Author Topic: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"  (Read 4971 times)

Offline Hydra009

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2013, 06:22:53 PM »
Quote from: "Nonsensei"
A year ago I would have believed that this poor grandfather simply didn't know his grandson as well as he thought he did, and the hit was likely legitimate.
That would seem to actually be the case.  This guy was not exactly a boy scout.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Online Shiranu

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2013, 06:28:51 PM »
Quote from: "Hydra009"
Quote from: "Nonsensei"
A year ago I would have believed that this poor grandfather simply didn't know his grandson as well as he thought he did, and the hit was likely legitimate.
That would seem to actually be the case.  This guy was not exactly a boy scout.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That was the son, not grandson.
"The ancients still want to speak to us, we've just forgotten the language.

Offline Hydra009

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2013, 06:51:59 PM »
#-o

*wonders if there was an American-born terrorist convention in Yemen*

"Anwar Al-Awlaki and Egyptian-born Gihan Mohsen Baker had an American son, born on September 13, 1995, in Denver, named Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki.[249] Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen, along with alleged al-Qaeda members two weeks after the death of his father.[250] Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-led attack. Among the dead was a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman.[251] Family members have said that he was on his way to a barbecue.[252] According to U.S. officials the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the actual target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna."

Ah, okay, so they were after  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login (another not-Boy Scout linked to Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was lieutenant of sorts to Osama bin Laden) and Abdulrahan al-Awlaki was an unintended victim in that attack.

Is that correct?

Offline Nonsensei

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2013, 07:58:41 PM »
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Nonsensei"
First of all they failed to properly identify everyone who would be there. That is just the latest in a long string of intelligence failures. Second, they failed to care that uninvolved people would be killed which is the latest in a long string of humanity failures.
So we can only attack terrorists on a one-on-one basis?  If the terrorist is sitting in a cafe with innocent people he's immune to attack?  Or we have to take him out with a small caliber pistol?

When your enemy chooses to dress like civilians, and always be surrounded by civilians, he has to expect civilian deaths - and accept responsibility for them.  The alternative is for us to roll over and play dead.  This is no longer conventional war, it's a new breed of war, in which civilians will die - probably in larger numbers than combatants.  We didn't choose to fight this way, it was thrust upon us, so we fight or we don't, but we can't fight by only attacking individual enemy personnel.  If that's our only answer, we might as well save American lives by disbanding the armed forces and staying home.

Our enemy doesn't give a shit about civilian deaths, and isnt interested in accepting responsibility for them. Nor should he accept responsibility for them. In the end, the United States is the one pulling the trigger. One hundred percent of the responsibility for the deaths of ttoally uninvolved civilians rests on the shoulders of the Federal government.

Using a mother fucking Buick to kill a fly and not really caring how many people we run over while we are doing it.

What kind of fucked up rationalizing is that? "Well our enemies exist, therefore we are justified in killing hundreds of innocent people to get to them and all those deaths are their fault. If only they didn't exist then it wouldn't be necessary"

No FUCK that. How about you find another fucking way? How about if your drone strike is going to kill a dozen other people you DONT DO IT and wait for a better opportunity? The only way you decide to go ahead with the option that kills a dozen people, including a citizen of your own country, is if you genuinely don't assign even the slightest value to human life other than your own. You have to be capable of looking at human beings as tools to be manipulated for your own goals, not as things deserving of respect and having intrinsic value.

How much bat shit insane stuff are we willing to let the federal government get away with under the utter farce of keeping us safe?
And on the wings of a dream so far beyond reality
All alone in desperation now the time has come
Lost inside you\'ll never find, lost within my own mind
Day after day this misery must go on

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2013, 03:09:02 AM »
I'd like to point out that the soldiers serving under George Washington were considered terrorists by the British and by our citizens who sided with the British. They refused to fight the British in open combat, preferring instead to use gorilla tactics. They did it for the obvious reason that they couldn't hope to win using conventional tactics. If they had lost, they'd have been written off in history as terrorists.

I used to think that we were all proud fact that we lived in a land that prized the rule of law. I have since been disabused of that thought. I've heard the killing of this young man discussed on radio talk shows. I've heard people call in and say that he was "obviously being raised to be a radicalized Muslim terrorist" and as such got what he deserved. Never mind the fact that he hadn't seen his father in years.

I don't recall the administration saying anything about who the target was that day. It would help if they did.

Offline Colanth

Re: "The Drone That Killed My Grandson"
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2013, 02:49:19 PM »
Quote from: "Nonsensei"
Quote from: "Colanth"
When your enemy chooses to dress like civilians, and always be surrounded by civilians, he has to expect civilian deaths - and accept responsibility for them.

Our enemy doesn't give a shit about civilian deaths, and isnt interested in accepting responsibility for them. Nor should he accept responsibility for them.
Think about what that means.

It means that we CAN NOT fight this war.  It means that we have to sit back and allow those who would fight us to do whatever they want or accept total responsibility for THEIR decision to put civilian lives in jeopardy.

As I said, either we accept that - due to THEIR decision to fight the war the way they choose to - there are going to be civilian casualties, and we can't do anything to prevent them, or we bring our troops home and declare defeat, now and forever.  It's a binary situation - fight or don't fight the war you're given.  Fighting a different war, one we'd prefer to fight, isn't on the menu.  If it were, we'd be fighting it.

Quote from: "Eric1958"
I don't recall the administration saying anything about who the target was that day. It would help if they did.
It would certainly help the target to know that he was being targeted.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk