doesn't require personal threat, if I walk down the street and see a quikie mart employee being robbed with a gun I'm in no personal danger, but should I acess that there is a credible threat to his life; I am permitted by law to shoot and kill his assailant. The ROE functions in the same way to protect life and property, personal threat or even presense are not required.
See, that's the thing though. You're not passing by his shop, you're firing a hellfire missile from a thousand feet in the air using an IR camera and something the cia told you. Unless bootcamp comes with the ability to fly now this is a pretty significant divergence from the day to day situations a soldier finds himself in. One would think the ROEs for soldiers on the ground would be almost worthless to a drone pilot as 99% of your drop would appear to be swiping a camera back and forth and waiting for a firing solution when you find something. Does an A10 have the same rules of engagement as a soldier in kandahar?
I pretty specifically said that there was no way you could expect a crew to remember the specifics of every mission in a sortie, so no attempt is made to do so. The same brief is presented on route recons as raids. I've spent my fair share on the ground with supported units to gain a healthy appreciation.
Actually you said that I can expect you to remember. I thought it was a professional pride thing, but a typo is just as good. It didn't factor into much regardless.
I'm a ground pounder. One thing we like is the constant air support. Mainly a A10 overhead. Neatest thing is seeing the A10 on a gun run and we have front roll seat and somewhat grinning that some insurgents are going to have a bad day in a few sec's. Also a constant fact that there are drones overhead keeping an eye out above in its area of operation. I've gone out to inspect drone strikes (not in Pakistan) and most the time its a few insurgents setting up an IED on the road. Other times they were setting rockets to launch or mortars. Just another set of eye's
Just to give an idea what it takes to confirm a predator strike. No sound but pay close attention to what they're doing
Da Boss wrote:you lose the moral high ground if you don't care about it. And you start digging yourself a hole if you joke about it.
the digging is improving your position, and erecting overhead cover.
Awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Sad it didn't have a fusion bomb warhead? Sad Pakistan's intelligence agency is playing the terrorism game and killing NATO troops? Sad this article is so biased its not funny?
Nope, sad that a 16 year old boy and his 12 year old cousin were killed...Biased reporting or not, that's just sad. Someone should be held accountable, but it won't be whoever pulled the trigger. Drones being piloted by Drones, ironic no?
The article is so biased I can't tell if he was in the wrong place at thw wrong time, a bad guy supporter, a bad guy himself, in a bad guy vehicle, or what. But by the end of the article I did know that aT that point I didn't care.
What are you saying here Frazzie? Bomb the brown guys, its doesn't matter because they come from terroristland.
Congratulations, you have just helped vindicate the extremists.
I thought what I said was pretty clear*. The article is so biased that by the end of it I didn't care. Mind you at the beginning I didn't care a whole lot either.
Everything else is supposition on your part, mayhaps subconscious issues coming out.
*There is no proof that Frazzled has publicly advocated drone strikes against OccupiedPeoria, none whatsoever. You can't prove a thing.
Jihadin wrote:I'm a ground pounder. One thing we like is the constant air support. Mainly a A10 overhead. Neatest thing is seeing the A10 on a gun run and we have front roll seat and somewhat grinning that some insurgents are going to have a bad day in a few sec's. Also a constant fact that there are drones overhead keeping an eye out above in its area of operation. I've gone out to inspect drone strikes (not in Pakistan) and most the time its a few insurgents setting up an IED on the road. Other times they were setting rockets to launch or mortars. Just another set of eye's
Matty loves American air support, you could ask him, but I think that he'll probably just come in when he feels like it and say so.
LOL I love air support myelf. Majority time after the strike its collect weapons and search bodies for intell. I hate searching bodies cause you have to get on top of him and roll a bit to one side lifting the body a bit so the spotter can yell "GRENADE!" or "clear".......I did the body coaster ride once and don't really much care for it. So its great when their in pieces.
Matty loves American air support, you could ask him, but I think that he'll probably just come in when he feels like it and say so.
Damn straight!
Personally saved my life more than once. When your getting engaged from 10 different compounds and they drop bombs on 6 inside 60 seconds you cant help but be impressed.
Ill never say a bad word about American air, and anyone who does hasn't been in the gak over in Ganner's before. British hippies love to point out that they have killed some of our soldiers, they gleefully slag the American Air Force off and point out that their bombs miss more than anyone else's, well that's because they drop ten times the amount of ordanance than anyone else. Some get fin locked and land in the wrong place, some miss the target altogether due to a collection of feth up's, but not many and not often.
I actually served with a couple of other RM alongside some guys from the Royal Anglican Regiment when we were checking out Kajaki on a recce before 40 Commando deployed. It was about one week after this incident. And it was 5 weeks before their 6 month deployment was over.
23 August 2007 friendly fire incident
In a reported friendly fire incident on 23 August 2007, one of a pair United States Air Force F-15E fighter aircraft called in to support a patrol of the 1st Battalion in Afghanistan dropped a bomb on the same patrol, killing three men, and severely injured two others. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who called in the strike had not been issued a noise-cancelling headset, and in the confusion and stress of the battle incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit of the co-ordinates mistakenly repeated by the pilot, and the bomb landed on the British position 1,000 metres away from the enemy. The coroner at the soldiers' inquest stated that the incident was due to "flawed application of procedures" rather than individual errors or "recklessness"
At the lads funeral's their comrades flew an American flag alongside the British one, and every single bloke I spoke to from their company said that they had had their tails saved by American air too many times to count.
Not a single one of them had anything bad to say about American air support, and I doubt an actual combat veteran ever will.
Remeber what happened to the Patricia's?
CAS is nice but when I'm getting ready to call a fire mission I generally specifically request an F15 callsign over 16s, or an Army Air Weapons Team. AWTs are a lot more flexible and if they dont have enough boom you can almost always get arty. Artillery is what makes me happy.
@AustonT: Should you be going into that level of detail? (military secrets)
Reading these posts, you could be forgiven for thinking that the United States military has never mistakenly killed a civilian before. Judging by some of the reactions. Please don't take this as being anti-american, I'm quite the opposite.
IMO people have missed the point of this article. It's not judging if a 16 year old is/isn't a terrorist, it's the fact that civilians are being killed in the first place. Iraq and Afghanistan have been a complete and shambolic tragedy. Billions wasted, hundreds of thousands dead, and for what? I couldn't answer that question, not for a million dollars/pounds.
I was watching the HBO production of John Adams the other day, and there is a scene where he slaps down Alexander hamilton, when Hamilton talks about empire-building...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@AustonT: Should you be going into that level of detail? (military secrets)
Reading these posts, you could be forgiven for thinking that the United States military has never mistakenly killed a civilian before. Judging by some of the reactions. Please don't take this as being anti-american, I'm quite the opposite.
IMO people have missed the point of this article. It's not judging if a 16 year old is/isn't a terrorist, it's the fact that civilians are being killed in the first place. Iraq and Afghanistan have been a complete and shambolic tragedy. Billions wasted, hundreds of thousands dead, and for what? I couldn't answer that question, not for a million dollars/pounds.
I was watching the HBO production of John Adams the other day, and there is a scene where he slaps down Alexander hamilton, when Hamilton talks about empire-building...
I would LOVE to see doumentation showing "hundreds of thousands dead", especially if you can directly attribute even 25% of those deaths to US or allied forces. I suspect you cannot.
What you and others seem to be missing is:
1. A lot fewer civilians are being killed than in past wars due to improved weapons precision and ROE. (look up stats from WW2 for example)
2. The US (and allies ) work very hard to limit actual innocent civilian deaths.
3. The bad guys like to claim innocent civilians killed, even when none are.
4. A segment of the media (same segment which helped create and perpetuate memes such as 'baby killers' during Vietnam) actively or passively work to destroy US and allied military reputation and credibility.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@AustonT: Should you be going into that level of detail? (military secrets)
I've had the dubious pleasure of creating briefings both classified and unclassified on this and other similar subjects. This doesnt really even approach the line between the two. I'm not infallible in knowing the difference but the litmus test tends to be whats easily accesable through open sources. The general capabilities of F15/6 in CAS roles and AWTs are pretty well documented. Had I referenced the specific incident I was thinking of when I startyed typing, even in general terms, that might be a little too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post: stupid quote boxes...im not fixing this one
@CptJake, I love your logic. So, everything is ok because 'only' thousands of civilians are being killed instead of hundreds of thousands. Hm... Reminds me of those books that revise the battle of the somme, which said that it wasn't a bloody battle because the original casulty list of 65,000 was wrong. It was really 60,000!
It's hard to tell who the bad guys are in this world, If I'm being honest. Thousands of people are murdered every year by the chinese state, but the west does a shed load of trade with them.
People think I'm anti-american, but I despise the actions of my own government as equally, these past 30 years. This is not a personal attack on any member of this site.
When is a bad guy in Iraq, not a bad guy. When it's 1986 and he's buying weapons from you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@CptJake, I love your logic. So, everything is ok because 'only' thousands of civilians are being killed instead of hundreds of thousands. Hm... Reminds me of those books that revise the battle of the somme, which said that it wasn't a bloody battle because the original casulty list of 65,000 was wrong. It was really 60,000! It's hard to tell who the bad guys are in this world, If I'm being honest. Thousands of people are murdered every year by the chinese state, but the west does a shed load of trade with them. People think I'm anti-american, but I despise the actions of my own government as equally, these past 30 years. This is not a personal attack on any member of this site. When is a bad guy in Iraq, not a bad guy. When it's 1986 and he's buying weapons from you.
Now your putting words in my mouth. I never claimed it was 'ok'. I claimed, and can back up, that US and allies work very hard to avoid innocent civilian casualties.
YOU on the other hand claimed 'hundreds of thousands dead'. Back that up. Oh wait, now you are dropping it by a couple orders of magnitude to 'thousands'. I strongly suspect you can't back up those numbers if you limit the deaths you count to deaths atributable to the US and our allies and not those caused by sectarian violence or acts of terrorism. You see, the bad guys target civilians. Again, we do not.
Despising the actions of your gov't does not indicate you are not anti-american by the way. You can clearly be anti-american and despise your gov't.
Bringing in the Chinese... nice deflection which has zero relevance to the topic at hand.
@cptjake. No way am I suggesting that your in favour of seeing thousands of civilians die. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
I'm not anti-american. There is a difference between criticising a government( which I don't like) and the individuals, which I do like. Why else would I go on holiday there? Now, logically, you could say the government is an extension of the people's will, so by criticising the government you are attacking the people! But's let's not go there
The reason I mentioned the chinese is that there is double standards at play with the west's foreign policy.
Finally, here is some evidence to back up what I was saying earlier. from abc news
The whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks today released a trove of classified reports that it said documented at least 109,000 deaths in the Iraq war, more than the United States previously has acknowledged, as well as what it described as cases of torture and other abuses by Iraqi and coalition forces.
"The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces)," WikiLeaks said in a statement regarding the documents' release. "The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60 percent) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six-year period."
The new documents covered 2004 through 2009, WikiLeaks said, with the exception of May 2004 and March 2009.
A review of the documents by Iraq Body Count, an advocacy group that long has monitored civilian casualties in the war, found 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths, according to WikiLeaks -- a detail first reported in The Guardian newspaper, one of a handful of international news organizations that got an advance look at the documents.
ABCNEWS.com
The U.S. military long has maintained that it does not keep an official death tally, but earlier this month following a Freedom of Information Act request, the Pentagon said some 77,000 Iraqis had been killed from 2004 to mid-2008 -- a shorter period than that covered by WikiLeaks.
Besides the different time periods, the New York Times, which also saw the WikiLeaks documents early, noted that "some deaths are reported more than once, and some reports have inconsistent casualty figures."
Al Jazeera, which also got an advance look at the documents, reported a total of 285,000 war casualties on its Arabic-language website, a number that included both dead and wounded. It also reported that the documents said 681 Iraqi civilians were killed at U.S. checkpoints, 180,000 Iraqis were arrested during the war and 15,000 Iraqis were buried without being identified.
The massive leak of 391,832 documents at 5 p.m. ET today, which WikiLeaks billed as "the largest classified military leak in history," followed WikiLeaks' similar but smaller release on the war in Afghanistan.
As Stephen Colbert once asked a group of soldiers while doing shows for them overseas; "So what are the new rules of engagement, do you have to wait until the gun is halfway or all the way up your ass before you can fire?"
Do_I_Not_Like_That, do you realize that most insurgents use civilians as shields and hide among them? Its hard to determine what's a civilian and what isn't when a crowd of civilians look like a group of insurgents.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@cptjake. No way am I suggesting that your in favour of seeing thousands of civilians die. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
I'm not anti-american. There is a difference between criticising a government( which I don't like) and the individuals, which I do like. Why else would I go on holiday there? Now, logically, you could say the government is an extension of the people's will, so by criticising the government you are attacking the people! But's let's not go there
The reason I mentioned the chinese is that there is double standards at play with the west's foreign policy.
Finally, here is some evidence to back up what I was saying earlier. from abc news
The whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks today released a trove of classified reports that it said documented at least 109,000 deaths in the Iraq war, more than the United States previously has acknowledged, as well as what it described as cases of torture and other abuses by Iraqi and coalition forces.
"The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces)," WikiLeaks said in a statement regarding the documents' release. "The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60 percent) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six-year period."
The new documents covered 2004 through 2009, WikiLeaks said, with the exception of May 2004 and March 2009.
A review of the documents by Iraq Body Count, an advocacy group that long has monitored civilian casualties in the war, found 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths, according to WikiLeaks -- a detail first reported in The Guardian newspaper, one of a handful of international news organizations that got an advance look at the documents.
ABCNEWS.com
The U.S. military long has maintained that it does not keep an official death tally, but earlier this month following a Freedom of Information Act request, the Pentagon said some 77,000 Iraqis had been killed from 2004 to mid-2008 -- a shorter period than that covered by WikiLeaks.
Besides the different time periods, the New York Times, which also saw the WikiLeaks documents early, noted that "some deaths are reported more than once, and some reports have inconsistent casualty figures."
Al Jazeera, which also got an advance look at the documents, reported a total of 285,000 war casualties on its Arabic-language website, a number that included both dead and wounded. It also reported that the documents said 681 Iraqi civilians were killed at U.S. checkpoints, 180,000 Iraqis were arrested during the war and 15,000 Iraqis were buried without being identified.
The massive leak of 391,832 documents at 5 p.m. ET today, which WikiLeaks billed as "the largest classified military leak in history," followed WikiLeaks' similar but smaller release on the war in Afghanistan.
Great, now do the real work and answer the question: How many of those are attributable to US or coalition forces? Be prepared to discuss incidents where civilians happened to be in structures that had anti-coalition forces firing from them, where I will make the case that those deaths go against the bad guy total vice the US/Coalition forces.
Again, the bottom line is we do NOT target civilians, the bad guys do. We actually have let bad guys get away and/or taken casualties in an attempt to avoid civilian deaths, as opposed to blowing a car bomb up in a crowded market. We also investigate civilian deaths and prosecute guys who break the ROE or worse, as opposed to filming the civilian deaths and using them as recruiting videos for our cause like the bad guys do.
Which is why the opening post article is such crap and folks who claim they can't figure out the difference between US/Coalition forces and wonderful humans like Zarqawi show a lack of basic understanding and credibility on the topic.
Stanford's Ronald Hilton came up with an average of 70-125 deaths per day under Saddam.
I sat here with my Calcumalator and Came up with a few tenths under 60 per day since the US invasion. By the coldest of mathematical reckoning the Iraqi people are better off now than they were. I would hazard to guess that per day average has gone down even more since 2009. So if its cause and effect the cause is the invasion, the effect is approximatly 3650 less people die a year in Iraq.
AustonT wrote:Stanford's Ronald Hilton came up with an average of 70-125 deaths per day under Saddam. I sat here with my Calcumalator and Came up with a few tenths under 60 per day since the US invasion. By the coldest of mathematical reckoning the Iraqi people are better off now than they were. I would hazard to guess that per day average has gone down even more since 2009. So if its cause and effect the cause is the invasion, the effect is approximatly 3650 less people die a year in Iraq.
So you're going with the low end of the casualty estimates then? 153K lines up slightly under the IBCs estimate to date.
Actually, the IBC website says 103,000 -112,000 documented civilian deaths. The Wiki Leaks may add up to 15000 deaths. This brings the total death toll to just over 150k - which includes civilians, host nation military, insurgents, and coalition forces. 80% of those were civilians.
Since civilian deaths is the issue at hand, and 153k is the TOTAL number of deaths estimated by IBC in the conflict to date, his math is at least plausible although I haven't actually crunched the numbers.
EDIT: Actually, AustonT's numbers don't specify civilian versus total. However, I am fairly confident that Stanford's numbers probably refer to civilians.
Your answer is so short, we should establish weather or not its a joke before we continue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Scruffy
I used the 109k in the post Do_ referenced over 5 years. I didnt realize it included 3k someodd coalition loses, less those its 58/day. the posted quote says 31/day but it also used 6 years. If i shorten it to 5 it's 36/day. if i lengthen my number to 6 years total death per day less coalition forces goes to 48/day.
Id have to go back to the report but I think Stanford's report included military deaths in the war with Iran, I thought it seemed fair.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Actually, the IBC website says 103,000 -112,000 documented civilian deaths. The Wiki Leaks may add up to 15000 deaths. This brings the total death toll to just over 150k - which includes civilians, host nation military, insurgents, and coalition forces. 80% of those were civilians.
Since civilian deaths is the issue at hand, and 153k is the TOTAL number of deaths estimated by IBC in the conflict to date, his math is at least plausible although I haven't actually crunched the numbers.
EDIT: Actually, AustonT's numbers don't specify civilian versus total. However, I am fairly confident that Stanford's numbers probably refer to civilians.
You're correct, the source I read from (wackypedia) stated that the number reported was 178 thousand, so presumably they're adding in the 15 thousand from the wikileaks document.
The page sites this as it's source, but I can't tell if the contibuter is doing his own math or if the page changed since the last edit. This page mirrors your 153 thousand. In this case Austins numbers are actually just about on the money though if the lancett study is even close to correct the number could skew quite a bit higher when you account for deaths that caused by the run on effects of the occupation (water shortages, loss of electricity, sanitation, etc). No one likes the lancett study though.
Great, now do the real work and answer the question: How many of those are attributable to US or coalition forces?
THEY ALL DIED AFTER THE INVASION! I think it's known as cause and effect.
So, you have trouble differentiating between some crap bag AQI setting off a car bomb in a crowded market in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible and coalition forces calling in a strike on a building from which they are taking fire, but which may have had non-combatants present as well as the belligerents they were targeting (belligerents purposely using a building occupied by non-combatants...). You cannot see the difference between a force that deliberately targets civilians and a force that goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths.
Frankly, your unwillingness to make that differentiation says a lot, and not much of what it says is good.
The controversial bombing in the province of Kunduz on September 4 was ordered by a German colonel to take out two stolen fuel trucks.
In the aftermath of the strike, German authorities claimed there had been no civilian casualties.
But NATO sources say the death toll reached 142.
Now both top German general Wolfgang Schneiderhan and secretary of state – equivalent to a deputy minister – Peter Wichert are out of their jobs having taken responsibility for the disastrous bombing.
For days after the attack, then-Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung claimed there had been no civilian casualties.
But he must have known better, according to documentation he would have had access to have had at the time. Was the truth hidden?
Top secret videos and an up-till-now secret army report seemingly prove that Jung’s Ministry from the outset had clear knowledge of civilian casualties as well as the unclear intelligence before the strike.
The previously-unseen military police report was consciously held back from the relevant public prosecutor’s office, according to BILD information.
A 42-document report, a copy of which BILD has exclusive access to, records at which point information about the civilian victims was sent from the German regional command in Masar-i-Sharif to Bundeswehr Operations Command in Potsdam, Germany.
Even though the information gives a completely different picture to what was released, Minister Jung repeatedly claimed in interviews and press conferences that “mainly Taliban terrorists” were hit.
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
In an interview with ‘BILD am SONNTAG’ on September 6 – two days after the air strike –then-Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung said: “According to all the information I currently have, only Taliban terrorists were killed in the operation carried out by US aircraft.”
BUT – on the evening of September 4, just a few hours after the air strike, German regional command in Masar-i-Sharif sent clear reports that there had been civilian casualties, a fact stated by the military police in document 32 of the report.
According to the report, there were “six patients between ten and 20 years old” at the hospital in Kunduz – so even children had been affected by the bombing.
Regional Command also reported two teenage-sized bodies in the hospital.
A German chief physician at Regional Command wrote in a report submitted to Potsdam on the evening of September 4, first of a child and later of two boys “about 14 years old” with “open breakage” and “shrapnel” wounds.
And in answer to its NATO allies, German Regional Command said on the evening of September 4 that before the air strike, Taliban fighters had stormed a mosque and “forced several villagers to help use tractors to salvage petrol. 14 of them have since disappeared.”
In simple terms – not everyone with the tankers were Taliban – and Jung’s commanders knew it!
BAD INTELLIGENCE
On September 8, Jung showed his support in the German Bundestag parliament for Colonel Georg Klein, who had ordered the air strike: “He had clear intelligence indicating that those involved were exclusively enemies of the state.”
HOWEVER – at the time, Jung’s Ministry was well aware that Colonel Klein had made his decision based on unclear video footage and statements made by an Afghan informant who had not been near the fuel lorries.
After reviewing the video footage, NATO released a statement claiming that it would have been impossible for Colonel Klein “to confirm the informant’s information based on the footage.”
The report of NATO’s ‘Initial Action Team’ (document 33 of the Military Police report) was presented to Jung’s Ministry.
Even larger doubts exist over the credibility of the informant’s statements, which lead to Colonel Klein’s decision to go ahead with the bombing.
It was reported by Brigade General Jörg Vollmer, commander of the German troops in Afghanistan and Klein’s boss, on the evening of September 4 to the Bundeswehr Operations Command (document 22) that the informant couldn’t see the fuel lorries.
His report said: “The contact was near the incident without line-of-sight, but on the phone with the INS.”
Jung’s Ministry also had statements from Colonel Klein, showing his decision was based on speculation: “A sand bank in a river is such an unusual place, that the people there must have been insurgents” – Klein’s explanation from September 4.
In plain language – at the time of his speech in front of the Bundestag, Jung must have known that the Colonel had no concrete evidence.
The military police report evaluates the events from September 4 as critical, and states that the clarification of the unanswered questions and the possible failures are of particular importance, “as the evaluation of the information to hand at the PRT (German military police base) in Kunduz made it clear that the air strike would and did lead to many dead and injured, and that the events prior to and after the incident was not adequately handled.”
