What Would Happen If We Plastered Pictures Of Victims Of Drone Attacks All Over The Media

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:
 
920bfdc3e835af6ec5ad9dabea1afec5.jpg
Bush is a better striker than Obama. yea!!!!!! republicans vin!!!

No doubt.

Bush is quicker and more relentless, where as Obama is a pampered little prissy that couldn't be a goalie much less a good striker.
 
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.
 
All-Totals-Dash54.jpg


Well unlike Bush his % civilians killed is far lower than Bush's..

Look at Bush in 2006, only 4 combats actually killed while 90 civilians killed...

Can you point me to your concern back then...


This is a simple case of:
Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)
The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements -- nay -- the very existence of Barack Obama.
Obama's positions better reflect the change and new direction that the American people have been calling for, but those with Obama Derangement Syndrome would rather stick with failure than even consider voting for him.
Your supposed statistical graph is HORSE SHIT. There is really no actual way to come with HARD NUMBERS the way your FAR LEFT PROGTARD PROPAGANDA site has. It's bull shit.

Next...

I hope everyone else is learning... This case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) even when the subject is presented with facts they go into a shut down mode and refuse the facts..

Now he knows it is right but it slowly eating him inside. Obama has been a successful president by most normal metrics of a president. While Bush is a failure.


You're nuts cowboy.

Notice how you have to use qualifiers like "by normal metrics" as if that will legitimize the statement enough to make it true.

So you're conceding that only by using abnormal metrics can you make an argument that Obama is a failure as president.

I look at what this country was like before he took office and what it is today. We can't protect our diplomats. We have over an $18 trillion national debt.Out credit is terrible and getting worse. Our president is a supporter of violence and protest at home and abroad. Confidence in government is in the cellar. Race relations are worse than when he took office and getting worse. Income stagnation, rising energy costs, allies becoming enemies , and enemies making fun of us.

What makes you think Obama is a good president? Are you gay or black? Seems only those two groups are happy with him at all. Even the tree-huggers are upset with him. Women are bailing on him. You must be gay or black.
 
All-Totals-Dash54.jpg


Well unlike Bush his % civilians killed is far lower than Bush's..

Look at Bush in 2006, only 4 combats actually killed while 90 civilians killed...

Can you point me to your concern back then...


This is a simple case of:
Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)
The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements -- nay -- the very existence of Barack Obama.
Obama's positions better reflect the change and new direction that the American people have been calling for, but those with Obama Derangement Syndrome would rather stick with failure than even consider voting for him.
Your supposed statistical graph is HORSE SHIT. There is really no actual way to come with HARD NUMBERS the way your FAR LEFT PROGTARD PROPAGANDA site has. It's bull shit.

Next...

I hope everyone else is learning... This case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) even when the subject is presented with facts they go into a shut down mode and refuse the facts..

Now he knows it is right but it slowly eating him inside. Obama has been a successful president by most normal metrics of a president. While Bush is a failure.


You're nuts cowboy.

Notice how you have to use qualifiers like "by normal metrics" as if that will legitimize the statement enough to make it true.

So you're conceding that only by using abnormal metrics can you make an argument that Obama is a failure as president.

I look at what this country was like before he took office and what it is today. We can't protect our diplomats. We have over an $18 trillion national debt.Out credit is terrible and getting worse. Our president is a supporter of violence and protest at home and abroad. Confidence in government is in the cellar. Race relations are worse than when he took office and getting worse. Income stagnation, rising energy costs, allies becoming enemies , and enemies making fun of us.

What makes you think Obama is a good president? Are you gay or black? Seems only those two groups are happy with him at all. Even the tree-huggers are upset with him. Women are bailing on him. You must be gay or black.
Or a muslim...

 
Or a muslim...


Here is the actual quote, dipshit:

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
 
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.
 
Or a muslim...


Here is the actual quote, dipshit:

In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

So 007 had to lie to try to make a point.

That is the least surprising event of the morning.
 
The success of a bombing is dependent on the quality of the intelligence which led to the strike. Intelligence is fallible, especially against an enemy who is constantly on the move and who operate in small cells.

This is also an enemy who hides among civilians.
 
What would happen? Easy, the republicans would be up in arms criticizing media for their honesty. The democrat's response would be mixed as they are not as ideologically managed as the republicans today.

This pretty much sums it up.

But it is easy to see, based on our experience in Vietnam, that widespread publication of civilian deaths would result in a rapid loss of enthusiasm for continuing the War on Terra™.
 
I dont get the point of this thread at all. Is the OP mad at the media for not reporting what the republicans are not putting out there?

Is the OP mad about Drone Strikes and torture? Or mad about just one?
 
You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones

Utter bullshit. Complete manufactured bullshit. A lie.

I have worked with the sensors used on drones, liar.

Sure you have. Lol.

I know someone who flew them.

He should know the capabilities. I know you can read them from outer space, so maybe you should stfu.
 
Act
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.
Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.
 
The success of a bombing is dependent on the quality of the intelligence which led to the strike. Intelligence is fallible, especially against an enemy who is constantly on the move and who operate in small cells.

This is also an enemy who hides among civilians.

If we keep throwing everyone under the bus like Feinstein just did there won't be anymore Humint on the ground. Nobody's going to stick their necks out knowing some silly Dem is going to hang them out to dry.
 
I love drones

Fewer casualties than bombing or invasion and no American lives lost

Still despise torture, it is beneath a great country like the US
 
I dont get the point of this thread at all. Is the OP mad at the media for not reporting what the republicans are not putting out there?

Is the OP mad about Drone Strikes and torture? Or mad about just one?

If you were to ask me if I preferred tortured terrorists over dead babies ... Would the answer make a difference to you?

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top