A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen

[stupidicus]

343. who said I did?

I merely pointed out that the guy who intentionally or otherwise insulted others with the explicit claim that apparently in his experience, ignorance and/or confusion over a very finite bit of knowledge best explains why others come to the wrong conclusions and in conflict with his, neglected a great of material that undermines the analysis and conclusions from it he holds dear. It doesn't matter if the aforementioned is just your "opinion" or not, the idea that many of us haven't studied this and associated issues at great length -- as I'd presume those that would presume to debate it would have -- is pure supposition on your part.

There's nothing in your "matter of factly" material that would lead one to conclude that whatever "sit down and shut up about it" sin was committed here is anything but your sin alone, not mine -- starting with the opening remark -- since a great deal of my time and text investment was invested in making that "as a legal matter, it's all opinion at this point" point. It was a challenge to the stuff you posted as "opinion", and was supported by material in the links to legal opinions from others who have credentials in evidence you lack as far as I know. SO it wasn't about you sitting down and shutting up -- beyond about the presumptions seen in your opening remark -- but rather more of a "put up or shut up" thingy if anything along the "shut-up" lines at all.

Most of the challenge of that kind is here http://livingunderdrones.org/report-legality/ that appears to challenge the body of your effort.

Imo the common theme and thread that sews all of you droners together is the "warfare" thingy, which I see as little more than an effort to rationalize away the unpalatable dressed up in euphemisms like "collateral damage" that often happens in response to a direct and imminent threat in wartime not present when the drones strike.

I'm merely letting the readers know "what I think" too, and as I see it, the disagreement here started with the idea explicit or strongly implied in your opening remarks that those that disagree with what followed it is because they are ignorant of or confused by designations/definitions under international law like soldiers and "unlawful combatants", and the applicable laws governing all this crap.

That however really has nothing to do with which "opinion" here is the "best fit" for the totality of the facts and applicable laws. It was merely my way of letting you and the readers know, that not all of us that disagree with you are victims of unfamiliarity with the "categories", or the legal jungle the "categories" put us into. I suspect there's more here like me than you know, or have interacted with on this subject matter. Anybody that battled rightwingnuts as I did for years and years about "unlawful combatants" and Bush's efforts on that front should already have knowledge and an understanding of "the categories", leaving only the questions on legalities unique to and under the drone strikes umbrella to be answered.