Little Girl Mutilated by Obama's Drone Warfare Comes to U.S. For Surgery

Shakira was one year old when Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama ordered the 2009 drone strike in Pakistan's Taliban-infested Swat valley that nearly killed her. With two other burned little girls, she was put in a trash bin to die. A volunteer doctor with House of Charity discovered the three babies and attempted to save them. Two of the little girls died from their injuries, but Shakira, who is now four, lived to be disfigured.

CNN reports that Shakira arrived in Houston last week with her caretaker for a series of surgeries that "will make it easier for Shakira to grow older." ("She will never look fully normal," CNN adds.) 

More from that story about Hashmat Effendi, the woman who became Shakira's caretaker:

She was only a year old, Effendi guessed, but small for her age. She was skinny. Dirty. Very bloody. She had fresh burns all over her face, her scalp and on her arms.

Effendi began searching for the little girl's family. She needed their consent before doctors operated on her. But when no one stepped forward, doctors proceeded anyway to treat the burns. Otherwise, they would have to amputate her arm. Otherwise, she might not survive.

Effendi named her Shakira.

"Life," she said, "was a gift for her."

Effendi continued to look for relatives, even scattered posters of Shakira everywhere and solicited the help of the Pakistani army and a government official. But still, no one claimed her.

Shakira was finally taken to Shalimar Hospital in Lahore, where she spent the next three years in a charity ward. Until last week.

Effendi was finally able to bring Shakira back to Houston, where Effendi lives.

When the Qatar Airways flight landed, Shakira turned to Effendi, whom she calls Mummy.

"Are we in America?" she asked.

"Yes," Effendi replied.

Shakira put her hands together and clapped.

Just to put this in context: In August 2010, TIME magazine featured a mutilated Afghanistan woman on its cover to illustrate the misogynist horrors visited on Afghan women by the religious zealots in the Taliban. The story made the explicit case that U.S. troops were necessary for protecting women from the Taliban. How things have changed since then! "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Vice President Joe Biden recently told Newsweek.

Perhaps TIME should plaster Shakira on its cover—alongside sixteen-year-old Muhammad Tariq, the Pakistani anti-war protester who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in late October—for a story about Pakistani children and the horrors of murder-drones. Or does that not fit the liberation narrative? 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    No one likes to be manipulated by the invocation of children, Riggs.

    Shame on you.

  • Hairy Guy||

    How is the truth manipulation ?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I do not like it when Elizabeth Warren or whomever the Ayn Rand Villain of the Week is gets on the television and tells me I am a heartless monster because "think of the children", and I don't truck with that kind of argumentation from libertarians, either, not matter how opposed to the Afghanistan War I am (which is a lot, by the way).

  • Bee Tagger||

    You think invoking children, in the abstract, as a theorized indirect consequence of policy prescriptions is comparable to an actual child harmed directly by, at best, highly controversial US drone attacks?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    You think invoking children, in the abstract, as a theorized indirect consequence of policy prescriptions is comparable to an actual child harmed directly by, at best, highly controversial US drone attacks?

    Do you want me to dig around the news and find concrete examples where the Statists used a particular child to justify Program X or Y? I bet it would take about three seconds.

    This post is a concrete example of how the Language of Leftism has infected this place. All the talk about "brown people", "murder drones", etcetera ad infinitum is tiresome, logically fallacious, and smacks of pure hysteria. It has got to stop.

  • tarran||

    If the U.S. government would stop murdering brown people, we'll be happy to stop talking about it. ;)

  • ||

    You're such a moron... clueless

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Is Mike Riggs the new Dave Weigel?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Is Mike Riggs the new Dave Weigel?

    Might be worse.

  • ||

    I am with Blue on this one. This is such cheap emotionally manipulative bullshit yellow "journalism". Yeah, us heartless Americans (the ones trying to fix this girl now) are the bad guys. How about the people that threw a mangled infant in the trash bin. I think drone warfare is AWESOME - that is how we got Zarqawi and I fucking love it. But overall the reasonoids are right about one thing - let's get the fuck out of Afpak.

    BTW, maybe if those fucking worthless TB and other assorted islamofacists would stop hiding behind civilians we wouldn't have so much cd. But it's our fault their a bunch of worthless cowards, right?

  • Cytotoxic||

    `If the U.S. government would stop murdering brown people, we'll be happy to stop talking about it.`

    If you`d make a serious argument not based on race-baiting I`d respect you.

  • tarran||

    Cyto, your imperviousness to serious arguments has already been well demonstrated.

    I doubt you'll respect anyone who doesn't buy into the superstitions your pathetically declining cult has been reduced to peddling.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow you are one sophist asshole.

  • tarran||

    No, cyto, I'm being a dick. It's the members of your cult who are assholes that would shit over everything if we dicks left you alone.

    Here's the score, you and your depraved cult are barbaric savages. If civilized people don't challenge you, and your cult was allowed to grow unchecked, it would become an existential threat to civilization.

    So I am going to grind you, and deride your cult and its barbaric ideas from the rooftops, exposing its repellent bloodlust and the vile hatreds that animate it.

    And if that bothers you, you can quit your cult, or go and cry with your fellow barbarians about how people are mean to you. I don't care.

    You can join civilization or leave it. It makes no difference to me.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cool I have an obsessive internet tuff gai in love with me.

  • ||

    @tarran I could not have said it better. A bloodthirsty bunch of savages always looking for excuses to justify their homicidal & genocidal tendencies. One can only blame the cult for so much, the ignorance & collusion of the cult followers is even worse still, because everyone else is to blame for all their problems. They are so ignorant they dont have a clue that the real enemy is their own govt. Paid for al qaeda agents in both Libya & Syria, supposedly the ones you are all after for 9/11 & used as justification for all the killings...immoral cult followers will be bought to trial in addition to the cultists who we will bring down in due course.

  • ||

    "Yeah, us heartless Americans (the ones trying to fix this girl now) are the bad guys."

    Wouldn't have to fix her if we didn't break her.

    Let's blow up some bridges and rebuild them! Makes so much sense. I see now.

  • ||

    "Language of Leftism" = Their ideas don't jive with mine.

  • Robert S||

    Am to the Fucking en.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THIS

  • ||

    Shakira's Law?

  • James||

    THAT is the face of our drone war. Deal with it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I have. And guess what? It is still not an argument for or against the war. Too bad for you.

  • Shmenge||

    How the hell is it NOT an argument against the war?

  • ||

    You're right, it's not an argument against the war - it's an argument for making people aware of the fact that war is not really free.

    It's an argument for Americans to actually consider the costs of war, to know how it affects others, and the Congress should debate it and the people's will to engage in war should be solid enough to endure. And we should be sacrificing to pay for it, instead of putting it on our kids' charge card. Since there is apparently no incentive for us to have any of this, you're going to have to deal with the picture.

  • -||

    War sucks!

  • ||

    Please God let this be a spoof. Rev. has been sounding like one of the few reasonable posters recently.

  • ||

    If you can show me that the US military specifically targeted civilians, then you have a point. If you cant, then the fighters who were hiding amongst civilians are to blame for this.

    That is how the game is played. You go out and run a guerrilla war and then hide amongst civilians so that when enemies attack you those civilians get killed. That then allows useful idiots like Riggs to say how your enemies are killing civilians.

    You don't the war in Afghanistan, fine, object to it. But to equate these two cases is just ignorant.

    And further, what is this How things have changed since then! "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical, supposed to mean? If you want us to leave Afghanistan that would necessarily involve making some kind of peace with our enemies or at least acquiescing to them taking over the place and the Taliban, wait for it, no longer being our enemies. So what exactly do you want Biden to say?

  • neolibertarian||

    No, John, as libertarians we're supposed to take the side of tyrants and statists as long as they're OUTSIDE America. You haven't been getting the memos?

  • ||

    So now the US presence in Afghanistan is to fight statists. I certainly didn't get -that- memo.

  • Doherty||

    I meant to send them to everybody.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I don't think he's equating them. From my perspective his points are "Do we even know what the fuck we're doing anymore?" and "There is collateral damage with war outside of our own losses."

  • Spoonman.||

    You're missing the point.

    If we're not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who are we fighting? Why?

    If we can't answer that question, collateral damage like this little girl is no longer acceptable.

  • ||

    We are fighting the Taliban. And Joe Biden is an idiot. But at some point if we want to stop fighting, the Taliban has to cease to be our enemy if for no other reason than by default.

  • Spoonman.||

    What attainable goals remain which balance the mutilation of babies?

  • Spencer||

    None.

  • robc||

    What attainable goals remain which balance the mutilation of babies?

    FTFY

  • Jeff||

    This "fixed" statement seems to imply that cost is irrelevant as long as the goal is attained. This is the very definition of fascism.

    One of the universally recognized conditions of war is that the destructive cost must not outweigh the good you are trying to achieve, or the war is not worth fighting. You can easily eliminate enemies with nukes, but at a huge extra cost, which is why we nobody uses them (well, except for us that one time, obviously).

    The extent of the damage is not the same in this case, but the principle is.

  • robc||

    No, the fixed statement implies there are no attainable goals left.

    We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Done, come home.

  • ||

    There'll always be another bogey-man, I mean terrorist, that we need to kill. Besides can anyone prove this little girl wasn't a terrorist?

  • ||

    Besides can anyone prove this little girl wasn't a terrorist?

    25-50years in Gitmo will sort it out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Attainable goal: Afpak no longer a hustling site for Islamofascists.

  • Cytomoronic||

    Attainable goal of the war on drugs: USA no longer a hustling site for drug dealers.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unattainable goal for certain critics: understanding that black markets arent the same as military threats.

  • ||

    Attainable goal: Afpak no longer a hustling site for Islamofascists.

    That's not an attainable goal, short of making it uninhabitable.

  • ||

    "We are fighting the Taliban. And Joe Biden is an idiot. But at some point if we want to stop fighting, the Taliban has to cease to be our enemy if for no other reason than by default.

    Really kind of tough to disagree with these statements. I am on the side of John and the righteous. And Riggs is a useful idiot...

  • ||

    Just because you're not currently fighting doesn't mean you're not enemies.

    You can't plausibly say that the US and USSR weren't enemies during the Cold War, but they never fought.

  • ||

    I'm curious, does the history or context matter to you?

    For example, consider if it were true that we fired the first shot in some hypothetical conflict. Would that make any difference to you if we were attacked after being the instigator, or do you believe that the only justification necessary for a conflict is simply that we be attacked, even if it was in response to our instigation?

    I'm not saying we did, I'm just wondering if you draw a line there.

  • thebigdeal||

    I think the point is that the collateral damage among civilians is just one of the many reasons we should have been out of Afghanistan long ago.

    If Afghanistan were a necessary war then fine - we would just have to accept that things like this sometimes happen.

    But because Afghanistan is not a necessary war by almost any reasonable estimation, the "justification" for horrors like this is non-existent.

    I'm not a fan of the sensational style that this piece was written in, but it is a fairly interesting story and I think as much as possible people should understand ALL the consequences of our military adventurism.

  • ||

    If you want us to leave Afghanistan that would necessarily involve making some kind of peace with our enemies or at least acquiescing to them taking over the place and the Taliban, wait for it, no longer being our enemies.

    The attack was in Pakistan, correct? Bombing Cambodia sure worked well; is that the model?

    So when is this "war" over? 10 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor we were bestest buddies with Japan and (West) Germany and alread 18 months into the the quagmire of Korea, the first in a string of wars in countries that represent no sovereign threat to the United States.

    I reject the characterization of Riggs as a useful idiot. Detailing atrocities from a conflict we have no business being engaged in is not propaganda.

  • ||

    We've always been at war with South Asia, right John?

    Why are we engaging in MILITARY operations in Pakistan? There has been NO DECLARED war.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    We've always been at war with South Asia, right John?

    Why are we engaging in MILITARY operations in Pakistan? There has been NO DECLARED war

    What a total non-sequitur. You want to rely on the fact that we did not declare a legal war to argue that John is somehow wrong when he talks about the moral issues around civilian casualties?

    That is so lame you should smack yourself in the face with a hammer.

  • ||

    So I guess the planes crashing into the WTC were bad, since they targeted civilians, but attacking the Pentagon was okay.

  • Omair Mahmood||

    Hey John! why are they your enemies in the first place. You invade their country, and want them to welcome you. Why you are unwilling to give them the right to fight against invaders?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The US invaded after that whole 9/11 event. You only have the right to fight 'invaders' if they are making you less free and you are fighting for freedom.

  • ||

    You still buy into that? Come on...

  • Arc||

    Your name says it all. Applies well to your (toxic) existence.

  • ||

    Yes, we have to kill a few thousand of your children to make you free and love us. That's a recipe for success right there.

  • ||

    ""If you can show me that the US military specifically targeted civilians, then you have a point. If you cant, then the fighters who were hiding amongst civilians are to blame for this.""

    It's being codified into law that America is part of the battlefield. If you were injured because you were near a terrorist, you would call foul.

    We often complain when SWAT teams injure a dog.

  • ||

    Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ...unless they are. That saying makes no sense in any context.

  • ||

    I agree with your assessment, just tweaking the Iron Law Man and his followers.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Forseeable consequences are not unintended, John.

    Are they "cowardly" for hiding amongst civilians? An argument can certainly be made for that if you look at it in a simply mano-e-mano type vacuum (which is how a simpleton would look at ANY larger conflict). But would we act any differently were we invaded by a vastly superior fighting force whose tactics and technology greatly outpace our own? Don't fucking count on it.

    You do what you need to do to A) survive, and B) weather the storm long enough to get said occupying force to get the fuck out. They're a hell of a lot smarter than we are, even if less capable in battle.

  • Hairy Guy||

    This must stop . Ron Paul 2012

  • ||

    What is with the CNNesqe headline.

  • neolibertarian||

    So, in pursuit of those who intentionally kill and mutilate, we have unintended collateral damage that kills and mutilates, and this is a slam dunk argument for stopping? We may as well abolish the police because, hey, they occasionally miss during shootouts with killers--oh how despicable!

  • adlibertad||

    The drone bombing campaign has a record of killing at least 10 civilians for every suspected terrorist that it claims to kill. That's not to say the terrorists are even terrorists. The idea that collateral damage is "unintentional" in the drone bombing campaigns is highly suspect.

  • ||

    "The drone bombing campaign has a record of killing at least 10 civilians for every suspected terrorist that it claims to kill."

    Citation? I don't think that is true. But I would like to see.

    That is at least a legitimate point however. Are the civilian casualties worth the military value of the targets? That is a question that needs to be asked. Sadly Riggs didn't ask it.

  • ||

    ""Are the civilian casualties worth the military value of the targets? That is a question that needs to be asked. "'

    Sure, but it's the question we'll never hear an answer. That's stuff is classified.

  • ||

    ""Are the civilian casualties worth the military value of the targets? That is a question that needs to be asked. "'

    Sure, but it's the question we'll never hear an answer. That's stuff is classified.

  • ||

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news.....statistics

    http://www.aclu.org/human-cost.....fghanistan

    Lots of links. Of course, most of those asking the question are leftys, so the righties will say the figures are inflated.
    But say the true number could be determined? What would it be?
    1% of the population? 5% 10% 25%???

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Are the civilian casualties worth the military value of the targets?

    Only if you're a statist who doesn't believe in individual rights, or they're killing the likes of Hitler (not a SINGLE terrorist is worth killing innocents for, BTW).

  • neolibertarian||

    Adlib is citing Ron Paul, who gets his numbers out of pure armchair speculation. In 2010, drone strikes went off with 98% accuracy (in terms of enemies vs. civilian casualties). The people we were killing, the Taliban, technically target with close to 0% accuracy. But hey, let's err on the side of religious tyrants... that's a libertarian thing to do, right?

    http://neolibertarian.wordpres.....-job-done/

  • Spencer||

    Wait- so it's cool to kill and deform 2 people for every 98 that we THINK are bad guys? It's cool also to kill these supposed bad guys (and they probably are bad guys) without due process because that is NOT a universal right, but one afforded only to those who were- due to an accident of geography- born in the United States?

    So, it's acceptable to do this because we're killing the people we haven't yet proven are guilty.

    WOW. What's libertarian about this neolibertarian? Maybe you should change your handle to neocon or neocon apologist.

  • Zeb||

    Neolibertarian = neo-con who smokes pot?

  • Spencer||

    Or a neocon who smokes poles...

  • RoboCain||

    I don't think pot is strong enough.

    This would be like Snoop Dogg thinking he was Betty White.

  • Cytotoxic||

    without due process

    Wars don't tend to have a lot of due process. That's part of the whole 'war' thing.

  • Shmenge||

    Well, hey, that makes it okay then.

  • Zeb||

    So, neolibertairian is analogous to neoconservative?

  • ||

    Interesting. Neolibertarian defends Obama's policies.....so he's got to be a neoconservative. Why?

    Why not a neoliberal? Or just a liberal?

    Way up in the thread, the Rev talks about the acceptance of the leftist line--and here we see it. Liberals don't like war, so anyone that defends war is a conservative--even if the actions he's defending were committed by a liberal.

  • Spencer||

    Because nation building in the east is a tenant of neoconservatism.

  • Spoonman.||

    GREGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

  • ||

    In 2010, drone strikes went off with 98% accuracy (in terms of enemies vs. civilian casualties)

    Speaking of armchair speculation...

    If the area is so hostile that we have to use drone strikes, it's highly unlikely we're sending people in to check casualty counts and identities.

  • ||

    Seems plausible to me - I remember we killed everybody in North Vietnam 10 times over...we would have won, if only we could have figured out how to terminate ghosts....

  • ||

    Sorting the civilians and the anti-war protestors from the guerrillas is very difficult to do after the fact. Especially when the locals have a bias toward under-reporting the terrorists, as they do in AfPak. And, of course, our side has a bias toward under-reporting dead civilians.

    Not saying there aren't dead civvies here. I'm just saying I'm not taking anyone's word for it.

  • Bradley ||

    This would be more like if the police regularly destroyed entire city blocks that they suspected a thief might be living in.

  • squarooticus||

    +1

  • Spencer||

    And killed him without due process so to avoid the mess of having to prove he was guilty.

  • ||

    Has everyone forgotten that we are AT WAR here?!?!? However "unjust" or whatever this war is, it was authorized by our congress and president in accordance with our constitution. And this is how modern war is fought. False equivlences between military tactics and the civilian police and their tactics do not help anyone get a clearer picture of the issues that this "article" by Riggs should have addressed... but only made murkier with the muddiness of emotion and not LOGIC.,.

  • ||

    Well, never specifically with anyone but the terrorists... but we never designated them as anything but that, so....

    "President George W. Bush was authorized by Congress on September 14, 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on September 18, 2001 by both President Bush and congress. This legislation authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[101] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.["

  • Bradley||

    You're responding to a moral issue with legal arguments. What the Administration is doing may or may not be legal. I'm sure with enough money and lawyers they can somehow prove that it is.

    But who cares? What we're talking about is whether it's compatible with any sort of moral decency. Go ahead and try to make a moral case for drone-bombing that doesn't rely on special pleading for government agents. Seriously, explain why a bunch of politicians voting to call something a "war" or authorize military force means their flunkies get to be held to a lower standard than the rest of us with respect to murder and manslaughter.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Seriously, explain why a bunch of politicians voting to call something a "war" or authorize military force means their flunkies get to be held to a lower standard than the rest of us with respect to murder and manslaughter.

    They have a sacred duty to do whatever it takes to protect Americans from rights violators. These actions are compatible with that.

  • ||

    You need to show:

    (a) the target is violating our rights

    (b) the drone strikes prevent that rights violation

    Good luck.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A) The Taliban and AQ have been doing that for some time now including that whole 9/11 thing

    B) Dead rights violators = no more rights violations

    Luck not needed.

  • ||

    ""However "unjust" or whatever this war is, it was authorized by our congress""

    LOL.

    Will you use the same excuse for Obamacare?

  • Spencer||

    We are not at war. We won the war. We are performing security duties for an ally.

  • ||

    ""We are performing security duties for an ally.""

    Kinetic security duties.

  • NotSure||

    Mr Neobraindead, please call yourself for what you really are, a neoconservative.

  • The Ghost of W. T. Sherman||

    War (by any other name) is Hell!

  • Awkward||

    But do her hips lie?

  • ||

    WRONG. SO VERY WRONG.

  • SIV||

    Murder-drones!

  • Atanarjuat||

    Yeah, well, you used to call Bachman "future-president Bachman".

  • SIV||

    Pray for a brokered convention.

  • NotSure||

    Can somebody please clarify something for me, I am aware that libertarians are divided on issues such as abortion and intellectual property, but can anyone who supports foreign military interventions and massive army budgets really call himself a libertarian ?

  • SIV||

    DRINK!

  • ||

    FECK!

  • Apatheist||

    No. Certainly not those dismissing this girl as collateral damage.

  • ||

    Who died and made you that all-fucking powerful Oz/ arbiter of who and who isn't a fucking libertarian?!?! Can someone who purports to have that authoritarian right call themself a libertarian.....?

  • Apatheist||

    I have an absolute right to express my opinion that mutilating children is not libertarian. That doesn't make me an authoritarian in any sense of the word. What exact power do I have over you? None? That's what I thought.

  • ||

    can anyone who supports foreign military interventions and massive army budgets really call himself a libertarian ?

    Theoretically, if the interventions/budgets are genuinely national defense against imminent threats, etc.

    The Afghan war itself, I got no problem with. Based on info at the time, I think you can even argue for the Iraq war.

    What this libertarian can't justify is the years-long occupation/nation-building.

    Frankly, after a punitive expedition, a civil war is none of our business. If the bad guys win the civil war and become an imminent threat, we can always deal with them, and probably at less cost than a decade-long occupation (which, as we are seeing in Iraq right now, is probably going to be futile anyway).

  • Esteban||

    A punitive expedition lasting several months would not have accomplished the point of why we invaded, which was attacking Al-Qaeda and depriving them of a safe haven form which to plan and carry out attacks with protection from the Taliban. Of course the issue is how long we have to stay to ensure that.

  • SIV||

    If we included Pakistan in the "punitive expedition" it wouldn't have taken so long.

  • robc||

    A punitive expedition would have eliminated the Taliban from power. Combine that with letters of marque and reprisal against the leaders of Al Qaeda and problem mostly solved (there obviously isnt a perfect solution).

  • ||

    the point of why we invaded, which was attacking Al-Qaeda and depriving them of a safe haven form which to plan and carry out attacks with protection from the Taliban.

    Then even our long-term occupation has failed, because AQ and their buddies still have a safe haven. Right across the border in Pakistan.

    If you're gonna go half-assed, perhaps its best to be quick about it with a punitive expedition, no?

  • ||

    I don't quite get this "safe haven" thingy. The mostly Saudis who spent a lot of time flying between US, Canada, and Europe, with funds donated from assorted Middle Eastern countries, from an idea of a guy named Bin laden who scampered about the Mid East and West Africa, but really didn't do much operationally, and finally settled down in Afghanistan - how would depriving Bin Laden of sitting Afghanistan have kept those Saudi's who got into the US, contrary to US visa law and stayed contrary to us VISA law, from carrying out 9/11???

  • ||

    the point of why we invaded, which was attacking Al-Qaeda and depriving them of a safe haven form which to plan and carry out attacks with protection from the Taliban.

    I'm not sure that's what the point was at the time. In any case, that goal is essentially impossible to accomplish without eternal occupation (and possibly not even with it).

  • Lord Humungus||

    so a John Derbyshire - "Where's there is rubble, there is no trouble?"

  • ||

    Or like Stalin said, if there is a man who has a problem, tell him "no man, no problem".

  • Tim||

    Burke: Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
    Ripley: They can bill me.
    Burke: Okay. This is an emotional moment for all of us. I know that. But let's not make snap judgments, please.

  • *||

    There's only one way to be sure.

  • Kevin||

    These pictures are very difficult to look at. Just another set of victims for the open-ended war on terror. What the hell has happened to the soul of America in the last ten years?

  • Spencer||

    It got scared because it was weak after years of not having to exercise.

  • Esteban||

    What the hell has happened to the soul of America in the last ten years?

    As long as there's war, civilians will get killed, maimed, and disfigured. You can probably go back to the Revolutionary War for instances in which American military action caused civilian casualties. However, I think the deliberate targeting of civilians and resulting death and injuries has decreased over time, not increased. Even in Iraq the vast majority of civilian deaths/ injuries that occurred during the conflict were inflicted by insurgents and terrorists, not American forces.

  • Spencer||

    But when we send in drones to residential areas to kill KNOWING the bombs they drop are likely to lead to civilian and innocent deaths- it is NOT enough to say, in war these things happen.

    It's not like this is urban warfare where these people are being shot or blown up with grenades as our guys engage in a firefight with their guys.

  • Esteban||

    Then WW2 was also an immoral war, because we certainly did lots of targeting of civilian populations. In fact, then we were deliberately attacking civilian populations where as now, we have every reason to avoid potential civilian casualties and takes steps to try to do so.

  • ||

    When did Pakistan declare war on the United States?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    When did Pakistan declare war on the United States?

    OK, one more time with feeling - that is not in any relevant.

  • ||

    Our government can bomb countries that haven't delcared war on the U.S.?

    I presume Esteban was referring to examples like the firebombing of Dresden, which is in a nation that had delcared war on the U.S. How is drone attacks on Pakistan equivalent?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Our government can bomb countries that haven't delcared war on the U.S.?

    Do I really have to lead you by the nose to show you why this is not relevant, or do you think you can figure it out by yourself?

  • ||

    Lead me by the nose, please.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Lead me by the nose, please.

    Legalistic arguments have no bearing on whether civilian casualties such as these are moral. If you continue to harp on the legal argument, someone is going to point out to you that if the United States declared formal war, then you would have absolutely no relevant or valid objection to how it conducts the war generally or to this specific instance of a wounded bystander.

    IOW, the legal argument is a NOT RELEVANT.

  • ||

    there is a moral case to be made for civilian casualties like this? Let's hear it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    there is a moral case to be made for civilian casualties like this? Let's hear it.

    It has got to hurt to be this dumb.

    All I was pointing out to you was that talking about "declared war" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

  • ||

    what is relevant?

  • ||

    and to suggest that, in the case of the U.S. government declaring formal war, I can have no valid argument against how our government conducts that war is absurd. I can object to the way our government conducts any of its tasks, even if the task is Constitutional.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    and to suggest that, in the case of the U.S. government declaring formal war, I can have no valid argument against how our government conducts that war is absurd. I can object to the way our government conducts any of its tasks, even if the task is Constitutional.

    I didn't say that. Please try engaging your brain and actually reading what I wrote.

    IF you talk about the immoral prosecution of this war based on LEGAL arguments, THEN someone is going to point out that if the legal argument gets taken away, then you have no leg to stand on.

    In short, relying on the legal arguments when we are talking about morality is a boneheaded move on your part. That's my only point to you.

  • ||

    how is the legal argument "taken away?"

  • ||

    The firebombing of Dresden was a war crime and the RAF who ordered it should have been on trial at Nuremberg with the Nazis.

  • Esteban||

    When did Afghanistan declare war on the US? Do we always have to wait for an official declaration of war from an another government to justify military action?

  • ||

    did you read the story? The girl was in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

    And there is no "we" here. There is the government of this country using drone attacks on countries that have not delcared war on us or attacked us. Does our government need any justification whatsoever, or can our government bomb anyone they want for any reason our government wants to give?

  • Esteban||

    Well the enemies the US is fighting cross a border, and that country gives us permission to attack them within its borders is relevant to this conversation, no?

  • ||

    You forgot Pakistan is kinda of our ally, except when its not, and we kill "accidently" their soilders or civilians, when maybe their soilders were not "accidently" trying to kill our solders...
    simple, no?

  • Spencer||

    Um, it would be nice.

  • SIV||

    9/11/2001 if not earlier. Unless you like to pretend the ISI is a "rogue element".

  • ||

    9/11!! 9/11!!! Kill everyone!!

  • Esteban||

    9/11!! 9/11!!! Kill everyone!!

    Whose position is that?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    It is the position of too many, used to justify too much.

  • Spencer||

    Yes, the deliberate bombing of civilian populations was immoral. The dropping of the nukes was immoral.

  • Esteban||

    There likely would have been many more deaths, both Japanese and American, had the nukes not been dropped.

  • Spencer||

    That's historically unprovable, and probably not true. The japanese didn't even have time to get the word out about a surrender between the first bomb dropping and the second one.

  • ||

    The japanese didn't even have time to get the word out about a surrender between the first bomb dropping and the second one.

    Not true. Please read a history of WW2 not written by a leftist with an axe to grind.

    After Hiroshima, the Japanese military thought the US had only one bomb, and they were not inclined to surrender under any circumstances. They even sent two assassins to take out the Emperor while he was getting ready to make the surrender announcement on the radio after the second bomb at Nagasaki.

    The Japanese govt also sent diplomatic cables to other countries accusing the US of war crimes in the interim. So please don't repeat the contention that they didn't have time.

  • Restoras||

    The dropping of the nukes was immoral

    Was it? Considering that they ended the war and saved more Japanese lives than American, I'm not so sure.

  • SIV||

    And they had it coming.

  • Tim||

    We all got it coming.

  • Spencer||

    "Considering that they ended the war and saved more Japanese lives than American, I'm not so sure."

    THEY DID NOT END THE WAR. Also, let's remember the fire bombing of Tokyo- which also slaughtered tons of civilians but didn't "end the war". The fact is, the japanese were so disjointed that the news of the first bomb hadn't even reached the government by the time the second bomb was dropped.

    In addition, it was dropped in japan and not germany because we viewed the japanese as animals vs the germans as our mislead cousins. (Look at the posters and slogans from the time. This is undeniable.)

    We used the nukes and firebombs because they were less than human and we wanted to flex our muscles. They did not end the war. They did not save lives.

  • robc||

    They did not end the war.

    That is just outrageously stupid. They absolutely ended the war. The Japanese refused unconditional surrender until the nukes.

  • Spencer||

    NO. They didn't have the chance in between the first and the second nuke. Study history. They did not end the war. The war was already over. They may have hastened the end of the war. They might have done a lot of things. But they did not- and were not- the cause of the war ending or victory being ours.

  • Restoras||

    Yes they did end the war. How else do you account for the sudden change of heart? As you said, were were systematically incinerating every city in Japan - and then we drop two nukes and they decide to surrender? Coincidence? I doubt it.

    We didn't use them on Germany because Germany's defeat was months away. The Japanese defeat was viewed at the time as a year or more away - and necesitating an invasion of the home islands.

    Yes we portrayed them in a vile and racist manner. Did we not say the same thing about the Germans in WW1? Adn just for the record, the Japanese were equally racist, if not more. So I don't really know what the point of your statement here is, except to imply that we wanted to nuke them because we didn't view them as human.

    An invasion of the home islands would have resulted in 1 million casualties as estiamted at the time, for the Americans. Considering that the Japanese were taking casualties at the rate of up 5X-10x that amount in defense, that implies Japanese casualties of 5-10 million. Are you still going to tell me that ending the war didn't save lives?

  • Spencer||

    First- 2 wrongs don't make a right.

    Second- read it.
    http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar.....wilson.pdf

    Read it.

  • Restoras||

    Two wrongs don't make a right? Are you serious? We ended the war and saved more Japanese lives in the process. No amount of revisionism can change that.

  • Spencer||

    "Yes we portrayed them in a vile and racist manner. Did we not say the same thing about the Germans in WW1?"

    This is 2 wrongs not making a right.

    Also, it's not revisionism. It's examining objectively.

    Plus, keep in mind one of the major things preventing the Japanese from surrendering was forcing Hiro Hito to deny his divinity. Has we not cared about that part so much, it could have ended even earlier.

  • Gray Ghost||

    NO. They didn't have the chance in between the first and the second nuke. Study history. They did not end the war. The war was already over. They may have hastened the end of the war.

    I have, and you are incorrect. You can make an argument that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was also devastating to the Japanese high command's willingness to continue fighting, but to say that the war was over without dropping the nukes is incredibly ignorant.

    Without dropping the nukes, you either stage and conduct Operations Coronet and Olympic, with the projected 100k Allied KIA and multiple million civilian casualties. Or you expand the mining campaign, starve Japan further, and let the winter of 1945-1946 kill millions. Then invade, and rule over Hell.

    Those were, unfortunately, your only two choices if you don't drop the Bombs. I tend to think that Nagasaki was overkill; still, it enhanced the perception in Japan that we had a lot of these new weapons, which aided in their mental capitulation.

    As far as the OP is concerned, war is hell. I've posted before that I don't see the purpose of continuing this war against the Taliban, that it is futile, and we are doomed to lose in the long run. (As we are in Iraq---faster than even I anticipated---if the main victory condition there was the establishment of a functioning Iraqi democracy.)

    As far as the campaign against AQ, well, there aren't a lot of good choices to use. These are people that have the desire and capability to plan and conduct terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its citizens. Not just U.S. military personnel/contractors on "their" territory, but things like airliners, trains, large gatherings here. I don't think you can ignore AQ and hope they go away; their footsoldiers, sure, but not their well-funded inner cabal. So what do you do? Try the letters of marque/reprisal approach? Use law enforcement? Drop the hammer on their state sponsors (hint, not the Taliban.)

    None of the above is meant to suggest that our ridiculous security apparatus is in any way justified or cost-effective. I'm just advocating that TPTB have a point when mentioning that AQ is dangerous. And John has a great point that damage like this happens when your legitimate enemy surrounds themselves with civilian noncombatants.

  • Spencer||

    But that's a false dichotomy again. It wasn't either drop the bombs or starve them (or invade and kill millions). It could have been, wait a month or two, tell them the emporer is still divine but he's changed his mind, blah blah blah.

    There were infinite choices.

  • ||

    In a month or two the Soviets would be invading Japan and the Eastern Europe rules would apply.

    Japan being a Soviet satellite would have made the Cold War much, much more difficult.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Tulpa,

    How are the Soviets invading Japan with practically zero amphibious assault capability? Moreover, why would they? Anyone invading the Japanese home islands was going to take monstrous casualties. Korea and the rest of Manchuria, on the other hand, I agree would've been taken.

    I'm just amazed at anyone who can read about Japanese civilian resistance in places like Okinawa and Saipan, and blithely claim that the war would've been over in a month without dropping the bomb. For crying out loud, there was a fairly serious coup attempt after Hirohito agreed to surrender.

    Water under the bridge though, when trying to figure out what the right thing is to do in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

  • ||

    Wait a month or two while an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 civilians die of starvation and deliberate maladministration in the large swathes of Asia still occupied by Japanese forces, in the hope(!) that people who exalted irrationality would just decide they had been wrong?

    And do you have any reason to think the Japanese leadership had any remote intention of telling their people "the emporer is still divine but he's changed his mind"? (If that's what you meant--it's hard to tell from your poor style.)

    The US was reading the Japanese diplomatic codes, and could find nothing to suggest that the Japanese leaders were pursuing peace. A US hint that the Emperor might be retained was ignored, while the Japanese were trying to persuade the USSR that the combination of Japanese navy and Soviet army would be an unbeatable combination--and this is June and July of '45.

    Oh yeah, that article "proving" that it was the USSR that caused the Japanese surrender gives the game away in a footnote: the Japanese knew they were safe from large scale Soviet invasion until the US supplied them with a lot of amphibious capability, which (paraphrasing) "the Japanese had to assume was the plan." Ergo, it was fear of -US- power that ended the war, leaving aside the nukes.

  • SIV||

    Outrageously stupid is an understatement.
    We treated the Japanese well after surrender. During the war the disparate treatment of Jap soldiers over krauts was more a result of their "no quarter no surrender" actions than their race

  • Spencer||

    We treated the japanese well? Were you there? Have you seen the aftermath? They were a conquered people in a great geographic area for our military bases. How were we going to treat them?

    Also, did the concentration camps for Japanese americans result from their no quarter policies? Why didn't we throw german decensdants into camps as well?

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    Japan surrendered because the USSR entered the war. Everyone would rather surrender to the US than the Russians.

  • Spencer||

    +1

  • ||

    We did throw Germans AND Italians into camps. Just because Howard Zinn didn't think it was important doesn't mean it didn't happen.

  • American soldiers of WW2||

    The dropping of the nukes was immoral.

    Fuck you.

  • Spencer||

    really?

  • ||

    "As long as there's war, civilians will get killed, maimed, and disfigured. You can probably go back to the Revolutionary War for instances in which American military action caused civilian casualties."

    HELL YEAH!! Didn't any of you guys see "The Patriot"?!?!?

  • ||

    As long as there's war, civilians will get killed, maimed, and disfigured.

    Agreed, but you're begging the question of why we're at war to begin with. which is why you don't go to war or continue war unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so, with clear and accomplishable goals.

  • ||

    Before going and doing something imprudent like posting a story like this, Mr. Riggs should take into consideration the near certainty that neocons will use this as an example of how great our government...I mean country is.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    The deformity of this girl is neither an argument for or against the War, and those who are gullible and/or softhearted enough to be manipulated into thinking it is are either idiots or deliberate charlatans. You pick.

  • NotSure||

    Perhaps it might not sway Americans, but I have no doubt this is easy recruitment material in Pakistan.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Valid argument! Too bad it is not the one Riggs is implicitly making or others are explicitly stating, which is that a deformed girl demonstrates the immorality of the War. It does not.

  • robc||

    Valid arguments are valid, even if not made.

    This isnt a fucking debating society.

  • robc||

    Or, to put it another way, if Riggs is right for the wrong reason, he is still right.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Or, to put it another way, if Riggs is right for the wrong reason, he is still right

    The ends justify the means, eh? I mean, hey, what's the Truth when you have a High Horse to Ride?

  • Spencer||

    No, that's not what he said at all. he said if someone says the sky is blue because god made it that way, they are still correct about the sky being blue- even though they're wrong about the reason why the sky is blue.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    No, that's not what he said at all. he said if someone says the sky is blue because god made it that way, they are still correct about the sky being blue- even though they're wrong about the reason why the sky is blue.

    Thanks for the tautology lesson. In other news, who gives a damn?

    The point is that not all arguments made against the Afghanistan war are logical, valid, or even desirable. I find the existence of a deformed little girl totally irrelevant to the wisdom or morality of said war. And so should you.

    I fail to see how "even a blind pig finds an acorn" has any bearing on this.

  • Spencer||

    You equated an argument to an end justifying the means argument- to put the one you're arguing with in the camp against which he is arguing.

    It doesn't matter that it's a deformed little girl. It could have been a killed old man. A nearly killed, but fully recovered, young woman. It is about the preventable dammage done to civilians and noncriminals in the name of some intangible "war" that isn't against any government entity.

  • Esteban||

    Veena Malik appearing 'naked' on the cover of FHM India is easy recruitment material in Pakistan. That's a low bar.

  • ||

    Pakistanis are going to hate Americans regardless... I am fucking sick of hearing about how we shouldn't anger or annoy people that would want to kill us even if we had nothing to do with them....

  • ||

    And any society that is against Veena Malik being naked for everyone to see is an enemy I am PROUD to make and would love to see further pissed off. This whole "oh, well, it just makes the muslims more angry and easier to recruit for terrorists" is such a stupid argument bereft of any will to resist. It is like telling a potential rape victim to just go ahead and take it and not fight back - I do not endorse such a viewpoint. Eventually we are going to have to fight back against fascists and tyrants in whatever form they appear...

  • ||

    what about our own "fascists and tyrants?"

  • Spencer||

    So, the fact that this girl is a symbol of the destruction and deformity of innocent lives that the hands of our entirely preventable actions is not an arguement against the war? Or rather, the extended police action?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    So, the fact that this girl is a symbol of the destruction and deformity of innocent lives that the hands of our entirely preventable actions is not an arguement against the war? Or rather, the extended police action?

    No. Is your argument that no civilian casualties are acceptable? Because if it is not, then all the "symbols" represent an invalid argument.

  • Spencer||

    Yes. No civilian casualties- when they can be forseen and prevented- are acceptable.

    In addition, I find the denial of due process of law unacceptable.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    In addition, I find the denial of due process of law unacceptable.

    In War? That makes me laugh. Soldiers should have a mini-trial before they hit the road into hostile territory.

    "In the case of the United States v. Unnamed Hostile Guy Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4....100, we the jury find the defendants guilty and state that they can be shot if and when they are firing AK-47s at American Soldiers."

    You're a funny guy.

    Yes. No civilian casualties- when they can be forseen and prevented- are acceptable.

    Asserting "facts" without evidence will get you nowhere.

  • Spencer||

    We are NOT AT WAR. The war is over. We are performing security measures for a government that we are allies with.

    Facts without evidence? How's this for evidence: "IF you drop fucking bombs into the middle of a residential neighborhood, people living there will most likely die and be injured." That is a fact. We dropped the bombs anyway.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    We are NOT AT WAR. The war is over. We are performing security measures for a government that we are allies with.

    Another joker who wants to hang his hat on semantics.

    "IF you drop fucking bombs into the middle of a residential neighborhood, people living there will most likely die and be injured."

    I am coming to your house to kill you. I will have a child strapped to my chest. You better not shoot at me or his death is on your hands.

  • ||

    which country is coming to our house to kill us?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    which country is coming to our house to kill us?

    None. Which is why I am against the war.

    Wow, did I just blow your mind? Look, junior, it is obvious you are not bothering to understand the context of this argument, so just stay out of it.

  • ||

    you didn't blow my mind. I think the only mind you blow is your own. You are not making any complicated point that I cannot get, even though you think you are. That makes you a prick.

    I still am unsure about your argument. My point has been that, in the absence of a Constitutionally-declared war, civilian casualties like this are even less acceptable.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    My point has been that, in the absence of a Constitutionally-declared war, civilian casualties like this are even less acceptable.

    So the inverse to that is that a Constitutionally-declared war somehow makes civilian casualties more acceptable? Uh...how? Sketch out that ethical argument, please.

  • ||

    Yes, in a Constitutionally-declared war, civilian casualties would be more acceptable. The process for declaring war in this country helps ensure that the war in question is more likely to be necessary. Its not perfect, but its better than suggesting that one Chief Executives's wet dream is an acceptable standard for civilian casualties.

  • Spencer||

    That is self defense. That is a false analogy and A BAD argument.

    The point is, we are not at war. If we are at war with these people, then we are at war with criminal gangs in the US and should then bomb detroit with drones to kill them. They are criminals and non state actors.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    That is self defense. That is a false analogy and A BAD argument.

    you said this:

    No civilian casualties- when they can be forseen and prevented- are acceptable.

    So, do you wish to amend that statement in light of your feelings about self defense?

  • Spencer||

    If I'm a civilian defending my self, there is no war in which to have civilian casualties. Your analogy is, again, false.

    But, with your analogy- you're going to kill the child in the explosion? If so, then there is no killing on my part if I shoot you and the child dies- it was dead without my action anyway.

    (This, of course, is not at all the case with the drones in pakistan.)

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    If I'm a civilian defending my self, there is no war in which to have civilian casualties. Your analogy is, again, false.

    So there is no such thing as "national defense" now?

  • Spencer||

    That's not what is happening- so the hypothetical you're presenting does not mesh with the reality you're arguing for.

    Second, if I were a general in a military and you were flying a plane full of civilians into- I don't know- a massive office building. Then, again, the argument is that you are killing them already, so the death is not a casualty on my hands if I blow the plane up to save lives. Is that that hard to understand?

  • ||

    This is a nice delusional circle you've written for yourself. If anyone points out that the image is valid reminder than innocents are being killed/maimed by our government, you respond with "collateral damage happens! this is war! radda radda radda!" and when someone points out that we aren't actually at war the response is "OH SEMANTICS RADDA RADDA".

    I won't make the claim that you're an idiot, but you are a warmongering neocon ass hole. You don't believe we need any proof or evidence before we send out a drone to kill people. There is no trial, no conviction, because this is WAR! But it isn't a fucking war, and the American people never approved these actions. So your friend Obama is engaging in what I would consider to be illegal military actions.

  • ||

    No civilian casualties- when they can be forseen and prevented- are acceptable.

    Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, so they are always foreseeable, and cannot be prevented.

    So, put you down as a pacifist?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, so they are always foreseeable, and cannot be prevented.

    Sidenote: did we just break an Iron Law?

  • ||

    Iron Laws cannot be broken, hence their name.

  • Spencer||

    I'm down as a pacifist with a penchant for self defense.

  • ||

    I don't think you can be a pacifist and engage in (lethal) self-defense. At that point, if not before, you have to pick.

  • Spencer||

    No. I didn't say I would kill him. I'm my own man with logic and reason to guide me.

  • ||

    Don't invade another country and there won't be civilian casualties. When is it ever morally acceptable to kill person A because of the actions of person B?

  • Spencer||

    +1

  • Tim||

    Ripley: I just checked the colony log, directive dated 6/12/79, signed Burke, Carter J. You sent them out there and you didn't even warn them! Why didn't you warn them, Burke?
    Burke: Okay, look. What if that ship didn't even exist? Did you ever think about that? I didn't know! So now, if I went and made a major security situation out of it, everybody steps in. Administration steps in, and there are no exclusive rights for anybody; nobody wins. So I made a decision, and it was wrong. It was a bad call, Ripley. It was a bad call.
    Ripley: Bad call? These people are dead, Burke! Don't you have any idea what you've done here? Well, I'm gonna make sure that they nail you right to the wall for this! You're not gonna sleaze your way out of this one! Right to the wall!
    Burke: Ripley...! You know, I... I expected more from you. I thought you'd be smarter than this.
    Ripley: I'm happy to disappoint you.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • hazeeran||

    It's for the ch ... oh.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    One of the great things about the libertarian non-aggression principle is that you get to climb up on a high horse when it comes to maiming and killing babies.

    Neocons and Democrats thinking killing and maiming babies and children is fine as long as the end justifies the means.

  • Abdul||

    That photo is pretty disgusting.

    Wait, I meant to post this on the Matt Damon thread.

  • Restoras||

    + Ben Affleck

  • ||

    All the talk about "brown people", "murder drones", etcetera ad infinitum is tiresome, logically fallacious, and smacks of pure hysteria. It has got to stop.

    Fuck you, pussy.

    You're just not tough enough to live with the real world consequences of your hate, you pathetic shitbag.

  • Spencer||

    +1

  • ||

    Thank god someone else on here is a bit horrified at the blase dismissal of the death and maiming of innocents. Saying "That's war," doesn't make it right.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Fuck you, pussy.

    You're just not tough enough to live with the real world consequences of your hate, you pathetic shitbag.

    Ha ha. Stunning rejoinder! Did I touch a nerve?

    Sorry if I took away your joyride through Race Baiting and Heart-string Pulling Town.

    FWIW, I have no hate. I am opposed to the continued nation-building overseas. I am just smart enough not to be taken in by people hawking emotional argumentation.

    You, on the other hand, are clearly a huge fan of hysteria.

  • NotSure||

    No you are not smart, you are simply cold, cold and stupid, the two are not mutually exclusive. Calling someone hysterical for not liking mutilated victims, that is both cold and stupid.

    If I scan the comments the only one who raised race was you. So I agree with P Brooks, fuck you cunt !

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    No you are not smart, you are simply cold, cold and stupid, the two are not mutually exclusive. Calling someone hysterical for not liking mutilated victims, that is both cold and stupid.

    If I scan the comments the only one who raised race was you. So I agree with P Brooks, fuck you cunt !

    Get out the fainting couch. I think someone hiked up her bloomers too far and she isn't getting enough blood to her brain.

  • NotSure||

    Your parents probably told you were really smart, but autistic sociopaths don't tend to be aware that they are autistic sociopaths.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.

    Ayn Rand.

  • Spencer||

    A is A.- Any Rand
    Check your premise.- Ayn Rand

  • NotSure||

    I am not sure how invoking Ayn Rand somehow absolves you from being a sociopath it does not, you really are one.

    When one objects to war not because of the human suffering, but for other reasons, perhaps it is a sign that there is something seriously wrong.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    It is apparent that you do not even know what "sociopathy" means or how it is defined. First of all, the term is Antisocial Personality Disorder. Secondly, the chief symptom is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." In no way do I disregard others' rights, nor do I routinely violate them. Finally, even if I was suffering from ASPD, why would you make fun of and mock someone with a disease? That's like teasing someone in a wheelchair. And people call me the asshole?

  • NotSure||

    You mean when they get hypothetically deformed because they happened to be there where OBL was there, their rights don't really exist anymore.

    Everyone is an expert nowadays with wikipedia, that still does not magically make you any less of what you are: a complete wanker and first class a-hole.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    You mean when they get hypothetically deformed because they happened to be there where OBL was there, their rights don't really exist anymore.

    So, again, if she was deformed in a drone strike that killed OBL, that would have somehow been an argument against that action as well?

    Whatever. It must be really painful to have to think every time you take a breath.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You see RBM you've dared try to make an argument based on logic and reason and worse told others they should do so as well instead of riding your heartstrings to whatever feels right. What could be more sociopathic?

  • Spencer||

    he's tried to make an argument based on logic and failed.

  • Spencer||

    It is apparent that you didn't go back and check your premise.

  • ||

    Eggs, omlettes, burn-victim kids. What's the difference?

    The neo-con chicken hawk circle jerk present here is pretty fucking appalling. Maybe MNG has a point after all.

  • ||

    Did I touch a nerve?

    You were the one whining about how mean ol' Riggsie put that nasty picture up.

  • ||

    It's so UNFAIR to the war to show this picture. Won't someone think of how the WAR feels?

    Nevermind innocent casualties of war...

  • Restoras||

    Chicken Hawk = Civilian Control of the Military

    It is better this way, right?

  • ||

    It's worked out fabulously! We've had at least 2, maybe 3 hours, of peacetime.

    I blame our dickless Congresscritters, who can only seem to muster the energy to flop around on the floor and whine how no one will help them up.

    I'm sure they'll find the gumption to do something about the countless dead and maimed, right after they ban cell phones in cars.

  • asdf||

    lolll

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    You were the one whining about how mean ol' Riggsie put that nasty picture up.

    Wrong. I have seen much worse. What I was pointing out to you was that this deformed girl is not an argument against the war, and I resent the fact that Riggs took the lazy route by trying to manipulate me. It's the same reason I turn off those Sarah McLachlan and Sally Field commercials.

    Eggs, omlettes, burn-victim kids. What's the difference?

    The neo-con chicken hawk circle jerk present here is pretty fucking appalling. Maybe MNG has a point after all.

    Another non-argument. How many times do I need to state I am against the war again?

  • Spencer||

    so, you're against the war, but if you're in, burning civilians ins't an argument against it?

    You should take some time to study logic and how it works.

  • ||

    this deformed girl is not an argument against the war

    If not this, then what is?

    And TEH WAR? What war would that be, exactly?

    Another non-argument. How many times do I need to state I am against the war again?

    Yeah, you convinced me with your passionate arguments against it. I'm just wondering who Frummed on your face this morning.

  • ||

    lol

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    If not this, then what is?

    Lack of goals, objectives, purposes? The fact that it is actually creating more enemies than the government is killing? The fact that nation-building does not work?

    Query for the room: what IF this girl was deformed in a hypothetical drone strike that killed OBL? What then?

    so, you're against the war, but if you're in, burning civilians ins't an argument against it?

    Correct. Give the man a doll.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Stated another way, for the millionth time: "this deformed girl is not an 'argument' against the war"

  • Spencer||

    That is retarded.

  • ||

    Lack of goals, objectives, purposes? The fact that it is actually creating more enemies than the government is killing? The fact that nation-building does not work?

    Check, check, check, check and check. In motherfucking spades. Fuck lot of good that's done.

    But, no, let's not mention the all-too-real collateral damage to non-combatants. That wouldn't be sporting. And only big, fat meanies would do that.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    But, no, let's not mention the all-too-real collateral damage to non-combatants. That wouldn't be sporting. And only big, fat meanies would do that.

    So, like I said, if she had been deformed in a bombing that took out OBL, and said bombing was committed by someone acting on a "marque and reprisal", you would still consider this a valid argument?

    It has nothing to do with "meanies". It has to do with manipulation.

  • Spencer||

    But the assassination of OBL was illegal as well. He was a non state actor and should have been arrested, tried, and convicted before he was killed.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    But the assassination of OBL was illegal as well. He was a non state actor and should have been arrested, tried, and convicted before he was killed.

    The AUMF is pretty clear on the point. If you want to argue that too is illegal, go right ahead, but the "marque and reprisal" clause contained in the Constitution makes killing without due process legal.

    So your argument is wholly moot.

  • Spencer||

    I think that's an interesting and interestingly stupid interpretation of the clause. granting the right of an individual to act in a warring capacity in the name of the state doesn't equate to assassinations.

  • ||

    "But the assassination of OBL was illegal as well. He was a non state actor and should have been arrested, tried, and convicted before he was killed."


    Honestly, I am all for being a pussy, but that statement pushes the limits of the genre....

  • Spencer||

    But it's true. He was a criminal- not an army we were at war with. Criminals- no matter how horrible their crimes- deserve the due process of law.

  • ||

    It has to do with manipulation.

    To turn a phrase, that's not a real argument.

    You're projecting your own idiosyncracies over the fact that non-combatants are being killed and maimed in a military action that has no stated goal any longer. It's an occupation with illegal attacks that has real consequences to innocent people. It ain't WW-fucking-II, so time to jump off your high horse. It's the Forever War with no fucking end in sight.

    If you have a problem with being informed about the reality depicted in the picture, then perhaps you should seek council form your local priest or bartender.

  • ||

    Stupid joke handles from yesterday.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    No, no, no, you idiot. People getting killed is not an argument against wars.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    No, no, no, you idiot. People getting killed is not an argument against wars

    Yeah, actually, it is not, unless you are a total pacifist.

  • ||

    Are you sure you're not Tulpa?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    Are you sure you're not Tulpa?

    I flunked ninth-grade geometry, yo. Yes, I am pretty sure.

  • ||

    People getting killed isn't an argument against Communism!

  • Spencer||

    And let's not forget that lack of goals is valid while death of innocent non state actors is not.

  • Applederry||

    Query for the room: what IF this girl was deformed in a hypothetical drone strike that killed OBL? What then?

    Then it maybe, maybe, would have been justified, although still tragic. Killing or capturing OBL was an actual goal, a goal that also should have ended the war once accomplished. But it didn't, it continues with no end in sight and many more like her will die for no reason.

    Perhaps you missed my post at the bottom, but I am really interested if you do feel civilian casualties eventually become an argument against war. Or is "It's war, it's collateral damage" the end all, be all of your worldview?

  • NotSure||

    What if your mother was deformed in a hypothetical strike that killed OBL. What then ?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    What if your mother was deformed in a hypothetical strike that killed OBL. What then ?

    Hey, OBL was a father, you heartless little monster. Why do you want to leave the little Bin Ladens as orphans?

    This manipulative fuckery is not going to work on me, slim.

  • NotSure||

    Who is manipulating here ? I was not trying to convince people that deforming someone is fine if OBL is around, you did.

    Your hypothetical torture time bomb scenarios, must include your mother, because hypothetically she could be a terrorist.

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I was not trying to convince people that deforming someone is fine if OBL is around, you did.

    Never said it would be fine. It would be tragic and I would not like it. I would also recognize, though, that her deformity does not render the strike morally wrong.

  • Applederry||

    Again, I must ask. Is there any level of civilian casualties you would find rendering a strike morally wrong? Or is "It's war, it's collateral damage" the end all, be all of your worldview?

  • Applederry||

    If the war had a just purpose behind it, then your arguments may have merit. But this war has no real purpose, no real objectives or goals to it, and no real end in sight. No, what we did, what we continue to do, to this little girl and many other innocent civilians is absolutely an argument against a war we have no business perpetuating.

    How many civilians is it acceptable to sacrifice? Is there some terrorist to civilian ratio where is suddenly becomes unacceptable? If so, then you have to admit at some point her deformities are an argument against war. We can argue over the justness of some firebombing campaigns or dropping the nukes, but if we completely glassed the nation of Japan, the US would be unquestionably and rightly seen as the biggest monster in human history.

    So how many are you willing to see die in a war that makes this nation no safer and definitely no freer?

  • ||

    First, in a 'just' war there are no 'civilians' per se. There are enemy combatants and enemy non-combatants.

    All of them can be acceptable targets as a matter of strategy. One strategy calls for minimizing harm to non-combatants in the hopes that they will be more tractable after the war--or possibly during, forming a fifth column against their own combatants.

    This kind of thing works best when it's state-on-state.

    And you must understand, enemy non-combatants aren't 'sacrificed. They're killed. They're the enemy. Killing all of them is acceptable if that's the only way to end the war.

    This war is different. It is not state based in any way that we can tie down--save perhaps seeing it in the Islamic context of the Dar al-Islam versus the Dar al-Harb. But taking it in that context terrifies the West, so it becomes a 'war' on various terrorist and suspected terrorist cells. And it's being fought under the wrong rules.

    The girl, herself, is not an argument against the war--she is an effect of the haphazard strategy of the war. In a just war, she is an enemy casualty. In this war she is most likely destroyed cover--not seen as a person at all by the ones using her--and the ones shooting at her.

    The argument against this war is that it is vague and undefined, that it is being fought as if it is a series of street fights while using the strength of the military.

    She's the little girl that gets hit by a stray bullet in a drive-by.

    She's not the argument, she's the effect.

  • ||

    Well, since you stated opinions as facts then they must be true.

  • ||

    I get what your saying, but we do try to arrest people who's stray bullet killed someone in a drive-by.

    If the drive-by analogy was to stand, the shooter should be arrested.

  • db||

    If a group of terrorists were found to be gathering and plotting in a residential neighborhood in the U.S. surrounded by other presumably innocent civilians, would it be OK to drone bomb them? How aboutmuch a ground assault? Does the fact that it's hard to get at one group and not the other make it more OK to use high explosives in one case vs. firearms and flashbangs in the other? At what point can any moral person accept the argument that it's OK to kill innocents even in the pursuit of terrorists? How about zetting a little girl on fire with a flashbang and then shooting her dead?

  • ||

    Anything goes as long as you repeat thrice these magic words: "WE ARE AT WAR!"

    It's like the Konami code of arguments.

  • Spencer||

    I would say that some people in this thread MUST agree with that. (well, they actually don't have to, but we know what they'd be if they don't.)

  • Gray Ghost||

    db, I can come up with a hypo where I could justify using a guided missile on a terrorist gathering in the burbs. It'd be extremely tenuous, but possible. (something along the lines of, they have a nuke, they'll use it if they see the cops coming, bombing them will disassemble the nuke, etc...fairly farfetched stuff.)

    You hit it on the head, I think, with the observation that it's harder to get one group than the other and that's why drones are used, not cops. Well, that and it's (undeclared) wartime, not a law enforcement action. And that the legitimate military targets are choosing to surround themselves with non-combatants.

    It's horrible, but what is your alternative? Mine is to withdraw the troops, declare whom we specifically want captured/dead and why, offer letters of marque, rewards, etc...and then blow those guys up if there's no other way to get them. I think you'd have a lot fewer strikes, if we weren't targeting every two-bit Pashtun tribal leader who had a case of red-ass at the occupying infidel. You're still going to kill kids (assuming that Ms. Shakira was indeed injured by an American drone), but this way, you'd hopefully kill a lot fewer of them. And there'd be a specific end point to the military action, instead of the open-ended ratscrew we have now.

  • beena sarwar||

    Very tragic case, and I'm glad little Shakira's being looked after. She was obviously burnt by something/someone - but it wasn't a US military drone. There have never been drone attacks in Swat. Reporters and editors need to check before furthering falsehoods.

  • ||

    I'm willing to bet most of the commenters above who are so dismissive about this don't have kids.

  • ||

    No, because you don't have to have kids to actually empathize with other human beings.

    What you meant was that the commenters above being dismissive don't have souls.

  • Spencer||

    Kids or not, it's logic flowing from a core tennant of individual rights.

  • ||

    The saddest thing about any war is alot of innocent people get killed, there really isn't anyway around it...other then all people end their greedy, going nowhere fighting. For what a piece of dried up land, for the name of religion, for control of others...in the end it all adds up to a bunch of sinful idiots preying upon the weakness and innocents of life. It has always been this way and most likely will always be...until someone nukes all of us off the face of the planet...will it really matter then?. I pray that the little girl will be treated kind, and feel some sense of love, because I'm sure each time she looks in the mirror, she'll see the face of war and hatered.. Peace! Always In Love, Maggie

  • Robert||

    I say kill the hostages 1st, just to piss 'em off.

  • ||

    Since when is being a whiny "pacifist" bitch equivalent to libertarianism? Innocent people die when we go to war and innocent people die when we don't go to war. Casualties don't make a war bad, in fact they are inherent. The only question that matters in war is do we gain by engaging in it. If a crime was committed, than soldiers should be punished for it, but that doesn't invalidate a war. Surely the flamboyant Mr. Riggs isn't suggesting our armed forces were deliberately targeting baby girls. If he were than his hysteria would have meaning.

  • ||

    Azathoth|12.22.11 @ 12:30PM|#
    We did throw Germans AND Italians into camps. Just because Howard Zinn didn't think it was important doesn't mean it didn't happen.


    The US government did intern German and Italian (and other Axis country's) nationals, which was and is perfectly legal (provided they are treated humanely), just as interning Japanese nationals was.

    The illegal part was interning US citizens of Japanese descent without probable cause and due process*, something that was not done to those of German and Italian extraction.

    It is most certainly legal to arrest and try US citizens of any national origin for acts of espionage, sabotage or other aid to foreign interests whether at war with the US or not.

    Even J Edgar Hoover recognized that sympathy for the Japanese cause was not widespread among the Nissei and Sansei and denounced the relocation, arguing instead that normal surveillance and other legal counter-espionage efforts would be sufficient.

  • ||

    This article shows my twenty-something liberal friends that Obama just as gun totin' as his Texan predecessor.

  • ||

    About time the Conservative side of the house got on the end all the Wars bandwagon!

    Like hearing this hand wringing whine over the fall out of our War ways from the people who are usually screaming that we need to "turn the desert into glass!"

  • Corey Mondello||

    What, no mention or pictures of all those innocent killed by the Bush administration who knew there was no WMDs? Oh thats right, they liked to hide the images of dead soldiers coming home, and Momma Dragon Bush explained that this wouldnt be good for her pretty head.

  • Sunny||

    Civilians die in war. Get over it.

  • greenspider||

    Let's hope you never have to see your daughter killed or maimed like this.

  • ||

    I want to know what the drone strike was order for? Drugs? terrorists? there had to be a reason.. though I doubt any reason is ever going to be excusable...

  • Brian||

    I have spent years tracking the CIA's drone strikes in the FATA region of Pakistan. There has NEVER been a drone strike deep into Pakistan in the Swat region. As the original article states (but you left out) "U.S. officials say that drones have never struck targets in Swat."If you study drones you will know they don't attack in Swat and never have. She may have been burned by a Pakistani air force bomb. There were many Pakistani air force bombings in Swat.

  • Shayne McLaughlin||

    Very Poor Behavior by American Govt. 1000's of innocent people have been died because of this so called War on terror. I have a personal belief that do good have good. Americans are doing bad and at the end will things will end up like they have never imagined.

    And for the knowledge of People, that girls do not belongs to SWAT. She belongs to North Waziristan. So Please Correct it.

    I was actually looking for Minecraft Private Server but got here when I see the Photo. May GOD have Mercy on the innocent people of this World. Amen

  • Benny Kingston||

    Aaah Poor Child. But I think everyone is responsible for this things, The American Govt, Pakistan's Govt and Military forces.

    I am sure why everyone is silent on this issue of Terrorism. :( where is Human Rights Watch?

    Reiki Training

  • John B. McHugh||

    The America is behaving as the biggest protester of the terrorism but the are committing the drone attacks on the borders
    Jet Skis Rental

  • katebnelson||

    America is killing the innocent in the name of controlling terrorism
    -------------------------------
    Yin Yoga Training | Yin Yoga Schools

  • AsamDorepa||

    These attacks should be stopped as this is world opened terrorism to damage innocent people
    Links to it:link 1 and link 2

  • dolphschluter||

    The attacks should be stopped because these are creating violent emotions in the republic of Pakistan
    http://lavendeldockor.se/lantl.....minredning

  • garycarnay02||

    yes i agree with you Asam
    baignoire douche

  • markvolter||

    Obama is extracting armies from Afghanistan now because he has confirmed that its not possible to win now in Afghanistan
    cheap online clothing stores for women|online cheap clothing

  • AsamDorepa||

    Barack Obama is now following the same policies as the bush attempted he wants to be get kicked by the US public

    http://www.gouvernance-changem.....ssionnnels and as http://www.gouvernance-changem.....es-risques

  • raymondpollock||

    United Nations is only managing affairs of USA and is not anymore interested in managing international peace
    Zwemles

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement