U.S. Drones Kill 28 'Unknowns' for Every Intended Target

Reason Magazine ^ | December 1, 2014 | by Nick Gillespie

[Oldeconomybuyer]

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

oops.

[silverleaf]

So 103 Pakistani children died from drone strikes ordered by Obama? How many Pakistani children died form torture during the Bush administration?

[Diogenesis]

"We, the special, the ruling, the .... EXEMPT,
will continue to gruber the American people daily."

[dirtymac]

Remember his Nobel Peace Prize? No war he just kill people.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’m totally okay with collateral damage when we know the target is a bad guy.

It’s the bad guy’s fault that he’s not segregated himself from the general population.

And those who hang around him have a high probability of being bad guys too.

[bert]

Twenty eight % collateral damage is ok when the total is trivial

The collateral damage is not really innocents but less than principle enemies. A dead wife is not really innocent. Ditto most of her kids

[txrefugee]

Obama has killed hundreds of innocents with his drone attacks while one terrorist died during enhanced interrogation. The U N should certainly go after Obama for war crimes.

[Bidimus1]

Coalition Skelebot are next on menu (/sarc sort of)

[Tijeras_Slim]

A dead wife is not really innocent. Ditto most of her kids

It's not like wives and kids have much in the way of options of picking up and leaving in a Muslim country.

[taildragger]

Oh man is that an conservative women vs liberal women picture jut begging to be Photoshopped. Stabusnow, Di-Fi and Patty Murray, the politische wahren Gläubigen that make me want to vomit...

[bert]

doesn’t matter

[Tijeras_Slim]

Insha’Allah

[Bettyprob]

Obama the drone president likes to shed fake tears for kids at Sandy Hook, while ordering them blown up in the Middle East.

[Chad_the_Impaler]

And all 28 were gentle giants studying for college.

[Michael.SF.]

The bleeding hearts who peek in will hate this (as well as some Freeper’s) but here goes:

We are fighting terrorists who do not play by the rules of engagement. They could not continue their fight w/o the support of family, children, wives and older ‘civilians’. Those who actively support their efforts through such things as: feeding them, housing them and staying with them as a supporting structure are not truly the “innocent” victims the media and the libs want you to think they are.

The above does not apply to all, but it does apply to many, of those killed in the drone attacks when they are not the actual target.

Sorry, but they want to kill us, our kids, our women and whoever else they can. You start a fight, you pay the consequences.

When their supporters decide that their own lives and those of their family are more important than the terrorists, we will see the beginning of the end of terrorism

[Blue Jays]

You are both exactly correct.

If one knows his sibling has been hacking the heads off innocent people, there is an opportunity a missile might arrive for an unexpected dinner visit one evening.
We can't save the entire world. If one is married to a terrorist, opt to sleep in a shed a quarter-mile away. Sheesh.

[depressed in 06]

Why is there not a fatwa on the apOstate?

[Spartan79]

Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Blowing hundreds of innocent bystanders to bits to get a handful of bad guys is fine. Depriving a proven butcher of sleep for a few days or scaring the pants off him by pouring water over his face is a heinous violation of human rights and international norms of behavior, warranting condemnation and even criminal prosecution. Is that it?

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to grasp the nuances of the refined morality of the people, obviously my intellectual superiors, who have constructed the moral structure progressives have foist upon the world.