US Drone Obliterates Civilians in Yemen

[Rumold]

Source: Common Dreams

"The discrepancy in the early reporting does nothing to erase the fact that none of those killed in the bombing were given the opportunity to defend themselves or declare their innocence before being obliterated by what is assumed to be a U.S. Air Force drone operator controlling the aircraft from thousands of miles away"

"Yemenis say the constant threat of U.S. drones buzzing overhead and the fear of being caught up in an airstrike is not only a form of 'psychological torture' but it is actually making the security situation in Yemen worse, not better"

Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/19

---

rest assured, the murderous drone operators were merely following orders

[msongs]

1. whose orders did you say? oh we all know whose nt

[seveneyes]

2. It would be good for Yemen to show some concern for other innocents too

The ones that are killed by the outfits that use Yemen as home base for their atrocities. Killings that involve beheading, stoning, murdering minorities, gays and honor killings. Only focusing on the war against the targeted killing of innocents is a bit short sighted.

[Ed Suspicious]

4. Sounds like we're killing them to help them.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. Don't worry, we'll bomb them into accepting gay rights.

That's how it works, right?

[zeemike]

9. The end justifies the means.

Something we used to demoize the commies with, but is perfectly acceptable now among some.

I swear I have slipped into an other dimension where everything is now standing on it's head.

[Fearless]

36. +1

[rafeh1]

144. more like might makes right

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Us has absolute power over Yemen and it shows

[uhnope]

10. Yes, it's not a black-and-white issue, is it? Some people want only to focus on one thing.

There's an article I saw recently (that unfortunately I lost track of) that indicated the people in the villages are often quite happy with the removal of the targets of the drones, and described the unspeakable brutality and atrocities the terrorists visited upon the people around them. But that fact implies some complexity to an issue that others would like to see as simple.

For the record, I'm against the drone program because of the civilian deaths and because it's a public relations disaster that is used as a recruiting tool by the very forces it's designed to minimize. But fighting Taliban and Taliban-like freaks, with the (behind closed doors) permission of the governments involved, to get rid of the torturers of girls for daring to go to school? That part I'm not against.

[mazzarro]

74. So convenient to qoute an article that you can no longer link to - eh?

And you can then go about molding the contents of such article to fit whatever you want to put out there for general consumption - hmmmmmmmmmm!

[uhnope]

77. do you seriously doubt the possibility of what I said

or do you just snark?

[7962]

115. You dont believe those things happen regularly in those regions?? How many links you want?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/suspected-extremists-kidnap-100-girls-nigeria-23332076
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/18/rate-christian-girls-abducted-and-attacked-by-extremists-on-rise-inegypt/
http://www.nairaland.com/1646074/muslims-kill-boys-boarding-school
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26338041

[The Stranger]

154. How about just one link that reflects something happening in Yemen.

Um, you know, where the innocent civilians were butchered in the original post.

[uhnope]

156. here, let me google that for you

An al-Qaida-affiliated group committed horrific human rights abuses in southern Yemen during its 16-month occupation, including beheading an alleged sorcerer, crucifixion of an alleged spy and amputation of a man's hand for stealing.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/beheadings-crucifixions-amputations-al-qaida-s-atrocities-411156

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242719/Al-Qaeda-committed-truly-shocking-human-rights-abuses-power-Yemens-Abyan-region-says-Amnesty-report.html

I hope Amnesty International is a good enough source for you...Or maybe you think they are lapdogs of the American imperialists.

[uhnope]

161. You miss the point completely

follow the thread and figure it out

[The Stranger]

153. Yeah, and the Vietnamese people really appreciated our napalming them.

And the African-American slaves really appreciated being slaves.

And Native Americans were actually happy to be dispossessed and diseased.

Keep 'em coming.

[uhnope]

155. LOL. and a gun is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

keep 'em coming

[Scootaloo]

11. Why are the defenders of killing innocent civilians first in line to thump on about gay rights?

What, as if you give a shit about gays? About women? News flash, buddy - they get "bugsplatted" by drones, too. Of course you don't give a shit about them, they're just fig leafs you use - exploit - to defend the joy you take in the ending of human life in Muslim-majority nations.

[cpwm17]

110. +1,000,000

[uhnope]

169. you have it backwards. Why are opponents of the drone strikes the first in line

to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and terrorism of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

[Scootaloo]

170. You think murdering civilians in Yemen makes the Taliban think twice about gay rights?

i think you might want to put your logic back into the oven for another 45 minutes - it's half-baked at best

[uhnope]

171. How many girls can a dead Taliban terrorist stone to death?

How many girls' schools can a defeated Taliban unit burn down?
How many gays can the Taliban behead from six feet under?

[Scootaloo]

172. How many girls can a drone missile kill?

You obviously don't care.

How many gays do they kill?

Again, you couldn't possibly care.

because for you the reality that these people are dying to our inaccurate and thoughtless "Strikes," and many many more are living in fear of being the next indiscriminate targets, doesn't matter in the face of your fantasy that we are killing them to protect them from other people killing them. The village had to be destroyed to save it."

And this is in Yemen. The Taliban are in Afghanistan. I know you're like "whatever, they're all named Ahmed" but the two places are actually pretty far away from and don't have much relevance to each other.

Again. Ypu're exploiting victims to justify victimizing someone else.

[uhnope]

174. project much?

How do you know I don't care? Or are you just projecting the fact that you don't care about the reign of terror of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

Your "Ahmed" comment reeks of race-baiting. Don't go there.

Doesn't this typo-ridden statement of yours,

Ypu're exploiting victims to justify victimizing someone else

apply to your exploiting victims of drone strikes to justify your ignoring the epidemic of hate and murder that is Al Qaeda and Taliban in these areas?

[Rumold]

14. "the war against the targeted killing of innocents"

you make it sound like some are FOR targeted killing of innocents

we should kill them too

and their children, of course

[Ed Suspicious]

3. is it treasonous that I hope the drones are somehow shot down from the sky?

I do not want this done in my name. Pure evil.

[christx30]

195. Not treasonous.

Not everything the government does is good. Sometimes, they do some incredibly evil shit. And it's ok to say that you hope that shit fails.
I hope every drone they launch falls and crashes into an open field where they can't hurt anyone.

[Dragonfli]

5. From what I understand, the drone operators think

Civilians killed by them are "bug splats" and no big deal, kinda fun in fact.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. We're all guilty.

...

[L0oniX]

70. My mother drunk or sober.

[DirkGently]

8. Unacceptable. Unhelpful. Unforgiveable. n/t

[Supersedeas]

194. Courageous?

[DirkGently]

196. "Courageous" drone strikes? Probably not.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. I'm pretty sure that they had darker skin than I do

And wear different clothes.

So... Freedom Mist seems like a reasonable way to,go.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Though it may be difficult for many to understand, the targets are not civilians but are soldiers

who specializes in terrorist plots. Yemen is a safe haven in which they fit in with the locals. When these terrorist comes to blow up your home or where you work you would get a different opinion. 3000 people in the WTC was not offered due process either, why not?

[rhett o rick]

15. I cant believe that a Democrat would say that. Rationalizing the murder of innocent civilians

because the "targets" are soldiers. Using drones to kill people in sovereign nations is terrorism.

If you believe that these killings are making you safer, then you believe the Bush doctrine.

[CFLDem]

72. Actually he's perfectly in line

with Centrist Democrat thinking.

Obama is a democrat who doesn't mind blowing up Americans without trial.

Hillary is a Democrat who voted for the Iraq War knowing it would kill millions.

Johnson was a Democrat who championed Vietnam.

FDR and Truman were Democrats who interned Americans, firebombed Dresden, and nuked Japan.

Wilson was a Democrat who profited off of WWI.

Andrew Jackson was a Democrat who promoted genocide for profit with the Trail of Tears.

Sorry, sir, but you do not get to define our party's thinking, especially when history has determined it already.

[bvar22]

79. The problem with your post is that...

...ALL of the above have been condemned with the hindsight of history.
Using these incidents of past atrocities to justify the same War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity being committed TODAY is not logical.
Shouldn't we learn from the past,
and condemn these behaviors we are committing TODAY?

[CFLDem]

86. We can condemn all we want.

Doesn't mean it isn't part of the party platform.

[Thinkingabout]

78. I can not believe you do not understand terrorism. How are your rationalizing the killing of 3000

at the WTC? If the terrorist are not able to get together and train then it limits their ability to reign terror on the rest of the world. Don't accuse me of believing in the Bush doctrine, I am not guilty, you are wrong.

[rhett o rick]

98. It looks like you dont understand "terrorism".

From wordnik:

ter•ror•ism (tĕrˈə-rĭzˌəm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Any use of force or violence to intimidate. That includes the good ole USofA.

You are using the, usually conservative, rational that if we do it, it's not terrorism. If we justify it ("we need to prevent another 9/11&quot it's ok.

What we are doing violates US law and international law. We are not at war as legally defined. Killing innocent people via drones in sovereign nations is terrorism.

I hope that you dont rationalize that the innocent people killed are just collateral damage.

As far as the people that died on 9/11, I think that those responsible should be punished, including those whose negligence allowed it to happen.

[Thinkingabout]

121. What have I EVER posted which indicates I do not understand what terrorism consist?

I do not rationalize collateral damage as being unimportant, I have stated many times 3000 people killed on 9/11 as unimportant.

So you think those responsible for allowing 9/11 to should be punished. Now when a fellow says something like this must have a fool proof plan to prevent this from happening ever and you should have a plan to prevent any more drone strikes. You give your plan or you could just say you do not have a plan and those in power are working with what they have to work. I would really like to hear your plan, if a good plan I would be will to help get this plan to the right people.

[rhett o rick]

176. Ok I will give it another try.

Your post: "Though it may be difficult for many to understand, the targets are not civilians but are soldiers who specializes in terrorist plots. Yemen is a safe haven in which they fit in with the locals. When these terrorist comes to blow up your home or where you work you would get a different opinion. 3000 people in the WTC was not offered due process either, why not?"

You dont have any idea who the targets are or whether or not they "specialize in terrorist plots". It may be comforting to you to believe that but you dont have any real idea.

The people died as a result of the attack on the WTC did not get "due process". No murder victim does. That doesnt mean we abandon the rule of law. I do not want our government deciding who they can kill. They need to follow international law and domestic law. I think you are comfortable with this because the president is a Democrat. If Bush was doing this would you approve? These drone attacks do not guarantee that we wont be attacked again. In fact some argue that the terror they bring to the people that live over there will create more terrorists than they eliminate. And the drones have killed innocent people. The drones are terrorizing people.

[Thinkingabout]

178. Drones serves a purpose in which foot soldiers or special teams used to do.

Are you willing to be on a special team which accomplished the same result?

Do I prefer the drones over out troops, you bet I do. Why you may ask and we do not need to risk the safety our our troops. You ask if I would feel the same about drones if Bush was president and the answer is yes for the same reason. I would also feel the same had Cheney been president. None of these mentioned names was ever a troop, never put their lives in danger for the defense of our country. Yes drones any day over our troops.

[uhnope]

168. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Because drone strikes fit one part of the definition doesn't mean it fits the whole definition, unless you want to broaden the definition until it removes all meaning.

Even by your use of one little part of the definition, it does not fit:
Question: Is the intention of the drones strikes to intimidate the general public?
Answer: No, the intention is to remove Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers.

Again, you weaken the argument against drone strikes when you use false or faulty argument. You lose people. Do you understand that?

[rhett o rick]

177. It doesnt matter what the intent is. The drones striking and killing people without warning is

terrorizing the population. You dont even know the intention. You are just hoping the intention is to only kill the bad guys, but you have no way of really knowing. And again it doesnt matter what the intent is, they are terrorizing the population.

And it violates international law.

[Thinkingabout]

179. Produce the international law.

[rhett o rick]

182. Some how I doubt it would do any good. nm

[uhnope]

180. your lack of critical thinking skills terrifies me. So you're a terrorist?

that's your argument.

[rhett o rick]

181. I dont need this. Go away. nm

[7962]

116. I agree with you. Hiding amongst civilians is a staple for these people.

Doesnt mean we dont make mistakes. We do. And we probably should do more training to try to stop making mistakes. But I'm not about to advocate doing away with the program. The alternative is sending in troops over and over. Or doing nothing and letting them get more powerful.

[uhnope]

162. The governments involved allow the drone strikes, so it's not "terrorism".

Some government leaders use the issue in the press for political purposes, but all the governments, either officially or behind the scenes, allow the drone program in their countries.

It's better to stick to facts in arguments against drone strikes.

[rhett o rick]

163. Ok let's stick to the facts. It's a fact that government authorization is not included in the

definition of terrorism. Living in a country were a drone could kill you without warning even if you are innocent is living in terror. And what's this: "but all the governments, either officially or behind the scenes, allow the drone program in their countries. "? How do you know this? Not that it matters. Terrorism is terrorism no matter who does it, no matter who authorizes it.

[uhnope]

164. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Something that causes terror is not the definition of terrorism. Otherwise, horror movies would be terrorism. Or, for that matter, any military action at all. Sorry, no.

[rhett o rick]

166. Basically, Terrorism is using violence to intimidate. Please reread post #98.

Just because it's authorized by John (fuk) Yoo or the leader of Yemen or Pres Obama, doesnt change what it is. And it's not legal.

[Rumold]

16. though it may be difficult for YOU to understand ...

many of us understand perfectly well what is being done in our names

the indiscriminate killing of civilians and collective punishment are properly classified as war crimes

but i wouldn't expect you to understand, not a real deep thinker, WTC references and all

News Flash -- Yemenis weren't involved in 911

[Thinkingabout]

80. These terrorist are not civilians, they are part of a organized terrorist group, they have signed on

to be a part of terror attacks. Yemen allows these groups to reside in their country, maybe you did not know the locals there do not want the groups and gives information of their location to intelligence groups?

Since you made the statement Yemenis weren't involved in 911, do you think terrorist was involved? Perhaps you will not be able to understand the terrorist are committing war crimes and planning to commit more. Just what is your plan to halt the terrorist?

NEWS FLASH Terrorist are alive and looking to attack.

[creeksneakers2]

84. Its not entirely indiscriminate

They try very hard not to kill civilians. Its not collective punishment either.

[WatermelonRat]

173. You would be amazed how many people around here seem to think

that we go out of our way to kill as many civillians as possible.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

17. Fucking hell.

This may be the most repugnant thing I have read on his board, ever.


If it was your child you wouldn't be so cavalier. Or maybe you would, who knows what goes on in the mind of someone capable of making such a disgusting statement?

[Thinkingabout]

81. It may have not been my child involved in the 9/11 attacks but can you promise it will not

be my child in the next terrorist attack? Give me you plan to halt terror attacks?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

90. It may be your child that's killed by a right wing neo nazi.

Better start drone strikes on American soil right away.




Don't look under your bed tonight, a terrorist may be hiding there......

[Thinkingabout]

92. Terrorist are terrorist, it doesn't matter who they are, it could be your spouse. What is your plan

to halt the terrorist. I hear a lot of criticism but I don't hear a better plan, put your plan out for review.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

94. I don't live my life in fear.

The only thing that stops a terrorist with a drone is a good guy with a drone, or something.



Obviously, the answer that you're looking for is the indiscriminate bombing of brown people. That's what you want, right? Why not start drone strikes everywhere? They're obviously a great solution.

[Thinkingabout]

95. Do you think all spouses who kill their spouse is brown? You are drawing conclusions which

are not correct. Cliven Bundy and his militia are terrorists, a thug in the street who kills their victims are terrorists.

Now that we have gotten past this point, again what is your plan to halt terror attacks? You might have the magic wand which will get the terror stopped and then guess what happens, drone strikes will also cease. Now again what is your plan?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

99. So you support drone strikes on US soil?

Because this debate is about drone strikes, remember?


Do you support drone strikes on US Soil, yes or no?

[Thinkingabout]

102. The answer would be yes, and not limited to any color.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

103. Even if your family was collateral damage?

At least you're consistent in your nutbaggery.


Never thought I would see support for the extrajudicial killing of Americans on a progressive message board.

[Thinkingabout]

105. You still do not present your plan to stop the terror attacks, if you don't present a plan then

you are playing armchair quarterback. Get in the game, give your plan, don't think about something I am not, nutbaggery, you just need to present your plan.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

108. "Until we have a better plan killing civilians is ok."

Do you realize how dumb you sound? We use drones right now and terrorism hasn't gone away. There will always be bad guys who want to kill innocent people and when you become ok with killing innocent people as "prevention" you become the bad guy. Got it?

[Thinkingabout]

112. If had an intelligent plan you would have presented it. Yes, I know what it takes to win

In football, you have to get the most points. You are on to make a score, give your plan or you should not complain.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

127. Comparing dead people to football points?

What the fuck is wrong with you? That was about the worst and most repulsive analogy I have ever read. What kind of sick fuck looks at a dead person as a "point? Jesus Christ.

[cabrona]

104. There is such a thing as state terrorism.

The US carries out such acts when it attacks people at wedding parties, funerals, etc. with drones and missiles. You can say that the target is not an innocent civilian. But the strikes are carried out with thermobaric weapons that wipe out an entire city block. You can't say in such cases that the collateral damage was unintended. The Double Effect goes out the window when the foreseeable consequences are so closely linked to the ones that are intended.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

109. It's ok to kill innocent people.....

Because we don't have another plan. That's that posters logic and that's all you will get from them.

[Thinkingabout]

114. Was there any collateral damage in the 9/11 events?

Do you know where the "front line" may be? You locate the line and I will be glad to support your efforts in getting this information to the proper people.

[roody]

119. 9/11! 9/11! Is that you George? nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

128. I think it's mayor Giuliani.

Who ever it is certainly isn't a progressive, they're probably trolling.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

129. Is this your truck?

[Fumesucker]

130. A noun, a verb and ...

9/11!!!

Rudy will be sooo jealous.

[cabrona]

131. That's why the doctrine of the double effect doesn't work.

Al Qaeda could say, "We aimed at the buildings, symbols of US power, not at the people in the buildings, so the people were just collateral damage."

No. When the target and the consequences are that close, there is no moral difference.

[EX500rider]

197. "But the strikes are carried out with thermobaric weapons that wipe out an entire city block."

Where'd you get that info, the SciFi Network? The drones carry Hellfire missiles usually (or the even smaller Griffen) and have a 20 pound HE warhead....not "thermobaric" and certainly not enough explosives to take out a city block.

[1000words]

19. Yikes!

I mean ... thanks. Good to know where you stand.

[cosmicone]

29. ^This^ n/t

[Hissyspit]

46. Um, you'd be surprised how smart some of us are.

And how much we understand.

Don't tell me me my opinion.

[Thinkingabout]

83. Likewise, don't tell me my opinion, it works both ways.

[Hissyspit]

91. I didn't.

[Lancero]

55. You left off part of your name

Lemme fix that for ya...

ThinkingaboutbecomingaRepublican

There ya go. All fixed and in line with your views on the murder of civilians.

[Thinkingabout]

82. I am thinking about remaining the Democrat I have been all my life. Are you thinking about

how you stop the terror attacks?

[Martin Eden]

76. We're playing whack-a-mole ...

... and creating more enemies with every incident of "collateral damage."

This policy is not eliminating the terrorist threat; it is perpetuating the terrorist threat.

[Thinkingabout]

85. What would your policy be? Do you have a plan? Give your plan on halting terrorism

[Martin Eden]

88. First, stop creating the next generation of terrorists.

In your response to my post you did not dispute we are creating more enemies with our drone strikes. It should be obvious these strikes are counter-productive for our long term security.

If the USA really wants to be the leader of the free world we have to lead by example, or be justly viewed as warmongers and hypocrites. Do we stand for the rule of law, including international law? If so, the extrajudicial killings must stop.

US foreign policy has for many decades been a factor in the rise of groups intent on doing us harm through the only means they have: terrorism. I do not justify or support acts of terrorism by any group, and even if we change our policies immediately the threat will persist. Effective intelligence and security measures are essential to detect and defend against these threats.

But the threats will never diminish as long as WE continue to terrorize and kill innocent civilians in foreign lands, and as long as we support regimes like the Saudi royal family, and as long as we finance Israel's expanding occupation of Palestinian territory.

There is no magic wand to make the threat of terrorism go away.

But when you're in a hole, stop digging.

[Thinkingabout]

89. Your answer is to not create more enemies with drone strikes. How many drone strikes occurred

before 9/11?

It sounds good to not create terrorist, give me your plan to halt the creation of terrorists. That is all we need is to know how to stop this and if you can devise a plan and it is successful it would be a dream come true. I will be more than happy to pass it along to my Congressmen and fight to get the plan implemented. Just give the plan.

[Martin Eden]

96. Your question is based on the false premise that drone strikes is the only misguided policy

that spawns terrorists.

I identified some of the misguided policies that not only spawn terrorists but are also antithetical to what America ostensibly stands for.

Changing those policies is the first step in any sensible anti-terror strategy.

There is no "plan."

That includes what we are currently doing. Drone strikes is not a plan to end the threat of terrorism.

[Thinkingabout]

100. You said

and creating more enemies with every incident of "collateral damage."

This policy is not eliminating the terrorist threat; it is perpetuating the terrorist threat.

I ask how many drone strikes occurred before 9/11? Well, I guess you can now say the drone strikes did not cause 9/11.

Next question, what is your plan to halt terrorists? It has to be a winning plan in order for it to work. If you think terrorists are incited to plan and carry out terror attacks because of the drone attacks, it is the other way around. Drone attacks are planned on those groups which are planning the attacks on the rest of the world.

[Martin Eden]

106. Logical Fallacy

Citing one cause does not exclude other causes. In fact, I cited other policies that we need to change.

And I submit our government does not know for certain what (if anything) the targets of our attacks are or are not planning. But we do know that we have killed many innocent people.

The first step for halting terrorism:
Stop being terrorists ourselves.

[Thinkingabout]

113. you said it logical fallacy, but no clear plan did you give. Monday Morning quarterback.

[Martin Eden]

122. Actually, I was quite clear

The first step for us to halt terrorism is to stop being terrorists ourselves.

Drone strikes are terrorism, not a plan to stop terrorism. You (and our government) have no plan.

[Supersedeas]

148. Logic again

[uhnope]

175. Sorry, that's a fail. and I call BS.

There's no proof that drone strikes increase terrorism. It's something of a meme that it's being used as a recruitment tool, but no proof. Might as well be an urban legend at this point. On a related note, how about the amount of terrorism, of atrocities, of beheadings, of girls' schools being destroyed, that has been stopped by the removal of the targets of drone strikes? If you're going to quantify the unquantifiable, think about that for a while.

As for drone strikes being terrorism, I call BS. Just BS. The intent of the strikes is not to incite terror (the definition of terrorism), but to eliminate Taliban and Al Qaeda. Calling it "terrorism" weakens your argument.

[4bucksagallon]

18. You are entitled to your opinion and I am mine....

My opinion says that there are always "civilian" casualties in war and the less Al Qaeda the better. Civilians killed, we'll see when they are done investigating. Drone strikes on terrorists, I approve of that message. Your mileage may vary, of course. Oh, and no US Soldiers, Special Forces, Marines, or Air-Force personnel were injured or killed in this highly successful attack.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

20. A life is a life.

A dead Yemeni civilian isn't worth less than a dead american soldier. You wouldn't be so cavalier about civilian deaths if your house was blown up.

Of course the "there's always casualties in war" sentiment is a lot easier when we're talking brown people on the other side of the planet.....

[4bucksagallon]

53. I see I didn't answer your comment.

I am living with those "brown people" on the other side of the planet, as I write this. Some of the best and friendliest people I have ever met, with a some exceptions. I too can express sympathy for any civilian loss but yes, an American Soldier or Marine is worth more to me than a Yemeni civilian. It's a matter of perspective I guess. There are American soldiers working here with the AFP.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

57. "an American Soldier or Marine is worth more to me than a Yemeni civilian."

Tells me all I need to know.


Hopefully you're not typing all this out on taxpayer time.

[4bucksagallon]

59. Guess I am because I am collecting my Social Security every month. Is that what you meant?

[GeorgeGist]

62. Wow that's some fucked up thinking.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. May your stay here be brief. Nationalists don't belong here. n/t

[Lasher]

125. That is highly presumptuous of you.

The last time I checked, you were not in charge around here. As an American, I believe we should put US interests ahead of those of other countries. If that makes me a nationalist, then so be it.

[Humanist_Activist]

132. How far would you be willing to take that? Should US interests be put ahead of human rights?

Should the freedoms and lives of others suffer for our "interests"?

Nationalism...a refuge for the amoral, a justification for evil.

[Lasher]

133. Known al Qaeda leaders met in Yemen to plan attacks against us.

It was in our interest to take them out before they could have done the same for us. It's pretty naive to think we should have just let them go on with their business.

[Humanist_Activist]

135. That's not impressive, we are much more likely to be killed by my fellow citizens for....

non-political reasons than by any Al-Queda cell that wishes us harm. Yet I don't see us bombing known meth labs, organized crime syndicates, or crack houses.

Once we treat criminal actions as war, we might as well just wave a white flag, for we already lost. Sure we kill a few known terrorists, break up a plot or two, and still there are ALWAYS more terrorists to bomb, more plots to break up. Up until we decide commit genocide in "troubled areas" this will always be true, using the tactics we are deploying today. Its low level now, but its only a matter of time before we escalate it to another level, and what then, chemical weapons, firebombing, nuclear?

We have been going at this for a fucking decade with no fucking end in sight, and frankly I'm sick of the apologists for this bullshit that is the so called "war on terror", might as well call it the "war on tactics we don't like" for all the sense it makes.

[Lasher]

136. "War on tactics we don't like"

Kinda like you people whose hyperbole kicks into high gear whenever you read the word "drone". Drones present an effective tactical advantage. Do you think we are not at war with al Qaeda? What do you think we should do about them, nothing at all?

[Humanist_Activist]

137. Drones provide a tactical advantage at what? Ending terrorism or killing terrorists?

Those two goals aren't related you know.

You also provide a false dichotomy on top of it all.

[Lasher]

138. Do you really need to ask?

A tactical advantage is employed on the battlefield. You know, where there's battles. To kill people. One battle won't end terrorism but I'm pretty sure one terrorist won't kill anyone after he himself has been killed.

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think we are not at war with al Qaeda? What do you think we should do about them, nothing at all? Surely you have a better alternative since you are so lavish with your criticism.

[Humanist_Activist]

139. So basically you are advocating for a forever war? Talk about a waste of resources and...

people, I find that really sad.

And no, we aren't at war with Al Qaeda, are you serious here? They are not Nazi Germany with a concise chain of command that will hoist up a white flag of truce and sit at the negotiating table to talk terms of surrender. Are you this naive or has your bloodlust just not been sated yet? We eliminate one cell, another pops up, they have a largely horizontal structure, if it can be called that, of 2nd and 3rd in commands, isolated cells, and independent groups that simply take the name or are only loosely affiliated with it, if you can even call Al Qaeda a single terrorist group to begin with, which is doubtful.

The issue is that, your way, the way started by Bush and Obama has continued, isn't working, terrorism isn't contained, hell it has spread, and the ideologies behind it have only strengthened, not weakened. Victory here cannot and should not be measured in how many bodies we can pile up versus them, but in trying to weaken the sources of their strengths, while taking the high road.

The best way to fight against terrorism isn't on a battlefield, for there are none, but in parliaments, tribal councils, even board rooms and presidential halls. Its a political battle, an economic battle, a human rights battle.

The best way to battle extremism is actually through economic and political reforms in the countries that are hotbeds for it. Help nations pass out bread, and not bombs, may actually cause people to question supporting a group like Al Qaeda. Supporting civil and human rights, giving people political freedom and a voice in their own nations may provide a constructive outlet for those who would otherwise pick up a gun. Combine this with economic stability, and some type of safety net structure in these nations and you will cut the legs out from the extremist's recruitment sales pitch.

Unlike you, I have an interest in having all people's children be safe, in a world where terrorism is NOT considered a valid tactic anymore. You seem more interested in us raising yet another generation of terrorists whose minds turn to bloodlust because all the know about our nation and those of our allies is that we killed their family and friends. When will it end?

[Rumold]

142. tactical advantage of the double tap

You know, where we kill the paramedics that show up after the civilians get slaughtered

I'm pretty sure they won't be practicing any more first aid after that

amirite

[4bucksagallon]

167. Sorry did not mean for you to have to pick up my slack.

I never realized this thread continued because they went after you for coming to my defense. They don't seem to have any idea what it's like to live with militant Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, MILF and their various offshoots as neighbors. I am fortunate enough to be able to live in another country, the Philippines, full of "brown people". These Filipinos speak highly of America and love our country more than some Americans do, it would appear. I have not yet met a Pinoy or Pinay that did not want to go to America and had great things to say about our country.

[loveandlight]

186. a matter of perspective???

A matter of perspective that the killing of innocent people of one kind are less important than the killing of innocent people that matter to you? That is how you think you will deal with combating terrorism? By killing more innocent people in the name of protecting our own? That is one sick attitude and is the reason we are in this situation with terrorism. We have terrorized countries around the world for years with our selfish international policies and this is the result. Don't you think the people who flew the planes on 9/11 thought they were killing the proper enemy and that the innocent people who died as a result were just collateral damage? One sick attitude applied in either direction is still a sick attitude and gets us nowhere in combating terrorism, other than making it more prevalent.

[LanternWaste]

187. Tends to happen when we allow greater weight to one life over another simply due to being born on on

"It's a matter of perspective I guess...."

Tends to happen when we allow greater weight to one life over another simply due to being born on one side of an imaginary red and blue line on a map.

[DeSwiss]

21. If this is how you measure''success'' I'll put you on IGNORE now and beat the rush. n/t

[4bucksagallon]

23. Please do the less I deal with people that are anti American the better.

[2banon]

27. "anti-american" ? Seriously, you said that.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. Pro humanity isn't anti american.

Sorry pal, I think you're on the wrong website.

[JoeyT]

44. Once upon a time right wing memes were unwelcome.

Anyone referring to people as "Anti-American" would've been laughed out of the thread.

Sadly we're well beyond that point now, and well into the area where people that gleefully defend the murder of innocents are accepted.

It's still a disgusting sentiment.

[cpwm17]

111. So, then, you must agree with everything that our government does

since by you definition, disagreeing with the US Government equals anti-American. Or are you just like most right-wingers?: disagreeing with the US Government is only anti-American when one disagrees with murdering brown people.

[Rumold]

24. "highly successful attack"

really

a gallon of piss, how much is that?

4 bucks

[4bucksagallon]

25. Perhaps if you, yes YOU, had to deal with Al Qaeda you might, well not you but some.....

might feel differently. I have had encounters with them and like I said I am entitled to my opinion. 4bucks was how much a gallon of gas was the second time I signed up here on DU, if you must know, that was back in the Shrubbery admin. You can't piss me off like I did you obviously. So like I told the "udder" guy/gal please put me on ignore. The anti-American sentiment I get here from many DU members makes it a certainty I don't spend my days and nights here like others do. Sorry some of us have a real life, and don't live in some dream world.

[geomon666]

26. So what were you banned for originally? n/t

[4bucksagallon]

32. Not sure what you are implying I have never been banned.

My old PC got fried when the neutral wire to my house broke. Sent 50,000 volts through every appliance and light in my house. Interesting story but not relevant to this. Anyway lost everything that I had in my PC, that was back, I don't know, maybe a year, before I re-signed up. Couldn't retrieve anything, all my old accounts were lost, some accounts like DU were gone forever. Nuf 'splaining for ya.
PS
I still stand by my comments, now your turn to be upset, or not. LOL! You're not going to change my mind if that's what you're thinking.

[Rumold]

28. oh , you had to deal with al qaeda, must have been very scary

they didn't hurt you did they

[4bucksagallon]

34. LOL, no no more than I am hurting your feelings by expressing my opinion.

[Rumold]

37. nothing to do with feelings

i now know your opinion, worth 4 bucks, or a gallon of piss, whatever you need

but thanks for playing

p.s. is that supposed to be a special warfare pin. i always liked

[4bucksagallon]

38. You mean my eagle globe and anchor?

I used to get that same sarcasm a lot from the draft dodging chicken shits, I mean chickenhawks where I used to work before I retired. Don't tell me you "is one of dem". That's such a pity. Here I have been going around telling all the Republicans they were cowards for the last 40 plus years. I hope it doesn't turn out they were right about, "tis the dems" that were the cowards during the Vietnam conflict. That would really suck if that was the case.

[Rumold]

39. i will apologize

didn't realize that was marines, did look somewhat like special warfare pin. actually nothing like it but whatever

the bravado you show about killing innocents just made me think about all the fake seals out there

[4bucksagallon]

45. That's ok but I thought everyone recognized the Marine Corps symbol.

I'm living with the threat of Al Qaeda and Abu Sayaff every day here in the southern Philippines. Also MILF and NPA or as they call themselves "No Permanent Address". Hardly a day much less a week, goes by that there is an attack on a road checkpoint, town, or business here in Mindanao. We have had the local Muslims come to our assistance and stop a group of renegade Al Qaeda bandits that were trying to shake us down. Like I said we deal with this and life goes on. I love the Philippines and the people of the PI's, and I am proud to call Mindanao mostly Republican free because it is just too dangerous for a foreigner here. Also compared to the rest of the Philippines we are mostly typhoon free. Things are getting better over the last few years there are peace plans in the works, but I won't hold my breath that will work out. LOL!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

42. So tough.

I love internet chest puffers.

[4bucksagallon]

43. Thank you, your fake chest puffing is noted.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

56. You're the one putting on the act.

And showing a lack of tactfulness and humanity. But nice try with the "no you are" defense, it lets me know that I'm arguing with a child.

[grahamhgreen]

33. The dream world is thinking that blowing up civilians abroad will make us safer and stronger.

[4bucksagallon]

50. I love terrorists with stiff necks don't you? Makes them easier to spot always looking up.

[grahamhgreen]

58. The trick us to follow the money;)

[think]

31. Got to protect that Yemen democracy....

[4bucksagallon]

49. LOL, no but those particular "terrorists" are terrorists no more.

They won't be influencing or spreading their hate to other countries, now will they?

[think]

68. American support of Yemen's right wing dictator is hypocritical at best

Last edited Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

And obviously the opinions of the Yemen congress mean nothing.

But let's continue the facade anyhow....

Yemen votes to ban US drone strikes

December 16, 2013, 04:52 pm / By Carlo Muñoz

Yemeni lawmakers voted to ban all American-led drone strikes inside the country, days after more than a dozen civilians were killed in an errant strike in the southern part of the country.

Members of Yemen's Parliament overwhelmingly voted on Sunday to end the country's approval for for unmanned drone strikes against al Qaeda factions based in the country.

During the debate, Yemeni lawmakers emphasized "the importance of protecting all citizens from any aggression" and "the importance of preserving the sovereignty of Yemeni air space," according to reports by Agence France Presse.

While the parliamentary vote will likely not receive approval from Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, it is a sign of growing discontent for the leader's public support of the controversial U.S. counterterrorism tactic.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/193299-yemen-votes-to-ban-us-drone-strikes#ixzz2zRW2nyCl

[Hissyspit]

47. Yes, but your opinion

is full of jingoistic, ethnocentric bullshit.

[Lasher]

126. Bullshit abounds, Hissy.

This OP is full of it.

[Martin Eden]

75. War? What war?

If you are referring to the "war on terror" then I submit the USA is inflicting far greater terror on innocent civilians than those we target are inflicting on us. Domestic terrorists and lunatics with guns pose a greater threat on our soil.

[DeSwiss]

22. If they had some poppies.......

...we wouldn't be shooting them, but protecting them.

- Clearly they need to reconsider their agricultural policies......



K&R

[cosmicone]

30. Commondreams is not a credible news source

Has anyone ever ascertained that all the ones killed were innocent civilians?

Isn't it the terrorists' fault to seek refuge in ordinary households to escape justice?

[grahamhgreen]

35. You're not a credible news source, lol.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

41. If a criminal was hiding in your house......

And I decided that it was worth burning down your home with you and your entire family in it, I would be culpable as well.....


I know it hurts to think of yourself in this situation and not an anonymous brown person on the other side of the world.....tough.

[polynomial]

51. Drones a new way to regulate behavior…

That has been something I have been thinking about for a long time. Much of the feeling in guilt as an American citizen for those decisions made to attack people that are complicit to terror plus those individuals falling to collateral damage, but may not be a terrorist.

That spectrum or terror also includes the so called enhanced interrogation techniques called waterboarding delivered in secrecy.

From my view as an average citizen being totally buffered both in an economic / political ways, these Drone decisions likely are driven by the one percent industrial military business complex oligarchs’.

The video floating around with Bill Moyer and Paul Krugman convinces me that American Democracy has diminished a long time ago. The true hidden properties of the oligarchic America becomes very clear in many of the conversations removed from mainstream media.

Seems America oligarchic along with the world one percent oligarchies’ exploit the initial plan the Bush administration started by holding the door open to blame Islamic extremist while fixing intelligence and media hyperbola around ground zero lies. It is a pitiful example playing the system rather than sharing the wealth of life.

The whole concept of drones appears be on keeping a message clear. That is to say “don’t even think about terrorism or those that do get blown to smithereens along with anyone close.”

The same thoughtful expressions are here in the American domain. If anyone applies a grievance the citizen in considered a trouble maker then likely publicly condemned by the media which are key players in this Democracy charade. Snowden is an intended clear example of don't fool with the oligarchic fools

It's a weird feeling to the ultimate regulation in fear about drones, but no fear of regulation for business banking exploitation.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

52. Killing in the name of. . .

[1000words]

54. One of my faves:

Killing In The Name"

Killing in the name of!
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Huh!

Killing in the name of!
Killing in the name of
And now you do what they told ya
But now you do what they told ya
Well now you do what they told ya

Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites

And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control

Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Come on!

Yeah! Come on!

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
Motherfucker!
Uggh!

[CFLDem]

118. Excellent song!

[Lancero]

60. The US has been, and for a while now, the biggest supporter of state terrorism.

The middle eastern terrorists justify their attacks on the US by "They are a threat to our way of life"

Guess how some people here justify our killing of, our committing of terrorist attacks upon, middle eastern civilians? "They are a threat to our way of life"

Frankly, given how gung-ho some people are about our slaughtering of civilians, it's no real suprise the lengths some groups go to launch attacks against us.

Reminds me of a quote, one that a lot of people would do well to remember - "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

[EX500rider]

149. "The US has been, and for a while now, the biggest supporter of state terrorism."

yeah, I'd go with Iran and their support of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria and their Iranian Quds Force-which runs overseas terrorist and intel operations.

[Democracyinkind]

61. Another victory in the war of terror! hooray!

We are all doubleplus safer now that we've fried 5 "foot soldiers". Because it is entirely possible and reasonable to just kill them all remotely.

The American empire is clueless and desperate. This is not a rational policy, even if you're in favor of a vigorous stance against terrorism. Someone should look into the econometrics of this. How much will it cost to drone every single sympathizer of Terrorism everywhere around the world? Would it be worth it? I'd recommend that the Pentagon brush up their knowledge of greek mythology, starting with Hydra.

[blkmusclmachine]

63. Murdered in cold blood, and paid for with your tax dollars

[Jesus Malverde]

64. Worlds largest robot killing machine ever invented.

If it wasn't out killing we wouldn't have a use for it.

You will never see it coming lololol.

[WinkyDink]

65. Get those new military awards ready!

[another_liberal]

66. The Air Force has a created . . .

To celebrate the achievements of their "joystick heroes," the Air Force top brass has commissioned a whole new series of medals which can only be won by those who pilot remote killer drones, like those used to murder unsuspecting villagers in Yemen.

This is not a joke. They really did that.

[manicmuse1]

67. Someday soon

The world will come to collect for our War crimes. And like Nazi Germany since we the people did nothing to stop them, we will pay for these sins.. in every way they can think of.

I wish my children would have know the great country I grew up in, Im ashamed, and saddened every time I read these articles.

What about Iraq? IS the US going to get away with saying "Oh my Bad" there was no real reason to destroy that country..

These people are in a living hell, imagine being so terrified!

[L0oniX]

69. These drones must have civilian target sensors...

cause they are always killing innocent people. But what the hell do we care ...we have murdered 100's of thousands of Iraqis and others over non existent WMD's and of course ...because Sadam not Saudi Arabia attacked us on 911.

[Javaman]

73. Machine of Death Card: death by drone. nt

[uhnope]

87. There is another side to the story and some anti-drone opinions are based on falsehoods

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor, but people should make sure they are not arguing based on false premises:
http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2013/06/03/six-myths-about-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/13558

Critics argue that drones are counterproductive and lead to civilian casualties, mainly children and women.

Their argument is based on research and surveys conducted with direct or indirect influence from Pakistani military. Independent journalists and rights groups are not allowed to confirm if there are civilian casualties and on what scale.

Local journalists from the tribal region who have tried to provide a glimpse into Pakistan military’s close relations with the militants have been targeted.

Civilian casualties are a terrible thing. But even this incomplete data clearly shows that the number of civilians killed by drones pales in comparison to the number killed by the militants the drone strikes are targeting.

But the fact is that these people are tired of Taliban’s atrocities in their villages. The latter have grabbed their land and destroyed the tribal structure that was both a source of pride and a peaceful way of living for the tribal people. They have killed Maliks, the tribal chiefs who held the tribal society altogether.

Dr. Akbar Ahmed, a professor at Washington DC’s American University, has recently published a remarkable book, The Thistle and the Drone, highlighting how the Pakistani central government and the tribal militants’ activities have ruined the lives of the tribal people. While Dr. Ahmed criticizes the drones, he admits that the Pakistani central government and the militants equally contribute to the sufferings of the tribal people.

[hughee99]

93. I think someone didn't get the memo. If they were killed in a drone strike, they're not "civilians"

they're "suspected militants".

[cabrona]

101. It must be weird to have those things flying overhead.

Not knowing who or what might be targeted next.

[indepat]

107. Would such not be terrorism if inflicted on Amurikan soil?

[ManiacJoe]

117. By definition, no, since the drones are government controlled.

Of course, it would not be needed on American soil since here the police have the ability to effect arrests.

[indepat]

124. If government-controlled, would that, then, be an act of war?

[ManiacJoe]

134. That, or maybe illegal methods of law enforcement.

It would not meet the definition of terrorism though due to it being government action.

[EX500rider]

150. It would be a act of war if Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia weren't helping with targeting.

[truedelphi]

120. Imagine how great the economy would be if the president was

Spending Tuesday afternoons talking to the jobless and hearing their ideas on what needs to happen here in the USA, rather than spending Tuesdays selecting who need to be droned?

Small example: powers that be have targeted a local small coffee hut for not having a bathroom! The whole thing is the size of a small Photomat booth. How could it have a bathroom?

[Doctor_J]

123. These people just don't understand chess

and...Scalia

[NealK]

140. Why do you hate Obama?

[Rumold]

141. ... Love is the only weapon ...

[pragmatic_dem]

143. CIA/NSA are still working out the kinks before deploying in the US. -nt

[marions ghost]

147. I'm sure you're right

--it is immoral and unthinkable anywhere.

[freebrew]

145. When will it become OK for China...

or Russia, etc. to commit drone strikes in the USA? I mean, if it's OK for us, then why shouldn't other powers in the world declare us a rogue state and start droning here?

WE, the U.S.A. are committing war crimes every day this is done. These are sovereign nations with their own laws. Who gives PBO or anyone else the right to invade and murder citizens of other countries.

It was wrong when * did it. It's still wrong when Obama does it.

[EX500rider]

151. Except the fact that those countries are helping with targeting? (Yemen-Paki-Somali)

[freebrew]

157. My choice of countries was out of a hat...

the fact is that we as a nation are breaking international law. Not to mention the immorality of the entire idea.

I would hope that would upset people on a Democratic site.

[EX500rider]

159. if those countries request help with terrorists/insurgents which..

....international law is being broken?

[freebrew]

183. Was the US invited to kill the country's citizens?

I don't recall Yemen asking us to drone strike anyone. Or Pakistan. IIRC, the * administration just declared war on 'terrorism' and decided they could attack whomever they felt like.

If the US is killing people in another nation, that is against international law.
Do you want the Israelis or British or any other nation to come here to assassinate our citizens?

That is the point.

[EX500rider]

188. Yes we were "invited" to kill terrorists on their soil.

If you don't recall that it's because it's all behind close doors. The Pakistan's are 2 faced about it, saying how horrible it is while the UAV's were taking off from Pakistani air bases. Both countries help with targeting data. Both could go to the UN if they really were against it. Both have jet fighters that could shoot down slow flying UAV's if they so desired. People who are actually trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimum should realize that if we stop the pinpoint air strikes both Pakistan and Yemen will pick up the slack with their Air Force and artillery, with indiscriminate destruction and many times more civilian deaths. But I suspect most who complain don't mind that, as long as we aren't involved. No country wants Al Queda setting up shop in the hills of their country, not surprisingly.

[freebrew]

190. Well, I guess that makes it OK, then.

[EX500rider]

191. Well if the actual complaint is the number of civilians accidentally killed....

(and not just the US involvement) ...do you suppose switching from the pinpoint accuracy and 20lb warhead of the Hellfire to the 500lb unguided bombs and artillery Pakistan and Yemen would use would be a improvement somehow? And no, leaving Al-Queda camps alone to fester and plan atrocities will not be a choice.

[freebrew]

192. The 'actual' complaint?

WTF are you talking about?

The act of remote controlled warfare is immoral. Pinpoint accuracy, haven't seen it yet.
Killing citizens of any country w/o trial is even against our own laws and constitution.
I don't really believe al-Queda is as big of a threat as we are being told. And if the US would stop going to war for corporate benefit, maybe these 'terrorists' would stop attacking.

You still missed the point, or maybe just don't want to address it. Will it be 'legal' now for foreign nations to attack Americans they deem terrorists in our own nation? I don't think that would go over well with the populace, but if we're doing it there, what would stop them?

I suppose you find it OK that this government can kill anyone they want whenever, wherever that person happens to be, even our own citizens w/o trial. If we miss and a bunch of innocents are killed, oh well, I guess they were just unlucky? War shouldn't be remote controlled, it's supposed to be horrible.

The BFEE has turned us into the terrorists.

[EX500rider]

193. Except we aren't just attacking any country but ones that want help with Al Queda camps.

If Canada had a Al Queda camp up in the mountains and asked for our help how would that be illegal? Or immoral for that matter?
Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia are no different, they all want the help and helping with targeting, regardless of what they say for local public consumption.

And WTF am I talking about is if you are actually worried about the number of civilians killed in the strikes, that number would increase 10 fold if Pakistan or Yemen went it alone and used their own air force to drop 500lb bombs instead of a 20lb warhead on the Hellfire.
Because no country wants AlQueda setting up shop up in the hills to plan atrocities. (not surprisingly)

[EX500rider]

189. "If the US is killing people in another nation, that is against international law"

Ah, no.

Most warfare, legal or not will involve killing people in other countries, that's how that works.

[marions ghost]

146. This is the most immoral deployment of force

ever perpetrated by the United States. There is no justification. No defense possible.

I am so ashamed that as a nation, we have sunk to this level.

[Nihil]

184. I agree with you

Sadly, there are some "established posters" upthread (who would have been tombstoned in past years
for their blatant right-wing war-mongering) who are adamant that "It's OK if we are doing it" *is* both
a defence for past criminal acts and a justification for more of the "endless war" in the future.

Blowback: It's what's being prepared for yet another once great nation.

[marions ghost]

185. yes

some people will justify anything. They have no conscience and no real feeling for other people. And those are the types that the military/CIA looks for to man their joysticks.

And this is done in our name. It's so wrong it makes you cringe.

[The Stranger]

152. Creating terrorists daily by the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.

Keeping the Neocons in business!