Drone make America less safe “Evil comes on many colors” Our government is going out of hand with these drone strikes, killing many innocent civilians. Even though drone strikes puts America less safe, government should not use drone strikes because is creating a culture of fear and hatred and many innocent people are killed. Drone strikes puts America less safe “It’s true that when there’s a drone attack the terrorist are killed… But 500 or 5000 more people rise against it and more terrorism occurs.” Our president still don’t get the fact that there killing families even without the intentions. That is why terrorism comes in, meaning they want revenge towards the U.S... Another example that shows that drone strikes puts America less safe is the day September 11, 2001. Where terrorist hijacked two planes and crashed it into the World Trade Center in New York. Many of our people died in the incident and its surroundings. …show more content…
Government may think that they are helping our people by not sending them out there to war. But may not think either to what happens every time they drone strike places. Like Pakistan and Yemen, “Drones strikes causing more and more (people) to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair.” Another example that shows that is creating a culture of fear and hatred is in other words, when we send drones to kill terrorists, we actually radicalize people who otherwise had no ill will toward our country. Our drone policy is making terrorist out of ordinary
In recent discussions of trumps airstrike, a controversial issue has been whether or not Trumps strike was warranted. On the one hand, Author Tom Smith argues that the syrian strike was a good thing. From this perspective Smith assumes Trump is taking a step in the right direction. On the other hand, however, Author Aldan Heir argues that the syrian strike was illegal. In the words of Heir, one of the view’s main proponents,” These airstrikes are clearly illegal.”
During the brutal attack called 9/11, four planes got hijacked by terrorists. One hit the the Pentagon, another one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, and the last two hit the World Trade Center towers in New York City. Thousands of lives died that day due to the attack, but many have asked , “Could they have been saved?”In fact, they did not even need to be saved, it could have been prevented all together. The intelligence agencies FBI, CIA, NSA were partially responsible for not stopping the attacks.
On September 11, 2001, 343 FDNY firefighters and innocent people tragically died inside the Twin Towers. This horrific event will never be forgotten, and it marks hope, resilience, and unity as a nation. Through the examination of 9/11 and the influence that it had on the United States, especially with the deaths of FDNY responders, related illnesses, and the rebuilding of the One World Trade Center, it becomes abundantly clear why 9/11 should be remembered. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by foreign al-Qaeda terrorists who hijacked four commercial airline planes.
Have the laws and regulations passed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 been helpful or hurtful to American society? On September 11, 2001, there were nineteen militants, that were associated with a terrorist group named al-Qaeda. This Islamic extremist group hijacked four airplanes, this group was sent to commit suicide attacks on the United States. Out of the four planes two of them were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. The other two planes also crashed but in separate places, one hit the Pentagon near Washington D.C. and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
On April 3 of 2014 a drone slammed into the ground right next to an elementary school, the students weren’t in school at the time, but surely if they were, they would’ve been injured or dead. In Yemen and Pakistan, 1,147 people including children, were killed in U.S. drone strikes targeting 41 suspected terrorists on the top secret U.S. “kill list”. The word “suspected” is a word in my opinion, meaning not 100% sure, in this case the U.S. didn’t know 100% for sure if the targets were terrorists. This causing already a conflict between many different nations... if one is not sure then why strike?
In the third part of Medea Benjamins book, one of the questions being asked was “Can a government kill its own citizens without trial?” (135) The example being used was that in 2011 a missile was launched that hit two American citizens. Their target was to hit someone from the terrorist group, and the two Americans were collateral damage. So the drones do not just kill the targets, they kill others also.
It is not hard to see where Obama stands since the drones are unmanned, which means less American casualties. Not to mention, the drones’ accuracy leaves nothing to be desired. However, the drones are still not perfect. Their targeting depends on the intelligence available to the pilot, and it is impossible to fully avoid civilian casualties. As a result, civilians being killed means a raise in contempt for the United States.
I choose topic B. My answer is: proceeding with the drone strike is the best choice regarding the severe juggernaut terrorism has inflicted on innumerable citizens, especially in the Middle East. Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, drone strikes conducted by the United States during a 5-month-long campaign in Afghanistan caused the deaths of unintended targets nearly nine out of ten times, which means the authority has always prioritized eliminating terrorism. Concerning the position as President of the United States of Barack Obama, he has escalated forces in Afghanistan, embraced the widespread use of unmanned drones to kill terrorists at the risk of civilian casualties, kept Guantánamo open, and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan
Drones look like little remote control helicopters but with cameras in them. Some people fly these just for fun, but sometimes they can be used in the military. However, they have been seen to be becoming an invasion of privacy. Recently, there was a Kentucky man who shot down a drone that was hovering over the houses in his neighborhoods. In an article, he was asked and interviewed about the situation and said, “...To me, it was the same as trespassing”(Hawkins).
March 19, 2003 is a day in history that will spark controversy no matter where you are in the world. I think one thing we can all agree on is that violence is terrible. There is always another answer, even if it's not the easiest. We went to war with Iraq because the leader of our country at the time, George W. Bush, couldn't realize this. He risked the life of millions of people because Iraq wouldn't cooperate after one warning.
Shane writes "The bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureau’s count, just three of the 152 people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians. " This shows how Shane can just use a statistic in order to support his argument which is good but the important part is right after. He mentions how the statistics can be off slightly. He counters this near immediately by using the highest estimate out there and showing that even in that situation the amount of people lost is still going to be significantly less than normal soldiers.
Although the political conflicts and fighting were brutal in itself, the physical brawl of armies and heavily lethal weapons were more extreme. Soldiers fought ferociously and innocent civilian lives were taken, along with the buildings they once called home. Between bombings in London and Japan, the storming of Normandy's beaches, and dangerous tank warfare, millions of soldier's lives were taken in a very brutal manner. Aerial bombings took many civilian lives in major cities on the opposite sides of the globe, all being carried out by opposing sides of the war. They destroyed thousands of homes, buildings, and shelters for citizens in notable cities, leaving many to suffer the loss of their loved ones and to attempt survival in an almost
Few would argue the dramatic advancements experienced in information technology, telecommunications, and medical sciences as nothing short of remarkable in recent decades. Regularly enhancing the quality of human life, the end results sometimes appear mixed when viewed on a broader picture, especially when dubious applications obscure their enrichment to the human condition. Consider drone strikes can kill terrorists a half-world away contemporaneously piloted from an office in Arizona and in sharp contrast to terrorists detonating explosive devices which could kill hundreds or thousands using a satellite phone. So what’s the endgame?
When we think about drone or UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), first thing comes to our mind is; frightening, alien looking unmanned aircraft that has been involved with so many bombings and targeted killings. In “Drone Home: What Happens When Drones Return to America”, from Time, Lev Grossman wrote drones are dreaded all around the globe, and possibly they have gotten this fear through the United States Military. Drone technology has been greatly improved last decade, now third of entire Air Force’s fleet is unmanned. U.S Government is sending drones to many war zones to eliminate high-ranking enemies or do surveillance successfully. Even though this rapidly growing technology is changing our perspective of war, it also changing our everyday life drastically to help our community.
Qaddafi and Anwar are just two examples that drones have helped for the better of the U.S. In August 2009 Taliban leader Baltullah Mehsud’s death was announced, a missile shot from an unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV) was responsible. Six years later, the U.S. Air Force is saying that the unmanned combat missions have increased by 600%. To protect human lives, Cummings said, “I would rather send a bunch of robots to do a mine-sweeping mission, possibly with human oversight several miles away” (Tucker,