Quote :

"No it doesn't. Just because they don't know their names doesn't mean they can't positively identify them as militants. "

Your source: drone deaths since 2004 have been 1908-3225
Wikipedia: al-Qaeda strength is 500-1000

So, first obvious observation, those militants aren't al-Qaeda. There are literally not enough.

Another dumb question, after 8 years of drones killing >6 people per hit, wouldn't the enemy stop gathering in a way that made it straightforward to take out 6 people with a hellfire missile?

And what about hitting the same place twice? The program has taken criticism because people have been killed responding to a hit, only to be hit by another just a few minutes later? How can this even be defended as targeting militants?

more on that:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m92128&hd=&size=1&l=e

Quote :

"'The Bureau has alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view,’ said Emmerson."

So in this very narrow context of civilians responding to help victims, 50 were killed since 2008. The "civilian high" from the list you linked to is 84. There is no way both of these numbers are true.

More about the definition of militant:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/cnns-bogus-drone-deaths-graphic/259493/

Quote :

"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."

They have specific examples in that story which I find rather compelling. Surely you wouldn't agree with the definition of a militant, just as a decent human being. So you must not believe it's an accurate statement. I don't see what source convinced you to think that way.

Even more so, from your own quote:

Quote :

"The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police, and 38 of them were killed in a single attack on March 17, 2011."

How is this even consistent with the prior data? Again, the "high civilian" was 84, and that was spread over 4-5 years. Actually, I shouldn't have even counted 2008. No, that is obviously wrong, it was contradicted in your very own post.

10/26/2012 12:59:44 PM

I'm gonna re-post this, because I don't want you to duck it again:

Quote :

"Honestly, you can't in all seriousness believe that an increase in drone strikes, plus a trend toward using more lax rules for engagement have led to a decrease from 60% to 2% of civilian deaths. There's just no fucking way. I can't be the only one who thinks it's impossible for those three conditions to occur simultaneously."

and this:

Quote :

"I'll ask you, one last fucking time, and I expect you to answer: Are you okay with giving Mitt Romney, and every president that follows, the authority to meet in secret, and personally order the assassination of any American citizen? Are you willing to let him do that based on your behavioral traits?"

10/26/2012 1:03:18 PM

Quote :

"Nope, and I've never said so. But again, you're acting like this is some new phenomena. US presidents have been suspending habeas corpus, skirting the constitution, and illegally detaining US citizens for two centuries. Your analysis lacks historical context, nothing he's done has been unprecedented. Nor could he prevent any future President from doing them. Your problem seems to be with a specific tactic used to address a problem that basically didn't exist prior to 2001. In comparing the body count, economic cost, and overall results of Bush's approach, vs Obama's, it's pretty clear who's done the better job."

So you're not okay with Mitt Romney doing these things. But you have no problem letting Obama do these things? And you think Obama is better at doing these things than Bush was?


Fucking....wow. That's amazing. I'd like to introduce you to Sheldon Wolin:

Quote :

"Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash"

My problem is not with the tactic. It is with the policy. I am not okay with the president grabbing more power, especially when that power involves deciding which Americans to kill without trial. Bush tapped peoples phones and imprisoned them indefinitely. OBAMA FUCKING KILLS AMERICANS. And you're okay with this, and you don't seem to realize that the next president is going to come in, and do something even worse, because you sat there and patted yourself on the back while the executive branch grabbed more and more power without you telling them to stop.

10/26/2012 1:19:41 PM

Quote :

" And you're okay with this, and you don't seem to realize that the next president is going to come in, and do something even worse"

Actually this is exactly what every single leftist in America said all throughout the Bush years. That's why most of us aren't particularly surprised or outraged about Obama doing it, we've known it to be a party-transcending trend long enough to be fatigued about the distress. Nonetheless, there were oodles of drone-related signs at the Occupy protests, which was curiously packed with liberals and leftists despite the whole "LIBRULS DONT CARE ABOUT WAR ANYMORE NOW THAT THEIR GUY IS IN CHARGE" meme the right is so fond of..


[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2012 1:22:04 PM

Yeah, I know. I said it too during those years. And I'm saying it again, now. What else would you have me do?

But I never thought he'd order the assassination of American citizens. That, to me, is extreme. I mean, the next logical extension will be the assassination of American citizens on US soil, which I pray never happens, but it doesn't seem out of the question.

I also noticed you dropped the subtle teenager dig you had sprinkled in there. Thought better of it, I suppose.

[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 1:24:59 PM

Quote :

"That's why most of us aren't particularly surprised or outraged about Obama doing it, we've known it to be a party-transcending trend long enough to be fatigued about the distress. "

At least you'll admit to being too fatigued to continue fighting it. That's unfortunate, but its miles ahead of cheerleading the cause.

10/26/2012 1:26:40 PM

Quote :

"Your source: drone deaths since 2004 have been 1908-3225 Wikipedia: al-Qaeda strength is 500-1000 So, first obvious observation, those militants aren't al-Qaeda. There are literally not enough."

Of course they aren't all Al-Qaeda. We've been using drone strikes against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You didn't know this?

Quote :

"And what about hitting the same place twice? The program has taken criticism because people have been killed responding to a hit, only to be hit by another just a few minutes later? How can this even be defended as targeting militants?"

That tactic is based on the fact that after a strike, militants typically cordon the area off for 10-24 hours. I've mentioned this several times, please read my entire post before responding.

Quote :

"So in this very narrow context of civilians responding to help victims, 50 were killed since 2008. The "civilian high" from the list you linked to is 84. There is no way both of these numbers are true."

Quote :

"How is this even consistent with the prior data? Again, the "high civilian" was 84, and that was spread over 4-5 years. Actually, I shouldn't have even counted 2008. No, that is obviously wrong, it was contradicted in your very own post."

No it isn't. The list I linked included civilians and unknowns. Assuming that at least some of those unknowns are civilians, it's pretty consistent. The percentages quoted are those of "non-militants" which includes all unknowns + civilians. It's still ~15% for the entire life of the program, and much lower when you only consider Obama's years.

Quote :

""Honestly, you can't in all seriousness believe that an increase in drone strikes, plus a trend toward using more lax rules for engagement have led to a decrease from 60% to 2% of civilian deaths. There's just no fucking way. I can't be the only one who thinks it's impossible for those three conditions to occur simultaneously.""

Because every single source, including your oft quoted Bureau of Investigative Journalism shows this. The actual numbers may be different, but the trend lines are the same. Just because you "think it's impossible" doesn't make it so.

10/26/2012 1:31:37 PM

Quote :

"At least you'll admit to being too fatigued to continue fighting it."

I was at the Occupy protests, actually, and have marched with at least one Anti-War group in Pittsburgh. I'm not an Obama "cheerleader", I'm well aware of all his continuations of the Bush Doctrine and past abuses dating back decades. I'm not, however, about to let the GOP back into power, which already regards Muslim-Americans as non-citizens and wouldn't surprise me at all if they drone-bombed one in his home in Wisconsin. That's more important to me than believing the guy I am voting for is a Saint or The Only Politician Who's A Lesser Evil. It's damage control.

Quote :

" But I never thought he'd order the assassination of American citizens. That, to me, is extreme. I mean, the next logical extension will be the assassination of American citizens on US soil, which I pray never happens, but it doesn't seem out of the question. "

Meh, I got the fatigue on that one after Waco. Also, have you never heard of the CIA?


[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2012 1:53:08 PM

Quote :

"No it isn't. The list I linked included civilians and unknowns. Assuming that at least some of those unknowns are civilians, it's pretty consistent. The percentages quoted are those of "non-militants" which includes all unknowns + civilians. It's still ~15% for the entire life of the program, and much lower when you only consider Obama's years. "

back to your link...
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Talking about Obama's term, 2009-2012, I summed the columns in Excel. Here we go:

Unknown
low: 104
high: 240

Civilian
low: 38
high: 53

I noted your reference from here:
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-light-drone-wars-death-toll-150321926.html

Quote :

"according to a rare on-the-ground investigation by The Associated Press of 10 of the deadliest attacks in the past 18 months."

18 months is 1.5 years. Article was published Feb 26, 2012.

Quote :

"Indeed, the AP was told by the villagers that of at least 194 people killed in the attacks, about 70 percent — at least 138 — were militants. The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police"

These 56 people were ostensibly non-militants killed within a window 1.5 years or less. If we take those 1.5 years to be 2011 and the first half of 2012 as the article indicates - that would exceed the lower estimate of both unknown+civilian.

So maybe the yahoo article has better information than the official numbers? That in itself would be disingenuous, aside from just plain unbelievable.

10/26/2012 2:19:02 PM

no, mrfrog. You're supposed to believe that Obama put on his awesome-cape and got those numbers down to 2%. He's like the kid who plays Call of Duty all day in his mom's basement, and knows all the cool hideout spots and where the enemy respawns. He's a real gangsta when it comes to targeting militants.


2% civilian casualty rate. You know, if they weren't so fucking greedy about managing their PR message, and said something like they got there rate down from 60% to 35%, I'd still be outraged and against the operations as a whole, but I'd be more likely to believe the numbers.

But no, they go balls to the wall and say 2%, and John Brennan makes the claim that zero civilians have been killed. That's amazing. They know that they can't admit to a high civilian casualty rate, because then they wouldn't get people like Shrike on board whole hog with their mission. So instead they just blatantly lie...and apparently that by itself is enough to get people to not question anything.



[Edited on October 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2012 2:29:00 PM

Quote :

"no, mrfrog. You're supposed to believe that Obama put on his awesome-cape and got those numbers down to 2%. He's like the kid who plays Call of Duty all day in his mom's basement, and knows all the cool hideout spots and where the enemy respawns. He's a real gangsta when it comes to targeting militants."

10/26/2012 2:42:56 PM

Read that Alicia Keys is campaigning for Obama in Raleigh and Greensboro, and that Second Lady Jill Biden will be in Asheville and Huntersville this weekend.

10/26/2012 10:21:37 PM

Hurricane Sandy just flipped Virginia to Romney. Blue Northern VA will stay at home. Obama needs Ohio now.

10/28/2012 10:37:57 AM

There will be almost a week between this storm and election day, in a part of the country that is equipped to deal with winter storms. Even if it is a monumental storm I think that they will be able to get out and vote if they want to by Tuesday after next.

10/28/2012 10:57:01 AM

Clearly urban areas with polling places every 2 blocks and public transportation will be more affected than rural areas where residents have to drive miles to vote.

10/28/2012 11:52:43 AM

Aren't urban folks more likely to vote dem?

10/28/2012 2:12:05 PM

faulty logic ITT

10/28/2012 2:43:44 PM

It's all a wash. Some people will have a harder time voting or have to vote later, some on the right, and some of the left. And all the while the President will be looking Presidential on (free) national television coordinating with the National Guard, FEMA, and Governors, while Romney is yapping for attention. In the end though I think it breaks even, and a political lens isn't very useful one for a hurricane... short of a Katrina type weak response which doesn't seem to be the case.

10/28/2012 5:04:55 PM

I can't wait to read WRAL tomorrow. Sure there will be lots of posts about Sandy being God's wrath for the collapse of morality under Obama.

10/28/2012 5:06:38 PM

Not sure what to make of the Ohio news. But the polls from Florida and Virginia can only be good news

10/28/2012 11:35:42 PM

On the plus side, Sandy's made me realize a very important function of the electoral college: If a state like Florida got smacked with a hurricane on election day, such that a reduced proportion of Floridians could make it to the polls, the State's influence would remain proportional to the total national population anyway.

[Edited on October 29, 2012 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .]

10/29/2012 10:30:01 AM

NOVA is just having wind and rain, typical for winter storm....Sandy will be long gone before the election. The states that will be directly affected by landlfall they are dark blue and not even a hurricane will affect the outcome. Although, NH might be interesting by the time it gets up there. Obama only needs OH to win, the he doesnt need NH, CO, NC, VA or FL. I am pretty sure NH and CO are going blue, NC red, Fl red, VA i think will stay blue. So, Obama has a buffer even if OH doesnt come through. Romney has like one path and all say OH is a must win which looks very doubtful at this time. Thus why Romney put that commercial up in a couple areas in OH, where his is basically lying or bending the truth, it is desperation time.



[Edited on October 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM. Reason : w]

10/29/2012 5:07:37 PM

Quote :

"Imran Khan is, according to numerous polls, the most popular politician in Pakistan and may very well be that country's next Prime Minister. He is also a vehement critic of US drone attacks on his country, vowing to order them shot down if he is Prime Minister and leading an anti-drone protest march last month. On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, US immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance." The State Department acknowledged Khan's detention and said: "The issue was resolved. Mr Khan is welcome in the United States." Customs and immigration officials refused to comment except to note that "our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband," and added that the burden is on the visitor "to demonstrate that they are admissible" and "the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility." ... But the most important point here is that Khan's detention is part of a clear trend by the Obama administration to harass and intimidate critics of its drone attacks. As Marcy Wheeler notes, "this is at least the third time this year that the US has delayed or denied entry to the US for Pakistani drone critics." Last May, I wrote about the amazing case of Muhammad Danish Qasim, a Pakistani student who produced a short film entitled "The Other Side", which "revolves around the idea of assessing social, psychological and economical effects of drones on the people in tribal areas of Pakistan." As he put it, "the film takes the audience very close to the damage caused by drone attacks" by humanizing the tragedy of civilian deaths and also documenting how those deaths are exploited by actual terrorists for recruitment purposes. Qasim and his co-producers were chosen as the winner of the Audience Award for Best International Film at the 2012 National Film Festival For Talented Youth, held annually in Seattle, Washington. He intended to travel to the US to accept his award and discuss his film, but was twice denied a visa to enter the US, and thus was barred from making any appearances in the US. ... There are two clear dynamics driving this. First, the US is eager to impose a price for effectively challenging its policies and to prevent the public - the domestic public, that is - from hearing critics with first-hand knowledge of the impact of those policies. As Wheeler asks, "Why is the government so afraid of Pakistanis explaining to Americans what the drone attacks look like from a Pakistani perspective?" ... That is what this serial harassment of drone critics is intended to achieve. That is why a refusal to grant visas to prominent critics of US foreign policy was also a favorite tactic of the Bush administration. ... That mindset is a major factor in this series of harassment of drone critics: namely, those who oppose the Obama administration's use of drones are helping the terrorists and may even be terrorist sympathizers. It is that logic which would lead US officials to view Khan as some sort of national security threat by virtue of his political beliefs and perceive a need to drag him off a plane in order to detain and interrogate him about those views before allowing him entrance to the US. ..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/28/detention-imran-khan-drones


TL;DR: Popular Pakistani Politician (PPP, yeah you know me) is intimidated and prevented from raising drone-awareness. Can't have that, can we? That would go against the carefully sanitized message that Pakistani's somehow just LOVE having drones hover over their airspace and fire weapons at their communities.



But I'm sure there's a poll somewhere documenting that some Pashtun tribal leaders despise al-qaeda (while casually conflating this sentiment with a pro-drone stance). Yeahh....that seems logical. Approaching zero percent collateral damage, amirite?

10/29/2012 5:45:24 PM

wtf does this have to do with the election? and does anyone really care if someone in the country that harbored OBL for half a decade doesn't like us killing the other terrorists they harbor (either knowingly or unknowingly)

[Edited on October 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2012 6:16:54 PM

Calm down, champ. There was a whole discussion going on about this for a few pages.

I'm criticizing Obama's foreign policy, not Paul Johnson's flaccid offense. No need to get defensive or emotionally involved.

10/29/2012 6:26:36 PM

so you're just generally stupid? and here I thought you were just a myopic sports fan. this changes everything

[Edited on October 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2012 8:35:13 PM

You could do better than that.


Give it another go.

10/29/2012 8:49:25 PM

I don't think he can do better.

Our drone policy is objectively bad, we kill way too many civilians. it has caused too much backlash, and probably has been self-defeating.

10/29/2012 9:01:34 PM

Quote :

"wtf does this have to do with the election? and does anyone really care if someone in the country that harbored OBL for half a decade doesn't like us killing the other terrorists they harbor (either knowingly or unknowingly)"

it should be a much bigger part of the election

i care, and believe a lot of people care, about whether people are being senselessly killed, especially when it's, in some manner, in my name

10/30/2012 12:43:13 AM

Again. Republican led administration have bombed innoent civiilians for longer than you would imagine. And now this is an atrocity?

10/30/2012 12:58:31 AM

^ No, I think he's just pointing out that liberals were anti-war as recently as 4 years ago.

That's why Republicans and Democrats are equally laughable. None of them have any values or principles they just like pretending they are a part of something.

Feeling the need to "belong" to a political party, religion, etc is somewhat weak minded in the first place, but when you do it without any regard for the principles you supposedly stand behind it's just sad really.

You're just cheering for laundry, if Romney was running as a Democrat you'd support him just as vociferously as you do Obama.

10/30/2012 1:54:33 AM

I disagree. I believe that ones personal utopia does not hhave to be the same as national policy.just as biden put it. But If obama wins andwe go to war that is different and i would hope that the dems show him the same courtesy that they gave LBJ. But he has avoided war and he has helped an ailing country.

10/30/2012 2:23:09 AM

What in God's name is going on with Gallup? Did I miss reports saying Romney is KILLING Obama in early voting everywhere? Because Gallup has Romney +7 in early voting saying 20% of LV have voted already and then +5 in overall LV.

Those are landslide type numbers..

10/30/2012 8:52:37 AM

ibtgallupGOPbias

10/30/2012 9:27:19 AM

I'm not saying its biased inherently like Rasmussen or PPP, but it's a dramatic outlier to the consensus.

10/30/2012 9:29:11 AM

I might be wrong about this because I'm not taking time to research it atm, but I seem to recall similar charges against Gallup in 2008 where they overstated Obama's victory.

Around 4% or so I believe? Are they leaning GOP not to offset previous Dem lean?

Just curious. I might be completely wrong in above statement.

10/30/2012 9:33:51 AM

No clue, but Survey USA released polls in OH and FL that show Obama up big in early voting (though FL still going to Romney in end).

Gallup is basically against everyone, even Rasmussen.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM. Reason : X]

10/30/2012 10:33:35 AM

I still haven't figured out yowilly yet. It is like several different people using the same username.

10/30/2012 10:57:51 AM

Polls are pretty much garbage at this point...the only poll that matters is Nov. 6

the simplest logic for why Romney wins going away is that close to 100% (if not 100%) of people that voted for McCain will vote for Romney (not including dead people obviously). Take that number, about 46% on popular vote, and add to it the increase in Republicans actually voting in this election vs 2008, plus independents and Democrats who either 1 - not vote at all, or 2 - vote for Romney. I would give Romney at least 52% to 53% of the popular vote (just a guess - no math there).

Some other factors:

- Obama will still have black vote..but this won't go any higher than 2008...it may be lower, especially after the gay marriage support
- lower turnout for young voters vs 2008
- 23 million out of work, gas above $3.50 in most places
- He will not get as many Jewish votes
- He won't get as many Catholic votes b'c of contraception
- New info that early voting shows a 52 to 45 favor in Romney...Obama had 55 to 40 lead in 2008


That doesn't mean he will win the electoral college, but I think it would be very difficult for him not to win at least half or more of the swing states. I realize Gore had popular vote in 2000, but it was only 544,000 vote difference...Romney will do significantly better than Gore did.

10/30/2012 11:01:56 AM

There is a huge lack in scientific reasoning there.

10/30/2012 11:07:00 AM

There is no consensus or agreed-upon method behind polling, its not really as scientific as you think

10/30/2012 11:11:27 AM

^^^what he said

Romney will win decisively

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : /]

10/30/2012 11:12:13 AM

bash away all you want...fact is that there is significantly less enthusiasm for Obama than in 2008 and significantly more enthusiasm for republicans than in 2008.

Republicans will always fight an uphill battle w/ media and polling - more now than ever. Just look at what happened in 2010 midterm elections and even look here locally w/ the amendment 1...i think everyone would have guessed, even me, that it would be voted down (that shit was 60% to 40%)...but the people who aren't all over facebook and the internet still know how to get to the voting booths on election day.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/30/2012 11:12:31 AM

^exactly

10/30/2012 11:14:48 AM

2010 was an anti obama election...I hope 2012 will be exactly the same.

10/30/2012 11:15:34 AM

Quote :

"- New info that early voting shows a 52 to 45 favor in Romney...Obama had 55 to 40 lead in 2008"

I am not going to respond to everything since I'm on my iPhone but this is SOLELY from Gallup which I mentioned above and it goes in the face of literally every other report and/or poll out there.

Not to mention you start your post by shitting on polls and then cite a poll in your bullet points.

Quote :

"- He won't get as many Catholic votes b'c of contraception"

Except that Obama will win every state that is predominantly Catholic in the NE.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason : X]

10/30/2012 11:19:35 AM

At the same time there is rabid liberal enthusiasm to defend Obama from literally everything.

They are extremely enthusiastic, don't make that mistake, except compared to 2008 their minds aren't in the right place.

They aren't excited about him winning, in other words, they just want a win.

Republicans aren't exactly thrilled with Romney, although more so since that debate win, but even that enthusiasm was simply because he made Obama look bad.

Republicans therefore aren't excited about Romney winning either, they just want a win. The difference is they are more excited because Romney gets to get in the hated incumbent's face.

This whole election is showing the worst in everyone.

10/30/2012 11:21:54 AM

Quote :

"I am not going to respond to everything since I'm on my iPhone but this is SOLELY from Gallup which I mentioned above and it goes in the face of literally every other report and/or poll out there. Not to mention you start your post by shitting on polls and then cite a poll in your bullet points."

I only listed it because it was one pollster's data from prior election to this election...if it was a Gallup statistic in 2012 and a 538 statistic in 2008, I wouldn't include it...but the fact that it was Gallup w/ the same methodology shows me that it's at least a factor - whether or not the numbers are 100% accurate or not.

[Edited on October 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/30/2012 11:37:45 AM

Your list of "factors" consist of hunches and one wacky poll.

10/30/2012 11:48:41 AM

They're saying national polling will be basically useless for several days since so many states can't be reached.

10/30/2012 12:02:09 PM