• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 12:55 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar



It was 5 years ago today 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was murdered by his own government by drone strike in Yemen. There was no reported terrorist activity in the area, and no explanation to why the drone strike took place. The white house's only acknowledgement of the drone strike is that it was a mistake

I highly recommend reading this article written by Abdulrahman's grandfather ->http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/op...-grandson.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NAVrjy2Mww
Last edited by KRod-57; 10-15-2016 at 12:58 AM.
TrumanBurbank
Member
(10-15-2016, 12:58 AM)
TrumanBurbank's Avatar
Kid should have never gone back home.
knight123
Junior Member
(10-15-2016, 01:01 AM)

Originally Posted by TrumanBurbank

Kid should have never gone back home.

Sure, blame a kid visiting his homeland instead of the government that murdered him.
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 01:35 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by TrumanBurbank

Kid should have never gone back home.

Originally Posted by knight123

Sure, blame a kid visiting his homeland instead of the government that murdered him.

He was living with his grandparents
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 04:52 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar
Also, in regards to him going "back home"

His home was the US, he was born in Colorado, he was an American. He was in Yemen because he had to live with his grandparents. Regardless, him being in Yemen certainly didn't warrant him being killed by his own government.
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(10-15-2016, 04:59 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar
Assassination is a deliberate and targeted action. This looks like a mistake however you slice it. Unless you're suggesting the US wanted to kill this specific teenager?

Drone strikes and mistakes are a nightmarish web of geopolitics and the balance of intervention, legality and morality, but unless you're saying this kid was specifically targeted for execution, then it's simply the wrong word. Murder, kill, manslaughter, etc. Lots of more accurate terms.

I'm not splitting hairs or semantics, it's important to the discussion. That word isn't used once in the article and it's going to color this thread. There are plenty of other images you could use.
andythinkpad
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:04 AM)
andythinkpad's Avatar
Drone is the future. As soon as the current corps of Air Force generals are retired, the entire Air Force will go unmanned.

I support Obama's drone program.
evil solrac v3.0
(10-15-2016, 05:13 AM)
evil solrac v3.0's Avatar

Originally Posted by andythinkpad

Drone is the future. As soon as the current corps of Air Force generals are retired, the entire Air Force will go unmanned.

I support Obama's drone program.

with Russia and China making noise I'm not so sure. besides can we truly call them unmanned? they are currently still being controlled by a human being even if they are far away right? how far away are we from autonomous jets?
numble
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:13 AM)
numble's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Assassination is a deliberate and targeted action. This looks like a mistake however you slice it. Unless you're suggesting the US wanted to kill this specific teenager?

Drone strikes and mistakes are a nightmarish web of geopolitics and the balance of intervention, legality and morality, but unless you're saying this kid was specifically targeted for execution, then it's simply the wrong word. Murder, kill, manslaughter, etc. Lots of more accurate terms.

I'm not splitting hairs or semantics, it's important to the discussion. That word isn't used once in the article and it's going to color this thread. There are plenty of other images you could use.

Drone strikes are deliberate and targeted actions. If we can agree that the main targets of drone strikes are assassinated, I don't think there is an issue with expanding it to cover the "collateral damage" of drone strikes. The government officially uses the terms "collateral damage" and "enemy combatants" as euphemisms on their end of the spectrum, I think it is fine to use "assassination" on the other end of the spectrum.
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:15 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Assassination is a deliberate and targeted action. This looks like a mistake however you slice it. Unless you're suggesting the US wanted to kill this specific teenager?

Drone strikes and mistakes are a nightmarish web of geopolitics and the balance of intervention, legality and morality, but unless you're saying this kid was specifically targeted for execution, then it's simply the wrong word. Murder, kill, manslaughter, etc. Lots of more accurate terms.

I'm not splitting hairs or semantics, it's important to the discussion. That word isn't used once in the article and it's going to color this thread. There are plenty of other images you could use.

Assassination is the word used in the image I posted in the OP, but it is not my own choice of word. His father was most definitely assassinated, but more importantly he was assassinated without ever being formally charged. Note that even Osama Bin Laden was formally charged of his crimes

We have a law in the US that says the government must say what your charges are when they arrest you.. the same should apply for when they decide to kill you. The lack of due process is a red flag that must be addressed, especially when it comes to life and death.

It is this lack of due process which lead to the mistake which killed Abdulrahman. This is a mistake that someone must be held accountable for, if I were to ignore the laws in my car and drive 50mph over the speed limit and "accidentally" kill an innocent person, I would be held legally accountable.

The same should apply when the US government breaks its own laws and ignores due process. Neither Abdulrahman nor his father were ever formally charged of any crime.. they were simply killed. I also must stress that while Abdulrahman's father was a bad guy, he is still entitled to due process

As for Abdulrahman, he was not a bad guy, and his death was a completely separate drone strike from the one that killed his father. The federal government should explain why the drone strike that killed Abdulrahman happened, and the person (or persons) responsible for the mistake should be held accountable
Elfforkusu
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:19 AM)
Elfforkusu's Avatar
I understand the technical reason we call them "drone strikes", but these are bombings.

The USG, for the people, by the people, of the people, dropped a bomb on one of its people's heads for no good reason. How is this okay if the FBI bombing your apartment isn't?
bonesmccoy
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:23 AM)
bonesmccoy's Avatar
OP, good on you for making this thread.

Originally Posted by Elfforkusu

I understand the technical reason we call them "drone strikes", but these are bombings.

The USG, for the people, by the people, of the people, dropped a bomb on one of its people's heads for no good reason. How is this okay if the FBI bombing your apartment isn't?

'Drone strike' is a euphemism designed to make these attacks appear far more precise and less lethal than they really are. 'Smart bombs' for the 21st Century.
TheSeks
Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
(10-15-2016, 05:26 AM)
TheSeks's Avatar

Originally Posted by andythinkpad

I support Obama's drone program.

Hope your ready for long-range terrorism, then. (New York Times article is down, so you'll have to deal with this link) Once ISIS/et. al. get their hands on drones like the military, what makes you think they won't use them in a similar strike like this "mistake" on a civilian?
Pamplemousse
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:27 AM)
Pamplemousse's Avatar

Originally Posted by KRod-57

The same should apply when the US government breaks its own laws and ignores due process. Neither Abdulrahman nor his father were ever formally charged of any crime.. they were simply killed. I also must stress that while Abdulrahman's father was a bad guy, he is still entitled to due process

As for Abdulrahman, he was not a bad guy, and his death was a completely separate drone strike from the one that killed his father. The federal government should explain why the drone strike that killed Abdulrahman happened, and the person (or persons) responsible for the mistake should be held accountable

His father was a key figure in Al-Qaeda. I have a feeling most Americans, myself included, have no issue with Anwar being killed despite not having any charges.

As for his son, his death would be classified as collateral damage. He was not the intended target of the strike.
ginger ninja
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:28 AM)
ginger ninja's Avatar
You make it sound like governments killing their own people(intentionally and unintentionally) is a rarity. It's been going on since the dawn of nation states if not earlier and it will still be happening 100 years from now.
andythinkpad
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:28 AM)
andythinkpad's Avatar

Originally Posted by evil solrac v3.0

with Russia and China making noise I'm not so sure. besides can we truly call them unmanned? they are currently still being controlled by a human being even if they are far away right? how far away are we from autonomous jets?


With remote control you can switch pilot and fly way longer than an manned plane. And I am pretty sure drone strikes require multtiple chain of command approval before the polit fire the missile.

Also they prefer to call them UAV, not Drones. Doesn't matter though, in 30-50 years they will all be called fighter jets.
antonz
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:30 AM)
antonz's Avatar
Obama administration were complete shitbags regarding this situation. Lets remember the official White House response was "Maybe he (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) should've had a more responsible father."

Kid was murdered by the Obama administration while eating dinner at a restaurant. There is no excuse and it is not acceptable at all what happened.
collige
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:35 AM)
collige's Avatar

Originally Posted by ginger ninja

You make it sound like governments killing their own people(intentionally and unintentionally) is a rarity. It's been going on since the dawn of nation states if not earlier and it will still be happening 100 years from now.

That's not really a defense.
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:35 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by Pamplemousse

His father was a key figure in Al-Qaeda. I have a feeling most Americans, myself included, have no issue with Anwar being killed despite not having any charges.

As for his son, his death would be classified as collateral damage. He was not the intended target of the strike.

Osama Bin Laden was a key figure of Al-Qaeda, and he was formally charged of his crimes (note that Anwar al-Awlaki never actually killed anyone). When you remove due process from the equation, you get mistakes like the one that killed Abdulrahman. More than this, you open the door for some serious corruption, where the government can accuse you of anything, and sense there is no due process you never get the opportunity to show you are innocent

As for why Abdulrahman was killed, that has never been specified. There are no reports to show any suspected terrorists were in the area, all we know is the strike was a mistake.
Last edited by KRod-57; 10-15-2016 at 05:38 AM.
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:35 AM)
JHoNNy1OoO's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheSeks

Hope your ready for long-range terrorism, then. (New York Times article is down, so you'll have to deal with this link) Once ISIS/et. al. get their hands on drones like the military, what makes you think they won't use them in a similar strike like this "mistake" on a civilian?

And? Terrorists will use whatever they can to inflict terror. You think they play by any rules? If we don't use drones they won't?

We should have strict protocols but intelligence and drones are the best we got.
andythinkpad
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:36 AM)
andythinkpad's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheSeks

Hope your ready for long-range terrorism, then. (New York Times article is down, so you'll have to deal with this link) Once ISIS/et. al. get their hands on drones like the military, what makes you think they won't use them in a similar strike like this "mistake" on a civilian?

How do terrorist acquire satelite links to control the military drones? It's a lot easier for the terrorist to get a dirty bomb than getting control of the drone. In fact, US and Israel can and have already tapped into the drone feeds of middle eastern countries.

You beat the terrorist by lean on more and more advanced technology where US has dominant technology monopoly.

Don't confused a Predator with some hobbist DJI drone controlled by wifi just becuase they are all called "drones."
Last edited by andythinkpad; 10-15-2016 at 05:38 AM.
Mega Caprison
Junior Member
(10-15-2016, 05:37 AM)
Mega Caprison's Avatar

Originally Posted by TrumanBurbank

Kid should have never gone back home.

Are you for real???
Toxi
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:40 AM)
Toxi's Avatar

Originally Posted by ginger ninja

You make it sound like governments killing their own people(intentionally and unintentionally) is a rarity. It's been going on since the dawn of nation states if not earlier and it will still be happening 100 years from now.

"Everyone's been doing it forever" is not an acceptable excuse for killing him.

Neither is "Oops, our bad".
Psychoward
Banned
(10-15-2016, 05:43 AM)
Every time I start to like Obama or Hillary I remember their stance on drones and feel guilty.
Minus_Me
Member
(10-15-2016, 05:56 AM)
Minus_Me's Avatar
Always worth bringing this up for people who haven't seen it.

The Drone Papers
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:11 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by Minus_Me

Always worth bringing this up for people who haven't seen it.

The Drone Papers

I am aware of the drone papers, I am aware that 9 out of 10 people killed are not the intended target, and I am aware that the US government's policy is to recognize every military aged male killed in the strike zone as an enemy combatant until it can be proven otherwise. It's messed up

I also know at one point the federal government attempted to lie about Abdulrahman's age and say he was of military age... so in the end who knows how many civilians they've killed
bigboss370
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:22 AM)
bigboss370's Avatar
its pretty much because of situations like this and obama's drone policies why i can never get behind the obama hype.
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(10-15-2016, 06:26 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by numble

Drone strikes are deliberate and targeted actions. If we can agree that the main targets of drone strikes are assassinated, I don't think there is an issue with expanding it to cover the "collateral damage" of drone strikes. The government officially uses the terms "collateral damage" and "enemy combatants" as euphemisms on their end of the spectrum, I think it is fine to use "assassination" on the other end of the spectrum.

We can't agree because he was not the main target. If you don't think indiscriminate and collateral deaths are an important distinction then this conversation is going to be needlessly complex. It's not like I'm "pro" collateral damage.
CrocMother
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:30 AM)
CrocMother's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

We can't agree because he was not the main target. If you don't think indiscriminate and collateral deaths are an important distinction then this conversation is going to be needlessly complex. It's not like I'm "pro" collateral damage.

Why are you assuming he wasn't the target?
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(10-15-2016, 06:36 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by CrocMother

Why are you assuming he wasn't the target?

Because it is startlingly obvious his father was.
numble
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:41 AM)
numble's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Because it is startlingly obvious his father was.

His father was killed two weeks prior to his death...
Toxi
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:43 AM)
Toxi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Because it is startlingly obvious his father was.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's father was killed weeks before he was. So it's not startlingly obvious unless you're implying his father was a time traveler.
numble
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:44 AM)
numble's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

We can't agree because he was not the main target. If you don't think indiscriminate and collateral deaths are an important distinction then this conversation is going to be needlessly complex. It's not like I'm "pro" collateral damage.

When they label them as enemy combatants without verification, it may not be indiscriminate killing, but it is certainly closer to indiscriminate killing than collateral deaths. People are "pro" killing enemy combatants, because that's what the target of a drone strike is in the first place.
Kthulhu
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:53 AM)
Kthulhu's Avatar

Originally Posted by PsychoWARD23

Every time I start to like Obama or Hillary I remember their stance on drones and feel guilty.

Same. Drone strikes that kill civilians need to be covered more often.

We need to stop tolerating this attitude.
MisterFalcon
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:53 AM)
MisterFalcon's Avatar

Originally Posted by numble

When they label them as enemy combatants without verification, it may not be indiscriminate killing, but it is certainly closer to indiscriminate killing than collateral deaths. People are "pro" killing enemy combatants, because that's what the target of a drone strike is in the first place.

What is more likely, that a convoy of trucks carrying a senior Al Qaeda member is full of random civilians they gave a ride or AQ fighters ?
Toxi
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:56 AM)
Toxi's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterFalcon

What is more likely, that a convoy of trucks carrying a senior Al Qaeda member is full of random civilians they gave a ride or AQ fighters ?

The problem with this logic is it assumes Al Qaeda members only interact with other Al Qaeda members.
Last edited by Toxi; 10-15-2016 at 06:59 AM.
numble
Member
(10-15-2016, 06:59 AM)
numble's Avatar

Originally Posted by MisterFalcon

What is more likely, that a convoy of trucks carrying a senior Al Qaeda member is full of random civilians they gave a ride or AQ fighters ?

If they bomb a restaurant because a suspected target is there, is it likely that everyone in there are enemy combatants? When they bombed the restaurant that this kid was in, the initial classification of the dead were "enemy killed in action", I believe.
Last edited by numble; 10-15-2016 at 07:06 AM.
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(10-15-2016, 07:01 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by numble

His father was killed two weeks prior to his death...

I'm honestly assuming they were going after adult associates or they literally tried to kill him twice and that's the nature of the uncharacteristic admission of"mistake" with a suspicious lack of details.
numble
Member
(10-15-2016, 07:06 AM)
numble's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

I'm honestly assuming they were going after adult associates or they literally tried to kill him twice and that's the nature of the uncharacteristic admission of"mistake" with a suspicious lack of details.

They announced Anwar's death the month before, with a statement from President Obama:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ki-killed.html

No way it is "startling obvious" that they tried to kill him again after verifying his death at the highest level. At first, the White House Press Secretary seemed to blame his death on his father.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...erican/264028/

ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

Last edited by numble; 10-15-2016 at 07:09 AM.
Stinkles
Clothed, sober, cooperative
(10-15-2016, 07:09 AM)
Stinkles's Avatar

Originally Posted by numble

They announced Anwar's death the month before, with a statement from President Obama:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ki-killed.html

No way it is "startling obvious" that they tried to kill him again after verifying his death at the highest level. At first, the White House Press Secretary seemed to blame his death on his father.

Indeed. I might be wrong. But I'd be shocked. And I'll obviously keep watching this. And as I said I believe they were going for adult associates.
gogosox82
Member
(10-15-2016, 07:39 AM)
gogosox82's Avatar
Thanks for the link op. I'll read later. This is why I cannot get behind Obama like most people. This drone program and what constitutes an enemy combatant is deeply troubling. They didn't even charge either al-Awlaki, just killed both of them like it was no big deal that they just murdered an american citizen with no due process.
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 09:19 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Because it is startlingly obvious his father was.

You are wrong, his father was killed in a completely different location on a completely different month. He was not with his father when he was killed, his father was already dead

Originally Posted by Stinkles

I'm honestly assuming they were going after adult associates or they literally tried to kill him twice and that's the nature of the uncharacteristic admission of"mistake" with a suspicious lack of details.

Your assumption is wrong, his father was killed on September 30th of 2011, Abdulrahman was killed on October 14th of that year in a different location. It was known that Anwar was already dead, the reports were everywhere, and Abdulrahman had already contacted his grandparents addressing his father's death (PLEASE read the article in the OP)

Originally Posted by Stinkles

Indeed. I might be wrong. But I'd be shocked. And I'll obviously keep watching this. And as I said I believe they were going for adult associates.

This is not a maybe scenario, Anwar was not the intended target that killed his son.. he was already dead. Also, there was no reported terrorist activity or suspected terrorists in the area, we have yet to receive an explanation for why the drone strike took place. All we know is it was a mistake
Last edited by KRod-57; 10-15-2016 at 09:40 AM.
Striek
Member
(10-15-2016, 09:23 AM)
Striek's Avatar
The usage of drones by the US is as evil as any terrorism act, really, its a sign of the times how politically acceptable they are.
Mental Atrophy
Banned
(10-15-2016, 09:25 AM)

Originally Posted by andythinkpad

Drone is the future. As soon as the current corps of Air Force generals are retired, the entire Air Force will go unmanned.

I support Obama's drone program.

Improbable. There are still a lot of technological obstacles to overcome, particularly with control links. It's already costly to lose the drones we have, but eating the expense of a modern, manned fighter or bomber with that kind of regularity would be too much. It will happen eventually, but not soon.
hobblygobbly
Member
(10-15-2016, 09:42 AM)
hobblygobbly's Avatar

Originally Posted by andythinkpad

Drone is the future. As soon as the current corps of Air Force generals are retired, the entire Air Force will go unmanned.

I support Obama's drone program.

The problem is that the drone program is riddled with bad policy. The signature strike policy is abhorrent and indefensible. Using drones to engage in war with confirmed targets is completely different than a policy that allows drone usage to kill anyone they want without requiring confirmation of the target, they don't need to prove they're a militant, they don't need intel, etc, the policy is designed for this.

When people criticise the Obama administration of drones it's not the inherent drones themselves, but how they're used. If you are a man (well, actually teenagers and up) in a conflict zone you have a target on your back constantly and because of this there are so many civilian casualties as well.

This is all carried out by the CIA. The CIA is engaging in targeted killing of people in countries where they don't even need any confirmation, it's not defensible. This is how it has led to the U.S bombing convoys, because they have the "signature" of militant convoys, such as funeral or wedding convoys.

The entire signature strike policy is people being being profiled in their own damn country by a foreign power, and then without confirming anything about them, can be assassinated by the CIA. To make it worse, the U.S isn't even at war in places the drones are used, such as Yemen. It's a bad policy, and I remember Obama in his early years saying he wanted to make this process more transparent but never did (since he inherited from Bush), he doubled down on the policy and exacerbated it.
Last edited by hobblygobbly; 10-15-2016 at 09:48 AM.
Ishan
Junior Member
(10-15-2016, 09:46 AM)
Ishan's Avatar

Originally Posted by bonesmccoy

OP, good on you for making this thread.



'Drone strike' is a euphemism designed to make these attacks appear far more precise and less lethal than they really are. 'Smart bombs' for the 21st Century.

Only someone with a sub 50 iq would think a drone strike isn't a bombing . It is just as a covert strike is a limited military personnel action . And yes I personally am very in favour of drone strikes and covert actions as opposed to a full fledged invasion . The collateral damage is way way worse otherwise, this truly is pick the lesser evil . Unless you're of the opinion no action is needed apart from police or Interpol action well then that's a whole other discussion . And quite naive IMO .
Ishan
Junior Member
(10-15-2016, 09:52 AM)
Ishan's Avatar

Originally Posted by hobblygobbly

The problem is that the drone program is riddled with bad policy. The signature strike policy is abhorrent and indefensible. Using drones to engage in war with confirmed targets is completely different than a policy that allows drone usage to kill anyone they want without requiring confirmation of the target, they don't need to prove they're a militant, they don't need intel, etc.

When people criticise the Obama administration of drones it's not the inherent drones themselves, but how they're used. If you are a man (well, actually teenagers and up) in a conflict zone you have a target on your back constantly and because of this there are so many civilian casualties as well.

This is all carried out by the CIA. The CIA is engaging in targeted killing of people in countries where they don't even need any confirmation, it's not defensible. This is how it has led to the U.S bombing convoys, because they have the "signature" of militant convoys, such as funeral or wedding convoys.

The entire signature strike policy is people being being profiled in their own damn country by a foreign power, and then without confirming anything about them, can be assassinated by the CIA. To make it worse, the U.S isn't even at war in places the drones are used, such as Yemen. It's a bad policy, and I remember Obama in his early years saying he wanted to make this process more transparent but never did (since he inherited from Bush), he doubled down on the policy and exacerbated it.

Confirmation on targets which are drone targets is very hard . Even the strike on Osama himself wasn't guaranteed . Now if you want to limit any action unless you have say 95% confirmation sure I'll agree with that but then say you go from a 0.1 percent chance of a foreign terrorism strike on us soil to maybe a 1 percent (now I'm throwing the numbers randomly ) but the fact remains you allow much more leeway one way you allow leeway the other . It's a pick your poison choice. Civils rights wise easy choice innocent until proved . War wise easy war is war you fight . Terrorism wise now were are in completely grey territory .
stat84
Member
(10-15-2016, 10:04 AM)
stat84's Avatar
Not the first or the last time someone innocent has been killed by mistake and nobody paid for it
scamander
Member
(10-15-2016, 10:19 AM)
scamander's Avatar
What's so special about this case in comparison to the countless other innocent victims of the US foreign policy in the last 15 years? That he was American? Is the life of an American more precious than that of other people? Is the US government not bound to basic ethics regarding people from other countries and only hold accountable if the fatality has been one of their own?
KRod-57
Member
(10-15-2016, 10:56 AM)
KRod-57's Avatar

Originally Posted by scamander

What's so special about this case in comparison to the countless other innocent victims of the US foreign policy in the last 15 years? That he was American? Is the life of an American more precious than that of other people? Is the US government not bound to basic ethics regarding people from other countries and only hold accountable if the fatality has been one of their own?

An American life is definitely not more important than the civilians killed everywhere else by our foreign policy, and I will be one of the first people to tell you that the US's foreign policy is abysmal. As I mentioned earlier, we have a drone policy that says any military aged males killed in the strike zone are recognized as enemy combatants until it can be proven otherwise.. so there's no telling how man civilians we have killed, and through Abdulrahman's death we have been able to prove that the US government makes attempts to lie about the age of those killed in our drone strikes.

In the case of Abdulrahman, it could be proven he was younger than what the US government was claiming through his American birth certificate.

I made this thread about Abdulrahman's death for two reasons, 1 being the day I posted this was the anniversary of the day he was killed, and 2 being how this incident in particular effects us internally and externally. It is an issue that brings attention to both our unjust foreign policy, as well as our loss of due process. Prolonged war tends to have this effect on a country, in the US's earlier history it was the alien and sedition act, in modern times it is the patriot act and the war on terror

I apologize if you felt I was implying that an American life is more important than the life of an innocent life elsewhere. Believe me when I say that I am appalled by the innocent lives lost everywhere we are dropping bombs, be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, or Syria.

I don't feel our foreign policy will change any time soon, so I feel I am left to express my frustrations to the internet. My hopes are that some day enough people will get pissed to make a real difference

Thread Tools