Jon Stewart compares Obama drones to Bush's torture

The way you say it here, an international terrorists is equivalent to a 5 mile over an hour speeder.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not semantics, its reality. Grab a hold of some if you can.

 

almost every drug bust is now swat it seems like, overkill seems to be the name of the game

.

 

The reality is we kept alive Nazis that gained us something ( not all of them lets not go down your little trolling path again) if they served a purpose. The excuse "to keep them away from the Soviets" was hollow and many of them would have been executed for war crimes and would serve no purpose dead. We wanted their talents. Period. We didnt give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about their war crimes because they had a use. Stop kidding yourself.

 

sad but true...

 

You guys on the left and right work incredibility hard to try and convince others ( or even yourself) that your party is above what the other party does...

 

What an abject monumental lack of dignity for human life.
If you mean to tell me,I need to stand up and applaud this bug of a
comic { Jonathan Leibovitz } by demonstrating some equivalence.
Without making a further arse of yer entire thread,explain in humanities
detail this.
How one compares Waterboarding Known Terrorist who commit the most
heinous atrocity { beheadings,blowing to pieces other humans etc. } with
droning an entire wedding { where totally innocent women and children } are
blown to smithereens just to nab a lone Terrorist.Even President Clinton
wasn't about to nab Osama bin Laden in the Sudan with a strategic missle
attack because OBL was known to live and mingle among women & children.
Obama's drone attacks were as unprofessional and against ALL forms of
the Geneva convention code.
Yet the utter lapdogs in thie Media failed to report the truly heinous practice
Obama gloated about a few times.Obama being a proud practicioner of dronings.

 

You mean to sit here and compare Waterboarding the Earth's nastiest
vicious Terrorist { where no obvious damage is done } to dronings where
often many Innocents { even women & children } are blown to pieces just to
nab a lone terrorist.
This in and of itself is a stunning lack of education in the Humanities.
There is no way a person could be educated in the Humanities and not
completely comprehend how inhumane and barbaric the use of drones for
killing are.

 

Which party was in control when Iraq was invaded ? Are you going to claim that civilian deaths did not happen until Obama ? Are you also claiming that drone strikes only happened when Obama was in office?

In 2002, a U.S. plane targeted a house of wedding guests in the central region of Oruzgan, killing at least 30 people and injuring at least 40 – many of whom were women and children. In Western Iraq in 2004, another wedding party was attacked while the guests slept. More than 40 were killed, women and children included. In 2008, a wedding party was bombed as 70-90 women accompanied the bride-to-be to meet her soon-to-be husband, the customary tradition. Her vows were never said. 27 people, mostly women and children, were among the dead, including the bride. Tom Engelhardt’s aptly titled piece in TomDispatch, “The Wedding Crashers,” goes into even more detail.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/18/us-drone-strike-targets-yemeni-wedding/

Comments?

 

Someone finally explained last week how much better off Obama is
because Saddam and his Sons are no longer around.Imagine if Saddam and
his Sadist sons were around today.The trouble they would cause.
Explain this.I think it perfectly explains the entire thing going on here.
Not a day or week went by w/o almost constant harping at President Bush and the latest
Casualty Count.Front page headlines were even dedicated to whatever new
magic Casuality Count was determined.
How come not a single headline or even brief mention of ANY Casuality Count
ever since Obama took office.In fact no more Cindy Sheehan.
How exactly did that work.
We were still waging the same wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when Obama too office.
In fact,the lefties,even Obama,claimed that Afghanistan was the Right War to wage.
However Not a peep about any Casuality Count when Obama became President.
Please explain how that works.

 

Look I agree that the media treats the presidents differently.... But that doesn't mean we have to pretend that such a great difference exist.... Both were in office when civilians were executed. Bad people exist all around the world, we can not invade every country and take care of them. Sometimes we have to let the rest of the world figure it out.

 

What in the world kind of answer is that.President Bush was literally taken to
media woodshed virtually every week over his Casualty Count and Obama
doesn't get as much as a gnat nibble over his Higher casualty count numbers since
taking office.This isn't merely a willing lapdog media carrying Obama's water.
This is outright Stalinism.Or the intentional misleading and propagandizing of an
entire populace.

 

While it seems this is more of the usual "But Bush..." we always see in the media, and here... it isn't used in the usual way of defense of Obama. So, while acknowledging the problem with Obama's drones, he has to get his nightly Bush quota in there.. to keep the sheep happy.

Still, since he is comparing them, I wonder if Bush's torturing only had a 2% effective rate, like Obama's drones that kill 49 innocent people for every one target.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

 

Yeah but what can you do about it? Most people know that even if they dont want to acknowledge it. Cindy sheehan is a good example... she got all the media she wanted till Obama became president.

 

I don't claim to know I'm right. That's the difference. I admit, since Obama won't specify the target to anyone for the broad majority of strikes, and since he allows "signature strikes" of "suspicious" individuals that have never been identified at all, we can't know.

YOU guys are the ones coming in to make accusations about how any target we demolish must be evil card-carrying AQ hell-bent on nuking the New York, enemy combatants, dangerous, things like that to varying degrees, no matter how far from a "battlefield" or live combat situation they actually are

Obama lied about his terrorism program on many occasions, and I'm sure you don't have the inside pass in his decision room, so I ask you guys the same question you asked me. How do YOU know.

I have offered my speculation. They can be threat killings, they can be contract-killings, they can just be weapons tests.. Nobody really knows.. The "official" reasoning makes no sense.. Because why wouldn't they attack AQ at their actual present location in Syria, and why couldn't they ID the terrorist targets they claim to be killing in more than a tiny amount of cases.

It is not my job to know the top-secret ins and outs. It is up to anyone who kills somebody, to prove that person needed to be killed. You guys don't even know their names except for a couple, let alone actually know that they needed to be destroyed.

Which case?

 

First of all, these drones have killed hundreds of women and children, so the USA are attacking civilians too, whether they will admit it or not.

This post would make sense if they targeted these people as they crossed the border. Or after. Why not? Why not just trace them and see what they do?

Instead, they blow up weddings, funerals and schools. And then come back later, to attack the medics as they pick up the body parts, to the points that people are afraid to even help people that just got bombed, for the reason of.. well I'm sure there MUST be some good reason for that, huh?

 

Really? What was he going to do? And the more serious the crime, the MORE necessary due process is. Do you understand what the point of due process even is? The whole point is that you prove it, you do NOT just use arbitrary labels to designate people as too evil to deserve it, because that gets abused by leaders, and the idea of due process is to prevent that. I can understand fining a shoplifter after a judge watches 30 seconds of a security tape. But the president just killing people dead in their tracks with possibly even less review, well that sets a bad precedent. Are you ALWAYS going to trust the president, even any given future president, when he explains why he had to kill this guy or that guy?

We kill people, legally, ONLY, while they are HOLDING the gun and pose an active, real-time threat with it, then and there. The police NEVER shoot unarmed people due to speculation that they are plotting a shooting in the future, not legally anyway. That comparison fails.

 

According to Obama's story, if you believe it, the order to kill OBL that night he claimed he killed him, was a 'kill no-matter-what' order. I'd think you'd want to hear what OBL has to say, right? I mean as far as "high-value" detainees are concerned, this is the guy for that water torture that so many politicians love so much!

In fact, since the trial, or tribunal, or combatant-status review of KSM STILL hasn't gotten anywhere, I would think OBL would be a rather pertinent witness!

Can you, or anyone explain that, possibly!? Just drop him into the ocean?

 

Obama is now in charge, of course.

 

Bush Jr. and Obama BOTH enjoy an exemption from legal accountability. Can we just agree about that?

 

I wouldn't even differentiate. Obama likes torture and never stopped any CIA torture and allowed it in Guantanamo bay to this day where he holds uncharged people for a life of torture with no trial.and Bush carried out drone strikes too.

They each might have a preference for one over the other.. But the effectiveness for either is in their ability to destroy the reputation of the USA and create more hatred towards the country, and obviously more terrorism and revenge attacks.

 

Yes, and...?

It's still different to what you said. Granting your premise, Obama is in charge, and as a result, we don't go getting the guy for his intel. Obama dropped the body in the sea just as fast as he could with a ridiculous excuse for it (don't want to make a shrine? WTF?) instead of the idea that this is the guy who could FINALLY put the WHOLE 9/11 story together for us, so that we could know, and prove it for certain. If the official story of 9/11 as told by the 9/11 commission, they'd have him side by side to KSM, obviously. Maybe they could answer some of those dangling questions the report still had.

This is obviously not the case. That is if the Obama killed OBL story is even true in the first place.

 

Sure it is. Obama is now in charge. He has no problem killing people with vital information. I was speaking past tense under the Bush administration.