Drone policy

[Ibrahim]

nerds are cool and machos are marginalized jocks - in that context the weedy guy that uses the power of their minds and creativity to beat the nasty macho's is really no change at all, just a movement of power symbols.

plus the fact that the much of the modern west has largely moved its legacy macho needs to computer games and drones is just the same thing but with more realistic bad guy behaviours... the ai on the enemies is better.

the west wont get its beneficial insights into drones until they are flying down suburban streets and taking out the undesirables based on facial recognition and phone identities - which wont be long now, they are doing the polish and refinement to mainstream acceptable levels of failure in the middle east... which is what nonc said above i believe.

just what exactly is the acceptable ratio of swat teams shooting up the wrong house versus gangster drug dens again ?

twitch.

Well put!


The interesting thing about the nerds-are-cool, war-as-video-game paradigm is the implicit hierarchy of cultures/nationalities. Not based on race or religion, it is simply based on technological capability (and thus wealth). Its ok to bomb poor people with drones because they are poor and don't have drones and are thus only provisionally people in the first place. Any true human being in 2012 has a laptop/smartphone/blog. "You think you're tough because you spent a decade fighting communists in the Yemeni mountains with an AK and a bellyfull of goat meat? TASTE MY MOUSE CLICKS!"

[Ibrahim]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world ... ok.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

If there is no oversight of this program (beyond what lefty journalists dig up occasionally) it seems like detailed rules wouldn't really matter. This has more of an "escaping future prosecution" feel to it.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I do see possibilities in drones removing the romantic "Warrior Ethic" claptrap. Does not make them ethical, of course, but it could be a beneficial yet unintended consequence.

That technology violates traditional "warrior ethics" is certainly true, but of course we turned our backs on that problem long ago. Its a settled issue in the history of civilization, warriors are gone and we now have paid technologists/killers, be it a musket or some computerized weapons system.

True in fact but not in popular belief. It is a powerful myth in the U.S. armed forces.

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction.
You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him"
- Napoleon Bonaparte

[Ibrahim]

I do see possibilities in drones removing the romantic "Warrior Ethic" claptrap. Does not make them ethical, of course, but it could be a beneficial yet unintended consequence.

That technology violates traditional "warrior ethics" is certainly true, but of course we turned our backs on that problem long ago. Its a settled issue in the history of civilization, warriors are gone and we now have paid technologists/killers, be it a musket or some computerized weapons system.

True in fact but not in popular belief. It is a powerful myth in the U.S. armed forces.

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction.
You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him"
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Fair enough, but stop paying the US armed forces for a few weeks and we'll see how quickly that myth gets exposed.

[Azrael]

Petraeus Packs Up

[Hoosiernorm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-gr ... 24627.html

U.S. Drone Strikes Are Causing Child Casualties: Video and Report

zf8bnYF-WxE

Well it's actually surprising to see the story finally get above the water level. Still waiting for 60 minutes to do an expose about the problem

[Doc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-gr ... 24627.html

U.S. Drone Strikes Are Causing Child Casualties: Video and Report

zf8bnYF-WxE

Well it's actually surprising to see the story finally get above the water level. Still waiting for 60 minutes to do an expose about the problem

Hey Hey BHO how many kids did your drones kill today.

Nawh it doesn't have enough sizzle...

[monster_gardener]

I do see possibilities in drones removing the romantic "Warrior Ethic" claptrap. Does not make them ethical, of course, but it could be a beneficial yet unintended consequence.

That technology violates traditional "warrior ethics" is certainly true, but of course we turned our backs on that problem long ago. Its a settled issue in the history of civilization, warriors are gone and we now have paid technologists/killers, be it a musket or some computerized weapons system.

True in fact but not in popular belief. It is a powerful myth in the U.S. armed forces.

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction.
You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him"
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Fair enough, but stop paying the US armed forces for a few weeks and we'll see how quickly that myth gets exposed.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

stop paying the US armed forces for a few weeks and we'll see how quickly that myth gets exposed.

An interesting thought problem...........

But be careful if that is what you wish for......

Maybe it's a good thing for the Republic that Petreaus is gone.

The Modern Times Cartoon posted above reminded me of another Republic and another Charismatic General who put his privates * where they should not have been....

Julius Caesar.......

Every Woman's Man and Every Man's Woman............

* Not soldiers

[Ibrahim]

Hey Hey BHO how many kids did your drones kill today.

This is the basic American response, to try and figure out the best way to exploit the issue for domestic political purposes.

But the attitude of the domestic US audience to the actual ongoing consequences of these tactics are already established: the population doesn't care. Neither the moral issues, nor the fact that these tactics are ultimately counterproductive, have concerned the US at any point since the "war on terror" began.

There are of course people within the US aggressively raising this issue, but it is fringe activity. In line with, say, Ron Paul enthusiasm. A vocal and internet-savvy minority, but not influential.

[Alexis]

Congrats, Droney! You've nailed it:
- lack of accountability & lack of oversight
- resulting of course in the basic question not being asked: how beneficial the drone killing program is for the US Nation
- resulting in a manifestly counterproductive policy being continued

Those ARE the issues


Speaking of which, the question of HOW this killing program is done by contrast is NOT an issue.

If the killings were done by artillery, by hit-and-run commando teams, by manned fighters, or by knights on horses with swords, the issues would be exactly the same. The way of the killing is a question of efficiency, and military people just like everybody prefer efficiency and low risk to wastefulness and high risk... hey who wouldn't?

Using drones may seem "unfair" to an adversary who has none. That's an old story: every military innovation has some shrieking "unfairness" and "cowardice"...
- those cowards fight with long bows instead of hand-to-hand!
- they use cannons instead of long bows like us, how unfair!
- they use machine guns, what an unfair and coward way of war!
- they shoot us with drones instead of coming within range of our AK-47, the cowards!
- etc.

Truth is: Everything is fair in love and war

[Doc]

Congrats, Droney! You've nailed it:
- lack of accountability & lack of oversight
- resulting of course in the basic question not being asked: how beneficial the drone killing program is for the US Nation
- resulting in a manifestly counterproductive policy being continued

Those ARE the issues


Speaking of which, the question of HOW this killing program is done by contrast is NOT an issue.

If the killings were done by artillery, by hit-and-run commando teams, by manned fighters, or by knights on horses with swords, the issues would be exactly the same. The way of the killing is a question of efficiency, and military people just like everybody prefer efficiency and low risk to wastefulness and high risk... hey who wouldn't?

Using drones may seem "unfair" to an adversary who has none. That's an old story: every military innovation has some shrieking "unfairness" and "cowardice"...
- those cowards fight with long bows instead of hand-to-hand!
- they use cannons instead of long bows like us, how unfair!
- they use machine guns, what an unfair and coward way of war!
- they shoot us with drones instead of coming within range of our AK-47, the cowards!
- etc.

Truth is: Everything is fair in love and war

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Congrats, Droney! You've nailed it:
- lack of accountability & lack of oversight
- resulting of course in the basic question not being asked: how beneficial the drone killing program is for the US Nation
- resulting in a manifestly counterproductive policy being continued

Those ARE the issues


Speaking of which, the question of HOW this killing program is done by contrast is NOT an issue.

If the killings were done by artillery, by hit-and-run commando teams, by manned fighters, or by knights on horses with swords, the issues would be exactly the same. The way of the killing is a question of efficiency, and military people just like everybody prefer efficiency and low risk to wastefulness and high risk... hey who wouldn't?

Using drones may seem "unfair" to an adversary who has none. That's an old story: every military innovation has some shrieking "unfairness" and "cowardice"...
- those cowards fight with long bows instead of hand-to-hand!
- they use cannons instead of long bows like us, how unfair!
- they use machine guns, what an unfair and coward way of war!
- they shoot us with drones instead of coming within range of our AK-47, the cowards!
- etc.

Truth is: Everything is fair in love and war

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

If a burglar comes to my house and I confront them man-to-man, I must be certain their dead body falls into my home. If the civilian police serve a do not knock warrant at my door they are allowed to kill me inside my house if I mistake them for a non-lawful intruder.

This is based (in the U.S.) on God-given rights. Why is God somehow absent when drone policy makes it convenient?

[Ibrahim]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

[Ibrahim]

Speaking of which, the question of HOW this killing program is done by contrast is NOT an issue.

If the killings were done by artillery, by hit-and-run commando teams, by manned fighters, or by knights on horses with swords, the issues would be exactly the same. The way of the killing is a question of efficiency, and military people just like everybody prefer efficiency and low risk to wastefulness and high risk... hey who wouldn't?

Using drones may seem "unfair" to an adversary who has none. That's an old story: every military innovation has some shrieking "unfairness" and "cowardice"...
- those cowards fight with long bows instead of hand-to-hand!
- they use cannons instead of long bows like us, how unfair!
- they use machine guns, what an unfair and coward way of war!
- they shoot us with drones instead of coming within range of our AK-47, the cowards!
- etc.

You are incorrect here, and essentially just copying the "War Nerd" ranting that was posted earlier. In actual fact the methodology of drone warfare is quote different from any used previously. An artilleryman still had to be in-country, and all other methods of warfare exposed the perpetrator to even greater proximity to his victims. The level of remove between the killing and his victim is now totally unprecedented.

Also worth noting that drones would be impotent against any technologically advanced opponent, they can only be used against the poorest people, with impunity. This is certainly a significant change from even the history of crass imperialism. When Churchill boasted of using poison gas or Maxim guns on tribesmen those gunners/gassers still had infinitely more exposure to reprisal than the drone murderers employed by the US government. We have reached a kind of moral nadir and technological pinnacle in terms of the indiscriminate killing of the poor.


And the perception that Americans use this methodology because they are cowards is widespread, regardless of whether or not you think it is valid. This, along with the general brutality and inefficiency of the program, only benefits the kind of people that the US is supposedly doing all of this killing to fight. If you try to look at it from the Afghan perspective what else are they supposed to think? The fought off the Soviets, now the US/NATO is leaving as well, and the only methodology that the foreigners will still employ against them is these remote-controlled toy planes. Feel free to try and explain to him how he's actually a pussy because he doesn't have General Atomics making him drones to do his fighting for him. Its a different mindset.

[Azrael]

Wonder weapons... my God, I don't see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics, nothing is glorified... nothing is reaffirmed? No heroes, no cowards, no troops, no generals? Only those who are left alive... and those who are left dead. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

George S. Patton

[Doc]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

Well that's the rub. How many terrorist were targeted in the WTC, Pentagon, and four commercial aircraft? That was a "double tap" attack if there ever was one with civilians as the primary target.

That is inherently terrorism. for the last 30 to 50 years military establishments in large parts of the world have been working to try to avoid civilian causalities.

After those terror attacks the US actually met the demands of Al Qaeda when Bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa that Muslims should "kill Americans and Jews where ever they are found", and pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Yet Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day. Continues to target and kill civilians around the world. Believing that somehow all it has to do is tap tap tap tap tap tap..... its way to victory.

Where is the loud condemnation of that from the Islamic world? Is it that the very same people who target those civilians also are cowing the majority of Muslims, that would other wise object, into submission?

[Ibrahim]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

Well that's the rub. How many terrorist were targeted in the WTC, Pentagon, and four commercial aircraft? That was a "double tap" attack if there ever was one with civilians as the primary target.

I can't understand what possible meaning this statement could have in the context of this discussion, or why you made it. Are you saying you are happy with your government killing who-knows-who for whatever unknown reason because civilians were targeted on 9/11? Are you comparing your government to the 9/11 hijackers? Clarify what you are trying to say.

Yet Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, what other activities would it engage in besides planning or making terrorist attacks? Is it your purpose here to equate the US military to the most famous known terrorist organization?

Where is the loud condemnation of that from the Islamic world? Is it that the very same people who target those civilians also are cowing the majority of Muslims, that would other wise object, into submission?

This is a re-hashing of arguments from years ago on the various Spengler forums, and we've settled all this before. Its a fundamentally false premise that has been debunked at length, and it is an off-topic distraction. This has no logical place in this thread, and is unrelated to an appraisal of the US drone program and its moral and strategic failures.

Start a thread if you want to go on in this line, we haven't had one since Milo was banned.

[Doc]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

Well that's the rub. How many terrorist were targeted in the WTC, Pentagon, and four commercial aircraft? That was a "double tap" attack if there ever was one with civilians as the primary target.

I can't understand what possible meaning this statement could have in the context of this discussion, or why you made it. Are you saying you are happy with your government killing who-knows-who for whatever unknown reason because civilians were targeted on 9/11? Are you comparing your government to the 9/11 hijackers? Clarify what you are trying to say.

You understood what I said. -- Everything is relative. 3000 civilians were targeted on 911. A double tap for a double tap doesn't fly with me. (no pun intended.) But that doesn't mean ignoring one big double tap will fly either.

Yet Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, what other activities would it engage in besides planning or making terrorist attacks? Is it your purpose here to equate the US military to the most famous known terrorist organization?

Are you saying that you are happy that Al Qaeda targets civilians? Are you saying that the US military rather than the CIA is targeting Civilians? Everything is relative.

Where is the loud condemnation of that from the Islamic world? Is it that the very same people who target those civilians also are cowing the majority of Muslims, that would other wise object, into submission?

This is a re-hashing of arguments from years ago on the various Spengler forums, and we've settled all this before. Its a fundamentally false premise that has been debunked at length, and it is an off-topic distraction. This has no logical place in this thread, and is unrelated to an appraisal of the US drone program and its moral and strategic failures.

Moral failures of the Islamic world are off the table? Are you serious?

Start a thread if you want to go on in this line, we haven't had one since Milo was banned.

Are you the local self appointed posting cop? Are you suggesting I would be banned if I did? Oh dear you shouldn't dare me like that.

[Crocus sativus]

.

Milo was banned ? did not know .. since when and why ?


.

[Ibrahim]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

Well that's the rub. How many terrorist were targeted in the WTC, Pentagon, and four commercial aircraft? That was a "double tap" attack if there ever was one with civilians as the primary target.

I can't understand what possible meaning this statement could have in the context of this discussion, or why you made it. Are you saying you are happy with your government killing who-knows-who for whatever unknown reason because civilians were targeted on 9/11? Are you comparing your government to the 9/11 hijackers? Clarify what you are trying to say.

You understood what I said. -- Everything is relative. 3000 civilians were targeted on 911. A double tap for a double tap doesn't fly with me. (no pun intended.) But that doesn't mean ignoring one big double tap will fly either.

How are the two connected? You said that you didn't mind drone strikes as long as they targeted "terrorists." I pointed out that there is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are, or on what evidence they are being killed, and now you are just repeating "9/11" over and over.

Yet Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, what other activities would it engage in besides planning or making terrorist attacks? Is it your purpose here to equate the US military to the most famous known terrorist organization?

Are you saying that you are happy that Al Qaeda targets civilians? Are you saying that the US military rather than the CIA is targeting Civilians? Everything is relative.

This reply also makes no sense. I don't think anyone here is new to the idea that "everything is relative" but this doesn't make your obfuscatory responses to specific details of the US drone program any more relevant. All is shows is that you ran out of coherent and relevant things to say.

Where is the loud condemnation of that from the Islamic world? Is it that the very same people who target those civilians also are cowing the majority of Muslims, that would other wise object, into submission?

This is a re-hashing of arguments from years ago on the various Spengler forums, and we've settled all this before. Its a fundamentally false premise that has been debunked at length, and it is an off-topic distraction. This has no logical place in this thread, and is unrelated to an appraisal of the US drone program and its moral and strategic failures.

Moral failures of the Islamic world are off the table? Are you serious?

Your premise is false, and this has been discussed to no end previously, but if you want to re-hash these failed arguments and ten-year-old propaganda then please start a thread for the subject.

Start a thread if you want to go on in this line, we haven't had one since Milo was banned.

Are you the local self appointed posting cop? Are you suggesting I would be banned if I did? Oh dear you shouldn't dare me like that.

Milo was banned for celebrating the death of the civilian victims of drone strikes, then threatening a moderator privately, so your lukewarm repetition of ten-year-old propaganda isn't likely to cause any problems, not that I'm in charge anyway.

I'm just asking if you could put it in another thread rather than derailing this one because you don't have anything relevant to say on the actual subject. I'll be more than happy to address your claims elsewhere, and I wish you better luck in defending your propaganda than those who tried previously.

[Crocus sativus]

.

Milo was banned for celebrating the death of the civilian victims of drone strikes, then threatening a moderator privately, . .

.

Good .. happy about it , Thanx moderators


.

[Doc]

Alexis, This is not about everything being fair in love and war. This is about accountability of politicians to citizens. I have no problem with using Hell fire missiles to kill terrorists. I do have a problem with them being used to "double tap" target sites and to kill citizens based on a kill list drawn up by secret committee.

This reflects part of the problem: you assume the principle target is a "terrorist." In many cases the administration kills people without any concrete evidence of who they are or what they have done, on top of murdering any nearby civilians/children in the initial or subsequent strikes.

Well that's the rub. How many terrorist were targeted in the WTC, Pentagon, and four commercial aircraft? That was a "double tap" attack if there ever was one with civilians as the primary target.

I can't understand what possible meaning this statement could have in the context of this discussion, or why you made it. Are you saying you are happy with your government killing who-knows-who for whatever unknown reason because civilians were targeted on 9/11? Are you comparing your government to the 9/11 hijackers? Clarify what you are trying to say.

You understood what I said. -- Everything is relative. 3000 civilians were targeted on 911. A double tap for a double tap doesn't fly with me. (no pun intended.) But that doesn't mean ignoring one big double tap will fly either.

How are the two connected? You said that you didn't mind drone strikes as long as they targeted "terrorists." I pointed out that there is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are, or on what evidence they are being killed, and now you are just repeating "9/11" over and over.

Excuse me but your assertion that "the is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are" is absolutely ridiculous. It can be well known who the people being targeted are. If that is where your confusion comes from I would merely point out that it seems I have been making drone strikes on your arguments. Since there is no way of knowing where your confusion comes from.

Yet Al Qaeda kept up its "terrorists gone wild" routine to this day.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, what other activities would it engage in besides planning or making terrorist attacks? Is it your purpose here to equate the US military to the most famous known terrorist organization?

Are you saying that you are happy that Al Qaeda targets civilians? Are you saying that the US military rather than the CIA is targeting Civilians? Everything is relative.

This reply also makes no sense. I don't think anyone here is new to the idea that "everything is relative" but this doesn't make your obfuscatory responses to specific details of the US drone program any more relevant. All is shows is that you ran out of coherent and relevant things to say.[/quote]

Your diversions from the truth are well known Ibrahim. I already stated that I agree that drone strikes in the form of double taps are wrong. In those cases there really is no way to know who will be killed. However you do not seem to agree with the converse that the 911 attacks on NYC and Washington were inherently double tap attacks on civilians. Without making that acknowledgement you are the one with nothing coherent or relative to say --Other than spouting propaganda

Where is the loud condemnation of that from the Islamic world? Is it that the very same people who target those civilians also are cowing the majority of Muslims, that would other wise object, into submission?

This is a re-hashing of arguments from years ago on the various Spengler forums, and we've settled all this before. Its a fundamentally false premise that has been debunked at length, and it is an off-topic distraction. This has no logical place in this thread, and is unrelated to an appraisal of the US drone program and its moral and strategic failures.

Moral failures of the Islamic world are off the table? Are you serious?

Your premise is false, and this has been discussed to no end previously, but if you want to re-hash these failed arguments and ten-year-old propaganda then please start a thread for the subject.

Start a thread if you want to go on in this line, we haven't had one since Milo was banned.

Are you the local self appointed posting cop? Are you suggesting I would be banned if I did? Oh dear you shouldn't dare me like that.

Milo was banned for celebrating the death of the civilian victims of drone strikes, then threatening a moderator privately, so your lukewarm repetition of ten-year-old propaganda isn't likely to cause any problems, not that I'm in charge anyway.

I'm just asking if you could put it in another thread rather than derailing this one because you don't have anything relevant to say on the actual subject. I'll be more than happy to address your claims elsewhere, and I wish you better luck in defending your propaganda than those who tried previously.

How about just acknowledging that the 911 attacks were inherently at least the equivalent of drone strikes on a much larger scale instead of crying about me being off topic and on the verge of being banned?

If you are only capable of talking one side of an issue then you are just making propagating propaganda and are thus really full of something.

[Ibrahim]

How are the two connected? You said that you didn't mind drone strikes as long as they targeted "terrorists." I pointed out that there is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are, or on what evidence they are being killed, and now you are just repeating "9/11" over and over.

Excuse me but your assertion that "the is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are" is absolutely ridiculous. It can be well known who the people being targeted are.

Really? Please link me to the information on those individuals killed by US drone strikes in Yemen in the past year. The intended targets of course, not the "collateral damage" civilian casualties.

This reply also makes no sense. I don't think anyone here is new to the idea that "everything is relative" but this doesn't make your obfuscatory responses to specific details of the US drone program any more relevant. All is shows is that you ran out of coherent and relevant things to say.

Your diversions from the truth are well known Ibrahim.

A malicious false accusation, one which you will not substantiate because no evidence exists to support it.

I'm just asking if you could put it in another thread rather than derailing this one because you don't have anything relevant to say on the actual subject. I'll be more than happy to address your claims elsewhere, and I wish you better luck in defending your propaganda than those who tried previously.

How about just acknowledging that the 911 attacks were inherently at least the equivalent of drone strikes on a much larger scale

The two subjects are unrelated. The thread was started to discuss one, and then you brought up the other. First as a distraction, now apparently as an excuse to make false accusations about me personally. You aren't doing yourself any favors with these transparent tactics.

[Doc]

How are the two connected? You said that you didn't mind drone strikes as long as they targeted "terrorists." I pointed out that there is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are, or on what evidence they are being killed, and now you are just repeating "9/11" over and over.

Excuse me but your assertion that "the is no way of knowing who the people being targeted are" is absolutely ridiculous. It can be well known who the people being targeted are.

Really? Please link me to the information on those individuals killed by US drone strikes in Yemen in the past year. The intended targets of course, not the "collateral damage" civilian casualties.[

This reply also makes no sense. I don't think anyone here is new to the idea that "everything is relative" but this doesn't make your obfuscatory responses to specific details of the US drone program any more relevant. All is shows is that you ran out of coherent and relevant things to say.

Your diversions from the truth are well known Ibrahim.

A malicious false accusation, one which you will not substantiate because no evidence exists to support it.

I'm just asking if you could put it in another thread rather than derailing this one because you don't have anything relevant to say on the actual subject. I'll be more than happy to address your claims elsewhere, and I wish you better luck in defending your propaganda than those who tried previously.

How about just acknowledging that the 911 attacks were inherently at least the equivalent of drone strikes on a much larger scale

The two subjects are unrelated. The thread was started to discuss one, and then you brought up the other. First as a distraction, now apparently as an excuse to make false accusations about me personally. You aren't doing yourself any favors with these transparent tactics.

You aren't acknowledging that the 911 attacks were targeting of civilians. That is quite transparent. And become more more so as this thread continues.

Now why is that?

[Ibrahim]

You aren't acknowledging that the 911 attacks were targeting of civilians. That is quite transparent. And become more more so as this thread continues.

Now why is that?

There is no logical reason, nor justification, for this bizarre and offensive false accusation. Presumably you only introduced the irrelevant references to 9/11 in order to make it.

I'm afraid your propaganda efforts will need to be more sophisticated if they are to pass even the most casual scrutiny. Your remarks in this thread were initially on-topic and relevant, but have degenerated into the absolutely ridiculous.