Drones

#NotABugSplat: Art Installation in Pakistan Puts a Face on Drone Victims

|

notabugsplat.com

A sobering and commendable art installation in Pakistan puts a face on the victims of U.S. drone attacks. The giant portrait, installed in Pakistan's heavily bombed Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa region, features a child who lost both her parents and two siblings in a Predator drone attack.

"Now, when viewed by a drone camera, what an operator sees on his screen is not an anonymous dot on the landscape, but an innocent child victim's face," the #NotABugSplat website states.

The installation, created by a group of artists in collaboration with Reprieve/Foundation for Fundamental Rights, gets its name from what is apparently/incredibly military slang for drone kills. It aims "to challenge this insensitivity as well as raise awareness of civilian casualties."

The #NotABugSplat portrait can also be captured by satellites "in order to make it a permanent part of the landscape on online mapping sites," its creators note.

Since 2004, U.S. drone strikes have killed an estimated 2,537 to 3,646 people in Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. At least 416 and possibly almost 1,000 were civilians, including 168 to 200 children. 

Advertisement

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle: The Case for Knife Rights

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.

  1. Who is (or was) the girl in the picture?

    -jcr

    1. A Pakistani kid whose family was killed in drone strikes. No name identified.

      1. Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

  2. apparently/incredibly military slang

    Apparently, sure.

    Incredibly, no.

    Do you know any veterans? Soldiers have been using dehumanizing language to emotionally deflect from the ugliness of what they do probably since the beginning of language.

    The drone strikes are horrible. The language is typical.

    1. This. Sadly, they have to use these sorts of more dehumanizing terms since any reference to race is considered an act of transgression more morally suspect than actual murder.

      1. I suspect it’s also probably easier to fire if you don’t consider the targets to be humans.

    2. Calling drone operators “soldiers” is extremely disrespectful to soldiers. Especially when they’re CIA drone operators.

  3. Perhaps places like Pakistan the faces of the innocent their own establishment kills.

    1. …What? This statement does not make sense. Can you restate, please?

    2. Are you having a stroke or something?

  4. Our resident assholes never show up for these stories.

    1. Oh, nevermind.

  5. How come they waited until Obama was president to start doing this?

    Racism? Or something worse than racism?

    1. The use of drones was exponentially expanded under the Obama administration. It wasn’t used at this level under Bush. In all honesty it would have caused a moral outrage in America. Bush got enough flak for water-boarding terrorist in Guantanamo Bay; I couldn’t imagine the response would have been if he was the one killing non-combatants outside of a warzone.

  6. Do these people plan to put up the faces of the innocent Afghans that have been murdered by bombs build in Pakistan? If people in Pakistan were not building bombs there and using them on innocent Afghanistanis, there wouldn’t be any drone strikes in Pakistan.

    Maybe Pakistan should have a beef with the people who are using their country to wage war in Afghanistan. I am quite sure the people dying in Afghanistan feel just as bad about dying and just as strongly against the people who murdered them as the people in Pakistan do.

    1. How exactly is that relevant?

      1. As a conservative, John is duty bound to defend everything the military does. Even if it means tossing a red herring into the debate.

        1. If this is a red herring, then the people in Mexico murdered by drug gangs created by our drug laws are not relevant to the debate here. Bullshit.

          These people didn’t get killed because the drone fairy came down. They died because there is a war in Afghanistan that is being waged from Pakistani soil.

          You guys love blowback and talking about how the US got what was coming to it on 911. Yet, you pretend that Pakistan waging war on Afghanistan is just a red herring when talking about people killed in Pakistan by drone strikes.

          The cognitive dissonance burns.

          1. You guys love blowback and talking about how the US got what was coming to it on 911.

            Um, no. I don’t know of anyone who said 911 was deserved. Only that it was provoked. Not the same thing. If you go around poking people in the chest and someone strikes you in the head with a baseball bat, did you deserve it? No. Did you provoke it? Yes.
            Can you see the difference, or shall I call you Red Tony?

            1. You just think it was the result of US actions overseas and the causality of those actions to 911 is relevant.

              The same thing is true here. These people died because Pakistan is waging war on Afghanistan. If US actions overseas are relevant when talking about 911, then Pakistan’s waging war on Afghanistan is relevant when talking about these deaths.

              I just put it in harsh terms. In the end though, the whole point of “blow back” is to say that 911 was the result of wrongful US actions, which is pretty much saying we got what was coming to us, though you would never use such words.

              1. which is pretty much saying we got what was coming to us

                No. Saying we got what was coming to us is saying it was deserved. I said it was provoked.

                though you would never use such words.

                That’s right. Because words mean things. Deserved does not mean provoked, which is why I say provoked instead of deserved.

                Whatever, Red Tony.

                1. ITT, sarc deflects from the points he cannot counter.

                  1. ITT, sarc deflects from the points he cannot counter.

                    I’m sick of being accused of condoning 911 by people who are so irrational about the subject that they can’t understand that provoke does not mean deserve, dumbass.

              2. If US actions overseas are relevant when talking about 911, then Pakistan’s waging war on Afghanistan is relevant when talking about these deaths.

                First of all, Pakistan isn’t wagin war on Afghanistan, the Taliban is. Second, maybe, uhm, that’s Afghanistan’s fucking problem.

                1. First of all, Pakistan isn’t wagin war on Afghanistan, the Taliban is.

                  WITH FULL SUPPORT FROM PAKISTAN.

                  Sarc: you see that’s the deflection I’m talking about. You can’t address the FACT that Pakistan is the aggressor in this situation, so we get a fairytale about how the US provoked it all.

                  1. WITH FULL SUPPORT FROM PAKISTAN.

                    Yeah, yeah, yeah, the ISI, blah, blah, blah. Perhaps we should stop sending millions (billions?) of dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan then. And while we’re at it, perhaps we should let Afghanistan fight their own fucking war. Let the two backwards third world shitholes destroy each other. It’ll be fun, like watching a couple of retards fight over a piece of cake. And if “the terrorists” attack us again, we’ll nuke that bridge when we get there.

              3. So, John, if you see someone getting robbed on the street and you go confront the robber and he knocks you on the head with a baseball bat is the person who points out that you wouldn’t have gotten hit on the head with the bat had you not tried to heroically intervene saying that you got what you deserved, or merely pointing out a simple matter of fact?

                I just don’t understand how you can keep saying this shit after people have corrected you over and over. It is quite possible to take actions that are perfectly withing your rights and perfectly reasonable that might expose you to retaliation nonetheless. Pointing out that fact is not blaming the victim.

                Saying that US policy had something to do with 911 happening is not saying we got what we had coming. It doesn’t exclude that possibility, but it does not imply it either.

                1. Saying that US policy had something to do with 911 happening is not saying we got what we had coming. It doesn’t exclude that possibility, but it does not imply it either.

                  What it implies is that 9/11 was caused by US military action when it was really inaction ie not invading Afghanistan after AQ declared war on America and not invading Iran after 1980.

                  1. Why do AQ and Iran hate America?

                    (I’ll give you a hint. It’s not because of our freedoms.)

                  2. Why do AQ and Iran hate America?

                    (I’ll give you a hint. It’s not because of our freedoms.)

                    1. Damn 3 o’clock squirrels. Foiled again.

                    2. Actually they’ve made it crystal clear that it is in fact because of our freedoms. See Danish cartoons, Rushdie.

                  3. What it implies is that 9/11 was caused by US military action when it was really inaction ie not invading Afghanistan after AQ declared war on America and not invading Iran after 1980.

                    Oh, bullshit. For all you or anyone knows that would have just made 911 happen sooner. How many people are really needed to pull that off? 50 maybe, if that.

                    You can’t make the world safe. And your contention that more force faster would make anything better is far from obviously true.

          2. “…the US got what was coming to it on 911.”

            Yes, this is totally what guys like sarcasmic argue.

      2. It is relevant because it is a bit rich for Pakistan to complain about drone strikes but then not say a word about what people in Pakistan are doing to Afghanistan.

        You would never find such a point irrelevent if it involved the US rather than lovable brown people. Imagine if the US were allowing radical Mexicans to set up shop in Arizona and they were setting off bombs in market places and murdering thousands of civilians.

        If the US then started whinning about all of our people killed in Mexican drone strikes trying to stop this, no way in hell would you not come back and say “what about the people in Mexico that people in your country are killing?”

        You only don’t do that here because for whatever reason you can’t hold anyone but the United States to any standard of behavior. The people in Afghanistan didn’t die at the hands of the US, so they can go fuck themselves I guess.

        1. Yeah, that’s right Red Tony. If you are against US drone policy, you therefore hate Afghani children and love Pakestani terrorist.

          One cannot be against US drone strikes and at the same time be against Pakistani terrorists. Its IMPOSSIBLE!!!!11!!1

          1. Like maybe the Pakistanis shouldn’t be bombing Afghan children, and the US shouldn’t be droning Pakistani children?

            Nah! The Pakistanis did it first! Look! A group of people! Can’t tell that they’re not terrorists! Missile away! Bug splat! Awesome!

            1. Well maybe if we can, ya know, frighten the people there enough with random seeming bombings and death eventually they will change their behavior to suit our desires.

          2. Yeah, that’s right Red Tony. If you are against US drone policy, you therefore hate Afghani children and love Pakestani terrorist.

            No. You are just an idiot who thinks Afghanistan and by extension the US has no right to defend itself.

            This is like putting up pictures of German children killed in US bombings and never mentioning that there is a war going on. Fuck you if you don’t like being reminded of facts that don’t fit your narrative.

            And last I looked Obama is doing the drone strikes and he is Team Blue. If I were Red Tony, I would be on here agreeing with your dumb ass because it was good to embarrass Team Blue. Instead, I am taking the same view I always have taken regardless of whether it involves defending Obama or that.

            That would be because I actually think about these issues. You should try it some time rather than just emoting. Or at least try being smart enough to get your insults right.

            1. If I were Red Tony, I would be on here agreeing with your dumb ass because it was good to embarrass Team Blue.

              No. Because part of being a good conservative is defending absolutely everything the military does, regardless of which team is in power.

            2. “You are just an idiot who thinks Afghanistan and by extension the US has no right to defend itself.”

              Yeah, that’s totally what I think. BTW, I think it’s awesom that you sort of gloss over the “by extension” part. As if its totally a given the the defense of Afghanistan is the US’s responsibility.

              “This is like putting up pictures of German children killed in US bombings and never mentioning that there is a war going on.”

              I guess that would depend on the circumstances. If the US was lining of German children and shooting every 3rd child, maybe that would be cause for outrage. In this case, the US appears to be bombing wedding parties and declaring the dead factually guilty.

              “And last I looked Obama is doing the drone strikes and he is Team Blue. If I were Red Tony, I would be on here agreeing with your dumb ass because it was good to embarrass Team Blue.”

              You mean like Bill Kristal? He?s team blue?

              “That would be because I actually think about these issues.”

              Clearly you’ve thought long and hard about these issues given your black and white world view.

              1. Yeah, that’s totally what I think. BTW, I think it’s awesom that you sort of gloss over the “by extension” part. As if its totally a given the the defense of Afghanistan is the US’s responsibility.

                That is exactly what you think. There is no way that Afghanistan can fight people who hide in civilian populations without killing a few civilians. So when you say drone strikes are wrong and should be stopped because civilians die, you are saying that Afghanistan can’t defend itself because the only way it can is to try to kill the people who are attacking it and that involves killing civilians sadly.

                And the by extension the US is not about whether we should be or not. The point is that it doesn’t matter whether the Afghans are doing it or the US is doing it for them. In either case, the people who wage war by hiding in civilian populations are the ones responsible for the civilian deaths here not the party that is defending itself be that Afghanistan or the US.

                You and sarcasimic are so stupid and emotional about this topic you have stopped thinking about it. You are just emoting and shouting insults. You are frankly not worthy of even responding to. It is only my optimism that since you can figure out other things you might figure this out that causes me not to let your bullshit just stand unchallenged.

                1. “That is exactly what you think. There is no way that Afghanistan can fight people who hide in civilian populations without killing a few civilians. So when you say drone strikes are wrong and should be stopped because civilians die, you are saying that Afghanistan can’t defend itself because the only way it can is to try to kill the people who are attacking it and that involves killing civilians sadly.”

                  Classic Red Tony. Shitting all over a thread by telling others what they do and don’t think. Whether Afghanistan has a right to defend itself (of course it does) says nothing about the morality of the current US drone policy in Pakistan (and other parts of the world for that matter). To someone like you who has clearly thought long and hard about this issue, the nuance can seem confusing.

                2. Provoked does not mean deserved. Why can’t you understand that, John?

                  Why must you repeatedly accuse me of condoning 911, even when I make it clear that that is not the case?

                  Provoked does not mean deserved, yet you willfully conflate the two on this issue.

                  Why is that?

                  Is it because of the conservative narrative that states that it is unpossible that that attack could have been provoked, because our military is wonderful and can do no wrong?

                  Look at yourself for a moment. You are making false accusations in order to justify the conservative narrative.

                  If anyone is being stupid and emotional here, it’s you.

        2. Imagine if the US were allowing radical Mexicans miscellaneous radicals from assorted other countries to set up shop in Arizona and they were setting off bombs in market places and murdering thousands of civilians [in Mexico].

          If the US then started whinning (sic) about all of our people killed in Mexican drone strikes carried out on Mexico’s behalf by some third party on the other side of the world trying to stop this, no way in hell would you not come back and say “what about the people in Mexico that people in your country are killing?”

          FTFY. Now the analogy at least makes a little more sense.

      3. Because that’s the larger picture, or part of it. Pakistan houses terrorists who hide among civilians and attack civilians in Pakistan and elsewhere. It’s a violation of the Geneva Convention in numerous ways, including the rule that combatants who hide among civilians are considered responsible for any harm that comes to those civilians when the combatants are attacked.

        I have no doubt innocents have been killed by drones, but who knows how many are innocent? It’s standard practice of terrorists to disguise themselves as civilians, and when they are killed, it’s also standard practice to claim they were never anything other than civilians. Every terrorist conclave, after it’s attacked, becomes a “wedding party.”

        And if terrorists bring their families with them, well, whose fault is that? Why should a terrorist get to protect himself by surrounding himself with his “innocent” family?

        The terrorists intentionally created this situation.

        1. Exactly Papaya.

          The created this situation for the exact reason that they knew that they could get people like MP and Sarcasmic to make fighting back a crime and the US solely responsible for these deaths.

          1. Keep flogging that strawman, Red Tony.

            1. “I can’t argue against his point-I’ll call it a strawman.”

              1. Good god, is there something broken in your brain that makes it so you can’t see any nuance on this?

                There is a quite obvious strawman there: that anyone here is saying that fighting back is a crime.

                Whether or not it is justified or necessary to national security, people with brains and a bit of humanity can reflect on the awfulness of innocent deaths even in the most good and necessary war. You are just terrified of anything that might interfere with keeping your war boner hard.

                1. No what terrifies me is that a large chunk of what should be America’s future political vanguard can’t pull its ass out on an issue where it is so wrong they have to resort to BROWN BABIEZ emotional diarrhoea to argue a debate they lost for good reason.

                  1. Explain to me again how droning goat herders on the other side of the globe keeps me safe.

                    1. Because those goat herders are helping terrorists who, a while back, killed thousands of Americans on the other side of the globe.

                    2. We haven’t had another 911 because of better cockpit doors and passenger awareness that such a thing is a possibility, not because we drone people in Pakistan (even assuming that they are all bad guys, which is pretty clearly not the case).

                    3. We haven’t had another 911 because of better cockpit doors and passenger awareness that such a thing is a possibility, not because we drone people in Pakistan

                      A million times this. All it took to hijack a plane was a handful of crazies and some box-cutters. You’d have to severely depopulate the Middle east before you made a significant dent in the supply of either. It’s just not a viable strategy.

                    4. Yeah, that particular barn door was locked pretty thoroughly after that horse was gone. But terrorists have made several mass attacks since, some successful (London, Madrid, Mumbai) and some not.

        2. The terrorists intentionally created this situation.

          By “terrorists” one means Pakistan’s own intelligence service, which has been offering aid and succor to bloodthirsty Islamic murders since the country’s inception.

          1. Should I end up in Hell, I expect to see most of the ISI there ahead of me.

            1. It is unbelievable the shenanigans the ISI has been able to get away with. We embargo Cuba merely out of a sense of tradition at this point, but not only do we dump billions of dollars, unconditionally, into Pakistan. Pakistan, a country that not only has an unwritten, but completely understood MoA of mutual self-defense with China, but a country whose government has actively, knowingly, and consistently worked against efforts to curb Islamist influence in the area.

              Madness.

              1. True, the ISI is complicit in all this.

          2. Maybe so. But the bottom line is that if people were not using Pakistan as a base to kill Afghans, there wouldn’t be any drone strikes. And moreover, if terrorists didn’t use civilians as human shields by hiding amongst them, if there were drone strikes, a lot fewer innocent people would be getting killed.

            Do you understand that perhaps someone other than the US could be guilty of bad behavior? And moreover, don’t you understand that by making the US the villain here you are just telling every terrorist organization in the world that the way to fight a war is to hide in the civilian population such that your enemies will have to kill civilians and allow you to blame them for the deaths?

            1. Then explain the drone deaths in Yemen. Are they using Yemen as a base got attacks against Afghanistan and “by extension” the US?

              1. Yes-but directly not ‘by extension’.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C….._bomb_plot

          3. True that, and American aid for Pakistan is the real disgrace, not the completely justified and rational drone campaign.

        3. including the rule that combatants who hide among civilians are considered responsible for any harm that comes to those civilians when the combatants are attacked

          How exactly does that work? If a GI takes off his uniform and goes out for a beer, then everyone in the bar is fair game? How large of an area per hidden GI can be carpet bombed?

  7. I rarely post political BS on FB. But THIS is worth it. These are real fucking human lives that our Government and The Messiah don’t rightly give a fuck about in the name of swinging our dick in the face of the threat of terrorism.

    And there’s not a single shred of evidence that it accomplishes a damn thing.

    1. What about the people killed in Afghanistan. Do they not count? Are they not people?

      Take the US out of it. What if Afghanistan was doing this, would you still be angry? If not, why not? Its the same people and they are just as dead. Doesn’t Afghanistan have a right to defend itself or are they just supposed to die and do nothing about it?

      People in Pakistan every day build bombs, take them to Afghanistan and do shit like explode them in schools or open air markets, set girls who go to school on fire and then run back to Pakistan for safe harbor. Yet, no one gives a flying fuck about the people they kill. No one will be putting any facebook posts up for those dead people.

      1. Squirrels ate my post.

        Shorter answer…can’t I be outraged about both? Why does being outraged about drone collateral damage obligate me to opine on evil everywhere?

        1. Shorter answer…can’t I be outraged about both?

        2. Because our military can do no wrong. It is absolutely impossible. Therefore this has to be the fault of someone else, like Pakistan. By bombing Afghans they are murdering their own children. Well, not really, but by saying that our military is absolved of any responsibility.

          1. God you are an idiot. I never said anything like that. Are you so fucking stupid that you can’t understand the logic that says when people hide in civilian populations and wage war that they bear the responsibility for the resulting civilian deaths?

            What do you think that Afghanistan should do? How can they fight back if the rule is they can never kill a civilian even accidentally?

            You people are so stupid on this you have broken the Reason squirrels with your idiocy.

            1. They guy who doesn’t understand the distinction between deserve and provoke is calling me stupid?

              I thought Tony was the only distinction-challenged person here.

              1. yes sarcasmic, you are stupid. And if you are not, then you tell me how you fight people who use human shields without killing the shields.

                1. Not all the civilians being killed are human shields, John. There have been quite a few civilian-killing strikes based upon shady intel or sheer carelessness. I know that’s part of war, but come on can’t they be a little more careful? Before you know it they’re going to degenerate into cops.

                  1. Sure Sarcasmic. And if you tell me that Obama is out of control and is not being sufficiently careful in the drone war, I would say you are probably right. And he bears responsibility for that. But that doesn’t mean the idiots we are fighting don’t as well.

                    1. But that doesn’t mean the idiots we are fighting don’t as well.

                      Who the fuck said they didn’t? Nobody.

                      You’re the one who insists that it’s all their fault. 100%. Because conservative doctrine states that you may not criticize our military in any way.

                      Therefore you, as a conservative, must deflect.

                      Then you call us stupid.

                      Rich. Very rich.

            2. Afghanistan could declare war on Pakistan and request international support, thereby making the drone attacks more palatable as an actual act of war…in a war. But we’re doing their dirty work while dumping billions into Pakistan’s defense and intel services.

              And eat hawks like you would be free to volunteer to fight along with the Afghans.

            3. I love that sarcasmic uses strawmen as he accuses you of using strawman. That is so him. He is such a clever dumbass.

              1. I love that sarcasmic uses strawmen

                Show me a single instance where John or any other conservative has criticized the military in any way.

                You can’t.

                Because it doesn’t exist.

                It violates conservative doctrine.

                Might as well be blasphemy.

                1. It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

                  1. It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

                    It is very relevant when the subject of the discussion is the US drones killing children, and one party in the discussion is incapable of any criticism of the military.

                    1. Nope. That does not address the point. Red flag, 10 min penalty.

                    2. So you admit it’s not a strawman, deflect again by calling it irrelevant, and finally resort to an inane sports analogy.

                      Whatever. Keep stroking that war boner. Just make sure to point it away from me when you blow your load.

          2. Nobody is claiming our military can do no wrong. All wars are messy. But we are not, AFAIK, intentionally targeting civilians. We are targeting terrorists who intentionally target civilians, and then hide among them. As I said above, the Geneva Convention is pretty clear on this.

      2. Doesn’t Afghanistan have a right to defend itself or are they just supposed to die and do nothing about it?

        Absolutely. So why don’t they? Oh yeah, because they don’t have to because we’ll do it for them.

    2. These are real fucking human lives that our Government and The Messiah don’t rightly give a fuck about

      Damn right. The USG does not even have a right to give any fucks about ‘foreign lives’. They are only allowed to be concerned about protecting the rights of Americans.

      And there’s not a single shred of evidence that it accomplishes a damn thing.

      Lies.

  8. Rand Paul Thinks We Invaded Iraq Because Of Dick Cheney’s Connection To Halliburton
    In the wake of a war of words where former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed a concern there’s an “increasing strain of isolationism” among the Republicans considering entering the 2016 presidential race, Mother Jones’ David Corn unearthed vintage footage of one of the likely GOP White House hopefuls, Sen. Rand Paul, accusing Cheney of supporting the Iraq War to make money….

    1. Well, he has shriek’s vote now…

  9. Why is some kid so important? What about adults?

    /Ted S.

    1. 168 to 200 children trump thousands of adults – they might very well have been just as innocent, but when you are appealing to emoshunz… forget the adults, go with kids.

      I wish the Pakistani government had been sincere in their desire to not have teh dronz blowing up people in the border area.

  10. The kid’s got a grenade! Launch a missile!

  11. ” Bad call? These people are dead, Burke! Don’t you have any idea what you’ve done here? “

  12. “Bug Splat” is actually the term used for a bomb or missile’s fragmentation pattern. When they test ordnance, the measure/calculate this dispersion of fragments under various conditions (fusing, direction of travel, etc.) and this enables the weapon to be most effectively employed. Typically the pattern is irregularly shaped, hence the term “bug splat”. I have never heard it used to refer to a person killed by ordnance, but that is not saying it has not been used that way.

    Also, as I understand, the drone campaign over Afghanistan is run by a three letter agency, and not the military. This is academic to the people being wantonly bombed, but for the sake of accuracy, it is important.

    1. I had never heard anyone military use “bugsplat” – in Afghanistan or Iraq

      I had only the tiniest dealings with the CIA or NSA and that was in Afghanistan only. So I cannot begin to say what they call casualties.

  13. A sobering and commendable art installation in Pakistan would be a statue of Daniel Pearl, standing tall, proud and defiant, in the center of downtown Karachi.

    1. Yes, but they’d probably decapitate that, too.

  14. I’m not going to hold my breathe for similar pictures of victims of Pakistani Islamist violence.

    Actually, that’s what these (emotionally manipulative) pictures really are: pictures of people killed in a war started and maintained by Islamists.

    1. Actually, that’s what these (emotionally manipulative) pictures really are

      What’s emotionally manipulative about the picture? Do you break down and sob when you pass a school crossing?

      1. No but it seems the peacenazis here do-or at least expect me to base US foreign policy on an emotional reaction to them, which is beyond absurd.

  15. As an avid and happy supporter of the (non-CIA) drone strikes, I declare victory. When your opponent is down to using big picture of brown babiez, it’s because they have nothing else. They’re bankrupt and they probably know it deep down but don’t want to admit it. Just like when Michael Moore holds up photos of the NRA’s ‘victims’. Thanks assholes from a foundation I never heard of before: it’s good to know I’ve been right all along.

    1. Yeah, Hitler won because…Holocaust Museum. Derp

      1. That is some prime derp you’re serving there CYP. More glorious vindication for me.

        1. More glorious vindication for me.

          Vindication for what? An irrelevant internet opinion?

          oh wait…

          No but it seems the peacenazis here do-or at least expect me to base US foreign policy on an emotional reaction to them

          ummm…nobody is going to call you on the red phone.

          1. What are you even saying man? Never mind.

    2. When your opponent is down to using big picture of brown babiez, it’s because they have nothing else.

      Dude, think about what you are saying. Some people resort to such cheap tactics, of course. But do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is of one mind and that the use of pics of brown babies means that that is all that anyone has left? That is clearly not the case.

      You may well be right. I don’t think so, but it’s a debate that we could have if you would stop tilting at windmills and actually engage with the smarter people who disagree with you.

  16. I would use it for target practice to piss them off. That thing is just trolling for flames.

  17. You wouldn’t like me as a hostage “rescuer”, because I’d use the opp’ty to demonstrate my ruthlessness. I would target the hostages 1st. I would try for a head shot just to show the hostage-taker it was no accident. The hostage-taker’s own head would then explode without my having to shoot it.

  18. Sadly, shaming has no effect on those who have no heart.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.