Bush drone attacks targeted mourners and rescuers.
 

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_...singleton/.com

NOT, actually it was the Nobel Peace Prize winner

Who cares who it was?

well played.

Let God sort them:salute:

If they're combatants I don't care if they're mourning or rescuing... Though that was a nice switcheroo there! :DL

There were probably pillocks in the middle east saying that after 9/11.

Bush drones ? It is worldwide percepted as US drones, this is not about a president, at least not outside of the US.
I guess the CIA does not give a sh!t about who temporarily is president, of the USA ?
Yeah it's not a war crime since the US is not at war with Pakistan ?
Defending freedom [sic!] all over the world. Whose freedom ?

They kill innocent civilians as well (282 drone attacks?), they do it abroad in countries not at war with, without even knowing of its government, and kill bystanding civilians, and sometimes only them (since it just was a miscalculation, or a not quite perfect strike).
Kill from above, godlike, no trial, collateral damage obviously intended for deterrence or just not cared about.
I am sure this is as legal as it gets.

Or is this only a clever Obama trick to win the hearts of the republican voters ?
:hmmm:

Well, drones are relatively cheap and even RC-steered very small things might do a lot of damage. "They" are really learning, and fast.
Interesting times ahead.

Its a clever trick to show that some people are the same as the al-qaida supporters.

You mean, in choosing of their means of killing ? :shifty:

Really, after all those promises of Obama and what "he" does now - but certainly it 's not him alone. A lot of presidential advisers are from the cold war days. As said before the guys who have the real power see the presidents come and go.

On the other hand i cannot quite imagine, that current republican supporters and a republican president would not have used drones, to kill insurgents abroad ? So this has a bit of hyocrisy ..

No, I mean in being brainless pillocks.
Its rather telling that Rivets line of "thought" comes straight from some historical crazy "religious" tossers who liked indiscriminate murder, which makes him just like the goatbotherers in talibanland.

Maybe its just it or maybe as a president he has a bit more insight than a next guy that reads NYT or watches Fox news.
Its just a naive theory but worth taking into consideration as well.


I'm pretty sure that there are some considerations about the human and material coast of such conflict vs doing simply nothing.
Oh yeah... it possibly all about pleasing some blood thirsty republicans or/and making money on military spending.
Is it Soros ?

Guy in office building armed with ball point pen and flash drive with a desire outsell the competing firm

Guy in desert armed with AK-47 and RPG launcher with a desire to murder everyone from the competing religion




nope... no comparison, sorry

missile away:salute:

Your foolishness has undone you already.


Guy in office ....

Guy in desert ....

Who cares who it was?
Kill 'em all
that puts you firmly on the same level as these nice people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-GzAQWTsRI

Interesting article :hmmm:

So we were at the same level of the germans and japanese in ww2 then, too?

We area bombed. Our technique was heavy with "spillage" (the ww2 term for "collateral damage"). In many cases "spillage" was actually the point (RAF fire bombing in the ETO, and US firebombing in the PTO).

So by the same logic, the US, or anyone who supported the USAAF/RAF, was just the same as the enemy. Do I have that right?

errrrr,.....that would depend on what specificly you was talking about. On some things yes, on other things no.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

Errrrrr....no, nice attempt but you had better get that thing back in the field before the crows have a feast.

The price of cheese. Right.

You said:

The implication is that anyone in favor of attacking targets regardless of civilian deaths in that part of the world is no different than palestinian scumbags. I was not particularly upset when I first saw that video, because I already assumed (correctly, in retrospect, based on polling) that most muslims thought that way about us anyway. Remember that the point of the 9-11 attacks was to kill civilians, so celebrating that is celebrating that intentional attack. Collateral damage is unintentional. Motive matters. Who started it matters, too.

My point (which stands) is that in ww2, we (the allies) had precisely the same "bomb the needed targets, damn the casualties" attitude generally as espoused in the post that you responded to. This was a generally held view. The USAAF tried to mitigate civilian deaths with their insistence on "daylight, precision bombing," but they knew full well that "precise" meant 80% of the bombs hit within a few miles of the aim point. Least they tried, not that anyone with the prospect of fighting on the ground cared. So if that's a "bad" or "wrong" view to have now, it was just as wrong then.

Vs a suicidal enemy that was preparing to use women and children as combatants, and spread it's war industry literally into homes, we gave up on trying to avoid civilians, since the line between combatant and legitimate target became blurry. Even though we are in the same situation now, we still try rather harder than we need to to avoid "spillage."