You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.
The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."
It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability."
Obama reflects on drone warfare use Drones in Action
The drone strike program has long been controversial, with conflicting reports on its impact from U.S. and Pakistani officials and independent organizations.
President Barack Obama told CNN last month that a target must meet "very tight and very strict standards," and John Brennan, the president's top counter-terrorism adviser, said in April that in "exceedingly rare" cases, civilians have been "accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes."
In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.
"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.
Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.
It also highlights harm "beyond death and physical injury," publishing accounts of psychological trauma experienced by people living in Pakistan's tribal northwest region, who it says hear drones hover 24 hours a day.
"Before this we were all very happy," the report quotes an anonymous resident as saying. "But after these drones attacks a lot of people are victims and have lost members of their family. A lot of them, they have mental illnesses."
People have to live with the fear that a strike could come down on them at any moment of the day or night, leaving behind dead whose "bodies are shattered to pieces," and survivors who must be desperately sped to a hospital.
The report concedes that "real threats to U.S. security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones." And it acknowledges that drone strikes have "killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks."
But it concludes that drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
"A significant rethinking of current U.S. targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue," it says. "U.S. policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of U.S. targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan."
The study recommends that Washington undertake measures to rectify collateral damage -- including making public detailed legal justification for strikes, implementing mechanisms transparently to account for civilian casualties, ensuring independent investigations into drone strike deaths, prosecuting cases of civilian casualties and compensating civilians harmed by U.S. strikes in Pakistan.
Nine months of research went into the report, according to its authors, which included "two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting."
U.S. authorities have largely kept quiet on the subject of drone strikes in Pakistan.
However, the use of armed drones to target and kill suspected terrorists has increased dramatically during the Obama administration, according to Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst and a director at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that monitors drone strikes.
Obama has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office, Bergen wrote earlier this month. As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.
However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.
The drone program is deeply unpopular in Pakistan, where the national parliament voted in April to end any authorization for it. This, however, was "a vote that the United States government has simply ignored," according to Bergen.
Obama told CNN's Jessica Yellin this month that the use of armed drones was "something that you have to struggle with."
"If you don't, then it's very easy to slip into a situation in which you end up bending rules thinking that the ends always justify the means," he continued. "That's not been our tradition. That's not who we are as a country."
Obama also addressed his criteria for lethal action in the interview, although he repeatedly declined to acknowledge any direct involvement in selecting targets.
"It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws. It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative. It has to be a situation in which we can't capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States," Obama said.
His security adviser, Brennan, gave the Obama administration's first public justification for drone strikes in his April speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think-tank.
Such strikes are used when capture is not a feasible option and are conducted "in full accordance with the law," Brennan said.
"We only authorize a strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances," he said.
Despite the "extraordinary precautions" taken by the United States, Brennan said, civilians "have been accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes. It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. When it does, it pains us, and we regret it deeply, as we do any time innocents are killed in war."
Brennan also cited the "the seriousness, the extraordinary care" taken by Obama and his national security team in deciding whether to use lethal force.
The London-based rights organization Reprieve, which with the help of a partner organization in Pakistan facilitated access to some of the people interviewed for the Stanford/NYU study, backed its finding that the drone program causes wider damage than is acknowledged by the U.S. government.
"This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."
When they control the banks, media and FDA... groom children to be soldiers through various media, put mass numbers of people on antipsychotic drugs... is it any surprise that his medication is not in the spot light here?
Theses drugs are synonymous with shootings and suicides and are given out like candy to full fill an agenda, and not help people from my conclusions.
Morgan Freeman has it right with this statement, but i still feel like their shouldnt be Gun stores at every corner.
I totally agree. Basically saying the same thing from the video I posted 2 pages ago.
Although I don't know is this good or bad... but I actually don't remember any of the killers names...
nor do I really remember the event altogether after a few weeks or so, unless it's brought up again...
Anyway,
Quote:
When she became aware there was a gunman in the school, she hid her first-graders in closets and cabinets, then told the shooter they were in the gym.
He turned the gun on Soto, killing her, but none of her students were harmed.
Well anyone with 2 handguns and an assault rifle has to be at least a little bit mental. What possible good can come from owning these?
Ok I'll agree that being a "doomsday prepper" is mental, but owning 2 handguns and an assault rifle doesn't equate to being mental.
Edit: I mean, if a random person had 2 handguns and an assault rifle, that doesn't automatically make him/her mental.
__________________ Do Not Put Aftershave on Your Balls. -604CEFIRO Looks like I'm gonna have some hot sex again tonight...OOPS i got the 6 pack. that wont last me the night, I better go back and get the 24 pack! -Turbo E kinda off topic but obama is a dilf - miss_crayon Honest to fucking Christ the easiest way to get a married woman in the mood is clean the house and do the laundry.....I've been with the same girl almost 17 years, ask me how I know. - quasi
The answer to the gun problem is more guns? You can't blame him for blowing up.
Doesn't really surprise me to hear that coming from a gun supporter and after any mass shootings a NRA supporter will usually come out and say something like "if one of the victims had access to a gun, he/she could have killed the shooter".
Ok I'll agree that being a "doomsday prepper" is mental, but owning 2 handguns and an assault rifle doesn't equate to being mental.
Well the mother obviously thought the world was going to end so she must have been preparing by loading up on guns and ammos. God knows what nonsense she was feeding her son.
I also read that the school had just implicated a new security system, I wonder if there was some sort of threat against students or teachers that made the principle get increased security.
Right, because the people with a mental disposition appropriate for educating elementary students are often equally suited to a role as a close-quarters urban combat soldier.
I would not stoop to insulting educators. In this very shooting incident, the principal and his office staff were killed after they heard shots and tried to run after the shooter to stop him. We already know many teachers exposed themselves into the gunman's line of fire to grab students and rush them back into their classrooms.
If educators are that responsible under these terrible circumstances, why would you not trust them to defend your children using a tool more appropriate than their bare hands?
Please watch the video and look at James Yeager's shooting incident statistics. 50% of shooting incidents are stopped by opposition to the shooter. 2/3's of those stopped incidents are by civilian opposition. Out of those cases, 8/10 civilians were unarmed.
In this incident, unarmed civilians tried to stop the shooter and failed. They had the mindset to stop him, but not the required resources.
Quote:
Israel is surrounded by armies hell bent on it being wiped off the face of the Earth. America is bordered my us, Canadians, who aren't exactly threatening, and Mexico, who also is not more than a minor threat and only along the border. You've made a false analogy: what works for Isreal does not necessarily work for America.
Israel is under attack by terrorists. Guess what? America is under attack by terrorists. All these mentally ill shooters trying to make news headlines in America are by definition terrorists: a person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence.
When are people going to learn that these psychopaths are specifically targeting people and areas that are defenseless. Virginia Tech? Gun Free Zone. The Colorado theatre shooting? Gun Free Zone. The Oregon Clakamas Town Center shooting? Gun Free Zone. This incident? Every elementary and high school in America is a Gun Free Zone.
Quote:
various gun control arguments
Many people believe gun control can work, but don't specifically mention what kind of measures could be applied to America specifically that can stop these tragedies. Unlike other countries that introduced control laws for populations that were relatively unarmed, America has a significant number of guns under private ownership. I have not heard of a reasonable gun control solution for America yet. The argument for "go door to door and demand all guns in the home" is invalid.
Another reminder is that gun violence does happen in strict gun control countries. Norway has some of the toughest restrictions in the world and they had one of the worst shooting incidents in history.
In regards to the knife vs gun violence arguments, they're both bad. With enough searching I can come up with a long list of knives being effective mass murder weapons.
Here's a list of only bladed weapon attacks at Chinese school in 2010.
My argument is that there needs to be less focus on restricting weapons these terrible people are using, and more focus on making sure there are less terrible people.
Doesn't really surprise me to hear that coming from a gun supporter and after any mass shootings a NRA supporter will usually come out and say something like "if one of the victims had access to a gun, he/she could have killed the shooter".
The problem is that the national news media avoids publishing news about armed citizens stopping crime.
Remember that Clakamas, Oregon mall shooting from a couple days ago that this school shooting has now eclipsed? Guess what made that shooter think twice about continuing his rampage?
Funny how the local Oregon news has now figured out this story, when there's no mention of it on national news like CNN, even when CNN was covering that event like crazy at the time, and incorrectly first reporting that police stopped the Oregon shooter.
A CNN executive was involved in a debate regarding why national media downplays incidents in which law abidding armed citizens stop violent crime. He was quoted as saying "We don't want to encourage copycat vigilantism."
Isn't it odd that:
The media knows there will be copycats of things they report on.
The media gives excessive coverage to mass murder.
The media rarely reports that armed response by private citizens stops crime
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,649
Thanked 10,380 Times in 3,906 Posts
its just a story that some 20yr old claims was the reason the killing spree stopped because the shooter supposedly saw another guy with a gun he doesnt even know if the shooter fired his last shot after supposedly seeing him with a gun... he ran into a store to hide
Ok I'll agree that being a "doomsday prepper" is mental, but owning 2 handguns and an assault rifle doesn't equate to being mental.
Edit: I mean, if a random person had 2 handguns and an assault rifle, that doesn't automatically make him/her mental.
Not totally mental, but a little bit. No normal person would ever think they would need two handguns and an assault rifle at home. It's not for hunting, it's not for sport, what is it for? "self defense" in a Connecticut suburb?
Not totally mental, but a little bit. No normal person would ever think they would need two handguns and an assault rifle at home. It's not for hunting, it's not for sport, what is it for? "self defense" in a Connecticut suburb?
They probably just like guns. We all collect a bunch of useless crap so I assume owning many guns can fall under the hobby category. I also assume they take it down to the shooting range to use...
__________________
GO Canucks GO!
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) hi there
(づ｡◕‿‿◕｡)づ・。*。✧・゜゜・。✧。*・゜゜・✧。・$$$$$゜゜・。*。・゜*✧ .
Not totally mental, but a little bit. No normal person would ever think they would need two handguns and an assault rifle at home. It's not for hunting, it's not for sport, what is it for? "self defense" in a Connecticut suburb?
Could be a hobby, or collection. Some people like to horde shoes, maybe their fetish were guns.
But, if that were the case, the mom is an idiot for not locking them away safely.
But, it said he failed to buy a gun the day before, so did her mom buy these, or did he?
20 years ago many less American states issued CCW permits to civilians. in 2010 you can see now the majority of states grant CCW permits. Homicide rates per 100,000 have dropped nearly by half within that time (bottom of diagram).
Here is the homicide rate in Canada throughout history. Before 1978, there was very little gun control in Canada. Handguns, while registered, were legal for carry. Fully automatic weapons were legal. Magazine capacities were unrestricted.
I would not stoop to insulting educators. In this very shooting incident, the principal and his office staff were killed after they heard shots and tried to run after the shooter to stop him. We already know many teachers exposed themselves into the gunman's line of fire to grab students and rush them back into their classrooms.
If educators are that responsible under these terrible circumstances, why would you not trust them to defend your children using a tool more appropriate than their bare hands?
Please watch the video and look at James Yeager's shooting incident statistics. 50% of shooting incidents are stopped by opposition to the shooter. 2/3's of those stopped incidents are by civilian opposition. Out of those cases, 8/10 civilians were unarmed.
In this incident, unarmed civilians tried to stop the shooter and failed. They had the mindset to stop him, but not the required resources.
I did not at any point insult educators, nor would I ever. I'll elaborate further.
A person who reacts to something in a moment of need, spontaneously without predilection, is not comparable to a person poised and actively training for that aforementioned moment. Sit down and have a conversation with a police officer, doctor, soldier, and kindergarten teacher; they possess distinctly different psyches that lead them to their chosen professions, which is only further reinforced by their occupations. Toggling between those psyches is not possible. I would not allow a person who spends Pro-D days in shoot houses to educate, and thereby influence, my child.
Quote:
Israel is under attack by terrorists. Guess what? America is under attack by terrorists. All these mentally ill shooters trying to make news headlines in America are by definition terrorists: a person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence.
When are people going to learn that these psychopaths are specifically targeting people and areas that are defenseless. Virginia Tech? Gun Free Zone. The Colorado theatre shooting? Gun Free Zone. The Oregon Clakamas Town Center shooting? Gun Free Zone. This incident? Every elementary and high school in America is a Gun Free Zone.
Israel is at war, it is being attacked by nations with a clear agenda. Israel cannot prevent the attacks from occurring, because they are launched or facilitated by sovereign foreign powers which they cannot influence. Israel must therefore cope, and as a result it is basically a giant military base.
America is occasionally attacked by a lone mentally ill person, the attackers act alone with no clear agenda other than to hurt people and usually commit suicide. America has the power to influence the people who attack it, because the attacks arise internally and are facilitated by policies on guns and treatment of the mentally ill.
I never said, America is not under attack by terrorists. I agree, the attackers are terrorists, but they're a different breed and must be handled in a different manner. Both my Civic and a Ferrari are cars, they possess many of the same features, an engine, wheels, tires, seats, and et cetera, but ultimately are totally different. I would apply that concept to a comparison of Isreal and its attackers to America and its attackers.
Quote:
Many people believe gun control can work, but don't specifically mention what kind of measures could be applied to America specifically that can stop these tragedies. Unlike other countries that introduced control laws for populations that were relatively unarmed, America has a significant number of guns under private ownership. I have not heard of a reasonable gun control solution for America yet. The argument for "go door to door and demand all guns in the home" is invalid.
Another reminder is that gun violence does happen in strict gun control countries. Norway has some of the toughest restrictions in the world and they had one of the worst shooting incidents in history.
How to reduce the number of dangerous guns in America is a very difficult issue, and I won't pretend to be capable of coming up with one spontaneously.
There needs to be a starting point however, and that's simple - stop selling guns that facilitate these types of attacks, and change the constitution that entitles people to own them. Another potentially very effective step in the long term, restrict the sale of bullets.
Quote:
In regards to the knife vs gun violence arguments, they're both bad. With enough searching I can come up with a long list of knives being effective mass murder weapons.
Here's a list of only bladed weapon attacks at Chinese school in 2010.
My argument is that there needs to be less focus on restricting weapons these terrible people are using, and more focus on making sure there are less terrible people.
A blade can be a very effective killing tool, I don't dispute that at all.
A truck is another very effective killing tool, mowing down a group of students would not be too difficult.
A firearm like the type used is more effective, vastly more, and it is not an absolutely essential societal tool like a knife or truck.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlo mein
Two small pieces that I would like to contribute:
20 years ago many less American states issued CCW permits to civilians. in 2010 you can see now the majority of states grant CCW permits. Homicide rates per 100,000 have dropped nearly by half within that time (bottom of diagram).
Here is the homicide rate in Canada throughout history. Before 1978, there was very little gun control in Canada. Handguns, while registered, were legal for carry. Fully automatic weapons were legal. Magazine capacities were unrestricted.
MAJOR societal changes are not accounted for in these charts.
It's like saying, gun ownership has less restrictions put in place in xxxx area, and no youth outreach programs, police initiatives, social changes, ever took place or had an effect. The extremely narrow focus of those charts make them difficult to consider with much weight.
Last edited by MindBomber; 12-15-2012 at 11:06 PM.
20 years ago many less American states issued CCW permits to civilians. in 2010 you can see now the majority of states grant CCW permits. Homicide rates per 100,000 have dropped nearly by half within that time (bottom of diagram).
Though certainly pertinent, that correlation is definitely not as clear cut as you make it out to be. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the relationship is strictly spurious, but to ignore other factors would be extremely shortsighted.
Hong Kong (CNN) -- On Friday morning, a man walked through the entrance of an elementary school and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit.
While it sounds like the horrific massacre in Connecticut, this attack took place about 8,000 miles away in central China. And while several of the victims were reported in critical condition, none of the 22 children were killed. The 36-year-old suspect in China -- which has strict gun control laws -- attacked the children with a knife, according to local reports.
"The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon," said Dr. Ding Xueliang, a Harvard-educated sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong.
As the world shares in the horror of the attack that left at least 28 dead, including 20 school children, the attack has rekindled the gun-control debate in the U.S. and international wonder at the propensity of gun-related deaths in America.
Police: 20 children among 26 victims
Wei Jingru, a primary school student injured in a knife attack, receives medical treatment in a hospital.
"In terms of the U.S., there's much easier availability of killing instruments -- rifles, machine guns, explosives -- than in nearly every other developed country," Dr. Ding said.
"In the United States, we had 9,000 people killed with guns last year, in similar countries like Germany 170 (killed with guns), in Canada 150. There's a reason for that," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, told CNN's Piers Morgan.
"The proof in the pudding is that in every other industrialized nation except the United States, they have reasonable gun control laws, and they have hundreds of people killed each year -- not 9,000 or 10,000 a year -- killed by guns."
Analysis: Why gun controls are off the agenda in America
The United States has, by far, the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with 88.8 guns per 100 people, followed by Serbia (58.2), Yemen (54.8) and Finland/Switzerland (45.7 each), according to GunPolicy.org, an international database at the University of Sydney.
While nations such as South Africa, El Salvador and Thailand have much higher rates of gun homicides per year, the United States rate of 3.12 deaths per 100,000 people is the highest among industrialized nations.
How do we stop the violence?
How the tragedy unfolded Worldwide reaction to school shooting Shooter described as 'nice kid'
But as the attack in China Friday shows, no nation is immune from incidents of mass violence. In July 2011, a gunman killed 77 people in a bomb attack and gun rampage in Norway. Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced to 21 years in prison for the crime last August. In 1996 a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher in the town of Dunblane, Scotland. The year before that, 35 people were killed in a shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
The attack Friday in China recalled a spate of fatal attacks by knife and cleaver-wielding culprits targeting school children in 2010. In April that year, Chinese authorities executed a man who killed eight children in a knife attack the month before. There were three more attacks in the same year injuring at least 44 children.
Who was the suspect Adam Lanza?
A number of measures were introduced at the time, including increased security at schools across the country and a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives.
Dr. Ding, the Hong Kong sociologist, said mainland China schools he has visited in the past two years have beefed up security in the wake of the knife attacks.
"I think these kind of attacks become more frequent in many countries, not just China and U.S., because of a number of different factors," Ding said. "Number one is the increased pressure for individuals. Today's world is very different from the world we saw 50 years ago ... individuals in their daily life face much more uncertainty, risk, financial pressure and competition."
"The second thing is we live in a global village now, where the spread of information -- especially bad news -- is so instantaneous," said Ding, leading to more copycat crimes across the globe.
"I don't think we should limit the free press ... but people are watching this, they are learning from these kind of attacks. They are becoming more and more organized, better planned -- and that is horrible."
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
