I’ll just say I disagree, since I think I’ve already covered this before and I get accused often of saying the same things over and over again. I concede that it’s a valid point and certainly debatable, but I don’t believe that Obama had a whole lot of real world choices he could have made, even at the very beginning of his administration, and I think that he did a pretty good job getting things to where they are.
Well, it’s New Mexico. Why should Americans care about police shootings in another country?
I’m sorry that’s happening to your people.
What behavior of the United States toward Saudi Arabia caused 15 of them to hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and attempt to fly the last into the White House?
What can we possibly do to improve the conditions in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria so that militants don’t take up arms, destabilize their governments and provide protection for international terrorist organizations?
How do we prevent the mass slaughter, rape, torture, iconoclasm, and genocide that inevitably follows in the wake of fundamentalist Muslim militant organizations taking over a bit of territory in unstable parts of the world?
I really don’t think any of you who are opposed to the drone program have reasonable answers to these questions or can give examples of how such problems were handled in a moral manner. Although it would be wonderful to work against these problems while maintaining our perceptions of our morality, I do not think that is reasonable at this point in history. Good thing for the drone program, at least American soldiers are not being killed and maimed by its use.
Stay the fuck out of there. That’s what we need to do. No one is claiming that we can be perfectly immune to terror attacks, but when you’re the big bully on the block, you’ve got a huge target on your back.
Terrorist plots from Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries were launched well before the U.S. was “in” those countries. So, what good does being “out” of them serve?
Disband the CIA.
The U.S. was “in” Saudi Arabia which many of the people in your aforementioned countries consider HOLY LANDS that Americans should have no military presence. We kind know this because it’s WHAT OBL SAID HIMSELF. It was his RECRUITING TECHNIQUE for Al Qaeda. The fact that this is 2014 and this even needs to be said speaks volumes.
Yes. I know that. My point is that even if the U.S. isn’t in Country A, there may be someone in Country A who is upset that the U.S. is in Country B. Even if we leave Country B, same Upset Person may be upset that the U.S. is in Country C; all the way down to being unhappy that the U.S. is still friends with Country I. Feel me?
The idea that Al Qaeda wouldn’t have targeted the United States if we had only drawn down troops in Saudi Arabia several years before we actually did is patently silly. The fight between Al Qaeda and the U.S. isn’t over the presence of a few thousand troops in some country or region; it’s a fight between the general post-World War II order of world affairs and an insurgent vision of a different power structure grounded in Islamic principles.
If you really do believe that Bin Laden’s master plan was simply because the West had troops in Saudi Arabia, and this is 2014, that would speak volumes as well.
Unfortunately, I think destabilizing governments is probably one of the things needed to fix the problem. Which is why we’re not going to see local support.
Many of the regimes in the Middle East are dictatorships which seem to have made a tacit deal with terrorists: the government won’t crack down on terrorists inside the country and the terrorists will direct their attacks outside the country.
Another problem area is the education systems. Many Middle Eastern countries have turned their public education systems over the religious fundamentalists. And these groups have introduced religious and ideological indoctrination into the schools. We should cut off this supply of future terrorists by developing secular school systems that don’t teach pre-terrorism.
Another possibility is direct religious indoctrination. It’s often been pointed out that the religion that terrorists are following is a perversion of real Islamic belief. The problem has been terrorist groups have had a free hand at spreading their own slanted religious message without challenge. We should present the reasonable alternative. I’m not talking about trying to convert Muslims to Christianity or trying to get them to abandon their religion. But we should be seeking out mainstream Muslim religious figures and supporting them in spreading a non-terrorist oriented version of Islam. We need religious figures that Muslims will listen to and respect telling them that Allah does not want them to murder innocent people.
A third idea is economic development. Many Middle Eastern countries are wealthy. But the wealth gets concentrated at the top. The people down the ladder are poor and out of work which leaves them vulnerable to recruitment by militant organizations. I think if these people’s day-to-day life was less miserable, they wouldn’t feel the need to strike back by joining terrorist organizations.
So there’s some suggestions for the kind of long-term changes that are needed to address the terrorism problem.
Weell, we can stop right here.
You have absolutely no clue what you are posting about.
Would it make you feel better if I said the CIA was supporting many of these dictatorships?
Doesn’t matter. Your statement that there is an agreement bewteen those countries so that terrorists won’t attack inside of the country can easily and conclusively be proven to be false in most of the countries you mentioned, and probably can’t be substantiated either way in the others.
For example, you think AQAP has an agreement with Yemen not to attack inside the country? Total nonsense. You think Al Shabaab has an agreement not to murder people in Somalia? BS. You think dozens of groups in Libya have an agreement to only attack non-Libyan targets? Get real.
Yemen, Somali and Libya aren’t countries. They’re spaces between other countries where countries used to be.
Then Little Nemo’s crappy plan has already succeeded in destabilizing them. I guess the terrorists will disappear any day now.
As much fun as it is to knock video games, this remote killing by drones was authorized and expanded almost exclusively by old men who have never played them.
Regarding the OP…this isn’t new at all. Behold a New Yorker article from 2009:
Note that in 2001, operators of an unarmed drone famously saw “a tall man surrounded by others” whom they guessed was Osama Bin Laden because Osama was tall, and they keenly felt that they’d missed the chance to kill this person for being tall – because their drone wasn’t armed. But if you keep reading, you’ll learn that by 2002 – 12 years ago now – they DID succeed in killing someone simply for being tall.
That’s what US policy has come to. Excuse me, came to 12 years ago. Killing people because they’re tall.
It’s indefensible. Period.
Do you really think Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad all that time and the Pakistani government had no idea? Do you think it’s a coincidence that Wahhabi fundamentalists preach against corruption and decadence but for some reason never mention the Saud regime? Or that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is supposedly a Sunni fundamentalist group, stopped denouncing the Alawis and the Shia at the same time it began getting support from Syria and Iran?
Don’t be foolish. I said that removing the governments that have been quietly condoning terrorism might be a necessary step in ending terrorism. I never said it was the only thing that needed to be done.
If you’re going to make those assertions, cite them. I have no time for “connect the dots, sheeple!” kinds of debates.