100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: King: I Have a Dream. Barry: I Have a Drone. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 01/19/13 10:44 AM
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? The messiah , Hussein, has killed many Paki kids. But, I know the lib responce. BFD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pathetic is, defending illegal invasion and mass murder.
IMO, Hussein should be tried in a world court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government No...But if Pakistan's government doesn't step down, there may well soon be a (not very) civil war in Pakistan that could kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people...Tell your prez and his foreign policy buffoons "Nice going, and thanks."...for screwing up the works! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 01/19/13 11:10 AM
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government No...But if Pakistan's government doesn't step down, there may well soon be a (not very) civil war in Pakistan that could kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people...Tell your prez and his foreign policy buffoons "Nice going, and thanks."...for screwing up the works! time will tell,,,, is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? ,,,things that make ya go hmmmmmmm think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? ,,,,things that make ya go hmmmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 01/19/13 12:00 PM
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government No...But if Pakistan's government doesn't step down, there may well soon be a (not very) civil war in Pakistan that could kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people...Tell your prez and his foreign policy buffoons "Nice going, and thanks."...for screwing up the works! time will tell,,,, is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? ,,,things that make ya go hmmmmmmm think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? ,,,,things that make ya go hmmmmm http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x306/7df12a49b90a2917f55487f9f4460c49682e6816.jpg is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? Kind of…The use of drones to murder people abroad can easily be equated with an american citizen murdering kids in a school. The only real difference is that when the "kids" arm themselves and shoot back at the murderer, the murderer can get away with calling THEM terrorists for shooting back. so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? The choice is obvious…If a government can have nuclear missiles or other WMDs, so should its citizens. If the murderous "cowboy mentality" is immoral and inexcusable in an individual American citizen, how much more so is it in the American government? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? Because drones are used to MURDER PEOPLE and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that their use saves ANY lives. The people hit with drones aren't even tried in absentia in an international court of law for any alleged crimes they may have committed and are killed arbitrarily in contravention of the law. think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? Absolutely not…Pre-emptive killing, even with the rationalization that you feared being attacked first, is still murder. You can only shoot when lives are in imminent danger (i.e. under attack). This rule applies to nations as well as individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Targeted Killing 'Playbook' Exempts Drone Strikes
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/new-targeted-killing-playbook-exempts.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government No...But if Pakistan's government doesn't step down, there may well soon be a (not very) civil war in Pakistan that could kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people...Tell your prez and his foreign policy buffoons "Nice going, and thanks."...for screwing up the works! time will tell,,,, is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? ,,,things that make ya go hmmmmmmm think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? ,,,,things that make ya go hmmmmm http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/embedded/1000x306/7df12a49b90a2917f55487f9f4460c49682e6816.jpg is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? Kind of…The use of drones to murder people abroad can easily be equated with an american citizen murdering kids in a school. The only real difference is that when the "kids" arm themselves and shoot back at the murderer, the murderer can get away with calling THEM terrorists for shooting back. so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? The choice is obvious…If a government can have nuclear missiles or other WMDs, so should its citizens. If the murderous "cowboy mentality" is immoral and inexcusable in an individual American citizen, how much more so is it in the American government? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? Because drones are used to MURDER PEOPLE and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that their use saves ANY lives. The people hit with drones aren't even tried in absentia in an international court of law for any alleged crimes they may have committed and are killed arbitrarily in contravention of the law. think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? Absolutely not…Pre-emptive killing, even with the rationalization that you feared being attacked first, is still murder. You can only shoot when lives are in imminent danger (i.e. under attack). This rule applies to nations as well as individuals. Im not sure which country you are from. That is not the rule in america. "reasonable' fear precludes murder. and the difference between killing innocent kids and targeting a terrorist threat is that one victim is being stopped from planned and intended murder of others and the other is just being STOPPED... drones, are like, long distance electric chairs,,,,except they cant literally just pinpoint one INDIVIDUAL, there is as much evidence that drones stop future murders as there is that the electric chair does,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure which country you are from. That is not the rule in america. "reasonable' fear precludes murder. Reasonable fear means an imminant threat to life (i.e. under attack)…You can't just shoot someone because he utters a threat and looks menacing…that is not reasonable. If he comes at you running and carrying a knife, then that is reasonable fear and the homicide could be justifiable, but only if your intent was to stop him, not kill him. and the difference between killing innocent kids and targeting a terrorist threat is that one victim is being stopped from planned and intended murder of others and the other is just being STOPPED... Hard to tell one from the other the way you have phrased it, but with resect to targeting an alleged "terrorist threat" with a drone, unless the one targeted has been TRIED, CONVICTED and SENTENCED for a capital crime by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is COLD BLOODED MURDER…PERIOD. drones, are like, long distance electric chairs,,,,except they cant literally just pinpoint one INDIVIDUAL, All the more reason to outlaw them then. Even the electric chair would have been outlawed if it killed more than just the sentenced man. there is as much evidence that drones stop future murders as there is that the electric chair does,,,,, True…and that evidence is ZERO…There is no evidence at all that either stops future murders. There is however plenty of evidence that drones allow the one(s) controlling them to murder people, both totally innocent and possibly innocent. To the best of my knowledge for ALL the people that have died by drone, can you name even ONE SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER among them? I'll bet you can't!…The only murderers are the ones running the drones, and of the ones running the drones, Your President has to authorize the kill…That Makes Obama a MASS MURDERER committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. When are you going to arrest him??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True…and that evidence is ZERO…There is no evidence at all that either stops future murders. There is however plenty of evidence that drones allow the one(s) controlling them to murder people, both totally innocent and possibly innocent. To the best of my knowledge for ALL the people that have died by drone, can you name even ONE SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER among them? I'll bet you can't!…The only murderers are the ones running the drones, and of the ones running the drones, Your President has to authorize the kill…That Makes Obama a MASS MURDERER committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. When are you going to arrest him??? In this upside-down world, they won't arrest him. They'll give him another prize. obamby supporters love seeing Barry kill kids. The only kids they don't like seeing dead are feral thugs and those who make for great agenda pushing. If I was in a relationship with one of those types, I'd either get the hell out quick or, sleep with one eye open. Life has no value to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Mon 01/21/13 04:32 AM
|
|
What part of, no war has been declared against Pakistan, is so hard to grasp? not hard to understand, alot of lives being spared by not going to 'war' with Pakistan how hard is that to grasp? actually they arent if the intelligence is SHARED With the government and some of the targets are trying to overthrow said government if its a joint effort, its hardly a war against the government No...But if Pakistan's government doesn't step down, there may well soon be a (not very) civil war in Pakistan that could kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people...Tell your prez and his foreign policy buffoons "Nice going, and thanks."...for screwing up the works! time will tell,,,, is the suggestion that having more drones will provoke more violence kind of like the anti gun view about guns? so if guns can be saving lives, while simultaneously ending lives, how is it so clear to pick no guns or limitless guns? why is it so much easier to say no drones, in spite of the potential lives they are saving,,,,? ,,,things that make ya go hmmmmmmm think about that, If I were to live in a country where literally ANYONE could be carrying literally ANY Type of weapon would the standards of 'reasonable fear', change?,,, could I then shoot anyone who approached me because I was reasonably afraid they just might shoot me? ,,,,things that make ya go hmmmmm 
You really have the Gumption to compare Government-Violence to the actions of Lawabiding Citizens? Damn,you really made my day!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure which country you are from. That is not the rule in america. "reasonable' fear precludes murder. Reasonable fear means an imminant threat to life (i.e. under attack)…You can't just shoot someone because he utters a threat and looks menacing…that is not reasonable. If he comes at you running and carrying a knife, then that is reasonable fear and the homicide could be justifiable, but only if your intent was to stop him, not kill him. and the difference between killing innocent kids and targeting a terrorist threat is that one victim is being stopped from planned and intended murder of others and the other is just being STOPPED... Hard to tell one from the other the way you have phrased it, but with resect to targeting an alleged "terrorist threat" with a drone, unless the one targeted has been TRIED, CONVICTED and SENTENCED for a capital crime by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is COLD BLOODED MURDER…PERIOD. drones, are like, long distance electric chairs,,,,except they cant literally just pinpoint one INDIVIDUAL, All the more reason to outlaw them then. Even the electric chair would have been outlawed if it killed more than just the sentenced man. there is as much evidence that drones stop future murders as there is that the electric chair does,,,,, True…and that evidence is ZERO…There is no evidence at all that either stops future murders. There is however plenty of evidence that drones allow the one(s) controlling them to murder people, both totally innocent and possibly innocent. To the best of my knowledge for ALL the people that have died by drone, can you name even ONE SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER among them? I'll bet you can't!…The only murderers are the ones running the drones, and of the ones running the drones, Your President has to authorize the kill…That Makes Obama a MASS MURDERER committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. When are you going to arrest him??? you cant take someone to trial who will not/can not be captured I dont know,, maybe we will one day tie the militarys hands from going after anyone that hasnt been brought in to be tried,,,,and then people can gripe about how our intelligence knows about strikes and attacks on citizens and does nothing to stop them,, because they couldnt guarantee no innocent life would end,,, ,,,either way,, people gonna gripe Id rather them gripe while military contnue to dismantle terrorist cells and their leaders,,, these are extremists who blow THEMSELVES up with no thought of the scores they will take with them like I said, If I could save 1000 later, by risking 10 now ,,,,,thank goodness it is the military's task to decide those things,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 01/21/13 09:28 PM
|
|
Im not sure which country you are from. That is not the rule in america. "reasonable' fear precludes murder. Reasonable fear means an imminant threat to life (i.e. under attack)…You can't just shoot someone because he utters a threat and looks menacing…that is not reasonable. If he comes at you running and carrying a knife, then that is reasonable fear and the homicide could be justifiable, but only if your intent was to stop him, not kill him. and the difference between killing innocent kids and targeting a terrorist threat is that one victim is being stopped from planned and intended murder of others and the other is just being STOPPED... Hard to tell one from the other the way you have phrased it, but with resect to targeting an alleged "terrorist threat" with a drone, unless the one targeted has been TRIED, CONVICTED and SENTENCED for a capital crime by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is COLD BLOODED MURDER…PERIOD. drones, are like, long distance electric chairs,,,,except they cant literally just pinpoint one INDIVIDUAL, All the more reason to outlaw them then. Even the electric chair would have been outlawed if it killed more than just the sentenced man. there is as much evidence that drones stop future murders as there is that the electric chair does,,,,, True…and that evidence is ZERO…There is no evidence at all that either stops future murders. There is however plenty of evidence that drones allow the one(s) controlling them to murder people, both totally innocent and possibly innocent. To the best of my knowledge for ALL the people that have died by drone, can you name even ONE SINGLE CONVICTED MURDERER among them? I'll bet you can't!…The only murderers are the ones running the drones, and of the ones running the drones, Your President has to authorize the kill…That Makes Obama a MASS MURDERER committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. When are you going to arrest him??? you cant take someone to trial who will not/can not be captured I dont know,, maybe we will one day tie the militarys hands from going after anyone that hasnt been brought in to be tried,,,,and then people can gripe about how our intelligence knows about strikes and attacks on citizens and does nothing to stop them,, because they couldnt guarantee no innocent life would end,,, ,,,either way,, people gonna gripe Id rather them gripe while military contnue to dismantle terrorist cells and their leaders,,, these are extremists who blow THEMSELVES up with no thought of the scores they will take with them like I said, If I could save 1000 later, by risking 10 now ,,,,,thank goodness it is the military's task to decide those things,, The military actions under your messiah is creating more terrorists than they are killing... so your defense (killing 10 to save a 1000) is like saying to cut off your hand so you won't get a blister using a hammer! Many nations are condemning the "armed" drones and the killing of innocents....soon they will all be up in arms against us making it impossible for any American to safely travel anywhere in the world! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Tue 01/22/13 05:36 AM
|
|
That's probably the same logic they used for Sandy Hook.
Why fret over a few when it will push the Progressive agenda? That collateral damage BS could work in gang-banger and drug dealer territory. (Are they not terrorizing folks?) Bomb a street corner a few times, killing a gang member or drug dealer and a few dozen innocents. After a couple bombings, the drug problem and all the gang-bangers would go underground or quit their terrorizing, no? Job done with only a few hundred of those so-called collateral damage stats dead. Great idea, Libs. |
|
|
|
|
