Skip to main content

View Diary: Any outrage about "Double Tap" Drone Strikes Killing Rescuers and Children? Any sympathy? (217 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, what's the SNR on (34+ / 0-)

    Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's termination by drone? In case his death hasn't been able to cut through the whining of us poor idiot libs to reach your blessed ears, he's the 16-year old, an American citizen, whose only "crime" was being the son of someone the US wanted dead.

    We killed the father and then a few days later killed the son in separate drone strikes.

    What stupid, stupid pacifists we are to bring that stuff up. Fortunately, there are plenty of patriots here on this Website, as well as everywhere else, to set us straight (and to roll their eyes in utter disdain while doing it). Thanks!

    Goodness knows that folks like us moronic pacifists, who are complaining about American citizens- charged with no crime, incidentally- just...being...killed, should close our filthy pacifist mouths and accept that war, especially undeclared, amorphous war, is freedom.

    I mean, the father was never even charged in a court of law for his nefarious, EEEEEVIL deeds of saying bad stuff about the US. He simply got popped, and that was that. The kid, well, he should've had a better father. Right? What deeply stupid arguments there. Much like the life of two American citizens now dead under a Democratic President who won the Nobel Peace Prize, hardly worth considering.

    •  oh brother. (0+ / 0-)

      If we intended to kill the son, your points would have some merit rather than just sounding like nonsense.

      •  We intended to kill the son in Yemen (23+ / 0-)

        And really, if we fire missiles in a spot where they're standing then we intended to kill them, equivocating not withstanding.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:24:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It seems you come from the (19+ / 0-)

        TBogg "it is okay to kill the scary brown people" when it is done by a president with a "D" after his name school of thought. After all, "pragmatism" and all that trumps everything, right? Also "war on terror" and any other nonsense used to shut people up.

        •  How many kids did FDR murder via indiscriminate (0+ / 0-)

          bombings?

          How many kids did Truman incinerate in their sleep?

          Or this ok because they were "scary Japanese people" who weren't American and whose government attacked us. Pragmatism right?

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:13:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not the same thing. And personally (8+ / 0-)

            I think Truman was wrong to go atomic.

            But then it is not like FDR or Truman bombed Mexico or Peru because there may have been a Nazi there.

            Also please explain why it is okay to kill children and first responders in places such as Pakistan. Your insight is greatly appreciated.

          •  Totally different situation (5+ / 0-)

            We were at war with the country of Japan, not just some extremists living there. Japan, as a country, launched an attack on us. They were invading many other countries in Asia committing rape, murder and atrocities on a huge scale.

            Not necessarily defending the nuclear attack, but it was a completely different situation.

          •  You know we changed the laws of war after (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming

            that shit, right?

            You know when the Geneva Conventions were ratified?

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:25:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If Wilson had bombed Mexico City in response (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jarrayy

            to Villa's raids, you'd have yourself an analogy.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:26:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Japan and Germany both declared war on us. (0+ / 0-)

            Just like the Confederacy started the Civil War. The Japanese government did attack mutiple US military targets in an coordinated effort. Hiltler jumped in by declaring war on us on Dec9, 1941. No comparison.

            •  Its not just that (0+ / 0-)

              We weren't the only ones fighting the japanese and we werent the ones mostly being victimized by the Japanese.

              Ask the Chinese, Koreans, Phillppinos, Vietnamese and Burmese, whose country's were being ravaged by the Japanese, if dropping the bombss and stopping the war cold dead was a good thing or not.
              And how about the 200,000 POWS, mostly British, the Japanese were holding in the most incredibly vile circumstances, working to death as slave laoborers?? Oh sure, they could have waited too.

              People who think it was wrong to drop the Bombs obviously would be happier if the Japanese had gone right on murdering their innocent neighbors just like their Nazi pals, which they kept on doing right up untill the peace trerms were signed, and beyond (look it up)

              Happy just to be alive

              by exlrrp on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:06:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually on the issue of bombs you are missing (0+ / 0-)

                a major part of the decision. Russia had entered the war in the East before the decision to use the atomic weapons was made. Russia was sweeping through China and was well on its way to Japan. So it would not have been only Americans invading. It would have been Chinese and Russian troops also. But by using the atomic bombs we kept the Russians and the Chinese out of Japan.

                So was it about saving American lives or was it about limiting Russian influence. Japan is a series of islands. Islands that could have easily been blockaded by the naval forces of the USA and UK as well as the Commonwealth nations. Japan had few resources herself to wage war and depended on her colonies. All of which she had lost prior to June 1945. China was the last and the Japanese ran away from the Russian and Chinese soldiers in a panic.

                So the military necessity of using atomic bombs was debatable. But the political benefits were thought to be long reaching. As long as Russia did not get the bomb. But by that time they were more than half way there.

                If using the atom bomb was an act of vengeance then it was morally wrong. It it was the only alternative it can be justified. But there were alternatives militarily. The atom bomb was used to send a message. The invasion of Japan did not require 1 million American soldiers as is often argued. That number assumes no Chinese or Russians. Which is not the case.

      •  The death of the son was accomplished (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming

        in a different mission. Father and son executed separately.

        •  the OP knows this (0+ / 0-)

          Has been told ad nauseum.  Is being deliberately obtuse because it may work on the less informed.  Clue:  We are not villagers.  

          ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

          by Nada Lemming on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:34:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site