Democratic House candidate compares Trump to Osama bin Laden - Polidicks

Source? Then they're allowed to organize and plot attacks against the United States, Russia, and Europe. Their own governments do nothing about them, at best, and give them support, at worst.

Under Obama, Men Killed by Drones Are Presumed to Be Terrorists

Drone strikes under Obama killed innocent people 90% of the time. Trump has been ramping up drone strikes to an insane degree and loosening rules of engagement. Is it less damage than a war? Well yeah, of course, but that's just a matter of scale. The drone program is still abhorrent and it's by no means precise or well-executed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-is-hiding-the-number-of-civilians-the-us-has-killed-congress-must-act/2018/05/29/74775730-636c-11e8-99d2-0d678ec08c2f_story.html This is an opinion piece because the actual news of missing the deadline was weeks ago and is linked in-line, this is a followup on how the situation continues. But hey yeah, about that, the Trump administration was supposed to release 2017's numbers last month and didn't. The report is supposedly being prepared but late, but so far it looks like Trump is engaging in considerably more opacity than his predecessor when it comes to how many civilians are being killed by the USA, globally. And this distressingly comes after Trump has led a policy of increasing aggression including the use of drone strikes. And then there's the anecdote of when shortly after becoming President he was taken to watch a drone operator monitoring an ISIS terrorist or some other target live, and when the operator waited for the target to emerge from the house and walk away from the large crowd until they were a good safe distance away before launching a strike from high above, Trump flipped out and demanded to know why he didn't just fuck him up the instant he walked outside and to hell with the civilian collateral. And candidate Trump once said that America should be bombing the families of terrorists to teach them a lesson. Most of the rest of the world treats that as a war crime, Mr. President.

1.) What would you do to terrorists? 2.) You can't bomb terrorism out of existence but you can bomb terrorists out of existence. Do you propose that we simply allow terrorists to commit crimes against humanity freely without justice? Yes we need to address the economic and political reasons for terrorism, but at the same time you need to deal with the terrorists that currently exist

I'd say that systematic violence is still violence. Allowing people to starve, to go without healthcare, waste away in ICE deportation centers, etc may not be direct, but they are all still violence. That's my understanding of the OP, at least.

Oh no I'm being criticized for being partisan by the biggest partisan hacks out there, what am I to do.

He could probably speak better English, too.

There are partisans on both sides of the fence. I think it's just important that we attempt to see things from lots of different perspectives in order to reduce this. I almost feel like it's our responsibility. I am subscribed to Fox News, and I hate its guts, but I still watch their content to ensure that I don't end up like one of them, just so I can see different perspectives.

Remember when Obama and Osama were one in the same? What empty headed moron says this

This is especially heinous because there is simply no reason for it. As technologically and strategically sophisticated as terrorist networks can be, without specialized equipment it can be virtually impossible to detect whether or not you are being monitored by an unmanned aerial vehicle -- especially the more advanced strike and surveillance platforms employed against high value targets. They can fly at altitudes where they cannot be heard or seen, and yet they can see everything. Their optics systems are shockingly advanced, as well. Even during my time in the UAS program, almost ten years ago now, the camera payload on even a mid-range reconnaissance UAS was more than enough to get the job done, and the more expensive and sophisticated systems on the strike platforms were damn near good enough to read license plates from fifty thousand feet. Being able to clearly see and identify targets, without being seen, is impressive enough, but and even greater advantage in a unmanned aerial system is that they can indefinitely monitor such a target. Operators on the ground can assume control in shifts to prevent fatigue, and they can even seamlessly assume control of a new unit if the system needs to be replaced for refueling or re-arming. Because the system is unmanned, the operators can shift control to the replacement unit, and the original can autonomously return to base. The flexibility, longevity, stealth, and camera payloads are all critical in allowing a UAS to perform its intended role, but the real advantage of such a system is that it can be overseen by an entire mission control and operator team in real-time. You can, potentially, have dozens of people monitoring the system and camera payload, performing image analysis, identification, tracking, and coordinating with other intelligence services and/or ground teams. All that is to say: there's no fucking excuse for civilian casualties -- especially on the scale in which we've seen. UASs had pretty incredible capabilities even ten years ago, and the systems today are undoubtedly even more impressive. This platform offers every possible advantage in safely identifying, tracking, and ultimately terminating high value targets in such a way as to eliminate the vast majority of risk for collateral damage. You can literally watch a target for weeks, waiting for an ideal moment to strike. Even in such a scenario where the target never provides an ideal window for a precision missile strike without collateral damage and death to innocent bystanders, the sheer power of the UAS as an intelligence platform as opposed to a strike platform enable the safe and effective coordination and overwatch of strike or capture teams on the ground. As somebody with hands-on training in the operation and capabilities of even outdated mid-range UAS systems and intelligence procedures for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition, the idea that that 90-fucking-percent of drone strikes are resulting in civilian casualties is wholly and completely inexcusable. I was heartbroken when health concerns caused me to be medically discharged, but now I consider myself lucky to have never had to actually operate a UAS outside of training environments, as I don't think I could have lived with myself had I been party to the deaths of innocent caused by such gross misuse of such a potentially incredible intelligence asset.