dagblog - Comments for "Wicked stupidity, stupidly wicked. "How drones help al qaeda""

In shifting focus to the

jollyroger — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:28:55 +0000

In shifting focus to the "successful " drone hit which comes off absent innocent deaths the post offers this thought experiment: Were all people wearing a remotely detonated neck collar, what governmental structure would we.require to invest with legitimacy a scenario pursuant to which a warning and demand to surrender for trial within 48 hours or die might issue ? Clearly the tribunal would need to be supra national and unimpeachably fair. (ie, not Gitmo) Another reason to seek world government?

Drones and Dangerous

artappraiser — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:46:55 +0000

In reply to Wicked stupidity, stupidly wicked. "How drones help al qaeda"

Drones and Dangerous Shorthand
By Gregory Johnsen, Waq al-Waq Blog on Yemen, June 14, 2012

This morning Ibrahim Mothana, an incredibly smart and funny young Yemeni, has an op-ed in the New York Times on Drones, Yemen and blowback. I would encourage you all to read it.

The op-ed raises a number of important points and is yet another in a growing number of excellent pieces on the US war in Yemen. I have tried to highlight several articles here at Waq al-waq. I don't always agree with them, but I have been impressed that as the debate over US involvement in Yemen has grown in recent weeks many smart voices have weighed-in.

As the debate has expanded, however, I've noticed a couple of potentially misleading pieces of shorthand.

First [....]

Yeah, but we're more

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:09:17 +0000

In reply to sorry bout that. 32,885 (

Yeah, but we're more terrified of Son of Sam & the Boston Strangler & some pedophile on Facebook than we are the reality of a speeding hunk of metal driven by an idiot in a hurry.

And the number seems to be closer to 3000 in our little shoot-em-up gallery. Is it better to pick them off 1 at a time to let the anger build? Or do they get inured to the onslaught? It seems for some reason they're getting more & more upset. Who could have predicted ~~terrorists flying planes into buildings~~ killing off a people's women & children a few at a time would have such an effect?

sorry bout that. 32,885 (

jollyroger — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:29:04 +0000

In reply to Just a polite warning - get

sorry bout that. 32,885 ( 2010). Also, while not as dramatic as the 82 floor tandem swan dive, dead is dead, and I and my loved ones are clearly at greater risk from a speeder than a terrorist of any sort...even with the enhanced likelihood of terrorism arising from "signature strikes".

Just a polite warning - get

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:45:29 +0000

In reply to Like the man said at

Just a polite warning - get the numbers killed more precise, because for some reason when we backtrack from "tens of thousands" to say "4000", the justifiable outrage is suddenly lost, with a "how dare you exaggerate!!!"

(even thought that number is 33% over that poignant "3000" we've been fixated on for over a decade)

And sometimes how a handful die is more important than the total volume. People sometimes take these things personally. How bizarre and primitive.

Like the man said at

jollyroger — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:37:50 +0000

In reply to There's a new poll out with

Like the man said at Lakehurst, "oh, the banality ...". They are fine with murder-of-children by drone which is guaran-fuckin-teed to lead to at least terrorism attempts, but they want to empower the choice to speed which largely results in the random slaughter of tens of thousands annually. How can a vindicable interest in the privacy to put at risk unoffending strangers be asserted in lieu of a demand that one's taxes not buy dead children abroad? One cannot but cringe and recall the one-liner of the decade. "If we hated you for your freedom, we would have attacked Sweden" (thank you, I'll be here all week,... who knows, maybe indefinitely, tip your server or lose your head...I kid, I kid..")

There's a new poll out with

artappraiser — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:29:44 +0000

In reply to Wicked stupidity, stupidly wicked. "How drones help al qaeda"

There's a new poll out with emphasis on domestic use, but also includes military:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/13/12205763-poll-americans-ok-...

It's good, I'm neither

Resistance — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:19:55 +0000

In reply to An eye for an eye, a death

It's good, I'm neither Yahwist or Muslim? I don't think I could survive under the Mosaic Covenant Law.

I wouldn't have any livestock left.

An eye for an eye, a death

jollyroger — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:47:35 +0000

In reply to An eye for an eye, a death

An eye for an eye, a death for a death; that is the law for those ~~Yahwists~~ humans . They will have their vengeance despite Obamas ignorance. There, fixed it for you

An eye for an eye, a death

Resistance — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:14:05 +0000

In reply to Even Rumsfeld understood this

An eye for an eye, a death for a death; that is the law for those Muslims. They will have their vengeance despite Obamas ignorance.