sensible chuckle inbound. . Cl Anonymous ( Mtm) : 54 , Rapids: Jkt, is this a dick move we winning move? site former Air Force guy, in college, trying to get de sensible chuckle inbound Cl Anonymous ( Mtm) : 54 Rapids: Jkt is this a dick move we winning move? site former Air Force guy in college trying to get de
Upload
Login or register

sensible chuckle inbound

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Cl Anonymous ( Mtm) : 54 , Rapids:
Jkt, is this a dick move we winning move?
site former Air Force guy, in college, trying to get degree to become officer
Superfriendzoned by some HID would bang if I was drunk girl
ABM is big into campus organizing and shit
smarts petition to get "EVUL BE."
reorganizes antbarrone event on campus
me "anon, could you do me a huge favor?"
ssure, what is it
C. ould you speak about the evils of drones at the upcoming event we have? I think having a military guy would give us some credibility"
skeeing this as an opportunity for Lulz, I accept
week later
event, most speakers are bleeding heart liberal hippie nogunz_
large audience because on of the undergrad poly sci professors offered extra credit to go
concludes some middle eastern exchange students who have had "relatives" killed by drone strikes
Milne even claimed that drones are some kind of terminator, that there is no human interaction in their operation
Next up, we have Air Force Veteran anon on the horrors he witnessed with the drone program"
take the stage
do LIE victory in the Iraq war, successful LIE intervention in Libya the Killing of Gama bin Laden all have in common? They were aided heavily by the use of drones
on to talk about the amount of intelligence provided by drones helped us find Gama
about how drones save American lives, including mine, by providing air cover when my convoy came under ambush once in Iraq
about how contrary to claims, drones are operated by personnel and like regular aircraft, final authority rests with the pilot, not computer
off by saying that the Air Force is a global force for peace and drones save lives
is dead fucking silent
walk away with a huge, shit eating grin on my face
leave before anyone does anything
HEM texts me, calls me an asshole baby killer and says that she hopes I accidentally get kiled by a drone strike
Did I do right?
...
+1586
Views: 54377 Submitted: 05/28/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (328)
[ 328 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#2 - DrollHumor
Reply +463 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
Winning move.   
   
He told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him he's not getting laid.
Winning move.

He told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him he's not getting laid.
User avatar #83 to #2 - anonyivious
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Nah, that wasn't the truth at all
#54 to #2 - anon id: fe45478d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
not the whole truth drones have downsides too just more positive, just like any technological advancement
#217 to #2 - anon id: eda759dd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Not exactly the whole truth. Double tap is a pretty awful concept when applied to drone strikes. I see no particular need to target first responders that attempt to minimize collateral damage.

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/08/01/bureau-investigation-finds-fresh-evidence-of-cia-drone-strikes-on-rescuers/
#266 to #2 - firesky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
"Air Force is a global force for peace"
I have yet to have met an army (fraction) that's for peace purposes.
User avatar #33 to #2 - dragonicangel
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
And apparently the chick wasn't even bammin' slammin'.
#4 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply +183 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
"Drones save lives"
#109 to #4 - skorchy
Reply +37 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Fine we'll go back to using less accurate and traditional bombs.
#287 to #109 - xxmemosxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
The air to surface missiles used by drones are the same as what they use in regular aircraft, there would be no difference in accuracy.
#319 to #287 - skorchy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I was referring to the old style carpet bombs haha.
User avatar #5 to #4 - xiranor
Reply +158 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
He never specified whose lives.
#219 to #5 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
when you take into account that done strikes with civilian casualties are one of the main reasons people want to fight against the United States you could say that their also part of the cause that some soldiers get killed.
#314 to #219 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
they're*
#229 to #219 - anon id: e754ce60
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
found the bleeding heart liberal hippie
#315 to #229 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Is that a pejorative way of seeing human being who doesn't want to hurt other members of his family?
#9 - Gewdaism
Reply +154 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
I'm a liberal and I love the drone program, it saves lives and kills terrorists. I don't get why everyone is always bitching at Obama about it.
User avatar #84 to #9 - anonyivious
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
It's because innocent civilians die all the time from it.

I don't know about you, but I simply don't support a program that results in women and children being killed.
#153 to #84 - anon id: 114b83dc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
america killed far more innocent people in the japan bombings than in any drone movements
User avatar #152 to #9 - owemiegawd
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
put the people against drones in the cockpit and put them in a combat situation, see if they are still against unmanned aircraft after that
#79 to #9 - anon id: b9afb466
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I hate it bc it makes u just as much of a coward army as the terrorists themselves. I'm of the thought that the army should have little no involvement in it. CIA made Bin Laden, it's the CIA that should take him out.
#80 to #79 - anon id: b9afb466
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
*should have taken...
User avatar #19 to #9 - oosulley
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
So much this. As if the USAF wouldn't have to send manned ******* planes in there ANYWAY to do some nasty ****. And even with a pilot, there is still the chance of 'collateral damage' and poor dead civvies.
User avatar #128 to #9 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I don't like his drone program because some of his cronies have said that they would target American citizens on American soil under such and thus circumstances, blah blah blah.
#218 to #9 - mudkipzFTW
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Also because there have been strikes we aren't "at war" like in Yemen
User avatar #251 to #9 - rossdabigboss
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
"saves lives" is a relative term. Saves our soldiers but kills many civilians
#32 to #9 - endospore
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
The problem is what I just decided to call "the tazer effect."

Drones are cheaper, easier, safer, and usually just as effective. This means that you can use far more drone strikes than conventional airstrikes. Now you're using drones for everything, even for things that you probably wouldn't have used air strikes on or even thought a threat before. Think: When all you have is a hammer, everything looksl ike a nail.

Just like now that cops have tazers, they are far more willing to use more force since that force is less than lethal despite all the other dangers.
#127 to #32 - endospore
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I got bored, so I decided to look it up.

Manned aircraft cost 18,000 to 169,000 USD per hour to operate. Drones cost 3,000 USD per hour. Therefore, we can afford to send out a minimum of 6 times the drone strikes.
#12 to #9 - butakun
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
It's mostly because occasionally faulty intel results in avoidable civilian casualties. That and there's a little bit of a legal grey area in terms of sending drones across borders.

Pakistan has complained lots of times about US drones hitting (alleged Taliban/Al Qaeda) targets in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, but it's not troops crossing the border so it's hard to claim that it's an act of aggression against Pakistan itself.
#250 to #12 - crackedpepper
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
see that's the thing, you cant decry a weapon for being misused from faulty intelligence. otherwise we would not be using artillery at all, there are cases where artillery has been called in on targets thought to be military assets. but were not, and there has been cases where its been called in on friendly forces.

they are only going after drones because they see it as evil/cruel technology for some reason. stupid *******.
#318 to #250 - butakun
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You're right that saying a weapon system is bad because bad intel resulted in civilian casualties is focusing on the wrong part of the problem. People have a natural tendency to look at symptoms and direct causes, and go after those first. Sometimes (like with chemical weapons) it's perfectly valid to go after the weapon system itself for being sufficiently inhumane. But for incidents involving drones (or indirect-fire stuff like artillery) I think it's more important to ask "why was the wrong thing targeted, and how can that be prevented more reliably."

Regarding the difference between public response civilian casualties from artillery vs. drones, the problem is the same (though probably reduced with the drones... you know, because of being able to actually visually confirm the target) the drones really just get more publicity because they're getting more use now. I don't know if you remember the news coverage of the beginning of the Iraq war, but there was a fair amount of public outcry regarding civilian casualties from missile and "smart" bomb strikes.

As far as the "evil/cruel technology" thing goes, I expect that does play at least a small part. I think a lot of people are misinformed and believe that the drones are automated; and I'll be honest, the idea of an automated killing machine is troubling. Some others know that the drones are human-controlled, but have a problem with the perceived distancing effect using a remote-controlled weapon has on the impact of taking another person's life.

Frankly, if killing someone with a drone doesn't bother a person, I doubt that's the kind of person who'd be bothered by killing someone with any other ranged weapon.
#26 - PRotofuzz
Reply -51 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
YEAH SAVES LIVES AND KILLS TERRORISTS!
#MERICA
#PATRIOTISM
#DRONES4LYFE
#FREEDOM
#*************************************************

Pic Related - Real victims from Wessab, a small village in Yemen.
Actual Evidence of event unlike OP: rossbishop.com/blog/2013/05/07/killing-our-way-to-peace/
#29 to #26 - imalex
-9 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#162 to #26 - dasbrot
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
<-Your comment
<-Your comment
User avatar #172 to #26 - lieutenantderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Okay we'll just switch to traditional strategic indiscriminate bombing then
User avatar #173 to #26 - lieutenantderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
>Actual Evidence

links to obvious liberal page
#179 to #26 - drizztrocks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I respect your opinion.
User avatar #254 to #26 - voltkills
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
>treating hippie blog as fact
oh god what the **** is wrong with you
User avatar #255 to #26 - alimais
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #275 to #26 - bleachcraze
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
dude some of these photos are staged by the media unless you've lost a family member that young who isnt influenced by terrorist family members then I don't think some of this is credible
User avatar #297 to #26 - monkeysniper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Pull your head out of your ass for 3 seconds here. Also right here I don't see anything suggesting they died of drone strikes. Yes I agree that civilian casualties are tragic but you know what? **** HAPPENS. This is like saying that nukes should have never been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, it was horrible, it was tragic and many died and it left scars that are only now healing but guess what. It saved lives in the end, if the US had to have a land invasion countless more would have died on both sides and it would have wrecked the entire country.
#52 to #26 - frijoles
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
This is the cutest picture of sleeping babies ever!!!!! Drones can put kids to sleep?? sounds like a plus in my book!!

Pic related, it's the kids when they wake up
User avatar #139 to #52 - alltimetens
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
That isn't funny, man.
#47 to #26 - zenler
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
they finally brought that ****** down
User avatar #50 to #47 - kanduhuskedetder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Man, that was dark.

Loved it.
#181 to #47 - drizztrocks
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I ******* love you.
User avatar #28 to #26 - samuraikuroda
Reply +106 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
Statistically drones have the least amount of civilian casualties then any other traditional means of warfare, without the risk of our own troops.
User avatar #30 to #28 - ovencat
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
says who? the government?
seems legit....
User avatar #34 to #30 - onionsam
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
as opposed to leftist media? can you really claim that information from one source is ******** whilst blindly following another?
User avatar #38 to #34 - ovencat
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
I do not follow any trend, neither left nor right.
my parents taught me to form a self-opinion, based on all available information.


#35 to #30 - starchild
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
Because manned aircraft are so much better
User avatar #39 to #35 - ovencat
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
better for what? americas soldiers have no business in other countries, at least it should be.
#122 to #39 - anon id: a7c32b45
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Except when we protect people. But **** that too right? Whatever man, not even worth logging in for, ******* pussy with your "everyone needs a hug" doesn't understand the burning hate in men's hearts. The crave for power, sociopathic lack of empathy, rape, rob, kill, you can do it, do it. You have know ******* idea what you're talking about. Sometimes, **** needs to get done.
User avatar #62 to #39 - polepel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
sure thing let russia ore china do it
#94 to #62 - swagbot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
That's not an argument...
User avatar #104 to #94 - cdsams
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Yes it is. If it wasn't the US setting these nation straight, it would be China or Russia taking advantage of them in their time of chaos and instability.
User avatar #93 to #28 - anonyivious
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You're retarded if you don't consider the future effects this will have as a whole.

It's much more difficult to physically kill an innocent civilian as opposed to effortlessly pressing a button that kills 20+ people instantaneously.
User avatar #103 to #93 - cdsams
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
..."pressing a button that kills 20+ people instantaneously." You are getting way to specific on the technical details on how to operate a drone.

Unless you have credentials, you have no authority to say as to what is done to set up and execute a drone strike.
User avatar #105 to #103 - anonyivious
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Holy **** what a weak argument.

I don't need to be a ******* engineer to know the obvious truth concerning drones; they perfect the effortlessness of killing.
User avatar #107 to #105 - cdsams
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Really? Tell me the difference between a drone and a radio controlled plane with a camera and automated weapons attached to it.
#290 to #103 - xxmemosxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
User avatar #106 to #103 - alltimetens
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You're retarded.
User avatar #117 to #106 - cdsams
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]

I ask you the same. Tell me the difference between a drone and a radio controlled plane with a camera and automated weapons attached to it.
User avatar #119 to #117 - alltimetens
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Planes are manned, drones are unmanned.

If I have to meticulously explain the significance of that, then I won't bother wasting my time.
User avatar #131 to #119 - samuraikuroda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Do you consider a RC car unmanned? and if you do, why would you want a manned vehicle in a war zone? Isnt the lives of our troops important? Why does it matter if hes in texas operating it, or in Afghanistan manning it.
User avatar #133 to #131 - alltimetens
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I never questioned the importance of troops' lives.

All I'm saying is that I value the lives of innocents more than the lives of armed soldiers that are prepared to go into battle.
User avatar #135 to #133 - samuraikuroda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Tell me, and source please, what the death ratio is, Terrorists to Civilians. Tell you one thing, its not what you think
User avatar #136 to #135 - alltimetens
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
My argument isn't based off of statistics; it's based off of psychology.

If it is much easier to kill a person with a push of a button from thousands of miles away, then would that not increase the amount of innocent civilians killed in the future? We can't risk it.
#306 to #136 - anon id: b1054fda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Drone pilots have equally high and in some instances higher risks of PTSD as soldiers deployed into combat.

The 'piloting a drone is like playing a video game' argument is a myth.
#156 to #136 - telfyr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Read Machiavelli "The Prince". There is no right or wrong. There is risk versus reward, input versus output.
User avatar #160 to #156 - alltimetens
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Except the risk in this case does not outweigh the benefits. And the risk is far too high.

You're essentially asking whether we should risk the lives of armed, trained, and ready-to-fight soldiers or innocent children.
#296 to #156 - xxmemosxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You do know Machiavelli wrote that steaming pile of **** of a book as a way of getting himself back into the good books of the Medici's (the Family that had tortured him and sent him into exile). It went completely against everything he wrote before or after that, it's basically satire.
User avatar #137 to #136 - samuraikuroda
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Its too late. That process was started when we created the bow and arrow. People will always find a way to kill people as indirectly as possible. Theres nothing else to risk, were already crossed that line when we invented nukes.
User avatar #138 to #137 - alltimetens
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You're honestly going to justify your side with "It's too late"?

By that logic, I should start robbing people since we've been robbing each other since the beginning of man kind. Separate nomadic tribes have robbed other nomadic tribes.
User avatar #140 to #138 - samuraikuroda
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Implying it isnt. Dude, we made bombs and guns that can level cities. And you expect us to go back to shooting each other with rifles?
User avatar #145 to #140 - alltimetens
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I'm not going to stand idly while innocent civilians are being killed.

You have criticized me for not providing sufficient citations when you have not given a single link or image.

As another anon has said, 1700 out of the 2600 kills were either civilians or alleged Al Qaeda/Taliban affiliates, meaning that there was not concrete evidence that they were involved in terrorist activities.

Obama, in his 2008 speech said that drones will only target those that present an "imminent threat" to the U.S.
Well I ask you to tell me what the deaths of innocent women and children has done to make me feel any safer.

I live in NYC and I watched the towers crumble. But I never feel unsafe. I never gain a sense of security from the drone strikes.

And y'know what? I actually think these drone strikes are partially responsible for these acts of terrorism. al Qaeda and the Taliban as well as other terrorists cite political reasons as their motives. They state that they are fighting those that have gone unto their homeland. If that's the case, we're only worsening the matter by killing innocent ******* civilians.
#155 to #145 - samuraikuroda
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #158 to #155 - alltimetens
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Listen, you have demonstrated total ignorance on the matter.

"Terrorists attack us"

You're making it sound like the U.S is the most innocent nation in the world. We're being attacked because we decided that we are allowed to plant bases on and infringe the lands of foreign nations, lands that the inhabitants consider sacred.

Ever heard of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

How do you think the American Revolution happened? Were we not terrorists from British eyes?

The same applies to this except in this case, a ******* more innocents are being mercilessly slaughtered.

You can toss all this ******** about how this is a "war" and "it happens" but I am not morally weak to accept the slaughtering of children.
User avatar #325 to #158 - samuraikuroda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Theres a difference for fighting for a cause of independence and such. But attacking the innocent (which is not what americans did) and what 9/11 was, is a difference. And dont assume that i think america is innocent. The government is so corrupt and politically inept that the US debt is 17 trillion dollars. This has a very bad future for many americans. Most republics in history fail because of its domestic and political shortcomings, are we destined to as well? I dont know. I am not morally weak. I just believe in different ideas.
User avatar #161 to #145 - effort
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You do know how tedious it is to green a strike for a drone?

And don't blame the drones for collateral damage, it's the people who ordered the commands. It's not the gun that kills, it's the person using it.
User avatar #163 to #161 - alltimetens
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You think I don't know that?

I'm arguing against the use of drones, not the drones themselves, idiot.

I'm saying that the entire drone program is unethical. If we're so great then how can we sit back and watch as thousands of innocents are being slaughtered?
#307 to #163 - anon id: b1054fda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
If you took away the drones then they would revert to conventional airstrikes.

Which have 15 times the collateral.

Now who's being unethical?
User avatar #322 to #307 - alltimetens
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
You're still wrong.

I'm referring to the effect that this program may have on the future.

Remember that this is all a big experiment by the U.S government. If the drones are going to be used, then new technologies that are just as collateral as conventional air strikes but present more effortlessness will be developed. Meaning more people will by killed and less regret will be felt.
User avatar #165 to #163 - effort
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Wow, getting too edgy for me now, calling people idiots.

Might as well ban the use of cars too.
User avatar #166 to #165 - alltimetens
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I'm calling you an idiot because you're stating the obvious.
User avatar #167 to #166 - effort
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
But it seems like the "obvious" isn't going through your head.
User avatar #177 to #167 - alltimetens
+1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Wut?

You said that it's not the drones themselves; it's the politicians.


Well no ******* ****. I'm arguing against this corruption as well as the program itself.
User avatar #157 to #145 - samuraikuroda
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Ok, first lets calm down. Im just trying to argue my opinion serenely and not make this a shouting match.
Second i live in NY too so lets not bring that up.

Third, i can say the same for you. You have not given me a piece of credible evidence.

And finally, because thats ********, drones are not the reason for the start or more terrorist acts. The terrorists attack us, and us them for simply our way of life. We have such different views on how life should be lived that it leads to conflict and the war on terror. I support america, even though we shouldnt be in the situation we are in (World Police) someone has to do it.

No matter what kind of war, everything gets twisted. War is always morally conflicting, but you have to root for your country, especially america. we are the best of the worst, alot of our government is corrupt but we have many more freedoms than most other countries, especially the ones we fight. Were trying to save lives, i dont know how many innocent people america has killed, but i do know how americans they have killed. Im not saying were justified but we must fight. We cant sit here and hope they dont try anything. They will go to any means too destroy us, and for our sakes, i hope america wont.

www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/

Also one more thing my friend, even though we do have different opinions, i dont want you to hate me. I respect your opinion, and i hope you do the same.
#279 to #28 - anon id: ffa5b6ad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
True and good, but we still can't deny the fact that those children up there are dead because of collateral from drones.
I'm not about to talk **** about drones, but where children are concerned, "least" isn't quite as good as "none"
#112 to #28 - anon id: 0384c52a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
thats BS.. the original post provided link to his source and backed up his facts and he got 20 red thumb.. you just come up with BS statistics and get +34..


2600+ have been killed by obamas drone strikes, 1700 of which were civilians.
I do not trust some brainwashed personel to sit on a screen in washington and press buttons to decide who lives and dies.
#46 to #28 - thiswasnttaken
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
At the top of this statistic for civilian deaths?
excessive hashtagging
#36 to #28 - anon id: 8accfbe4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
This sounds nice but it's ******** -

"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." - The New York Times

But honestly, that's inconsequential. The danger of drones is precisely that they keep soldiers off the battlefield - out of harms way. With our level of technology, a society allowing itself to become detached from the horror of war, from the killing of people, would be disastrous for civilization as a whole.
#20 - hinlel
Reply +88 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
**hinlel rolled image**
#3 - muffinssnuffims
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
I'm not the hugest fan of the drone program, but that has nothing to do with them being drones. Only problem I have is some of the policies about them and mostly just the fact that we're involved in a bunch of places we shouldn't be which aren't related to legitimate things we should be involved in (big difference between intelligence drones helping with Osama and drone strikes in Yemen).

But that said, they're a very good tool. And even if they were fully automated, idk if that'd be any worse morally really. Still just a tool. It's all in the use of the tool that the morality is. So idk why so many idiots focus on the tool or the end result instead of the person using it, but I guess that's just the liberal way.
#13 to #3 - butakun
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#14 to #3 - butakun
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
"just the liberal way"

I assume you're making a comparison to the common liberal stance on gun control?
#22 to #14 - muffinssnuffims
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
Yes. It's quite unfortunate they hijacked that word too. I'd consider myself a classical liberal, but liberalism means a completely different thing today.
#320 to #22 - butakun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Eh, "liberal" is just a very broad classification. Kind of like "conservative." There are nuts at both ends of the spectrum, and reasonable people closer to the middle.

I mean you could call a crazy anarcho-socialist feminazi a "liberal" and you'd be right... but you would also be right using "liberal" to describe a totally reasonable person who is in favor of government having a responsibility to care for its people through services like welfare, social security, and quality public education, without infringing on human rights.

The broad categorization problem is part of why tumblr is so nuts about gender identification... the other factor in that being a neurotic need to take the solution to extremes by being ultraspecific.
#323 to #320 - muffinssnuffims
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
In categorization being a wishy-washy matter of semantics, you're right.

But you also have a bit of a "middle ground falacy" thing going if you ask me. The middle people are among some of the most unreasonable and silly people I've met. They aren't really worse on average, but they aren't better either. Being somewhere in the middle ground between two horrible philosophies does not make it somehow better.

Specificity is not bad in and of itself, nor is extremism, if it is correct. Sometimes it is. In general it isn't, but that's nothing to do with it being extremism, and more to do with moderates AND extremists BOTH being wrong generally.
#324 to #323 - butakun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
I didn't intend to say that moderates are best, let alone that they're best because of being halfway between the two extremes, though looking at what I wrote I can totally see how that could be conveyed. The point I was trying (and apparently perhaps failing ? ) to make was that there's a greater distribution of reasonable people outside of the extreme ends. You know, a bell curve. Though maybe it's more like a pair of bell curves.

You're right, specificity isn't inherently bad, but it is possible to take it too far; it's my opinion that some of the more ridiculous "genders" talked about in certain corners of the Internet do in fact take it too far. There was a pic on here a week or two ago that listed a ton of gender and sexuality terms, many of which were perfectly sensible, but some of which were just plain silly.

Regarding your assertion that extremism isn't inherently bad, I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. I suppose that certain forms of extremism might be mostly harmless, but in general I think it's better to avoid extreme expressions of a given philosophy/belief/etc.
#328 to #324 - muffinssnuffims
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/30/2014) [-]
I agree, some of the gender/sexuality stuff is ridiculous.

But regarding philosophy: I think it's better to judge philosophies on their merits, rather than their being extreme relative to the rest of the world.

If you lived with the MANY ancient cultures when they considered sacrificing people to the gods as the only way to go about life, you'd be an "extremist" for suggesting that as stupid and unnecessary. A "moderate" might be someone who thinks that some sacrifices are bad, but of course some of them are correct.

That's what I mean about avoiding extremist philosophies just because they're extreme being bad. Should judge them entirely separately of relative things like other peoples' positions. Other people may be ******* crazy.
#330 to #328 - butakun
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/30/2014) [-]
I'm sure I could find a way to keep arguing about the extremism thing if I really wanted, but I feel like at this point it would be splitting hairs or arguing for the sake of argument, and your position seems sensible enough to me that I don't feel the need to do either.

Thank you for the reasonable and intelligent discussion!
#7 - grandlordchicken
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
As an fairly liberal person, I fully support the use of drones. They allow the military to kill thier targets with less civilian or military casualtys and that's all I need to hear.
#17 - bakinboy
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(05/28/2014) [-]
User avatar #192 - majorcris
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Drones are good
Drone strikes on populated areas are bad.
Drones outside of warzones are bad
Drones shouldn't be used domestically, period
User avatar #201 to #192 - leonhardt
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Unless they're by Amazon and are delivering my Dragon dildos.
User avatar #220 to #201 - majorcris
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Yes.
Just no cameras or boomsticks
User avatar #221 to #220 - leonhardt
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
What if the Dragon Dildos can be fired like missiles
User avatar #222 to #221 - majorcris
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Do they have explosive payloads?
User avatar #223 to #222 - leonhardt
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Well they do explode.
#232 to #223 - allhailshrek
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
**allhailshrek rolled image**
>mfw killed in dragon dildo drone strike
User avatar #244 to #232 - leonhardt
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
That is spectacular.
#225 to #223 - majorcris
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
*lip-biting intensifies*
#81 - snacky
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
the problem aint the drones it that fact that sometimes people use the drone to bomb 1 ******* guy in a urban invirment while they should only be used in rural areas (so we know we're not ******* anyone else up) or in combat
User avatar #86 to #81 - swedishassassin
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
Incorrect
User avatar #174 to #81 - lieutenantderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
It's not any better if they use a missile or bomb that's fired/dropped from a manned aircraft. That'd probably kill more people too.
User avatar #187 to #174 - snacky
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
exactly we need to stop just going overkill and bombing people instead of just send in like a 4 man raid
User avatar #188 to #187 - lieutenantderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/29/2014) [-]
A special forces team in an urban environment where civilians are literally just walking around? That could cause even more potential harm.