Pages

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 EiMitch  Fri, Mar 15, 2013 5:06:14pm
Last month, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a staunch drone advocate, claimed that the drones kill only “single digits” worth of civilians annually.

Of course the number of civilian casualties are down. Its easy when you automatically count most of the dead bystanders as “enemy combatants.”

Many of the CIA’s strikes, termed “signature strikes,” kill people believed to fit a pattern of extremist behavior, rather than killing specific, known terrorists.

Great! The CIA is choosing who to kill with a mindset similar to the TSA’s profiling. That makes me feel alot better.

/so friggin’ sarc

2 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Mar 15, 2013 7:51:04pm

The UN should be told to take a flying leap into the East River in this matter. We should otherwise ignore the UN and keep doing what we think needs doing.

3 EPR-radar  Fri, Mar 15, 2013 8:03:21pm

Some thought should really be given on how/when the US is going to disengage from its campaign of killing people more or less arbitrarily for being our enemies. This is not something to do indefinitely.

4 EiMitch  Fri, Mar 15, 2013 11:17:48pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

I might’ve agreed if we were only (or mostly) killing bad guys. But the scandalous way we’ve tallied the deaths of enemies and collateral damage (if they’re young males, lets just assume they’re enemy combatants) leaves a sour taste in my mouth, to put it gently.

Besides, I’m wonder how the hell we’re even selecting targets in the first place. That part also fails the smell test.

people believed to fit a pattern of extremist behavior

Does that not sound suspicious? What constitutes “extremist behavior” anyway? I’m going out on a limb by doubting that they’ve narrowed it down to “blows s*** up and wildly fires an AK-47 into the air.”

5 BishopX  Sat, Mar 16, 2013 6:09:20am

re: #4 EiMitch

It’s usually someone who has had repeated contact with some identified as an extremist…so if your brother runs a business with someone who has a sideline of selling fertilizer out of the back of his truck you would be considered an extremist.

6 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Mar 16, 2013 8:16:12am

re: #5 BishopX

It’s usually someone who has had repeated contact with some identified as an extremist…so if your brother runs a business with someone who has a sideline of selling fertilizer out of the back of his truck you would be considered an extremist.

But that does serve a useful function even then in a tribal society: “Stand with the Taliban and it won’t just be you who suffers. We’ll bomb your brother’s business, too.” The price of siding with our enemies must be made high in order for deterrence to work.

7 EiMitch  Sun, Mar 17, 2013 2:18:34am

re: #5 BishopX

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

Assuming thats true for the sake of argument, I still don’t agree.

First of all, this is literally “guilty by association” thinking. What makes you think the known bad guy isn’t just lying to this person as part of his daily cover? He might not have a clue why he’s targeted for death. And their grieving loved ones won’t be thinking “who was seeing to bring this on him.” They’ll be thinking “those murderous yankees struck again! Damn them to hell!”

That’ll put a dent in terrorist recruitment. /sarc

Second, you should be punished for your brother’s wrongdoings? That is outrageously unjust BS! Are you an only child or something? Have your siblings never done anything criminal? One of mine did, and there wasn’t a damn thing I could’ve done to stop him. By your logic, I should’ve gone to jail with him or even in his place, just to send him a message. Boo!

Besides, do you really think killing one’s brother can dissuade someone from committing a hateful act of violence? Think about it.

Finally, deterrence in general presumes that association is a choice. But it might not be that simple. For example, in Afghanistan, people grew drug crops for terrorists (and many still do) because they had no other way to make ends meet.

And though the Taliban lost some power in Pakistan, they’re still a force to be reckoned with. The Pakistani officials are still hesitant to take direct action against them. What chance does a lone citizen saying “no” to these thugs have? Even a little girl will get a bullet to the head, just for going to school.

In sum: killing to make an example is monstrous and ineffective, hence unjustifiable. The only proven effective way to get results is to go up the chain and catch or kill high ranking members. Rapid turnover at the management level will ruin any organization. Why the hell is any of this so hard to understand?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 360 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1