Former Drone Pilots Denounce 'Morally Outrageous' Program

Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.

Is it really war?? Has there been a formal declaration of war from congress? If it is war, why aren't we assembling an army of a couple hundred thousand to invade those lands and take control like they do in... a war?

Why is it when we kill them we are soldiers and the dead civilians we cause, are "casualties of war", or "collateral damage" and when their guys come here and kill us they are terrorists and the dead civilians are innocents?

The drone campaign and the cruise missile campaign before that has very much swelled the ranks of our enemies and continues to do so for the reason that it is morally corrupt. We are not at war. Seriously we need to get out and stay out.
 
And how would you know if you had terrorists living in your neighborhood?

The neighbors of the California terrorists were suspicious because they had middle eastern neighbors who were working in the garage late at night and having an unusual number of packages being delivered in the weeks leading up to the attack. So there is a starting point.
 
The neighbors of the California terrorists were suspicious because they had middle eastern neighbors who were working in the garage late at night and having an unusual number of packages being delivered in the weeks leading up to the attack. So there is a starting point.
But that isn't exactly suspicious until after the fact. Someone could have been working on their hobby car, or building an airplane.
 
You said sexual slavery is illegal on US bases. Story in the NYT of sexual slavery being condoned by the US on US bases. Go on attack the credibility of the NYTs I don't like them either.:lol:

This is in Afghanistan on a joint base. This isn't in America on a US base. Once again it has nothing to do with our morals but the Afghan lack of morals.

These Marines in the article aren't there to police Afghan laws. That's the job of the local Afghan govt. If their own people are breaking their laws, sure they can be reported. In this case, the ones in charge (police) of enforcing their laws are the ones commiting the crime. So where does that leave the Marines? It's out of their hands. By calling them immoral because they aren't doing something about it is wrong. They have strict guidelines on their mission there. Reporting violations of local law or even Sharia law was never one of my directives.

You could look at this as a failure in command responsibility but in reality it's a failure in cultural responsibility on the part of the Afghans. If they can't follow their own laws, it's not our responsibility to make them just or as moral as us. Definitely doesn't detract on our morals.
 
But that isn't exactly suspicious until after the fact. Someone could have been working on their hobby car, or building an airplane.

Except in this case, the neighbor was suspicious before the attack.

At Farook’s mother’s house, however, neighbor Aaron Elswick recalled another neighbor noticing “quite a few packages” arriving “within a short amount of time.”

“They were actually doing a lot of work out in the garage,” he said, adding that the neighbor “was kind of suspicious” and “wanted to report it” but “didn’t want to profile” Farook and his family.
 
I don't see drones as being anything special in warfare. Ever since we started to throw rocks at each other it has always been about who can get the greater stand off distance.

Longbows, rifles, naval guns, airplanes , or whatever.
 
It certainly does. If it didn't detract from our morality our soldiers exposed to it wouldn't be bothered by it.

??? They were bothered by it. That's why they reported it to higher. That makes them moral. Those above them have their hands tied and could do little about it. That doesn't make them any less moral. They have to operate under the policies / guidelines given.

Are you saying that some other military at another base in Astan such as the Polish or German bases would have handled it differently? I assure you, they'll run into the same problems trying to impose military law or trying enforce local law on a few corrupt, immoral police chiefs.

The heart of the problem is the local govt not enforcing their own laws. To them, this is like adultry here. Something common and rarely enforced.
 
That doesn't really mean anything. The neighbor could be someone prone to suspicion of others.

Well if the neighbor had reported him/her to the FBI the attack would have probably never happened. So that means something. I'm saying this because it is now apparent this guy had been planning attacks as far back as 2012 and had a pretty big trail of evidence if anyone bothered to look.
 
Well if the neighbor had reported him/her to the FBI the attack would have probably never happened.
Maybe, but how many false reports would there have been on people receiving packages and working in their garage?

It's easy to see after the fact. People often report that a certain person seemed a bit "off" before they go and shoot up some place.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but how many false reports would there have been on people receiving packages and working in their garage?

They have to sift through reports to find out what level of follow up is necessary. I imagine they would have looked into it, the FBI is actively looking for ISIS members or inspired terrorists in the US and has made 56 ISIS related arrests in the USA this year alone. Not to mention they should be on high alert after the Paris attacks.

A quick look into the person's name and travel history should have been all it took to warrant further investigation by the FBI and unravel his/her plans.
 
Last edited:
I don't see drones as being anything special in warfare. Ever since we started to throw rocks at each other it has always been about who can get the greater stand off distance.

Longbows, rifles, naval guns, airplanes , or whatever.

None of these had artificial intelligence, nor the pre-programmed autonomy that modern technology like some drones have. Robotic warfare is getting more and more complicated, and what passes today for situational awareness, may become a moral quandry tomorrow.
 
Is it really war?? Has there been a formal declaration of war from congress? If it is war, why aren't we assembling an army of a couple hundred thousand to invade those lands and take control like they do in... a war?

Why is it when we kill them we are soldiers and the dead civilians we cause, are "casualties of war", or "collateral damage" and when their guys come here and kill us they are terrorists and the dead civilians are innocents?

The drone campaign and the cruise missile campaign before that has very much swelled the ranks of our enemies and continues to do so for the reason that it is morally corrupt. We are not at war. Seriously we need to get out and stay out.

You're talking to a Vietnam Vet, so I'm part of the generation that just doesn't care. If the government can't be bothered to differentiate, why should I? I could be just as dead in a police action, an "armed incident" or gunned down in a club by a Islamic radical who also doesn't differentiate, or care about the legal niceties.
I am 100% for Pax Americana, because it beats the heck out of every other version of "Pax". If that requires dropping napalm (which I did) or nukes (which I wish I had) on people who threaten or annoy me and my friends and family, then I am perfectly OK with that. At the end of the day, my family and friends are still safe, and I can have a beer in peace. Don't get me wrong. Not having to incinerate people is nice, but it's never more than a temporary state in human history.
 
This is so very true...then again MWR did a fine job in Bootyfest, sorry I meant Budapest when the troops were on R and R...

We fight with the most PC military in the world and despite that still successful most of the time. I spent the last couple of days in Belgium and particularly Waterloo and Bastogne visiting battle fields and also our two American Cemeteries located there...war has changed and because of it conflicts never find resolution...its really that simple...

We actually had a local businessman (pimp) approach the commander at Bondsteel and offer his prostitution services for our soldiers. Basically he wanted to build an Olympic size pool and bring in prostitutes for our pleasure. Of course our commander would never approve of such a thing so it never happened. I remember some (females) commenting how shocked they were of such a proposal. That's reality in most parts of the world though. These women are dirt poor and selling themselves to US servicemen is better than the alternative. Heck, you want shocked, just read about the "comfort girls" in WWII.

War is a horrible thing but we're far more civilized today than at anytime in the past. Every life is precious but I don't look at these drone killings as very high on my immorality meter. Just the sad effect of war...or "authorized use of force."
 
Last edited:
They have to sift through reports to find out what level of follow up is necessary. I imagine they would have looked into it, the FBI is actively looking for ISIS members or inspired terrorists in the US and has made 56 ISIS related arrests in the USA this year alone. Not to mention they should be on high alert after the Paris attacks.

A quick look into the person's name and travel history should have been all it took to warrant further investigation by the FBI and unravel his/her plans.
Maybe, but imagine the staffing the FBI would need if they had to investigate every instance of people receiving packages and working in their garage.

The same goes for people who seem to act strange, or not within the norm as someone else sees it. It's not a crime to act strange.
 
You're talking to a Vietnam Vet, so I'm part of the generation that just doesn't care. If the government can't be bothered to differentiate, why should I? I could be just as dead in a police action, an "armed incident" or gunned down in a club by a Islamic radical who also doesn't differentiate, or care about the legal niceties.
I am 100% for Pax Americana, because it beats the heck out of every other version of "Pax". If that requires dropping napalm (which I did) or nukes (which I wish I had) on people who threaten or annoy me and my friends and family, then I am perfectly OK with that. At the end of the day, my family and friends are still safe, and I can have a beer in peace. Don't get me wrong. Not having to incinerate people is nice, but it's never more than a temporary state in human history.

What a load of internet bravado! You would nuke tens of thousands of people because they annoy you or you family. What a tough guy. Who keeps your family safe from you? :rolleyes2: If you actually believe the crap you wrote and I doubt you truly do, you are morally bankrupt.

This concept of "Pax" anybody has never worked throughout history and guess what? It doesn't work today either. :no:
 
Maybe, but imagine the staffing the FBI would need if they had to investigate every instance of people receiving packages and working in their garage.

If you filled out this form and said your muslim neighbors had been acting strange, working in the garage at odd hours and suddenly receiving a bunch of packages I bet it would get some attention.

https://tips.fbi.gov/
 
If you filled out this form and said your muslim neighbors had been acting strange, working in the garage at odd hours and suddenly receiving a bunch of packages I bet it would get some attention.

https://tips.fbi.gov/
What is "acting strange"? I could report a number of my neighbors for receiving packages and working in their garages.

And I'm not sure what Muslim has to do with it except in this one case. This is Colorado which has seen a number of mass shootings; Columbine, Aurora, Colorado Springs. None were by Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Fair? What's that mean? Equitable? Just? Fair just ain't a factor, and any leader who condsidered "fairness" in prosecuting war would be incompetent, a dolt to be replaced ASAP. . .

What is defensible is using your advantages to see to your interests - it's not "fair" that we have air dominance, but I'm not voting to give the opposition a few squadrons to even the odds. . .

You talking moral high-ground, then? That we shouldn't squawk if they pull off a hit here at home? Because that would be "fair", since we did the same already? I'm good on the moral comparison, as-is; we don't kill civilians by intention, we don't sell children into sexual slavery, haven't burned a prisoner alive for web viewing, or sawed off the heads of living victims. We don't even run dope to help finance operations. . .
Apparently you weren't around when Reagan was president. I suspect the same occurred during the Bush administration too.
 
You're talking to a Vietnam Vet, so I'm part of the generation that just doesn't care. If the government can't be bothered to differentiate, why should I? I could be just as dead in a police action, an "armed incident" or gunned down in a club by a Islamic radical who also doesn't differentiate, or care about the legal niceties.
I am 100% for Pax Americana, because it beats the heck out of every other version of "Pax". If that requires dropping napalm (which I did) or nukes (which I wish I had) on people who threaten or annoy me and my friends and family, then I am perfectly OK with that. At the end of the day, my family and friends are still safe, and I can have a beer in peace. Don't get me wrong. Not having to incinerate people is nice, but it's never more than a temporary state in human history.

Who do you wish you had dropped nukes on?
 
And I'm not sure what Muslim has to do with it except in this one case.

Its because the government is specifically aware of the threat of ISIS related attacks here in the US. Due to the paris thing, the boston bombers, the 50+ people arrested here this year alone for either plotting terrorist attacks in the united states or planning to travel to syria and join isis.
 
Its because the government is specifically aware of the threat of ISIS related attacks here in the US. Due to the paris thing, the boston bombers, the 50+ people arrested here this year alone for either plotting terrorist attacks in the united states or planning to travel to syria and join isis.
The threats from other crazy people far outnumber the threats from ISIS.
 
The threats from other crazy people far outnumber the threats from ISIS.

We are lucky to have a minimal number of ISIS related attacks here so far. If we are serious about confronting the islamic terrorist problem we will keep it that way. They took down a russian airliner killed 230 people and killed about 135 people in france just this year alone. There was an attack in Mali which killed a bunch of people including several americans. Not to mention the islamic terrorists killed 3,000 in NYC less than 15 years ago.

As we can see by the number of ISIS arrests here this year, we are somewhat successful in stopping them. I would argue that islamic terrorist attacks are more easily prevented than a lone nutjob who snaps and decides to shoot up a joint, because the attacks are planned out over a longer period of time, and are accompanied by tangible warning signs, like travel to certain countries and online communications and history. Our counterterrorist guys have a pretty good chance at stopping these organized attacks. On the flipside, an organized attack plotted by multiple individuals with backing from overseas and IED's could be very devastating. These attacks happen with alarming regularity in some parts of the world.
 
Last edited:
We are lucky to have a minimal number of ISIS related attacks here so far. If we are serious about confronting the islamic terrorist problem we will keep it that way. They took down a russian airliner killed 230 people and killed about 135 people in france just this year alone. There was an attack in Mali which killed a bunch of people including several americans. Not to mention the islamic terrorists killed 3,000 in NYC less than 15 years ago.

As we can see by the number of ISIS arrests here this year, we are somewhat successful in stopping them. I would argue that islamic terrorist attacks are more easily prevented than a lone nutjob who snaps and decides to shoot up a joint, because the attacks are planned out over a longer period of time, and are accompanied by tangible warning signs, like travel to certain countries and online communications and history
I would not say that the number of arrests of any kind says much of anything without something to compare it to. I would agree that an attack which requires planning by any kind of group is easier to detect than one by a lone nutjob. But if you are the victim, you are just as dead in either circumstance.
 
As simple as it would be to cause mass casualties pretty much anywhere in the US, can we really say that the reason it hasn't happened more often is that we have been doing a good job of preventing it? Or have the bad guys just not been all that interested in trying harder? Or maybe suicide attackers are getting harder to find?
 
The threats from other crazy people far outnumber the threats from ISIS.

Well if you take the MSMs scorecard of only 44% of domestic terror actions being done by Muslims it seems you are right. Until you figure in that Muslims are 1% of the US population.
 
I would not say that the number of arrests of any kind says much of anything without something to compare it to. .

If you look at terrorist attacks, the problem appears to be getting much worse. Compare the attacks so far this year in 2015 with the total over 4 years from 2010-2014. Assuming wikipedia is right. I counted about 100 attacks total in 2010-2014 and 100 attacks so far in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
 
As simple as it would be to cause mass casualties pretty much anywhere in the US, can we really say that the reason it hasn't happened more often is that we have been doing a good job of preventing it? Or have the bad guys just not been all that interested in trying harder? Or maybe suicide attackers are getting harder to find?
I suspect that it's the MSM that has been whooping the American public into a frenzy.
 
Well if you take the MSMs scorecard of only 44% of domestic terror actions being done by Muslims it seems you are right. Until you figure in that Muslims are 1% of the US population.
I have no idea what MSM is and question the 44% statistic.
 
However, think about this. Suppose tomorrow the Russians bombed a house in your town. They say terrorists involved in attacking their country were hiding out there and this is probably the case, however shrapnel from the blast also killed an innocent child who happened to be walking by at the time.

They wouldn't have to bomb the US town to get the terrorist. They could simply present the evidence that the terrorist is hiding there and the house could be raided.
 
As simple as it would be to cause mass casualties pretty much anywhere in the US, can we really say that the reason it hasn't happened more often is that we have been doing a good job of preventing it? Or have the bad guys just not been all that interested in trying harder? Or maybe suicide attackers are getting harder to find?

I think the answer might have something to do with the level of intelligence for most of the terrorists. You have to be pretty stupid to believe that killing a bunch of innocent people and then killing yourself will get you to heaven as a martyr. So they either execute poorly or get caught planning an attack. The San Bernardino people executed poorly. Their bombs did not go off.

Same thing goes with plain old fashioned criminals. Most of them get caught pretty quick. Not too bright.
 
I think the answer might have something to do with the level of intelligence for most of the terrorists. You have to be pretty stupid to believe that killing a bunch of innocent people and then killing yourself will get you to heaven as a martyr. So they either execute poorly or get caught planning an attack. The San Bernardino people executed poorly. Their bombs did not go off.

Same thing goes with plain old fashioned criminals. Most of them get caught pretty quick. Not too bright.

The Boston brothers and the San Bernardino couple: I don't know if they thought they'd get away with it or not. They at least tried making a run for it. Maybe they thought a Bonnie and Clyde ending would help their cause? I honestly haven't followed the details of the SB couple, did they try blowing themselves up and fail?

McVeigh ran, too.

In all those cases, they didn't blow themselves up, so they must have had some sense of self-preservation.
 
Well if you take the MSMs scorecard of only 44% of domestic terror actions being done by Muslims it seems you are right. Until you figure in that Muslims are 1% of the US population.

And what % of domestic terrorist attack deaths?
 
What a load of internet bravado! You would nuke tens of thousands of people because they annoy you or you family. What a tough guy. Who keeps your family safe from you? :rolleyes2: If you actually believe the crap you wrote and I doubt you truly do, you are morally bankrupt.

This concept of "Pax" anybody has never worked throughout history and guess what? It doesn't work today either. :no:

I've been in uniform, and served in combat twice in my life.
Where did you serve?

But, you are correct. Nothing works, at least not forever. I just want it to work long enough to live out my life. Then it becomes someone else's problem.
 
They wouldn't have to bomb the US town to get the terrorist. They could simply present the evidence that the terrorist is hiding there and the house could be raided.

Yeah if it was us and the Russians that's what would happen. Things don't go that way in a lot of these middle eastern countries. The point, however, is how these people are getting radicalized and why they're not more sympathetic to our point of view. They don't have any more of a reason to feel bad for us than we do for them.

It is what it is. Until such time someone solves this problem we're not achieving anything with these types of attacks. What's the point of blowing up another terrorist cell if we create more terrorists every time we do it?
 
I honestly haven't followed the details of the SB couple, did they try blowing themselves up and fail?

SB couple had more attacks planned. Thousands of rounds of ammo and more bombs back at their place. Dont know if they planned to blow themselves up. I think doing as much damage as possible and suicide by cop was the plan.

The paris guys had full on suicide vests.
 
Last edited:
Yeah if it was us and the Russians that's what would happen. Things don't go that way in a lot of these middle eastern countries.

This is why we cannot trust some of these countries. They claim to be against radical islam, but its deeply rooted there.
 
Last edited:
SB couple had more attacks planned. Thousands of rounds of ammo and more bombs back at their place. Dont know if they planned to blow themselves up. I think doing as much damage as possible and suicide by cop was the plan.

The paris guys had full on suicide vests.

The SB couple's plan seemed to be like you figure: drop the kid off with grandma, then kill as many as possible and go out in a blaze of glory. I don't know how they thought they would get back to their place for the rest of the weapons. Maybe that was meant for some buddies that didn't show (who would still be out there), or they realized they couldn't carry it all?
 
Back
Top