AP Poll: Americans approve of drone strikes on terrorists

[geek tragedy]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly three-quarters of Americans say it's acceptable for the U.S. to use an unmanned aerial drone to kill an American citizen abroad if that person has joined a terror organization, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

...

Support for targeted killing with drones crosses party lines, the new poll found. Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats favor using drones to bomb members of terrorist groups, while only 16 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, 72 percent are in favor and only 10 percent are opposed. Independents are more ambivalent, with 45 percent in favor and 12 percent opposed; 37 percent are neutral on the issue.

Just 47 percent of Americans think it's appropriate to use drones to target terrorists overseas if innocent Americans might be killed in the process.

More than 4 in 10 (43 percent) of those who initially said they favor using drones — or that they didn't favor or oppose using them — said it's unacceptable to use drones if innocent Americans could be killed.


Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/922aad9300ed4868b89e999f7cd02bf7/ap-poll-americans-approve-drone-strikes-terrorists

---

PDF of poll results:

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AP-GfK_Poll_April_2015_Topline_drones.pdf

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Of course they do. It's war on the cheap, with no American blood.

[malthaussen]

3. And it makes such lovely explosions.

72% is a pretty damning -- and damnable -- figure, though.

-- Mal

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. Drones are so wrong, so bad I cant begin to explain.

We already see proof of this.

Creating more and more terrorists by indiscriminately killing innocent men, women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And yes, there IS a difference between a drone and an army unit killing the people.

The people will be just as dead but there is a difference to the communities where we are doing the killing.

[Blue_Tires]

9. You do realize bombing with conventional aircraft using conventional weapons

is a lot less precise and generates many, many more collateral deaths, right??

Just sayin'

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

10. If we are dropping bombs from planes to take out a single person in a building

with other people, then we deserve repercussions for that shit

[LiberalLovinLug]

4. Of course they would support killing terrorists

I wonder what the response would be if they were first told that the majority of deaths were not the intended targets? Many of them children.


41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147


There's a great chart on that page.

I also wonder what the response would be if there were some reality TV show following a family living in that area, maybe Muslim but not fanatical, for weeks so the viewers got to know the children in that family...their day to day life. Then a US drone drops from the sky suddenly in one episode and the explicit results are shown for all to see? It will never happen, but sometimes I wish this were possible.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

17. The vast majority ARE the intended targets

That 41 of 1147 merely refers to the leadership. The rest are nearly all soldiers of the organization.

And while there isn't a "reality TV" show about your misapprehension about what is going on, after Obama stopped nearly all drone strikes several years ago, the Pakistanis in the area got fed up and ran to Afghanistan - because the Pakistani military bombing and shelling of militants was much less precise.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Mojorabbit]

18. Do you have a link to back that up? Thank you so much! nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

31. Absolutely...

Here's an interview from Dawn, Pakistan's leading newspaper:

Interview: ‘US drones are better than PAF jets’

THE US drones were better weapons to use against militants as compared to Pakistan Air Force jets, believes Rustam Shah Mohmand, a Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf-appointed member of the government committee to negotiate with the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

“Drones are more precise in targeting militants than the jets the air force is using, which cause heavy collateral damage,” he told Dawn. “The government should have formed a strategy in collaboration with the US to carry out strikes using drones.”

Last year, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) organised sit-ins over several months to force the US government to bring drone strikes to an end, and the Obama administration practically halted these operations. However, Mr Mohmand, whom PTI chief Imran Khan declared the party’s point man on the TTP and militancy, now thinks Pakistan should have utilised the accuracy of drones.

“Pakistan should have had acquired drones from the US and operated them for the North Waziristan strikes, or it should have had collaborated with the US over authentic information about ground targets to reduce collateral damage,” he said.

The former bureaucrat who has served as Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan, federal interior secretary, and political agent in Khyber and South Waziristan Agencies added that collateral damage caused by PAF jets in North Waziristan has forced several families to migrate to Afghanistan.

“Many civilians have been killed in the recent air strikes,” he commented. “Many markets, bazaars, shops and houses have been destroyed. This has forced hundreds of families to migrate to the Afghanistan province of Khost despite the fact that American forces bombard those areas. They are so frustrated that they prefer Khost over Bannu despite the unrest in Afghanistan.”

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cosmicone]

5. I support and encourage drone strikes.

When countries go lawless and have no control over its terrorist outfits, there is no other solution.

Same with countries that willingly harbor terrorists such as Pakistan.

It has never been conclusively proven that drones create more terrorists. It is an urban myth at worst and a conjecture at best.
Civilian casualties are impossible to avoid in any hostile activity. If we sent a bunch of commandos there, they will still end up killing some civilians at a great risk to their lives. If we used aerial bombing with conventional planes, it would create far far more civilian casualties.

Go drones!!!

[GoneFishin]

6. So if it would stop rogue individuals from killing U.S. citizens then drones are OK?

[xocet]

13. You mean "go lawless" like Bush ("Heh, heh, Smoke'em out! Bring'em on!") invading Iraq in 2003? n/t

[Joe Turner]

26. I find your opinion disturbing

It's the kind of reasoning that rationalizes continual war, conflict and death. And anyone can be labeled a terrorist if they fight against an oppressive regime. Your position on this is what I would expect from a Chicken-hawk Neo-Con.

[cosmicone]

28. If you had personally experienced terrorism first hand

you'd change your tune.

By the way, not all the people who support drone strikes are chickenhawk neocons -- the OP proves that.

[Joe Turner]

29. Ever talk much to military veterans that have seen combat?

Almost to the number they are very leery of aggressive military actions. You know why? They fully understand the horrors of war.

[GGJohn]

32. You're talking to one,

and I have no problem using drones as long as the target is positively ID'd and killing innocents can be avoided.

[beaglelover]

37. I agree with you 100% (nt)

[closeupready]

7. I'll bet you upwards of 75% approve of prison rape of pedophiles.

Heck, maybe 99%.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. No pedophiles are more useful for Fukushima clean up. nt

[closeupready]

15. If making light of bombing innocents is a joke to you, you're ignored.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. Ok, but I didn't discuss bombings. Cheers. nt

[FairWinds]

8. I see Cosmic is an HRC backer . .

At least he/she is consistent.

Just wait till other countries start using drones in the US.
We have a whole bunch of criminals that we do not and/or
cannot apprehend.

Oh wait, I forgot. "We" are "exceptional" and are allowed to
murder without consequence.

Just ask the Vietnamese.

Veterans For Peace

[Historic NY]

11. How does one know there is an innocent American there....???

In the old days we'd use a B-52 and then mention collateral damage. Nothing is perfect and warfare isn't clean.

[closeupready]

19. Please post a link to Congress' Declaration of War on

innocent civilians. Thanks.

[xocet]

12. It would be interesting to perform the poll separately in each of the given regions....

The South seems overrepresented:

AP Poll: Americans approve of drone strikes on terrorists
By KEN DILANIAN and EMILY SWANSON
May. 1, 2015 3:19 AM EDT

...

CENSUS REGION:

Northeast: 18
Midwest: 21
South: 37
West: 23

Based on: N=1,077

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AP-GfK_Poll_April_2015_Topline_drones.pdf

[FairWinds]

20. Well, historic wrote . .

"Nothing is perfect and warfare isn't clean."

But when "they" retaliate it's called something else, isn't it?
That would be terrorism.

It's pretty much fascist thinking to believe (as most gringos do),
that they are not really as human as we are,
and we can blow them up if we want to.

Veterans For Peace

[Historic NY]

21. Especially when they're cutting heads off......

hostages...........but by all means please proceed.

[cosmicone]

39. I'll agree with you if and when

American military starts enslaving a whole group of people because they are non-conformers, rape their women, kill their men, loot their wealth, destroy their houses of worship, start taking hostages, purposely bomb civilian targets, hijacking planes and beheading people on youtube.

Until then, THEY are less than human and WE are better. No question about it.

[Little Tich]

22. I’m firmly against drone strikes unless it’s absolutely necessary, and perhaps not even then.

In the areas where drone strikes occur, people don’t seem to understand that they’re not being targeted, and that when houses and civilians just blow up unexpectedly, the CIA had a perfectly legal reason to do so.

The negative effects on the civilian population simply outweighs any benefits drone strikes may have. It’s a form of terrorism, IMHO.

[FairWinds]

23. OK Historic NY

Did you happen to check out the US torture photos?

And there are lots more much worse ones that are still classified.

The point is that, because you are afflicted with the nationalist disease,
you just don't see "them" as fully human, and you really don't care much
at all about the collateral deaths of innocents.

As da man freddy nietzsche said, "rather perish than live in hate and fear."
That is where you abide, else you would not support mass killing.

Do you have any concept of how many Vietnamese me and the boys killed ?

No you don't, because you don't care about those millions of innocent deaths at our hands.

I'm done with it - Veterans For Peace

[geek tragedy]

24. You have a gift for making unwarranted assumptions. nt

[FairWinds]

25. Respectfully disagree . .

You ultra-nationalists make the assumption that US violence (including torture and drones apparently)
is justified and defensive, wheras violence by "others" is evil and terroristic.

You make that assumption, and then you call us Un-American if we diaagree.

I agree that beheadings are way wrong, but even more wrong is a million dead Iraqis.
If it had not been for the latter, the former would not have happened.

Veterans For Peace

[geek tragedy]

27. You are making unwarranted, false assumptions.

But you are here to lecture others to hear yourself speak, not to listen. So, carry on.

[FairWinds]

30. Actually, I think I have pretty good listening skills ..

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, your remarks
are ad hominem, correct?

I'm "only here to lecture"? What does that even mean? How can you possibly know what is in my heart? Jeez, half the time I don't even know.

You do not deal at all with the substance of my comments . .

May you find peace - and escape the prison of hate and fear.

Veterans For Peace

[JackRiddler]

33. "Terrorists." How about wedding parties?

Insofar as this propaganda piece reflects the truth about American opinion, it doesn't make us look good and it doesn't change what's wrong and right.

[Major Hogwash]

34. How is this a propaganda piece?

Explain to me how a poll becomes a propaganda piece simply because you don't like its results.

[FairWinds]

36. Dear Major . .

Good question. I used to teach my students how to find flaws in polls.
There are many ways to get things wrong.
Although I have seen much worse, this poll does have some problems . .
For example, it used the word "terrorist", which automatically means that
many Americans will approve.
Did they have to use that word? I really do not think so.
Further, none of the poll questions deal with "innocent NON-AMERICANS" -
which must mean that the pollsters don't care much if folks like that
become "collateral damage."
There are, in addition, other problems, but I think you get the idea.
Some polls are indeed "propaganda."

Respectfully, Veterans for Peace

[Bonobo]

35. Thank goodness there are no countries that think they have the right to bomb the US

to save the lives of innocent people killed by lawless police who conspire to protect each other against investigations and the execution of justice.

[24601]

38. There are of course countries that believe they have the right to bomb targets within the US. Iran

tried unsuccessfully to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in the US and the Iranian agent was caught. North Korea routinely promises nuclear ICBM attacks on the US but lacks the capability at this time.

When Iran becomes Nuclear and when North Korea achieves reliable missile technology, the calculus will change.

We are fortunate to have large oceans on both coasts and that making the crossing makes attacks more difficult.

[FairWinds]

40. Of course, our . .

nukes are entirely peaceful . .

[FairWinds]

41. So, according to the AP poll . .

the deaths of these people do not count because, although they appear
to be "innocent", the are not Merrikans, and the poll does not
bother to ask about them . . (Seriously, go read it. I did.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/02/us-syria-strike-idUSKBN0NN08G20150502

And of course their deaths had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" . .