Forum Post: US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan – and the west stays silent
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 23, 2012, 4:16 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic
(5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Attacking rescuers – a tactic long deemed by the US a hallmark of terrorism – is now routinely used by the Obama administration
The US government has long maintained, reasonably enough, that a defining tactic of terrorism is to launch a follow-up attack aimed at those who go to the scene of the original attack to rescue the wounded and remove the dead. Morally, such methods have also been widely condemned by the west as a hallmark of savagery. Yet, as was demonstrated yet again this weekend in Pakistan, this has become one of the favorite tactics of the very same US government.
read more - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan
Whether you vote for him or don't vote for him... tell this president as commander in chief "END THE WARS NOW" Not tomorrow. Not in 2014, not in 2016, "END THE WARS NOW"
After tons of civilian casualties Pakistan leaders have asked several times for the US to stop bombing them. They'd probably fight back but then they'd just get done to them what happened to Iraq. US foreign policy makes me sad to be an American. It makes me sad to see so many people make excuses for bombs that also kill civilians.
Bombs and sanctions are counterproductive when they injure and murder such large numbers of civilians.
Civilian Deaths From US Drone Attacks Much Higher Than Reported
Wednesday, 22 August 2012 14:20 By Paul Jay, The Real News Network | Interview and Video
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11058-civilian-deaths-from-us-drone-attacks-much-higher-than-reported
Gareth Porter: New investigative work shows that civilian deaths in Pakistan, including from second wave attacks, higher than Pentagon reports.
TRANSCRIPT:
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week's edition of The Porter Report with investigative journalist and historian Gareth Porter. Thanks for joining us, Gareth.
GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Hi, Paul. Glad to be back again.
JAY: So what have you been working on this week?
PORTER: Well, this week I—over the weekend I just published a major investigative report on the real level of civilian casualties in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, as based on the actual data gathered by a Pakistani lawyer for the families of the victims of drone strikes, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London based on their interviews with eyewitnesses and others in the areas where the strikes take place. This is really the first effort to come up with a set of data that can be compared with the data that's been published by the New America Foundation on its website, something they call "Year of the Drone", which keeps track of every strike that is covered in the news media and keeps a running tally on casualties. And so what we can do now is see that the New America Foundation has been systematically underestimating or underplaying, underreporting the number of civilian casualties in the U.S. drone war in Pakistan over the past three years.
Editor's note: The story referred to in this interview was originally published at Truthout on August 17: Cover-Up of Civilian Drone Deaths Revealed by New Evidence.
JAY: And what are the numbers that now—that you think are correct? PORTER: Well, the numbers—there are a lot of numbers my piece, and in order to really boil this down to the simplest terms, what I've done is to combine all of these strikes in 24—the data on all the strikes in 24 cases, which involved 11 strikes which the Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar gathered material on and 13 strikes on which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism gathered material. And combining all that data, what we find is that the number of—the proportion, I should say, of the civilian casualties and the total casualties which was reported by the New America Foundation as being 38 percent in these 24 strikes is in fact 70 percent.
That's a huge difference, an 84 percent increase in the proportion of civilians in those casualties reported in these 24 strikes. So it's really quite a major revelation. It's a major reversal, because previously civilian casualties were being reported as a fairly—certainly much less than 50 percent, and now they're much more than 50 percent of the casualties in this set of 24 strikes.
JAY: And of course that's leading to increased outrage in Pakistan.
PORTER: Well, definitely. I mean, these strikes, everybody understands that—I mean, no one denies that the drone war in Pakistan has created enormous anti-American sentiment throughout the country. And particularly, of course, in the areas where the strikes have taken place, they generate not just anger, but I think it's generally agreed that the Taliban and al-Qaeda and other groups have been able to generate more enthusiasm for support for the jihadist sentiment that they represent. So, I mean, it's—by every measure that is available, there's no question that these strikes are doing precisely the opposite of what they're supposed to do, which is allegedly to weaken the al-Qaeda hold on the territory, like North and South Waziristan, where the strikes are taking place.
And what we can say, really, you know, it seems to me, is that this new set of data underlines more clearly than ever before that what's really going on is that U.S. policy on the drone war is not being guided by any objective assessment of U.S. interests, security interests or any other interests; it's being guided by the bureaucratic interests of the CIA, which is, of course, responsible for the drone war in Pakistan and elsewhere, and which has a vested interest in keeping this war going because their budget, their manpower, their mission has been built up for the past few years around the drone war in Pakistan in particular.
JAY: And in today's, Monday's Guardian, Glenn Greenwald writes that the U.S. is actually using what they call a sort of double tap—in other words, essentially, a second strike after the first drone strike, deliberately targeting rescuers, which one would think has to enhance or increase the possibilities of killing civilians.
PORTER: Right. And let me make it clear that the 13 strikes that I talked about having been researched by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism were all strikes which are precisely the ones that you were talking about. They're strikes that are targeted against either mourners at funerals of victims of previous drone strikes or striking at the rescuers of people who have been either killed or wounded in previous drone strikes. So, obviously, this is a very important category of drone strikes. And what we find is that the percentage of civilians (again, in the strikes that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism researched, based on local context, eyewitnesses and others) was much higher. It was roughly twice as high as it had been reported by the New America Foundation.
JAY: Right. And what else have you been following this week? I know you've been—written not very long ago about the debate in Israel over attacking Iran.
PORTER: Right. The story that I published last week for IPS was a story that looks at two particular interviews that were apparently given by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in which—in the first one, on August 10, he suggests, well, what we really want, what the Netanyahu government really wants is for the United States to say publicly that if the Iranians don't shut down their nuclear program, the United States will simply destroy their entire program next spring. But he said, well, we really can't expect the Americans to do that; that's not the way things work; they can't really commit themselves to something that would be in the next administration.
So then five days later, on August 15, another interview, which has all the earmarks of an Ehud Barak interview as well (they don't identify him in either one of these two interviews), says that what Israel is ready to do is to reconsider, quote-unquote, its unilateral military option of striking against Iran. If the Obama administration would simply do a couple of things, one, reiterate what Obama said in his AIPAC speech, that Israel has the right of self-defense and that the United States will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and then, more importantly and critically, associate the United States with the Israeli red line rather than the previous Obama red line, which is that Iran may not have the capability to have a nuclear weapon, that is, the technical capability, rather than actually make the key move, which intelligence would interpret as a sign that Iran is moving toward weaponization—those are two very different red lines. And what they want—.
JAY: Yeah, the Americans keep saying over and over again there's been no decision to go ahead with a weapons program. But Israel is saying that's not enough; we don't even want them to be in a position to make such a decision.
PORTER: Exactly. And the Israelis do not disagree with that intelligence finding. It's very clear that they agree with it. And what they're saying now is that nevertheless they want the United States to say, in effect, that the U.S. will attack Iran if the Iranians continue along the line of continuing to build up their uranium enrichment capabilities.
JAY: And I feel like we can't ever discuss this without reminding everyone that Israel has probably hundreds of nuclear weapons. And I guess one can draw one's own conclusions about the hypocrisy of all of this. But you and I have discussed—. Sorry. Go ahead, Gareth.
PORTER: It's not just hypocrisy. It's also, I think—the point I was trying to make in this article and previous articles is that the Israeli threat, such as it is, because it's not an explicit threat to attack Iran, but the suggestion that the Netanyahu government is seriously considering an attack on Iran in the future is really not serious. This has been, all along, a way of leveraging pressure on the United States and other countries to do more, and specifically in the case of the United States to try to push the U.S. in the direction of the demand which was outlined in that second—well, in both of those interviews that I mentioned.
JAY: Right. And you and I have talked about this before, but again, I think it bears saying again. And while all this debate and attention is on the issue of will Israel attack or not—and, of course, that's of great significance, but there's a real economic war against Iran already going on at a time when U.S. intelligence says there's no weapons program. And the sanctions are certainly a form of economic warfare.
PORTER: They are an economic warfare. And how effective they will be is still an open question very hotly debated both in Washington and elsewhere. Some people believe that the Iranians will certainly cave eventually. Maybe so, but one of the stories that has come out this week which I think is very important for people to understand is that the Iraqi government, the one that the United States put into power through its occupation of Iraq, is now being found to help Iran greatly to get around the U.S. sanctions. And this is only one of the ways in which Iran has been able to do so. So it's not at all a black-and-white case, to say the least.
JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Gareth.
PORTER: Thank you, Paul.
There is an "axis of evil", but it doesn't hide out in a mountain cave.
It owns all the media outlets we watch and listen to.
Regarding drones in US, nothing stopping corporation/dictatorship from killing malcontents. Use of killer drone will be denied, and the news will say people blew themselves up with bomb making material or drug lab.
Just thinking about this drone problem.
Others have said that there will be a drone arms race. Regarding the drone that went down in Iran, the technology might be shared with China, Russia and N Korea. Drones of various capabilities and tech levels, may be for sale around the world soon. Am wondering what all could result from this.
Hostage pleading for help, pleas falling on deaf ears as bombs continue to drop in over a half dozen nations around the middle east and africa...
http://www.voanews.com/content/american-hostage-in-pakistan-pleads-for-help/1818270.html
Good post. Everyone needs to see this.
Thanks Neveda1! Just took a look. I've come to trust your endorsements!
Hi Expose, Thank you for kind words. Best Regards
End the drone attacks!
i saw a drone a few weeks ago, not far from where i live. i know what a plane looks like. i know what a drone looks like. this was a drone. i live in the usa.
I guess they missed?
no dear it was not following me.
You sure? seems like you could easily be a target.
since i was going in one direction ( and , a passenger in someone elses car) and it was going in another, its highly unlikely.
Oh well maybe next time
hoping for my death by drone?
Oh no. Just playin I'm non violent
I fully agree with that message! Now send that message to the commander in chief. He signs off on all the drone missions the CIA hands to him. End the drones, stop the war crimes!
The UN’s expert on extrajudicial killings has described the tactic used by the CIA as ‘a war crime’.
Earlier this year the CIA was deliberately targeting rescuers and funeral-goers in its Pakistan drone strikes. Those controversial tactics have reportedly been revived.
Christof Heyns is the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
Christof Heyns told a meeting in Geneva on June 21: ’Reference should be made to a study earlier this year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism… If civilian ‘rescuers’ are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: those strikes are a war crime.’
Heyns’ forthright comments were made at an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) event, linked to a UN debate into the US covert war on terror.
Ambassador Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva told the Bureau ‘we fully agree with what has been said by Mr Heyns.’ Ambassador Akram called on the US ‘to respect the growing international opinion’ that the use of drones ‘not only violates our sovereignty but also violates the UN charter in our view and also international law.’
Read More - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/21/un-expert-labels-cia-tactic-exposed-by-bureau-a-war-crime/
I agree it is horrible. I have signed petitions (to Pres Obama) against it, & I've marched against it. I state my objection to the tactic here constantly! My conscience is clear. And I know that of the 2 people currently set to be the next Pres, only Pres Obama WILL end the drone strikes!
PRES OBAMA WILL END THEM!!!
Obama will not end the drone strikes. Stop looking at the image of the man and look just at his actions. They are horrendous!
We disagree. I am not looking at his image. He never hypnotized me! I never thought he would end all war! I ain't naive. The neocons/MIC have too much power/control over the planet. His image is irrelevant!
So I must judge by the progress against the neocon/MIC agenda. By Pres Obamas actions"- Pres Obama has executed the end of Iraq war, ending Afghan war, resisting all new wars, not creating new indef det cases. ending US torture, reducing US military killings from 1 million+ to thousands, cut military budget, use of mercs. This is resistance to neocons, real progress and are better measures than his image.
No he wont
It's been a full term and we're still at war, he's started new ones, and he's surrounding Iran with warships.
Why do Obama and Romney agree about the "WMD" and a possible military option for Iran?
Meaningless politics. Please, I am not so naive that I can't recognize the need to placate the right wing war mongering public. It is an effort to blunt the attacks from the right wing fear full country.
Republican neocons created that fear. Pres Obama is resisting more than I thought he could. Thank God for his strength. If not we would still be slaughtering millions. Instead of reducing that to thousands.
We most help him by protesting against the US policy to drone bomb.
Support pres Obamas successful resistance at NOT starting any new wars!
We must elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons. And Protest, pressure, agitate for an end to drone bombings, oil wars, war on terror.
Peace & Love
Obama has started 3 new wars since taking office and increased the war in Afghanistan which lead to the highest death toll of civilians in Afghanistan in 2010.
Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya = 3 new wars
You could also add Somalia... he's bombed them too.
And he's talking about military options while currently surrounding Iran with warships because of their "WMD's"
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia have given their permission to bomb so that is not war!
Libyan people with regional groups requested our help in stopping brutal Libyan violence against Libyan people. I support helping innocent people. So that was a good use of the arsenal of freedom no? And was less US, more Euro anyway.
Pres Obama gets credit for Not invading Iran in the face of massive neocon pressure/attacks.
Peace & Love
Pakistan asked us to stop bombing them because the US government keeps killing civilians.
Also when the CIA and the Obama admin was working with Yemen last year in regards to bombing their country, which increases Al Qaeda support, the Yemen president was having his military snipe protesters and massacring his citizens.
But feel free to make excuses for the drone wars you allegedly don't support but seem to constantly defend.
What defense? I am simply challenging your inaccurate description that it constitutes war. It doesn't
Pakistan & Yemen have given permission. Sorry. That means it is NOT war!
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
i don't condone killing by country permission
it's OK because someone asked for it ?
No it's wrong. I do not condone it neither. But I know it ain't war if they allow it! To call it war is a lie!
How are they allowing it when they have said STOP?
Do the dead civilians allow it? Or the corrupt leaders getting funded?
Did we allow citizens united? Or did corrupt assholes pass that shit?
Please refrain from the offensive obscenities.
The govts of Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia approve! I do not.
Dead civilians cannot DISallow! I do not understand that question.
Corrupt leaders are bad, maybe that is why they approve. I don't care because I don't approve.
Citizens united was found legal by republican/conservative appointed judges, I do not approve.
Do you?
You're hopeless.
I'm sure the targets would outlaw bring killed
I'm sure as well.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
Pakistan asked us to stop bombing them because the US government keeps killing civilians. Google it. Why are we still bombing them?
Also when the CIA and the Obama admin was working with Yemen last year in regards to bombing their country, which increases Al Qaeda support, the Yemen president was having his military snipe protesters and massacring his citizens.
Bombs are war. Killing citizens are war crimes.
They're not called "the drone wars" for no reason.
You're repeating yourself. Have you run out of new points?. I will send my original response but we don't to argue the same point over and over do we?
Pakistan, & Yemen have given permission! This means it is not war! Sorry.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
There is no other point to make. That is the ultimate point.
You keep saying Pakistan approves of the drone wars. That is not accurate.
Bombing foreign countries are acts of war.
Pakistan said STOP bombing them. And the US continues to do so.
A Yemen dictator who kills civilians is not a valid character. But if you support a murderous dictator's approval... just look at yourself. You're defending the DRONE WARS
I'm against the drone bombings!
You should look into facts
Dennis Kucinich - Pakistani objection to US drones puts ‘nations at war’ - http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/29/pakistani-objection-to-us-drones-puts-nations-at-war-says-leading-democrat/
Permission in Somalia? What are you talking about?
After seeing Iraq........ they're forced.
Why are warships surrounding Iran? Why are they shooting civilians?
I agree with Kucinich in his opposition to drone bombings. I know it ain't war if the country approves.
Somalia approves, but you suggest they have been coerced with threats. If so that would be wrong. I see no evidence of it.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
I agree vote out warmongers. Vote out Romney, Obama and 95% of congress.
We can't afford their wars. Our tax dollars should be going to social programs, roads, and schools.
Defense Spending is about 60% of federal discretionary spending this year.
Cut the military budget by 50% at least!
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
No he won't. He's the guy who brags about them and makes predator drone jokes to the Jonas Brothers.
Romney wants to start another war and he's looking forward to the new war powers this corrupt congress and this current president have created with the NDAA of 2012
both are just pawns in the Neocon war agenda.
Both Romney and Obama agree military option for Iran is still on the table.
I can't believe how you've been down-voted on this thread.
An anti-war post is bound to be attacked. Because it is an important issue and both of the main political party's are on the wrong side of the issue.
These wars must end the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians must end - peace must be exported not arms.
Military Diplomacy must be ended. You do not kill your way to peace.
Heal the ills of society - the poverty, the energy dependence, lack of education, the causes of disease, the lack of proper medicine, the hunger.
End the causes of strife. And that can not be done with a 45.
Geez, I guess you are right about the reason for the down-voting. Makes it more and more obvious to me that Occupy should remain non-political and how an Obama victory, while important for the meager benefits it will bring to millions, will not be a panacea in any way, shape or form.
An Obama victory will just slow down our death if we can not get good people into office to create proper legislation in support of the people the society the environment the world.
Mittens in office would be a disaster.
But the president is basically at the end of the governmental cycle/system/process. We have to have good people at the start and all through the process.
I'm not so sure an Obama victory will slow the decline. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more dangerous than a wolf.
Well he could have just rubber stamped everything that came his way - so far - but he has not.
I posed this question on a post I made earlier... Maybe you could tackle it
How can you dismiss the entire supreme court and overturn the citizens united vote and ban contribution based politics?
The majority of people are bought into propaganda. I don't see voting for real candidates on a majority bases happening in this country without dismissing the supreme court and overturning contribution based politics.
The majority of congress is corrupt to the tooth and the majority of people will vote to re-elect so many of them because of the propaganda they watch and read. Both presidential "options" as people like to call them are backed by billions from corporate and bankster contributions while real candidates with no financial backing are dismissed and go unknown.
How do you stop bad policy when the majority of elected "representatives" are passing legislation to make it happen?
Dismantle corporate personhood as a start ( IMO ) - by supporting state by state campaigns like the Move to Amend campaign.
At the same time as supporting these kind of petitioning campaigns - we need to get corpoRATist's identified and removed from government - at the State as well as federal level.
Legislation must be made and approved basically by the people. In this I mean that the people need to get involved with government and stay involved. The people need to forward issues of the people. Our representatives have to work to support "our" issues for a healthy environment and a healthy society living in that healthy environment.
One positive step to take in this direction will be to campaign for one subject at a time legislation. No riders allowed.
To start making progress the 1st two things need to be accomplished - end corporate personhood and get corpoRATist's out of office.
But how do you get the majority of people to do those things when they are stuck believing the propaganda? Or the others that remain disenchanted and hopeless?
People need to be inspired. But how?
You ( WE ALL ) have to do it the hard way - basically by word of mouth education and campaigning. This has gotten to be an easier thing to do if people start to take advantage of the internet and social media. Support groups like the Sierra club for the environment. Find and support on-line petitions that address our issues. Get these various groups talking to each other and supporting each others positive efforts.
This forum is only one of many thousands ( hundreds of thousands, millions ? ) of communication hubs operating on the internet.
What comes here does not stay here - it travels onward - but it does so better - if actively circulated.
I'm glad you get it.
I do ( at least I like to think so ). Woha - did my noggin just inflate a tad? Gotta be careful about that - don't wanna have to re-make my doorways into hobbit doorways. {:-])
[Removed]
it's because I do not support the status quo run by the duopoly.
People don't like the truth. Plus I'm blunt. Haha
Gee, I think I'll vote you up.
That's a good thing, as there is no duopoly to support anyway.
We disagree! Stupid jokes are not proof of war posture. The end of Iraq war, ending Afghan war, resisting all new wars, not creating new indef det cases. ending US torture, reducing US military killings from 1 million+ to thousands, this is resistance to neocons, real progress and are better measures.
I am against drone bombings, oil wars, war on terror. I believe Pres Obamas action ARE still influenced by the massive neo-con/MIC/1% plutocrats power! I believe under that massive power Pres Obama has made slow real progress.
If we want to break the neo-con/mic stranglehold over the world Pres is the better choice between the 2 viable Pres candidate.
Do you also volunteer for the democrat party like zendog?
[Removed]
Noted.
[Removed]
"the fuckers should all be lined up and shot."
You didn't lie when you said your comments were sometimes rabid. Do you prone violence as a tool for change?
[Removed]
Nope registered independent. Support the dem agenda. Seek to get progressives elected, and change current corrupt, broken system to expand access to 3rd parties.
You volunteer for republicans?
No, I'm writing an article for a political magazine concerning this website. I'm just trying to see where the most active users are coming from. Why would you assume I'm a republican?
I didn't assume anything! I asked but did not assume. And you say your a writer? Self published or with an established publication?
You can read about me in this posting: http://occupywallst.org/forum/list-of-top-forum-contributors/
That was tedious. And totally void of illumination. Thanks for a thoroughly useless exercise. Next time please just answer the question, I don't need a reading assignment!
So now that you have shown your obvious poor journalistic skills by asking a stupid question, what is it you want from me?
SOLIDARITY!
I don't want anything.
Then why did you question me? Seems to me you wanted at least an answer!
"I disagree! I asked you a simple question and you avoided it! You pointed me to link that was almost 200 comments long that the answer buried in it."
The answer was in the posting itself. You didn't have to read the comments. I thought it would be easier to point to the posting where I asked people questions and where I explained what my project was. Sorry you got offended. It's alright. Don't worry about it.
I'm here to write an article on this forum so I ask some forum users what they think of this place and what they hope to achieve or find here. What they expect for Occupy's second year. There's a lot of people here so I don't bother with those who make it difficult by insulting me for no reason. Don't worry about it.
I disagree! I asked you a simple question and you avoided it! You pointed me to link that was almost 200 comments long that the answer buried in it.
Why not be open, honest, and forthcoming. We distract and not answer?
Because you aren't what you pretend to be?
SOLIDARITY?
How is committing war crimes progress?
How is bombing 6 countries since being in office progress?
How is surrounding Iran with warships on the wild claim of WMD's progress?
The only progress I see is a further completion of the Neocon war agenda.
But go ahead and disregard the reuse of failed Reagan era policies and General Wesley Clark who broke the story in 2007 about the Neocon war agenda and the 7 countries to take out with military and covert operations.
War crimes have not been proved in court. That must occur because in America we believe in innocent until proven guilty.
"6 cuontries" Pres Obama has reduced US military killing from 1 Million + to thousands! That is real progress!
Resisting the neocon war mongering pressure to invade Iran IS real progress. We must support Pres Obamas successful resistance and continued efforts at diplomacy.
I can't speak to what you see. We clearly disagree. I am for peace! That is why I support Pres Obamas real success in the face of massive neocon pressure. To do otherwise would be to join with the neocons who are attacking Pres Obama for his resistance against them.
Does it matter that the neocons are attacking Pres Obama for not attacking Iran?
Peace & Love
So you don't think targeting rescuers is a war crime? You don't think bombing civilians is a war crime?
You don't think Bush is a war criminal either then? He's never been to court.
2010 had the largest number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan due to Obama's increase in the war after doubling the troop surge. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Care to make any excuses for that too?
Have you looked up the destroyed cities of Tripoli and Sirte from the US surface to air missiles?
I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Bush is no longer Pres, I am anti Bush and believe he is a war criminal but for the sake of this argument I think it best we assume innocence until proven guilty.
Afghan is a horrible war. We should never have gone in and stayed so long. I am satisfied that Pres Obama is getting us out and ending our military action.
That's it. No excuses. It's wrong. I'm against it. I protest still against it.
Libya? Done. Success. Many died. horrible. Glad we didn't invade with 1/2 a million troops and stay for 10 yeats. More of a British, French, Italy thing though no?
Peace & Love
no maybe sometimes killing
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
end secrecy "It's the only way to be sure"
Which secrets do you want to end?. I'm with you. End secrecy!
I agree 100%!!!
This is every bit as important as the calls to get the money out!
It's the only certain path to an informed electorate.
Bush is war criminal and a murderer. Suggesting he's innocent serves the republicans and supports the neocon war agenda. The evidence and facts are public.
Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are private mercenary groups getting hundred million dollar contracts still? Why are we still in Afghanistan?
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why did Obama add another half million troops when he took office and continue the war in Afghanistan to this day and years into the future?
Why are we still in Afghanistan?
didn't add 1/2 million troops in Afghan. the surge was wrong! I am against the war in afghan.
We are still in Afghan because Pres Obama made the mistake of attempting to placate right wing.
I'm against our actions in Afghan.
Pres Obama has vut the military budget, has plans to cut more, Pres Obama has cut Merc, use has plans to cut more. Repub neocons would never do any of that.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
Sorry I made a typo and didn't read over the comment before posting.... I was reading the half million number from your previous comment. Didn't mean to say he added half million troops.
the rest is accurate though.
You mean the 5x times you asked why we are still in Afghan.
LMFAO.
Why don't you take a breath! We are both against the drone bombings!
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
soft targets are supposed to die
I have a dream not I have a drone
“We went to war against a nation that didn’t attack us based on choice. A million innocent Iraqis died as a result. That is a significant number, and there are consequences for that. If America is to shed the shackles of war, we need to go through a period of truth and reconciliation.
“We have to recognize that we are still choosing war. We chose war in Iraq. We chose to go to war in Afghanistan. I think it was right to strike the training camps, but we chose to stay at war for more than a decade. And we are choosing to possibly go to war with Iran.
“If you go deep - and I spent the better part of the last 10 years, every single day challenging these wars - what I have learned is that people in Washington just don’t understand that there is another way to end conflict without killing people.
“When we look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which was a war of choice, and after you wreak havoc on these countries and then you sing Kumbaya and work at conflict resolution, there is magical thinking there. If we create these wars, we are not accepting the consequence of what we have done. To leave it to peace keepers and conflict resolution experts, we are way disconnected from our own actions. We have a country that has not been able to shed our imperial instincts. The idea that we can dominate the world through a global war on terror is insanity.
“All our peace-building efforts will fall apart as long as we believe we can control the world through the use of force. We must acknowledge that every time we drop a bomb, it expands the war and ripples into the future ultimately coming back to us.”
-Dennis Kucinich
forgot I posted that a while back
Kucinich is great! He is an excellent guide if we are unsure of whether the parties are the same. THEY AIN'T!
He caucuses with democrats, He votes with Democrats 90% of the time and he is in the progressive caucus which includes no republicans.
Trust Kucinich! Elect more progressives, Vote out war mongering republicans
Tell the dems to join Kucinich and the 2 other dems to sponsor the minimum wage increase. 3 democrats isn't enough.
Kucinich and 2 other democrats stand up for minimum wage increase - The “Catching Up To 1968 Act of 2012” - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/minimum-wage-act-10-hour-john-conyers-dennis-kucinich_n_1577543.html
they need to follow Dennis Kucinich's lead on this. Without more sponsors this bill has no chance in passing.
I do. How many repubs? You forgot to mention that!
I protest against all pols for increased minimum wage and an end to oil wars, and the war against terror.
I also trust Kucinich. He stands with the dems and never with the republicans.!
he stands for social justice and yes he does vote with dems majority of the time.
And he also stood with bipartisan support with dems and repubs to audit the fed and with McCain-Feingold to end soft money in politics.
You can't count on repubs to raise minimum wage. Which is why I point out that you can't seem to count on dems either. 3 dems is not enough. It's pathetic that the number is that low on such a bill that would help out over 30 million working americans. Who's financing the rest of these guys? Why aren't they joining to keep wages up with 1968 standards? Why are so many siding with repubs in keeping silent about minimum wage?
It's horrible. So no repubs voted for the minimum wage increase? I didn't quite see that answer. And would you believe that repubs have prevented every DEMOCRATIC effort to increase the minimum wage for more than 10 years. And would you believe that repubs have fought every DEMOCRATIC effort to raise the minimum wage for ever? Did you know that? Does that matter? Would you say that is a good indicator as to who we should look to if we want to pass a minimum wage?
This is a good example of how the parties are different!
Elect progressives! Vote out anti minimum wage republicans
No one is voting for a minimum wage increase.
Only 3 democrats are trying to put it up for a vote but no one else is sponsoring the bill. It will get stuck in a committee and it won't see a vote because there are no sponsors.
You are a good example of ridiculing someone trying to bring attention to the needs of a minimum wage increase.
I don't mind bumping this post up. I more interested in having our 2 opinions compete in the marketplace of ideas. As long as people refrain from going to "war" with me.
Can you handle a difference of opinion without resorting to angry, nasty, offensive, tactics. Because I intend to. How we interact is a good reflection of whether we are war like.
How have you done by that measure?
Peace!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d-S2kABz3QY/UDWvdfdpvpI/AAAAAAAABOc/esPlFM8SZhc/s400/539191_515076548519382_157545729_n.jpg
Very funny! And true.
don't delete this post
Ok.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
You think bombing foreign countries isn't war.
Your opinion is invalid
Go make more excuses for Obama's drone wars and then try and tell me how he's going to end them when he's the one signing the sheets to bomb people
I am against the US drone bombings.
For that to be war the other country cannot give permission!
What excuses have I offered? To suggest I'm making excuses for the policy I am against is untrue. Lying about my position is not the tactic of an anti war person.
I believe Pres Obama will end the drone wars. Because I recognize the real progress he has made in the face of massive neocon pressure.
Peace, & Love
You can't be against the bombings and support them at the same time.
It's like voting for Romney and saying you're against fraud and income inequality.
Obama is the drone wars. Bush was the invasion.
You can't tell me what I can be.
I against the US policy (created by Bush) of drone bombing.
I do not support them! To suggest I do support them is untrue and not the tactic of a peace loving person.
Peace & Love
Obama is the drone wars. Bush was the invasion.
Why do Romney and Obama agree about foreign policy toward Iran?
Military option against Iran still on the table over supposed WMD's
You do support the drone wars. Just like repubs supported the war in Iraq when they voted Bush.
end secrecy
"It's the only way to be sure"
Romney would invade, Pres Obama continues to resist the neocons war mongering pressure to invade. That is a major difference!
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d-S2kABz3QY/UDWvdfdpvpI/AAAAAAAABOc/esPlFM8SZhc/s400/539191_515076548519382_157545729_n.jpg
Dems/progressives have always fought for min wage and will continue to. Repubs have always fought against and will always fight against a minimum wage.
This is an excellent example of how the parties are vastly different. You focus on one example, ignore the historical truths, ignore the philosophical principles to push the fallacy that the parties are the same.
They Ain't!!
You like the democrats to the point of defending their actions? Let me guess, you're not an OWS supporter, but a paid democrat here to convince people to vote Obama?
Nope. registered independent, raging left/liberal. anti republican. no pay, all honest passion from the heart! Which Dem actions have I defended?
You've compared the dems to OWS on numerous occasions.
In what context?
You said they were essentially the same. That OWS wants what the dems want, and that the dems want what OWS wants.
nah. "essentially the same"? I didn't say that! you're not being honest!
Try again.
You're wasting your time trying to talk him, Thrashy. He's the most anti-OWS, pro-regime plant on this forum. You'd have better luck talking to the wall. Glad to see you pop in for a visit, by the way. I, for one, have kinda missed you.
[Removed]
if the dems did
they could claim a platform
if only he Dennis Kucinich were running
his congressional district got yanked from under him
I suspect a jerry mander
And who yanked it from under him? Does that matter? Will we cover for them? Who controlled the state legislature that redistricted him out?
I don't know
the establishment of the military industrial complex?
I see. Repub controlled Ohio State legislature thats who did it. Is that ok?
What about the fact the repubs also tried to cut only dem districts voting hours? is that ok?
How about that the Ohio repub AG fired 2 Dem election officials because they challenged the repubs efforts at stealing the ohio vote.
Do any of these facts matter? Is it all ok with you? Repub are doing this. Not Kucinich and the dems. That is the difference!
what's the democrat platform ?
Why? are you ok with these repub scams? Your silence is deafening!
lol
I wish I was wrong
about what?
[Deleted]
Kucinich? What are you talkin about?
Your silence on minimum wage increase is deafening.
that was the topic and you somehow managed to call everyone on this forum page a republican for some reason.
Matt is not a republican supporter and he's not doing that on this forum right now or at all.
Why do you always divert away from real issues and just call people republicans?
Yeah republicans redistricted. That happened and it sucks. No one is arguing with you on that. Why are you acting like everyone disagrees on that?
Yeah there is no repub support on this bill to increase minimum wage. No one is arguing with you on that. Why are you acting like people are?
Why isn't a minimum wage increase a platform issue for all those running for office? this is a simple question. By asking it... I am not somehow supporting republicans. If you think that... you are a moron.
But I forgot... you're the guy that thinks bombing a country isn't war.
And when the government can get you to think that bombing a country isn't war... you have gone insane.
I haven't called anyone a republican. Now you're just lying! Please stick with the truth.
The Minimum wage is an important issue! My valuable contribution is the facts that progressives/dems fight for it, Repubs ALWAYS fight against it. I can't explain why you neglected that fact! Nor am I suggesting why. I can't explain why you attack me for pointing out the obvious fact you left out.
The redistricting of the great Kucinich was also because of Repub action. You left it out, I mentioned it, you attacked me! I'm you left it out, or attacked me because you are a repub, or serve repubs because you attack me viciously when I do that. (look at your attack when I haven't attacked)
Bombing a country with that countries permission is not war! I don't support it. But it ain't war. Sorry!
"moron"? "crazy"? personal attacks/insults simply betray your weak arguments. Please refrain. Why can't you discuss these important issues with respect? Do you think berating me, or insulting & bullying me will silence me?
NEVER!!
I am fighting for the 99%!! I will not be deterred. I will not forget, I will not forgive. You will be assimilated, Resistance is futile!
I just read a bunch of comments on this page and on other pages where you call other forum posters republicans and other insults.
Is calling someone a republican an insult. The minimum wage discussion, & the Kucinich redistricting discussion did not include me suggesting anyone was a republican!
Whats wrong with expressing the opinion that somones actions appear to be repub, or serve repubs. NOTHING!
Why are trying to silence that allowed speech??
It is when you call him a republican troll, a republican scum bag, a republicon, a republican rat, etc...
I'm not trying to silence you. I'm simply saying you lied when you stated above that you don't call anyone a republican. From what I've read, you go around the site insulting other posters without any proof for your claims. You call anyone who disagrees with you a republican troll. It's not very inclusive.
"You call anyone who disagrees with you a republican troll." That is a lie!
I only suggest republicanism when there is proof that they are. Whether they agree with me is not relevant.
If they cover for repubs, leave out repub guilt, attack dems unfairly, claim the parties are the same, encourage giving up our right to vote would suggest a repub leaning.
So I didn't lie. You are! And you are mischaracterizing my comments. Some of the comments you attribute to me I've never said. Those I did say were warranted.
Why do you care? Are you the speech police here? Do you have some authority here?
What does attacking the dems have to do with being republican? OWS protesters attack the dems all the time, they attack all the parties that are corrupted, not just the republicans. Being OWS is being against the system as a whole, not just being against the republicans.
Just sharing my opinion. You can leave it or take it. I just find it lame that you attack others. It's not inclusive. There are many people who dislike the dems, that does not mean they like the republicans.
thanks for flooding my page with comments. My forum post stays at the top of the forum
More people need to read about the war crimes under this administration.
"lame"? "not inclusive"? Please. your not expressing your opinion. You are simply attacking me personally, attempting to bully me into silence! As always.
The morning is when the banned ones come to spew their hatefulness!
You cannot stop me. I will challenge all unfair attacks on dems, all fallacies that the parties are the same, all efforts to get us to give up our right to vote!
We will not be deterred! We will not forget! We will not forgive! We are legion! You are puny humans! You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!
of course that matters.
Why do you think I brought up the fact that he was redistricted for opposing the status quo?
You left out the party that did it to him!!
The republicans!!
Can you say it.? Republicans did something wrong! c'mon you can do it!
redistricting was all they could do to get Dennis out of office. They do whatever they can to get opponents of the status quo out of office.
[Removed]
I realize from your posts here that you are strongly anti-war, and I can respect that. I have a question for you though. If the US was to withdraw from Afghanistan and all of a sudden a massive civil war broke out or the Taliban went on mass killing sprees and oppression that resulted in more tragedy and death that is already going on there, would you support the US intervening?
There is no right or wrong answer in my eyes, I am just curious as to your opinion on it. And I am not saying that will happen, just "if." Are you for the fewest number of deaths possible? Or do you just feel the US should leave the Afghans (or any other country for that matter) live in whatever state of war or peace that plays out without intervention?
In a short response to everything you just said I will pose a question...
Should we have stayed in Iraq?
END THE WARS NOW
no answer at all!
Should we use the military to protect innocent civilians from brutal dictators?
Every time we've done that the military and bombs and sanctions kill more civilians than the dictator.
Look at Iraq from 1990 to 2010... look at all the wars we've been in.
Fuck the Neocon war agenda. Fuck those trying to brainwash people into the idea that "war is peace"
I like the way you put that, Trevor. You are right.
thanks.
You don't sound like a peaceful person! Please refrain from the offensive obscenities!
So you don't want to protect innocent people? Has there never been a military operation you have supported. And none that you would?
Peace, & Love!
So you like the Neocon agenda? Because I say fuck the Neocon agenda.
Romney says we should go into Syria.
Fulfilling the list of 7 countries laid out by the Bush administration.... But if you want to support the Bush war agenda... then preach for war with Syria and Iran.
Continue to disregard the massive levels of civilian death from "US humanitarian intervention"
Twisting my position is not a peaceful persons tactics. I don't stoop to those attacks because I am a peaceloving person.
Pres Obama has resisted the neocons better than I expected. I'm not naive I know the neocons/MIC have massive control. Much time, and deft is required to undo their power. No one gives up power easily.
Pres Obama is the better option (of the 2 viable pres candidates) to continue the slow, real progress against the neocon/MIC agenda.
That is pagmatism.
For more progress, We must elect anti war progressive, and vote out war mongering neocons!
And of course protest, pressure, and agitate for an end to drone bombings, oil wars, and the war on terror.
Peace, Love, & Undertanding! (Whasso funny 'bout it?)
VQ, I always ask my mom what she would do if she lived in Nazi Germany and the Nazis were holding elections between the deminazis and the repubinazis. And the repubinazis platform calls for incinerating 6 millions, but the deminazis say that 3 million murders should be enough.
And my mom always says she'd vote for the deminazis.
You too, I guess?
Comparing us to Nazis is offensive and I believe against the forum rules.
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
Really,no offense intended.
But I do wonder at what point you say enough. That's what I'm getting at. How many people need to be killed by drones before you give up on supporting Obama? Or would you support the dems as long as the number to be murdered is 1 less than the republican plan?
I support the successful resistance to the neo-cons war mongering pressure.
I do not support any killings.
I support dems over repubs because they are not neocons and will resist neo cons war mongering pressure.
neo CONSERVATIVE!! <---- do you know which party embraces these policies?
I am against the drone bombings, Oil wars, and war on terror!
Elect anti war progressives, Vote out war mongering neocons, and protest, pressure, agitate against the drone bombings, oil wars and war on terror.
"It's the only way to be sure"
Peace & Love.
I'm not voting. There are no anti-war progressives where I live. You didn't answer my question above about how bad the dems have to be for you to abandon them.
This week saw post apartheid South Africa reach a new low. The American ruling class is watching. Do you know the lesson? You can shoot striking miners if you have a progressive government, but you can't get away with such stuff if the openly racist right is ruling. Electing Obama just gives the government legitimacy.
vote Green or "Peace and Freedom"
or write in NO WAR
Well sounds like you got it all figured out!
Good luck in all your good efforts.
Set aside specific examples because obviously we know many US interventions were a mistake.
My question was more of a theoretical one. Do you oppose all US military interventions, even if it means more people may ultimately die via dictatorship, civil war, etc?
There is no easy answer, I am just curious as to your personal belief.
Until our government can find a way to intervene without killing massive levels of civilians.... I don't see a point in intervening in the name of saving civilians.
Obviously our government and military is not capable of doing that. Look into history of the wars and US foreign policy. Millions of foreign civilians killed from US foreign policy since the 1990's
Iraq war under Bush 1... Iraq bombings and sanctions under Clinton kill over a million... Iraq invasion under Bush 2 kills over a million... Afghanistan civilian death rate reached highest level in 2010 under Obama. Sirte and tripoli were destroyed...
I pretty much agree with you. We should let countries solve their own problems. Millions of civilians will likely die anyways through dictatorships and civil wars but at least our soldiers won't be in harms way and the bill won't be coming out of our tax dollars.
Unfortunately, throughout civilization there has been war and death in the name of politics and power and that is unlikely to change whether or not the US is involved.
I suggest following the wisdom of Dennis Kucinich and try new theories by creating a peace committee focused on helping nations through actions of peace and not war.
still spewing excuses for killing
I really don't see think I am. I can't understand why you would say that.
In your mind there is no reason whatsoever for the US to ever be involved in a foreign conflict? Again, Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes. I am talking more in theoretical terms.
Honestly, that is how I feel for the most part. Unless our actual homeland is under a direct threat, I don't think we should get involved because it costs American lives, a ton of money, and it can make us look bad. But I also realize that having that be an official policy could lead to situations were even more people may possibly die, they just wouldn't be American's nor would it be at the hands of Americans. And that just doesn't sit well with me.
building bombs 'til bunkers boil
getting paid for shell filled toil
if I am to work tomorrow
lobe the load on foreign soil
yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget
World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
39% United States
18% Russia
8% France
7% United Kingdom
5% Germany
3% China
3% Italy
11% Other European
5% Others
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
TOP 10 Arms Produces
Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
What does this have to do with the question I asked? What is wrong with trying to have a discussion? Do you really not have an opinion on it?
Good post, Trevor.
[Removed]