Is Barack Obama a Tory? Or another fascist prick who murders people trying to rescue drone victims.

[Joseph Tracy]

Mr. president with his kids in quaker school is quite the weasel when it comes to explaining his actions too. "“I want to make sure people understand actually drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties,” President Obama said in an hour long interview hosted by Google. “For the most part, they’ve been very precise, precision strikes against against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.”

This language is fully equal to anything G Bush ever used in being both meaningless and deceptive. What is "a huge number"? What does" for the most part" mean. If 51 % of drone strikes hit the target  they are, for the most part, precise. What does it mean that they are "against al Qaeda"?Because saying a strike was against Al-Qaeda is not the same as saying those hit were members of Al-Qaeda. And where do these lists come from? From the same place that gave us the list of Guantanamo prisoners.  Does the statement that they were against that mean ol omnipresent Al Kida mean that they are intended to scare Al Kida and his nasty buddies? what is an affiliate? What the fuck  is a tight leash? Do we really believe that the 20 somethings sitting at their computers in Colorado check in with the president before they start blasting?
Then it was exposed that it was all complete pig shit, that anyone killed was automatically counted as an enemy or affiliate unless they posthumously convinced the US military that they weren't. 

An independent research site Pakistan Body Count run by Dr. Zeeshan-ul-hassan a Fulbright scholar keeping track of all the drone attacks claims that 2179 civilians were among the dead, out of which 12.4% were children and women .[104] A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, released 4 February 2012, stated that from under the Obama administration (2008–2011) drone strikes killed between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 children.[105]The New America foundation estimates drone deaths at 3,177 from 2004-2012. If the Stanford study is right and 98 % are not known militants that seems like a pretty big number of unjustified killings. If only half are non-combatants that is still a huge number of murders in direct violation of the Geneva accords, apparently still quaint under Obama. In the end it is only xenophobic prejudice and lies that makes any distinction between these murdered civilians and and those killed in the 9-11 massacre.


On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:23 AM, David Morris wrote:

> Ender's Game.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:13 AM,  <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ah, yea, but this completely misses the convenience angle. Drones are
>> sooooo convenient. It's really just a matter of definition- adjusting
>> the "rules of war," just a bit, to allow for the advantages of this new
>> technology. Rationalization is important. These "assaults from above"
>> are analogous to, if you will, certain other "lavatorial assaults," but
>> with the added convenience of not having to find yourself displayed on
>> You Tube, which can be a huge inconvenience, even if it seemed like fun
>> at the time.
>> 
>> http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/24/4284593/2-marines-to-be-court-martialed.html
>> 
>> The Public Sphere- seems to be getting more Reimannian all the time.
>> 
>> Not sent from my i(phone, pad, other convenient device).
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Tue, Sep 25, 2012 10:48 pm
>> Subject: Re: Is Barack Obama a Tory? Or another fascist prick who
>> murders people trying to rescue drone victims.
>> 
>> 
>> Glenn Greenwald discusses a Stanford University study on drone
>> killings.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>