and fuck you too, baby killer apologist. May you burn in the fury of a thousand drone strikes. Scumbag.

Yeah - one demonstration drone strike on a US street and suddenly popguns will lose their sexual potency overnight.

Your video, TYT - Drone Strikes - Is Rand Paul a Constitutional Hero?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Idiotic. If the american people ever saw a drone strike on their own streets they'd give up this infantile comfort blanket in a second.

I commented on YT a couple days ago....

"Cenk, how do you know he isn't "teary-eyed" about innocents dying in drone strikes? I think the problem is that there are so few Americans anywhere who are "teary-eyed" about it. Hypocrisy and arrogance are the result of our true national religion... exceptionalism."

What's your proposed alternative? If hitting militants with precision strike drones is 'willfully negligent' killing of children, maintain that standard. Ignoring the Taliban militants tacit support for their continued killing of children and students. for the record, far more civilians and children in Pakistan are currently killed by militants and extremists than drones strikes. So much so that on a bad week, there are more civilians killed by extremists in Pakistan than an entire year's worth of drone strikes.

I do not accept that ignoring the murder of thousands and doing nothing to stop it is some how vastly superior to accidentally killing some while shooting at their killers.

This is just bleeding heart propaganda. Malala Yousafzai a 14 year old school girl in Pakistan. Her school bus was stopped by the Taliban, they climbed on board and shot her in the head. They proudly declared they shot her for promoting the idea that girls be educated and she was their intended target.

Terrorists like the Taliban are the stated and intended targets of America's drone strikes. American president's(both Bush and Obama) do NOT proudly declare any children killed in their proximity as legitimate and intended targets. They declare them regrettable tragedies.

Yes, it is justified on the basis that the targets of the drone strikes intend and continue to murder civilians and in particular, students. To come out and try to use a tragedy like the recent school shooting in a crusade against American drone strikes in Pakistan is beyond pathetic, it is abhorrent. The drone strikes are actively targeting the people in Pakistan who are going into schools and shooting the students there. Seems to me it is at least some what consistent to condemn the shooting in America, while defending the drone strikes over in Pakistan that are targeting similar killers.

let's fight muskets with muskets against a tyrannical government!
err, assault rifles with drone strikes or atomic weaponry... hmm..

Why do these defenders of the 2nd amendment fail to remember that the coordinated militia is as emphasized as the the right to bear arms?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

These are tough lose-lose decisions. Yemen will not allow the US to capture Al Qaeda on the ground, but gives consent to drone strikes. This leaves two options, 1) Attack Al Qaeda with drone strikes that kill innocents along with military targets, or 2) allow Al Qaeda to continue with their own violent operations unfettered. Are there better options?


Maybe they won't let them because of how we handled Afghanistan. We told them we were going to bomb them into oblivion unless they did whatever we said. We also refused to provide any evidence Bin Laden had done anything, even 9 months after the war started we still had nothing.

What this is about is we think we own the world and can do whatever we want. These aren't tough lose-lose situation, you are responsible for the shit you create. There are diplomatic ways of doing things, we refuse to do any of those, we just kill people.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

These are tough lose-lose decisions. Yemen will not allow the US to capture Al Qaeda on the ground, but gives consent to drone strikes. This leaves two options, 1) Attack Al Qaeda with drone strikes that kill innocents along with military targets, or 2) allow Al Qaeda to continue with their own violent operations unfettered. Are there better options?


Better intelligence, better targeting, a better decision making process.
Stop the fucking Double-Tap shit. It's purely designed to terrorize the populace.

These are tough lose-lose decisions. Yemen will not allow the US to capture Al Qaeda on the ground, but gives consent to drone strikes. This leaves two options, 1) Attack Al Qaeda with drone strikes that kill innocents along with military targets, or 2) allow Al Qaeda to continue with their own violent operations unfettered. Are there better options?

>> ^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.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
No one said vote for Romney, I'm saying Don't Vote For War Criminals.

Can you explain to me what the difference between drone strikes and what any other president since George Washington has done at one point or another in their up to 8 years (for the most part) in office?
You act as though Obama sat down at the telepresence controls and took out a school himself.


He's the first president I voted for who is responsible for childrens deaths. So I'm not voting for him again.

I don't see what the problem is here...you wouldn't support Charlie Manson, why support someone responsible for WAY more deaths?

He's Killing people and I come out like the bad guy, Fuck That.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
No one said vote for Romney, I'm saying Don't Vote For War Criminals.


Can you explain to me what the difference between drone strikes and what any other president since George Washington has done at one point or another in their up to 8 years (for the most part) in office?

You act as though Obama sat down at the telepresence controls and took out a school himself.

>> ^VoodooV:
WTF? Did Obama visit Yogi and do a Sandusky on him or something? Talk about taking it personal.
I agree both parties are shitty, but it's demonstrable that one is worse than the other. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of drone strikes and dead civillians. But you honestly think the other guy is any better? Or hey, you want to go back to Bush the lesser and not only have a bunch of dead civillians, but have a bunch of dead Americans too because of wars of deception? Romney's beating the war drums for Iran. Yeah...SO MUCH BETTER!! lets have MORE dead people wooo!! I'm sorry, but cherry picking drone strikes is pretty bad tunnel vision, when in reality, it's actually drastically reduced the death toll because they are strikes instead of another occupation where even more people would be killed.
I'm sorry, but we are never going to live in a world where our politicians are squeaky clean. Even in a utopia, our politicians are going to have to, by necessity, do shitty things. In the real world, people have to get their hands dirty.
It's great that you're idealistic, really, I applaud it. But here in the real world, we really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Take your pick or stfu.
Edit: sorry, I always mix up Kofi and Yogi for some reason.


Here's the thing, I can't even argue this with you because you don't know fucking anything.

1. We're not going to War with Iran...never will we go to war with Iran. They don't meet the fundamental requirement for being a helpless nation. We might bomb their nuclear facilities but that won't do shit.

2. Both parties aren't shitty they're different wings of the SAME PARTY.

3. Cherry picking Drones strikes isn't about tunnel vision it's a War Crime. It's also destabilizing Pakistan, which has Nukes and people in it who are a serious threat. That might actually happen, Iran never will.

4. It's got nothing to do with me being Idealistic (I'm far from it) it's got everything to do with me taking it upon myself to become educated in this shit. I KNOW MORE BECAUSE I WORK FOR IT.

5. I'm not gonna pick the lesser of Two Evils again. I did it once for Obama when it was a serious historical event, something that hopefully would've moved us forward. I'm not in a state that matters so I'm not gonna vote for him again.

6. He's Black.