Print Page | Close Window

Ethics of unmanned or drone weapon systems

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Science & Technology
Forum Discription: It is devoted for Science & Technology
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17916
Printed Date: 21 September 2014 at 11:24pm


Topic: Ethics of unmanned or drone weapon systems
Posted By: schmikbob
Subject: Ethics of unmanned or drone weapon systems
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 8:28am

I would like a response from the community on this forum as to the perceived morality or immorality of the use of unmanned or drone weapon systems.  I'm not looking for cut and paste jobs of articles from the Huffington Post here folks.  I'm interested in what you think. 




Replies:
Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 11:37am

I feel that morality or immorality would apply to those individuals on the ground giving intelligence.  The drone weapon technology, as I understand it, does not cause mass destruction, and if used properly could save young American lives, and reduce civilian casualties.



Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 6:03pm
So, if I understand correctly, you see no difference between this pilotless technology and a manned platform delivering ordinance based on intelligence. 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 6:48pm
From an ethical standpoint, I see no difference, however pilotless is safer for our troops. 


Posted By: Divya_Mohammed
Date Posted: 30 November 2010 at 10:27pm
Assalam Alaikum
 
I think drone attacks are acceptable as it is specific and targeted to kill the terrorists. They do not cause untargeted deaths (bearing few) and no mass casualities. What can you do to the cowards who kill innocent people at random. I support American drone attacks on Pakistan.
 
Divya Mohammed Iyer


Posted By: Sea1c
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 8:25am
I do agree that they are safer for our troops, however is that such a good thing? If peoples lives were more in danger would there be more consideration on attacks planned. I know reality is that no, kids would be sent in regardless, but I like to think that some thought about human life is taken into consideration.
As for ethics then the ones in control have to live with what they do, as do all the 'higher ups'. I see no difference between the unmanned and manned weapons.
I think most of the controllers realize this, and I have heard about these guys having PTSD just like guys on the front line.   


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 10:24am
I agree with Abuayisha. Anti-personnel mines on the other hand are unethical. It's a shame that the US has not yet signed the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 01 December 2010 at 11:24am
But however this same moral equation can be application to those executing a prisoner by firing squad. Of course you can have the "other" put blanks in your gun but your intent is to take a human life. Now, with respect to military the equation if more complex because if your target is one person, you must be absolutely sure he (or she) is responsible for which death is justified.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 08 December 2010 at 7:00am
Is the primary argument against anti-personnel mines the one that argues against their potential use against civilians or non-combatents, or, if you will, the collateral damage issue? 


Posted By: optimizer
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 7:07am
I do not consider unmanned weapons to be any different than manned weapons or in person combat.
All of them rely on decisions made by a person.
The only difference is the location of that person.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:00pm
and the recallability of the weapon of course


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 25 December 2010 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

I feel that morality or immorality would apply to those individuals on the ground giving intelligence.  The drone weapon technology, as I understand it, does not cause mass destruction, and if used properly could save young American lives, and reduce civilian casualties.

I see this discussion is about Pakistan, right?
Next, how does that information travel?
It couldn't be the individuals but rather the ruling junta on the take that pimps this information. In that country ( classified almost the most corrupt where they will sell their own mother for money) government army soldiers have been killing their own citizens since her inception; what few hundred civilians deaths out of 170 million would matter by video game consoles when they are getting billions of zombie taxpayers money and the top jobs to boot! According to the reports the Paki army has killed more people than the drones will ever kill!
So as a part of ethic scenario add up all the numbers first being a capitalist!

Finally if you are not aware of the fact that country creation had lot to with her territory being part of the ring around the USSR ( defunct) unbeknown to the ignorant masses of the Pakiland...Are you old enough to remember Baghdad pact (CENTO)? So it is not that simple to discuss the ethics about drones use over the hapless masses in isolation!




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 25 December 2010 at 3:31pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

I would like a response from the community on this forum as to the perceived morality or immorality of the use of unmanned or drone weapon systems.  I'm not looking for cut and paste jobs of articles from the Huffington Post here folks.  I'm interested in what you think. 


First of all can you send the drones over every country in the world or you are trying to be selective?
Aren't you assuming that Huffington Post is somehow ICs community's ethics arbiter?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 25 December 2010 at 3:56pm
Originally posted by Divya_Mohammed

Assalam Alaikum
 
I think drone attacks are acceptable as it is specific and targeted to kill the terrorists. They do not cause untargeted deaths (bearing few) and no mass casualities. What can you do to the cowards who kill innocent people at random. I support American drone attacks on Pakistan.
 
Divya Mohammed Iyer

I can propose a better solution invade Pakistan and end the charade...

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 25 December 2010 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

and the recallability of the weapon of course

What the heck is the recallability?Wink

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 25 December 2010 at 9:26pm
Wonderful, here we go trying to address all of Sign Reader's spam.  Where are the moderators when you need them?
 
1. "I see this discussion is about Pakistan, right?
Next, how does that information travel?
It couldn't be the individuals but rather the ruling junta on the take that pimps this information. In that country ( classified almost the most corrupt where they will sell their own mother for money) government army soldiers have been killing their own citizens since her inception; what few hundred civilians deaths out of 170 million would matter by video game consoles when they are getting billions of zombie taxpayers money and the top jobs to boot! According to the reports the Paki army has killed more people than the drones will ever kill!
So as a part of ethic scenario add up all the numbers first being a capitalist! Finally if you are not aware of the fact that country creation had lot to with her territory being part of the ring around the USSR ( defunct) unbeknown to the ignorant masses of the Pakiland...Are you old enough to remember Baghdad pact (CENTO)? "
 
Nothing to do with this topic.  Put it somewhere else Sign Reader.
 
2. "First of all can you send the drones over every country in the world or you are trying to be selective? Aren't you assuming that Huffington Post is somehow ICs community's ethics arbiter?"
 
This topic is about the ethics and/or morality of drone weapon system use in general.  Try keeping your posts about the subject?  Secondly, no I'm not assuming anything.  I'm simply trying to prevent your standard cut and paste articles about everything and anything whether or not it applies to the subject.
 
3. "I can propose a better solution invade Pakistan and end the charade...

".  Don't you think this is a little extreme?  I'm willing to bet  Divya_Mohammed meant drone attacks on insurgents in Pakistan and not Pakistan as a nation.
 
4. The ability of the weapon to be recalled once launched.
 
Got anything on point Sign Reader? 
 
 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 06 January 2011 at 5:36pm
It was none of your cotton picken business when I am addressing others, let abuayisha and Divya to respond to my rejoinder...

Are you saying the missiles fired by the drones can be recalled?
I will address the ethic part...


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 06 January 2011 at 5:55pm
Originally posted by Gibbs

But however this same moral equation can be application to those executing a prisoner by firing squad. Of course you can have the "other" put blanks in your gun but your intent is to take a human life. Now, with respect to military the equation if more complex because if your target is one person, you must be absolutely sure he (or she) is responsible for which death is justified.

Good point.



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 06 January 2011 at 6:41pm
Actually it is my business since I started this thread and you have tried to commandeer it for your usual rants.  Please stick to the topic which is the morality or immorality of drone weapon systems relative to other systems.  On that subject, no I'm not saying drones weapons can or can't be recalled.  I was responding to a comment about the difference between manned verses unmanned weapon systems.  Recall of the weapon or, control of the weapon after release, is one possible difference.  As for the Huffington Post, I put that in to avoid the off topic links you seem to like from there.   


Posted By: Gibbs
Date Posted: 07 January 2011 at 10:55am
Well if I can add my two cents (if I haven't already) if by morality you mean accountability I believe the military (whatever military you refer) has some accountability whether the target acquired was a success or not. Now the question begs whether or not the target was a "true" target in the sense that the target has some direct responsibility in harming others. Now the rabbit hole goes deeper whether once that target is hit, the victims surrounding the target are killed are also attached in the moral responsibility of the gov't....My best guess is yes. The right or wrong on the issue is up for debate.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 January 2011 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Actually it is my business since I started this thread and you have tried to commandeer it for your usual rants.

As an agnostic on Islamic board this thread on ethics sounds oxymoron as it gets! Make it your business to define what ethical system do you follow...Without a basis this is an exercise in futility! 
 
Please stick to the topic which is the morality or immorality of drone weapon systems relative to other systems.

So tell me how do you set your moral compass?
 
On that subject, no I'm not saying drones weapons can or can't be recalled.was responding to a comment about the difference between manned verses unmanned weapon systems.  Recall of the weapon or, control of the weapon after release, is one possible difference.

The talk of recalling weapons once launched from a drone is meaningless, no they can't be recalled! What are trying to impress us here with?
That is why according to data collected by reporters on the drone killings, the kill rate of the so called suspects is 1.6%  of the total civilians killed on the ground in last couple years ...Go figure the total dead innocents!

 
As for the Huffington Post, I put that in to avoid the off topic links you seem to like from there.   


How about from wikileak's publications or other investigative reports!
Would you be happy if I quoted Fox News?

Btw what are your own sources of information that are factual?




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 7:49am

signreader, why do you always end up resorting to this.  This is a thread about the perceived morality or immorality of a certain high profile weapon system being employed.  Please don't turn it into a personal attack. 

If you do not understand what an agnostic is there are a wide selection of sources to find out.  If you feel that I have no business, as an agnostic, even posting on this forum perhaps you should take that up with the moderators.
 
In a discussion of morality concerning drones it might be usefull, and I hope I am not the only one that sees the relevence here, of discussing the potential differences between this system and others that are employed.  One of these differences is that other systems can be recalled or even controlled and destructed after launch.  Just because you can't follow the logic doesn't mean others can't.
 
As far as this topic is concerned, I don't need to go off topic and link to some unrelated Huffington Post fourth hand account of atrocities committed by your favorite boogeyman.  I happen to have personal experience relevent to this discussion.  


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 10:37am
I an not sure about the morality per say. But when you kill someone, the further you are, the further you can distance oneself from that question. The fact that you are taking a human being's life, you really should think about that. And not take it lightly. When they are faceless it is alot easier to do. Killing people should not be a computer game.

When you kill someone, it is justifiable in self-defense. If you speak of Islamically I would think there would be big questions because you have to justify and know it was a threat and thus self-defense.

i remember watching a piece on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. The soldiers killed unarmed civilians, just wiped them all out. We know that happened.

And in the case of Pakistan, I am not sure who the enemy really is. I don't think the government knows either...


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 3:52pm
Hayfa, excellent points.  You said it is easier to kill faceless targets.  I would agree.  However, do you think the recent ruckus about the use of drones is about this weapon system making the targets more faceless than another system (like a manned aircraft) or is it about whether or not it is a good thing to reduce the risk to the person firing the weapon thus making it easier to kill without consequence?  I believe this is a good debate to have because it is very clear in the US military world that unmanned systems are here to stay and they will take a bigger and bigger share of defense dollars.   


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 4:26pm

I think there's little disagreement that war is hell, but for those who profit from war; and likely they'll also agree.  The argument about distance and faceless enemies', thus detachment when killing, is not in my estimation a good reason not to use this weapon system.  Soldiers are trained to kill.  That is what they do.  In the long run it may be good to have effectiveness on the battlefield without the resultant stress and psychological problems associated with mangled bodies.  I have always believed it doesn't take a war and such a large footprint in Afghanistan to dislodge and disrupt terrorist.  If you have good ground intel I think the weapon system is excellent.  Use it along with intelligence folks and Afghan /Pak Intelligence and, bring the American troops home.   



Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 6:30pm
Abuayisha, I agree that the weapon system is excellent and the targeting relies on solid intelligence.  However, I think if the US leaves it to others (like the Afgan and Pakistani intelligence communities)  to pick the targets the way is open to abuse because of conflicting agendas.  I am not sure the best solution is for the US to leave and let the weapon system targets be picked by others.  That would however seem to satisfy the people that seem to think the US is over there to be an occupier and an empire builder (even though the US hasn't added a state in a very long time).  As to dislodging and disrupting terrorists I think drones are not going to solve this problem.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 7:01pm
Yeah, well, I meant intelligence agencies working together, which I'm sure they already are and likely several strikes have been as a result of intel from Afghan/Pak sources anyway.  I don't think 100,000 troops can solve the problem either, and possibly only leads to increasing the ranks of extremist. 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 10 January 2011 at 8:48pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

signreader, why do you always end up resorting to this.  This is a thread about the perceived morality or immorality of a certain high profile weapon system being employed.  Please don't turn it into a personal attack.

Me asking of your definition of ethics vis a vis Islamic ethics and you say it is personal attack...give me a break!

If you do not understand what an agnostic is there are a wide selection of sources to find out.  If you feel that I have no business, as an agnostic, even posting on this forum perhaps you should take that up with the moderators.
It is not the agnostic but ethic part that is questionableWink 
 
In a discussion of morality concerning drones it might be usefull, and I hope I am not the only one that sees the relevence here, of discussing the potential differences between this system and others that are employed.  One of these differences is that other systems can be recalled or even controlled and destructed after launch.  Just because you can't follow the logic doesn't mean others can't.
I do understand an agnostic but the ethics
Which weapon can be recalled after the launch?
The drones go back to home base just like the fighter bombers...The drones are way cheaper than fighter/bombers total cost wise...The difference is full occupation to a partial control of the operation domain and a good snitch network...
 
As far as this topic is concerned, I don't need to go off topic and link to some unrelated Huffington Post fourth hand account of atrocities committed by your favorite boogeyman.  I happen to have personal experience relevent to this discussion.  

Pray tell us your experience to shut me up ...Lay it on the line...
Btw Huff Post is not my favorite...Anyone who has the truth without spin will do!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 11 January 2011 at 11:59am
Yes the soldiers don't have the psychological problems, but then, there is no consequence then why have limits.. you send in soldiers, they get screwed up, then don't send them in! With the "new weapons" there is no  "damage" and thus nothing to hold them back.. 

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 11 January 2011 at 12:39pm

Hayfa if they're hitting the right target there is no need to hold them back.  I have no problem with the weapon.  It is the intelligence on the ground which concerns me; are we hitting a legitimate target or wedding party.



Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 11 January 2011 at 9:46pm
These attack aren't even authorized by the Congress and you have no problem? Has the thinking part gone for wool-gathering?

What could happen as fall out could be implosion of a nuclear powered state in one of the most troubled region of the world! I think that is what  going to happen...
So think again, here is very informative interview on the subject...The bombing campaign over Afghanistan killed untold thousands and the capitulation never came...You would think these few thousand more will make it happen ...LOL
I don't know how good is your knowledge about the area and the expendables!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-vV2HDWa4c -



Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 12 January 2011 at 7:55am
Excellent link, SignReader.  Although I didn't hear in the interview anyone once call people "expendables".  Also war has not been formally declared by the Congress since World War II.  That is what they are authorized to do by the constitution.  What Congress is supposed to authorize or be involved in as a subset of war has  been debated endlessly since then.  I think it comes down to what the executive branch determines is a national security issue. 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 12 January 2011 at 10:54am
Yeah Sign, indeed the interview was informative, and very enlightening especially with respect to stress on the  computer operators of the systems.  I had no idea they had such a visual capability. Whether we have congressional oversight or executive (CIA), what matters to me is effective and legitimate usage of the weapon system. 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 18 January 2011 at 12:14am
The Afghan military operation was authorize by congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists - S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001 just like Vietnam was! what gives?
To attack Pakiland they could do the same; but she is an ally, some ally Ermm

The clip summarized:
  • No legal framework for operating of drones /the legitimacy and ethics =?
  • May Constitute extra judicial killings & Multiple civilian deaths violating human rights standards; if no place to go for redress they are expendables /the effectiveness=?
  • And Cheney has weighed in "Obama Has Learned That Bush Policies Were Right"
  • Now all bets are offWink


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 January 2011 at 6:20pm


Killing civilian with state of the art weapons goes so far with some when the conscience wakes up the guilt drives them over the edge... there is no escape either wayWink

18 veterans commit suicide each day

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_veterans_suicide_042210w/ - http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_veterans_suicide_042210w/

Suicide attempts by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans remains a key area of concern. In fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30, there were 1,621 suicide attempts by men and 247 by women who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, with 94 men and four women dying.

In general, VA officials said, women attempt suicide more often, but men are more likely to succeed in the attempt, mainly because women use less lethal and less violent means while men are more likely to use firearms.

Suicide attempts among veterans appear to follow those trends, officials said.





-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 21 February 2011 at 1:50am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/us-raymond-davis-lahore-cia?CMP=twt_gu - American who sparked diplomatic crisis over Lahore shooting was CIA spy

A very interesting development as a side benefit...An answer to the ethics of the drone strike policy....................................................
An excerpt from the news report........................
......Although the two spy services (ISI & CIA)co-operate in the CIA's drone campaign along the Afghan border, there has not been a drone strike since 23 January – the longest lull since June 2009. Experts are unsure whether both events are linked.

Sen Kerry was sent on the trouble shooting mission by Obama and he was found  groveling to Paki TV reporters and asking forgiveness for Prophet's Hadith sake ... I could not believe how pathetic a politician could become! But now I do...



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 21 February 2011 at 7:01am
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=133932044&m=133932098 - http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=133932044&m=133932098


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 25 February 2011 at 3:53pm
This will certainly have an impact on the continued use of drones by the US in Pakistan but really has no bearing on the morality of the use of drones as a weapon system.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 27 February 2011 at 2:28pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

This will certainly have an impact on the continued use of drones by the US in Pakistan but really has no bearing on the morality of the use of drones as a weapon system.

Seems like you are on a drug called schmikbob like this(Charlie Sheen: 'I Am on a Drug. It's Called Charlie Sheen')

I am not sure if the Secretary of war Gates' warning has crossed your perusal activity...This was his assessment...“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’LOL
So what is the net outcome of impact of this aerial terror?
Talk of morality is ludicrous!
I am sure you must have missed the impact already in the broader ME, the fall of your fundies funded satraps by the enslaved rising up with sheer power of faith against all the instruments of oppression...  It is still time to resuscitate the dead soul to your own benefit... 


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 27 February 2011 at 7:38pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

but really has no bearing on the morality of the use of drones as a weapon system.

The momentous importance of the last few weeks is that this profitable, though morally bankrupt, arrangement appears to be coming to an end.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100077625/how-will-america-handle-the-fall-of-its-middle-east-empire/ - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100077625/how-will-america-handle-the-fall-of-its-middle-east-empire/


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 27 February 2011 at 8:41pm
You can highlight the word "moral" all you want but that will still not make your attempt to stuff the square peg of the relationship between the US and Pakistan into the round peg of this discussion.  Sign Reader, one of these days you might realize that not all discussions revolve around your one subject mind. 
By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood has declared itself to be an enemy of the West.  I'm not too sure why you don't admit to the same since your ideologies are the same.     


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 12:41am
Originally posted by schmikbob

You can highlight the word "moral" all you want but that will still not make your attempt to stuff the square peg of the relationship between the US and Pakistan into the round peg of this discussion.  Sign Reader, one of these days you might realize that not all discussions revolve around your one subject mind. 
By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood has declared itself to be an enemy of the West.  I'm not too sure why you don't admit to the same since your ideologies are the same.     
this Muzlum Brotherhood is non sequitur example this discussion unless you provide some salient facts not assumptions!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 6:50am
First of all, you should actually read the links you post.  Go back and actually read the last link you posted.  The Muslim Brotherhood is mentioned.  Secondly, this is exactly, by which I mean exactly, the sort of non sequitur example you used in your last post.  I'm not surprised the irony was totally lost on you.  


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 4:00pm
MB mention doesn't relate to the drone attacks my dear fact challenged friend. MB is just one of the groups like any; how about wingnuts Tea Party! My reference is on the ethics/morality part that you want to ignore emphasized in the Osborne's column.




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 5:01pm
Maybe you can copy the lines in the article that use the words drones or drone weapon system.  I'm just not seeing it even though I really looked hard.  I did see the a form of the word moral however which I assume is the word you seem to feel seems to be important.  Let me try to help you out.  The article talks about a little bit about the relationship between the US and Pakistan.  This article does not talk about the ethics or morality of drone attacks.   


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 5:13pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

Maybe you can copy the lines in the article that use the words drones or drone weapon system.  I'm just not seeing it even though I really looked hard.  I did see the a form of the word moral however which I assume is the word you seem to feel seems to be important.  Let me try to help you out.  The article talks about a little bit about the relationship between the US and Pakistan.  This article does not talk about the ethics or morality of drone attacks.   

Exactly...Why it had to be pulling teeth! Don't need to talk about drones!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 28 February 2011 at 8:37pm

Sign Reader, this thread is about drones.  Look at the thread title.  Take your off topic rants elsewhere.



Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 01 March 2011 at 7:36pm
Duh...................................Ouch

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 17 March 2011 at 6:41pm

http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/18/rare-condemnation-by-pm-army-chief-40-civilians-killed-in-drone-attack.html - Rare condemnation by PM, army chief: 40 killed in drone attack

While they have the capabilities to eliminate all the drones flying overhead, instead of making the stupi.d statements!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 March 2011 at 1:08am

The civilian death toll has doubled as being reported...



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 March 2011 at 6:39pm
Very poignant comments on the same subject...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE5SByCrvzs&NR=1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE5SByCrvzs&NR=1

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 12 April 2011 at 9:37am

What will people do for money?

(PhysOrg.com) -- At the April 4, 2011 annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society the subject of moral dilemmas and what people would really do was addressed. In a study presented by http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/oriel.feldmanhall/ - Oriel FeldmanHall of Cambridge University shows that when it comes to moral studies, hypothetical scenarios do not work to determine the complexities of what people’s real decisions would be.

FeldmanHall’s study showed that what people say they will do in a given situation and what they really do are two very different things. If given a hypothetical situation of a choice of giving someone an electrical shock for money or walking away, most people answered they would never be able to inflict pain on another person.

However, in a real-life scenario, with real money and real electric shocks, the actions were much different. In FeldmanHall’s study, subjects were placed in an MRI scanner and then given the choice to either administer an electrical shock to a person located in another room and make money (one British pound) or not inflict pain and receive no money. They also broke down that one pound into percentages based on the severity of the shock, so they would receive the full pound for administering a severe shock and less for more mild shocks.

The subject in the MRI was shown a video of the person receiving the shock and would either see just the person’s hand jerk or be shown both the hand jerk and the person’s face. Each participant was given the choice to shock another person 20 times, with the opportunity to make 20 pounds.

In the hypothetical scenario, 64 percent of participants said they would never administer a shock to someone else for money. However, in the real world that number changed, and in a big way. When faced with real money, 96 percent chose to shock the person in the other room for http://www.physorg.com/tags/money/ - money .

What seemed to make the difference in how many of those 20 chances the participants took was what video they were watching. On average, those watching just the hands jerk walked away with 15.77 pounds, but those watching the faces as well, left with only 11.55 pounds.

The study also showed that when these individuals were presented with a moral dilemma, they showed heightened activity in the insula, a part of the brain believed to be attached to emotion. It is this lack of emotion and real dilemma that FeldmanHall believes is what is missing in traditional hypothetical dilemmas.

The hope of using these types of studies is to determine how the brain dictates compassion and moral behavior in individuals.



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: LuisO
Date Posted: 22 September 2011 at 1:01am
The brand new American method of war is here, says the New York Times. Predator drones are so yesterday. I read this here: http://www.newsytype.com/11606-automated-killer-drones/ - Fully automated killer drones changing face of warfare .Totally automated military drones are the future. New killer military drones - aka “Terminators” - are entirely autonomous.




Print Page | Close Window