Is obama causing terrorism?

When Bush was pres he was constantly assailed by the left for causing terrorism because of the Iraq war and GITMO which is still open for business. I wonder if those same people are as critical of obama for leaving GITMO open but more importantly for his drone war in Pakistan. I am not excusing terrorist but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

"Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us."

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

sawyerloggingon said:

When Bush was pres he was constantly assailed by the left for causing terrorism because of the Iraq war and GITMO which is still open for business. I wonder if those same people are as critical of obama for leaving GITMO open but more importantly for his drone war in Pakistan. I am not excusing terrorist but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

"Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us."

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Click to expand...

YOu can answer your own question by looking at each users "lean": Independent, libertarian, conservation. Count those up and you'll have your answer.

Yes, things like leaving Gitmo open and our use of drones is creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

Gitmo should be closed. As for the other, it is hard to say for certain. Most Pakistani people are so poor they'd have a hard time going elsewhere to carry out terrorism and if something happens there it is hard to know if it was because of a drone strike or because the country is so corrupt, has a worthless government as far as most places go, and hates the US independent of the war on terror because of our support of India with whom they have a blood feud.

Obama in particular? No more than Bush.

The massive, systemic unilateralism that America has pursued since before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and into which each President is virtually locked in by political and economic realities? Yes.

Fisher said:

Gitmo should be closed. As for the other, it is hard to say for certain. Most Pakistani people are so poor they'd have a hard time going elsewhere to carry out terrorism and if something happens there it is hard to know if it was because of a drone strike or because the country is so corrupt, has a worthless government as far as most places go, and hates the US independent of the war on terror because of our support of India with whom they have a blood feud.

Click to expand...

They could however be easy recruits for terrorism by groups like Alquiada. In reality though the constant airing of civilian casualties by Al Jazeera could make for very angry people in all parts of the world that are Muslim.

Just when you thought sawyer couldn't top his last obvious over the top troll poll....

sawyerloggingon said:

They could however be easy recruits for terrorism by groups like Alquiada. In reality though the constant airing of civilian casualties by Al Jazeera could make for very angry people in all parts of the world that are Muslim.

Click to expand...

Yeah I doubt it is that easy unless their immediate family was wiped out.

rocket88 said:

Just when you thought sawyer couldn't top his last obvious over the top troll poll....

Click to expand...

In other words you refuse to answer on the grounds you will look like a hypocrite and a fool.:lol:

Fisher said:

Yeah I doubt it is that easy unless their immediate family was wiped out.

Click to expand...

If it is proven this terror attack was sanctioned by a specific government the vast majority of Americans would be for an immediate military response. Why is that different from Muslims in the Mid East wanting revenge for mass civilian casualties caused by drone attacks in Pakistan?

sawyerloggingon said:

If it is proven this terror attack was sanctioned by a specific government the vast majority of Americans would be for an immediate military response. Why is that different from Muslims in the Mid East wanting revenge for mass civilian casualties caused by drone attacks in Pakistan?

Click to expand...

Well, first your premise is not going to be what happens--government sanctioned terrorism would be a little more sophisticated and larger in scale than two nail bombs. Wanting revenge and being about to exact it are different issues.

sawyerloggingon said:

When Bush was pres he was constantly assailed by the left for causing terrorism because of the Iraq war and GITMO which is still open for business. I wonder if those same people are as critical of obama for leaving GITMO open but more importantly for his drone war in Pakistan. I am not excusing terrorist but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

"Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us."

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Click to expand...

Obama, AKA Bush III, and his drone attacks may not be the cause of terrorism, but is no doubt exacerbating the situation. Bush II and his war against Iraq did the same.

How would we respond if some powerful nation were carrying out drone attacks in the USA and we didn't have the power to retaliate? This has nothing to do with the letter after the name of the current president and everything to do with the way the so called "war on terror" is being waged.

sawyerloggingon said:

In other words you refuse to answer on the grounds you will look like a hypocrite and a fool.:lol:

Click to expand...

It's as ridiculous a question as asking if Bush was responsible for 9/11.

In what sort of idiotic, mixed up world does the effect ever preceed the cause?

People that unclear on the concept should not be conducting phony polls, even if their complete partisan hackery seems to compel them to do so.

I voted "yes" but I only think it goes so far and I don't think "causing" or "terrorisim" are really accurate words to use.

First of all, saying that these attacks "cause" terrorisim kinda somehow implies that there wasn't terrorisim to begin. Obviously that's not the case. Muslims, for a variety of reasons (both real and imagined) have been launching terror attacks against America and the West for decades now.

Second, I think that for the most part we're probably talking about people who, in general, held a very low opinion of America and the West in the first place. It wasn't like one day a bunch of fundamentalist Muslim tribal sepratists were sitting around their pig pen of a home in Waziristan talking about how great freedom and self determination and equal rights are and the next day a missile strike kills a kid and they all of a sudden do a complete 180 and begin to hate everything about civilization. The areas that are being targeted for drone attacks are being targeted for a reason - because they're the hotbed of global Islamic fundamentalisim in the first place.

Third, I don't know how many of these people are actively turning toward terrorisim (real terrorisim), which I define as the deliberate effort to kill or injure civilian populations in order to instill fear and consequently achieve some idiological goal. How many of the folks who are pissed off by these drone attacks actually go out and strap on a suicide vest or go to college for an engineering degree, learn to fly jumbo jets, and then use those jets as de facto weapons? Probably very few. Certainly more than would have turned toward terrorisim absent these drone strikes, but still very, very few.

Lastly, you said the following:

sawyerloggingon said:

...but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

Click to expand...

By "us" I assume you mean American, or the West.

While they might want us to feel their pain it doesn't appear that many of them are really doing anything to cause us to feel their pain.

I'm okay with savages sitting around a campfire in Quetta sticking pins in the Islamic version of a voodoo doll, wanting me to feel their pain. Such behavior really means nothing to me.

The US approach to terrorism is the most effective way (drones, renditions) they believe works. But because it's proactive and aggressive it also used as an excuse to recruit more Jihadists. Every conflict is as much about PR as actual fighting.

Shooting cockroaches with a pellet gun would no doubt kill cockroaches.
As an approach to ridding your house of the pests, it just might to more damage than it is worth.

Killing terrorist suspects, along with some inevitable collateral damage, is like shooting cockroaches in your house with a pellet gun.

It could be worse. The homeowner could use a .22.

Now, if drone attacks on terrorists is such a good idea, why not use the same tactic to kill gang leaders right here in the USA?

Dittohead not! said:

Shooting cockroaches with a pellet gun would no doubt kill cockroaches.
As an approach to ridding your house of the pests, it just might to more damage than it is worth.

Killing terrorist suspects, along with some inevitable collateral damage, is like shooting cockroaches in your house with a pellet gun.

It could be worse. The homeowner could use a .22.

Now, if drone attacks on terrorists is such a good idea, why not use the same tactic to kill gang leaders right here in the USA?

Click to expand...

Drones in a war environment are to limit the casualties and costs on our side, while eliminating potential threats. The collateral damage or killing of innocents in a domestic setting would not be acceptable to gov or society.

"Is obama's drone war causing terrorism?"

Did the use of motorcycles and machine guns by the Spanish authorities cause Basque terrorism?

Gardener said:

In what sort of idiotic, mixed up world does the effect ever preceed the cause?

Click to expand...

Ever heard the one about the chicken and the egg?

Yes, though it is in line with administrations before him. Our aggressive, undeclared, imperial interventionism certainly has blow back against us.

Sarcogito said:

Yes, things like leaving Gitmo open and our use of drones is creating enemies faster than we can kill them.

Click to expand...

actually I have seen numerous pieces of research that contradict the drone claim, and nothing that actually supports it.

grip said:

Drones in a war environment are to limit the casualties and costs on our side, while eliminating potential threats. The collateral damage or killing of innocents in a domestic setting would not be acceptable to gov or society.

Click to expand...

On the one hand, we have the war on terrorism.
On the other, we have the war on drugs.

What's the difference? A war is a war (but, then, neither of the above is really a "war", is it).

sawyerloggingon said:

When Bush was pres he was constantly assailed by the left for causing terrorism because of the Iraq war and GITMO which is still open for business. I wonder if those same people are as critical of obama for leaving GITMO open but more importantly for his drone war in Pakistan. I am not excusing terrorist but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

"Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us."

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Click to expand...

The only thing worse than Democrats not criticizing Obama for continuing Bush era policies is Republicans not praising him for it.

sawyerloggingon said:

When Bush was pres he was constantly assailed by the left for causing terrorism because of the Iraq war and GITMO which is still open for business. I wonder if those same people are as critical of obama for leaving GITMO open but more importantly for his drone war in Pakistan. I am not excusing terrorist but I can see why the carnage inflicted on civilians in Pakistan could anger people enough to make them want us to feel their pain.

"Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and combating terrorism that the Obama admnistration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation, U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us."

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist, and the CIA Only Wants to Up Drone Warfare

Click to expand...

I may disagree with President Obama on quite a few of his domestic agendas, but when it comes to fighting terrorist and terrorism, I think the president has done a very good job. In fact I have seen little in his foreign policy that I really had heartburn over.