Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thejadedmonkey, May 22, 2013.
Obama's just been pissing me off more and more. What next? Domestic drone killings?
Sorry, can't help but laugh...so much for hope and change eh ?
I get that you have something against Obama but it is no excuse to politicize the serious ramifications of drone strikes abroad and here at home. I'm in no way defending Obama because I think he and his administration are highly mistaken on the issue but is it possible for us to refrain from politicizing drone strikes?
That's your response to people being slaughtered by drones?
Thats my response Obama to supporters professing their disappointment and anger in him.
Not happy about innocent people getting killed obviously, but did you guys REALLY believe all that hope, change and transparency garbage he was shoving down your throats?
As for not politicizing the subject at hand, I don't see how one can't politicize it.
Everyone should express anger and disappointment at any official sanctioning drone attacks that kill innocent people. Your country is becoming more and more shamelessly violent and the most important thing for you is partisan politics. It's pathetic.
Quick! Something horrible happened! We need to find a way to spin this so my side of the aisle looks as good as possible!
Like vultures on a carcass...
I for one highly criticized Obama during the campaigns when ever he spoke as I knew he would not follow through with anything he said based on the his first four years in office. He spoke like a lion but governed like a pussycat. I could not bring myself to vote for him in good conscience and voted for a third party in the last election. The only reason I would remotely support him now is due to the false choice we have with the two party system.
Regardless, we shouldn't be politicizing this issue when real lives are at stake. I know you and your buddies on the right are eager to politicize anything but how can you do so in good conscience when US citizens could die because of these horrible policies? Shouldn't we be banding together despite our political differences and standing up against drone strikes against not only US citizens but ALL people around the world instead of pointing the finger at a specific person?
I'm a bit unclear about the circumstances.
Are they saying that when the target, Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted that some other American citizens were killed as well (collateral damage)?
That's my understanding.
I take very serious exception to the use of the word "murder" in the title of this post.
Let us be very clear here: Al-Jazeera, the source cited, does not use the word "murder. Only one of the four US citizens killed was specifically targeted (Anwar al-Awlaki - the cleric believed to have inspired numerous terrorist attacks, including the recent Boston Marathon bombing.)
If you would care to have a reasoned discussion of the ethics and legality of using drone-strikes in our ongong battle against international terrorism, I would welcome the opportunity for free and frank discussion.
But lets not call it "murder" - it isn't.
How about "state-sanctioned execution" instead?
Collateral damage is such a terrible euphemism for death.
Surely it's not a stretch to class the somewhat indiscriminate threat of drone attack as international terror.
Until Congress gets the balls to declare war on the Muslim religion any american killed by a US drone is murdered. Period. end of story.
My only question is, what separates this from somewhat-less-than-discriminate helicopter attacks, bombing raids, etc., that have occurred for over ten years in the region.
Am I supposed to feel especially outraged that the unintended targets were U.S. citizens instead of Iraqis, Afghanis, or other Mid-East nationalities?
That is supposed to awaken me to the dangers of military aggression?
I don't understand the generally conservative-led opposition to the killing of American citizens by the US. If they are terrorists / criminals (as the article states, one of the individuals was a target) then I don't see how you could have any opposition.
The Federal and State Governments kill American citizens every single year through capital punishment. How is this any different as those involved are still criminals?
Although I personally object to both of the above, I can't help but point out these slightly hypocritical points.
Also, your title is incorrect. You state "murdering American citizens". The article clearly says that only one of those killed was an intended target, and even the term "murder" is stretching it, IMO.
Lack of due process is the reason.
We were supposed to have rights in this country, remember?
Perhaps it's time to end this whole endless GWOT thing and return to those quaint old ways.
As much as I hate to say this, but this is a 100% political issue. Maybe the word you were thinking of is partisan issue.
Regardless, lets say hypothetically you go with a brand of tissue paper. Doesn't work out and some guy told you it wouldn't. Isn't he allowed to say I told you so?
I 100% think the blame is on Obama. Commander in Chief doesn't stop it, in fact he endorses it. So much for innocent before proven guilty. Sigh I'm just disappointed. Guantanamo Bay seems to be still open as well.
Unfortunately this is just the latest scare tactic that we are supposed to follow. Before it was the Reds, the commies, the gays, the women, the blacks, etc.
Keep in mind I'm using these derogatory terms in context, I'd never use these other than to make a point.
America: land of handing over rights (or the rights of others) for "security".
I'd also add, Americans, blithely able to accept virtually any amount of collateral damage, so long as it doesn't involve other Americans.
Then it's all about due process.
If I'm not mistaken the Department of Justice already laid out their legal justification for the killing of American citizens not on US soil.
Well, there's this pesky provision in the Constitution about the right to confront one's accusers and have an opportunity to defend yourself from said accusations.
That is the price that is paid when you make war against your country...and all that want to rub elbows with him...abroad...Its the only policy from this admin I agree with.....What I dont like is BP charging the Air Force 26 bucks a gallon for aviation fuel. I dont think we are getting the most bang for our buck at those prices....