5 ms·

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happen

by dba7dba 13y ago

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens. How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to capture the terrorists? No of course not. Drone operations take place in Pakistan/Yemen and other nations because of the inability of such nations to police their population adequately. The real problem is NOT the drones but the failed (or almost failed) nations where groups of terrorists can operate in OPEN essentially, whose goal is to hurt/topple another nation. If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not. All this 'omg, the drones are terrible' is useless. You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in. Sure it's near impossible task. But that's the only real solution, and real solutions take real work. The drones are a 'perfect' tool for rich nations for warfare whose population don't want to see their own getting hurt/killed. It's not going to go away.

mcintyre1994 13y ago
Could you not just as easily argue that drone operations take place there because they're powerless against them? Perhaps it's also their inability to protect their population adequately that America take advantage of. In my opinion the real issue here is that innocent civilians are getting killed in a nation America have no official presence in, and certainly no state of war with and where there is no chance of recourse. Are civilians in failed or almost failed (whatever that really means) nations fair game? Is there any precedent for killing civilians without either declaring war or at least putting a presence on the ground? Actually, there probably is - and it's probably best referred to as terrorism. Anyway, I agree that arguing here isn't going to change anything - but I disagree that these people are fair game just because of where they are and what goes on there. I don't think it's venturing far to say some are justified in hating America, that doesn't justify terrorism.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Sure there is recourse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110302638.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11... The Pakistani Government officially supports these strikes. But their public image demands them to publicly be against the strikes. Pakistan's government can end the under-the-table deal and officially make the Drone Strikes illegal. However, as it is right now, the drone strikes are sanctioned by Pakistan. Its a great deal for Pakistan, and it aligns well with the US's goals. Win/win for both countries, all else considered. Whenever the US leaves Afghanistan / Pakistan for good, the Pakistani government retains their good will with their people, the US takes the bad PR garbage associated with the war... and the world becomes a safer place in the long term.
movingahead 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley A terrorist part of the 26/11 attacks on Bombay who was an informant for US DEA. Which NGO should I contribute to for the DEA to realise that human life has value beyond the territorial borders of United States? White Men's burden is back.
jkrems 13y ago
> Give no space for terrorists to operate in. You do understand that many people in here argue that drones are a pretty good instrument to create terrorist..?
- midas007 13y ago
  The documentary Dirty Wars suggests that the Obama administration added an increasing number of names to JSOC's kill list based on variable confidence intelligence. Isn't this the definition of mission creep?
fatca 13y ago
Your justification for the murder of innocent civilians falls short in many ways. You have simply rationalized the murderous ideological propaganda of the US military-industrial complex. As long as you keep murdering just goatherders, you may indeed still get away with this kind of impunity. You fail to understand, however, how vulnerable the ones doing the killing are, to reprisals and retaliations. It only takes a small bit of serious hacking and/or data mining to figure out the home addresses of everyone involved in these massacres, and from there to schedule them one by one for termination. The 40 million Target credit cards were much more difficult to obtain than that. There is a tremendous asymmetry of information between your centralized murder engine and your decentralized enemies. The database of everyone involved on your side exists and can be stolen. The other way around is not true, regardless of all the surveillance that the NSA does. Therefore, the murderers are guaranteed to lose this conflict.
gnufied 13y ago
>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not. The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight: a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels between things without understanding their motive. Primary goal of a terrorist organisation operating out of Islamist state is to flex muscle and create terror. Often it is - revenge killings so as to deter state forces (of US, India, NATO). So far with each drone strike - make no mistake US is creating more terrorists. As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim. Terrorists win each time. If you can accept those innocent people as collateral damage, you should be ready to accept 9/11 or Mumbai bomb blast victims as collateral too? b. Deep down I believe some US citizens simply do not understand how terrorists work. They think, if you drone strike a bunker with important terrorist leader - problem will simply go away. c. Look up Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). CIA trained and financed Taliban when it suited them. Did Russia drone strike key CIA administrators? India is similarly accused of training LTTE (http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-trained-financially-sponsored-ltte-terrorists-and-sri-lankan-tamil-militants/ http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-tr...). A terrorist Organization which oddly enough killed our prime minister. Did Srilanka drone stike India? The truth is - there is power and power allows powerful countries to make rules and let them get away with it. US uses drones strikes against Pakistan because they know they will get away with it. They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Assuming that drone strikes help reduce terrorism is just too naive.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Is there proof that terrorist organization leaders are operating in those countries unchecked?
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Let's say they are just operatives of these countries like Taliban was (maybe still is!!!) operative of CIA. And what?
ryguytilidie 13y ago
"You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in." Ah yes, this is the shit I just love about these arguments. Stop complaining about these things that kill thousands of innocent people. Your only appropriate action, according to some guy on the internet, is this utterly insane task he has made up. You are allowed to do that, but you're not allowed to object to drones killing people... How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  >How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do. If you are really are floored by this, you have a very weak sense of perspective. These conclusions are all very easy to get to if you follow this notion that members of terrorist organizations must be killed. If you set that as an unmovable goal, you will very quickly end up at these types of conclusions. Try to gain some perspective. Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you.
  - ryguytilidie 13y ago
    "Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you." Just as this massive exaggeration makes your point similarly difficult to take seriously. But you seem to value snark to strangers over actually relaying any sort of useful information so I'll leave you to that. Cheers. edit: oh hey, what a shocker, a quick look at the first page of your posting history reveals literally no actual contributions and a bunch of snarky one liners. Give this guy a round of applause for these rock bottom contributions everyone! Bravo!

by dba7dba 13y ago

mcintyre1994 13y ago

Could you not just as easily argue that drone operations take place there because they're powerless against them? Perhaps it's also their inability to protect their population adequately that America take advantage of. In my opinion the real issue here is that innocent civilians are getting killed in a nation America have no official presence in, and certainly no state of war with and where there is no chance of recourse. Are civilians in failed or almost failed (whatever that really means) nations fair game? Is there any precedent for killing civilians without either declaring war or at least putting a presence on the ground? Actually, there probably is - and it's probably best referred to as terrorism. Anyway, I agree that arguing here isn't going to change anything - but I disagree that these people are fair game just because of where they are and what goes on there. I don't think it's venturing far to say some are justified in hating America, that doesn't justify terrorism.

dragontamer 13y ago
Sure there is recourse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/03/AR2008110302638.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11... The Pakistani Government officially supports these strikes. But their public image demands them to publicly be against the strikes. Pakistan's government can end the under-the-table deal and officially make the Drone Strikes illegal. However, as it is right now, the drone strikes are sanctioned by Pakistan. Its a great deal for Pakistan, and it aligns well with the US's goals. Win/win for both countries, all else considered. Whenever the US leaves Afghanistan / Pakistan for good, the Pakistani government retains their good will with their people, the US takes the bad PR garbage associated with the war... and the world becomes a safer place in the long term.

movingahead 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley A terrorist part of the 26/11 attacks on Bombay who was an informant for US DEA. Which NGO should I contribute to for the DEA to realise that human life has value beyond the territorial borders of United States? White Men's burden is back.

jkrems 13y ago

> Give no space for terrorists to operate in. You do understand that many people in here argue that drones are a pretty good instrument to create terrorist..?

midas007 13y ago
The documentary Dirty Wars suggests that the Obama administration added an increasing number of names to JSOC's kill list based on variable confidence intelligence. Isn't this the definition of mission creep?

fatca 13y ago

Your justification for the murder of innocent civilians falls short in many ways. You have simply rationalized the murderous ideological propaganda of the US military-industrial complex. As long as you keep murdering just goatherders, you may indeed still get away with this kind of impunity. You fail to understand, however, how vulnerable the ones doing the killing are, to reprisals and retaliations. It only takes a small bit of serious hacking and/or data mining to figure out the home addresses of everyone involved in these massacres, and from there to schedule them one by one for termination. The 40 million Target credit cards were much more difficult to obtain than that. There is a tremendous asymmetry of information between your centralized murder engine and your decentralized enemies. The database of everyone involved on your side exists and can be stolen. The other way around is not true, regardless of all the surveillance that the NSA does. Therefore, the murderers are guaranteed to lose this conflict.

gnufied 13y ago

>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not. The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight: a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels between things without understanding their motive. Primary goal of a terrorist organisation operating out of Islamist state is to flex muscle and create terror. Often it is - revenge killings so as to deter state forces (of US, India, NATO). So far with each drone strike - make no mistake US is creating more terrorists. As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim. Terrorists win each time. If you can accept those innocent people as collateral damage, you should be ready to accept 9/11 or Mumbai bomb blast victims as collateral too? b. Deep down I believe some US citizens simply do not understand how terrorists work. They think, if you drone strike a bunker with important terrorist leader - problem will simply go away. c. Look up Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). CIA trained and financed Taliban when it suited them. Did Russia drone strike key CIA administrators? India is similarly accused of training LTTE (http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-trained-financially-sponsored-ltte-terrorists-and-sri-lankan-tamil-militants/ http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-tr...). A terrorist Organization which oddly enough killed our prime minister. Did Srilanka drone stike India? The truth is - there is power and power allows powerful countries to make rules and let them get away with it. US uses drones strikes against Pakistan because they know they will get away with it. They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Assuming that drone strikes help reduce terrorism is just too naive.

ars_technician 13y ago
>They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Is there proof that terrorist organization leaders are operating in those countries unchecked?
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Let's say they are just operatives of these countries like Taliban was (maybe still is!!!) operative of CIA. And what?

ryguytilidie 13y ago

"You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in." Ah yes, this is the shit I just love about these arguments. Stop complaining about these things that kill thousands of innocent people. Your only appropriate action, according to some guy on the internet, is this utterly insane task he has made up. You are allowed to do that, but you're not allowed to object to drones killing people... How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do.

ars_technician 13y ago
>How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do. If you are really are floored by this, you have a very weak sense of perspective. These conclusions are all very easy to get to if you follow this notion that members of terrorist organizations must be killed. If you set that as an unmovable goal, you will very quickly end up at these types of conclusions. Try to gain some perspective. Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you.
- ryguytilidie 13y ago
  "Just throwing a fit of incredulity doesn't help any arguments because the other side usually feels the same way about you." Just as this massive exaggeration makes your point similarly difficult to take seriously. But you seem to value snark to strangers over actually relaying any sort of useful information so I'll leave you to that. Cheers. edit: oh hey, what a shocker, a quick look at the first page of your posting history reveals literally no actual contributions and a bunch of snarky one liners. Give this guy a round of applause for these rock bottom contributions everyone! Bravo!