- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
We would be outraged even if the strategically targeted hit were accurate and no civilians were involved.Surgical precision they say, minimal civilian casualties they say. Even if in the past the US has been truthful with the number of civilians killed (and honestly what are the chances of that?), this cannot be overlooked. When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out. If somebody shot a drone into the US to take out a "strategic target" and hit a wedding convey we would be outraged, and sending out entire military overseas to deal with it. If Yemen so much as considers retaliation against the United States we would be all over them.
so it's the same crap. no accountability to speak of, no US comment, and nothing changes.The security committee, headed by President Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, said Thursday's strike targeted "a car that belonged to one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda".
Two of the dead whose names were released -- Saleh al-Tays and Abdullah al-Tays -- had figured on past government lists of wanted Al-Qaeda suspects.
But most of those killed were civilians of the Al-Tays and Al-Ameri clans headed for the wedding.
Amnesty International said confusion over who was behind the raid "exposes a serious lack of accountability for scores of civilian deaths in the country."
Yemen tribe boosts protest over civilian drone deaths
"Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes," Obama said.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062668118 said:"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Spock (From Star Trek)
Obama Told Aides He's 'Really Good At Killing People,' New Book 'Double Down' Claims
When are we going to realize that these killings are making more enemies than we are taking out.
Yes, but I don't think they're even wanting to affect change through friendship, but rather they want to affect change through fear and intimation. That don't give one whit about being your/our friends.If that's true, does that mean that every terrorist attack against civilians makes more enemies than they kill?
Yes, but I don't think they're even wanting to affect change through friendship, but rather they want to affect change through fear and intimation. That don't give one whit about being your/our friends.
Our whole line of world politics thinking needs re-thinking.It opens up interesting lines of logic:
-1 So the US can continue and, because there's more terrorist attacks against civilians than US attacks, the number of people that the terrorists make enemies out of will continue to rise much faster than the number of people that the US make enemies out of.
Or:
-2 The US should do nothing at all, and just continue to have the terrorists make more and more enemies.
Or maybe those lines or argumentation indicate that the foundation we're basing it on (that this creates more enemies than it kills) is incomplete at best and erroneous at worst.
If that's true, does that mean that every terrorist attack against civilians makes more enemies than they kill?
Possibly, but that doesn't affect feelings toward the US at all....
Feelings toward the US isn't really the end game. It's a means to an end, right?
Well it should be the end game, why else are we there?
To advance American interests.
I think you make some very good points... do you have data on how many new jihadis types we are creating or are you just extrapolating that it is creating more than would occur naturally in this time of, it seems, rising Muslim consciousness, especially noticeable in its extremist and radical forms. This is not my area of expertise but I do try to maintain an ongoing interest in what is what and where, sometimes the who.it's a good point, and we use them on "militants" - whatever that means. not just high value terrorists.
Our so called signature strikes: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/the-signature-strikes-program/?_r=0
And yes the Yemeni INTEl can be a cellphone call from someone in the field - I would imagine faulty data used for revenge,
ONLY way to use these is : 1. "high value" targets only 2. cross checked, or exacting INTEL. 3. limited use.
we are doing none of these as of now
It's impossible to quantify, one has to think of the radicalizatioj of the populations where drones loiter overhead for hours/days on end.I think you make some very good points... do you have data on how many new jihadis types we are creating or are you just extrapolating that it is creating more than would occur naturally in this time of, it seems, rising Muslim consciousness, especially noticeable in its extremist and radical norms. This is not my area of expertise but I do try to maintain an ongoing interest in what is what and where, sometimes the who.
I am wondering out loud whether, with limited arrows in our quiver, if maybe the drones are the way, however crude, far better than boots on the ground, sometimes far the more blunt... or should we do something else in between that and just throwing our hands up in the air... not in surrender, never, but in just ridding our minds of the whole matter, withdraw...
Then, if the US withdraws from this which means it will soon be withdrawing from all the other thats, what vacuums will be filled, where will that go?
McChrystal — the former ISAF commander who implemented the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of "winning hearts and minds" in Afghanistan — said that while drones enabled him to carry out missions with fewer troops, the impact of remotely dropping bombs from the sky has its disadvantages................
May Sudarsan Raghavan of The Washington Post reported that "unintended consequence of the attacks [in Yemen] has been a marked radicalization of the local population," noting that the number of core al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) members has more than doubled since Barack Obama ordered the first air strike there in 2009.
American interests??
not unless it is better defined, it's pablum to simply say "American interests" when we are now devolving to the level of the terrorists,
when we knowing ourselves accept "collateral damage".
Understood there is going to be such, but ridiculous targeting, and chasing a militant on a motorcycle into a house and knowingly droning the house, killing a child...
The problem is American interests is such an elastic concept, it hasn't got any real meaning anymore. It's just more American exceptionalism, junk.
Killing AQAP simply because they are in Yemen does have counter-productive "blowback", if one reads any of the links posted in this thread.
sure. I can't disagree on the promotion of US interests, I do disagree that our American exceptionalism, has led to the modern neo-con movement;There's no American exceptionalism. Every nation has interests. It's the job of the US government to promote American ones.
Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means
sure. I can't disagree on the promotion of US interests, I do disagree that our American exceptionalism, has led to the modern neo-con movement;
which most unfortunatly has infected the Obama adm, as well as it was expected to in the Bush/Cheney adm.
I aqree it may be impossible to quantify, and anecdotal is just what it is. Myself, I certainly cannot make a truly supportable assessment from here, but people on the ground in these areas, perhaps less subjectively objective and with more knowledge, have made such determinations.It's impossible to quantify, one has to think of the radicalizatioj of the populations where drones loiter overhead for hours/days on end.
Just there presence is aggrevating; I can't source it - but i read someplace that in either Yemen, or Afg ( sorry i can't recall ) farmers/tribesmen, were terrified to go out side and tend there fields/livestock. The constant presence of drones.
There is much anecdotal evidence these populace is now hating, or turning against the US -
which has to leave them open for either accepting AQ operating in their midst, or possibly joining them.
try this source:
Read more: McChrystal Admits Drones Inspire Loathing - Business Insider
I took the liberty of bolding what you wanted to discuss.I aqree it may be impossible to quantify, and anecdotal is just what it is. Myself, I certainly cannot make a truly supportable assessment from here, but people on the ground in these areas, perhaps less subjectively objective and with more knowledge, have made such determinations.
If those are a common every day everywhere occurrence to those people, that is not immediately acceptable to my mind. At the same time one needs to strike at your opponents the best way possible when the opportunity arises... and would assume for the most part this has to be some fairly isolated, not overly numerous areas. Surely they cannot carpet the entire country with constant drones.
I really wish you addressed your opinions on if the US begins to withdraw and let these regions just do as they do, is that better or worse, what are the ramifications? If we have no idea then it would be hard to fault the US for sticking in there, keeping the world in order, if only in our own interests, as best we can. There were some hiccups in our Cold War, as are natural in a random world, but US long term policy has, my opinion, helped keep the world a lot from its natural blood thirstiness ... even though we have had a lot anyhow.
And even with the violence that we do have over here, there is something more manageable about it, as well.
Thanks for the tips.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?