Support NeoGAF

[Lamel]

People keep saying that drone strikes are creating the terrorist of the future. However terrorist existed before drone strikes and they will exist after any drone strikes cease. Terrorist are terrorist because they often don't have logical reasons for what they do. However keep blaming drone strikes if that makes you feel good.

If you kill a man's kids/wife/family he may turn to revenge. You're incredibly naive if you think drone strikes don't create more hostility.

 

[nib95]

Is it fair to say at this point America has killed more civilians in their 'war on terror' than the actual terrorists have?

Orders of magnitude more. Like, not even in the same ballpark regarding death toll figures. Worse still when you look at the wounded or massively affected too.

 

[delirium]

I appreciate other elements of your post, but this point is really regressive and dangerous. You can't use straw man or counter productive fantasy arguments to justify horrid and immoral actions. "It's ok that we do this terrible disgusting thing, because people would complain if we did something else anyway!"

Listen to yourself. What awful and self destructive logic.

Wake up man.

Not all criticisms are born equal, and not all actions and policies being critiqued are either. People will have more of a disdain for certain things over others, and rightfully so. Which is where I said people ought to retain a moral compass and a theoretical "line", essentially moral limits (not actually a literal one).

I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that we should do terrible things because people would complain if we did something else anyway; I was saying that the world's opinion really shouldn't be a main concern of US politicians when they decide on policy.

War with who? You're at war with an ideology, therefore it is not a war that can be won or even properly fought, not without being counter productive and adding further fuel to the defence of that ideology and initial political sentiment.

America's done a LOT of fucked up shit to many countries. Does not give them all a right to go to war with America, especially on a never ending basis. But with America's constant bombings and murders of foreigners, their human rights violations, Guantanamo, drone bombings, overstayed welcome in waring nations, support of Israel and everything else, they're certainly giving plenty of ammunition for the terrorist political ideology to blossom.

On that subject though, what's your defence of the war on Iraq? What did Iraqi's do to justify that?, and with it the destruction of their country and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, both foreign and American. Did you forget it was a war based on lies and fabricated evidence?

I said we are at war with al-Qaeda the organization and its members. It's not like the US hasn't been to war with an ideology before. I mean look at the Cold War and authoritarian communism. Our chief opponents where the Soviets but there was an ideological pinning in the war.

I don't doubt America has done a lot of fucked up things, but name one nation that hasn't. Name one group of people that haven't had in their past some actions that no one is proud of.

As for the war on Iraq, I hate the WMD argument was based on lies since we have 20/20 hindsight. I really doubt the US government had maliciously intent when they were selling the war. As for the war itself, I support a war in Iraq on the same principle that I would probably support a war in North Korea.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Again, killing people without due process is not ok,.. but it's not the same as a suicide bomber targeting civilians.

If you think the American government is " the same" as Al-Qaeda you really need to get of the internet and spend time with thee people.

It's easy to talk about intent when you want to justify something, but do you really think the US attacks are interpreted any differently to the people who are actually affected by them? Do you just not care about them? Would you tell them to get off the Internet and spend time with the people?

 

[delirium]

Orders of magnitude more. Like, not even in the same ballpark regarding death toll figures. Worse still when you look at the wounded or massively affected too.

I'm sorry but I call BS. Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT directly caused by ISAF or Coalition forces. They were the results of either Taliban or Iraqi insurgents killing people.

 

[DigitalOp]

We're at war with al-Qaeda.

Might as well be at war with Anonymous or some shit...

My resentment for this country grows daily...

But yet I live here and continue to feed the system like a goddamn hypocrite.

It infuriates me. Kick every motherfucker running the government out of office right now. We need a damn purge.

 

[Nesotenso]

Orders of magnitude more. Like, not even in the same ballpark regarding death toll figures. Worse still when you look at the wounded or massively affected too.

not true

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Might as well be at war with Anonymous or some shit...

My resentment for this country grows daily...

But yet I live here and continue to feed the system like a goddamn hypocrite.

It infuriates me. Kick every motherfucker running the government out of office right now. We need a damn purge.

The people running the government don't operate in a vacuum. It's the people and organizations with all of the money and power who are really making the decisions (or deciding who gets to make the decisions in government). In that sense, we certainly are a democracy. Just not one where universal suffrage matters a whole lot beyond the local government level.

 

[delirium]

Might as well be at war with Anonymous or some shit...

My resentment for this country grows daily...

But yet I live here and continue to feed the system like a goddamn hypocrite.

It infuriates me. Kick every motherfucker running the government out of office right now. We need a damn purge.

Has Anonymous publicly declared war against the US? Has it hijacked four planes, attacked the Pentagon/Twin Towers, and killed three thousand people?

 

[LAMBO]

Our American money is just too delicious for these countries to not let us do whatever we want, no matter how bad. We give out the aid, they let us run the show. I do wish countries would just give us the finger, refuse our aid, and tell us to get the hell out of their countries. But they just don’t have the will.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Our American money is just too delicious for these countries to not let us do whatever we want, no matter how bad. We give out the aid, they let us run the show. I do wish countries would just give us the finger, refuse our aid, and tell us to get the hell out of their countries. But they just don’t have the will.

If the people in charge of those countries try to do something like that, they'll just be displaced or find themselves up against a domestic uprising under the name of revolution!

 

[Hunter S.]

This article actually gives more information on US governments response to the incident. People should also think about the fact that we do not know if the drone was piloted by human or not. A lot of assumptions have been made that it was a non-piloted drone.

Also, Obama did state he was, "surprised and upset."

President Barack Obama has never commented publicly on the targeted drone strike that accidentally killed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. But a new book released Tuesday reveals Obama was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation" when he learned of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's October 2011 death, which one former White House official calls "a mistake, a bad mistake."

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake." However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html

 

[Angry Fork]

Has anyone actually bother to do a fucking modicum of research into this?

This is bad, but it was an obvious mistake. Grow up people. The world isn't a god-damn comic book.

Again, killing people without due process is not ok,.. but it's not the same as a suicide bomber targeting civilians.

If you think the American government is " the same" as Al-Qaeda you really need to get of the internet and spend time with thee people.

How many civilian deaths do you think is justified before you'd say what we're doing is wrong and worse than Al Qaeda could ever try/imagine? If we nuked the entire middle east in self defense would that be reasonable? Why is a suicide bomb as a method of impact any worse than a drone strike?

We are purposefully killing civilians and creating terror. We know there are civilians around when we launch these, and when emergency personnel come to help people on the ground we shoot again in the same spot (called a double tap). We ignore all standards of ethics and rules in favor of convenience because there is no push back from ordinary US citizens. They know they can get away with it because people like you are making excuses for them.

When you compare the likelihood of a terror attack vs. getting shot in the US and the amount of resources that go into both, it is plainly obvious that the war on terror is more about keeping a monstrous giant of a state and war machine intact rather than preserving life.

I don't mean to sound callous, as I live in NYC and experienced 9/11 as it happened, but about 3,000 people died. It was a horrible event but I don't think that justifies deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, trillions of dollars in response and sending everyone in the military to every part of the globe. That is a hysterical reactionary, backwards response that is less about justice and more about using people's misery as an excuse/pretext for global dominance.

 

[nib95]

I'm sorry but I call BS. Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT directly caused by ISAF or Coalition forces. They were the results of either Taliban or Iraqi insurgents killing people.

No. Over 4000 on drone strikes alone, factor that only 1 in 50 are actually terrorists, the rest civilians. Then tens of thousands from Iraq and Afghanistan. 8000 civilians died in Iraq during the initial invasion alone. Obviously the death toll now is in the hundreds of thousands, for numerous reasons, some as you've outlined. Then there's US support of Israel and the thousands of Palestinian lives that's cost too.

Point being, terrorists could never even dream of killing the numbers the US does.

 

[numble]

As for the war itself, I support a war in Iraq on the same principle that I would probably support a war in North Korea.

What war-like act did these countries commit? How is it in the best interests of American citizens? I suppose you would also support going to war with Iran, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Somolia, UAE, and Russia?

 

[Lambtron]

I don't mean to sound callous, as I live in NYC and experienced 9/11 as it happened, but about 3,000 people died. It was a horrible event but I don't think that justifies deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, trillions of dollars in response and sending everyone in the military to every part of the globe. That is a hysterical reactionary, backwards response that is less about justice and more about using people's misery as an excuse/pretext for global dominance.

Perfectly stated.

 

[LAMBO]

If the people in charge of those countries try to do something like that, they'll just be displaced or find themselves up against a domestic uprising under the name of revolution!

For sure and millions would die without our food and medical aid. It would take very strong willed people to do it. Has it ever been done?

And yes i don't think we should be wasting all this money on wars. I would rather have better highways, less taxes, cheaper gas, social security, and free healthcare without screwing the doctors. I would rather have the sickest border control, aniti missle systems, nuke detection equipment, etc. than dropping $50,000 bombs on a tent. Wars and welfare are just going to bankrupt us.

 

[gohepcat]

We are purposefully killing civilians and creating terror.

Well I see this thread is over. You have no idea what you are talking about and do not deserve even the slightest response.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Regarding this topic I would recommend people either watch the documentary Dirty Wars or read the book of the same name.

In the book and doc Jeremy Scahill finds out that the government knew of alawaki's location for months and did nothing.

Which leads me ask those saying the alternative would be boots on the ground how come they sent in troops to get Osama but couldn't for Alawaki who lived on a remote street with only six or so houses in Yemen in comparison to the fortified complex in Pakistan where Osama was?

 

[Angry Fork]

Well I see this thread is over. You have no idea what you are talking about and do not deserve even the slightest response.

Recognizing civilians on the ground and shooting them is purposeful, no? What do you think the double tap attacks are? Do you think it's right if we shoot without even knowing who's there? That is indiscriminate and flies in the face of the careful, surgical nonsense thrown around by the admin.

 

[Deified Data]

If you think the American government is " the same" as Al-Qaeda you really need to get of the internet and spend time with thee people.

I agree, they're very different. Despite the fact that both parties employ violence to further their political agenda, one enjoys worldwide legitimacy while the other is branded a terrorist organization.

I can't participate in threads like these. The apologists are too much.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Another day, another story about the united states that makes my stomach churn.
Fucking devils.

 

[Hunter S.]

I agree, they're very different. Despite the fact that both parties employ violence to further their political agenda, one enjoys worldwide legitimacy while the other is branded a terrorist organization.

I can't participate in threads like these. The apologists are too much.

Your strange comparison would have every country in the world as illigitimate power of violence, yet you use this example to generalize the US government as being the only evil. Yes, you are too much for this thread.

 

[kame-sennin]

Civilians hit by drone attacks show the damage that has been done (some graphic footage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxlgIbB_NtE

 

[gohepcat]

Recognizing civilians on the ground and shooting them is purposeful, no? What do you think the double tap attacks are?.

A totally unconfirmed phenomenon?

 

[Angry Fork]

A totally unconfirmed phenomenon?

I don't understand what you mean? Are you saying the existence of the double tap policy is debateable/unconfirmed?

 

[Deified Data]

Your strange comparison would have every country in the world as illigitimate power of violence, yet you use this example to generalize the US government as being the only evil. Yes, you are too much for this thread.

What are you even talking about?

Where did I express a belief that the US is the only country using violence and fear to further its geopolitical agenda?

A totally unconfirmed phenomenon?

Double-taps are official drone policy. Gotta nail those first responders. They're probably terrorists, too.

 

[Jex]

I wonder when the US government will have to admit that it's drone strike policy certainly does more damage than good and certainly helps to foster the kind of resentment that will lead to many more generations of terrorists.

I suppose it doesn't help that the reports of US drones killing civilians is under reported in the US itself compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Gallbaro]

.

 

[KtSlime]

People keep saying that drone strikes are creating the terrorist of the future. However terrorist existed before drone strikes and they will exist after any drone strikes cease. Terrorist are terrorist because they often don't have logical reasons for what they do. However keep blaming drone strikes if that makes you feel good.

While retaliation is not a logical reason to do something, it is one employed quite frequently by us. Acting in the way we are, we are just exacerbating a blood feud.

 

[Nathan Muir]

Never going to happen. Just like the fact that for every action that America does, some subsection of the world is going to hate us, there will always be a subsection of the world that will trade with us.

The world is not a monolithic place where everyone shares the same opinions of America.

Have you traveled outside of the U.S. much? I've lived in four countries (including the U.S. for nearly 10 years), been to 50 or 60. With almost no exception, the world does share the same opinion of America.

 

[Cake Boss]

But Bill Maher said that Bams is a good guy?

 

[Hunter S.]

What are you even talking about?

Where did I express a belief that the US is the only country using violence and fear to further its geopolitical agenda?

If it can by applied to almost any form of government than it is hardly worth making the comparison to the US only. You might as well just throw venom at every source of power that has done wrong. Either way your comparison lacks reason.

 

[hawkshockey11]

It's war. This may have been a mistake, or there may be a good reason it happened. My opinion is that it should not have happened, but I can't get on the "Americans are terrorists" train. Sorry.

9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack since they hit their target (the building) all the dead people were just "collateral."

 

[BeerSnob]

9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack since they hit their target (the building) all the dead people were just "collateral."

So it was conducted by a nation state? Or was it conducted by group of armed belligerents with no legitimate political power attempting to influence the course of their target countries foreign policy through intimidating their populace?

Not every government in the world "looks out for the interest of its own" by preemptively striking other countries with drones. Ask yourself what would happen if any other country in the world were to enact a drone strike on the U.S.

That was answered on the front page. The U.S conducts it's misguided drone policy with the knowledge of the countries which it is "droning". In fact at one point in Pakistan U.S drone command was sending one Pakistani general, Kayani I think, a list of target they were going to hit. Only one of which was actually going to be hit. If he had veto'd the all targets the operation was grounded. In Yemen the authorization is murkier still because of the local political situation. Though I did read something about the Yemeni drone program ending.

 

[Nathan Muir]

I'm sorry but I think you're completely naive if you think the US government is completely alone in this.

Every government in the world looks out for the interest of its own over others. Or does your government hand out subsided social programs to everyone in the world?

I would argue that a good government should be looking out for the interest of its own. A government that fails to do so lacks legitimacy.

Not every government in the world "looks out for the interest of its own" by preemptively striking other countries with drones. Ask yourself what would happen if any other country in the world were to enact a drone strike on the U.S.

 

[Deified Data]

If it can by applied to almost any form of government than it is hardly worth making the comparison to the US only. You might as well just throw venom at every source of power that has done wrong. Either way your comparison lacks reason.

This is a thread about American drone policy.

And no, this form of warfare can't be applied to every country in the world.

 

[Angry Fork]

But Bill Maher said that Bams is a good guy?

Maher thinks drone strikes are a good thing so he's in line with Obama on that. He has also professed over the top hawkish defenses of the Vietnam war. I still don't understand how he reconciles that with his anti-war stance on Iraq, unless it really is just a matter of defending democrats when it comes to violence.

 

[shuri]

I'm talking as an outsider, but for all the shit people gave Bush last decade, the stuff that has been happening under Obama is like 10x worst and out of control.

 

[Nathan Muir]

People keep saying that drone strikes are creating the terrorist of the future. However terrorist existed before drone strikes and they will exist after any drone strikes cease. Terrorist are terrorist because they often don't have logical reasons for what they do. However keep blaming drone strikes if that makes you feel good.

Sure terrorists have a logic and reason for what they do. The logic and reason is just one that is incongruous with what we believe to be right. It's senseless killing.
The flip side of that is that the logic and reason for drone strikes is also utterly offensive to cultures foreign to the U.S. Namely, to preemptively attack a location with an alleged or confirmed target, along with "necessary" casualties. It's senseless killing.

 

[Codeblue]

The American government is doing what its main job is to do; look out for the well being and interests of its citizens and it will prioritize it over non-Americans. Every government in the world does this and America is no different.

I also remember when the entire country really wanted to make Cheney a bunch of money by invading Iraq. Glad we got that done.

The actions of this country don't always reflect the interest of the whole.

 

[Dead Man]

americans are friendly people, the government is the devil. A nobel prize winner kill random people and exported weapons for several billion dollars.

Yeah, this is a pretty important difference. It is possible to hate the government while liking the individuals.

 

[delirium]

How many civilian deaths do you think is justified before you'd say what we're doing is wrong and worse than Al Qaeda could ever try/imagine? If we nuked the entire middle east in self defense would that be reasonable? Why is a suicide bomb as a method of impact any worse than a drone strike?

We are purposefully killing civilians and creating terror. We know there are civilians around when we launch these, and when emergency personnel come to help people on the ground we shoot again in the same spot (called a double tap). We ignore all standards of ethics and rules in favor of convenience because there is no push back from ordinary US citizens. They know they can get away with it because people like you are making excuses for them.

When you compare the likelihood of a terror attack vs. getting shot in the US and the amount of resources that go into both, it is plainly obvious that the war on terror is more about keeping a monstrous giant of a state and war machine intact rather than preserving life.

I don't mean to sound callous, as I live in NYC and experienced 9/11 as it happened, but about 3,000 people died. It was a horrible event but I don't think that justifies deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, trillions of dollars in response and sending everyone in the military to every part of the globe. That is a hysterical reactionary, backwards response that is less about justice and more about using people's misery as an excuse/pretext for global dominance.[/QUOTE]

Because one doesn't intentionally target civilians with the intent of maximizing terror. The fact that you believe a suicide bomb and a drone strike are equal is astounding to me.

I mean, its not like there's evidence to show that more militants have been killed than civilians, oh wait...

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php
http://www.economist.com/node/21524916

As for the comparison to terror attack vs gun violence that's a completely different argument. One in the area in which the executive has nearly complete control over. The others has the complex issue of Congress. It is also not a if we can only have one and not the other.

Finally, for your last comment, while your experience with 9/11 gives you that insight, it doesn't mean it is the majority's opinion.

No. Over 4000 on drone strikes alone, factor that only 1 in 50 are actually terrorists, the rest civilians. Then tens of thousands from Iraq and Afghanistan. 8000 civilians died in Iraq during the initial invasion alone. Obviously the death toll now is in the hundreds of thousands, for numerous reasons, some as you've outlined. Then there's US support of Israel and the thousands of Palestinian lives that's cost too.

Point being, terrorists could never even dream of killing the numbers the US does.

I don't know where you can getting your information from but its clearly wrong. Order of magnitudes wrong. There haven't even been a 500 drone strikes in the last 10 years.

And attributing deaths cause by militants in Iraq/Afghanistan and actions by Israel shows you clearly jumping off the cliff. If we go that route, you can blame any and all deaths in the world on America.

Have you traveled outside of the U.S. much? I've lived in four countries (including the U.S. for nearly 10 years), been to 50 or 60. With almost no exception, the world does share the same opinion of America.

I'm sorry, but have you? Thinking the world shares the same opinion of America is borderline stupid.

 

[Nathan Muir]

That was answered on the front page. The U.S conducts it's misguided drone policy with the knowledge of the countries which it is "droning". In fact at one point in Pakistan U.S drone command was sending one Pakistani general, Kayani I think, a list of target they were going to hit. Only one of which was actually going to be hit. If he had veto'd the all targets the operation was grounded. In Yemen the authorization is murkier still because of the local political situation. Though I did read something about the Yemeni drone program ending.

I know the policies, and my point still stands though. U.S. drone attacks may be primarily within the knowledge of the governments of the countries in which the U.S. is active with its program, but that does not mean the U.S. has the support of the citizens of those nations. It is still an act of aggressive terrorism against the citizens by the very definition of the ideology (whether consent is present or not).

 

[BeerSnob]

I know the policies, and my point still stands though. U.S. drone attacks may be primarily within the knowledge of the governments of the countries in which the U.S. is active with its program, but that does not mean the U.S. has the support of the citizens of those nations. It is still an act of aggressive terrorism against the citizens by the very definition of the ideology (whether consent is present or not).

I have no delusions on whether or not the citizens want U.S drones, in their country, vaporizing Al Qaeda or Taliban members and anyone else nearby. Of course they don't, it is with out a doubt the single worst way I can think of to conduct targeted killing of Al Qaeda or Taliban members. Seriously, short of carpet bombing, there's no worse way to do this.

 

[Nathan Muir]

I have no delusions on whether or not the citizens want U.S drones, in their country, vaporizing Al Qaeda or Taliban members and anyone else nearby. Of course they don't, it is with out a doubt the single worst way I can think of to conduct targeted killing of Al Qaeda or Taliban members. Seriously, short of carpet bombing, there's no worse way to do this.

Ah, I mistook your intent then--my apologies. Same page, amigo.

I'm sorry, but have you? Thinking the world shares the same opinion of America is borderline stupid.

Yes, I have. Didn't you read my post? I've spent almost the entirety of my life traveling. I have dual citizenship with the United States and Argentina. I have lived in the U.S., South America, and Europe, and I have spent extensive time in Asia and Africa as well. The matter of the U.S. influence on the rest of the world and the reactions of nations to the U.S. disposition is a topic I have been deeply intrigued by throughout my life. If you would like greater detail of what I meant by a shared opinion with almost no exception, I can lay it all out, but I'm not going to waste my time if you've already decided the possibility is "borderline stupid."

 

[Nathan Muir]

.

 

[KtSlime]

Because one doesn't intentionally target civilians with the intent of maximizing terror. The fact that you believe a suicide bomb and a drone strike are equal is astounding to me.

If I was the CEO of a giant organization that has a guaranteed contract - just so long as there are terrorists, I'd be interested in having as many terrorists as I could possibly get, if killing a few civilians by accident - just happens to get more people to resent the US and possibly become sympathetic, which leads to more terrorists, which keeps American's in terror, that would just be great wouldn't it.

This is a business first and foremost. Cruel treatment of humans should be expected.

 

[Kettch]

This article actually gives more information on US governments response to the incident. People should also think about the fact that we do not know if the drone was piloted by human or not. A lot of assumptions have been made that it was a non-piloted drone.

Also, Obama did state he was, "surprised and upset."






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html

However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review."

By far the more interesting part there. I can guess how the review went.

 

[gohepcat]

If I was the CEO of a giant organization that has a guaranteed contract - just so long as there are terrorists, I'd be interested in having as many terrorists as I could possibly get, if killing a few civilians by accident - just happens to get more people to resent the US and possibly become sympathetic, which leads to more terrorists, which keeps American's in terror, that would just be great wouldn't it.

This is a business first and foremost. Cruel treatment of humans should be expected.

Jesus Christ.

Here is the reason why we can't have a discussion about foreign policy or have a serious investigation into the US drone policy. If you really think this Alex Jones bullshit, where everyone is a Disney-style super villain, you will never be taken seriously.

You sound like every stoned art school asshole I had to deal with in college.