E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCounterterrorism advisor Jon Brennan outlined the use of drones, arguing that it's legal and has reduced the ability of al-Qaida to attack the U.S. NBC News senior investigative producer Bob Windrem and The National Journal's Yochi Dreazen discuss.
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan on Monday spoke openly -- and at great length -- about what has long been one of the government’s most controversial official secrets: the use of remotely piloted drones to kill suspected terrorists.
In doing so, he became the first U.S. government official to acknowledge that the drone strikes sometimes kill innocent people, though he characterized such deaths as “exceedingly rare.” But a new analysis by an independent Washington think tank estimates that more than 300 civilians have been killed by drones since President Barack Obama took office.
In a major speech on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death during a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs, Brennan proclaimed that al-Qaida is now "on the path to its destruction." But the headline was what he had to say about the drone program — long a forbidden subject for senior U.S. officials — and how the U.S. government uses it.
“The United States conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones,” said Brennan, in his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington, D.C., foreign policy think tank.
While it has been openly reported in the press for years, the use by the CIA of pilotless drones to kill members of al-Qaida has long been officially classified, prompting government officials to talk obliquely about “lethal operations” and “removal” of terrorists. They have done so even as Obama has dramatically escalated the number of such attacks and made them the central component of the administration’s counterterrorism efforts.
Saul Loeb / Getty Images
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan in a May 2, 2011, file photo.
One U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told NBC News that the speech represents “a pretty big sea change for us” in terms of what officials will now be permitted to talk about. But the official said that while Brennan’s speech had been carefully vetted throughout the U.S. intelligence and national security community, there had been no formal declassification of the drone program. “The president can declassify anything he wants,” said the official, adding that Brennan – as the representative of the president — can speak about anything his boss wants him to discuss.
Under Obama, there have been an estimated 250 drone strikes in northwest Pakistan that have killed as many as 2,345 people, according to an analysis by the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that closely tracks the program. Such strikes have generated a storm of protest in Pakistan and stepped up demands by the Pakistani government to halt them.
In what he described as an effort to be more open with the American people, Brennan on Monday described an elaborate process under which senior government officials select targets for drone strikes. They must first determine whether a prospective target is a bona fide member of al-Qaida or “associated forces” and poses a “significant threat” to U.S. interests. The “lethal action” strikes are not used for “punishing terrorists for past crimes” or “seeking vengeance.” Instead, they are used to “stop plots” and “prevent future attacks,” citing as one example, targeting individuals who possess “unique operational skills.”
Read more reporting by Michael Isikoff in 'The Isikoff Files'
Brennan said the use of drones gives U.S. intelligence agencies the ability to use “laser-like” precision against the terrorists. But he acknowledged that "innocent civilians have been killed in these strikes." He said such instances have been "exceedingly rare, but it has happened.
“When it does, it pains us and we regret it deeply, as we do any time innocents are killed in war," he added.
That passage of his speech alone was significant. In June 2011, Brennan said that in the previous year of operations in the government’s then-unspecified program to eliminate al-Qaida members, “There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.”
Brennan later changed that statement in response to questions by the New York Times, spurred in part by reports about a May 6 strike in Pakistan that hit a religious school, an adjourning restaurant and a house, killing 18 people. Although 12 militants were allegedly killed, British and Pakistani journalists on the scene reported that six civilians also died in the strike.
In Brennan’s adjusted statement last year, he said, “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.”
Brennan did not give any details on Monday about how rare civilian deaths have been. But according to the analysis by the New America Foundation, which relies heavily on local media and other reports from observers in Pakistan, about 17 percent of those who have been killed by drones since the program effectively began in 2004 were “non-militants.” The foundation estimated that the “non-military fatality rate” has since dropped to about 13 percent under Obama – as drone strikes have become more frequent and more precise.
Those numbers translate to 471 civilian deaths, including 309 under Obama.
Human rights groups — who have challenged the administration to be more open about its drone program — were not satisfied with the new details provided by Brennan’s speech.
“It is not enough that care is taken to avoid harm to innocent civilians,” said Raha Wala, an official with Human Rights First. “Brennan's assertion that any 'member' of al-Qaida or 'associated forces' is legally targetable is wrong. Under the laws of armed conflict, only members of the enemy's armed forces, or those directly participating in hostilities or who perform a continuous combat function, may be targeted.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Well blah, blah, blah. When you are fighting a war innocent people are going to die. When are the President and his people going to understand that what is secret must be kept secret (such as not announcing that it was Navy Seals who went in and got Osama). There was no reason for them to say we have used unmanned drones to attack. Just say we struck and took out some piece of crap that was and is working to attack us. These people haven't a clue how to run a war effort or how to not apologize for every little thing. Tell them over there as long as your countrymen don't stand up to stop these terrorist, things like innocents getting killed in attacks will happen.
Oh the noise we'd all be listening to if the Prez was an 'evil Repub'...lol
Seriously, Jim Danielson? It was wrong to discuss the use of drones?
It's not like it's a secret, and the official wasn't apologizing. Of course, innocent people die in war. As long as they are not intentionally targeted, the rules of war recognize that innocent people do sometimes die.
Obama's team has done a great deal more for reducing the cost, scope, and size of this war while dramatically increasing the effectiveness of the effort. We need to take out terrorist operations, not run a country like Bush wanted to do. There is no reason, now or ever, for us to have over 100,000 troops in a foreign country when we can fight using unmanned drones from the air, using targeted precision weapons.
Here's a comparison of the war fighting ability of Obama vs. Bush
Both want to remove a dictator
Both want to get rid of a terrorist threat.
Think about it. The Republican policies of "blow 'em all up and let G_d sort them out" is crazy, bloody, expensive, and prolongs the war. The Democratic policies of "pick the crap out and leave the rest" is far less expensive and generates far fewer long term problems for the United States.
Blah, blah, blah... this must be very painful for the GOP. We said what we would do, we did what we said, and now we are open about what we did. It's called transparency. It will not affect one new strike or one foreign affair except to haave everything unusually above board. Ahhh, it's so much easilier to operate on truth. Must be boring as hell for the GOP.
HA HA LMarc....so you don't care about civilian casualties unless a Repub is behind the trigger. Typical...please go look in a mirror to make sure there's only one reflection looking back.
Come on, justoneguy.
My comment wasn't directed at the civilian casualties at all.
I hate war. I hate all casualties, especially civilian. I supported the use of the atom bomb at the end of World War II because it ultimately saved lives. I support the use of drones to perform surgical attacks that maximizes the effectiveness, minimizes civilian casualties, and hurries the end of the killing in this war.
My position is the same regardless of what party controls it... no "gotcha" here, buddy.
Have a great day!
Jim,
That's because everything this Administration does has the motive of securing sound bytes for the re-election campaign. The real terrorists "over there" are the governments themselves, begging money for "aid" and then just ignoring the contract terms after the check is cashed. We've got to stop this process of "buying Democracy" cause all it's getting us is broke.
Right or wrong?
When we have a focus on the "bad guys" ....
Bush tortures and Obama kills?
Don't harbor or hang with terrorists and you have much better odds of not being on the bulls eye when the drone strikes. It is a sad fact that that the terrorist shelter among the innocents thus putting the people they are supposed to be fighting for in peril. Cowards.
How is it that murder is more ethical than rendition and torture? Either way, Obama or Romney will just do as their told.
Ron Paul 2012; killing innocents contributes to more terrorists and this cycle will persist.
Under Obama, the CIA has killed more people than it has captured, mainly through drone missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas. At the same time, it has stopped trying to detain or interrogate suspects caught abroad, except those captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The CIA is out of the detention and interrogation business," said a U.S. official who is familiar with intelligence operations but was not authorized to speak publicly...
reference - http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/10/world/la-fg-cia-interrogation-20110411
For a inter-active time line of all reported CIA drone strikes by "The Bureau of Investigative journalism." see http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone-data/
The most current data reflects:
Afghanistan 2004 - 2012
Total US strikes: 321
Obama strikes: 269
Total reported killed: 2,429 - 3,097
Civilians reported killed: 479 - 811
Children reported killed: 174
Total reported injured: 1,169-1,281
Somolia 2007 -2012
Total US strikes: 10 - 21
Total US drone strikes: 3 - 9
Total reported killed: 58 - 169
Civilians reported killed: 11 - 57
Children reported killed: 1 - 3
While these numbers maybe off, they are better than the CIA's long standing assertions that NO Civilians have been killed...
"My position is the same regardless of what party controls it... no "gotcha" here, buddy."
Sorry, Marx, your protest rings hollow...
"........he became the first U.S. government official to acknowledge that the drone strikes sometimes kill innocent people, though he characterized such deaths as “exceedingly rare.” But a new analysis by an independent Washington think tank estimates that more than 300 civilians have been killed by drones since President Barack Obama took office."
I guess that somehow, someone forgot to tell EVERYONE including the indigenous population over there, that we are at war with the same people the indigenous population supports. In other words; If you are going to lie down next to the enemy, and feed the enemy and support the enemy then you and your families will die with the enemy. It's really as simple as that. The United States and Britain bombed Germany into submission nearing the end of WW2. Why kill civilians? because they support the war effort and work in the factories. General William T. Sherman understood the concept of "Total War" waged on an enemy and Prosecuted that war with his "SCORCHED EARTH" policy. The only way to break the enemy's spirit is to break the enemy's will by denying everything and anything to him......EVERYTHING!.....but that isn't the way we really fight to win anymore. We spend too much time apologizing to the wrong people.
In regards to the Pakistani civilians being killed by our drones, when did we declare war on Pakistan, because I must have missed it.
Jim- I hope your prepared.
Obama has kept us safe since he has been in office, we cannot elect a Draft Dodger Like Romney, who knows what etch a sketch would do, I know one thing he would flip flop for days before making a decision,Obama has shown time and time again that he will defend the United States of America and Romney has shown us that he will go to France instead of going to Vietnam
Assassination has always stunk, it still does.
As a democrat, the actions of the Obama administration have disgusted me. I think it is abhorrent to launch missiles that may hit civilians, and I was angry that an American who was labelled a terrorist was assassinated. We have due process in this country for a reason. However, when voting, there is no better alternative. The republican party will almost certainly be worse. The libertarians may not engage in such actions, but they will fight to dismantle programs and services that benefit us all (public schools, police, fire departments, etc.). I try to see the bigger picture and the rationale behind the actions of politicians, but I'm still disappointed.
sez me u whacko So I am guessing you don't like Bill Clinton since he was a draft dodger. As far as Obama defending the country, he waits until all polls are in dictating his move.
I dont think any Draft Dodger should be President. I fyou are not willing to fight for your Country you sure as Hell Should not be President
Which service did Obama serve in, I forgot?
Obama did not serve there was not a Draft at the time but Romney who is older than Obama there was the Vietnam Draft and instead of being Drafted he decided to go to Socialist France instead of serving in the Military therefore Romney is the DRAFT DODGER would not fight for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA
And your excuse for Bill Clinton, who was our last good President?
I am not talking Bill Clinton, He is not running for President, The Draft Dodger Romney is
There you go again AC, quoting civilian casualties based on misinformation provided by Pakistani sources who skew the information given to western press corps in order to gain international sympathy and a treasure trove of western funding.
Your NEWS SOURCES have one thing in mind: RATINGS
Their sources have one thing in mind: MONEY
They get that from telling people like you that 800 civilians died when we all know that the few civilians that died in ANY of these drone strikes chose to be there so that they could provide logistical support, moral support, material support and/or train with known Al Qaeda High Value Targets or Taliban tribes.
First off let's get off this "civilian" crap, all these people are "civilians". They are not part of some formal flag bearing army, they wear no uniforms, they fly no flag, they are all militant terrorists, who by there very nature are civilian. And if granny and the kids are building IEDs, they are terrorists too.
The people that blow themselves up as suicide bombers have no military commission, they are civilians. In the terroist militant "armies", these guy take their wives and kids with them. Their families supply logistical support to them. They feed them, clean their clothes and yes help make bombs and booby traps and I'm sure they also serve as pack mules carrying equipment or smuggling for the fighters. Sorry, these aren't innocents. Maybe the don't want to be there and maybe they are more like hostages, but we have to assume they are part of the support structure because they are there with these guys. If these guys want to protect their families, leave them at home and don't go back there with your fellow militants to conduct meetings or war planning.
Do we kill "civilians"? Depends on your definition. I would say that technically, yes we kill a lot of "civilians", but now if you are talking about "innocent civilians", then I think the extremely rare statement is probably accurate. We aren't carpet bombing villages, we're target one or two specific buildings specially selected because that's where the militants are. Just because their wife and kids aren't found with an AK in their hands doesn't make them innocent. This is a different kind of war, the militants conduct their operations far different than a government military does. That is not our problem, it's theirs.
So ask yourself how a "think tank" figures out that some number of "civilians" are killed? Pretty simple, they do the math. They know that for every 100 militants, there are going to be certain percentage of "civilians" being dragged along with them. Do you think these "thinkers" go off to Pakistan and run background checks on all those who are killed? Of course not. They make a determination of what constitutes a "civilian". I suppose probably somebody who doesn't regularly shoot guns at us. These are people they see as not being "active combatants". But that doesn't make them innocent, nor does it exempt them from being part of the militants' war machine.
As for not capturing very many people, why capture somebody you suspect of something but can't prove. Chance are you also capture some "innocent" people, and if they truly were innocent before you grabbed them, they're probably going too be your enemy by the time you let them go, assuming you don't just keep them locked up forever because they might be a bad guy. Makes a lot more sense to just kill the guys you have hard eveidence on. We don't need to sweat a lot of people who might know something, we seem to be getting pretty good intel without doing that. Maybe better than when we harrass a bunch of people on the fringes. Somebody is ratting a bunch of these guys out and they are doing it without "needing to torture them" for information.
I thought the drone attacks were right when Bush did it and I think they are right now. Seems the real difference is that we're getting more and better intel these days. We are targeting specific individuals and not just anybody walking around with an AK. It is a completely reasonable way to fight this war and it is effective. The reality is that this is the "Biden doctrine". He proposed this approach during the 2008 primaries. It was a good idea then and a good idea now. The only flaw I saw originally was that it seemed like getting the intel on targets would be difficult. But it seems like that isn't an issue. Maybe because we're not waterboarding people to get that info. You can bet that if these people don't want to tell you, you will get bad info and maybe even have one deliberately throw suspicion toward an innocent target because they know that martyring innocents is good for their cause. Far better to have people giving you info because they want to. The vast majority of Afghans want no part of the Taliban or Al Qada, and I'd bet that a lot of intel comes from these people who want to rid these vermin from their lives.
When we went to war with Germany, we didn't just capture or kill Germans inside the borders of Germany.
Same with Japan and Vietnam. We killed those enemies where ever we found them. And now that
our enemies are multi-national and without borders, we must capture or kill them where we find them.
Which is something our modern enemies mistakenly believed not possible.
From my understanding, Romney was not a draft dodger, he went on a mission. Some may say that is the same difference, but it is not because those who were missionaries were legally excused by the government from serving. Let's stop twisting things and simply deal with the facts regardless of which side you are on.
riley-1759556,
Feel free to provide YOUR sources, some of us have traveled, fought, and lived in these areas...
Here are the News sources and methodology that the investigation based their findings on... see http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/pakistan-drone-strikes-the-methodology2/
Continue being the 'Lap Dog' of the current Administration. You too will end-up with a stain on your dress...
The use of drones in a declared 'Combat Area' by the US Military, saves lives. Unless you were next to the US Marine & Medic that were KILLED by one. Even when the people on the ground were stating that the wrong area was being targeted and the technical observer was questioning the target. But $HIT happens when the bullets are flying...
My objections start when the CIA is VIOLATING a countries sovereignty and/or KILLING without any ACCOUNTABILITY...
When the Islamic militants kill people by shootings, suicide bombings and other methods, do they bother about children, women and civilians?
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are global exporters of these Islamic radicals and terrorists.
Instead of drone strikes, there should be carpet bombings of Paki and Saudi Islamic militant areas.
At least 70 percent of world Islamic radicalism and terrorism and economic problems (oil price manipulations by Saudis and co) will be solved.
"Senior government officials" carefully screen the target choice before approving a Drone attack? Are these the same senior government officials as those Secret Service Johns trying to rip-off a hooker? How about the senior government official's superb intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD? Or Osama Bin Laden living in Afghanistan? A few years ago, one of America's most senior government official got blow-jobs and kinky sex while in the Oval Office.
At last, the American government could not hide its lies any more as the overwhelming evidence contradicts government claim that no civilians have been killed by drones. It is appauling when USA invades Pakistan and Yemen, drops bombs on innocent people and stages commando raids against sovereign nations.
Today, America has become the world's indiscriminant killer, secret assassin and military bully.
We are operating drones and killing people in a sovereign country upon which we are not at war. I guess it's okay if Russia or China operate drones within our borders to kill those whom they consider enemies?
or those directly participating in hostilities or who perform a continuous combat function, may be targeted.”
Sounds like Al Quada...I've got no problem targeting these guys where ever they hide...This is war with new terms and definitions if they enemy is hiding in "sovereign nations" border and being protected by said nation...who cares if we target them....My only question is why drones strikes have escalated during this presidency and Obama is against passive interrogation techniques that don't kill and get intel like water boarding? Crap even the guys we do it to know they're not going to die.
Anyway excellent job lets keep keep killing these bozos
Clowns will kill you - Obviously this administration doesn't have to worry about "due process" off shore. However this administration appears to be positioning itself for allowing small drones to be used domestically. Brings new meaning to the term "big brother is watching".
Total US strikes: 321
Children reported killed: 174
These statistics are the most telling. More than 1 in 2 drone strikes results in children dying. Time to tell the warmongerers, no more death! This is an unacceptable policy, bring the troops home and end all overseas conflicts. Noone but Ron Paul 2012!!!
Seal Team Six for president in 2012!!!
What fools! These people are plotting to kill Americans; take the fight to them! Don't wait for them to bring it to us!
steve-2992726 banned for death wishing all Muslims and for having a terrible history.
AC my sources including me have lived, work and travelled in these areas. Your sources are traced to Pakistani publicists working for Pakistani politicians.
Big Roggio is an ex-intelligence officer as has provided BOOTS ON THE GROUND intel on civillian deaths. See his broadcast here:
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/05/droning_on.php
The rest is all hype that you buy into. And BTW there is NO Sovereignty when they cant even govern that @!$%#ing region AC....they have no power, no government and no military in the region the drones are infiltrating. The area is ruled by SHADOW Taliban governments
Practicing for war peoplekilled.It is too bad,but civilian casualties happen.It is the duty of our president and the whole govt to see to OUR safety,to see that there are not civilian casualties HERE.We could go the ww2 route and carpet bomb-hospitals,schools,'churches',all would be targets.'What's that you say,it's ok to use drones?' 'that's what I thought you said'
These POS terrorists hide among the civilian populations, including women and young children. The last strike was on a building that was 'formerly' a girls' school - that is, until these forward thinking patriarchs decided that women should not even attend elementary school and learn their 3 R's. The Taliban are vermin and drones are just a high-tech alternative to the 22 cal (short) bolt action rifle country folk still use to keep the rat population down.
Before people comment about a few hundred civilians killed in Pakistan, they should study the history of Pakistan since 47.
British invented Pakistan for Muslims in 47.
At that time, the current Pakistani region had about 24 percent of non-Muslims. Within two years, through massive lootings, rapings and killings (or genocide), the minority population was reduced to less than three percent.
Millions of innocent children, women, and men were affected.
World was silent and looked the other way!
Then Muslim minority sects like Shiites (18 percent), Ahmedias, Sufis and minority tribes like Baloochs became the target.
In the mad Islamic killing fields, their abuses, rapes, lootings and murders are continuing.
World is closing its eyes and shutting its ears on these genocides of minority Muslim sects and tribes.
Also Pakistan has become global training center and exporter of Islamic terrorists to most of the non-Muslim nations.
Those who are talking about sovereignty should have the honest to tell us: whether these Paki trained and exported terrorists respect the sovereignty of other nations and rights of others?
Does Pakistan not deserve massive carpet bombings of at least militant areas?
These drone attacks are most ineffective.
Afghan situation itself state the realities.
I support the use of drone strikes against terrorist forces and their supporting organizations, but I have to be honest:
13% doesn't qualify as "exceedingly rare".
It's probably better than collateral damage in traditional infantry operations, though.
Maybe those civilians should pick safer company to hang around with.
13% would be very good, very good. Not ideal, but in real life there is no ideal. Look at the statistics on a classic bell curve, 6.5% on either extreme for a 13% total. If the same bell curve was an analysis of a politician's approval rate, to say a politician had an 87% approval would be unheard of.
When you compare today's "collateral damage" to wars of the past where mechanized warfare came into it's own, for example WW1, just the "collateral damage" due to starvation and disease accounted for millions of deaths.
Forget "perfect". The smallest length that can be realistically perceived is the Planck Length, the largest distance we can measure reasonably accurately is the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy, These real distances are far from the extremes numbers are able to go just by increasing an exponent.
If you're really interested in home grown collateral damage, consider the casualty rates of gang warfare in US major urban centers, such as LA or Chicago. Those communities could use some very sophisticated numerical analysis to help them with their regional problems.
Terry - Maybe you live next to a massive meth lab thats due to explode.
who is the man?
WOW!! What a smart guy, who would have thought of that.
Petraeus; I'd believe it 'cuz those things are everywhere. Heck, it could be your meth lab.
How Nietzschean. Think in rverse- according to Obama Doctrine US can kill by remote controlled drone missile attacks any 'suspicious person'. anywhere. - what if other countries do the same? No one person can be a judge,a jury and an excecutioner- this is called totalitarianism- enemies of the state- suspected persons. There are international laws and signed treaties to abide by. 'Collateral damage'. US has not declared war on Pakistan- has not declared war in Somalia- has not declared war in Yemen- and it still is the Congress of the United States that can declare war.
Promo being shown in Swedish and Norwegian websites- coming soon online- The Osama Diaries by Obama- they are posting all his diary papers online for people to read- I didn't know they were in English
It is hard to fight terrorism fairly legal, they don't sign international treaties and Pakistan has shown at least inability to fight and even complicity with the terrorists, so I would say f$%k Pakistan, we can't trust them.
Hey Mimi Jacques: Don't you think if Al Qaeda had the technological capability to use drones to attack us they would? Do you remember 9/11? They used the best technology they could to do the most damage. These countries have been posing as our friends and Bush/Cheney & Co. bought their BS.
Obama, on the other hand, has called out these weasel countries for trying to harbor terrorists (especially Pakistan). I like the transparency. Obama's message is, "Hey this is America, and if you want to plot to destroy our innocent civilians, you will be hit at your battle factory. And if you harbor these folks, some of your innocent civilians will die."
What is wrong with this message? Liberals-- should we lay back and let them plot in countries we are not "at war with"?
Conservatives-- Do you think McCain would have handled things better? honestly...
Obama is dealing whith whatever was left behind the way the country expects. He is being practical and doing the least damage while going after the people he wants.
Personally I would have liked to see diplomacy even with Taliban people to bring peace and support for education. Money spent there goes in other pockets and even to purchase weapons.We should complain about the massive expenditure for the DoD. It is a beast growing and feeding itself with weapons we build and spread all over the world causing death.
It is a barbaric way to live...if we are that strong and powerful why not use that power for spreading peace in the world? What would the weapons factories do then? Or the aerospace industry or Blackwater and all other nefarious subcontractors?
We have created a monster called the war machine and like in the past with other empires will fail and ruin the country. Most conflicts are planned and fueled by weapons...they go to Israel in some cases and then are sent to conflict areas... or just given to protect one set of tyrants againt the next one.
We are a poor excuse of what a human beings should be and pretend to have critical thinking...we have no idea what a human being is or should be.
In the grand scheme of things we are a failure as other empires were like the British empire.
The world at peace using all the knowledge we have could be a healthy place with plenty for everyone alive and where everyone can have what is needed...instead the few have all the means for squandering resources while millions die of hunger and thirst in countries ravaged by war with weapons they get from so called civilized countries....taking adavantage of their resources while we waste them on useles toys.
How can anyone think it is sane to sell billions in weapons while children get killed everywhere.
Billionaires are made in every war...paid with death of millions every year.
And the church is silent except for talking about abortion...
Since there are no uniforms worn by terrorists and all of them are civilians, how can anyone determine who was innocent? Let God sort it out after they die. Let them get into a safe area if they are innocent. When children are taught to be suicide bombers, is anyone there innocent?
It is past time for cowboys and muslims.
Jesus said Christians would be persecuted. Never did he say to chop off a head because of it. Never did he say kill those who burn a book, not even a holy one.
Muslims. on the other hand, believe killing anyone not Muslim is what their god wants. Mohammad is their god yet they don't want to admit it. He never performed a miracle, yet he murdered a lot of people because they didn't follow his path. Sounds like Satan to me.
Sure, there were those who perverted Christianity and a few who still do. But Islam is and was always a perversion, created by a tyrant who hated everyone that didn't believe as he did. And who follows this tyrant today? Cave people who wipe there butts with their bare hands, rarely bathe and call pigs unclean.
Oh, and there are those who call the Crusades a bad thing. They would not have happened if not for the bare hand butt-wipes who tried to take over Europe in the first place.
And they have done a great job in Africa making sure slavery lives on, aids lives on, and what was somewhat civilized has turned back to monkeys in heat, all while killing and butchering any and all who don't believe in the ultimate butcher, Mohammad. That guy was less than camel dung and his jihad followers no better.
The best thing that could happen is the obliteration of Meca, the tomb of a butt wipe butthole wiped from the face of the earth.
Some think it is all about oil. We have enough oil in the west to get by without theirs, yet our islamofascist Obama says we can't produce it here. Time to send him back to Chicago where he belongs. Refuse to sell any food to islamic nations, or at the very least, trade one bushel of grain for one barrel of oil. If they don't like it, let them drink oil. That should get their attention.
Some confuse issues by picking points convenient to them.
Do the Islamic radicals and terrorists follow any laws and rules?
Do they take permissions before blowing up innocents in buildings, streets, railways and hospitals?
Islamic radicals and terrorists, especially Sunni Pakis and Sunni Saudis, are one-way streeting thinking and acting savages.
They have to be treated so.
One can't fight these mad Islamic religious beasts globally by tying hands with garbages which the barbaric followers of Islamic cult never followed since the birth of Islam.
Jonathan-1982062,
The USA is based on LAWS and a US Constitution. You do not have the luxury to pick and choose which Laws you want to obey...
When you lower yourself to the Terrorist's level, then they have WON...
Sense 9-11 the World has had more success in fighting World Terrorism through the coordinated POLICE actions and Immigration controls of the Worlds countries...
If anything the USA has proven that using massive Military Force - DOES NOT WORK...
As long as people like you concentrate on Muslims, instead of the radical AlQaida and/or Taliban. Then YOUR Religions War will never be won, and there will only be LOSERS and more revenge KILLINGS...
This is the problem with the armed drones and why ACCOUNTABILITY is so essential...
When I was being deployed into the Middle East the first few times. I had no problem with it being about the control of the OIL, because I knew if it turned into a religious War, there would be NO viable ending. Almost 40+years later, the USA is still fighting...
It is like the War on drugs, you have to concentrate on the traffickers & dealers. The drug of choice will always be available for a motivated addict. You just have to raise the cost & availability, to reduce the number of addicts...
AC Robertson:
Very nice to know about LAWS, Constitution and so on.
Sorry, you forgot: democracy, human rights, secularism, innocent children and women!
1991 Iraqi war was against all laws, constitution and sanity!
2003 Iraqi war was worse.
If Saddam was there nothing would have happened to oil supplies or anything.
Oil prices would not have jumped to $145.00.
To keep the biggest liabilities on earth Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the map by siding with them on all issues and at all times, is against all norms and all big words you can get in dictionary!
We are hearing similar jokes on Syria and Iran!
All these ME wars against opponents of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and others are pure dramas with big words.
By the by, which laws were used for intervention in Yugoslavia and inventing that Muslim nation, Bosnia?
Jonathan-1982062,
I'm glad you think the world would have been a better place with Saddam Hussein still alive...
Maybe you should ask the; Shia Islamist, Kuwait, Iran, or the Kurds about that...
When Saddam was paying terrorist bombers families $10 to 25+thousand USD, how much did you receive???
Saddam had nothing to do with the $134+USD a barrel oil, it was Obama's buddy George Soros and the other speculators & the EPA changing the regulations...
BTY- The USA was supporting the Muslim's side during the Kosovo Conflict & it was run by NATO. The words are , to prevent 'Ethnic Cleansing.'..
Necessary. End of story. Its a GOOD thing they 'got' some of these terrorists, who purposely 'hide' in these type areas so they are safe. They would kill any of us at a moment's notice
They keep on "re-reporting" drone strikes ... and each time it's either the same strikes being reported, or another group of civilians have become casualties.
Steves comment is racist, cruel and demonstrates he has a low IQ. Muslims are every bit as good or as bad as anyone else on the planet.
The drone strikes are a cowardly way to kill your enemy, because much of the time we really know whom we are killing. Often times we are killing innocent people, such as the incidents where we have killed wedding parties. We do not belong in Afghanistan. We are there to secure the region so we can build a gas pipleine to transport trillions of dollars worth of Israeli owned gas from Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Pakistan and on to India. It is the TAPI gas pipleine. Here is a link.
www.rense.com/general15/game.htm
1,680 kilometer gas pipeline will supply 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (much of
this gas will come from Israeli/Mossad-owned gas fields in Turkmenistan,
meaning immense profits for the Mossadniks who pulled of 9/11)............►The Obama
administration, elected on the promise to withdraw U.S. troops by July 2011,
now says the U.S. will maintain combat troops in Afghanistan until December
2014. On December 17, the House passed a defense authorization bill (by a
341-48 vote) that authorizes the Pentagon to spend more than $160 billion on
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011 without major restrictions on the
conduct of operations. Why are U.S. (and NATO) troops being kept in Afghanistan
for another 4 years? What's really going on there? What is the cost and who is
involved in this game??
The real reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is to build and
secure a 1,080-mile long gas pipeline designed to carry trillions of dollars of
Israeli-owned gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. You could ask how
come Turkmenistans gas could be Israeli-owned, here is the answer:
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Israeli agents sought to gain control of the
strategic assets of the newly independent Soviet republics. In mineral-rich
Turkmenistan, a Mossad agent named Yosef A. Maiman was very successful in
gaining control of the republic's immense resources of natural gas. Yosef
Maiman, born in Germany in 1946, grew up in Peru and studied in the United
States before becoming an Israeli citizen in 1971. As an agent of Israeli
intelligence, Maiman heads a network of Mossad-controlled companies that serve
Israeli interests. As the chief executive of the Merhav Group, Maiman has
controlled the development of Turmenistan's gas resources. Maiman's key
colleagues at Merhav are the former head of the Mossad, Shabtai Shavit, and
Nimrod Novik, chief adviser to Shimon Peres, the current president of Israel.
Maiman was described
as "a leading miner" of Central Asian gas fields by the Jerusalem
Post in 2004. Given their control of the immense gas resources of Turkmenistan,
Maiman, Merhav, and the "Mossad" would all profit if and when the
U.S.-led coalition were able to "pacify" and control Afghanistan so
that the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline could be
built allowing the gas of Turkmenistan to be sold to energy-hungry India . The TAPI pipeline
project would bring billions of dollars into "Mossad" coffers every
year. This is the real reason for the war in Afghanistan and why the
Zionist-controlled Obama administration has increased the war effort in Central
Asia. It has nothing to do with terrorism or 9-11.
Maybe we should do it like China. Spend billions on Canadian oil(look it up), have the Keystone Pipeline built so Canada can get the oil to the coast, so they can ship it to China. Using America soil without one inch of a war.(It's all on record folks, look it up)
drone strikes are cowardly? well maybe you should join up and show us how it is done there...COL. Troutman is waiting on the tarmac for ya hero...
Often times when two towers fall innocent people die to my friend
DEB -The pipeline for China is going to be on the west coast of Canada not the keystone line. There is a pipeline already to the coast Think about it.
PWD--Wrong-wrong---The Canadian people will not allow the pipeline to be built to the west coast. (look it up)
Get your head out of your ass. Muslim doctrine requires death for the infidel.
During WWII, the Japanese prided themselves on being the best of the best jungle fighters, holding onto some samauri code of doing battle with your enemy close, as with a sword. They thought of the US as cowardly because the military policy was to deny the Japanese of a jungle to hide in. Military engineers came up with more ideas to fly higher, faster, further, dive deeper, stay at sea longer, etc., to defeat the enemy. The idea of "coward" is thus antiquated, a throwback to the days of riders on horses, lances and swords. It hardly applies to satellite guided munition systems.
So this Muslim idea, or Jewish idea, or Samauri idea of swords and shields and righteous battle cause, if you look at history seems to be a last gasp of hope for a bygone day...probably around 1550 AD when the English Bible was printed, because when Newton came along, the concept of gravity came along, or optics, or calculus, etc., some more educated military man than his enemy, grasped the concept that if you can launch a missile further than your enemy can, not only can't he hit you, but you by taking him out have removed your threat. So science got to work putting rifling in gun barrels to improve distance and accuracy, and etc. without particularly giving a hoot about which sect was going to heaven.
So the world stands facing the same conflict it was facing 5000 BCE years ago in the Middle East, Near East in the Cradle Of Cultural and Religious Stupidity, not with bows and arrows and rocks and slings and the like, but with highly technical military equipment, still maintaining an ethic where a camel is worth more than a female child.
Someday we are going to have to step up to high powered lasers, if we want to keep collateral damage to the absolute minimum. Just want to prep everyone for this inevitable eventuality. We need 'state of the art tools' at our disposal if we are to beat this cancer known as terrorism. - RC
(Of course, particle beam weapons are also an alternative.) - RC
(As well as x-ray lasers, and gamma ray lasers.) - RC
After 50+years of R&D on laser weapons, there are currently ZERO weapons systems deployed...
With many operational limitations; charge times, ship movement & targeting hyper-sonic missile threats, energy requirements, and clouds/haze/water-vapor laden environment that disperse the coherent light/energy, are just a few of the REAL LIFE problems...
Though Raytheon did shoot down 4 drones using a 36-kw laser. On a clear day and the threat was traveling at 100+MPH and had ZERO thermal protection. Not much like the hyper-sonic, re-entry capable vehicles the Chinese and others have developed...
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/07/19/farnborough-raytheons-navalized-laser-fries-aerial-drone/#ixzz1tWLIHf2l
Remember Brillant Pebbles... that project was short lived
The crusader's sword was pretty effective too, but it was Vlad-the-Impaler who really knew how to turn back the Muslim invaders.
The most effective Leader the World has ever had was Genghis Khan. He and 200+thousand Mongols pushed the Muslims out of China, Asia, the EU, Northern Africa, back to Iran & Iraq...
He started by coordinating many different Mongol tribes against a common enemy. He ending-up with the largest single Empire the world has ever seen...
He had a very simple attack plan:
1. KILL all the opposing POLITICIANS and then burn their seats of Government to the ground...
2. Then disperse the population and let the troops establish connections with the natives...
3. Any Leader that VIOLATED agreements was KILLED. Khan went as far as changing the course of a river to erase a Muslim Leaders birth-place, because an agreement had been VIOLATED...
(Personally I like nerve agent darts, sho-gun pattern. Nothing like lethal soft tech weapons.) - RC
(Just trying to crank up the gears here.) - RC
Lets see, Terrorists are civilians till they get whacked by a Drone. Then they become full time civilians. Sometimes you wonder if half of the "civilians" under those sheets were bussed in for the Colateral Cash the US pays.
I find this statement puzzling:
With all due respect to Mr. Wala, he contradicts himself. A member of Al-Qaida IS a member of the enemy's armed forces. The fact that we are not seeking revenge, but rather are looking to prevent future attacks means that we are targeting those "who perform a continuous combat function."
According to the rules that he painstakingly cited, we have the right to attack the people who attacked us, have repeatedly declared war on us, have recruited and financed an army to fight us, and who have spread the fighting to other parts of the world.
The statement just doesn't make sense.
they're killing Taliban more than the fabled Al Qaeda, Taliban are still paying for not playing ball with us on Bin Laden and whatever else they did to po the US govt. We supported them when they started out, sound familiar
(What the hell, why not just do cure-ARE? Drugs in warfare are not illegal. (I will leave it up to you to assign 'ARE'.)) - RC
And this was all Bush too right? Dems gonna claim that Obama didn't know about this on HIS watch?
ugh, no, read the article before you try to comment on it, Obama is all about the drones
what innocents there hitting telaban terriost camps
They are hitting what they claim to be/believe to be Taliban camps. Sometimes they make mistakes and innocent people die (unless you're in the genocidal "a Muslim baby isn't innocent" crowd.) I'm sure no one in America would have any problem if the Chinese government decided to take out a dissident by shooting a missile onto a highway and took out a school bus full of kids traveling next to it.
I wonder if Al Qaeda said something similar before hitting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? "What innocents? They're military and economic centers, not civilian populations."
Killing innocent people is always wrong. Always. Understand?
"Thou shalt not kill."
Well said, Shandril.
I'm constantly amazed at how shocked and outraged this country was when Al-Queda thought it was acceptable to kill innocent people in pursuit of a political aim and how willing they are to accept it when it is anonymous foreign children dying.
Some suicide bombers have been less than eighteen-months old! What a GREAT religion.
A question for all those who support drone strikes: Let's say that the United States takes in a refugee from China whom the Chinese government considers to be a terrorist. Is it ok for them to launch a drone strike on his car as it goes down the highway, killing five or ten innocent people who happen to be driving next to him? Is that an act of war?
The USA had no problem with dropping TWO - Atomic Bombs on Japan. Causalities - 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima[1] & 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki[1]...
Even when General MacArthur saw 'no military justification for the dropping of the bomb.'..
Even when it was in VIOLATION of International Laws...
How many people were killed during Clinton's 1998 Baghdad bombing campaign??? 600-2,000 dead [1 see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/end122098.htm
IMO & others - The Drone strikes are making more terrorist than they are KILLING...
A question for all those who support drone strikes: Let's say that the United States takes in a refugee from China whom the Chinese government considers to be a terrorist. Is it ok for them to launch a drone strike on his car as it goes down the highway, killing five or ten innocent people who happen to be driving next to him? Is that an act of war?
My dear misinformed Lev - a dissident is a protester, not a terrorist. The drone attacks are against those who intend to kill more Americans and other from the "west". Therefore an "act of war". Most protesters do not engage in killing other people.
It's funny that you think that there is some sort of objective definition of "terrorism" that is accepted by all parties in the international system. In fact, the term "terrorist" has frequently been applied to protestors by many regimes.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Pay attention to home.
How many innocent people is America willing to kill to prevent innocent people from being killed?
Until Americans pull their heads out of their rear-ends. IMHO most people here probably can't comprehend what you're saying so it might take a while.
Use of drones saves American Lives (soldiers!), I will always suppor that! As long as our enemies hide behind the skits of women and children, set up next to churches, hospitals, and schools there will be collateral damage.
Why not blast the holy @!$%# out of our enemies and see if they are ready to "Give Peace a Chance!"
First, Republicans meet on President Obama's Ingural Day, and make a pact to come together and NOT support ANYTHING that Obama tried to do, to delay confirmations on his appointees and do everything they could to make Obama look bad. Now they want to politicize the fact that Obama killed Osama Bin Laden, because you know, they can't let ANYTHING be a feather in his cap - it might just get him re-elected.
I'm sick an tired of the antics from the right - as far as I'm concerned, I feel that what they have done is treasonous against the American people as they put their quest for power before anything that the American people might need. If the jobs bill had been passed, it could have matasticized into other jobs, putting people to work, raising tax revenues and helping us to work toward getting the debt down. But this "Pact" made by all Republicans have kept our economy slow to return - it is not Obama's fault, you can point the finger at every Republican in the House who crafted bills that they knew would not be supported in the Senate, and every Republican in the Senate who has voted for filibuster of almost every bill going through the Senate. It's time to bring this to a stop - SAVE OUR COUNTRY and vote EVERY REPUBLICAN out of office!
yeah....that will be much better....a country run by all Democrats...right. They are no better than the Republicans, and have repeatedly done the same in the past. Do the research and come to the conclusion that they should ALL go
@ Ginico
???
A serviceman k i l l s a few civilians and may be executed but the air force k i l l s hundreds and gets to say "sorry".
It is the mentality of the people in charge...
Those with college degrees can do NO WRONG or be held ACCOUNTABLE...
A Doctor can KILL you and if it is a common mistake they will walk FREE and/or not charged to start with...
Lawyers, Politicians, CEO's are ALL exempt from ACCOUNTABILITY...
An auto mechanic forgets to tighten your wheel lugs, he is ACCOUNTABLE for ALL damages...
300 civs, compared to thousands of our boys, many at the hands of our so called allies !
Nobel Peace Prize winner? LOL. How about Barack Hussein Bush. Bin Laden dead over a year and he is still occupying Afghanistan. Killing civilians with drones is so clean. You don't have deal with the blood and bodies. That is the liberal way. Other countries can drill for oil, pollute and ship it to us. Just don't drill here. Put wind farms on anybody else's backyard, but not ours. Take someone else's money and redistribute it. Just don't touch our money. How you like your anti-war president now? I wonder if the civilians rather be waterboarded or hit by drones ordered by Obama.
Personally, I'd like to see a story by MSNBC about the damage that "Obama Drones" cause in this country.(I'm talkin' about Geithner, Holder, Salazar, Clinton, and Emanuel).
Hey CrankF and Road Kill, dont hold back on your anti Obama propaganda, just let it all out. You know the more you sound like kooks the more sane the other side sounds, so just let it all out.
In reality everyone paying the slightest attention knew - witness for example one case where say +40 women and children were killed, and three men of what one could call military age ( probably sheep herders ). The only reason it has not been very public in the US is given the desire of the government to play it down, coupled with the compliance ( cowardice?) of the journalists who no doubt felt reporting something the government did not like would be dangerous for their careers. Bottom line, as someone who comes from a country that was involved in a long term insurgent/guerrilla war - this is how you loose the war. For every innocent civilian you kill, his/her whole immediate family is at once at least passive supporters of the insurgency, and if it is a tribal society the whole tribe swings over to the otherside. You may think you are winning, but in fact you are loosing - mass population power ultimately triumphs.
Fun watching the Pubs squirm, calling the prez an apologizer when he has conducted wars smarter and better than them. Face it. The Pubs suck at both security and financials. To their credit, they did put on a funny reality tv show called "the primary". Man, the "winner" is such a looser. lmao
Nothing disgusts me more than Democrats who crow about how tough the president is for killing people in his own undeclared wars. Candidate Obama castigated the Bush administration for ignoring the rule of law. Here was what he had to say: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Once he came to office, he pulled a complete reversal through the hilariously Orwellian claim that in bombing Libya, for example, we were not involved in hostilities but merely a "kinetic military action," whatever the hell that means.
As Michael Hayden noted with regard to the killing of unindicted, unconvicted American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki, ""We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him, but we didn't need a court order to kill him. Isn't that something?"
It is something indeed.
Ron Paul 2012, he won't lie, or back down, and will do what needs to be done, simple enough
Obama won his little war. Bush bogged us down into a Quagmire.
Oh, who cares about that rule of law nonsense, then. We won!
(Also, doesn't it seem a bit premature to you to declare victory in LIbya? We have absolutely no idea whether the new government will be any better or worse than the last one.)
Not our concern that's up to the Libyan People as it should be. We did our part.
Our part was to stay out! We care then, but if they become the same or worse who cares? Come on gerald.
Yawn...why is the obama admin apologizing again? i mean how many civilians, including little kids have the islamic radical terrorists bombed to hell and gone? no mention of USA tactics should ever be disclosed by an administration to the enemy....ever. Obama didn't get Osama...some very brave American soldiers did. Obama was at a basketball game.