Is the Boston Bombing the "Moral Equivalent" of Drone Strikes?

[Anti Federalist]

Is the Boston Bombing the "Moral Equivalent" of Drone Strikes?

Posted by Bill Anderson on April 16, 2013 02:57 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/135665.html

I have been thinking this through for a while. President Obama was rightly outraged at what happened yesterday at the Boston Marathon and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice. At the same time, however, Barack Obama presides over bomb attacks on civilians, attacks that occur without warning, and attacks that not only kill alleged "militants," but women, children, and the elderly, especially when the bombings are launched at weddings, which one would think would allegedly be a joyous celebration just as the Boston Marathon has been.

While Obama demands justice in the Boston bombing, he is silent about his own role in setting off bombs in overseas countries. If Sen. Lindsey Graham is correct and the U.S. drones have killed about 4,700 people abroad, then we are talking about something that dwarfs the horror of what happened at Boston.

I am not speaking of tit-for-tat.

However, I am sure that the horror that people in Muslim countries experience at a drone strike is every bit as awful as what people experienced in Boston yesterday.

I do not believe that we are free to denounce the evil at Boston and cheer on the evil our government perpetrates overseas.

We must denounce both or risk being the worst hypocrites on the planet.

[belian78]

What those drone strikes do to the entire area around impact makes what happened yesterday look like a firework accident. Shed your crocodile tears while holding the knife of legislation against our throats you statist ass.

[A Son of Liberty]

We must denounce both or risk being the worst hypocrites on the planet.

:thumbs:

It seems Americans, generally speaking, and American politicians in particular, have no sense of shame and no fear of hypocrisy.

It is a shame that to so many Americans, the murder of an 8 year old boy in Boston is rightly a tragic, villainous crime, but the murder of 180 children in Pakistan is "collateral damage".

[tod evans]

Look also at the number of people maimed by police every year, the number of families ruined by overzealous prosecutors....

The big difference to MSM is that this particular incident wasn't sanctioned by their master...[Supposedly]

[69360]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.

[belian78]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.
What say you about recent reports that a majority of drone strikes by the US killing many more innocents than perceived terrorists?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

[tod evans]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.

And how do you know that this supposed "terrorist bombing" wasn't actually an enemy of the US who chose to "target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect" ?

I have no idea who or what is behind yesterdays bombs, but I know beyond a shadow of doubt which government bombs weddings and BBQ's...

[KingNothing]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

[itshappening]

Lewrockwell is killing it today.

[itshappening]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

There's car bombs daily in Iraq. There wasn't when strongman Hussein was in charge.

[tod evans]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.because citizens of the USA are morally superior and any form of aggression perpetrated against them is different.

FIFY

[Anti Federalist]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.

You don't suppose there is some "deterrent factor" in those drone strikes?

[Anti Federalist]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

Serious question: Why?

Certainly the "carpet" bombing campaigns of past wars were indiscriminate as well.

[The Free Hornet]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

We know who is responsible for the drone program and have done very little to stop it (me at least aside from a primary vote and financial support for the RP campaign).

I can't state which is worse: double taps; funeral attacks; wedding attacks; marathons.

Besides, what is it about marathons that brings out the idiots:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Km5OKZlp0

[sailingaway]

no. Both are bad but different. Drone strikes don't intentionally maximize human damage with ball bearings and bbs and nails embedded to leave each victim with the largest lifetime handicap. That is a specific kind of malice.

But both are bad, the way drones are currently used.

[KingNothing]

There's car bombs daily in Iraq. There wasn't when strongman Hussein was in charge.

Yeah, and an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.

What does any of that have to do with the drone program or the bombing yesterday?

[heavenlyboy34]

Is the Boston Bombing the "Moral Equivalent" of Drone Strikes?

Posted by Bill Anderson on April 16, 2013 02:57 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/135665.html

I have been thinking this through for a while. President Obama was rightly outraged at what happened yesterday at the Boston Marathon and I hope the perpetrators are brought to justice. At the same time, however, Barack Obama presides over bomb attacks on civilians, attacks that occur without warning, and attacks that not only kill alleged "militants," but women, children, and the elderly, especially when the bombings are launched at weddings, which one would think would allegedly be a joyous celebration just as the Boston Marathon has been.

While Obama demands justice in the Boston bombing, he is silent about his own role in setting off bombs in overseas countries. If Sen. Lindsey Graham is correct and the U.S. drones have killed about 4,700 people abroad, then we are talking about something that dwarfs the horror of what happened at Boston.

I am not speaking of tit-for-tat.

However, I am sure that the horror that people in Muslim countries experience at a drone strike is every bit as awful as what people experienced in Boston yesterday.

I do not believe that we are free to denounce the evil at Boston and cheer on the evil our government perpetrates overseas.

We must denounce both or risk being the worst hypocrites on the planet.
Pssh. It's only bad when They bomb Us. Don't you know this by now, mundane? Best go talk to the Ministry Of Truth before the Thought Police have to come for you.

Big Sister is watching.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsEwgESVy5A1_ezNhAwLOKqiKrpxKfA i-5v52EtQiTBjFEC-Pr

[angelatc]

There's car bombs daily in Iraq. There wasn't when strongman Hussein was in charge.


Yeah, I was watching a show over the weekend - they interviewed the Iraqi blacksmith who helped smash the bottom of the Hussein statue they pulled down. At the time, he was pro-America, but a little miffed that they put an American flag, and not an Iraqi flag, over the face of the statue.

Now, he has fled Iraq, and lives in Lebanon. He said under Hussein they were 100 years behind, but now they're 300 years behind. It's a hellhole, and if he had it to do again he would be fighting the Americans.

[KingNothing]

Serious question: Why?

Certainly the "carpet" bombing campaigns of past wars were indiscriminate as well.

Because the drone program doesn't intentionally target non-combatants, in theory anyway.

Carpet bombing has nothing to do with the drone program. Guys like Bombs Away LeMay make Obama's war crimes look like child's play.

[heavenlyboy34]

no. Both are bad but different. Drone strikes don't intentionally maximize human damage with ball bearings and bbs and nails embedded to leave each victim with the largest lifetime handicap. That is a specific kind of malice.

But both are bad, the way drones are currently used.
That's the official story. But I don't know what the drone bombs are like. They may be designed to throw shrapnel around as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

Serious question: Why?

Certainly the "carpet" bombing campaigns of past wars were indiscriminate as well.
Yeah, that.^^

[Anti Federalist]

no. Both are bad but different. Drone strikes don't intentionally maximize human damage with ball bearings and bbs and nails embedded to leave each victim with the largest lifetime handicap. That is a specific kind of malice.

But both are bad, the way drones are currently used.

Malice like lighting up kids using Apache helicopters and mini guns?

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/45-45/1427-video-us-apache-helicopter-kills-12-unarmed-iraqis

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's use an analogy. Four scenarios. All result in the death of an innocent child. Are they morally equivalent? What should be the liability and penalty in each case?

1. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

2. A person is texting and driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

3. A person has two glasses of wine with dinner. The person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

4. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The person has a grudge against this neighborhood, and they intentionally run over the child. The child is struck and killed.


Simple, isolated scenarios for your analysis. But we now must add a bonus question: are the situations different if they are repeat incidents, and happen over and over again?

[tod evans]

That's the official story. But I don't know what the drone bombs are like. They may be designed to throw shrapnel around as well.

High energy explosives and flechettes.....Nah, not our illustrious government..

[kcchiefs6465]

no. Both are bad but different. Drone strikes don't intentionally maximize human damage with ball bearings and bbs and nails embedded to leave each victim with the largest lifetime handicap. That is a specific kind of malice.

But both are bad, the way drones are currently used.
I have seen civilians in Pakistan with wounds that look exactly like some of the runners' wounds. (legs blown off)

Both are tragedies.

White phosphorus. Depleted uranium birth defected babies. These are war crimes. I feel sympathy for all civilians who are affected by the evil of men. Our occupations are so incredibly indifferent to life that it makes the bombing yesterday seem trivial. (which it is not, by any means) I denounce both.

What people will not hear is that the bomber in Boston probably was upset with our policies around the world. Our policies will continue to be a cause for people to attack us. So long as charred Pakistanis are still visible and two-headed babies are still birthed. It's a damn shame, really.

[Christian Liberty]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.

Which one killed more innocent people? And since there was no trial or evidence, EVERYONE Obama killed is as good as innocent.


The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

No, the drone program killls way more people. Its WAY worse.


Lewrockwell is killing it today.

In a good or bad way?

Because the drone program doesn't intentionally target non-combatants, in theory anyway.

Carpet bombing has nothing to do with the drone program. Guys like Bombs Away LeMay make Obama's war crimes look like child's play.

They're targeting noncombatants on purpose. I have no doubt they want attacks like the Boston bombing so they have an excuse to take more and more power. And so they will enrage the "Enemy" until they do something to us, then use it as an excuse to go to war again.


That's the official story. But I don't know what the drone bombs are like. They may be designed to throw shrapnel around as well.

I have no doubt. Doesn't matter though. Murder is murder.

Let's use an analogy. Four scenarios. All result in the death of an innocent child. Are they morally equivalent? What should be the liability and penalty in each case?
[QUOTE]
1. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.


Most likely an accident, perhaps manslaughter if the person was either not paying attention or driving an exceptional speed for the location.

2. A person is texting and driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.


Most likely manslaughter.

3. A person has two glasses of wine with dinner. The person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

Same as "Texting" probably.


4. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The person has a grudge against this neighborhood, and they intentionally run over the child. The child is struck and killed.

Murder.


Simple, isolated scenarios for your analysis. But we now must add a bonus question: are the situations different if they are repeat incidents, and happen over and over again?

Probably not, except the first one, which is pretty much unavoidable accident in at least some cases. That said, Obama is murdering people on purpose. There are no "Mitigating factors" with the drone program.

[sailingaway]

Malice like lighting up kids using Apache helicopters and mini guns?

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/45-45/1427-video-us-apache-helicopter-kills-12-unarmed-iraqis

If they are known to be kids, to some extent, but still not using nails and such to make sure the wounds are most damaging. I'm not making light of that, you should know that. I think that is terrible and unacceptable.

But I don't think people are sitting around the tables at the pentagon figuring out what to put in the bombs to make sure the survivors are the most vivid living reminders of the day of the attack by the wretchedness of their remaining lives. There is uncaring monstrosity and monstrosity by calculation.

[pcosmar]

Because the drone program doesn't intentionally target non-combatants, in theory anyway.


Bullshit.

There was a recent,, well publicized drone strike that took out a 16 year old boy (a US citizen). Simply because he was the son of a critic of the US policy.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up.
Your blatant stupidity is the forum equivalent of the "town drunk".

[KingNothing]

Bullshit.

There was a recent,, well publicized drone strike that took out a 16 year old boy (a US citizen). Simply because he was the son of a critic of the US policy.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up.
Your blatant stupidity is the forum equivalent of the "town drunk".


I already said that the drone program was reprehensible and added an "in theory, anyway" caveat to my statement that you quoted.

[pcosmar]

I already said that the drone program was reprehensible and added an "in theory, anyway" caveat to my statement that you quoted.
In Theory?

Or "for propaganda purposes".

They are a terror weapon, in practice no different than the V1 and V2 rockets of WWII. Just the modernized equivalent.

[tod evans]

I
But I don't think people are sitting around the tables at the pentagon figuring out what to put in the bombs to make sure the survivors are the most vivid living reminders of the day of the attack by the wretchedness of their remaining lives. There is uncaring monstrosity and monstrosity by calculation.

There are, and there has been, whole divisions of the DOD that does exactly what you speak of.

[pcosmar]

What people will not hear is that the bomber in Boston probably was upset with our policies around the world.

If that was the case (and I do not believe it is),, They would have already made a very public statement to that effect..

No such statement has been made.. and no claim (however lame) of responsibility has been made.

That is something to contemplate.

[69360]

What say you about recent reports that a majority of drone strikes by the US killing many more innocents than perceived terrorists?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare


And how do you know that this supposed "terrorist bombing" wasn't actually an enemy of the US who chose to "target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect" ?

I have no idea who or what is behind yesterdays bombs, but I know beyond a shadow of doubt which government bombs weddings and BBQ's...

It's all about the intent. The Boston bomber intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Obama at least in theory intends to target enemy combatants. This in no way justifies the drone strikes or extrajudicial killing, but the Boston bombing is morally if not legally a magnitude worse.

Look I hate Obama, there is no other way to put it. But I'm not going to use an event like this to make "omg Obama is a mass murderer too" statements.

[dannno]

but still not using nails and such to make sure the wounds are most damaging.

I'm pretty sure the bombs the drones use are a lot more damaging than the ones used in Boston :confused:

[thoughtomator]

Obama at least in theory intends to target enemy combatants.

He has long had more than enough evidence to know that the primary victims of his drone attacks, by a 50-1 margin, are innocents. That's really not much different than bombing a crowd on the theory that someone in the crowd probably deserves it for something.

Oh, also, the double-back attacks on people trying to help the wounded are a particular moral horror and may by some evaluations make the drone strikes significantly worse, morally, than random acts of violence.

[kcchiefs6465]

If that was the case (and I do not believe it is),, They would have already made a very public statement to that effect..

No such statement has been made.. and no claim (however lame) of responsibility has been made.

That is something to contemplate.
Very true. From what I've heard many groups (overseas) have denied any involvement. I would imagine someone would claim responsibility for it. It's all speculation on my part.

There is still hatred towards us for a lot of foreign policy over the years. Embassies will be attacked, our soldiers attacked, etc. I'm sure we are in agreement that we need to come home.

[heavenlyboy34]

We must denounce both or risk being the worst hypocrites on the planet.
doood....American hypocrisy is fucking legendary.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vQsOfPLsL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX225_SY300_CR,0,0,225,300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
Book DescriptionRelease date: April 15, 2008
A takedown of the GOP’s deceitful propaganda machine from the hugely popular blogger of Salon.com’s Unclaimed Territory and the author of the New York Times bestsellers How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy

Long since Americans were wooed by images of Ronald Reagan astride a horse, complete with cowboy hat and rugged good looks, the Republican Party has used a John Wayne mythology to build up its candidates and win elections. Their marketing scheme of evoking brave, courageous, heroic warriors has been so persuasive and strikes such a patriotic nerve, that many citizens have voted based on this manipulative imagery even when they’ve flat out disagreed with the GOP’s positions on key issues.

Glenn Greenwald puts this bogus GOP mythology under microscopic critique and successfully argues that none of these men is, in fact, a brave, strong moral warrior—far from it. Rather, most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing. Such false archetypes—that GOP leaders are exclusively fit to command the military, represent traditional family values, and are fiscally restrained and responsible because they’re just regular folk like us—are so firmly entrenched in our culture as to allow the GOP to sit back and let their time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues. When they actually do voice opinions, it’s nothing more than a smear campaign of the supposed weakness and elitism of the Democrats.
To prevent this tired marketing scheme from succeeding again, Greenwald takes off the gloves and knocks down the hoaxes and myths, exposing the tactics the right-wing machine uses to drown out both reality and consideration of real issues. But he also calls on Democrats to shake off the defensive posture (“We love America too,” “We support the troops too,” “We also believe in God”) and start attacking the Republican candidates for the hypocrites they, in truth, are.

The first book to dissect the Republican Cult of Personality and leave it openly exposed in its unabashed, shameful depravity, Great American Hypocrites is a deeply necessary call-out to Democrats to attack the GOP with their competitor’s very own weapons.



Ever since the cowboy image of Ronald Reagan was sold to Americans, the Republican Party has used the same John Wayne imagery to support its candidates and take elections. We all know how they govern, but
the right-wing propaganda machine is very adept at hijacking debate
and marketing their candidates as effectively as the Marlboro Man.
For example:

Myth: The Republican nominee is an upstanding, regular guy who shares the values of the common man.
Reality: He divorced his first wife in order to marry a young multimillionaire heiress whose family then funded his political career.

Myth: Republicans are brave and courageous.
Reality: It’s a party filled with chicken hawks and draft dodgers.

Myth: Republicans are strong on defense and will keep us safe.
Reality: They prey on fears, and their endless wars make America far less secure.

Myth: The Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint and small, limited
government.
Reality: Soaring deficits, unchecked presidential power, and an increasingly invasive surveillance state are par for their course.

[awake]

I bet you when they find the patsy he says these bombs are the moral equivalent of drone strikes...Forever inoculating the drone program from any criticizer.

[sailingaway]

There are, and there has been, whole divisions of the DOD that does exactly what you speak of.

If that is true those people are the same, but I don't think that is the drone department.

In fact, I'm remembering a recent story of a drone operator horrified to find he'd killed a kid, and having to be removed from the position.

I think part of why the American people are able to ignore drones is they view it as relatively 'clean'. I think were it not so viewed, there would be a very different affect towards it.

I don't think it is nearly as clean as they (other Americans) like to think it is, but it isn't hidden ball bearings and nails buried in the explosives, either.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's use an analogy. Four scenarios. All result in the death of an innocent child. Are they morally equivalent? What should be the liability and penalty in each case?

1. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

2. A person is texting and driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

3. A person has two glasses of wine with dinner. The person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The child is struck and killed.

4. A person is driving down the street. A child darts out chasing a ball. The person has a grudge against this neighborhood, and they intentionally run over the child. The child is struck and killed.


Simple, isolated scenarios for your analysis. But we now must add a bonus question: are the situations different if they are repeat incidents, and happen over and over again?


Pro-drone people would argue that collateral damage from drone strikes is most like option 1. Innocents are not intended targets, and they are "accidents". But does that excuse hold up when it is repeated, over and over and over again? When does it qualify as intentional?

A street bomber would be considered option 4. They kill everyone and that is their intent.

Option 3 most likely would be prosecuted the most aggressively, and probably be easier to prosecute (and prove?) in practice than option 4. Option 3 has the added element of politics. Adding alcohol to the mix brings into play the neo-Prohibitionist war on alcohol. Like "terrorism", labels become important to many, because they want to use the incident to push additional agendas above and beyond the actual incident.

[anaconda]

No. I don't support the drone strikes but they are not morally equivalent to a terrorist bombing. The drone strikes at least in theory target an enemy fighter and civilian deaths are a side effect unlike a terrorist bombing where civilian deaths are the intended consequence. That doesn't make the drone strikes right, but they are not equivalent.

Perhaps the Boston bomber was striking at whomever he/she/they perceived as enemies. Who legitimizes Obama's "targets?" Obama is a filthy murderer, same as the Boston bomber(s).

[Anti Federalist]

It's all about the intent. The Boston bomber intentionally targeted innocent civilians. Obama at least in theory intends to target enemy combatants. This in no way justifies the drone strikes or extrajudicial killing, but the Boston bombing is morally if not legally a magnitude worse.

Look I hate Obama, there is no other way to put it. But I'm not going to use an event like this to make "omg Obama is a mass murderer too" statements.

It isn't about Obama, and it isn't about "hate" or politics.

For me, it is simply pointing out the 900 lb. gorilla in the room:

This government has declared the entire globe to be the theater for the GWOT, forever.

Therefore, asymmetric warfare and the "collateral damages" that occur, is a consequence of that. (That's making the assumption that the Boston bombing was, in fact, politically motivated)

War is all hell.

[69360]

Perhaps the Boston bomber was striking at whomever he/she/they perceived as enemies. Who legitimizes Obama's "targets?" Obama is a filthy murderer, same as the Boston bomber(s).

Probably a team in the CIA or DOD.

I still, while not agreeing with the drone strikes, don't think it is the moral equivalent. Like first degree murder isn't the equivalent of manslaughter although both are a crime.

[T.hill]

Fox News just had an analyst on, I think he was at least, who said something about libertarian's screaming bloody murder, but the constitution isn't a suicide pact. So, I'm guessing he was talking about actions that should be taken.

[T.hill]

It was on Special Report w/ Bret Baier

[kcchiefs6465]

Fox News just had an analyst on, I think he was at least, who said something about libertarian's screaming bloody murder, but the constitution isn't a suicide pact. So, I'm guessing he was talking about actions that should be taken.
A few Mark 77s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb) ought to show them who can kill people deader. Or are we just going for more gruesome? It's hard to tell with all of the ingenious ways we've developed to turn a body inside out. Maybe a generation of cancer would teach those savages a lesson? (wrong country, but good intel is hard to come by) White phosphorus caused organ failure seems a little too quick.

Of course, we can't be indiscriminate with our incinerations. Then we are no better than those savages. Let's just poison their water and coat the earth with depleted uranium dust. Terror will have to sign a treaty then.

[Carson]

"Is the Boston Bombing the "Moral Equivalent" of Drone Strikes?"

Absoulutly!


If they wouldn't have dropped the drone medal we could of put whomever is behind the Boston thing up with Bush and Obama for one each.

http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawaredefense/2013/04/15/downgrade-expected-today-for-drone-medal/

We've had several presidents sets precedence for this type of thing. It wouldn't surprise me if our own actions have something to do with this. You can't ignore borders and the rule of law and not eventually have it catch up with you.

I suppose time will tell though. Maybe I'm jumping the gun here. After all most of the last attacks seemed homegrown and leading back to our own justice branch of government.

Still when your comparing you can't really hold the not being able to afford a drone against whomever.

[tod evans]

Look I hate Obama, there is no other way to put it. But I'm not going to use an event like this to make "omg Obama is a mass murderer too" statements.

I don't "hate" Obama, actually I kind of pity the guy....This idea of going into other countries and killing their citizens for financial and political gain is not something he invented.

Our government as a whole makes these decisions and it doesn't really matter which puppet is dancing in the prez position..

Unconstitutional wars have been waged since I was a kid in the 60's and it really doesn't seem to matter which talking head addresses the public.

[tod evans]

If that is true those people are the same, but I don't think that is the drone department.

In fact, I'm remembering a recent story of a drone operator horrified to find he'd killed a kid, and having to be removed from the position.

I think part of why the American people are able to ignore drones is they view it as relatively 'clean'. I think were it not so viewed, there would be a very different affect towards it.

I don't think it is nearly as clean as they (other Americans) like to think it is, but it isn't hidden ball bearings and nails buried in the explosives, either.

Here's some of our countries wonderful explosive technology from before my days in the service, just think what horribly mutilating rounds they have come up with in the last 40-50 years..

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QD7_kt6Ez6s/TTW_jwwGmgI/AAAAAAAAATk/uVfIqm-2tQw/s1600/_38226219_flechette_shell_300info.png

[anaconda]

Probably a team in the CIA or DOD.

I still, while not agreeing with the drone strikes, don't think it is the moral equivalent. Like first degree murder isn't the equivalent of manslaughter although both are a crime.

So killing Pakistanis with drones is "manslaughter?' I'm not sure I follow.

[affa]

But I don't think people are sitting around the tables at the pentagon figuring out what to put in the bombs to make sure the survivors are the most vivid living reminders of the day of the attack by the wretchedness of their remaining lives. There is uncaring monstrosity and monstrosity by calculation.

c'mon. there are people sitting around tables at the pentagon that gladly fund research into all sorts of terrible weapons. and that's not even getting into potential off the book stuff like bio-weapons. it's all monstrous.

[Sola_Fide]

The drone program is morally reprehensible, but an indiscriminate bombing at a marathon is much worse.

Why?

[heavenlyboy34]

It isn't about Obama, and it isn't about "hate" or politics.

For me, it is simply pointing out the 900 lb. gorilla in the room:

This government has declared the entire globe to be the theater for the GWOT, forever.

Therefore, asymmetric warfare and the "collateral damages" that occur, is a consequence of that. (That's making the assumption that the Boston bombing was, in fact, politically motivated)

War is all hell.
You're older and wiser than I, so let me pick your brain-how long can this GWOT last? This is obviously an unwinnable "war", but TPTB seem bent on making it a Forever War. Under what conditions does it stop?

[Cleaner44]

A bit of creative changes to a couple of CNN articles produces this...


(CNN) -- Beyond the shattered glass, the blood, the wails of pain, there are questions: Who did this? Why? And how?

Monday's drone attack on the residents of North Waziristan killed an 8-year-old boy shopping with his family, a 29-year-old woman loved by her family and friends and a Pashtun man from Pakistan. More than 180 others were wounded, many losing limbs as a result of horrific twin blasts near the local market, in the heart of the city.

A full day later, Pakistani tribal elders are still grappling for answers. No suspect had been named. No one has claimed responsibility. Although it is widely known that the drones are American, President Obama refused to comment on the killing of innocent people...

[otherone]

To me, drone strikes are far more morally reprehensible. They are done in my name..."I" did them, "I" paid for them. Like millions of "moral" Americans, I sent my taxes in yesterday. And if yesterday's horror is indeed blow back, I am responsible for that as well. :(
Can anyone rationally explain why we are still in Afghanistan?

[Anti Federalist]

You're older and wiser than I, so let me pick your brain-how long can this GWOT last? This is obviously an unwinnable "war", but TPTB seem bent on making it a Forever War. Under what conditions does it stop?

Wiser, I'm not so sure.

Two options:

The entire world submits and complies.

Or we go broke and dissolve, like the USSR did 20 odd years ago.

[tod evans]

There is a third option but it shal not be voiced on the internet.

Personally I don't like options 1&2.......

[Sola_Fide]

Can anyone rationally explain why we are still in Afghanistan?

Because somebody there still hates us for our freedoms.

[tod evans]

Can anyone rationally explain why we are still in Afghanistan?

Oil and opium.

[Sola_Fide]

Oil and opium.

and lithium and gold

[kcchiefs6465]

Oil and opium.


and lithium and gold
Plus rep.

[better-dead-than-fed]

What makes the Boston targets "innocent" or "noncombatant"? Did they not fund bad things with their tax payments?

[kcchiefs6465]

What makes the Boston targets "innocent" or "noncombatant"? Did they not fund bad things with their tax payments?
Were the taxes not forcibly taken?

The children haven't funded anything, by the way. Them having a leg blown off or dying is reprehensible. That goes for any child or civilian in any country.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Taxes were taken by threat of imprisonment only, not threat of execution. So it's okay to fund executions in order to avoid prison?

Children didn't fund anything, but sometimes killing them (hiroshima, etc) is found to be the less reprehensible option. If you propose a system where no children, or women, or men are ever killed, I'll subscribe. But then we'll have to deal with overpopulation, famine, and disease....

[kcchiefs6465]

Taxes were taken by threat of imprisonment only, not threat of execution. So it's okay to fund executions in order to avoid prison?
Meh. You know goddamned well you did your taxes. Preach to another choir. (as if sitting in a cell for years is going to help anyone)



Children didn't fund anything, but sometimes killing them (hiroshima, etc) is found to be the less reprehensible option. If you propose a system where no children, or women, or men are ever killed, I'll subscribe.
Less reprehensible, huh? Sounds like the justification for dropping modern day napalm in Iraq to me.



But then we'll have to deal with overpopulation, famine, and disease....
For one, overpopulation on whose scale? (not on mine, that's for sure) For two, famine and disease have existed since human time. Bombing countries to get rid of them seems like something only a suit could envision, or rather, justify.

[better-dead-than-fed]

And what exactly was your proposed system for eliminating all killing?

[better-dead-than-fed]

And as for taxes, you seem to argue that your little bit did no harm, but that's nonsense, so you can't pretend that your sitting in prison would be totally useless. It would help, but you make the choice to fund executions instead. That's on you, mr. self-righteous.

[kcchiefs6465]

And what exactly was your proposed system for eliminating all killing?
Whose killing? The world's?

There is no proposal. War will exist as long as incredible financial interests are at stake. (Our wars) You must ask yourself, whose interests?

The rest of it is out of my control. Though it's all out of my control, really. People are wicked. Inherently so. I'm not too religious but it is the best explantion. How else do you explain how people do this to their fellow man? Perhaps I'm being short on the conversation, I expanded a little in another thread, I think I'll add. I have repeated myself once or twice on these forums.

ETA: I thought it deleted my ramblings. I'm glad to see it did not. Please rephrase your question more specifically. (how to stop the killing) I have some ideas that I think would help, FWIW. (for example, what killing)


From another thread:


Are you so narrow-minded that you think there is no other reason for why terrorists attack us? The situation is multifaceted and although the primary reason for why they attacked us is our foreign policy, there is a small minority of terrorist groups who use the Jihadist theory of self-defense to propagate Islam. They use Islam as a scapegoat to justify their actions like the KKK justified lynching black men through the Bible and Christianity.
It is hard to say what the countries would be like without our involvement. Without us sending textbooks to children that glorify repelling invaders. Without the attempted assassination of Abd al-Karim Qasim and subsequent coup. The installation of the Shah. The CIA funded and fueled domestic uprisings in Syria. (1949) The creation of Israel and the displacement and murder of Palestinians. It is multi-faceted. But they would have no reason or need to hate us if we had not already done as much as we've done. As I've stated a few other times, sure, there may be some illiterate man in the Middle East who hates us for our freedoms. But it wouldn't take much for him to find a legitimate reason. The starved babies in their own city might have our fingerprints on it. (sanctions)

As for radical Islamists, the way I understand it is that they are mainly upset we are stationed in the Arabian Peninsula. They are upset with our unwaivering allegience to Israel. (who truth be told, has committed some war crimes) The sanctions killing Iraqi babies has been mentioned as one of their grievances. I'm sure depleted uranium birth defected babies is now on the list. It really isn't hard to get a grasp on why they may hate us.

If we left today, the killings probably would not stop. The hatred towards us would not all of a sudden disappear. We need to issue a sincere apology for our past sins. We need to acknowledge and show respect to their dead. This is all very basic, though it will never occur because certain companies' interests are at stake. The oil fields are too lucrative, for example. Genie Energy (Rothschild, Cheney as well as other very powerful men's company) just got the first permits to drill in the Golan Heights. (from Israel) Makes you start to question 'history,' doesn't it?

[kcchiefs6465]

And as for taxes, you seem to argue that your little bit did no harm, but that's nonsense, so you can't pretend that your sitting in prison would be totally useless. It would help, but you make the choice to fund executions instead. That's on you, mr. self-righteous.
I am hardly self-righteous. Sure, what pittance I pay to the State may go to fund these bombings and occupations. I consider myself an interest payer, personally.

Me sitting in prison would be useless.

Please respond to post #68.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I need a minute to respond to #68.

[better-dead-than-fed]

kcchiefs, I'm contemplating scenarios where our country is under attack for no good reason, scenarios where we are not an aggressor. What if you were commander in chief, and you couldn't get at the enemy's shot-callers or trigger-men, but you could carpet bomb their children until they became so demoralized that they backed off. If you had to choose between that or letting them defeat you (and your own children), which would it be?

[A Son of Liberty]

Taxes were taken by threat of imprisonment only, not threat of execution. So it's okay to fund executions in order to avoid prison?

Not entirely true. Taxes are taken by the state under the assumption that they own your life; as such, the state does take them under the threat of imprisonment, but also with the implication that if you resist this theft, you face the full, violent force of the state up to and including your execution.

[PierzStyx]

no. Both are bad but different. Drone strikes don't intentionally maximize human damage with ball bearings and bbs and nails embedded to leave each victim with the largest lifetime handicap. That is a specific kind of malice.

But both are bad, the way drones are currently used.

You are incorrect. Drones do maximize human damage. They just don't have to resort to home brew flak to do it.

[PierzStyx]

kcchiefs, I'm contemplating scenarios where our country is under attack for no good reason, scenarios where we are not an aggressor. What if you were commander in chief, and you couldn't get at the enemy's shot-callers or trigger-men, but you could carpet bomb their children until they became so demoralized that they backed off. If you had to choose between that or letting them defeat you (and your own children), which would it be?

Useless argument. No such situation can, or would, exist in the real world. In fact history has shown that attacking civilian populations does NOT demoralize terrorists. It invigorates terrorism. Read "Dying To Win" and "Cutting The Cord" by Dr. Robert Pape. His studies on this are excellent.

[PierzStyx]

Wiser, I'm not so sure.

Two options:

The entire world submits and complies.

Or we go broke and dissolve, like the USSR did 20 odd years ago.

I'm betting on broke and dissolve myself. And more and more I'm finding I would welcome such a result.

[phill4paul]

I would say that for those who "are survived by" that each is outraged and find either act morally reprehensible.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm betting on broke and dissolve myself. And more and more I'm finding I would welcome such a result.

So am I, especially if it could happen relatively bloodshed free, as it did in the USSR.

[better-dead-than-fed]

...history has shown that attacking civilian populations does NOT demoralize terrorists. It invigorates terrorism. Read "Dying To Win" and "Cutting The Cord" by Dr. Robert Pape. His studies on this are excellent.

I haven't noticed any terrorism committed in retribution for the children killed in Germany, Japan, and Vietnam. What does Pape say about that? Unfortunately I don't have time now to read his studies.

[kcchiefs6465]

kcchiefs, I'm contemplating scenarios where our country is under attack for no good reason, scenarios where we are not an aggressor. What if you were commander in chief, and you couldn't get at the enemy's shot-callers or trigger-men, but you could carpet bomb their children until they became so demoralized that they backed off. If you had to choose between that or letting them defeat you (and your own children), which would it be?
Walk softly and carry a big stick. I would not ever authorize the carpet bombing of civilians.

What you proposed is a false dilemma. You are saying that either do this or that will happen. 'A' or 'B' if you will. As if there is not option 'C' 'D' 'E' etc.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Walk softly and carry a big stick. I would not ever authorize the carpet bombing of civilians.

What you proposed is a false dilemma. You are saying that either do this or that will happen. 'A' or 'B' if you will. As if there is not option 'C' 'D' 'E' etc.

I've been asking you what options C, D, and E are, but you don't seem to want to share. One thing is for sure, you don't want to be viewed as a child-murderer or a supporter of child-murderers.

[kcchiefs6465]

I've been asking you what options C, D, and E are, but you don't seem to want to share.
First of all, I asked you to clarify your earlier question. (what do I propose to do to stop killing, I believe it was) Whose killing? Our government's killing? All killing? I then asked if you would respond to post #68. You responded with a false dilemma. That is what I am referring to as having more options. It isn't that I carpetbomb babies or we all die. That is absurd. Japan was trying to surrender, by the way. We wanted to show our dicks and flaunt the new technology we had. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies. Carpet bombing civilian cities in Germany was a tragedy. I don't care who started doing them first.


One thing is for sure, you don't want to be viewed as a child-murderer or a supporter of child-murderers.
That is a very keen observation.

[anaconda]

To me, drone strikes are far more morally reprehensible. They are done in my name..."I" did them, "I" paid for them. Like millions of "moral" Americans, I sent my taxes in yesterday. And if yesterday's horror is indeed blow back, I am responsible for that as well. :(
Can anyone rationally explain why we are still in Afghanistan?

You raise an interesting point. Millions of Americans share the responsibility for drone usage. While the Boston bombing might have been the plotting of far fewer. But I don't believe this alters the moral equivalence of the deed. It just reassigns the blame. And, to the extent that Boston may have been the mischief of government sponsored operatives, the blame is again transferable to the Sheeple.

[anaconda]

What makes the Boston targets "innocent" or "noncombatant"? Did they not fund bad things with their tax payments?

You just made the FEMA Camp list.

[anaconda]

Me sitting in prison would be useless.


Not if 100 million others joined you. Civil disobedience is an option.

[better-dead-than-fed]

You just made the FEMA Camp list.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?411515-federal-bureau-of-retards&p=4978582

[Christian Liberty]

Not entirely true. Taxes are taken by the state under the assumption that they own your life; as such, the state does take them under the threat of imprisonment, but also with the implication that if you resist this theft, you face the full, violent force of the state up to and including your execution.

This is admittedly the uncomfortable reality of any non-anarchist position. As a minarchist, that is something I have to think about. I think the violations of the NAP... overall, would be less under a minarchist state than with no state, but its still uncomfortable to think about any form of taxation this way.

Let me be clear though, the state has NO RIGHT, NONE to take money for anything other than the defense of personal property and to punish those who violate the rights of other people.


I am hardly self-righteous. Sure, what pittance I pay to the State may go to fund these bombings and occupations. I consider myself an interest payer, personally.

Me sitting in prison would be useless.

Please respond to post #68.

If you're stolen from at gunpoint and you pay, you are not responsible in any way. The very idea is ridiculous. The implications are absurd.

[better-dead-than-fed]

... If you're stolen from at gunpoint and you pay, you are not responsible in any way. ...

Then who is responsible?

[better-dead-than-fed]

... If you're stolen from at gunpoint and you pay, you are not responsible in any way. ...

Then who is responsible?

[A Son of Liberty]

Then who is responsible?

The person with the gun.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The person with the gun.

And if you succumb to the robbery early enough so that no particular armed robber is assigned to your case, who's responsible then?

[heavenlyboy34]

This is admittedly the uncomfortable reality of any non-anarchist position. As a minarchist, that is something I have to think about. I think the violations of the NAP... overall, would be less under a minarchist state than with no state, but its still uncomfortable to think about any form of taxation this way.

Let me be clear though, the state has NO RIGHT, NONE to take money for anything other than the defense of personal property and to punish those who violate the rights of other people.



If you're stolen from at gunpoint and you pay, you are not responsible in any way. The very idea is ridiculous. The implications are absurd.
Why do make an exception for that purpose of theft? We know from experience that money stolen for the purpose of "defense" more often than not goes to assault, aggressive war, graft, bribery of foreigners, and so forth.

[kcchiefs6465]

And if you succumb to the robbery early enough so that no particular armed robber is assigned to your case, who's responsible then?
The person dropping the bombs.

The person whose interests are served by way of our policy.

Policy makers.

Not I.

[A Son of Liberty]

And if you succumb to the robbery early enough so that no particular armed robber is assigned to your case, who's responsible then?

The guy with the gun.

Just because he still has it in his pocket rather than in your ear, doesn't mean you don't know what he's up to.

[idiom]

In theory all of the targets of drone strikes are non-combatants. Otherwise they couldn't live in the legal limbo of Gitmo.

Its why there is legislation making it okay for the government to kill civilians.

[juleswin]

What if it turns out that it was a Syrian nationalist responsible for the bombing? Should we bomb Syria or just take as blow back for sponsoring the Jihadists that now terrorize their country?

[pcosmar]

"Is the Boston Bombing the "Moral Equivalent" of Drone Strikes?"

Immoral equivalent.

[PierzStyx]

I haven't noticed any terrorism committed in retribution for the children killed in Germany, Japan, and Vietnam. What does Pape say about that? Unfortunately I don't have time now to read his studies.

Be specific, do you mean in WWII and Vietnam? Pape says that terrorism results when people oppressed by outside societies have no military means of victory, the oppression is continuous without any possible end, and military confrontation would not work. Vietnam is easily explained away. The Vietcong won. That was their retribution. Japan's occupation was short and the nation recovered very quickly to catapult to economic prosperity. IN Germany the Cold War quickly supplanted WWII, setting the Germans against the USSR (who Germans did commit acts of violence against) and the West was seen not as an enemy but an ally.

As for Dr. Pape, if you aren't willing to put the work in to become educated on an issue, why on Earth would you dare speak on it from a place of ignorance?

[PierzStyx]

This is admittedly the uncomfortable reality of any non-anarchist position. As a minarchist, that is something I have to think about. I think the violations of the NAP... overall, would be less under a minarchist state than with no state, but its still uncomfortable to think about any form of taxation this way.

Let me be clear though, the state has NO RIGHT, NONE to take money for anything other than the defense of personal property and to punish those who violate the rights of other people.



If you're stolen from at gunpoint and you pay, you are not responsible in any way. The very idea is ridiculous. The implications are absurd.


In a minarchist state the government would never take taxes from people. Witness The Constitution, until 1913 the only taxes it could take were import/export duties for using our ports and excises taxes on products. That was it. IN a minarchist state there is no direct taxing, and no theft.