How Many Future Terrorists Did We Create Yesterday? (1 Viewer)

[mjcouvi]

Thought I'd get this new politics board going with something significant. How long will the US continue to kill innocent civilians in the Middle East?

A U.S. drone strike intended to hit an Islamic State (IS) hideout in Afghanistan killed at least 30 civilians resting after a day’s labor in the fields, officials said on Thursday. The attack on Wednesday night also injured another 40 people after accidentally targeting farmers and laborers who had just finished collecting pine nuts at Wazir Tangi in eastern Nangarhar province, three Afghan officials told Reuters.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...ne-strike-afghanistan-kills-civilian-farmers/

 

[Krodwhodat]

Well again, what would be your judgment on Afghanistan doing the same here if their agreed upon "intent" was to target individuals here in the US, and it wasn't a religion issue? Because by your logic, it would in fact be justified.

I think if they started taking out specific US targets that they felt were destroying their country then I would se it as an act of war. Their government obviously doesn’t see it that way and actually gave Obama the ok to do it because they weren’t able to be successful enough curbing the terrorist in there own country because of corruption

 

[Heathen]

I think if they started taking out specific US targets that they felt were destroying their country then I would se it as an act of war. Their government obviously doesn’t see it that way and actually gave Obama the ok to do it because they weren’t able to be successful enough curbing the terrorist in there own country because of corruption

Well...many people in Afghanistan clearly do see what the US is doing as an act of war just as you and I would see Afghanistan bombing here and claiming 'whoops...collateral damage' every time an innocent were killed. I guess I'm puzzled at the double standard of when the US Military makes a mistake and when any other entity does the same on our soil. It should be wrong and punished to the highest extent of the law in ALL cases, IMHO. Human beings are human beings. In the US, our religious radicalism is money and power. We worship it and it controls our government. I think it's difficult to argue against that.

This 'well if we do nothing it could be worse' narrative just serves to muddle the picture. Hundreds of thousands in the US die each year from opioid overdose..does that then make it right for another country to say 'hey, we've had enough...you can't do this on your own' and swoop in and occupy us..targeting those who lead to so many civilian deaths here?

 

[Taurus]

Yeah.. one of the many reasons why Obama was as much a sellout as any other president and if we dont fundamentally change what we do in the world, it will keep happening. It will be hard for the next president, as good as their intent may be, to fight the military industrial complex. Never underestimate the radical fervor of those defending money and power

...while wrapped in the flag.

 

[RegularChuck]

Seems like the end justifies the means to some. It's evident by how they don't clearly acknowledge that the collateral killings are even a bad thing, only that it's been going on for a long time, or that it also occurred under someone else's watch, or the only alternative is that more of our troops die.

 

[mjcouvi]

If we strike, there's always a chance of killing innocents.
I never really cared for the " We are creating terrorists" mantra.
There are organizations that deliberately indoctrinate whole segments of the Middle East, deliberately creating terrorists and reimbursing the families of suicide bombers.
Before we indulge in self-flagellation, let's call for the end of Hezbollah, for example.
Would we be attacked if we sit on our hands and do nothing?
I believe we would, because the terrorists' ideology is so at odds with our culture they'll attack us no matter what we do.
If we don't strike, it's "Appeasement." See Munich Agreement, "Peace for our time!"- Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, 1938
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Would there still be a risk of attack if we did nothing in the Middle East? Probably, but the chance of being attacked is minimized. I think it would take a very long-term policy of non-aggression by the US in order for the risk of attack from Middle Eastern terrorists to be reduced to absolute zero. A new generation or so needs to grow up in a Middle East that's not being aggressed upon by the US military.

They didn't attack us because of our culture. That's just a tired myth used as an excuse for US aggression.

Osama bin Laden said "if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard."

The book he's referring to is 'Imperial Hubris'. Michael Scheuer was a long-time CIA counter-terrorism operative. He's very adamant that any terrorist motivation to attack the US is entirely a result of US invasion and occupation.

 

[Intensesaint]

Would there still be a risk of attack if we did nothing in the Middle East? Probably, but the chance of being attacked is minimized. I think it would take a very long-term policy of non-aggression by the US in order for the risk of attack from Middle Eastern terrorists to be reduced to absolute zero. A new generation or so needs to grow up in a Middle East that's not being aggressed upon by the US military.

They didn't attack us because of our culture. That's just a tired myth used as an excuse for US aggression.

Osama bin Laden said "if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard."

The book he's referring to is 'Imperial Hubris'. Michael Scheuer was a long-time CIA counter-terrorism operative. He's very adamant that any terrorist motivation to attack the US is entirely a result of US invasion and occupation.

Homosexuals in the Middle East keep their heads down and out of sight yet they are hunted down and punished routinely, even killed. They don't commit any kind of aggression yet they are continually attacked in the Middle East. What makes you think if we had a long term policy of non-aggression that it would be any different for the West/US.

 

[mjcouvi]

Homosexuals in the Middle East keep their heads down and out of sight yet they are hunted down and punished routinely, even killed. They don't commit any kind of aggression yet they are continually attacked in the Middle East. What makes you think if we had a long term policy of non-aggression that it would be any different for the West/US.

The homosexual in the Middle East is attacked by the people he lives amongst. He's attacked by people in his own neighborhood, not by people from the next town over. The solution for the homosexual is to move out of the hostile area to avoid attack.

 

[Intensesaint]

The homosexual in the Middle East is attacked by the people he lives amongst. He's attacked by people in his own neighborhood, not by people from the next town over. The solution for the homosexual is to move out of the hostile area to avoid attack.

That is your solution for homosexuals in the Middle East? To just leave? What about trying to change hearts and minds?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There's no outrage by Americans against other Americans who kill Afghanis, it's just Afghanis afterall. Yet, some random dood kills some Americans on American soil with a gun, yeah, outrage. "GUN CONTROL" the people cry. But meanwhile Americans regularly, not randomly, kill Middle Easterners with bombs without much of an outrage. What am I missing? This discrepancy fascinates me.

I think there are a number of things here worth broaching.

To start with I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment, though perhaps not the specifics.

I think there are some obvious reasons for why people would be more immediately concerned with Americans getting killed than people that are in another country. Objectively, murder is murder no matter where it happens, but the human brain can only concern itself with so much and extending all of our political thoughts and feelings to every corner of the globe, with the same enthusiasm, is a tough ask. But that is also why thinking through foreign policy broadly is important.

I think the issue with drones, like gun violence, comes down to policy. The policy that should be in place is ending these soft wars and putting more emphasis on not enabling gross human rights abuses through the propping up of certain allies simply because it is the easy path for maintaining strategic posture on the world's chessboard.

But there is one other issue that needs to be injected into this conversation, which is the cold cost/benefit analysis. Because while for me, the policy would be no offensive policy in the region, absent that there are some things one needs to keep in mind. The alternative to the drone policy is to go back to conventional bombing, or boots on the ground. Both of which are prone to greater collateral damage and the latter endangers American lives and greatly increases the risk of escalation. So absent a policy of absence, drone strikes, unfortunately, are probably a smarter strategy. But that strategy is also dependent on how you wield it, which gets to my last point...

People earlier wanted to throw rocks at Obama, and to an extent that is fair, but some are less so. We are using drones now more than ever under Trump, and we are doing it today with much more reckless abandonment, and far less transparency. And while my core criticism will continue to be that Obama didn't do enough to end the Middle-East wars, specifically in Afghanistan, we likely would have expanded into Iran under a Republican presidency. And absent Obama, Trump has decided to loosen internal policies and checks and balances to minimize that collateral damage, which increases the chance of incidents like this, while also clamping down on the transparency of reporting them, making it less likely stories like this get out.

 

[MT15]

I think the US military, at least in the past, has acknowledged that killing civilians is a bad thing. IIRC, they will investigate what went wrong and pay compensation to the victim’s families. Not that that makes up for the tragedy, but it is better than a shrug of the shoulders and an “oh well” like some seem to suggest. We owe it to the victims to try to apologize and make amends.

The fact that it happened at all should make us stop and re-examine what we think we are accomplishing, because this is the opposite of what we should be doing.

I think Ike recognized that runaway military spending does two things: it takes away from the government’s ability to supply needed services for US citizens and it causes a seemingly irresistible urge to use the weapons that we have built. This can even come from a good intention, but we should have learned by now that use of military force almost without fail has unintended (bad) consequences.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I think the US military, at least in the past, has acknowledged that killing civilians is a bad thing. IIRC, they will investigate what went wrong and pay compensation to the victim’s families. Not that that makes up for the tragedy, but it is better than a shrug of the shoulders and an “oh well” like some seem to suggest. We owe it to the victims to try to apologize and make amends.

The fact that it happened at all should make us stop and re-examine what we think we are accomplishing, because this is the opposite of what we should be doing.

I think Ike recognized that runaway military spending does two things: it takes away from the government’s ability to supply needed services for US citizens and it causes a seemingly irresistible urge to use the weapons that we have built. This can even come from a good intention, but we should have learned by now that use of military force almost without fail has unintended (bad) consequences.

I think it is also worth mentioning that one of the elephants in the room for why we don't care about this stuff as much is the fact we now operate as an entirely volunteer military.

The people who actually live and feel the impact of these wars are only a small slice of the population, often concentrated in certain geographical locations, often amongst the lower class. There is no longer that looming sense that you or your son(or daughter) would be drafted to go fight a war based on a president's decisions abroad. Those choices are now far more abstract and distant, and with that distance, I think comes an unavoidable increase in apathy writ large.

 

[MT15]

That is your solution for homosexuals in the Middle East? To just leave? What about trying to change hearts and minds?

You’re right in that we should try to change hearts and minds about human rights. I just don’t get how the drone strikes are actually accomplishing that.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I agree that the military industrial complex will be very difficult to dismantle, and we were warned about it by Ike as he left office a long, long time ago. We do need some sort of fundamental change.

I am a bit at a loss, though, that you lump Obama in with “every other president” which seems to indicate you think his presidency was the same as some real stinkers, like Bush the younger or Trump. Obama can be fairly criticized, don’t get me wrong about that. I just don’t think you can fairly say there’s no difference. Maybe that’s not what you meant?

i'm generally a fan of obama (quelle suprise), but he was not able to make any sort of headway in afghanistan compared to his campaign rhetoric -
it's why you don't blunder your way into a war without clear intention
i'm not going to blame obama or trump for bush/cheney/rumsfield walking us right into military quicksand

 

[Sharon]

Homosexuals in the Middle East keep their heads down and out of sight yet they are hunted down and punished routinely, even killed. They don't commit any kind of aggression yet they are continually attacked in the Middle East.

You've pivoted off to something else. We know the rest of the song from here, but it makes no logical sense this go round either. Do people holding candlelight vigils for victims of police brutality deserve to be stomped by Proud Boys? How about changing hearts and minds here at home? Start another thread on that if you like, but at least address this one honestly.

On the topic of creating future terrorists in the Middle East, we could add the Muslim bans, twitter war memes and the racist movements being fueled in Europe as well.

Why? Is it the end times that some religious fundamentals hope to participate in? That's what I remember being said when Reagan first got cozy with Pat Buchanan and that crowd. Fast forward 40 years, and they've accumulated all this power and money and want to put it to "good" use. Or that could be part of the scam of separating people from their money... ???

 

[N.O.Bronco]

i'm generally a fan of obama (quelle suprise), but he was not able to make any sort of headway in afghanistan compared to his campaign rhetoric -
it's why you don't blunder your way into a war without clear intention
i'm not going to blame obama or trump for bush/cheney/rumsfield walking us right into military quicksand

I do think they deserve blame for not seeing the writing on the wall and pursuing an exit strategy as opposed to continual half-assed surges that largely wasted nothing but lives and treasure.

I think it was The Daily did an episode that at one point went into detail about how the proposed deals that have been put on the table are basically the same as they have been for years.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I do think they deserve blame for not seeing the writing on the wall and pursuing an exit strategy as opposed to continual half-assed surges that largely wasted nothing but lives and treasure.

i just have to assume that we are not privy to the real and practical reasons we can't leave
now maybe it's just some globalist nonsense, but it seems like a new president comes in and is told 'here, put your finger into this hole in the dyke - whatever you do, don't take your finger out'

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

That is your solution for homosexuals in the Middle East? To just leave? What about trying to change hearts and minds?

i do appreciate that when conservatives hold up the US as exemplar, they typically all the progressive ideals we've achieved
you're welcome conservatives

 

[Heathen]

I think the US military, at least in the past, has acknowledged that killing civilians is a bad thing. IIRC, they will investigate what went wrong and pay compensation to the victim’s families. Not that that makes up for the tragedy, but it is better than a shrug of the shoulders and an “oh well” like some seem to suggest. We owe it to the victims to try to apologize and make amends.

While I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, it is in every capacity a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders whenever it is done again...and again...and again. I'm not naive enough to say that it will never happen, but when it happens this consistently--and it does, then people will continually question if it is truly a mistake or reckless abandon. Until I see evidence otherwise, i'm going to go with the latter.

Afghan and U.S. Forces Blamed for Killing More Civilians This Year Than Taliban Have (Published 2019)

Nearly 1,400 Afghan civilians were killed in the first six months of the year, with Afghan forces and their allies accountable for 52 percent of the deaths, according to a United Nations report.

www.nytimes.com