• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants, Sa

Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Again, your experiences are not universal.

That is correct. They are merely standard.

And I don't get why you're saying I'm making "an emotion-based case built on hyperbole." Please, explain.

This is an emotion-based argument:

Jango said:
A man comes home one day from working out in the fields to discover that his home is leveled and that his family is dead.

so is this:

Jango said:
Children in targeted areas are afraid of the blue sky and exhibit PTSD symptoms

so is this:

brothern said:
Granny's walking down the street, BOOM, smoking crater with grandma's mangled bloody guts splayed out everywhere. Which is brought to you happily by the United States, "When we murder you, we prefer to do it in the most evil way possible!"

They are all anecdotes pulled out of context in order to appeal to emotion - "eew, that's bad, that's icky, Gosh, I don't want that!!!" :roll: It's also hyperbolic, in that it suggests that that is the actual standard for the drone program, which such is in fact astronomically far from the truth.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

He is suggesting that that is how we view the problem. You know, because the President is a racist :roll:

He is a racist, but only on a national level to the extent it serves his social justice agenda.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

He is a racist, but only on a national level to the extent it serves his social justice agenda.

well the necessary implication of jetboogie's argument is that he's racist against brown people on the other side of the world, so.... clearly you are wrong and the President hates brown people and loves white people. That's why he fired Eric Holder as soon as the Holder Justice Department decided that white people couldn't have their civil rights violated. :)
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

well the necessary implication of jetboogie's argument is that he's racist against brown people on the other side of the world, so.... clearly you are wrong and the President hates brown people and loves white people. That's why he fired Eric Holder as soon as the Holder Justice Department decided that white people couldn't have their civil rights violated. :)

Or maybe he thinks 'we' is Canada.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Or maybe he thinks 'we' is Canada.

Good point, good point... it's well known what bigots Canadians are.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Good point, good point... it's well known what bigots Canadians are.

I'm sure there is at least a handful. :lol:
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

The correct number is 42% of those identified were "militants". There is no way of knowing the status of those not identified.
I wonder how may civilians were killed in Iraq by our "shock and awe" attacks before the invasion? The best estimates for the Iraq war are over 100,000 civilians including women and children killed. Drones are far more humane than invasion.

Very early in the Iraq invasion, I watched on live TV the leveling of a seven story apartment building, in a district where people had been told by us to remain indoors, because it was believed Saddam Hussein was in a ground floor restaurant.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Is there a point anywhere in our future?

Yes, sorry.

The things I've said thus far go to show that we created the propaganda to radicalize the mujahideen so that they'd wage jihad against the Soviets, of which, they did, and then that U.S. created propaganda blew up in our faces. That's all, sorry for dragging this out.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

That is correct. They are merely standard.



This is an emotion-based argument:



so is this:



so is this:



They are all anecdotes pulled out of context in order to appeal to emotion - "eew, that's bad, that's icky, Gosh, I don't want that!!!" :roll: It's also hyperbolic, in that it suggests that that is the actual standard for the drone program, which such is in fact astronomically far from the truth.

Oh. So humanist reactions are emotion-based arguments? I forgot, the people on the ground at the business end of drone strikes are supposed to all be cold-hearted geopolitical Einsteins, "The U.S. is doing what it must to safeguard its interests." I don't know why you're denying that our drones and drone strikes have ****ed innocents up. I already told you that drones are effective, and I'll go even further: they should not be eliminated. But I'm not going to sit here and deny that 1) it has an awfully impact on innocents, particularly children, 2) civilians get blown up & 3) because of 1 & 2 more-and-more people are being recruited because they are susceptible to being radicalized.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Oh. So humanist reactions are emotion-based arguments?

Yes. BUT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A SAD CHILD!!! is indeed a emotion-based argument.

I forgot, the people on the ground at the business end of drone strikes are supposed to all be cold-hearted geopolitical Einsteins,

This, also, is an emotional argument. Why should we craft national foreign policy based on the preferences or emotions of those on the business end of our targeting processes as opposed to our own ability to exercise reason?

The U.S. is doing what it must to safeguard its interests. I don't know why you're denying that our drones and drone strikes have ****ed innocents up.

I don't. I simply point out that the stats given by the OP and the imagery presented by you are inaccurate representations of the drone strike program.

I already told you that drones are effective, and I'll go even further: they should not be eliminated. But I'm not going to sit here and deny that 1) it has an awfully impact on innocents, particularly children

Sure, and it's impact is less than those of the alternatives, making drones (in many cases) the more humane option.

2) civilians get blown up

Rarely, but yes. Just as civilians die in all military operations, especially against an enemy that chooses to use a civilian populace as cover and concealment.

& 3) because of 1 & 2 more-and-more people are being recruited because they are susceptible to being radicalized.

That's an interesting claim. Can you demonstrate that we are creating more jihadists than we are killing with the drone program?
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Yes. BUT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A SAD CHILD!!! is indeed a emotion-based argument.



This, also, is an emotional argument. Why should we craft national foreign policy based on the preferences or emotions of those on the business end of our targeting processes as opposed to our own ability to exercise reason?



I don't. I simply point out that the stats given by the OP and the imagery presented by you are inaccurate representations of the drone strike program.



Sure, and it's impact is less than those of the alternatives, making drones (in many cases) the more humane option.



Rarely, but yes. Just as civilians die in all military operations, especially against an enemy that chooses to use a civilian populace as cover and concealment.



That's an interesting claim. Can you demonstrate that we are creating more jihadists than we are killing with the drone program?

Killing civilians in drone strikes causes problems because we are not at war with a country, but a specific group of individuals.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Yes. BUT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A SAD CHILD!!! is indeed a emotion-based argument.



This, also, is an emotional argument. Why should we craft national foreign policy based on the preferences or emotions of those on the business end of our targeting processes as opposed to our own ability to exercise reason?



I don't. I simply point out that the stats given by the OP and the imagery presented by you are inaccurate representations of the drone strike program.



Sure, and it's impact is less than those of the alternatives, making drones (in many cases) the more humane option.



Rarely, but yes. Just as civilians die in all military operations, especially against an enemy that chooses to use a civilian populace as cover and concealment.



That's an interesting claim. Can you demonstrate that we are creating more jihadists than we are killing with the drone program?

I didn't say that we're creating more enemies than we're killing, just that the drone strikes are creating enemies.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Killing civilians in drone strikes causes problems because we are not at war with a country, but a specific group of individuals.

.... I'm not sure how the latter causes unique problems in the former. Killing non-combatants generally isn't a goal of state-on-state warfare for us, either.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Killing civilians in drone strikes causes problems because we are not at war with a country, but a specific group of individuals.

Those civilians are supporters and sympathizers of the people we're at war with.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

Those civilians are supporters and sympathizers of the people we're at war with.

I would act for proof of this claim, but I know its gonna be "the military told me so"...
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

I would act for proof of this claim, but I know its gonna be "the military told me so"...

It's generally a requirement to be around these people. High level guys know they are being hunted, so they only allow those around them who are loyal and/or part of the effort. To do otherwise is to ask to get hit.
 
Re: Only 12% of People Killed in US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Identified as Militants

I guess that means the militants are doing what they do best, blend in with the civilian population. I think the journalists failed to understand what they discovered, and that is it is nearly impossible to determine who is and is not a militant. They have admitted that its very difficult to differentiate the two, but continue running articles that say we are basically purposefully targeting civilians. They are telling us that we can dismiss their anti-war rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom