The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

What do you think to the US drone attacts

Your views are they justified?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

An abomination against human rights that no one really seems to give a **** about. But don't worry, I'm sure those drones are dropping kilograms of ol' uncle sam's freedom.
Reply 2
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Better than any of the alternatives.
Reply 3
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Misplaced furore from people who don't understand what remotely-piloted vehicles are.
Original post by Drewski
Misplaced furore from people who don't understand what remotely-piloted vehicles are.


Well said. People just seem to be jumping on the outrage bus for no reason. A drone is no different to an airplane. The only difference is that there's no risk of a pilot being shot down and they're cheaper to operate.

An incredibly good and cost effective piece of equipment.
Reply 5
Avatar for ImNew
ImNew
Original post by MatureStudent36
Well said. People just seem to be jumping on the outrage bus for no reason. A drone is no different to an airplane. The only difference is that there's no risk of a pilot being shot down and they're cheaper to operate.

An incredibly good and cost effective piece of equipment.


Shouldn't be bombing people if it has a pilot inside either.
Original post by ImNew
Shouldn't be bombing people if it has a pilot inside either.


You're opinion. Sadly the world isn't as nice a place as many in comfortable safe places like Europe and North America like to think it is. It's horrible and violent and in some cases we need to get involved in those situations. When we do, it's only right that those who are put in harms way doing our governments bidding have the right equipment to do the job.

You'll argue that we shouldn't be using drone strikes. I'll counter that argument with the Taliban shouldn't be conducting suicide attacks and beheading innocent civilians.
Reply 7
Avatar for ImNew
ImNew
Original post by MatureStudent36
You're opinion. Sadly the world isn't as nice a place as many in comfortable safe places like Europe and North America like to think it is. It's horrible and violent and in some cases we need to get involved in those situations. When we do, it's only right that those who are put in harms way doing our governments bidding have the right equipment to do the job.

You'll argue that we shouldn't be using drone strikes. I'll counter that argument with the Taliban shouldn't be conducting suicide attacks and beheading innocent civilians.


Then their country's governments should capture them and give them a trial. Innocent till proven guilty, none which have been killed in drone strikes have been fairly proven guilty and thus all of them are innocent.
Those who ignorantly and blindly condemn the Drone attacks do not understand them.
Original post by ImNew
Then their country's governments should capture them and give them a trial. Innocent till proven guilty, none which have been killed in drone strikes have been fairly proven guilty and thus all of them are innocent.


We do where practicable. Sadly the environment where these things happen isn't like cops and robbers. It's the real world.
I don't see what the problem is. Don't think the Taliban would hesitate if they had drones.
I think they're a good way to find and destroy terrorists hiding out in their caves.
Reply 12
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Original post by ImNew
Then their country's governments should capture them and give them a trial.


In an ideal world that is exactly what would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world and you don't get those options in a war. Never noticed how people are only caught and tried for war crimes after the war's finished?
Original post by ImNew
Then their country's governments should capture them and give them a trial. Innocent till proven guilty, none which have been killed in drone strikes have been fairly proven guilty and thus all of them are innocent.


This. Imagine if the American and British governments started assassinating suspected domestic terrorists within the US and UK, without any proper criminal investigation or due process? There would be absolute uproar and rightly so. Why is it considered acceptable to do it in other countries?

For as long as I believe in due process and the pressumption of innocence, I can never support these kind of targeted strikes against mere "suspected terrorists" (whether by drones or any other means). The fact that completely innocent bystanders so frequently get killed and maimed just makes it all the more morally reprehensible.
Original post by Greenlaner
This. Imagine if the American and British governments started assassinating suspected domestic terrorists within the US and UK, without any proper criminal investigation or due process? There would be absolute uproar and rightly so. Why is it considered acceptable to do it in other countries?

For as long as I believe in due process and the pressumption of innocence, I can never support these kind of targeted strikes against mere "suspected terrorists" (whether by drones or any other means). The fact that completely innocent bystanders so frequently get killed and maimed just makes it all the more morally reprehensible.


The military aren't the police. They will arrest where possible, but if that person is deemed a threat and can't be detained, the threat will be mitigated.
Original post by Drewski
In an ideal world that is exactly what would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world and you don't get those options in a war. Never noticed how people are only caught and tried for war crimes after the war's finished?


That's all well and good, but we aren't officially at war with any of the countries we are carrying out drone strikes in. So what lawful authority do we have to deem individual citizens of those nations "terrorists" and then assassinate them, without due process?
I wonder what the US' response would be if another country used drone attacks over the US for "suspected terrorists" I don't think they'd be pleased. Pretty hypocritical
Original post by Greenlaner
That's all well and good, but we aren't officially at war with any of the countries we are carrying out drone strikes in. So what lawful authority do we have to deem individual citizens of those nations "terrorists" and then assassinate them, without due process?


National authority. I'm not seeing any other government authority raising legal objections against it.
Original post by Greenlaner
This. Imagine if the American and British governments started assassinating suspected domestic terrorists within the US and UK, without any proper criminal investigation or due process? There would be absolute uproar and rightly so. Why is it considered acceptable to do it in other countries?

For as long as I believe in due process and the pressumption of innocence, I can never support these kind of targeted strikes against mere "suspected terrorists" (whether by drones or any other means). The fact that completely innocent bystanders so frequently get killed and maimed just makes it all the more morally reprehensible.


I can't find it, but I remember that in Pakistan, you could (or at least used to be able to) give information about a "terrorist" and then the US would give you money.

Often if you didn't have enough money to pay the police off, you could find yourself being on that list.... The whole thing is a shambles
Original post by de_monies
I wonder what the US' response would be if another country used drone attacks over the US for "suspected terrorists" I don't think they'd be pleased. Pretty hypocritical


Have you not noticed that there is no Taliban in the US?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you