Pakistan school Attack

[Lost soul]

TKF said:

grandcherokee said:

Pak are all total scum

Lost soul said:

more proof that Pakistan is becoming a st stain on humanity

It's heart warming that Haymarket allows this freedom of speech. Of course it doesn't reflect badly on them in any way whatsoever.

You are right it is more than you get in Pakistan

[Rogue86]

Guam said:

In a civilised society, that has to be a questionable decision and is likely (as others have indicated for years) counter productive imho.

Purely out of interest, what would you suggest as an alternative course of action? Not trying to lead you anywhere with this or looking for an argument, just for the sake of discussion.

Taking into account that even with our current policy of minimising civilian deaths/injury, our targets hide themselves among civilians anyway. How do you think the situation would progress if we started a zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting pilots who were found guilty of harming innocents? How do you think this would affect our objectives and the state of fighting in those regions in the short/long term?

[Mermaid]

One thing is certain - the image of Pakistan & Muslims could be lot lot better, requires major commitment & PR to distance itself from the Taliban ideology.

[Burwood]

Sharif is quoted as saying (today) '"We...have resolved to continue the war against terrorism till the last terrorist is eliminated,"

[TwigtheWonderkid]

KareemK said:

No if's, no buts, it's murder. And thats how they'll take it as would you if it were your child taken out by a drone.

Any other viewpoint is wrong

I thought murder was intentional killing.

[simo1863]

Rogue86 said:

Purely out of interest, what would you suggest as an alternative course of action? Not trying to lead you anywhere with this or looking for an argument, just for the sake of discussion.

Taking into account that even with our current policy of minimising civilian deaths/injury, our targets hide themselves among civilians anyway. How do you think the situation would progress if we started a zero-tolerance policy of prosecuting pilots who were found guilty of harming innocents? How do you think this would affect our objectives and the state of fighting in those regions in the short/long term?

I think Guam is advocating a policy of not taking the shot unless there is no risk of civilian casualties.

I'm not sure where I stand on that though and it is going a bit off topic, if a strike kills some civilians but takes out two Taliban leaders then theoretically how many does that save?

[Lost soul]

Burwood said:

Sharif is quoted as saying (today) '"We...have resolved to continue the war against terrorism till the last terrorist is eliminated,"

The trouble is as we know most Pakistani governments have been big on talk about the subject of terrorists but behind the scenes they have been supporting them

[wolves_wanderer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

KareemK said:

No if's, no buts, it's murder. And thats how they'll take it as would you if it were your child taken out by a drone.

Any other viewpoint is wrong

I thought murder was intentional killing.

If you drop a bomb on a terrorist at [say] a wedding then all the consequent killings are intentional in my opinion.

[KareemK]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

KareemK said:

No if's, no buts, it's murder. And thats how they'll take it as would you if it were your child taken out by a drone.

Any other viewpoint is wrong

I thought murder was intentional killing.

If I throw a hand grenade at your wife who's carrying your child in her arms and kill both I'd call that murder of both (even if I only wanted to kill your wife) as I know what the outcome will be but continue anyway.

[KareemK]

simo1863 said:

I'm not sure where I stand on that though and it is going a bit off topic, if a strike kills some civilians but takes out two Taliban leaders then theoretically how many does that save?

So murdering children is acceptable under certain circumstances? For the "greater good" and all that eh?

You just made the Talibans point for them.

[Mermaid]

Lost soul said:

Burwood said:

Sharif is quoted as saying (today) '"We...have resolved to continue the war against terrorism till the last terrorist is eliminated,"

The trouble is as we know most Pakistani governments have been big on talk about the subject of terrorists but behind the scenes they have been supporting them

If this does not galvanise them into action, nothing will. Things move slowly out there and in a way that is alien to us.

[Rogue86]

Guam said:

I understand your request
Simple where there is foresight as to Civilian casualties you dont fire, the drone can follow the target, or remain on station until the risk of civilian casualties is significantly lower.

I am not saying drones should not be used they are clearly effective, it just seems to me that some revision of the ROE might be beneficial to us as much as the poor mites caught in the crossfire.

Its not as if they knowingly strolled into a battlefield is it?

IF we are better than those scum (and I believe we are), then surely the view that we wait, has to be preferable than take them now whatever the cost?

To the best of my knowledge that is our current policy; we are extremely cautious when it comes to the deaths of innocents and I've never known it be anything other than a last resort. The way we strike targets has changed significantly over the last few years in particular and our switch from high-ordnance munitions to more accurate weapons has been key in this. I remember the first time we got footage back from Op Ellamy (Libya) and I was stood open-mouthed watching a brimstone eliminate a tank while there were people running past it, sustaining no injury whatsoever. Anyone who has seen a Paveway detonate - particularly in person - will know that it does so with extreme prejudice. This advancement in our strike capability has come about in a very short time-scale.

Unfortunately, insurgents surrounding themselves with human-shields isn't circumstantial for when they think a drone is likely to be present, its a way of life for many. There is rarely a good time to strike. Couple that with how elusive and difficult to track they are and it makes those potential strike opportunities even more crucial.

[PRTVR]

Guam said:

simo1863 said:

I think Guam is advocating a policy of not taking the shot unless there is no risk of civilian casualties.

I'm not sure where I stand on that though and it is going a bit off topic, if a strike kills some civilians but takes out two Taliban leaders then theoretically how many does that save?

Indeed I am, I am however a pragmatist, I accept that there may still be some unintended death, you cant escape the risk once you dispatch heavy munitions. However its down to what level of risk we should countenance and it seems to me that there have been incidents where that cost has been too high imho.

But could not that lead to the bad guys having an entourage of women and children with them, wherever they go, in the certain knowledge that they are safe.

[BrassMan]

simo1863 said:

Rogue86 said:

I think Guam is advocating a policy of not taking the shot unless there is no risk of civilian casualties.

I'm not sure where I stand on that though and it is going a bit off topic, if a strike kills some civilians but takes out two Taliban leaders then theoretically how many does that save?

How many will it recruit?
Pakistan has bigger internal problems than we [irl=http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/Pakistan/database/casualties.htm]realise,[/url] if this source is accurate, in much the same way that Iran isn't too keen on ISIS and China has Uighur sepratists (and others).

[simo1863]

KareemK said:

So murdering children is acceptable under certain circumstances? For the "greater good" and all that eh?

You just made the Talibans point for them.

I'm posing the question.

If you could kill one child to stop an attack that costs the lives of hundreds of your own citizens would you not?

I know it comes down to whose version of the greater good is greater and whilst US foreign policy leaves much to be desired I'd trust them a little more than the Taliban.

[KareemK]

simo1863 said:

If you could kill one child to stop an attack that costs the lives of hundreds of your own citizens would you not?

One? What about 2?

Or 3 even?

Maybe 4 kiddies if it stops 40 people being killed.

Where do you stop? Whats your own personal number above which it becomes morally repugnent but below which it's acceptable? Do we possess armaments capable of calculating the ratio in-flight so-to-speak?

169 and counting from 2004 to 2011 apparently.

Anyway, this is going circular now so I'll bow out of this particular point.

[simo1863]

BrassMan said:

How many will it recruit?
Pakistan has bigger internal problems than we [irl=http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/Pakistan/database/casualties.htm]realise,[/url] if this source is accurate, in much the same way that Iran isn't too keen on ISIS and China has Uighur sepratists (and others).

the Taliban will use what they can to recruit. If it isn't 'kill the evil American pigdogs bombing us from their drones' it would be 'kill the evil American pigdogs, they've not bombed us for a while so must be weak and now is the time to strike'.

If I had a relative killed by a drone because a high ranking Taliban leader was hiding behind them then I know who I would blame.

[simo1863]

KareemK said:

One? What about 2?

Or 3 even?

Maybe 4 kiddies if it stops 40 people being killed.

Where do you stop? Whats your own personal number above which it becomes morally repugnent but below which it's acceptable? Do we possess armaments capable of calculating the ratio in-flight so-to-speak?

169 and counting from 2004 to 2011 apparently.

Anyway, this is going circular now so I'll bow out of this particular point.

I agree and am just glad I don't have to make that decision.

[Lost soul]

Guam said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I presume the possibility of an airstrike was mooted when they finally tracked him down, yet they chose to go with SF instead of a Drone strike, a much riskier proposition. One is minded to wonder why that was?

To be sure they got him they had to Identify him

[BrassMan]

simo1863 said:

BrassMan said:

the Taliban will use what they can to recruit. If it isn't 'kill the evil American pigdogs bombing us from their drones' it would be 'kill the evil American pigdogs, they've not bombed us for a while so must be weak and now is the time to strike'.

If I had a relative killed by a drone because a high ranking Taliban leader was hiding behind them then I know who I would blame.

Remember, though, that you are a westerner and view the Talib as durka-durka nutcases (beards and hats are a fearsome combination) and the Yanks as civilised. It's a fair bet that if you were local, you would not view the world this way. If you were young and angry, it could easily drive/lead you to extremism.