Obama's drones have murdered 178 children

peace prize!

Nobody wants senseless death of innocents. There are two models of foreign policy which we have observed over the last decade. One model calls for classic use of military force to destroy terrorism by invasion. The other model calls for surgical strikes to destroy a defined enemy of the state. Both models sadly have collateral damage. One clearly has been successful in minimizing death.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Your hypocrisy astounds me, yet I have no doubt in your humanity in not wanting to see innocents slaughtered, yet in fairness.......what would your solution be if a known terrorists group was about to or had killed 4 thousand Americans. Do your really believe the invasion model is better.......and please do not change the subject about conspiracy or President Obama.......we are talking about theoretical response to a KNOWN threat.....what is your solution?

For a man who is too afraid to walk in public without a weapon and who consistently preaches his right to self defense and if we are not armed our women will be raped.........you seem oddly silent when a nation takes your stance. On the one hand we have cowards who will just blindly start shooting into a vehicle because of an alleged threat, and you argue that is his right as you argued that it was Zimmerman's right to shoot an unarmed teenager who HE perceived a threat, yet you do not allow the nation state to have those same choices, and you suggest that surgical strikes are worse than invasion. Your hypocrisy has to be evident even to yourself.

No seaoat you dumbass, this is my thread and it ain't about me....freak..

Sadly T it is entirely about you. You wrote the title. You implied the president is killing children in his role as commander in chief intentionally or with such reckless abandon that by implication he is evil. You did not write a thread about how as a country we need to evaluate our execution of drone strikes and the need to minimize collateral damage........no you blamed President Obama, as if Romney, McCain , or President Bush would not use these weapons or because of some mysterious difference from these men the President is evil and acts intentionally with disregard for innocents. No in your need to prove racial superiority you persist in turning the President into something lesser, but in the process you neither address the real issue, or prove your twisted agenda.

Answer the simple question if your seriously have concern for the innocent, and this is not just another racist thread.......how would you respond to a known threat to America where 4k of our citizens were dead, and more were being threatened(now the usual non answer or detour into conspiracies)invasion and application of traditional military force to subdue the enemy, or precision drone attacks which take out the enemy. If this is not about you and your whacked racism then you will attempt to answer the question.

What happened to my post?

What happened to my post?

Your post was excellent and well thought out. T in his objective concern for children and no other agenda decided to post the same hateful thread headline on two threads. Please cut and paste your response so people can read one of your better posts........your knowledge is needed in a debate on this issue, but I am afraid that T simply does not see his conduct as contrary and counterproductive to his alleged concern for the children.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:What happened to my post?

I sometimes accidentally post on a different thread...just repost.

Teo,

There is much care take on a drone strike. More than any other airframe. I know this for a fact. How or why is none of your business. The ROEs are much more strict than on the ground. We cannot help it if the bad guys are going to hide behind children and try to get people like you to paint folks operating Preds and Reapers as the bad guys. There has to be a point when a shot must be taken and I guarantee you that there is much discourse up and down the chain and many shots not taken than are taken when targeting an HVI or HVT. If we eliminated every shot where there was even minimal risk, we'd never take out anyone. It is what it is and at night these folks running MQ-1s and MQ-9s are going to live with the shot taken despite the collateral damage because every precaution is taken and it IS saving AMERICAN lives. You won't ever understand because you've not even got a fathomable clue of how this process works.

You either care about children or you don't, you either have a heart or you are a puss filled bag of demonic excuses. I know they are just Hajees that makes it all better...No it doesn't. Two partisan retards in different camps arguing over the justification for killing children..well, it saves American lives you say. Believe me the "gooks" I blew to hell were far better people than Americans ever can imagine being. Americans, drunken rapin horin bastards ...with a superior firepower and that's why they think they are tough...the VC made American soldiers look like kids in a sandbox..

The U.S. struggles against the Communist in Vietnam
1. Now think about the overall picture - how the strengths and weaknesses work together.

a) Were the armies finely balanced or was the balance strongly weighted to one side or the other?
The balance was strongly weighted to the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong's soldiers were fearless, compared to the US's troops that were living in fear of ambushes because of the guerilla tactics being used by the Viet Cong. The US had superior weaponry but the Viet Cong used the territory against them so that they were not able to utilize them.

T,

I cannot pretend to have empathy for what you experienced in Viet Nam with full knowledge of the force and power of a naval ship's bombardment. I would be a hypocrite. However, with the collateral damage, and beyond the policy decisions of why we were there, were there times your bombardment was in support of American ground troops? Did your actions help to save American lives? In those times could there be certainty of innocents not perishing. The moral complexity of war is simple........do not have wars. The morality of personal ownership of a conceal and carry weapon is simple.......do not have weapons. However, how can anybody take your arguments seriously when they are so consistently contradictory. However, again.......I lack total and complete empathy for being put in that postion where I had to be part of killing innocents, and as such I guess I cannot expect rational responses and certainly anger and resentment would be expected........but that does not solve the problem, and scapegoating the president certainly is not fair or a solution to the problem which you imply would not exist but for the President.

Rewind..American lives should not have been there . Our leadership LIED to us and used a false flag to get us in the war. So it was wrong beginning to end. Wake up our military is a tool of the corporate system for profit and casualties ON EITHER SIDE are not given much though except in lip service.

There's a pattern here that goes back to the Indian wars....but each new generation is bred on war movies and patriotic bullshit so they can't wait to play video games with live ammo.

2seaoat wrote:.....what is your solution?

Easy. Bring all of our boys and gals home, cancel all trade agreements with that country [All we want is their raw material if there is trade between us (food for minerals)], cancel all US foreign aid to that country, ban all US travel to that country, cancel all immigration from their country to the US, tell the UN that the US will only pay 5% of their operating costs from now on, tell the UN that our military is not for their use, etc, etc, etc,...

See. None of our guys, gals, or drones, will be killing any of them there foreigners. They're none of our business in any way.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZi8PedrioI

 

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

The killings were part of a broader program of "targeted killing" by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

by PACEDOG#1 Today at 7:03 am
I stilll have yet to see blame given where blame is due.... on the people who hide behind women and children knowimg they are targets. The enemy knows our ROEs and is using people like T to try and make drone operators and the military look bad and even quote scripture as well for those of us who practice a religion. Sorry T, but it ain't gonna work on me and knowing that I made sure just one person got home to their facility based on my actions that given day is all I need to sleep good. Those who hide behind women and children are the guilty party, not me.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

Anybody can file a lawsuit. The courts will not second guess the military and tort immunity and the blanket protection of the Feres doctrine will require congressional action to limit the scope of protection for American citizens overseas who are enemy combatants. Long ago the court has deferred in second guessing military strategy. It will require congressional action and new laws to limit our military response which may involve American citizens. There were no constitutional protections for those American citizens who fought for Germany or Japan, and the ACLU is going for a bridge too far if it thinks the courts and particularly the Supreme Court will break precedent in this regard.

American citizens shouldn't be plotting on killing other American citizens.

As in the dirka dirkas who would plot on people that
Might be posting on this forum.

Those kids were sitting in an open air cafe drinking coffee. They were no where near a battlefield and no case has been made that they engaged in any effort to either aid or assist the enemy. There may be that connection given his fathers activities... but that has not been made... certainly not under due process.

But don't let that slow down your apology tour... you are a terrible steward of freedom, liberty, and the constitution.

But don't let that slow down your apology tour... you are a terrible steward of freedom, liberty, and the constitution.


You are clueless on the constitution and the Supreme Court's consistent rulings in this regard. Freedom and liberty end when the military deems you a target outside the boundaries of the United States. The idea that a judge will determine the scope of military collateral damage, and that under the guise of freedom and liberty you make these arguments is simply sophomoric. If better safeguards are to be determined, it will be by congressional action and not by court action, and the precedent is well established. Now military collateral damage is certainly up for policy discussion and procedures on how to limit the same against an American citizen on foreign soil or a non American Citizen, but this idea that the courts will insert themselves into the execution of military decisions is naive and void of any cursory understanding of past Supreme Court rulings.

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

PACEDOG#1 wrote:by PACEDOG#1 Today at 7:03 am
I stilll have yet to see blame given where blame is due.... on the people who hide behind women and children knowimg they are targets. The enemy knows our ROEs and is using people like T to try and make drone operators and the military look bad and even quote scripture as well for those of us who practice a religion. Sorry T, but it ain't gonna work on me and knowing that I made sure just one person got home to their facility based on my actions that given day is all I need to sleep good. Those who hide behind women and children are the guilty party, not me.

That's just another idiotic demonic justification. First off they live there and those women and children live there also. What are the men supposed to do draw and X in the desert and lay in the middle of it ? If war came to America and you were fighting against an invader, would staying in your house with YOUR wife and children be hiding behind them? No it would be more like you were staying there to protect them from brutal savages that rape and kill women and children. You seem to want these men to perform like characters in your favorite video game. They should just pop up so you can shoot them. Now ask another question. What did the 100s of thousands of dead Iraqis do to deserve shock and awe ? You better get it right there's no sleep in Hell.

Justice delayed but justice...but how is this any different from drone strikes? Oh the drone doesn't rape them before it kills them...

http://www.news-journal.com/news/nation/man-convicted-in-iraqi-family-s-death-hangs-self/article_a41ba658-fa56-52ba-8b13-fdcf364b41f5.html

A medical examiner said Wednesday that a former soldier hanged himself at a federal prison where he was serving life sentences for raping and killing a teenage Iraqi girl and using a shotgun to slay her family.

Pima County, Ariz., Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Eric Peters said an autopsy completed Tuesday concluded that 28-year-old Steven Dale Green’s cause of death was suicide by hanging. Prison officials found him in his cell Saturday at the federal penitentiary in Tucson.

Green, of Midland, was a private in the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell on the Kentucky-Tennessee state line when he deployed to Iraq.

Green and three other soldiers went to the home of an Iraqi family in Mahmoudiya, near a traffic checkpoint in March 2006. At the home, Green shot and killed three members of the al-Janabi family before becoming the third soldier to rape 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi before killing her. He was convicted and sentenced in 2009.

Three other soldiers — Jesse Spielman, Paul Cortez and James Barker — are serving lengthy sentences in the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., for their roles in the attack. Each is eligible for parole in 2015.