Bitcoin Forum

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-yemen-strike-idUSBRE9BB10O20131212

(Hint: Not Bush's fault)

(Reuters) - Fifteen people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy, local security officials said on Thursday.

The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

"An air strike missed its target and hit a wedding car convoy, ten people were killed immediately and another five who were injured died after being admitted to the hospital," one security official said.

Five more people were injured, the officials said.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network.

Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Human Rights Watch said in a detailed report in August that U.S. missile strikes, including armed drone attacks, have killed dozens of civilians in Yemen.

Stabilizing the country, which is also struggling with southern separatists and northern rebels, is an international priority due to fears of disorder in a state that flanks top oil producer Saudi Arabia and major shipping lanes.

On Monday, missiles fired from a U.S. drone killed at least three people travelling in a car in eastern Yemen.

(Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

This is just terrible.

Obama's drone program is one the most cowardly and disgusting things this world has ever seen.

shit happens

You consider the murder of innocent people "shit" ? As if bombing people from unmanned aircraft and "accidentally" killing innocent people is acceptable in any way?

Obama has a lot to answer for with regards to his foreign policy, it's more right-wing than Dubya's in some respects.

All of these illegal drone strikes against civilians are a great propaganda gift for Al Qaeda and Co, I'd be pretty pissed off if a foreign nation invaded my country and blew up my entire family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Drone_Strikes_in_Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Drone_Strikes_in_Pakistan)

That is why I am so lucky not to be an American. Because I would feel so shame.

This is why I'm a libertarian: these horror stories will only stop once people take responsibility for their actions.  A part of this responsibility is not allowing other men to commit immoral atrocities in your name.  We're all responsible for these deaths.

How will you feel if that is your family?  >:(

+1

Indeed. Did you pay tax in America this year? Any tax at all? Welcome to the company of the partially guilty, along with everyone else basically.

People need to understand, until we change the social contract, completely, we have no power to stop this disgusting culture. The world and it's inhabitants are being subjected to one massive and complexified version of the good cop/bad cop routine. Those in westernised developed countries have the good cop (the one that gives you nice things and tells you what to do and say to get out of the situation you're in without the bad cop getting a piece of you). And the third world is getting the bad cop (that makes no attempt to disguise the depraved and ruthless contempt for those that don't comply with their own degradation or the murder of their families)

http://news.yahoo.com/new-book--obama-told-aides-that-drones-make-him--really-good-at-killing-people--144734667.html

President Barack Obama is criticized every day for the problems and difficulties associated with the Affordable Care Act. But in the long term, it's likely history will scrutinize the CIA’s use of drone strikes during his administration with a far more critical eye.

A quote from a new book on the 2012 presidential campaign, “Double Down: Game Change 2012,” will surely stoke that interest. As first reported in a book review by the Washington Post’s Peter Hamby, Obama told aides in connection with the CIA's drone program that he is “really good at killing people.”

It’s the kind of quote likely to make Obama supporters cringe or scramble for justifying explanations, perhaps by rationalizing the quote as either false or out of context, or critiquing the information-gathering methods of authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. The writers spent two years interviewing dozens of people connected with both the Obama and Romney campaigns.

Whether uttered in jest or in resignation, the Obama quote will only add to the concerns of those wondering whether the president has embraced the Godlike, life-and-death power of the Oval Office. After campaigning against the intense interrogation procedures pursued under President George W. Bush, Obama has vastly expanded the drone program. Despite its intense unpopularity overseas, in part because of civilian casualties and in part because of its unclear, secretive mandates, the Pakistan drone program continues as it has since 2004.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the CIA has conducted 378 strikes in the program’s 10-year history. Of those, 326 are classified as “Obama strikes.” The total number of people killed by drones is estimated at 2,528 to 3,648. Civilian casualties are estimated at 416 to 948, with 168 to 200 of those being children. As many as another 1,545 are estimated to have been injured in those strikes.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-pakistan/

I can only imagine the fear associated with seeing these flying death machines appearing in the skies.
Drones truly are the definition of terror inducing. It really makes one question who is actually responsible for todays "terrorism".

That's what USA always does, kill innocent kids, families just for the greed of oil to get more and more $$$
Damn! when are we going to see US citizens revolting...

Yet when a Muslim "terrorist" blows up a few Americans the entire country has a shitfit.

This isn't the first wedding party they've obliterated either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike

Drones are too high up. You cannot tell they are flying above your head until it is too late for your family.


But I wouldn't want to beat up too hard on pres. Obama. He defines what "dignity" is while giving the order for the strike.
http://localtvwdaf.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/obama-selfie.jpg

The revolts only make sense when the US president is republican. That is why you will not see this news in any of your regular news outlet, no matter where you live. Democrats LOVE the drones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_UJg1s-qi8

That's not necessarily true, there are some reports stating that drones are able to be seen with the naked eye by Pakistani citizens.

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Report-On-Drones-Average-Pakistani-1426336.html

I am sure if you keep your eyes scanning the sky all time you will see the drones. If you are on your way to a wedding not so much as you won't have to worry about being hit.

What amazes me more is all those billions into those gigantic super servers scanning for terrorists, 24/7. They need to monitor every single electronic devices on the planet, every websites to track for bad guys. I want bad guys to die. Yet somehow the drones are still killing babies. Do they need updates on their software Intel or they simply do not care because it is simply someone's else 4 year olds?

It's like I said, good cop/bad cop.

I'm not sure the power elite are racist, they just have contempt for the serfs. Murdering 4 year old children in one part of the world, but not in another is just a means of dividing us into placated worker drone societies and resentful destitute societies. If the right kind of propaganda is carefully nurtured in both separate societies, the people of each will blame the other for their problems.

Middle East/North Africa/South America/Central + South East Asia "you guys send your sons and daughters to kill and torture us, and to steal our resources, encourage militias/gangs to grow drug crops and fight over them, and cripple our economies with unpayable national debts, all to help maintain your way of life! bastards!"

North America/Europe "you guys are jealous of our advanced society, and all because you idiots keep electing corrupt leaders who steal from you, or listen to religious fanatics who turn you into terrorists! bastards!"


The truth is that the rich, powerful corporate/political class are stealing the resources, are fomenting the wars, are enabling corrupt political leaderships, are encouraging the psychopathic to torture in war, are capturing natural resources for corporate gain, are supporting drug production and trafficking networks, are resourcing religious terrorist organisations, and are encouraging circumstances where countries end up with huge, unpayable debts. They're also using the media in each side to convince the people that it's the other sides fault.


It's all just a game to keep everyone pointing the finger of responsibility in the wrong direction, and projecting blame and resentment at that wrongly identified group. I know this is the same thing that Alex Jones or David Icke would say, but they also say that "Aliens are going to kill us in giant Nazi death camps by feeding us toxic waste that looks like food etc etc". Strange how those two mix the feasible stuff together with the blatantly ridiculous stuff... don't know whats going on there  ::)

If those killed were actually anti-al queda, somebody's head is going to roll. However, thinking drones are 'terror tools' is laughable. Ask the vast majority in the tribal area of pakistan what they fear more: Indiscriminate pakistani bombings, or relatively precise drone strikes that doesn't even stop wives from going over to her friend's place.


In other news, more ugly muslim racism and killings visited upon africans, specifically african christians in Nigeria.

Drones are cost effective and efficient. If these people want to play the killing game, we will continue to kill them until the end of time. Nice try putting 'political' pressure, but their attempts at trying to manipulate world opinion is pretty cute. They even convinced themselves they are succeeding.

Nothing is going to happen. Similar incidents have happened again and again in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And they are still occurring.

I'm not responsible.   The government has nothing to do with me.  They are a racket that steals my money at gunpoint, nothing more.   If a thug steals my money on the street and buys some bullets with it and shoots someone with them I am not responsible.    If I cheered the thug on or made excuses for the murder that would make me pretty immoral which is why I don't defend the government at all.

Terrible news
As always, unconscionable

Rest in peace for that people, that were a big mistake, but what can we do now? We can only pray for them.

You can protest. People just shrugging their shoulders and saying "shit happens" or offering merely prayers aren't going to change anything. Stuff like this only happens because not enough people are outraged or even vaguely bothered by it. One pair of hands working or even one voice protesting can do more than millions of people just offering prayers. We hold the power to change things, not corrupt governments. Stop paying their wages for a start and see how long they work for free.

I think it could be argued that we, as US citizens, ARE responsible (to a much lesser degree -- I don't think anyone would equate a US citizen to the US government) unless we're actively resisting. But I definitely would say it's an "argument," not some self-evident truth.

You know - I think of it in a comparison between the actions of what happened on flight 95 vs flights 11, 175, and 77. On 95, passengers actively resisted and minimized casualties. This was not successfully done on any of the other flights. I don't think anyone would argue they shouldn't have resisted and crashed the plane into a field, and I think the question's really whether or not everyone has that moral obligation to resist (and resist how much?).

If we're paying taxes and not actively opposing laws which allow these kinds of things to happen, then to some degree, whether it's at gunpoint or not, I think we are responsible. We know where our tax money's going. We know these kinds of tragedies happen fairly frequently. We contributed to these fifteen murders in Yemen. I don't think we can completely wash our hands of it. At best, we failed in resistance, and at worst, we didn't actively oppose it.

This. Every bomb and bullet that is fired by a soldier is paid for with your taxes. This should outrage any half-decent human being. Why don't they cut their defence budget in half and use the money saved to pay off some of their debt or dish out free healthcare or free education? Unfortunately America and the UK was taken hold of by corporate interests long ago, so this isn't likely unless you can get somebody into power who is willing to stand up against corporate tyranny, but of course, elections and politicians are easily bought and paid for so it's incredibly difficult.

It always annoys me when Americans and my fellow Brits think criticism of their governments is an attack on them personally, or that they are not responsible for them and are completely apathetic towards change or protest. The only people who seemingly aren't bothered by what their countries' leaders do are usually racists and ignorant blind patriots. I think it was Einstein who said 'Nationalism is the measles of mankind'.

As Lowkey says, "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB-vYuYhdSE

I'm arguing from the standing point that, since we do not act as a society to point out the thieves and murderers for who they are, we in turn accept that they are a legitimate institution and that their special rights are consistent with ethical behavior, which I don't believe it is, not even a little.  I realize that it is currently impossible to actually prevent ourselves from being swallowed whole by the state if we now decided we'd no longer support them, but this only motivates me more to alert our fellow man that we're being duped; divided, we are powerless, but together, we can make a difference, and we can then finally resolve this 10,000-year-old problem.

The problem is that the alternative to drones is a land invasion and slaughter of the "guilty."  Even assuming the "guilty" (using scare quotes as the war on terror is mostly bullshit) are killed, a few 10s of 1000s of innocents would die as the marines fought their way there.

 

The silence of the media regarding the Christian genocide by Islamists in Africa is an abomination. Politically Correct Police will make sure to bury all those news and call you an 'islamophobe' if you point that out out loud.

On the average of a total of 380 drone targeting missions, 330 were approved by a president who, when a senator said it was crime to do so.
Drones are cost effective until you blow up people on the way to a wedding. Oops!

I agree.  It's the politicians that order and authorize these attacks and the people that keep voting those criminals into office that have innocent blood on their hands.  My conscience is clear.

Or you guys could just stop invading other countries and mind your own business.. no offense

Sorry, let me rephrase that...

The simple fact is that there really should not be US/UN operations and drones flying over these countries. I obviously do not blame any citizens for the acts of our corrupt governments, but I definitely do frown on weaker minds that do not understand why these wars are actually taking place and blindly support false flag operations.

Exactly, wonder what would happen if China sent drones over to the US and started bombing random civilians. Sad thing is half of the posters in this thread would be supporting the airstrikes if Mitt Romney had won the election.

Well we should feel good he did not win the election then? Romney was not the dude who said "GO" for that drone mission, obama did. Basically we should be glad obama only killed a few compared to the sure number of 13645 killed if we were under pres romney.

If. Versus reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

And so are concentration camps and slavery, depending on the context. The problem here is ethical, not monetary.

9/11 happened.  Until there is no chance of it happening again, its fair to say that countries that harbour suspects will be seeing military action of some kind.

Seriously? The United States is harbouring the biggest terrorists in the world. Are foreign governments now justified in invading the USA and murdering citizens willy-nilly to get the bad guys? And what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq or Afghanistan? And there'll never get rid of 'terrorists'. In fact they're only creating more by killing innocent people, and I don't blame them. I'd become a terrorist to the USA if they invaded my country and killed my friends and family.

Please don't be a partisan moron.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=drone+strike&oq=drone+strike&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.5787.11466.0.14040.12.4.0.8.8.0.110.421.1j3.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.tkFKqCkQydM


Probably nothing you can do about it, being a partisan moron I mean. But try harder.

In the same sentence you go from pinning responsibility for actions which the US government takes without my consent which are absolutely contrary to my moral beliefs ON ME by using the royal 'we', and then you say that you don't think anyone would equate a US citizen with the US government. News flash... the people doing those terrible things aren't doing them because you consent in any way. Want proof? Withdraw your consent. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that they...the government...will keep on doing as they wish regardless of what you want. And as for being responsible unless one 'actively resists', whatever the hell that means, you're wrong on that count as well. Unless you are willing to accept some of the blame for every rape, every instance of child abuse, every occurrence of mistreated animals, etc, etc, etc worldwide. After all, you didn't 'actively resist' all of them, right? So that means you must be, at least in part, responsible for them... right?

You're not responsible for those crimes because you don't legitimize them; at the same time, many of us are no longer legitimizing the state.  I'm of two minds on this one, now; I believe what I and Kulge said makes more sense to a Fe user; the Fi user naturally holds no relationship with the "we", but is more so connect to the "I", and so the actions of the state aren't connected to the Fi user, while the Fe user is more prone to feel guilt for participating in a society which believes these actions to be justified.

Anyway, ultimately, it's those who are in support of the state and see these deaths as necessary casualties to rid the world of evil (the classic villain archetype...) that are the true underlying vehicles stirring these events in motion.

+1

everyday terror in the name of ''democracy''

Active resistance was left intentionally vague. The easiest way is to go on welfare. At that point, you are actively preventing rape and murder. The more palatable option is to ensure you never generate enough income to pay an income tax. If you combine welfare with a maximum EITC, you can easily suck more than $20k/yr in funds away from the state. If you have health problems, you can make an even bigger impact. It's all effective and legal, but not effective enough given it's still happening.

And yeah, I'd argue we're partially responsible for every rape and murder which happens. Charities and death squads don't pop up for no reason. Most people feel compelled to prevent those kinds of acts (... I think). I can't imagine any person walking by a rape in progress and just thinking "huh. Sucks to be them. Not my problem. Some camembert sounds good right about now...."

I will. ''Who's 4 year old it is'' in the video looks like something you would agree with if you believed it was more important to defend the dude saying it by calling me a partisan moron  :)

So, response to these military actions is clearly killing as many enemy combatants(that is anyone on USA soil) by those who are ready to sacrifice themselves for common good(that is their society's good). It works in both ways.

Very few in your government are ready for real solutions. That is working towards situation where neither side wants to kill enemy combatants...  Which is either peace or killing all of the opposition. Later hasn't ever worked out well...

Revenge runs very deep in humans. Maybe someday we will overcome that. Not that there won't be outliers in every society, but that is just early prevention and care...

this isnt accidentally bumping the salt with your elbow at the dinner table. you dont just accidentally take control of a drone and accidentally fly it 100 miles and accidentally pressed the fire button to accidentally shoot a missile and then say "oops, sorry about that but shit happens".

I think that's unfortunately exactly what the US government does and says.

"Our assignment is to knock out the nuclear-weapons plant at Falafel Heights. The plant goes on line in 12 hours and is heavily defended. Now, if you have trouble hitting your objective, you secondary targets are here and here: an accordion factory and a mime school.".

Once , this was funny.

Live fire rehearsals abroad for the coming collapse at home. Who are the real terrorists.

I don't know whether you guys know this or not but the US government has said that any male of fighting age, i.e. mid to late teens or older, in the FATA area of Pakistan is considered an enemy combatant and is a legitimate target. So it doesn't matter if the person is innocent or guilty as long as he falls under that description and is considered suspicious for whatever reason he can be hit by a drone.

Just about any activity can be considered suspicious. For example large gatherings like in this news or even a lone individual kneeling down by the roadside can be considered suspicious because "Gosh! He might be planting an IED!"

Problem is not the technology but the mindset. Americans are prejudiced and hateful and act on those emotions freely. Until they change their mindset nothing will change.

Try to imagine the hateful ignorance displayed by brainwashed crackpots like honeypot, such a person planted at the controls of the new kill a muzzie game the occupying US drone strike empire is obsessed with. The results are evident for all to see.

Unfortunately, the issue here is no different than when we had Nixon take political control of the Vietnam war and start bombing with political, instead of military, objectives.  He was warned about this but didn't listen.

Drones are of limited utility in warfare.  They are an attractive method if you do not have control of the ground or want a quick easy fix or something that seems like that.  You want to be able to put something on the mass media that makes it look like you 'are doing something'.

Just as the goal of a terrorist bomber is to get his carnage on the media, the drone is a tool to get the military's might on the media. 

This is a new thing.  It is not about winning a war, but about getting media time.

Oh come on! This is ridiculous. I don't think any one has ever said something like that. Do you have any proof for your claims?

Having said that no one should forget that many areas within the FATA are completely outside the control of the Pakistani military.

Are you saying that to be completely in the clear morally, and the only thing you have to do is not to vote in the politicians that order the atrocities?

I don't agree. I'm not from the US but I feel partly responsible for the millions of innocent people that have been killed (mostly by the US and partly by its allies) while I paid taxes to a government that supports the US, even though I didn't vote in the people who approved the support.

Although, shouldering all the worlds problems onto oneself is of course not feasible. But living more or less like an agorist is. Personally, I feel that achieving just that is many years ahead of me (though bitcoin will help alot to speed it up).

The question is, is it better to be a dissident (and have a clear conscience) at the cost of other ambitions? What if those ambitions are about creating (and hence adding value to society)?

For me, having a completely clear conscience is not possible when atrocities continue while better knowledge is so easily accessible as today. But, I won't allow guilt to consume my life either.

Still it is hard not to think of the opposition to the Vietnam war, nothing near that scale of opposition happened with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Maybe we are getting more complacent.....

He took a nobel peace prize didnt he?

or more fearful.

or both.

Maybe Bitcoiners now will do what the Beatniks did to lead the way for the mass hippie movement.

What a horrible thing to of happened.

I believe there is no reason for me to feel guilty about crimes committed by someone else that I didn't willingly assist in.  If handing money over to those committing these atrocities was a completely voluntary action, the way voting for them is, then that would be a different matter.

Becoming a dissident by refusing to pay taxes is taking things to another level.  I admire and respect those who have defied unjust laws throughout history.  That's how the USA started.  I don't believe paying taxes is a moral duty, but we shouldn't be trying to make people feel like they are complicit in the crimes because they aren't willing or able to accept the consequences that result when they refuse to pay their taxes.

I can see the logic of your argument. But what I'm proposing is not refusing to pay taxes and go to jail, I'm saying to avoid them. One could engineer one's life according to tax rules, ie. one could move to another country or one could minimize one's taxes by going on wealthfare, etc.

And what about the voluntary acts of using electricity from the grid, using a regular bank or buying anything that carries taxes?

Look, I'm not trying to guilt trip any one into doing anything. But the same argument can be made in any regime that commits or aids in committing atrocities. I'm merely trying to point out the moral cost of accepting a more or less "regular life" in the West today. True, one cannot be held directly responsible for the atrocities, I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that subversiveness is critical to making the change that is needed.

Also, I'm saying that it is difficult to find a good balance between living according to one's moral ideals and  just living. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a moralist - but there might still be away to combine one's moral ideals with other life goals, and that is something one is definitely obliged to pursue.

Dissent is democracy, bitcoin is something I'm invested in for the long haul, I could do more but I take on what I feel comfortable doing and support anyone who feels the need to do more. I draw the line only at committing crime against the person. All the problems discussed in this thread are only possible because of the money monopoly which captures populations and preserves the power and fear that perpetuates itself, making everything else possible, including the MSM filter applied to western illegal wars and extra judicial murder in foreign lands. I wonder how many illegal drone strikes there would be if the bill for it all came directly out of the wages of those ordering and committing the atrocities.

That could be quite an effective anti-war campaign: send out postal campaign letters in the form of receipts for the weapons used in war, and invoices itemising the dead and injured. "x1 dead Somali man , x3 dead Sudanese teenagers, x2 disfigured Iraqi babies"

I agree that simply using and proselytizing (ie. teaching people about) Bitcoin is doing a lot more than simply not voting for murderers. It is one step in the direction of taking away the real power that the murderers hold over our heads - more so than choosing how to vote in the charade of a modern "democracy" at least.

Furthermore, drawing the line at committing a crime against another person is paramount. The ends do not justify the means.

When it comes to doing one what one feels comfortable doing to change the circumstances (I think most people here agree that we need to do this), it is a very good point. It is interesting how easy it is to start using Bitcoin, and how powerful that act can be. Personally, I don't think cajoling people into changing is the best way of achieving said change. Rather making it easy and comfortable for people to achieve positive change is a much better way. Taking away other government monopolies using easy-to-use technology is hence a great way to achieve positive change. 

I do still feel that I'm coming to short in helping get rid of the stranglehold that is held on the common man. Does anyone have ideas about how to further resist the powers that be?

They did say something like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/drone-attacks-innocent-civilians_n_1554380.html

"It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the Times reports. "Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good."

The message is clear, don't be "up to no good" and mess with the US military industrial complex. Now, are you listening America?

What would you've been interrupting? The talk in here is of the US drone strike.

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/21/a8/40/00/un-us-yemen-drones.si.jpg

[...]

The UN has already criticized the US drone program in the October interim report “on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations,” authored by Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson.

The report, the final version of which is due in 2014, argues the number of civilians killed in anti-terrorist drone operations is higher than publicly acknowledged, and condemns the US for lack of transparency over the issue.

"The Special Rapporteur does not accept that considerations of national security justify withholding statistical and basic methodological data of this kind," Emmerson wrote in the report.

Also in October, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International simultaneously released reports on the use of drones in Yemen and Pakistan, both questioning the legitimacy of the strikes.

“Amnesty International is seriously concerned that these and other strikes have resulted in unlawful killings that may constitute extrajudicial executions or war crimes,” the AI report reads.

“President Obama says the US is doing its utmost to protect civilians from harm in these strikes. Yet in the six cases we examined, at least two were a clear violation of the laws of war,” said Humans Rights Watch Senior Researcher, Letta Tayler.

The US then reacted by saying it did nothing illegal.

"To the extent these reports claim that the US has acted contrary to international law, we would strongly disagree,” said White House spokesman, Jay Carney. "The administration has repeatedly emphasized the extraordinary care that we take to make sure counterterrorism actions are in accordance with all applicable law."

The United States has stepped up drone strikes in Yemen, as part of its crackdown on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), believed to be the terrorist network’s main stronghold.

I don't understand how the US government can continue committing war crimes with impunity. It seems it's one rule for the west and and another for the east.

Has the US ever cared about international law except when it applies to its own interests?

No, but hopefully other countries care or the United Nations should, but we all know that's a joke too.

The US has never cared about the International Criminal Court, although they have forced the Serbians to deport their leaders to face trial there. People who have killed a few hundreds like Milošević were tried there and the US agents unlawfully killed him inside the prison in 2006. On the other hand, George Bush who has killed millions of innocent people was never put on trial.

I saw an interesting video on Russia Today earlier that details all the puppet governments the US have helped instal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLE7Bswz9G8

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military)


"What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?" I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian's life all because of a bad image or angle".

There was a case in the UK where some British pleb soldier shot some guy on the side of the road because he thought he was planting an IED. Turned out he was just some grandad trying to fix the pavement or something. It's shoot first, don't ask questions later.

I couldn't find that link. People who aren't being targeted can see drones fly by. You can see some military drones being tested in the desert in the Western US if you know where to look. They are loud and don't fly extremely high. However, they can easily see and target a person long before the person sees or hears it.

How Drone attacks actually go down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew-SrlQ9tlI

The problem with that video is that the current Ukraine government is also a puppet government. But it is Russia's puppet not the US'. Don't think the Americans are the only ones playing this geopolitical game of puppet master.

Yes, using drones is cowardice, Obomba is an imbecile and the U.S. is what's mentioned here and more.

Still, the question remains. How do you stop Islamic Jihad, supremacism and all that comes with Islam?

At least the people in Ukraine elected Yanukovych. And he still enjoys widespread public support, although the Western media paints him as an oppressor.

On the otherhand, the US frequently invades other nations, overthrows the democratically elected governments there, and then install the ruler whom they like to rule.

'Ey up, you unbelieving Kufar Bastards. That missile launcher scene had me howling first time I saw it.

Oppressive can be a finicky term, but is there any doubt that Yanukovych is rotten to the core? Though a government in Ukraine of any kind that is not mired in overt corruption is hard to imagine.

Yes. This is true. I do not like US interference of the kind we saw in the video. But neither do I like Russian overt pressure to conform to the Russian trading block - hence reaffirming Ukraine's status a puppet of Russia.

As far as I can understand Ukraine is split about in the middle between the Western part that would like to lean towards the EU and the Eastern part that would like to lean towards Russia.

The EU has only applied soft pressure, by offering a trade (and implied association deal) with Ukraine, whereas Russia is using Ukraine's reliance on Russian gas to force their hand. A deal with the EU would still leave the Ukraine free to deal with Russia, but a deal with Russia would not make the country free to deal with the EU.

As I said, I don't agree with what Washington is doing, but the Kremlin is just as bad...if not worse.

Tymoshenko is more corrupt, when compared to Yanukovych.


There is nothing like Soft Pressure. Both the sides are trying to force Ukraine to ally with them. The Western media however, would like to paint this as blackmail by Putin, and carrot and stick by the EU.

They'll paint anyone they don't like as an oppressor.

Well.... in some scenarios, an oppressor can become a democratic ruler (provided he suddenly agrees to follow the orders of the US). Example: Saudi king.

In some other scenarios, a democratic ruler can suddenly become an oppressor. Example: Saddam Hussain.

I'd hardly say Saddam was democratically elected.

I didn't meant that.

I said that, for the US Saddam Hussain was a democratic ruler until the late 1980s. Or better, the Americans viewed Saddam as one of their best allies. They even gave him weapons to fight the Iranians. However, in the late 1980s he became an oppressor for the Americans, after he ignored their pleas to export more oil.

This nutcase gave up a cozy living in the UK, to fight jihad in Yemen? Something is wrong with the British people lately.

What do you mean by democratic ruler?

Saddam and America were very pally with each other. USA usually is friends with tyrants, until they do something that isn't in their business interests.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg

You do know it's a comedy, right? lol

It's actually a documentary about British Jihadis.

Oh God! How many times I have to tell? As far as I am concerned Saddam was a dictator. But for the Americans (i.e until 1980s) he was a democratically elected leader, or so the media told us.  ;D


I found most of the (recent) US presidents much more tyrannous than Saddam.  ;D

Yeah, well I don't think the media know or understand the definition of a dictator or a tyrant.

I think they do, they just selectively apply it.

I would have agreed but its not just Obama to be blamed but presidents before him too. Drones are really the most coward weaponry to be used at war. The government won't have anyone to answer while killing, as there will be never an American life lost at war using drones.

The world expects more from the US. But I think its not the American people but just the capitalists controlling the decisions.

True, but Obama has used them more than Bush ever did.

Drones are cowardly. But look at the options which are tabled before the American President. Manned missions increases the risk of casualties, and this can provoke strong political reactions back home. Using unmanned drones makes sure that there is no casualty on the American side. So there is no pressure from the public back home. And increase in the civilian casualties on the war-zone..... well that doesn't matter. At least as long as those who are being killed are non-Americans.

https://i.imgur.com/Q457aUn.png

The war in Iraq is over, and the war in Afghanistan is ending, but unmanned aerial drones continue to wage an expansive war on terrorism. Obama has ratcheted up his predecessor’s tactic of deploying unmanned aircraft into Pakistan and Yemen to kill supposed terrorists (even U.S. citizens). Since Obama took office, media outlets have reported more than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan targeting al-Qaeda or the Taliban, outnumbering the Bush administration’s drone strikes five to one. Supporters say the strikes are an efficient way to kill militants, while critics say the strikes kill too many civilians, spur terrorist recruitment, shirk judicial oversight, and represent an abuse of presidential power. This map, which is based on data from the New America Foundation, displays the location and kill count of reported drone strikes since 2004 and shows that Obama has greatly extended the drone program.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/06/obama_drone_strikes_the_president_ordered_more_than_george_w_bush.html

Fucking hell, and that's just Pakistan.

What on earth are you basing this statement on? At least Yanukovych is corrupt enough to jail Tymoshenko, in what was at best a political trial. At worst Tymoshenko is the victim of deliberate persecution by Yanukovych.
What is the EU's "stick" against Ukraine?

The point is that Ukraine is in a power vacuum between two behemoths. Staying independent and neutral in such a position is a balancing act the divided and fragile state of Ukraine is capable of doing. They could split the country into two halves by plebiscite in every county or region.

Otherwise they could join one side (east or west) and force the other half of the country. So arguing which is better between Brussels and Kremlin, how could you make the argument that Ukraine would be more independent under a Kremlin Hegemony than a Brussels Hegemony?

Kremlin has resorted to military force time and time again. While Brussels has had a few brushes between demonstrators and police. They still still allow a ton more dissent by both protesters and media viewpoints than the Kremlin has allowed ever.

I'm saying Ukraine as a country would have greater independence under an EU hegemony and I'm saying that its people would enjoy more personal liberty under an EU hegemony.

That depends on which media source you are reading. According to the one I have access to, Tymoshenko is not only corrupt, but she is also one of the world's topmost corrupt leaders.


Compare the EU visa regulations for citizens from Moldova and Ukraine. You will understand.


I think it is the other way around. In EU you have banks taking away cash from people's savings accounts. Is this what you call more personal liberty? The price of gasoline in the EU is among the highest in the world. VAT is astronomically high, and so is income tax. Personal liberty in the EU is just an illusion.

And the argument that Ukraine will have greater independence under the EU is laughable. It is just 3 or 4 big nations which hold all the power in the EU. The remaining states don't have much of a voice. That's why countries like Hungary and Poland are being forced to accept mass immigration from third world nations and legalization of homosexuality, although 90% of the population is against it.

Obama should stop droning on people, this is why other countries hate us cause we think were doing the right thing without thinking thoroughly and it comes back to bite us in the ass.

Ban Ki-Moon has criticized the Tymoshenko-trial. I'm not saying he could not be wrong or even lying, but where are your sources?
The share of GDP taxed in Russia is actually a little higher than the unweighted EU average. In the EU it is possible to voice dissent publicly without being punished.


Smaller countries have surprisingly large amounts of influence in the EU. As a puppet of Russia, all Ukrainian policy will be decided in Moscow. In the EU parliament, MEPs are directly answerable to their constituents and as such their positions depend more on their ideology than the country from which they are from.

Borders and other immigration-stopping boundaries are immoral and not liberal at all. Immigration is a sign of more freedom, not less. Thinking you can stop homosexuality by just passing a law is naive, besides accepting it gives more personal freedom.

So there is less tax and more personal freedom in the European hegemony. Hence Ukraine should lean towards the EU rather than Russia if it is forced to choose. Europe is the lesser of two evils, but still of course horribly wrong.

"Droning on people". I like that. Better than "Obama should stop exploding baby's head on their way to a wedding". Yep. Much more snappy.

https://i.imgur.com/r3SoB7t.png

Dont fuck with Russia. Period.I believe they also have High tech weaponry, dont believe the movies that you watch.

Ban Ki-Moon is from South Korea, an American puppet state.


The income tax in Russia is 13%, where as in some EU nations it can reach 61%. Energy giants like Gazprom and Rossneft are heavily taxed in Russia, and that's why the total tax revenue of Russia is higher.


Tell that to the Cypriots.


May be. But those are the internal issues within a country. The EU should stop pressurizing their member states to legalize everything.

Haha, My news reporter said that, So I say it.

Ban Ki-Moon is also the secretary general of the United Nations. He represents all the countries in the world. Where are your sources that Tymoshenko is corupt?

Yes income tax in can be higher in Europe. In Russia VAT is 18%, in Europe it is between 15% and 25%. In total though, even if you remove the tax on energy companies in Russia from the picture, still EU countries Croatia and Romania are pretty much taxed at the same percentage of GDP.

It's not only the Cypriots who are getting their money taken away, but everyone holding fiat. Besides, Cyprus was bankrupt, should they have let the banks collapse so that everyone lost all their money?

Facepalm. Legalizing things is a good thing. In those cases where they are doing that they are doing the people of the EU a favor and saving them from being done over by their own governments.

What the EU should stop doing is wanting to regulate everything. That's what the EU should stop doing, not trying to stamp out ridiculous moral laws.

Ban Ki-Moon is the secretary general of the United Nations but he does not represent all the countries in the world.

I don't care what he is. He is still biased.

Here is one:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Ukraine_seeks_Tymoshenko_funds.html?cid=37361918


The Cypriot crisis was solely caused by useless EU regulations.


This is what I exactly meant. If 90% of the population from a particular country doesn't want a particular law, then the EU has no right to impose it on them. No matter whether you think it will be a good thing or a bad thing. It is up for the citizens of a nations to decide it. You have no voice there. Period.

Ban Ki-Moon may be biased, but I'm really struggling to see the trial of Tymoshenko as anything more than a power struggle between eastern and western Ukraine. If you wanted to get rid of corruption in Ukraine you would probably have to convict the vast majority of politicians.


Explain.
[/quote]

So you are saying the tyrrany of the majority in the EU is worse than the tyrrany of the majority within an individual member state? In the same way you think the EU has no right to impose such and such laws on Poland. I however, say that Poland has no right to impose such and such laws on it's own people.

In fact, almost all places you could live draconian and unjust laws will be forced upon you. I don't think those laws will be less draconian and more just in Russia than in the EU. 

You are right. He represents the peoples of the world, not the countries.

To clarify the secretary general's role, from http://www.un.org/sg/sg_role.shtml:

Tyranny is wrong anywhere and by anyone. Be it by the EU or be it by anyone else.


No. EU don't have any right to impose laws on Poland. Poland is a sovereign nation, where the people of Poland can chose their laws. If the majority of Polish people want a certain law, then they should get it, regardless of what the EU think.

I hope the UK really gets out of the EU soon. I really don't see the benefit at all.

Nobel peace prize winner President Obama? Can't be!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/President_Barack_Obama_with_the_Nobel_Prize_medal_and_diploma.jpg

Iv'e read somewhere that this has happened before.

What has happened before?

A drone killing some innocent group of civilians. You can search it up if you like.

Yeah, no shit. Happens almost weekly.

If UKIP performs well in the 2014 elections, then there will be serious public debates about continuing the membership of England in the EU.

I don't think it even matters about UKIP that much, even the other parties have caved in to public pressure/ opinion.

I'm not sure whether it's good idea or bad leaving the EU. I need to look into it more and weigh up the pros and cons. Obviously I don't like the idea of giving power to and being governed by Europe, but I don't like the idea of our politicians either, but at least as a people we have a voice to attempt to change things, but not so much when we have to answer to the EU all the time and go by their rules.

I believe that at this point of time only the UKIP favors England leaving the EU. Labour is strongly pro-EU, while the Conservatives are mildly so.

I've got a feeling labour will get in. Doesn't matter any way; nothing will change.

No chance. Ever since the formation of the European Union, it was well supported by the UK Labour Party, than any other party within the region. The current Labour leadership will rubbish any suggestion of UK leaving the Union.

I didn't mean they would, I just meant that they will probably get in. They won't do anything they say the will anyway. But I can see them making some speeches about how they're going to curb immigration etc just to keep the nationalistic plebs happy.

Who do you think will get in?

Immigration I belive is immoral.

But why are we talking about the UK? Thats out of subject guys.

Why is it immoral?

Unlimited immigration might be immoral. But that has happened ever since the 15th century. Native Americans constitute only a small fraction of the population in all the countries within the North American and the South American continents as a result of this. Same with Australia also.

I don't think it's immoral, but it's not a good idea.

You're right, because every newspaper and every news broadcast and every political party takes the issue very seriously. This makes it a real issue, because if someone says something, it's automatically true.

Yaaaay!

That's propaganda and fear-mongering for you.

My uncle was a philanthropist,(R.I.P), and believes politics get in the way of morality, propaganda and media promote hate to certain things and people get that in their heads if they are weak minded.

Immigration has to be caused by something, to that, people must think about further, than just saying they are scoundrels, and im not talking about Mexicans, im talking about any other race, this is an issue that's starting to spring back up, because of politics.

So, What causes people to enter our country illegally on some land. I thought the world was one place to explore freely. But I guess not.

Because politics get in the way of our true self and thoughts.

p.s. I don't mean to sound like the wise guy, but its the truth.

off topic of course.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/43480901.jpg

Off the size limit.

By the way, I have freedom to post, but of course you didnt bother reading, ignorant fool.

Yes. I am an ignorant fool.

Calling other people names for not agreeing to your views is the typical behavior of ...........