More Murderous Change from Obama

[placton]

Today’s New York Times features a story on our expanded use of predator drones with HellFire missiles to bomb suspected al Qaeda/Taliban targets in Pakistan. The practice has apparently greatly increased under the Obama Administration.

***
What’s new is the public acknowledgment that this is what we do, and how we behave, that it’s routine, and the implicit acceptance that it’s okay. And all that has occurred with no recognition whatsoever that if an agent from another country did that here, it would be called a terrorist act carried out by a people without soul or morality.

Only now we’re the best in the world.

http://firedoglake.com/

Who can defend this? (on edit) apparently many DUers CAN defend this IOKIYAO (it's ok if you are Obama)
2d edit: DUers are unreccoing facts! Why am I not surprised, and yet saddened?

[BeFree]

1. War is hell

that's why I don't ever support war. If I supported war, then I'd have to find a way to support predator drones like this, and I just can't do it. And no one is ever gonna make me.

[placton]

3. If war is hell (and it is)

does that make people who wage and escalate it - demons?

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. No, but it makes people say stupid shit.

[placton]

10. what a brilliant argument

facts are facts - neither stupid or not - do you support this really? Thanks for the unrecc - I now consider them badges of honor.

[Buzz Clik]

30. How is one supposed to respond to your "demon" comment?

It was silly, and the poster called it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

64. I didn't unrec this piece of shit OP.

In fact I just gave you a K&R. :evilgrin:

[BeFree]

8. Nah

Usually just deceived. Most of them, when they really stop and think about it, don't support war. They have just been deceived into believing war is ok.

So.... I don't believe in calling them nasty names, or trying to make demons of them. Just try to educate them that it's ok to be anti-war, no matter what they've been told.

[placton]

13. I didn't mean the people

I meant the ones who unleash this

[BeFree]

21. They're people too

but they have too much support or they wouldn't be able to commit their hellish acts upon other people. They don't need my support and they'll never get it.

[rockymountaindem]

2. If another country did that here,

it would be because we were letting them do it; which is exactly what is happening in Pakistan. You can disagree over whether or not the Predators are an effective choice due to the number of civilian casualties they cause, but there's no way we would be doing this if we didn't have the permission of the Pakistani government.

[placton]

4. so it's ok then?

since you believe - based on nothing btw - that the govt oks it? I am sure the dead innocents would beg to differ.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Is any war ever justified?

[Robb]

5. Yes. Also, apparently the military wants to bomb in Pakistan.

I'd rather send a drone than a pilot with a family. Obviously I'd rather send nothing, but I prefer a drone.

[wtmusic]

9. Um, it's a war crime.

These people are not "actively engaging in hostilities" and thus are entitled to a trial.

[leeroysphitz]

A trial? That's not how we ROLL when it comes to the war on terra...

[wtmusic]

33. My bad...I'm running low on Viagra nt

[atreides1]

Here's the problem

While it may be a fact that the Pakistani government is allowing the Predator attacks to continue, you can be assured that the very same government officials are telling the Pakistani people that the US is conducting those attacks without the permission of the Pakistani government, and that the US will not listen.

So, the Pakistani government gets to kill two birds with one stone, the militants are taken out, allowing the Pakistani military to avoid confrontations and reducing casualties, while being able to blame the US for all of the civilian casualties!

What more could the Pakistani government ask for?

[Luminous Animal]

43. The Pakistani government is not happy.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Inauguration/story?id=6724182&page=1

But, what are they going to do? They've seen the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our brutality is laid bare and the threat is implicit.

[wtmusic]

7. When Dubya endorsed CIA assassinations there was outrage

This is worse.

"On August 5th, officials at the Central Intelligence Agency, in Langley, Virginia, watched a live video feed relaying closeup footage of one of the most wanted terrorists in Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, could be seen reclining on the rooftop of his father-in-law’s house, in Zanghara, a hamlet in South Waziristan."

<>

"The video was being captured by the infrared camera of a Predator drone, a remotely controlled, unmanned plane that had been hovering, undetected, two miles or so above the house....The image remained just as stable when the C.I.A. remotely launched two Hellfire missiles from the Predator. Authorities watched the fiery blast in real time. After the dust cloud dissipated, all that remained of Mehsud was a detached torso. Eleven others died: his wife, his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, a lieutenant, and seven bodyguards."

<>

"The advent of the Predator targeted-killing program “is really a sea change,” says Gary Solis, who teaches at Georgetown University’s Law Center and recently retired from running the law program at the U.S. Military Academy. “Not only would we have expressed abhorrence of such a policy a few years ago; we did.” In July, 2001, two months before Al Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington profoundly altered America’s mind-set, the U.S. denounced Israel’s use of targeted killing against Palestinian terrorists. The American Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, said at the time, “The United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations. . . . They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

Unless we're the murderers, or course.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Oh, shush! Killing is fun and war chic and fashionable for the right wing here.

[Romulox]

12. Are we at war with Pakistan, and nobody's telling us?

:shrug:

[jpak]

14. This is what Joe Biden (Obama's VP) and Obama (POTUS) have been advocating for months now

Why is this a surprise?

It's not

try again

Oh yeah - I think that leadership of AQ and the Taliban deserve no peace - anywhere.

there I said it.

[placton]

15. how about the women and kids and innocent men?

do they deserve it too - or merely collateral damage?

[wtmusic]

17. Can I answer this one? Pick me! Pick me!

"They're aiding and abetting the terrorists, so they get blown up too!"

[placton]

20. slapping my forehead

of course - the scales have fallen from my eyes

[avaistheone1]

19. Merely collateral damage.

Just a little messiness.


:sarcasm:

[jpak]

When AQ and Taliban bombs kill only military personnel, then we can be holier-than-thou

These people target civilians for attacks

They execute women for not adhering to their brand of sharia law

just sayin'

[wtmusic]

25. Got it - because they're animals we can be animals too.

Any way you slice it, a morally bankrupt position.

[jpak]

27. War is Hell and there is no way to make it "nice" or "moral"

sorry

[wtmusic]

No, not all war is equal

and that's the entire basis of international law.

War is hell = copout

[jpak]

37. Internaional law is for governments and nations

Do the Taliban or AQ fall into those categories?

Nope

War is Hell = reality

[wtmusic]

46. All bets are off, are they?

Let me carry this to its logical conclusion to make it clear how absurd you're sounding.

We are entitled to nuke Islamabad because we know a terrorist lives there? :silly:

[jpak]

47. now THAT's an absurd straw person

yawn

[wtmusic]

48. Really? I'll bet you can't explain why.

:crickets:

[jpak]

49. Because Obama is not nuking anyone anywhere to get at any terrorist anywhere

that is why your assertion is absurd

[wtmusic]

50. OK, let me help you here.

Obama is blowing up entire families to get one terrorist. Do you think that's fair or just?

[jpak]

57. It is neither fair or just - it is war (which neither fair nor just)

Now one can argue that all war is evil - and they would be right.

But, unlike Iraq, we are in a war in Afghanistan we did not "pick" - and to let the Taliban and AQ return to status quo antebellum 2001 in Afghanistan is just plain morally wrong and stupid too.

So yeah, I support Obama's decision on this - it's the only realistic (bad) options we have right now.

flame if you will, but that's my opinion

[Luminous Animal]

59. So, you reject the Geneva Conventions?

You reject the objections of the Pakistani populace and the Pakistani government?

[jpak]

63. If Pakistan really objected, it would have bombed US bases where these attacks were launched

and cut off all US supply lines through Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government and populace is cuttently under attack by the Taliban - and their "objections" are feigned or for domestic consumption only.

Obama is in talks with Pakistan over this - sorry to inform you.

Oh yeah - anyone that supports Obama on this rejects the Geneva Convention and eats babies and kittens

yup!

[placton]

28. so WE should kill the women so the Taliban can't? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

31. So, if a man kills my children,

I have the right to kill his?

[jpak]

35. That is the nature of war and human behavior

and it is not pretty - sorry everthing isn't a bed of roses

but it ain't

[wtmusic]

42. No. Just No.

Read the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter before your doo-doo gets any deeper.

[leeroysphitz]

34. Apparently jpak means little brown people deserve no peace...

Maybe jpak ought to enlist if he feels so strongly about it.

[jpak]

45. No - jpak wants Afghans to live in peace and under their own representative govenment

and not under the control of fundamentalist assholes like the Taliban and AQ

sorry to burst your bubble

[leeroysphitz]

51. "jpak wants Afghans to live in peace and under their own representative govenment"

but not until after we ship 30,000 more troops and countless more support personnel to occupy their country.
Of course. It all makes perfect sense now.

[jpak]

62. It makes perfect sense to clear the Taliban from areas that Bush let them back into

and protect those Afghans while they build-up their own capabilities to defend themselves against the Taliban and AQ.

And when did Obama proclaim that we are there to "occupy" Afghanistan a la the USSR or Britannia?

He did not

Obama specifically proclaimed this was NOT an occupation.

so said he Tuesday night

[placton]

65. and when does jpak think it will happen - since it has not in

3000 years?

[jpak]

71. jpak is will to give than a chance

while placton is willing to condemn Afghans to life under a fundamenatalist Taliban dictatorship

[Luminous Animal]

16. Who said anything about it being a surprise?

When I protested against Bush's torture policy, I didn't do it because I was surprised.

[leeroysphitz]

38. Didn't you know that we are supposed to care about bad policy only if it a surprise...

"I told you I was gonna punch you in the nose, it wasn't a surprise so why are you upset with me?"

[arcadian]

29. The "why are you surprised?" argument is getting real old, real fast.

Try make something else up.

[leeroysphitz]

41. It's all the pro war crowd has without resorting to Bush admin era talking point.

Intellectual dishonesty from the cheer leaders.

[ZombieHorde]

52. The OP does not claim to be surprised. This complaint has no basis.

"I think that leadership of AQ and the Taliban deserve no peace"

We are not going after the Taliban, we are going after some in the Taliban.

President Obama said in his speech, "We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

[LWolf]

69. It's not a surprise. It's just wrong. nt

[FarLeftFist]

18. So should we put manned aircraft to bomb terrorists

And get shot out of the sky, leading to higher casualty rates and more televised POW beheadings? How can one be opposed to the war but for manned aircraft.

[wtmusic]

22. False choice.

First of all, al Qaeda has no capability to "shoot aircraft out of the sky".

Second of all, we have no authorization under international law to assassinate anyone. Period. There's a good reason for it.

Third - what's worse, a televised POW beheading or vaporizing an entire family of eleven?

[Luminous Animal]

23. We shouldn't be bombing civilians from aircraft manned or unmanned.

[FarLeftFist]

55. I agree....

But I'm not against bombing terrorists from an unmanned aircraft.

[Luminous Animal]

58. No evidence that the people we are bombing are terroritsts.

No evidence that others killed along with the targets are terrorists, terrorists sympathizers, or harboring terrorists.

The people of Pakistan are angry and the government of Pakistan has registered official protest.

[placton]

24. oh yeah now I see - ONLY 2 choices

Killing the innocent with manned aircraft or drones! How truly Bushian

[Buzz Clik]

26. Among the hundreds of recent threads that have condemned our policy in Afghanistan, we have heard:

• We are sending our soldiers to do die.
  
• This is an awful policy that we never bargained for.
  
• There are essentially no al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

We are attacking the real bad guys, the use of drones keeps our soldiers out of harm's way, and this was discussed specifically during the campaign.

If the point of the OP is that all violence is bad with no exceptions, then this action is indefensible. However, if one is anchored in the reality of what is happening in Afghanistan and why our presence there is important, then no defense is necessary.

[placton]

36. My friend _ I held my nose and voted for Obama believing him

and now I find I was fooled. It won't happen again, and I shake my head sadly that you believe as you do.

[Buzz Clik]

39. You were fooled? About what?

[opihimoimoi]

40. Obamas GOOD SHIT List outweighs this shit...remember, he is trying to fix Bushies war..

It was W that muffed this whole deal...

Lets put the fucking blame on Bush....It was he, Rummy, and Cheney that spawned this National/International NightMare

[Buzz Clik]

44. Agreed. I am amazed at the feined shock over these developments.

This was discussed very thoroughly during the campaign.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Show me. Show me where the use of predator drones

was discussed thoroughly during the campaign.

[FarLeftFist]

56. Show me where it wasn't. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

61. I assert that you fuck goats. Prove to me that you don't.

It is up to the person who makes the assertion to provide proof.

[opihimoimoi]

54. The Pub Trolls/minions feign shock all too much...they dither on Reason, Truth, and Clarity

They come to distract, divide, and discourage...they are EVIL....Satan's Workers....

People who dwell in Negativity lead sad miserable lives....some will attain good fiscal fortune but for naught, as most will die lonely and unaccomplished in the Art of Living Happy with Positiveness...

[placton]

66. pardon me, but since you see fit to call me a pub troll

evil, and satan's worker? Please, and I mean this in the most sincere way, go fuck yourself and your belief that IOKIODI - it's ok if Obama dies it. Really.

[opihimoimoi]

67. OMG...anger....a sign of triage.....

[grahamhgreen]

68. Pleas add: the new Afpak war is to make money for arms merchants.

[Buzz Clik]

70. Your assignment of cause and effect is typcial but unsupportable.

[grahamhgreen]

72. It's like a standard crime - who stands to profit the most? Arms Merchants. And who are the victims?

Americans and Afghans.

Crime solved!

Where did Al-qauda come from?

Al Qaeda means the base.

As in the data base of Jihadists the CIA supported to fight the Soviets such as bin Laden... C'mon, the jig is up.

War is the real enemy. The 'good' war is on poverty.

[Swamp Rat]

60. .