Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
62. Excuses. Excuses. I am not convinced.
Sat May 5, 2012, 01:15 AM
May 2012

These drones are simply another, newer, lethal toy for the military.

The drones make their victims look like -- victims overpowered by the high and mighty. They make the American military look like a bully.

A fight to a surrender humiliates the loser and destroys not just the person but diminishes the appearance of invulnerability of the loser.

Yes. A drone can get rid of a terrible person. (It can also kill innocent people -- collateral damage of the worst kind.)

But it does not defeat the ideas or cause of that person.

With Al Qaeda and terrorists in general, it's the idea, the cause as expressed in its extremist form by the terrorists that needs to be defeated. Killing individual leaders will not kill their ideas or cause. Killing the unarmed can (although it does not always) strengthen their ideas or cause.

There is a big strategic downside to the drones.

Sorry, y'all lost me a long time ago. DCKit May 2012 #1
Don't you know the boys were terrorists disguised as children? Hope coalition_unwilling May 2012 #34
I would expect nothing different from a murderer gratuitous May 2012 #2
"why the victims didn't deserve any consideration" Bolo Boffin May 2012 #3
It's right there gratuitous May 2012 #4
Nothing you pointed out said innocent victims deserve no consideration, which is what I asked. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #5
+1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - n/t coalition_unwilling May 2012 #38
Brennan is a liar and can't be trusted. morningfog May 2012 #6
Brennan is the source for all the information we've been discussing. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #7
He is admitting to deaths because his lies were exposed. He is a fraud. morningfog May 2012 #8
He is standing by his statement from June 29, 2011. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #11
He knew it was false at the time he made it. His little dance was not impressive. morningfog May 2012 #20
We've established that this is what you think. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #21
Here: morningfog May 2012 #24
Three of your links are outside the time frame Brennan specified. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #26
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Too funny. I'm done with your pimping for propaganda. morningfog May 2012 #27
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. That Eichmann Brennan coalition_unwilling May 2012 #35
Proportionality? What tripe. Vattel May 2012 #9
You use quotation marks, but I fail to find that quote in his remarks. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #12
It was not a quote (obviously). Vattel May 2012 #14
Obviously, because Brennan expresses exactly the opposite as I quoted in Post 3. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #15
I'm not sure I see your point. Vattel May 2012 #16
My point is that you manufactured a hideous position to paint Brennan as worse than he is. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #17
Nonsense. You missed the point of my snarky imaginary quote. Vattel May 2012 #22
"My prediction: you will never see him seriously discussing that issue." Bolo Boffin May 2012 #23
Minimizing deaths relative to other military strategies is a different issue. Vattel May 2012 #33
This is how I understand proportionality. From the ICRC: Bolo Boffin May 2012 #36
That is proportonality as legally defined. Vattel May 2012 #60
Why isn't this murderer in the dock instead of talking about ethics? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2012 #10
"he does sparkle at blaming the victims" -- I didn't see this. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #13
Great. I look forward to the installments EFerrari May 2012 #18
Brennan opposed waterboarding. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #19
Are you Brennan's PR rep? morningfog May 2012 #25
No. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #28
I am interested in an honest discussion, which neither you nor Brennan seem capable of. morningfog May 2012 #29
I'm quite capable of an honest, respectful discussion. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #30
No, he did not. EFerrari May 2012 #31
Yes, he did, as your own link to Greenwald states. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #39
The Obama/Brennan connection is troubling at best whatchamacallit May 2012 #45
Butt covering. nt bemildred May 2012 #32
Everybody on DU needs to know this lying sack of shit Brennan coalition_unwilling May 2012 #37
"back in the late 90s, early 00s." Bolo Boffin May 2012 #40
Do you know how to read? Tenet was his coalition_unwilling May 2012 #41
I do know how to read. Both Tenet and Brennan got their jobs under Clinton, right? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #44
What possible difference could it make who gave those coalition_unwilling May 2012 #61
And who is going to enforce these rules? JDPriestly May 2012 #42
We are. And according to Brennan, this administration is. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #46
So comforting whatchamacallit May 2012 #48
You say the intelligence is untested. Does that mean it actually is? n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #49
It means whatchamacallit May 2012 #50
OK, that's what you think is going on. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #52
You shouldn't whatchamacallit May 2012 #53
And the alert results are in DisgustipatedinCA May 2012 #54
Saying I have an "affinity with the soulless" is insulting and over the top. Bolo Boffin May 2012 #55
Yes that must be it whatchamacallit May 2012 #56
Perhaps you could start another thread about your belief that Osama bin Laden isn't dead Bolo Boffin May 2012 #57
I don't know what to believe whatchamacallit May 2012 #58
Feel free to discuss whether bin Laden is dead or not in another thread. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #59
Excuses. Excuses. I am not convinced. JDPriestly May 2012 #62
Only you would use the words of a POS Bush Tool to justify our crimes whatchamacallit May 2012 #43
Brennan was first hired under the Clinton administration, right? Bolo Boffin May 2012 #47
Clinton's fuck-ups don't matter whatchamacallit May 2012 #51
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Efficacy and Ethics o...»Reply #62