>> ^alcom:

Excellent point. Drone use, according to the video, began in 2004. It doesn't matter who's in power, drones are here to stay until reporting of civilian casualties breaks into mainstream media.
>> ^Hive13:
Honestly, saying they are living under "Obama's" drones is a bit trite don't you think?



I think you are a very blind if you think civilian casualties are being under reported when it comes to drone strikes. Admittedly, I spend more time on Al Jazeera than most, but still. How many civilian casualties in tribal Pakistan from Taliban and extremists militants make the news here? Maybe 1 per year? How many civilian casualties due to drone strikes make the news here? Probably monthly?

Here is the reality though. For every single person killed in Pakistan by drone strikes, almost 100 people in Pakistan are killed by the Taliban and religious extremists. That's some pretty unbalanced and poor reporting out west don't you think? And it doesn't even take into account the painstaking hours and effort made by America to target Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders with their strikes, while the Taliban proudly and publicly declare that women and student civilians are among their intended and preferred targets for killing.

Sure, using Drones to kill people is bad. Unfortunately we live in a bad world, and the alternatives are a ground war against the Taliban(more deaths) or ignoring them(more deaths). The choice is between bad and worse, and so yes a 'bad' choice has been accepted.

Excellent point. Drone use, according to the video, began in 2004. It doesn't matter who's in power, drones are here to stay until reporting of civilian casualties breaks into mainstream media.

>> ^Hive13:

Honestly, saying they are living under "Obama's" drones is a bit trite don't you think?

This has been sucking up way too much of my time. It just feels so alive. Also, leaves me more pissed a lot more than most games since you wanna have the least casualties as possible. I have to watch my temper with this one.

A girl I knew lucid dreamed her whole life, and was unaware that other people didnt dream that way. btw, if you have sleep paralysis and you see a demon, call upon the name of Jesus and it will flee. This isn't just innocent activity. This kind of activity is also linked to alien abduction experiences:

http://videosift.com/video/Unholy-Communion-Casualties-of-a-Cosmic-War

>> ^volumptuous:

Oh, right. I forgot that you talk to Obama all the time about how he personally feels about civilian casualties when it comes to war and drones. Do tell us more, since you're obviously so close to him.>> ^Yogi:
I'm with Bobknight. Obama couldn't give a fuck about the children his Drones murder. This is a load of shit, only Americans are people apparently.



You're right I don't know how he feels about it. I only know that he is continuing and will continue to carry out such illegal and inhumane acts of agression as long as he can. So I guess that gives you an indication of how much he cares.

Did you really think you were defending a war criminal by saying he quite possibly feels bad about it?

Oh, right. I forgot that you talk to Obama all the time about how he personally feels about civilian casualties when it comes to war and drones. Do tell us more, since you're obviously so close to him.>> ^Yogi:

I'm with Bobknight. Obama couldn't give a fuck about the children his Drones murder. This is a load of shit, only Americans are people apparently.

Another ignorant casualty of the 15 trillion dollar "war on poverty".

I almost feel sorry for the taxocrats, it would be awesome for them to discover this woman was an actress or really Paul Ryan in a Madea-style fatsuit.

thankfully the only casualty here was 1 clean pair of boys underwear.

I'm not talking about rushing to put out the fire, or not rushing out of the house. I'm talking about her tone of voice and the way she continues to sound as if she's casually recording a video to upload to Youtube later*. She's so stuck in narcissist mode that she can't stop considering her presentation, even as she's cognizant of the house burning down.

It doesn't seem like shock and panic to me, so much as rampant narcissism and ironic self-detachment taken to EIA levels. "Witnesses report multiple casualties as a result of wanting to look cool."

*She sounds like one of the Multiple Homosexuals Witnessing a Fire.

It's easy if you don't understand the point they are making in the video.

Your analogy sucks. It'd be more applicable if you were manufacturing peanut butter in your basement and had to get rid of all your equipment, ingredients and all of the records that you'd bought any of it. But then, that would be difficult to do…

What does Olbermann or O'Donnell or Biden, for that matter, have to do with it? Did you watch the video?

Let me summarize: TYT cited a poll that showed a significant number of Republicans (more than Democrats on the same issue) believed a well-publicized lie. That there were no WMDs for the US to find is a fact. Bush and Cheany have both admitted it.

Bush and Cheney switched to saying the region and the world are better off that the US invaded, even if there were no WMDs. This argument is nearly impossible to disprove with facts. It forces you to weigh the indirect results of the war (our failing economy, our loss of prestige on the world stage, our soldier's health and civilian casualties) against a hypothetical alternate future.
Most people, Republicans and Democrats, believed this lie when it was first made. At least, it wasn't 100% clear it was a lie until after the US invaded. That's not the point. The point is that there are a disproportionate number of Republicans who are unable to change their minds when presented with updated information.

TYT are blaming this on Republicans, their elected officials, their voters and their news network. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't double down on crappy leadership by believing nonsense.

Please note: None of this suggests that Democrats are blameless. Its childish to respond with "nu-uh, Obama is the devil" to any criticism of Republicans. In fact, look up some other TYT videos, they are pretty critical of the president and Democrats when it's called for.

That approximation of civilian casualties alone is reason enough to question the intent of this video: objective journalism or propaganda?

Add the "almost supernatural effectiveness" or the grossly misleading "inherent right to self-defence under international law" and I'm inclined to say that this is a disgusting propaganda piece.

When he emphasized the "humane" behaviour of operators (let the children leave before pulling the trigger) and the insinuation that victims of drone attacks are actually thankful for it, well that's just icing on the cake.


What he fails to mention:

-- low rate of civilian casualties: every male of fighting age in the target area is now considered a militant, so everything you hit is a target, unless there is concrete intelligence to prove otherwise, posthumously.

-- pinpoint accuracy: UAVs hit their targets, but the targets themselves are defined as such by piss-poor intelligence or no intelligence at all.

-- guilt by proximity: if you are near a suspect or, generally speaking, in a strike-zone, your mere presence makes you a suspect yourself, as defined by the Obama administration. Now try to square this definition with previous accusations that terrorists embed themselves into the civilian population.

-- double-tap: again, your mere presence at the site of a strike, even if your intent is to provide medical assistance, turns you into a target (eg Collateral Murder). And better stay away from funerals as well, or else they send you a present.

-- US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were intentionally killed by drone strikes, without trial.

-- collateral damage: when you kill a person's family, you provide that person with a non-ideological reason to fight the US, a personal vendetta. Recent drone attacks in Yemen increased the numbers of AQAP members by killing civilians left, right and center.

-- covert killings, proxy warfare: the use of UAVs, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, reminds us of the good old days. Death from above or how I learned to love the drone.

>> ^radx:

"Why don't more people know about this?"
Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?
It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.
Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.
Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

Paedophilia in the Catholic church is part of the "consensus narrative"; so much so that it's the first thing I think of when I think of the Catholic Church.

"Why don't more people know about this?"

Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?

It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.

Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.

Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

You're missing the point of this video. He never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Reich, while he was Labor Secretary under Clinton, is currently part of Common Cause. As it slogan says, Holding Power Accountable. Similar to Lawrence Lessig and Change Congress / RootStrikers, they want to lessen the corporate influence on politics to bring it back to a government for the people. Reich is pointing out the flaws in legally allowing companies like Bain Capital to do what they do and profit excessively from it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.
I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.
You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.
I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.

I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.

You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.

I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.