Lindsey Graham reveals 4,700 killed in US drone strikes - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/xaoa.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/02/201322185240615179.html[/url] [quote]A US senator has said that an estimated 4,700 people have been killed in America's secretive drone war, the first time a government official has offered a total number of fatalities caused by nearly a decade of drone strikes, local media reported. Republican senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter of the drone raids, revealed the figure in a speech on Wednesday in his home state of South Carolina. "We've killed 4,700," Graham was quoted as saying by the Easley Patch, a local website covering the small town of Easley. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda," he told the local Rotary Club. Graham's office did not dispute his reported remarks, but said that he had not divulged any classified information.[/quote]

They still think like we believe that joke story from 2001 about al-Qaeda being real. They love bragging about it 10 years later, when they know they're in control. What a troll.

[QUOTE=Stewox;39668907]They still think like we believe that joke story from 2001 about al-Qaeda being real. They love bragging about it 10 years later, when they know they're in control. What a troll.[/QUOTE] ~Conspiracy~

Perception is formed by information. Lack of information deforms and can cause opposite perception.

[QUOTE=Stewox;39668955]Perception is formed by information. Lack of information causes opposite perception.[/QUOTE] To say they don't exist is moronic

[QUOTE=Stewox;39668907]They still think like we believe that joke story from 2001 about al-Qaeda being real. They love bragging about it 10 years later, when they know they're in control. What a troll.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=download;39668930]~Conspiracy~[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=853_1187036446[/URL] [QUOTE]Bin Laden had no formal organisation. Until the Americans invented one for him. To prosecute Bin Laden in absence, prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organisation. Jamal Al-Fadl testimony was used to build up a picture of Al Qaeda. It was a dramatic and powerful picture of Bin Laden but it bore little relationship to the truth[/QUOTE] from a really good BBC documentary by Adam Curtis called The Power of Nightmares. Highly recommend that doc.

what a good use of money!

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;39668977][URL]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=853_1187036446[/URL] from a really good BBC documentary by Adam Curtis called The Power of Nightmares. Highly recommend that doc.[/QUOTE] To say they don't exist because they lack a formal structure is like saying Anonymous don't exist

[QUOTE=download;39668994]To say they don't exist because they lack a formal structure is like saying Anonymous don't exist[/QUOTE] The problem there is you could actually say that.

[QUOTE=download;39668994]To say they don't exist because they lack a formal structure is like saying Anonymous don't exist[/QUOTE] That was an expression. I was not pinpointing my words as description of something physical. They may be or may not be, but that is irrelevant. Did we see WMDs ? We got a photoshopped Osama picture. Taking absurdity of their arrogance about this joke to whole other level. Besided, fundamentally, the top are automatically less trust worthy than the bottom, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[QUOTE=download;39668994]To say they don't exist because they lack a formal structure is like saying Anonymous don't exist[/QUOTE] uhhhh... do you not see the flaw in your reasoning

[QUOTE=download;39668966]To say they don't exist is moronic[/QUOTE] "anyone who disagrees with me is a retard" Well aren't you very intellegient and mature young man who clearly knows what he's talking about.

[quote]"Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda,"[/quote] That was a very quick way of dismissing and justifying why a large number of those 4,700 killed were innocent people. Pretty disgusting if you ask me, and not so much that it comes from the senator because I don't think he had anything to do with the operations, but the fact that ordinary people are murdered because of the decision of a handful of people. And barely anybody cares. Now if a drone is used to look for a murderous ex-cop loose in his home country, on the other hand, that's breaking news.

i don't get why people complain about drones so much what makes it any different from dropping a bomb off a jet with a pilot on board?

Fact of the matter is, having a tendency to defending the authority is automatically questionable, possiblity of the compromise is likely. Why would a supposably free citizen defend someone he has to pay increasingly more taxes to. This does not occur naturally. This is a construct of manipulative powers, every other animal defends it self as we see it naturally.

[QUOTE=Chrille;39669080]That was a very quick way of dismissing and justifying why a large number of those 4,700 killed were innocent people. Pretty disgusting if you ask me, and not so much that it comes from the senator because I don't think he had anything to do with the operations, but the fact that ordinary people are murdered because of the decision of a handful of people. And barely anybody cares. Now if a drone is used to look for a murderous ex-cop loose in his home country, on the other hand, that's breaking news.[/QUOTE] its not like they do it on purpose. over the last several years the military has been getting much better intelligence and civilian casualties due to drone strikes is almost non-existent these days. [editline]21st February 2013[/editline] and of that 4700 killed statistic, at least 95% of those would be militant casualties.

[QUOTE=Stewox;39669028]That was an expression. I was not pinpointing my words as description of something physical. They may be or may not be, but that is irrelevant. Did we see WMDs ? We got a photoshopped Osama picture. Taking absurdity of their arrogance about this joke to whole other level. Besided, fundamentally, the top are automatically less trust worthy than the bottom, absolute power corrupts absolutely.[/QUOTE] I don't see what WMDs have to do with this and Al-Qaeda. Just because the top are less trustworthy doesn't say anything about whether Al-Qaeda exists or not [QUOTE=Kybalt;39669055]uhhhh... do you not see the flaw in your reasoning[/QUOTE] Do share [QUOTE=smeismastger;39669079]"anyone who disagrees with me is a retard" Well aren't you very intellegient and mature young man who clearly knows what he's talking about.[/QUOTE] "I can't disprove the mountains of evidence proving Al-Qaeda exist so I'll just say he's a child and stupid"

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;39669102]i don't get why people complain about drones so much what makes it any different from dropping a bomb off a jet with a pilot on board?[/QUOTE] iirc a few people are worried that being able to kill numerous people in the middle east from the comfort and safety of your own base in America will make it an overly casual experience

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;39669102]i don't get why people complain about drones so much what makes it any different from dropping a bomb off a jet with a pilot on board?[/QUOTE] this way people can treat it like obama's holding the remote control and tallying points for taking out orphans America was all sorts of happy when we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hell, people [i]today[/i] think they were great moments. Even Carlos Mencia gave a rather odd speech during his original comedy special about how you shouldn't mess with America, mentioning the plane that dropped the first bomb was named the "Anola Gaye", "to symbolize how fucked in the ass you are". The crowd cheered for him. We shouted 'Mission Accomplished' after manned planes carpet bombed areas and leveled city blocks in the search for Bin Laden, and yet these precision strikes that take out far smaller spaces in a time where we have incredible gps capabilities to ensure we land it where the given intelligence shows it should. It becomes a problem to people who want it to be a problem- because the president has to sign some paperwork instead of anybody else.

[QUOTE=Chrille;39669080]That was a very quick way of dismissing and justifying why a large number of those 4,700 killed were innocent people. Pretty disgusting if you ask me, and not so much that it comes from the senator because I don't think he had anything to do with the operations, but the fact that ordinary people are murdered because of the decision of a handful of people. And barely anybody cares. Now if a drone is used to look for a murderous ex-cop loose in his home country, on the other hand, that's breaking news.[/QUOTE] Make an analysis. Why doesn't anybody care? Question: Do they even know about it? Answer: No, becasuse majority get the information from a news source which didn't report that. Cop shooting Cop is a news dramatic story anyone would want to cover. Why? Answer: Fundamentals: bad news always sells better. Why? Answer: by human nature and/or artificial social manipulation. But in case of Chris Dorner, it gets way more complicated than just a tendency to report bad news. You can read more about that on infowars. Once you open up your own thought barrier, it all makes sense. The problem is, people don't connect the dots from decades or hundreds of years, your mindset is closed on a single factoid , that's what they bank on, you not getting through that mental barrier. That's why most people laugh at conspiracy theorists, simply because they are in a discussion of a one part in a million-sized puzzle. If you don't know the information before, around, it's obvious you won't understand the information that follows. The best thing anybody can do to start is simple, dicredit everything that is said officially, even if it may be correct, there is always possibility of inaccuracy, rarely are there exceptions, but there are, for example

Because drones are pilotless, thus for some reason this justifies attacking other countries and launching crossborder attacks not being a big headline.

[quote]"Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of al-Qaeda,"[/quote] wow, how could he think that was a good response that's like just going "eeeehhhh yeah we kill some kids n shit on the side, whattya gonna do huh?"

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39669226]this way people can treat it like obama's holding the remote control and tallying points for taking out orphans [B]America was all sorts of happy when we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki[/B]. Hell, people [i]today[/i] think they were great moments. Even Carlos Mencia gave a rather odd speech during his original comedy special about how you shouldn't mess with America, mentioning the plane that dropped the first bomb was named the "Anola Gaye", "to symbolize how fucked in the ass you are". The crowd cheered for him. We shouted 'Mission Accomplished' after manned planes carpet bombed areas and leveled city blocks in the search for Bin Laden, and yet these precision strikes that take out far smaller spaces in a time where we have incredible gps capabilities to ensure we land it where the given intelligence shows it should. It becomes a problem to people who want it to be a problem- because the president has to sign some paperwork instead of anybody else.[/QUOTE] this is actually scary, when you remember during the fukushima tsunami, there were thousands of idiots in facebook actually mentioning pearl harbor(for some random reason) and how "the japanese deserved the tsunami", and some even saying they should be nuked again... who knows why, and it was pretty obvious they weren't trolling, some japanese were even horrified by the whole thing.

For example, you know what is going to make headlines? "US jet does raid on suspected and untried taliban member". You know what wont make the news? "US drone does raid on suspected and untried taliban member".

[QUOTE=download;39668994]To say they don't exist because they lack a formal structure is like saying Anonymous don't exist[/QUOTE] If there's no formal structure to Al-Qaeda, I feel it makes it easier for the US government to deem anyone a part of it and thus a target.

[QUOTE=download;39669158]I don't see what WMDs have to do with this and Al-Qaeda. Just because the top are less trustworthy doesn't say anything about whether Al-Qaeda exists or not Do share "I can't disprove the mountains of evidence proving Al-Qaeda exist so I'll just say he's a child and stupid"[/QUOTE] They have been using the same tactics for hundreds of years. Problem-Reaction-Solution They create a problem in the first place, artificially, blame somebody else for it to get the people's reaction, and propose a "solution" to which the majority of population agrees to. The problem has never existed naturally, the scapegoat is a construct of the same ones who have created the problem. The Solution is their goal, but to get to the solution, a reaction from people is needed that would force their mind-set and thought process to favor it, that otherwise they wouldn't if they were thinking straight and open, a problem or event is needed to get the reaction, a great event of destruction, fear and terror are perfect sources of the intended psychological effect. Usually the whole event is orchestrated to make it look believeable and for the uncorrupted authorities to not be suspicious. When corruption is very deep, they can simply make up lies (WMDs) and people will still belive it, the media is used as a tool to influence perception further and to shotdown any opposition ("interference"). Why does it work? Because average population is disorganized and divided, they get easily manipulated into several opposing groups (eg,: democrats, republicans ..etc) and other cognitive dissonance innitiatives. Throughout the history, public information has been twisted, deformed, manipulated to prevent future generations of learning of their mistakes. Our generations live in a very interesting times, no such thing as the internet has been available before, or maybe it was, maybe there was a whole civilitation on mars, who knows, so just read "before" as in last 2000 years. Ofcourse, let's get back on that question of why does information that is most relevant to the people not get into breaking news. They are actively destroying evidence, this is old news, and avreage person has no idea that there has always been an information war in the shadows, see here: [url]http://www.infowars.com/author-and-former-intelligence-contract-pilot-accused-in-murder-suicide/[/url] The title is the cover story as it was orchestrated to appear like that. Same goes for Chris Dorner, they burned the house down purposelly, would you deny [url=http://www.infowars.com/lapd-audio-from-dorner-siege-burn-this-motherfucker/]hard evidence[/url](nsfw language) in favor of "official" story? (oh update, now it's confirmed, :D) As I may expect this to be brought up, In no way that was published to defend dorner or to "make him look good" (accusation by mainstream media), he obviously did go crazy if that's to belive, however, grand rule is, question everything, he may have been set up, or drugged by psychotropic "medication" (like the school shooters) to do such things. But I haven't noticed this story from the start so I can't tell more definitively as i haven't researched it yet fully in detail, i know the point though in the end.

[QUOTE=download;39668930]~Conspiracy~[/QUOTE] On the contrary, it is pretty open mouthed about it if you really look. Iraq for example; We went into the country, fucked the shit up beyond their capabilities to repair it and sustain themselves. Then allowed our corporations to go over and offer to fix it all. We rebuilt cities and installed military bases to "help defend them" and help them become established. We did an absolutely piss-poor job at arming and training their "Security Forces" and when all was said and done... we served them a gigantic bill for all the "Help" we had given them. Without any legitimate means to pay the bill back to the WTO (World Trade Organization / World Bank) the WTO offered them a compromise; Privatize major sectors such as Water and Oil in order to pay back your debt. So they did. Now foreign companies hold control over their most valuable and influential resources. Allowing them to profit and benefit from the proceeds but without giving much of anything back to the original country the resources were taken from. Today, we no longer "Invade" countries under the presence that we want their land. No, now we economically devastate them and then coerce them into terms of our own liking. Terms that more often than not will spell even further economic destabilization for the victimized country. And that's when Walmart moves in. If you don't believe me, you should watch Documentaries on the value of Water and the lack of it in this world. ie [url=http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/]Blue Gold: World Water Wars[/url] All this shit in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with WMDs in the end. No one wants to die, and all those Dictatorships realize that when they have 5 nukes, we have 1,000 more. The real issue here is sovereignty of resources in the world. We, as a species, are quickly blowing through the most valuable treasures in this world; water, oil, arable land, and so forth. These are what we are really fighting over in this world. What the West (US/UK/GR/CA/etc) is doing to the world is pretty twisted, but it is a product of our system of living. Done so to continually bring in what the customer wants so that profits can continue to be made. So we wage false wars and stage false horrors to sway the public into believing what we are doing is justified. When in reality, we are just bullying the world for their peanut butter sandwiches at the lunch table. It's all well and good now, but soon no one will have any peanut butter sandwiches left... And when it has been us who has eaten them all, the rest of the world will quickly change their opinion of us. (something we see now)

Lindsey is a girls name

[QUOTE=Stewox;39669495]Infowars[/QUOTE] Hahaha. Yea, no point continuing this [QUOTE=Keys;39669710]On the contrary, it is pretty open mouthed about it if you really look. Iraq for example; We went into the country, fucked the shit up beyond their capabilities to repair it and sustain themselves. Then allowed our corporations to go over and offer to fix it all. We rebuilt cities and installed military bases to "help defend them" and help them become established. We did an absolutely piss-poor job at arming and training their "Security Forces" and when all was said and done... we served them a gigantic bill for all the "Help" we had given them. Without any legitimate means to pay the bill back to the WTO (World Trade Organization / World Bank) the WTO offered them a compromise; Privatize major sectors such as Water and Oil in order to pay back your debt. So they did. Now foreign companies hold control over their most valuable and influential resources. Allowing them to profit and benefit from the proceeds but without giving much of anything back to the original country the resources were taken from. Today, we no longer "Invade" countries under the presence that we want their land. No, now we economically devastate them and then coerce them into terms of our own liking. Terms that more often than not will spell even further economic destabilization for the victimized country. And that's when Walmart moves in. If you don't believe me, you should watch Documentaries on the value of Water and the lack of it in this world. ie [url=http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/]Blue Gold Water Wars[/url][/QUOTE] Another person who seems to think Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is Iraq. They may be within a few thousand kilometres of eachother and full of Arabs, but they're not the same country. Not once have I said this in relation to Iraq except when telling people this has nothing to do with Iraq. This discussion is about [I]drone strikes which mostly operate out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan, there is nothing about Iraq here.[/I]. Simply talking about an entirely theoretical situation, without any hard proof, does not mean shit.

[QUOTE=download;39669787]Hahaha. Yea, no point continuing this Another person who seems to think Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is Iraq. They may be within a few thousand kilometres of eachother and full of Arabs, but they're not the same country. Not once have I said this in relation to Iraq except when telling people this has nothing to do with Iraq. Simply talking about an entirely theoretical situation, without any hard proof, does not mean shit.[/QUOTE] The fuck are you on about? I understand the difference Between Afghanistan and Iraq. The key difference is we failed to truly "Take over" Afghanistan, just like so many before us (Russians anyone?). You may not be talking about Iraq, but [u]I am[/u]. Because it is a perfect example of what is going on in the world and so familiar to us all. I didn't even quote your shit ([i]Yes I did, my bad. Read the wrong name.), (But still...[/i]) calm the fuck down. What I am talking about here has solid evidence, and quite frankly.. isn't even really hushed-up by the people involved anymore. They realize anyone who does is easily labeled as a "Conspiracy Theorist" and tossed to the side. It's too easy to get away with shit today because of the twist on media and information. Too easy to fool the millions who believe the first words they hear. Our World is fucked up, yo. [b]edit:[/b] And if you still want to argue it, [b][u]Watch the fucking movie[/u][/b] and do your research instead of just blindly posting on forums as if you were in the President's personal cabinet. If you cannot even be bothered to do that, then you have no business arguing. End of Story.