Dead Children…

The tragedy of innocent children dying violently at the hands of a complete stranger should make us all sad.

And I am not talking about Newtown. I’m talking about Pakistan and Yemen.

You tell me how those children’s lives are worth less than the lives of the kids in Newtown.

There is no moral difference between the dead kids in Newtown and the dead kids in Pakistan and Yemen, except for the fact that your tax dollars directly paid to kill the brown kids — the brown kids were killed in your name.

17 Responses to Dead Children…

  1. CPlatt says:

    I think it’s rooted in old tribal behavior. Killing young boys in another clan was traditionally a smart thing to do, to reduce the risk of them growing up and grabbing our food and women. But if someone in our clan started killing our own kids, that was unthinkable. Now of course we are too civilized to think in these terms today, so, people just avoid thinking about those foreign kids.

    I have been called a racist for complaining about the Obama policy on drone strikes. After all, George W. Bush started it.

    • MKC says:

      I think biology could be a considerable secret factor. More, though, I think it’s rooted in old fashioned intellectual dishonesty.

  2. yjohn says:

    Okay … being as this is a multicultural country, I think the implications of “brown children” being killed by our foreign policy as implying racism are inaccurate. Were any of the children killed in Newtown brown? Probably. It has nothing to do with skin color. It isn’t as if US foreign policy has never killed white people without just cause — for example, tens of thousands of German troops deliberately starved to death while confined after WWII. (These were just ordinary troops, not concentration camp guards.)

    Here is the practical matter as I see it. Kids in Newtown have parents who can vote in US elections and kids in Pakistan don’t. Kids in Newtown have parents who contribute to campaigns and work for companies who contribute to campaigns, but kids in Pakistan don’t.

    Our government has absolutely no compulsion about killing the voiceless when they can get away with it — just look up project MK Ultra. Its a function of voicelessness, not race.

  3. yjohn says:

    I meant compunction, not compulsion.

  4. Zack says:

    Went to the link.

    As to the video at the link: didn’t see any evidence of children killed by U.S. drones strikes. Plenty of pictures of kids, a kid being carried away from an explosion, sure…. but no evidence whatsoever that that kid was injured, let alone dead… or even that the explosion was caused by an American drone.

    As to the article and the accompanying report: read it, and checked out the accompanying links. No photographic evidence there either, and their claims seem to be entirely based on the people there saying “Oh, sure, Totally! I had seventeen thousand kids down there that died. Oh, what’s that, secondary explosions? There were no secondary explosions, that was an orphanage that cares for aids babies. The milk is explosive.” Point being, that people down there can, and probably have, lied. To what extent, I don’t know.

    Point being that, given the numbers being claimed, that not one solid piece of video/audio evidence seems to exist that I saw at the links. We have more video evidence of big foot existing than we do of children being killed by drone strikes.

    And even if you accept those claims as true, which I’m not prepared to do, this is the key point:

    “In North Waziristan, extended families often live together in compounds that contain several homes, often constructed with mud. Most compounds includea hujra, which is the main gathering room for men and the area in whichmale family members entertain visitors. The hujra is often in close proximityto buildings reserved exclusively for women and children.”

    Meaning, essentially, they are- deliberately or accidentally- using women and children as human shields. War is hell, but the people we’re killing are command and control assets to the enemy. Collateral damage should be minimized, but is to be expected. We shouldn’t have to let terrorists walk free just because they’re keeping their wives and children around them 24/7. It sucks that the kids have to be punished for the father’s (or, to be fair, the mother’s) sins, but it’s the fault of the terrorists. Not us. We weren’t the ones who struck first. Nor were we the ones who decided to bunch up the terrorists and their families. Both of those decisions are on their heads.

    I understand that their lives can be shitty over there, that they already have a lot of challenges to deal with, not the least of which are poverty, disease, and hunger, particularly out there in the more desertish part of pakistan. But for America there are only four real options. Special forces, drone strikes, playing on the defensive, or war with pakistan. The fourth is distateful- pakistan is a functioning democracy and so we don’t want to disrupt that. The third is wrong- we shouldn’t have to play defensively just because we’re bigger. The first one is prohibitively expensive, can cost American lives, and isn’t guaranteed to decrease collateral damage any further, and might even increase it. So, like it or not, drone strikes are by far the best alternative we have to take down terrorist targets in that region.

    • Don’t forget : they probably weren’t even kids, they were just tiny jihaadis, grown in vats in Southern Fuckistan by the terrorists. They can do anything, those terrorists.

      And : they probably weren’t even brown, they were just white kids playing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Or : if they grew up, they’d just be terrorists. (That’s my personal favourite).

      What about : It’s their own fault, if they let a gunman point a gun at their head and let them stay in the house, they get what they deserve. I know what I’d do if some towelhead came and pointed his rusty toy gun at me, I’d just [insert ridiculous hyper-ninja disarming move] and show him how we roll in the good ol’ U S of A. Pussy.

      Heard ’em all before. What they don’t show are the soldiers who have to apologise afterwards, some of them with tears of shame in their eyes.

  5. Zack says:

    Last thing I’m gonna say about it:

    I was browsing around a little bit, and I discovered that there’s evidence that drone strikes work in saving the lives of U.S. soldiers involving the work of a political scientist from Stanford and a political scientist from the RAND corporation.

    Click to access drones.pdf

  6. blueollie says:

    The difference is intention. If some US soldier went out in town and shot civilians point blank, he’d be tried for murder.

    But yes, those kids are as valuable as our own kids and that is why war completely sucks.

    PS as horrible as the drone strikes are, conventional bombings, military attacks, etc. are even worse in terms of numbers of innocents killed.

  7. Bob says:

    Marc, thank you for standing up for the kids of Yemen and Pakistan. I am not, however, in any way responsible for their deaths nor did they die in my name simply because I am forcibly extorted (pay taxes) by the people who call themselves “government”.

%d bloggers like this: