*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kulpims.

He really doesn't know the answer to this? Why would the president cry for his own nations children and not the ones his nation killed? It's a valid point but it's just more blah blah talk.

It's like asking why would someone get mad when their car got keyed and not cry when they keyed someone else's car. It's just a dumb question.

I think it's closer to crying because your car just got keyed, when you spent yesterday keying a dozen cars. It's a bit tough to swallow. But really, it's all just political points. Also tears are hardly difficult to deliberately evoke.

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.

It's ironic to think that the Bush administration's policy of abducting terrorism suspects and keeping them forever without trial is actually far more humane than the Obama administration's policy of exploding suspected terrorists without trial, along with everyone else nearby. The ends do not justify the means.

The terrorist targets intentionally surround themselves with women and children. Cowards. Though equally tragic outcomes, to compare the two scenarios is apples and oranges.

If that's your characterization of American policy, then at least be balanced in your contempt for injustice, cruelty and criminal behavior. By that same measure, the Taliban and their kindred Islamic Jihadists are systematic murderers of women and children and anyone that is not themselves an Islamic Jihadist as well. Most noteworthy to this discussion, they regularly and deliberately plan and execute school shootings and bombings far worse than the recent American one and against student's in Pakistan.

Paint America in the worst light if you must and your conscience requires a higher standard, but at least have the decency to maintain that standard when discussing even more violent and cruel entities.

Absolutely, if we could target only those responsible for such atrocities as attacks on Afghan and Pakistani school girls, that would improve the world. My point is that the willfully negligent killing of children from "collateral damage" is every bit as reprehensible as the deliberate targeting of children. The Taliban and Al Qaeda deserve all the criticism in the world. But lets not add to the problem.

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.

Excellent video and report and a timely one as well, it's very good for things like this to be utterly and brutally honest... Only then do some people listen. Those people are the ones that make more people listen.

It's how dominoes work, especially here in America...

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."

@bcglorf
so you argue against propaganda with propaganda?
interesting tactic.
the first stated reason for the war in afghanistan had nothing to do with the taliban.that reason came later.

how come when "they" do acts of violence ,"they" are considered terrorists,but when "we" use the very same tactics "we" call it counter-terrorsim?

sounds like a bullshit semantics argument to me.all to make people feel better about murder and torture.that somehow we are the "good" guys.


here is giant hint kids:governments lie.

The Taliban kill school children. The Taliban declare that they specifically targeted and meant to kill those children. I call this an act of terrorism.

American drones target the Taliban leaders making those declarations. They spend many hours gathering intelligence trying to verify the accuracy of their targets. If the American's kill any innocents nearby by accident, they don't claim that as a bonus. They don't publicly declare, as the Taliban do, that those dead children should serve as a warning to everyone else of what happens to those that oppose them. The American's declare such casualties as regrettable, but insist on the necessity of stopping the Taliban leaders.

Both are acts of violence, but it is naive in the extreme to fail to see that there is a substantial and objective difference between the two.

If you must have your good guy bad guy terms to be able to understand things: The bad guys kill children, on purpose, and insist that they will continue killing more children until they get their way. The good guys kill the bad guys, and occasionally some children get killed by accident. The good guys apologize and say they wished they could stop the bad guys in a better way.

sorry man.the distinction argument is bullshit as well.
that somehow one evil is less evil than the other.

one of the problems i have with the distinction argument is that it attempts to discern...or worse..rationalize.. the intent.
that when the terrorists kill,maim and torture it is for nefarious and evil reasons but when WE do it,the cause is just and noble and that any collateral damage is purely a misjudgement or a mistake.

this is the epitome of hypocrisy.

i am in no way defending the horrors perpetrated upon innocent civilians in the name of god by the taliban.i am,however,pointing out that what we do in the name of (fill in whatever propagandist literature you wish) is just as heinous and evil.

which brings me back to my main point:governments lie.

Right, so between the Allies and the Nazis in WW2 distinction is again meaningless to you? Using violence to remove a party that was perpetrating the holocaust was just as inherently evil as the holocaust itself.

I reject your world view as stupid and inadequate.

@bcglorf
well that is your right to think my world view is stupid.

the fact that you just used a nazi analogy and conflated WW2 as some kind of humanitarian rescue reveals a stunning lack of understanding concerning WW2 history.

i was simply trying to make a point,not make it personal.
your replies actually make my main point:governments lie

so you can reject my worldview as stupid and inadequate but it would not make my points any less valid.