Drones, and the victims they cause

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My issue is that the government doesn't mind killing innocent children to fight terrorism. Supporters say that the terrorists hide behind the women and children for safety. Well, when someone robs a bank and takes hostages, we don't go in shooting all the hostages, do we?

Good point. I think the train of thought is that the "hostages" in the case of drone operations are part of "them" and thus just as expendable. I don't subscribe to that train of thought. The way this war on terror is fought, it accomplishes only one thing - create more terrorists. It ensures that this war on terror never ends. Which, I'm afraid, is exatly the point.

[duraaraa 203]

Good point. I think the train of thought is that the "hostages" in the case of drone operations are part of "them" and thus just as expendable. I don't subscribe to that train of thought. The way this war on terror is fought, it accomplishes only one thing - create more terrorists. It ensures that this war on terror never ends. Which, I'm afraid, is exatly the point.

Agreed. If I was a kid living in Pakistan, and a drone came and killed my family, I would hate the U.S., and cheer for anything done against it. It's only natural.

You can't stop terrorism with terrorism.

Then again, terrorism worked for the U.S. to defeat the Japanese in World War 2, so who knows...

Edited April 25, 2013 by duraaraa

[decocker 7,198]

You can't stop terrorism with terrorism.

The Obama-CIA drone program is the perfect example of government secrecy, lawlessness, and the inevitable next step in the U.S. government's long tradition of claiming the right to intervene military anywhere and everywhere it pleases. Government programs, whether they be welfare transfer payments or weapons contracts, like cancer, grow for growth's sake.

Many Americans may display indifference to the use of drones and the CIA's desire to expand the program. After all, these strikes are done thousands of miles away, and our noble public servants would never mislead us or fearmonger about a supposed foreign threat. Besides, it is far better to have CIA agents in Virginia or Nevada flying weaponized robots by remote control than to send in thousands of Marines, right?

The problem with this, of course, is twofold. First, the basic justification for the use of drones is the threat of terrorism. But terrorism is simply a predictable consequence of an interventionist foreign policy, the propping up of puppet dictators, and the embrace of empire that began after World War II (at least). The use of drones simply compounds this problem, creating more potential terrorists for every one that is killed.

Secondly, foreign and domestic policy are incredibly intertwined, and empires always eventually turn inward. During the occupation of the Philippines, the U.S. government experimented with drug prohibition and torture, programs that eventually became standard domestically. Police are now increasingly resembling, in both attire, attitude, and tactics, their overseas counterparts in Baghdad and Kandahar. Given that in just a few years, drones are set to police American skies, how long will they remained unarmed?

50 civilians for every terrorist

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

My issue isn't that drones are being used (although I don't like the idea of being spied on by drones at all times... that would be hell.) My issue is that the government doesn't mind killing innocent children to fight terrorism. Supporters say that the terrorists hide behind the women and children for safety. Well, when someone robs a bank and takes hostages, we don't go in shooting all the hostages, do we?

DUH bank robbers ain't foreigners.

[duraaraa 203]

Given that in just a few years, drones are set to police American skies, how long will they remained unarmed?

This scares me, and I feel so happy that my fiancee is Mongolian. That means that if the U.S. becomes as scary of a place as it has the potential to become, I can escape to a free country.

[Ban Hammer 14,091]

i think i just found a new avatar

[duraaraa 203]

i think i just found a new avatar

I think I just thought of a new eBusiness to ship these shirts to Pakistan!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The only way to avoid collateral damage is no strikes or attacks of any kind. The problem isn't drones.

[GandD 5,966]

Then again, terrorism worked for the U.S. to defeat the Japanese in World War 2, so who knows...

Are you referring to "little boy" and "fat man"?

[Ban Hammer 14,091]

Are you referring to "little boy" and "fat man"?

there was the firebombing of tokyo in ww2

Approximately 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more immediate deaths than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[9][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

[GandD 5,966]

there was the firebombing of tokyo in ww2

Approximately 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more immediate deaths than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[9][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Yeah i know about the firebombing. I didn't think that's what he was talking about. Really I don't know what he meant by terrorism so I guess I knee jerked to the atomics. If he was I guess we just terrorism on the Germans in Dresden and others.

[Karee 4,191]

It's a war. There's collateral damage. That's just the way it is. Worrying about generating future terrorists is silly. It's been mentioned in this thread about Dresden, Tokyo etc. Lots of innocent people died in those bombings. Where were those future terrorists? You don't want drones wiping out your village and your families? Simple, stop harboring the enemy.

[duraaraa 203]

It's a war. There's collateral damage. That's just the way it is. Worrying about generating future terrorists is silly. It's been mentioned in this thread about Dresden, Tokyo etc. Lots of innocent people died in those bombings. Where were those future terrorists? You don't want drones wiping out your village and your families? Simple, stop harboring the enemy.

Well then, one could say that Boston victims are collateral damage, too. And 9/11 victims. Because we are so far away from Pakistan, I guess we don't place as much value on the children's lives, since they are harboring the enemy, as you say. But there are hundred of little kids dead, and I guarantee you they don't know who is in the right, who is in the wrong, or what the hell is even going on. If I was religious, I would pray for them just as much as I would pray for any American victims of terrorist attacks.

I'll put it this way:

Killing kids, whoever's kids, under any circumstances, is the most horrible thing someone could ever do, in my opinion.

Edited April 26, 2013 by duraaraa

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It's a war. There's collateral damage. That's just the way it is. Worrying about generating future terrorists is silly. It's been mentioned in this thread about Dresden, Tokyo etc. Lots of innocent people died in those bombings. Where were those future terrorists? You don't want drones wiping out your village and your families? Simple, stop harboring the enemy.

Seems simple enough, but most lib's can't grasp complex issues so they seize on symbols.. Like drones,Assault Weapons, Tibet, whatever the cause cleb is for the day that makes them feel GOOD>

Protesting drone strikes instead of protesting war is just idiotic and narrow minded. It's like wanting to ban assault rifles, when what you really want to do is ban guns

Well then, one could say that Boston victims are collateral damage, too. And 9/11 victims. Because we are so far away from Pakistan, I guess we don't place as much value on the children's lives, since they are harboring the enemy, as you say. But there are hundred of little kids dead, and I guarantee you they don't know who is in the right, who is in the wrong, or what the hell is even going on. If I was religious, I would pray for them just as much as I would pray for any American victims of terrorist attacks.

I'll put it this way:

Killing kids, whoever's kids, under any circumstances, is the most horrible thing someone could ever do, in my opinion.

Well to have collateral damage you would have to have enemy combatants as the primary target. Since almost all Radical Islamic terrorist target civilians as the primary target,, then... then

EPIC FAIL

[decocker 7,198]

It's a war.

we're at war with pakistan?