US DRONE ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS

That is a bald faced lie that you even document in your narrative.  It is a lie on 2 fronts.  First that it has not been done "until now".  It is not being done now.  Second, that it has not been done, as you clearly allude to with your statements about Nazis (and the japanesse rape of nanking).

It would possibly help your cause (but I doubt it as the premise is critically flawed) to at least acknowlege what you are writing instead of stating a fact and then denying it.

The drones do not "target civilians".  But like you opened your blog with, they are unfortunate victims in any war, this one being no different.  Ultimately the responsibility for civilian deaths has to go to the agressor, as if they had not started the war, the civilians would not be in the line of fire.  And in this case, the agressors are Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  The WTC did not fall on their own.

Just because the aiming of weapons has become better does not mean civilians are only killed when targeted.  When you drop a bomg, shoot a gun, or target a missle, there is no guarantee that only combatants are going to be in the blast zone.  Smart bombs does not mean they can tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, only that they can hit where they are aimed.  And bad intelligence will mean some are aimed where there are civilians, because when all is said and done, field intelligence still lags behind the destructiveness of modern warfare.

Nice PR piece of Al Qaeda, but basically just lies and fiction.

As an American I would whole heartedly be against attacking an enemy with bombs with civilians around them. I would also have to argue that I would hate to believe that my Gov't would do such a thing, especially the current Administration who slammed the previous Administration for starting the wars in the first place and supposely killing innocent civilians in the process.

However, I can't deny that many of those who lead and run this country are human and tend to think they know what is best and are sometimes willing to ignore our values and do such stupid things as kill civilians bases on rumors.

Obama...that war criminal!!!!

I have to disagree with that as well. Everything possible is being done by the US military to prevent civilian casualties in Afghanistan and it had been also done in Iraq. But then the conflicts you mentioned weren't asymetrical as the war against terror but very conventional with different armies fighting against each other. And the war against terrorism was not unleashed by President Bush, if I remeber correctly the US was the country that had been attacked first.

In WW2 you couldn't just wage war on the regime and not the people, but unlike the Germans, the US and British didn't attack cities with the outset goal to kill as many civilians as possible. Even though, the US was sort of po'ed that Berlin wouldn't burn as well because adjoined appartment houses in a street would always have 2 walls to protect against the spread of fire. If one house was hit with a firebomb and started to burn the fire wouldn't spread and create a firestorm.

As an American, I wish that were universally true.  However the war was not all that noble in respect to the allies either.  The worst bombing in Germany was not on a strictly military target, but on a propaganda target.  As the russian armies advanced, Britian and American wanted to show them that they had best listen to the Western Allies about who was going to conqueor what.  As the refugees streamed west in advance of the Russian Army, Britian and America firebombed Dresden.  The city was filled mostly with refugees, and not much in the way of a military arsenal.  Over 100,000 people died in that raid.  By far worse than the cities of hiroshima or Nagasaki individually.

The purpose was to show the Russians who was boss, not to damage the German war machine.  As I indicated above, targeting civilians is not something new, but it has been minimized by the western nations since WWII.  not initiated or increased by them.

The circumstances 70 years ago were different than from today. The war was about conquering land and the people in it or respectively fighting off an invader. Hitler wanted to conquer an empire, and so did Japan.

Dreseden is of course a tragedy - it happened 13th-15th February 1945.. But as you pointed out and many have argued before, it is difficult to isolate the bombing from its context of the war and the general atmosphere. It isn't very enlightening to judge Dresden just by the number of people that had died.  Also, almost every bigger city had been razed to the ground (except Berlin which wouldn't burn - the us military rebuilt several streets somewhere in the US to find out how best to destroy the city, or so an urban legend goes here). About 10% of the bombs didn't explode, and a recent estimate for Hamburg said that there are still about 15 000 unexploded ordenance in the ground. They are looking for them with the help of aerial pictures provided by the US airforce and royal airforce. Those bombs are still a real threat.

I think that the main difference between the last world war and the war on terror in regards to civilians is that civilians back then were accepted but unintended casualties of war whereas today in the war against terror civilians are the intended targetes of the terrorists but it is impossible for the allies to fight back with the same means. The situation today seems to be alot more complex and difficult.

Germany has a drama that falls right into that category as a matter of fact. You would probably think that it is ridiculous that such a thing would even create so much public and political debate because the US is used to fight in wars where people die.

In September a german colonel ordered an airstrike which killed over 130 civilians in Kundus, Afghanistan. The Taleban had hijacked 2 fueltrucks meant for the ISAF troops and were in the process of syphoning off the fuel, and many locals were also there to get some. Colonel Klein asked the US AF for an airstrike, and now he is severely under critique because so many civilians died. He didn't want the Taleban to have the fuel because they would only have done bad things with it. We are not used to the fact that our soldiers kill at all, we only want to build schools and help the people.. sort of naive. Now for the first  time the administration calls Afghanistan a armed conflict aka war.. very hot potatoe here. LINK to the story

 

As an American, I just wanna know where Bahu's getting his info. For example:

"In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed and in certain instances not a single militant was on the spot."---Bahu

"In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks..."---Bahu

And you know these casualty numbers and circumstances how, exactly? Name your source, please.

The lure of drones is exactly that they DON'T necessarily kill large numbers of people; that they can be targeted directly, to kill a specific person or persons, with less "collateral damage".

And here, I thought Obama was gonna bring a halt to all this slaughter of innocent Islamic nutbags.

How's that Hope 'n' Change thing goin' fer ya, Bahu?

Playing whack a mole with these rediculous drones is taking forever.  The Afghan war is going on 10 years now with the Taliban unbroken and Al Qaeda still festering. We should probably go back in time and do what we've done in the past to actually WIN wars.

Hi Nitro-

Well, I can honestly say that for the first time I agree one hundred percent with one of your posts!

I am really surprised that a mild and a very sedate critique of the use of drones has led to such comments. The journalists including Western ones have spoken of civilian casualities in drone attacks. In fact I have stated quite clearly that drone attacks are essential,I have only asked for mlore oversight from both the political and military leadership. Now AmericaN AND nato INTELLIGENCE relies on informants and I feel that the informants have their own personal and in some instances tribal agend in place.

I do not think that Prisidnt Obama is a War Criminal at all. So do not attibute opinions to me that I have not stated. I really feel that Obama has the right intentions but he needs to have more oversight on the use of drones and the choice of targfets.

Unmanned programmed air stikes seem to be by their very nature a new kind of warfare.

Dressden and other such acts took palce in the context of declared wars. US uses drone attacks on Pakistani targets. Agreed that Pakistan is a failed state and the government is only one in name and form, but even then use of drone on targets in Pakistan seem to go against the International Law.

Two points here:

--Bahu

Well, yes and no; missle attacks, obviously unmanned, on distant targets have been going on for many years.

Just ask Quadaffi; Reagan bitch-slapped him by punching a destroyer-launched cruise missle through his palace at the height of his bad behavior. Subsequently, he disappeared for about 20 years, only coming back around after 9/11, offering to help us out, because he was worried that we'd be coming after him.

Much of Gulf War One was fought in this satellite-guided manner.

---Bahu

Who gives a fig about international law? There is no international law.

And well, okay...one more thing:

You claim that these drone attacks are killing 20-30 innocent civilians EVERY DAY. Every day? Really?

So, every single time these things are used, they kill 20-30 other innocent people? I'm pretty sure you made that up, like so much else of what you write.

After all, every time some poor guy gets caught in a crossfire, and suffers a minor flesh wound inflicted by a bullet fired by one of those barbaric American troops, it's everywhere in the Press, and we're supposed to flagellate ourselves and wail and gnash our teeth in agonized grief.

But 20-30 people killed EVERY DAY?

Well, I can see how you believe this; you're also one of those who believes millions of people were killed in the opening days of the Iraq War.......

 At least you're consistent in your disregard of, and hatred for, America.

I had said that in the context of each drone attack. Not every day as you put. I am afraid that USA has to abide by International Law even if the US can get away with a great deal because of its status as the sole "hyper power".

Wring on that. The War on Afghanistan and its home grown opium satiated wahabi terrorista is spot on and  Iraq was not needed. In fact US would have been better off without the entanglem,ent in Iraq. My point is that the drone attacks may prove counterproductive and hence my concern.

I do not believe that you have a clue what your talking about. There are not "Terminator" like robots flying around Afghanistan, while a human might not be in the cockpit, they are on the proverbial trigger.

I know how you hate to muddy the waters with facts, but you might take a moment and read this article that Wired published the other month.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_end_air_war/

 

 

Thanks for the article, that was a interesting read.

Hah, like that would work. The US doesn't actually fight against Afghanistan because that part was over when war was declared on the Taleban regime and won. ISAF and the US troops are there with the explicit permission of the afghani government (for what that's worth) and most of what the troops do would be done by the police in any other western country. Fighting terrorists and destroying or arresting them for further questioning, securing villages, gathering information about planned attacks, training policemen etc. is usually not the domain of the military  - as a matter of fact, using the military for domestic police work is expressly forbidden in the US.

 

"I had said that in the context of each drone attack. Not every day as you put."---Bahu (reply #12)

                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks have become the single most important factor in fuelling anti US propaganda."---Bahu (orignial post)

 "In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed..."---Bahu (original post)

 

Yeah, sorry...don't know how I ever came up with that.

Just having a little fun at the expense of the left, not you per se Bahu. We heard that very same sentiment for the last eight years about the previous administration, now that this one does the same and more that rhetoric is awful quiet, but the hypocrisy it deafening. I actually support Obama on this, much more than he gave the last administration.

I have no sympathy for the people of Dresden in 1945. If they (and the other Germans) had stopped this war before 1939 (or better yet, before 1933) nothing would have happened. But they chose to follow Hitler and those that didn't remained quiet out of fear.

They paid for that sin. And those who were afraid learned that the danger did not go away because they remained quiet.

In an ideal world you can follow a mass murderer and he will fail and nothing will happen to either you or your intended victims. But in the real world the best result we can get is that the bad guys will suffer more than the good guys and there is a price to be paid for evil.

So you are right. The bombing of Dresden has to be seen in the context of the war.

I wonder how many lives were saved because the war ended a few days sooner because of the terror created by the bombing of Dresden. I wonder how many Chinese lives were saved because the nuclear bombs taught the Japanese that they too can become victims of their war.

And I wonder whether those who condemn the bombing of Dresden or Horoshima and Nagasaki have anything to say about the lives of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, and Chinese that would have ended if the allies had not decided to let the Germans and Japanese feel the terror of war instead.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile acts of violence where innocent people are the victims with some greater good that was achieved because of it. The airraids killed tens of thousands inncoents as well, woman, children and elderly - I can't bring myself to not feel sorrow for the huge loss of life. This isn't me judging the allied bombings in general though or me negating the need for violence in certain situations.  I am just a very mellow person, I guess that's why

They often show documentaries about WW2 in german public television - recently they had one about the bombing of Hamburg 1943 and the firestorm it caused. They also revealed in that docu that the Nazi commanders had specialized bunkers and were well protected from the raids. The truly guilty ones weren't killed - unless you support the thesis of Daniel Goldhagen about "Hitlers willing executioners". I have to admit that I haven't read this book just about it, most recently a critical analysis/review from Ian Kershaw.

---utemia

I agree with Leauki. The people of Germany chose their side. They made their bed, and many died in it.

Targeting innocents is never right, but the taking of the war to the civilians, when it became apparent that his policies and rhetoric were no defense against allied bombers, it went a long way toward turing the populace against Hitler.

Here, the capitulation in Stalingrad in February 1943 is generally referred to as the turningpoint and not the airraids per se. The ongoing war increasingly demoralized the population, and especially after Stalingrad it became clear that Germany wasn't victorious at all eventhough the regime steadfastly declared otherwise.

PS: If you want to read more about this from someone really qualified, I recommend Ian Kershaw. He is a renowned british historian on this issue. It is diifficult to keep up with all the research and theories about WW2 and the 3rd Reich because there are incredibly many published books, essays and also different schools of thought.
Ian Kershaw wrote an overview of different historic interpretations about different aspects called "The Nazi dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation".

The bombings of Dresden didn't happen in isolation. They did not happen just, they happened in place of other violence.

The Germans had a choice. They had to choose between war and peace. They chose war.

The allies had a choice too. They had to choose between killing Germans and allowing Germans to kill everybody else. They chose to kill the Germans.

In war, if the defending side is stronger, the attacker decides IF people will be killed and the defender decides WHO will be killed. Basic morality tells us that the answer to the IF is "no". But what is the answer to WHO?

I find it weird that some people know that the answer is "not the people of Dresden".

And the destruction of Dresden began in 1938 when the first synagogue was burned down by the Nazis. At that point the city was condemned and it was only a question of time when the destruction started by the people would return to the people.

As for the idea that any Germans were in any way innocent, have a look at this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Soltau_Holocaust-Mahnmal.jpg

In 1945, when the war was already lost, a train transporting Jews to a death camp had an accident near the town of Soltau. The Jews escaped and were hunted down and murdered not only by Nazis but by the people of the town.

All they had to do was sit at home and pretend that they didn't know. That was all. Nothing would have happened to them.

Instead they decided to be more Nazi than the Nazis and they hunted down and murdered the escaped Jews.

The people of Soltau were not more evil than other Germans.

And they were not innocent.

 

That is too simplistic. My father didn't chose, had he potentially had deserved to die in an airraid? (He was born 1940).

It is a very complex problem to analyze. Who really chose the war - was it the people, or maybe it was big industry and their interests, was Hitler really in power or rather a weak dictator (thesis of Hans Mommsen) - there are many different interpretations of this very question.

 

I wasn't just referring to Dresden or war when I said that I found it difficult. I also said difficult and didn't use the word wrong or mistake or unjustified.

Personally, I don't comprehend how regular normal everyday people were able to be so cruel and turn into hateful murderers. This radicalization that caused so much brutality and in the end almost total selfdestruction is hard to understand.

 

My father was born in Berlin in 1939.

Your father and mine were children. But their parents made the world in which they would grow up.

 

I am sure there are many interpretations that conveniently allow us to pretend that we were innocent and that evil capitalists (i.e. big industry and their interests) were to blame. But they all rely on the principle that owners of big industry are quite naturally more evil than others. And that is something one just has to believe in.

The irony is of course that Hitler also blamed big industry (the evil Jewish capitalists in Wall Street) for all the bad things in the world. So we have a theory about why Germany was poor in the 1920s and a theory for why Germany attacked the world in the 1930s. And it turns out we cannot blame ourselves for either of it. Big industry did it all.

 

---utemia

Now to me, this idea is historical revisionism at its most insidious and heinous.

Adolf Hitler was worshipped virtually as a god; he somehow convinced Germany that his views were the correct ones, and an overwhelmingly vast majority swallowed it whole, and asked for more. The rest didn't matter, because they were either rounded up and killed, or frightened into silence by the prospect of being rounded up and killed. Hitler ruled utterly, by personality, whim and decree, and he was not a weak dictator.

Big industry liked Hitler because his growing war machine brought them money, contracts and jobs, and even Jews and other undesirables, used as slaves to work in their plants, for nothing. Krupp was a great one for this, I understand.

Interperet it any way you wish; blame whoever you wish......but the fact is, Adolf Hitler ruled Germany--and ultimately the conquered Reich--for 12 years, and it took a 6-year world war, the first 3 years of which were more than touch-and-go for the Free World, to dislodge him.

That's the bottom line, and that doesn't sound like a weak dictator to me.