Left Ignores Obama Killing Children, Applaud Attacks on Law-Abiding Americans

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Left Ignores Obama Killing Children, Applaud Attacks on Law-Abiding Americans

Today, there are more than a dozen “anti-gun” and “gun control” bills pending in Congress, almost all of which are pushed by the Left, “Progressives” and the MSM as an appropriate response to “mass killings” across the United States. Barack Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to head his Guns Task Force to examine policies and regulations in response to politicized calls to address gun violence and the “killing of innocents.”

All this takes place while the Obama administration revels in the mass-murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries whom we consider “allies”, and against whom we are not at war!

Unfortunately, the myopic and deaf “left” hail Peace Prize recipient Obama’s hypocrisy in denigrating law-abiding Americans, all too willing and glad to overlook his own deadly targeting of innocent civilians; including peace workers, first responders and children.


In yet another US drone attack in Pakistan, US drones fired ten missiles at different targets in the country's northwestern tribal area of South Waziristan, on Sunday. According to local media, the aerial attacks left at least seven others injured.


Pakistan’s tribal regions are attacked by US assassination drones almost regularly, with Washington claiming that militants are the targets. However, casualty figures clearly indicate that Pakistani civilians are the main victims.


The killing of Pakistani civilians, including women and children, has strained relations between Islamabad and Washington. Last month, Pakistan’s Jama’at ud-Da’wah political group took legal action against the ongoing drone attacks. The group said … the drone strikes continue to claim the lives of civilians.

US drone attacks kill 16 in northwestern Pakistan


Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a US report (Living Under Drones) says. Rescuers treating the casualties are also being killed and wounded by follow-up strikes, says the report by Stanford and New York Universities.

In one of the most notorious attacks of recent years, tribal elders and local traders were among more than 40 people killed when two drones attacked a car carrying … four militants.

A controversial aspect of the US policy is that drone attacks are carried out not by the military but by the Central Intelligence Agency. Pakistan is not a zone of armed conflict, unlike neighbouring Afghanistan.
The report … says top commanders only account for an estimated 2% of drone victims.
The report also details hundreds of civilian casualties and the effects of drone strikes on the local population. It cites data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimating that between 474 and 881 civilians have been killed in strikes between 2004 and 2012.
"In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false," according to the report, (Living Under Drones.

According to the report, 42 people were killed, mostly civilians, when they gathered at a bus depot on 17 March 2011 for a "jirga" (community meeting) to settle a dispute over a nearby mine. … . Several missiles were fired. Nearly all those who died were heads of large households.
Drones in Pakistan traumatise civilians, US report says



Despite claims from the administration that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, multiple independent reports confirm that Obama is severely downplaying the wreckage that these drone strikes inflict. It is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, but a new study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes are “significantly and consistently underestimated” by tracking organizations which are trying to take the place of government estimates on casualties.
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

Predator Drone Strikes: 50 Civilians Are Killed For Every 1 Terrorist


The absolute majority of the people killed by American UAVs in Pakistan are innocent civilians, claims Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik.

There are no exact statistics on the number of people killed in drone strikes in Pakistan. Estimates vary from about 2,500 to over 3,000 victims. As many as 174 of them were reportedly children.
US drones kill up to 80% civilians

How long will the American public continue to follow the anti-gun rhetoric, which has no possibility of reducing violent crime and mass killings, while avoiding discussion and deserved criticism of the Obama adminoistration's policy responsible for the unjustified death of countless innocents, including first-responders and children?

How does this obvious hypocrisy affect American credibility and reputation abroad, where we have already left a terrible path of death and destruction?

Can a Peace Prize be retracted?
Should it be?

jw




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Reply to post by jdub297
 


It absolutely should be retracted. No debate there. It is absolutely deplorable that so many innocent Pakistani children and civilians are being killed like this.

I don't see how there can be any argument about this. I have been following the drone attacks and the civilian casualties as much as I can, and it's very hard to discern what is real truth and what is being overblown or lied about. From what I can tell though, there are in fact many civilian deaths as a result of these attacks and it shouldn't be acceptable.

These attacks would take place regardless of who is in the White House though. Yes Obama should have the prize taken away from him, for the reason that e is in office while it is happening and that he is signing off on these things, but we cannot be fooled into thinking that any other president would be any different. The president is merely working toward an agenda. These attacks are apparently part of that agenda and I personally do not see them stopping anytime soon.

Make no mistake though; I do not see anyone applauding the deaths of innocent people. That's not accurate to say.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Pretty sure that the left and the right are ignoring America killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children since the early 1600 hundreds.

Peace



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Any person capable of ordering such strikes against a nation without declaring war, irregardless of civilian deaths, should be tried for war crimes. The UN would step in and arrest this man if he wasn't the next General Secretary, if he doesn't accept the position of US Supreme Dictator.

Barack Obama and his hidden agenda will be the final nail in the coffin for the US, anyone who does not see this or does not wish to believe will end up bloated from starvation in a gutter.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


If I lived in a country where terrorist were being hunted by drones.One of the last things I would do would be to associate or have me or my family anywhere near them.

If I was a terrorist,the last thing I would want would be to have my family of friends anywhere near me with a target on my back.

The only reason I would deviate from that position.Would be to sacrifice my friends and family for puplic support or to try to use them as shields.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The left (as always) are too consumed with domestic agendas and advancing the agendas of their contributors, lobbyists and special interests to give a damn about what is going on elsewhere in the world, they get their regular briefings, yawn and move on with more "important" domestic issues.

Pakistan is the focus of covert operations because there is a central hub of real evil there, and without the ability to confront the very real threats there, drone strikes (with high collateral damage) are the only method they have to attack those threats and is an ineffective method, like removing a tumor with an axe. they have failed, but, they got Bin Laden.


Many on the left and on the right will fail to be concerned with international threats to our security until it is far too late, in fact it already is...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


If I lived in a country where terrorist were being hunted by drones.One of the last things I would do would be to associate or have me or my family anywhere near them.

If I was a terrorist,the last thing I would want would be to have my family of friends anywhere near me with a target on my back.


The problem here is the definition of "terrorist." According to the O-bomb-a admnistration, proximity and suspicion control over acts and ideolgy.


It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

The very first strike under his watch in Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, offered a stark example of the difficulties of operating in what General Jones described as an “embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with.”
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents.

State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

Of course, we should not forget that Obama’s “Homeland Security” department has defined “terrorist” to include “Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes,” as well as “Right-Wing” groups, those “that believe that one’s personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
www.start.umd.edu...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


If I lived in a country where terrorist were being hunted by drones.One of the last things I would do would be to associate or have me or my family anywhere near them.

If I was a terrorist,the last thing I would want would be to have my family of friends anywhere near me with a target on my back.


The problem here is the definition of "terrorist." According to the O-bomb-a admnistration, proximity and suspicion control over acts and ideolgy.


It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

The very first strike under his watch in Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, offered a stark example of the difficulties of operating in what General Jones described as an “embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with.”
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents.

State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.

Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will

Of course, we should not forget that Obama’s “Homeland Security” department has defined “terrorist” to include “Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes,” as well as “Right-Wing” groups, those “that believe that one’s personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
www.start.umd.edu...




Ok but if the terrorist with a target on their back did remove themselfs from the general population.Wouldn't this go a long way to limit collateral damage?

Yes it would, that is the point to my comment.Or they could hide in the population,to sacrifice innocent human lives.So the media and bleeding heart libs will pick up a cause and run with it.Bottom line the majority of srikes are against legitimate targets and if the terrorist didn't hide among innocent people there would be far fewer innocent deaths



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty


Ok but if the terrorist with a target on their back did remove themselfs from the general population.Wouldn't this go a long way to limit collateral damage?

Yes it would, that is the point to my comment.Or they could hide in the population,to sacrifice innocent human lives.So the media and bleeding heart libs will pick up a cause and run with it.Bottom line the majority of srikes are against legitimate targets and if the terrorist didn't hide among innocent people there would be far fewer innocent deaths

you are talking about people in their own land, not on planes or on American soil, but people who only have to be suspected of being a terrorist.
How do you become a suspect?
be aged between 18 and 45, be male and a muslim.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
propaganda

read my sig



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


So the U.S has never killed a terrorist with a drone strike?Only suspects?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


.Bottom line the majority of srikes are against legitimate targets and if the terrorist didn't hide among innocent people there would be far fewer innocent deaths


Maybe you missed the part of the post that cited an international study that showed 2% of targets are actually Qaeda leadership. or, that of the 300+ drone strikes betw. 2008 and 2012, between 3,000 and 6,000 of the victims have been innocents; first-responders and children!

"The majority of strikes" have killed about 50X more civilians than "targets."
Some say it's even higher, 80 to 1 and more.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by munkey66
 


So the U.S has never killed a terrorist with a drone strike?Only suspects?


That's not what was posted; but does 1 taget justify 20 civilians, as well?
Why doesn't the "left" voice ANY outrage over the aerial invasion of non-combatant countries and the murder of civilians?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


.Bottom line the majority of srikes are against legitimate targets and if the terrorist didn't hide among innocent people there would be far fewer innocent deaths


Maybe you missed the part of the post that cited an international study that showed 2% of targets are actually Qaeda leadership. or, that of the 300+ drone strikes betw. 2008 and 2012, between 3,000 and 6,000 of the victims have been innocents; first-responders and children!

"The majority of strikes" have killed about 50X more civilians than "targets."
Some say it's even higher, 80 to 1 and more.





No you have misquoted part of the post.The artical said "less that 2% of top commanders are killed in drone strikes".What about the percentage of other militants?When you get your info from slanted sources you get mislead.

My statement didn;t concern the right or wrong of the attacks.Only the motives of the terrorist for knowing they are targets (right or wrong) and still putting innocents at risk by being near them when they are a target.

If you were a target (right or wrong) would you put your friends and family at risk?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Who exactly do you mean by the Left and I don't think ANYONE is applauding killing children. The Left hatred on this site and by the Right in general is getting quite sickening and infuriating and were it not for T&C's I would really give you a piece of my mind in pretty colorful language.

The first thing you and the other haters on here need to do is shed your goddamn ignorance on what Left, Center and Right are.. I'm quite sick of your stereotypes, misconceptions and mis/disinformation.



Take a good look there, it's not a perfect chart but it certainly gives a much better representation than all the vomit being spewed all over the political forums on this site.

Having said all that, let me school you on where the Left is with Obama. Democrats (Largely Liberal see Liberal in the center of the chart) and those in the top-left corner are typically supportive of his policies... this is true. However there is quite a large number of this Nation's population in or moving to the lower-left corner, we do not support Obama, some may have voted for him but only to ensure Romney didn't make everything we stand against...worse.

We are the ones that protest wars, drone warfare, police state and surveillance state, we also stand against making more laws and most definitely stand in defiance of loss of liberty and Corporatism. Most of us believe in little government and believe that someday we should have NO or very minuscule government. We also support the 2nd Amendment... so would you kindly, please

Stop shoving words into millions of Americans mouths!

Thank-you.

ETA: By the way, where is the outrage on the Right regarding drone warfare? Your thread title could easily have been: Right Ignores Obama killing Children, Focuses On Fighting About the Number of Bullets a Clip Can Hold.
edit on 8-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I find the confirmation bias to be fairly amusing sometimes.
Every Presidency probably in the history of the US has had some atrocity involved. Whether direct (direct ordering to torture prisoners and suspects) or more often indirect like drones, as in my opin using drones saves US lives-but the way they are being used is wrong. They should be reappraised.

That being said-the political aspects on this site and those who perpetually scream about this, or the birth certificate joke: where was the outrage in the past?

Is the blind eye turned because it was 'your guys' and 'your tribe' that did the things? From Nixon committing treason to get elected-and later Reagan doing the same. The Patriot act. Water Boarding. Extreme Rendition. TSA. Lieing to get us to invade nations. Bush sr. actually being involved in making Bin Ladin the man he was. The coordinated sell out of congress.

The list is near endless.

But none of that matters I guess-cause Obama is black and the only thing you can seem to find that as incontrovertible outrage is how the military uses a tool-because he doesn't step in and tell the armed services that they have to go in by foot again to hunt.

So yeah-Drones should be re-evaluated. But come on people-pay attention to the reality of the world outside your insulated hate bubbles.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by munkey66
 


So the U.S has never killed a terrorist with a drone strike?Only suspects?

Does the 80 (or more) to 1 ratio of murdered civilians to terrorists make you feel better?
Are you ready to say something constructive?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


By the way, where is the outrage on the Right regarding drone warfare?


You wouldn't see it if it bit you. Conservatives and libertarians alike have decried Obama's so-called "hit list" as contrary to our Constitution and the example we once hoped to set. This administration sees no problem with targeting Americans who have not been charged with a crime, but is eafer to arm terrorists and cartels to support a corrupt ideology.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


But none of that matters I guess-cause Obama is black ... .


Pathetic.

Fair criticism of a failed policy takes a back seat to the "race card" on;y in the minds of those who cannot otherwise defend a corrupt policy/ideology.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Aside from a passing reference to "supporting the 2nd amendment," your diatribe adds nothing to the conversation about the hypocrisy in the W.H. todayl the same one that will take away your freedoms, one by one, unless you learn to focus your disdain where it more accurately belongs.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join