Drone Air strike kills 15 civilians (on their way to a wedding) in Yemen

[User_513]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Mike Christ]

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.

[mladen00]

shit happens

How will you feel if that is your family? 

+1

+1

everyday terror in the name of ''democracy''

[Kluge]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...."

[Wilikon]

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

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...

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:

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.

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 

[Ekaros]

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?

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.

 

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

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.

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...

[Anon136]

shit happens

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".

[hilariousandco]

shit happens

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.

[nate008]

"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.

[j68r]

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

[Abdussamad]

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.

[j68r]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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.

[jinni]

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.

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.

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.

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.....

[GreekBitcoin]

He took a nobel peace prize didnt he?

[j68r]

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.

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.

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.

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.....

or more fearful.

[jinni]

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.

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.

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.

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.....

or more fearful.

or both.

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

[dopey]

What a horrible thing to of happened.

[shawshankinmate37927]

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.