Obama victory infuriates Pakistani drone victims

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama victory infuriates Pakistani drone victims

I'm not sure Romney would have been any better, but there was at least one candidate advocating cessation of drone strikes and complete military withdrawl.

But, it's acceptable collateral damage in the war on terror, right? Unless it's your family, or friends that get drone bombed.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
This from the country that hid bin Laden for years. Next!
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, again, acceptable to kill people not hiding Bin Laden in order to kill people hiding Bin Laden.. unless, of course, those people are your family or friends.

Cavalier American Exceptional-ism and exclusion of the Golden Rule at it's finest.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Pakistan plays both sides of the fence. Sponsoring terrorism, exporting nuclear bomb technology AND accepting aid from the US. So no I will not feel for Pakistan. You live by the sword you die by the sword. Pakistan has a choice to really work at riding itself of terrorists who wrap themselves in Pakistani protection or not. There's a reason Indians don't trust them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So the innocent people also die by the sword?

As many 881 civilians - including 176 children - have been killed by US drone strikes in northern Pakistan since 2004.

A country we are not in a declared war with. 176 children lived by the sword? 881 civilians?

Amazing how concerned with human rights we are until they are humans that we do not see, are not related to, and are in a different country than us.
 

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
1.The drone strikes kill far less civilians over there, and infinitely fewer American troops, than Bush's methods of waging war on terrorism.

2. How many terrorists have the drones killed, and how many civilians would those terrorists have killed had they lived? All war from now on will involve the question of how many civilians are we willing to kill in order to get the bad guys. Military forces don't just line up on an open field and charge at one another anymore.

What Obama's doing is questionable, but it's progress.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
1.The drone strikes kill far less civilians over there, and infinitely fewer American troops, than Bush's methods of waging war on terrorism.

2. How many terrorists have the drones killed, and how many civilians would those terrorists have killed had they lived? All war from now on will involve the question of how many civilians are we willing to kill in order to get the bad guys. Military forces don't just line up on an open field and charge at one another anymore.

What Obama's doing is questionable, but it's progress.

That is certainly an untenable stance to take. If we suspect terrorism in an area we bomb it and count anyone in the area as terrorists simply for being there. We kill people from a command center in Las Vegas half a world a way, people that we wouldn't even bother to capture, much less kill, if technology hadn't made it so easy.

What you basically just assumed is that we are actually killing a lot of terrorists, and that it's better to kill a four year old girl in Pakistan than it is to have a 4 year old girl here killed.

You also used the term "War". We aren't at war with Pakistan, yet we kill their civilians.

Before you commit to being morally and intellectually dishonest with yourself, switch places for a moment and live under the terror that you or your family might be in the wrong place at the wrong time and find yourself or them killed by an unseen, undetectable drone, suddenly snuffed out of existence by a bomb.

Trying to kill people who are only trying to kill us because we kill them makes no sense, especially when it includes innocent people in countries we are not at war with.

And as far as progress... I don't call that progress. And, being far from a Bush defender, Obama has ramped up Drone strikes beyond the scope of the previous administration.
 
Last edited:

Penis Aficionado

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
2,949
Media
0
Likes
1,196
Points
198
Location
Austin (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
What you basically just assumed is that we are actually killing a lot of terrorists, and that it's better to kill a four year old girl in Pakistan than it is to have a 4 year old girl here killed.

I don't know how many terrorists we're killing; I know we're killing some. But if you're the President of the United States, it's American lives you have to protect.

You also used the term "War". We aren't at war with Pakistan, yet we kill their civilians.

I don't agree with it, but I don't know that "war" will ever be officially declared again by the U.S. government. We seem quite capable of laying countries to waste without it.

Before you commit to being morally and intellectually dishonest with yourself, switch places for a moment and live under the terror that you or your family might be in the wrong place at the wrong time and find yourself or them killed by an unseen, undetectable drone, suddenly snuffed out of existence by a bomb.

Trying to kill people who are only trying to kill us because we kill them makes no sense, especially when it includes innocent people in countries we are not at war with.

I try to contemplate the horror of the innocent victims when I think about these things. But how would you respond to terrorists if any attack that might kill a civilian is off-limits?
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Terrorists attack us because of things like this. Do you think more or less terrorists are created by killing innocent people in foreign countries?

Are we not terrorists to those innocents and their families? Our worldview as Americans is one of pompous tunnel vision.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
If you think you're ever going to make a terrorist lay down his arms good luck with that. What was Timothy McVay upset about? Waco? Good luck again there. A guy rams his plane into an IRS building upset over taxes. Good luck again.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I do feel sorry for the civilians in pakistan, but as long as al qaeda is there so too shall there be drones over head.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I do feel sorry for the civilians in pakistan, but as long as al qaeda is there so too shall there be drones over head.

Exactly. What are we supposed to do wait for another 9/11? Indeed it is a difficult decision but the countries that harbor terrorists either know they're there and do nothing or they approve of their presence. Pakistan could shoot down the drones but they don't.
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Most Americans Are OK With Drone Strikes, Rest of the World Mostly Unconvinced - Hit & Run : Reason.com

But the rest of the world is not. Surprising?

The success rate of killing high level terrorist targets with drone strikes? 2% ... 2%!!

Pakistan could shoot down the drones? And risk going to a declared war with us? We'd LOVE for Pakistan to do that. Then we would have the excuse we need to invade yet another country.

Why do you think terrorists target us in the first place? Our freedom? Or our constant meddling and regime tampering in their countries?

"Seventy-four percent of Pakistanis polled view the United States as an enemy. Turns out having a bombs dropped on your country and having fellow countryman killed by unmanned aircraft doesn’t help endear you to the United States."

"Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks."

You can't stop 4 guys planning in a basement in New York to blow you up by bombing a country thousands of miles away. Especially when you are killing more civilians than you are terrorists, and thus perpetuating more terrorists by creating more people that hate us.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/08/elections-over-can-we-focus-on-the-wars

"In Pakistan, where statistics are clearest (though still quite murky, remember, the whole thing is technically a secret), there were about 46 drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004 until the end of the George W. Bush’s presidency. Since then, there have been about 288, likely killing more than 2,000 people. (Numbers from the New America Foundation, which undercounts civilian casualties). Most victims of drone strikes are identified as “militants” by the U.S. government. What’s a militant? A Muslim male of military age, according to the definition the government uses. The government, led by a president who “cares,” even targets rescuers and funerals, under the doctrine that anyone who would come to the aid of or to mourn a militant must be a militant too (you’re either with us or against us). Under Obama’s auspices, this drone war has extended from Pakistan to include Yemen and Somalia."
 
Last edited:

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Most Americans Are OK With Drone Strikes, Rest of the World Mostly Unconvinced - Hit & Run : Reason.com

But the rest of the world is not. Surprising?

The success rate of killing high level terrorist targets with drone strikes? 2% ... 2%!!

Pakistan could shoot down the drones? And risk going to a declared war with us? We'd LOVE for Pakistan to do that. Then we would have the excuse we need to invade yet another country.

Why do you think terrorists target us in the first place? Our freedom? Or our constant meddling and regime tampering in their countries?

"Seventy-four percent of Pakistanis polled view the United States as an enemy. Turns out having a bombs dropped on your country and having fellow countryman killed by unmanned aircraft doesn’t help endear you to the United States."

"Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks."

You can't stop 4 guys planning in a basement in New York to blow you up by bombing a country thousands of miles away. Especially when you are killing more civilians than you are terrorists, and thus perpetuating more terrorists by creating more people that hate us.

Election

"In Pakistan, where statistics are clearest (though still quite murky, remember, the whole thing is technically a secret), there were about 46 drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004 until the end of the George W. Bush’s presidency. Since then, there have been about 288, likely killing more than 2,000 people. (Numbers from the New America Foundation, which undercounts civilian casualties). Most victims of drone strikes are identified as “militants” by the U.S. government. What’s a militant? A Muslim male of military age, according to the definition the government uses. The government, led by a president who “cares,” even targets rescuers and funerals, under the doctrine that anyone who would come to the aid of or to mourn a militant must be a militant too (you’re either with us or against us). Under Obama’s auspices, this drone war has extended from Pakistan to include Yemen and Somalia."

Seems to me that Pakistan has already declared war on us for intentionally hiding the organization that attacked us when they were supposed to be our allies. If the Pakistani government had cooperated with us from the start in finding Al Queda as soon as they hit the Pakistani border instead of hiding them, then perhaps all of this could've been avoided.
 
Last edited:

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Seems to me that Pakistan has already declared war on us for intentionally hiding the organization that attacked us when they were supposed to be our allies. If the Pakistani government had cooperated with us from the start in finding Al Queda as soon as they hit the Pakistani border instead of hiding them, then perhaps all of this could've been avoided.

It's important to remember that our enemy is not Pakistan. Our enemy is the extremist group Al Queda. A group that does not personify a Pakistan, or any other country for that matter, anymore than the KKK personifies America. I am fully behind surgical strikes (like drone attacks and oooh I dunno... the seal team 6 raid on Osama's hidey hole) on Al Queda, but calling Pakistan our enemy is too far. Trying to link Al Queda to a country is how we got into the longest (and most expensive) war in american history. Pakistan is not what I would call an ally, but they are not an enemy either. They are just caught in the cross fire.

I get that they want the drones gone, but I shall repeat my previous statement "as long as Al Queda is there, so too shall there be drones over head." If they want the US military to stop raining death from above then someone should tell them that the drones are tracking members of Al Queda. Throw them out of your country and the drones will follow them. They are our enemy. An enemy that cannot be beaten with armies, but with task force operations and precise drone attacks. We need a scalpel not a broad sword.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Obama won, fair and square. A significant electoral win and a +2,000,000 vote popular win. It's time to accept that most of the country, and world, is OK with Obama.

And as for war mongering, a Democratic president is far less aggressive than a Republican president in terms of foreign policy.
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
608
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Best I would welcome your help in understanding the worldview of the residents of the area in Pakistan where we are using drones. The news from Pakistan is not really easy understand. It seems they'll say one thing and do another. Imagine that! and I sometimes get the impression folks in that part of the world are not opposed putting their children at risk.
Side note: I was in Israel years ago when suicide bombers were blowing up buses. Have to admit I still don't understand why an adult would tell a young person kill themselves that way. Just a very sad situation.
 
1

185248

Guest
Yes children, the world will change because of an election. Billions upon billions of people over this side will care about what mere millions do over there. FFS.
 

blazblue

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Posts
1,195
Media
0
Likes
35
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
It's important to remember that our enemy is not Pakistan. Our enemy is the extremist group Al Queda. A group that does not personify a Pakistan, or any other country for that matter, anymore than the KKK personifies America. I am fully behind surgical strikes (like drone attacks and oooh I dunno... the seal team 6 raid on Osama's hidey hole) on Al Queda, but calling Pakistan our enemy is too far. Trying to link Al Queda to a country is how we got into the longest (and most expensive) war in american history. Pakistan is not what I would call an ally, but they are not an enemy either. They are just caught in the cross fire.

I get that they want the drones gone, but I shall repeat my previous statement "as long as Al Queda is there, so too shall there be drones over head." If they want the US military to stop raining death from above then someone should tell them that the drones are tracking members of Al Queda. Throw them out of your country and the drones will follow them. They are our enemy. An enemy that cannot be beaten with armies, but with task force operations and precise drone attacks. We need a scalpel not a broad sword.

But that's what I don't understand. They may have been caught in the crossfire by why was it that we had received no cooperation from the Pakistani government at all? When asked why Bin Laden was hiding two miles from their most elite military academy, they feigned ignorance claiming they didn't know he was there. If Pakistan wants to call itself our ally then don't you think there should have been some obligation to help us find Al Queda especially when they were hiding in there country? It's not whether or not the enemy can be beaten by armies, it the principle.