HOME | DD
poderiu — US Drones in Pakistan
Published: 2010-12-13 04:10:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 1037; Favourites: 11; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Description
...Related content
Comments: 25
You are pure genius!This is hillarious and tru in the same time!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And? Bin Laden was assassinated, with out any trial. He should go to court.
Maybe George W Bush, other US presidents and other US responsabals should also be caught for terrorist acts and go to trial in international court of justice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you are some kind of Bin Laden supporter then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To state Bin Laden was killed without trial doesn´t mean I support Bin Laden. I support the law, and the internacional law is not respected by US, the most terrorist country and terrorist supporter worldwide. In fact, the US is the only country accused by International Court of Justice of being responsable for terrorist crimes against Nicaragua, where tens of thousands of people died.Should Nicaraguans go to the US and kill Ronald Reagan?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is not a anti-american poster, is a anti-terrorism poster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And In Afagnistan and in lots of COUntries
THE HORRIBLE TRUTH
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Does he score more, or less, for every civilian blown up?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Should have a picture of Bush and Obama with two controllers going for the "high score"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In Pakistan, Obama has the "high score"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
According to the New America Foundation, 250 civilians were killed in drone strikes between 2006 and 2010. And that's in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. And that's higher than a count published by the Long War Journal. So I'm not sure that almost 2,000 civilian deaths occurred in Pakistan between 2004 and 2006...
Besides, do you really believe that Obama is controlling the drones himself? Honestly. I get what it's saying, but come on, just because some pilot (or control officer or whatever you want to call him) got some intel about the enemy location and ended up inadvertently killing civilians doesn't mean Obama has any hand in it at all. Must you be so ignorant?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do not give any credibility to the New America Foundation, I leave that source to you. According with Wikipedia, and facts are based in many sources (go check it out), there were killed since 2004 till 2010 1980 pakistan civilians. Only in 2010 were killed 866 people. This are facts, I didn´t made him up. And I keep the ignorance for yourself.
Of course I don´t say in this work Obama is the author of the attacks. But is under his administration that this attaks are being carried now. It´s symbolic allusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
*facepalm*
1) You realize those stats were based on ALL PEOPLE KILLED in the strikes, right? That's not a chart of civilian deaths. That's a chart of all people killed.
2) You should never start off a logical argument with "According to Wikipedia". You will often be instantaneously discredited.
And the ignorance is back in your court.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. These stats are bases in CASUALTIES IN DRONE STRIKES in Pakistan, and the MAJORITY are CIVILIANS.
2)Wikipedia summerizes all data of specific sources. Those specific sources are pointed in the page.
3)USA don´t have any legitimation in invading PAkistan, Iraq or Afghanistan. So even if were killed 100 civilians in Pakistan, which didn´t happen, those murderers are crimes against humanity, according to the International Law. Why? Targeting, killing, terrorizing civilians e TERRORISM.
Use your *facepalm* but do it in front of your mirror.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) Where on that page does it say that the majority are civilian deaths?
2) Sometimes it does. But Wikipedia should never be used in a legitimate argument.
3) Crimes against humanity is defined as specifically targeting a people or a group of people, i.e. genocide or the repeated, intentional killing of a people. It is never planned for the drones to kill civilians, nor are the drones targeting a specific group of people.
Dude, *facepalm*. Check ALL of your facts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) There is a "Timeline" with the casualties from 2004 till 2010. It´s a long timeline, you can try to count them and you will see the majority are civilians.
2)Not all the time Wikipedia can be used. But, in the case of this specific issue, all data has sources that confirm the casualties.
3) Terrorism is also the "bombing of civilian targets" like houses, where pakistani families were killed: those are crimes against humanity, and considered terrorism acording to international law. How do you know the Drones didn´t target civilian structures and civilians on purpose? Did you check that "fact" of yours?
4) You also forget to comment the FACT that US is not supposed to invade Iraq, Afgnanistan and Pakistan. But do not worry, one can understand that omission of yours: can be called forgeting the history by imperialist convenience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
considering the the GW Bush administration launched this program, shouldn't you have used him as your scapegoat?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Counting the pakistani casualties commited by the Bush Administration, there are from 2004 to 2007 - apróx. 110 casualties.
Counting the pakistani casualties commited by the Obama Administration, there are from 2008 to 2010 - apróx. 1971 casualties.
It looks fair enoough to use Obama as the "scapegoat".
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I actually agree with you a little bit on this one. I know we've exchanged rough words about this deviation during its submission process but I have to say its refreshing for someone to recognize that obama is backing the same war and policies that bush did.
Maybe this is what it would have been like if Kerry was elected.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
i think it would be different. Kerry actually went to war; Obabma did not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
an interesting point. It should be noted that Bill Clinton was the first US president not to have served in the armed forces.
And Kerry and McCain have well known war service records, whereas Bush and Obama don't.
The trend may point to a disillusionment over the Vietnam War, thus only limited political power can be derived from it. This may just be one other reason Colin Powell didn't run for president.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think you might be splitting hairs. Obama hasn't done much in the way of ending the war and of course all we can do is speculate as to what Kerry would have done but based on his campaign it wouldn't have been much different. Kerry was just Bush light.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The US history shows that both main political parties (democrats and republicans) are connected to lobbies that profiteer from war. So, I agree on you that if Kerry was elected, the foreign policy would´t be to much different and military invasions and civilian killings would not cease.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
correction: 1871 casualties by the Obama administration.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0