Poll shows Indians support CIA's murderous drone strikes

[Developereo]

The poll is flawed.

The drone itself is seen as this robot flying around killing people and the human that operates sees it as a video game.

They don't understand the layers of intelligence gathering that occurs, such as spying on the militants, signal intercepts by NSA, identification of the militants, approval process all the way to the President and assessment of collateral damage.

Its not a free for all. This is a carefully managed program and has devastated Al Qaeda and Taliban.

Just look at the terrorist attacks occurring in Pakistan. They have nose dived as soon as the Drone strikes picked up pace.

So for other countries such as Greece whose public is totally against drone strikes. I understand their viewpoint but they were not hit on 9/11, they are not a global superpower and they don't understand the mechanism behind these drone strikes.

No, blinded by your hatred of Pakistan, YOU don't understand the concept of due process and extrajudicial executions.

In this case its obliviousness. I don't think beyond pdf many Indians will be aware of Drone Strikes.

But the poll specifically makes them aware of the strikes and asks their opinion. From the OP wording, it seems the poll question was phrased as targeting 'extremists', which is itself a loaded question given that the US automatically counts all adult males as 'militants', so the opposition is all the more surprising.

 

[Roybot]

The US and India are the ONLY countries polled where more people support the strikes than oppose them.
"Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself." - Cornell West

Indians in general are not very opinionated about issues which doesn't concern us. If you look at the rest of the questions in the survey, you ll see this nonchalant attitude is not just limited to drone strikes.

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-U.S.-Image-TOPLINE-FINAL-June-13-2012.pdf

 

[Caine]

"Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself." - Cornell West

I agree.. That majority which is not giving a hoot is ignoring the evil lurking in the border regions of Afghanistan - Pakistan. They should be supporting drone strikes wholeheartedly.

What was Pakistan's score on this question though?

 

[Windjammer]

Not least surprised by the Indian take, they would support any country that meant harm to Pakistan or for that matter, aggression against China, Bangladesh or even Sri Lanka. It's like a school kid challenging other boys to fight with his mate.

 

[Roybot]

I agree.. That majority which is not giving a hoot is ignoring the evil lurking in the border regions of Afghanistan - Pakistan. They should be supporting drone strikes wholeheartedly.

What was Pakistan's score on this question though?

The were asked a different question, result of which has not been published as of now.

Its seems like most people are happy with the US led efforts against terrorism, but they disapprove of drone strikes.

 

[Developereo]

I agree.. That majority which is not giving a hoot is ignoring the evil lurking in the border regions of Afghanistan - Pakistan. They should be supporting drone strikes wholeheartedly.

What was Pakistan's score on this question though?

Nobody is opposed to killing terrorists who have been convicted by a court. The debate is about due process and extrajudicial murders of people just because they are adult males.

Simple question: would a US court allow drone strikes on US citizens without due process?

Its seems like most people are happy with the US led efforts against terrorism, but they disapprove of drone strikes.

You do realize that the topic here is specifically about drone strikes, not the wider WOT?

 

[livingdead]

Nobody is opposed to killing terrorists who have been convicted by a court. The debate is about due process and extrajudicial murders of people just because they are adult males.

Simple question: would a US court allow drone strikes on US citizens without due process?




You do realize that the topic here is specifically about drone strikes, not the wider WOT?

Captured terrorists cant be killed they can only be given sentence which court decides(which could be death as well).
America calls the fight in afganistan as part of 'WAR' on terror, and nobody waits a judge's concent to kill the opponent in case of war.
You can call them civilian but they have formed militia groups and fighting war like any regular army does. You wont take a judge with you when fighting a war against african militia gangs, why should this be different.

 

[Caine]

Nobody is opposed to killing terrorists who have been convicted by a court. The debate is about due process and extrajudicial murders of people just because they are adult males.

Simple question: would a US court allow drone strikes on US citizens without due process?

That is the basic disconnect between your and our point of view. Why do you think we are treating Terrorists/Talibans as criminals who have to be brought to justice? We consider this as a war and we consider the Taliban/terrorists/extremists in that area as the enemy. And we try to find the best possible ways to eliminate them. It is as simple as that. Courts have no role in this. Killing the enemy in the act of war does not require permission of the courts

 

[airuah]

I support drone strikes.....since you guys wont kill the terrorist scum yourselves i support any country that gets the job done......this also keeps the terrorists foccused on defending their ground and gives them less time to launch attacks in other parts of the world.....as for Pakistan suffering the backlash of it...well you guys earned it by supporting the terrorists...as simple as that

its funny here that Pakistani people worry that Indians support the strikes....hell ya...as long as you guys support terrorists we will support every measure taken against it.......

you guys dont control the tribal belt of your own country ...you wont act/go after the terrorists in these areas but will be against someone else killing those scums for you....

and about the innocent lives lost---if your army had gone in and did the job yourselves, there would not have been drones and there would not have been loss on such lives...the fact that your army consider them as strategic depth tells a lot and hence someone has to get the job done

second soverignity----you guys claim that you have no control of the tribal belt and your army does not launch an operation there fearing a backlash by the militants.....so if you see i believe the terrorists having a hold of the area means that you already your soverignity to those terrorists so the drone strikes actually do not breach your soverignity since its already lost

 

[Developereo]

Captured terrorists cant be killed they can only be given sentence which court decides(which could be death as well).
America calls the fight in afganistan as part of 'WAR' on terror, and nobody waits a judge's concent to kill the opponent in case of war.
You can call them civilian but they have formed militia groups and fighting war like any regular army does. You wont take a judge with you when fighting a war against african militia gangs, why should this be different.

That is the basic disconnect between your and our point of view. Why do you think we are treating Terrorists/Talibans as criminals who have to be brought to justice? We consider this as a war and we consider the Taliban/terrorists/extremists in that area as the enemy. And we try to find the best possible ways to eliminate them. It is as simple as that. Courts have no role in this. Killing the enemy in the act of war does not require permission of the courts

Both of you avoided the question.

Criminals can be judged by court in absentia and sentenced to death. The people being killed in drone strikes are not always designated as terrorists. Once again, the Obama administration arbitrarily classifies every adult male killed as a militant. It is a convenient ex post facto designation used to whitewash the American crime.

By this logic, you can bomb a city block and claim that every adult male who was killed was a militant and, therefore, deserving of death.

Once again, the UN has not authorized NATO to go around bombing any country it feels like and any persons it unilaterally designates as 'militants'. NATO's mandate is strictly limited to Afghanistan's territorial boundaries.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Do Pakistan oppose when terrorist kiils Indian Civillians????....

Yeah, we do and condemn it also.

Anyway, Indians will love anything bad which happens to or in Pakistan. Its natural.

 

[Roybot]

You do realize that the topic here is specifically about drone strikes, not the wider WOT?

The Drone strike question was part of the wider survey, and respondents were the same set of people. So its very important to note that most of these people are in favour of the US led war on terror, but not the drone strikes.

 

[Windjammer]

The were asked a different question, result of which has not been published as of now.

Its seems like most people are happy with the US led efforts against terrorism, but they disapprove of drone strikes.

It also reveals that in the last decade, the support in this regard has steadily decreased even in the US by 13%.
There is even less support in countries like Egypt and Jordan than Pakistan.

 

[Valek]

Indian opinion on the poll is not going influence anything. Also I would like to point out that most of the Indians are indifferent to the drone strikes. I think that's damn considerate as most of the terror attacks in India have had Pakistani backing.

 

[Android]

Yeah, we do and condemn it also.

Anyway, Indians will love anything bad which happens to or in Pakistan. Its natural.

stop joking several members here openly support maoists