New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What do you call people who

Barbella

Senator
STRONGLY condemn those who manhandled suspected terrorists, the end goal being to keep Americans safe and hopefully avoiding another 9/11?

People who throw themselves and stomp their feet in massive hissy fits about the mere suggestion that some of those suffering harsh interrogation methods MAY have been innocent of wrongdoing, but were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.... all 100 or so of them? (MAYBE innocent... we'll never know for sure).

Yet those same people have absolutely no qualms when our unmanned drones zero in on suspected terrorists, bomb the shit out of them, and inadvertently kill THOUSANDS of innocents, including children? ("Hey, this is fun... it's like playing 'Modern Warfare' on X-box!")

I call them WEIRD.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
STRONGLY condemn those who manhandled suspected terrorists, the end goal being to keep Americans safe and hopefully avoiding another 9/11?

People who throw themselves and stomp their feet in massive hissy fits about the mere suggestion that some of those suffering harsh interrogation methods MAY have been innocent of wrongdoing, but were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.... all 100 or so of them? (MAYBE innocent... we'll never know for sure).

Yet those same people have absolutely no qualms when our unmanned drones zero in on suspected terrorists, bomb the shit out of them, and inadvertently kill THOUSANDS of innocents, including children? ("Hey, this is fun... it's like playing 'Modern Warfare' on X-box!")

I call them WEIRD.
I call them people who recognize a legit form of warfare - bombing one's enemies - and who reject war crimes, like torture.

Put another way - sane people.

;-)
 

Barbella

Senator
I call them people who recognize a legit form of warfare - bombing one's enemies - and who reject war crimes, like torture.

Put another way - sane people.

;-)
"Legit form of warfare"? My ass...

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported that in Yemen there have been around 75 confirmed drone strikes resulting in upwards of 480 people killed. Of those killed, as many as 84 were civilians. According to TBIJ's numbers, the ratio of alleged militants killed to innocent civilians killed ranges from 10:1 to 6:1. As horrific as these numbers are, they may actually underrepresent the number of innocent people killed. How can we be sure that every individual counted as a "militant" in fact was one when President Obama counts all "military-age males" as such and authorizes the use of "signature strikes"?

In Pakistan, the numbers are even more alarming. There have been approximately 383 strikes -- 332 during President Obama's time in office -- resulting in up to 3,719 people killed. Of those killed, as many as 957 were civilians, including almost 200 children. According to TBIJ's numbers, the ratio of alleged militants killed to innocent civilians killed ranges from 4:1 to 5:1. What context can President Obama provide to justify killing so many innocent people?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-bachman/does-the-obama-administra_1_b_5339585.html
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
STRONGLY condemn those who manhandled suspected terrorists, the end goal being to keep Americans safe and hopefully avoiding another 9/11?

People who throw themselves and stomp their feet in massive hissy fits about the mere suggestion that some of those suffering harsh interrogation methods MAY have been innocent of wrongdoing, but were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.... all 100 or so of them? (MAYBE innocent... we'll never know for sure).

Yet those same people have absolutely no qualms when our unmanned drones zero in on suspected terrorists, bomb the shit out of them, and inadvertently kill THOUSANDS of innocents, including children? ("Hey, this is fun... it's like playing 'Modern Warfare' on X-box!")

I call them WEIRD.

Liberals.














Oh.......you already said "weird".
My apologies. Sort of redundant, huh?

Ok, I'll change mine to chicken hawks. All for killing as long as they don't have to go do it personally.

Or "Racist".

Sh it, the lives of all those innocent brown people matter too, right?

(not to US dems/libs.........)
 

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
STRONGLY condemn those who manhandled suspected terrorists, the end goal being to keep Americans safe and hopefully avoiding another 9/11?

People who throw themselves and stomp their feet in massive hissy fits about the mere suggestion that some of those suffering harsh interrogation methods MAY have been innocent of wrongdoing, but were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.... all 100 or so of them? (MAYBE innocent... we'll never know for sure).

Yet those same people have absolutely no qualms when our unmanned drones zero in on suspected terrorists, bomb the shit out of them, and inadvertently kill THOUSANDS of innocents, including children? ("Hey, this is fun... it's like playing 'Modern Warfare' on X-box!")

I call them WEIRD.
You like torturing Muslims though not animals, but that's not weird.
 
Last edited:

gigi

Mayor
I call them people who recognize a legit form of warfare - bombing one's enemies - and who reject war crimes, like torture.

Put another way - sane people.

;-)
No way, Bugsy. If the beef is with hurting innocent people, then we can't hide behind "legit warfare" to support the drone campaign.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
No way, Bugsy. If the beef is with hurting innocent people, then we can't hide behind "legit warfare" to support the drone campaign.
Hey, you are free to argue that we should refrain from legit warfare (bombing our enemeies) and simply leave our enemies undisturbed to plot and act against us.

You really want to make that argument?
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
when everybody in the game plays by the same rules, then either everybody tortures or they dont..when you hamstring one knowing the other will not play by the same rules, then you have made your choice to support the one unhampered by the rules set forth...

all is fair in love and war...

politicians and diplomats need to save face,,,armies need to win...
 

LeilaniMP

Empress
I call them people who recognize a legit form of warfare - bombing one's enemies - and who reject war crimes, like torture.

Put another way - sane people.

;-)
Really?

That's not what you used to say when W was President.

You used to sing a completely different tune back then.

Daily casualty counts and you and your ilk would bemoan the "innocents" who were killed during bombings.

That was then...this is now, eh?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
"Legit form of warfare"? My ass...

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported that in Yemen there have been around 75 confirmed drone strikes resulting in upwards of 480 people killed. Of those killed, as many as 84 were civilians. According to TBIJ's numbers, the ratio of alleged militants killed to innocent civilians killed ranges from 10:1 to 6:1. As horrific as these numbers are, they may actually underrepresent the number of innocent people killed. How can we be sure that every individual counted as a "militant" in fact was one when President Obama counts all "military-age males" as such and authorizes the use of "signature strikes"?

In Pakistan, the numbers are even more alarming. There have been approximately 383 strikes -- 332 during President Obama's time in office -- resulting in up to 3,719 people killed. Of those killed, as many as 957 were civilians, including almost 200 children. According to TBIJ's numbers, the ratio of alleged militants killed to innocent civilians killed ranges from 4:1 to 5:1. What context can President Obama provide to justify killing so many innocent people?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-bachman/does-the-obama-administra_1_b_5339585.html
Remarkable pinpoint accuracy. The percentage of civilian casualties relative to terrorists is incredibly low by modern warfare standards.

But, it's Obama doing the bombing - that black, Dem president.

New rules! Bombing enemies is not legit warfare!

;-)
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Really?

That's not what you used to say when W was President.

You used to sing a completely different tune back then.

Daily casualty counts and you and your ilk would bemoan the "innocents" who were killed during bombings.

That was then...this is now, eh?
Nah, you never saw me carping about GWB killing terrorists.

You did see me carping about him NOT killing terrorists - primarily his Iraq fiasco.
 

LeilaniMP

Empress
Remarkable pinpoint accuracy. The percentage of civilian casualties relative to terrorists is incredibly low by modern warfare standards.

But, it's Obama doing the bombing - that black, Dem president.

New rules! Bombing enemies is not legit warfare!

;-)
You used to say it wasn't legit.

What a difference a D president makes, huh?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
STRONGLY condemn those who manhandled suspected terrorists, the end goal being to keep Americans safe and hopefully avoiding another 9/11?

People who throw themselves and stomp their feet in massive hissy fits about the mere suggestion that some of those suffering harsh interrogation methods MAY have been innocent of wrongdoing, but were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time.... all 100 or so of them? (MAYBE innocent... we'll never know for sure).

Yet those same people have absolutely no qualms when our unmanned drones zero in on suspected terrorists, bomb the shit out of them, and inadvertently kill THOUSANDS of innocents, including children? ("Hey, this is fun... it's like playing 'Modern Warfare' on X-box!")

I call them WEIRD.
Don't quite know what to call them.
What's between "rabid partisan" and "batshit insane"?
 

gigi

Mayor
Hey, you are free to argue that we should refrain from legit warfare (bombing our enemeies) and simply leave our enemies undisturbed to plot and act against us.

You really want to make that argument?
Of course not. But I have always felt that the "war on terror" was only going to be successful if we fought it with our intelligence. Find them, bring them in alive, whenever possible. Deliberately using a tactic that blows up innocent people in order to catch people that blow up innocent people....it's a bit redundant, to say the least.

I'm not a person who knows much about military strategy. But I believe that there has to be a sea of possibilities between "leave them undisturbed to plot against us" and "send in drones to take out the towns they may be living in."
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
when everybody in the game plays by the same rules, then either everybody tortures or they dont..when you hamstring one knowing the other will not play by the same rules, then you have made your choice to support the one unhampered by the rules set forth...

all is fair in love and war...

politicians and diplomats need to save face,,,armies need to win...
I could at least respect the honesty of saying we should reject our past condemnation of torture and now declare it legal on a national and international level. I disagree, but at least that's confronting the question honestly. Far better than the GOP approach of denying that torture is torture.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Of course not. But I have always felt that the "war on terror" was only going to be successful if we fought it with our intelligence. Find them, bring them in alive, whenever possible. Deliberately using a tactic that blows up innocent people in order to catch people that blow up innocent people....it's a bit redundant, to say the least.

I'm not a person who knows much about military strategy. But I believe that there has to be a sea of possibilities between "leave them undisturbed to plot against us" and "send in drones to take out the towns they may be living in."
Look, you either supporting bombing our enemies or you don't.

We can't both bomb them and not bomb them. You have to choose.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Don't quite know what to call them.
What's between "rabid partisan" and "batshit insane"?
What's your position on this today?

Is it an "I support bombing terrorists" day, or an "I don't support bombing terrorists" day?

;-)
 
Last edited:

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
Really?

That's not what you used to say when W was President.

You used to sing a completely different tune back then.

Daily casualty counts and you and your ilk would bemoan the "innocents" who were killed during bombings.

That was then...this is now, eh?
You were against drones during the time of W?

Not a damn chance, but now you're against the use of drones. How the hell did that come to pass?
 
Top