HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Guardian: I worked on...

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:13 AM

The Guardian: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

Heather Linebaugh theguardian.com, Sunday 29 December 2013 07.30 EST



An Elbit Systems Hermes 450 drone. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images


Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them some questions. I'd start with "how many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" and "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly, "how many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAV's [unmanned aerial vehicle] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"

Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first-hand.

I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from mosque.

The US and British militaries insist that this is such an expert program, but it's curious that they feel the need to deliver faulty information, few or no statistics about civilian deaths and twisted technology reports on the capabilities of our UAV's. These specific incidents are not isolated, and the civilian casualty rate has not changed, despite what our defense representatives might like to tell us...more

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military

There's no statute of limitations on murder.

162 replies, 26989 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 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Guardian: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on (Original post)
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 OP
anti partisan Dec 2013 #1
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #4
anti partisan Dec 2013 #7
swilton Dec 2013 #82
L0oniX Dec 2013 #11
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #59
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2013 #12
Laelth Dec 2013 #2
KG Dec 2013 #3
cinnabonbon Dec 2013 #5
valerief Dec 2013 #6
99Forever Dec 2013 #8
zeemike Dec 2013 #9
marmar Dec 2013 #10
another_liberal Dec 2013 #13
L0oniX Dec 2013 #14
woo me with science Dec 2013 #16
Name removed Dec 2013 #41
L0oniX Dec 2013 #42
DLevine Dec 2013 #15
iamthebandfanman Dec 2013 #17
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #23
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #52
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #108
woo me with science Dec 2013 #18
SidDithers Dec 2013 #19
LineLineReply ?
whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #43
SidDithers Dec 2013 #69
proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #65
SidDithers Dec 2013 #68
proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #71
reACTIONary Dec 2013 #80
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #109
SidDithers Dec 2013 #117
think Dec 2013 #122
SidDithers Dec 2013 #125
think Dec 2013 #126
SidDithers Dec 2013 #127
think Dec 2013 #128
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #129
think Dec 2013 #131
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #132
think Dec 2013 #136
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #138
think Dec 2013 #142
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #143
snooper2 Dec 2013 #144
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #157
proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #66
MrScorpio Dec 2013 #20
reACTIONary Dec 2013 #81
MrScorpio Dec 2013 #85
reACTIONary Dec 2013 #145
MrScorpio Dec 2013 #149
reACTIONary Dec 2013 #151
Maedhros Dec 2013 #88
reACTIONary Dec 2013 #146
Maedhros Dec 2013 #155
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #158
polly7 Dec 2013 #21
treestar Dec 2013 #22
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #24
KG Dec 2013 #25
treestar Dec 2013 #27
KG Dec 2013 #30
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #91
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #56
Maedhros Dec 2013 #89
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #28
treestar Dec 2013 #26
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #29
treestar Dec 2013 #33
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #37
bvar22 Dec 2013 #58
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #62
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #86
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #61
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #87
whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #46
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #49
ucrdem Dec 2013 #98
think Dec 2013 #31
treestar Dec 2013 #35
think Dec 2013 #45
Enthusiast Dec 2013 #63
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #113
theHandpuppet Dec 2013 #115
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #50
SomethingFishy Dec 2013 #60
Maedhros Dec 2013 #90
NuclearDem Dec 2013 #93
bvar22 Dec 2013 #154
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #32
treestar Dec 2013 #38
whatchamacallit Dec 2013 #47
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #51
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #53
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #112
Puglover Dec 2013 #44
El_Johns Dec 2013 #48
grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #75
theHandpuppet Dec 2013 #116
NoOneMan Dec 2013 #34
rhett o rick Dec 2013 #72
grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #73
polly7 Dec 2013 #78
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #114
polly7 Dec 2013 #147
think Dec 2013 #121
polly7 Dec 2013 #148
Harmony Blue Dec 2013 #36
DirkGently Dec 2013 #39
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #54
DirkGently Dec 2013 #55
MisterP Dec 2013 #57
sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #83
sendero Dec 2013 #40
DirkGently Dec 2013 #64
grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #74
sendero Dec 2013 #120
DirkGently Dec 2013 #160
heaven05 Dec 2013 #67
fleabiscuit Dec 2013 #70
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #76
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #111
merrily Dec 2013 #77
LineReply ,
blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #79
ucrdem Dec 2013 #84
Maedhros Dec 2013 #92
ucrdem Dec 2013 #95
Maedhros Dec 2013 #102
ucrdem Dec 2013 #103
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #130
ucrdem Dec 2013 #133
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #134
ucrdem Dec 2013 #135
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2013 #137
ucrdem Dec 2013 #139
Post removed Dec 2013 #140
ucrdem Dec 2013 #141
SidDithers Dec 2013 #156
NuclearDem Dec 2013 #94
ucrdem Dec 2013 #96
NuclearDem Dec 2013 #97
ucrdem Dec 2013 #99
NuclearDem Dec 2013 #100
ucrdem Dec 2013 #101
NuclearDem Dec 2013 #104
ucrdem Dec 2013 #105
Skittles Dec 2013 #106
Historic NY Dec 2013 #107
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #110
Lost_Count Dec 2013 #118
solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #123
Lost_Count Dec 2013 #124
Solly Mack Dec 2013 #119
LWolf Dec 2013 #150
Vashta Nerada Dec 2013 #152
Maedhros Dec 2013 #161
WatermelonRat Dec 2013 #153
rafeh1 Dec 2013 #159
woo me with science Dec 2013 #162

Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:21 AM

1. Every time I read about the drone program, it enrages me. Land of the free? Psh. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:16 AM

4. That looks like an old out of style drone.

These new ones are so much cooler aren't they.



And the Gorgon Stare:



What a thing to be proud of. The US might not be able to build a bridge anymore (or subways), but it can sure build some impressive killing and spying devices.

California Turns To China For New Bay Bridge

the massive cable, key sections of the iconic tower and deck were all made in China, which is emerging as an infrastructure powerhouse in more places than San Francisco. For example, Chinese companies have contracted with New York City for a bridge, the subway system and a commuter train platform.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/16/140515737/california-turns-to-china-for-new-bay-bridge


Solar plants could be built, like Germany does, but that might upset the 100 year plan for utilities. And where's the fun in that. Putting people back to work is so "Ross Perot".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:23 AM

7. True, all that money spent on killing machines could be going toward a "Green New Deal"

I know 3rd parties aren't too popular here, but this was one great plan: http://www.jillstein.org/summary_green_new_deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:18 AM

82. Applause!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:35 AM

11. +1 Putting people back to work is so "Ross Perot".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:03 PM

59. Yeah! Putting people back to work is so "Ross Perot".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anti partisan (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:38 AM

12. Even more disgusting........Home of the brave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:56 AM

2. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:07 AM

3. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:16 AM

5. Frightening stuff n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:22 AM

6. Our masters, the US Military. Their piggy bank, the US Treasury. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:25 AM

8. Probably shouldn't have read this first thing in the morning.

Some things our "leaders" do are down right evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:35 AM

9. And for the cost of just one of those hell fire missals

we could modernize one of those villages and make life better for them...do you think they would hate us for that?
But their is no profit for the defense contractors in that...so they want us to use more missiles and drones to kill them with...as Dimson said, money trumps peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:45 AM

10. n/r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:43 AM

13. We are targeting . . .

 

Only our arrogant elitism allows us to use these weapons on foreign, civilian populations. America and it's Western allies really seem to believe they will always be the ones to decide who will die, that they can kill whomever they want in whatever distant land and their peoples will never face the same criminal treatment in return.

We are targeting the drone attacks today. Who will be doing the targeting tomorrow?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:44 AM

14. Our sociopath gov has made war clean to keep us from seeing what our vote gets us.

 

Democracy fails when who ever you vote for goes along with and or expands the corporate military program. Democracy itself does not foment peace nor does it provide jobs or food. Democracy does not give you human rights but it can assist the removal of them. Corporations and the military are NOT democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:12 AM

16. +1 One week of experiencing this in Fairfax County, VA, or Boston...


Just one day, even...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #14)


Response to Name removed (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:40 PM

42. I consider us all to be complicit in murder.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:47 AM

15. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:13 AM

17. Compared to WW2..

when we carpet bombed entire neighborhoods because we were attempting to get a few people....

seems to me, drones are definitely an improvement over the old method...

doesn't make it 'right'.. but youd be surprised what you can get away with if you just use the word 'war'...


personally, its the domestic surveillance that gets to me the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iamthebandfanman (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:40 AM

23. Did someone threaten to destroy the US lately? The wedding party in Afghanistan, the nearly two

hundred babies we have slaughtered with drones so far, maybe more since it's such a 'secret' program?

Do you seriously think this WW11 talking point in ANY way justifies any of this? We are killing people for NO justifiable reason, NONE, zero! You compare peasants in little villages many of whom never heard of us, to Hitler who actually did declare war on the US and actually had the means to do it.

The murder of innnocents gets to me. Especially if it is being in our name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:17 PM

52. +100

It's done in our name but the benefits are given to corporations, like Cinnabon getting to expand all over Libya

Cinnabon in Tripoli as Libya Opens Up to Foreign Business
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/cinnabon-in-tripoli-as-libya-opens-up-to-foreign-business

Arab Jamahiriya is getting its first taste of consumer capitalism in an unlikely form: sweet, sticky cinnamon rolls. Cinnabon, the Atlanta-based bakery chain, is at the vanguard of a potential business boom in the North African country, which deposed dictator Muammar Qaddafi last year in a bloody civil war. In July the unit of Focus Brands became the first U.S. franchise to open since the revolution, with a two-level Tripoli outlet. It’s become a popular destination in a city with few diversions for residents.




Corporatism. It works, if you're in the club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:42 AM

108. Sickening! I cannot even think of what we did in Libya and the ongoing brutality in that country

feeling utterly disgusted and that is putting it mildly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:13 AM

18. Lesser of two evils is still gut-wrenchingly evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:18 AM

19. Green for victory!!...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:49 PM

43. ?

http://m.&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtD4q3leE5Uw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:37 PM

69. It's OK you don't understand. The OP knows what it means...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 05:21 PM

65. Green? No, pink. For more detailed info on drones, read CODEPINK (although admittedly I have not).

http://codepink.org/article.php?id=6108

2014 Book Tour Calendar

[img][/img]


http://droneswatch.org

Welcome to Global Drones Watch!

Welcome to Global Drones Watch. The purpose of this site is to provide useful information about drones, and to encourage people to become active in efforts to stop killer drones overseas and stop domestic drones from violating our privacy and safety.

This site is run by CODEPINK Women for Peace and CODEPINK is coordinating a coalition of organizations, academics, and activists working to stop drone warfare. Please contact us with any suggestions, comments or questions.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:36 PM

68. Code Pink? LOL...

#StandWithRand




CodePink lost whatever little credibility they had when they pulled this Valentine's Day stunt.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:55 PM

71. Their goofy antics as they confront raw power are entirely forgivable.

On the specific issue of Brennan's confirmation, they supported Rand Paul's filibuster gesture. So did the ACLU, apparently.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-dishonesty-cia-director-nomination

Monday 7 January 2013 09.55 EST

...UPDATE II

The ACLU today said (broken link) that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan's nomination "until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program".


https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-john-brennans-confirmation-cia-director

ACLU Comment on John Brennan’s Confirmation to CIA Director
March 8, 2013


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – The Senate today voted 63-34 to confirm John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan's confirmation came after a bipartisan coalition objected to the secrecy surrounding President Obama's targeted killing program and began to assert congressional oversight over this unlawful White House policy. The effort was capped off by a nearly 13-hour filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

"As a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins: the Obama administration disclaimed authority to use an armed drone within the United States in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-style attack, but more importantly, Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office. "There is now a truly bipartisan coalition in Congress and among the public demanding that President Obama turn over the legal opinions claiming the authority to kill people far from a battlefield, including American citizens. We are not a country of secret rules, particularly when the rules unilaterally justify the killing of as many as 4,700 people, including four American citizens."

<>


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:36 PM

80. +10 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:49 AM

109. I love Code Pink.

Thanks for reminding us of REAL LIBERALS who never waver in their fight against Bush Policies and War Criminals.

Time to send them some more money so they can continue their fight to end Bush policies and restore Democracy in this country.

We can always count on you to remind us of important issues and the people who have fought so valiantly since Bush first stole the election and set this country on its downward course.

for Code Pink.

Did you know that Obama was/is one of their most ardent admirers btw?

Love that woman. She is a true Liberal Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #109)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:17 AM

117. Of course you do...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #117)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:59 AM

122. And Sid loves errant drone strikes?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #122)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:43 AM

125. That's a pretty weak attempt...

from most other DUers, I'd expect a better effort.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:46 AM

126. Yes, your posts are so enlightening.

 

I must try harder to reach that bar....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #126)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:54 AM

127. You've got a long way to go, grasshopper...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #127)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:17 AM

128. You are correct. I am lacking. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the thread topic

 

with some factual basis backing up your opinion.

Now that might be interesting.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #127)


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #129)


Response to think (Reply #131)


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #132)


Response to think (Reply #136)


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #138)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:46 AM

142. Sorry. I didn't get it. I am slow.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:53 AM

143. I self-deleted to avoid the confusion.

 

Sorry about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #143)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:22 AM

144. You two self deleting everything fucked up the thread...

 

or did a drone do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #117)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:27 PM

157. Is that supposed to mean something or a genuine acknowledgement that Democrats have always respected

and loved Code Pink. We have members of Code Pink on DU fyi. Great posters but they are busy actually doing things that matter to spend a lot of time online.

Of course Right Wingers have always hated them. They do not back down to the bullying and the taunting which is so characteristic of right wing cowards.

Code Pink, we need more women like them in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:01 PM

66. Examine Jeremy Scahill's recent work, too. I haven't yet either but finally plan to, as well.

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/5/jeremy_scahill_oscar_nod_for_dirty

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
Jeremy Scahill: Oscar Nod for "Dirty Wars" Could Raise Awareness of Ongoing U.S. Drone Strikes

Video and transcript at link.


http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/24/jeremy-scahill-exposing-us-dirty-war-afghanistan-pakistan-somalia-yemen

Jeremy Scahill: the man exposing the US Dirty War
Stephen Moss
The Guardian, Sunday 24 November 2013 14.00 EST


...The real people in the film – and the book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, which accompanies it – are the victims of what are, in effect, US hit squads operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other places where the American government is waging its "war on terror". Starting with one murderous attack on an Afghan police chief and his family in eastern Afghanistan, Scahill widens the focus to portray an out-of-control US military, operating through a shadowy organisation called the Joint Special Operations Command, stalking an ever increasing number of targets in an apparently endless war. It is a compelling picture that tries to make sense of the spiralling number of drone strikes and targeted assassinations; tries, too, to prise a reaction from viewers who have been desensitised by a decade of such killings.


http://www.indiewire.com/article/oscars-narrow-documentary-feature-race-to-15-films

Oscars Narrow Documentary Feature Race To 15 Films
BY PETER KNEGT
DECEMBER 3, 2013 1:07 PM


DIRTY WARS

...The Academy’s Documentary Branch determined the shortlist in a preliminary round of voting. Documentary Branch members will now select the five nominees from among the 15 titles. Those nominees will be announced on Thursday, January 16 along with the rest of the 2014 Oscar nominations.


http://dirtywars.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:19 AM

20. When I was in the service, the UAV's that my unit operated weren't armed

This was before Iraq and at the start. Mostly our job consisted of locating illegal AAA radar sites in Southern Iraq, so they could send in F-15's to take them out. It was all quite routine and we weren't busy blowing up women and children.

The moment they put Hellfires on those suckers was the moment they fucked up big time.

Thank gawd that I'm retired now and have nothing to do with this travesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:39 PM

81. What's the difference between...

...sending in F-15's and putting Hellfires on the drones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:11 AM

85. Mission differences

Pre-Iraq War, our mission was to enforce the UN sanctioned no-fly zone over Southern Iraq. Our UAVs merely patrolled the area, searching for violations, such as illegally operated AAA radar sites and unauthorized air traffic. By the way, the Iraqis were responsible for downing some of our Predators, which had no weapon systems on them to fight back at the time. We weren't a CIA OP, we were a strictly military one.

I was transferred out of the unit by the time we invaded Iraq and a little more after that, I retired.

When I got to the unit, it was during the Clinton Administration, so how many times did anyone accused them of bombing innocent Iraqi civilians with F-15s?

So, I say a BIG difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:23 AM

145. Mission differences are a valid (perhaps only valid) consideration...

...but there isn't anything intrinsic too an armed drone vs a F-15 that is mission specific, is there? Can't armed drones be used to enforce a no-fly zone? Can't an F-15 kill innocent civilians?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #145)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 11:49 AM

149. During my time in, we weren't arming the UAVs, at least the USAF wasn't

Sure, F-15s can and have bombed civilians before. But that happened later, when it some were given to the CIA, for the war in Afghanistan, after 9/11.

Why they didn't arm the Predators during Operation Southern Watch, I have no idea.

I would say that the main diff between UAVs and manned fighter systems is the location of the operator; on board vs. from a remote location.

Personally, I think that bombing civilians is bad regardless where the operator is located. It could happen either way. 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #149)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:04 PM

151. All things being equal, bombing civilians is bad...

... I agree.

And thanks for sharing your first hand experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:21 AM

88. None at all.

 

Were we killing all these innocent people with F-15s, it would be just as bad.

It's the rules of engagement that are criminal:

* Signature strikes, in which we kill unknown targets because they look like they might be acting like possible "terrorists"
* Designating all military-aged males as "militants", thereby artificially reducing the number of civilian casualties we report
* "Double taps" designed to kill first responders
* Targeting weddings and funerals because a "terrorist" (undoubtedly "Al Qaeda's #2 Man" might be there

None of these are defensible, at least if one is in any way liberal (or human).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:32 AM

146. I'm not sure where you came up with this list...

...but nothing in it seems outside the bounds of legitimate warfare. All of them seem defensible, given the context of an actual threat to our national security.

It seems that some of this is made possible by having precession munitions, but precession munitions are better than less discriminate munitions. Given the choice between striking Al Qaeda's #2 man at a wedding or a funeral vs. leveling the whole town or invading the country, the more targeted strike seems the better option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #146)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:12 PM

155. What "legitimate war" have we declared?

 

These things might be acceptable when they occur in a free fire zone, with two armed forces in close proximity engaged in a fire fight. Under those conditions, it's hard to separate the combatants from one another and from civilians owing to the fog of war.

But drone strikes don't happen in the context of a battle, and there is no fog of war. They occur in small villages and encampments far from any battlefield, as the inhabitants go about their daily routines. And no - just because we send a drone there and blow up somebody doesn't make the village a battlefield - unless you buy the Bush Administration lie that the entire world is a battlefield by default.

You assume that some kind of military action is necessary. It is not. Our military response to the "terrorist threat" is drastically out-of-proportion relative to the actual threat posed by the people we are targeting. The "terrorists" are poorly-armed, poorly-trained tribal insurgents unable to project force beyond their local region. How are these people going to threaten the United States? As is so often pointed out, a U.S. citizen is much more likely to be struck by lightning that to be injured in a "terrorist" attack. Do we really need to spend so many hundreds of billions of dollars killing people like this? No we don't.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #146)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:39 PM

158. What warfare are we involved in? And how many #2 men are there? I remember during the Bush years

we tried to keep count of all the #2 men they supposedly were aiming at after they had to try to explain why they had just killed 20 or more members of a family, again.

When the government is not at war, but is roaming around the world killing people, they have an obigation to explain who they killed and WHY. #2 Man! What is that? How are citizens to know whether this was justified or not? How are they to know that these killings in THEIR name, which generally involve the killing of so many innocents, are justified at all??

In a civilized society it SHOULD take a whole lot of proof presented, publicly, in order to justify the killing of human beings.

Do you know what crimes these #2 Men have committed, or do you think we as citizens should just 'trust' our government that all this killing of men, women and children is in OUR best interests?

Sorry, we live in a Democracy and refusing to demand accountability for the most important decisions a government can make, the killing of other human beings, is not acceptable.

We want names, evidence of crimes and proof that there was no way to arrest and take into custody anyone who actually was committing some crime or other. That there was such a huge threat to this country, and that it was imminent that they had no choice.

When will we have killed enough people in order for us to feel 'safe'? It's been 12 years of killing and maiming and torturing and apparently all that killing has only placed in MORE, not LESS danger according to Diane Feinstein.

As one State Dept official said 'we can't kill our way to safety'. So if we're not killing our to SAFETY then what ARE we doing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:20 AM

21. K&R. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:23 AM

22. It's just a way of delivering a bomb

And does have more precision and involves less risk to our military.

If you're against the way, just be against the war. What's with the weapons' complaint? Why weren't there complaints before the invention of drones about bomber planes? About rifles? Complaining about the weapons is useless. The problem is the war. And if there is going to be a war, of course they will use weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:50 AM

24. I don't really know where to begin to respond to your comment.

We ARE AGAINST THESE ILLEGAL WARS. Sorry to shout, but where have been? Why are we in any of those countries at all? Were you around when the Bush War Criminals lied about going to Iraq? I and millions of others were opposed to Afghanistan AND Iraq.

And if there any truth at all, which there wasn't, there was any justification for either of them, both have FAILED miserably.

It is 12 years later and Diane Feinstein assures us we are 'in more danger now than ever'!! So we have to keep killing people.

Is she that blind that she can't see WHY we are in 'more danger than ever'?? Did she really think that was a defense of all the ilegal activities they are involved in?

As for 'where were the 'weapons complaint'? You missed the complaints, the protests, the outrage at the use of our WMDs against innocent people starting over 12 years ago now?

There is NO war. No army or leader or country has declared or has deployed their armies against the US. We are invading their countries and it is all for Oil and domination of the world's resources which the world knows.

War Crimes, still going on and now even Dems defending them??

It is important for future generations to know that no ALL Americans supported these travesties. Because one day there will be accountability, there always is and history will be recording how the American people reacted to their government's illegal wars.

During the Bush years at least it was clear that half the country, Democrats, were outraged by the crimes. But now? Something happened and it wasn't any threat to our security ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:53 AM

25. not sure if the naivety is feigned or real, but it is consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:06 PM

27. So you can't handle the question

Anyone adopting the style of argument and debate you adopt should just say apparently you want us to be attacked by terrorists. That would be just as fair a statement. What do you think you accomplish with a statement like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:20 PM

30. hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:29 AM

91. It's hilarious but astounding at the same time to see a Karl Rove, remember him, talkiing point

re Democrats being flung around right here on a Democratic Forum.

'Liberals hate America so much they WANT terrorists to attack us'.

It brings back memories.

Do you remember when he made that outrageous claim in a speech he gave in NY several years ago?

I do. Sickening. But he, draft dodger that he was, was not prepared for the response he got for VETERANS, Democratic Veterans! A blog was set up where Dem Veterans excoriated him, one after the other, some asking him for his Military Record. There were THOUSANDS of responses to his cowardly attempt to paint Democrats as 'anti American'.

That was when Dems were united against Bush policies, against Karl Rove the liar and coward and there is NO WAY you would have ever seen a Rush Limbaugh/Draft Dodger/Karl Rove attack on Liberals appear on a Democratic Forum.

It truly is revealing and sickening frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:57 PM

56. That is what Republicans say about Democrats 'they WANT us to be attacked by terrorists'.

When we knew Bush was lying about the Iraq war and opposed it, Republicans claimed we were 'anti-American and were on the side of Terrorists'.

Your post isn't clear, is that what you are saying, that those of us who have been consistent in opposition to these wars, 'want terrorists to attack the US'?

Democrats who opposed Bush's illegal wars were proven to be correct btw, Iraq had no WMDs, nor was there any Al Queda in Iraq.

Now there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:22 AM

89. Do you even care that you sound EXACTLY like Dick Cheney? [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:10 PM

28. I'm not sure 'naivity' can occur suddenly after being apparently informed throughout the Bush

years. It usually works the other way. First you are naive and trust your government to do the right thing, then you find out you were wrong.

In this case it appears to have worked the other way around for some reason.

Consistent and repetitive. Whenever I see the same things being repeated by numerous people I marvel at the coincidence that so many came up with the same 'logic' at the same time!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:05 PM

26. So why don't you complain equally against guns, bomber planes

and grenades?

If you're against the war itself, that's all it takes. It's not as if war isn't horrible even when they were just using shields and swords.

It is the 21st century. There is a war. It is a 21st century war. People get killed, but perhaps fewer than previously. Once it took place on a battlefield away from civilians. Then it got more horrible and civilians could be massively attacked, as Hiroshima and Dresden and the Holocaust show. Now at least the civilians are not killed generally but targeted. No one said it's good, but it's better than dropping a nuke bomb on an entire country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:18 PM

29. Sigh! Who are we at war with? You have ignored the fact that there is no war going on. So why are

killing people with ANY weapons at all?

You have rambled on about 'other weapons'. I AM AGAINST ALL THESE WARS FOR PROFIT AND ALL OF OUR WMDS INCLUDING BOMBS, GUNS, TANKS, TORTURE CHAMBERS etc that are currently being used to kill people who are no real threat to this country because there IS NO WAR.

I don't know how it can be made any plainer to you.

THIS OP is about ONE of those weapons of mass destruction were are using. That is why we are discussing THAT particular weapon, because it is the subject of this OP.

But to please you, I am equally opposed to the bombs and every other weapon we have brought to the ME because there never was a threat, which I thought every Democrat already knew, NO WMDs in Iraq, no connection to 9/11, no Al Queda in Iraq until WE BROUGHT THEM THERE. NOW there is Al Queda in Iraq.

I hope I made myself clear this time ... it gets exhausting frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:26 PM

33. So why cry about a particular weapon?

Just come out and say that you don't think we are in danger of attack by any terrorists in any of the places we are trying to take them out in. Just say we should not be trying to take out those terrorists, as they are no threat. Or that we should take the terrorist attacks because we are so evil. Why the attempt to avoid that question. Oh the US is evil for using drones! So can we shoot them? Hit them with grenades? What are we allowed to do about terrorists in IYHO? Or are there no terrorists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:33 PM

37. Um, so you have not read any of my comments, you are rewinding the same old talking points and

merely typing them out over and over again, as if you are on automatic or something.

Not going to repeat what I have now repeated several times.

I am confident others can read my responses.



Note how the person I am responding to has completely ignores every response to him, every point made and continues to repeat the same questions already answered several times.

Interesting phenomenon actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:45 PM

58. "Technique" is the correct word,

...but I don't find it "interesting" at all.
I find it revealing, pathetic, and all too common among a certain crowd at DU.


The Goal is not to convince anyone of anything

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:14 PM

62. That was one great post right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:14 AM

86. I was being polite. You are correct, I recognize the technique very well. What gets me is that it

has never worked. I first encountered it back when I first stumbled on to a Political Forum which became dominated by Right Wing Bush/War supporters. At first I thought they were all the same person because instead of using their own words, they all used the same 'talking points'. I had never experienced that before, people NOT using their own words, but all repeating the same words to describe 'liberals'. They rarely talked about substance. It took a while, but eventually I learned about 'talking points' and realized the were no all the same person. They were either operatives or willing participants in the 'propaganda machine' as Bush actually, truthfully admitted to.

But I though we were different and when I finally found some Democratic Forums around 2002 it was refreshing to see people speak for themselves, no 'talking points', no words used over and over again. Until around 2004 when it began to seep into Dem Forums. Words like 'purist' eg and 'reality based community' etc were used over and over again, aimed at sincere Democrats. Daily Kos was a shock to me so similar to that first forum I remembered in the nastiness, the attacks on Liberals, the talking points. Someone could write a book about how they did it. First they reigned in all the Liberal energy and when they had done that, they began to try to silence it. It was amazing.

I learned from two years of dealing with Bush supporters that in the end, you do not talk to THEM, you know there are people reading, reluctant to get involved in the nastiness and I used them to speak to the people who were reading. I received many private messages from people who did not want to engage them, so I knew they were reading.

Best to use them to kick a good thread, and/or to talk to the readers.

Thanks for that link, that was a great OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:11 PM

61. It is an interesting phenomenon.

I read all your well reasoned responses. You obviously won the argument several times over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:16 AM

87. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:30 PM

46. So incredibly binary

one or zero, black or white, alive or dead terrorist

We're allowed to use any weapon we like on terrorists, the question is "Who's a terrorist?". Anybody and everybody the military decides? You so confident in their intelligence, track record, and truthfulness that it's all justified? Just pick a side?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:45 PM

49. Because an 8000 mile layer of abstraction dehumanizes and makes killing innocents easier.

 

Would you please put that one to rest now? No, of course you won't. Nonetheless, you have your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:46 AM

98. Except that it doesn't. Read the article:

But here's the thing: I may not have been on the ground in Afghanistan, but I watched parts of the conflict in great detail on a screen for days on end. I know the feeling you experience when you see someone die. Horrifying barely covers it.


So either she's mistaken or you missed the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:22 PM

31. Killing women and children in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc etc is WRONG

 

no matter the delivery system.

Please tell me when we declared war on these countries and it's citizens. Seriously.....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:30 PM

35. What are we allowed to do about terrorists?

Are we allowed to try to take them out? If so, how?

Women and children get killed in wars since the 20th century. Some got killed on 911.

Now it's the 21st century. Drones are used to be more precise than bombs and for less danger to our military, who do not have to fly an actual plane to bomb someplace, which puts them in danger and kills more noncombatants.

War is horrible. But if you are against this, you have to deal with the issue rather than the type of weapons, of which there are many and which are going to evolve. The issue is do you think we have no right to go after Al Qaeda and how do you plan to convince America of that fact?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:01 PM

45. 15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attack were from Saudi Arabia.

 

In fact there is a growing body of evidence that members of the Saudi govt were COMPLICIT in this terrorism!

Why aren't we searching for and bombing terrorists there INSTEAD of launching our drone strikes from this undemocratic country?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:16 PM

63. +1 a significant amount.......nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:05 AM

113. Because



PetroDollars

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:34 AM

115. +100

Well put.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:13 PM

50. What terrrorists? Name them. Feinstein says we 'are in more danger than ever' 12 years after

all this killing, overwhelmingly the killing of civilians. If that's the case it looks like the whole scam of a 'war' has, as predicted, only made more enemies we didn't have for the US.

We are the threat, we are the ones with WMDs invading country after country for their resources.

Is it possible for America to finally see the facts, that to most of the world now, we are the main threat to World Peace. Sorry to have to state the facts, but facts are facts and I thought most Democrats back during the start of all this, knew it.

Wasn't it all about getting Bin Laden? I thought we did that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:07 PM

60. The "right" to go after Al-Quaeda..

You want to kill terrorists? Then you lost. You have already lost whatever "war" your small imagination has you thinking you are fighting, from your spot in front of your computer. Your plan is to kill all the terrorists? Is that it? Just keep killing people till you feel safe?
Good luck with that, it's really a brilliant, well thought out, 21st century solution to the problem...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:29 AM

90. This seems appropriate here:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:35 AM

93. We can stop creating terrorists. That'd be a fantastic start.

 

Lots of young Yemeni, Iraqi, and Afghani men who had no reason to hate the US all of a sudden found reasons when a drone or bomber leveled their homes or blew their loved ones into unidentifiable bits and pieces.

Nevermind how al Qaeda came to be in the first place. Do I really have to explain Operation Cyclone's role in arming and training many young men from across the Middle East including a certain son of a Saudi construction magnate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:40 PM

154. Great Question, treestar.

Treestar asks, "What are we allowed to do about terrorists?"

The best method of dealing with small groups of International Criminals is International Law Enforcement.
We CAN use our allies, and modern capabilities in Constitutionally Approved ways to either capture or watch small gangs of International Criminals,
and then apprehend these criminals when the time is right,
and then try them in an open, public court of LAW for their crimes.
THAT is what our Constitution specifies.
[font size=4]International Law Enforcement[/font]

Using International Law Enforcement, Bill Clinton managed to capture, prosecute, convict, and imprison everyone involved in the 1st WTC Bombing.
He did so:
*without starting any WARS

*without ANY Collateral Damage

*without wrecking the economy

*without bombing anyone

*without destroying a single town or country

*without tearing up our Constitution

*without wasting a single American soldier

*without hiring a band of mercenaries

*without killing a single person, "terrorist" or civilian

*without invading and occupying a single foreign country

*without depriving ANYONE of the Constitutional Rights

*without a single Drone Strike

*without creating an even larger generation of "terrorists".

SEE!!??
International Law Enforcement is the answer to small bands of International Criminals.
If you had been paying attention, you would have already known this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:25 PM

32. I give up! 'It's better than a nuke'!

Let me ask you. Have you ever had a child blown to bits from a monster in the sky?

I absolutely hope you will never have that experience or anyone else.

But for those who have, here's what you need to do. You need to speak the loved ones of the victims of these 'marvelous' weapons in the remote hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and explain to THEM why this is such a great way to kill people because we COULD kill thousands instead of a few wedding parties.

You are talking to the wrong people here to try to justify these crimes.


Talk to the victims and bring them up to date on the wonders of death machines and then come back and tell us what they had to say.

This, btw, HAS been done, the victims HAVE expressed their opinion on the slaughter of their chidren by these marvelously kind WMDs we brought to their villages.

But that is who you need to USplain all of this to and hope they understand!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

38. The victims of any weapon will suffer

I would not prefer to be shot over droned. I would want neither to happen to me. Neither would I want to be in a building burning from a plane crashed into it.

Maybe you don't believe there is any real terrorism? Was 911 created by the Bush Administration? How about the WTC bombing?

Sorry, I don't see you convincing a majority of voters of that any time soon. There are AQ in Yemen and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the American public is not so enlightened as you are, thinking they should be allowed to continue their plans unmolested.

Because if they can't be hit with drones, then I assume we are not allowed to shoot them, either. Or you are willing to have the troops that near them so as to be more likely to be killed themselves. In which case, we'll need a draft, as there will be a lot more need for new soldiers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:34 PM

47. "Question nothing"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:14 PM

51. Here's an idea

There are AQ in Yemen and Pakistan, Afghanistan


First of all, we could stop funding Al Qaeda. It's the height of absurdity, to use Al Qaeda to take liberties and money and then declare that wedding parties must drone bombed to "get Al Qaeda" whilst funneling money to them. Really. It's beyond criminal, it's treason. And it's INSANE. PSYCHO.

Because if they can't be hit with drones, then I assume we are not allowed to shoot them, either. Or you are willing to have the troops that near them so as to be more likely to be killed themselves. In which case, we'll need a draft, as there will be a lot more need for new soldiers.


Is this going to continue for the next 5 or 6 hundred years? When is enough blood enough? How many more dead children?



Due to incompetence 19 Arabs with Box cutters managed to squeak through the best most expensive air defense system in the world.

Hasn't the US extracted enough revenge? The nation is protected by seas and friendly countries. Maybe next time the Feds get multiple warnings about devout hard drinking coke snorting Muslims that happen to be taking flight lessons they will keep an eye on them or perhaps share information with "Homeland Security".

Doesn't that sound better than creating more enemies every day? Because if Kim Jung Il sent a drone over your area and somehow incinerated your kid while he was walking next to a "person of interest" you'd spend the rest of your life plotting, wouldn't you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:23 PM

53. Are you talking to yourself? You made stuff up and then answered yourself. Are you aware of doing

that?

There has always, always been terrorism, are you claiming the only country to suffer from terrorism is the US? Know anything about how European countries handled it back before the Bush criminal administration took over?



'If they can't be hit with drones'. The only people I know of who have been 'hit with drones' are innocent people, men, women and chidren.

Can you provide something to show WHO they were, what caused any of them to get the death penalty. We are told it's all 'secret'. Well I'm not privy to those 'secrets' so I have to go what I and the rest of the world actually KNOWS.

I asked you to name some names of these 'terrorists' that are such a huge threat to us that we have to have troops all over the ME and now Africa. Is it an army with WMDS? Where is it?

I thought Bin Laden was the major threat and once we got him, we would be 'safe'. Bush thought he 'wasn't important' after a few years 'not a priority' I believe he said.


So who are these people, surely they must be famous, who are so threatening and well armed, they must be, who could bring down a Super Power?? Or are the all 'secret'? How can you have something so threatening to a Super Power and keep it so secret??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:57 AM

112. The US was *founded* by "terrorists"

1913-2013: From Rebels to Slaves in a hundred years.



"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:51 PM

44. All she does is sit at her

computer and post on DU. Why on earth would she waste her beautiful mind thinking about drones, collateral damage or rights for LGTB people. (We have enough you know.)

I couldn't respond. I don't think I have ever seen a post as vile as this on DU. And that is saying something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 01:40 PM

48. "A" war?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:04 PM

75. We do. Let's cut the big war budget by 50%.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:07 AM

116. This is one subject on which we can totally agree

Good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:28 PM

34. Yes. So are mines

 

They deliver explosions effectively

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:58 PM

72. You just dont get it. Not surprised. We are not at war. WE ARE NOT AT WAR.

 

But I am guessing that some how, just some how you can rationalize away the deaths of innocent women and children because of your devotion to Obama. He can kill and it's ok with you. Would you be ok with this if Bush were president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:02 PM

73. "it's just a way of killing children, that's all"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:18 PM

78. What war?

Last edited Thu Mar 6, 2014, 09:10 AM - Edit history (7)

And here's a little more info on the weapons you seem to believe are better than any other and the devastation they cause.

By Medea Benjamin

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Excerpts:

On October 29, the Rehman family—a father with his two children—came all the way from the Pakistani tribal territory of North Waziristan to the US Capitol to tell the heart-wrenching story of the death of the children’s beloved 67-year-old grandmother. And while the briefing, organized by Congressman Alan Grayson, was only attended by four other congresspeople, it was packed with media.

Watching the beautiful 9-year-old Nabila relate how her grandmother was blown to bits while outside picking okra softened the hearts of even the most hardened DC politicos. From the Congressmen to the translator to the media, tears flowed. Even the satirical journalist Dana Milbank, who normally pokes fun at everything and everyone in his Washington Post column, Example: covered the family’s tragedy with genuine sympathy.

The visit by the Rehman family was timed for the release of the groundbreaking new documentary Example Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Foundation. The emotion-packed film is filled with victims’ stories, including that of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, a peace-loving, soccer-playing teenager obliterated three days after attending an anti-drone conference in Islamabad. Lawyers in the firm pose the critical question: If Tariq was a threat, why didn’t they capture him at the meeting and give him the right to a fair trial? Another just released documentary is Wounds of Waziristan, a well-crafted, 20-minute piece by Pakistani filmmaker Madiha Tahir that explains how drone attacks rip apart communities and terrorize entire populations.

Just as the visit and the films have put real faces on drone victims, a plethora of new reports by prestigious institutions—five in total—have exposed new dimensions of the drone wars.


Full article and more on the Global Drone Summit November 16-17 in Washington DC: http://www.zcommunications.org/drones-have-come-out-of-the-shadows-by-medea-benjamin.html

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International

License to Kill, released by the Geneva-based group Al Karama

Adding to these well-researched reports by non-governmental organizations are two documents commissioned by the United Nations. One is by Christof Heyns, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The other is by Ben Emmerson, the special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism.

Video.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/codepink_repeatedly_disrupts_brennan_hearing_calling

Thursday’s confirmation hearing for CIA nominee John Brennan was briefly postponed to clear the room of activists from CODEPINK after they repeatedly disrupted Brennan’s testimony. One woman held a list of Pakistani children killed in U.S. drone strikes. Former U.S. diplomat Col. Ann Wright interrupted Brennan while wearing a sign around her neck with the name of Tariq Aziz, a 16-year-old Pakistani boy who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011. Wright and seven others were arrested. We speak to CODEPINK founder Medea Benjamin, who also disrupted the meeting and recently visited Pakistan to speak with victims of drone strikes. "It’s not only the killing, it’s the terrorizing of entire populations, where they hear the drones buzzing overhead 24 hours a day, where they’re afraid to go to school, afraid to go to the markets, to funerals, to weddings, where it disrupts entire communities," Benjamin says. "And we are trying to get this information to our elected officials, to say, 'You are making us unsafe here at home,' to say nothing of how illegal, immoral and inhumane these policies are." [includes rush transcript]


JOANNE LINGLE: 178 children killed by drones in Pakistan. And Mr. Brennan, if you don’t know who they are, I have a list. I have a list with all the names and the ages.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: All right, I’m going to—we’re going to halt the hearing. I’m going to ask that the room be cleared and that the CODEPINK associates not be permitted to come back in. Done this five times now, and five times are enough.




"Go to Sleep or I Will Call the Planes"

—By Adam Serwer| Wed Apr. 24, 2013 6:01 AM PDT

A week ago, activist Farea al-Muslimi was live-tweeting the aftermath of a drone attack on his childhood village of Wessab in Yemen. Monday, he was testifying before a Senate subcommittee on the legality and impact of the Obama administration's targeted killing program. It was the first time Congress has heard from a witness with anything close to first-hand experience with being on the receiving end of a drone strike.

"Women used to say [to kids] go to sleep or I will call your father," Muslimi said. "Now they say go to sleep, or I will call the planes."

Last week's strike killed Hameed al-Radmi, described by the US government as an Al Qaeda leader, and four suspected militants. But Muslimi told the Senate that Radmi had recently met with Yemeni government officials, and could easily have been captured, rather than killed in a strike that alienated everyone in the village.

"[A]ll they have is the psychological fear and terror that now occupies their souls," Muslimi said of the residents of Wessab. "They fear that their home or a neighbor's home could be bombed at any time by a U.S. drone." President Obama received some backup from an unlikely source—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has spent the last week criticizing the Obama administration for handling the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in civilian court. Graham said although he would prefer to capture terror suspects, Yemeni officials couldn't be trusted to apprehend them. "The world we live in is where if you share this closely held information you're going to end up tipping off somebody," Graham told Muslimi.


Full Article: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/yemen-drone-strikes-senate-hearing

http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/get-informed/drone-warfare/

“Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many. Children have no place in war and all parties should do their utmost to protect children from violent attacks at all times.” Sarah Crowe UNICEF

US: Strikes Kill Civilians in Yemen Youtube video by Human Rights Watch

Remote Killing of Civilians

The US has used armed drones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and recently in the Phillipines. Over 200 children have already been killed in these strikes since 2004. See The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Change.org

Cease deadly drone strikes that kill civilians in Pakistan.

http://www.change.org/petitions/cease-deadly-drone-strikes-that-kill-civilians-in-pakistan



"Real people are suffering real harm" but these civilian deaths by drones are being mostly ignored by governmental oversight agencies and also by the news media according to James Cavallaro of Stanford University, one of the authors of a study by Stanford and NYU in the report, "Living Under Drones". The results of this recent study reported on Sept. 25, 2012 concludes that only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders. Up to 884 civilians, including 176 children have been killed in Pakistan since 2004 due to drone strikes.

"Will I Be Next?" US Drone Strikes in Pakistan

In October 2012, 8-year-old Nabeela ventured out with her 68-year-old grandmother Mamana Bibi to do daily chores in their family's large, open field. Moments later, Mamana was blasted into pieces by a US drone strike that appears to have been aimed directly at her. Amnesty International did not find any evidence she was endangering anyone, let alone posing an imminent threat to the US. Yet a year has passed and the US government has not acknowledged Mamana Bibi's death, let alone provided justice or compensation for it.

"Will I be next?," a new report from Amnesty International, finds that this killing, and several other so-called targeted killings from US drone strikes in Pakistan, may constitute extrajudicial executions or war crimes. Based on interviews with 60 survivors and eyewitnesses to these strikes, "Will I be next?" documents potentially unlawful killings and abuses, and makes recommendations to the US government for how to uphold the right to life and ensure accountability for any unlawful killings.




http://dronespakistan.amnestyusa.org/

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next

War from Above
by Richard Hugus / January 2nd, 2014

There is little news about the down side to hosting drones in all these areas of the country, each with a populace that has simply not been consulted. Drones first came to our attention at the beginning of “the war on terror.” We learned of them first as weapons for highly illegal, cowardly, and indiscriminate “targeted killings” in foreign lands? These weapons have murdered countless innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia pursuant to “kill lists” drawn up every week by the CIA and Pentagon, and approved by the White House. These weapons fulfill the US Air Force’s fantasy of “death from above,” carried out by pilots working in the security and comfort of US bases who, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, destroy supposed enemies from computer consoles as if it were a video game. The cowardliness of wars of aggression being conducted against innocent people in dirt-poor lands by unseen “UAV pilots” in air-conditioned offices thousands of miles away cannot be over-emphasized. This is what unmanned aircraft have brought so far to the reputation of the United States – a new low in the entire universe of human ethics. Murder abroad is but the advance of capitalism at home. Wedding parties in Afghanistan have been decimated so that Amazon can deliver cds and smart phones to our door by drone.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/01/war-from-above/

Voices From the Drone Summit:
On one occasion, Hale located an individual who had been involved with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The man was riding a motorcycle in the mountains early in the morning. He met up with four other people around a campfire drinking tea. Hale relayed the information that led to a drone strike, which killed all five men. Hale had no idea whether the other four men had done anything. Hale had thought he was part of an operation protecting Afghanistan. But when the other four men died – a result of “guilt by association” – Hale realized he “was no longer part of something moral or sane or rational.” He had heard someone say that “terrorists are cowards” because they used IEDs. “What was different,” Hale asked, “between that and the little red joy stick that pushes a button thousands of miles away”?
http://www.zcommunications.org/voices-from-the-drone-summit-by-marjorie-cohn.html

I learned all kinds of things. We were told that a lot of people killed by drones were people who would have been very easy to capture. We got examples of young men who were travelling and had just passed a checkpoint, and a mile after they were killed by a drone. Or people who were living right outside the capital city, Sana’a, and maybe would have turned themselves in to figure out why the US wanted to kill them, but they had no way of knowing.
http://www.zcommunications.org/drone-wars-by-medea-benjamin.html

The two drone strikes in November show that these attacks don’t just kill and maim individuals. They also blow up peace talks. They weaken democratically elected governments. They sabotage bilateral relations. They sow hatred and resentment.
http://www.zcommunications.org/drone-strikes-in-pakistan-reapers-of-their-own-destruction-by-medea-benjamin.html

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

http://unmanned.warcosts.com/stream

http://dronespakistan.amnestyusa.org/

Kareem Khan is free. And you should care.
by William Boardman / February 26th, 2014

In 2009, my home was attacked by a drone. My brother and son were martyred. My son’s name was Hafiz Zahinullah. My brother’s name was Asif Iqbal. There was a third person who was a stone mason. He was a Pakistani. His name was Khaliq Dad…. Their bodies were covered with wounds. Later, I found some of their fingers in the rubble.

– Kareem Khan, a Pakistani journalist, speaking of his personal experience with civilians killed by Americans, in the documentary “Wounds of Waziristan,” 2013

… it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

– President Obama, May 23, 2013, at the National Defense University

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/02/obama-drones-on/

http://www.journeyman.tv/66218/short-films/wounds-of-waziristan-hd.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:07 AM

114. Thanks for that great post! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:49 AM

147. You're welcome. Sorry about some of those links.

Zcommunications is having problems with its site right now. I'll find some alternate sources for those articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:53 AM

121. Heart breaking. Thank you for posting.

 

And then the family of the grandmother comes to the US and only 5 members of congress even attend:

Drone strikes: tears in Congress as Pakistani family tells of mother's death
Karen McVeigh in New York / Tuesday 29 October 2013 15.24 EDT

Translator brought to tears by family's plea as Congress hears from civilian victims of alleged US drone strike for the first time

The family of a 67-year-old midwife from a remote village in North Waziristan told lawmakers on Tuesday about her death and the "CIA drone" they say was responsible. Their harrowing accounts marked the first time Congress had ever heard from civilian victims of an alleged US drone strike.

~Snip~

The hearing was attended by only five members of Congress, and Grayson said such low numbers of lawmakers at hearings were not unusual. Those attending were all Democrats: Rush Holt of New Jersey, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, John Conyers of Michigan, Rick Nolan of Minnesota, and Grayson, the Florida Democrat responsible for inviting the family to Washington and for holding the hearing.

Each of the lawmakers spoke about the drone programme to call for more transparency or greater oversight. Schakowsky said she agreed with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and their call for more transparency and debate about the targeted killing programme. Holt and Conyers called for a congressional investigation into drone strikes.

Grayson, a fierce critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan told the hearing: "Invading from the skies is no different from invading on the grounds. We should never accept that children and loved ones are acceptable collateral damage.” Was there any other human activity, he asked “where 10-30% of the dead are innocent?”...

~Snip~

Full article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 10:51 AM

148. You're very welcome.

Really sad, wasn't it that only five members of congress heard that testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:32 PM

36. Drone warfare shows how the west will fall

and it gives the impetus for the BRICS to arm themselves to combat thee drones. Cold War 2 incoming...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

39. What are we going to say when Russia or China

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

... starts deploying lethal drone strikes against their real or imagined enemies abroad? Killing a "militant" here, a "terrorist" there, maybe, along with the wedding parties, funeral processions, and assorted other innocent civilians?

Will we smile knowingly about how humane and wise it is for those countries to consider the entire world a "battlefield?" Pat them on the back for not using nukes or carpet bombs on civilians?

This is madness and delusion, and it is a shame America may never escape, just as we may never escape the war in Iraq, the prison at Guantanamo, and our torture program.

And yet we carry on, because to people at home, these killings are invisible and bloodless. Because dead foreigners somehow don't count. Because we assume our own motives to be pure and our own methods to be just.

That is simply not the way it is. We are fooling no one but ourselves, and the only solution is to STOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:33 PM

54. Well we have given them the right to do that haven't we? I doubt many in the world are going to be

too sympathetic to us whining about it when it does happen, and it will sooner or later. But maybe that is part of it all. Forever war, forever profit for the orchestrators of all of it. Wars have mostly been about profit down through history, land, property, resources, money.

But we are not in the Middle Ages anymore. You would think we would have evolved to some extent, instead we have plummeted all the way back to the times of torture and brutality, death and destruction that no civilized society should still be involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:49 PM

55. Every time things improve, we let the barbarians back in.


Cheney and Rumsfeld and Greenspan and the rest of the destructive monsters that have dragged us down and backward and shamed us all, always get in when when the civilized folks have cleaned up their last mess. We don't need welfare anymore because ... welfare worked and brought poverty down. We don't need the Geneva Convention any more because ... people that follow it don't torture anyone. We don't need peace because ... we've had peace. We don't need banking regulation because banks don't wreck the world economy since we've had ... banking regulation. We don't need to protect reproductive rights because while we protected them, they existed.

We don't backslide completely every time, but it happens a lot. Apparently we need to suffer as a result of terrible ideas until we remember why we had civil rights or social safety nets or peace treaties to begin with.

I imagine that when someone starts droning someone we like, we will suddenly remember that endless war and governments murdering whomever they want with no oversight and no recourse isn't okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:21 PM

57. heck, war only got big with the Renaissance

the 13th c. built Germany, the 17th destroyed it (sorry for butting in, I'm on a Grimmelshausen kick right now)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:40 AM

83. You have every right to jump in! Thanks for the info, I was thinking of Smedley Butler

who would probably not be surprised at all by the past decade of wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:35 PM

40. We're busy creating terrorists....

..... way faster than we can kill them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:17 PM

64. I halfway imagine that is the idea.


I don't think the entire chain of command recognizes continuing instability and anti-American sentiment as a goal, but it sure doesn't seem to bother anyone that this will be inevitable result.

How many of our children being blown to bits would Americans tolerate on the theory that only "bad guys" are targeted? 100? 1,000?

And yet we expect Pakistanis and Yemenis to work with us, to argue against anti-American extremism amongst their countrymen?

We cannot possibly be this stupid. And yet ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #64)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:03 PM

74. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:28 AM

120. I think I agree with you...

... this is by design, not more stupidity. In fact, a lot of the things that appear stupid to us aren't really, they're just evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #120)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:38 PM

160. Organic evil. If the "right" parties benefit, things continue.


I think this is how a lot of corporate evil occurs. Very few board members sit around chuckling about how to screw the environment or the economy or workers or customers.

They look at graphs, see how much money is coming in, see if anyone in a position of power objects.

Past that, not too many questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 06:10 PM

67. thank you

 

for some enlightenment on drone operators, their doubts and their victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:04 PM

70. Notes From> Noam Chomsky: “Media Control”

History > History must be falsified so we are not the aggressors. Easy enough to do when you have control of the media and educational system and scholarship is conformist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:04 PM

76. Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

 

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:49 AM

111. Great quote- Those over 45 will remember (?) how we were told that the USSR

wanted to conquer the world, and how they spied on and monitored their citizens, and what an absolute joke the Soviet "media" was. And that's why the US needed a $500 million dollar "defense" budget.

And now look at the US!

Conquering the world- check
Monitoring citizens- check
Pravda=CNN/FOX/MSNBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:00 PM

77. Let's look forward, not back.

Looking back is only for common criminals, not for elected criminals whom our taxes support in style that surpasses that of many modern royals.

But, I'm thrilled about that 300 pound gingerbread house, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:29 PM

79. ,

 

,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:41 AM

84. She joined the US Army. What exactly did she think she'd be doing in the military?

I appreciate her story and am 100% sympathetic to her psychological problem. But the Guardian, which I deeply mistrust, is exploiting her anguish to score points against the Obama administration. Sneaky. And typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:32 AM

92. Is there no atrocity you will NOT support in the name of your President? [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:40 AM

95. Did you read the article perchance? She has no problem killing people.

She's not protesting targeted killing. She's simply pointing out that UAVs are not as accurate as advertised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:15 AM

102. I'm not referring to the person in the article, I'm referring to YOU.

 

I'm generously interested in what, exactly, Obama could do to appall you given that he's had an American teenager killed without specifying charges, an indictment or a trial by his peers. If you can accept that, then what WON'T you accept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #102)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:16 AM

103. No kidding. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:25 AM

130. Golly, did you think I wouldn't see your response here?

 

You can't keep your story straight in two posts in the same thread. What a sad little joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:29 AM

133. I don't suppose you have a point for us today?

Or are you just happy to see me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #133)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:30 AM

134. Are you slow?

 

You'll either get it, or you won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:31 AM

135. Thanks, that answers my question. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #135)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:34 AM

137. Mine too. I've confirmed that your word is useless.

 

You're an amateur, but I'll hand it to you, you make a great little cheerleader for the slaughter of innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #137)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:37 AM

139. Did Santa forget to fill your stocking

or did you just eat all your candy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #139)


Response to Post removed (Reply #140)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:44 AM

141. Thanks for sharing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #139)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:20 PM

156. Hehehe...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:39 AM

94. Wow, that's totally not disgusting for several different reasons.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:41 AM

96. None of which you managed to identify. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:44 AM

97. Let's start with how you made Obama the victim of this somehow.

 

Instead of the broken and shattered families this policy--HIS policy--is responsible for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:47 AM

99. Obama did not initiate this conflict. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 01:53 AM

100. And neither does he seem to be in any hurry to end it.

 

The drone program has done nothing but expand since he took office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:10 AM

101. He's in a hurry to get US troops out, and US and coalition fatalities are falling:



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579081193199072318

However, Afgahn military fatalities are rising, not from drones, but from Taliban insurgents, the ones we're aiming the drones at. So it appears that drones are doing the fighting previously done by US troops. The fact that Afghan security forces are getting hit harder as we leave suggests that drones at this stage of their technology aren't as effective as troops, and that's pretty much the point made by the article author, though not necessarily by Guardian.

In any case, whose interests are do you think are served by trying to turn the public against drones, for whatever reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #101)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:16 AM

104. In a hurry to get them out? You've got to be kidding me.

 

We'll be "out" in name only by the end of 2014. We'll have troops there well into the next administration.

Drones are inaccurate, give the US the ability to operate virtually anywhere in the Third World with impunity, and because of the low risk associated with them, remove the public at large from having a conversation about where and when we should be intervening in armed conflicts.

Save me the team politics bullshit. This isn't about Obama, it's about the war machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 02:29 AM

105. Sunday LA Times: "From MRAP to scrap: U.S. military chops up $1 million vehicles"

So why would the U.S. military suddenly start chopping up as many as 2,000 of the vehicles and selling them as scrap? After all, just six years have passed since high-tech MRAPs were developed and 27,000 of them cranked out and shipped in a $50 billion production blitz. . . .

Through Oct. 1, 938 MRAPs in Afghanistan had been turned into scrap, according to the Defense Logistics Agency.


http://www.mankatofreepress.com/statenews/x1221284874/From-MRAP-to-scrap-U-S-military-chops-up-1-million-vehicles

It's happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #105)


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:27 AM

107. The drone she is showing is an surveillance drone

built by Israel. Hermes 450, its used by lots of countries its not weaponized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 04:34 AM

110. I don't think the writers choose the pictures for their articles

Here's a picture from Glenn's column "'Sending a message': what the US and UK are attempting to do"



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/sending-message-miranda-gchq-nsa

The caption reads:
"The remains of the hard disc and Macbook that held information leaked by Edward Snowden to the Guardian and was destroyed at the behest of the UK government. Photograph: Roger Tooth"

But as you can see there is an old sound or video card from a desktop pci slot- that laptops don't have

Numerous attempts were made both to Glenn and Rusbridger to clarify but all were ignored.


Greenwald didn't write this but here's the picture they are using when they post an article about him now that he's gone



Glenn Greenwald announces departure from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/15/glenn-greenwald-announces-departure-guardian

Here it is again:

Pierre Omidyar plunges first $50m into media venture with Glenn Greenwald



http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/19/pierre-omidyar-first-50m-media-venture-glenn-greenwald


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:20 AM

118. Heather looks like she needs a cup of coffee...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lost_Count (Reply #118)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:00 AM

123. This Brit was more creative

"Alanis Morisette's let herself go." --Thinkbeforeyouspeak

Caustic, they are sometimes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 08:02 AM

124. Also good...

 

In any case, it's probably best to get that recent meth user look taken care of before taking part in a national media story...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 07:22 AM

119. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 11:58 AM

150. "The drone program."

Technological advances can be used for good or for other. Unfortunately, there are always people willing to use them for other: to profit at the expense of others, to bully others, for power-mongering, to invade privacy, to wage war...

I have a bit of experience with drones myself. Sort of. Not personally, but I was once married to someone who was in the "drone program" before they carried weapons. He was deployed as civilian support. You see, drones used by the military at that time were given to those who weren't good enough for the bigger, more powerful, more lethal toys. The less competent, who resented assignment to a drone and weren't exactly careful and precise in their use. I don't know if that's still true; I've been divorced for 13 years now and don't talk to the ex, who still works with them.

At that time, they weren't talking about weapons. They were talking about surveillance. Not of our own citizens, but of potential enemies. They were operating out of Kuwait in the 90s, watching Saddam. They were in use for surveillance purposes in Kosovo, but they weren't carrying weapons. They were in use by NASA and other scientific organizations, gathering climate data.

Like most advances, or ideas that are promoted as "new," what people create is corruptible, and is almost always corrupted to serve the worst of human characteristics. The ultimate purpose of drone technology was probably always to deliver weapons or spy on people, whatever the original STATED intentions were. While I'm horrified at the use they've been put to, I have to wonder: are they LESS accurate than the bombs dropped by bombers? Per capita, are there MORE civilian casualties? Why the horror over drones, and not the practice of bombing people, and the planet, to begin with, regardless of the delivery system?

So the eternal question is: Should we NOT allow technology to advance, because of the use it will inevitably be put to, or should we embrace advances and do other things (what?) to evolve humanity in a more civilized direction?

One of the "whats," obviously, is to stop funding military technology and toys, and put that funding to better uses. We all know the argument against that, though, and there's got to be a strong rebuttal for that argument. Whose got one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:07 PM

152. I just wonder when then the government will turn these things against its own citizens.

 

Oh. Wait.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 12:14 PM

153. Drones are not the problem.

Drones were never the issue at stake here. They are not the superweapon of atrocity that they've been hyped as. What makes a dron carrying two hellfire missiles so much worse than a helicopter carrying sixteen?

The fact is, all of this argument isn't about the drones, but about the practice of targeting the taliban at all. THAT is the issue at stake here, the question ofwhether it is worthwhile to do so or if it does more harm than good. The debate about drones comes about because people don't want to openly say that they oppose serious action against the Taliban, so they cast it as being about this sinister-sounding new technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 03:16 PM

159. drone terror bombing is just terrorism

I dont see any difference. terror bombing is just terror bombing. It seems the objective is to keep the locals riled up so as to keep the terror war funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2013, 11:53 AM

162. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread