Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Everything We Know So Far About Drone Strikes

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 28, 2013, 10:22 a.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Great information on the US self destructive tactic of robot death.

http://www.care2.com/causes/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes.html?page=3

Obviously no one can say exactly how many innocent civilians have been killed by these drone strikes. It is enough to say that there ARE innocent civilians killed and therefore we must stop.

Although we have cut in half the number of strikes from the high of 100 per year (2010) in Pakistan (most active area). We cannot accept that as meaningful improvement. One robot killing is wrong.

The justification for this obscenity goes back to the laws establishing the endless War on Terror in 2001. Our efforts agitating for a declaration of an end to that exaggerated, unnecessary war mongering is the best way to stop drone strikes.

If there has been any reduction in the use of drone strikes we have all the protesters here and elseware to thank. Congress has been mostly silent (except for a handful of progressive anti war representatives), Mainstream media has been mostly silent (I have heard MSNBC cover the issue only recently). But any coverage, and any Administration info, and/or reduction is because outraged people (here and elseware) and progressive, anti war organizations (listed in the article) have not let up.

Let's join them. Let's NOT let up. Declare the War on Terror over, end the drone strikes, repeal Indef detention, and the patriot act. The progress we've made has been embarrassingly small.

Time to ramp it up. Get in the street join with UFPJ, Code Pink, Just foreign Policy, and many other progressive anti war groups.

Only the people can change this obscene robot death.

175 Comments

175 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

More anti drone protests. This is what we must encourage.

http://www.nationofchange.org/drones-provoke-growing-controversy-us-1359301771

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Assume the position! Peace... Freedom need no defense there is not an option in the USA certain rights must remain it is a matter of who pretends what better...I AM WE

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Drone policy a struggle of conscience for Admin?

http://news.yahoo.com/drone-memo-origins-094500222--politics.html

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

None to surprising for a bunch of criminals of war. Soon something is going to wake their conscience maybe they need Jimminy Cricket to the rescue. Yes they do drone on and on and on. Close Washington DC and bring decision making into our country.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok. I am he, as you are me, and we are all together.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

In La'kech mayan for I am another in yourself ALL ONE!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If you say so.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by ExposingObamaPlants (-18) 1 year ago

Here is another one that thinks OWS is part of the DNC.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You don't speak for me trollboy. I think no such thing.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The Drone wars are not about fighting terror (ist's) - nope that is the cover story - it is really an extension of the corpoRAT wars for control of resources.

It is actually promoting terror - terror from the skies - you can run but you can not hide - so capitulate and cooperate with corpoRAT world conquest.

WWIII the corpoRAT profits over people war.

Humanity/Life under full assault by the CorpoRATions.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Can't argue with that. So we must eliminate the cover. Force the declaration of an end to the war on terror. Don't let them use that phony excuse to perpetrate war. Oh and WE gotta stop using so much resources. No other culture in the history of humanity has been so gluttonous and wasteful. it is OUR fault our govt has resource wars.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

it is OUR fault our govt has resource wars.

Yes & No

Yes - as a people/society we have let practices be instituted that are detrimental to society/people/environment.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

people vote for these wars every election.

they don't vote for the actual peace candidate, not even in the primaries. The corporate takeover of government has a lot of people thinking war is peace.

Manufacturing consent hard at work.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

If you oppose drones please join this effort.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1399

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Action Alert. Drone protests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/anti-drone-activists-protest-obama

Join us for these important events.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Is it better to have drone strikes under Military control, or CIA control?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/exclusive-no-more-drones-for-cia.html

Or maybe it's all the same?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Uh oh. Other countries with drones? better make rules and slow our roll!

http://www.nationofchange.org/drone-monopoly-frays-obama-seeks-global-rules-1363535096

This explains the reductions in drone missions and the new found beginnings of transparency/conversations..

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And the wars will end when we force that action. WE must take responsibility for the mistake & the solution.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And pushing viable alternatives =

Implementation of green energy power generation

Implementation of green energy power transportation

Implementation of green business industry manufacturing

Exporting peaceful green technology

Sending green technology aid instead of throwing billions of dollars at rulers/governments that will likely not use it to benefit their people.

Peace/Health/Prosperity for ALL

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We are on the same page with all that. The other we can focus on is healthy/natural food & water for all people produced in their localities.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Growing hemp for :

textiles

Food

oil

Building Materials ( save trees )

Biodegradable packaging ( shred and spread on a field & save trees )

Paper ( save trees ) also ( hemp paper manufacture is not a chemical intensive process )

Plastics ( don't need fossil fuel plastics )

Plant waste from unused parts of the plant = natural fertilizer.

Hemp does not require chemical pesticides or fertilizer. ( environmentally - people - water table - soil FRIENDLY )

OH - AND - make it a legal recreational drug of choice ( starve criminal activities of business ) - safer then alcohol for the body. ( personal freedoms issue )

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Oh yes. Hemp (non drug related) is a possible replacement for many plastic uses as well as building materials and the rest you mentioned. The drug related plant can replace addicting pain releaving drugs. And the recreational use would improve many peoples lives if they replace the alcohol intake. Go Hemp!

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Hemp is a great renewable resource, probably the best. It was DuPont and Randolph Hearst that were instrumental in having it or marijuana out-lawed. It was a threat though to Hearst's vast tracks of forest/pulp wood, and to DuPont's synthetic fiber industry.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

Hemp has been one of the most benefical "resources" in the history of mankind.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

There is a great quote that I can't find right now, but it goes something like this. 'I can't believe that they outlawed the most valuble plant on earth.' Funny, but tons of truth in it.

Here's one I found: "We shall by and by want a world of hemp more for our own consumption. John Adams Did he mean to smoke it or use it for clothing and stuff? My world is turning up-side down to think our founding fathers might have been stoned when they wrote the Constitution.

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

Thomas Jefferson was a regular maijuana smoker. I've also heard, although I haven't followed that up, that we've been using it so long there's a spescific marijuana recepter in the brain.

This plant is a part of our collective human heritage, and the state has one hell of a lot of gall telling us we can't use it.

Who the fuck are they, our nannies?

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

There is a wonderful book by Peter McWilliams about the absurdity of prosecuting consentual/victimless crimes called Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. Sadly the author died not directly from the cancer he had, but from choking on his own vomit. He was being prosecuted for growing his own plants, and was denied access to the weed which alleviated his nausea. I had written him a letter of support to him, but regretably he died before I could send it.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

Wow, how sad.

Well, the morality police sure don't want any cancer patients to accidentally expierence a little euphoria. It's sets a bad example.

LOL (I guess.)

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Replying here. I know what you mean as my reading list is growing too. My next purchase though will be the Howard Zinn book that you reccomended. First I want to read Wisdom of The Elders, and then Hedges' Death of The Liberal Class....nothing implied on the latter

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes, it was really sad, and I regret not getting that letter out.
while Mr McWilliams was going through this, the judge did not let up, even after receiving a plea from conservative writer/philosopher William Buckeley pleading for him to do so. The drug war is really messed up. It's all about money.

It's a great book that is easy to put down and pick up. The quotes which are on almost every page are worth the price alone. It's a wonderful legacy to his life as well.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

I don't think I can make room for the book right now, but sometime I hope.

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - Euphoria any sort of regular appetite or natural non-poisonous pain relief and so the assholes deny marijuana to cancer patients.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

Thomas Jefferson was a regular maijuana smoker. I've also heard, although I haven't followed that up, that we've been using it so long there's a specific marijuana recepter in the brain.

This plant is a part of our collective human heritage, and the state has one hell of a lot of gall telling us we can't use it.

Who the fuck are they, our nannies?

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We've been slaughtering innocent people for a long time.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14607-when-military-group-think-condones-the-mass-killing-of-civilians

When is it gonna end.?

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3998) 1 year ago

Wooohooooo!!!

Kudos to all the people who put enough pressure on to get this initiated! Pressure and awareness from the people works!

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Colorado leads the way. Good honest hard working people. Honorary occupiers if not actual occupiers.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

More hemp, less drones!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fanf'ntastic - this could be huge - hope Washington does the same. Get some real processed hemp industries going. WooHoo.

TWEETED

http://www.nationofchange.org/farmers-begin-planting-hemp-under-new-colorado-hemp-legalization-1359472236

Spread the word.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It is so good in so many ways. I'm spreading it, man I am spreading it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Me Too - everywhere - on a repeat basis. Awareness must grow.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Reducing drone strikes is not enough! We must agitate for an end to the War on Terror. End ALL drone strikes.

[-] 0 points by johnsena2000 (0) 1 year ago

Hello readers,my name is SENA, i wanna share a testimony a mega spell caster who help me bring my ex boyfriend back. I broke up with my ex since last five month hoping that we will get back again but things was getting worse until someone directed me to a great spell caster who cast a reuniting spell for me without collecting any money from me.i must say he is indeed a great spell caster. And i know he can still help you,and is a sin if i should go out without dropping the email of this great spell caster,please contact him on his email: drwadadaselltemple@gmail.com or dr-wadadaselltemple@hotmail.com once you contact him your problems will be over. Once more i say a big thanks to you for helping me recover my ex back.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Spam!!!!

[-] 0 points by johnsena2000 (0) 1 year ago

An amezing testimony of a spell caster that help me get my husband back to me. My name is jamind I lived in U S A and i have 3 kids, before i was having problems with my husband which make him hate us so much that even lead to breake up and leave us to another woman, untill a friend of mine directed me to this man called Dr. WADADA, i contacted him and he start to cast the spell immidiatly, then he help me and i get my husband back in pease and we are now happy family am very much thankfull to Dr. Wadada that help me,so i must tell the people how good he his. I will advice you to contact him through this email drwadadaselltemple@hotmail.com or dr-wadadaselltemple@hotmail.com ) Then your problem will be solve.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Spam!!!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

One word to describe the drone strikes - Unconstitutional

Killing Americans with them is unconstitutional.

The undeclared drone wars are unconstitutional.

When did Congress declare the wars in Pakistan and Yemen? Where was that vote?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

no declaration, no oversight, no joke.

We MUST pressure all politicians to declare an end to the phony war on terror being used for the criminal drone strikes, & rights violations.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Eric Holder said yes and included something along the lines of "there are no plans to do so"

He was more specifically talking about if the president can order or sign off on it. John Brennan also thinks there is no limit to drone strikes either.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are mischaracterizing the stated position of the govt

Our 1st effort will always be arrest. (obviously more likely in US). Govt has stated they cannot drone strike anyone who is not going to attack/kill Americans as well.

The tea party wacko Rand Paul was just grandstanding and came late to the issue, Feinstein, Udall, Wydan, Leahy all have pressured and succeeded at getting a little more info on the horrible new tech.

It is up to us to protest all pols and keep the govt in line regarding who they can kill and when.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1685411/what-rand-paul-really-thinks-about-drones/

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

in what way have a "mischaracterizing the stated position of the govt" ?

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Our 1st effort will always be arrest. (obviously more likely in US). Govt has stated they cannot kill (drone strike) anyone who is not going to attack/kill Americans as well.

That is the policy and has been for decades. the new drone tech notwithstanding.

The govt kills Americans all the time. drones are just a new tech (that hasn't been used to kill Americans in America yet)

But bombs have been used. And plenty Americans have been killed by the feds (known & unknown) with bullets.

Seems to me drones should be covered by existing precedent no?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You left out one important aspect

it's all based on allegations that do not have to be backed up by evidence nor does imminence of a threat need to be proven. How much longer til the CIA pulls another Khalid El Masri? They thought he was going to kill Americans too. Turned out they had the wrong guy. But they didn't realize that until they already tortured him for months. Shit they've probably already done it. Maybe iced the guy instead.

seems to me you're trying to make excuses for the UNPRECEDENTED provisions of the NDAA of 2012.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I didn't mention NDAA. Seems to me you are deflecting from the issue of whether the govt should be allowed to kill Americans in America.

No they shouldn't.

And in so far as NDAA is concerned, it MUST be repealed. And will e ifWE protest in massive numbers against the war mongerers who are trying to keep us in fear of the phony 'war on terror'

And did your tea party boy Rand mention his position on NDAA?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the NDAA of 2012, according to Lindsey Graham declares the world as the battlefield, including the homeland. This is very important to take into account when talking about this issue.

I am not deflecting from the issue either. I've posted this next sentence on this forum at least 20 times in the past day. The government does not have the authority to target Americans for assassination based on allegations. I've posted sources from the ACLU on this issue many times as well.

I do not like Rand.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

NDAA should be repealed. I support all lawsuits against it, all protests, petitions and pols who seek to repeal it.

Before NDAA existed, before drone tech the fed govt did kill Americans on american soil though. You do know that right.? Without a conviction, sometimes known to the public sometimes not.

It was wrong then, and absolutely wrong with NDAA, & drones.

It's not new. Sorry

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

please refer to specific events

Are you saying military or are you talking about police.

the NDAA provisions are unprecedented. Like I said, go read what the ACLU has to say about it.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I already discussed NDAA. In case you missed it I will repeat for you.

"NDAA should be repealed. I support all lawsuits against it, all protests, petitions and pols who seek to repeal it."

Do you think it matters to the dead person if it was CIA, FBI, or USArmy?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

This is how this is different than anything you could mention

The NDAA allows for the targeted assassination of Americans or indefinite detention.

I am not saying that the government has not killed people. The CIA, FBI, etc have a corrupt history. However, at no point in time did they codify provisions like that mentioned above and overall in the NDAA. This is the big worrisome difference I am talking about. Before they had to do it in the dark or claim self defense, which is still incredibly fucked up. Now it's legal to just jump the gun and assassinate.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Repeal AUMF, NDAA, Patriot act and drone assassinations.

End the neocon fear mongering the feuls support for all this and the phony 'war on terror'.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Type "drone strikes" into the search on this forum. I have a ton of posts on drone strikes.

Also the NDAA allows them to drone strike Americans once allegations come up of them being an enemy combatant.

And according to Lindsey Graham "the world is a battlefield, including the homeland."

AUMF defines the worldwide battlefield (along w/ Graham) It & NDAA must be repealed, These are obvious restatements we've all agreed on.

Why are you restating them? And how is your posts on drones important to search for. This is not a competition.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You said I was distracting from the drone strikes issue. I did no such thing. If you can't see how the NDAA provisions have a connection to drones, I don't know what to tell you, discussing this is not a distraction from drones. They are connected in several ways. I was merely pointing out that drone strikes are an important issue I care about.

Speaking of reiterating, I told you this already.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And Grayson ain't done. He will continue agitating for an end to that debacle and repeal of aumf, ndaa, patriot act, and every other rights violations we've been subjected to for 12 years now.

but he can't do it alone. He needs a strong progressive movement behind him pressuring ALL pols.

It's up to us?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I realize you want to deflect the conversation from drone strikes to NDAA.

No prob.

I've already stated my feelings on NDAA. I will again in case you missed it the 1st 2 times.

"NDAA should be repealed. I support all lawsuits against it, all protests, petitions and pols who seek to repeal it."

Also as important as that: AUMF, and the fear mongering that feeds the phony 'war on terror' must be ended.

Right?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Fully agree. Did you see graysons attempt to end the Afghanistan war?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Type "drone strikes" into the search on this forum. I have a ton of posts on drone strikes.

Also the NDAA allows them to drone strike Americans once allegations come up of them being an enemy combatant.

And according to Lindsey Graham "the world is a battlefield, including the homeland."

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Oh I just love your dismissal: "It's not new. Sorry" [sic]

So all those previous bad acts justify all these new bad acts? How you do plan to repeal an executive order?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

WE can do it with massive protests. It's up to the people! We can't expect govt to do anything for us.

Which exec order are you interested in overturning.?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

All of them. Executive orders are an unconstitutional infringement of the separation powers (legislative authority) because they carry force of law. Seeds of tyranny lie here, growing quietly.

Massive protests in the face of what you've been advocating? Most sane folks will stay home...

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Then it's Monday.? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Ahhh, the twinkle-team rides again... Well done inclusionman, you've proved my point. Coward.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Are you a moron? What kind of stupid question is that?

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Apparently the only kind of question you understand, inclusionman...

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What's wrong with sunday?

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

What's "sunday" got to do with the the above post?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

On sunday!

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

"On sunday!"

Really inclusionman? You've reduced yourself to babbling? How quaint.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

nope

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

And your point is?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I do not share my personal info because of dishonest untrustworthy trolls like you.

You don't have to trust me. I do not need you to. And I do not care.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

So you're a coward? Unable to put your name on your posts and defend your thoughts and beliefs? Internet trolls pose little to no threat personally...

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I trust no one least of anonymous forum trolls. LOL

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

And that would be you, inclusionman... See my name attached to every post? Who are you?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Only the brave stand against overwhelming force. Will you be safe at home?

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Yep, those folks going out in the street are certainly courageous. What do you plan to do to support them and prevent their sacrifices from being made in vain? Or do you still trust what the government tells you?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Well then you can give up and stay home.

Who cares.

You aren't serious anyway.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I'm not? Oh gawd, you can divine men's true nature and even their very thoughts? All hail the great and powerful inclusionman!

Given what is going on with regards to government policy and capabilities; the nationwide police attack on Occupy; NDAA indefinite detainment provisions; planned drone usage in the US; the president's claim he can legally order any American killed anywhere, anytime; DHS purchases of CQB automatic weapons; stockpiling over one billion and a half rounds of ammunition; purchasing over 2700 MRAPs and bulletproof roadside checkpoints, do you want to go out in the streets?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The only point you've proved is on your head. LOL.

And what about tuesday is that a problem for your ignorant ass also?

[-] -3 points by Micah (-58) 1 year ago

Your are entirely correct.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Welcome to the wilder shores of democracy...

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Why did you not mention NDAA inclusionman? It's USG policy too... Part and parcel of the same policy you rationalize as a matter of fact.

Massive protests, with USG surveillance, agents provocateur, DHS drones and MRAPs, not to mention local police and policy of indefinite detention and legally sanctioned USG murder -- wow sounds like a good time...

Think those capabilities and policies might put a chill on folks' First Amendment zeal?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your not making sense. I haven't offered a rationalization of anything.

Slow down, form complete lucid sentences based on honest facts and we can discuss anything.

So far everyone of your comments have been lies.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Wow, what a zinger inclusionman. I'm just reading what you write. Got a problem with that?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You aren't "just reading what I write". You are responding with lies.

Everyone of your comments are lies.

Every single one.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Well, then prove it...

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"difficult time"? LOL. you are so sophomoric, and amateurish, this is so easy I can do it while I watch tv, converse on the phone, eat my lunch, and answer my email.

You think very highly of yourself.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

As do you...

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your comments serve as the proof of your dishonesty.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Oh that's rich. Having a difficult time when confronted with your beliefs inclusionman? That's Socratic method for you...

[+] -4 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

"Our 1st effort will always be arrest." Identifying yourself with the USG inclusionman?

So you rationalize and justify indefinite detention and legally sanctioned USG murder based on secret information and informants? You trust what the "Govt has stated" despite repeated evidence that the same "Govt" lies to its citizens, actively deceives us with military and company propaganda, and classifies documents to cover-up both its mistakes and heinous deeds? Are you a faithful catholic alter boy as well?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Silly, childish, cut & paste trolling?

Please, grow up.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

When you stop trying to justify murder and indefinite detention.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Never tried to justify anything. That's you just blatantly lying again, because your attacks don't hold up to the truth.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then read what you write inclusionman. Aye there's the rub...

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No need. I know what I wrote. and I know you have only lied so far.

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

HELP! I am apparently banned. Any advice?

alterorabolish1

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

email the abuse@occupywallst.org email and ask

[-] 2 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Thanks, I emailed info@occupywallst,org but haven't received a response. I also called the phone number but no one answered. I'll try the email you suggested.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why were you banned.?

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

I don't know. How do I find out?

alterorabolish1

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

good luck

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Thanks, it was confusing to see the word "removed" immediately after making a post, but still be able to see the posts myself. I had just made a reply to the doctor that wrote about the culture crisis. Now it's there under windyacres.

[-] 0 points by nandoatake (-18) 1 year ago

Keep creating sockpuppets. It's the only way to avoid the heavy censorship here. It's also a good way to practice civil disobedience. I only care about your ideas so your username means little to me. It will bother the Twinkle Team, but just ignore their lame rants.

[-] 0 points by windyacres (1002) 1 year ago

Thanks, it's been a frustrating experience.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then you do trust the government and support indefinite detention and murder based on secret information, inclusionman. Bravo, you have been standing up for your principles.

Why don't we invite everyone to read what you write in these threads and make their own decision as to what you mean? If you've feel you've been mischaracterized, why not comment on what you've written and correct that misperception?

inclusionman:

"Our 1st effort will always be arrest. (obviously more likely in US). Govt has stated they cannot kill (drone strike) anyone who is not going to attack/kill Americans as well.

"That is the policy and has been for decades. the new drone tech notwithstanding.

"The govt kills Americans all the time. drones are just a new tech (that hasn't been used to kill Americans in America yet)

"But bombs have been used. And plenty Americans have been killed by the feds (known & unknown) with bullets.

"Seems to me drones should be covered by existing precedent no?"

Let's be clear, what, exactly, are you saying above?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Maye you should do this while referring to a dictionary?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Unable to formulate a rational argument in support of your own words inclusionman? Please, enlighten us with your wisdom...

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I already did correct your lies. repeatedly.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then why write the above post inclusionman? What does it mean? What does it imply?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The govt has always killed Americans in America. I am against it.

You know that is what I believe and you are twisting my meaning because you can't argue honestly and respectfully.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then correct my misperceptions of what you've written inclusionman. If I am "wrong", show me... be specific.

Let's try again...

inclusionman wrote:

"Our 1st effort will always be arrest. (obviously more likely in US). Govt has stated they cannot kill (drone strike) anyone who is not going to attack/kill Americans as well.

"That is the policy and has been for decades. the new drone tech notwithstanding.

"The govt kills Americans all the time. drones are just a new tech (that hasn't been used to kill Americans in America yet)

"But bombs have been used. And plenty Americans have been killed by the feds (known & unknown) with bullets.

"Seems to me drones should be covered by existing precedent no?"

What, exactly, are you saying above inclusionman? And yes, I have no respect for propagandists and bullshit artists.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

"Our 1st effort will always be arrest." Identifying yourself with the USG inclusionman?

So you rationalize and justify indefinite detention and legally sanctioned USG murder based on secret information and informants? You trust what the "Govt has stated" despite repeated evidence that the same "Govt" lies to its citizens, actively deceives us with military and company propaganda, and classifies documents to cover-up both its mistakes and heinous deeds? Are you a faithful catholic alter boy as well?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm stating the policy not my belief in govt behavior.

When govt breaks the law they should be held accountable. Of course.

I didn't say I trusted anyone. Is your position so weak you must attack me personally with unfounded lies?

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Merely a freudian slip?

But you do trust the USG and are actively rationalizing and justifying its new policies of indefinite detention and murder of citizens without due process. That's what you wrote above, inclusionman.

Problem is, if indefinite detention and USG murder based on secret information is legal, how can we prosecute? Wait, do you play a lawyer on TV?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Didn't say I trusted anyone, never mentioned indef detention, or murder without due process.

That's you blatantly lying.

Stick to the truth it's much more rewarding and you might experience the concept of people respecting you.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then perhaps you ought write what you mean, inclusionman. Cause I've read what you write, and you justify legally sanctioned terror and murder by the USG.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are absolutely wrong. I have never justified, rationalized, or supported anything regarding govt murder.. I am against govt killing anyone.

You only have lies. You are tired and simply. No challenge at all. and since you ain't honest there is little value in the discussion.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Again, I am merely reading and responding to what you write inclusionman. If I am lying, it ought be easily proved. By all means, do so...

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your comments ARE the proof.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Then quote me! Show the world I've wronged you...

Here is your post inclusionman:

"Our 1st effort will always be arrest. (obviously more likely in US). Govt has stated they cannot kill (drone strike) anyone who is not going to attack/kill Americans as well.

"That is the policy and has been for decades. the new drone tech notwithstanding.

"The govt kills Americans all the time. drones are just a new tech (that hasn't been used to kill Americans in America yet)

"But bombs have been used. And plenty Americans have been killed by the feds (known & unknown) with bullets.

"Seems to me drones should be covered by existing precedent no?"

And here is my reply:

""Our 1st effort will always be arrest." Identifying yourself with the USG inclusionman?

"So you rationalize and justify indefinite detention and legally sanctioned USG murder based on secret information and informants? You trust what the "Govt has stated" despite repeated evidence that the same "Govt" lies to its citizens, actively deceives us with military and company propaganda, and classifies documents to cover-up both its mistakes and heinous deeds? Are you a faithful catholic alter boy as well?"

The rest, as they say, ought be like shooting fish in a barrel for an astute twinkle-teamer such as yourself...

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Your not making sense. And this is useless and of no value.

You're just a troll.

[-] -3 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Yep, just another propagandist and bullshit artist. No reasoning -- btw who does your thinking for you?

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

there are two issues here. One is whether to fight the war or not. For the sake of this argument, let's go on the premise that the war on terror WILL continue. So, how will the war be fought? If te goal, simply put, is to exterminate the terrorists, then drone strikes appear to be the cheapest way to go. Unless you want to deploy literally 1 million troops on the ground, or resort to carpet bombing on a massive scale, then drone strikes will result in the fewest civilian casualties.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok. How about this. No million troop invasions, No war on terror, No drone strikes without a declaration of war.

That'll work.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

then go with the tried and true peace movement agenda. It seems that protesting drone strikes if sort of missing the point. I, for one, believe in diplomacy through strength. And fighting terror is not like fighting a country. I do not think there has been any precedent for this type of conflict before 9/11.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

the war on terror is phony, and must be declared over. Repeal AUMF!!

No need to engage in war against a tactic of a tiny force living in caves.

It's like attacking a fly with a grenade. It's ridiculous.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

But remember, a group of flies in a cave took years and patience to plan 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Islamabad.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Please these were insignificant efforts. I will not submit to their desire of making us live in fear.

That is for small minded people.

We can't stop every attack with force. Impossible, we can only reduce our own freedom and values. Which is what they want.

Time to grow a pair and stop living in fear. They ain't all that.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

If we were living in fear, then perhaps we would simply retreat back to our borders and hunker down, pleading for mercy and agreeing with everyone.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That would be one measure. Or maybe we would just take away civil rights from the citizenry, spew anti muslim fear mongering to keep the country on a self destructive war footing.

Theres that measure too.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

And don't tell me you already did your time. Theres plenty of contractor jobs available to go "fight the war on the terrorists"...

So shut the fuck up with your overly macho talking and go actually walk the walk.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

Do me a favor, and take your meds.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Do you have any clue how many bombs have gone off in this country over the years?

If you think this shit is about terrorism and not the usual nonsense with empires, you are mistaken yourself. Theres a reason Paul got more donations from the military than the others combined- the ones who are stuck in it want it to end.

To bad ignorant fucks like you equate that with pleading for mercy.

And here you are, on your fuckin computer, in your nice home, declaring something to be extremely important....all hunkered down.

Fuckin hypocrite.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I claim no solidarity with the military. I did not serve in the military. I am grateful for all that they do. I get the impression that you served in the military. I meant you no offence. But I do believe in empire. I truly do. And America does belong at the top.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Certain things tend to happen when Republics move to Empires.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

If you want to know more about civlian levels, check out the Stanford and NYU school of law study on drones.

the ACLU also has a lot of info on drones. They've even filed lawsuits questioning the legality or should I say illegality.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We must reject that the govt has some legal justification that they cannot reveal because of national security. It is an old ruse. Just recently a court upheld that joke. There is no justification. And the reason which we will never admit is for resources. So that Americans can have cheap gasoline. GIVE UP THE CAR!!. I've seen a bit of the studies you mentioned and the above article refers to them. WE are responsible for this obscenity and WE must grow the demonstrations to force an end to the phony excuse that is the war on terror and the drone strikes.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Petraeus went on Meet the Press in 2010 and said we're still in Afghanistan for trillions in resources.

His verbatim quote was "... and that's trillions with an S"

Resources and the petrodollar.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Resources for US!! WE must stop using so much. No culture in human history has been so gluttonous and wasteful. WE must cut down our consumerism, and start living efficiently. fighting for green energy, fighting to divest from fossil fuels. We must agitate all politicians who are against green energy. WE must grow the demonstrations to force an end to the phony excuse that is the war on terror and the drone strikes. WE are the key.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Subpoena Govt for drone strike memos.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1386

[-] 2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

NBC news story today: Shortage of drone pilots. Three colleges offer drone pilot training.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16726198-anticipating-domestic-boom-colleges-rev-up-drone-piloting-programs?lite

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why do you think Graham and other repubs support Obama droning?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/02/graham-defends-obama-on-drones-156263.html?hp=l18

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

End kill lists, declare the 'war on terror' over because it is used to scare us into support, & to justify invasions, bombings, & rights violations.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14670-american-assassinations-for-dummies

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

oh society.......

[-] 2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I predict in ten years there will be more surveillance drones than birds flying around. All in the name of public safety.

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

WE must prevent that.

From JustForeignPolicy

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/

A key reason many in Congress haven't spoken up against the drone strike policy is that many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the policy. A key reason many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the drone strike policy is that the Washington Post said so in February 2012.

But the question the Washington Post asked in its February 2012 poll, and the way the Post reported it, were highly misleading. And in the last year, a lot of criticism of the drone strike policy has appeared in mainstream press that hadn't appeared before.

As the Senate considers the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, where he will oversee CIA drone strikes, urge the Washington Post to ask the public an unbiased question on drone strikes.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapo-drones-poll

In February 2012, under the headline, "Poll finds broad support for Obama's counterterrorism policies," the Washington Post reported that "The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy." [1] This Post report had the effect of convincing many people that the drone strike policy was overwhelmingly popular. But here is the question that was actually asked: [2]

"… thinking about the following decisions of the Obama administration, please tell me whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove ... c. The use of unmanned, "drone" aircraft against terrorist suspects overseas"

The Post assumed there was no meaningful distinction between current policy and targeting "terrorist suspects." That was the "official story" the Administration had just put out.

On January 30, 2012, just before the Washington Post poll was conducted, in an unprecedented and widely reported public discussion of the policy, President Obama described the policy as "pinpoint strike on al Qaeda operatives." [3] But as the New York Times reported a few months later, [4]

In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only "personality" strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but "signature" strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants.

But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist "signature" were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees "three guys doing jumping jacks," the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.

If those State Department officials were right, then describing the policy as targeted on "terrorist suspects" was misleading, and the Washington Post poll question and report were biased.

Urge the Washington Post to ask a poll question on drone strikes that takes account of the State Department officials' criticism that drone strikes have not been targeted on "terrorist suspects," as most people would understand that phrase.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapo-drones-poll

Thank you for all you do to help bring about a more just foreign policy,

Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio Just Foreign Policy

Help us reach our January fundraising goal by donating today! With our small staff and minimal overhead, you know your contribution will go a long way. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate

References:

  1. "Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies," Scott Wilson and Jon Cohen, Washington Post, February 8, 2012 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-08/politics/35445649_1_drone-program-support-for-drone-strikes-drone-policy
  2. "Washington Post-ABC News Poll, February 1 to 4, 2012" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_020412.html
  3. "Obama's drone comment was no slip-up, official says," Dan Lothian and Reza Sayah, CNN, January 31, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/politics/obama-pakistan/index.html
  4. "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will," Jo Becker and Scott Shane, May 29, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Drone white paper leaked on purpose prior to Brennan hearings?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022320244

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Seems a bit of a stretch. We'll see.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Dems have been no heroes on drone usage but I believe republicans are much worse.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The progressive caucus in congress is probably the best we have but even many of them fail from time to time. No politician is perfect, all are victims ofthe corrupt system they work in. We must 1st get money out ofpolitics andfree any politician from the shackles ofraising money & being beholden to the 1% corp plutocrats.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And we are. And we are identifying all pols not progressive enough, to provide them with the gift of early retirement.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Drones in the Gulf already....only a matter of time before they are directly overhead.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/23/nation/la-na-drugs-caribbean-20120623

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Many over head uses already. Midwest farm surveillance by feds? Suggestions to use for city crime surveillance by police, Even possible use by business (real estate agents) to view remote properties. We need to get active if we are gonna pass laws against this. Big Brother without a doubt. Once that is established without complaint they will attach weapons.