Nobel Peace Drones

[tekisui]

Source: Salon

By Glenn Greenwald

A U.S. drone attack in Pakistan killed 23 people this morning, and this is how The New York Times described that event in its headline and first paragraph:



When I saw that, I was going to ask how the NYT could possibly know that the people whose lives the U.S. just ended were "militants," but then I read further in the article and it said this: "A government official in North Waziristan told Pakistani reporters that five children and four women were among the 23 who were killed." So at least 9 of the 23 people we killed -- at least -- were presumably not "militants" at all, but rather innocent civilians (contrast how the NYT characterizes Libya’s attacks in its headlines: "Qaddafi Troops Fire Cluster Bombs Into Civilian Areas").

Can someone who defends these drone attacks please identify the purpose? Is the idea that we're going to keep dropping them until we kill all the "militants" in that area? We've been killing people in that area at a rapid clip for many, many years now, and we don't seem to be much closer to extinguishing them. How many more do we have to kill before the eradication is complete?

Beyond that, isn't it painfully obvious that however many “militants” we're killing, we're creating more and more all the time? How many family members, friends, neighbors and villagers of the "five children and four women" we just killed are now consumed with new levels of anti-American hatred? How many Pakistani adolescents who hear about these latest killings are now filled with an eagerness to become "militants"?

more: http://www.salon.com/news/pakistan/?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/04/22/drone

__________________________________
Glenn nails it.

[Autumn]

1. I gotta say, my kid gets killed by a drone, I'm

going to become a big fucking "militant". These people we voted for should be smarter than this.

[tekisui]

2. It is so painfully obvious to us.

It is almost as if they are intentionally keeping the cycle of extremism going so they can justify their never ending wars and ever increasing profits.:think:

[Autumn]

3. They are intentionally keeping this crap going.

That is a clear as glass.

[msongs]

4. "they" is a man. he has a last name. It starts with "O" nt

[tekisui]

5. Obama has really made drones his weapon of choice.

He has greatly increased their use and has the most blood by drones on his hands than any other president.

[Autumn]

8. So true. Obama is responsible.

This is the choice he has made.

[Blue Owl]

6. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy

Shamefully sloppy.

[tekisui]

7. The drones or Greenwald's piece?

[Blue Owl]

13. The drones

and any other carpet airstrikes that take down civilians -- IMO it's unacceptable in an age where they can read a license plate from space or track a person on their phone.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Launching missile strikes in areas populated by many civilians will only create more terrorists.

Our foreign policy continues to be a disaster.

[ReggieVeggie]

10. Shhhh!

Obama is president!

[polichick]

12. So true. Can you imagine what we'd say about a country that did it to us?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. It does worry me that any old foreign drone could float over here

During 9/11 planes and missiles did take out key areas within the USA. What is different today - luck? Some evil terrorist could slip one in a jumbo and let it go here. Do we have any way of detecting it?

[polichick]

20. I assume our military has ways of detecting such things, but really don't know...

I hate that the gov't is doing all it's doing in our names - doesn't represent what I believe at all.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

14. K&R (sorry, the unreccers kept it at 0 even after)

Another reason there were women and children with the militants is because they use human shields. Most of the time they barge in to the dwelling and hold the family there hostage, happens all the time in Afghanistan anyway.

Qaddafi made hundreds of people cram into his palace... didn't we cruise missile the crap out of it anyway?

[stevenleser]

15. I happen to agree with you (and Glenn) here.

I think continuing operations in Af-Pak is a mistake. We should cut a deal and leave.

My typical objection to those who complain about the drones is that it is not a violation of international law. But that is not what you are contending.

[tekisui]

16. .

:fistbump:

[Arkana]

18. Yes, because right in the rules for possessing a Nobel Peace Prize

it says that if you're a sitting President you are NEVER EVER EVER ALLOWED to use your abilities as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.

[tekisui]

19. That wasn't really the point of the article. Did you read past the headline?

[slipslidingaway]

21. knr ...

still 0 recs, but what a difference the forum makes when posting an article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=944886&mesg_id=944886

[tekisui]

22. LOL! Indeed.

:rofl:

[slipslidingaway]

23. Now 54 - 0 what a difference :) n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DirkGently]

25. We're pretending these drone strikes somehow aren't war; aren't killing civilians. Evil bullshit.

[OwnedByFerrets]

26. Mine made it +1 Probably wont stay that way long