U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners
- Thread starter Wazzim
- Start date
- Status
Chuck (Old)
Banned
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Or Japan for that matter. Drop 2 A-bombs= love USA.
The US is in a state of self-loathing.
:/
I guess my problem is that it's always kind of in the eye of the beholder if it's "worth" to risk civilians lives.
Who can really tell how much damage has been prevented by killing Taliban leader "X" at that specific moment.
Joel Was Right
Member
Obama's father was Kenyan and so there is pride that the worlds most powerful man is half-Kenyan
el retorno
Member
Who the hell was in the towers that justified that attack?
Because I can tell you who was at that funeral.
Ahhh, so if there HAD been 1 person worthy of being targeted it would've been ok?
el retorno
Member
They were the people that were keeping this man who said this in their country as a guest.
I haven't seen any attacks since then so I think its clear that some damage as been prevented.
No. Nothing would have justified that attack.
Robot Pants
Member
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Same. It is weird to me that people will take whatever they see posted on the internet and take it as gospel as long as it fits their views.
Joel Was Right
Member
Off the top of my head I remember Lyndon Johnson invoking it during the Vietnam war. Here is an example.
So it's okay to kill civilians as long as you eventually get the guy you're after?
Choke on the Magic
Banned
I think a foreign airstrike that kill innocents is the reason we're even in the region in the first place. Just sayin.
SteveWinwood
Member
Waiting for you to sprinkle your magic and grace us with your great post in this thread.
Now off you go into the mists of the sky, never to be seen again here!
el retorno
Member
So the North Vietnamese were free people? My point is yes it's been used but that since were always fighting oppressive regimes we are fighting for "freedom."
That's not to say its not overused. Or sometimes silly.
Joel Was Right
Member
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
Look at the list of signatures on it
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Francis Fukuyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. Zoellick
It was reported that just a week after 9/11 happened, PNAC sent a letter to the White House
...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.
I seriously don't understand what this has to do with my post.
All I was saying is that people who try to talk tough on war and violence are pushovers.
War is no joke, pain is no fun, not for you but also not for the random foreigner on the other side of the globe.
Everybody's has a family, friends, hobby's, ambitions, childhood memories. Everybody has feelings.
Saying that someone with the kind heart to help injured people needs to expect to be hit by a missile themselves on the behalf of some far away government is one of the most unethical things a human being can ever think of.
Or the War of 1812, in which one slave-trading nation fought an empire that had banned the trade. Or the Mexican War, when the slave-trading US invaded the slave-free Mexico.
el retorno
Member
I thought we were talking about afganistan and pakistan?
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Not sure what this has to do with my comment on why we have troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Joel Was Right
Member
I assumed Choke on the Magic was alluding to the terrorist hijackings as the reason for the War on Terror in general
Riiiiiight, I forgot about that.
el retorno
Member
I never said war was good or easy. Or that killing innocent people while at the same time taking out guilty ones is something that is cut and dry. I'm actually in favor of drastically drawing down out effort over here.
I just don't like the notion that we can't defend ourselves (and before you say anything, these people have carried out attacks on american men and women who are in afganistand under NATO and united nations aproval) because their hiding behind a funeral. The treaties on war crimes agree.
I don't usually include Iraq in that because it wasn't because of 9/11 that we're over there. (Well it was but in a round about taking advantage of it way, though actually we never left)
Slave Trade ended in 1808 in the US. We still had slaves but so did british colonies. And Mexico invaded Texas.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
That is correct.
Oh my god; The terrorists that executed the 9/11 attacks are not from Pakistan or Afghanistan. There also is no evidence of their respective governments having any connections to these terrorists.
Joel Was Right
Member
If so, then my above comment isn't completely off-topic
It's sadly not very strange at all. The same thing happens in traditional print media, televised news, word of mouth etc. The majority of people rarely question the news that is given to them and simply accept it as long as it fits their narrative.
Always try and get your news from a variety of respectable, independent sources preferably on either side of the political spectrum in order to gain a balanced view. Try and include a variety of formats too.
Shooting rescuers is a war crime.
Killing injured combatants is a war crime.
What happens when a drone strike injures a member of the Taliban? You cannot kill that person.
(To make a general point not related to your post)
On top of all this, these drone strike are not very effective in curbing terrorism. You are creating more people who are sympathetic to the terrorists and their cause, by killing civilians. Not to mention inciting a clusterfuck of an insurgency in a country that has nuclear weapons.
The only real way for Pakistani nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists is if segments of the Pak Army were to mutiny against it's leaders and these segments having sympathies towards militants and militant groups.
That is a real possibility with these unpopular drone strikes testing the strength of and loyalty of lowly soldiers in the Pakistan Army (seen as essentially a Punjab army). Soldiers who operate in tribal areas are mostly Pashtun.
There is no question America is extremely unpopular in Pakistan, which naturally crosses over into the population of the military. Incidents like the Raymond Davis CIA operative gunning down two ISI agents, and the NATO airstrike on a Pakistani border point only makes things worse.
I don't understand why America continues to test the stability of Pakistan and it's army. It's a fucking nuclear nation, with historical ties to militants.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
No not completely, but it is a bit difficult to discern the point you're trying to make.
el retorno
Member
Wait, Wait, Wait....... really? The taliban refused to give up Bin Laden who was in their country.
I guess I'll just take your word for it.
And I'll post what you quoted again.
Rescuers have to be clearly marked with internationally recognized signs. And still that line clearly says that even if protected people are there it doesn't make it immune and illegal to fire on it. I doubt its the red crecent that's out there trying to help these people.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
bullshit. So OBL just took credit for something he wasn't behind right? The Taliban harbored him. Then Pakistan.
Keep smoking that good shit in Europe Wazzim.
Joel Was Right
Member
It's referenced in the actual post, that there was interest in the region long before 9/11, or in other words, there were ulterior motives involved - certainly the curious circumstances of the Iraqi expedition, and how it was portrayed under the memory of what happened in New York, would suggest so.
If you ask me though, it is impossible to defeat terrorism through military means. You may target those who choose to shelter terrorists who have done you harm, but the collateral can be so great you inevitably create more terrorists than you kill. You need not be a student of Descartes nor a general to appreciate that, hence why I think examples like PNAC are relevant whenever these type of threads appear.
el retorno
Member
Have there been other attacks? and are we doing other things?
You seem to be arguing we have no right to be over there because of what some people wrote about a different country.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...yep sounds like war to me.
You know what is curbing terrorism?
The government listening to every text, every call, every email.
Not these drone strikes. Most of the targets of these drone strikes are of Afghanistan Taliban(who are going to retake power when NATO leaves) and the Pakistani Taliban (who are not even fighting the Americans). There are so few Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan that it is not even worth it.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
So 9/11 was a catalyst, but you almost lean towards the notion that 9/11 was "allowed" to occur for those alterior motives. Which is something I can't buy into.
I agree with the idea that more collateral creates more terrorists. Creates a war industry that never ceases. I'm all for complete US withdrawal from that region btw. 10+ years is more than enough time imo.
bigboss370
Member
duuudes, kids are dying, kids! there's nothing that can justify that to me 
el retorno
Member
These drone strikes have nothing to do with saving american lives, they've done nothing. Yup.
That's why we keep doing them time and time again.
How do you even thing those Al Qaeda guys are dead? Old age? Or are you admiting that these work in taking those guys out?
scar tissue
Banned
Well, if an airstrike would've killed hitler and 50 innocents, I'd have pushed the button myself.
Yeah, godwin's law and all that. Come at me bro
Oracle Dragon
Member
Why when you read articles like these it's always "the drones" that have done the killing. They aren't automated, merely remotely piloted. It was a real live human being that pulled the trigger and killed those people. If this was done in a manned air strike, no one would be blaming the fighter jets... they would look squarely at the pilots.
Civilians including women and children being killed in war is both mundane and despicable. It happens all the time, because war is dirty, bloody, and indiscriminate. The US just tries to sugar coat it like it's a rare event because they like to use civilian killings to demonize opponents, but they are as guilty as any other military force.
Civilians including women and children being killed in war is both mundane and despicable. It happens all the time, because war is dirty, bloody, and indiscriminate. The US just tries to sugar coat it like it's a rare event because they like to use civilian killings to demonize opponents, but they are as guilty as any other military force.
And there's no possible way it will cause negative repercussions in the future, right? It's not like any of our other CIA-sponsored projects in the region have come to bite us in the ass decades later...
el retorno
Member
Umm drone or no drone, attacks are never really personified I've never really read an article about two pilots who launched missles its always "a missle was fired" or something like that. I don't know what kind of point your trying to make there.
Where did I say that? I just said they've worked and been helpful in out mission, to stop a lot innocent people from dying in terrorist attacks.
Maleficence
Member
America: Bringing the rest of the world freedom from life
I wonder what makes people in these countries that we slaughter civilians in turn to a life of terrorism. Could it be that they've lost everything and then know nothing but a life of exacting vengeance? What will it take to yank the steering wheel of this vile country out of the hands of cold murderers?
Compartmentalization!
el retorno
Member
Every terrorist is born just by an attack by Americans. Its not the twisted teaching and perverted interpretation of his religion that he's taught. Its not his poverty (of which the US gives nothing to fight), or anything else, its just those attacks. If we just left the region nobody would attack us from there again.
You don't understand the concept of blowback do you?
Please enlighten me how killing insurgents with the high potential of collateral damage and possibly destabilizing a nuclear power keeps Americans safe.
There were never many Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan to begin with and Mullah Omar fucking curses Osama bin Laden and his ilk now. He blames them for the Taliban losing their power.
- Status