That is the language of people coping with an ugly job.

we should all feel sorry for them..

That's putting murder in a rather strange way. So, if someone thousands of miles away were to unleash a missile that killed your spouse and children, you'd just accept it because they were just doing their "ugly job," right?

who uses women and children as living shields.

Those ordering the murders and pulling the trigger are just po' po', guiltless, innocent victims, FORCED to kill children.

from the US Government to murder civilians using the drone program.

Collateral damage.

Look it up.

... the ol' "prove some nonsense I just dreamed up" of I'll claim victory ploy.

Cool story, bro.

The "proof" is in the mutilated bodies of the children the program you seem to support has left behind and the intense hatred of our nation because of it.

You're okay with killing children, I'm not. That's the difference between you and I.


Please proceed.

Sounds like more woo to me.

Children blown to pieces in our name "sounds like woo" to you?


That is perhaps, one of the most inhuman things I have ever read on this site. I think I'll have to put you on ignore now, your devaluing of human life, is to be blunt, rather disturbing.

This isn't really all that complicated...

They have approved the practice. And we have already had ghoulish posts here attempting apologism for this depravity.

Purposely aiming bombs at children: "It kind of opens our aperture."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931748

The US Military Approves Bombing Children
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021930268

"Some Afghan kids aren’t bystanders"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931789

They just don't give a fuck if they DO. Therein lies the problem, don't you think?

using precision weaponry kind of tell us they do give some sort of a fuck.

Who does that?

not the job, the job is merely psychopathic in nature and has no feeling.

Mid 20th century taught us that those with similar "jobs" in death camps were far from blameless for "just following orders" so coping with being a murderer is not likely to illicit the sympathy you feel the murderers deserve. A Sociopathic lack of human empathy is all that is required to turn children into bits and mist and the callous way they refer to their victims as bugs makes perfect sense for a sociopath in love with his job, so no, it is not really a "coping" technique so much as ugly humor.

A case might be made that the SS officers in the CIA ordering the rendered flesh at their pleasure are perhaps slightly more reprehensible, but the muscle hired to do the bloody work are still heartless murderers.

and plenty of orders for more accurate technologies to reduce the collateral damage.

Whereas, Intentionally killing civilians is the enemy's M.O.

How long has it been since you lost your soul?

I consider the failure to submit an official policy or order of the United States to execute children as tacit admission of defeat in this argument.

And I appreciate your humble candor.

...oh yeah, "sorry about that"

A goodly portion continue to enlist over and over again. They own part of this too. Do you check your brain in at the door when you pick up a uniform?

the evil that is done in our name and with our tax dollars.

Just like all the CIA torturers were.

Under the "move forward doctrine" of decriminalizing the worst possible crimes.

Unless charges are brought while the crime is in process there is no law broken under this doctrine devised by our constitutional scholar and chief.

Unless you steal a loaf of bread! That can always be prosecuted after the crime.

I don't outright blame the operators, I think in my opinion I'm more like to blame the whole MIC for this.

Heartless in some ways.

until he sees the actual results, a little girl in the operating room - and even then it still has to be pointed out it doesn't matter to her which "side" did it

True, it's basic premise is a dime a dozen "think of the children!" cliche, but you can tell that the author really got into writing the prose. I mean, "death eroticism"? Brilliant! Because everyone knows that sex is evil, claim that drone operators aren't just killing people, they're doing it purely for the perverse sexual thrill of it! Outrage ho!

Dialing down the sarcasm, let me point out some logical flaws in this plan: At the very start, drone operators are called "muderous sociopaths" meaning that they are incapable of empathy, which if true would mean that this entire stunt is utterly pointless.
Second: What are the odds that a drone strike will take place in the vicinity of the project? Maybe a few doing recon might spot it, but more would probably see it on the news than on duty.
Third: If a drone operator fully believes that the building he's targeting is inhabited by terrorists, it wouldn't make a difference even if it were right next to the project.

Note that I make no argument about drones themselves here. That's because the people who push this sort of stunt obviously have no interest in an honest discussion of the pros and cons of drones. It's all about eliciting an unthinking emotional reaction.

There are no "pros" to it. This is obscene terrorism of millions of civilians, even if they are not killed.

The military are doing this because they don't have to declare an official war on Yemen, which nobody would accept. Once again it's a proxy war. A cowardly war, with too much collateral damage.

A large part of the goal is that they get a good workout for the drones and the robotic subhumans operating them.

It needs to be said.

http://natsec.newamerica.net/drones/yemen/analysis
-------------------------

Yemen Strike Totals
108
total strikes

775 - 1018
total killed

81 - 87
civilians killed

663 - 881
militants killed

31 - 50
unknown killed

The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about covert U.S. drone and air strikes (e.g. cruise missiles) in Yemen in the absence of any such transparency on the part of the American government. This data was collected from credible news reports and is presented here with the relevant sources.

It was updated with information from the latest Yemen strike, which occurred on April 21, 2014.

Throughout the history of the program, there have been 15 air strikes and 93 drone strikes in Yemen. With the exception of the first lethal drone strike in Yemen in 2002, all of them have been launched during the Obama administration.

-------------------------
This is the bottom line: Civilians killed, children killed, "unknowns" killed, wrongly suspected killed, and literally millions terrorized:

DRONES = IMMORAL, BARBARIC
DRONES = FAILURE
DRONES =

Well, compared to those more traditional sorts of weapons, drones seem quite limited in comparison. Of course the death of innocents in these attacks is tragic and terrible. But as you say this does not seem to be a discussion of drones compared to other, much more indiscriminate types of weapons used against civilian populations. (Honestly, as a medievalist, I have stated that impaling villagers on pikes and swords, pouring boiling oil on them, etc is hardly more "humane" than using drones or shelling attacks or anything else. I have never quite understood the argument that because drones are guided by computer that they are less "humane" than say stabbing villagers with one's long sword)

for truth

but maybe there are a few who haven't:

Confessions of a Drone Warrior
He was an experiment, really. One of the first recruits for a new kind of warfare in which men and machines merge. He flew multiple missions, but he never left his computer. He hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar. He stalked and killed countless people, but could not always tell you precisely what he was hitting. Meet the 21st-century American killing machine. who's still utterly, terrifyingly human

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone-uav-pilot-assassination?currentPage=1

Excerpt:

"By 2011, Bryant had logged nearly 6,000 hours of flight time, flown hundreds of missions, targeted hundreds of enemies. He was in what he describes as “a fugue state of mind.” At the entrance to his flight headquarters in Clovis, in front of a large bulletin board, plastered with photographs of targets like al-Awlaki, he looked up at the faces and asked: “What motherfucker’s gonna die today?”

It seemed like someone else’s voice was speaking, some dark alter ego. “I knew I had to get out.”

By the spring of 2011, almost six years after he’d signed on, Senior Airman Brandon Bryant left the Air Force, turning down a $109,000 bonus to keep flying. He was presented with a sort of scorecard covering his squadron’s missions. “They gave me a list of achievements,” he says. “Enemies killed, enemies captured, high-value targets killed or captured, stuff like that.” He called it his diploma. He hadn’t lased the target or pulled the trigger on all of the deaths tallied, but by flying in the missions he felt he had enabled them. “The number,” he says, “made me sick to my stomach.”

Total enemies killed in action: 1,626."