US Drones Kill 28 "Unknowns" for Every Intended Target

[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.

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think they (Muslim terrorists) would be upset about killing a few more Americans than they had planned to kill? Hell, they would just consider those extra deaths a "bonus". What is the problem?

I think racist Americans have overreacted to the terrorist attacks of 911 by blaming all 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide for the actions of 15 Saudis. Perhaps more Americans should stop hating and start thinking about how they would feel if it were their children being confused with bug splats?

" In a lush field outside Pakistan's northwestern city of Peshawar, the face of a little girl stares up at the clouds, her eyes searching for the whirring machines that destroyed her family.

"Her face -- a picture of innocence -- adorns a giant poster that has been printed out by a group of artist-activists in Pakistan as part of a project, known as #NotABugSplat, to humanize victims of the controversial U.S. drone program in Pakistan's restive tribal region."
Not a bug splat Artists give drone victims a face in Pakistan - CNN.com

And, I think that those 1.7 billion Muslims created, or tolerated, an environment that allowed such a despicable action. Pretty sure that eliminates them from the 'innocent' category.

How many innocents are killed every day by Muslim extremists? How many Muslims tolerate these terrorists acting in their name?

What a dumb argument. You're essentially saying that hostages are as guilty as their captors because they "tolerate" being kidnapped and don't do something that might get themselves killed.

 

[Spare_change]

You think they (Muslim terrorists) would be upset about killing a few more Americans than they had planned to kill? Hell, they would just consider those extra deaths a "bonus". What is the problem?

I think racist Americans have overreacted to the terrorist attacks of 911 by blaming all 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide for the actions of 15 Saudis. Perhaps more Americans should stop hating and start thinking about how they would feel if it were their children being confused with bug splats?

" In a lush field outside Pakistan's northwestern city of Peshawar, the face of a little girl stares up at the clouds, her eyes searching for the whirring machines that destroyed her family.

"Her face -- a picture of innocence -- adorns a giant poster that has been printed out by a group of artist-activists in Pakistan as part of a project, known as #NotABugSplat, to humanize victims of the controversial U.S. drone program in Pakistan's restive tribal region."
Not a bug splat Artists give drone victims a face in Pakistan - CNN.com

And, I think that those 1.7 billion Muslims created, or tolerated, an environment that allowed such a despicable action. Pretty sure that eliminates them from the 'innocent' category.

How many innocents are killed every day by Muslim extremists? How many Muslims tolerate these terrorists acting in their name?

What a dumb argument. You're essentially saying that hostages are as guilty as their captors because they "tolerate" being kidnapped and don't do something that might get themselves killed.

What an incredibly perverted rendition of what I said .... it fits your purpose, even if it has nothing to do with what I said. PLEASE tell me that you did it on purpose, and that your thought processes aren't THAT distorted.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

You are NOT holding the US to a higher standard - you are creating a mythical criteria, ensuring it can't be met, and, thus, giving you a chance to pontificate from on high.

YOU say that "Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians" despite the fact that most historians agree that this action brought a quicker end to the war, and negated the need for a military invasion of the Japanese mainland, estimated to have cost another 500 - 750 thousand lives. (You'll notice I avoided embarrassing you by pointing out that, in fact, "hundreds of thousands" of Japanese weren't vaporized. The actual number was about 80,000. So, we traded 80,000 lives for 500,000 lives) Not everything is as black and white as you wish to paint it.

YOU say that FDR was 'bad' for putting an end to the WWII - even knowing that, had the war continued, many, many thousands more would have died.

I would suggest your problem is with your arbitrary definition of 'innocents'. Those who allow - or encourage - terrorism forfeit their innocence.

 

[Spare_change]

And, I think that those 1.7 billion Muslims created, or tolerated, an environment that allowed such a despicable action. Pretty sure that eliminates them from the 'innocent' category.

Hypocrites blame the world's Muslim population for the actions of 15 Saudis without accepting responsibility for the much greater crimes committed by their own government in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Palestine.

The greatest purveyor of violence in the world isn't innocent either.

Now, THAT is funny, I don't care who you are.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think they (Muslim terrorists) would be upset about killing a few more Americans than they had planned to kill? Hell, they would just consider those extra deaths a "bonus". What is the problem?

I think racist Americans have overreacted to the terrorist attacks of 911 by blaming all 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide for the actions of 15 Saudis. Perhaps more Americans should stop hating and start thinking about how they would feel if it were their children being confused with bug splats?

" In a lush field outside Pakistan's northwestern city of Peshawar, the face of a little girl stares up at the clouds, her eyes searching for the whirring machines that destroyed her family.

"Her face -- a picture of innocence -- adorns a giant poster that has been printed out by a group of artist-activists in Pakistan as part of a project, known as #NotABugSplat, to humanize victims of the controversial U.S. drone program in Pakistan's restive tribal region."
Not a bug splat Artists give drone victims a face in Pakistan - CNN.com

And, I think that those 1.7 billion Muslims created, or tolerated, an environment that allowed such a despicable action. Pretty sure that eliminates them from the 'innocent' category.

How many innocents are killed every day by Muslim extremists? How many Muslims tolerate these terrorists acting in their name?

What a dumb argument. You're essentially saying that hostages are as guilty as their captors because they "tolerate" being kidnapped and don't do something that might get themselves killed.

What an incredibly perverted rendition of what I said .... it fits your purpose, even if it has nothing to do with what I said. PLEASE tell me that you did it on purpose, and that your thought processes aren't THAT distorted.

Feel free to explain what you said then.

 

[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.

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

You are NOT holding the US to a higher standard - you are creating a mythical criteria, ensuring it can't be met, and, thus, giving you a chance to pontificate from on high.

YOU say that "Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians" despite the fact that most historians agree that this action brought a quicker end to the war, and negated the need for a military invasion of the Japanese mainland, estimated to have cost another 500 - 750 thousand lives. (You'll notice I avoided embarrassing you by pointing out that, in fact, "hundreds of thousands" of Japanese weren't vaporized. The actual number was about 80,000. So, we traded 80,000 lives for 500,000 lives) Not everything is as black and white as you wish to paint it.

YOU say that FDR was 'bad' for putting an end to the WWII - even knowing that, had the war continued, many, many thousands more would have died.

I would suggest your problem is with your arbitrary definition of 'innocents'. Those who allow - or encourage - terrorism forfeit their innocence.

It's not that I'm creating a mythical criteria, it's that you're trying to give a special pass to the U.S. If anybody else went around killing innocent civilians the way the U.S. does they'd be labeled terrorists or the second-coming of Hitler. Yet the U.S. government does it and suddenly it's unreasonable to say that killing innocent people is wrong.

There's no such thing as "allowing" terrorism. It's not as if the actual terrorists ask the permission of the average person simply trying to live their lives.

As for the nuclear bomb, Japan was trying to surrender before they were nuked. That would have negated the so-called "need" for any invasion of Japan.

 

[Spare_change]

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

You are NOT holding the US to a higher standard - you are creating a mythical criteria, ensuring it can't be met, and, thus, giving you a chance to pontificate from on high.

YOU say that "Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians" despite the fact that most historians agree that this action brought a quicker end to the war, and negated the need for a military invasion of the Japanese mainland, estimated to have cost another 500 - 750 thousand lives. (You'll notice I avoided embarrassing you by pointing out that, in fact, "hundreds of thousands" of Japanese weren't vaporized. The actual number was about 80,000. So, we traded 80,000 lives for 500,000 lives) Not everything is as black and white as you wish to paint it.

YOU say that FDR was 'bad' for putting an end to the WWII - even knowing that, had the war continued, many, many thousands more would have died.

I would suggest your problem is with your arbitrary definition of 'innocents'. Those who allow - or encourage - terrorism forfeit their innocence.

It's not that I'm creating a mythical criteria, it's that you're trying to give a special pass to the U.S. If anybody else went around killing innocent civilians the way the U.S. does they'd be labeled terrorists or the second-coming of Hitler. Yet the U.S. government does it and suddenly it's unreasonable to say that killing innocent people is wrong.

There's no such thing as "allowing" terrorism. It's not as if the actual terrorists ask the permission of the average person simply trying to live their lives.

As for the nuclear bomb, Japan was trying to surrender before they were nuked. That would have negated the so-called "need" for any invasion of Japan.

No such thing as 'allowing' terrorism? Interesting - wrong, but interesting. Have you had the chance to visit Iraq or Afghanistan? There is an active submission to the terrorists - a tacit acceptance of it. Further, the average Iraqi or Afghani, if asked, will provide active support to terrorist activities. you can either be for terrorism, or against terrorism - there is no middle ground. How do you suppose it is possible for over 8,000 Iraqis to die at terrorists' hands in 2013, or 5,000 Afghanis to die? Only through a tacit and active acceptance of those who commit the crimes.

How many Germans do you suppose actively opposed the Holocaust? Are they innocent, too?

Now - about the nuclear bomb - your view of history is skewed. Perhaps you should review the preparations being made in Japan prior to Hiroshima.

 

[Billo_Really]

you can either be for terrorism, or against terrorism - there is no middle ground.

Drone strikes is US terrorism.

 

[georgephillip]

What an incredibly perverted rendition of what I said .... it fits your purpose, even if it has nothing to do with what I said

You asked, "how many innocents are killed everyday by Muslim extremists? How many Muslims tolerate these terrorists acting in their name?"

Since the majority of Muslims have no political or social means of control over their captors, many of whom possess heavy weapons supplied by the US, justify your own perverted rendition of reality before projecting it onto others.

"Research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent news organisation based at City University, London, has found that only 12% of victims of US drone strikes in Pakistan could be identified as militants.

"In a report, released by the organisation on Thursday, researchers also found that fewer than 4% of those killed have been identified as members of al Qaeda."

http://www.newsweek.com/only-12-pakistani-drone-strike-victims-identified-militants-278080

 

[georgephillip]

Now, THAT is funny, I don't care who you are

Sieg Heil

 

[georgephillip]

How do you suppose it is possible for over 8,000 Iraqis to die at terrorists' hands in 2013, or 5,000 Afghanis to die? Only through a tacit and active acceptance of those who commit the crimes.

How do you suppose "the supreme international crime" committed by the US in 2003 affected terrorism levels in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade later?
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war 'essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'[2]

The US invasions of two Muslim states on the opposite side of the planet from its homeland was and still is the prime source of Islamic terrorism around the globe.

Those two acts of state sponsored terrorism contained within themselves the accumulated evil of the whole, and that Evil will eventually come home to roost.

War of aggression - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

Comparing it to the holocaust? I'm on your side, I want out of the middle east entirely. But that's ridiculous and counter productive because you just look loony.

 

[kaz]

you can either be for terrorism, or against terrorism - there is no middle ground.

Drone strikes is US terrorism.

Yet when it comes to taking that argument home to the guy making the decision to do it, crickets. It's amazing that none of you leftists arguing against this that I've seen have even mentioned him. And you vote for him.

W sucked, here's a difference. I did not vote for him, either time. This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yet when it comes to taking that argument home to the guy making the decision to do it, crickets. It's amazing that none of you leftists arguing against this that I've seen have even mentioned him.

It kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? The problem isn't just him. The majority of the right, support these drone strikes. Look at all dumbass righties in this very thread playing Walker, Texas Ranger.

Do you support drone strikes? Yes or no?

And you vote for him.

So what? I also voted for Reagan, but I can't take that vote back either.

W sucked, here's a difference. I did not vote for him, either time. This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong.

That sounds like a line from Talladega Nights.

 

[kaz]

Yet when it comes to taking that argument home to the guy making the decision to do it, crickets. It's amazing that none of you leftists arguing against this that I've seen have even mentioned him.

It kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? The problem isn't just him. The majority of the right, support these drone strikes. Look at all dumbass righties in this very thread playing Walker, Texas Ranger.

Do you support drone strikes? Yes or no?

And you vote for him.

So what? I also voted for Reagan, but I can't take that vote back either.

W sucked, here's a difference. I did not vote for him, either time. This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong.

That sounds like a line from Talladega Nights.

When you oppose W you have no problem saying is name. When you oppose Obama, you don't say his name and you vote for him. And you keep blaming Republicans ... for what Obama is doing. ...

"The majority of the right, support these drone strikes."

And no, I don't support drone strikes, which is why I said "This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong." You hold your politicians to no accountability.

Also, apparently voting for Reagan among liberals was like going to Woodstock. You were all there. Apparently he won with all the vote. Amazing. Problem is I don't remember him getting all the vote. Not sure how that works that no one voted against him, yet a lot of people voted against him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

You are NOT holding the US to a higher standard - you are creating a mythical criteria, ensuring it can't be met, and, thus, giving you a chance to pontificate from on high.

YOU say that "Truman was a bad guy for ordering the unnecessary vaporization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians" despite the fact that most historians agree that this action brought a quicker end to the war, and negated the need for a military invasion of the Japanese mainland, estimated to have cost another 500 - 750 thousand lives. (You'll notice I avoided embarrassing you by pointing out that, in fact, "hundreds of thousands" of Japanese weren't vaporized. The actual number was about 80,000. So, we traded 80,000 lives for 500,000 lives) Not everything is as black and white as you wish to paint it.

YOU say that FDR was 'bad' for putting an end to the WWII - even knowing that, had the war continued, many, many thousands more would have died.

I would suggest your problem is with your arbitrary definition of 'innocents'. Those who allow - or encourage - terrorism forfeit their innocence.

It's not that I'm creating a mythical criteria, it's that you're trying to give a special pass to the U.S. If anybody else went around killing innocent civilians the way the U.S. does they'd be labeled terrorists or the second-coming of Hitler. Yet the U.S. government does it and suddenly it's unreasonable to say that killing innocent people is wrong.

There's no such thing as "allowing" terrorism. It's not as if the actual terrorists ask the permission of the average person simply trying to live their lives.

As for the nuclear bomb, Japan was trying to surrender before they were nuked. That would have negated the so-called "need" for any invasion of Japan.

No such thing as 'allowing' terrorism? Interesting - wrong, but interesting. Have you had the chance to visit Iraq or Afghanistan? There is an active submission to the terrorists - a tacit acceptance of it. Further, the average Iraqi or Afghani, if asked, will provide active support to terrorist activities. you can either be for terrorism, or against terrorism - there is no middle ground. How do you suppose it is possible for over 8,000 Iraqis to die at terrorists' hands in 2013, or 5,000 Afghanis to die? Only through a tacit and active acceptance of those who commit the crimes.

How many Germans do you suppose actively opposed the Holocaust? Are they innocent, too?

Now - about the nuclear bomb - your view of history is skewed. Perhaps you should review the preparations being made in Japan prior to Hiroshima.

So those people who died simply accepted the fact that they were going to be murdered. It's their fault. That makes sense.

Probably not many. By the time the Holocaust began Hitler had already consolidated power. Are members of the White Rose guilty of the crimes of Hitler?

Perhaps you should review how Japan was reaching out to the Soviet Union to surrender and end the war before the Soviets could get involved in the Pacific.

 

[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.

Well, actually it does become good .... your naivete is only exceeded by your unwillingness to accept the reality of evil.

I am willing to accept the reality of evil: the evil of killing innocent civilians. You don't get to complain about evil while trying to justify killing innocent people.

I'll mention that to 3 million Jews the next time I see them -

Who's trying to justify the Holocaust? It was evil for Hitler to go after innocent people. I'm sorry I hold the U.S. to the same standard, or higher since they purport to represent me.

Comparing it to the holocaust? I'm on your side, I want out of the middle east entirely. But that's ridiculous and counter productive because you just look loony.

And since I didn't compare it to the Holocaust, and didn't bring it up, Spare Change did, I'm not sure what the issue is.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet when it comes to taking that argument home to the guy making the decision to do it, crickets. It's amazing that none of you leftists arguing against this that I've seen have even mentioned him.

It kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? The problem isn't just him. The majority of the right, support these drone strikes. Look at all dumbass righties in this very thread playing Walker, Texas Ranger.

Do you support drone strikes? Yes or no?

And you vote for him.

So what? I also voted for Reagan, but I can't take that vote back either.

W sucked, here's a difference. I did not vote for him, either time. This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong.

That sounds like a line from Talladega Nights.

HEY MORON... THE PRESIDENT IS A DEMOCRAT!!!! HIS NAME IS OBAMA. THE POTUS IS IN CHARGE OF THE DRONE STRIKES. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NO SAY IN THIS SHIT FOR THE LAST 6YEARS YA RETARD!!!

 

[kaz]

W sucked, here's a difference. I did not vote for him, either time. This is why even when liberals are right, you're wrong.

That sounds like a line from Talladega Nights.

HEY MORON... THE PRESIDENT IS A DEMOCRAT!!!! HIS NAME IS OBAMA. THE POTUS IS IN CHARGE OF THE DRONE STRIKES. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NO SAY IN THIS SHIT FOR THE LAST 6YEARS YA RETARD!!!

It is amazing, isn't it? They have no ability to take responsibility for their own actions at all, do they?