Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Said That He Didn't Agree with Much of What Medea Benjamin Said. Well, What Did She Say? (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Drone strikes create more terrorists (5+ / 0-)

    than they kill. The military admits as much. Shit, that is their entire purpose.

    •  That is just so ridiculous on its face. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's think about this, shall we? If drone strikes "create more terrorists than they kill", what should be the outcome of a long pattern of drone strikes? There would be a) an increase in terrorism, and b) an increase in the need for further drone strikes.

      Yet terror acts by these groups has gone steadily down over the years. And we have reduced the frequency of drone strikes and just the other day Obama announced a further reduction in future strikes. So your theory, which many anti-drone folks love to trot out, has some serious holes in it. Where are all these terrorists created by prior drone strikes? They could not have been killed by other drone strikes, because you believe that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. You've got a bit of a problem.

      Perhaps you should rethink your premises.

      •  how about this from that hippie org. the CIA? (5+ / 0-)

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

        A former top terrorism official at the CIA has warned that President Barack Obama's controversial drone programme is far too indiscriminate in hitting targets and could lead to such political instability that it creates terrorist safe havens.
        Grenier emphasised that the use of drones was a valuable tool in tackling terrorism but only when used against specific identified targets, who have been tracked and monitored to a place where a strike is feasible. However, recent media revelations about Obama's programme have revealed a more widespread use of the strike capability, including the categorising of all military-age males in a strike zone of a target as militants. That sort of broad definition and the greater use of drones has outraged human rights organisations.

        The BIJ has reported that drone strikes in Pakistan over the weekend hit a funeral gathering for a militant slain in a previous strike and also may have accidentally hit a mosque. That sort of action adds credence to the claims that the drone campaign is likely to cause more damage by creating anger at the US than it does in eliminating terrorist threats.

        "We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan,"
        he said

        The BIJ estimates that there have been up to 41 confirmed US drone strikes in Yemen since 2002 and possibly up a 55 unconfirmed ones. Grenier said the strikes were too indiscriminate and causing outrage among the civilian population in the country, lending support to Islamists and seeing a growth in anti-US sentiment.

        "That brings you to a place where young men, who are typically armed, are in the same area and may hold these militants in a certain form of high regard. If you strike them indiscriminately you are running the risk of creating a terrific amount of popular anger. They have tribes and clans and large families. Now all of a sudden you have a big problem … I am very concerned about the creation of a larger terrorist safe haven in Yemen," Grenier said.

        (all emphasis mine)

        http://www.policymic.com/...

        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.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Sat May 25, 2013 at 11:54:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When quoting the BIJ so frequently, (0+ / 0-)

          you should read up a bit on their reputation. They were practically put out of business last year due to inaccurate reporting that led to libel. The US drone program is a serious one, and you should inform yourself (and others) using serious sources, not biased organizations built to disseminate one particular worldview. We make fun of WND here, but there are WND equivalents on the left as well.

          •  which one the Guardian or policymic.com? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            barleystraw, Sandino

            Either way I notice you ignore what each article says and just attack the messenger.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Sat May 25, 2013 at 02:37:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Alright then, lets look at recent history. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, aliasalias

            The Gulf War ended in 1991. Al Queda struck us in 2001 over things we did in Saudi Arabia back in  1991. Revenge is a dish best served cold or so the saying goes. People have long memories. And a drone attack today may not blowback for a decade. You want to kill other people with out anyone on your side having to risk anything to accomplish this. Our adversaries see this as cowardice and will at sometime in the future at a time of their choosing retaliate.

            And while you marvel at the "success" of the drones understand that attacks are being planned, in retaliation of the drone strikes.

      •  Don? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barleystraw

        Don Rumsfeld? is that you?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site