Sanders: "Obviously, we are taking on the entire Democratic establishment.”

[anatta]

Here's an idea - try and write in a coherent manner. You are all over the place and then you bitch that your posts get edited. Trying to reply to your entire wandering, babbling posts would be like conversing with a baboon. And I should know, I used to reply to USfreedom.

You're a liar. You do nothing but lie and you've done it again here. The President never said intervening in Libya was his biggest mistake. He said failing to plan for the day after was a mistake. He reiterated that he believed intervening was the right thing to do.

He is the President. Try and take some responsibility for what men do, if you disagree with an action, and stop trying to blame the woman. To quote your hero Trump "Sad!"

Yes .Obama did say the failure was the aftermath. I said the same thing. I can't help it if you missed it:

Even Obama says Libya was his biggest mistake -he did take responsibility that far -although he shifts it to Cameron who "should have done more"
(which is bullshit -US/NATO was never gong to re-build Libya)

Now Trump is my hero?? where did you make that up from?
You spin everything into a misogynist or racist view.
I don't give a damn about Clinton being a woman, or your over-reliance on PC directed "racism" crap.

I do care that Libya is now a failed terrorist state led by Clinton both internationally and in the WH National lSecurity Council.
Rice was the UN face with her Viagra rape charges, but she got that from the Blumenthal Emails that Clinton corresponded with\
( despite the fact Obama banned Blumenthal from working for the WH)

1. Look the the NYTimes: "The president was wary -the Secretary was persuasive"..
2. Gates and his "Clinton was the 51% deciding voice".... ( per NYtimes )
3. and the raw data from the Tic Toc on Libya memo...scads more on my Libyan blog --> Libyan Civil War 2014-Present

Obama is holding up a shiny object to distrated from the fact US/NATO were never going to re-build Libya
( his blaming of Cameron as being distracted).
Do you think we were gonna put boots/contractors into Libya?

Clinton is doing the same with her "Smart Power" deflection in her book Hard Choices
we never tried to help Libya - but she blames the Libyans instead.
She is distracting out with her "democracy" (Libyan elections) because she will not admit she was sucked into regime change by Jabril ( NTC)
She's counting on Democrats like yourself to buy into this nonsense -so you can wash your hands of ISIS in Libya as it fades into your rearview mirror.

Clinton is a perfect example of "The empress has no clothes" ( I assume you get the reference)

The Emperor's New Clothes
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/Emperor-s-New-Clothes-The
++

PS don't blame me for your inabilities of comprehension, use the quote feature to break it down if it helps like I do,

 

[anatta]

Of course he'd be too isolationist for your taste. Because you're actually a war monger. You just don't like any wars a woman has any involvement in. You're all over the damned map. You want to invade here, you don't want to invade there.

where do/did I want to invade?

You want to use drones, you'll decide which are the "good anatta approved drones" and which are the "murderous, one might say, womanish, evil drones".

drones are effective counter-terrorism weapons; especially with their ability to loiter .
But they can cause panic, because they DO loiter - so they have to be managed carefully ( which is why they should be run by the military and not the CIA)
and they cannot be used as signature strikes ( I gave you the reference)..it has nothing to do with the drones sex: "womanish evil drones"

You are without a doubt the most confused, so-called "thinker" I've ever come across. With one exception. And she had a very similar way of writing. Because she had a very similar way of thinking - confused, incoherent. Funny thing is she, like you, thought she was a fucking genius. Idiots always do.

whatever..ad homs are not worth responding to..

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Idiot: HRC would have to be the most powerful Sec/State in history to be the "architect" of the destruction of a soveriegn state. You fucking idiot.
This has been explained to you repeatedly, and by better men than me.
She was at best a pawn you fucking looper.
The POTUS himself already took responsibility for the US part. Not that it matters, Libya was consumed by civil war at the time, the French were going to get theirs and not least of all, the Central bankers were done with the freedom and standard of living the peasants of Libya enjoyed.
We have covered all this in great detail. Never once have you proven your spurious claims of the all powerful Sec/State HRC.
It is your delusion only. Your retarded delusion that Arab Spring would end differently in Libya than in other Arab countries.
Not my fault that you are myopic with the comprehension level of a young child.

Further I am not wrong about the article, Wwbb is.
You privided no proof otherwise, fool.
Look at the quitws you provided retard.

You were stupid enough to provide Jefferson's qualifiier
"If they pick up the hatchet" , they did not, they were fighting their expulsion in courts,
and Adams' fierce insistentence that the government abide by treaties was in direct opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal Act, which itself called for voluntary acceptance of the land swaps.by the indians yet devolved into forced death marches wich killed tens of thousands of native Americans, the very action that Jackson purportedly sought to avoid.

The entire exercise was promulgated by slave owners seeking to expand their plantation holdings, another fact you seem desperate to avoid, hence by it's very nature any appologistic act or article with reference to the Indian Removal Act or the Trail of tears is racist to the core but clearly as a lifelong southerner facts of your region's dishonroable past sail miles above your reasoning ability.

The more I back you into a corner with the truth the more childish your lashing out becomes.
The truth hurts doesn't it.
Hang your head in shame racist mysogynistic old man.
You have been outed.

Darla; please stop using Rune's account to post.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Darla; please stop using Rune's account to post.

Maybe she just has her hand up his ass as he types?



Too bad he no longer has an original thought.

 

[Rune]

where do/did I want to invade?

drones are effective counter-terrorism weapons; especially with their ability to loiter .
But they can cause panic, because they DO loiter - so they have to be managed carefully ( which is why they should be run by the military and not the CIA)
and they cannot be used as signature strikes ( I gave you the reference)..it has nothing to do with the drones sex: "womanish evil drones"

whatever..ad homs are not worth responding to..

They are?
Prove it.
There was no ISIS before we started the droning.
This is the kind of opinion stated as fact which you are known for, there is no proof of the merit of your statement but there is abundant moral doubt.
Darla is absolutely correct; as I have also said hundreds of times, you are a war monger.
You have no concept of the Law of Unintended Consewuences.
We have no good business in the ME and the longer we aee there the bigger the shitstorm becomes.
On the topic though of Libya you must be fucking kidding.
The country was in a civil war. Answer that shithead.

 

[Rune]

Maybe she just has her hand up his ass as he types?



Too bad he no longer has an original thought.

Seriously, I don't have original thoughts?
Sounds like a prosaic prick who is jealous of an actual thinker.
I like you IHA. You shame readily and easilly when you say something stupid and don't double down on it like your butt crack sniffing buddy USFREEDOM.

 

[CFM]

Seriously, I don't have original thoughts?
Sounds like a prosaic prick who is jealous of an actual thinker.
I like you IHA. You shame readily and easilly when you say something stupid and don't double down on it like your butt crack sniffing buddy USFREEDOM.

You parrot talking points.

Who would be jealous of a chapped lip, ass kissing Liberal? Pucker up.

 

[anatta]

They are?
Prove it.
There was no ISIS before we started the droning.
This is the kind of opinion stated as fact which you are known for, there is no proof of the merit of your statement but there is abundant moral doubt.
Darla is absolutely correct; as I have also said hundreds of times, you are a war monger.
You have no concept of the Law of Unintended Consewuences.
We have no good business in the ME and the longer we aee there the bigger the shitstorm becomes.
On the topic though of Libya you must be fucking kidding.
The country was in a civil war. Answer that shithead.

OMGod.. Are you claiming ISIS was caused by dronage??
do you have a clue about the Iraq war?? The Sunni insurgents organized along AQI ( al-Qaeda in Iraq)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html?oref=slogin&_r=0

, Iraq, June 8 — Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in an American airstrike on an isolated safe house north of Baghdad at 6:15 p.m. local time on Wednesday, top American and Iraqi officials said today. Islamic militant Web sites linked to Al Qaeda quickly confirmed the death, saying Mr. Zarqawi had been rewarded with "martyrdom" for his role in the war here.

AQI metastasized into ISIS -led by the current al_Baghdadi http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2015-runner-up-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/

In 2015, al-Baghdadi, 44, transformed the breakaway al-Qaeda group from a battlefield force operating in the chaos of Syria and Iraq into a transnational terrorist franchise killing civilians in more than a dozen countries around the world.

Yes dronage an cause "blowback" ( law of unintended consequences - that's why I mentioned how it needs to be restricted) -but restriction doesn't mean banned.
drones have significant advantages over piloted aircraft - mostly "loitering" but also not putting pilots at risk.
I mentioned signature strikes, dronage over locals for long periods ,etc.. that's how you reform drones, without giving up their tactical advantages.

Libya has been answered 1000x and I am convinced your chowder-headed feeble brain is simply unable to process it.
Start with the fact Qaddafi was on a counter-offensive, and if left alone would have quickly crushed the insurrection.
Thereby avoiding all the "blowback" ( there is a law of un-intended consequence you should learn) that's resulted in years
of protracted civil war, dysfunctional state, destruction of large swatches of Libya, and of course ISIS in Sirte..

Why is that our responsibility? aside from the obvious ( intervention) there is the Pottery Barn rule.
-->Powell's Pottery Barn rule—“you break it, you own it”<---
Which was applied to Iraq, but works the same for Libya..

we have alliances and presence in the ME..we are a superpower..the idea is to use those alliances for the good of the region and to promote
US interest...without getting into wars/ interventions like we did before Iraq/Libya..
Regan fucked up in Lebanon..by now he template should be clear..

Which is why Clinton is such a dangerous person as CIC..she is an innate interventionist. ( Iraq/Syria/Libya)

 

[Rune]

OMGod.. Are you claiming ISIS was caused by dronage??
do you have a clue about the Iraq war?? The Sunni insurgents organized along AQI ( al-Qaeda in Iraq)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html?oref=slogin&_r=0


AQI metastasized into ISIS -led by the current al_Baghdadi http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2015-runner-up-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/


Yes dronage an cause "blowback" ( law of unintended consequences - that's why I mentioned how it needs to be restricted) -but restriction doesn't mean banned.
drones have significant advantages over piloted aircraft - mostly "loitering" but also not putting pilots at risk.
I mentioned signature strikes, dronage over locals for long periods ,etc.. that's how you reform drones, without giving up their tactical advantages.

Libya has been answered 1000x and I am convinced your chowder-headed feeble brain is simply unable to process it.
Start with the fact Qaddafi was on a counter-offensive, and if left alone would have quickly crushed the insurrection.
Thereby avoiding all the "blowback" ( there is a law of un-intended consequence you should learn) that's resulted in years
of protracted civil war, dysfunctional state, destruction of large swatches of Libya, and of course ISIS in Sirte..

Why is that our responsibility? aside from the obvious ( intervention) there is the Pottery Barn rule.
-->Powell's Pottery Barn rule—“you break it, you own it”<---
Which was applied to Iraq, but works the same for Libya..

we have alliances and presence in the ME..we are a superpower..the idea is to use those alliances for the good of the region and to promote
US interest...without getting into wars/ interventions like we did before Iraq/Libya..
Regan fucked up in Lebanon..by now he template should be clear..

Which is why Clinton is such a dangerous person as CIC..she is an innate interventionist. ( Iraq/Syria/Libya)

Suposition on top of suposition, not a single fact.
Here is a fact for you asshole; drones are the true Pandora's box.
We will regret our use of drones more than any other single policy blunder ever.
Drones will be used against us, then and only then will you understand the true folly of your war mongering.

FYI you have never proven, nor will you ever prove that Gaddafy would have restored Libya.
There is no possible proof. Just your lying words.
Seriously STFU already.

By the way shitferbrains, the legality of drone use is far from settled. The entire world is NOT a battlefield. This is just true Neo Con bullshit.
The Nazis thought their actions were legal at the time too.
Fucking idiot.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Suposition on top of suposition, not a single fact.
Here is a fact for you asshole; drones are the true Pandora's box.
We will regret our use of drones more than any other single policy blunder ever.
Drones will be used against us, then and only then will you understand the true folly of your war mongering.

FYI you have never proven, nor will you ever prove that Gaddafy would have restored Libya.
There is no possible proof. Just your lying words.
Seriously STFU already.

Did you mean supposition?

Don't you have Darla proofread this shit before you post it?

 

[Rune]

Did you mean supposition?

Don't you have Darla proofread this shit before you post it?

All you can refute is a typo?
This is why I like you buddy. You don't mind showing your stupidity.
Thanks for being you IHA.

 

[CFM]

All you can refute is a typo?
This is why I like you buddy. You don't mind showing your stupidity.
Thanks for being you IHA.

Refute something you said that is false? It refutes itself by being false.

 

[anatta]

Suposition on top of suposition, not a single fact.
Here is a fact for you asshole; drones are the true Pandora's box.
We will regret our use of drones more than any other single policy blunder ever.
Drones will be used against us, then and only then will you understand the true folly of your war mongering.

FYI you have never proven, nor will you ever prove that Gaddafy would have restored Libya.
There is no possible proof. Just your lying words.
Seriously STFU already.

By the way shitferbrains, the legality of drone use is far from settled. The entire world is NOT a battlefield. This is just true Neo Con bullshit.
The Nazis thought their actions were legal at the time too.
Fucking idiot.

only you would call fact based posting suppositions..why do you think Libya's NTC wanted a no fly zone?
It couldn't stand up to Qaddafi's forces
++
In the early days of the rebellion rebel spokespeople emphasized that while they needed the no fly zone to stop Gadaffi attacking them with ground attack planes and helicopters they did not want to see any imperialist troops on the ground in Libya.
They also welcomed the use of air strikes against concentrations of Gaddafi's tanks and artillery. The rebel force itself was a poorly armed little more that an almost untrained hootch potch of volunteers using seized arms sprinkled with some army units that have defected. In particular given the huge distances and desert terrain of much of Libya such a force could not hope to advance against a modern army equipped with armor and artillery, one that could strike them down from a considerable distance.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/gaddafi-libya-anti-imperialism-democratic-revolution


as to drones: any new weapon system never has a monopoly on use, but if you are arguing groups like ISIS ill use drones againt the continental US
you are "supposing" without substance. The "legality" of the weapon system is not in question it is the usage that can be "illegal"
In other words drones a re simply another weapon ,how they are uses is what determines morality/International Criminal Court actions.

 

[Rune]

only you would call fact based posting suppositions..why do you think Libya's NTC wanted a no fly zone?
It couldn't stand up to Qaddafi's forces
++
In the early days of the rebellion rebel spokespeople emphasized that while they needed the no fly zone to stop Gadaffi attacking them with ground attack planes and helicopters they did not want to see any imperialist troops on the ground in Libya.
They also welcomed the use of air strikes against concentrations of Gaddafi's tanks and artillery. The rebel force itself was a poorly armed little more that an almost untrained hootch potch of volunteers using seized arms sprinkled with some army units that have defected. In particular given the huge distances and desert terrain of much of Libya such a force could not hope to advance against a modern army equipped with armor and artillery, one that could strike them down from a considerable distance.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/gaddafi-libya-anti-imperialism-democratic-revolution


as to drones: any new weapon system never has a monopoly on use, but if you are arguing groups like ISIS ill use drones againt the continental US
you are "supposing" without substance. The "legality" of the weapon system is not in question it is the usage that can be "illegal"
In other words drones a re simply another weapon ,how they are uses is what determines morality/International Criminal Court actions.

Shut the fuck up Semantician.
Our use of drones in country's we are not at war with is illegal.
Further, all your fluff and nonsense proves nothing.
There is no way to determine the outcome of a civil war.
Stop guessing.

Want to actually learn something dumbass?
Google "has drone use increased terrorism".

Even the CIA admits it has, you fuckingwar mongering idiot.

 

[CFM]

Shut the fuck up Sematician.
Our use of drones in country's we are not at war withus illegal.
Further, all your fluff and nonsense proves nothing.
There is no way to determine the outcome of a civil war.
Stop guessing.

Want to actually learn something dumbass?
Google "has drone use increased terrorism".

Even the CIA admits it has, you fuckingwar mongering idiot.

You sure are demanding little asshole. Can you back up your demands?

 

[anatta]

Shut the fuck up Semantician.
Our use of drones in country's we are not at war with is illegal.
Further, all your fluff and nonsense proves nothing.
There is no way to determine the outcome of a civil war.
Stop guessing.

Want to actually learn something dumbass?
Google "has drone use increased terrorism".

Even the CIA admits it has, you fuckingwar mongering idiot.

yes . I'm aware of it. what it shows is killing innocents increases terrorism.
That is mostly said about Pakistan, where the CIA had no clue about who it was droning ( by signature strikes). In some cases more often then not.
Which is why signature strikes need to be banned. That would significantly cut down on drone usage as well..Still there are legitimate uses in PAistan (Waziristan)
But for places like Yemen:

Drone Strikes in Yemen Effective in Stemming al-Qaida
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/drones-al-Qaida-yemen-strikes/2014/04/22/id/567125/

The Yemeni government said that as many as 55 al-Qaida members were killed on Monday in a drone strike on a major base of the terror group hidden in the remote southern mountains. Other attacks occurred on Saturday and Sunday, the government said.

The operations were believed to have used U.S. drones, officials said, and Yemen tribal leaders had been quoted in news reports as saying that one local commander, Munnaser al-Anbouri, was killed.

There also was concern about whether Ibrahim al-Asiri was killed in the drone attacks. He designed underwear and computer cartridge bombs to detonate on American aircraft and U.S.-bound planes.

If confirmed, it would be the most senior member of the terrorist organization to have been killed since Osama bin Laden was shot dead by U.S. special forces in May 2011.
++
Drone strikes: Do they actually work?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34346925
...The mistake has been to think that you can engage in drone strikes without adequate intelligence. Where the intelligence is there, they have been reasonably effective. Where the intelligence hasn't been there, I think they have had more counter-productive effects."

There is no way to determine the outcome of a civil war. Stop guessing.

there surely are ways to look at opposition forces -
but In Libya case you can look to see if the NTC was picking up popular support when we started to bomb them for advances..

The NTC NEVER picked up popular support: which shows they were creatures from Bengazi, and nothing more.
Given this and the fact Qaddafi had superior forces, you CAN SAY Qaddafi would have quickly suppresd the insurrection-as he was already doing.

Sucks to be stupid -you rely on gross generalities instead if research..

 

[anatta]

Eliminate Safe havens

Prof Daniel Byman has advised the US government on counter-terrorism policy and served on the 9/11 Inquiry.

"You can have a safe haven like the Taliban's Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks, where you have a supportive government that allows a terrorist group to organise [and] essentially build a mini-army with thousands of people being trained.

"There's an important difference when there's a safe haven in a warzone versus a safe haven in a country at relative peace.

"So in Pakistan, where the al-Qaeda figures in the tribal areas normally would be relatively safe, the drone campaign has put tremendous pressure on them.

"We have internal al-Qaeda documents that were captured where they're complaining that the training is miserable because people are afraid of being killed.

 

[Rune]

OMGod.. Are you claiming ISIS was caused by dronage??
do you have a clue about the Iraq war?? The Sunni insurgents organized along AQI ( al-Qaeda in Iraq)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-iraq.html?oref=slogin&_r=0


AQI metastasized into ISIS -led by the current al_Baghdadi http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2015-runner-up-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/


Yes dronage an cause "blowback" ( law of unintended consequences - that's why I mentioned how it needs to be restricted) -but restriction doesn't mean banned.
drones have significant advantages over piloted aircraft - mostly "loitering" but also not putting pilots at risk.
I mentioned signature strikes, dronage over locals for long periods ,etc.. that's how you reform drones, without giving up their tactical advantages.

Libya has been answered 1000x and I am convinced your chowder-headed feeble brain is simply unable to process it.
Start with the fact Qaddafi was on a counter-offensive, and if left alone would have quickly crushed the insurrection.
Thereby avoiding all the "blowback" ( there is a law of un-intended consequence you should learn) that's resulted in years
of protracted civil war, dysfunctional state, destruction of large swatches of Libya, and of course ISIS in Sirte..

Why is that our responsibility? aside from the obvious ( intervention) there is the Pottery Barn rule.
-->Powell's Pottery Barn rule—“you break it, you own it”<---
Which was applied to Iraq, but works the same for Libya..

we have alliances and presence in the ME..we are a superpower..the idea is to use those alliances for the good of the region and to promote
US interest...without getting into wars/ interventions like we did before Iraq/Libya..
Regan fucked up in Lebanon..by now he template should be clear..

Which is why Clinton is such a dangerous person as CIC..she is an innate interventionist. ( Iraq/Syria/Libya)

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/07/top-u-s-warfighting-experts-drones-increase-terrorism.html

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (3-Star General Mike Flynn) says in an interview set to air later this month:

When you drop a bomb from a drone … you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.
​

​

Pressed by the interviewer about whether drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill, the general responded:

I don’t disagree with that.
​

Clinton and Bush’s counter-terror czar (Richard Clarke) – the guy who created the drone assassination program – says that Obama’s drone assassination program is “creating terrorists rather than eliminating them.”
Top CIA officers say that drone strikes increase terrorism (and

). Indeed, the CIA warnedObama that drone strikes might be counter-productive from a national security standpoint.
4-star general Stanley McChrystal – former Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Commander of all U.S. Forces Afghanistan, Director, Joint Staff, and Commander, Joint Special Operations Command – said:

What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world. The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes…is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.
​

McChrystal explained:

For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.
​

Michael Boyle – a member of Obama’s counter-terrorism advisory group in the run-up to the 2008 election – conducted a study which found:

[Most Americans remained] unaware of the scale of the drone programme…and the destruction it has caused in their name.[Drones are having] adverse strategic effects [by causing hatred among the local populations where US bombs falland also by] encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent.
​

A report by researchers at the Stanford and NYU schools of law found that the drone program is “terrorizing” the people of Pakistan and that it is having “counterproductive” effects. T]e report finds … the drone war has helped recruitment efforts of extremist groups like al-Qaeda.
And see this and this.
Of course, the failure of drone strikes in Yemen to curb radicals – and the rise of ISIS – show that the entire policy is an abject failure.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/

Recently, strong evidence has begun to suggest that terrorists use drone strikes as a recruitment tool. Of course, the value of drones in the arena of intelligence-gathering and secret surveillance of foes (and even friends) is unmistakable. In warzones too, it can support ground operations in significant and even decisive ways. None of this is controversial, though the ones on the receiving end will certainly not like it. What is debatable is its use as a counter-terrorism instrument in theaters that are not declared war zones, or in cases where a sovereign state is not fully and publicly on board with this policy. Lack of transparency in regulations that govern this new type of warfare, the unverifiable nature of targets, and questions over the credibility of intelligence only complicates the matter.

Mark Bowden's important contribution to the drone debate raises critical questions that policy makers will be wise to consider for the future use of this new tool of war. One of the important arguments mentioned in the piece revolves around the notion that drone strikes might be less provocative than ground assaults for terrorists, meaning that standard warfare might create more terrorists than drones do. Lets first accept what is obvious: more civilians are killed in standard warfare, and the history of warfare in the 20th century sufficiently proves the point. When it comes to drones strikes, the ratio of civilian deaths is certainly lower, but the issue is not about the number of civilian casualties alone. The inherently secret nature of the weapon creates a persistent feeling of fear in the areas where drones hover in the sky, and the hopelessness of communities that are on the receiving end of strikes causes severe backlash -- both in terms of anti-U.S. opinion and violence.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart-drone-attacks-and-terrorism-pakistan

 

[Rune]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers

[h=1]Obama's drone war a 'recruitment tool' for Isis, say US air force whistleblowers[/h]


Four former service members – including three sensor operators – issue plea to rethink current airstrike strategy that has ‘fueled feelings of hatred’ toward US








Boys gather near the wreckage of car destroyed by a US drone airstrike targeting suspected al-Qaida militants in Azan, Yemen, in 2013. Photograph: Khaled Abdullah/ReutersEd Pilkington in New York and Ewen MacAskill in London
Wednesday 18 November 201512.48 ESTLast modified on Wednesday 18 November 201517.02 EST

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share on Pinterest
  
• Share on LinkedIn
  
• Share on Google+
  

This article is 6 months old

[h=3]Shares[/h]27,882

[h=3]
Comments[/h]1,346

​

[FONT=Guardian Text Sans Web, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif][/FONT]Save for later.







The group of servicemen have issued an impassioned plea to the Obama administration, calling for a rethink of a military tactic that they say has “fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like Isis, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantánamo Bay”.
[h=1]Analysis Drones may predate Obama, but his resolute use of them is unmatched[/h]
Civilians have been killed and officials warn it will ‘weaken the rule of law’, yet the president’s actions indicate drone warfare won’t be going away anytime soon


Read more



In particular, they argue, the killing of innocent civilians in drone airstrikes has acted as one of the most “devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world”

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/16...-terrorists-kill-iraq-war-helped-create-isis/

[h=1]Retired General: Drones Create More Terrorists Than They Kill, Iraq War Helped Create ISIS[/h][FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]Murtaza Hussain[/FONT]
[FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]July 16 2015, 1:09 p.m.[/FONT]


​

Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, a top intelligence official in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says in a forthcoming interview on Al Jazeera English that the drone war is creating more terrorists than it is killing. He also asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create the Islamic State and that U.S. soldiers involved in torturing detainees need to be held legally accountable for their actions.
Flynn, who in 2014 was forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has in recent months become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s Middle East strategy, calling for a more hawkish approach to the Islamic State and Iran.
But his enthusiasm for the application of force doesn’t extend to the use of drones. In the interview with Al Jazeera presenter Mehdi Hasan, set to air July 31, the former three star general says: “When you drop a bomb from a drone … you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.” Pressed by Hasan as to whether drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they kill, Flynn says, “I don’t disagree with that.” He describes the present approach of drone warfare as “a failed strategy.”
“What we have is this continued investment in conflict,” the retired general says. “The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just … fuels the conflict.”
Prior to serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Flynn was director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his time in Iraq, Flynn is credited with helping to transform JSOC into an intelligence-driven special forces operation, tailored to fight the insurgency in that country. Flynn was in Iraq during the peak of the conflict there, as intelligence chief to Stanley McChrystal, former general and head of JSOC. When questioned about how many Iraqis JSOC operatives had killed inside the country during his tenure, Flynn would later say, “Thousands, I don’t even know how many.”


In the upcoming interview, Flynn says that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake that directly contributed to the rise of the extremist group the Islamic State. “We definitely put fuel on a fire,” he told Hasan. “Absolutely … there’s no doubt, I mean … history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003.”
Over his 33 years in the Army, Flynn developed a reputation as an iconoclast. In 2010, he published a controversial report on intelligence operations in Afghanistan, stating in part that the military could not answer “fundamental questions” about the country and its people despite nearly a decade of engagement there. Earlier this year, Flynn

the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture, saying that torture had eroded American values and that in time, the U.S. “will look back on it, and it won’t be a pretty picture.”
He echoed these statements in his Al Jazeera appearance. Before his tenure at JSOC, operatives of the force had already become notorious for operating secretive prison facilities in Iraq where the torture of detainees had become routine. In his interview, Flynn denied any personal role in these abuses, while calling for accountability for U.S. soldiers who had been responsible. “You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable,” Flynn says. “History is not going to look kind on those actions … and we will be held, we should be held accountable for many, many years to come.”




​

 

[Rune]

http://isq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/04/isq.sqv004

[h=2]The Impact of US Drone Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan
[/h]
Patrick B. Johnston, Anoop K. SarbahiDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqv004 sqv004 First published online: 4 January 2016

• Article
• Figures & data
• Information & metrics
• Explore
• PDF

[h=2]Abstract[/h]

​

This study analyzes the effects of US drone strikes on terrorism in Pakistan. We find that drone strikes are associated with decreases in the incidence and lethality of terrorist attacks, as well as decreases in selective targeting of tribal elders. This matters for key ongoing debates. Some suggest that drone strikes anger Muslim populations and that consequent blowback facilitates recruitment and incites Islamist terrorism. Others argue that drone strikes disrupt and degrade terrorist organizations, reducing their ability to conduct attacks. We use detailed data on US drone strikes and terrorism in Pakistan from 2007–2011 to test each theory’s implications. The available data do not enable us to evaluate if drone strikes resulted in increased recruitment, but the data do allow us to examine if these strikes resulted in changes in terrorist activities. While our findings do not suggest long-term effects, the results still lend some credence to the argument that drone strikes, while unpopular, bolster US counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan.


Do drone strikes against terrorists reduce the threat posed by their organizations, or do they unintentionally increase support for anti-United States militants and fuel terrorism?1
Existing research examines the effects of coercive airpower, (Pape 1996; Horowitz and Reiter 2001), targeted killings (Jaeger 2009; Jordan 2009; Johnston 2012; Price 2012), and civilian victimization (Kalyvas 2006; Lyall 2009; Condra and Shapiro 2012), but we lack compelling social-scientific analysis of the effects of drone strikes.2 As the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts intensifies,3 participants resort to anecdotal evidence to support their positions. This is unfortunate, as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their lethal targeting capabilities will likely remain a critical aspect of current and future counterterrorism efforts.
Drone strikes’ consequences present a critical policy concern. Detractors consistently call on the United States to cease drone strikes in Pakistan in order to protect noncombatants. Instead, the United States has expanded its use of drones to other countries in which it believes al-Qaida-affiliated militants operate, such as Somalia and Yemen.4 The laws governing international armed conflict codify and strengthen norms against targeted killings, yet other interpretations of the laws of war leave civilian officials and military commanders with substantial latitude to target enemy combatants that they believe are affiliated with terrorist organizations against which the United States has declared war (Gray 2000, 1). Liberal democratic states face substantial pressures to protect civilians in war, but substantial uncertainty still exists about how to abide by legal principles such as “discrimination”—the obligation of military forces to select means of attack that minimize the prospect of civilian casualties (Crawford 2003, 6; Walzer 2006, 5–14). The deaths of two al-Qaida-held hostages, an American and an Italian, in a January 2015 drone strike, in which an Amercian-born al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn also died, sparked further controversy over the drone program.
The United States need not rely upon drone strikes to counter terrorists. US Special Operations forces have conducted hundreds of raids in permissive political environments, such as Afghanistan (2001–2014) and Iraq (2003–2011). However, the United States enjoys fewer counterterrorism instruments in the context of semipermissive environments such as Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq (2014–). The effectiveness of drone strikes at countering terrorism lies at the core of US policymakers’ arguments for their continued use in these environments. Yet because, in no small part, neither US officials nor human-rights advocates present compelling, systematic evidence in support of their claims, debate about the effectiveness of drone strikes continues unabated. We therefore need a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of drone strikes’ effect on terrorist activities. Such an assessment should sharpen the debate on drone strikes; it should also help counterterrorism officials and critics alike to better evaluate the tradeoffs associated with drone warfare.


This study moves in that direction. Based on the available detailed data on both drone strikes and terrorism in Pakistan, the study examines how drone strikes, by triggering changes in terrorist behavior, have affected terrorist violence in northwest Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between drone strikes and several measures of terrorist violence, such as terrorist attack patterns and lethality and attacks on tribal elders, whom some militants view as actual or potential rivals. The available data prevent us from examining whether drone strikes have resulted in increased terrorist-organization recruitment—a key argument advanced by drone-program opponents. However, the data do allow us to investigate the effect of drone strikes on terrorism measured in terms of the terrorist activities mentioned here, which, unlike recruitment, are more widely recorded and reported.5
A systematic data analysis reveals that drone strikes have successfully curbed deadly terrorist attacks within the targeted territory in Pakistan. Specifically, our study finds that drone strikes are associated with substantial short-term reductions in terrorist violence along four key dimensions. First, drone strikes are generally associated with a reduction in the rate of terrorist attacks. Second, drone strikes are also associated with a reduction in the number of people killed as a result of terrorist attacks (i.e. the lethality of attacks). Third, drone strikes are linked to decreases in selective targeting of tribal elders, who terrorist groups frequently see as colluding with the enemy and impeding the pursuit of their agenda. Fourth, we find that this reduction in terrorism is not the result of militants leaving unsafe areas and conducting attacks elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, we find evidence that there is a smallviolence-reducing effect in areas near those that drones strike. This article, however, only studies short-term changes over a few weeks in terrorist violence, and our findings do not provide a basis to conclude that the effects of drone strikes on these measures of terrorist violence extend beyond the week during which they take place. Taken together, these findings suggest that despite their unpopularity, drone strikes do affect terrorist activities; we should not summarily dismiss claims that drones aid US counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan.
The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. First, we provide background information on the militant organizations that the United States has targeted in Pakistan and their objectives. Second, we outline a range of relevant hypotheses on the effects of drone strikes and briefly discuss the theoretical logics that undergird them. Third, we describe our dataset and the methodology. Fourth, we discuss the results of our empirical analysis and our interpretation of the findings. We conclude with a discussion of our findings’ implications for policy and for the future of counterterrorism.


[h=2]Hypotheses on Drone Strikes and Terrorism[/h]

​

[h=3]Drone Strikes, the Civilian Population, and Incentives for Terrorist Violence[/h]We analyze the relationship between US drone strikes and terrorism in Pakistan—that is, militant violence that targets civilians. Although there are distinct differences in the aims of the three main groups targeted by US drone strikes, all are engaged in asymmetric warfare against the Pakistani government and local tribal elements organized along clan lines. Each group relies on unconventional tactics to establish or maintain its sanctuary in FATA. Within this environment, each group has an incentive to use violence against civilians deemed disloyal or perceived as jeopardizing the advancement of its cause (Kalyvas 2006, 173–209).
The first argument we examine holds that US drone strikes increase terrorist violence. We examine terrorist targeting of civilians for four reasons: (1) terrorists attempt to deter civilian disloyalty, specifically civilians’ cooperation with local authorities and provision of human intelligence; (2) civilians are “softer” targets and are more plentiful in these groups’ areas of operation due to the relative lack of government and military presence in the region; (3) radicalization among the population, possibly caused by drone strikes, could enable militants greater capabilities to engage in more attacks against perceived enemies; and (4) attempts to kill militant leaders may trigger internecine fighting that results in civilian targeting.
First, terrorist leaders may seek to punish and deter informers whose information can help the US and Pakistani governments locate and target them and their senior lieutenants. Drone strikes against specific individuals reportedly rely on robust informant networks that provide human intelligence on the activities and locations of militant targets (Cronin 2013, 54). As a result, all militant groups targeted by drone strikes have an incentive to target civilians they believe to have sided with their enemies, even though the global strategic goals of, say, al-Qaida, differ from the TTP’s local and national objectives. Second, focusing on militant violence against civilians makes sense because Pakistan maintains only a minimal state presence in FATA, which is a key factor in the United States’ escalation of UAV counterterrorism strikes in the region. The Pakistani government has essentially maintained the colonial administration that emphasized minimum involvement and relies heavily on formal or informal arrangements with the local actors such as maliks (chiefs), imams and mullahs (religious leaders),jirgas (council of elders), and lashkars (armed bands). Given the relative sparseness of Pakistani government presence with a heavy reliance on local, usually civilian, actors and the absence of US boots on the ground, the civilian population is by far the largest and most important “target set” for FATA militants seeking to establish, maintain, and consolidate a territorial sanctuary in Pakistan.
Third, many claim that drone strikes radicalize alienated civilians and therefore increase overall terrorist violence. The logic of this argument holds that the radicalization of segments of the civilian population renders it ripe for recruitment by fellow Muslims with whom they share common enemies—the US or Pakistani government. Militants could thus recruit more manpower and mobilize more resources. This could, in turn, lead to higher levels of observed terrorism because a militant group’s enhanced capabilities enable it to develop sophisticated counterintelligence networks for identifying and rooting out informants or by enabling a group to increase its targeting of moderate Muslims under the “takfir” principle of strict sharia law.9
Fourth, the death of a militant leader from a drone strike might trigger rivalry among potential successors and result in civilian killing as the rival claimants seek to establish an upper hand. A bitter rivalry ensued between Hakimullah Mehsud and Waliur Rehman, both killed in drone strikes in 2013, for the top leadership position in the TTP following the death of Baitullah Mehsud (Rehman 2013). In 2013, the differences within the TTP over the choice of a successor to replace Waliur Rehman, the group’s deputy emir, spilled over to Karachi (Rehman 2014). A similar factional fight was triggered by the death of Hakimullah Mehsud in November 2013, which is believed to have resulted in the killing of Asmatullah Shaheen (Rehman 2013).