Drones - its a method - who cares?

[tinydancer]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

Unless the capitalists and their gangsters learn to love children more than profits, their racket will end humanity:

"War is a racket… easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives….

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes….

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.

"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

The ?War On Terror? Is A $6 Trillion Racket, With $1 Trillion In Interest Alone, Exceeding The Total Cost Of World War II | AmpedStatus

What on earth pray tell does your post have to do with the OP and this thread?

 

[tinydancer]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

Oh then cry me a river.

Look. They fucked up big time and nuked an innocent kid from Denver on a blood lust moment.

There is no other way to explain this kid's assassination.

 

[mamooth]

It is funny, seeing the emoprogs and ODS crowd allied in their seething irrationality. Both fringes are now united by their hatred of Obama, to the point that they now side with enemy combatants against the USA.

For those unfamiliar with the term, "emoprogs" refers to the oh-so-morally-pure liberal types who live to be upset. They especially hate Democrats who do messy things like compromise and successfully work for incremental change. According to an emoprog, the president has dictatorial powers, and any president's failure to immediately and forcefully implement every single liberal policy proves he's "just like the Republicans". Emoprogs may dislike Republicans, but they save most of their vitriol for Democratic "sellouts". And should you fail to demonize Obama as fervently as an emoprog does, you will be defined as an "Obamabot" or something similar.

They also tend to use logic like "We need to punish the Democrats! If we get a Republican elected, America will see how bad Republicans are and flock to our emoprog cause!". Because that worked so well with Bush.

And they really hate the term "emoprogs", which is a good reason to use it.

 

[tinydancer]

It is funny, seeing the emoprogs and ODS crowd allied in their seething irrationality. Both fringes are now united by their hatred of Obama, to the point that they now side with enemy combatants against the USA.

For those unfamiliar with the term, "emoprogs" refers to the oh-so-morally-pure liberal types who live to be upset. They especially hate Democrats who do messy things like compromise and successfully work for incremental change. According to an emoprog, the president has dictatorial powers, and any president's failure to immediately and forcefully implement every single liberal policy proves he's "just like the Republicans". Emoprogs may dislike Republicans, but they save most of their vitriol for Democratic "sellouts". And should you fail to demonize Obama as fervently as an emoprog does, you will be defined as an "Obamabot" or something similar.

They also tend to use logic like "We need to punish the Democrats! If we get a Republican elected, America will see how bad Republicans are and flock to our emoprog cause!". Because that worked so well with Bush.

And they really hate the term "emoprogs", which is a good reason to use it.

Holy toledo. Put down the bong and get your knives off the front burner.

You might want to delete this post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whoever in the world did that (defended such a thing)?

You did.

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

You defended a policy that kills children as legitimate warfare because it manages to kill 1 legitimate target for every 10 people that die. Frankly, we would be better off if we carpet bombed the entire region, there would be less collateral damage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

QWB and the rest constitute a minimal % of Americans. They have no impact on the matter.

We constitute a larger share of the population than homosexuals do, I am pretty sure you don't ignore them.

 

[mamooth]

Put down the bong and get your knives off the front burner.

I find that ironic, given how it's the bong-hitting Rand Paul crowd who hate Obama the most, for failing to immediately decree that their sacred weed be legalized, and that daily toking be mandated for anyone over the age of 5. Are you such a bong-hitter? That is, exactly which category of Obama-hater do you fit into: Bong-hitting libertarian, emoprog or ODSer?

Now, we mainstream liberals have been totally consistent. We supported Bush when he used targeted strikes, and support Obama the same way. But then, that's expected, since people who hold absolute consistent morals almost always end up being liberals.

Most conservatives, however, have been stinking hypocrites. They supported Bush when he used targeted strikes, but then did a one-eighty and attacked Obama for using the same tactics. Given the wild double standards of most conservatives, why should anyone consider them to be anything but lying partisan shills?

 

[tinydancer]

Put down the bong and get your knives off the front burner.

I find that ironic, given how it's the bong-hitting Rand Paul crowd who hate Obama the most, for failing to immediately decree that their sacred weed be legalized, and that daily toking be mandated for anyone over the age of 5. Are you such a bong-hitter? That is, exactly which category of Obama-hater do you fit into: Bong-hitting libertarian, emoprog or ODSer?

Now, we mainstream liberals have been totally consistent. We supported Bush when he used targeted strikes, and support Obama the same way. But then, that's expected, since people who hold absolute consistent morals almost always end up being liberals.

Most conservatives, however, have been stinking hypocrites. They supported Bush when he used targeted strikes, but then did a one-eighty and attacked Obama for using the same tactics. Given the wild double standards of most conservatives, why should anyone consider them to be anything but lying partisan shills?

American citizen not afforded due process.

Tell me please you understand that the government has now admitted to killing, assassinating American citizens without a trial?

Lets start there.

This thread is about drone strikes. It goes two ways.

Drone strikes that whack 49 to 1 terrorist.

Drone strikes assassinating American citizens.

Defend either please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

Oh then cry me a river. Look. They fucked up big time and nuked an innocent kid from Denver on a blood lust moment. There is no other way to explain this kid's assassination.

Of course, there is: lawful and just. The family is responsible for getting the kid into a target zone. The friends are responsible for not getting him out of a target zone.

You don't decide what is lawful: legislatures and courts do.

And guess what? You are wrong.

 

[Kondor3]

The 11-12 year-old long-term sustained, combined military and special operations campaign against Radical Militant Islamists launched by the Bush II Administration, authorized by Congress, colloquially known as the 'War on Terror', and still very much operative and in effect today. One of our more leisurely-paced wars - but wartime nonetheless.

That's the tragic mistake at the core of the neo-cons' approach to dealing with terrorism..."

Hmmmm... you may be on to something there... I mean... after all... this War on Terror (including all of its attendant War Powers and supporting legislation) was, indeed, triggered by the neo-con -laden Bush II Administration, and was then perpetuated by the Obama Administration.

What you and I think about whether we should be granting War-Powers to the President for this struggle is meaningless compared to our present Reality - what is.

And our Reality is that we are in a state of undeclared war, complete with all of the War Powers to act against various enemies that War Powers entail.

And I would make this same argument regardless of whether we had a Democrat in the White House or a Republican.

The current, sitting President of the United States is operating under a variety of War Powers authorized and approved by the United States Congress.

If you or I do not like that state of affairs, we are free to lean on our Representatives and Senators and other political personalities to revoke those War Powers and the undeclared state of war that exists now between ourselves and Radical Militant Islamists worldwide.

I fully understand the Crime argument, and, frankly, I believe that it has considerable merit, although our police do not have the global reach that our military does, to enforce our will.

I speak from my perceptions of 'what is' rather than 'what should be', in this context.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Absolutely correct: "The current, sitting President of the United States is operating under a variety of War Powers authorized and approved by the United States Congress."

Far right to far left and libertarians and authoritarians: lean on your reps and senators to end the force resolutions by Congress. Succeed at that, then you can talk about whether a president Dem or Pub is exceeding his powers.

 

[mamooth]

American citizen not afforded due process.

Citizenship is a red herring. Any person of any nation has the same rights to "due process" in the USA.

Tell me please you understand that the government has now admitted to killing, assassinating American citizens without a trial?

Yep. Just like Bush did. We've been consistent about it, you haven't.

Read the 2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force)

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html
---
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
---

That's the law. Any president is legally authorized to kill damn well whoever he pleases, wherever and whenever he pleases, citizen or not, so long as it's tied to islamic terrorism. "Due process" is not required.

President Obama just asked Congress to revise that AUMF. Congress made the law you don't like, so you should be asking congress to change it. But it's a tough battle, as any congresscritter who suggests more restrictive guidelines will be attacked in the next election as "soft on terrorism."

 

[Kondor3]

So that's why we kill children?

When you can distinguish between killing children intentionally, vs. killing them accidentally during a strike upon the enemy, then you will have attained objectivity on this topic.

Are you losing your fucking mind and soul? the drones killed woman and children at a wedding tard..

Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calm down, Bear... easy there, big fella...

My mind is quite intact and functioning, thank you... as are my heart and soul and sense of right-and-wrong... all alive and well and functioning quite nicely. I don't know you well enough to level such charges against you, and, I assure you, the reverse is also true.

Now, if we can dispense with further flirtations with ad hominem tactics and juvenile outbursts of emotion directed against one of your opposites in this discussion...

What was your objection to my statement to PapaGeorge?

And how does a drone-strike on a wedding that was not previously under discussion help us in learning how to better distinguish intentional kills from accidental ones, or even to acknowledge that a difference exists between intentional and accidental?

Oh, and, by the way... the wedding strike that you refer to was undertaken by our military under the control of the Bush II Administration... on November 3, 2008, and the Afghan Government itself accused the Taliban of seeking shelter near a wedding celebration in much the same way that the Palestinians embed rocket launchers and safe-houses and bases amongst their civilian population in order to discourage strikes upon their locations.

Do we know that either our military and/or our political leadership actually knew that the target location was on or near the premises on which a wedding celebration was taking place?

I really and truly don't know.

Perhaps somebody else here does.

Did our military, under Bush II, believe they were hitting a Taliban safe-house or base, or did they know in advance that a wedding celebration was underway on the premises or next door or whatever it was?

 

[Kondor3]

"kondor picture yourself taking your wife and kids to a cousins wedding. it was supposed to be a happy day.......everyone is dressed to the nines....and a fucking hell fire missle comes in and kills your wife and kids. thats not war......"

I would be out of my mind with (perceived) righteous grief and anger.

And you are right... it is, indeed, not war, IF my wife and kids and were the target.

But if the target was the 26 Taliban who had taken shelter next door or within the same compound, then it IS, indeed, war.

My wife and kids are just as dead, but if the Shooter intended to hit somebody else, then he did not intentionally kill my wife and child after all.

Such fine distinctions mean little or nothing to me as the widower but they may mean something to the countrymen of the Shooter in discussing the rightness or wrongness of the case.

 

[Kondor3]

You did.

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

You defended a policy that kills children as legitimate warfare..."

Wrong again.

I defended a policy which allows us to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders as part of legitimate wartime operations, without risking the lives of American military folk to do it.

"...because it manages to kill 1 legitimate target for every 10 people that die..."

I have no access to historic kill-ratios for drone strikes.

But even if what you say is true...

Is that not more a matter of tweaking pre-strike and real-time Intelligence and Target-Painting rather than the fault of policy?

"...Frankly, we would be better off if we carpet bombed the entire region, there would be less collateral damage."

Classic exaggeration in closing... not even close to being right, I'm afraid.

 

[Kondor3]

It is funny, seeing the emoprogs and ODS crowd allied in their seething irrationality. Both fringes are now united by their hatred of Obama, to the point that they now side with enemy combatants against the USA.

For those unfamiliar with the term, "emoprogs" refers to the oh-so-morally-pure liberal types who live to be upset. They especially hate Democrats who do messy things like compromise and successfully work for incremental change. According to an emoprog, the president has dictatorial powers, and any president's failure to immediately and forcefully implement every single liberal policy proves he's "just like the Republicans". Emoprogs may dislike Republicans, but they save most of their vitriol for Democratic "sellouts". And should you fail to demonize Obama as fervently as an emoprog does, you will be defined as an "Obamabot" or something similar.

They also tend to use logic like "We need to punish the Democrats! If we get a Republican elected, America will see how bad Republicans are and flock to our emoprog cause!". Because that worked so well with Bush.

And they really hate the term "emoprogs", which is a good reason to use it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Kondor doesn't care who is killed, as long as it isn't his family or friends. Until then, he just doesn't care."

Not even close. Not that it matters a rat's-behind to anyone, but I perceive each death of an innocent civilian as tragic, with the deaths of children being the most heartbreaking of all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

You defended a policy that kills children as legitimate warfare..."

Wrong again.

I defended a policy which allows us to kill Enemy Combatants and Leaders as part of legitimate wartime operations, without risking the lives of American military folk to do it.

"...because it manages to kill 1 legitimate target for every 10 people that die..."

I have no access to historic kill-ratios for drone strikes.

But even if what you say is true...

Is that not more a matter of tweaking pre-strike and real-time Intelligence and Target-Painting rather than the fault of policy?

"...Frankly, we would be better off if we carpet bombed the entire region, there would be less collateral damage."

Classic exaggeration in closing... not even close to being right, I'm afraid.

You defended a policy that kills women and children, man up and admit it. If you think it is wrong, say so, don't pretend you you are defending something else.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You defended a policy that kills women and children, man up and admit it..."

All war-policy risks the deaths of women and children; not just one(s) pertaining to the use of drones. All war-policy. Have I defended war-policy (our right to kill the enemy)? Yep. Have I defended any policy that targets women and children? Nope.

"...If you think it is wrong, say so, don't pretend you you are defending something else."

Yes, I believe that your labeling of what I have been defending is wrong.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"...Kondor doesn't care who is killed, as long as it isn't his family or friends. Until then, he just doesn't care."

Not even close. Not that it matters a rat's-behind to anyone, but I perceive each death of an innocent civilian as tragic, with the deaths of children being the most heartbreaking of all.

No you dont, all your trying to do is justify the unjustifiable . Again bombing the crap out of a ccountry is one thing, But sitting behind a joy stick in Nevada and launching a hell fire missle 12,000 miles away at a single human being (who your not really sure who it is) is just being a pussy.And I dont give a shit who is President Drone strikes is just assassanation.

www.policymic.com/mobile/logme

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected
terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a
report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and
mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy
eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like
Hamas.