Drone policy

Post Reply
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

A good article that raises most of the major issues of current drone usage.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... orning-joe
Joe Klein's sociopathic defense of drone killings of children
Reflecting the Obama legacy and US culture, the Time columnist says: "the bottom line is: 'whose 4-year-olds get killed?'"

On MSNBC's Morning Joe program this morning, which focused on Monday's night presidential debate, the former right-wing Congressman and current host Joe Scarborough voiced an eloquent and impassioned critique of President Obama's ongoing killing of innocent people in the Muslim world using drones. In response, Time Magazine's Joe Klein, a stalwart Obama supporter, offered one of the most nakedly sociopathic defenses yet heard of these killings. This exchange, which begins at roughly the 7:00 minute mark on the video embedded below, is quite revealing in several respects.

Here are the relevant portions of the exchange, which was triggered when regular guest Mike Barnicle announced how amazing he found it that so little public attention and debate is paid to the fact that Obama simply kills whomever he wants "without any kind of due process":


SCARBOROUGH: "What we're doing with drones is remarkable: the fact that over the past eight years during the Bush years - when a lot of people brought up some legitimate questions about international law - my God, those lines have been completely eradicated by a drone policy that says: if you're between 17 and 30, and within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up, and that's exactly what's happening . . . . They are focused on killing the bad guys, but it is indiscriminate as to other people who are around them at the same time . . . . it is something that will cause us problems in the coming years" . . . .

KLEIN: "I completely disagree with you. . . . It has been remarkably successful" --

SCARBOROUGH: "at killing people" --

KLEIN: "At decimating bad people, taking out a lot of bad people - and saving Americans lives as well, because our troops don't have to do this . . . You don't need pilots any more because you do it with a joystick in California."

SCARBOROUGH: "This is offensive to me, though. Because you do it with a joystick in California - and it seems so antiseptic - it seems so clean - and yet you have 4-year-old girls being blown to bits because we have a policy that now says: 'you know what? Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we're just going to blow up everyone around them.'

"This is what bothers me. . . . We don't detain people any more: we kill them, and we kill everyone around them. . . . I hate to sound like a Code Pink guy here. I'm telling you this quote 'collateral damage' - it seems so clean with a joystick from California - this is going to cause the US problems in the future."

KLEIN: "If it is misused, and there is a really major possibility of abuse if you have the wrong people running the government. But: the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."


There are several points worth noting about this exchange:

(1) Klein's justification - we have to kill their children in order to protect our children - is the exact mentality of every person deemed in US discourse to be a "terrorist". Almost every single person arrested and prosecuted over the last decade on terrorism charges, when asked why they were willing to kill innocent Americans including children, offered some version of Joe Klein's mindset.

Here, for instance, is what the Pakistani-American Faisal Shazad said after he pled guilty to attempting to detonate a bomb in Times Square, in response to an angry question from the presiding US federal judge as to how he could possibly be willing to kill innocent children:


"Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . .

"I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."

The mentality of Faisal Shazad and Joe Klein are completely identical and indistinguishable: it is justified for us indiscriminately to kill even your innocent children because doing so will help stop you from killing ours.

And here's what Osama bin Laden had to say on the same topic:

"The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. . . .

"Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. Terrifying an innocent person and terrorizing him is objectionable and unjust, also unjustly terrorizing people is not right. Whereas, terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property. . . .

"The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right. . . .

"It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries. The hostility that America continues to express against the Muslim people has given rise to feelings of animosity on the part of Muslims against America and against the West in general. Those feelings of animosity have produced a change in the behavior of some crushed and subdued groups who, instead of fighting the Americans inside the Muslim countries, went on to fight them inside the United States of America itself."


The only difference between the Joe Kleins of the world and Osama bin Laden is that they're on different sides. To the extent one wanted to distinguish them, one could say that the violence and aggression brought by the US to the Muslim world vastly exceeds - vastly - the violence and aggression brought by the Muslim world to the US. That's just a fact.

(2) Leaving aside the sociopathic, morally grotesque defense of killing 4-year-olds with a "joystick from California". Klein's claims are completely false on pragmatic grounds. Slaughtering Muslim children does not protect American children from terrorism. The opposite is true. That is precisely what causes the anti-American hatred that fuels and sustains terrorism aimed at Americans in the first place, as even a study commissioned by the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon recognized almost a decade ago.

The reason American 4-year-olds are in danger from terrorism - to the very limited extent they are - is precisely because those empowered in US government and media circles think like Joe Klein does. Soulless cheerleaders for indiscriminate killing like Joe Klein - who once went on national television and advocated that the US should preserve the right to launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program, prompting host George Stephanopoulos to label that statement "insane" - are the reason there is a terrorism risk to Americans, not the solution for that risk.

If you want to understand why there is such a widespread desire to engage in violence against the US, look at Joe Klein's face and listen to his words. Every Muslim who has ever engaged in violence against the US will make that as clear as can be.

(3) This exchange is a perfectly vivid expression of the Obama legacy. Here we have a standard Democratic/progressive pundit who is one of the media's most stalwart Obama fanatics defending indiscriminate slaughter of Muslim children. Meanwhile, it's left to a former right-wing, Gingrich-era congressman to raise objections, call for more public scrutiny, and cite the moral and strategic dangers, one of the very few commentators on MSNBC - the progressive network - who has ever voiced such passionate criticism of Obama's ongoing killings.

Obama has led all sorts of progressives and other Democrats to be the most vocal supporters of unrestrained aggression, secret assassinations, and "crippling" the Iranian people with sanctions. It is completely unsurprising that the most sociopathic defense of drones comes from one of the most committed Obama supporters, and that it's now left to a former GOP Congressman to raise objections. As much as anything, that is the Obama legacy.

(4) One of the primary reasons war - especially protracted war - is so destructive is not merely that it kills the populations at whom it is aimed, but it also radically degrades the character of the citizenry that wages it. That's what enables one of America's most celebrated pundits to go on the most mainstream of TV programs and coldly justify the killing of 4-year-olds, without so much as batting an eyelash or even paying lip service to the heinous tragedy of that, and have it be barely noticed. Joe Klein is the face not only of the Obama legacy, but also mainstream US political culture.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?

Any statistics on drone usage and accuracy, strikes and civilians killed?
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Endovelico »

At the risk of offending some good and honest people in the US I can't help thinking that the US has become a very dangerous and immoral country, and American people - as long as they don't stop their murderous rulers - as accomplice to the crimes carried out by those rulers. What puzzles me is the inability of those many honest Americans in stopping what is happening.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Enki »

Parodite wrote:If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?
Not occupying foreign countries and propping up brutal dictators?
Any statistics on drone usage and accuracy, strikes and civilians killed?
Last I heard it was about 80% civilian casualties to terrorist.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Enki »

Endovelico wrote:At the risk of offending some good and honest people in the US I can't help thinking that the US has become a very dangerous and immoral country, and American people - as long as they don't stop their murderous rulers - as accomplice to the crimes carried out by those rulers. What puzzles me is the inability of those many honest Americans in stopping what is happening.
We elect people who say they will scale it back and then they don't, or they do it so slowly that it's barely perceptible and then they leave the office to someone who is a warmonger. The last President who actually went after the war machine was Jimmy Carter and he got remembered as an incompetent buffoon by the machine that he went after.

Attack the CIA and the Iranians will hold hostages until the inauguration day of the next President.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Some about drone usage in Pakistan, debating the collateral killing of innocent citizens. There apparently is no agreement. What sounds as a more objectively sound estimate I put in bold.
Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[12] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[13] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[14] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[15] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that experts disputed and have called absurd.[12] Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[16][17][18] Barbara Elias-Sanborn has also cautioned that, "as much of the literature on drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlement."[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?
Not occupying foreign countries and propping up brutal dictators?
Sounds like a different subject.. but now that you ask, such as where?
Any statistics on drone usage and accuracy, strikes and civilians killed?
Last I heard it was about 80% civilian casualties to terrorist.
From the link I posted at least in Pakistan the stats are different.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Enki »

Parodite wrote:Sounds like a different subject.. but now that you ask, such as where?
Saudi Arabia.
From the link I posted at least in Pakistan the stats are different.
Even with a reverse proportion its still too much. The double-tap of hitting the people coming to people's aid is something we have called a terrorist action.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:Sounds like a different subject.. but now that you ask, such as where?
Saudi Arabia.
It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?
From the link I posted at least in Pakistan the stats are different.
Even with a reverse proportion its still too much. The double-tap of hitting the people coming to people's aid is something we have called a terrorist action.
Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Enki »

Parodite wrote:It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?
I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.
Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.
Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?
I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.
Don't get it. Given that the same KSA would be in power if the US even didn't know it existed... How does it become a USA responsibility when the USA does something that doesn't make any difference?
Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.
Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.
That perhaps too. Bottom line it seems to me: if you consider the use of force, be sure the cause is just and that there is a really good chance that no other people get hurt except perhaps the criminal. But even the criminal must be saved if possible, to have him tried for justice to be done. I'd rather have had OBL in court than dead. The good thing about good courts is that they preserve and maintain the sense of morality as no other in society.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Enki »

Parodite wrote:Don't get it. Given that the same KSA would be in power if the US even didn't know it existed... How does it become a USA responsibility when the USA does something that doesn't make any difference?
Selling them weapons, having a special relationship with them in regards to oil, and putting military bases in their countries doesn't make a difference?
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Drone policy

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Endovelico wrote:.

At the risk of offending some good and honest people in the US I can't help thinking that the US has become a very dangerous and immoral country, and American people - as long as they don't stop their murderous rulers - as accomplice to the crimes carried out by those rulers. What puzzles me is the inability of those many honest Americans in stopping what is happening.

.


Bravo, Endo, Bravo


Reminds me of a Poem of Rumi :


Wise man
oil lamp in the hand
in the darkness of the night
searching in the city
when asked
what he searching for
replies
"humans" I'm searching for


well,

Endo

Humanity is dead .. we living in the world of beasts

That is where materialism brought us to .. humanity died in west 100s of yrs ago


.
Last edited by Jnalum Persicum on Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:Don't get it. Given that the same KSA would be in power if the US even didn't know it existed... How does it become a USA responsibility when the USA does something that doesn't make any difference?
Selling them weapons, having a special relationship with them in regards to oil, and putting military bases in their countries doesn't make a difference?
Don't think it makes much of a difference. Weapons they can buy anywhere. That is just free market business. More than enough oil money to spend for them to buy anything they want. Those US military bases: no much different than rose gardens made in the USA. As for the internal political dynamics in the KSA; doesn't seem the USA has anything to cook up or hook up there. But maybe I'm overlooking things.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Drone policy

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

.

Israel episode demostrated, soon, Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Brazilian, Argentinian, Korean, Japanese and and and DRONES, even stealth ones, in all sizes, will be flying everywhere with all kinds of weapons attached, including over Europe and America (bases) .. attacking Oil installations, Oil platforms, sensible installations and and and .. pretty much low tech and in-defensible.

and ? ?

Really stupid

Imagine that childish "Stuxnet" stupidity .. Iran decoupled from WWW, has now Iranian version internet .. AND ? .. result is Cyber attacks now mainstream, with no limits of inflicting damage to western infrastructure and economy

was really stupid idea

Drone is stupid idea too .. no rocket science

The idea of killing political opponents .. started by durian Zionist .. as silly

Has killing political opponents assured Zionist future ? ?

NO

Ossama should have been beaten in a broadcasted debate with west

killing him does not kill his school

All these Mc Cain and Liebrman and Bolton are idiots


.
Last edited by Jnalum Persicum on Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Parodite »

Jnalum Persicum wrote:Drone is stupid idea .. no rocket science.
Who knows what the future will look like in the air? Crazy world... VERY crazy...Possibly.

Image
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Endovelico wrote:At the risk of offending some good and honest people in the US I can't help thinking that the US has become a very dangerous and immoral country, and American people - as long as they don't stop their murderous rulers - as accomplice to the crimes carried out by those rulers. What puzzles me is the inability of those many honest Americans in stopping what is happening.

Certainly American military power has given up any pretense of morality or other alleged military virtues. Difficult to say what it means for the population at large, who don't seem engaged at all.
noddy
Posts: 11326
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by noddy »

If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?
it doesn't seem so ambiguous to me either, i suspect its rhaps english as second language dutch translation, changing "if" to "when" would perhaps help.

(says the guy who has english as a second language when its his first language)
ultracrepidarian
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Drone policy

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Guess everyone forgot the first gulf war when they would show smart bomb footage to the press and they usually had people hoot and yell with glee and then follow it up with applause. If they started showing drone footage on broadcast television it would be a sensation and probably the highest rated show on television. Since I don't follow gaming is anyone selling a drone hunter video game yet? That would be a best seller and no one wants to admit it.
Been busy doing stuff
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

It's not the arrow it's the Native American. (Updated old racist saying)
Censorship isn't necessary
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Hoosiernorm wrote:Guess everyone forgot the first gulf war when they would show smart bomb footage to the press and they usually had people hoot and yell with glee and then follow it up with applause. If they started showing drone footage on broadcast television it would be a sensation and probably the highest rated show on television. Since I don't follow gaming is anyone selling a drone hunter video game yet? That would be a best seller and no one wants to admit it.
Couple of differences there.

Gulf War 1 had kind of a point to it, and most of the targets were ostensibly military, the point of the whole thing was to defeat Saddam's army, which took about a week IIRC.

This drone campaign has been going on for years, accomplishes no observable political or military goals, targets we don't know who for we don't know what reason on we don't know what intelligence, and kills civilians routinely, across several different countries.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Killer apes with art, booze, music & dogs And without.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is not obvious to me that without the USA shaking fatty oil hands and putting some military diplay for friendly show... there would be a different type of terrible regime. Why you think this is the case?
I don't think it's the case. It just wouldn't be our responsibility.
Agreed. It is still too much. And there is something extra devilish to a drone operated via joystick, as compared to a US soldier who goes mad nose diving into a blood revenge frenzy.
Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk. If people are not willing to die for it, then maybe they shouldn't be killing for it.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Tinker......

I am very concerned about drones....... Think we may be moving toward a Phillip K. Dick-ensian Nightmare world......

But I disagree with this.......
Yep. I think we SHOULD put soldiers at risk.
IMVHO this is better.......
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

-- General George Patton
We Uz are depraved sinful killer apes and some of uz may be bastards too....

But so are the Jihadis/Muslims infected with a Most Malignant Meme' for Centuries even if they do know who their father is and which of his wives and girlfriends is their mother....

And I prefer killer apes with art, booze, music and dogs....... Apes brave enough to put a gun in their sister's hand and instruct her how to use it instead of having underage little brother ambush her or drowning her in a Car in a Canal as they do in Canada for having a boyfriend.......

We need to be on different worlds or likely we will kill each other catastrophically..........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Re: Drone policy

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:Guess everyone forgot the first gulf war when they would show smart bomb footage to the press and they usually had people hoot and yell with glee and then follow it up with applause. If they started showing drone footage on broadcast television it would be a sensation and probably the highest rated show on television. Since I don't follow gaming is anyone selling a drone hunter video game yet? That would be a best seller and no one wants to admit it.
Couple of differences there.

Gulf War 1 had kind of a point to it, and most of the targets were ostensibly military, the point of the whole thing was to defeat Saddam's army, which took about a week IIRC.

This drone campaign has been going on for years, accomplishes no observable political or military goals, targets we don't know who for we don't know what reason on we don't know what intelligence, and kills civilians routinely, across several different countries.
Thank You VERY Much for your post, Ibrahim......

Thank You VERY Much for a reasonably fair post about Uz not larded with insults for a change.........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Hans Bulvai
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: Underneath everything

Re: Drone policy

Post by Hans Bulvai »

Enki wrote:
Parodite wrote:If drones are so inaccurate and killing so many innocent civilians it is simply immoral to use them. What else is there?
Not occupying foreign countries and propping up brutal dictators?
Any statistics on drone usage and accuracy, strikes and civilians killed?
Last I heard it was about 80% civilian casualties to terrorist.

Actually (from a previous post),

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74771.html
Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best."
I don't buy supremacy
Media chief
You menace me
The people you say
'Cause all the crime
Wake up motherfucker
And smell the slime
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Drone policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Bear in mind that the Pentagon and White House both refer to any male age 17-40 as a "militant," regardless of what they know or don't know about them.
Post Reply