2,305 killed by Obama in drone strikes in Pakistan by my count

[Bonobo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

I decided to count them up. I started counting kids separately too, but then I realized that almost none of them reported kids at all after some point.

When the numbers were given as a range, say "between 16 - 20", I counted it as 18.

When the numbers said "at least 20", I counted it as just 20.

I did not count wounded, so all in all this was a pretty conservative count.

Remember now, this is JUST Pakistan and just since Obama got in office.

2,305 people who did not shoot back and who were merely suspected.

Rules of combat do not apply. It is assassination by video game.

Two thousand three hundred and 5.

They all had family too. Feel safer?

Add up Yemen and Afghanistan now. Then add the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is a lot of blood and a lot of children blood and a lot of innocent blood.

People, remember what you expect and demand in a representative of your country --or at least what you grew up expecting.

Please come to your damned senses if you feel this can be defended morally.

[xchrom]

1. 'surgical' that poor, abused word. Nt

[sammy27932003]

60. If we were a licensed surgeon we would be in prison for malpractice.

[Victor_c3]

84. Yup, it makes it seem like war doesn't hurt anyone who isn't supposed to be hurt

I think I've replied to articles that you've posted in the past about this. But for the benefit of everyone else, I'll post it again.

In the 20th century, if you average all of the wars fought, for every once soldier killed in combat, ten civilians were killed as a result of combat.

So if you apply that 10:1 ratio to the 2,305 people were killed last year by drones, does that mean that only about 230 of them were actual "combatants"? Kind of appalling, isn't it.

I really hate to say anything negative about President Obama, but I can't believe that he was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I absolutely disagree with almost everything that he has done with our military and perpetuating bush's war of terror.

[quaker bill]

2. I still don't get it

The preoccupation with drones, that is. I just cannot see how it would be better to have killed this many people from manned aircraft. I am pretty sure manned aircraft killed folks who did not shoot back and were merely suspected, and I would bet a significant number were under 18 years old, and I suspect had families too.

[Bonobo]

4. It seems YOU are pre-occupied with them.

My post mentions drones as well as the wars at large.

I think that because they are drones, they are excused as being something less than a full on military strike (ala bombers, et al.).

That is what makes them somewhat more palatable, I guess, for folks.

Deal with the numbers I put out there even if you don't want to deal with the drones.

2,305 people in a sovereign nation not at war with us are dead and the Pakistanis hate the US with a red-hot burning passion.

It is terrifying to think that a silent, remotely operated machine that cannot be defended against is lurking in the clouds, spying on you and ready to shoot a missile at you if you pick up a rake.

That is why it is terror and YES, that is not the same as how a bomber would act.

Do you get that?

[quaker bill]

22. The title of the OP is the 2300 killed by drones

I think the half million or so killed by other means is more relevant.

[cpwm17]

109. Those 2300 human beings are extremely relevant to their friends and families

We need to stop this mass murder.

[Democracyinkind]

6. If you believe that the US would have killed 2,300 Pakistani citizens with regular aircraft, you're

quite deulusional.

Today we can positively assert that drones open possibilities to kill people that we haven't had before. We could not have killed as many people with regular aircraft in Pakistan without provoking a revolution within the country or without provoking them to end our alliance or even declare war on us.

This effect is documented in almost all scientific literature on the subject. The "if not for drones, we would have sent F18's" meme is a total canard. It is applicable only to a small subset of these operations.

[Bonobo]

8. This.

Thank you.

[quaker bill]

21. We have killed alot more people with piloted aircraft

Some of them were in Pakistan at the time. I don't think drones open any more possibilities. They are slower and easier to shoot down than piloted aircraft, given the Pakistani's wanted to shoot them down. If they wanted to, they certainly could shoot them down, so I am pretty sure they don't.

Why is it that drones don't provoke a revolution there? They are apparently quite deadly and seem only vaguely different than cruise missles, just cheaper for us to use. Perhaps it is because we are using them to kill people that they don't want to start a revolution over?

To my mind, death is death, no one way of causing it is more or less moral than another. I find it all quite immoral and don't find using drones to make it any worse. I don't find where a person is standing on the political map to make it any different. Death is death.

I don't get the drone thing as any worse than any other means of doing it. Giving them a chance to shoot back does not make killing them any more moral.

[tomg]

96. While I strongly agree with

you regarding the immorality of all killing ( I am a co), the use of drones is, as mentioned, particularly insidious, death by video game. It creates the illusion - for most folks ( not for the majority at a site like DU) - that it is "only" combatants who are killed. What is more, I think, they provide a kind of a "justification," as it were. That is, no Americans are in "danger." Everytime an American helicopter goes down or a plane with Americans on it is lost, it is terrible for the loss of life and it brings to mind the war in a human sense. It recalls to Americans what they are engaged in. Everytime a drone "accidentally" wipes out a group of civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere, the "drone" did it, not us. In a sense, it makes the machine responsible, not us. And no American lives were lost. In fact, when one protests their use, one is asked "do you want to see American die."
In a sense, from my point of view, it is similar in purpose, as morally dangerous and as politically insidious as the move to the "all-volunteer" military and the increasing use of "contractors." At every point, in allowing others - whether drones or "volunteers" or "contractors" - to act in our place, as citizens we find it increasingly easier to abnegate our moral responsibility. And, honestly, the government and the corporations like it that way, and, it seems, so do the mass of Americans.

[quaker bill]

97. Almost all of it is done by machines

Killing is not made more honorable by troops being on the scene. The bomber pilot does not take inventory of the people he/she is killing from 30,000 or 40,000 feet. They are not reasonably in danger either.

The reason I conclude that drones do not actually facilitate killing more people than other means is that we had no problem with industrial scale killing before they were invented. The evidence is in graveyards all over the planet.

[tomg]

99. I do agree with you

on both points. Where we might disagree is that I think that the use of drones serves to further distance many Americans (psychologically, emotionally, morally) from their ( my, our) responsibility for the deaths that are done in their ( my, our) names. Drones, in and of themselves, i agree do not directly facilitate more killing. They are, i would suggest, one more step in the desensitization of Americans to ever-more technologized and distant killing, and thus, they further ennable the ends of American empire.

[quaker bill]

124. You know, I might be concerned about increased distance

If I had noted any particular introspection or sense of responsibility for the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. If I had seen the country virtually shut down in objection to our government conducting torture. I am not really clear that we can become more psychologically or emotionally distant.

Those of us who opposed the wars from the start, continue to do so today. Some few joined us when the whole WMD thing flushed out to nothing.

I do not get a sense that the endless killing and dying is what is causing a majority to now oppose these wars. I think the bulk are just tired of hearing about it and paying for it. Give them cause and they will saddle up and ride again.

I would be comforted to think that there actually was some distance we did not traverse some time ago, but I don't think so.

It is interesting that we have a rough count of drone dead, because we were pretty careful to not count the dead by more conventional means.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Cheapness of proliferation and complete removal of risk aka lower cost.

There is also entering the rabbit hole, eventually there will be drone troops and then AI troops, planes, gunships, destroyers, etc.

You remove cost and risk. You remove the danger of disturbed vets reintegrating. Everyone comes home to their families everyday. You make war cheap and painless and eventually the human conscience is removed after the orders, no matter the orders. Accountability is diminished. Fewer and fewer people can say no.

What happens when these things are all over the place, no even tied to a controller?

This seriously is an acceptable path? Can you not see the massive and unchecked power this would put into precious few hands? Demanding use of actual troops, sailors, and airmen dictates a limited footprint, I say we demand it.

[leveymg]

126. This deserves its own OP.

Thanks for writing this. Please elaborate on this argument and post it. It's necessary reading, particularly by those who usually choose to ignore the topic.

[Bonobo]

134. It's so true.

Removing all noticeable costs of war is essential to this secret war business.

In the old days, people saved string and tin cans.
Now they are urged to shop.

In the old days, taxes went up to pay for the war.
Now there are tax cuts.

In the old days, a HUGE percentage of citizens made sacrfices --if not outright fighting, then serving some other way.
Now, 1% of 1% of 1% do all the fighting.

In the old days, people's lives were put on the line in order to kill the "enemy". It would only be "worth it" if the enemy was really a danger.
Now, there is no cost if a drone goes down --it just means more sales for the arms industry.

The whole thing is sanitized --even the reporting done by "embeds".

[Democracyinkind]

135. Thank you. Couldn't have elaborated on my point any better.

[idwiyo]

127. K&R

[morningfog]

42. Those are not the only options.

[quaker bill]

91. True, not killing would always be the better option

regardless of the means employed.

[Ms. Toad]

50. One of the distinctions is the sanitization of death.

Drones are particularly insidious because they permit us to remove ourselves from the emotional impact of taking lives because it is assassination by video game. While that may be easier on the soldiers who are taking part in this war (although see the next to last link below for another take on that) - it is also a tool to make it easier for us, as a country, to kill.

That said, so does reporting only US deaths rather than all the deaths in the Middle East wars - a number which vastly underestimates the human toll of these ill advised wars. So it isn't really an either/or question - but drones are a narrower focus so it may be possible to nip the escalation of this particularly offensive means of waging war in the bud.

But as a fellow Quaker (an assumption based on your name) I expect you are aware that both FCNL and AFSC have taken strong positions against the use of drones.

[quaker bill]

88. I would hope AFSC and FCNL would take equally strong stands

against the use of tanks, rockets, missles, mortars, machine guns, and directly piloted aircraft. As a Friend, I am absolutely against the use of all of it, but no one thing more than another. Friends are at their best when we reject such relativism. Our YM managed to do this with same gender marriage. At one point there was a seperate but equal process for "committment" in our F&P. Our discernment elminated this and simply made marriage silent on the gender composition of the couple. Marriage is marriage, killing is killing.

[Ms. Toad]

118. They do.

But it isn't embracing relativism to discern that, at this point in time, we are called to work on particular aspects of war. Much of Friends' work is sorting out which, of the overwhelming number of the things which could benefit from our attention, are the ones which are ours to address.

The FCNL does that every two years when we set priorities for the new Congress and was led to call out drones separately (third bullet) from other promotion of peace and rejection of war (second & fourth bullets): http://fcnl.org/about/govern/priorities/113/. This was based on the work of the 2-300 meetings and individuals around the country who participated in the process of discerning which of the many things the policy statement authorizes the FCNL to work on need particular attention for this Congress, and drones (separate - but in addition to other rejection of war and the promotion of peace) is one of those priorities.

I am no longer intimately involved in the AFSC, so I can't give you the kind of detail I can about the FCNL, but I am sure it is similar. AFSC has long opposed all killing, but I am aware of some work which specifically focuses on the use of drones.

[quaker bill]

119. I know our Peace and Social Concerns committee

had input to the FCNL survey. As clerk, I know the sense of the Meeting supports FCNL in this effort. I personally would not be led to make a special case of drones. Our nation has developed a great deal of "stand off" weaponry, that allows the operators to kill with relative impunity. I would choose to speak against war, since speaking against drones is not inconsistent with that, it is a perfectly fine priority for FCNL and I am sure supported by a great number of Friends.

I am not in complete unity with all Friends on all things. But that is what makes the Society of Friends what it is.

[Ms. Toad]

125. :)

Thanks for the work of your meeting. I don't remember this year's numbers - but 2 years ago there was input form 270 meetings and/or individuals into the process. There was a lot of respect for the integrity of the process and it is only because a few things came up so strongly through that field process that they ended up in the final priority statement. The sense of those in attendance was different on a couple of priorities - but not enough different to set aside the discernment that led to the initial draft.

Drones were the subject of some work at Annual Meeting - I believe the concern there was the distinction between drones used outside of the US and drones used inside - and we wanted to make sure the staff felt authorized to lobby against the use of drones within the US, as well.

...and everyone else reading this subthread is going "huh?"

[quaker bill]

128. Friends at our Meeting have always appreciated the work of FCNL

but we have been less capable of active support in the past. The last few years we have seen significant growth in our membership and interest by the community. We now have a lively Peace and Social Concerns committee, and have held a number of successful community events. Our most recent event promoted coordination of low power community radio through the Prometheus Radio project and a coalition of community activist groups and for a bonus featured a short presentation by Rep. Alan Grayson. We are doing good and having fun.

As it turns out, our budget ran a surplus due to all the contributions from new members, so I had the fun of clerking the discussion of where we should contribute the surplus at 11th month MFB. Much of it went to local food banks, but FCNL and AFSC also received an additional donation.

Thanks for your service to FCNL

QB

[sabrina 1]

56. Why are we killing people in foreign countries? You're not seriously saying

that it's okay are you? Or that it was ever okay to kill over one million Iraqis or Afghanis or anyone else anywhere else? Why does the US have this need to go around the world murdering human beings?

Can you explain your post because you seem to be saying that we are okay with killing people with manned aircraft but only upset with the killing when it is with unmanned aircraft.

I realize I could be misreading your post. But just to be clear, we are the biggest threat to life on this planet with our WMDs and NO ONE knows WHY we are killing people. And no, we did not approve of the killing of anyone with manned aircraft either. At least no one on the Left approved of it when Bush was doing it. I don't get why it is less of an outrage when a Democrat is doing it. It is not. And it needs to stop. That blood is on all of our hands if we do not at least try to stop it.

Thankfully there are many good people around the world trying to do that, and trying to understand WHY! Innocent children are not terrorists. And no we do not accept the ridiculous notion that we have to kill them for our safety, nor do we accept the terms 'collateral damage'. It is murder, and that is and always has been my opinion and it won't change because now a Democrat is in charge of it.

[quaker bill]

90. I oppose all killing

I don't find drones more objectionable, because I fully object to all of it. One cannot object more to one form of killing without necessarily objecting less to some other form. If drones are "really bad" then some other way of getting about it is "not as bad" as drones. I reject the premise. Killing is killing, whether by "humane" lethal injection in a prison, or by drone in a foriegn country.

[raouldukelives]

98. It provides good jobs to Americans.

And of course, loads of cash to defense contractors. All things that make good liberals apparently quite happy. And quite happy to help. As long as they are well compensated that is.

[Mimosa]

136. Sabrina, you know why...

The mission behind Atlantic nation interventions in Pakistan/Afghanistan is to effect enough cultural upset and change that we get those people to work mining the minerals in those mountains. 'We' need a stable steady supply of lithium (for batteries) and other rare earths, as well as copper in Afghanistan in order to manufacture the electronics and other stuff we require.

[sabrina 1]

140. Hi Mimosa,

You are probably correct as we never do anything unless there is huge profit involved. I remember when the stories of the minerals in Afghanistan came out, people were worried that we would never leave. I wonder if we knew about this when we invaded them, using 9/11 as a cover?

But even if not, the real reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was the oil pipeline, so as always, killing people for profit appears to be our policy.

Great to 'see' you again, mimosa!

[Mimosa]

142. 18,000+ Russian troops were sacrificed in Afghanistan for same reason

The Soviets weren't fighting the mujahadeen because they wanted to 'civilise' the Afghani hillbullies, either. Or make them into commies. Theirs was the same mission: to control the richest supplies of minerals remaining on this earth besides what the Chinese control in Tibet.

Sabrina, thanks for missing me. I missed you a lot. I've been weak, didn't even have energy to post at more than one board. I'm usually at Vincent's and morticia's Speakeasy since Vince is a 'real life' pal.

[Honeycombe8]

87. Of course they did. That's how England got so battered....bombs and such...

that wipe out entire areas and all the people in them.

Not sure what we're doing in Pakistan, though, if that's true. We're in a war in Afghanistan, and focusing on teh border with Pakistan.

But we are going after AQ wherever they are....best for countries to keep AQ out, I'd say. Incl. the U.S. But the people don't control the govt, as we know. So I guess their leaders invite the AQ in and protect them, knowing the danger to their citizens?

[quaker bill]

92. We are at war any place where we are using the military to kill

however the diplomats may call it something different. Now it is clear we are not at war with the government of Pakistan, because if we were, they would use their air defenses to take down the drones. In that the drones are flying safely in Pakistani air space, we must be at war with a different entity. My understanding has been that we have had Pakistani cooperation with the drone strikes since the Bush* admin.

I think it is philosophically reasonable to conclude that we are "at war" in any place where we are periodically lobbing missles to kill people, as lobbing missles is pretty much an "act of war". I am not big on shades of gray here. We are making dead people, and that is simple enough.

[KG]

3. brought to you by...

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. Well when you use drones they're aren't people anymore

Noone even sees them probably, it's point and click warfare at it's finest so it's okay and we can all go to sleep at night knowing we didn't have any boots on the ground. Look Bonobo, you will feel better and have piece of mind if you just become a team player. sarc.

[quaker bill]

95. There was plenty of gun camera video

taken from helicopter gunships with sufficient radio chatter to show that pilots on the scene did not see them as people either, just targets.

[kenny blankenship]

7. Do we think the number of people who fear and hate us is going down yet?

I hear the talk at the Pentagon is that all we have to do is keep dropping missiles on their villages and funerals until they come around to seeing what great guys we are. I'm so glad it's a Democrat in the White House doing this.

[Bonobo]

9. If this strategy is working, why are the number of strikes increasing?

Shou;dn't they eventually decrease as we run out of "bad guys"?

[former-republican]

13. Simple math

brother , son , daughter ,father , cousin , nephew , friend etc.. sees or finds out his relative

is killed by the U.S


They join the Taliban where otherwise many wouldn't have. It's a never ending cycle where it will
produce more enemies for the U.S.

The war machine loves the strategy .

[kenny blankenship]

16. Oh hey, don't say "never ending cycle"

The well has to run dry sometime. There are only about 180 million people in Pakistan, and, besides, we've only targeted the hillbillies in the north west frontier. We know where they are. They're in the area around Islamabad and Karachi and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Incremental Progress, Citizen! We're gettin' 'r done - one depopulated moonscape at a time.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Think of how many more it would be if we were doing it the old fashioned way

[Bonobo]

11. Read post #6 above.

The fact is that the US would not get away with it "the old fashioned way" for a variety of reasons.

[morningfog]

43. You prefer children be killed by another means?

[sabrina 1]

57. Why are we killing people, the old fashioned way or the new fashioned way?

We are the only so-called civilized nation that appears to feel a need to kill innocent human beings around the world right now. The only other kind of nation that does this, and on a far smaller scale, are brutal dictatorships who mostly kill their own people.

Surely you are not justifying these policies. They are medieval, we are viewed as the biggest threat to world peace around the globe right now. And no one is buying that we are killing 'terrorists' who are any threat to this country. The biggest threat to this country is right here at home. But the War Machine makes too much money to stop the killing and in order to justify it we are told lie after lie. Well, more and more people are not buying the lies anymore.

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. Guns in the sky..

[bighart]

14. Why do threads on this topic die so quickly?

[leftstreet]

18. Because Bush isn't in office

DURec

[sabrina 1]

67. Because Bush isn't President anymore?

Drone posts didn't die quickly during the Bush years. The outrage from the Left at least was, justifiably, apparent each time there was any reference to this issue. But lately, the silence from the Left is deafening. I guess there is some difference in being blown to bits by a Republican administration and a Democratic administration. But I just can't see what that difference is.

[green for victory]

15. kr excellent work. In the end, one either believes in the concept of Karma or one does not...

tick tock



"...Not everybody attached to the Regime’s Cyber-Killing Corps is haunted by the horrors he has inflicted on defenseless people halfway around the world.

In a 2009 U.S. Naval Academy lecture, Dr. P.W. Singer of the Brookings Institution made reference to what he called 'predator porn' — footage of drone attacks proudly circulated by the people who committed those acts.

In a typical offering, Dr. Singer relates: "A Hellfire missile drops, goes in, and hits the target, followed by an explosion and bodies tossed into the air."

Singer described one clip of that kind, sent to him by a joystick-wielding assassin, that 'was set to music, the pop song 'I Just Want to Fly' by the band Sugar Ray.'

One deskbound drone jockey told Singer. "It's like a videogame. It can get a little bloodthirsty. But it's f****g cool."

http://thewe.cc/weplanet/circus/2012/circus_august_2012.html

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Probably because the victims do not look like us.

Sickening.

[cliffordu]

26. Bonobo read a WIKI page and you're complimenting

him/her for excellent work??

[Bonobo]

34. Bonobo spent time counting. Not very praiseworthy indeed.

All I did was copy the long list of drone attacks and examine each one for the number of deaths attributed.

Then I input the estimated deaths, row by row, and added them up.

Not much work, but at least I care enough to arrive at a number that is otherwise not available.

Yes, it was not that much work but certainly a lot more and for a better cause than some asshole above me adding a disdainful smilie to his post.

[cliffordu]

39. That's mister asshole to you.

Show some respect.

And your cause is little more than sliming the President.

I am convinced you could give a flying fuck about the victims, based on your posting history.

As usual, YMMV.

[Bonobo]

40. You don't deserve the title "mister" in my book. nt

[cliffordu]

45. And who, in this best of all possible worlds,

could give a flying fuck what you think about me?

Words count. Your words count in spite of your hubris and license.

Best of luck.

[Bonobo]

46. I think you care, Cliff.

That's why, just a few days ago, you tried to butter me up and called me "one of the most intelligent posters on DU".

It made me laugh because I certainly never felt that way about you.

[Bonobo]

72. Jeezus, that was pathetic. nt

[cliffordu]

73. Well...

Your retort has stunned me..

I am speechless.

May I stand in the shadow of your greatness for a moment or two??

Please, Sir (or Madame) may I have some more??

[Bonobo]

74. I'm beginning to feel the stirrings of pity. nt

[cliffordu]

75. Then stop looking at your lap.

[Bonobo]

76. Thanks for the laugh, Cliff.

I think I know a lot more about your intellectual level now.

[green for victory]

65. I should have been more clear

that the "work" I was talking about was the work done to compile the list.
Have you gone through your entire life assuming things? Or, assuming the worst things?
Have you ever been rushed and tried to form words in a hurry?

[cliffordu]

70. Probably.

But I would have said, is:

"I should have been clear"

instead of:

"I should have been more clear"

How clear does one have to be??

And all that work you claim was completed is junior high school level "research"

[rl6214]

86. And do you think some of this same attitude towards video killing

May play a large part in mass shootings in the past few years?

[woo me with science]

17. K&R

Thank you.

[bighart]

20. Breathing a bit more like into your post.

[WonderGrunion]

23. And now to completely repulse you. Pakistan was allowing Bin Laden to live in a mansion

I don't care if 10X that many were killed with drones, tanks, land mines or flesh eating bacteria, that country was hiding a monster and deserved to be treated monstrously.

[Bonobo]

24. I'd say there are monsters right here on DU too. nt

[Tien1985]

28. You said it.

[morningfog]

44. You think killing 20,000 would have been acceptable because some elements

of their government knew bin Laden was there?

[Bonobo]

47. Yes, that is exactly what he said and is still saying.

And THAT is why I am saying there are literal monsters here.

[WonderGrunion]

49. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying

n/m

[Comrade Grumpy]

52. We have some sick fucks in this place.

[morningfog]

58. So I take it you would be fine with he families of the innocent Pakistanis killed

exacting revenge at the same rate on us?

[Bradical79]

55. Looks like you and Bin Laden had more in common than you realize -nt

[Fumesucker]

80. Oddly enough, that was the way bin Laden felt about America

Ironic, innit?

[white_wolf]

83. You are disgusting. If you really mean that then you are no better than Bin Laden.

You advocate the slaughter of thousands of innocents to achieve your goals. That is terrorism and you are no better than Bin Laden, the IRA, or any group that advocates the murder of innocents to achieve their goals. You are disgusting. Go ahead and alert this because I really don't care if it gets hidden.

[MKITEM]

100. Bin Laden was once in Dubai

I'll call in an air strike for ya.

[cpwm17]

112. We have worse criminals living in the US than any other country

They live out in the open and nothing will ever be done about them.

How many innocent Americans do you think deserve to die for those crimes by Americans? Osama decided 3000 deserved to die.

[sabrina 1]

139. We have had and still do, quite a few monsters living right here in the US under the protection

of the US government. I sure hope that citizens of THEIR country don't feel the way you do about the American people as a result of those policies. I hope they don't think we all deserve to be killed with 'drones, tanks, land mines or flesh eating bacteria'.

We are eg, funding one of the world's worst monsters, Karamov in Uzbekistan, who boils his own people in oil if they dare to speak out against his brutal regime. And he's just one of the many monsters we support as they kill and torture their own people. I sure hope those people understand that American children are not responsible for our Government's support of these murderers and believe it's okay to kill our children.

[cliffordu]

25. Maybe you could post your sources, since you are

claiming to be all scientific and shit.

I mean, besides the WIKI.

[Bonobo]

29. That is the source.

Wikipedia is very rigorous, in fact, about accepting proof/sources.

All claims are well-sourced.

[cliffordu]

33. M'kay.

[Thinkingabout]

27. 2305 is less than those who lost their lives on 9-11, less than our military in Iraq,

Many less than Iraqi on the ground, this could go on and on. Sure the bad Gus are going to surround themselves with people protection. At any point they could give themselves up, stop doing bad things to others and stop trying to kill others.

[Bonobo]

32. Pakistan was not involved in 9-11.

Furthermore, as I said, that is ONLY Pakistan and only Drone attacks.

In the bigger picture, do you have any idea how many we have killed in the last 12 years? The last 20 years? The last 30 years?

Do you care? Does it mean anything to you? Is there ANYTHING that would make you stop and question the lack of morality of our foreign policy?

[Thinkingabout]

37. Was anyone living in Pakistan who was or has been a part of those responsible for 9-11?

The answer is yes, if Pakistan protects those people them they need to look for drones.

[Bonobo]

41. Kill tens of thousands of people in a country when a criminal flees there?

Wow.

[MKITEM]

102. The 9/11 hijackers were in the United States for long periods of time

They used a hotel in Laurel, Md. I suppose that hotel should be flattened. Why not flatten all of Laurel, Md. The town sounds like a bunch of terrorist sympathizers.

[cpwm17]

116. How many drones do we have to look for?

SHOCK AND AWE

[The Link]

71. Is that you Dubya?

What the fuck?

[AZ Progressive]

30. What a crowd of more than 2000 people looks like

Killed by Drone Strikes.

[malaise]

31. That is a lot of blood and a lot of children blood and a lot of innocent blood

It sure is

[ProSense]

35. Here are the actual numbers

from 2004 to 2012.

Of the some 3000 persons killed by US drones, something like 600 have been innocent noncombatant bystanders, and of these 176 were children. In some instances the US drone operators have struck at a target, then waited for rescuers to come and struck again, which would be a war crime. Obviously, children may run in panic to the side of an injured parent, so they could get hit by the indiscriminate second strike.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/lets-also-remember-the-176-children-killed-by-us-drones.html

[Bonobo]

38. Thanks.

I am pretty sure it is more than 176 children, but only 176 children is still the recent mass-shooting of 20 1st graders done 9 times.

And...we are not even at war with Pakistan.

[Vattel]

36. I couldn't agree more:

"That is a lot of blood and a lot of children blood and a lot of innocent blood.

People, remember what you expect and demand in a representative of your country --or at least what you grew up expecting.

Please come to your damned senses if you feel this can be defended morally."

[think]

48. Bush Sr. made a strong effort to sanitize the image of war during the 1st gulf war

He knew that without the graphic images of the horrors of war being shown in film and pictures to Americans like had happened with Vietnam, the American people would be isolated from the hell reigned down on their behalf. Out of sight. Out of mind.

How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf
Excerpted from Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, Chapter 10

~snip~

Afterwards, some in the media quietly admitted that they'd been manipulated to produce sanitized coverage which almost entirely ignored the war's human cost - today estimated at over 100,000 civilian deaths. The American public's single most lasting memory of the war will probably be the ridiculously successful video stunts supplied by the Pentagon showing robot "smart bombs" striking only their intended military targets, without much "collateral" (civilian) damage.

~snip~

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

To me drones are just another part of this tidying up the image of war and the killing of men ,women ,and children.

And the double taps are another story completely IMO......

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12

[green for victory]

63. and in the next war,the first PNAC war-

Kosovo--the Clinton administration put PSYOPs in CNN and NPR

It took a Dutch journalist to break the story

Military personnel from the Fourth Psychological Operations Group based at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, have until recently been working in CNN’s hq in Atlanta.

CNN is up in arms about our report in the last issue of CounterPunch concerning the findings of the Dutch journalist, Abe de Vries about the presence of US Army personnel at CNN...CNN had hosted a total of five interns from US army psy-ops, two in television, two in radio and one in satellite operations. Jordan said the program had only recently terminated, I would guess at about the time CNN’s higher management read Abe de Vries’s stories.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2000/03/26/cnn-and-psyops/

Guessing they weren't just taking out the trash and answering phones

Oh, and the double taps? They were going on then-

NATO bombers have a diabolical practice: they drop a second missile minutes after the first, just as rescue teams arrive.

http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/yugo_bombs-rept.htm

Nation Gone Rogue

[Bonobo]

68. I remember when they first launched the phrase "embeds" for reporters...

I knew in the pit of my stomach how bad it was --and so did others. There was a window when the media could have (actually some of them did) stand up and say "Fuck no! We will NOT sacrifice our safety for our responsibilities of staying independent to tell the truth"

But the moment passed. "Embed" became a part of our lexicon, a part of what we considered normal. Yes, there were independent journalists all over Vietnam telling the hard truth, interviewing low-ranking soldiers to get to the heart of what it was like... but that was then and this was now.

Yes, there was a moment when we teetered on the edge of saying hell no to the war machine, hell no we will be witnesses to the horror and tell the world. But then, poof.

The Iraq War and the Afghan War have been quiet, private affairs with little truth leaking out and drones are a part of that approach --and so are the tiny percentage of people serving over and over and over --and so are the wartime tax cuts. The idea is to make was seem like nothing special, business as usual --no real cost to worry about.

It. sucks.

It will come back to haunt the US. It should.

[graham4anything]

85. where are the posts defending Dan Rather? I seemed to have missed them.

seems like nobody but me defended Dan Rather.

never understood why that was. Still mourn for him after his character asssassination.
(especially after they never were able to prove it wasn't a real memo

and no one ever denied what he said wasn't true anyhow.

Richard Clarke had a great article on drones.
We loved Richard Clarke right after 9-11.
Some of us still appreciate his words today.
Drones-a good thing
other methods-100 times more deaths.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/give-drones-medal-article-1.1211249
snip-

snip-

snip-

I have examined the alternative methods of striking: F-16s, cruise missiles, commando raids. All of these methods are far more likely to kill innocent people and Americans. The attacking forces sweep in at high speed, have little or no time to assess the situation and then employ extremely lethal force over a fairly wide area. Alternatively, we could rely exclusively on indigenous security forces, but often they are not capable of effective action and are at least as likely to create innocent casualties.

snip-

But the fact is, the Obama Administration is pursuing both deradicalization and indigenous capacity-building with governments in the Islamic world. The President has also ordered the creation of new guidelines for the use of drones, to make their employment less frequent. So called “signature attacks,” those conducted on terrorist camps, will be reduced, and the emphasis will be placed on strikes against known terrorist commanders or groups known to be preparing attacks.


For the foreseeable future, however, drones will remain an important counter-terrorism tool. When used properly, they eliminate real threats and keep terrorist groups off-base, better than any other option the President has at his disposal.


And, at least for me, there is no doubt that it is better to eliminate terrorists before they strike, rather than to retaliate after there are dead Americans
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/give-drones-medal-article-1.1211249?pgno=2#ixzz2EITMVkYJ

[cbrer]

51. Nobel Peace Prize won

For what the world HOPED he would do when elected. Not for his track record...

[larkrake]

53. better than 100000 people if we sent in covert troops

they tend to kill the whole village, kids included. War kills, and the US is owned by the military INDUSTRIAL Complex. Drone war could cut expenses by 80% and when we rule the entire world, they can turn on us, their own people.

[Bonobo]

54. But we are not at war with Pakistan. nt

[demmiblue]

61. Reading is fundamental. n/t

[Bonobo]

64. That poster was correct. YOU should read. It was half a million kids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Clinton's sanctions against Iraq

They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003

Unicef estimated they were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children under 5.

[demmiblue]

66. The original post is about Pakistan, not Iraq... hence my post. n/t

Edited to add the deleted post:

sammy27932003 (7 posts)
59. I thought there was 200,000 children that died in Iraq of starvation because of us.

[great white snark]

77. I'm sure he mourns them, unlike you who only exploits them.

Your record betrays you.

[Bonobo]

78. My record of criticizing Obama?

Ummmm, that's called a consistent application of political judgment.

Derp.

[HiPointDem]

82. obama orders them killed, then mourns them? but bonobo exploits them? that is some twisted

logic there.

[MKITEM]

103. He does not mourn them, from Obama's own mouth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

[stultusporcos]

79. America has always excelled in the killing of non-whites

Just imagine how many more will be killed by drones when the next republican becomes POTUS.
USA, USA, USA

[HiPointDem]

81. kr

[RBInMaine]

89. Did Obama personally aim them and push the buttons? You are using twisted, simplistic thinking.

C'mon. This is COMPLICATED stuff. You are trying to boil it down to simplistic notions. You are talking about a great complex of an organization and military practices, procedures, and policies. It is not like Obama personally stands there directing the operation of the weapons and strikes, and there is no policy of intentionally killing any innocent person.

[Bonobo]

93. What does Commander In-Chief mean if not overall responsibility for the US military's actions? nt

[MKITEM]

104. Yes he did. And it's pretty simple.

Obama does personally stand there and direct the operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

[hughee99]

105. Did *, Cheney or Rumsfeld personally water-board anyone? n/t

[aandegoons]

94. mass murder

and terrorism. Plain and simple.

[cantbeserious]

101. The President Carries The Biggest "Gun" Unfortunately

eom

[Turbineguy]

106. It doesn't seem fair

to go after these Al Qaeda guys when repubs are just walking around harming the US more.

[fadedrose]

107. Compare to Bush & Cheney's uncountable deaths

It doesn't make the drone strikes right, but I don't hear too much about the thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - many were our guys and gals too.

[Zorra]

108. Oh, please! Who cares? They're different from us. Just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

It's not morally wrong when we do it.



The bitterest ever.

[ladjf]

110. We need to cease the drone killings now. nt

[treestar]

111. The US military killed them

on behalf of all of us. If you insist on saying Obama "killed" them, he did it to protect you.

Look you can oppose this as unnecessary, but we are all responsible - it's done on behalf of protecting our nation. It's obsession with Obama to put it at his door specifically. And then you may as well blame the generals all the way down to the troops, too.

[sabrina 1]

113. No one is doing this in my name. And no it is not being done to protect this nation.

We didn't believe it when Bush did it and I guess we were obsessed with him too. If the military does it, they do not do it without the approval of the CIC. If someone doesn't want that responsibility, they should not allow this to continue and they are one with the power to stop it. And of course anyone in Congress who goes along with it.

I can post tons of links to what was said about Bush btw, did you defend him when we called him a 'murderer' or a 'war criminal' or when we held him accountable as CIC?

We elected Democrats in order to stop what Bush started. THAT was US attempting to end the killing in the only way citizens can. So please stop with the false premise that WE ever approved of this killing on our behalf. I don't want anyone 'protecting' me this way, and we made that very clear. The fact that it is still going on means that our government is acting without our consent because they know that the American people by a large majority now, oppose these wars.

If the Government wants to protect us they should go after the real threats to our National Security. They should and could end the deaths of over 44,000 Americans every year by providing them with HC. They should come home and do something about the murder of Americans by other Americans every single day. But I see no will to protect Americans from these needless killings right here, not by foreign terrorists, but by domestic terror which has killed more Americans over the past decade than any foreign terrorist could dream of.

[Zorra]

114. Truth: "We elected Democrats in order to stop what Bush started."

And you can add Zorra to the list of "not in my name".

[MKITEM]

115. By your logic Reagan did Iran Contra to protect the nation.

[gulliver]

117. Your post is very misleading.

It only has one number (2,305), and the rest is all airy rhetoric.

You need to break down how many of these were strikes on military targets, and how many innocent lives were lost vs. militants. That would allow readers to assess the true balance of the situation.

For example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8139739.stm (from references on the Wikipedia page) is much, much less cut-and-dried than your rhetoric would indicate. Fifty "suspected militants" were killed, and the drones were "suspected" U.S. drones. And the territory was in Northwest Pakistan, and the target was the Taliban, and there was an official Pakistani offensive gearing up...

Would I rather have drones covertly assist the Pakistani military in attacking the Taliban than, say, U.S. jets or helicopter gunships? Yup. Do I think the Pakistanis hate us for helping their military attack the Taliban in the northwest? Nope.

[woo me with science]

131. To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males...

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined "militant" to mean "all military-age males...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002741255

[JReed]

120. Same game

Obama's eloquence just makes the empire more eerie than before. The backdrop to the drone is eloquence now, which has replaced the cowboy boot and twang. Yet, the lives erased by the drone are just as forever lost. over the din of applause over Obama's sophisticated nuances, the dead cry out for revenge, their relatives for justice, just as much as they would had Cheney ordered the strike.

[SidDithers]

132. Your text is taken word-for-word from a post made at DU in March 2010...

what's going on here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7848631&mesg_id=7856460

It doesn't matter- Put the comparison aside
Of course they are not the same. But what does that matter if the policy outcomes are of little difference.

Obama's eloquence just makes the empire more eerie than before. The backdrop to the drone is eloquence now, which has replaced the cowboy boot and twang. Yet, the lives erased by the drone are just as forever lost. Over the din of applause over Obama's sophisticated nuances, the dead cry out just as much as they would had Cheney ordered the strike. Obama just serves as a disconnect, a symbol of our national schizophrenia.

Bottom line: we're on a runaway train

Sid

[tabasco]

122. How about from artillery fire?

Get to work on that and then tell us why you weren't screeching about artillery deaths.

I'm not outraged about drones. I'm glad we're out of Iraq and killing the right people now.

Yes, war sucks and sometimes innocent people get killed. But it's war and the motherfuckers in Pakistan and Afghanistan started it when they blew up New York City.

[JReed]

123. That's it?

Your view of history is that it all started on 9/11? That's a pretty circumscribed observance of the last 60 years.

And no the US is not out of Iraq.

[Bonobo]

130. "the motherfuckers in Pakistan and Afghanistan started it when they blew up New York City. "

Are you serious? Or is this intended to be comedy?

Do you know WHO the terrorists were?

Are we at war with Pakistan?

Artillery fire on a country we are not at war with?

[morningfog]

133. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

We are killing lots of people who were not even alive in 2001. We are not killing people even remotely involved in the attacks on 9/11. These are not "the right people" to be killing.

[sabrina 1]

137. Pakistan blew up NY City?

I can't believe I just read that here. Pakistan was/is an ally of the US and had zero to do with 9/11, nothing. Our allies, the Saudis blew up NY City but we can't very well go killing anyone in Saudi Arabia, can we?

We are not at war. We are killing people we have no right to kill since they have done nothing to us.

No wonder there is no outrage here over these killings. The American people don't have a clue why their government does what it does. But the rest of the World is not that ignorant of what is going on which is why we are now viewed as the biggest threat to world peace on the planet. To most of the world, WE are the bad guys.

[cpwm17]

141. Please spot the "motherfuckers from Pakistan and Afghanistan" in this picture:

All murder needs to be opposed – including by drones.

We have a lot of crazy paranoid CT'ers in the US Government that believe all Muslim countries are out to get us, and all Muslims are guilty. That's why they have no problem attacking random Muslim countries for the criminal actions of a small group of people.

[JReed]

129. Strikes Pound Pakistan in Obama's Ongoing Drone War

At least 10 reported killed in latest casualties of clandestine war

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/06

[G_j]

138. War Crimes

Not that that means anything anymore....