Sensible Erection | U.S. tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

Monday, 6 February 2012

U.S. tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals

quote [ Between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts. ]

Well... shit.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-28/world/pakistan.drone.strike_1_drone-strikes-drone-attack-tribal-region?_s=PM:WORLD

Because the whole thing is amazingly grotesque I included this video of the crazy chick doing the Saudi car-surfing thing. (Seen embeded in comments)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/asia/19pstan.html?_r=1&ref=world

http://www.dailyamericannews.com/newsnow/x1738176407/Suspected-US-missiles-strikes-kill-11-in-Pakistan

[politics] [by RedRiverRat@1:19pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

RedRiverRat said @ 1:21pm GMT on 6th Feb

sanepride said @ 2:15pm GMT on 6th Feb
Interesting coincidence you would post a video by M.I.A. considering the headlines she's making today.
Or....is it?

Ankylosaur said @ 2:26pm GMT on 6th Feb
WHERE IS THE FCC?! I MUST BE PROTECTED FROM FINGERS! PLEASE, SEND DRONES TO KILL EVERYONE WITH THEM!

thepublicone said @ 2:39pm GMT on 6th Feb
The world has come to an end- someone has given the camera the finger. The 2012 prophecy is nigh.

1969- Johnny Cash gives camera the finger; shot becomes greatest rock and roll photograph ever.

2012- M.I.A. gives camera the finger; People faint, and planes fall out the sky. Chaos ensues, and a massive media shitstorm appears.

What the fuck happened?

RuneLancer said @ 5:06pm GMT on 6th Feb
The 90s.

Pandafaust said @ 10:55pm GMT on 6th Feb
I love that the link to the news article has a 'warning: mature content' label attached. Nothing mature about anyone involved, least of all the reactionary folk. All I'm seeing is a very cynical, and depressingly successful attempt to have a mediocre performance grab headlines and a bunch of people addicted to being angry about whatever they can find.

GordonGuano said @ 3:08pm GMT on 6th Feb
Shouldn't she have been using two fingers? As a taxpayer, I am outraged at these furriners who come over here and use our obscene gestures!

(Note: if she had done the British bird, the argument becomes, "this is America, we flip people off in ENGLISH". I have to admit, conservatism has all the bases covered.)

Also: fuck the NFL, and handegg in general.

CapnSilver said @ 9:59pm GMT on 6th Feb
Football: the game played by peasants, because the rich play on horseback.

clumsy_juggler said @ 3:16pm GMT on 6th Feb
Once again the media needs to create a scandal in order to generate clicks on various websites. They don't seem to be saying that the gesture is in keeping with the lyrics being sung -

"Me it. Licks. I'm so swag shit
Glad, no one gave you this
It's super sonic, bionic, uranium hit
So I break 'em off tricks
Let's pray that it sticks
I'mma say this once, yeah, I don't give a shit"

GordonGuano said @ 3:22pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:3 Insightful]
Anal Cunt lyrics look like Yeats in comparison.

v0idmagus said @ 7:35pm GMT on 6th Feb
I dunno, I'm pretty sure I rate total fucking gibberish above "Pottery is gay. Pottery is gay. Pottery is gay. Pottery is gay."

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:42pm GMT on 6th Feb
How could someone make gay pottery? Was there a breakthrough in A.I. I didn't hear about?

headlessfriar said @ 12:55am GMT on 7th Feb
Don't think it's really a new breakthrough..
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3699/vase2s.jpg

RedRiverRat said @ 6:18pm GMT on 6th Feb
Nothhing is accidental...... sometimes its poorly planned

fuckb4ll said @ 2:57pm GMT on 6th Feb
Glad this got posted

RedRiverRat said @ 4:24am GMT on 8th Feb
I have to admit that I am not a fan, I like it because it sounds so different. Tying a classic arabic hook and a pretty girl. As far as music goes though, I tend to be fairly eclectic, I like being surprised, the music I like best of all dosent do what I think it should but goes in a direction unpredictable.

This isnt that, but it was topical and features a woman I would not only happily have sexy time with but who also, by appearance, has stones of brass. You wont catch me surfing a Mercedes in the desert.,

(I did however test drive a Delorean today, 38k miles, amazing restore job, thinking about buying it if I can get the price right) Stainless, gull wing doors, all it needs is a flux capacitor., The fucking thing is cherry)

RedRiverRat said @ 4:26am GMT on 8th Feb
I'm going to take another look this weekend, let me know if you want pics)

swiggy said @ 1:49pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2 Underrated]
"Sir, these strike targets...I'm pretty sure they're civilians, sir."
"Listen, Son. You just keep killin' brown folks. I'll tell you when you stop."

GordonGuano said @ 3:26pm GMT on 6th Feb
My tax dollars at work. Joy.

wottan said @ 4:28pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Good]
Looks like someone is going for the collateral damage high score. Such a deliciously horrible word, makes it seem so banal to not give much of a shit about human life.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 4:44pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-2 Overrated]
A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.

Tough titty.

As the GC conventions say, “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

hellboy said @ 5:22pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:4 Underrated]
That line in the Geneva Conventions is to prohibit the use of human shields. It's not a license to kill unarmed people, you jackass.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 6:10pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-3]
That is your ill informed opinion. Suffice to say, whether persons are placed on purpose, or by bad luck, the target is still valid. Even a half wit can read that, quarter wit.

sanepride said @ 6:58pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Informative]
Nope. You're taking the passage completely out of context, in fact as the total opposite of what it says.
Here it is - under #2, section b, part xxiii.
Specifically it says
Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations
Under Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

v0idmagus said @ 7:38pm GMT on 6th Feb
i.e. Quartering an army in the basement of a working civilian hospital is bad form.

sanepride said @ 8:56pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny]
Pretty much. It definitely doesn't make attacking the hospital OK. Not by a longshot.

CapnSilver said @ 10:02pm GMT on 6th Feb
Hypothetical: The reichbunker has a childrens hospital built over it.

sanepride said @ 11:18pm GMT on 6th Feb
Sounds like a job for Seal Team Six.

pleaides said @ 8:38am GMT on 7th Feb
It's actually a carpark ;)

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:37pm GMT on 7th Feb
Sure it does. It depends on the value of the intended target.

And whether the nurses are hot.,.

arctan said @ 6:23pm GMT on 8th Feb
The fact that using a civilian presence to render yourself immune to attack is a crime doesn't mean it doesn't render you immune to attack. In fact since the crime IS rendering yourself immune to attack if you weren't actually immune to attack there'd be no crime, that's basic semantic logic.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:36pm GMT on 7th Feb
That is irrelevant. Yes, using "human shields" is wrong....but, the presence of civilians does not make a target immune from attack...and further more, if the value of the target is great, the collateral damage is justified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[8] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

— Luis Moreno-Ocampo

sanepride said @ 11:13pm GMT on 7th Feb
Yes exactly.
As you quote here:

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

I think a reasonable case could be made that attacking mourners at a funeral in order to take out one or two Taliban commanders might just fall into this category.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:50am GMT on 8th Feb
I doubt any case could be made because that strike, no one is certain who carried it out..it may have been the pakistanis....never the less, killing 3 top commanders ---a case could be made, a better case could be made that killing them is worth killing 60 civilian supporters....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?ref=global-home

The link is from the posted article

theolypse said @ 12:28am GMT on 9th Feb
It's pretty telling that your use of words here prioritizes their supporter identity over their civilian identity. That doesn't really seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the international agreements everyone keeps quoting.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 6:50pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-2]
And if you do not care for that, you will hate this...

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

In other words, if the value of the target exceeds the sadness of the loss of civilian life, then fire away.

sanepride said @ 7:05pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny]
Wrong again hotshot.
Once again, this is listed as a 'serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict'.

The things you're listing are specifically designated as NOT OK.

sanepride said @ 12:02am GMT on 7th Feb
You find the actual wording of the Geneva Convention on human rights to be funny penners? I'll bet you're a riot at parties.

structured_spirits said @ 9:33am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:-2]
Just so we're clear here, you're making a point of what the Geneva convention allows. The US has decided to bypass the Geneva convention by using the CIA to run and staff the program, so you have US civilians, armed by the US government, attacking Pakistani civilians. The Geneva conventions do not apply. So this is US sponsored international terrorism.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:31pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:-2]
Us sponsored....?

Who is the US sponsoring?

theolypse said @ 4:19pm GMT on 7th Feb
Its own military, presumably.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 5:36pm GMT on 7th Feb
teh Bustards!

tiemy said @ 5:17pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2]
This is where Greenwald is worth reading. Pretty unequivocal stuff: Obama is a war criminal, personally responsible for thousands of acts of overt state terrorism and the deaths of hundreds of innocent people (including at least 168 children). And then consciously lied about it to the American public.

Anyone going around spouting 'Obama 2012' should be ashamed of themselves.

todde said @ 5:28pm GMT on 6th Feb
And he gave carte blanche to his predecessors in their war crimes. That means when the GOP gets the White House in 2016 it will be at least 2025 before anyone in power gets around to saying "Maybe we shouldn't have done that, but it's all ancient history now"

sanepride said @ 5:31pm GMT on 6th Feb
"War criminal" remains a relative, loaded term. By your definition every US president (and most other political leaders) of the last century is a war criminal.
Meanwhile, as for who to support in 2012, I await your viable endorsement.

tiemy said @ 7:03pm GMT on 6th Feb
Not here. The legal prohibitions on purposely killing innocent people (like villagers showing up to help those wounded in a drone attack) are straightforward. That there are a whole series of US presidents over the last century who can be fairly described as war criminals should say something about US conduct abroad since then, not that the bar for war crimes is set too low.

And 'viable' in the US political system means being 100% beholden to Wall Street, the corporations and the very wealthy. You can choose from Romney or Obama there. The alternative in 2012 will obviously not fit that bill, nor should it.

sanepride said @ 7:14pm GMT on 6th Feb
"Purposely". Despite the implication of the post title, there is no specific evidence of deliberately targeting civilians. Yes the current strategy is abhorrent, morally criminal perhaps, but legally criminal is a different matter.
We can go around calling people war criminals till we're blue in the face. Nixon? Kissinger? LBJ? Both Bushes, Rumsfeld, and Cheney? Clinton and Obama? Sure, why not. But unless their alleged crimes are quantifiable in court, it's just ideological hyperbole, meaningless.

tiemy said @ 8:12pm GMT on 6th Feb
How could this not be deliberate? They keep forgetting to bring their glasses in, and mistake the little kids for Taliban fighters with machineguns? They keep accidentally aiming the drone at a funeral procession and then accidentally hitting the 'fire missiles' button? Of course it's on purpose. That's why Obama is outright lying about it, and his officials are implying that those who expose US conduct here are siding with The Terrorists.

And accurately identifying war crimes and those responsible for them is far from useless. Above all it provides the starting point for individuals and political movements to press for justice and prosecution in these cases; we'll never see the crimes of a Bush or an Obama detailed in court unless their crimes are acknowledged and publicized. Elites managing to avoid accountability for their actions so far doesn't mean they will forever or that we should just 'drop it.'

arctan said @ 10:06pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
"Viable" means "could actually get elected to office", so yeah. If it isn't "viable" then by definition it's not actually an alternative -- you can feel free to support whatever candidate you want but it serves no purpose other than massaging your sense of self-righteousness.

You can puff all you like about withdrawing from the system altogether and creating an entirely new alternative but unless you're actually stockpiling guns and missiles in order to declare independence from the US government none of that shit actually *means* anything. What do you *actually* think the alternative is in 2012? The whole "All of us refuse to go to work, the capitalist economy collapses and Marxist utopia emerges to take its place" fairy tale?

tiemy said @ 9:16am GMT on 7th Feb
You mean a two party system isn't going to set itself up to make those who challenge the ruling two parties 'viable'? That a political order run by and for the top 1% isn't going to just open the door to those hostile to the financial elite? This is obvious, everyone knows it.

The alternative required here is to the entire failed system itself - not a clinging to said system with fairy tales of reform from within (how would this even qualify as an 'alternative'?). Part of building that alternative is to run in elections, which aren't just about winning but presenting new ideas, leaders and platforms to the public.

As far as I can tell your only argument here is that the billionaire parasites have the wealth and the power and insist they keep it, so there's really nothing we can do but respect the wishes of our social betters and go piss off back to poverty, shit wages, economic servitude, unemployment, etc. That might fly for you, but not for myself or for a whole lot of other people.

And withdrawing from the system? Stockpiling guns? The shit are you talking about? The only course available at this point is building the socialist movement, whose plain as day objective is the establishment of a workers' government in this country. That won't happen overnight with one election campaign, but one campaign can become a good step in that direction.

arctan said @ 6:18pm GMT on 8th Feb
You just said your plan involves ignoring our entire political system and replacing it with a different one. I want some actual statement--even in very broad strokes--about how in the fuck you get from point A to point B by "campaigning" but not actually trying to win elections or those who hold power.

The only actual plans I've ever heard involve either an actual civil war or they involve the "mass general strike" that I just, I think for good reason, dismissed as a fairy tale. You got anything that doesn't match either description?

tiemy said @ 9:07pm GMT on 9th Feb
Like I said, you get from point A to B by building the socialist movement. This isn't complicated: if the existing parties and institutions don't represent your interests, you join and help build new ones that do.

This straw man you've come up with that the socialists' argument is "revolution tomorrow!" is just embarrassing. No one suggests revolution in this country is on the immediate agenda. What is on that agenda is the building of a mass socialist workers' party, independent of and hostile to the two parties that most people recognize represent the very wealthy.

This is the actual framework for the debate, which you seem desperate to avoid actually speaking to. Do you have anything to offer here? Any argument for why I or anyone else should support a right-wing party of Wall Street and big business that's demonstrably hostile to my interests, not a workers' party with a program and platform that demonstrably represents them?

Lord of the Barnyard said @ 10:18pm GMT on 10th Feb
Greenwald is ALWAYS worth reading.

tiemy said @ 7:10pm GMT on 6th Feb
Greenwald's follow up, with the response of a senior Obama admin official to this story being published:

"Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”

ENZ said @ 9:18pm GMT on 6th Feb
So, the US' method of fighting terrorism... is with terrorism?

mjteegarden said @ 12:08am GMT on 7th Feb
"Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church; we bomb ten. They hijack a plane; we take out an airport. They execute American tourists; we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."

ENZ said @ 12:17am GMT on 7th Feb
...and that's from what?

conception said @ 12:57am GMT on 7th Feb
The Untouchables.

ENZ said @ 1:02am GMT on 7th Feb
Um, didn't it go more along the lines of "they pull a knife we pull a gun, they send one of our guys to the hospital we send one of theirs to the morgue"?

mjteegarden said @ 1:09am GMT on 8th Feb
Something like that. We didn't really have much in the way of tactical nukes during the Roaring '20s.

mjteegarden said @ 1:08am GMT on 8th Feb
From Swordfish.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244244/

ENZ said @ 1:18am GMT on 8th Feb
Ah, ok. I was worried that someone said it in real life. Someone in power.

sua_sponte said @ 10:12pm GMT on 6th Feb
Fuck this story. Nobody is asking the real question: Whose funerals are being targeted, and why would we target "rescuers"?

The answers are simple: We are targeting Al Qaeda and Taliban funerals, and we are targeting anyone who goes to rescue an Al Qaeda or Taliban target. Why? To send a message.

The message is, "Al Qaeda and Talban: Don't bother to run, you'll just die tired. And anybody who wants to make martyrs out of or possibly rescue these Al Qaeda and Taliban assholes, be prepared to join them in Hell."

You don't win wars by being polite.

The grand strategy involved may indeed be suspect, but the tactics here are far more effective than sending in massive numbers of troops. Al Qaeda and the Taliban think they're experts on terror? We're showing them what real terror looks like.

that1guy said @ 10:26pm GMT on 6th Feb
War is hell. Fuck the media.

htabdoolb said @ 11:32pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
Or they could be people trying to aid other people, regardless of whether the killed and injured are Taliban, Al Qaeda, or unlucky civilians. Targeting rescue workers is what terrorists do, and if we do it then we are also terrorists.

This isn't a war. This is murder.

structured_spirits said @ 12:49am GMT on 7th Feb
How many "Taliban" are there that were directly involved in 9-11 etc? Maybe 40-50 guys? Whom exactly are we at war with? Are we at war with Pakistan? I'd be interested to know, I'm sure Pakistan would be to, you know they do have nuclear capability at the ability to strike American bases in Afghanistan correct? But yeah fuck it, lets just rain bombs down on their territory and kill civilians who may be taliban, or may just be some guy with a bunch of kids who stops to help when he sees a smoking hulk on the road one day. I mean it's not like we've ever had proof of US soldiers shooting unarmed children from helicopters etc etc, that would never happen. Your idea that the US is justified using any tactics it want simply because we have the ability demonstrates the true danger of a philosophy of "might makes right." You claim that we are at war, well there are rules in war, and if you don't believe in them or things like morals or honor, then you're no better than the "terrorists" who's families you think it such a good idea to murder. The only difference is that by circumstance you happen to be on the winning side, for the moment.

sanepride said @ 1:11am GMT on 7th Feb
Actually no Taliban were involved in 9/11. The Taliban may be ultra-religious dickheads, but they are not and have never been international terrorists.

Didel said @ 3:35am GMT on 7th Feb
They were just "national terrorists" and harbored the plotters of 9/11, yeah...

They were pretty well involved. They've pretty much always been involved in international terrorism by simply providing sanctuary to Al Qaeda. In some forms, this becomes probably even more true if you look at the Taliban as a multinational affiliation rather than just a bunch of Afgahn's, it's now Afghans and Pakistanis (and a minor amount of other nationalities) who cause destabilization in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But to say they had nothing to do with 9/11. What a load of shit. They harbored Bin Laden for years before 9/11, and it's not as if they didn't know what he did as his "hobby." Attack Americans anyway possible.

To say that they're not involved with terrorism is a load of bullshit sanepride, and you know it (or you possibly don't, but then you need to go read up on the Taliban).

sanepride said @ 4:53am GMT on 7th Feb
Well of course, that's the George W. Bush line - that those who harbor our enemies are equally culpable. I guess you could make that argument, but look where it's gotten us now in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
As far as reading up on the Taliban, actually I just finished a lengthy profile of Mullah Omar by Steve Coll in the New Yorker, very interesting stuff (abstract here). In fact these guys were not particularly sophisticated or ambitious. Omar was not the close buddy of Bin Laden that he was made out to be, and was not involved or particularly interested in Al Qaeda's activities. It wasn't nefarious complicity that kept them harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, just backwards ignorance of what the potential consequences were.
Fact is, the Taliban was and is a regional force, with little interest in matters outside of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

EPT said @ 9:18am GMT on 7th Feb
Stones, glass houses. The US has trained the soldiers of brutal dictators. I guess that means that the US government is a terrorist organisation, and when a member of the government dies, it's fine to gun down people attending the funeral. Even years after a given infraction.

ENZ said @ 1:00am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
You don't fight extremists through force. Especially not the kind of indiscriminate force we've seen. All that does is gives the extremists something to rally behind. The way to do it is by making them irrelevant. Al Qaeda and the Talban do more harm to their own people than they do to us. Just sit back and let that shine through, and all support they have will wither away. The only thing "Shock and Awe" accomplished is made us look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites to the world, giving the extremists the justification to wreak further havoc. Oh, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Not that that matters to you, it seems.

hellboy said @ 8:11am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
We've seen how well brutal force worked for the British and the Russians.

arctan said @ 2:57am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:3 Insightful]
Yes, terrorism is a great tool for achieving political change. Notice how well Al-Qaeda's acts of terrorism against us have worked to get us to leave them alone.

And being a violent indiscriminately murderous piece of shit is also a great way to win the hearts and minds of all those fence-sitters. It's why Al-Qaeda had hardly any presence in Iraq under Hussein and is now a major player there in the Iraqi insurgency, for one.

sua_sponte said @ 1:54am GMT on 9th Feb
Leave them alone? Are you joking? Al Qaeda doesn't want us to leave them alone. If we left them alone they'd have no reason to exist. Al Qaeda wants us to remain a big fat target. Otherwise their funding would dry up.

papango said @ 5:14am GMT on 7th Feb
And, remind me again, how is that strategy going? It's been over a decade, what would you point to as the main measures of the success of this strategy?

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:09pm GMT on 7th Feb
It's grand.

A fireman with no fires to put out goes out of business.

Myzelf said @ 10:37pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:5 Funny]
John... are we the baddies?

radioelectric said @ 9:23am GMT on 7th Feb

structured_spirits said @ 12:42am GMT on 7th Feb
Here's a CBS 60 Minutes interview of Leon Panetta on his mobile killing plane.

http://youtu.be/NZWyrJgtsKk

I was actually shocked to here him talk. I couldn't believe he'd actually be willing to say some of the things he said, even if I know it's what he thinks privately. I think the most telling moment is when Panetta states that someone's identity as a terrorist trumps their rights as a citizen and that even terrorists get access to what he calls "due process." This man is a Nazi, and his ideas scare the shit out of me. I'd rather deal with 1,000 Bin Ladens than 1 Panetta, and those of his ilk. Seriously, this fuck and anyone else in the Administration involved in these crimes needs to go to jail.

sanepride said @ 1:23am GMT on 7th Feb
1,000 Bin Ladens? Really?

structured_spirits said @ 9:41am GMT on 7th Feb
Yeah, Panetta is a man who is capable of launching the US's stockpile of 2,000+ nuclear warheads on his own authority among other things military, who thinks that the US has carte blanch to deal with *any* perceived threat, no matter how unlikely or unsubstantiated with all resources at his disposal. Panetta is clearly out of touch with reality and possibly mentally unbalanced as the video indicates, add to that the fact that he has the full support of the US political elite. I'd much rather deal with 1,000 well funded militarized extremists.

sanepride said @ 11:08pm GMT on 7th Feb
Just a little reminder that Panetta, as extraordinarily all-powerful and evil as you claim he is, is still subservient to his boss, the president. When he speaks he is not speaking for himself, but as an agent of White House policy. If you have a problem with what he's saying you should take it higher-up.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:07pm GMT on 7th Feb
Bin Laden was an awhile in a dessert.

Stupid military people fuck up the world.

If MacFuckface just stayed the fuck out of China, there's be no North Korea.

It is literally the exact same Carte Blanc thinking.