Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by on Monday March 20 2017, @02:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the discuss dept.

When he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush's drone wars. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten times more drone strikes than the previous president, and estimates late in Obama's presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians. In 2015, it was reported that up to 90% of drone casualties were not the intended targets.

Current President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama's "peaceful" presidency.​

"During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days."

That's an increase of 432 [sic] percent.

Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/us-drone-strikes-have-gone-up-432-since-trump-took-office


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @04:43PM (#482233)

    Trouble is, I don't trust claims of "personal responsibility" from genocidal lunatics.

    That's fine - you don't have to. Might I suggest that you take up arms yourself so that if I ever declare that I am going to murder you and/or take your stuff by force, that you have the means to deter or stop me? 'Cause I already have my weapons, and I'm not going to give them up. (What, were you just about to suggest murdering me as an alternative option?)

    You've just openly stated that you'd happily exterminate about a billion and a half people you've never met, simply because you perceive them as threatening.

    Lies are not the tools of reasonable people. I explicitly [soylentnews.org] wrote that I'd "prefer to talk Muslims out of supporting and following their murderous quest for literal world domination", quite different from "happily exterminate". The second falsehood might be due to your ignorance on Islamic fundamentals, but "perceive as threatening" is not the correct word to use when "perfect" Islamic doctrine calls for a literal world war until Islam alone left as a socio-political system - and when my country has been under attack by Muslims since shortly after its establishment [wikipedia.org]. If someone calls for my death because I won't put my ass up for their god, has attacked and murdered people like me before for the same reason, and has and continues to expand their possession of the means to actually kill me, my use of force against such a person is deemed "self-defense" in most of the rational world. Muslims are not merely perceived as threatening - they are literally threatening. (I'd gladly welcome "reform Muslims" who turn away from their Islamic mandate for world war and domination... except then such people would have ceased to be Muslims.)

    THAT IS NOT SANE.

    One of us is openly lying and employing emotion-based attacks while at the same time attempting to determine the sanity of another who is attempting to employ reason and critical thinking. A more appropriate word for your use may be "abnormal", and sadly, I would probably then agree with you.

  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:23PM (1 child)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @05:23PM (#482251) Journal

    What, were you just about to suggest murdering me as an alternative option?)

    Hell no. I'd have local law enforcement arrest you and subject you to a mandatory mental health review, leading to your eventual incarceration. Yay taxes!

    I explicitly wrote that I'd "prefer to talk Muslims out of support

    Fine, I accept that only reluctantly would you murder a fifth of the human race to allay your hysterical paranioa.

    o use when "perfect" Islamic doctrine calls for a literal world war

    Your "perfect islamic doctrine" smacks of "no true scotsman". Of all the numerous diverse peoples calling themselves muslims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches), many of whom disagree amongst themselves about who is truly a muslim, YOU get to decide who is a muslim and who isn't, and you just happen to cherrypick the scariest, most threatening extremist definition you can find, to which only a minority of muslims adhere. You can then use that to lump ALL muslims together into your killzone for convenient, guilt-free genocide.

    my country has been under attack by Muslims since shortly after its establishment.

    Your link to the barbary pirates is laughable. Piracy is a crime, not a war. By that logic, every violent crime ever committed by a Christian in the US is proof of an ongoing religious war by christianity. Also, your own link tells me that Barbary piracy ended around 1830, leaving a hole of almost two hundred years in your perceived perpetual war.

    Here's a suggestion: Get online now, and look up your local mosque. Go and knock on the door. (For fuck's sake leave your guns and nukes at home.) Open with something like "Hi. I've read a lot of bad stuff about Islam online, but I prefer to form my opinions based my own experience. Do you think I could come in and learn about what goes on here?" Start a conversation. Maybe make a friend. Believe me, it will do you a world of good.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @06:17PM (#482289)

      I'd have local law enforcement arrest you and subject you to a mandatory mental health review, leading to your eventual incarceration. Yay taxes!

      You wish to deploy lethal force against me, with the aim of kidnapping and caging me? I'd prefer you change your mind and leave in peace those who aren't threatening others. Otherwise, if you ever find yourself in a position to influence the actions of individual members of US law enforcement while continuing to espouse such threats, you'd make yourself a perfect target for the legitimate use of deadly force in self-defense. You are also showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome, in your cheering of taxes (assuming you actually pay them and aren't subsidized by them, in which case you would merely be a beneficiary of theft/slavery).

      Your "perfect islamic doctrine" smacks of "no true scotsman".

      Perhaps I should have been more verbose to clarify: I certainly make no claim that Islam is in any way perfect. Islam claims itself to be perfect and unchangeable. As I disagree with claims of "Islamic perfection", I used quotation marks to short-handedly denote "so-called perfect" and my disagreement with the same. Islam is vile and evil; I weep for the souls enslaved by it.

      Piracy is a crime, not a war. [...] Also, your own link tells me that Barbary piracy ended around 1830, leaving a hole of almost two hundred years in your perceived perpetual war.

      It's a good thing that I'd written "under attack by Muslims" rather than "under attack by Barbary pirates", then, eh? As for piracy being a crime and not a war, well, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you [wikipedia.org] (and perhaps surprisingly to you, I disagree with Thomas: the merchants should have banded together privately to provide for their own defense in international territory rather than becoming subsidized by governments). As for gaps in attacks after winning the Barbary Wars - of course! The attacking Muslims were defeated, their soldiers killed, and their ships sunk - did you expect them back the next Tuesday? I'm not interested in revenge - what's done is done and I can't change it. However, Muslim attacks have occurred in my own country within my own lifetime, and are continuing against other Western countries, increasing in frequency and severity. I am not a blind fool, and so if the attackers cannot be reasoned with, a reasonable response is to destroy the attackers.

      Here's a suggestion: Get online now, and [learn about Islam]

      I did that, and I learned that Islam was not a religion of peaceful nomads with a charming culture and glamorized by the harems of the sultans as I'd previously believed, but is instead a socio-political system that mandates a literal world-war of conquest among many, many despicable things, such as effectively treating women as chattel property. There are many sources (in addition to the three Islamic "holy" books themselves: the Quran, Sura, and Hadith) from which to learn about the basics of Islam, and having already made use of several, I would turn your own advice back on you: read Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net] along with a copy of the Quran, and keep your eyes peeled for conflicting claims between the two. If you do this, you will have your own experience, and you will be astounded.

      By that logic, every violent crime ever committed by a Christian in the US is proof of an ongoing religious war by christianity.

      Your "logic" is faulty, because the written doctrine of Christianity does not call for its adherents to wage a literal worldwide war of conquest. (That said, I am increasingly suspicious of Christianity to the point of being quite certain that the author of most of the so-called New Testament, Paul, was a liar [questioningpaul.com]. A false religion used to wage war (Inquisition, etc.) sure does seem like something a government would like to use to its advantage...)