toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?

[Granite]

So far, I am not defending anything. I am simply exploring the limits of a form of warfare that our military is ill-prepared to fight. How do you fight an enemy that looks the same and is dressed the same as a friend? Is a "war on terror" a legitimate enough war where the US is justified to take out identified leaders of the enemy? If so, does this equally apply to the "war on drugs"?

I consider both wars to be a total crock, so you might be asking the wrong guy.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The drone attacks raise several issues--the targets are being killed capriciously without due process of law. Obama goes in a secret meeting to launch these things without consulting other government officials. They have been used on Americans abroad without due process. Traitors should be given Capital punishment after due process of law-not executed remotely by a drone. The use of drones has opened up another can of worms--using them on American soil.

The foundation of America's justice system is that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This principle is found scripture:

Proverbs 18:17 - The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Numbers 35:30 - Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.
This is in agreement with U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3.

There is also the issue of collateral damage done by the drone. The drone isn't a soldier. It cannot see that it is shooting innocent bystanders. It doesn't have a conscience to tell it to hold its fire until a bicyclist or a mother and baby gets out of the way.

It's wrong to be blase about this "collateral damage."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...ics-drone-strikes-abroad-rand-paul-filibuster

We're killing an awful lot of people abroad with little oversight or accountability. But I guess we better get used to the idea of America killing whoever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. That's the new reality. And it's a depressing state of affairs.

If all's justified in the name of this bogus, ridiculous "war on terror" we might as well drop the pretense, chuck the Constitution, and admit the powers that be can and will do whatever they want to.

All well said.

:shocked: i just realized i am agreeing with granite agreeing with a conservative view...

 

[PureX]

America is not at war with Pakistan, Yemen and Somali, and yet drone attacks are being launched in these countries and killing people. That is without due process.

Well, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somali either cannot or will not stop aggression against the people of the U.S., themselves. So we must then do so, ourselves. I have no problem with that.

 

[Granite]

Well, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somali either cannot or will not stop aggression against the people of the U.S., themselves. So we must then do so, ourselves. I have no problem with that.

Would you see a problem with drone attacks on the Saudis?

 

[PureX]

Would you see a problem with drone attacks on the Saudis?

You mean on Saudi terrorists who have declared war on the U.S., and have acted accordingly? No problem.

War is war. It is not "just", it is not "fair", it is not "moral", and it is not logical and reasonable. It's deliberate mass murder. It never was anything else. Once someone declares war on this country, and acts to carry out that declaration, they have loosed the insanity of war. And once loosed, I want our side to have the bigger guns, and meaner soldiers.

You want to cry about collateral damage? I'll cry with you. But that's what war is: death and destruction. Don't loose that beast if you don't want to get eaten by it, or eat the other guy, first.

 

[Granite]

You mean on Saudi terrorists who have declared war on the U.S., and have acted accordingly? No problem.

Well I ask because by your rationale we should've gone after them immediately 9/11, considering where the alleged hijackers supposedly hail from. That we haven't tell me that U.S. foreign policy when it comes to the "war on terror" is predicated on picking fights we know we can win. Or by not prosecuting a serious war.

War is war. It is not "just", it is not "fair", it is not "moral", and it is not logical and reasonable. It's deliberate mass murder. It never was anything else. Once someone declares war on this country, and acts to carry out that declaration, they have loosed the insanity of war. And once loosed, I want our side to have the bigger guns, and meaner soldiers.

So in other words might makes right and the ends justify the means. Do you draw any lines at all?

You want to cry about collateral damage? I'll cry with you.

When your country's murdering people and the response of the people is to shrug and blow dust off their fingernails, we have a problem.

 

[The Berean]

When your country's murdering people and the response of the people is to shrug and blow dust off their fingernails, we have a problem.

The question is as American citizens what can we do about it? It's not like the White House will likely listen to us average Joe's. I suppose we can form a huge protest march on Washington but I suspect the powers that be will just :yawn:. But many Americans would like the drone attacks to stop. How can we stop them?

 

[Zeke]

If somebody were to, say, fly an airliner into a skyscraper, what should our response be?

Make sure you take out enough insurance to cover the damage and then some just before it happens.

 

[The Barbarian]

Granite asks:

Would you see a problem with drone attacks on the Saudis?

US drone strike kills 2 Saudi AQAP fighters in central Yemen
By Bill RoggioJanuary 20, 2013

The US killed eight people, including two Saudi al Qaeda fighters, in a drone strike yesterday in Marib province in central Yemen. The strike is the first recorded in Yemen in 16 days.

The CIA-operated, remotely piloted Predators or the more deadly Reapers launched two missiles at a car as it traveled in the Abieda Valley in Marib province, according to The Associated Press and Reuters.

Two of those killed "were known al Qaeda militants of Saudi nationality," AP reported. One of the Saudis is thought to be Ismail bin Jamil. Tribesmen blocked the road from Marib to the capital of Sana'a to protest the strikes, according to Reuters.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/01/us_drone_strike_kill_20.php#ixzz2NGqK6vaT

Some of the drone missions are being flown out of Saudi Arabia, which has little love for the Al Qaeda terrorists.

 

[Bright Raven]

Nuk'em till they glow.

 

[lightbringer]

The question is as American citizens what can we do about it? It's not like the White House will likely listen to us average Joe's. I suppose we can form a huge protest march on Washington but I suspect the powers that be will just :yawn:. But many Americans would like the drone attacks to stop. How can we stop them?

Well the Hippies did in the last war, yeah just average Hippies.

 

[Zeke]

You mean on Saudi terrorists who have declared war on the U.S., and have acted accordingly? No problem.

War is war. It is not "just", it is not "fair", it is not "moral", and it is not logical and reasonable. It's deliberate mass murder. It never was anything else. Once someone declares war on this country, and acts to carry out that declaration, they have loosed the insanity of war. And once loosed, I want our side to have the bigger guns, and meaner soldiers.

You want to cry about collateral damage? I'll cry with you. But that's what war is: death and destruction. Don't loose that beast if you don't want to get eaten by it, or eat the other guy, first.

I wonder who is really the terrorist towel heads with this kind of blindness still bearing fruit.

 

[PureX]

Well I ask because by your rationale we should've gone after them immediately 9/11, considering where the alleged hijackers supposedly hail from.

I don't see that it matters where they come from. It only matters where they are, and what they intend. If they intend to kill us, and we can kill them, first, then our government is obliged to do so, as it is it's primary purpose to protect our lives, and our liberty.

That we haven't tell me that U.S. foreign policy when it comes to the "war on terror" is predicated on picking fights we know we can win. Or by not prosecuting a serious war.

I don't see that we are (or should be) picking any fights at all. The purpose of our government and military is not to "pick fights" with anyone. It's to defend us against those who intend to harm us. Sadly, George Bush did not understand this. Neither did the several presidents before him who insisted on trying to use military force to effect their political will. THIS is the big mistake that the U.S. keeps making. Which doesn't really have anything to do with the drone attacks on terrorists who have declared and proven their intend and desire to kill our citizens.

So in other words might makes right and the ends justify the means. Do you draw any lines at all?

There is nothing just about war. We need to stop this silly illusion that there is some just way of killing other human beings and destroying their things before they kill us and destroy our things. There is nothing just about any of it. And we should NEVER engage in such behavior. Yet, sadly, it is sometimes necessary, nevertheless. And when it's necessary, I want us to have the bigger guns, and the meaner soldiers, and to strike them before they strike us.

When your country's murdering people and the response of the people is to shrug and blow dust off their fingernails, we have a problem.

I agree. It seems we care about nothing, anymore, but ourselves. We don't even care about our fellow citizens. Or our own children's future. But this has little to do with the drone attacks.

 

[TomO]

I agree. It seems we care about nothing, anymore, but ourselves. We don't even care about our fellow citizens. Or our own children's future. But this has little to do with the drone attacks.

Until some future president declares "War on Subversion".

 

[IMJerusha]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 11th, 2013 09:14 AM

toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

They make me uneasy. As Purex stated, the fact that they don't carry our soldiers into battle is a positive but that's exactly why they make me uneasy. COs think twice before they put soldier's lives on the line in a military effort. Where does that caution go with these drones and what happens to us when killing becomes so sterile, even wartime killing? There's a price for these drones and I'm not so sure we'll understand the depth of it until it's too late.

 

[The Berean]

Well the Hippies did in the last war, yeah just average Hippies.

They did? How so?

 

[Granite]

I don't see that it matters where they come from. It only matters where they are, and what they intend. If they intend to kill us, and we can kill them, first, then our government is obliged to do so, as it is it's primary purpose to protect our lives, and our liberty.

And we're just supposed to take Washington's word, and believe Uncle Sam is being honest. Ummm.

I don't see that we are (or should be) picking any fights at all.

Then we've got completely different ways of looking at the world and understanding our nation's history.

The purpose of our government and military is not to "pick fights" with anyone. It's to defend us against those who intend to harm us.

Agreed. And we've badly warped this duty and indulged in imperialism for over a century.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with the drone attacks on terrorists who have declared and proven their intend and desire to kill our citizens.

Only if you believe in the fiction the war on terror's predicated on, and only if you believe we're only killing actual terrorists, and only if you assume the citizens we're blowing to bits don't amount to much in the grand of scheme of things because they're acceptable collateral losses.

There is nothing just about war. We need to stop this silly illusion that there is some just way of killing other human beings and destroying their things before they kill us and destroy our things. There is nothing just about any of it. And we should NEVER engage in such behavior. Yet, sadly, it is sometimes necessary, nevertheless. And when it's necessary, I want us to have the bigger guns, and the meaner soldiers, and to strike them before they strike us.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[lightbringer]

The question is as American citizens what can we do about it? It's not like the White House will likely listen to us average Joe's. I suppose we can form a huge protest march on Washington but I suspect the powers that be will just :yawn:. But many Americans would like the drone attacks to stop. How can we stop them?

They did? How so?

You mentioned it in the above quote, protest, but it will mean millions will have to take to the streets possibly risking injury or loss personal freedom. It is the only thing that gets the governments attention.

Unfortunately it is a slow process and costly for each participant (not as slow as just belly aching about it on internet forums though) and requires massive numbers of citizens gathered together to force change.

 

[PureX]

And we're just supposed to take Washington's word, and believe Uncle Sam is being honest.

In the end, we're going to have to. Because we just can't know these things for ourselves. Which means we'd better start being more careful about who we elect and why.

Only if you believe in the fiction the war on terror's predicated on ...

9/11 wasn't a fiction. Neither were the declarations of war (murder) by the men who attacked us.

... and only if you believe we're only killing actual terrorists, and only if you assume the citizens we're blowing to bits don't amount to much in the grand of scheme of things because they're acceptable collateral losses.

Again, you seem to be seeking reason and justice in a circumstance where these do not exist. Collateral damage is never "acceptable", and it's never just or reasonable to kill our enemies just because they hate us and want to kill us. And yet these things will happen whenever war happens. Which is why we should never engage in war. Yet wars will occur, and we will be drawn into them.

No one "wins" a war. But some people survive them, and some do not.

You didn't answer my question.

"So in other words might makes right and the ends justify the means. Do you draw any lines at all?"

Is this your question?

I believe it's better to be alive than dead. I don't start wars and I don't want my government starting them, either. But wars will start, and they will be waged against us, and when that happens I want the others guys ending up dead, not us. It's heartbreaking that so many non-combatants get caught up in the insanity of war and are killed. And of course we should do our best not to increase their suffering and loss. But warfare kills people, often indiscriminately. And that's just the way it is.

So do hurricanes, auto accidents, and diseases. And I'm no more responsible for them than I am for war breaking out.

The "lines" aren't mine to draw. And there is no justification for any of it.

 

[The Barbarian]

I wonder who is really the terrorist towel heads with this kind of blindness still bearing fruit.

Purex has this right. War is hell. It's unfair, blind, destructive, and often kills the wrong people.

We do war when we have no other choice. The people we are killing, killed thousands of innocent people in a single attack, with no more remorse than you'd have killing ants in your pantry.

They would do it again, if we'd let up on them and allow them to regroup. I'm appalled that we have to do this, but I'm happy that we are able to prevent further attacks on our people.

PJ Crowley: Al-Qaeda losing the fight and the argument
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17909908