And oh boy, did they leak some drone stuff the Feds would rather everybody not know.


http://www.wired.com/2015/10/a-second-sn...drone-docs

Bumpity

Good stuff, but it will take a while to give each document the close scrutiny it needs.

Cliff notes here:

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/10/15/...stigation/

Quote:Over a five-month period, U.S. forces used drones and other aircraft to kill 155 people in northeastern Afghanistan. They achieved 19 jackpots. Along the way, they killed at least 136 other people, all of whom were classified as EKIA, or enemies killed in action.

Note the “%” column. It is the number of jackpots (JPs) divided by the number of operations. A 70 percent success rate. But it ignores well over a hundred other people killed along the way.

This means that almost 9 out of 10 people killed in these strikes were not the intended targets.

But, remember, the Obama Administration repeatedly told us these things were "surgically precise."

(10-16-2015 09:24 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Cliff notes here:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/10/15/...stigation/

Quote:This means that almost 9 out of 10 people killed in these strikes were not the intended targets.

But, remember, the Obama Administration repeatedly told us these things were "surgically precise."

That is surgically precise under the circumstances. The alternative is boots on the ground to get killed and maimed.

(10-16-2015 10:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:24 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Cliff notes here:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/10/15/...stigation/

Quote:This means that almost 9 out of 10 people killed in these strikes were not the intended targets.

But, remember, the Obama Administration repeatedly told us these things were "surgically precise."

That is surgically precise under the circumstances. The alternative is boots on the ground to get killed and maimed.

No, "full scale ground war" and "indiscriminately bomb and kill large numbers of civilians, increasing anti-American sentiment and perpetuating the need (or at least the justification) for further involvement" are not the only two choices when it comes to foreign policy. You clearly didn't even skim the information, as it shows that drones are far more likely to kill civilians than manned aircraft and ground raids.

Quote:According to the documents, raids performed on the ground during Haymaker were far less lethal than airstrikes and led to the capture of scores of individuals. Research by Larry Lewis, formerly a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, supports that conclusion. Lewis spent years studying U.S. operations in Afghanistan, including raids, airstrikes, and jackpots, all with an eye to understanding why civilian casualties happen and how to better prevent them. His contract work for the U.S. military, much of it classified, included a focus on civilian casualties and informed tactical directives issued by the top generals guiding the war. During his years of research, what Lewis uncovered in his examination of U.S. airstrikes, particularly those delivered by machines thought to be the most precise in the Pentagon’s arsenal, was dramatic. He found that drone strikes in Afghanistan were 10 times more likely to kill civilians than conventional aircraft.

Quote:“We assume that they’re surgical but they’re not,” Lewis said in an interview. “Certainly in Afghanistan, in the time frame I looked at, the rate of civilian casualties was significantly higher for unmanned vehicles than it was for manned aircraft airstrikes. And that was a lot higher than raids.”

(10-16-2015 08:56 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  No, "full scale ground war" and "indiscriminately bomb and kill large numbers of civilians, increasing anti-American sentiment and perpetuating the need (or at least the justification) for further involvement" are not the only two choices when it comes to foreign policy. You clearly didn't even skim the information, as it shows that drones are far more likely to kill civilians than manned aircraft and ground raids.

You obviously failed to comprehend the point I was making. No point in continuing the discussion.