All military-age males in a strike zone are combatants...

[Luminous Animal]

On Monday, the New York times reported that "Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

Glenn Greenwald reports:
"The media now knows that "militant" is a term of official propaganda, yet still use it for America's drone victims"
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/02/deliberate_media_propaganda/singleton//

Early this morning, the U.S. fired a missile from a drone in northwest Pakistan — its first since the NYT story – and killed two people. Here’s how The Washington Post is now touting the article about this attack on its online front page:



Readers who click on that story are greeted by an Associated Press story bearing this headline:



There is, as usual, no indication that these media outlets have any idea whatsoever about who was killed in these strikes. All they know is that “officials” (whether American or Pakistani) told them that they were “militants,” so they blindly repeat that as fact. They “report” this not only without having the slightest idea whether it’s true, but worse, with the full knowledge that the word “militant” is being aggressively distorted by deceitful U.S. government propaganda that defines the term to mean: any “military-age males” whom we kill (the use of the phrase “suspected militants” in the body of the article suffers the same infirmity).

[Vattel]

1. Disgusting. We need the media to expose the distortions

that Obama and the military uses to rationalize drone strikes.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. no change.

I'm too old for this shit. Same as it ever was. From vietnam to pakistan, we only kill bad guys. You can tell which ones are the bad guys: they're dead.

[2on2u]

3. May I hit the alert button for truth telling? I'm tempted. n/t

[brewens]

4. Just like that door gunner in "Full Metal Jacket". If the run they're V.C. If they

don't run, they're a well disciplned V.C.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Kick.

[Life Long Dem]

6. Lesson here...

Don't hang around with terrorists.

[Luminous Animal]

7. What? Are you joking?

[Life Long Dem]

8. No, why?

The so called civilians killed were associated with terrorists.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Absolutely no evidence to support that claim. None.

Let me put it like this. The target is a "suspected terrorist". He is targeted and killed in a drone attack. Then it is time to account for the bodies. Oops, it looks like we killed a woman and her two children. Good thing that her husband is of military age, because now the press can report that we got two militants! USA! USA!

[Life Long Dem]

12. "suspected terrorist"?

Obama has been taking out AQ who are in the "number two," position. Watch this video from Colbert. Lesson here, is don't get promoted to the number two position.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414703/may-31-2012/barack-obama-s-righteous-drone-strikes

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. You do realize that classifying military age males

As combatants is against the Geneva Convention?

Just in case we did sign it...so in theory that's a war crime.

Now killing an actual combatant, sure...but declaring somebody a combatant because they happen to have a dick, and be between sixteen and sixty is not kosher.

If you have sons take a good look, because somebody else might play the same game.

I swear, Americans will on,y get it when it finally happens in the us of a.

[zappaman]

110. Yes

We Americans are sooooo stupid.

[jmowreader]

107. I wonder how many number two men AQ actually has

It's like they have an org chart: Osama (or whoever replaced Osama when Seal Team Six got done with him) at the top, and then there's a number two man for personnel, a number two man for intelligence, one for operations, one for logistics, one for information systems...there's a number two man running the motor pool plus thirty or forty number two men as mechanics, the mess hall has twenty number two men cooking in there, the supply sergeant is a number two man...and that doesn't count all the "multilevel terrorism" number-two men in all the downlines.

We will never kill off all the number two men because everyone at AQ holds that title.

[coalition_unwilling]

89. More like Life Long Dem(agogue) - n/t

[WriteWrong]

10. All military-age males in a strike zone are combatants - that's their association

[Zalatix]

11. So if a terrorist walks by you and a drone hits him and kills you in the process

remember you said that.

[Life Long Dem]

13. You are joking.

A hit won't happen in a shopping mall or where I and others like me would be to be in close proximity to the terrorist. That's like saying watch out where you shop because that is where an attack will happen. Sigh.

[Zalatix]

16. My response was the LOGICAL consequence of your argument.

News story: "All military-age males in a strike zone are combatants"

Your response:

"Lesson here... Don't hang around with terrorists."

"The so called civilians killed were associated with terrorists."

Your point here is unambiguous - if you are a male in a strike zone you are hanging around with terrorists.

The consequences of your reasoning is that if a terrorist is nearby you and gets hit and you die, well, you shouldn't have hung around with terrorists.

What, you didn't know a terrorist was nearby? Neither did all those males that are now classified as combatants, whom you have accused of "associating with terrorists".

[Life Long Dem]

49. I believe they are much more careful than what you portray.

They probably have been targeting the particular terrorist for quite awhile and know when to make a hit. And if there are certain people who are always in proximity to the terrorist they would take the strike. Terrorist hiding among the same group of people won't hold back a strike.

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Shit in one hand and 'believe' in another and see which fills up first. Kill 'em all

and let God sort 'em out.

Oy, why bother? It's off to Ignore-land for you.

[tiny elvis]

95. the qaida are the red targets. associates are orange

civs will not show til you off them and see your score go down
no civs cheat- walrusweeps

[Zalatix]

96. CAREFUL?!!! LOL!!! Tell that to the weddings that got hit by summary execution bombs.

[NickB79]

42. Yes, a hit wouldn't happen in a market, or wedding, or anything like that

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

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

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

[sabrina 1]

59. Hits have happened in shopping malls, or do brown women and children shoppers not count?

[Occulus]

62. Well, they didn't respond to post 47,

in which Timothy Mcveigh was mentioned. I would have thought surely, he being an American committing an act of terrorism on American soil, it would have garnered some response.

Hammer, meet nail? It's hard to tell these days...

[sabrina 1]

66. Lol, well anyone who decides to take the position they are taking here, considering how

familiar we are with those positions from the years of Bush propaganda probably deserves some sympathy. It's a tough job, as Bush himself admitted, catapulting the propaganda, but there's always someone who thinks they have to do it!

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Ah, well at least you say it openly it won't happen to 'others like me'....

Which humans are not like you? Perhaps you should expound on that one for a while.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. "So called civilians"? Really?

Just

[kenny blankenship]

102. Um...EVERYONE is now a presumed Enemy Combatant until proved innocent

posthumously. 9-11 was a license to change everything about your government.

[Egalitarian Thug]

108. Yes, I just don't run into people that don't understand what a bad idea it is,

let alone endorse it, in the sane places I try to inhabit.

[Puregonzo1188]

76. You understand why guilt by association is...oh never min why bother reasoning

with someone defending murdering civillians.

Might as well have a shouting match with Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden.

[Zalatix]

14. And where is the proof that these people are terrorists?

[Life Long Dem]

15. Where is the proof that they are not terrorists?

Here the situation is guilt by association.

[Occulus]

17. Guilt by association rarely gets the right people

and isn't anything close to a value moral people adhere to.

[Zalatix]

19. It's different with those pesky brown people.

[Occulus]

23. This one pulled the same shit the last time this was posted.

Suspicions? Oh my, yes!

[Zalatix]

18. Let me explain this in as simple English as I can

In a court of law you do not have to prove you are not a terrorist.
The prosecutor has to prove you ARE a terrorist.

[Life Long Dem]

21. What courts? This is a war.

[Zalatix]

25. So?

To follow the consequences of your reasoning, we now have a situation where one or two people declare someone to be a terrorist, and as a result they die. And OTHER innocent around them also die.

You, of course, agree with this reasoning, because you don't expect that you'll ever be inaccurately pegged as a terrorist, and because you believe America would never drone strike its own people.

The moment your skin gets put in the game your tune will change.

[Life Long Dem]

37. Lets just fight them over there in the Middle East first.

Then can we worry about the Government declaring war on terrorists in the US? Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. I hope that makes a little sense to prevent your scenario.

[white_wolf]

46. That is exactly what Bush said.

Are you sure you are one the right website?

[Zalatix]

98. Fight them over there? Fight whom?

First you have to prove to me that there's anyone over there that we have to fight.

Of course that's now easy to prove since we've bombed so many people that they want payback!!!

[HiPointDem]

36. It is? What war is it and when was it declared? Oh, that's right, Bush's bullshit war on "terror".

[NickB79]

50. That line was tried before, back in 1946.

Didn't work out so well for the ones uttering it then as a defense for their actions.

[Occulus]

56. I have a feeling this one does not believe in the concept of war crimes

it would be consistent with everything else they have said.

[sabrina 1]

61. That's what Bush said. I thought he was a liar. In fact, he was.

[Occulus]

20. If your neighbor is a meth dealer,

you are a meth head.

And since we here at DU don't know that, we should assume it's true.

You really shouldn't post while you're tweaking, you know. We can tell.

[Life Long Dem]

22. Have we declared a war on meth heads?

Because I know of the war on terrorists.

[Occulus]

24. It's called the war on drugs by people who don't live under rocks.

Maybe you should move.

[Life Long Dem]

27. What are you talking about?

You sound drunk.

[Occulus]

31. Id one of your neighbors is dealing drugs, you are on them.

Funny how when someone applies your "logic" to you you're suddenly all mystified as to what they're trying to say, isn't it?

Not "funny ha ha", but funny "I smell something funny".

[Life Long Dem]

34. You make no sense.

The war on drugs and the war on terror are two different things. One includes your right to a fair trial, and the other refers to death on sight.

[Occulus]

39. Yet both are guilt by association, which you mentioned in post 15.

It's a near certainty that someone on your street uses drugs. By your "logic", everyone in your neighborhood must be placed under suspicion by your local police if that is the case.

It follows from that that we here at DU should assume you're using, since you're the one championing guilt by association.

It's funny how you suddenly don't get it when someone makes it about you and yours.

[Life Long Dem]

40. What do they say?

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Being in company of someone in possession is not a crime last time I checked.

Like I said. No sense, I tell you.

[Occulus]

51. It is if youre in your car and they have something in their pocket.

You didn't check the law very hard, apparently. Your car would get impounded at the least, if not torn apart on the spot by a drug team, and you yourself could be charged with trafficking, which is actually a more serious charge. "I didn't know they had a joint" isn't a defense.

Which is why "guilt by association" is a false doctrine. You almost always end up getting innocents caught up in the mix, be they overseas on a nebulous and ill-defined battlefield, or on our own streets in a drug sweep.

The analogy could not be more clear.

[Life Long Dem]

53. So this eliminates my neighbors anyway.

Which is everything you based your post on.

[Occulus]

55. One of your neighbors, in your car, coming to or going from your street.

According to your "logic", it makes you just as guilty as they are.

My point, which you somehow continue to miss (knowingly evade may be more accurate), is that that is wrong and that you are wrong for championing it.

[Life Long Dem]

58. I'm fine with guilt by association with my neighbors.

Since I won't be getting shot on sight over some neighbor doing drugs, or even arrested. But on the other hand, I'm not fine associating with terrorists as neighbors because I could get blown up.

[Occulus]

60. Your life could be destroyed.

Let me spell it out for you. Your neighbor, a lifelong friend who visits often, is secretly cooking up batches of meth. They are under surveillance by police. They spill some in your car without knowing it, or maybe in your bathroom by accident. The "how" is unimportant.

The police come to your house, search it, and bring drug dogs, which promptly alert on its presence. Congratulations- your nightmare has begun.

All because of guilt by association. And yes, innocent people have been shot and killed in drug raids. You simply can't not know that.

[Life Long Dem]

65. I know how things (courts) work.

Poor poor terrorists though will be shot dead.

[sabrina 1]

63. Lucky you 'I won't be getting shot on sight over some neighbor doing drugs'

This unfortunate victim was not so lucky, one of many lost in the Great War on Drugs:

Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid



Tragic, as are all killings of innocent people.

On May 5 at around 9:30 a.m., several teams of Pima County, Ariz., police officers from at least four different police agencies armed with SWAT gear and an armored personnel carrier raided at least four homes as part of what at the time was described as an investigation into alleged marijuana trafficking. One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple's 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.

Unless you subscribe to the fact that he was killed in a war, so it's collateral damage, or he shouldn't have been there in his own house minding his own business.

It happens quite often to innocent people in the War on Drugs. So I wouldn't be so cavalier about it. I doubt the victim here ever thought it could happen to him, either. Cops lied of course, got caught in lies, etc. etc. The thing is, he's dead, his wife is a widow and his children are fatherless.

Progressives believe that great care should be taken not to kill innocent civilians. Nor do they subscribe to 'guilt by association'. I believe that is against the law, to kill someone because they are near someone else with no other reason. Also it is illegal to falsely call men 'combatants' simply because of their age. And for good reason.

[Life Long Dem]

67. Oh, the poor poor terrorists.

[sabrina 1]

75. Having fun yet?

I am, thanks for the opportunity btw, it's been a while since I had one like this.

[Life Long Dem]

78. Yeah, I was a little bored today.

I'm getting ready to back it down, as I had my fun. Peace.

[sabrina 1]

79. Oh come on, don't quit when you're losing, makes it too easy for the rest of us!

Life Long Dem. Love your user name, btw

[Life Long Dem]

80. Who is losing? I don't feel like I'm losing.

Just getting tired of the same old BS.

[sabrina 1]

83. Of course you don't! Lol!

I'm not tired, I'm energized as a matter of fact. Educating people who are grossly misinformed is a patriotic duty which I've been doing for a long time. I find it exhilarating.

Better to sell facts, rather than that same old BS, it's a lot less tiring.

[Life Long Dem]

84. Maybe you should have a protest.

Your sign should be "save the terrorists". Don't you think?

[sabrina 1]

86. Where have I heard that before? Lol!

Here, since you're so exhausted, let me help:

This is YOU to ME:

You: "Why don't you go sing Kumbaya with (insert terrorist name who we haven't killed twice or three times already), give him a hug and some understanding"

Me: That might work better than killing women and children? You catch more flies with honey!

I know you expected a lieberal like me to say that, admit it, didn't you?

You: If you had your way, terrorists would take away all of our freedoms. Thank gawwd we're not depending on people like you for our national security.

Me: What freedoms? People like you have given away more of our freedoms than any terrorist could dream of

I think I'll let you answer the last one, if you're not too tired that is! Then we can compare if I was right about your answer would be.

I know, it's not fair, I've played this game so often I probably have an unfair advantage, and you're tired. But I'm not, so who cares?

If you leave now, I win!

[Life Long Dem]

91. Being tired of something isn't exhaustion.

A little spin on your part I see. Never mind that... These terrorists are killing children and babies as we speak. It is said terrorists kill 300 people to one civilian killed with a terrorist hit.

Save the terrorists so they can kill 300 hundred more civilians? Your argument is one civilian casualty is more than enough. Yet these terrorists can go on killing hundreds of civilians. Makes no sense to me to not deter this.

[Luminous Animal]

92. When did we become the world's hired hit man?

[Life Long Dem]

94. Since the terrorists declared war.

But what happened to the "lets fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"?

[Luminous Animal]

99. We are not killing people who are attacking us in Pakistan, Syria, or Yemen.

We are the mercenaries for despots.

[sabrina 1]

104. What utter nonsense, terrorists cannot declare war. It's been quite a failure hasn't

it, the last ten years of the world's biggest Super Power, who can't stop a few terrorists, according to you. From what you're saying, we've been thoroughly defeated, despite all our big weapons and expensive invasions, by some nebulous entity that no one can define.

Do you realize that other countries have dealt far more successfully with their terrorists than this country has, according to you?


Of course they WANTED to end terrorism. Some people around the world don't believe the US anymore. What they see is that it is the US who is killing and terrorizing people.

[sabrina 1]

93. They're killing children here in the US?

If you're talking about other countries, that is their business, not ours.

'It is said' ~ by whom?

'Save the terrorists' ~ I forgot that one. Not very clever spin, seriously. New talking points are needed. Or FACTS, links to credible sources, to back up all your assertions would do.

The WOT was supposed to be to go after those responsible for 9/11. Of course we went to the wrong country and killed over a million 'terrorists' there where there were no 'terrorists'. The 'terrorists' were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden is dead, so who are these 'terrorists' that you speak of?

Anyone can, and they do, as you demonstrate so beautifully, say anything they want on the Internet, but reasonable people require FACTS, backed up by credible sources.

I'm sorry you are so scared. It must be hard living in a state of constant fear. Tiring too.

Me, I am more scared for the real terror that kills over 44, 000 Americans every year who have no Health Care.

You are tired because people are questioning your assertions, and you have nothing to back them up. That IS tiring.

[Life Long Dem]

100. Yeah, it's there problem not ours.

Until we have another WTC disaster. 9/11 backs up my assertions just fine.

[sabrina 1]

103. Every country has that possibility, terrorism is as old as the human inhabited planet. So

when does this 'terror war' end? How many human beings do we need to kill before we feel 'safe'?

Half a million Americans have died since 9/11 for lack of Health Care. That was a national security issue, don't you think? But not a finger was raised by the same scare-mongers who are claiming to 'keep us safe' (what does that mean?) to try to save the lives of those Americans.

Who needs terrorists when we have a HC system that does the job for them, and a population so frightened they are willing to give up their freedoms in order to feel safe??

All a terrorist has to do is sit back and watch fear do what we are told, they are trying to do.

Home of the Brave? You and so many others who make this ridiculous argument, make it out of fear, and of course, the war mongers make it for profit.

How many terrorists were in Iraq? Do you know?

If you want to cower in fear forever do so, but the rest of us do not want to live in your world of never-ending war and killing and torture and hatred. It would be better to die than live in that world.

The terrorists have defeated you, completely, a small band of disgruntled people who have zero power.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of what has become of the Home of the Brave they fought for?

As I said, all you have is rhetoric, same old talking points.

Fascinating to see them here though, where Democrats never lived in fear. Never bought the scare-mongering.

Democrats are courageous, fearless. Watching the paranoid, cowering of the Right over the last decade was a national embarrassment, frankly.

[white_wolf]

97. Will you quit with the 300 to 1 bullshit? You got that from some anonymous idiot on yahoo answers.

It's hardly a reputable source of information. I swear you're as bad as the "Dude" who would post links to Urban Dictionary and claim it was a legitimate source of information.

[Occulus]

68. I think we are wasting our time, to be honest.

I don't think this one, to be crude, gives a wet fuck on a hot day about any point any of us make. From their posts on this thread, if we're supposed to believe "life long dem" really is a lifelong democrat, then I have some bottomland to sell all of you- just don't ask me what it's on the bottom of!

[sabrina 1]

73. True, but it is an opportunity to practice. You can get rusty

after a while although the talking points never really change

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Oh, my God. You've completely reversed things.

The burden has to be on those dropping death out of the sky to show that they are attacking legitimate targets. The White House wants to do it by in effect saying, "If we killed you, you must have been a bad guy."

And you're not only defending that, but upping the ante. Now, you want (dead) people to prove a negative--that they were not terrorists--and you want to rely on guilt by association to justify killing them. How very un-American.

[Life Long Dem]

43. Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

[NickB79]

48. Except that your plan turns us into the very ones we're fighting against

If we accept that it's OK to indiscriminately kill civilians and just brand whoever we choose as terrorists, we've become the terrorists. A suicide vest or a cruise missile, both have the same results in the end if we don't give a damn about protecting the innocent.

[Occulus]

70. But don't you understand?

If they're standing next to an actual terrorist, any civilian killed at the same time is also a terrorist!

That is this one's "logic", in a nutshell. Where, oh where oh where, could be expect to find similar sentiments?

[kenny blankenship]

101. At his presser, Teh Obama laid it out succinctly: Terrorism is like Cooties.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

105. If you want to fight them over there, why not sign up?

[NickB79]

47. Timothy McVey purchased fertilizer from a farm supply store

And diesel fuel from a gas station.

Timothy McVey was a terrorist in every sense of the word. By your logic, the US would have been justified in arresting everyone who was present in the store and gas station when he purchased his bomb-making materials and charging them as accomplices to murder, and then demanding they prove they weren't guilty.

[Life Long Dem]

74. That's silly.

Timothy McVey was a terrorist, But to say they would blow away anyone where he was shopping is ridiculous.

[Occulus]

81. Yes, it is, which is why he said "arrest" and not "blow away".

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. That's an observation, by the way, not a question.

[Life Long Dem]

82. Yes it is silly. We both agree on that.

[morningfog]

54. What about when children are killed?

Is a 5-year old a terrorist?

[Occulus]

57. Terrorists strap bomb vests to children,

therefore, all the dead children are terrorists.



I believe this one said exactly that on the previous thread on this topic...

Sick.. just sick....

[sabrina 1]

72. Here, let me help. We know all the talking points, so here's the usual one for that

question:

'It's their parents fault, they should not have had them there'.

Just in case

[RedCappedBandit]

44. WTF?

Had to make sure I was on democratic underground for a second there.

[Occulus]

64. See my thread in meta.

It's about shit like this. This, right here, right now.

[white_wolf]

45. This shit again?

Don't you get tired of being utter destroyed. Seriously, guys, don't waste your time on this one. He tried to argue the same crap in another thread and he made it clear that facts won't change his mind.

[morningfog]

52. Lifelong demagoguery.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Just like all the terrorists in My Lai. In that other lost war also fought for PR.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[Poll_Blind]

30. We should all remember, too, that if it weren't for the actions of one man...

...there is the highest probability that My Lai might have never been known about. I am of the mind that if it weren't for the honorable, professional and soldierly behavior of Hugh Thompson, Jr., My Lai would have been just another slaughter in Pinkville. For those who might be reading this response but be unfamiliar with him, please click on this link and learn what Mr. Thompson did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.#My_Lai_Massacre

His bravery to stand up for what's right in a world of wrong is an enduring lesson to soldiers everywhere and to us all.

PB

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. There is a sad lack of such behavior in our current lost wars.

[Zalatix]

35. "Thompson started receiving hate mail, death threats and mutilated animals on his doorstep."

This is how we thank soldiers who stand up for what's right.

[sabrina 1]

77. He was a true hero. Thanks for reminding us again, they are so rare.

[leeroysphitz]

29. This makes sense coming from a country that considers all black men to be drug dealing thugs and

all women that use birth control to be prostitutes.

[PufPuf23]

33. Where is Mullah Omar? We went to Afghanistan for OBL and Mullah Omar.

We haven't even taken out any #2 Taliban or had tapes or anything. What's up with that?

The drone program and this definition of militants is obscene.

[kenny blankenship]

71. Just shut up and support President Bush in what he has to do

I mean President Nixon. Check that- support President Johnson. There is EVIL in the world -everywhere- and President Reagan is valiantly protecting you from Communist conspiracies in Central America, while President Johnson and Nixon are on the South East Asian front battling inscrutable Communist evil in black pajamas. President Bush and Obama are stemming the tides of Muslim suicide bombers in Mesopotamian Oilfield One and Pipelinestan. So recently they've had to add the Red Sea periphery and the South Seas Archipelagos to the Global theater of combat - so what? Didn't I say that there was Evil everywhere in the world? Our Presidents heroism is bounded by neither time zones nor latitudes.

People like you don't deserve our Presidents' noble efforts! You probably couldn't find the Malabar Front on a map with an alphabetically ordered index and a magnifying glass.

[Luminous Animal]

88. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

106. Would we be better if we believe it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

85. Their crime was being "military-aged". The AP leaves a part of the story untold though...

The US Government is doggedly and tirelessly working to exonerate them posthumously.

Oh, wait...

[coalition_unwilling]

87. Don't forget the latest category: "Terrorists disguised as children" - n/t

[Hawkowl]

109. This is a war crime.

Killing civilians indiscriminately and only labeling them terrorists simply because Obama ordered them killed, is a war crime.

There is no way around it.