Hypocrisy: While We Condemn Quran Burnings, Drone Strikes Continue Unchecked

[unhappycamper]

Hypocrisy: While We Condemn Quran Burnings, Drone Strikes Continue Unchecked
Al Jazeera / By Lamis Andoni

September 13, 2010 | Barack Obama, the US president, has warned that threats to burn the Quran are a sure and effective way to swell the ranks of al-Qaeda. This may be true, but largely because such symbolic acts of 'Islamophobia' are widely viewed as verifying the perception that the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with its backing of Israel, are motivated by its hostility towards Muslims.

The previously unheard of pastor of a small Florida church may have scrapped his plan to publicly burn hundreds of Qurans on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but the threat alone has done untold damage to the already troubled relationship between the Muslim world and the West.

The US government's reaction to the plan will not have gone unnoticed. But no matter how strong the words of condemnation, those on the receiving end of US occupation or air raids will be struck by the apparent inconsistency.

General David Petraeus, the US commander in Afghanistan, warned that burning the Quran could endanger the lives of US troops who might become the target of retribution. But why do Obama and Petraeus think that burning the Quran is any less civilized or more dangerous than their use of unmanned drones to target suspected Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters and the subsequent civilian casualties these attacks often entail?

Terry Jones, the pastor behind the planned Quran bonfire, may be insane, as some, including his own daughter, have suggested. But what excuse do sane and sophisticated people like Obama, Petraeus, and Robert Gates, the US secretary of defence, have?

[dkf]

1. Bingo. Islam = peace means we get out of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and leave Iran alone.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. You never miss a chance to insert your bigoted bullshit, do you?

[USArmyParatrooper]

2. That's not hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is when you tell others not to do something that you, yourself are doing. Neither of the three people you've mentioned have burned the Quran.

"But what excuse do sane and sophisticated people like Obama, Petraeus, and Robert Gates, the US secretary of defence, have?"

President Obama believes using military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is justified and the right thing to do.

Secretary Gates and GEN Patraeus probably believe the same, but either way they don't make decisions about when, where or how the military is utilized.

[unhappycamper]

3. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Pakistan dronings done by the CIA and contractors?

n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. It's definately done by the military

The CIA, possibly. Contractors - I doubt it. But if the latter is true I disagree with using contractors in that way.

[DoctorK]

5. We run an assassination policy.

The President is responsible regardless of whether it is the CIA or DoD pushing the button.

[USArmyParatrooper]

6. Do you have a problem with "assassinating" members of al-Qaeda?

[DoctorK]

7. considering the numbers of innocents

that have died in these missions, yes, I have a problem with them.

But that's not the only problem:

"The U.S. government has been sued for targeting a U.S. citizen without explaining how he meets the criteria of who may lawfully be killed as an enemy belligerent as part of the "war on terror." Yet the problem is not only the targeting of U.S. citizens. It is that the United States is engaged in a widely publicized program of targeting suspected combatants using unmanned aerial drones, often far from any proclaimed battlefield.

Whether this is legal depends not just on the citizenship of the target but on whether the individual is actually an enemy belligerent or a citizen directly participating in hostilities against the United States. International law does not permit the targeting of anyone who merely supports or promotes an enemy organization.

Using the CIA to secretly target suspected belligerents around the world, without a U.S. explanation of why this is legally justified, could backfire by helping al-Qaeda win many more new recruits than the United States can eliminate."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091104256.html

[USArmyParatrooper]

8. I'll address all of those

If killing civilians precludes us from taking military action then we no longer have the option to defend ourselves. It is literally impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties. Much more difficult still is fighting a war against an enemy who declines to wear a uniform and deliberately blends in with civilian populations.

If an American citizen joined the German army during WWII, would he no longer a legitimate target?

Al-Qaeda is not a conventional army and yet you expect US forces to fight them as if they are.

[DoctorK]

10. A Man for All Seasons

"Al-Qaeda is not a conventional army and yet you expect US forces to fight them as if they are."

Actually, it is you that expect to fight them like a conventional army, dropping bombs from on high and killing civilians in the process.
I believe the killing of civilians creates more AQ than it destroys, and is a counter-productive strategy in our 'war' with AQ.
A 'war' we fight to maintain our military presence in their countries, to prop up their corrupt Islamic Republics and monarchies.

"If an American citizen joined the German army during WWII, would he no longer a legitimate target?"

Americans did put on German uniforms. AQ is not a uniformed enemy (as you noted).
I want more than a presidential declaration that an American is 'the enemy' before he can have them killed.
By your logic the president has authority to declare YOU an enemy, and blow up your car on the highway, or send a missile into your house, apartment, etc.
Can you see how some people have a problem with that?


----
Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

[Luminous Animal]

11. In drone attacks, 10 civilians are killed for every terrorist.

To me, it looks more like a war on civilians than Al Qaeda. And yes, private contractors, hired by the CIA, are operating the drones.

[geek tragedy]

9. Stupid comparison. nt