Support NeoGAF

[MisterFalcon]

I'm sure you'll enlighten me to the multitude of examples of where we submit to terrorist demands in hostage situations.

Italy has paid millions to ISIS in exchange for hostages.

 

[Zalusithix]

Italy has paid millions to ISIS in exchange for hostages.

Italy isn't the US. I was specifically talking about the American hostage and the US responses to them.

 

[soleil]

Italy isn't the US. I was specifically talking about the American hostage and the US responses to them.

Iran Contra

 

[Lamel]

If only we also apologized for the thousands of civilians we have killed through drones.

 

[Ivieto]

Why is the fact that it was a drone strike noteworthy? I really want to understand this.

Would this type of mission have been carried out by bombing missions or air strikes a few years ago?

Or is it that missions that were used to be carried by people on the ground are now just being given to drone operators?

 

[Arkeband]

RIP two brave man.

I liked Obama owing up to his mistake. However, the "But one of the things that sets America apart from many other nations. One of the things that makes us exceptional. Is our willingness to confront squarely our imperfections and to learn from our mistakes" bit seems a little weird to me. Its like saying "I take full responsibility, but look how great I am doing so". It somewhat negates the owing up part for me.

Still a nice speech tho.

There's a talking point from the left (which I happen to agree with) that America is not faultless and it's mature to seek out our imperfections and address them. I've heard it from Jon Stewart and Maher aped it, and it's bounced around to different pundits and officials since.

I think this was in the same spirit, but I'm sure the right will of course take it one of two directions - President devaluing America the Great, or President engages in wanton killing of American civilians and then goading comments about how Italy should be angrier than it is.

 

[outunderthestars]

Italy isn't the US. I was specifically talking about the American hostage and the US responses to them.

The George W. Bush administration paid a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham.

President Reagan authorized the selling of arms to Iran, in exchange for seven American hostages held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries took more than 60 Americans hostage from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, prompting a substantial response from President Jimmy Carter. After several strategies including embargoes and economic sanctions fail, Carter’s negotiations with the revolutionaries lead to the unfreezing of over $8 billion in Iranian assets. The hostages were freed after 444 days of imprisonment, just after Carter left office and Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

British hostage Peter Moore is released in Iraq, in exchange for the release of Qais al-Khazali, a prisoner being held by the U.S. military. Khazali, the leader of the Shia military group League of the Righteous, was suspected to be involved not only in Moore’s kidnapping, but also in the killings of five American soldiers.

Barack Obama released five senior Taliban figures from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in exchange for the captured U.S. solider Bowe Bergdahl.

In 1985, the Reagan administration used the Israelis to ‘front’ a deal (not unlike how we have used the Qataris in the instance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl) whereby the Israelis freed 700 prisoners in trade for Americans that were taken captive on a hijacked TWA flight.

Just a few I pulled from CNN stories. And there are likely many, many more that we never heard about.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Why is the fact that it was a drone strike noteworthy? I really want to understand this.

Would this type of mission have been carried out by bombing missions or air strikes a few years ago?

Or is it that missions that were used to be carried by people on the ground are now just being given to drone operators?

There are a lot of people against drone strikes because they have caused massive casualties.

 

[Ivieto]

There are a lot of people against drone strikes because they have caused massive causalities.

But had those drone strikes been replaced by planes dropping missiles/bombs on people the human tragedy would be the same. The human casualty aspect is not due to drone strikes, but to the current approach the US has to war?

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

But had those drone strikes been replaced by planes dropping missiles/bombs on people the human tragedy would be the same. The human casualty aspect is not due to drone strikes, but to the current approach the US has to war?

The current approach to the war on terrorism is drone strikes. And many feel like killing a few terrorists here and there isn't worth blowing innocent civilians (some children) to pieces.

 

[soleil]

But had those drone strikes been replaced by planes dropping missiles/bombs on people the human tragedy would be the same. The human casualty aspect is not due to drone strikes, but to the current approach the US has to war?

This is like asking why the focus on guns? If the mass-murdered had killed 30 people with knives, it'd be the same result!

The idea is that hapless killings are less likely to happen in the first place when there's more personal risk to the user.

 

[soleil]

The current approach to the war on terrorism is drone strikes. And many feel like killing a few terrorists here and there isn't worth blowing innocent civilians (some children) to pieces.

Yup. And while we are killing children, we're making more people hate us, turning them into terrorists.

 

[numble]

But had those drone strikes been replaced by planes dropping missiles/bombs on people the human tragedy would be the same. The human casualty aspect is not due to drone strikes, but to the current approach the US has to war?

I think people also oppose bombing in such a manner because of the massive casualties.

There is another element when Americans are involved on the other end because it is Constitutionally questionable to be able to assassinate an American without due process. If you read the WSJ article, they even try to do some extra legal legwork when they are assassinating American citizens:

The White House normally would need to seek special legal clearances to directly target American citizens suspected of plotting attacks against the U.S. That process didn’t apply in these cases because Messrs. Farouq and Gadahn weren’t being directly targeted in the operations, officials said.

 

[Ivieto]

The idea is that hapless killings are less likely to happen in the first place when there's more personal risk to the user.

But the the US military consider this war right? It is not about fair, or even playing field. It is about leveraging every single piece of technology so that you own people are in the least amount of risk possible.

I 100% oppose the way the US is approaching this situation, and I dont think it should be approached as a War. But they do consider it war, and war has always caused untold amounts of civilian casualties just. The way I see it, if drones and targeted missiles were never invented the current approach would still be carpet bombing wide areas just to try to get 1 person, regardless of consequences

What I am trying to put into words is that, among all the different methods of war available, drones sound like the ones that lead to the least civilian casualties while guaranteeing the safety of your OWN soldiers.

 

[soleil]

Yeah I get that we want safety for our side and danger for the other side, but it's gotten to the point where it's too easy to push a button with no risk, thereby decreasing the need to make sure the act of killing is justified. In the past, risk to self played a role in making sure you only kill when necessary. Now with the risk gone, we need to find another way to only kill when necessary.

 

[Zalusithix]

The George W. Bush administration paid a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham.

President Reagan authorized the selling of arms to Iran, in exchange for seven American hostages held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries took more than 60 Americans hostage from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, prompting a substantial response from President Jimmy Carter. After several strategies including embargoes and economic sanctions fail, Carter’s negotiations with the revolutionaries lead to the unfreezing of over $8 billion in Iranian assets. The hostages were freed after 444 days of imprisonment, just after Carter left office and Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

British hostage Peter Moore is released in Iraq, in exchange for the release of Qais al-Khazali, a prisoner being held by the U.S. military. Khazali, the leader of the Shia military group League of the Righteous, was suspected to be involved not only in Moore’s kidnapping, but also in the killings of five American soldiers.

Barack Obama released five senior Taliban figures from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in exchange for the captured U.S. solider Bowe Bergdahl.

In 1985, the Reagan administration used the Israelis to ‘front’ a deal (not unlike how we have used the Qataris in the instance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl) whereby the Israelis freed 700 prisoners in trade for Americans that were taken captive on a hijacked TWA flight.

Just a few I pulled from CNN stories. And there are likely many, many more that we never heard about.

Anything pre 9/11 is probably best not looked at too closely for how things are handled these days. That event had significant effects on the outlook on terrorism, and by extension the hostage taking by terrorist groups.

In that case:

Bowe was already brought up. A controversial move, and partially due to the fact that he was a soldier and not a regular citizen.

Peter Moore is a murky one as he was not an American citizen. The US released the prisoner, but the British would have had to agree to that demand first. You could then see it as acquiescing to to a nation and not a terrorist group. Either way, still not an American citizen, so not totally applicable.

The Martin and Gracia Burnham situation was resolved with private money, not governmental. A rather fine line to tread, I admit. Still more of an example of an exception rather than the rule.