Skip to main content

View Diary: for those who think the goal isn't regime change (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama, Kerry, and Clinton have said many (13+ / 0-)

    times that Assad must go.  It's ridiculous to think that now it's different.   Before he supposedly killed 400-1400 humans, while Obama has killed over 800 innocent civilians in his drones wars including hundreds of children, many listed in this article:

    http://www.policymic.com/...

    The goal has been regime change from the start of this proxy/instigated sectarian war and to weaken and neuter the country.  This chemical weapons pretext is the same kind used for Hussein in Iraq.  But that's not the reason.  Never was.  
    People think they're willing to spend billions and billions to save the Syrian people after spending 4 trillion "saving" the Iraqi people while they want to cut our Social Security and Medicare programs and reduce pensions and food stamps.   Right.  That's just pure bullshit.  War propaganda, it's always the same. Always.

    •  We did nothing to Iraq, and there was extensive (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, BigAlinWashSt, Roadbed Guy

      use of chemical weapons there.  Well, nothing until we stupidly invaded 15 years later.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 11:41:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  extraordinary claims.... (4+ / 0-)
      Obama has killed over 800 innocent civilians in his drones wars including hundreds of children
      That "article" relies on "Globalresearch", a known truther NWO conspiracy theory website run by some nutty professor in Canada.

      Got any credible sources to back up that claim?

      And btw, if those are all "innocent children", why is the list dominated by fighting age males?  That didn't strike you as strange?

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 02:27:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not that extraordinary - this isn't exactly (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cofcos, CroneWit, BigAlinWashSt, Musial

        obscure information - e.g., from CNN:

        In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

        "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study

        .

        link

        but I suppose you'll dismiss this again as work of "nutty professors" - what with it coming from a couple of obscure universities (on the plus side, tho, they're NOT CANADIAN!!!)

        •  And you don't see the difference between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen

          the bureau for investigative journalism reporting 474 - 881 civilians being killed from "June 2004 through mid-September 2012 " and saying:

          Obama killed over 800 innocent civilians
          Be honest here, please.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 05:52:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Almost all of the drone deaths occurred (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cofcos, CroneWit, BigAlinWashSt

            under Obama.

            Jane Meyer has extensively documented that in The New Yorker.

            btw, if a male between certain ages (e.g., 11 and 81) is killed, he is automatically considered to be a combatant, so the number of innocent civilians is almost certainly way underestimated in the stats given in the study cited by CNN.

            •  Yep, most have occurred under Obama. (0+ / 0-)

              And the claims are from around 200 dead civilians in the entire time to around 800 in the entire time.  Yet the year with the highest civilian casualty count was 2006.

              So, how does this death total, in a period of 9 years, no matter the number in that range may be, justify using it to try and play down at least twice as many civilians killed by Sarin gas in just one night in Syria?

              And btw, I guess you haven't noticed that civilian deaths from drone strikes in the AfPak region are way down....

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:36:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, that's because the Obama Administration (0+ / 0-)

                figured out a way to designate virtually everyone affected by a drone strike as a militant.

                It's nice that way when you are trained in constitutional law!

                •  Or maybe it's because the number of drone (0+ / 0-)

                  attacks have gone down, they have been more careful to strike only based on high quality intelligence, and less explosive, smaller munitions have been introduced(which they have)?

                  Did you even look at the wiki link?

                  "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                  by Lawrence on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 09:06:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site