FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 25, 2012, 05:43:40 am
-
A report (http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/most-recent-study-shows-that-obamas-escalation-of-drone-usage-has-led-to-escalation-of-hatred-and-terrorism-against-the-usa-as-innocent-victim-totals-rise/) commissioned by Stanford and New York universities has concluded that the use of drones by the Obama administration is fanning the flames of hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report) against the west in Pakistan.
The study's authors have stated (http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/most-recent-study-shows-that-obamas-escalation-of-drone-usage-has-led-to-escalation-of-hatred-and-terrorism-against-the-usa-as-innocent-victim-totals-rise/) that:
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]
This narrative is false.
Specifically the study claims (http://livingunderdrones.org/) that:
There is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians
US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best....The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%...Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.
I think you'd have to re-evalutate the ferocity of the protests against the Innocence of Muslims film in Pakistan in the light of this.
Maybe it's just me but I suspect that some of the people protesting the film, in Pakistan anyway, might also be pissed off about killer robots that blast first responders, make funerals dangerous places and discourage people from sending their kids to school (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981) than just a douchy youtube flick.
Just a thought.
-
Personally, Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only countries where I believe that the violent protests are justified. These are nations that currently have a large American presence and frequent American army attacks. The other countries though, have no excuse.
-
A report (http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/most-recent-study-shows-that-obamas-escalation-of-drone-usage-has-led-to-escalation-of-hatred-and-terrorism-against-the-usa-as-innocent-victim-totals-rise/) commissioned by Stanford and New York universities has concluded that the use of drones by the Obama administration is fanning the flames of hatred (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report) against the west in Pakistan.
The study's authors have stated (http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/most-recent-study-shows-that-obamas-escalation-of-drone-usage-has-led-to-escalation-of-hatred-and-terrorism-against-the-usa-as-innocent-victim-totals-rise/) that:
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]
This narrative is false.
Specifically the study claims (http://livingunderdrones.org/) that:
There is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians
US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best....The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%...Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.
I think you'd have to re-evalutate the ferocity of the protests against the Innocence of Muslims film in Pakistan in the light of this.
Maybe it's just me but I suspect that some of the people protesting the film, in Pakistan anyway, might also be pissed off about killer robots that blast first responders, make funerals dangerous places and discourage people from sending their kids to school (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981) than just a douchy youtube flick.
Just a thought.
(http://laidoffdiary.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/captain-obvious2.jpg?w=420&h=347)
-
(http://laidoffdiary.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/captain-obvious2.jpg?w=420&h=347)
I concede, well played!
-
Every military operation produces false positives and civilian casualties. To assume that drone strikes would be immune to this problem is a fallacy.
The U.S. government and defense establishment know this, but they have to keep selling the Global War on Terror to the U.S. public. That's why we have these sort of false narratives. Because the government is lying to us.
-
Personally, Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only countries where I believe that the violent protests are justified. These are nations that currently have a large American presence and frequent American army attacks. The other countries though, have no excuse.
Orly? Decades of meddling, warfare, sanctions and the propping up of dictators is not enough? Also, the US can cry as much as they like, they have been the biggest promoters of Islamism in the world. Islamist (as it does today, or arguably at all) would not exist if the Western powers didn't give them so much money. Hell, who was it that gave the Islamists in Libya all their guns?
-
USA: "But the guy was a terrorist!"
Pakistani: "YOU FUCKING BLEW UP THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME WITH A ROBOT!!!"
Yeah, I can sorta understand the complexities of war, but I can also understand where these guys come from.
-
Frankly, Af-Pak is only trouble because Bush1/Clinton forgot about the place.
-
This right here is why I don't really have sympathy for the US body count since 9/11. Between this and the other thread about Afghans not knowing about the WTC attacks, I see no reason to pretend to support our mission in that country or Pakistan when it's just serving to justify the attacks that put us back over there in the first place.
-
My response to article title:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9KwYaTGeF_E/Teoup6kk-LI/AAAAAAAAAdA/DbsLc_o7JpQ/s1600/no+shit+sherlock+2.jpg)
As if bombing another country to root out terrorists would make them happy for you.
-
Hey, it worked in Cambodia!
-
Hey, it worked in Cambodia!
(http://www.paleriders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Tuol_Sleng_prison_rules_Cambodia_H45x3.jpg)
It did something to Cambodia!
-
Well, it led to regime change, anyway!
-
"Bombing the shit out of people makes them hate you."
In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and Mitt Romney is an asshole.