Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, It affects the innocent people.

    Many people in Pakistan are traumatized due to the fact that every day they hear drones overhead. The poor innocent men, women, and children live in constant fear of being blown to pieces. Only 6% of all strikes actually are successful. All the other 94% are thousands of civilians dying because of a guy hundreds of miles away pressing a button.

  • Yes, they do with a term called "blowback"

    We are a country that prides itself on its efficient, well-run military and upholding the laws of war.
    Every time a drone strike kills a terrorist, it kills dozens of innocent civilians with it. People, and children especially, who witness these attacks and are personally affected by it, are now extremely resentful towards the U.S. They don't care that a terrorist was killed, they care that an American drone killed their family members or friends, and caused huge amounts of destruction to their neighborhood.
    We have the best military in the world- people-wise and money-wise. We can afford to do better. We also have the best intelligence in the world. Send a SF team (we have so many- rangers, green berets, navy SEALs, etc.), kill the terrorist, be out within 2 minutes and never come back. Innocent lives are spared, and the cycle of violence is put to a stop.

  • Drone attacks constitute to the deaths of children

    The war-weary United States, for which the phrase “boots on the
    ground” has become politically toxic, prefers to eliminate its terrorist
    foes from the skies.

    The main goals of U.S. counterterrorism are threefold: the strategic defeat of al Qaeda and groups affiliated
    with it, the containment of local conflicts so that they do not breed new enemies, and the preservation of the
    security of the American people. Drones do not serve all these goals. Although they can protect the American
    people from attacks in the short term, they are not helping to defeat al Qaeda, and they may be creating
    sworn enemies out of a sea of local insurgents. It would be a mistake to embrace killer drones as the
    Nonetheless, the
    prospect of living under the threat of instant death from above has made recruitment more difficult and kept
    operatives from establishing close ties to local civilians, who fear they might also be killed.
    But the benefits end there, and there are many reasons to believe that drone strikes are undermining
    Washington’s goal of destroying al Qaeda. Targeted killings have not thwarted the group’s ability to replace
    dead leaders with new ones. Nor have they undermined its propaganda efforts or recruitment. Even if al
    Qaeda has become less lethal and efficient, its public relations campaigns still allow it to reach potential
    supporters, threaten potential victims, and project strength. If al Qaeda’s ability to perpetuate its message
    continues, then the killing of its members will not further the long-term goal of ending the group.
    Not only has al Qaeda’s propaganda continued uninterrupted by the drone strikes; it has been significantly
    enhanced by them. As Sahab (The Clouds), the propaganda branch of al Qaeda, has been able to attract
    recruits and resources by broadcasting footage of drone strikes, portraying them as indiscriminate violence
    against Muslims. Al Qaeda uses the strikes that result in civilian deaths, and even those that don’t, to frame
    Americans as immoral bullies who care less about ordinary people than al Qaeda does. And As Sahab
    regularly casts the leaders who are killed by drones as martyrs. It is easy enough to kill an individual terrorist
    with a drone strike, but the organization’s Internet presence lives on.
    A more effective way of defeating al Qaeda would be to publicly discredit it with a political strategy aimed at
    dividing its followers. Al Qaeda and its various affiliates do not together make up a strong, unified
    organization. Different factions within the movement disagree about both long-term objectives and shortterm tactics, including whether it is acceptable to carry out suicide attacks or kill other Muslims. And it is in
    Muslim-majority countries where jihadist violence has taken its worst toll. Around 85 percent of those killed
    by al Qaeda’s attacks have been Muslims, a fact that breeds revulsion among its potential followers.

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .

  • They do more than good.

    They do good by not letting people get killed . They are also less expensive than fighter jets that are not accurate as done strikes . Soldier attacks are more use less than fighter jets attacks because the will get killed by enemy it might be in enemy territory .


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.