# so what is redeeming about this drone strike stuff?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151 "2013-02-13T04:33:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/141 "2013-02-16T07:11:24Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Ah, missed this. I addressed each of your ridiculous claims in previous posts and noticed, with amusement, that you just ignored it. I note with even more amusement that you actually think I backpedaled on anything I said, when not only did I address that but pointed out you were merely trying to parse my words in an effort to make yourself look less foolish. 😛 Didn’t work man…sorry. It’s almost like you don’t realize that people can, you know, scroll up and see for themselves! It’s one of those hidden features that many people don’t know about. you’re actually just completely wrong, and i don’t consider you a legitimate contribution to the conversation. you said it’s too bad kids die, but “the war happened there.” this is not action of war. this is not part of military action. it is CIA action that allows more unilateral say-so without military oversight. the pentagon is not conducting these attackes. they literally have nothing to do with what happened in any of the actual declared wars. …meanwhile you said we aren’t even at war with anyone. so you both say kids die and that’s part of the deal, because “war happened in their country,” then in the same breath turn around and say we’re not even at war. you don’t make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/142 "2013-02-16T07:20:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You can voice whatever concerns you like. You don’t get to make up facts. Like that “ten-to-one civilian to militant kill ratio”. > > And who said USA Today is a credible source of information? The article I cited only reported on the study. You had problems for some reason with the original link, so I linked to a different reprint. USA Today didn’t conduct that study. Associated Press did. …what of the other studies? the CMC study? the Brookings institute study? you only want to discuss and validate the ones that support your dogma. 10-to-1 is the result of a study’s findings. you want to call it bullshit. all that can be determined is you arbitrarily decide which statistics are the legitimate ones and not just pretend the others don’t matter, but pretend i made them up. neither is true. what is true is you are inconsistent in what you debate. you have proven time and again you default to whatever portion of data best suits your POV, which was determined well before you ever even HEARD the rest of the data. dogma. not rational consideration of actual data. _and_ it’s always far-far-FAR right wing dogma. in every case you ever have EVER argued. you are a politically religious, at all costs, especially when it sacrifices intellectual consistency. you don’t care about the rationale, or the intellectual linearness. you simply care about what the most right-winged ideals are, and side with those. what data is most credible? why, the most right-winged data, of course. USAtoday is only credible if the article supports something you believe. otherwise it’s not. Obama is only careful if it supports a kill-policy of racial discrimination you can get behind as a WASP. the rest of the time he is a big fat fuck up who can’t do any single thing right. you don’t make sense, either. you and XT are nothing more than partisan. logic isn’t part of your buffet. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/143 "2013-02-16T07:42:07Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > obama is only careful if it supports a kill-policy of racial discrimination you can get behind as a wasp. rotflmao. “wasp”. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/144 "2013-02-16T07:48:51Z")
glad i amuse you. achievement! looking forward to your posts in july about the Zimmerman trial, too. if we could only drone-strike thuggish types. amiright? ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/145 "2013-02-16T09:44:57Z")
To be fair, all of the Obamabots support this policy since they will literally get behind murder/war crimes under their Obama-based ethical standard. And all sorts of races voted for Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/146 "2013-02-16T14:42:08Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > because of the multiple reasons given. the CIA runs this program and it absolves them from typical oversight. it allows a circumvention of law and order and judicial process. it allows them reprieve from standardized policy, for some crazy reason. it in essence legalizes unilateral, superlegal assassination. > > for some reason other programs are considered “military” and have oversight. this one, tho, in specific, lacks it. Judicial process is not part of war. The drone strikes are war. The CIA can carry out acts of war, they even have their own tactical divisions for this purpose. The CIA is _not_ a law-enforcement agency. > [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > the term actually alludes to a sort of lack of discrimination when deciding who to bomb, something more along the lines of “this is bad guy territory, so anyone there clearly is a bad guy” which means anyone who responds to the destruction is CLEARLY a bad guy by association of being on the premises. > > [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/cia-wants-to-use-ignature-strikes-against-terror-suspects-in-yemen/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/cia-wants-to-use-ignature-strikes-against-terror-suspects-in-yemen/) > > such strikes barely qualify as even legal. > > [New Article on the Legality of Signature Strikes - Opinio Juris](http://opiniojuris.org/2012/10/30/new-article-on-legality-of-signature-strikes/) > > such events allow them recourse to blow up rescuers, funerals, or american minor children of suspects. who are, again, not “guilty,” but merely "suspect. Do you read your own cites? From the first: > [@](#): > > The “signature strikes,” which have been used by the CIA in Pakistan for years, target locations where the agency’s intelligence sources identify suspicious behavior. From the second: > [@](#): > > The vast majority of drone attacks conducted by the U.S. have been signature strikes – those that target “groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known.” That’s why they are called “signature” strikes, they target behaviors and characteristics rather than identities (“personality” strikes). Double-tap strikes are another matter completely. > [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > this is not action of war. this is not part of military action. it is CIA action that allows more unilateral say-so without military oversight. Yes, it is. The strikes are carried out under the September 14, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. It is part of military action. > [@Condescending Robot](#): > > To be fair, all of the Obamabots support this policy since they will literally get behind murder/war crimes under their Obama-based ethical standard. And all sorts of races voted for Obama. Or, you can oppose the war effort, but recognize that the strikes are not illegal, and should be opposed on other grounds. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Made_French_Toast_For_You)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/147 "2013-02-16T16:24:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Or, you can oppose the war effort, but recognize that the strikes are not illegal, and should be opposed on other grounds. The strikes are legal as long as they target al-Quaeda, or associated groups working alongside al-Quaeda, _as long as those groups had something to do with 9/11_. If they did not have something to do with 9/11, it becomes assassination, which is illegal under US law. Because the targets are mostly secret, or without known identities (like the signature strikes you mentioned), there’s no way for the public (and maybe even the government) to know if they fall under the AUMF. The legality under international law is also suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/148 "2013-02-16T16:49:16Z")
> [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](#): > > The strikes are legal as long as they target al-Quaeda, or associated groups working alongside al-Quaeda, _as long as those groups had something to do with 9/11_. If they did not have something to do with 9/11, it becomes assassination, which is illegal under US law. Because the targets are mostly secret, or without known identities (like the signature strikes you mentioned), there’s no way for the public (and maybe even the government) to know if they fall under the AUMF. Right, legal targets are “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Note the “he [the President] determines” line, which empowers President to decide targets without any other process. The problem is the AUMF, much more than the drone tactics. > [@I Made French Toast For You](#): > > The legality under international law is also suspect. I will stipulate that the legality is disputed, though the argument that strikes are justified as self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. charter is persuasive. Objections might center upon [Part IV of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750065), which states: > [@](#): > > 1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. > > 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. > > 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. > > 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: > > (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; > > (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or > > (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. > > 1. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: > > (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and > > (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. > > 1. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. > > 2. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. > > 3. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. Can you make the case that the drone strikes violate this section? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@I\_Made\_French\_Toast\_For\_You](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Made_French_Toast_For_You)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/149 "2013-02-16T17:16:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you make the case that the drone strikes violate this section? Maybe. There have been documented strikes on funerals, schools, mosques and other public places where one can reasonably expect a high number of civilian casualties compared to the military aims, which could violate 5b. The double taps mentioned earlier might also violate 5b. Obama has labeled all military-aged males as “combatants”, which may violate number 2, if “combatants” are being targeted though they’re really just civilians. And while spreading terror isn’t the primary goal of drone strikes (which would violate 2), it’s certainly an effect. I’m not sure how these criteria are judged, though, or how the above examples compare to past violations. ---
**Author:** ![Mavis\_Topholese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@Mavis\_Topholese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mavis_Topholese)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/150 "2013-02-16T17:23:07Z")
Ya know, in spite of my username and my location I’m a middle-aged American guy. My whole life I’ve been watching people from the Middle East burn American flags, call America the “Great Satan”, and generally use my country as a whipping boy for their problems. Sure, I know they might have a grudge. Fine, whatever. But I’m supposed to get my panties in a bunch over some drone strikes? I don’t see them weeping over any of the terrorist attacks that have killed Americans. I don’t see them or their governments dealing with the scumbags and haters that live next door. I mean, literally, guy down the street, president of the Let’s Hate America Fan Club, goes door to door asking for money to build more dynamite vests so he can vaporize the Great Satan, you think that might be a guy to move the hell away from? A guy to marginalize, to put a lid on? Apparently not. The governments of the nations these people live in are unwilling or incapable of dealing with these people. It is actually the actual job of the American government to protect American lives and property, and part of that is finding these people and serving them with subpoenas and making sure they attend their court dates. And if that won’t work, then blowing them to itty bitty pieces. And if it’s a choice between sending in live Marines or a drone, I vote for the drone every time. What’s redeeming about drone strikes is that they save American lives. It would be great if we could figure out a way to do this that saved EVERYBODY’S lives, but apparently Americans are the only people in this equation that care enough about human life to even argue this point. It’s a question that nobody else in this game is even pretending to care about. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/151 "2013-02-16T19:42:44Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > … > > this is not action of war. this is not part of military action. it is CIA action that allows more unilateral say-so without military oversight. > > the pentagon is not conducting these attackes. > they literally have nothing to do with what happened in any of the actual declared wars. > > … This is not true. The Pentagon and CIA are carrying out the drone strikes. And more importantly, paramilitary groups like the CIA (which the CIA has become) must follow the same laws of war as the regular military. There’s no loophole. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/152 "2013-02-16T20:33:11Z")
> [@Mavis\_Topholese](#): > > Ya know, in spite of my username and my location I’m a middle-aged American guy. My whole life I’ve been watching people from the Middle East burn American flags, call America the “Great Satan”, and generally use my country as a whipping boy for their problems. Sure, I know they might have a grudge. Fine, whatever. Afghanistan and Pakistan are not in the Middle East. By the way, saying “all of those people over there act in this way so they deserve to die” is called “racism.” > [@](#): > > But I’m supposed to get my panties in a bunch over some drone strikes? I don’t see them weeping over any of the terrorist attacks that have killed Americans. I don’t see them or their governments dealing with the scumbags and haters that live next door. I mean, literally, guy down the street, president of the Let’s Hate America Fan Club, goes door to door asking for money to build more dynamite vests so he can vaporize the Great Satan, you think that might be a guy to move the hell away from? A guy to marginalize, to put a lid on? Apparently not. > > The governments of the nations these people live in are unwilling or incapable of dealing with these people. It is actually the actual job of the American government to protect American lives and property, and part of that is finding these people and serving them with subpoenas and making sure they attend their court dates. And if that won’t work, then blowing them to itty bitty pieces. > > And if it’s a choice between sending in live Marines or a drone, I vote for the drone every time. What’s redeeming about drone strikes is that they save American lives. It would be great if we could figure out a way to do this that saved EVERYBODY’S lives, but apparently Americans are the only people in this equation that care enough about human life to even argue this point. It’s a question that nobody else in this game is even pretending to care about. Thanks for the recycled horseshit talking points. No one in these countries is willing and able to carry out an attack on the U.S. and most of the people killed in the drone strikes are not even linked to these pathetic so-called “militant” groups that never posed a threat to begin with. The only person in this equation who is going to other countries and murdering their citizens is Barack Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/153 "2013-02-17T02:43:39Z")
> [@Mavis\_Topholese](#): > > What’s redeeming about drone strikes is that they save American lives. No, they don’t. Even if you don’t believe bombing funerals and first responders is terrorism in itself, it recruits terrorists. In Pakistan, the US leadership currently has a _92%_ disapproval rating. The Times Square bomber in 2010 explicitly called out the US murder of Pakistani women and children as a reason why he was willing to commit an act of terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Mavis\_Topholese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7feea3/32.png) [@Mavis\_Topholese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mavis_Topholese)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/154 "2013-02-17T16:48:12Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > No, they don’t. Even if you don’t believe bombing funerals and first responders is terrorism in itself, it recruits terrorists. In Pakistan, the US leadership currently has a _92%_ disapproval rating. The Times Square bomber in 2010 explicitly called out the US murder of Pakistani women and children as a reason why he was willing to commit an act of terrorism. Wow, the Pakistani people disapprove of the United States? Cry me a river. Maybe they should, I dunno, quit taking our money, and quit sheltering homicidal Muslim terrorists. If they could control their own borders, perhaps there wouldn’t be any drone strikes on their territory. But god forbid they should solve their own problems, it’s easier to let Uncle Sam do it and then complain afterwards. How dare you be so mean to me, Uncle Sam. Now give me more money. Oh no, some utterly insane lunatic claims drone strikes are the reason he’s attempting to bomb Times Square? Wow, I’m glad he brought that to everybody’s attention in such a thoughtful and rational way. I think we should seriously consider that our foreign policy might give utterly insane lunatics an excuse for mass murder, and adjust our foreign policy accordingly to only include actions that meet the approval of utterly insane lunatics. No, wait, I don’t think that at all. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/155 "2013-02-17T18:02:07Z")
Perhaps it would be more efficient and save precious bomb-funding dollars if we just established some sort of assembly line for killing all the Pakistanis, though? Maybe they could all be “concentrated” into some kind of “camp” system. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/156 "2013-02-17T18:57:32Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Perhaps it would be more efficient and save precious bomb-funding dollars if we just established some sort of assembly line for killing all the Pakistanis, though? Maybe they could all be “concentrated” into some kind of “camp” system. That depends on what your goal is, doesn’t it? If your goal is to kill terrorists in a country which provides support for those terrorists and does not have the will or the capability to capture them, then the drone system you are so opposed to is actually _more_ accurate and _less_ deadly to non-terrorists than your own concentration camp idea. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/157 "2013-02-17T20:28:06Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Perhaps it would be more efficient and save precious bomb-funding dollars if we just established some sort of assembly line for killing all the Pakistanis, though? Maybe they could all be “concentrated” into some kind of “camp” system. Godwin’s Law. Also, the fact that we are not randomly killing all Pakistanis is proof that we harbor no such intent. > [@](#): > > In Pakistan, the US leadership currently has a 92% disapproval rating. I did not realize the President’s job was to make people in Pakistan happy. I thought his job was to win the war and protect American lives. Pakistani-based militants are killing Americans every single day. A President who did not take action against them would be a pretty poor C-i-C. > [@](#): > > The Times Square bomber in 2010 explicitly called out the US murder of Pakistani women and children as a reason why he was willing to commit an act of terrorism. If you follow terrorist attacks long enough, you quickly realize that there is no difference between an attack in response to a specific event, and an attack that they were planning to carry out anyway just for giggles. > [@](#): > > Cry me a river. Maybe they should, I dunno, quit taking our money, and quit sheltering homicidal Muslim terrorists. If they could control their own borders, perhaps there wouldn’t be any drone strikes on their territory. But god forbid they should solve their own problems, it’s easier to let Uncle Sam do it and then complain afterwards. How dare you be so mean to me, Uncle Sam. Now give me more money. Absolutely right. Their own government refuses to protect them, but they cry when they suffer the obvious and foreseeable consequences for their actions. > [@](#): > > Thanks for the recycled horseshit talking points. The reason they are recycled is because they are true. > [@](#): > > No one in these countries is willing and able to carry out an attack on the U.S. and most of the people killed in the drone strikes are not even linked to these pathetic so-called “militant” groups that never posed a threat to begin with. Cite please. Last I heard, we were in a war with these people in a little place called Afghanistan that you may or may not have heard of. Afghanistan was also the headquarters for a pretty important international terrorist group that repeatedly attacked America. I’m sorry, but have you been living under a rock for the last 30 years? ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/158 "2013-02-17T20:38:00Z")
I’d also like to submit this to Occam’s Razor. What is the simpler explanation: 1. President Obama, who is the leader of a military engaged in America’s longest war, who possesses at his fingertips the sum total of all US and NATO intelligence, who has repeatedly demonstrated his concern for the perception of the US overseas and a limited desire for US military action, who in every other respect appears to be a pretty level-headed guy… That this person who I have described would choose to engage in the most inefficient form of genocide possible for no readily identifiable reason other than his own personal giggles. **OR** 1. His critics, who are mere spectators to the event, are wrong. Somehow I find (1) to be a lot more plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/159 "2013-02-18T00:21:30Z")
Yeah, another gussied up version of “Messiah Obama is infallible and I pledge him my life even when he commits murder/war crimes.” Yawn. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2013, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/160 "2013-02-18T11:03:16Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Yeah, another gussied up version of “Messiah Obama is infallible and I pledge him my life even when he commits murder/war crimes.” Yawn. Yes, if you doubt that Obama randomly targets schoolchildren that’s exactly the same thing as holding him up as a messiah. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151.md?page=9)