Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Media, page A1, September: "DRONE STRIKES KILL AL QAEDA MILITANTS". Media, page D29, December, if they have room for it, in tiny print under the legal notices: "and by 'Al Qaeda militants' we meant women and children"   (reason.com) divider line 111
    More: Obvious, al-Qaeda, women and children, activists, Matt Welch, The Declaration of Independents, Nick Gillespie, unmanned aircraft, midwife  
•       •       •

981 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 11:22:06 AM  
This wouldn't have happened if the women and children were armed.
 
2012-12-27 11:22:08 AM  
And reason has a problem with this?
 
2012-12-27 11:23:22 AM  
Reason? Yeah sure.
 
2012-12-27 11:26:37 AM  

illegal.tender: This wouldn't have happened if the women and children were armed.


Pack up the thread. We're done here.
 
2012-12-27 11:26:46 AM  
What the article doesn't say is whether there were ALSO militants among the dead. If this was ONLY women and children then it sucks pretty bad, but if it was targeted militants AND women and childern, then it sucks pretty bad but I can understand the reasoning and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances.
 
2012-12-27 11:27:04 AM  
Subby forgot the door marked "Beware of the Leopard."
 
2012-12-27 11:28:15 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: And reason has a problem with this?


Yeah, because we didn't kill ENOUGH of them.
 
2012-12-27 11:29:11 AM  
Article comes from a source that's not MSNBC, HuffPo, Dailey KOS, or Think Progress.... This means its automatically BS, everybody who reads it is a racist, and Obama gets another Nobel Peace Prize by default.
 
2012-12-27 11:30:16 AM  
SO wait - are you telling me that the initial accounts of firefights, raids, and drone strikes overseas might not be entirely accurate? And may even be remarkably wrong in some or most of the details?

Why oh why couldn't they have written this article BEFORE the giant Benghazi Scandal to End All Scandals?
 
2012-12-27 11:30:26 AM  
I'm sure the people who cheer when Israel blows up Palestinian civilians by the boatload will be supportive of this as well. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been around terrorists!

/Drone strikes are one of the things I, as a liberal, disagree with Obama on. Too indiscriminate.
 
2012-12-27 11:31:56 AM  

PawisBetlog: What the article doesn't say is whether there were ALSO militants among the dead. If this was ONLY women and children then it sucks pretty bad, but if it was targeted militants AND women and childern, then it sucks pretty bad but I can understand the reasoning and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances.


And this is generally the reason for civie deaths from drone strikes; while we're tossing a missile at Al Qaeda Bob and Steve having a dinner meeting, they're in the living room of a friendly tribesman who has 10 members of his family in the house at the same time.
 
2012-12-27 11:35:26 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: PawisBetlog: What the article doesn't say is whether there were ALSO militants among the dead. If this was ONLY women and children then it sucks pretty bad, but if it was targeted militants AND women and childern, then it sucks pretty bad but I can understand the reasoning and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances.

And this is generally the reason for civie deaths from drone strikes; while we're tossing a missile at Al Qaeda Bob and Steve having a dinner meeting, they're in the living room of a friendly tribesman who has 10 members of his family in the house at the same time.


Look mom, for every terrorist killed we create 10 more. We need more drone strikes to kill them.

military industrial complex.
 
2012-12-27 11:36:36 AM  

LordJiro: I'm sure the people who cheer when Israel blows up Palestinian civilians by the boatload will be supportive of this as well. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been around terrorists!

/Drone strikes are one of the things I, as a liberal, disagree with Obama on. Too indiscriminate.


But yet, not as indiscriminate as invading the entire wrong country.
 
2012-12-27 11:36:42 AM  
I'm not a big follower of Reason.com - has their concern for civilian casualties in T.W.A.T. been consistent throughout the last decade or so, or did it develop some time around, say, Jan 20 2009?
 
2012-12-27 11:36:50 AM  

PawisBetlog: and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances


There's your problem right there.
 
2012-12-27 11:37:10 AM  

illegal.tender: This wouldn't have happened if the women and children were armed.


If allowed prayers in their schools... oh wait!
 
2012-12-27 11:37:21 AM  
No thanks, "Reason" is anything but.
 
2012-12-27 11:38:46 AM  
i48.tinypic.com

i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-27 11:39:32 AM  

Ontos: Article comes from a source that's not MSNBC, HuffPo, Dailey KOS, or Think Progress.... This means its automatically BS, everybody who reads it is a racist, and Obama gets another Nobel Peace Prize by default.


Who's saying that? Is anyone saying that? Besides you, I mean.
 
2012-12-27 11:40:19 AM  
Abu Nazir must be super-pissed!
 
2012-12-27 11:42:38 AM  
This wasn't a problem when a white man was president.
 
2012-12-27 11:44:37 AM  

Citrate1007: This wasn't a problem when a white man was president.


oh no, it was a huge problem then. Just for different people.
 
2012-12-27 11:44:59 AM  
If those women and children were able to educate themselves to be smart enough to not hang around armed militants, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2012-12-27 11:47:01 AM  

Citrate1007: This wasn't a problem when a white man was president.


It was if you were a democrat...but now not even the bleeding hearts have principles with a dim in the white house.
 
2012-12-27 11:47:48 AM  
Obviously, They hate us for our freedom...
cursor.org

Fartbongo does not get a pass,either. His hands are just as dirty.
 
2012-12-27 11:50:12 AM  

Ontos: Article comes from a source that's not MSNBC, HuffPo, Dailey KOS, or Think Progress.... This means its automatically BS, everybody who reads it is a racist, and Obama gets another Nobel Peace Prize by default.


You sound fat.
 
2012-12-27 11:54:05 AM  
Needless slaughter for profit is a farking disgrace. I'm glad the rightists finally agree.
 
2012-12-27 11:54:09 AM  

PawisBetlog: What the article doesn't say is whether there were ALSO militants among the dead. If this was ONLY women and children then it sucks pretty bad, but if it was targeted militants AND women and childern, then it sucks pretty bad but I can understand the reasoning and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances.


No doubt the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan will make the same distinction as you, as they evaluate the necessity of a foreign country committing the equivalent of the Newtown Conn. massacre on a monthly basis for a decade.

Especially when "militant" is defined as, any male between the age of 12 and 62.
 
2012-12-27 11:56:26 AM  

NallTWD: Ontos: Article comes from a source that's not MSNBC, HuffPo, Dailey KOS, or Think Progress.... This means its automatically BS, everybody who reads it is a racist, and Obama gets another Nobel Peace Prize by default.

You sound fat.


And old.
 
2012-12-27 11:57:12 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: And reason has a problem with this?


ghare: Satanic_Hamster: And reason has a problem with this?

Yeah, because we didn't kill ENOUGH of them.


I'll wait here while you cite their support of drone strikes or much of anything the government and military have done during TWOT. Until then we can write off pretty much anything you say as...

i259.photobucket.com


The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I'm not a big follower of Reason.com - has their concern for civilian casualties in T.W.A.T. been consistent throughout the last decade or so, or did it develop some time around, say, Jan 20 2009?


Citrate1007: This wasn't a problem when a white man was president.


Ctrl-Alt-Del: SO wait - are you telling me that the initial accounts of firefights, raids, and drone strikes overseas might not be entirely accurate? And may even be remarkably wrong in some or most of the details?

Why oh why couldn't they have written this article BEFORE the giant Benghazi Scandal to End All Scandals?


Maybe you all could follow the link they provided so you could look them up yourselves, but I guess that would require effort.
 
2012-12-27 11:58:12 AM  
So vote Republican, because Republicans have never killed any innocents.
 
2012-12-27 11:58:29 AM  
If you lie down with armed militants, you get up with shrapnel in your body.
 
2012-12-27 12:00:24 PM  

James F. Campbell: So vote Republican, because Republicans have never killed any innocents.


Actually, I think a better idea is to put all the Republicans in drone-strike areas, and then once they're cleared out we move in the corporatist Dems next. Keep chewing in from the right until the survivors are left-wing enough to stop this shiat.
 
2012-12-27 12:00:46 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Maybe you all could follow the link they provided so you could look them up yourselves, but I guess that would require effo


More of: Every single link from Reason is generally complete made up partisan whiny assed bullshiat. It's like fact checking the National Enquirer, a monkey with a type writer, or a crazy homeless man living under a bridge.
 
2012-12-27 12:00:52 PM  

El Pachuco: PawisBetlog: What the article doesn't say is whether there were ALSO militants among the dead. If this was ONLY women and children then it sucks pretty bad, but if it was targeted militants AND women and childern, then it sucks pretty bad but I can understand the reasoning and will give the benefit of the doubt to the military and assume they believed this was the best course of action given all the circumstances.

No doubt the peoples of Afghanistan and Pakistan will make the same distinction as you, as they evaluate the necessity of a foreign country committing the equivalent of the Newtown Conn. massacre on a monthly basis for a decade.

Especially when "militant" is defined as, any male between the age of 12 and 62.


There's no need for wild exaggeration.

The official age is 13.
 
2012-12-27 12:03:01 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Maybe you all could follow the link they provided so you could look them up yourselves, but I guess that would require effo

More of: Every single link from Reason is generally complete made up partisan whiny assed bullshiat. It's like fact checking the National Enquirer, a monkey with a type writer, or a crazy homeless man living under a bridge.


It's hilarious. If you actually follow that link, seriously the earliest relevant article is from February 3rd, 2009.
 
2012-12-27 12:04:01 PM  
righties get twitchy when make fun of their news sources... Romney landslide, amirite???
 
2012-12-27 12:05:22 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen:
I'll wait here while you cite their support of drone strikes or much of anything the government and military have done during TWOT. Until then we can write off pretty much anything you say as...


Here ya go, the first remotely negative article of theirs on drone strikes : http://reason.com/archives/2009/02/03/a-bit-of-change.

Guess what : there were no negative articles in their database before that on drones.
 
2012-12-27 12:05:45 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Actually, I think a better idea is to put all the Republicans in drone-strike areas, and then once they're cleared out we move in the corporatist Dems next. Keep chewing in from the right until the survivors are left-wing enough to stop this shiat.


Fine with me. Start with the worst authoritarians and work your way down the list.
 
2012-12-27 12:05:59 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: I'll wait here while you cite their support of drone strikes or much of anything the government and military have done during TWOT. Until then we can write off pretty much anything you say as...


Their online database doesn't go back that far to show that they were not against them while Bush was president. Why the adamant support for Reason? Your grandson work there or something?
 
2012-12-27 12:07:00 PM  

LordJiro: I'm sure the people who cheer when Israel blows up Palestinian civilians by the boatload will be supportive of this as well. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been around terrorists!

/Drone strikes are one of the things I, as a liberal, disagree with Obama on. Too indiscriminate.


It's a farking war crime, is what it is. Civillians half a world away killing military targets and innocent civillians. Oh, but the other side can't attack Kansas City or wherever the CIA agents are because there are civillians there!

Drone strikes should be directed by military in the theater only, except for extremely special cases. Like assassinations approved by both the President and Congress.
 
2012-12-27 12:07:01 PM  

Citrate1007: This wasn't a problem when a white man was president.


Funny. I don't see Code Pink protests anymore. I don't see Hollywood calling Obama a baby killer or Hitler anymore. All of a sudden, the Total Fark Hive-Mind doesn't mind civilian deaths.
 
2012-12-27 12:07:07 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Needless slaughter for profit is a farking disgrace. I'm glad the rightists finally agree.


Does that mean we stop selling assault rifles now?
 
2012-12-27 12:09:02 PM  
Now imagine they were your innocent relatives...


/cue Mcconaughey jpg.
 
2012-12-27 12:09:27 PM  

Citrate1007: Their online database doesn't go back that far to show that they were not against them while Bush was president. Why the adamant support for Reason? Your grandson work there or something?


Shrill/troll account that someone brought out of retirement from the look of it.
 
2012-12-27 12:10:21 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Satanic_Hamster: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Maybe you all could follow the link they provided so you could look them up yourselves, but I guess that would require effo

More of: Every single link from Reason is generally complete made up partisan whiny assed bullshiat. It's like fact checking the National Enquirer, a monkey with a type writer, or a crazy homeless man living under a bridge.

It's hilarious. If you actually follow that link, seriously the earliest relevant article is from February 3rd, 2009.


Hm. And if you click through the archives before 2009 for articles about Iraq and Afghanistan, Reason takes up such bold stances as "blame Dennis Kucinich for not being anti-war enough" and "Ted Kennedy is a flip-flopper and a cut-and-runner".
 
2012-12-27 12:10:26 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: And reason has a problem with this?


Yes, but only because a black Democrat is in charge. If it were a fiscally conservative Republican, they'd be creaming their Cato-approved Dockers to find ways to justify it.
 
2012-12-27 12:12:01 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Needless slaughter for profit is a farking disgrace. I'm glad the rightists finally agree.


if only you could convince the "leftists" now
 
2012-12-27 12:13:40 PM  

LordJiro: I'm sure the people who cheer when Israel blows up Palestinian civilians by the boatload will be supportive of this as well. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been around terrorists!

/Drone strikes are one of the things I, as a liberal, disagree with Obama on. Too indiscriminate.


Same here.
 
2012-12-27 12:13:45 PM  
Water boarding terrorists is wrong, because we might be torturing a few innocentish people.

Killing innocent people to kill other, potentially innocent people can be defended.

No one is right anymore.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report