Friday, June 01, 2012

Airhead Strike


I didn't think David Sirota could get any more melodramatically alarmist or comically self-important.

I was wrong.

Salon: Please Don't Kill Me, Obama: Why I Created a Petition for the President To Create a "Do Not Kill" List, and Why You Should Sign It/5.31.12

Get it? You should sign it because at any moment the President of the United States is going to order a Reaper drone to put two missiles into your Starbucks while you're ordering your non-fat chai or command Seal Team Six to take you out in your recliner in front of the TV. Hurry! You have to protect yourself!

Is there some way we can surreptitiously erase Sirota's name from his own "do not kill" list?

It's a start.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Isn't Salon just a hub for melodramatic journalists, such as the likes of David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald? Just askin'

- Tony

Chez said...

There are a lot of good people there but, yes, it also plays host to the likes of Sirota and Greenwald -- two-thirds of the condescending divas who make up the far-left Supremes (the third being Jane Hamsher over at FDL).

Marc McKenzie said...

Jesus....to think, years ago, I used to like Sirota. Now he's turned into damned drama queen.

Of course Obama will not put his name on a "kill list"! Good Christ, are these people really that paranoid?

Steven D Skelton said...

I love the Do Not Kill petition. I signed it too.

I thought it was funny way of pointing out that it's terribly inconsistent of the president to apologize repeatedly to the world about enhanced interrogation only to later decide he has the authority to drop a bomb on anyone he chooses...regardless of their proximity to a war zone.

Apparently, Sirota is serious about it.

wow!

Villemar said...

Move over Birthers...here come the Droners!

Mart said...

They are in our skies now for surveillance. There will be mission creep. Won't be long before some bad guy driving 120 MPH to get away is taken out from the sky for the safety of others. It will be a cool video and local police will all want there own drone or two. It is as inevitable as after giving every officer a tasser, a guy in a wheel chair gets tassered a dozen times.

Chez said...

Of course, Mart. Of course.

Matt Osborne said...

Chez, just because it's you I will bite the bullet and type Sirota's name into a post: "this week in drone hysteria." But only because it's you.

Steven D Skelton said...

Marte

Chez may poo poo, but I don't see that as far fetched at all.

But it won't start with a drone taking out a fleeing miscreant on the highway. It will start with a drone surveying a situation that will quite obviously end badly, but can't be stopped in time. Exactly what that will be I won't hazard a guess, but the reaction to it will be fairly predictable.

Someone will point out that the if the drone had just been armed, the senseless death that occurred could have easily been prevented. Pictures of the dead women and children will be paraded in front of the cameras. Whichever party is out of power will blame the one in power for not having armed the drones. The talking heads will all point fingers and yell and the politicians will cave to the masses (because politicians are spineless opportunists.)

It's too bad there aren't enough liberals out there to stop things like the surveillance drones. Hell, I'm not even a liberal and I can see that it's a bad fucking idea for the government to be able to follow anyone one they want, wherever they go and document every one they talk to.

Liberals today seem to overcome by the tingle up their legs. Hopefully they will open their eyes back up when Barack and his winning grin are out of office and recognize that civil liberties need to be protected even when there is a Democrat in office.

In the meantime, we should just tell them it Bush who started the drone program. That might help.

Anonymous said...

Holy schnikeys! I've never agreed with SSkeleton on anything but by drone this dude is right. The rest of you shallow thinkers forget that in 4+ years (if re-elected) there won't be a BO in the WH, to mockingly, not target Sirota; but it might be a Palin--ok, probably not, but fuck it, it could be any psycho that slips into office. Cowboy Bush and Cheney were definitely not worried about a few 100,000 deaths. And now that we've entered this era (maker peeps can I get a shout out), drones are here to stay, and will only get smaller and smarter. Whether by accident or some nefarious circumstance, this shit is going to get used by someone and it isn't going to be pretty. So wouldn't it be a good idea to start getting some regulations on the books? And some oversight going so that we at least have a small chance of having a record of that inevitable tragic event? The skies they will be a buzzing. You really think something isn't going to happen 2? 5? 10 years from now? It doesn't even have to be the government, local or federal. It could be a corporate security outfit, organized crime, a drug gang, etc...that gets its hands on some legal (or illegal) military grade AI and drone tech; and then, whoopsie, did I do that? The scenarios are endless. In 10 years time, they'll be the size of a fly--more likely sooner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2QqTcQ1BxIs). You'd think some of you could project into the future. This is coming to your life, real fast.

Anonymous said...

Oh fuck it, I give up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4&feature=endscreen

HoldenLitgo said...

Yes, we much prefer endless military occupation of countries by 100s of thousands of American troops, their deaths and even more civilian deaths making war profiteers rich and the rest of us poor. Let's do that!

Anonymous said...

Oh HoldeLitgo, the fact that you think less is better is just a testament to your shallow moral being. You can't even admit that existential war is way different than targeted assassination strikes that are per-emptively "stopping" terrorists from targeting Muricans. Those backwater countries don't pose an existential threat but to you it's about the war profiteers. You think that they're getting less rich? The boondoggle may not be as overt but it's still just as big. The defense budget is still the same, so what was your logic again? Because from a factual view it's the same as the last one just "more secret."