PDA

View Full Version : "I Have a Duty, and I Execute My Duty"




Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2012, 10:57 AM
One wonders if drone pilot Col. D. Scott Brenton listens to Louis Armstrong in the suburban Air National Guard Base in Syracuse from which he murders people 7,000 miles away.

“I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer,” Brenton tells the New York Times. Drone operators see their intended targets “wake up in the morning, do their work, go to sleep at night,” explains Dave, another high-tech murderer who killed from an office cockpit at Nevada’s Creech Air Force Base and who now trains new recruits to the cyber-killer corps at New Mexico’s Holloman Air Force Base.

When instructed to kill someone he has stalked from the air for a prolonged period, “I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy,” Brenton insists. I have a duty, and I execute my duty.” When the deed is done, he points out, nobody “in my immediate environment is aware of anything that has occurred.”

“There was a good reason for killing the people that I did, and I go through it in my head over and over and over,” insists another drone operator named Will, who — like Dave — served a deskbound “combat” tour at Creech and now trains others to do likewise at Holloman Air Base.

Like the soldier Bates in Henry V, it’s sufficient for Will — and others of his ilk — to render obedience to their Leader, confident that “if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.” The more concise and notorious formula, of course, is: We are only obeying orders. Besides, drone operators (who insist on being called “combat pilots”) are carrying out an indispensable function by picking off Afghan “militants” — or at least those “suspected” of such tendencies — who unreasonably resent the presence of foreign military personnel in their country.

The New York Times profile is part of a campaign by the state-aligned media to “humanize” the state functionaries who murder by remote control — and to normalize this mode of mass murder as drones become part of the domestic apparatus of surveillance, regimentation, and repression. Readers are invited to share the anguish of these conflicted people, who for reasons of duty have to do terrible but necessary things.

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt offered a glimpse into the mindset of SS personnel who were given a somewhat similar assignment. To carry out their killing errand, she explained, something had to be done "to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering."

"The trick used by Himmler ... was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self," Arendt recounted. "So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!"

Not everybody attached to the Regime’s Cyber-Killing Corps is haunted by the horrors he has inflicted on defenseless people halfway around the world. In a 2009 U.S. Naval Academy lecture, Dr. P.W. Singer of the Brookings Institution made reference to what he called "predator porn" — footage of drone attacks proudly circulated by the people who committed those acts. In a typical offering, Dr. Singer relates, "A Hellfire missile drops, goes in, and hits the target, followed by an explosion and bodies tossed into the air." Singer described one clip of that kind, sent to him by a joystick-wielding assassin, that "was set to music, the pop song 'I Just Want to Fly' by the band Sugar Ray.”

"It's like a videogame," one deskbound drone jockey told Singer. "It can get a little bloodthirsty. But it's f****g cool."

Singer describes asking a drone pilot "what it was like to fight insurgents in Iraq while based in Nevada. He said, 'You are going to war for 12 hours, shooting weapons at targets, directing kills on enemy combatants, and then you get in the car and you drive home. And within 20 minutes, you're sitting at the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework." Meanwhile, somewhere in Iraq (or Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, or another country yet to be identified), other families are desperately looking through the rubble of their own homes in search of survivors.

Although drone strikes occur daily, most Americans pay little heed to them — beyond occasionally taking inconsolable offense when a dissident publicly describes them as acts of murder, and insults the Dear Leader by daring to compare him to less prolific killers.

This may change soon: As the Times points out, the Pentagon — driven by “a near insatiable demand for drones” — is training hundreds of operators to join the corps of more than 1,300 currently stationed at more than a dozen bases across the country. Surveillance drones operated by domestic police agencies are already plying the skies above us. Those robot aircraft can be upgraded to airborne weapons platforms, and they soon will. The people being trained to feel “no emotional attachment” to foreigners designated enemies of the state will feel no particular burden when ordered to kill fellow Americans on that list. I’m sure that the “combat pilots” who murdered U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman would testify to that fact — that is, if the “heroes” who committed those acts were man enough to acknowledge their deeds in public.

Links found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116829.html#more-116829

Withholding commentary, it'd be expletive-based.

jkr
07-30-2012, 11:01 AM
oh how brave
sick
depraved
ugh
THESE are NOT my countrymen

moostraks
07-30-2012, 11:04 AM
Powerful article...heartbreaking descriptions. Defending this type of murder is indefensible. Interesting comparison to SS training. No, they will not fathom there is a wits worth of a difference when they kill fellow citizens on American soil*. Will anything finally get Americans to wake from their stupor??

*eta meaning not even tribalism will stop them from these cool video games they think they are playing....

kathy88
07-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Animals.

Danke
07-30-2012, 12:45 PM
https://s3.amazonaws.com/attachments.readmedia.com/files/10544/original/090808_F_5508F_080.jpg?1291280195

Anti Federalist
07-30-2012, 01:21 PM
"It's like a videogame," one deskbound drone jockey told Singer. "It can get a little bloodthirsty. But it's f****g cool."

But the fact that the defense/surveillance establishment has long standing ties to the video game "industry" is just a kooky konspiracy theory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131181/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/pentagon-cia-enlist-video-games/

These pieces of human filth, devoid of empathy or compassion, heartless, cold and cruel, will have no problem lighting you or your family up, when the time comes.

Pericles
07-30-2012, 01:45 PM
oh how brave
sick
depraved
ugh
THESE are NOT my countrymen

Easy to do when you don't face the risk of being shot down and having an up close and personal encounter with the population you just bombed.

Anti Federalist
07-30-2012, 05:58 PM
Oh, and Will Grigg is bad-ass.

mczerone
07-30-2012, 06:04 PM
Links found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116829.html#more-116829

“There was a good reason for killing the people that I did, and I go through it in my head over and over and over,” insists another drone operator named Will, who — like Dave — served a deskbound “combat” tour at Creech and now trains others to do likewise at Holloman Air Base.

I'm interested in hearing the "good reasons" someone could tell themselves to kill families from thousands of miles away without direct evidence, without a declaration of war, without an imminent threat on the drone operator's life, and without even a trial.

Anti Federalist
07-30-2012, 06:06 PM
I'm interested in hearing the "good reasons" someone could tell themselves to kill families from thousands of miles away without direct evidence, without a declaration of war, without an imminent threat on the drone operator's life, and without even a trial.

Shut up, America hater.

Those people are enemies of freedom.

donnay
07-30-2012, 06:29 PM
While reading this article, all I could think of is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

heavenlyboy34
07-30-2012, 06:37 PM
humanity fail. This makes me sad. :(

heavenlyboy34
07-30-2012, 06:40 PM
From one of the links in Grigg's blog post: http://media.kboi2.com/images/090727_controversial_sign1.jpg

Danke
07-30-2012, 06:44 PM
Petar's posts removed and he got banned?

Anti Federalist
07-30-2012, 07:05 PM
Petar's posts removed and he got banned?

I an't even gonna ask.

SMH

pcosmar
07-30-2012, 07:09 PM
My consolation is that there is a final judge and judgement that cannot be escaped.

Victor Grey
07-30-2012, 08:23 PM
But the fact that the defense/surveillance establishment has long standing ties to the video game "industry" is just a kooky konspiracy theory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131181/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/pentagon-cia-enlist-video-games/

These pieces of human filth, devoid of empathy or compassion, heartless, cold and cruel, will have no problem lighting you or your family up, when the time comes.

I've played that game.

Meh it's ok.

donnay
07-30-2012, 08:26 PM
My consolation is that there is a final judge and judgement that cannot be escaped.

Indeed.

LibertyEagle
07-30-2012, 08:31 PM
Petar's posts removed and he got banned?

Huh, what? He has been a member for a very long time.

CaseyJones
07-30-2012, 08:32 PM
its a month ban chill out

Feeding the Abscess
07-30-2012, 08:46 PM
From one of the links in Grigg's blog post: http://media.kboi2.com/images/090727_controversial_sign1.jpg

I wonder if it's too much to hope that Adam's press release is picked up by media outlets, and that he gets interviewed about it.

pcosmar
07-30-2012, 08:52 PM
"I have a duty, and I execute my duty.”

That sounds so damned familiar...Where have I heard that before?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

Noun

Nuremberg defense (plural Nuremberg defenses)

(idiomatic, law, ethics) An explanation offered as an intended excuse for behaving in a criminal or wrongful manner, claiming that one behaved in that manner because one was ordered by others to do so.

Oh yeah,, those that do not remember history,,,,,

heavenlyboy34
07-30-2012, 09:18 PM
"I have a duty, and I execute my duty.”

That sounds so damned familiar...Where have I heard that before?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense


Oh yeah,, those that do not remember history,,,,,
Unfortunately, I suspect that if modern murderers in fatigues were tried in a military court, the Nuremberg defense would be acceptable. :(

kcchiefs6465
07-31-2012, 04:46 AM
Petar's posts removed and he got banned?
It appears I am late to the discussion. Petar always seemed logical and fact-check worthy.. Kind of shocking a person you could actually debate merits with is banned while a few who add nothing.. continue to add nothing. (though I missed the convo)


To the OP.. It is disgusting we live in a place that glorifies this barbarianism. American citizens assassinated without trial? What about those ditzy Kardashians.. APC's in suburbia?.. "Well, what'd they do to deserve it?" I find myself shaking my head more and more with every news article I read.

truelies
07-31-2012, 06:09 AM
No doubt these criminals will feel it to be horribly unfair if ever they and theirs receive what they have dished for so long.

frodus24
07-31-2012, 06:28 AM
This article was posted on a "friend" of mines facebook page regarding a revolution in this country. It's title is The Second Amendment and the fantasy of a revolution.

"Even though the National Rifle Association and its supporters believe that there is never any good time to have a national conversation about gun policy in the United States, the latest example in a too-long string of mass murders has indeed prompted calls for exactly such a dialogue. These conversations proceed along the same lines every single time one of these incidents occurs. On one side are the people who think it should be at least somewhat harder, if not illegal, to own assault rifles and 100-round clips. These people tend to think that at the very least, we need to make sure that random individuals are not able to buy these kinds of weapons anonymously and with no background check, so at the very least we can make sure that violent criminals aren't stocking up on a full arsenal.

The arguers on the other side of this perpetually untimely conversation say that conversely, the problem isn't too many guns, but not enough guns. That if only there had been more people with loaded guns who felt like they could be heroes in a loud, dark theater among the screaming, the tear gas, and the rapid fire of 71 shots from a semiautomatic weapon, that the shooter could have been neutralized. Whether or not the people who claim this have ever been in a dark theater filled with tear gas and terrified innocent victims attempting to avoid the storm of bullets from a shooter who could be anywhere is immaterial: It is a theoretical possibility to live out a heroic fantasy, and so we must keep the dream alive.

But even more than that, they argue, the Second Amendment is not about the rights of hunters, or those who wish to have weapons to defend their persons and property against intruders—again, things for which an AK47 might not be the best choice. Indeed, the Amendment should specifically protect the right to own assault rifles because the original intention is to allow citizens to resist the military of an attempted takeover by a tyrannical federal government—the precise fear of which has for some reason risen significantly since Barack Obama was elected as president. But more on that later.

This brings up a question: Has anyone actually thought through the realities of staging a domestic insurgency against the armed forces of the United States?

Ignoring for a moment the paradoxical reality that the people who so fervently believe that they need assault rifles to protect themselves against our own military are so often the same people arguing that we should continue to spend more money on that same military than all other countries spend on theirs combined, the first conclusion anyone would come to is that a successful domestic insurgency would need far more than than an assault rifle. When the Second Amendment was written in the late 18th century, the main weapons of war consisted of muskets and flintlock pistols. There are two very worthwhile things to note about this period in weaponry: First, it would have been very difficult for any individual to walk into a crowded theater and commit a massacre with one of these weapons, mainly because by the time the shooter had managed to reload the weapon, everyone could have already run out of the theater, or even escaped at a leisurely stroll after pulling the assailant's knickerbockers over his wig. But secondly, a group of ordinary citizens, so armed and with the proper training, could pose a significant threat to an invading army, which would be comparably armed.

These days? Things are obviously somewhat different. This will become especially obvious should one find themselves face-to-face with an M1A1 Abrams tank with a Predator drone hovering above raining down hellfire missiles from the sky. One doesn't need field tests or a war games simulation to realize that even military-grade infantry weapons won't be very effective against that type of technological terror. If we're serious about enabling citizens to resist a tyrannical takeover by our nation's armed forces, it's immediately clear that we would need to start talking about legalizing far more than just guns. Any well-armed insurgency will need rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles; beyond that, we should be talking about making it legal for pilots to retrofit any aircraft they own with whatever caliber of cannon their planes will support.

But previous history has taught us that perhaps the most effective insurgency weapon is the Improvised Explosive Device. If we are serious about defending American liberty against our own military, it's clear that we need our patriotic bomb-makers to have the freedoms they need to defend our country. As long as our government is monitoring and regulating purchases of fertilizers and other nitrates that could be used to make the explosives we need for self-defense, it's quite clear we can't have the freedoms we deserve to defend ourselves against tyranny. And while we're at it, our nation's sovereign citizens shouldn't be bound by United Nations treaties on self-defense items like chemical and biological weapons. The fear of anthrax or sarin gas might be the only thing that keeps our own tyrannical military from attempting to overwhelm our hard-earned freedoms. And while it's doubtful that any individual would have the wherewithal to build or acquire their own suitcase nuke, that person should certainly be free to do so: It's the ultimate in self-defense, is it not? The sum of all fears?

But let's conclude back in the real world. If the types who advocate for the Second Amendment as defense against tyranny were serious about their motivations, they would very quickly realize the inconsistency of having their arguments apply to guns alone, and seek to expand its scope to apply to weapons that actually had a hope of doing the duty for which they believe the Constitution provides. But those who say they dream of rebellion do no such thing, meaning that they either haven't thought through the consequences of their ideology, or that it is a cover for a motivation that dares not speak its name in polite circles, even if right-wing radio shock jock Neal Boortz did:

And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. And let their -- let their mommas -- let their mommas say, "He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd." And then lock her ass up.

Now that Barack Obama is the president, it's simply that the people who fantasize about "standing their ground" against minorities and the people who fantasize about defending themselves against an intrusive government just happen to have even more interests in common.:

Here is the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1113938/-The-Second-Amendment-and-the-fantasy-of-revolution

Interesting article to say the least.

mczerone
07-31-2012, 06:58 AM
This article was posted on a "friend" of mines facebook page regarding a revolution in this country. It's title is The Second Amendment and the fantasy of a revolution.

Interesting article to say the least.

That's saying too much.

pcosmar
07-31-2012, 07:12 AM
This article was posted on a "friend" of mines facebook page regarding a revolution in this country. It's title is The Second Amendment and the fantasy of a revolution.
.

That article was crafted very carefully,, with the intent of discouraging any and all resistance.
And by someone clearly Anti-2nd Amendment.
And it is full of bullshit that anyone with and understanding of Guerrilla warfare will recognize.

It is based on several assumptions,, many, simply not true..

frodus24
07-31-2012, 07:25 AM
Liberals hate America. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, but about a year and a half ago, it hit me like a shit storm.

I say "interesting" because I have always tried to keep an open honest view. The article really hit me in spots that I don't feel that I have ever been hurt before. For liberals to basically say, "Look, you can't take this country back so turn your guns in and be slaves in a more "fair" America" makes me angry. For liberals to sit and worship all of the violent tv, movies and video games that involve rape, guns, torture and mass killings and then say Americans shouldn't have guns is preposterous in my eyes.

frodus24
07-31-2012, 07:26 AM
Oh yes, they are VERY ANTI 2nd Amendment.

mczerone
07-31-2012, 09:36 AM
Did you ever really think that you and the best volunteer militia you could find could stand up to a single brigade of the US Army that turned inward?

Did you ever really think that you could pull off a PR win even if you survived a conflict? You'd be "that crazy cult leader that tried to take on the best equipped military in the world with a collection of legal and illegal weapons." They'd use it to show that more gun control was needed to prevent violence. They'd use it as an example of how, even if you defend your property, you are cut off from the wider society.

Did you ever really think that violence, even "defensive" violence, could change the system for the better?

pcosmar
07-31-2012, 09:55 AM
Did you ever really think that you and the best volunteer militia you could find could stand up to a single brigade of the US Army that turned inward?

Did you ever really think that you could pull off a PR win even if you survived a conflict? You'd be "that crazy cult leader that tried to take on the best equipped military in the world with a collection of legal and illegal weapons." They'd use it to show that more gun control was needed to prevent violence. They'd use it as an example of how, even if you defend your property, you are cut off from the wider society.

Did you ever really think that violence, even "defensive" violence, could change the system for the better?

if you are speaking of conventional,,fixed battle.. No, and I would never consider attempting such.

Could such an army be defeated by a determined resistance,, and resistance fighters using unconventional tactics..
Yes. It is being proven in Afghanistan. Again.


Did you ever really think that violence, even "defensive" violence, could change the system for the better?

Do you think that being a victim of violence will change the system for the better?
Do you accept slavery without resistance.. and is that better than fighting it?

Seth
07-31-2012, 11:41 AM
if you are speaking of conventional,,fixed battle.. No, and I would never consider attempting such.

Could such an army be defeated by a determined resistance,, and resistance fighters using unconventional tactics..
Yes. It is being proven in Afghanistan. Again.



Do you think that being a victim of violence will change the system for the better?
Do you accept slavery without resistance.. and is that better than fighting it?

Except in Afghanistan nobody wants the US there. The rebels have the people on their side. Most US citizens will happily give up their rights and continue to legitimize the US government. Any violent resistance against the US government would not have public support.

Origanalist
07-31-2012, 12:18 PM
One wonders if drone pilot Col. D. Scott Brenton listens to Louis Armstrong in the suburban Air National Guard Base in Syracuse from which he murders people 7,000 miles away.

“I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer,” Brenton tells the New York Times. Drone operators see their intended targets “wake up in the morning, do their work, go to sleep at night,” explains Dave, another high-tech murderer who killed from an office cockpit at Nevada’s Creech Air Force Base and who now trains new recruits to the cyber-killer corps at New Mexico’s Holloman Air Force Base.

When instructed to kill someone he has stalked from the air for a prolonged period, “I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy,” Brenton insists. I have a duty, and I execute my duty.” When the deed is done, he points out, nobody “in my immediate environment is aware of anything that has occurred.”

“There was a good reason for killing the people that I did, and I go through it in my head over and over and over,” insists another drone operator named Will, who — like Dave — served a deskbound “combat” tour at Creech and now trains others to do likewise at Holloman Air Base.

Like the soldier Bates in Henry V, it’s sufficient for Will — and others of his ilk — to render obedience to their Leader, confident that “if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.” The more concise and notorious formula, of course, is: We are only obeying orders. Besides, drone operators (who insist on being called “combat pilots”) are carrying out an indispensable function by picking off Afghan “militants” — or at least those “suspected” of such tendencies — who unreasonably resent the presence of foreign military personnel in their country.

And they will use the same reasoning when the drones are deployed on us.

pcosmar
07-31-2012, 12:19 PM
Except in Afghanistan nobody wants the US there. The rebels have the people on their side. Most US citizens will happily give up their rights and continue to legitimize the US government. Any violent resistance against the US government would not have public support.

I have doubts about that,,
look at Anaheim.. The bastards are not exactly winning hearts and minds.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Riot-Squad.jpg

I expect more of this,, and for many more to see Tyranny for what it is.

youngbuck
07-31-2012, 12:53 PM
WTF?! ^

What a bunch of douchebag goons acting like they're spec-ops soldiers with chips on their shoulders.

Anti Federalist
07-31-2012, 01:25 PM
Did you ever really think that violence, even "defensive" violence, could change the system for the better?

There comes a time when applied defensive violence has no "larger purpose", no "system changing" agenda, other than a last ditch fighting chance to keep you out of the mass grave.

If you feel like you need to go out in a Gandhi-esque calm of non violent resistance when that time comes, be my guest.

Me, I will resist, with applied defensive violence.

kathy88
07-31-2012, 02:12 PM
I have doubts about that,,
look at Anaheim.. The bastards are not exactly winning hearts and minds.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Riot-Squad.jpg

I expect more of this,, and for many more to see Tyranny for what it is.

They are all fondling their weapons like it's their Johnsons. (Sorry guys, but you know how you feel about them).

Origanalist
07-31-2012, 02:56 PM
They are all fondling their weapons like it's their Johnsons. (Sorry guys, but you know how you feel about them).

No need to be sorry.;)

heavenlyboy34
07-31-2012, 03:03 PM
They are all fondling their weapons like it's their Johnsons. (Sorry guys, but you know how you feel about them).
Hey, a guy's gotta be ready for action at any moment. ;)

Origanalist
07-31-2012, 03:04 PM
I saw a bumper sticker today that just blew me away. The guy was in the army according to the other stickers on his rig, the sticker said this;

"If we weren't meant to kill people, God wouldn't have made us so good at it"

I had to read it three times before I could believe my eyes. Now I know people have been killing people since the beginning, but to revel in it like that is just.... a bit mind boggling.

Origanalist
07-31-2012, 03:05 PM
Hey, a guy's gotta be ready for action at any moment. ;)

True that.

LibForestPaul
07-31-2012, 07:56 PM
That article was crafted very carefully,, with the intent of discouraging any and all resistance.
And by someone clearly Anti-2nd Amendment.
And it is full of bullshit that anyone with and understanding of Guerrilla warfare will recognize.

It is based on several assumptions,, many, simply not true..

Tell me about. Yes point a gun at a tank.
Do not point it at a bankster, do not point it at a general, do not point it at a senator, no, do not point it at the head, shoot a toe off. WTF.