It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It takes 28 civilian lives to kill a single terrorist leader – UK human rights group

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Eliminating a specific terrorist leader is a ‘targeted killing’ according to the US. However, Britain’s Reprieve human-rights group calculated that it takes about 28 innocent lives to take out a single terrorist leader, often with multiple drone strikes.


That's an awful lot of "collateral damage"...


Almost makes me sick...

These targets are from "Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen."...


“Drone strikes have been sold to the American public on the claim that they’re ‘precise’. But they are only as precise as the intelligence that feeds them. There is nothing precise about intelligence that results in the deaths of 28 unknown people, including women and children, for every ‘bad guy’ the US goes after,” said Jennifer Gibson, who headed Reprieve’s study.


& innocent Men, we should add...

Let's have a bit of equality shall we...




Let's put things into perspective with a bit of Bold...


Over the last eight years there have been several attempts to eliminate an Al-Qaeda leader called Ayman Zawahiri. Drones have proved ineffective - the man is still alive. In two known attempts, in 2006, as many as 76 children and 29 adults were killed.

If Zawahiri’s name sounds familiar to some Americans, this definitely cannot be said about Qari Hussain, a former deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban.

In 2008-2010 there were four attempts to get this man before missiles from an American drone killed him. But there was collateral damage: the US drones accidentally killed 128 people, including 13 children.

Most of the terror suspects were targeted in Pakistan, where a drone hunt after 24 terrorist leaders resulted in the deaths of 874 people, 142 of them children. The mission registered only six successful strikes.

This makes the terrorist/civilian drone death ratio in Pakistan as high as 1:36.





I thought Mr.Obama was not effective enough in decision making...
I'd say he lacks the ability to make the correct decision actually, rather than lack of action itself.




Something isn't right with this Planet.

& I'm willing to bet it's for Satanic reasons.




posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
With these numbers (28-1) it's not a war againts the terrorist, is it?

So, what is terrorism again?



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I heard mentioned on TV a while back that many of the children from the countries on the receiving end of the drone strikes are growing up afraid of the blue sky.

When it's really cloudy, there are no drone strikes...



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Starred and Flagged!


These drone strikes clearly fail the Distinction (law)


Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and civilians. Distinction and proportionality are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.


and Proportionality (law)


Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several special (although related) concepts. The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Within criminal law, it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.


Thereby failing the rules of Military necessity


Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.



Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).


... under the Law of war


The law of war is a legal term of art that refers to the aspect of public international law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or International humanitarian law).


And therefore they constitute a War crime


A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes such as:[1]

murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps
murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees
forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power
killing hostages
killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity


Now Obama as the POTUS directly signed off on these drone strikes and therefore I believe a warrant for his arrest should be issued by the International Criminal Court


The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes and it may one day be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.


Do my fellow ATS members agree




edit on 25-11-2014 by MarsKingAQuestion because: spelling.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MarsKingAQuestion

Excellently structured post.

Deserves applause from the Mods.


I've received them for less imo...



& the way it was pieced together yes I wholeheartedly agree my friend.

Well said.
edit on 25-11-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Starred!


Thank you!


Bumped!


Come on ATS, this is important!


The silence is awfully suspicious!


Did I just breach the USA's National Security





posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains

Terrorism could be defined by exactly this subject...
Droning innocent people surely counts as terrorism.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MarsKingAQuestion

I don't think the silence is agenda driven...

The good people of ATS are probably glued to the Ferguson thread.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I absolutely believe the collateral damage outweighs the target damage...I was trying to bring this up long ago about every one we get we create 10 more. I don't know what the number really is but man we are not well liked. In some ways I feel the damage America has done is worse than anything in history. At least the nazi's picked something they didn't like..hell America kills everyone equally and then says "well the meta data showed...."



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Let's look at this in another way... How many people would the said terrorist leader be responsible for killing in his lifetime if allowed to go unchecked?

It is a sad fact, but perhaps collateral damage is a necessary evil when all things are put into the cold calculator.

Regards



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I see you're playing devils advocate...

That's allowed.


However I reserve my right to disagree with your sentiments my friend.


I think this news is heinous.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
No, I'm not really playing a devils advocate. Merely pointing out a truth.

That said, I do think it is pretty awful and am not an apologist for this type of extrajudicial behaviour.

Reading the report, I could not help notice the fact highlighted by Reprieve, and that was the disproportionate number of children killed, which leads the conclusion that these terrorists are purposefully placed children in the firing line.

Regards



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
You see I believe the whistleblowers who have said since WW2, the citizens of this planet are considered the enemies of the elite, and they have been engaging a war against us ever since, nuclear power, nuclear accidents, poisons, toxins, GMO's, on every level imagineable, and the leaders of these groups are black ops, mostly IMO, Mossad or CIA, or the like. They don't really want to take out too many of their own, maybe they sacrifice the odd one, as they are ritualist after all, but their real target are civilians and children. Thats the real enemy to them, their real target, and the real war we're in.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MarsKingAQuestion
It's nice of you to list these"laws" and rather quick of you to blame Obama. Now lets use your criteria to judge Al Quaida and those others. The two groups lists as Distinction:- they have never differentiated between military or civilians. Strike one. Proportionality:- by international standards cutting peoples heads off is a fail. Strike two. Military necessity:-
as far as I know they have never solely took on a military force but included it with attacks on civilians. fail. Strike three. Law of war :- They have never shown any decent war time conduct ie killing and mutilating civilians. Fail. Strike four. War crimes:- now if you want me to list these they are too many to mention. Fail. Strike five. Now what to do? Well firstly call Qari Hussain and Ayman Sawahiri what they are war criminals. But as their modus operandi is to hide among civilians it is a moot point that there will be civilian deaths. But technically who is to blame the ones putting those civilians in the firing line or those that shoot the missiles.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Whilst I'm very uncomfortable with drone strategy, it's probably worth noting that exactly what constitutes a terrorist 'leader' is a very difficult thing to quantify. Furthermore, terrorist leaders have little worry over holing up in civilian areas for this very reason. In the case of Muslim Extremist terrorists at least, they consider people killed as 'collateral damage' to have martyred anyhow.

Drones and extremism are unfortunately unlikely bedfellows, in many respects.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

Yeah I saw the same thing and boy does it hit home how this world can claim to be aiming for peace, when you have children scared to death on a bright sunny day. They need to rethink the collateral damage from the drones, not just the human cost, but it is breeding a reason for another 100 years at least of the next lot of terrorists who are growing up wanting revenge for killing their parents. It doesn't feel right to even label them terrorists for wanting revenge for killing friends and family... The drone attacks are next level terrorism really when you think about it.



Anyway, this is where you saw the clip. (about 8:30 mins in)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys

It's a really good clip, definitely worth watching.

What happens, years from now, when more countries have drones, and/or drone hacking abilities.
Is the sky over North America completely impenetrable?
I doubt it.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
The drones may be reasonable tools but the intelligence services are working under a misnomer, as they don't apear to get much good timely intelligence at all.....makes one wonder what they hell they really are doing with those bloated budgets.....
The whole war on terror is another phoney war.....just another excuse to snuff out lives and make money...



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
The drones may be reasonable tools but the intelligence services are working under a misnomer, as they don't apear to get much good timely intelligence at all.....makes one wonder what they hell they really are doing with those bloated budgets.....
The whole war on terror is another phoney war.....just another excuse to snuff out lives and make money...



new topics

top topics



 
16

log in

join