|
|||||||
| MOVIE FAN CENTRAL | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
CIA Director Resigns, Cites Death of "Thousands of Innocent Children" By Drones
Quote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...al-affair?lite |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Aaaaaaaand it turns out that "some lady" is the co-author of his book "All In", Paula Broadwell, who is also married with two kids. (facepalm) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...aula-broadwell http://gawker.com/5959347/and-the-re...&post=54158246 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...iographer.html |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
We have been watching his career with great interest.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I only hope they can find a more respectable family man, a churchgoer who can keep his dick in his pants, to replace him as Chief Executioner of Poor Villagers, Funeral Attendees, and Good Samaritans. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
News: country with massive war machine uses its massive war machine
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
See that's the problem, CIA director is not an elected position. He could be fucking animals in his spare time and it wouldn't matter a tiddely-twat what the American people thought. Why would he feel the need to resign? I can understand getting ahead of the story and letting people know in advance, but resign? |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quentin do you know where in the report The Daily Mail is getting that 1/50 number from?
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know why someone has to resign, because of a private affair. Did any of this have anything to do with his job?
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In this case, the FBI was doing an investigation involving some security email leaks(?) and were investigating all gov email which was apparently how Patreaus was communicating with Broadwell (dumb). The affair seemed to have ended month ago, but there's been no mention that any of the leaks stemmed from Patreaus' emails. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Washington Post Quote:
(facepalm) Last edited by electriclite; 11-11-2012 at 07:28 PM.. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The quoted source was "its ass". |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The numbers section starts on page 43 and the explanation of the methodology is briefly summarized in that section then expanded upon throughout. They're relying on a combination of firsthand accounts of survivors and witnesses, official US statements, and the existing chronicle of drone strikes and casualties conducted by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, New America Foundation, and Long War Journal. A breakdown of every reported drone strike and its minimum casualties over the last three years is also in the appendix. The 1 in 50 figure comes from the total official casualties in Pakistan since 2008 which is just over 2600 and the 49 "militant leaders" or other "high value" individuals who were intended targets killed during that same time period. It draws a distinction between confirmed militants who the U.S. is knowingly trying to execute and all the people inadvertently killed who the Administration has adopted the habit of then claiming to be militants. (I assume you know this but any male over 16 killed by a drone is claimed to be a militant). Only 13% of all drone strikes hit an intended, planned target and those intended targets make up a little less than 2% of all casualties so "collateral damage" makes up the rest. http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-cont...DER-DRONES.pdf Last edited by QUENTIN; 11-14-2012 at 10:36 PM.. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm well aware about Obama's drone bullshit, I was just having a hard time getting that number out of the report. The only example I found from (briefly) going through the analysis was a figure citing 2% of deaths since 2004 being 'high value' individuals. My only issue with that is the blanket assumption that the other 98% are innocent civilians when the reality of the situation is a hell of a lot murkier. It's too sensationalistic and reminds me of the government's blanket assumption with regards to classifying militants.
I do feel that if enough people speak out on the drone issue it might make Obama reconsider what he's doing. Call me overly optimistic on that one but he's never struck me as having the same arrogance of the Bush administration, and even though he's gone farther right than them in this area I think it's mainly because he's been able to get away with it. His reversal on same sex marriage is something I didn't expect from him, and gives me some hope that if enough people whined he's listen. As for the war machine thing, that wasn`t anything bad, just me pointing out it's business as usual. Edit: Oh yeah, what makes me more livid than the drone shit itself is liberals falling all over themselves to defend Obama on this when they'd be calling for Bush's head over the exact same thing. Case in point: http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...kistan/262862/ Last edited by someguy; 11-14-2012 at 11:29 PM.. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|