State Department offic: 40 to 60 new enemies are created for every drone strike

[revelarts]

Source: All Gov. (http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/former-us-official-says-every-drone-attack-in-yemen-creates-40-to-60-new-enemies-131027?news=851494)
Killing suspected terrorists in Yemen (http://www.allgov.com/nations?nationID=3528) with drone strikes has created even more enemies for the United States, according to former State Department (http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-state?detailsDepartmentID=575) official.

Nabeel Khoury, deputy chief of mission in Yemen from 2004 to 2007, says that for every al-Qaeda operative killed by a U.S. drone, another 40 to 60 new enemies are created as a result of this strategy.

“Drone strikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians. Given Yemen’s tribal structure, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] operative killed by drones,” Khoury wrote in an article for the Cairo Review.

Khoury, who now works as a fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/), says drones cannot substitute for coherent foreign policy in Yemen. The current approach by the Obama administration towards the Middle Eastern country “reflects ambivalence, uncertainty and conflicting goals,” he wrote.

Khoury’s criticism was echoed in a new report (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/10/22/between-drone-and-al-qaeda) by Human Rights Watch (HRW) that said the U.S. policy of not acknowledging drone strikes has left innocent victims’ families without the ability to seek U.S. compensation, which in turn only fuels anti-American sentiments in Yemen.
HRW spent six weeks in Yemen interviewing more than 90 people about the drone strikes. It focused on just six of the attacks in the report.
“But those six killed 82 people, at least 57 of them civilians. They include a U.S. drone-assisted attack in September 2012 in Sarar, central Yemen, that unlawfully struck a passenger van, killing 12 civilians,” according to HRW....


<cite>To Learn More:</cite>
Every Yemen Drone Strike Creates 40 To 60 New Enemies, Former U.S. Official Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/23/yemen-drones_n_4152159.html) (by Matt Sledge, Huffington Post)
In Yemen, Drones Aren’t a Policy (http://www.aucegypt.edu/gapp/cairoreview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=443) (by Nabeel Khoury, Cairo Review of Global Affairs)
US: Reassess Targeted Killings in Yemen (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen) (Human Rights Watch)
Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/10/22/between-drone-and-al-qaeda) (Human Rights Watch)
Does U.S. Pay Compensation when it Kills Innocent Civilians in Yemen? It’s None of our Business (http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/does-us-pay-compensation-when-it-kills-innocent-civilians-in-yemen-its-none-of-our-business-130815?news=850866) (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
Yemeni Journalist Jailed for Exposing U.S. Killing of Civilians Finally Released from Prison (http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/yemeni-journalist-jailed-for-exposing-us-killing-of-civilians-finally-released-from-prison-130726?news=850683) (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
Senate Debate: Are Drone Attacks Creating More Enemies than They Kill? (http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/senate-debate-are-drone-attacks-creating-more-enemies-than-they-kill-130425?news=849849) (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)


"they hate us because of our freedom"
"they hate us because of Islam"
seems some hate us because we killed their family members and didn't give a crap to even apologize.

Drone strikes, winnin' hearts and minds ... for Alqeda

[aboutime]

"they hate us because of our freedom"
"they hate us because of Islam"
seems some hate us because we killed their family members and didn't give a crap to even apologize.

Drone strikes, winnin' hearts and minds ... for Alqeda



rev. Look on the GOOD side for a change. At least THEY ARE NO LONGER SUSPECTED.

[jafar00]

I'm quite certain that this estimate is on the conservative side. Their families are both extensive and closely linked to other families over there.

[revelarts]

I'm quite certain that this estimate is on the conservative side. Their families are both extensive and closely linked to other families over there.

either way it's bad news for all the players.

[Gaffer]

Your not creating what is already there with a drone strike. The mind set of the friends and family is not changed by the strike.

[aboutime]

Rules of engagement, and WAR. You NEVER have to apologize to your ENEMY.

If they are sworn to kill, and destroy your family. You beat them to the punch.

OR...you can be like Obama, and admit your own nation, and your people are to BLAME for all the ill's of the World, and APOLOGIZE...bowing down to them, and kissing their Ring.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your not creating what is already there with a drone strike. The mind set of the friends and family is not changed by the strike. What I am tired of is this shat about they hate us for this or that we do! The TRUTH is they hate us even if we do nothing. They hate us because we stand for freedom, liberty, justice and a heathen god, the God of Abraham. People need to get this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They hate us for not being muslim!
Their religion teaches them to hate infidels.. All this don't piss them off advice and comments are sheer foolishness. What does it matter if you piss off or not a people that are sworn to kill you regardless!??? I say f-them and we should start eliminating the hardcore among them as fast as we can possibly do so. The hardcore among them are already murdering any of us they can lay hands on. I say let me put you into a cage with a hungry tiger and then you tell me later (:laugh:) just how damn far being nice or kissing its ass got you! You'll never tell me a thing because it will kill your ass and eat regardless of how nice , nicey nice you were. And the damn tiger isn't any more motivated than they are. Think it is then you don't have a damn clue how truly ffkked up a person has to be to blow themselves into little tiny bits just to murder other people they hate. The damn sickness lies within the religion, it is a religion of murder!! -Tyr

[revelarts]

It'd be worse if it were that simple Tyr,


here's a product description of "Dying to win" from Amazon.
Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.

In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.

More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time.

Former head of the CIA bin laden unit.

reason why they attack, and the mythical reasons why they hate us.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cLjZoA3GaVE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lenGE8RSo38?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It'd be worse if it were that simple Tyr,



Former head of the CIA bin laden unit.

reason why they attack, and the mythical reasons why they hate us.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cLjZoA3GaVE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> That guy is full of shat. He listed the Tamil tigers fighting a civil war for territory as the same as Islamic terrorists fighting for a religion. So how many other things has he twisted in that list? Here is a link to the Tamil tigers fighting a civil war for territory not religion. There is a reason they are called guerilla fighters and why it list the government forces as there target. Also why it does not list civilians as the primary targets. Typical crap from his type listing in those engaged in a civil war as the same as Islamist terrorists fighting for a religion! Rev , you should have caught that. I did right away because I had pre-existing knowledge of the Tamil tigers. Since the author lumped that in I dismissed any of his other supposed facts and did not and will not bother to research those ,for such an obviously biased action I know his other crap is just that more crap. . --Tyr
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581988/Tamil-Tigers
Written by
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

Last Updated 5-2-2013

Tamil Tigers, byname of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), guerrilla organization that sought to establish an independent Tamil state, Eelam, in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.


Images












The LTTE was established in 1976 by Velupillai Prabhakaran as the successor to an organization he had formed earlier in the 1970s. The LTTE grew to become one of the world’s most sophisticated and tightly organized insurgent groups. During the 1970s the organization carried out a number of guerrilla attacks. In 1983, after the killing of 13 soldiers by Tamil guerrillas and retaliatory attacks by the Sri Lankan military, large-scale violence erupted between the government and the LTTE. By 1985 the group was in control of Jaffna and most of the Jaffna Peninsula in northern Sri Lanka. Under Prabhakaran’s orders, the LTTE had eliminated most of its rival Tamil groups by 1987. To fund its operations, the group engaged in illegal activities (including bank robberies and drug smuggling) and the extortion of Tamils in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, but it also received considerable voluntary financial support from Tamils living abroad.

The LTTE lost control of Jaffna in October 1987 to an Indian peacekeeping force (IPKF) that had been sent to Sri Lanka to assist in the implementation of a complete cease-fire. However, following the withdrawal of the IPKF in March 1990, the Tigers grew in strength and conducted several successful guerrilla operations and terrorist attacks. On May 21, 1991, a suicide bomber killed former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi while he was campaigning in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Other attacks included an August 1992 land-mine explosion in Jaffna, which killed 10 senior military commanders; the May 1993 assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa; a January 1996 suicide bomb attack on the central bank of Colombo that killed 100 people; and a July 2001 attack on Colombo’s international airport that destroyed half of the country’s commercial airliners. An elite unit of the LTTE, the “Black Tigers,” was responsible for carrying out suicide attacks. If faced with unavoidable capture by Sri Lankan authorities, those operatives and others purportedly committed suicide by swallowing cyanide capsules that they wore around their necks.

Negotiations between the LTTE and the government broke down in the mid-1990s. In December 2000 the LTTE declared a unilateral cease-fire, which lasted only until April. Thereafter, fighting between the guerrillas and the government again intensified until February 2002, when the government and the LTTE signed a permanent cease-fire agreement. Sporadic violence continued, however, and in 2006 the European Union added the LTTE to its list of banned terrorist organizations. Soon after, heavy fighting erupted between the rebels and government forces, and thousands were killed.

In January 2008 the government formally abandoned the 2002 cease-fire agreement, and authorities captured major strongholds of the LTTE over the following months. The town of Kilinochchi, the administrative centre of the LTTE, came under government control in January 2009. By late April, government troops had cornered the remaining LTTE fighters along a small stretch of the northeast coast. A final offensive by army forces in mid-May succeeded in overrunning and occupying the rebels’ last stronghold, and the LTTE leadership (including Prabhakaran) was killed. The number of civil-war-related deaths in Sri Lanka since the early 1980s was estimated at between 70,000 and 80,000, with many tens of thousands more displaced by the fighting.
And from Wiki this little tidbit. -Tyr
Tamil Eelam (Tamil: தமிழீழம் tamiḻ īḻam, generally rendered outside Tamil-speaking areas as தமிழ் ஈழம்) is a proposed independent state that Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora aspire to create in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Tamil Eelam has no official status or recognition by world states though sections of the Eelam were under de facto control of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for most of the 2000s. The name is derived from the ancient Tamil name for Sri Lanka, Eelam.[5] Thee exists no world domination in the name of Allah in that group or its civil war!! The author made a false comparison and could just as easily have listed other non -related war deaths - deaths from the American Civil war or from the damn the Nazis !-Tyr

[Gaffer]

I'll address these points:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

We are no safer now than we were before 911. We are just more aware.

The invasion of iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with UN resolutions and possible WMD's.

Yes AQ is stronger. Not because of what we do, but because of their successes. Every time a bomber blows himself up in a crowd it's viewed as a successful operation and the martyr is viewed as a hero. This is their best recruitment tool.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll address these points:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

We are no safer now than we were before 911. We are just more aware.

The invasion of iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with UN resolutions and possible WMD's.

Yes AQ is stronger. Not because of what we do, but because of their successes. Every time a bomber blows himself up in a crowd it's viewed as a successful operation and the martyr is viewed as a hero. This is their best recruitment tool. One of the reasons we are les safe is the campaign waged by many Americans to justify what the scum do by blaming us and saying we deserve it because of our actions! Which is bullshit IMHO. THEY WANT US OUT OF THAT REGION SO THEY CAN DESTROY ISREAL FIRST(LITLE SATAN) AND THEN US SECOND(BIG SATAN). THIS IS A KNOWN FACT BUT OUR GOVERNMENT ESPECIALLY SINCE OBAMA WAGES A PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO BLAME US, DEFEND THEM AND WEAKEN US. FACT..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I don't read much into this. If I had a family member who was in a war, and the enemy killed them, I would consider them an enemy too. But that doesn't mean I am going to become a terrorist as a result. If they don't like us because we are taking the fight to the terrorists, who gives a shit? If they themselves become terrorists, then they will be killed too. If they don't become terrorists, and just dislike us as a result - oh no, I just might lose a wink of sleep.

Then again, if people don't like drones, does that mean they would prefer us to send in thousands of troops? Maybe have fighter jets take care of it? Or are some assuming maybe the answer is to do nothing, leave them be so as not to make more enemies? What is the answer then? Truth is, using the drones IS the most effective way and easily a way that risks the least amount of lives.

[revelarts]

"Right now, there isn't a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel," Hayden told me recently.
That's Micheal Hayden former head of the CIA and no friend of the bill of rights.
Even he wonders what the heck we think we're doing just on legal grounds. let alone pragmatic grounds.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/05/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-column-drones-and-the-law-20120205


as far as what to do instead of Drones.

well we got Bin Laden without a drone strike and without the lost of 1 soldier thankfully.
We lost a chopper but what's money in the war on terror, one loss of life from terror is worse than like 5000 on the highway right?
Haven't they renditioned a bunch of suspects as well, basically kidnapped them.
If there's enough evidence to convict those picked up in hostile countries I'm not completely against that either.

so there are different ways to get it done.

and i see that i've basically hit a brick wall of "faith" here.
some of you just believe that Islam is really the ONLY reason for terrorism. No amount of facts will change that. so i guess i'll just leave off my comments at this point.

the sad thing is if you were right, that'd mean that there will never be any peace until Islam disappears/is destroyed of everyone else becomes Muslim.
You've set yourselves and your children up for a 1000 years of war. when an alternative might be leaving the middle east and letting them grow out of it, as the west did, or self destruct.
But whatever enjoy your holy war fellas, i want no part of it.

[jimnyc]

as far as what to do instead of Drones.

well we got Bin Laden without a drone strike and without the lost of 1 soldier thankfully.
We lost a chopper but what's money in the war on terror, one loss of life from terror is worse than like 5000 on the highway right?
Haven't they renditioned a bunch of suspects as well, basically kidnapped them.
If there's enough evidence to convict those picked up in hostile countries I'm not completely against that either.

So you wouldn't mind if we temporarily put boots on the ground in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries where the terrorists like to hide? This puts the soldiers more at risk, but likely less civilians. Quite frankly, I would rather we kept our soldiers safe unless absolutely necessary to place them in harms way. But if you expect anyone here to believe you would be cool with our government dropping in troops to various countries all the time, I'll sell you the brooklyn bridge if you like.

These people are targeted for capture/killing. There are only so many ways to do this before giving them an opportunity to kill people anywhere around the world. I think YOUR first pick would be to ignore them since they aren't on US soil, but I could be wrong. I personally don't think ignoring terrorists, especially those tied to Al Qaeda who is our sworn enemy, would be a wise idea. The very next best thing would be for these various countries to work with us and capture these terrorists and bringing them to justice somehow. Fact is, none of them are barely doing jack shit. Next best thing is to minimize OUR soldiers casualties and take them out without anyone on the ground. No Americans killed or barely even at risk. Some complain that there is collateral damage and innocents are killed. Well hell, please don't be naive enough to think that EVERY time we send in troops to take someone out that it would be as smooth as what happened with Bin Laden, although that would be great. Most of these terrorists have cells with them and are heavily guarded. Our troops would likely hit them just as hard from the ground, and innocents are at risk AND our soldiers are at risk. No offense, but if I had a choice between killing a terrorist and maybe losing a few Americans, as opposed to killing a terrorist and taking a chance on collateral damage - I will take the collateral damage 7 days a week. If these countries want to avoid any civilian deaths, they should actually try to reel in the terrorists and their pals so that we don't have to do it for them.

Suffice to say, short of ignoring them, there will always be unfortunate casualties and side effects from war. And I know you don't seem to think there is a "war on terror", but it's there, every day, and Al Qaeda and other proof keeps inundating us week after week to remind us that they still exist.

[fj1200]

Doesn't terrorism involve killing innocent women and children?

[jimnyc]

Doesn't terrorism involve killing innocent women and children?

They go out of their way to target those innocents, while those targeting them go out of their way as much as possible to avoid killing civilians. I know it sucks when the US targets a building that terrorists are in with a sizable missile, or dropping one via a drone, or from a tank, or from a black hawk.... but in all of them the goal is the same, to take out the terrorist. I think in each instance they also take us much care to avoid collateral damage. And I don't blame them for trying to do this - and using a method in which the risk to US soldiers is almost nil.

Of course, I would also support plenty of troops on the ground to get these terrorists and their pals too - but I have a sneaky suspicion that those that don't like drone attacks will then complain about boots on the ground, committing troops, expenses....

[revelarts]

You know you have a point. i wouldn't be that happy with troops in any ol country swooping in and killing terror suspects. Unless there was a real existing provable operational terror threat.
the Russians were our "sworn enemies" but we didn't try to kill every Russian general, we found. the mafia is supposedly our sworn enemy now, they have no law, but we don't drone strike the "2nd in command" of the mafia in Italy, or the latest south American drug cartel leader.
Why is that?
But seems some people don't think rationally on terror.

and Jim have you addressed our support of terrorist in Iran?

But would it be OK for the Russians to drone strike a Boston suburb or and a gym to get the alleged Boston bombers, AFTER the U.S. gov't had ignored the warnings?

YES OR NO?

Please don't give me any BS about it's different. It's not, the Russians warned of terrorist suspects and our gov't ignored it and didn't do "jack shit". The Chechen terrorist are terrorist just as much as thoose we've struck in other countries. (maybe more so, who knows)

If your prepared to allow other the countries the same authority to kill anyone they SAY are terrorist in the U.S. anytime they feel like with drones with whatever collateral damage that entails, because it spares their country's troops then fine.
Only then are you are consistent in your view. Terrorist suspects are fair game anytime anywhere by any legit gov't. who gets to say they are legit .. they do.

But i'd guess your just an advocate for might makes right , or America is right no matter what, and we shouldn't really care about law or morals, just kill the "terrorist suspects" that hate us (AAAAHHH!) -who ever that might be-, everyone else be d@amned.

[jimnyc]

You know you have a point. i wouldn't be that happy with troops in any ol country swooping in and killing terror suspects. Unless there was a real existing provable operational terror threat.
the Russians were our "sworn enemies" but we didn't try to kill every Russian general, we found. the mafia is supposedly our sworn enemy now, they have no law, but we don't drone strike the "2nd in command" of the mafia in Italy, or the latest south American drug cartel leader.
Why is that?
But seems some people don't think rationally on terror.

and Jim have you addressed our support of terrorist in Iran?

But would it be OK for the Russians to drone strike a Boston suburb or and a gym to get the alleged Boston bombers, AFTER the U.S. gov't had ignored the warnings?

YES OR NO?

Please don't give me any BS about it's different. It's not, the Russians warned of terrorist suspects and our gov't ignored it and didn't do "jack shit". The Chechen terrorist are terrorist just as much as thoose we've struck in other countries. (maybe more so, who knows)

If your prepared to allow other the countries the same authority to kill anyone they SAY are terrorist in the U.S. anytime they feel like with drones with whatever collateral damage that entails, because it spares their country's troops then fine.
Only then are you are consistent in your view. Terrorist suspects are fair game anytime anywhere by any legit gov't. who gets to say they are legit .. they do.

But i'd guess your just an advocate for might makes right , or America is right no matter what, and we shouldn't really care about law or morals, just kill the "terrorist suspects" that hate us (AAAAHHH!) -who ever that might be-, everyone else be d@amned.

The USA isn't habitually ignoring terrorists. There is no need for other countries to drone attack here, for terrorists that want to strike here. BUT, if the USA had a history of turning a blind eye to terrorism, or giving them aid and/or comfort, and terrorists from around the world found our doorstep here as they felt safe - then I wouldn't have an issue with a major country that was fighting terrorism took some of them out on our soil. But we simply don't fit that profile. Sorry that blows up your analogy up there.

We wouldn't drone attack the mafia in italy as that's a police issue, not a terrorist issue. And those that do leave Italy, or are operating already within the USA, they are forever under the watchful eye of authorities and often jailed and brought to court for their crimes.

The fact is, we are fighting terrorism. We try our best to work with other countries, both within our borders and around the world. We have worked hand in hand with quite a few other countries on many, many operations since this war on terror started. But then you have some countries that just don't give a shit, don't care, don't want to cooperate, and coincidentally this is where you find so many terrorists calling home and hanging their hats. They don't fight terrorism, not even on their own front - so we do. I feel the same way about all countries, including our own. But don't be mad at me that we DO fight terrorism, and some others don't give a crap. That doesn't mean we stop there and that doesn't mean they get a free ride in a country that doesn't give a shit.

[revelarts]

The USA isn't habitually ignoring terrorists. There is no need for other countries to drone attack here, for terrorists that want to strike here. BUT, if the USA had a history of turning a blind eye to terrorism, or giving them aid and/or comfort, and terrorists from around the world found our doorstep here as they felt safe - then I wouldn't have an issue with a major country that was fighting terrorism took some of them out on our soil. But we simply don't fit that profile. Sorry that blows up your analogy up there.

We wouldn't drone attack the mafia in italy as that's a police issue, not a terrorist issue. And those that do leave Italy, or are operating already within the USA, they are forever under the watchful eye of authorities and often jailed and brought to court for their crimes.

The fact is, we are fighting terrorism. We try our best to work with other countries, both within our borders and around the world. We have worked hand in hand with quite a few other countries on many, many operations since this war on terror started. But then you have some countries that just don't give a shit, don't care, don't want to cooperate, and coincidentally this is where you find so many terrorists calling home and hanging their hats. They don't fight terrorism, not even on their own front - so we do. I feel the same way about all countries, including our own. But don't be mad at me that we DO fight terrorism, and some others don't give a crap. That doesn't mean we stop there and that doesn't mean they get a free ride in a country that doesn't give a shit.

SO we raise the bar, to habitually.
well, how many quotes do you want from congressman that were willing to support and Chenchens in the the U.S. because it was a problem for Russia . before the Boston bombings.
How many reports do you want of the CIA getting U.S. visas for terrorist, over the objection of state dept officials to train in the U.S. and fight in Afghanistan and the Balkans for years. and just before 9/11. how many thread that were never reply to here that i've posted of Jundulla terrorist giving and getting funds from the U.S.. their representatives traveling here lobbing successfully to be taken off the terror list etc..
A what point is it habitual? beyond the point were we do it i suspect.
whatever.

but to your credit you'd allow it, if it came up to whatever standard you have.

[fj1200]

They go out of their way to target those innocents, while those targeting them go out of their way as much as possible to avoid killing civilians. I know it sucks when the US targets a building that terrorists are in with a sizable missile, or dropping one via a drone, or from a tank, or from a black hawk.... but in all of them the goal is the same, to take out the terrorist. I think in each instance they also take us much care to avoid collateral damage. And I don't blame them for trying to do this - and using a method in which the risk to US soldiers is almost nil.

Of course, I would also support plenty of troops on the ground to get these terrorists and their pals too - but I have a sneaky suspicion that those that don't like drone attacks will then complain about boots on the ground, committing troops, expenses....

I don't disagree with any of that but my point was that we can't just take action and disavow any unseen effects that come up. I remember after 9/11 Bush and/or Condi Rice talked about "boots on the ground" which I took to mean that we have to have some skin in the game as far as taking action against our enemies and not just tossing out cruise missiles and claiming success.

I also found it interesting that the word "terrorism" has roots in state terrorism of the French in the 18th century. #damnFrench

[jimnyc]

Doesn't terrorism involve killing innocent women and children?


I don't disagree with any of that but my point was that we can't just take action and disavow any unseen effects that come up. I remember after 9/11 Bush and/or Condi Rice talked about "boots on the ground" which I took to mean that we have to have some skin in the game as far as taking action against our enemies and not just tossing out cruise missiles and claiming success.

I also found it interesting that the word "terrorism" has roots in state terrorism of the French in the 18th century. #damnFrench

Hey there you dirty bastard, you didn't make a point prior to this other than pointing out that terrorists kill innocents! :)

And I agree with you as well, we shouldn't disavow anything, and I honestly don't see much of that going on. The USA has been pretty darn good about announcing the drone attacks, who the target was and what the results were. They have even stood up and acknowledged errors when there were unfortunate results. I can only recall them going 'silent' when it involved the American terrorist and the administration avoided questions about their authority on that one.

[fj1200]

Hey there you dirty bastard, you didn't make a point prior to this other than pointing out that terrorists kill innocents! :)

I claim insomnia! :eek:

[jimnyc]

I claim insomnia! :eek:

Great movie, Pacino and Robin Williams in Alaska. :)