[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545134]I'd say [I]Anwar[/I] al-Awlaki (thanks for the correction, I screwed up) wasn't just an everyday citizen, and anyone who chose to hang out with him wasn't exactly an innocent bystander. He seemed to think it was all right for [I]him[/I] to solicit the murder of me or any of my countrymen. His name being on the hit list did make it to court before he was found and killed.
[/QUOTE]

"Chose to hang out with" is rather loose. Are we to assume any relatives including minor children of criminals are fair game? Is death by association the new jurisprudence? The allegations you bring forward were never proven in court and that's precisely the point many of us here are trying to make. The executive branch of the US has granted itself the power of judge jury and executioner and the court have gone along with it. Innocent people are dying as a result of these "mistakes". A very high percentage of drone strike victims are innocent - estimates range from 30-75%.

Can you dismiss them as "not exactly innocent bystanders"? If the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn't be so sanguine. You'd be calling it terrorism.

[QUOTE=garo;545168]
Can you dismiss them as "not exactly innocent bystanders"? If the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn't be so sanguine. You'd be calling it terrorism.[/QUOTE]
Indeed! ++

[QUOTE=garo;545168]"Chose to hang out with" is rather loose. Are we to assume any relatives including minor children of criminals are fair game?[/quote]
The folks in Anwar al-Awliki's immediate vicinity? Yes. He was an avowed enemy of my country. Anyone who chose to be with him knew he was in the crosshairs.

Others, such as his son, who was killed in a separate attack two weeks later, and those who were with [i]him[/i], not so much.

[quote]Innocent people are dying as a result of these "mistakes". A very high percentage of drone strike victims are innocent - estimates range from 30-75%.[/quote]And the victims of other, unrelated attacks, who you seem wont to lump together with the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, also not so much. A lot of victims of drone attacks (generally not US citizens, but all too often also undeserving of their fate) have died as the result of bad intelligence -- people reported as being terrorists, meeting at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time, weren't terrorists at all. Maybe some folks at a wedding party. Perhaps the person giving the intel was using the US military to settle a personal score. In such a case, their hands aren't clean, either.

[quote]Can you dismiss them as "not exactly innocent bystanders"? If the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn't be so sanguine. You'd be calling it terrorism.[/QUOTE]
As to calling the victims of intentional terrorist attacks like 9/11 "not exactly innocent victims," I leave that to the Ward Churchills of this world. (To him, and those of his ilk, financial advisors or whoever, working in an office building, are "little Eichmanns" who deserve to die when a hijacked jetliner crashes into the building.)

No declared wars. All lethal drone activity by the US is murder. We have no business in the dozens of countries where we have drones and special forces sneaking about.
Terrorism:
[LIST][*] n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.[*] n.
Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.[*] n.
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.[/LIST]Do you justify this international criminality? Also, do you understand the word "blowback"?

[QUOTE=kladner;545242]No declared wars. All lethal drone activity by the US is murder. We have no business in the dozens of countries where we have drones and special forces sneaking about.
Terrorism:
[LIST][*] n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.[*] n.
Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.[*] n.
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.[/LIST]Do you justify this international criminality? Also, do you understand the word "blowback"?[/QUOTE]Yes. It means Americans aren't human, just specters; disposable symbols of anything and everything you deem wrong with US policy. Don't like something the US government does? Then it's perfectly OK to target US civilians by the thousands. That's "blowback."

I note that "drone strikes" weren't even a thing when the 9/11 attacks happened. And yet, you're using them to excuse or justify 9/11. Oh, well, it must have been [i]something[/i]. Whatever bin Laden said. US policy is intrinsically evil, worthy of the Book of Revelation. The thousands of victims were Americans (at least most of them were), and therefore deserved to die. The non-Americans who were killed were just "collateral damage." At any rate, they weren't Islamic, or at least bin Laden's brand of Islam. And if they were, they went directly to Paradise. That's "blowback."

[url=https://www.wxyz.com/news/trump-threatens-to-withhold-michigan-funding-after-states-decision-to-mail-absentee-ballot-applications]Trump threatens to withhold Michigan funding after state's decision to mail absentee ballot applications[/url] (my emphasis) [quote](WXYZ) — President Trump is threatening to withhold funding for the State of Michigan after the recent announcement of mailing [b]applications to vote by mail[/b] to all registered voters.

All Michigan voters will get an application to vote by mail for August & November elections

On Tuesday, Michigan Secretary of State announced that all registered voters would receive absentee ballot applications in both the August Primary Election and November General Election.

Trump erroneously tweeted Wednesday morning that Michigan is [color=red][b]sending absentee ballots[/b][/color] to all registered voters.
<snip>
[quote]Breaking: Michigan [color=red][b]sends absentee ballots[/b][/color] to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Eection. This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 20, 2020[/quote]
<snip>[/quote]

The applications ([i]not[/i] ballots -- Geez! Rex was right!) were sent "Illegally and without authorization?" It's certainly not [i]Il Duce[/i]'s authorization to give. And even if every voter in Michigan decides to vote by mail, that's a matter for the Great State of Michigan, not the current occupant of the White House:

[quote]The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.[/quote] -- Article I, Section 4, paragraph 1, Constitution of the United States

The reason for the provision for Senators was that Article I, section 3 specified (my emphasis) that Senators were elected by State legislatures: [quote]The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, [b]chosen by the legislature thereof[/b] for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.[/quote]

This was superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment: [quote]The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545953][url=https://www.wxyz.com/news/trump-threatens-to-withhold-michigan-funding-after-states-decision-to-mail-absentee-ballot-applications]Trump threatens to withhold Michigan funding after state's decision to mail absentee ballot applications[/url] (my emphasis) [/QUOTE]So the fact that California will proactively send all registered voters a mail-in ballot should make him turn from orange to beet red.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;545956]So the fact that California will proactively send all registered voters a mail-in ballot should make him turn from orange to beet red.[/QUOTE]
A touch of apoplexy is so becoming in a national executive. :furious:

I expect Republicans to go to court to ensure that submitted absentee ballots are not counted with some argument about "enormous amount of fraud".

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;545943]Yes. It means Americans aren't human, just specters; disposable symbols of anything and everything you deem wrong with US policy. Don't like something the US government does? Then it's perfectly OK to target US civilians by the thousands. That's "blowback."

I note that "drone strikes" weren't even a thing when the 9/11 attacks happened. [B]And yet, you're using them to excuse or justify 9/11[/B]. Oh, well, it must have been [I]something[/I]. Whatever bin Laden said. US policy is intrinsically evil, worthy of the Book of Revelation. The thousands of victims were Americans (at least most of them were), and therefore deserved to die. The non-Americans who were killed were just "collateral damage." At any rate, they weren't Islamic, or at least bin Laden's brand of Islam. And if they were, they went directly to Paradise. That's "blowback."[/QUOTE]

So is your logic that 3,000 innocent civilians died in 2001 so that should give the US carte blanche to kill as many innocent civilians as it likes? For as long as it wants?

As regards Blowback, who trained Osama? Have a read of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback. The work that popularised the term. CIA History did not begin in 2001.

PS: The line in bold is slanderous and not becoming of you. You should retract the accusation.

Just on the history of armed drone deployment:
[QUOTE]The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator"]Predator RQ-1L[/URL] UAV (General Atomics) was the first deployed UAV to the [U]Balkans in 1995[/U] [U]Iraq in 1996[/U] and was proved very effective in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom"]Operation Iraqi Freedom[/URL] as well as Afghanistan. [/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#Battlefield_UAVs[/url]