• 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!

Drone strikes counterproductive, says secret CIA report

b_dubz said:
They have a value in real wars, not this... The only place the belong is in wars, not for executions abroad outside courts and law, and certainly not signature strikes...
Click to expand...

They are a part of warfare. Al-Qaeda is a beast unlike any other that we've fought so far - fighting it is similar to fighting crime due to its transnational presence and the impossibility of fully defeating it, but it is a military engagement rather than justice or law enforcement. If there was some easier, safer, more practical way of capturing or killing terrorists, I'd be all for it, but so far drones are easier, safer, and more practical than any other method we have at our disposal.
 
MadLib said:
They are a part of warfare. Al-Qaeda is a beast unlike any other that we've fought so far - fighting it is similar to fighting crime due to its transnational presence and the impossibility to fully defeat it, but it is a military engagement rather than justice or law enforcement. If there was some easier, safer, more practical way of capturing or killing terrorists, I'd be all for it, but so far drones are easier, safer, and more practical than any other method we have at our disposal.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm no they are not, especially in signature strikes. Signature strikes have proven to be horridly unsafe to civilian populations...

Furthermore we could try negotiating with them, we could appeal to the un, we could call for a peaceful resolution of any sort...

If you admit its a unwinnable war, then what's the point of fighting it?
 
Fletch said:
So lets see, Torture doesn't work. Detention centers like Gitmo don't work since they are supposedly recruiting tools. Ground troops are out of the question. And now drone strikes don't work either. Exactly what do liberals claim WILL work in the battle against radical muslims who wish to harm America and its interests?
Click to expand...

Wowh woah woah woah. This wasnt "liberals" claiming this, this was from the CIA itself claiming this...
 
We are playing wack a mole with terrorism in the middle east, leaving a wake if destruction behind wherever we strike. We were never going to wipe out everybody that hated us, but what we have been doing all along is making more enemies.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In my opinion, fighting a war on a certain tactic (terror) is never gonna work. Its an endless war.
Click to expand...
Yup and that's exactly what the military industrial complex wanted. Endless war. Makes billions...
 
annata said:
drone strikes are fine when the intelligence used to target is legit many times ( Yemen particularity ) intel is crappy

Signature strikes are not useful, and IMHO come darn close to war crimes ,, Some good background here:

Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes - ProPublica
Click to expand...
They don't come close to war crimes, they are war crimes in some cases. Attacking the signature of a cell phone is moronic when you have no real idea who is on the other end...

They are also the best recruiting tool groups like IS and AQ have. If you drone strike my grandma while she is picking crops in a field, I would probably go join the opposition immediately.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/drones-attack-pakistan-family-rehman-congress
 
Last edited:
Eric7216 said:
You are right about the logical fallacy of over generalizing. But then you commit the logical fallacy yourself by assuming Papa Bull was steeped in propaganda. I would tend to agree with Papa Bull that there seems to be less discussion about Obama war crimes versus Bush war crimes (despite the dramatic increase in drone targeted killings) but that is just a hunch and not "steeped in propaganda. It would be interesting to see a good study about this issue. I just googled "articles about bush war crimes written in 2009" and "articles about obama war crimes written in 2009" and Bush took the championship with 14,400,000 items versus 3,400,000.
But, yeah, not a scientific poll.
Click to expand...

Look at genuinely liberal news and opinion sources such as Democracy Now, the Guardian, Pacifica radio, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Progressive, they have never given Obama a pass for continuing the wars, expanding the wars, drone killings, renditions etc.
 
Hard Truth said:
Look at genuinely liberal news and opinion sources such as Democracy Now, the Guardian, Pacifica radio, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Progressive, they have never given Obama a pass for continuing the wars, expanding the wars, drone killings, renditions etc.
Click to expand...
I like common dreams allot to... If you don't read em give em a go...

Sometimes I like tyt as well, they are especially good at the middle east because the founder is from their and understands the dynamics a hellofallot better than most anchors...
 
b_dubz said:
They don't come close to war crimes, they are war crimes in some cases. Attacking the signature of a cell phone is moronic when you have no real idea who is on the other end...

They are also the best recruiting tool groups like IS and AQ have. If you drone strike my grandma while she is picking crops in a field, I would probably go join the opposition immediately.

Family of grandmother killed in US drone strike arrive for Congress visit | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...
completely agree.
Drones are like any weapon where the targeting makes them effective, or just murderous
 
b_dubz said:
Its so sad... This stuff is so unnecessary. Obviously not hitting civilians is not a big priority...

Its just as likely a ac-130 or fighter jets...
Click to expand...

So the drone is targeted after known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and shoots a missile into their meeting killing them.

What then, does that make the 'civilians' who are hosting their meeting. Material support?

Thing of it is that we keep hearing of reports about civilians killed in drone strikes, but we never get the back story of what these 'civilians' were doing in such close proximity to known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.
 
eohrnberger said:
So the drone is targeted after known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and shoots a missile into their meeting killing them.

What then, does that make the 'civilians' who are hosting their meeting. Material support?

Thing of it is that we keep hearing of reports about civilians killed in drone strikes, but we never get the back story of what these 'civilians' were doing in such close proximity to known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.
Click to expand...

If you are curious about the people actually killed by drone strikes and such, check out Jeremy Scahill's documentary "Dirty Wars", which is available on Netflix.
 
Henry David said:
If you are curious about the people actually killed by drone strikes and such, check out Jeremy Scahill's documentary "Dirty Wars", which is available on Netflix.
Click to expand...

In 1998, Scahill traveled to Iraq for Democracy Now! and Pacifica Radio, where he reported on the impact of the economic sanctions on Iraq and the "No-Fly Zone" bombings in Northern and Southern Iraq.[SUP][12][/SUP] An article in AlterNet has described Jeremy Scahill as a "progressive journalist".[SUP][13][/SUP]
Click to expand...
Jeremy Scahill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, OK. But I'm expecting a rather one sided treatment.
 
eohrnberger said:
So the drone is targeted after known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and shoots a missile into their meeting killing them.

What then, does that make the 'civilians' who are hosting their meeting. Material support?

Thing of it is that we keep hearing of reports about civilians killed in drone strikes, but we never get the back story of what these 'civilians' were doing in such close proximity to known Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm I have not heard of one instance of people having a meeting for them being referred to as civilians....

This is what happened in this case
“At around 3:30am, US forces conducted an air strike in Aab Josh village of Baraki Barak district,” said the district governor Mohammad Amin.

“The air strike hit a residential house killing five and wounding six civilians,” he told AFP.
Click to expand...

Houses can be close together and sometimes we miss, or sometimes the combatants haven't been in the area for hours and we still fire, like in the case of that grandma I posted above. Sometimes we attack people for doing things terrorists might do, like 3 men doing jumping jacks, sometimes we attack sim cards of cell phones not having any idea what's on the other side, and sometimes we attack for no apparent reason at all...

Again I have not heard of the situation you described happening once. And even if it did (which I certainly didn't in logar) how do you know the Taliban didn't force entry? Do we bomb hostage situations here at home?

Your argument amounts to the same bs argument Israel uses to defend the bombing of un schools...
 
Last edited:
b_dubz said:
Ummmmm I have not heard of one instance of people having a meeting for them being referred to as civilians....

This is what happened in this case

Houses can be close together and sometimes we miss, or sometimes the combatants haven't been in the area for hours and we still fire, like in the case of that grandma I posted above. Sometimes we attack people for doing things terrorists might do, like 3 men doing jumping jacks, sometimes we attack sim cards of cell phones not having any idea what's on the other side, and sometimes we attack for no apparent reason at all...

Again I have not heard of the situation you described happening once. And even if it did (which I certainly didn't in logar) how do you know the Taliban didn't force entry? Do we bomb hostage situations here at home?

Your argument amounts to the same bs argument Israel uses to defend the bombing of un schools...
Click to expand...

Given your examples, it seems that you are also suffering from a distinct lack of hard information about what sort of data is being used to make the decisions for drone attacks as I am.

b_dubz said:
There is only one accurate narrative to the whole thing anyway... Like it or not this is it...
Click to expand...

Again, a lack of hard information. Seems that the US government doesn't want it's people to look too closely at what it's up to combating terrorism in this region and other regions.
 
eohrnberger said:
Given your examples, it seems that you are also suffering from a distinct lack of hard information about what sort of data is being used to make the decisions for drone attacks as I am.
Click to expand...

No I am much more informed about the strikes themselves, and when they actually have a reason or he local gov/press gets it wrong they are very quick to say "no these people had aq or Taliban or whatever ties" they usually don't release the evidence of these ties, but they are very quick to say they had them, and where not civilians.

Furthermore they almost never do this, probably because they usually don't have any ties...

As for the data being used, it seems to be hunches. Allot of civilians deaths are a result of signature strikes, which is that jumping jacks jacks situation I gave above. Some (like the grandma that launched a congressional investigation) there was no info. AQ had driven past a few hours ago, and they bombed her. Why? No one knows, not even congress...

Basically they just mess up allot. Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt for KILLING CIVILIANS.

Again, a lack of hard information. Seems that the US government doesn't want it's people to look too closely at what it's up to combating terrorism in this region and other regions.
Click to expand...

Your right their, they don't. We wouldn't even know about allot of these strikes if it where not for local reporting and news agency's (like the guardian) prying into it. The reason they don't want us to know about it is fairly obvious though, they kill people by mistake/for no reason all the time, and if Americans knew the full extent of it people would be up in arms. Plus they want to continue the drone program and that would force its stop.
 
JUG said:
But apparently torturing is productive. Right, CIA? :doh
Click to expand...

The use of drones denies the terrorist targets to kill and their chance at eternal happiness in heaven. That is why it is effective psychologically against them. It plays on their belief system. Nothing increased the number of terrorists like the invasion of Iraq did for that very reason. 100's of thousands of infidel targets was a huge attraction.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
The use of drones denies the terrorist targets to kill and their chance at eternal happiness in heaven. That is why it is effective psychologically against them. It plays on their belief system. Nothing increased the number of terrorists like the invasion of Iraq did for that very reason.
Click to expand...
Ummmm drones probably increased the number of terrorists more because if you drone strike someone's family for no reason, they are likely to go join to opposition.

Furthermore that whole thing about heaven is bull. They think dying in combat gets them into heaven. Pretty sure they count drone strikes as dying in combat...
 
b_dubz said:
Ummmm drones probably increased the number of terrorists more because if you drone strike someone's family for no reason, they are likely to go join to opposition.

Furthermore that whole thing about heaven is bull. They think dying in combat gets them into heaven. Pretty sure they count drone strikes as dying in combat...
Click to expand...

Actually they believe that killing infidels is the only sure path to nirvana. Dying is not enough. The blood of the infidels they murder provides atonement for all their sins.

Civilian casualties never happen with conventional warfare? Drones are far more discerning than carpet bombing or invasions. So you are saying we should just leave the terrorists alone? That didn't work out well in the past.

Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 terrorists, when he came to study at Hamburg, Germany, reportedly developed a serious pornography addiction. This was when he started attending the radical mosque, where he heard the gospel of jihad.
His terrorist colleagues, in the days before 9/11, frequented strip clubs, buying lap dances and drinking alcohol, any one of which would earn them eternal damnation. But, according to writings found after their attacks, they were confident in their salvation. By crashing the airplanes and murdering thousands, they were offering up human sacrifices and atoning for their own sins
Click to expand...
.
Lethal 'gospel': Islamic terrorists believe killing "infidels" is only sure way to heaven
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Actually they believe that killing infidels is the only sure path to nirvana. Dying is not enough. The blood of the infidels they murder provides atonement for all their sins.

Civilian casualties never happen with conventional warfare? Drones are far more discerning than carpet bombing or invasions. So you are saying we should just leave the terrorists alone? That didn't work out well in the past.

.
Lethal 'gospel': Islamic terrorists believe killing "infidels" is only sure way to heaven
Click to expand...

No. Some also believe dying in combat will suffice, and different groups have radically different ideas of what will give salvation. Your quoting one group of extremists, when there are many, that at times fight each other, and hate each other. Also generally speaking if someone is legitimately targeted in a drone strike, they will probably have killed some "infidels" already. I would hope anyway, although we seem to target innocents all the time.

No I never said civilian casualty's happen with conventional warfare. But with a weapons system that is so accurate, you would think they could get it right more. Also with things like signature strikes, they are attacking based on what people are doing (like exercising in groups) which is certainly not indicative of terrorists. Signature strikes are a failed method of attack.

And yes I would suggest we leave them alone, or negotiate for peace. We made this problem by toppling Saddam, what makes you think more war will fix it?

When have we ever "left the terrorists alone"? We haven't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom