US Drones Kill 28 "Unknowns" for Every Intended Target

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So does that make you a legitimate target for the jihadists then? If innocent civilians over there are legitimate targets then you and I must be as well.

When the failing foreign policy reaches the breaking point and the fight moves to the states, imo the liberals will change their tunes. Hypotheticals are not as real as facing the long knife or firing squads.

And how real is nonsensical fear-mongering?

Meh..i guess apathy and complacency is all you've got..when it's your life in the balance get back to me.

Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.

WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.

For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.

 

[Antares]

It's ok, Barak the Magic Negro is doing it.

 

[Spare_change]

time to get the hell out of the mid east and leave those people to their own design.

Yeah!!! **** 'em! Let 'em all die!!

Kill all those women!

Butcher all those kids!!

But, at least, your hands will be clean, right?

It's a utopian pipedream to think that the U.S. can go in and make things better. All that happens is the U.S. makes more enemies than they kill and destabilizes the region making it worse for the people they were allegedly trying to help. All the while conveniently making a certain group of people obscenely rich off the taxpayers and guaranteeing the war hawks in office big donations come election time.

Show me where it doesn't work -

Uhhh .... the whole goal is to destabilize the region, in order to create an environment in which the people to decide their own future. After all, Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam, Libya was stable under Gaddafi, Syria was really stable under Assad. Is that what you want? 2 million people a year dying under tyrants?

But, hey! What the hell - your hands are clean, right? All those kids dying? Who cares? You didn't pull the trigger. Of course, your inaction, the most obscene of war crimes, was directly responsible, but heck, your hands are clean, right?

 

[georgephillip]

Now, you're just making stuff up to try to deflect from the exposure of your ignorance .... man up and admit it.

"Obama is correct to argue that the international community has long drawn a 'red line' condemning the use of chemical weapons, but his point blurs the fact that his “red line” comment in August 2012 was made in the context of what it might take for the U.S. to get involved militarily in Syria."
How's that for some real manly ignorance?
Obama 8217 s Blurry Red Line

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course the argument is not that Qari Hussain was a nice guy justified in anything that he did. The argument is that if Hussain is a bad guy for killing civilians, then so are the people who killed civilians to get Hussain. Civilians in the Middle East are no less people and it's no less a crime to kill them.

So was FDR a bad guy because he killed millions of Europeans in his effort to get Hitler?

Yes, and Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Killing innocent people doesn't suddenly become good because you think you're doing it for a good cause, or because "we" did it or if we have nice little catch phrases like "war is hell." Killing innocent people is always wrong and always a crime against humanity.

So Abraham Lincoln should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity?

Absolutely. Along with McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, etc... etc...

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

 

[RKMBrown]

They've changed about as much as they have in 2thousand years.. none...

You think the level of violence in Iraq and Syria today hasn't changed much from the levels of 11 years ago?

Not that I'm aware up. Hell I don't think the level of violence in Chicago's changed much in the last 11years either.

 

[Darkwind]

So was FDR a bad guy because he killed millions of Europeans in his effort to get Hitler?

Yes, and Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Killing innocent people doesn't suddenly become good because you think you're doing it for a good cause, or because "we" did it or if we have nice little catch phrases like "war is hell." Killing innocent people is always wrong and always a crime against humanity.

So Abraham Lincoln should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity?

Absolutely. Along with McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, etc... etc...

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

It appears that the strawman is yours.

The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.

But you go with that if it helps you sleep.

The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.

In America, we call them metrosexuals.

 

[georgephillip]

LOL --- you take the World Socialist Web Site as a viable, honest resource???? Show me the numbers from a REAL source ... convenient, too, that the website is a socialist propaganda site short on truth and long on lies

Feel free to refute the claim made by the WSWS if you're smart enough.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

time to get the hell out of the mid east and leave those people to their own design.

Yeah!!! **** 'em! Let 'em all die!!

Kill all those women!

Butcher all those kids!!

But, at least, your hands will be clean, right?

It's a utopian pipedream to think that the U.S. can go in and make things better. All that happens is the U.S. makes more enemies than they kill and destabilizes the region making it worse for the people they were allegedly trying to help. All the while conveniently making a certain group of people obscenely rich off the taxpayers and guaranteeing the war hawks in office big donations come election time.

Show me where it doesn't work -

Uhhh .... the whole goal is to destabilize the region, in order to create an environment in which the people to decide their own future. After all, Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam, Libya was stable under Gaddafi, Syria was really stable under Assad. Is that what you want? 2 million people a year dying under tyrants?

But, hey! What the hell - your hands are clean, right? All those kids dying? Who cares? You didn't pull the trigger. Of course, your inaction, the most obscene of war crimes, was directly responsible, but heck, your hands are clean, right?

And now how many are dying in those destabilized regions as local warlords vie for power? Getting rid of bad people and making it so that worse people can come along and take power doesn't make you a good person. It makes you naive.

As for proof, look at the world. Libya is in the midst of a tribal civil war, ISIS is taking over Iraq, Assad, who the U.S. is still trying to overthrow, and Iran are the U.S. government's biggest allies in the fight against ISIS. Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside to know that Gaddhafi is gone and the people of Libya are now worse off? How about in Iraq? Saddam was bad, but now they have ISIS. But your hands are clean because you had only the noblest of intentions, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, and Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. Killing innocent people doesn't suddenly become good because you think you're doing it for a good cause, or because "we" did it or if we have nice little catch phrases like "war is hell." Killing innocent people is always wrong and always a crime against humanity.

So Abraham Lincoln should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity?

Absolutely. Along with McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, etc... etc...

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

It appears that the strawman is yours.

The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.

But you go with that if it helps you sleep.

The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.

In America, we call them metrosexuals.

So I'm making a straw-man about my own argument? That makes sense. We're discussing the innocent civilians killed in the course of the U.S. government's drone operations. To compare those innocent civilians to the "nest of thugs" in your analogy obviously makes no sense, and is a complete straw-man of what I'm saying. Nowhere did I indicate that I take issue with killing bad people, merely that killing innocent people in the process is not worth it.

 

[Bonita Louise]

When the failing foreign policy reaches the breaking point and the fight moves to the states, imo the liberals will change their tunes. Hypotheticals are not as real as facing the long knife or firing squads.

And how real is nonsensical fear-mongering?

Meh..i guess apathy and complacency is all you've got..when it's your life in the balance get back to me.

Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.

WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.

For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.

They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.

 

[Darkwind]

So Abraham Lincoln should have been prosecuted for crimes against humanity?

Absolutely. Along with McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, etc... etc...

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

It appears that the strawman is yours.

The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.

But you go with that if it helps you sleep.

The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.

In America, we call them metrosexuals.

So I'm making a straw-man about my own argument? That makes sense. We're discussing the innocent civilians killed in the course of the U.S. government's drone operations. To compare those innocent civilians to the "nest of thugs" in your analogy obviously makes no sense, and is a complete straw-man of what I'm saying. Nowhere did I indicate that I take issue with killing bad people, merely that killing innocent people in the process is not worth it.

I guess you have no room in your thought process for intent.

Its worth it to many more of us because in the end, it keeps ours safe.

Have a nice night as I have to run.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And how real is nonsensical fear-mongering?

Meh..i guess apathy and complacency is all you've got..when it's your life in the balance get back to me.

Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.

WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.

For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.

They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.

Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Absolutely. Along with McKinley, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, etc... etc...

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

It appears that the strawman is yours.

The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.

But you go with that if it helps you sleep.

The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.

In America, we call them metrosexuals.

So I'm making a straw-man about my own argument? That makes sense. We're discussing the innocent civilians killed in the course of the U.S. government's drone operations. To compare those innocent civilians to the "nest of thugs" in your analogy obviously makes no sense, and is a complete straw-man of what I'm saying. Nowhere did I indicate that I take issue with killing bad people, merely that killing innocent people in the process is not worth it.

I guess you have no room in your thought process for intent.

Its worth it to many more of us because in the end, it keeps ours safe.

Have a nice night as I have to run.

This idea of intent seems to be a convenient excuse. Kill an innocent civilian and just assume they had the intent to attack the United States. Real convenient, if entirely ridiculous.

 

[georgephillip]

Not that I'm aware up. Hell I don't think the level of violence in Chicago's changed much in the last 11years either.

"Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war."

So would you rather have lived in Iraq or Chicago for the last 11 years?

PLOS Medicine Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003 2011 War and Occupation Findings from a National Cluster Sample Survey by the University Collaborative Iraq Mortality Study

 

[Spare_change]

LOL --- you take the World Socialist Web Site as a viable, honest resource???? Show me the numbers from a REAL source ... convenient, too, that the website is a socialist propaganda site short on truth and long on lies

Feel free to refute the claim made by the WSWS if you're smart enough.

I can't think of any reason I should waste my time refuting ignorance and propaganda ... you want me to point out your ignorance, again? Fortunately, the people who read this trash is few, and the people who actually believe it or even fewer.

Irrelevant, is the first word that comes to mind.

 

[Spare_change]

Following your asinine doctrine, a man who kills someone who is about to kill his children in his own home would be a war criminal.

Get back to Me when you actually have something good to say about America.

Lovely straw man, but no. Following my doctrine, if you want to call it that, a man who shoots a man who enters his home to kill his children, and then goes to that man's home and kills his children and then goes next door and kills his neighbors as well is no better than the man who broke into his home.

It appears that the strawman is yours.

The analogy would be that the man breaks into a house and gets himself killed, and then the defender gets his friends and family and invades the nest of the thugs who the dead man hung out with, and stops them from harming anyone else.

But you go with that if it helps you sleep.

The world is an mean and nasty place, and if you wish to survive in it, you need to be willing to do what it takes to keep you and yours safe. Your piss-poor equivalencies are nothing but a means to justify an unmanly squeamishness to stand up and defend what is right.

In America, we call them metrosexuals.

So I'm making a straw-man about my own argument? That makes sense. We're discussing the innocent civilians killed in the course of the U.S. government's drone operations. To compare those innocent civilians to the "nest of thugs" in your analogy obviously makes no sense, and is a complete straw-man of what I'm saying. Nowhere did I indicate that I take issue with killing bad people, merely that killing innocent people in the process is not worth it.

I guess you have no room in your thought process for intent.

Its worth it to many more of us because in the end, it keeps ours safe.

Have a nice night as I have to run.

This idea of intent seems to be a convenient excuse. Kill an innocent civilian and just assume they had the intent to attack the United States. Real convenient, if entirely ridiculous.

The idea of 'innocent civilian' seems to be a convenient foil.

 

[Spare_change]

time to get the hell out of the mid east and leave those people to their own design.

Yeah!!! **** 'em! Let 'em all die!!

Kill all those women!

Butcher all those kids!!

But, at least, your hands will be clean, right?

It's a utopian pipedream to think that the U.S. can go in and make things better. All that happens is the U.S. makes more enemies than they kill and destabilizes the region making it worse for the people they were allegedly trying to help. All the while conveniently making a certain group of people obscenely rich off the taxpayers and guaranteeing the war hawks in office big donations come election time.

Show me where it doesn't work -

Uhhh .... the whole goal is to destabilize the region, in order to create an environment in which the people to decide their own future. After all, Iraq was pretty stable under Saddam, Libya was stable under Gaddafi, Syria was really stable under Assad. Is that what you want? 2 million people a year dying under tyrants?

But, hey! What the hell - your hands are clean, right? All those kids dying? Who cares? You didn't pull the trigger. Of course, your inaction, the most obscene of war crimes, was directly responsible, but heck, your hands are clean, right?

And now how many are dying in those destabilized regions as local warlords vie for power? Getting rid of bad people and making it so that worse people can come along and take power doesn't make you a good person. It makes you naive.

As for proof, look at the world. Libya is in the midst of a tribal civil war, ISIS is taking over Iraq, Assad, who the U.S. is still trying to overthrow, and Iran are the U.S. government's biggest allies in the fight against ISIS. Does it make you all warm and fuzzy inside to know that Gaddhafi is gone and the people of Libya are now worse off? How about in Iraq? Saddam was bad, but now they have ISIS. But your hands are clean because you had only the noblest of intentions, right?

Surprisingly, you make a very good point ... for me.

Premature removal of US troops created the power vacuum that has created the internecine warfare between the warlords, and allowed the evolution of ISIS. It is the failures of the current administration that has created this ... it is the attempt by this administration to mollify high-minded, but morally blind, leftists, such as yourself, that has caused the deaths.

Guess your hands aren't so clean after all, huh?

 

[Bonita Louise]

Meh..i guess apathy and complacency is all you've got..when it's your life in the balance get back to me.

Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.

WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.

For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.

They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.

Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.

I do apologize for that..i am multitasking today. I think i was posting from a position of not back reading enough. I am not in favor of the political wars either. But if you don't think the threats of genocide of all infidels by the terrorist in those countries and many others are not reason enough to go on defensive offense, what do you think we should do.. wait till they have the nukes.

 

[Bonita Louise]

Meh..i guess apathy and complacency is all you've got..when it's your life in the balance get back to me.

Empathy is the word you're looking for. I have empathy for all innocent civilians killed by sociopathic nut jobs: American, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc... etc... Regardless, my life is not threatened by innocent goat herders in Yemen, at least until the government that purports to represent me blows up their families in my name.

WTH..i gave no reference to any of that..you are reading way to much into my posts..good grief..
I have a 3 strikes rule to posters who do that. That's 2 balls..do you got any left, lol.

For starters, I couldn't care less about your personal policies regarding posting, or your grade school insults. Secondly, you made claims about how I feel about a certain situation incorrectly, and I corrected you as to my actual feelings on the issue. I am not apathetic, but rather empathetic. That was in direct reference to what you said, and is there in the quote for all to see.

They are not necessarily exclusive of each other ..but i'll take your word for it as you're the one that has to live in your skin. BTW, my comment was a general assessment of those that don't want people to defend their country or their countrymen, not you personally.

Well you quoted me and said "you." Kind of hard not to assume you're talking directly to me. As for defending their country, nobody in the Middle East is defending anything. The U.S. was never threatened by Assad, Hussein, or Gaddhafi.

Do you think defending human rights and interceding in genocides are worthy causes?