Obama says U.S. drones strikes have killed up to 116 civilians, watchdogs estimate is much higher

[Read the post]

1 Like

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler would you? Even if there were civilian casualties?

That is the logic here. I would say yes to killing Hitler but no to drone bombing.
As far as I’m concerned that makes me a hypocrite.

1 Like

I think I’m unclear on your meaning here. Are you saying that it’s okay to drone bomb civilians, because we’re talking about a Hilter like situation we’re trying to keep a lid on in places like Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan? Or do you mean something else?


From a legal standpoint, shouldn’t the people responsible (from the guy piloting the drone and up the chain of command) be on trial for murder?
I mean, it’s one thing to kill people during a time of war. However, as far as I know, Congress has never formally declared war on those countries.


How did Nixon put it? Like this? And for the record, yes, someone should be held responsible, but no one will.


So, by the potus own standards, 1 in 20 people are wholly innocent, and are killed in cold blood.

That seems reasonable. Because I have to assume the other 19 people receive a mini trail with a TV monitor popping out of the side of the drone reading them charges, presenting evidence, and then another lawyer drone shows up and defends them, and then the accused are executed on the spot.


“Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!”

Gah. Same old murderous counterproductive shit, again and again and again.


Neither has the Obama administration. I can’t believe this practice is tolerated by the U.N., let alone legal. Then again, if the only alternative is a full-scale invasion, I can understand how this is would be viewed as the lesser of two evils. What the hell? The linked article says that the majority of airstrikes are in Pakistan. That’s nowhere near the territory held by Daesh. Also, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. How is this not a violation of their airspace?


Well who do you find more credible: the President of the US, or a talking dog?


It isn’t legal, it is a violation, and it’s “tolerated” because:

The rest of us aren’t putting up with this shit because we like it. But we’ve all seen what happens to those who object.


“How can you shoot women, and children?”
“Easy… Ya just don’t lead 'em so much!”

1 Like

Drones have so much range, from delivery pizzas to killing innocent civilians https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoao_TPtvnA

I’m pretty sure they meant “at one time”. That’s the only way it makes any sense to me.

Well, those who should be calling the president out on his endless parade of murder are too busy licking his boots and pandering to him like he’s the second coming. This is the guy who was awarded a Nobel prize.

Meanwhile, he’s murdering people around the world, in secret, with no solid proof and no authorization by Congress.

Good thing he’s got time to lecture us on how unsuitable Trump is for such a lofty office, and to toss out criminal investigations for his corrupt party pals.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.