America's Drone Terrorism / Growing Global Opposition

Disillusioned said:
You misunderstand, liberal evil is the hypocrisy, saying imperialism is evil while bombing sovereign nations. Condemning nations that kill civilians while we claim those civilians we kill were obvious terrorists. Republican rich people is corporatism liberal rich people are just well off. The list goes on
Click to expand...
so liberal evil is better stated as 'it's different when we do it'. understood.
 
It's time to come clean.
The drones are part of our evil plans to control the world and we're using the ME as our testing grounds and eventual springboard towards total conquest.

Skynet is real; but not like we portrayed it, in the movies.
There are no freaking robots that resemble humans (yet).

We eventually intend to have enough armed drones, in flight, that we can monitor and/or launch an attack at any given moment, anywhere.

We are currently working on small cold fusion engines, that will allow our drones to stay in flight indefinetly and very small low yield nuclear bombs that will limit the area of damage.

We will succeed where the British failed.

BOW BEFORE US; RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

:chesh:
 
Disillusioned said:
Oooooh good channel.

If Romney wins(if, not calling it) I predict Massive outbreak in "WHY IS THE US SO IMPERIALISTIC?" protests and "WHY ARE WE SO EVIL?" questions. Liberals are hypocrites, conservatives are just pricks. I'll take the honest evil over the dishonest one.
Click to expand...

They are both dishonestLy evil, you have a short memory.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
Growing oppostion to US drones program

The United States has a long history of violating international law when its leaders believe foreign policy objectives justify doing so. The belief in the right of the United States to overthrow democratically elected governments (Guatemala), to train and arm insurgencies (Nicaragua), and to launch aggressive wars (Iraq) free of the inconvenience of the law grows out of the nationalistic fervor of “American Exceptionalism.”

Currently, President Obama is directly overseeing a drones program that potentially violates a number of international legal norms. In October 2009, Philip Alston, then UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, stated that the drones program would be illegal if the U.S. was failing to take “all of the relevant precautions to make sure that civilians are not killed, in accordance with the relevant international rules.” Alston continued, “The problem is that we have no real information on this program.”

In May we learned that the President personally maintains a “Kill List” and holds weekly meetings during which, as judge, jury and executioner, he determines who lives and who dies. It was also revealed that the President counts all military-age males killed in drone strikes as militants. However, as a show of his compassion and fairness, the President does leave open the possibility for those killed to be proved innocent posthumously.

Such brazen counting and book cooking would make the sneakiest Wall Street accountants blush. It is also what allowed Counterterrorism Adviser John Brennan to maintain for over a year that there had not been a single civilian casualty from drone strikes. In May, Brennan corrected his patently absurd and dishonest claim, stating that innocent loss of life “is exceedingly rare, but it has happened.”

There is also the president’s personal authorization of the use of “signature strikes” in Pakistan and Yemen. Signature strikes target unidentified and unconfirmed individuals based in behavioral characteristics that are perceived to be those of militants or terrorists. Of course, it doesn’t actually matter whether an individual killed by a signature strike is a militant because he will be counted as one regardless.

President Obama’s method of distinguishing militants from civilians inherently violates the principle of distinction precisely because it fails to distinguish civilians from militants. It also potentially violates the principle of proportionality. There are limits to even unintentional civilian deaths in war. The number of civilians killed in a military action cannot be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”

The president’s system of counting civilian deaths is only one potentially criminal component of his drones program. In February, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Sunday Times published the results of a joint investigation into the practice of targeting rescuers who converge on the scene of an initial drone strike. They concluded that between 2009 and 2011, more than a dozen such attacks occurred, resulting in the deaths of at least fifty civilians.

After a brief lull, similar attacks were carried out numerous times this year. The most recent “double tap” occurred last month in Pakistan. Intentionally targeting rescuers and the wounded are clear violations of international humanitarian law. Of course, the president attempts to evade accountability by presuming all those killed in both the initial strike and the follow-up to be militants.

Not everyone agrees. There is a growing international movement against the impunity with which President Obama runs his drones program. UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson has called for an independent investigation into each and every death that results from drone strikes. Such investigations are worthwhile in response to all future drone attacks, but are too little too late for those already victimized by President Obama’s potential war crimes.

We need more than an end to the “conspiracy of silence” concerning the president’s drone attacks; we need an investigation into the legality of the Obama Administration’s favored means of making war. U.S. foreign policy cannot be immunized from the very same laws used as the impetus for applying sanctions and making war against others. International law’s legitimacy is grounded in its consistent application. Selectively applying and enforcing international law undermines the law, as well as the moral high ground claimed by those who use it as a tool against “rogue” elements while immunizing themselves.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/262877-growing-oppostions-to-us-drones-program

Bachman is a professor of human rights at American University, with a focus in state responsibility for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
Click to expand...

Code Pink is not hypocritical, they have been actively protesting the strikes, some have even gone to Pakistan to do so.
 
Rana said:
Code Pink is not hypocritical, they have been actively protesting the strikes, some have even gone to Pakistan to do so.
Click to expand...
have they said anything about the use of drones in our own nation?or is it that they are only concerned about the deaths of foreigners?
 
blackascoal said:
I absolutely agree.

I think Code Pink considers themselves leftists more than democrats.
Click to expand...

True. Republicans associate Code Pink with the Democratic party, not to confuse you with them, but I just wanted it known that they are consistent, no matter how you feel about them, they are consistent.
 
Rana said:
True. Republicans associate Code Pink with the Democratic party, not to confuse you with them, but I just wanted it known that they are consistent, no matter how you feel about them, they are consistent.
Click to expand...

And I appreciate your correction my friend. You are absoutely correct.
 
Damocles said:
I've tried to make this an issue here, but nobody seems to want to talk about it. Killing people by remote control... I remember when the Ds thought it created terrorists, but they are all blood-thirsty when it is a D President and no American gets splattered with the blood...
Click to expand...

What do you think now that Romney came out with full-throated approval of drones?
 
christiefan915 said:
What do you think now that Romney came out with full-throated approval of drones?
Click to expand...

I've told you before, I'm voting for Johnson. What can you tell me about what he thinks of drones? (I know the answer, but you are likely not to care. You'll hate on the drones for a republican, but love them some good collateral deaths when there's a "d" following the name of the President).
 
Damocles said:
I've told you before, I'm voting for Johnson. What can you tell me about what he thinks of drones? (I know the answer, but you are likely not to care. You'll hate on the drones for a republican, but love them some good collateral deaths when there's a "d" following the name of the President).
Click to expand...

You're saying what you think I believe rather than what I've outright said, which is that I don't support drones now, never did and never will.
 
christiefan915 said:
You're saying what you think I believe rather than what I've outright said, which is that I don't support drones now, never did and never will.
Click to expand...

But you'll vote for the man that pentupled (yes five times) the drone attacks and was in office when we generated the plan that will have these things overflying our houses here in the US.
 
Damocles said:
But you'll vote for the man that pentupled (yes five times) the drone attacks and was in office when we generated the plan that will have these things overflying our houses here in the US.
Click to expand...

Apparently you will, too. And as I said before, I'm considering voting for Jill Stein.

Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill.


“I would want leave all options on the table,” Johnson said."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top