US Drone Attacks Are No Laughing Matter, Mr. Obama

[unhappycamper]

The president's backing of indiscriminate slaughter in Pakistan can only encourage new waves of militancy


US Drone Attacks Are No Laughing Matter, Mr. Obama
by Mehdi Hasan
Published on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

Speaking at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner in May, Barack Obama spotted teen pop band the Jonas Brothers in the audience. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but, boys, don't get any ideas," deadpanned the president, referring to his daughters. "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming." The crowd laughed, Obama smiled, the dinner continued. Few questioned the wisdom of making such a tasteless joke; of the US commander-in-chief showing such casual disregard for the countless lives lost abroad through US drone attacks.

From the moment he stepped foot inside the White House, Obama set about expanding and escalating a covert CIA programme of "targeted killings" inside Pakistan, using Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles (who comes up with these names?) that had been started by the Bush administration in 2004. On 23 January 2009, just three days after being sworn in, Obama ordered his first set of air strikes inside Pakistan; one is said to have killed four Arab fighters linked to al-Qaida but the other hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child. Obama's own daughter, Sasha, was seven at the time.

But America's Nobel-peace-prize-winning president did not look back. During his first nine months in office he authorised as many aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W Bush did in his final three years in the job. And this year has seen an unprecedented number of air strikes. Forget Mark Zuckerberg or the iPhone 4 – 2010 was the year of the drone. According to the New America Foundation thinktank in Washington DC, the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan more than doubled in 2010, to 115. That is an astonishing rate of around one bombing every three days inside a country with which the US is not at war.

And the carnage continues. On Monday, CIA drones fired six missiles at two vehicles in a "Taliban stronghold" in north Waziristan, on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, killing 18 "militants". Or so said "Pakistani intelligence officials", speaking under condition of anonymity to the Associated Press. Today another round of drone strikes is thought to have killed at least 15 "militants" in the same area.

These attacks by unmanned aircraft may have succeeded in eliminating hundreds of dangerous militants, but the truth is that they also kill innocent civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers. According to the New America Foundation, one in four of those killed by drones since 2004 has been an innocent. The Brookings Institute, however, has calculated a much higher civilian-to-militant ratio of 10:1. Meanwhile, figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities suggest US strikes killed 701 people between January 2006 and April 2009, of which 14 were al-Qaida militants and 687 were civilians. That produces a hit rate of just 2% – or 50 civilians dead for every militant killed.



unhappycamper comment: And each one of those Hellfire missiles cost $160 grand.

[boppers]

1. How much is an american life worth to you?

Is 160K too much? 16K?

[unhappycamper]

2. Why do you ask?

Do you not care how much we are spending to continue these occupations?

[boppers]

3. For a dollar and sixty cents, would you be willing to buy desks for a school?

I would.

[unhappycamper]

4. I have no problem helping people.

I would rather spend $160 grand on schools (or roads or aid to states and cities or a decent jobs program) than I would on killing people.

[roody]

42. same as any life

[chervilant]

65. As opposed to a Pakistani life? ANY human life?!

Conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.

Emma Goldman

[sabrina 1]

105. How much is a Pakistani life worth?

.

[Incitatus]

107. Does the value of people's lives differ depending on where they live?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grinchie]

122. It's 26K just to get a helicopter ride to get legs amputated..

Just ask the 2 year old girl from Sacramento.

If spending money on items that have no reason to exist, just so we can flush technology and resources down a black hole, then you are a sick individual.

If America was so great, and the cause was so good, people would grab pointed sticks and rout the so called terrorists by hand.

But no, the Government has gotten every one so chicken livered that actually taking any personal responsibility for law and order is out of the question. The fact is that a few kids with a handful of stones can thwart these high tech weapons in the right situation, and that day is coming.

[Catherina]

5. This is nothing short of shocking.

These attacks by unmanned aircraft may have succeeded in eliminating hundreds of dangerous militants, but the truth is that they also kill innocent civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers. According to the New America Foundation, one in four of those killed by drones since 2004 has been an innocent. The Brookings Institute, however, has calculated a much higher civilian-to-militant ratio of 10:1. Meanwhile, figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities suggest US strikes killed 701 people between January 2006 and April 2009, of which 14 were al-Qaida militants and 687 were civilians. That produces a hit rate of just 2% – or 50 civilians dead for every militant killed.

Killed via remote control, they remain unseen and unremembered. Forgive me, Mr President, for not seeing the funny side.

Meanwhile, while drones to kill all these innocent civilians are at $160 a pop:

Eight Homeless Youth Die in New Orleans Fire – What Does It Say About Us?
by Bill Quigley

Eight young people, who the Fire Department said were “trying to stay warm,” perished in a raging fire during the night in New Orleans. The young people were squatting in an abandoned wood framed tin walled warehouse in a Ninth Ward neighborhood bordering a large train yard. The young people apparently had a barrel with wood burning in it for heat. Officials said this was the city’s most deadly fire in twenty five years.

The eight young people, estimated to be in their late teens and early twenties, remain unidentified. “We don’t know their IDs,” said the Fire Department, “they were so burned we cannot even tell their genders.”

...

There are an estimated 1.6 to 2.8 million homeless youth in the US, people between the ages of 12 and 24, according to a June 2010 report of the Center for American Progress. Most are homeless because of abuse, neglect, and family conflict. Gay and transgender youth are strikingly over-represented.

....

Nationally, the US has severely cut its investment in affordable housing despite increasing need from the foreclosure and economic crises. Homelessness is of course up all over. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reported in December 2010 that demands for food and housing are up across the country. The causes? Unemployment, high housing costs and low wages.

Will we look into our abandoned buildings and look into the eyes of our abandoned daughters and sons and sisters and brothers? Will our nation address unemployment, high housing costs, and low wages? Will we address the abuse, neglect, and family conflict that create homelessness for millions of youth, especially gay and transgender youth? Or will the fires continue and the lives end?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/29-0

Your celebration of Christ's birth is complete Mr President.

[molly77]

56. Catherina

What does it say about us?

Our priorities are wrong.

Julian Assange was on Democracy Now today. Seems like I remember him saying the CIA conducts drone attacks. This is beyond f-----. The CIA operates in secrecy. This should stop. The CIA attacks as well as the CIA as an arm of the US govt.

[Dokkie]

83. It would be nice if they were actually

killing terrorists but theres videos online with interviews of the supposedly terrorist( Fahd al Quso)that were killed in the drone strikes and why does it take 2-3 confirmed deaths to kill some terrorists? Truth be told, the President is committing terrorist acts against the people of Pakistan and it has to stop now.

End The Wars NOW

[rucky]

6. ugh

almost as bad as Bush looking for WMDs under his desk.

[frylock]

21. yep

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. President Obama should be ashamed

This is hardly a joking matter and I would offer that it makes all of us LESS SAFE!

[defendandprotect]

73. Don't think anyone who would make a comment like that could be shamed ...????

"Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."

I've criticized Obama before purely on issues -- policies --

but this this is not a man who should be president of the US.

That's becoming more obvious every day!

:blush:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. The drone attacks remind me of the lyrics "After the Dolphin" by CSN.

What will become of us all? Who know the story?
Will we witness the final fall of the hope and the glory?
Blinded by honor they fought eye to eye
Now men without faces rain fire from the sky.
When you kill from a distance is anyone to blame?
And the armies of warfare will never be the same again.
After the Dolphin, after the Dolphin, after the Dolphin.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/After-the-Dolphin-lyrics-Crosby-Stills-Nash-and-Young/98BFB9493A11F87648256D9900250D69

While some terrorists may be killed in these attacks, I am afraid that we are creating even more terrorists with the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. I don't know that it is worth the cost.

[Fumesucker]

9. "We begin bombing in five minutes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

On August 11, 1984, United States President Ronald Reagan, while running for re-election, was preparing to make his weekly Saturday address on National Public Radio. As a sound check prior to the address, Reagan made the following joke to the radio technicians:

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

[Billy Burnett]

126. A sound check is not nearly the same thing as a public address.

As distasteful as RR's comments were, they were not made as a joke at a correspondents' dinner.

[tekisui]

10. knr.Killing innocents, radicalizing populations and wasting money.

[dkf]

11. Yeah lets get into a ground war instead right?

[gratuitous]

14. Well, since there's no other imaginable alternative, you might have a point

But let's see, what might actually win some of those hearts and minds in Afghanistan? Remote control, indiscriminate attacks from who knows where on who knows who, or living amongst the population we're allegedly trying to liberate (that's our objective, isn't it?), learning their ways and customs while sharing out of the incredible bounty that we've been blessed with to reach a deeper understanding of the country and its people.

Naaaah, much better to do the push-button thing if our imagination is so limited that our only other choice is a "ground war" pitting our expensive modern weaponry against little more than sticks and stones.

[dkf]

17. Drone attacks are more focused on Pakistan, no?

[OnyxCollie]

20. When did warmongering become a Democratic principle?

I must've missed the memo.

Hard to keep up with the New Democrat philosophy.

[Union Scribe]

29. When the bloody baton was relayed to a Democratic hand, I guess.

[Foo Fighter]

34. Hey now, don't knock it.

There's a LOT of money tied up in that baton and TONS more for those that can continue to hand it off indefinitely.

It doesn't matter which 'party' is in charge when they both answer to the same master.

[Forkboy]

59. Considering the poster's views on other topics I'd used "Democratic" lightly.

[bluestate10]

77. The "purity" litmus test. One does not agree with me, so one is evil. nt.

[Grinchie]

123. You are not kidding in that respect.

Some of the other topics relate a downright psycopathic worldview. Seems to fit right in with this Administration however.

[purrFect]

23. or

lets get out of the war racket.

[WinkyDink]

37. "War" because?

Oh, right: "They're trying to kill us!!!"

[alarimer]

120. Watched Duck Soup on New Year's Eve.

I think "Just Wait til I get through with it" is particularly appropriate:

"The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad off now
Just wait 'til I get through with it
The country's taxes must be fixed
And I know what to do with it
If you think you're paying too much now
Just wait 'til I get through with it"

[mix]

41. That is undoubtedly what is happening and will continue to happen, given

that Obama's drone strikes are doing nothing more than fostering new generations of anti-American militants.

[walldude]

47. I believe the OP was about the tasteless joke Obama made

about drone attacks. But don't let that get in the way of your defense of illegal drone attacks in Pakistan.

[Bluebear]

118. thank you

[sabrina 1]

108. No, how about we get out of other people's countries altogether?

What is this war all about? And why is it expanding? Why is the mercenary army in both Iraq and Afghanistan larger than the regular army? When did the American People, Congress, approve of a Private Army to replace the U.S. military

And who would we be fighting in a 'ground war'? The country is devastated, used as a chess-board for world Empires to plau on, there is not a single citizen there now who has not suffered a trauma, the loss of a loved one, a personal physical injury, the loss of work and possessions. Who exactly would the great American Empire be fighting? The country is inhabited by a traumatized people, starving, so desperate they are selling their children to try to save them from starving or freezing to death and to try to feed their other children.

What kind of society approves of this massive crime against humanity?

Read Robert Greenwald's work on what the real story of Afghanistan under occupation by NATO troops and what it has done to women and children. How can any decent human being allow this to be done in their name?

The conditions imposed on that population by NATO forces should cause outrage everywhere.

[Brickbat]

12. WTF? Predator drones are not funny, and fathers joking about controlling their daughters aren't

funny, either. I realize the one joke is a lot more serious than the other, and that it's a deep-seated cultural impulse for men to make jokes about shotguns and chasing off boys sniffing around. It really, really rubs me the wrong way when Obama talks like that, though.

[WinkyDink]

38. He's a good ole boy, didn't you know?

[truth2power]

62. Something else that's bothered me about this, no one seems to have mentioned it..

He refers to the Jonas Brothers as "boys". Except for the youngest, who is (or was) 10 yrs old, the other three are 18, 21, and 23. These aren't boys; they're men. And does Pres. Obama not think it strange to speculate about them having designs on his daughters, who were then 8 & 11 years old? That also isn't a laughing matter.

I know, I know. It was a joke, so to speak. And one can be excused for taking some literary license. Still....

Tasteless, over all.

[TheMadMonk]

64. Exactly. It's a bog standard father joke. And while it does hark back...

...to days of controling one's progeny or more correctly preserving their marriage market value. (More than one unmarried daughter was very much a financial liability. Most fathers aimed to get them married off as soon as possible, holding out only for an "arrangement" suitable to their social class.)

Today, and for most of the last 50 years or so, it has mostly been just a joke with a little serious intent behind it. However, the simple existence of the joke is highly indicative of the overall shift from viewing women and children purely as chattels to seeing them as human beings in their own rights.

As attitudes have continued to progress, the joke has taken on more condescending overtones, but it's still a joke.

I'd bet good money, that past presidents have offered up encounters with navy seals, commandos, or some other branch of the armed forces (or perhaps the "threat" of IRS audit) to young hounds sniffing around their daughters. And some police chiefs probably casually mention SWAT teams at "That (first) Dinner". The same peril potentially awaits any young man foolish enough to fall for his boss's daughter.


And while a father egregiously abusing his power to carry through on the threat at a later date may be beyond the pale, we don't exactly raise an eyebrow when it happens. Without such dramas "Days of Our Drearies", "Young & the Rootless" and "The Cold and the Botoxed" would have a lot less material to work with.


What the President is actually doing with Predator drones IS an obscenity. His joking about using them on a couple of teen noisemakers who his tweenie daughters happen to be infatuated with, has, almost certainly, no great misogynistic undertones.

On the other hand, while not explicitly stated, it is implied in the quote in the OP, that Obama sought the Jonas Brothers out to deliver the joke. Which does suggest a certain cynicical purpose. Perhaps to reinforce the image he cultivated during his election campaign that he was Everyfamilyman. I doubt that he was delivering a "hint" to a "wider audience" that he could do in THEIR countries what he was doing in Pakistan.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. Sounds like a polite smile

not a laugh at killing by drone.

I'm not excusing careless or excessive use of them. It's just that this doesn't sound like he was making a joke of it.

[WinkyDink]

39. The entire bit was a joke.

[earth mom]

50. If Shrub had said the same ugly comment, I doubt anyone on DU would be laughing. nt

[martymar64]

58. thank you

[bread_and_roses]

43. and up is down, water is dry, and the sky is green

unless he was actually threatening to kill his daughters suitors with drones, the remark was a "joke." If so depraved a a perspective - that OTHER people's daughters are being blown to bits is funny? - can be called by the term.

[awoke_in_2003]

103. don't forget...

2+2 = 5

[Erose999]

15. He was just working the room. Showing "casual disregard for human life" is just standard GOP-DLC

humor, not unlike the one-liners "take my wife, please", and "I just flew in from a canned hunt in Alaska and boy are Todd's arms tired".

Obama can't get a laugh out of his new Republican buddies without interjecting some sort of cruelty.

[earth mom]

52. Yep, the only thing the rethugs laugh at are sick socipathic jokes.

:puke:

[truth2power]

63. It creeps me out to think you may be right...

Republicans don't seem to think something's funny unless there's an element of cruelty to it.

[Cutatious]

16. Terrorist? Taliban or CIA?

Umm...both? What do I win?

The Taliban complaining about indiscriminate killing is the only joke here.

[Catherina]

18. On second thought. I look forward to your future contributions. n/t

[sarcasmo]

19. No where close to being a Liberal Democrat, closer to a DINO.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. How much further will we allow --

our "war" to expand? Beyond Pakistan? Beyond Yemen? Where else will we happily attempt to bomb away an idealogy??

Obama, you are one dumb shit if you think this is going to in any way solve our terrorism problem. :(

[Dokkie]

85. You missed 1

Somalia is another front for the warmongering state

[Amonester]

24. Roger Waters - The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range (live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzofJeg5bPo

Old timer, who you gonna kill next?

[walldude]

46. Rog is the man...

Have you seen The Wall tour? It was unreal. To say it was the best show ever is a massive understatement.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. I cringed when he made that joke

It was disgusting.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."

Same total disregard for human decency as, "Now where were those WMDs? No, not under here ... ha ha ha"

[dflprincess]

32. You know that's different

because that time it was Bush making a callous joke about killing people. It's different when Obama does it.

:sarcasm:

[bvar22]

27. Not a story you will see widely reported in the USA.

TPTB would rather you continue to believe that there is only a choice between:

1)Pro-WAR Republicans

and

2)Pro-WAR Democrats



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[awoke_in_2003]

104. Paul Wellstone...

how much better would this country be with just 20 or so like-minded individuals?

[WillyT]

28. Yep... K & R !!!

:kick:

[timo]

30. does any one really think??

Obama gives a shit about the people he his killing? out of site out of mind....collateral damage?? who gives a shit. he out did Bushes record on deportation too, waay to go!!

[aikoaiko]

31. He really wasn't joking about US drone attacks over seas.

I think it was a typical protective father funny joke.

[chervilant]

67. hmm...

Neither funny, nor defensible.

[aikoaiko]

80. Not all things are funny to all people. That's the way humor works.

I understand why some people wouldn't want the President to joke about drone attacks, but I'm not one of them.

[chervilant]

81. And,

how fortunate for me you're not in my immediate circle of acquaintances...

[aikoaiko]

82. Yes, I am sure your life is simpler without me in it.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[awoke_in_2003]

106. I was a typically protective father...

of three teenage stepdaughters. I know how young boys think (i once was one). I told prospective suitors- I will treat you the way you treat them. Most were quite respectful after my adult discussions. Did sex occur? Yes, I am sure it did. But said daughters were armed with the knowledge needed to protect themselves, and though there were a few assholes- none of those girls were ever in danger. They were strong girls, who grew into strong women.

[ecstatic]

125. Hooray for common sense! nt

[The Northerner]

33. K&R

[Altoid_Cyclist]

35. I was naively hoping that the dawn of a new year would somehow restore sanity to the US.

It's more than a little sad to see that even here on DU, some people agree with this cowardly, immoral, costly and random method of murder.

Inane joke by President Obama aside, since when does anyone think that repeated illegal acts of murder by the CIA (in OUR name), can possibly be defended or even rationalized?

These are largely innocent men, women and children being murdered in a country that we're not even at war with by the US under the euphemism of "pinpoint attacks" against "suspected militants".

No laughing matter doesn't even begin to describe what is being carried out in the name of national security.

[Jefferson23]

36. They're becoming popular too, as sickening as that is. More on drones here:

Have a problem? Use drone attacks..they are soo in.

For CIA drone warriors, the future is death
By Pepe Escobar

Forget the iPad; the ultimate icon of fetishized commodity is the drone. Israelis do it - and sell them like hot cakes. Mexicans do it - to patrol their side of the border. Brazilians wanna do it - to patrol the Rio favelas. Saudis wanna do it. Uzbeks wanna do it. Everybody's singing: Let's do it. Let's fall in love (with the drone).

Furthermore, abandon all hope those who enter (the doors of misperception): Afghanistan is now officially just a lowly, troop-infested sideshow to the AfPak war. The real thing is an illegal drone war against Pakistan. Viva Richard Nixon. As much as Tricky Dick annexed Cambodia to the Vietnam War, the Barack Obama administration pulled a Nixon regarding Pakistan. And the great thing is that no one needs another WikiLeaks "dump" to know this. It's out there in the open.

in full: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LL23Df03.html

[bongbong]

40. I can't believe so many DUers are missing the point!

I hate to be rude, but I thought it was obvious to Democrats why the drone attacks continue. We ARE smarter than repigs & teabaggers after all.

The reason is simple. The PTB don't want terrorism to end. They want it to increase. They'll be safe behind their walls, while they extract more money & subservience from the hoi polloi to make them "safe". Divided the commoners fall, united they succeed. The ABSOLUTE LAST thing the PTB want is the rabble united against them.

It's not a new thing, of course. The French Revolution showed what can happen. Lesser known is the fact that several of our most esteemed Founding Fathers shared the same sentiments about "commoners".

http://www.google.com/search?q=founding+fathers+elitist

[Flatulo]

44. Maybe the Taliban should not hide behind women and children.

Islamic militants are blowing up hundreds of innocent Pakistanis almost every day. Where's the outrage over that?

Militant Islam is a very great evil that is not going to go away by ignoring it. Militant Islam came onto our shores, our very doorstep, and slaughtered 3,000 innocent Americans.

Barack is right on the money with the Drone progam, and I hope it continues unabated. Much better and cheaper than a ground war, and it's a good thing to kill Islamic militants.

And please take the 'Bush/Cheney did 9/11' screeds into the Dungeon.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

76. Hundreds of innocents almost every day?

That is totally baseless and incorrect.

You have been duped into believing that 'militant Islam' is an actual threat and that these drone strikes are an effective way to protect us. Neither is accurate. We further radicalize and foment hate through our killing of innocents from the air. We are worsening the problem.

[CrawlingChaos]

89. Congratulations

You're on the same page as the FauxNews crowd.

Getting harder to peddle that crap these days, ain't it?

[Prometheus Bound]

94. "Islamic militants are blowing up hundreds of innocent Pakistanis almost every day." Any proof?

Tens of thousands a year? We need a special dungeon for this sort of propaganda.

[Flatulo]

100. How many innocents need to be blown up by radicals to satisfy you?

You're trying to chip away at the edges of my argument to make it sound invalid, but the actual numbers aren't important.

Moderate elements in the Islamic world are being blown up in fairly large numbers by an implaccable enemy. Do you doubt this?

[Prometheus Bound]

102. US drones are killing millions of innocent Pakistanis.

You say the numbers aren't important, but doesn't my statement reduce the whole discussion to the absurd?

Yours did, in my opinion.

[Flatulo]

111. OK, your point is taken. However, I think one has

to take sides in this conflict. To my simple mind, we are the good guys here. We're not *trying* to kill innocents, but the radicals are. That's a pretty big distinction.

At any rate, I thank you for your thoughts.

[cpwm17]

113. War isn't the solution to anything

since war is the worst thing there is.

The US has been massacring Muslims since way before 9-11. Your ignorance of reality is every bit as bad as the "Truther" kooks.

Islam didn't attack us on 9-11. The Taliban didn't attack us on 9-11. Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9-11. Iraq didn't attack us n 9-11. 9-11 was revenge for past behavior of the US Government.

Killing without a fair trail is murder. War is no excuse.

[Flatulo]

116. Can you make a distinction between Islam and militant Islam?

There's a rather large gulf between moderate, liberal Muslims, and fanatics who have been trained to hate and kill and seek martydom. I am sure you understand the difference. The latter consider the former, as well as Shia muslims, to be worse than infidels, and are engaged in a pogrom against them in, among other places, Pakistan.

The Pakistani government is on somewhat shaky ground, and lacks either the political or military capability to confront the militants and defeat them. The Predator and Reaper programs are valuable tools in aiding the Pakistanis in keeping the militants destabilized, off-guard and incapable of toppling the sitting government, as well as returning to power in Afghanistan. If the Pakistanis lose control or their nuclear arsenal to radicals, the world will be a very much more dangerous place than it currently is. For one thing, the Indians might be tempted to launch a first strike against a radical Muslim (and extremely hostile) neighbor. For another, a radical Muslim regime might provide WMDs to other terror groups who would not hesitate to use them against us.

If you are interested in adding to your understanding of the origins and spread of radical Islam, you might consider reading 'The Looming Tower' by Lawrence Wright. This book won a Pulitzer prize, so it's considered a good source.

Regarding your comment that 9/11 waa revenge for past behavior of the US government, I believe UBL stated that he wanted US troops of of Saudi soil, and this was his way to drive home the point. The Taliban didn't attack us, but they gave refuge to al-Qaeda and sllowed Afghanistan to become a haven for Islamic radicals to hatch their terror plots.

And war is not the worst thing. The worst thing is allowing evil to go unchallenged, and radical Islam is pure evil.

[cpwm17]

119. War enables the crazies

and war supporters here are also crazy. In our not so cold "Cold War" the US encouraged the growth of radical Islam in Afghanistan to challenge the Soviets. Most of the Afghans want us to end our current occupation. They don't want or need any more of our help. It's all been a disaster.

I meant to mention that 9-11 was also revenge for oppressive behavior of our government, including support for the Saudi Government and Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. All of these behaviors are unforgivable actions by our government. The US Government does not believe in freedom or democracy.

Suicide bombers mostly come from countries under oppression and especially occupation. Many grievances are legitimate, some are not. A Pakistani attempted the Times Square bombing as revenge for US drone attacks in Pakistan.

The Taliban offered up UBL for trial before the US invaded Afghanistan. The Bush administration wanted war.

Iraq didn't have a problem with radical Islam before our unprovoked war against them. If we remove ourselves from their country, stability should return. It could take time, but disorder seeks order.

Before President George H W Bush's 1991 war against Iraq, Iraq was a relatively well off secular nation. By the time George W Bush invaded Iraq was already devastated thanks to over a decade of bombings and sanctions, including sanctions and numerous bombings by President Clinton. Madeline Albright thought the devastating sanctions against Iraq were worth it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

CIA supported Saddam had a boarder dispute with Kuwait, so that gave George H W Bush an excuse for a war. The Cold War was over and he needed a conflict. Americans didn't support the war, so naturally he came up with a lie (sorry about the Truther source, the incubator baby stuff is accurate):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJzQcsSVR7E

We should solve our own problems and eliminate our own radicals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs

The world does not want or need our help.

[Flatulo]

121. You'll have no argument from me over the folly of Iraq.

The lies and crimes that led to this mess are well documented. But I want to stress that we did not create the radical element in Islam. This is also well-documented in the source I cited. The actions of our government have certainly fomented resentment in the Middle East, as well as Latin America and elsewhere, but like it or not, we are addicted to the resources there. We would literally die by the millions without that oil, so we are not leaving the ME. That is a reality that we just have to accept.

While it is useful and important to understand the roots of this conflict, it is somewhat academic at this point, at least as regards the Taliban. Our enemies are implaccable, and are determined to topple our ally Pakistan. To allow this to happen, regardless of the root cause, would be a grevious error.

The first step in ending our meddling in the world would be to achieve energy independence and let other countries pursue their own destinies without our interference.

I appreciate your well-reasoned response.

[cpwm17]

124. We have no right to control their oil

Their oil does them no good unless they sell it. The oil becomes much more expensive for us if our tax payers must support our military to control the oil. We don't benefit by this greed, except a few oilmen and the MIC.

The neocons have their own motivations for war, and oil (or democracy) has little to do with it. Their motivations are greed and bigotry. The neocons want the US and Israel to control the ME.

Some oppressed people turn to radicalism, so war and oppression isn't the answer to radicalism. Aggressive wars are never the answer to anything. As I said earlier, war isn't the solution to anything since war is the worst thing there is.

[somone]

45. "Got to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"

and all that

[OhioChick]

48. Making "friends" again, I see

I never heard about this "joke" our President made at this dinner regarding predator drones.

Such poor taste....

[dionysus]

53. the joke i believe, was made a year ago. strange timing for an OP...

[OhioChick]

54. Doesn't matter when the "joke" was made to me...

It's still such poor taste.

[earth mom]

49. Obama's drone joke was never funny but sickening. And so are his ENDLESS WARS!

Hope & Change my ass! :puke:

[defendandprotect]

71. When are we going to begin the discussions here about what to DO about all of this?

We do need to understand all of this -- that discussion has to go on --

but meanwhile, we also have to discuss what to do about this --

all of it --

imo --

[SidDithers]

51. Neither is joking about the Jonas Brothers...

Glad we can dredge up a comedy routine from May to be outraged about in December.

Sid

[Arkana]

57. No kidding.

Would this thread like some cheese to go with that very, very aged whine?

[Forkboy]

60. I still think that Bush's jokes about WMD are sad, years later.

Compassion and empathy never go out of style.

[tammywammy]

66. +1 n/t

[Flatulo]

61. I'd like to try to respectfully make a few points about the Predator program...

What I am about to write will no doubt offend many, if not most, DUers, but I'm going to say it anyway. After all, this is a discussion board.

The whole Predator program is an acknowledgement of three realities:

1. The ground invasion of Afghanistan was ill-conceived and executed, and will not result in an Afghanistan that shares our Western values.
2. The Talibanization of Pakistan is a direct result of that government siding with the US after 9/11.
3. Radical Islam is a very real threat to the civilized world and must be treated like a cancer - occasional surgery to remove the larger tumors.

The Predator program is a very effective tool in surgically removing particularly troublesome elements. Drone strikes have killed hundreds of militants (and often their families and bodyguards) who have been waging a relentless campaign of terror against civil Pakistani society. The Pakistani government cooperates with and provides intelligence to the CIA, who conduct the strikes. This is not an invaion of a sovereign state, but a joint operation to contain some of the nastiest motherfuckers in the world.

No doubt we are creating some more enemies with these strikes, but we'll kill these new enemies too. When we started killing Germans and Japanese during WWII we hardened their resolve as well. This is what happens in war. Whoever can inflict the most pain wins. And the Predators are inflicting a great deal of pain in a part of the world where it makes no sense to send in a ground invasion.

We are in a war. It's not Bushco's war. Radical Islam declared war on civilization long before Bush came into office. The roots of Radical Islam go back to the 1920s. We foolishly emboldened the Afghan mujahadeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the '80s, but that's water under the bridge. Radical Islamists are an implaccable enemy who do not want to live in peace. They ware just batshit fucking crazy and are not going to go away.

Mr. Obama seems to understand this. John Kerry also understood this, when he characterized terror as a problem that should be dealt with by Special Forces and surgical strikes. Exactly like we're doing.

Before you fire up the blow torches, let me make it clear that I did not and do not support the ivasion and occupation of Iraq, so save that vitriol for someone else.

[Amonester]

68. They're not going away.

And they will never go away, no matter how many you murder and will continue to murder.

The more drones they get, the more enemies we make.

Until someone in power is sane enough to comprehend that very simple, logical notion, that stupid bloodbath will continue.

Happy New Year.

[Flatulo]

69. You are correct in your assessment

that this problem will not go away - probably much more correct than you intended. I don't think that anyone believes that this is a winnable conflict in the historical sense. There will never be an armistice with the Taliban. The goal is to inflict more pain on the militants than they can inflict on us. In this regard, I believe we are seeing success. The militants can't hang their dicks out for a whiz without worrying about a Predator smoking them. They can't effectively organize or plot. About all they can do is blow themselves up and take some Pakistani innocents with them.

I don't know how this will play out, and neither do you, but I know that you can't run and hide from this evil. These folks embrace an ideology that is incapable of coexisting with others. This ideology came to our shores, first in 1992 and again in 2001. Much smarter people than me have been studying this problem for a decade, and this is the best solution they have come up with. I happen to agree with the tactic. Ignoring them during the '90s didn't work, and invading their home countries hasn't worked in the '00s.

What strikes me as hilariously ironic is that some of the folks who scream the loudest that the Gummin't should have done something to prevent the 9/11 attacks are now screaming the loudest about our efforts to contain the religious lunatics.

[bluestate10]

79. Finally, a voice of reason.

We can stick our heads up our asses while extremists kill us off, or we can find extremists and kill them once it is clear that they are incorrigible. Obama's joke about drones and his daughters was ill considered, by it is the type of joke that many fathers make concerning their children.

[FrancisTreptoe]

84. As far as radical islam goes..

Any extremist faction of a religion is a threat to sanity and freedom everywhere, but don't you think that bombing these countries is creating an unbreakable cycle of extremist propaganda??

You can't bomb an idea, especially an idea that is fueled by propaganda. This whole war is a complete waste, it is never going to end.

[Flatulo]

86. I think radical Islam is a unique problem... we really haven't

had anything to compare this to, except possibly the Japanese Emperor/God worship of WWII that inspired so many young pilots to make suicide runs at American warships.

The ideology transcends national and ethnic boundaries, so there is no geographic or racial 'them' to confront. As you note, it is an idea, and the only way to counter an idea is through liberal education and assimilation with sane people. However, I believe there is no redemption for the militants who have sworn allegiance to whomever and are determined to achieve martyrdom. These guys gotta go, and the Drone program is a very effective tool at swatting these troublemakers.

I agree with you that each attack perpetuates a cycle of extremism/revenge, but this happens in every conflict. There will certainly be more bloodletting, on both sides, until one party is worn out. This could take hundreds of years. In the interim, it is *not* in our best interests to just go away and let this problem fester. We tried this from 1990 to 2001, and it simply did not work.

I appreciate your response and would like to hear any ideas you may have for how to deal with Islamic extremism.

[FrancisTreptoe]

88. I guess in the short term..

Drone attacks are acceptable, but isn't it completely counterproductive when we kill and injure countless civilians?

My ideas to deal with Islamic Extremism may be a pipe dream, but i think that it is the only way.

I think that we should put a very large portion of our military spending investing into education for young children. This is a good long term plan for stability, i believe that eventually logic and reason will prevail over any extremist propaganda. Education, like with most things, will always prevail over stupidity.

Also in the short term i think that the moderate, non-fundie muslims of Afghanistan and Pakistan need to stand up, become the voice of islam and decry all of the injustice that is occurring.

[Flatulo]

98. Let me address your points one by one...

> Drone attacks are acceptable, but isn't it completely counterproductive when we kill and injure countless civilians?

I agree that it is very tragic and every attempt should and is being made to target the right people and minimize collateral damage. However, I think the threat posed by the most extreme radicals is sufficient to warrant the taking of innocent lives. It's very difficult to draw the line at what is acceptable collateral damge, but that is a responsibility that Mr. Obama and his military have signed up for. I would not consider nuking Karachi to get Osama bin Laden, but if we have to kill several of his family to get him, then I can live with that.

> I think that we should put a very large portion of our military spending investing into education for young children. This is a good long term plan for stability,
> i believe that eventually logic and reason will prevail over any extremist propaganda. Education, like with most things, will always prevail over stupidity.

I agree that educatated people who are taught acceptance and love generally don't kill each other. However, there are literally thousands of religious schols in Pakistan that teach only the Koran. How are we going to get this generation to make a break from the religious fanaticism of 20 generations of hatred and complete disdain for Western values? Only the Pakistanis can do this.

> Also in the short term i think that the moderate, non-fundie muslims of Afghanistan and Pakistan need to stand up, become the voice of islam and decry
> all of the injustice that is occurring

They are, and are promptly blown to smithereens by the very elements we're trying to eliminate.

[CrawlingChaos]

91. what a pantload of Islamophobic bloodthirsty excrement (nt)

[Flatulo]

92. I bet anyhting I have more Muslim friends and colleagues than you do,

so please keep your insults to yourself.

Thanks.

[CrawlingChaos]

93. I'm sure some of your very best friends are Muslim...

:eyes:

Please keep your FauxNews-esque fearmongering to yourself.

[Flatulo]

96. Please keep your innuendos to yourself. Remember the new

rules about civility.

Now, if you have something of substance to add, I'd be happy to engage with you. But if you're going to insinuate that I am a RW'er, then we have nothing to say to each other.

Do you understand that Islamic radicals attacked American interests repeatedly during the '90s, culminating in the September 11, 2001 attacks? Or are you a 9/11 "Truther" who believes that we did this to ourselves? If the former, I'd like to hear your sugestions on how to deal with Islamic fundamentaism. If you're the latter, then I really don't wish to discuss anything at all with you.

Thanks.

[CrawlingChaos]

101. Now we agree on something

We have absolutely nothing to say to each other.

Carry on defending drone attacks behind your veneer of civility.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

87. She was not talking about a conventional war.

The war in Afghanistan should have been a covert war from the very outset. Our goal is to capture or kill specific people. Putting large formation of troops in was dumb on Bush's part, so was de-funding the Afghani war while we diverted to Iraq. Obama was handed a shit sandwich. But, if you are paying attention, you will see that Obama is turning the war into a more covert war. A significant number of the troops that Obama added were special forces type troops that don't fight conventional wars. Obama has ramped up the number and specificity of drone strikes on militants, a classic covert war tactic. With the arc of technology continuing as it has, when the US leaves Afghanistan, critical militants can be killed by drones that are dropped from high flying planes. The drones will not only have the ability to selectively kill, but also track extremists before the kills to insure that the right people are killed, and return to be picked up by planes after finishing their work. The notion that extremists can be reasoned with is insane, the poster that you responded to has the solution exactly right.

[Flatulo]

97. Thanks for a great post - I agree with you 100%. nt

[CrawlingChaos]

90. Total BULLSHIT

No sale.

[Flatulo]

99. So you've said. Can you either

a) make a more reasoned argument, or
b) keep your insulting responses to yourself?

Thanks

[bluestate10]

114. Salient observations were made. You can either answer them or not.

Seems you have chosen not. Extremists are not going to negotiate. I will gladly vote to have anyone that think they can negotiate face to face with a Mullah Omar or Bin laden try to do so. Drones are not going to go away. More advanced drones are almost at hand, they will have capabilities well beyond what current drones do. Every extremist that rise to the level of a threat to the safety of citizens of the United States should be eliminated as soon as that threat is clear, home grown extremists on US soil catch a break because of laws that are applied to them. But an extremist hiding in mountains, jungles or any other remote areas where sending in troops will result in loss of american soldiers, must be killed by drones, with no consideration given other than to protect innocent lives around the extremist. The current drone program is being better managed, extremists are being hit while in with groups of extremists. Future drones will be capable of identifying extremist targets, tracking the target until the target is safely isolated, then performing a pinpoint killing of the person that is targeted, without killing anyones else that does not deserve to die. Whether you like it or not, that is where the response to terror is headed.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

70. US/CIA are the "terrorists" -- and the UN has made that clear ... "US is a terrorist nation" ....

From the moment he stepped foot inside the White House, Obama set about expanding and escalating a covert CIA programme of "targeted killings" inside Pakistan, using Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles (who comes up with these names?) that had been started by the Bush administration in 2004. On 23 January 2009, just three days after being sworn in, Obama ordered his first set of air strikes inside Pakistan; one is said to have killed four Arab fighters linked to al-Qaida but the other hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child. Obama's own daughter, Sasha, was seven at the time.

There's a very interesting video/TEXT up now on DU by journalist .... Allan Nairn?

It's a fanatastic commentary by him on our "wars" --

Clearly there will come a time when drones can be flown over America --

[defendandprotect]

72. Late K&R ... where was this thread?

[sarcasmo]

78. Can a drone be hacked?

[bluestate10]

115. Yes, anything can be hacked. But expect to have to overcome

a stunning amount of encryption. And the encryption should only get more advanced, to the point where even a sophisticated cracker will face a new code before the previous one is cracked.

[Flatulo]

117. I'm pretty sure that would get you a one-way ticket to a federal hotel.

Although I thought I had read that some hackers had intercepted the video feed of a drone over Iraq.

[bluestate10]

127. Russian military intelligence figured out the code for the earliest versions

of drones. But communication technology and encryption capability has been changed since. I doubt that anyone can break communication code now in time to use the information to prevent a drone strike, or intercept troops taking information feed from a drone. Future drones will be even tougher to stop, they will have artificial intelligence capabilities that allow them to analyze what they view and make decisions on how and when to strike or communicate and decide what form to communicate in . The scary aspect is that advanced drones will have to be carefully controlled, with access to their control being given to people that have been cleared to control them.

[Bluebear]

95. "Those WMD's must be around here somewhere! Hahahaha"

[kgnu_fan]

128. kick