The difference between a terrorism and freedom fighting has always been in the eye of the beholder man, that has almost never changed. That's how human violence works- we attach justifications and classifications to it based on our own personal perspectives of the conflict- and then vilify, praise or ignore it.
As for the gun thing.... I see them as unrelated. Keeping your gun isn't gonna stop you from the government having you covertly snuffed IMO. The one rationale the gun people do have is a depiction of a Locke-esque 'necessary revolution' being carried out against an unjust government having a higher chance of being more successful with legal armament. And its stories like this that have people derisive about the effectiveness of said personal armaments in a revolution. If the government comes after your revolutionary cell house at night with a drone no AR-15 is going to save your life.
right but I don't think their argument lies in the ability to "win"...it just lies in the ability to carry out the fight
which is pretty defeatist if you ask me, but the evidence for their argument pans out
__________________
Wolf Gang. Stark Set. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Norf Memphis! Norf Memphis! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I find it hilarious that people are outraged over the memo more than the act, but **** it, I'll take more people being pissed off as a sign of progress.
This news, the Taibbi/Naomi wolf and the recent news about CIA still continuing torture just shows how much worse the Obama Administration is than even Bush's.
__________________
"To many or most white liberals, nonwhite people have become a political prop, essentialized nonentities who are useful only insofar as their interests can be used to shut down debate...At the very least, the notion that any particular argument could not possibly be voiced by women or people of color is the worst kind of condescending liberal essentialism that denies such people personal choice and agency." Freddie DeBoer
The one thing to keep in mind for all the pro-Obama/pro-Dem people who see nothing wrong with the drone program is that Obama and the Dems will not be in power forever and one day there will be a Republican in the White House with all of these powers that the President now has. So will you be so nonchalant then about a Right Winger wiping his *** with the constitution on the regular?
The one thing to keep in mind for all the pro-Obama/pro-Dem people who see nothing wrong with the drone program is that Obama and the Dems will not be in power forever and one day there will be a Republican in the White House with all of these powers that the President now has. So will you be so nonchalant then about a Right Winger wiping his *** with the constitution on the regular?
Drones and strikes against American citizens existed before Obama and they will exist afterwords. All this "outrage" over drones is misguided as hell. America has always policed the world, we have always attacked those we disagree with, American citizen or not if the person is perceived a threat we go after them.
The only difference now is that there is more transparency. Before they'd kill whoever they wanted and there would be no outrage, because they didn't even tell us they were killing anybody. Now in the Information Age they can't just kill people and not talk about it, cause the people will find out anyway. So basically what these mandates do is preserve the status quo. At least we get to hear about it and ask questions now.
Sure you can disagree with the practice but this has been the American way since the beginning, and I don't see it changing any time soon. We all enjoy the freedom and safety the American military system gives us. I bet if we start having more 9/11 type of attacks on American soil, the support for drones would rise. And all this "outrage" would go away.
I find it hilarious that people are outraged over the memo more than the act, but **** it, I'll take more people being pissed off as a sign of progress.
This news, the Taibbi/Naomi wolf and the recent news about CIA still continuing torture just shows how much worse the Obama Administration is than even Bush's.
I find it hilarious that people are outraged over the memo more than the act, but **** it, I'll take more people being pissed off as a sign of progress.
This news, the Taibbi/Naomi wolf and the recent news about CIA still continuing torture just shows how much worse the Obama Administration is than even Bush's.
__________________
"Moms gave me applications..work WHEREEE??..Man i walked outside and put work THERE.."
Drones and strikes against American citizens existed before Obama and they will exist afterwords. All this "outrage" over drones is misguided as hell. America has always policed the world, we have always attacked those we disagree with, American citizen or not if the person is perceived a threat we go after them.
The only difference now is that there is more transparency. Before they'd kill whoever they wanted and there would be no outrage, because they didn't even tell us they were killing anybody. Now in the Information Age they can't just kill people and not talk about it, cause the people will find out anyway. So basically what these mandates do is preserve the status quo. At least we get to hear about it and ask questions now.
Sure you can disagree with the practice but this has been the American way since the beginning, and I don't see it changing any time soon. We all enjoy the freedom and safety the American military system gives us. I bet if we start having more 9/11 type of attacks on American soil, the support for drones would rise. And all this "outrage" would go away.
The reason that Obama get's the dubious credit of being the "Drone President" is that he has increased drone strikes in his first time by six times over what Bush did in two.
And what is this increased transparency that you speak of? Obama has not been any more or less forthcoming with his drone strikes than Bush was. The difference between the two is that Obama uses it far more than Bush. Bush's drone program was focused on known high level Al Queda leaders while Obama's drone program is based off of metrics that include "suspicious" behavior and suspected ties to terrorist organizations.
And if we were all of a sudden living in this world of transparency then why is the US not being so forthcoming with the numbers of civilians killed by these drone strikes. At one point they were actually ballsy enough to make the claim that civilian casualties were at zero.
The reason that Obama get's the dubious credit of being the "Drone President" is that he has increased drone strikes in his first time by six times over what Bush did in two.
And what is this increased transparency that you speak of? Obama has not been any more or less forthcoming with his drone strikes than Bush was. The difference between the two is that Obama uses it far more than Bush. Bush's drone program was focused on known high level Al Queda leaders while Obama's drone program is based off of metrics that include "suspicious" behavior and suspected ties to terrorist organizations.
And if we were all of a sudden living in this world of transparency then why is the US not being so forthcoming with the numbers of civilians killed by these drone strikes. At one point they were actually ballsy enough to make the claim that civilian casualties were at zero.
The reason that Obama get's the dubious credit of being the "Drone President" is that he has increased drone strikes in his first time by six times over what Bush did in two.
And what is this increased transparency that you speak of? Obama has not been any more or less forthcoming with his drone strikes than Bush was. The difference between the two is that Obama uses it far more than Bush. Bush's drone program was focused on known high level Al Queda leaders while Obama's drone program is based off of metrics that include "suspicious" behavior and suspected ties to terrorist organizations.
And if we were all of a sudden living in this world of transparency then why is the US not being so forthcoming with the numbers of civilians killed by these drone strikes. At one point they were actually ballsy enough to make the claim that civilian casualties were at zero.
So bush and all previous presidents chose to use bombs and American soldiers to go after these people. Obama uses drones, the results are the same. People die and no fucks are given. At least this way we are saving American lives and money.
I didn't say that they were totaly transparent. I said they are much more transparent than before. This is not by choice, but the availability of information forces them to do so.
We've been dropping bombs for years, killing whoever we thought was a threat. What is the difference between using bombs and using drones?
Claims by President Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan that ‘there hasn’t been a single collateral [civilian] death’ in Pakistan since August 2010 are found to be untrue today, following a major Bureau investigation.
According to Brennan, Barack Obama himself has ‘insisted’ that US drone strikes are ‘exceptionally surgical and precise’ and ‘do not put… innocent men, women and children in danger’.
Yet a detailed examination by the Bureau of 116 CIA ‘secret’ drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2010 has uncovered at least 10 individual attacks in which 45 or more civilians appear to have died.
The Bureau has identified and can provide the family names for, six children among those killed.
Drones and strikes against American citizens existed before Obama and they will exist afterwords. All this "outrage" over drones is misguided as hell. America has always policed the world, we have always attacked those we disagree with, American citizen or not if the person is perceived a threat we go after them.
We've only been policing the world since after ww2. America used to have a policy of not interfering with world affairs.
This is only a first step in automated military weapons also. Soon enough they will have drone trucks, drone tanks, and yes even drone cyborgs (on some terminator ****) In fact im sure they already do have trucks and tanks that are remotely controlled.
It's like dealing with a bully, if you let them get away with the first thing, they will keep pushing and pushing. I for one welcome our cyborg drone overlords
at least thats what some of yall will be saying in 30 years
__________________
I never kill for the thrill, but I cut for the cause... To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We've only been policing the world since after ww2. America used to have a policy of not interfering with world affairs.
This is only a first step in automated military weapons also. Soon enough they will have drone trucks, drone tanks, and yes even drone cyborgs (on some terminator ****) In fact im sure they already do have trucks and tanks that are remotely controlled.
It's like dealing with a bully, if you let them get away with the first thing, they will keep pushing and pushing. I for one welcome our cyborg drone overlords
at least thats what some of yall will be saying in 30 years
Natural progression bruh. Wars will still be faught and people will die. It's the American way.
306Daps
And who decides that
