|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Obama Thread II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, what? Standing next to Howard Zinn (who doesn't work at ZComm any more) and Noam Chomsky means you can't tell a lie? You can flaunt the qualifications of these luminaries all you like, Dronester, but in point of fact Chomsky, Zinn, and Fisk aren't your sources. "InfoWars" is. And you've decided to completely ignore the fact that InfoWars is a rat's nest of conspiracy theories run by the country's most famous paranoid delusional.
You can talk about my "medications" all you like, but the fact remains that you're the one out of his mind, here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
The article was written by Chris Woods and Christina Lamb, not Alex Fucking Jones. Sheesh.
However, the point is taken: While I was only concerned about the actual news story, I'll be more careful in the future. Can we now discuss Obama's INCREASED use of drones that kill indiscriminately?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Crash writes: You can flaunt the qualifications of these luminaries all you like, Dronester, but in point of fact Chomsky, Zinn, and Fisk aren't your sources. "InfoWars" is. But that's not what you just recently said. Remember Crash, your written words are historical records and they can be referenced. (Dosage, dosage, dosage):
Crash writes: No, the "crank site" card only gets used when you insist on presenting propaganda from crank sites. For instance: Z Communications - Wikipedia Crash writes: Howard Zinn (who doesn't work at ZComm any more) Only because his death kinda gets in the way of tight deadlines.
Crash writes: And you've decided to completely ignore the fact that InfoWars is a rat's nest of conspiracy theories run by the country's most famous paranoid By "completely ignore" do you mean the way I acknowleged your complaint by supplying a second source. (really Crash, check the dosage)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually I not just support and approve of the drone strikes so far, I hope that they are a sign of an increasing awareness of the changing paradigm of war.
Nation State-Nation State wars are simply no longer economically practical in either monetary or human costs. Strategic strikes like the US drone strikes are far preferable and a great way to minimize both the monetary and human costs. The US Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were just plain not very bright. But they were typical of the current paradigm of Nation State-Nation State conflicts. IMHO a far better response in Afghanistan would have been similar to what is being done now, discrete, stealth and select targeting without notice, but I also think it would be better still without acknowledgement. Send in Seal Teams, drones, smart bombs, snipers; and target the individuals instead of the Nation State. Iraq is a different story. I can't yet see any justification for invasion or specific targeting there.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Jar writes: Strategic strikes like the US drone strikes are far preferable and a great way to minimize both the monetary and human costs. Can you please address the horrible civilian deaths, and that their deaths cause hostile reactions from their friends and family. The end result, america is CREATING more enemies and INCREASING the risk of more "terrorist" strikes in the future. E.g., has Israel's harsh and illegal punishment of the Palestineans worked?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But that's not what you just recently said. It is just what I recently said, because it's just what you recently did - used InfoWars as a source, then mocked the idea that InfoWars isn't a source to be taken seriously. Then I embarassed you so completely that you had no choice but to retract all your uses of InfoWars propaganda. Well, ok, what are you left with? Chomsky, Zinn, and Fisk? Well, no, since they're not your sources, either.
Remember Crash, your written words are historical records and they can be referenced. As are yours. Can you show where you cited Zinn, Chomsky, or Fisk? Otherwise I don't see the relevance of their qualifications. You really have no idea what you're doing, do you?
By "completely ignore" do you mean the way I acknowleged your complaint by supplying a second source. You didn't, though. You provided a completely different source in support of a completely different claim. You haven't done anything to support your citations from InfoWars or identified your sources for the images you posted or told us why we're supposed to believe that those children were casualties of an Obama-ordered drone strike on a funeral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
You are a nut case.
Crash writes: It is just what I recently said, because it's just what you recently did - used InfoWars as a source, then mocked the idea that InfoWars isn't a source to be taken seriously. Then I embarassed you so completely that you had no choice but to retract all your uses of InfoWars propaganda. That you believe that this is an accurate chronological order of events, even though they just happened a few minutes ago and is completely available for review, makes me really think you are in need of medication. I pity you. Really.
Crash writes: You didn't, though. You provided a completely different source in support of a completely different claim. Err, it's the exact SAME article, both sources. Please Crash, call your doctor NOW.
Crash writes: or told us why we're supposed to believe that those children were casualties of an Obama-ordered drone strike on a funeral. I am dumbfounded. I clearly wrote:
Drone writes: Now, take note, the following photos are not from Obama's funeral attack above, but they DO show Obama's "maximum achievement possible given the circumstances in Congress." Don't worry about calling the doctor Crash, I'll call you an ambulance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, I would say that strategic and unacknowledged strikes cause far less civilian deaths than the average Nation State-Nation State war and create far fewer enemies than invading a Nation.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Does escalating violence solve problems? Would you prefer Obama use diplomacy OR ever more drones attacks on Yemen, Somalia, Iran, France, etc... Does drone usage only end when everybody is dead?
And what about creating a standard for all nations . . . Are you comfortable with other nations, perhaps China, Costa Rica, or Vanuatu, using drone attacks upon the usa because they "believe" we are the enemy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Err, it's the exact SAME article, both sources. So, that's how you think corroboration works? That if you post the same article twice, that must mean it's true? One person repeating another's lies doesn't lend them accuracy. Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true.
Now, take note, the following photos are not from Obama's funeral attack above, but they DO show Obama's "maximum achievement possible given the circumstances in Congress." So what drone strike are they from, then? When were these images taken? Who took them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Actually, I would say that strategic and unacknowledged strikes cause far less civilian deaths than the average Nation State-Nation State war and create far fewer enemies than invading a Nation. That depends on the extent of the enemy you're trying to destroy. If you perpetuate the strikes for long enough the death toll just continues to rise - and it shows no signs of stopping, because the current "war" is against a poorly defined enemy. But overall, yes - it would have been vastly preferable in, say, the Iraq invasion, to simply use drone strikes to kill Hussein and his military leaders, as opposed to real warfare. The problem is that there are other options beside drone warfare or invasion. Counter-terrorism is best performed via police action - primarily because it's far more accurate than drone strikes at identifying your real target. Drone strikes are attacks of uncertainty - the operator thinks a group of targets may be associated with the enemy. Sometimes the distinction is clear, but often it's not - which is why we wind up with drone strikes that blow up friendly government forces, funerals, and weddings in addition to the occasional Taliban/al Qaeda member. Why do we care? "War" is messy after all, right? Collateral damage, and all that? We should care for two reasons. The first is the obvious ethical reason - killing innocent people is bad. Very bad. Minimizing civilian death should always be a priority in any military operation - and largely it is, that's why we use cruise missiles and Seal teams and yes, drone strikes as opposed to firebombing cities like we regrettably did in WWII. The other reason is far more practical. The "war on terrorism" is not a standard war of attrition. The enemy does not have a finite standing army whose numbers we must deplete. The enemy does not have factories or refineries or government capitols or commercial ports to attack and limit their ability to make war. The enemy does not come from a single political entity or even a single geographical area. They wear no uniforms, and they are blended in with our own allies and neutral parties. The enemy's ranks grow when we portray ourselves as tyrants, killing their children and neighbors and wives and husbands with impunity, without feeling the need to prove any sort of wrongdoing. If France sent an assassin to kill my fiance, I imagine I might hold something of a grudge against France...and suddenly, instead of eliminating one enemy, France has gained another, and likely many of her friends and family as well. The same holds true in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere the US uses its military power - the deaths of innocent civilians create more of the enemy. The "war on terrorism" is not a traditional war, and we cannot and should not fight it as such. This really is a war of hearts and minds - and the drone attacks are serving to turn more hearts and minds against us to replace the maybe-terrorists we blow up.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
My time on the forum is not limitless Crash. I understand your best (only) strategies are war-of-attrition and obfuscation. I get it. You ARE excellent at this, indeed, I AM tired of your nonsense. To keep from debating Obama's increasing use of immoral and illegal drone strikes and specifcally the article "Obama Terror Drones: CIA Tactics In Pakistan Include Targeting Rescuers And Funerals" I linked, I predict you'll even eventually trot out your tired "embassy" fabrication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Thanks Rahvin, you are my hero for the day!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My time on the forum is not limitless Crash. Well, far be it from me to expect you to spend any amount of it finding defensible sources for your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Drone strikes are attacks of uncertainty - the operator thinks a group of targets may be associated with the enemy. Sometimes the distinction is clear, but often it's not - which is why we wind up with drone strikes that blow up friendly government forces, funerals, and weddings in addition to the occasional Taliban/al Qaeda member. That's hardly unique to the use of drones. The truth is, whether the missile is launched from the desk of an operator in Langley or by a pilot 20,000 feet above the arena of battle, there's just as much ambiguity and just as much need for snap judgement, with all that entails in terms of unintended civilian loss of life. Any time you decide to pull the trigger on military action, that's the kind of thing that happens. I don't think anyone ignores that or minimizes it. And it means that you have to be very sure that the ends justify the means, that military response is warranted. I don't think we can ignore the threat that religious terror organizations pose. And while I favor the "law enforcement" paradigm more than I favor the "invade countries" paradigm, that doesn't always work when we're talking about the lawless reaches of frontier Pakistan. The law enforcement paradigm works for urban terror networks; I don't think it works as a response to wasteland training camps and that sort of thing. I don't think drone attacks are properly understood as "indiscriminate"; they're very precise, in the way that a bullet is precise. But it matters where it is being aimed. I think you make a mistake by portraying drone attacks as indiscriminate bombings - no, that's what al-Qaeda does, and the difference is that the al-Qaeda bomber knows that he's going to take out 40 civilians in an attempt to hit a US target. It's terrible when civilians are killed by our drone strikes, but the standard that demands that Obama say "well, it sure looks like a terrorist training camp, what with it being only men, and the shooting ranges set up with pictures of American soldiers as targets, and the explosives lab and whatnot; but no, we can't strike it because of the one-in-a-hundred chance that it's actually just a very strange kind of wedding."
If France sent an assassin to kill my fiance, I imagine I might hold something of a grudge against France...and suddenly, instead of eliminating one enemy, France has gained another, and likely many of her friends and family as well. Or you might say "well, France sucks, but she was intending to kill about 40 Parisians in a cafe bombing, so maybe I'll just let this one go, especially now that I think back to the time a bunch of her friends killed my uncle coming out of Sunday Mass last year." I don't expect anyone who loses a wife or a child to a US airstrike to muster much forgiveness. But you know, a lot of people in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan blame both sides. I don't think unintended civilian casualties drives as much recruitment as you might think, especially since everybody knows that the other side is killing children, too. The drone strikes aren't useless:
quote: http://abcnews.go.com/...he-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt It's not just weddings that the missiles are hitting. It's not even mostly weddings. It's actually one wedding, and three dozen top figures in al-Qaeda.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024