Do you believe it is ok to fire missiles at just anyone without regard to who they might be?
You honestly think they saw this child on a camera, on a drone moving hundreds of miles an hour?
Then you have no excuse to be supporting a war promoted by the anti-christ.
I already know who is running the show and the evidence of what our country has done proves that we are controlled by The Anti-Christ.
You are totally sucked into the propaganda believing in the myths of terrorists when the Us is secretly behind all the real terrorism, then label people they don't like, terrorists.
Originally posted by Carseller4
Ignore the propaganda.
A terrorist was killed and it should be celebrated.
The idea of human shield is a propaganda tool of the belligerents, the US, in justifying their slaughter of innocent people as an ok price for maybe killing someone who was a target.
Originally posted by Humanity4Ever
Originally posted by milkyway12
Tell the kid to stop harboring terroirst and stand up and fight them. The quicker the terrorist to die , the quicker we leave.
They use them as human shields which is to bad. They support it. So kill them both. In my opinion.
The utilization of human shields is the modus operandi of Islamic militants all over the world. It is a very effective propoganda tool.
So, why would the US government want to prevent me from discussing these cases at Columbia law school? Perhaps, it is because our legal challenge disrupts the narrative of "precision strikes" against "high-value targets" as an unqualified success against terrorism, at minimal cost to civilian life.
As a lawyer in Pakistan, my experiences tell a different story. A 17-year-old boy named Sadaullah – another victim of the drone attacks – sought my help shortly after we filed Karim Khan's case. In September 2009, when he was 15 years old, Sadaullah was serving food at a family iftar, the traditional breaking of the daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan, when missiles from a drone struck his grandfather's home and killed four of his relatives. Falling debris knocked Sadaullah out, but he survived. When he awoke in a Peshawar hospital, he found that both his legs had been amputated and shrapnel had penetrated his eye, rendering it useless. Pakistani media reported that the strike had killed Ilyas Kashmiri, a militant leader. But months later, Ilyas Kahsmiri was seen alive in Afghanistan. It was only a few weeks ago that the militant was reportedly killed in yet another drone strike.
US drone kills three in N.W. Pakistan: officials
(AFP) – Oct 31, 2011
MIRANSHAH, Pakistan — A US drone strike on Monday killed three militants in Pakistan's northwestern tribal region, a hotbed of Taliban insurgents near the Afghan border, officials said.
The drone fired two missiles into a moving vehicle as it drove through a village near Mubarak Shah town about 15 kilometres (nine miles) east of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan district, Pakistani security officials told AFP.
"Three militants have been killed in the attack," one security official said.
"The vehicle was moving. There are reports that four militants were killed in the strike but we are verifying the death of the fourth militant. We have confirmed the death of three others."
The identities of the dead were not clear.
Sources: 2 militants killed in Pakistan by suspected U.S. drone
A suspected U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region killed two suspected militants on Monday, intelligence officials told CNN.
The suspected drone fired two missiles on a vehicle in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan, two Pakistani intelligence officials said. North Waziristan is one of the seven districts of Pakistan's volatile tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
The intelligence officials asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
Based on a count by the CNN Islamabad bureau, Monday's suspected drone strike was the 59th this year, compared to 111 in all of 2010.
This pisses me off so much, I really hope it gets to a breaking point
Pakistan orders US out of drone base
30 June 2011
Pakistan has stopped US drone flights from a remote airbase in the western province of Balochistan and ordered US personnel to vacate it, the defence minister has said.
. . .
Obama's counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan said on Wednesday that the US would continue to "deliver precise and overwhelming force against al-Qaida" in the tribal areas.
. . .
Since then CIA contractors have been stationed at Shamsi, fuelling and arming Predator and the newer Reaper drones. Operators at the base control the pilotless planes during takeoff but control quickly passes to a "reachback operator"sitting at a video screen thousands of miles away at the CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia.
Originally posted by Anusuia
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
the point of the story is that men need to man up and stop hiding behind toys .combat is one on one with an equal enemy . stop being cowards you little lost ones
Someone would be going for a long trip to Leavenworth in order for there to be "real evidence". Meaning publishing classified intelligence showing intent to target anyone trying to document drone strikes.
But to say we targeted some kid because he was at a rally, is ignorant and irresponsible! There is ZERO evidence (real evidence)
To wage war like this is so inhumane, so dastardly and just plain lazy.
CIA drone attacks produce America's own unlawful combatants
By Gary Solis
Friday, March 12, 2010
In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.
T. E. Lawrence was not a civilian, he was an officer, kind of pressed into service for the task, during WW I, but he was functioning illegally, so my point would be that the British have a long history of what is basically state sponsored terrorism that goes back to Elizabeth I and privateers attacking Spanish merchant vessels. We seem to have been reunited into a new British Empire where we have given up our morality to play the dirty tricks which caused the US to succeed back in 1716 and to go to war with them in 1812.
In Libya, US CIA and British MI6 agents were dressed as local Libyans participating in an insurgency. That's illegal in international law.