An interesting question in regards to the use of drones

Yep, I don't read salon.co. The link isn't very good, I couldn't scroll down to read the entire article though I tried several times. I don't know if Militants are AQ or innocent civilians but I have to believe Obama is making every effort to avoid killing civilians.

I'm sure the President is cognizant of how targeting civilians would be reported in our press and in the press of other nations - doing so would not benefit him or our cause (cause being our self defense).

Making every effort? He's basically taken on a policy of assumption in drone strikes that anyone in a vicinity of a target could only possibly be a terrorist and nothing else.

That's making "every effort"?

You know this because you have a seat when the President discusses such actions with the Joint Chiefs?

His administration leaked this information to the New York Times.

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
 
Yep, I don't read salon.co. The link isn't very good, I couldn't scroll down to read the entire article though I tried several times. I don't know if Militants are AQ or innocent civilians but I have to believe Obama is making every effort to avoid killing civilians.

I'm sure the President is cognizant of how targeting civilians would be reported in our press and in the press of other nations - doing so would not benefit him or our cause (cause being our self defense).

Making every effort? He's basically taken on a policy of assumption in drone strikes that anyone in a vicinity of a target could only possibly be a terrorist and nothing else.

That's making "every effort"?

You know this because you have a seat when the President discusses such actions with the Joint Chiefs?

I don't need a seat at the table when his own administration is openly telling us just that.
 

Yep, I don't read salon.co. The link isn't very good, I couldn't scroll down to read the entire article though I tried several times. I don't know if Militants are AQ or innocent civilians but I have to believe Obama is making every effort to avoid killing civilians.

I'm sure the President is cognizant of how targeting civilians would be reported in our press and in the press of other nations - doing so would not benefit him or our cause (cause being our self defense).

Don't know why the site wouldn't work for you. It can be summed up with:

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"

This information came out of the New York Times report last week.

I did glean that much. The link opened but when I scrolled it wouldn't stop. I reloaded twice then gave up.

I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.
 
Last edited:
Mr Obama made it perfectly clear that he wouldn't do horrid things like torture enemies, or imprison them without (American law) due process.
Instead, he just kills them before any of that can happen. :eusa_whistle:



------------So instead of capturing the terrorists, getting important, life saving information from them and locking them away we just kill them and any innocent bystanders that happen to be nearby, how cheery. I am certain you are one of those who wanted GB and Cheney arrested and tried for war crimes for having the CIA throw water in the faces of barbaric killers.

I have to admit, I don't have a total aversion to blowing terrorists into tiny bits of dog chow, however, dead men can't talk, and since Obama has come to power the flow of information from these sources has completely stopped.
 
Making every effort? He's basically taken on a policy of assumption in drone strikes that anyone in a vicinity of a target could only possibly be a terrorist and nothing else.

That's making "every effort"?

You know this because you have a seat when the President discusses such actions with the Joint Chiefs?

I don't need a seat at the table when his own administration is openly telling us just that.

Source?
 
Mr Obama made it perfectly clear that he wouldn't do horrid things like torture enemies, or imprison them without (American law) due process.
Instead, he just kills them before any of that can happen. :eusa_whistle:



------------So instead of capturing the terrorists, getting important, life saving information from them and locking them away we just kill them and any innocent bystanders that happen to be nearby, how cheery. I am certain you are one of those who wanted GB and Cheney arrested and tried for war crimes for having the CIA throw water in the faces of barbaric killers.

I have to admit, I don't have a total aversion to blowing terrorists into tiny bits of dog chow, however, dead men can't talk, and since Obama has come to power the flow of information from these sources has completely stopped.

I don't accept your premises as credible. Today some source provided the information which lead to blowing a terrorist into tiny bits, and not just any terrorists; a leader and planner who had command and control responsiblities.

I did object to water boarding. Neither Bush nor Chaney would have been subject to torture, but the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines they sent into harms way would have.
 
I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off. I say Well Done! Why don't you?
You we're were outraged when Bush did it right?
You we're outraged when Bush signed the Patriot Act right?

Why are you NOT outraged now? Because of Party Loyalty?

You see how we're being played?

march_of_tyranny.jpg
 
I don't recall your moral outrage when the Bush Administration sent cruise missiles into urban areas in Iraq in an effort (successfully I should add) to kill the sons of Saddam Hussein. Today one more head of the AQ snake was cut off. I say Well Done! Why don't you?
You we're were outraged when Bush did it right?
You we're outraged when Bush signed the Patriot Act right?

Why are you NOT outraged now? Because of Party Loyalty?

You see how we're being played?

march_of_tyranny.jpg

I was outraged when Bush sent cruise missiles into urban areas of Iraq in an effort to kill Saddam's sons. Neither they nor their father attacked our country.

The "Patriot Act" pissed me off much as "Homeland Security"; both struck me as terms one might expect to hear from Germany under the Nazis, I didn't object to the purpose of these tools (though I thought then and now local law enforcement was the proper agency to protect or nation. Adding one more level of bureaucracy made no sense).
 
Yep, I don't read salon.co. The link isn't very good, I couldn't scroll down to read the entire article though I tried several times. I don't know if Militants are AQ or innocent civilians but I have to believe Obama is making every effort to avoid killing civilians.

I'm sure the President is cognizant of how targeting civilians would be reported in our press and in the press of other nations - doing so would not benefit him or our cause (cause being our self defense).

Don't know why the site wouldn't work for you. It can be summed up with:

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males in a strike zone"

This information came out of the New York Times report last week.

I did glean that much. The link opened but when I scrolled it wouldn't stop. I reloaded twice then gave up.

I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html

I suppose those rescuers are "militants" by definition, since they were killed by drones.
 
Don't know why the site wouldn't work for you. It can be summed up with:



This information came out of the New York Times report last week.

I did glean that much. The link opened but when I scrolled it wouldn't stop. I reloaded twice then gave up.

I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html

I suppose those rescuers are "militants" by definition, since they were killed by drones.

I read the link but how does that link dispute what I wrote above?

I repeat with emphasis added:


I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.[/QUOTE]
 
[/quote]
------------So instead of capturing the terrorists, getting important, life saving information from them and locking them away we just kill them and any innocent bystanders that happen to be nearby, how cheery. I am certain you are one of those who wanted GB and Cheney arrested and tried for war crimes for having the CIA throw water in the faces of barbaric killers.

I have to admit, I don't have a total aversion to blowing terrorists into tiny bits of dog chow, however, dead men can't talk, and since Obama has come to power the flow of information from these sources has completely stopped.[/quote]

I don't accept your premises as credible. Today some source provided the information which lead to blowing a terrorist into tiny bits, and not just any terrorists; a leader and planner who had command and control responsiblities.



-----------So now what information can we obtain from him to intercept the next leader who will take his place? You might not consider it a credible premise but unless you can communicate with the dead, it was the best way of keeping tabs on these murders.

I did object to water boarding. Neither Bush nor Chaney would have been subject to torture, but the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines they sent into harms way would have.
[/QUOTE]

----------So that is your entire ideology, that unless we subject our own leaders to advanced interogation we shouldn't use it? Well Obama uses drones, does that mean we have to drop one on the Whitehouse just to be fair?
 
I did glean that much. The link opened but when I scrolled it wouldn't stop. I reloaded twice then gave up.

I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html

I suppose those rescuers are "militants" by definition, since they were killed by drones.

I read the link but how does that link dispute what I wrote above?

I repeat with emphasis added:


I suppose 'collateral damage' is to be expected, but to infer that Obama chooses to kill civilians with intent is a partisan inference and one not based any facts which have come to my attention.

Obama's policies are a long way from the carpet bombing of Napalm and Agent Orange used by our forces in Vietnam, a nation which didn't attack us in any way. I hate war but believe Obama's efforts to cut the head off the viper that is AQ is just, appropriate and necessary.

Bombing mourners, and then changing the definition of the term "militant," indicates that he is targeting civilians, and then lying about it to keep the official numbers down.
 
Black Obamney is going to have to review his ugly Americanisms, IF he gets re-elected, since he isn't going to have enough money, to get US Armed Forces personnel partly or all blown up, on the road, without the obnoxious drone program.

If only black Obamney were smart enough to review the USS Liberty incident, 1967. Our liberties were doomed, by that event, whitewashed by the US, while Israel invaded, to gain territory.

Our conflicts in the Middle East are exacerbated, by costly support, for Israel, which then accrues hidden costs, and assesses these, in spades.
 

Forum List

Back
Top