HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama and Graham on the s...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:48 AM

 

Obama and Graham on the same bloody page.

"Becoming the first elected government official to publicly state an estimated number of "innocent people" killed in US drone attacks overseas, Sen. Lindsey Graham told a local crowd in his home state of South Carolina that "We've killed 4,700."

Speaking to a group of Rotarians at a forum in Easley, South Carolina, Graham responded to question about drones by saying, "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of Al-Qaeda."

His remarks, reported by the local Easley Patch, included a defense of the use of drones despite their propensity to kill innocent bystanders, including women and children.

“I didn't want him to have a trial,” Graham stated, referring to a US citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen by a missile from a US drone in 2011.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/21-0

You should know that you're doing something wrong when Graham agrees with you. Oh, and we finally got an admission from a government official about the total number of innocents killed, 4,700. What a sad statement that is. I guess Obama didn't want Al-Awlaki, or his son to have a trial either, since he is the one who ordered the attack. Two parties, same blood soaked policy. Yep, that's change you had better believe in, because if you don't. . .

39 replies, 1846 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 39 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama and Graham on the same bloody page. (Original post)
MadHound Feb 2013 OP
graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
MadHound Feb 2013 #2
graham4anything Feb 2013 #3
MadHound Feb 2013 #6
graham4anything Feb 2013 #11
MadHound Feb 2013 #18
msanthrope Feb 2013 #22
MadHound Feb 2013 #24
msanthrope Feb 2013 #25
onyourleft Feb 2013 #4
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #5
MadHound Feb 2013 #8
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #10
ProSense Feb 2013 #7
JTFrog Feb 2013 #9
MadHound Feb 2013 #16
msanthrope Feb 2013 #19
MadHound Feb 2013 #21
msanthrope Feb 2013 #23
MadHound Feb 2013 #32
msanthrope Feb 2013 #35
MadHound Feb 2013 #36
JTFrog Feb 2013 #34
Recursion Feb 2013 #12
MadHound Feb 2013 #15
pinto Feb 2013 #29
MadHound Feb 2013 #30
pinto Feb 2013 #37
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #13
choie Feb 2013 #14
msanthrope Feb 2013 #17
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #20
SidDithers Feb 2013 #26
msanthrope Feb 2013 #28
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #27
SidDithers Feb 2013 #31
msanthrope Feb 2013 #38
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #33
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #39

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:52 AM

1. Yes, I am on the same page as President Obama.

 

If you mean the Senator, then it should say Senator and make sure to put the first name
as Senator Graham to me refers to Bob Graham of Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:55 AM

2. Well, I'm assuming that you have the capability to read the first sentence of the post

 

Where you would find that info.

Nice to see that you wholeheartedly support the killing of innocents, and cheer on the killing of American citizens without any sort of due process. Then again, it isn't surprising given who your avatar is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:59 AM

3. but would others?

 

I will delete the #2 post if you want to add Lindsay Graham to the title.

And a man to man war could kill or injure many 100,000s.
So throwing numbers out that have no context as to how many years (10 I think it is)
makes the number alot larger than it is.

And as long as the republicans do not allow for trials in federal court, there is nothing one can do about it. After all, Justice wanted to try KSM in federal court, and the repubs had a major conniption.

Terrorists are terrorists, there are no longer nice borders like in the cold war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:09 AM

6. You know, just deal with it, I don't change my posts at your request.

 

I'm pretty sure that other folks can figure it out, if you can't, if it bothers you that much, then don't click on this thread, it's that simple.

Oh, and you're assuming that without drones that we would send in troops for a conventional war in order to kill those "targets". You have no way of confirming that assumption, in fact if you look at past military actions, your assumption is proven false.

Nice to see that you condone the killing of innocents, and they are innocents, not terrorists.

Nice to see that you support the shredding of the Constitution and the destruction of due process.

Oh, and the Cold War, it was another contrived conflict designed to feed the MIC. Just like the War on Terra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:28 AM

11. No, I am assuming the terrorists themselves would do damage in the other countries

 

and that a terrorist is not a nice person and has an agenda.

The faux red herring is that without the US, nothing bad will happen.

That is a faux assumption to make.

So the nations that are not the USA will still be under attack, as they were long before the US became involved

(the assumption can be proven in WW2, as Hitler was around many years before the US joined the action and our joining did not mean more bloodshead, but actually proved to be much less.
(til Ike did a hit on the German POW's after the war ended of course, Ike was no nice guy).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:13 PM

18. You know what they say about ass u me.

 

Why are you assuming that terrorists would strike in other countries? Germany isn't sending drones over to kill innocents. Colombia isn't sending troops over to fight an illegal, immoral war. Terrorists are indeed attacking us because we have used 911 as an excuse to launch, in Bush's words, a crusade against them, and this administration is continuing that practice.

You know, it makes logical sense that in the vast majority of cases, if you don't piss people off, they won't come after you. By continuing this ongoing, illegal, immoral, unending war, we're pissing a lot of people off. Furthermore, we're pissing off more and more with this illegal, immoral drone strikes that are killing innocents and violating the sovereignty of other nations, including that of an erstwhile ally.

You are making leaps of logic that defy reality and common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:19 PM

22. The Madrid train bombings, the 7/11 plot, Mumbai? Those were because of the President? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:25 PM

24. No,

 

The Madrid bombings, and the London bombings(I assume that is what you're referring to, unless you're talking about some Slurpee attack) were a direct result of those countries joining our coalition.

Mumbai, that is essentially a civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:27 PM

25. And you wouldn't have supported a drone strike of Tora Bora in November of 2001? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:02 AM

4. I'm not on the same page.

Why would anyone think Graham of Florida when the first paragraph clearly states Lindsey Graham?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:07 AM

5. Results of Jury Service

(yes, someone alerted on your OP)

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Strong language can help make a point, not necessarily flamebait.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Here's a wild idea: argue against MadHound's position instead of hitting alert. This is, after all, a DISCUSSION forum.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

I was Juror #4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:12 AM

8. Thanks Will, I do appreciate it immensely.

 

I know that you and I haven't always been in agreement, but you are an honest broker and a good person.

It amazes me what some folks around here will do to squelch honest debate about administration policy.

Thanks again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:14 AM

10. Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:12 AM

7. "US Senator: I Support Drone Program That Has Killed 4,700 'Innocent People'"

I can see by that statement how hard it would be for you to tell the difference between President Obama and Lindsey Graham.

As usual, the piece you linked to has nothing to do with the title of your post and comment.

"Obama didn't want Al-Awlaki, or his son to have a trial either"

What a stupid statement.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:13 AM

9. You better believe it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:08 PM

16. That's such a cute, substanceless piece of snark,

 

Reminds me a lot of Freepers and their "zot". You're trying to be clever, but come off looking vapid and foolish.

Why don't you try addressing the subject of the post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:16 PM

19. How does one confuse Lindsey Graham and Barack Obama? The Rasmussen poll you

posted last time was bad enough, but now you are confusing two different men....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:18 PM

21. Both Obama and Graham support drone strikes, even if they are killing thousands of innocents,

 

Kinda hard not to, don'tcha think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:20 PM

23. So are they the same? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:42 PM

32. As I stated before, they both support drone strikes.

 

Drone strikes that kill innocent men, women and children. Apparently you do as well. Sad, truly sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:55 PM

35. As I asked upthread would you have supported a drone strike at Tora Bora? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:58 PM

36. Yes, you did, very good, your memory is sharp today.

 

But once again, as in past threads, you seem to be veering off into nonsensical answers that don't deal with what is at hand, what is here and now. Please, again, as I always say, try to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:44 PM

34. I addressed it alright.

Do you copy and paste all your replies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:31 AM

12. Where do you get "4700 innocent people" from?

You seem to be confusing two different statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:07 PM

15. From the article,

 

That figure is in line with other studies that have come out, including a joint study by the NYU and Stanford law schools that showed over nine hundred dead innocents within a fifteen month time span.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:36 PM

29. Just for accuracy's sake the figure is total number of people killed. Commondreams repackaged

the comments to cite them all as civilian deaths. Here's a clearer, more detailed source source - Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

Still alarming numbers, but I think it's important to use accurate info.

(on edit) See also - http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/02/20/how-many-terrorists-have-been-killed-by-drones/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinto (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:40 PM

30. Actually I think Graham's number is the closest to accurate that we can get at this point

 

Since nothing has been released officially. The NYU and Stanford law schools did a study and found that over a fifteen month period there were nearly 4.700 innocent men, women and children killed. My thought is that Graham's statement includes the Bush years as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:01 PM

37. Again, just for accuracy's sake. re: Stanford/NYU report -

In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes


This report is the result of nine months of research by the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School (Stanford Clinic) and the Global Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law (NYU Clinic). Professor James Cavallaro and Clinical Lecturer Stephan Sonnenberg led the Stanford Clinic team; Professor Sarah Knuckey led the NYU Clinic team. Adelina Acuña, Mohammad M. Ali, Anjali Deshmukh, Jennifer Gibson, Jennifer Ingram, Dimitri Phillips, Wendy Salkin, and Omar Shakir were the student research team at Stanford; Christopher Holland was the student researcher from NYU. Supervisors Cavallaro, Sonnenberg, and Knuckey, as well as student researchers Acuña, Ali, Deshmukh, Gibson, Salkin, and Shakir participated in the fact-finding investigations to Pakistan.

<snip>

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.” It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.


http://livingunderdrones.org/report/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:35 AM

13. That's a round, rough figure. This being a thursday

it's probably higher than that, but Tuesday's 'oopsies' have yet to be added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:38 AM

14. So we were all for the Nuremberg trials

to try Nazis, but aren't for due process when it comes to "terrorists"....I see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to choie (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:09 PM

17. Custodial Nazi's, yes. Before surrender, we didn't give them a trial, nor did we have to.

But custody puts obligations that the battlefield does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:16 PM

20. No doubt, in this bastion of laws and justice, those who killed the innocents will stand trial.

Won't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:28 PM

26. Oh look, it's this thread again...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:35 PM

28. You Better Believe It! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:30 PM

27. ooh, he "hates that". well, then i guess all's well, so long as he expresses the perfunctory

 

note of regret.

i wonder how he'd feel if it were his family killed by russians while trying to drone a 'terrorist'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:41 PM

31. Maybe the North Koreans would get him while he's visiting Baltimore...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:02 PM

38. What if the Russians took out Bill Gates, Arne Duncan

rahm Emanuel, Michelle Rhee or anyone who urban farms in Detroit?

would you be so down on drones then?














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:44 PM

33. So, we've killed 4700 and SOME of them actually WERE bad guys.

What could be wrong with that defense of the drone war?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 03:26 PM

39. I see that most of the usual suspects showed up to misconstrue, misinterpret,

 

and otherwise derail your post.

Can you get whiplash from adamantly opposing a policy for years when the other party does it and immediately switch to full-throated support when this party pursues it even harder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread