The Atlantic: "New Evidence That Team Obama Misled Us About the Drone War"

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Obama apologists, you guys still out there?




The Obama Administration is deliberately misleading Americans about the drone war it is waging in Pakistan.


Can anyone read the McClatchy Newspapers summary of top-secret intelligence reports and continue to deny it? Set aside the morality and effectiveness of the CIA's targeted-killing program. Isn't it important for Congress and the people to know the truth about the War on Terrorism? Many Americans remain furious that the Bush Administration gave Iraq War speeches that elided inconvenient truths and implied facts that turned out to be fictions. Is the objection merely that the Iraq War turned out badly? Or is misleading Congress and the public itself problematic, especially when the subject is as serious as killing people in foreign countries?





In fact, the documents "show that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing." Under what legal theory does the Obama Administration justify that behavior? It won't tell us.

Instead John Brennan is trotted out to mislead us while acting as if he is being admirably forthcoming. "On April 30, 2012, Brennan gave the most detailed explanation of Obama's drone program. He referred to al Qaida 73 times, the Afghan Taliban three times and mentioned no other group by name," Landay writes. But the classified documents McClatchy reviewed demonstrate that, during the months about which they have information, al-Qaeda members were a minority of people killed by drones, and killing senior al-Qaeda leaders was rare.
edit on 10-4-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
are you surprised by this? I certainly am not.. and it probably wouldn't matter who the pres is I am sure it would work the same way as it has for many year...

I wouldn't be surprised if a document came out saying that the president kills babies for ritual worship and what would anyone do about it? nothing as usual because tehre is plenty of proof about many things that have been done illegal all over congress and in the pres office and what has been done? nothing.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Drone war fare is unethical, period.

All war fare is bad, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to be okay with blowing up people from afar with out any risk on the opposing side.

IT makes war to easy, it makes it so it seems like a winning proposition to engage in war, war is horrible and the cost SHOULD be high.

I was struck with the irony of a recent report about a US diplomat killed in Afghanistan, the reports where how courageous this women was etc... yet on the same news day 17 people (including women and children) where killed by a Cia Drone strike.

We have lived long enough to see the US become the bad guys, and we as US citizens should be marching in the street... oh wait maybe later american idol is on...



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I call hoax.

First of all there is no link and second of all, how is someone able to get hold of top secret intelligence reports and publish them for the public?

Seems like he would be quickly arrested and the information hidden.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Drone war fare is unethical, period.

All war fare is bad, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to be okay with blowing up people from afar with out any risk on the opposing side.

IT makes war to easy, it makes it so it seems like a winning proposition to engage in war, war is horrible and the cost SHOULD be high.

I was struck with the irony of a recent report about a US diplomat killed in Afghanistan, the reports where how courageous this women was etc... yet on the same news day 17 people (including women and children) where killed by a Cia Drone strike.

We have lived long enough to see the US become the bad guys, and we as US citizens should be marching in the street... oh wait maybe later american idol is on...


You mean like using cannons?

Or rifles?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Drone war fare is unethical, period.

All war fare is bad, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to be okay with blowing up people from afar with out any risk on the opposing side.
So a Gunship, that is manned, but shoots from miles away , is "good" war to you?
Thats a "special" way to view war.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Apperently ats members have a reading comprehension problem.




All war fare is bad, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to be okay with blowing up people from afar with out any risk on the opposing side.


ALL WAR IS BAD. Drone war is down right evil. that better?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 

On your evil war scale where would you put dropping bombs from 20,000 ft? How about cruise missiles from 150 miles away? Then there would be ICBM's from 6,000 miles? Just asking
edit on 10-4-2013 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Apperently ats members have a reading comprehension problem.




All war fare is bad, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to be okay with blowing up people from afar with out any risk on the opposing side.


ALL WAR IS BAD. Drone war is down right evil. that better?


So you would rather have your throat sliced and be gutted on the battlefield with a claymore, left their to be eaten by crows than blown up in a tenth of a second and not even knowing you were in danger?

Yea, I don't think I agree with you on this one.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Id rather the soldier pulling the trigger have to look in the eyes of the children and women they are killing, but than again thats just me.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Id rather the soldier pulling the trigger have to look in the eyes of the children and women they are killing, but than again thats just me.


Many have and it did not bother them in the least.

How many people did the Nazi's kill or how many villages did the Army burn in Vietnam? How many soldiers in the Civil War looked at their brothers while they drove the bayonet into them?

How does viewing someone during war in any way lessen your motivation to kill them?

It doesn't.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Um, just a thought, and this is just occurring to me, but we only ever talk about the collateral damage as a negative point...as we should. However, this new thought provoked by this article is: why have we not thought about the intended target? It's automatically assumed the intended target is a bad guy, and only grieve the accidental children and wedding parties taken out by these drones.

The article makes clear that Brummer mentioned Al Q. Public and the Taliban as the intended targets, but the FOIA docs they got for the article only mentioned those two groups a fraction of the time. So, seeing as how only another 4 or 5 "Muslim terrorist groups" come to mind beyond the aforementioned (those specifically being in Palestine and Africa), it leaves me to wonder just who these targets are...

Pakistani government officials against the drone program?
Drug lords who stopped listening to their American handlers?
Dissident journalists?
NGO whistle blowers?
Protest coordinators?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Maybe the ahbumabots will change their mind when he starts blowing up Americans here in the CONUS.
This is just the beginning, it will get much worse.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
Um, just a thought, and this is just occurring to me, but we only ever talk about the collateral damage as a negative point...as we should. However, this new thought provoked by this article is: why have we not thought about the intended target? It's automatically assumed the intended target is a bad guy, and only grieve the accidental children and wedding parties taken out by these drones.

The article makes clear that Brummer mentioned Al Q. Public and the Taliban as the intended targets, but the FOIA docs they got for the article only mentioned those two groups a fraction of the time. So, seeing as how only another 4 or 5 "Muslim terrorist groups" come to mind beyond the aforementioned (those specifically being in Palestine and Africa), it leaves me to wonder just who these targets are...

Pakistani government officials against the drone program?
Drug lords who stopped listening to their American handlers?
Dissident journalists?
NGO whistle blowers?
Protest coordinators?


There are roughly 8 major tribal groups that make up Afghanistans population and they are also intermingled with Pakistan territory. Remember that Afghans did not draw the lines to the country they live in, it was done by Western powers and most of the tribes do not even recognize the border. Their lands extend well into pakistan.

Out of these groups you have many members that either join or support Al-Qaeda which originally formed from the mojahedin which consisted of ethnicities from all over the Middle East and even Asia. Any of these people could be considered threats and not be part of Al-Qaeda or any of our official targets.

Al-Qaeda is not one specific group you can easily identify which is why they are and have been so successful.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Surfing the doom porn more lately and came up w/ this video that informs and exposes the truth about drone usage. Hope I do this right,fingers crossed, www.youtube.com... Xenongod
edit on 10-4-2013 by xenongod because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by xenongod because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by xenongod because: not net savy



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xenongod
 

here hope this helps

I think V1 said it
something evil this way comes



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Seriously?? Bradley Manning ring any bells.

Or how about this blast from the past. www.spectacle.org...





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join