What Would Happen If We Plastered Pictures Of Victims Of Drone Attacks All Over The Media

[mudwhistle]

I dont get the point of this thread at all. Is the OP mad at the media for not reporting what the republicans are not putting out there?

Is the OP mad about Drone Strikes and torture? Or mad about just one?

If you were to ask me if I preferred tortured terrorists over dead babies ... Would the answer make a difference to you?

.

Obama can kill all he wants, but don't you dare yell at them. No no no!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Act

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

 

[BlackSand]

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

You are only trying to debate by making invalid conclusions. If you support one program over the other state your potion and reasons.

I personally prefer tortured terrorists over dead babies. If given the overall choice ... I would prefer shooting the terrorists and leaving them dead on the battlefield over capturing them, torturing them and then letting them go.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Act

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

There were over 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and Republicans considered them peripheral damage

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

You are only trying to debate by making invalid conclusions. If you support one program over the other state your potion and reasons.

I personally prefer tortured terrorists over dead babies. If given the overall choice ... I would prefer shooting the terrorists and leaving them dead on the battlefield over capturing them, torturing them and then letting them go.

.

Do you want me to prove that mudwhistle doesn't object to attacks that kill civilians when Obama isn't doing them?

 

[BlackSand]

Do you want me to prove that mudwhistle doesn't object to attacks that kill civilians when Obama isn't doing them?

Uh ... That is not what I asked you to do at all ... I asked you state your positions on both issues and the reasons why.

Feel free to do so ... Or accept you have contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you want me to prove that mudwhistle doesn't object to attacks that kill civilians when Obama isn't doing them?

Uh ... That is not what I asked you to do at all ... I asked you state your positions on both issues and the reasons why.

Feel free to do so ... Or accept you have contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion.

.

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

 

[rightwinger]

Options for pursuing terrorists in other countries

1. Ignore them
2. Invade the country and build a new nation
3. SEAL team strikes
4. Bombing
5. Drone strike

Which option do Conservatives prefer?

 

[BlackSand]

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Is that your positions on drone strikes and terrorist torture and the reasons why ... Or are still trying to argue about an irrelevant point to either matter?

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Is that your positions on drone strikes and terrorist torture and the reasons why ... Or are still trying to argue about an irrelevant point to either matter?

.

I support drone strikes and oppose torture. Happy now?

 

[BlackSand]

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Is that your positions on drone strikes and terrorist torture and the reasons why ... Or are still trying to argue about an irrelevant point to either matter?

.

I support drone strikes and oppose torture. Happy now?

Any particular reasons why in both cases?
What would you choose as an alternative to either?

And don't feel you need to answer to make me happy ... My happiness is certainly not dependent on anything you can provide.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

Act

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

Not exactly. The problem I have is I can't stomach the constant hypocrisy on full display here.

 

[mudwhistle]

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Is that your positions on drone strikes and terrorist torture and the reasons why ... Or are still trying to argue about an irrelevant point to either matter?

.

I support drone strikes and oppose torture. Happy now?

Kill em, don't yell at them. Got it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you want me to prove that mudwhistle doesn't object to attacks that kill civilians when Obama isn't doing them?

Uh ... That is not what I asked you to do at all ... I asked you state your positions on both issues and the reasons why.

Feel free to do so ... Or accept you have contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion.

.

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Phoney what?

 

[Siete]

Act

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

Not exactly. The problem I have is I can't stomach the constant hypocrisy on full display here.

you mean like the 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill the Republicans passed after the right has been bitching about the debt all week. THAT hypocrisy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Act

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).:

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

Not exactly. The problem I have is I can't stomach the constant hypocrisy on full display here.

Then quit posting. You're a major source of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You accused me of an invalid conclusion. I've concluded that mudwhistle is a phoney.

Is that your positions on drone strikes and terrorist torture and the reasons why ... Or are still trying to argue about an irrelevant point to either matter?

.

I support drone strikes and oppose torture. Happy now?

Kill em, don't yell at them. Got it.

That you don't know the difference between a combatant in the field and a prisoner is a problem you need to remedy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Act

You can read a license plate from 25 miles out with some drones, so they know what they're firing at.

Which means nothing relative to what I posted.

Actually firing on a target with a drone isn't like firing a Scud. They have eyes on the target and can make out women and children from a pretty far distance.

You're only objecting to civilian casualties because it's Obama in charge.

Not exactly. The problem I have is I can't stomach the constant hypocrisy on full display here.

you mean like the 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill the Republicans passed after the right has been bitching about the debt all week. THAT hypocrisy?

Well, one needs to read the bill before they can say that. Have you read it yet?

I'm still trying to research this. I hear conflicting reports on it. Obama is all for the spending bill, which makes be question it. What's being mostly reported is who is for and against it, not exactly what it contains.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Imagine what the world would think if Republicans started acting like Democrats and started exposing everything our presidents have done in the war on terror.

​

At the following links are pictures of the after-effects of Obama's drone strikes. WARNING: Some may become upset from the graphic nature of this pictures. Especially potential terrorists:

http://asiantribune.com/sites/asiantribune.com/files/images/2012/Drone_Attack_2.png

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1748373/thumbs/o-DRONE-STRIKE-facebook.jpg

http://hotterthanapileofcurry.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/drone-attack-pakistan-may-2012.jpg?w=500

http://newswatch.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Quetta-Hazara-24-Reuters-1024x636.jpg

Why would republicans do that when they agree with the president's actions? Why would they do that when the neo-cons are hellbent on defending "not torture"? To look even more foolish than they do right now?

You guys played right into the liberal hand on this one and painted yourself into a corner.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, but...but...Bush!