Drones - its a method - who cares?

[noose4]

Actually, he died because someone in the CIA pressed a button.
A man who will never be named.
A man who will never be charged with murder and a man who can execute Americans without trial.
Don't you lot find that just a little of a worry?

Why should that be more of a concern than in the same scenario except remove the drone and make it a jet dropping bombs? We have had collateral damage from dropping bombs from piloted planes for many decades now, why the uproar over this method of doing that exact thing?

Just so. These folks are complaining about the responsibility for the child's death that solely belongs to the friends and family that put him in a war zone. They are the ones accountable for putting the child in the harm's way.

Collateral damage is terrible but some times not avoidable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand the DOJ is looking at ways to charge any family and friends that are taken into custody for child abuse. That would be exactly the right thing to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Agreed that the picture of the young Boston Bomber shows him to be a sweet young man.

One crucial difference between the two young men.

One young man grew up to victimize innocents.

The other young man grew up to become an innocent victim in a drone assassination.

Do you agree that when members of Al Qaeda or their affiliates are in the proximity of children, that should give them immunity from attack from us?

I have great difficulty with that moral question. There is no easy answer.

We do know that AQ, the Taliban and Mohammed Six Pack Jihadist use women and children as shields as part of their defense tactic.

My arguments against drone terror warfare is that by the statistics we've seen the "success" rate of killing the terrorist involves killing an average of 49 innocents.

That seems really really high.

Whose statistic is that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree, tinydancer, that the killing of innocents is abhorrent, but as long as the bad guys hide among the good guys, innocents are going to die. By the by, where did your 49 innocents per operation come from?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 by an air attack on a safehouse in Iraq.

In that attack his wife and child were also killed.

No one around here who is throwing a hysterical piss and moan fit over the death of that 16 year old had so much as a peep of complaint about the killing of that child. Not one of them ever called Bush a murderer for that.

What if al-Zarqawi were killed, then 2 weeks later his wife and child were killed, with the White House spokesman giving the glib answer of "children should be more careful when they pick their father?"

You don't give a fuck though - Obama is your fucking god - he can murder anyone he likes and you'll worship him. It's not like you have anything approaching integrity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored is coming undone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bush's military killed Zarqawi with 500 lb bombs that also killed his wife and kid. Why aren't you accusing Bush of murder?

Because he didn't wait two weeks after Zarqawis death and slaughter them in a separate location - the way your god did to al-Awlakis son.

Yes he was targeted and deliberately murdered - and you know it. But Obama is the ONLY thing that matters to you - so you lie about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not convinced that the Obama Administration intentionally targeted the 16-year-old kid.

And the US does not cruise the low-altitude skies over Yemen looking for campfires to shoot $80K missiles at.

When the story comes out...

My money is on an Intended Kill against some valid Terrorist Target.

An Intended Kill that went wrong in some way.

Up to and including (perhaps even primarily due to) Bad Intelligence.

Again.

There was a legitimate target in that strike, I've posted it several times but the rightwing inmates here simply ignore that fact because it ruins their myth;

it's like the fundamentalist religious nuts who think the Earth is 6000 years old - no amount of fact will change their minds.

The only legitimate military target is someone who is actually on the battlefield, which explains why we do not send the military in to clean up Chicago. This boy was not killed on a battlefield, he was killed saying goodbye to one of his friends on the front porch of a house were he had been staying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why was that house targeted, QWB?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why was that house targeted, QWB?

The house was targeted? Did Obama have evidence that the house was an imminent threat to national security?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's what I am asking you. Why was the house targeted?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's what I am asking you. Why was the house targeted?

Because Obama is a murderer

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are such an Osama fluffer, Frank.

 

[Freewill]

There was a legitimate target in that strike, I've posted it several times but the rightwing inmates here simply ignore that fact because it ruins their myth;

it's like the fundamentalist religious nuts who think the Earth is 6000 years old - no amount of fact will change their minds.

The 9/11 Pentagon attack was against a legitimate military target so I assume it was fine to kill a load of civilians in the process as they simply got in the way.

Or not?

So you're claiming that the firebombing of Tokyo wasn't justified even though we were in a war started by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Okay. So how would you have reacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

The fire bombing of Tokyo was not justified there was no military value. Just like the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

[Freewill]

Yes, one young man was an innocent victim of a drone strike, because he was placed in such a situation by family and friends.

Guys, war is war, and the innocents suffer. Do you not understand this? Rifle, tank, napalm, drone, whatever, the innocents suffer, often because family and friends do stupid things.

no one placed him in harms way. He was just a kid who ran away to try to find his dad.

The kid died because family and friends put him in a war zone. Yes, the family is at fault, and God will hold them accountable before the bar of justice in the final days.

Fakey what in the Hell is wrong with you? Yemen is not a war zone they are suppose to be our ally. I don't know what you are paid to pretend to be a Republican but whomever is paying ain't getting their monies worth.

Besides the fact that just because the kid had an ahole for a father doesn't give your messiah the right to snuff him out. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what I am asking you. Why was the house targeted?

Thing is Jake, I never said the house was targeted, you did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yemen is not a war zone they are suppose to be our ally. . . . Besides the fact that just because the kid had an ahole for a father doesn't give your messiah the right to snuff him out.

(1) yes, parts of Yemen are war zones, in which AQ and other elements plot and act against the US.

(2) the father is at fault for putting the kid in harm's way and after his death those responsible for the kid kept him in harm's way

 

[JoeB131]

I find it amusing the Wingnuts and Funditards suddenly love Islamic Terrorists when Obama is the one killing them.

 

[Indofred]

Isn't it odd how murder can be justified if it suits your political ideals.

Posters complain about murder of innocents but justify murder of innocents.

 

[dblack]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?

Yep. That's what Rand Paul said that got him in so much hot water with the unthinking contingent of the Tea Party. The problem is the policy - the fact that we are attacking and killing people all over the world for questionable political purposes. The effects of the technique are worth examining - especially the way drones allows us to shield ourselves from the ugly truth of what we're doing - but you're right. If the point is to kill the enemy, do it in the quickest, safest way possible and get it over with.