|
Title: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Linus Van Pelt on June 08, 2012, 11:23:16 AM Quote Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. ... This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1 Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 08, 2012, 12:05:59 PM Change!
Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on June 08, 2012, 12:22:18 PM Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Redalgo on June 08, 2012, 03:23:02 PM ()
Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: minionofmidas on June 09, 2012, 03:38:50 AM "partly"?
Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Insula Dei on June 09, 2012, 02:49:18 PM There might be some plain good old lying as well. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: k-onmmunist on June 10, 2012, 03:59:48 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now.
Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 10, 2012, 05:13:26 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: batmacumba on June 11, 2012, 12:20:01 AM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: hawkeye59 on June 11, 2012, 02:01:03 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Purch on June 11, 2012, 02:52:00 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. Well considering our intrusion within the middle eat is what led to those attacks on Us soil in the first place...... So instead of learning from our double edged policies of the past we use drone attacks and completely ignore the the civilian causalities because we're America. From our bases on Saudi Arabi, To our bombings of Iraq, To our overthrow of Iranian Governments, To our arming of the Afgan resistance, to our drone attacks on Pakistan.... And people still believe we get attacked because we're free and a symbol of democracy. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Donerail on June 11, 2012, 02:56:38 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. I wouldn't have, because they wouldn't pose a threat to the United States, because military bases overseas would be shut down and threats and violence as our policy towards other nations would no longer be part of my administration's foreign policy; thus, they would have no reason to attack us. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Purch on June 11, 2012, 02:59:15 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. I wouldn't have, because they wouldn't pose a threat to the United States, because military bases overseas would be shut down and threats and violence as our policy towards other nations would no longer be part of my administration's foreign policy; thus, they would have no reason to attack us. Post of the year Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: hawkeye59 on June 11, 2012, 07:22:52 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. I wouldn't have, because they wouldn't pose a threat to the United States, because military bases overseas would be shut down and threats and violence as our policy towards other nations would no longer be part of my administration's foreign policy; thus, they would have no reason to attack us. Title: Re: disturbingly Orwellian passage of the month Post by: Donerail on June 11, 2012, 08:48:26 PM If Bush did this, the internet would be losing its mind right now. Well, the Internet reaction to Obama's national security policies seems to be a collective sigh. But Al-Qaeda's second-in-command was caught!!!! How can this be wrong? Now don't get me wrong, I oppose this. But I don't oppose using drones in general. I wouldn't have, because they wouldn't pose a threat to the United States, because military bases overseas would be shut down and threats and violence as our policy towards other nations would no longer be part of my administration's foreign policy; thus, they would have no reason to attack us. You can't really break something that's already broken. |