Drones Are Not Ethical And Effective | Naureen Shah | Oxford Union
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2013
- Naureen Shah gives her argument against the use of drone warfare.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Naureen Shah starts her talk by saying that the proposition go on about how advanced the weapon is but have failed to put forward any evidence that it is effective. She highlights that acts of terrorism happen every other week in Pakistan and uses a case of a mosque that was bombed and then a 2nd bombing took place killing all the rescuers leaving children lying in pools of blood. Will drone strikes be effective in reducing these types of attacks? She says there is no evidence that it does.
She goes on to say that some of these terrorists groups that were operating in the outer regions of Pakistan have now moved into the cities because they know that's where drone strikes won't work without heavy civilian casualties. Also Pakistan is strongly against the use of drone warfare and has passed a bill to stop it, yet the US government still continues to use drone strikes in Pakistan. She says how are the people supposed to truth their own government if they cannot keep promises of innocent people not being killed by drone warfare. It is detrimental to the democracy in Pakistan and in that sense it is ineffective to the people who live there. She concludes by saying that the continued use of drone warfare is ineffective for long term peace and stability in those countries where it is used.
Filmed on Thursday 25th April 2013
MOTION: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES DRONE WARFARE IS ETHICAL AND EFFECTIVE
ABOUT NAUREEN SHAH:
Naureen Shah is a lecturer in law at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia University School of Law, New York
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Yep. An eye for an eye.
That always works out really well.
Let's count how much civilian life was lost per week when the US carpet-bombed Germany and when they used drones to do targeted strikes in Pakistan per week. Let's take the worst week in Pakistan in the last 10 years of the drone strikes and the worst week during WW2 Germany under US air_force attack. You will understand how effective a drone strike is for the civilian population.
@@codejunkes4607 On the 11th of September 2001, a few lunatics (most of them from Saudi Arabia) hi-jacked four planes, and murdered about 3,000 American civilians.
The U.S. responded by murdering about 1 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Don't try to use false equivalencies with me.
@@TerryODowd Which is nothing in comparison to *75 million* lives lost in WW2 using conventional and nuclear weapons instead of drone and precession weapons. In 1945 world population was ~2 billion and it's 7 billion today. We can clearly see what kind of war kills more human beings..
So it's up to you how much loss of the life you prefer, *262.5 Million* ( multiplying ww2 loss by the increase in world population) by using conventional and nuclear weapons or *1 Million* using drone and precession technology.
@@codejunkes4607 This wasn't a world war. It was a few countries invading two innocent countries i order to steal their natural resources.
@@TerryODowd Cmon even in the world war, not the entire world is at war, it was the US, Europe, Japan, and USSR. Now it was most major NATO countries which include many of the big power except Russia and most ex-USSR countries.
Germany, the US, UK, France, Australia, etc. all send their troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let's count how much civilian life was lost per week when the US carpet-bombed Germany and when they used drones to do targeted strikes in Pakistan per week. Let's take the worst week in Pakistan in the last 10 years of the drone strikes and the worst week during WW2 Germany under US air_force attack. You will understand how much effective drone strike is for the civilian popualtion.
contd...clean about the drone program. It needs to admit its failure in governing FATA, and the risks associated with ground combat in FATA. It should then establish its writ with the help of droning out militants, as well as initiating development in the area to win the local support.
Education, health, providing livelihood is just as important as getting rid of militants. Because its the lack of these basis services that help the cause of terrorists, and makes recruitment easier...cont 2
Wow. Some secret.
Pakistan has such good rule of law... I don't get why drones would be necessary.
She doesn't make a terrible case, but it's nowhere near as comprehensive / tightly argued as Wittes's
Please stay in school. A proper education is essential for critical thinking. "Better to be silent and thought ignorant, than to express illogical statements and remove any doubt."
Ethical...maybe not. But they’re effective as shit
Let's count how much civilian life was lost per week when the US carpet-bombed Germany and when they used drones to do targeted strikes in Pakistan per week. Let's take the worst week in Pakistan in the last 10 years of the drone strikes and the worst week during WW2 Germany under US air_force attack. You will understand how much effective a drone strike is for the civilian population.
I think she's think big picture here but we aren't fighting in these wars to "be effective"
contd 2.
To my American, British friends, if you really want to solve this problem, plz help with reforming the education sector of Pakistan. Its an ideological war more than anything. We have to defeat this militant-version-Islam with a peaceful-version of Islam...which either you like or not DOES help millions of people.
The moderate Muslims themselves have been the biggest victims of Islamist (100 times Muslim casualties, than non-Muslim casualties), so we gotto take them along.
Taqiyya?! I as a Muslim support drone strike, what does that make me?
Stop spewing your Islamophobic rant, and giving everything a religious undertone. Despite not agreeing with her completely, I still respect her opinion, and the points she make. She makes sense that that drone strikes are undermining democracy, and this could be a far bigger problem 20 years from now on. Will be we nuking whole Pakistan then?
As a Pakistani, I sincerely believe that our govt. needs to come clean...contd
Mr. Abdullah,
Instead of blaming others, if educated Pakistanis can address the fundamental reasons why Drones came about, the Drones can be shot down; These reasons are:
(1) Non-state militants kill other and hide behind civilians.
(2) Nation states consider the non-state militants as strategic assets and protect them.
(3) Nation states are unable to control non-state militants who cross their border and kill.
(4) Nation states pass on hard evidence to non-state militants
Provide options.
It's all nice to talk abstractly but when the time comes to dealing with terroism, this side hasn't got a clue.
*Above all if anyone takes religion as more than a set of rules to help others, they need to go back to kindergarten !!!!
You may be right regarding drone strikes in Pak. But is there any other solution? Pak has been repeatedly asked to act against terrorism, and has it yielded any results? you only get increased number terrorists and terror activities in Pak every time you help them. Its time that everyone realised Pak is not interested in fighting terror, or wasn't interested ever in that case.
I wonder who she would send to war: Her son or a drone? :)
How about if I accuse you being an inconsiderate, devoid of morality for falsely accusing the speaker as a Madressa educated? Naureen Shah is a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School's Human Rights Institute FYI.
Even I dont agree with her, but I respect her POV...at least that's what we do in civilized world
I am a Pakistani Muslim, and I favor drone strikes cuz they are the least bad from other worst options. But I also believe that we need to win hearts and mind of peoples through education
And whether you like or not, religions do help millions of people to get morality. Either you can systematically educate them out of it, or you can risk alienating a vast majority of moderates.
And as much I feel sorry for Daniel Pearl, I feel sorry for 40,000 of my countrymen who are the victims of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. So I have far more reasons to hate them. In fact I (and even Naureen Shah) are just as likely to get killed for being moderate Muslim than you so plz dont generalize. Peace.
Naureen Shah - judging by name probably Pakistani, obviously will by biased against
totally bad
"or the nations who harbor them..." said President GW Bush. While I understand the concern you have for the people of Pakistan, their deaths are on the account of the terrorists Pakistan harbors, while they train prepare and carry out their terrorism across the world. If you want to decrease drone warfare, you might rather understand that changing your policies of harboring and inhabiting terrorists might be the best first way to diminish that warfare in your land. The evidence, however, indicates that Pakistan is really rather partial to those who foment world-wide terrorism. Do not imagine that Pakistan is without complicity and responsibility for the civilian casualties their government accepts as "necessary casualties". Interesting choice, but the world is not on your side here.