• Yes! Yes! Yes!

    Imagine if someone dropped a drone on an American city or destroyed one of our buildings. They would definitely be labeled terrorists or a terrorist nation. These drones are out of hand and need to stop. We are no better than the men responsible for 9/11. Well that's pretty much all I have to say, what do you think?

  • Yes indeed it is

    According to 130 interviews with victims and witnesses of drone strikes by researchers from Stanford and New York University, people who live in the affected areas experience harm "beyond death and physical injury" and "hear drones hover 24 hours a day," and live with the fear that a strike could occur at any moment of the day or night. According to Clive Stafford Smith, Director of human rights organization Reprieve, "an entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yemeni tribal sheik Mullah Zabara says "we consider the drones terrorism. The drones are flying day and night, frightening women and children, disturbing sleeping people. This is terrorism.

  • Yes most definetly

    The definition of terrorism is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. So yea unauthorized drone strikes done by the us for political aims is terrorism. Do the US really think that they can "kill all the terrorists" or use fear as a tool to counteract them?

  • Ends don't justify means.

    Killing terrorists, while a brutal technique, is nonetheless counter terrorism. However, when you are killing innocent people, through strikes that aren't very precise, you are terrorizing innocent lives. When a child in the US has to walk around with fear, because a foreigner entity, its terrorism. But when a child in the middle east has to walk around with a similar fear, why is it any less terrorism?

  • Is bombarding another country terrorism?

    Obviously they are, ask the one who lost their family in these attacks and only a sorry from the american president payed the price of the precious lives that are not going to come back, ask the one whose homes have been destroyed, who lost their children, parents and sibling in these stupid attacks, are they stupid enough of not realizing they are killing innocent people instead of terrorist? For us these people are more of terrorists than that of the one who they are TRYING to kill!

  • Absolutely; just because WE are the one's doing it does NOT mean that it isn't terrorism

    Yes, yes it is. Just because it isn't done by extremists or a couple of religious wackos does NOT mean that it isn't terrorism. Just because it is done by a powerful government does NOT mean that it isn't terrorism. Just because it is the AMERICAN government, OUR government - it does not mean that it is not terrorism. If Russia or China started dropping drone strikes in the US then of course we would view it was terrorism. They are trying to instill a shock of terror to get their point and wants across.

  • Its creating so much terror that they are creating Terrorists.

    Is this the perpetual war that Orwell warned us about? It seems to be so, removing the human element of killing other humans is making the ability to kill people too easy. Its scarey and its killing civilian. These civilians have family and friend, are poor and it leads to extremism.

  • Innocent Deaths = Terrorism

    On 9/11, many hundreds were killed. This is what is happening with America using drones on foreign countries. First of all, these drones are not only killing terrorists, they are killing innocent civilians! Even children! These drones are not like snipers on a rooftop, they don't kill one person at a time, they are not as accurate as a rifle, they hit many more people than the target! Also, it is an unfair advantage for the countries who are being bombed by the drones! Do they have drones with missiles and guns? No, they have normal firearms and probably some homemade bombs, nothing to take down a drone. That is why drone bombings should be counted as terrorism.

  • Terror does not equal terrorism

    Drone strikes may be an act of terror, but inasmuch as they are carried out by an authorized government, they are not acts of terrorism. "The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated by sub national groups ." Here the term "sub national" means "not an arm of a national government" If Halliburton committed a drone strike as Halliburton and without government authority.... That would be terrorism. An attack by Hamas is terrorism, unless it is authorized by the government of Lebanon it which case it would be an act of warfare.

  • They are absolutely not terrorism

    American drone strikes produce far fewer civilian casualties than any other military means at America's disposal. Drone strikes are not terrorism. They fight terrorism. Just today America killed the leader of Pakistan's Taliban in North Waziristan by drone strike, producing yet another example on how this program has decimated terrorist leadership.

  • They aren't terrorist attacks, whether you agree OR disagree on their use in general.

    There's a strong case in my hoping anyway, that they're statistically more harmful toward innocents then the terrorists they aim to eliminate, which in the long run does little more than to fuel extremism and generate further hatred toward the West. I agree their use in general are (can be) a legitimate warfare tactic, however I feel they should be used more sparingly where intelligence of legitimate targets are very strong and potential for collateral given a little more consideration in whatever instance. Terrorists deliberately aim to harm innocent civilians in order to causes as much suffering possible, drawing attention to their own radical causes. Drone strikes aren't intentionally hurting the innocent, despite the fact I disagree with the nature they're being use currently.

  • A clear distinction

    Has to be drawn between an act of violence and an act of terror. Admittedly, the use of drone to hunt terrorist is an act of violence; it also kills innocent civilians in the process, which by many accounts is unjustified. However, it should not be considered as an act of violence because the drone strikes were not aimed at killing innocent civilians, they were inadvertently killed in the process.

    Many of those who would consider it as an act of terror have rather emotional arguments, and understandably so. The act of killing civilians is repugnant and should not be encouraged. Yet, whilst the is some merit to their arguments, we should be careful not to label the drone strikes an act of terror because the intent to harm innocent civilians is clearly lacking

  • An act of Terror is not an act that causes terror

    It is an act whose primary goal is to cause terror in the civilian population. Drone strikes by the west are always against military targets (yes a terrorist is a military target). That is their goal, if the west wanted to cause terror or kill civilians there are plenty of nukes, chemical, biological, and plain old incendiary/cluster weapons they could do it with.

  • They are absolutely not terrorism

    While some drone strikes have unmistakably resulted in civilian casualties, they are by far one of the safest means of fighting terrorism, as they produce far fewer civilian casualties than many other weapons America has at its disposal. Drone strikes fight terrorism, and just today the leader of Pakistan's Taliban was killed in North Waziristan by an American drone strike.

  • By themselves, no.

    Terrorism is the act of causing violence to gain political power. While the overall goal of NATO forces that use UAVs is to gain political power, by removing corrupt power, drone strikes on their own don't always sway political power, and therefore drone strikes as a whole are not acts of terrorism.

  • Assuming they are targeting combatants.

    The question is a little vague, so I'll assume the strikes are being directed against military targets and any civilian casualties are accidental. I have some difficulty with the simple definition of terrorism as an unauthorised attack, as who authorises action in a foreign country? The UNGA definition of terrorism as an act calculated to provoke a state of terror is more useful, as it speaks to intent. If the predominant purpose of the strike is not purely to induce panic in the general public, it should not be considered terrorism, if only to keep the horror of true terrorism distinguishable from the horror of violent action in general.

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