It's all in the hats.

How can we tell a bad guy? By his black hat. All bad guys must wear black hats. Everyone with a black hat is fair game for the good guys to kill at will. So all we have to do is demand that everyone who's a bad guy wears a black hat.

Drones, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and uranium-tipped shells are merely the good guys' tools for doing what you're supposed to do in refined societies: kill all the bad guys.

Hillary and Barack cannot be bad guys. Can they? United States soldiers cannot be bad guys. Can they? You're either with us or against us, good or evil. Remember?

It's all in the hats. It's going to take a long while to get past the cowboy approach to revenge.

The U.S. needs to stand up and take responsibility for it's actions. Using a set of rules as to what constitutes terrism is fine I guess, but they need to apply to everyone including ourselves as U.S. citizens. The World Court holds the U.S. as the #1 supporter of terrorism in the world. Torture, funds, and knowledge are filtered into the hands of terroists everyday. It's just a matter of which side you are on when the bomb goes off when you decide which side is the terrorist. As Noam Chomsky says, "the only way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it". I can't speak for everyone nor would I want to try, but I think it's time "We The People" started taking responsibility for the actions our country takes. It's nice to hide behind your computer and blame those in charge. The only reason they are in charge is because we let them be. The finger points at us. We are to blame.

Every time this bitch opens her piehole, I hate her a little more...

Why can't we just slap a burka on her and drop her in the the tribal areas on Afghanistan in the middle of the night already?

Hard call...

Were the German V-2 rocket attacks on London Terrorism??

It's all in the hats.

How can we tell a bad guy? By his black hat. All bad guys must wear black hats. Everyone with a black hat is fair game for the good guys to kill at will. So all we have to do is demand that everyone who's a bad guy wears a black hat.

Drones, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and uranium-tipped shells are merely the good guys' tools for doing what you're supposed to do in refined societies: kill all the bad guys.

Hillary and Barack cannot be bad guys. Can they? United States soldiers cannot be bad guys. Can they? You're either with us or against us, good or evil. Remember?

It's all in the hats. It's going to take a long while to get past the cowboy approach to revenge.

(continued from above)

Let's remember that it was candidate Obama who was first out of the gate with the idea of escalating the war in Afghanistan and exporting it to Pakistan. In the first debate in New Hampshire (June 3, 2007) he fired a Dick Cheney-style warning-shot over the other candidates' bows, demagoging that the next president must make "absolutely certain" to "focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and rout out Al Qaida. If we do not do that, then WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY SEE ANOTHER ATTACK HERE IN THE UNITED STATES."

In that same debate, CNN's oh-so-clever Wolf Blitzer tried to single-handledly knock out Dennis Kucinich with a hypothetical: If Kucinich knew that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, in a specific location, would he "take him out with a Hellfire missile," even if it would "kill some innocent civilians at the same time?"

Kucinich said, "I don't think that a president of the United States who believes in peace and who wants to create peace in the world is going to be using assassination as a tool. Because when you do that, it comes back at your country. And I think that Osama bin Laden, if he's still alive, ought to be held to account in an international court of law. And so should any other person who's been involved in a violation of international law which has resulted in the deaths of many people."

Obama disagreed (with his trademark double-talk), saying "Well, I think Dennis is right. I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out."

Hillary was better informed than the others, and took a more measured approach, saying,

"We have been supporting Pakistan through President Musharraf now for a number of years. And it is clear that he has not moved toward democracy, but has solidified his rule and become quite anti-democratic, with his removal of the chief justice and many of the other moves that he's taken.

At the same time, we depend upon him to try to control the tribal areas out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaida fighters who cross the border into Afghanistan. Again, this is an area where I think the United States needs to be just focused, like the proverbial laser.

When I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in January, I met with both President Karzai and President Musharraf. And I asked them if it would help to have a high-level presidential envoy working with both of them to try to figure out how we can move toward what are American interests and how we can keep Pakistan from undermining the war against the Taliban and Al Qaida. And unfortunately when I got back and I called the White House and I made this suggestion, it fell on deaf ears."

In a subsequent debate (New Hampshire, January 5, 2008), ABC's Charles Gibson asked Obama "[You] said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after [bin Laden] whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?" When Obama replied "I absolutely do stand by it," Gibson asked "[Isn't that] essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?"

Obama again presented his best Dick Cheney impression, fear-mongering that "No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans AND IS CURRENTLY PLOTTING TO DO THE SAME, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, THIS IS NOT SPECULATION."

In this debate, Hillary again took a more nuanced approach (but also signed off on using a missile to assassinate bin Laden inside Pakistan), saying, "We need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible."

She added, "And just finally, I think that what we have to do with Musharraf [Pakistan] and Afghanistan is to repair the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's going to require intensive effort in the region. And [Governor Richardson] is right that we should be engaged in that diplomacy right away."

Bottom line, it was candidate Obama who demagoged the issue for crass, political purposes, and it's President Obama who has now instituted the policy. By contrast, candidate Clinton emphasized diplomacy, and Secretary of State Clinton serves at the pleasure of the president.

Who are those now calling Hillary "bitch" and "monster?" The same ones who sold us Obama in the first place. The manipulation of public perception continues.

In my opinion, drone attacks constitute terrorism. So do cruise missile attacks, high-altitude bombings, cluster bombs and other military actions which are known to kill large numbers of innocents. Hillary's answer to the woman's question was wrong.

But, notice the AP's emphasis here. The article never mentions that it's President Obama's policy, and not the Secretary of State's policy. The blame goes to Hillary, and the public buys into that. Including here in this forum.

Everyone who has posted has condemned Hillary, while only four posters have noted that it's Obama's policy.

petrkrop and berniewentboom note it's Obama's policy and condemn him for it, and rightly so.

Thoughts_Into_Action notes it's Obama's policy, but condemns Hillary because she "has to stump for" it.

mujeriego incorrectly puts the majority of the blame on Hillary, calling it "Clinton-Obama policy."

WTF suggests the person who created the policy is of little consequence; it's the public perception around the policy that matters. And public perception is that it's Hillary's policy. (So, is Obama the new Teflon president?)

Corporate media (and CD), have a long history of promoting Obama and trashing Hillary. In all of this, the truth is obscured.

(continued below)

peacekeepertwo: This Article leads me to believe that we have one political Party,that Party is The Wall Street Party. And if all Democrats feel the way I do, The Democrats will lose the next Election. Politician's need to Start telling the Truth no matter how difficult that may be.

What would Hillary say if she were standing at the other end of that gun barrel?

Terrorism is what others do to innocent civilians, not what we do to them????

drone: (figurative) a person who does no useful work and lives off others.

Ah, poor Hillary Clinton. We haven't had a public official face a tough question from the press since Madeline Albright declared the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children "worth it" in 2003.

Where are the defenders of Hillary on Common Dreams? They've told us that she's more liberal than Obama. It must be a real slap in their faces that she has to stump for I'll Bomb Ya's murderous policy - in Pakistan, of all places. After all, I'll Bomb Ya's very first act as President was to order ... (you guessed it) Predator drone attacks in Pakistan! It was something he promised to loyal Dem voters on the campaign trail, who lapped it up without a pause. It was change they could believe in, apparently.

Is Hillary just doing a job here for I'll Bomb Ya? I don't think so. She seems quite OK with repressive state violence - even murder - now and then. Abduct the elected leader of Honduras? No problem! President Zelaya was "reckless," she said. She stays silent about the human rights violations in Honduras; doesn't call it a coup.

Where are the liberal Dems? Come on now, defend your monsters! Remember, we're the irresponsible dreamers who vote for third parties and can't win, while you stand for progress and responsibility. Tell us that blowing people to bits with flying weapons of mass destruction is going to make the world safe for democracy, or whatever it is you think. Maybe we can agree that Hillary, being a woman, is held to some outrageous double-standard assumption of having to be a nurturer of life, while Obama is free to express his killer instinct, and that's not fair?

-TIA

I remember when I would write about the economic sanctions and continued bombing of Iraq that killed thousands of mostly children every month being terrorism. I was corrected and told that "it was Saddam's fault". I often wondered why Americans did not blame the Bush presidents and Bill Cliton when 9-11 happened? Hillary Clinton did not say that Obama is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the bad guys in the war that is going on. She said "defeat the insurgents and terrorist who threaten the stability of a nuclear armed nation". The troops use the term "bad guys" in the war on terror.Predator drones are used to assassinate the suspected insurgents and terrorists or the bad guys. How does a drown or a human being know who is truly guilty of being a bad guy deserving of being killed without a just trial? And are these so called bad guys worse than the corrupt government officials and even a relative who is paid by the CIA in Afghanistan? Nobody knows where the billions of dollars we have given to Pakistan have gone. Are we paying the government of Pakistan to allow us to fire missiles on the people of Pakistan? who are the bad guys, the insurgents and terrorist or the leaders of all nations involved? The U.S. slaughter of suspected terrorist and collateral damage victims are motivating the increase of insurgents, and the cycle of violence goes on and on. It will be easier for retaliation against the U.S. when the terrorist get their hands on predator drones. They won't need to commit suicide. and the cycle of violence will go on and on.

"How do these "people" live with themselves?" –(Sioux Rose)

–Because we allow them to.

They are as American as the proverbial 'apple pie.'

That is why there are no politics in America.

"The dictatorship is necessary, because it is a case not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie."
–(Leon Trotsky)

Question:

"Madame Clinton - did your husband have an affair with that girl?"

Hillary: "NO, he has always been loyal to me".

"IS your husband's name BILL CLINTON?"

Hillary: "NO, my husband is George Bush".

I agree with Hillary.

As long as you are at "war", you can target enemy high value targets with whatever means are at your disposal, and if civilians get killed in these operations, it is not "terrorism".

9/11 was brilliant tactical counterstrikes against an overwhelmingly militarily superior occupier, not "terrorism".

Yes,robotic drones are state sponsored terrorism. peace

Put Hillary at the other end of these drone attacks, and then ask her again, that is, if she's still alive.

Is Hillary Clinton drop dead gorgeous and every mans dream?

Yes...according to Hillary Clinton.

A few years ago Alexander Cokburn challenged people to come up with defintions of "terrorism" that would somehow exclude the routine behavior of the US military. Cockburn thought this an impossible task: I think he is right on this score.

Of course the use of drones is terrorism. If a terrorist planted a bomb in a crowded street with the aim of killing an enemy politician who was due to pass by in a motorcade, and the bomb went off killing hundreds of civilians as well as the politician, we would not accept the terrorist's argument that some "collateral damage" is inevitable in pursuit of political/military goals. We would unequivocally say that the terrorist is guilty of murder (or even "crimes against humanity") and ought to be held accountable for his actions. Can any one make a meaningful distinction between the act of planting a bomb and the act of firing a predator drone? For both have the effect of arbitrarily killing innocent bystanders?

Hilary Clinton, like so many servants of the US empire, is a simple moral monster, who ought to be ashamed to come amongst decent people..

A few years ago Alexander Cokburn challenged people to come up with defintions of "terrorism" that would somehow exclude the routine behavior of the US military. Cockburn thought this an impossible task: I think he is right on this score.

Of course the use of drones is terrorism. If a terrorist planted a bomb in a crowded street with the aim of killing an enemy politician who was due to pass by in a motorcade, and the bomb went off killing hundreds of civilians as well as the politician, we would not accept the terrorist's argument that some "collateral damage" is inevitable in pursuit of political/military goals. We would unequivocally say that the terrorist is guilty of murder (or even "crimes against humanity") and ought to be held accountable for his actions. Can any one make a meaningful distinction between the act of planting a bomb and the act of firing a predator drone? For both have the effect of arbitrarily killing innocent bystanders?

Hilary Clinton, like so many servants of the US empire, is a simple moral monster, who ought to be ashamed to come amongst decent people..

You can watch the full interview of clinton by Pakistani women journalist with this link. just copy and paste.

http://pkpolitics.com/2009/10/30/hamari-awaz-30-october-2009/

We must never forget it was the Bush Regime who spent 8 years of, Creating, Invading, and Killing, Before the Obama one.

I'm not sure about this, but I assume that the children's game known as "tag" is universal-- at least in Amerika.

So: I wonder if it's the case that not only Obama and Hillary, but virtually ALL Elected Misrepresentatives-- and banksters too, for that matter, had this idiosyncracy in common as children: they were always happy to play "tag", on the condition that they were never required to be "it".

· Yr Obd't Servant

Madeline Albright: "I think, yes, the price was worth it" - on the killing of 500,000 children via the first Gulf "War" and the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the Clinton Administration.

Hilary Clinton: "No, I do not" - on whether killing innocent people via drone attacks, including children's soccer games, funerals, and weddings, is terrorism.

Both names are on the list when we try, convict, and hang, according to the Nuremberg standard, these and other war criminals.

You know, if you take a really close look at Hillary Clinton, she has a striking resemblance to Madeleine Albright. Truth is, they are both ugly war criminals!

TERRORISTS, YES AND WE ARE ALL COMPLICIT.

Continuing to vote for elitist, imperialist, millionaires like Obama, Hillary included, keeps this world in perpetual war.

PEOPLE, TAKE THE PLEDGE. NO MORE MILLIONAIRES FOR PRESIDENT.

How do you think they got there?

Who do you think they are loyal to?

The U.S. governments' terrorism on other countries and yes, OUR own included, will not stop UNTIL WE STOP IT.

DENNIS KUCINICH 2012:

END TO WAR, END NAFTA, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE, END TO WELFARE FOR THE RICH, FREE PUBLIC COLLEGE EDUCATION, CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.

STOP THE INSANITY NOW.

Bush secretly approved orders in July 2008 to allow special operation forces to carry out attacks without approval of the Pakistani Government, so I suppose Clinton is following in the Bush foot steps. The same wars, the same generals, so it seems the same tactics. We should be paying more to what Israel is planning .

OK, so she's on record, again -- when and if the trials start.

The point is, the US and only the US can say what terrorism is. We have a patent on the word. We own the definition, so that only "what we say, goes," as George H.W. Bush so brilliantly put it after he invaded Iraq in '91. Hillary is just another purveyor of this dogma. It matters not what other countries think of our actions, and certainly not whether they think we're terrorists. Of course we are, or our corporate-dominated government is, but we alone can say who and who is not a "terrorist." Basically, it's just whoever tries to resist us in any way, militarily, politically, economically. If we want to take full control of their country and they resist, they are terrorists. If we send drone missiles to their sovereign lands and blow them up indiscriminately, women and children and anyone else happening to be in the way of our sacred "interests," we can get Hillary or any of her counterparts to say "There's a war going on" and leave it at that. Terrorism is only those actions taken against the US government and its corporate interests to achieve its goals, no matter how illegal or murderous they are. We are by definition incapable of committing terrorism. We're just spreading goodness, freedom and democracy.

acts of terrorism? No.
acts of premeditated murder? Yes.
crimes against humanity? Yes.
Hillary can share the gallows with Condi.

Were the Attacks on America Terrorist Attacks?

If that ANSWER is the Obvious YES than the question:

Are Drone Attacks Terrorist Attacks?

YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YesYES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES----YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES------YES!!!!!!

I liked the one asked about drone attacks.

If only there were followup questions.

I like these:

Frank1569 October 30th, 2009 3:23 pm

And I suggest these:

How does the fact that your answer is, as we see it, blatant hypocrisy, make you feel?

As the carrier of imperial double-standards of violence, state terrorism and disregard for international law, many of us see you and your country's policies as the cause of the violence in our country. What is your response these realities of how we see you?

How do you look in the mirror without feeling you are a contributer to mass murder?

Here is an Irony:

THE SOVIET UNION under Stalin was so brutal that it is held up BY the USA as an example of what "NOT to DO"..presenting ITSELF - the USA as the paragon of virtue by contrast...while of course GLOSSING over ITS own atrocities throughout history that had touched MORE countries than the USSR ever DID!

and yet the irony is this:

the leadership of the Russians are at least willing to TELL their own PEOPLE:

===================

The New York Times
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

October 31, 2009
Don’t Gloss Over Stalin’s Crimes, Medvedev Says
By ELLEN BARRY

MOSCOW — Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev on Friday warned that Russians have lost their sense of horror over Stalin’s purges, and called for the construction of museums and memorial centers devoted to the atrocities, as well as further efforts to unearth and identify the dead.

Mr. Medvedev made the comments on his video blog, on the occasion of a holiday devoted to the memory of victims of repression. He warned that revisionist historians risked glossing over the darker passages of the Soviet past, citing a poll that showed that 90 percent of young people can not name victims of the purges.

“Even now we can hear voices saying that these numerous deaths were justified by some supreme goals of the state,” Mr. Medvedev said. “Nothing can be valued above human life, and there is no excuse for repressions.”

Millions of people were killed under Stalin, mostly through forced collectivizations and party purges.

Though he reiterated his worry that Russia is demonized in contemporary histories of World War II, Mr. Medvedev added, “it is just as important to prevent the justification, under the pretext of putting historical records straight, of those who killed their own people.”

His comments are the latest round in a long conversation about how to interpret Russia’s past.

Under Mr. Medvedev’s predecessor, Vladimir V. Putin, Russian opinions of Stalin became far rosier. Government-endorsed textbooks now balance Stalin’s atrocities with praise for his achievements — especially victory over Hitler — and recent polls show that most Russians believe Stalin did more good than bad. Meanwhile, leaders have railed against Eastern European historians who paint Soviet forces as occupiers, and in May Mr. Medvedev created a commission to prevent such attempts to “falsify history.”

Arseny Roginsky, chairman of the human rights organization Memorial, said Mr. Medvedev’s speech struck directly at “the center of the contemporary discussion of Stalin and Stalinism — the question about victory and the price of victory.” Though Vladimir V. Putin spoke with compassion of Stalin’s victims on the same holiday in 2007, Mr. Medvedev went much farther by offering concrete proposals about museums and the search for mass graves, Mr. Roginsky said.

Whether those proposals are realized “depends entirely on Mr. Medvedev and the current authorities,” he added.

“What we are waiting to see is whether he has the power to realize even part of our expectations,” he said. “I have serious doubts about that. But of course, I am waiting.”

The president’s remarks came as good news to Roman V. Romanov, the deputy director of the State Museum of the History of the Gulag, a cluster of five rooms whose entrance is in a courtyard off one of Moscow’s glitziest shopping streets. The signage is so poor, Mr. Romanov complained, “that people walk down Petrovka and don’t even know we’re here,” and he gently criticized the exhibits as “a bit provincial.”

There is, as well, a generational problem. At 27, Mr. Romanov is younger than his co-workers by 30 or 40 years. When he took the job, he said, people his age didn’t understand, and one friend tried to talk him out of it.

“He told me not to do it,” Mr. Romanov said. “He said it was too depressing, and I needed to be more positive. He thought this was all about criminals. I told him, ‘Now I understand I am doing the right thing.’”

=============

BY CONTRAST -= what has America's "leadership and culture" really done about America's OWN history of atrocities IN the USA and OUTSIDE the USA? from Genocide against native indians, enslavement of africans and colored people, its wars of conquest and destabilization causing untold suffering elsewhere?

oh wait -- they are "about freedom and democracy" and NEVER have such a compendium of historic atrocities been SO GLOSSED OVER with such efficient hypocrisy.

case in point:

GEORGE BUSH is STILL "free".

BARACK OBAMA and his Praetorian Guard of War Manufacturers are still "america's leaders" without so much as being asked or connected to the history of american atrocities.

STALIN is long dead - and the Russian leadership at least ADMITS that they - the russians - in celebrating their role in defeating the NAZIS - should remind themselves that STALIN was NO good man at all...

in the meantime -- the USA has PLENTY of LIVING , WALKING WAR CRIMINALS playing their trade of more wars in the name of "democracy"

they are Henry Kissinger, George Bush the first and second, the contingents around Ronald Reagan, their current "chief" interlocutor Obama..etc....

and americans are NOT asked to or do not ask THEMSELVES whether there REALLY is a difference between Kissinger and Bush and Obama with THEIR "american version" of gulags, torture, wars of conquest, economic deprivations from policies, invasions, occupations ....

are REALLY fundamentally different from STALIN just because they can claim "liberty and freeomd and democracy" as their calling cards.

"No, I do not"

Spoken like the true Goldwater girl and Republican conservative that she and her husband have always been.

If the victims are brown-skinned and/or Muslim and/or Arab it's not terrorism.

hahahah of course not!!!

If we do it it's not torture.
It's fighting for liberty and freedom.

If anyone else acts against this thought
and action THAT is terrorism.

Just like our men women and children are fighting to uphold our constitution and our freedoms!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

We bomb and invade countries to enslave them and remove any idea of freedom. While at home these those who swore to uphold and protect the constitution destroy the Constitution and take away our civil liberties!!!

Are we all clear?
Can we talk less about how shocked we are about all of this now and start talking/planning about how we will take our government back from murderous greedy thugs?

peace thru death - WOW! now that makes sense! Why didn't I think of that?

I can't remember the guys name but a climber was injured in AFPAK somewhere and was brought back to health by the locals.... and in order to repay them he has built schools(especially for women) and medical clinics. Where he has done that the Taliban is being forced out - by peaceful measures!

and the cost?

about 1/100th the cost of a drone missle attack on the latest wedding party.

"picture a bright blue ball just spinning spinnig free....it's dizzying the possibilites"

Soon they will have little bee like flying bullets that hover and search for a person through facial recognition, then, it will blow their head off. It will inevitably be tested in America on peace seekers first. Yes peace seekers, the expendable detritus of peaceful values. Is anything other than utter destruction even possible today given the power of the greedy psychopaths? We can only hope that they destroy themselves before us.

America has no political savvy left. None whatsoever. Its now completely all about bravado, violence and war.

Only after Washington's violence is neutralized will the world stand a chance for peace. Even then there are no assurances of what will follow. But at this point, we are clearly the bad guys.

Me thinks 9-11 was just a sneek-peek at what's to come our way.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

"A terrorist is a man with a bomb but without an AirForce."

The basic problem with American people is that they cannot feel the intensity of this ridiculous war. They do not really care what’s going on in Afghanistan or Pakistan. They cannot handle Mexicans who come to America illegally but still they’re very peaceful and hardworking people. If they cannot even handle peaceful Mexicans then why they keep on putting pressure on stopping Afghan militants coming into Pakistan ? Hillary wasn’t expecting hard questions from our anchors and that’s the reaon why she kept on saying that we’re giving Billions of dollars to Pakistan but still her strange answers show her level of incompetence. Moreover America could never ever have attacked if Afghanistan was its neighbouring country.

"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Predator Drone!" - Emperor Hillary

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

The reporters asked the HC the wrong questions.

"Madam Secretary, if the Taliban launched a drone attack on the US Embassy in Kabul, would that be an act of terrorism?"

"If the Pakistan ISI launched a series of drone attacks on suspected 'terrorist financiers' hiding in the Rockies and 'accidentally' killed a wedding party of 40, would America consider that an act of terrorism?"

"Madam Secretary, is the United States of America ever wrong?"

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." - Hillary Clinton

I find it hard to believe that Hillary does not know where this well known and convicted US terrorist is hiding in the USA.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/11/18471641.php

Maybe Cuba should send over a terrorist predator drone and take out Miami? They would be justified under the Clinton-Obama policy

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

Not only is it terrorism but it's cold blooded murder.

Obama's orders to his tin soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have murdered significantly more human beings than all the mass murderers in American history - Manson, Bundy, Ramirez, McVeigh, and the rest of them.

Forget about Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Carter, Raygun, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc...

Just another spin job (read: ream job) on the road to kingdom come.

I don't know if y'all have noticed, but Mrs Clinton as SecState has been as useful as tits on a bull. She has done jack. Polls in foreign countries taken before/after visits by Clinton and Obama have consistently shown that after a Clinton visit, well-being towards the US remains constant (or worse), but after an Obama visit, polls show a definite increase in favor towards the US.

And now with this neo-con drumbeating by the witch from Illinois, she has definitely proved to be a boat anchor in the administration.

Hilary must not want Obama to succeed.

I'm 100% sure that the terrorist drone attacks will come back to haunt us in the future, when another more clever generation of Islamist extremists will bring terror attacks back to our own country. We have been living an unreal period here since 2001. That will not go on forever and probably will only continue for a brief time. Every time a drone attack kills women and children and old people along with a handful of real jihadists we stir the pot of animosity against us and recruit more jihadists. The drones represent a temporary military advantage we enjoy. Our adversaries haven't yet figured out a way to counter that advantage, but if the history of military technology tells us anything it is that all such advantagious situations don't last for long. I don't think the American public is at all prepared for truck and car bombs and other types of terror attacks here after nearly a decade has passed since 9/11. I fear that when the revenge attacks do arrive here our relatively free society will come quickly to a close.

It's only terror when they do it.

Can't add much to the consensus-- and so far it IS a consensus, although there are one or two Hillary-lovin' die-hards around who claim to find redeeming qualities in her. And I don't mean Bill, of course.

That said, although I've flogged this report previously, I can't let an article referencing Hillary and "terrorism" pass without recommending this insightful report:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u_s_condemned_for_pre_emptive_use

If you haven't seen it, check it out.

· Yr Obd't Servant

Thank you, President Obama, for all you have done to spread bloodshed and hypocrisy abroad, and misery and hypocrisy here at home.

Those of us who still cling to jobs are glad to see our taxes used to reward the Wall Street crowd and enrich the military-industrial complex, and the drone attacks in Afganistan and Pakistan provide us with images of people even worse off than we are, as they try to find all the body parts of their blown-up families in the rubble, and serve to remind us that we're lucky we're on the winning side. We could be bleeding in the dirt, like them.

And thanks for your huge sell-out on health care, and thanks for Pelosi's insurance-care bill, which we can pretend is "reform."

Yes, we can (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)!

Note this is an Associated Press story. They are basically a CIA front. Their editor in chief was a noted far-right editor in Texas before he went to AP. You can't believe anything AP says.

The drone attack has been a favorite Israeli strategy for many years but more importantly so has the concept of "extrajudicial killing" regardless of the collateral damage (women and children and innocent adult males, gulp)

Many Pakistan TV stations were carrying Clinton's speech at the time the Peshawar bombs exploded and went to split screen presentation with Clinton on one side droning on with her English-language speech and the Peshawar carnage on the other half. The Market was specifically targeted because it's frequented by women who bring their children along. I thought the actions by the TV stations were meant to send a non-verbal message to Pakistanis--Look at what this woman has done to our country, as it's US policy that's destabilizing Pakistan, not the Taliban: US terrorism is replied to in-kind. It's clear to me that US policy has created a Civil War in Pakistan and escalated the 30+ years-old Afghan Civil War. And this Civil War has the potential to kill many more than the 3-5 Million Southeast Asians killed by the USA, as events in this War have already spilled into India. For the carnage to be avoided, the USA MUST leave the region ASAP as its presence is the catalyst.

Drone attacks are terrorism.

Did she go there to win hearts and minds and sell the American effort to rid the world of terrorism?

How she would accomplish that is beyond me. She would have to convince the people who are the victims of the drone attacks to buy into the idea that it is for their own good.

On the other hand for a fraction of the cost of a drone attack she could open up a school in Afghanistan or the tribal areas in Pakistan and really win over hearts and minds. But that is too simple, too mundane and not as dramatic as dispatching a whole bunch of ragheads to their demise.

It will be a great day for global freedom when Hebrew Hillary is surrounded by predator drones and with no place to hide.

The drones are just terrorism on a bigger budget. If in the future, some foreign government has the budget for drones to attack American soil I guess Hillary will say that was not terrorism either! The American sheeple need to wake up and realize America is the #1 terrorist in the world! How come you hear over and over and over again that we cannot afford health care for all because of our deficit but not ever even a peep about the enormous deficits we are running because of America's terrorism of illegal and egregious wars. We have plenty of $ for war for all! Yep, #1 terrorist country in the world...I rest my case.

Her husband's Secretary of State thought that killing half a million Iraqi children was "worth it".

what a pig.

I am reminded of one of Voltaire's quotes:

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

And, man, is this government so wrong, so often, about almost everything.

Future terrorists are the enemy is this DAFT war. Read the law that says so, Public Law 107-40.

But who are future terrorists?
Someone accused of planning terrorism against the US would be one (- key terrorist leaders -).

Drone attacks eliminate the future terrorist before he can commit whatever terrorism he would have committed if he had lived. Others get killed, children and women, and they won't become future terrorists, either.

Q: How do you identify a future terrorist?
A: Posthumously.

As long as America remains in this DAFT war, this stuff will be the norm, not the exception.

Hillary continues to prove she is nothing more than an empty pant suit. After all, during the campiagn she asserted that she would wipe Iran off the map with a nuclear attack.

We can only hope she is assigned a particular dark, dank cell, faced to endure the types of horrors she endorses for the innocent in the next world.

Reverse the situation.

How would you react if a foreign country had eyes in the sky watching EVERYTHING you do!

You would be self conscious! You would modify your behavior so you would not appear suspicious to the drones.

The whole country living in fear of being mistook for a combatant just because so many innocent have been blown away!

That's terrorism!

If you're not an anarchist...quit whining. YOU are part of the problem.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part about the US Congress legally and constitutionally declaring war on Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. And by the way - hasn't our executively-declared mandate in Iraq legally run past its course?

Despite what Hillary says, our actions do translate into terrorism - both legally and morally. Anyone besides me remember the article a few months ago outlining the military's guidelines for civilian casualties as a collateral damage issue as related to drone attacks? Wasn't the acceptable figure of 50 civilians dead for 1 terrorist accepted by the US command structure? And if it went beyond 50 dead civilians, then the battlefield commander had to seek higher authority before launching the attack? And what about our broadly used tactic of simply 'buying off' the relatives of the dead with blood money payments when we admit, however belatedly, that our government did in fact kill innocent civilians?

Should the CEO's of banks in this country be considered terrorists for the unrivaled pain and suffering they have levied upon the American (and world's) people? Should the giant corporations who lie and bribe to shield their activities that have adverse affects on the public health be considered terrorists? Should those in government during hurricane Katrina be viewed as terrorists for purposely - yes - I said purposely - letting the population of that devastated city slowly perish because certain corporate interests were more concerned about privatizing the misery than helping human beings?

Hillary could not honestly answer the journalists' questions because if she did - she would have to indict the entire American foreign policy system for the last 50 years.

And meanwhile - here at home - congress wants to identify as terrorists those who fight for environmental justice, etc.

Corporations are the terrorists - universal in their greed and depravity - and in large measure that is what those who oppose us are fighting against. The advance of American culture may seem a worthy goal for those on the Right, especially those heavily invested in the Religious Right and the corporations who will undoubtedly profit from such advancement, but to many around the world the promotion and advancement of "American values" simply reeks of domination, arrogance and the loss of personal and national sovereignty.

What's with the linguistic side-tracking? Isn't it bad enough that innocent people are being killed, without arguing what to call it?

A hundred of you little brown people aren't worth one of us.

Nobody should be surprised by Hillary Clinton's statements. She has completely bought into the corporate military imperative for our country.

She looks more like Margaret Thatcher every day.

Poor Hillary. Poor Barack. Poor George. Poor power-lusting-losers everywhere.

It must be so difficult to have to listen to the rest of us fools when we are obviously trapped within a mindset that sees beyond the parochial. Why do we keep questioning their Brilliance when it is such an effective way to hoard money? Why can't we see that accumulating money is proof that we are superior?

Of course, she can't see anything wrong in drone attacks - that would require thinking she has something in common with innocent victims.

This is the sickest, saddest thing I have ever read. What has happened to this country?

Hillary . . . following the lead of her hubby's Sec of State . . . "it was worth it."

Disgusting.

"We have found the terrorists, and they are us"

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

These students' pimples are more intelligent, attractive and pleasant than Hellary

Change we can beleive in

Let me see if I understand this.

It IS terrorism when Arabs fly planes into buildings killing Americans.

It ISN'T terrorism when Americans launch bombs remotely into cars, towns, huts and weddings killing Pakistanis.

When Hillary looks herself in the mirror she must hate herself more every day.

killing innocent civilians with drones and bombs is just as DEADLY as killing them with suicide bombers. we can not say that what others do is terrorism but not what we do.