Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'm not sure of why JTT hates America so much.

It's this propensity to lie and believe in lies that has y'all so royally screwed up, Frank.

As I've stated many a time, I don't hate America. How could you hate the lofty ideal that America was supposed to be. What I hate, and you do too, though, again, you have the greatest of difficulty addressing it honestly, is what you have let it become.

It isn't at all what the propaganda says it is. It is nothing more than a giant Potemkin Village. A constant barrage of misinformation keeps you pliant and believing in a huge myth.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I know this, because I have traveled around the world, and have visited many countries where even the well educated can't eek out a comfortable standard of living.

Typical American ignorance.

Quote:

Many have made progress, but there are equal amounts of countries that are still struggling to live anything close to a comfortable standard of living.

Perhaps if the US hadn't stolen the wealth from so many countries, hadn't installed brutal tyrants to torture, rape and murder those poor people, these countries could be living some of THEIR dreams.

Have you perhaps heard of Cambodia or Laos, two poor countries that the US bombed the **** out of, sending one of them into the hands of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Do you remember how the US provided material support to Pol Pot all the while making a pretense that it was against the mass slaughter of innocents?

Do you understand that the US has been brutalizing countries and peoples for over a century?

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

We (the USofA) aren't very good at learning from other people's mistakes, it seems.

You love brief, don't you, Merry. It gives you another golden opportunity to invent another euphemism, Merry, not to mention a patently ridiculous attempt to shift the blame to other countries instead of facing up to your very own, well documented brutalities.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Do you consider the current use of predator drones by the US as the bullying of weaker nations by a stronger one?

Yes, I do.

The drone attacks, like these in Pakistan earlier in the year (see links below), would be considered "terrorist attacks" if they had occurred on US soil at the hands of enemies of the US.
Whether in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq or Aghanistan, there are many more civilian causalities than have been reported in the media. Unless they are reported by organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism we rarely get to hear the details, or even know about them. They have been shrouded in secrecy. Unless of course, to publicise the extermination of Al Qaeda's no 2 leader in Yemen, a short while ago.

The US has not declared war on Yemen, or Pakistan, yet these attacks are responsible for the deaths of many more civilians than the "Al Quaeda operatives" which they claim they are targeting. These attacks could surely be considered acts of war.

The saddest & most tragic part of all this is that these attacks are all too often killing people in the poorest regions of their countries, those who are already suffering extreme hardship, poverty & disempowerment at the hands of their own despotic leaders.

So yes, I would consider these attacks as "bullying" of civilians by a "muscle flexing" power. Of the worst kind - committed by the strongest nation on earth at the expense of some of the weakest people in the world. The problem is, all to often these civilians ( who seem to be considered mere "collateral damage" in the grander scheme of things) are totally powerless. And (in the case of Yemen) the attacks are are occurring with the blessing of their government. As well as their previous leader (Saleh) who secretly agreed to the US drone attacks without the consent of his government.

How would you answer your own question, Finn?

Quote:

U.S. Said to Target Rescuers at Drone Strike Sites
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 5, 2012/NYT

....The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s Web site and in The Sunday Times of London......

....The bureau counted 260 strikes by Predator and Reaper drones since President Obama took office, and it said that 282 to 535 civilians had been “credibly reported” killed in those attacks, including more than 60 children. American officials said that the number was much too high, though they acknowledged that at least several dozen civilians had been killed inadvertently in strikes aimed at militant suspects. ....

U.S. Said to Target Rescuers at Drone Strike Sites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=2

Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

2 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

U.S. Said to Target Rescuers at Drone Strike Sites
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 5, 2012/NYT

....The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s Web site and in The Sunday Times of London......

And this is different in what way from the over one hundred years of the US targeting civilians in both careless and pointed fashion?

1 Reply

@JTT,

The difference is the use of the obscene, unmanned drones, which are being used as an alternative to invasion.
You can now attack a country, apparently, but "technically" not be involved in aggression & warfare against that country. Or, at least, that's the reasoning .... for those who choose to accept it.
And as we all know surely,overwhelmingly the casualties of war are innocent civilians. Always has been the case & always will be ....

2 Replies

@msolga,

I believe that's still considered a declaration of war.

1 Reply

@msolga,

You seem to argue a position of true pacifism.

Which is to say that you are not only prepared to die before you resort to violence, you are prepared to see your loved ones die as well.

Such is a truly principled position and if one holds true to it, I have nothing but admiration.

Of course it's far easier to spout a pacifist line than to live it.

You can get all sanctimoniously tied up in the extended application of violence but, unless you are prepared to die before using violence, the use of violence is just a matter of self-interest and politics.

Assuming you concede that violence has a place in human society, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion on how and when it is used, but you're not entitled to preach to others in terms of its use with which you do not politically agree.

A true pacifist might argue that despite the fact that there are forces which are bound and determined to kill us, we must not defend ourselves by killing them.

If they all served on the front lines of the war I would have even more respect for them.

Irrespective of why these people want to kill us, my take on it is that we shouldn't let them. If this means killing them before they kill us, so be it.

It may or may not be true that past American governments gave birth to today's Islamist terrorists, but it matters not.

The 3,000 people who died on 9/11 didn't pay a justified debt on behalf of the United States government.

History tells us that the Australian government treated the aborigines pretty poorly. They don't seem to be a violent people, but if they decided that the sins visited upon them needed to be washed away in blood, would you be OK with violent retribution against innocent Australians?

You talk a good game, but I doubt you have ever had to put it to the test.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

On what basis would you think that we are "more evolved in the 21st century" so soon after the very recent and rather ghastly history of the last century? That appears to me to be quite irrational and contrary to all the lessons of history, and all our knowledge of human nature.

I'm sure it does, George. Wink

But if you read my comment (which you quoted) I hadn't claimed that we are more evolved at all.
You've put words into my mouth.
This is what I actually said:

Quote:

Thanks for your response, Frank.
Though it's damned depressing. I like to think we humans are a bit more evolved in this 21st century.
Sigh. .....

But ... after giving the matter more thought since .... & I've perked up a bit! Smile

I've come to the conclusion that we ordinary people are definitely more enlightened about the inevitability of war, or the need for it even, than say, those who lived in the periods of history which Frank referred to - the Roman Empire, the British Empire, etc, etc ... those of us who have access to far more information than was ever available before, anyway. Those who care to question in response to what we have learned.

Take the example of the Iraq invasion ...
Many ordinary people simply did not buy the WMD excuse for war mongering & demonstrated in their millions all over the world.
But it still happened, despite the wishes of so many people.
It seems to me that the "leaders" of those countries were hell-bent on war, for whatever reason, (including my own at the time, where polls indicated that 70% + of Australians were opposed our involvement) were determined on that course of action despite the wishes of the citizens of their countries.

Take the example of Afghanistan ...
The more information we've received about the consequences & the conduct of that war for, the more opposition to it has grown amongst ordinary people. In fact, whatever the (ever-changing) goals of that war was (?) , I think most people see it to have failed. How can inevitable Taliban rule after our departure be considered a victory?

So can I put it this way?
I believe that the thinking about the inevitability of war , & the acceptance of it, has definitely changed ... or evolved, if you like. Amongst ordinary people, that is, all over the world. I believe there's a deep feeling of revulsion toward the endless wars we've been recently involved in, which have achieved so little.

The problem, of course, is that our "western leaders", or our [i governments[/i], are marching to an entirely different drum to the people they're meant to represent! No matter which side of politics they come from - "left" or "right".
To me, that's the question: why do they persist when so many of their citizens have had more than enough of war mongering?

Anyway, back to whether we've evolved or not.
I think we ordinary people have. Which is very heartening.
The problem is that our governments haven't.
They still have quite a way to go!

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You seem to argue a position of true pacifism.

Which is to say that you are not only prepared to die before you resort to violence, you are prepared to see your loved ones die as well.

No, Finn.
As I've said before (& in response to a question from you on the Afghanistan thread, if I recall correctly) I am not 100% pacifist. Close, but not 100%.(I'll locate & repost that response for you, if you'd like. Though I'm sure it would be easy enough for you to find if you're interested ...)
I believe that people who are under attack have every right to defend themselves against their aggressors. (And that does not include or justify perceived threats in the future from "suspected Al Qaeda operatives" living amongst villagers in remote parts of Yemen or Afghanistan, which wipe out far more civilians than "operatives".)

Quote:

You can get all sanctimoniously tied up in the extended application of violence but, unless you are prepared to die before using violence, the use of violence is just a matter of self-interest and politics.

Rubbish, Finn.
And what is so "sanctimonious" about supporting the humanitarian rights of innocent civilians ... some of the poorest most disenfranchised people in the world, against the actions of a powerful outside aggressor?
Tell me that.

Quote:

It may or may not be true that past American governments gave birth to today's Islamist terrorists, but it matters not.

I think it does. It seems to be pretty clear that the totally unnecessary deaths of so many civilians in Pakistan & Yemen as a result of drone attacks are not exactly winning over hearts & minds of those whose communities have been affected. Quite the opposite & perfectly understandably.
So why persist, if your actions are creating even more enemies than you had before? Confused

Quote:

The 3,000 people who died on 9/11 didn't pay a justified debt on behalf of the United States government.

I'm not sure about what you mean by this "justified debt". Confused

There was absolutely no justification for the deaths of those innocent people in NYC, same as there is also no justification for the deaths of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq & Yemen ....
But those 9/11 victims should not be used as a justification for endless war. That does absolutely nothing to honor their memories.

Quote:

History tells us that the Australian government treated the aborigines pretty poorly. They don't seem to be a violent people, but if they decided that the sins visited upon them needed to be washed away in blood, would you be OK with violent retribution against innocent Australians?

Nowhere have I defended Australian governments' past treatment of the aborigines.
Nor the their treatment by the British, before.
I certainly hope you are not suggesting I have!
Because you'd be very wrong.
I agree with you that they have suffered serious injustice.

But anyway, Finn, I asked you to respond to this question you asked of me. I obliged. I'd still be interested in your response:

Quote:

Do you consider the current use of predator drones by the US as the bullying of weaker nations by a stronger one?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So do I, c.i.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Would the 9/11 attacks be considered drone attacks?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Of course not. They were obviously manned planes.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Interesting observations, but I believe a careful investigation of history and of the literature of previous ages will reveal that an awareness of the near inevitability of wars, the horrors that always accompany it and and the merely occasional benefits that result is as old as human history. Read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; the Persian epics aboput Sorab and Rustum or Thucydidues' Peloponnesian war, and you will find very contemporary views of the subject. The human condition has not changed very much at all.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Amongst ordinary people, that is, all over the world. I believe there's a deep feeling of revulsion toward the endless wars we've been recently involved in, which have achieved so little.

that's definitely not what I'm seeing on Facebook.

One of the interesting side-benefits of FB is the ability to watch discussions friends/acquaintances are participating in. A few A2K originals have extended circles that include a lot of people with viewpoints I thought were long extinct. It's been a real eye-opener over the past 3 or 4 years.

2 Replies

I'm NOT dead yet!!!

(Or am I?)

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Absolutely!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Quote:
Amongst ordinary people, that is, all over the world. I believe there's a deep feeling of revulsion toward the endless wars we've been recently involved in, which have achieved so little

that's definitely not what I'm seeing on Facebook.

One of the interesting side-benefits of FB is the ability to watch discussions friends/acquaintances are participating in. A few A2K originals have extended circles that include a lot of people with viewpoints I thought were long extinct. It's been a real eye-opener over the past 3 or 4 years.

That's very interesting, ehBeth.
And very surprising, too, I've gotta say, without having read these comments myself & not knowing the details.

When you refer to: "a lot of people with viewpoints I thought were long extinct", do you mean expressions of support for further aggressive interference in middle eastern countries (& others) , support of drone attacks, etc ..?

I'd be interested to know in what context these views arise. The coming US election?

I frequent a few discussion boards outside of A2K, (Australian mainly, but also the UK and international ones - though not sites for exchanges of opinions amongst friends like FaceBook) - but I can confidently say the general view of participants is revulsion & a strong desire to put the madness of ongoing war to an end. Certainly a very strong desire of participants to extricate their own countries from any further such involvement.

2 Replies

But back to the drone attacks.

The UN's Human Rights chief raises questions about compliance with international law & accountability, after a recent fact-finding mission in Pakistan.

This article is from the BBC News:

Quote:

US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay
8 June 2012 Last updated at 08:28 GMT

Pakistani protesters burn representations of US and NATO flags during a demonstration to condemn U.S. drone strikes in the tribal areas, in Multan, Pakistan Drone attacks are a major cause of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan

US military drone attacks in Pakistan raise serious legal questions, the UN's human rights chief has said.

Navi Pillay was speaking at the end of a fact-finding visit to Pakistan.

Drone attacks have become a central part of US counter-terror operations but Ms Pillay said they were legally problematic.

US officials defended the policy after al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was reportedly killed in a drone strike earlier this week.

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said that the US would "continue to defend [itself]".

On Tuesday the Pakistani foreign ministry summoned the US deputy ambassador in Islamabad to protest at recent drone attacks.

"Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law, in particular the principle of distinction and proportionality," Ms Pillay said.

"Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command", she added.

Ms Pillay also voiced concerns that the strikes were being conducted "beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control".

Controversial tactic

Ms Pillay said she had called on Pakistan to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions to investigate some of the incidents.

Navi Pillay, chief of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights speaks during a press conference in Islamabad Ms Pillay said drone attacks were beyond civilian or military control

The US has also carried out drone strikes as part of military operations in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

Although an on-the-ground investigation in Pakistan by the Associated Press this year found that "the drone strikes were killing far fewer civilians than many Pakistanis are led to believe and that a significant majority of the dead were combatants", the policy is still deeply unpopular at local level.

This month, a major US newspaper said that drone strikes had replaced the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay as the prime recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda's cause.

The policy has also contributed to a recent worsening in relations between the US and Pakistan.

One controversial aspect of drone attacks in Pakistan is that they are not conducted by the US military - which is expected to comply with the laws of armed conflict - but by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose operations are far from transparent, the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports.

The legality of the operations is also brought into question by the fact that Pakistan, unlike neighbouring Afghanistan, is not a zone of armed conflict, he adds.

Do you agree with Obama's decision to start killing more people? Then why do you support him?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know