This shit boils my blood.

*wings

Adding video to channels (Wings) - requested by kulpims.

The more we fight the more blow-back we will have.

WE should not be doing any fighting. They will bring it to our streets. WE are wrong.

When a drone kills my family I would also vow revenge. Blow-back.


Obama does not want boots on the ground and when the Republicans sweep control in November, they will insist on on boots on the ground. When the soldiers start dying, President Obama and the Left will blame Republicans to regain the President in 2016.

I can not support any Republican candidate who will continue this madness.
Hillary Clinton is also a war monger.

Evil begets evil.

What the... yes, I actually agree with you

What makes me especially angry are the muppets still spewing bs like "they hate our freedom" or "we're fighting global terrorism" and similar word bundles with no connection to reality.
When in a sizable part of the world the biggest terrorist organization is you, you're not fighting terrorism, you are terrorism.

It's Nietzsche's "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." in a nutshell.

Yeah, was surprised too. @bobknight33 hit the nail on the head. The worst situations will bring people with traditionally opposing viewpoints together. More proof we're all human, but sadly also says a lot about the situation at hand.

I agree that fighting in the Middle East is an apparent exercise in futility, but if we don't fight it there, it will eventually reach our shores, as it did on 9/11.

ISIS will continue to grow and create their little caliphate, control the oil, raise money, eventually build or buy a nuke, and use it on western democracies.

Fight it now, and I don't care if it is boots on the ground, or drones in the air.

I live in a suburb, but I support law enforcement efforts in the city. There is never an end to crime, there is no winning against crime, you just have to fight it because it is the right thing to do. Just because you shoot Dillinger in the head doesn't mean his son will automatically become Dillinger Jr.

ISIS is evil, and war is ugly, but to suggest that you should just wait until it reaches your shore is being blind to reality. Most of the people in the ME do not support radial Islam. They don't want that shit anymore than anyone else.

WHAT?!?
So, we can't beat them fighting in the middle east, but we should still go to war there to keep them from 'coming here'...exactly how does that work? By fighting an unwinnable 'war' and causing FAR more collateral damage than those we are attacking have we CREATE ISIS and it's cohorts, and give them a REASON to come to our shores. The 'came here' BECAUSE we invaded them and continue to occupy more and more and exert more and more outside control over them, not the other way around, buddy.
But don't get me wrong, now that we've created and armed them, we have a responsibility to 'deal' with them. I only wish we dealt with them by supporting the locals so much that they would rather support the US over others, rather than by bombing all of them and wondering why the survivors don't love us. That CAN'T stop terrorism, because it IS terrorism.
yeah, not too worried that ISIS might build a nuke any time soon, Iran hasn't.
When you shoot Dillinger in the head while he's handcuffed, and his dog, and burn his home with his family inside, and his neighbors homes, you will automatically create at least one Dillinger Jr., if not many. It's this dehumanizing, 'our fear outweighs your life' methodology that has created the problem where a large portion of the world hates us enough to be willing to die just to hurt or scare us, and I wish we would re-think it rather than keep doubling down and hoping for different results. It's doing the same for police lately.

Let's be brutally honest here. The reason most people in the US are ok with drone strikes is because they're mostly killing brown people in faraway lands that dress funny and speak some weird language. I mean, even if they're not actually terrorists, they probably know some terrorists, right?

I've said this before, but imagine the UK government had drones 30 years ago during the height of the Northern Ireland "troubles"*. Let's look at the facts: you have a genuine terrorist organisation who are successfully carrying out bombings, shootings, etc. on your home land. They have a reasonably sympathetic populous in a nearby sovereign country, and can easily hide there.

Seriously, picture Al Queada, but living in Canada and way more competent. Say what you want about the IRA, but at least they were smart enough to plant a bomb and then fucking leave it there.

Now ask yourself:
- if you would be ok with the UK government drone striking rural Ireland
- what you think the political fallout from that would be (esp from the US)

The answer is that there's no way in hell they could do it. Bombing the Republic of Ireland? The US would go mental.

But that's exactly what's happening here.

It's really easy to make excuses for drone strikes, but they are one of those things that are ultimately just flat out wrong.


* only in Ireland could we describe a 30 year campaign of civil oppression, bloodshed and terrorism by both sides as "troubles"

Foreign policy is about doing things favorable to your side. Since the west represents freedom, and we do things responsibly, we keep doing them.

You can't be an isolationist in this world.

You also can't equate their civilization with ours. Ours is better. I know that makes liberals nuts to say, but even Bill Maher is saying it now.

I don't support indiscriminate drone strikes. or anything else indiscriminate, but some collateral damage is going to happen. You can't prevent it. You have to be realistic about it.

Also, I can't believe that Chaos (appropo appellation there) has to play the race card. Most of our nukes used to be aimed at Russians, who are white, last time I checked.

Also, I don't believe the American people support drone strikes just because we get to kill 'brown' people. Ridiculous.

I've enjoyed reading the comments here, but (unfortunately) this video is *blocked in the UK.

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by Barseps.

It's not so much racism as xenophobia. The Russians might be white, but during the cold war, they may as well have been Martians.

And no, I don't believe Americans support drone strikes because the "get" to kill brown people. It's simply that they don't care as much about them.

You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. It goes way beyond terrorism. And it's not even a US issue either.

Look at other tragedies, natural disasters, etc.

Katrina killed 1800 people. Undoubtedly a significant event. The 2004 tsunami killed nearly a quarter of a million people, but which one got more media coverage in the developed world?

So, once again, answer the question. Would you have been ok with the British government drone striking Ireland in the 80s?

No, drone strikes in Ireland would not have been necessary. The Brits already had 'boots on the ground' and access to the entire area. No need to fire million-dollar missiles at terrorists.

Again....WHAT?!?
You act as if one denies the other. Most drone strikes have been done in theaters where we had 'boots on the ground'. Are you unaware of that?!

We have boots on the ground in Waziristan, pakistan and Yemen?

What diff does it make to you if it's a missile off an unmanned aircraft or a missile off a manned aircraft?

Drones are looking where there are no other assets. They see a guy planting an IED, they can take care of it right then. But I would imagine the process involves intelligence-gathering, a target, then a trip to the WH to get approval.

I don't believe Obama is just sticking a pin in a map, unless it involves golf courses he hasn't yet played.

Now, if you want to say you don't trust Obama to do the right thing...that we can agree on.

Pakistan, yes. I think we have at least a small force there. Not at all sure about the others, but likely we've got some there.
Those are not the only places we've droned, not even the places we've droned the most. Try Afghanistan and Iraq. You just hear about it more when we do it in places we aren't technically 'at war' with.

It makes little difference what the delivery system of the explosive is, that's why I always wondered what the big deal is about suicide bombers. They're just another delivery system, a low tech, radar cloaked delivery system. It's the bombing/indiscriminate killing that matters. Right? Not the delivery system.

Drones have their proper uses, and improper uses. Bombing someone you can see is setting up a booby trap to kill you or allies is appropriate. Bombing people based on their height is an improper use. This has little to do with the drone, and more to do with the leadership and their 'rules' for who's a target. For me, it's not about 'drone vs manned aircraft' though, it's 'giant bomb vs precision assassination'.

Do you think Obama is watching a little screen deciding 'bomb that guy, and that building'? He is not involved at that level, and you know it. I don't trust a disinterested tech thousands of miles removed from their actions to do the right thing, they've proven they can't be trusted, and they're the one's that matter in this instance. That said, if there were much better rules for engagement and they were draconically enforced, I would have little problem with keeping expensive planes and pilots out of danger.

Clearly you are ignorant of the history. The British had troops in Northern Ireland, but did not have access to the Republic of Ireland (a completely separate sovereign nation). It was quite common for the IRA to cross the border back into the Republic.

I wanted to tread this thread, then noticed half the posts are by lantern53.

Can't somebody with authority deal with this nuisance ?
No one wants to read his stupid brain-dead right-wing religious-nut-job posts anymore.

I'm a nuisance because you don't agree with me.

You should read 1984, see if it sounds like utopia to you.

If I am wrong about Northern Ireland, then I'm wrong. I'm not an expert on N. Ireland. It's tough to be an expert on everything, like others here.

But if a Brit drone operator saw a guy planting an IED, I'd have no problem with him sending down a little Obama love.

I agree that killing someone based on their height is dead wrong, but I doubt that was the only consideration.

Bottom line is, do you trust the gov't? I don't, not anymore, especially with this current crop of 'the end justifies the means' crowd.

If it's a British drone and operator, why is it Obama love exactly? Just to be smarmy about Obama?

I feel like if that was anything but a tiny part of identification, it's wrong. Today, we have facial identifying software, so there's no excuse at all for not fully identifying your target before firing. (I understand that story was from before that was publicly available, but the military is usually 10 years ahead on that kind of thing, so it's at least possible they had it back then.)

Did you trust the last crop of "the ends justify the means" crowd? The current crowd is not the first.

I'm fairly conflicted.

The issue with having an assassination program with virtually no oversight, run by a government whose people are all too willing to ignore the collateral damage it brings to foreigners is pretty obvious. You could argue that terrorists target the US because of genuine grievances (past blowback particularly from intervention during the Cold War motivated largely by opposing a communist threat over any moral considerations). From there you could argue that if only the US avoided foreign intervention, in time it would no longer be a terrorist target and have no need for such morally questionable action as using drones with significant civilian casualty risk.

I'm sceptical of this argument. For one I think the espoused goals of many terrorist organisations are often a sham. They may start as violent reactionaries to some genuinely held grievance. But mature organisations initiate a conflict with the US because notoriety brings financial support and more fighters which in turn improves their ability to project power, which is their ultimate goal. So I don't see US disengagement as a solution because terrorist attacks and beheadings of its nationals will continue to politically galvanise the US into action. At that point having being disengaged beforehand (lacking intel, ability to target leadership with drones) is just a disadvantage.

I also don't see a government other than the US capable and willing to rally a group of nations and take a leading role against a group like ISIS. It's fair to say that the US invasion of Iraq was largely responsible for destabilising an authoritarian government under Saddam that would have prevented the emergence of a Sunni group like this. But then, imagine if Saddam was still in power in reaction to the Arab Spring and the result was a situation like Syria today. It is all too possible that a similar group would have emerged in a power vacuum not caused by US intervention.

My point is, I agree it is horrible to see civilians being killed by drones and having to live under the constant terror of attack but I don't see a better solution. In fact it seems that drones are probably the solution with the least risk of civilian casualty. There is a reason why the Yemeni/Pakistani government tacitly support them even while publicly disavowing them.

Of course I would like to see them used more judiciously but I am sceptical that this is feasibly possible. I do not doubt that the CIA/Pentagon who run the program are familiar with blowback and the risks of inciting attacks on the US through the killing of innocents in these strikes. It is possible incentives for 'results' may lead to their overuse at the expense of civilian lives and the long term cost. Maybe more openness would be best. Then again more openness would serve as a rallying cry for existing terrorist organisations.

Well, you have to admit that Obama is getting very closely associated, even amongst his sycophants, for using drones.

Did i trust the previous crowd? more than the current, but no, there is far too little transparency for me.

Lightning strikes have killed 24 people this year which makes them substantially more dangerous than Terrorism. We need to fight lightning up in the clouds before it strikes us down here.

And unlike terrorism, we might not even make more lightning by fighting the lightning.

BE A PATRIOT, WAR ON LIGHTNING STARTS NOW.

No, I don't HAVE to admit that. He's commander in chief, he should be involved to an extent.
I will say it's a GOOD thing he is forced to personally order a strike on Americans...at least, should that be litigated and found to be illegal, we'll know exactly who to prosecute, but that's certainly not the norm. Normal drone strikes are done by techs under minimal supervision and/or responsibility for the consequences.
It's too bad your political affiliation can't let you see that the last administration was even less transparent. I agree, Obama did not keep his word to have a 100% transparent white house, or anything close to it. It's quite disappointing. I will also say, however, that I assign a large portion of blame to the last administration for making that possible with their 'legalization' of subterfuge, misdirection, lies, obfuscation, declaration of 'state secrets', etc. If we ALL had gotten up in arms then and put a stop to it, Obama wouldn't be able to be so secretive, neither would the next guy (or gal).

How do you know this?

More people are killed in Chicago each weekend than in the typical terrorist attack.

Are you suggesting the police should just ignore them?

Why did we declare war on Germany in 1941? They were'nt bothering us.

@lantern53
oh come on man...
now your just trying to get peoples goat and garner a reaction.you cant seriously be THAT ignorant to history.
no way..
uh uh..
unless you dropped out of school in the 8th grade.
so i aint buying your schtick,go to another corner and peddle your wares somewhere else.

@RedSky
i hear ya and the situation did not just pop out of nowhere.this has been brewing for decades all the way back to world war one.
for anybody interested *cough* lantern *cough* look into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
and a most excellent book by chalmers johnson:
http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback

By studying how they've been used, haphazardly, and who's been prosecuted for killing civilians and misidentifying targets...namely no one.
Thanks to Snowden, we have some actual information about this, not just propaganda and guess work.

Does anyone see the parallels between the Drone strikes and the master plan of Hydra in Captain American: Winter Soldier?

I'm pretty sure that was the intended allusion of the movie.