Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

So who's a terrorist now ..... ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> So who's a terrorist now ..... ? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 3:59:22 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		The much vaunted 'drone strategy' used by the US to hit Afghani insurgents and 'terrorrists' inside Pakistan has been the subject of a study carried out by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. The researchers set out to conduct "independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians".

The study's findings, analysed at the two links below, are alarming. They report multiple breaches of international humanitarian laws, woeful targeting, an unacceptable level of civilian casualties, drone missile attacks on rescuers trying to pull wounded and dying from the rubble, lies by US officials in reporting the outcomes of drone strikes to Americans. In short, they accuse the US of terrorising the entire population of the border regions of Pakistan. They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes.

They also found only about one in fifty of casualties are known militants, calling into question the military effectiveness of the strategy, whatever its other flaws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

I was horrified as I read the articles. What was your reaction?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/27/2012 4:00:39 AM >

_____________________________
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 7:03:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The much vaunted 'drone strategy' used by the US to hit Afghani insurgents and 'terrorrists' inside Pakistan has been the subject of a study carried out by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. The researchers set out to conduct "independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians".
The study's findings, analysed at the two links below, are alarming. They report multiple breaches of international humanitarian laws, woeful targeting, an unacceptable level of civilian casualties, drone missile attacks on rescuers trying to pull wounded and dying from the rubble, lies by US officials in reporting the outcomes of drone strikes to Americans. In short, they accuse the US of terrorising the entire population of the border regions of Pakistan. They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes.
They also found only about one in fifty of casualties are known militants, calling into question the military effectiveness of the strategy, whatever its other flaws.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html
I was horrified as I read the articles. What was your reaction?


Horrified? No. Disappointed? Absolutely. Stunned? At the incredible increase in number of strikes and in the precision of "surgical removal" by way of buzzsaw.

I am finding out, more and more, that "collateral damage" pertains more to the impact on our troops than it does to the civilians.

I am not surprised that the drone strikes induce terror. I did not know the drones flew 24/7. I was also shocked that we (the US Government) had a study showing that our policies were more to blame for anti-US terrorism, and yet, when politicians made that claim, they were routinely ridiculed. In an early GOP debate, Ron Paul busted out his claim and was booed by the audience and - you'll get a laugh out of this - while Santorum's response got a round of applause.

The main reason I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was my perception of RP's foreign policy as being dead ass wrong. I blame my naivete on my lack of paying attention to almost all things politics in previous years. The more I read, the more I found that RP was right. The more I read, the more conservative I became. The more I read, the more I disagreed with the Democrats and the un-proclaimed path of the Republicans. Through readings of economics, and more political writings and discussions I would have thought I'd perform in my lifetime prior to then, I have only become more and more conservative, fiscally, and more and more Libertarian in terms of party affiliation.

I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either.

I have not always been against drone strikes, and I am still not completely against them. They do serve a purpose, though I do believe our current usage is ill-advised, not to mention wrong (I will not comment on Bush's use of drones since I don't know his style of use and it really doesn't matter at this point; I do not know whether or not I'd back Bush's usage patterns, so I'm not simply being partisan).



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 7:07:16 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The notion of surgical strikes or any such is absolute nonsense.

Ever since our rise to a world power, we haven't been much in the way of careful about international law, unless we were prosecuting others, since we were pretty much always the victor.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 7:33:52 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The notion of surgical strikes or any such is absolute nonsense.

Ever since our rise to a world power, we haven't been much in the way of careful about international law, unless we were prosecuting others, since we were pretty much always the victor.



QFT

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 7:34:51 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline 		No good way to justify it. We should have left Afghanistan 10 days after the Taliban was toppled. Such a waste of human life. The only result I see is making a ground fertile for the growing if Terrorists that want to do away with us....

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 7:38:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The battle plan for taking a hill is thus:

Blow mortars and cannon (bomb and strafe if you have air support) the apex and crown of the hill, as your units advance up the hill the Forward Observers order quit firing when they are killing enough of your own people. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 9:03:53 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes.


Sometimes I think Western anti-terrorist strategy is like a bloke trying to eradicate all the wasps in his garden by walking up to their nest and trying to whack them one by one with a cricket bat. This bloke has no understanding that, these days, people can take pictures on their smartphones of what he's doing and send them to everyone in the street. And then he's baffled when all his neighbours unaccountably start treating him as though he's a dickhead.

Seriously, would it be in the realms of the nuttiest conspiracy theorising to suggest that such policy is actually designed to create more terrorism in the world?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 9:09:15 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes.

Sometimes I think Western anti-terrorist strategy is like a bloke trying to eradicate all the wasps in his garden by walking up to their nest and trying to whack them one by one with a cricket bat. This bloke has no understanding that, these days, people can take pictures on their smartphones of what he's doing and send them to everyone in the street. And then he's baffled when all his neighbours unaccountably start treating him as though he's a dickhead.
Seriously, would it be in the realms of the nuttiest conspiracy theorising to suggest that such policy is actually designed to create more terrorism in the world?


That is not the design of the program, but it very well can be an unintended consequence.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 9:41:58 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

No good way to justify it. We should have left Afghanistan 10 days after the Taliban was toppled. Such a waste of human life. The only result I see is making a ground fertile for the growing if Terrorists that want to do away with us....



The mistake was not to eradicate Al Qaida.

I have been supportive of drone attacks on known terrorists but not the civillian casualties. It seems to me intelligence on actual targets is still too unclear for this strategy to work properly.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:05:46 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

No good way to justify it. We should have left Afghanistan 10 days after the Taliban was toppled. Such a waste of human life. The only result I see is making a ground fertile for the growing if Terrorists that want to do away with us....

Maybe they would not want to do away with us if we were not stomping around in their gardens.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:09:24 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either.

I am conflicted. A vote for Johnson would be a vote for Romney who, I suspect is in thrall of the neocons. However, a vote for Johnson would be a vote of conscience.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:17:43 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either.

I am conflicted. A vote for Johnson would be a vote for Romney who, I suspect is in thrall of the neocons. However, a vote for Johnson would be a vote of conscience.


How would a vote for Johnson be a vote for Romney? If anything, it would be one vote less for Romney, effectively making it a vote for Obama, when looking solely at the two candidates.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:34:25 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either.

I am conflicted. A vote for Johnson would be a vote for Romney who, I suspect is in thrall of the neocons. However, a vote for Johnson would be a vote of conscience.

How would a vote for Johnson be a vote for Romney? If anything, it would be one vote less for Romney, effectively making it a vote for Obama, when looking solely at the two candidates.

Not my vote. It would go to Obama.
so, one less vote for BO



< Message edited by vincentML -- 9/27/2012 10:35:18 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:47:28 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		FR

War is not neat and clean and never will be.

What options in that region do we have? The Taliban rebuilt quite effectively the last time we let up on the tribal regions and nearly toppled the nuclear weapon state of Pakistan. Does anyone think the Taliban/ISI in charge of nuclear weapons is a good idea?

Should we send in the SEALs every time we have actionable intelligence that a couple of Taliban or Al Qaeda guys are meeting in a mud hut? Would that result in fewer deaths? Doubtful.

Fundamentally the problem is these organizations that threaten the peace and security of the entire world have found safe haven amongst the Pashtun and there is no way to root them out that will not involve bad things happening to those same Pashtun. And choosing to leave them alone is unacceptable as recent events show that Al Qaeda and its various fellow travelers remain commited to our destruction.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:49:46 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

War is not neat and clean and never will be.

What options in that region do we have?



Leave them alone?

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:53:31 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

War is not neat and clean and never will be.

What options in that region do we have?



Leave them alone?

That worked so well on 9/11/01.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 10:57:55 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR

War is not neat and clean and never will be.

What options in that region do we have?



Leave them alone?

That worked so well on 9/11/01.




Yes, because 9/11 was due to them hating our freedom

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 11:02:13 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Probably more due to our fucking with that area for so many decades and supporting Pavali, Saddam, Israel  and so on over the years to name a few.

I think St. Wrinklmeat creating, arming and funding al-Queda and dropping them off the end of the doc, and providing WMD to Iran sort of pissed them off as well. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 11:11:06 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Yes, because 9/11 was due to them hating our freedom


I am suprised some people are stupid enough to think this.

Bin Laden made clear his reasons for 9/11. Your freedom had little to do with them

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? - 9/27/2012 12:36:57 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

Yes, because 9/11 was due to them hating our freedom


I am suprised some people are stupid enough to think this.

Bin Laden made clear his reasons for 9/11. Your freedom had little to do with them

Sorry but that is crap.

One of his prime complaints was that western pluralism exists. No one, not even OBL, believed the aftermath of 9/11 would be the US being less involved in the muslim world. He wanted us to become the christian equivalent of Wahabism. And we came very close to doing what he wanted.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> So who's a terrorist now ..... ? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094