Guy tweets every US drone strike

[madd0ct0r]

https://twitter.com/dronestream

just to keep up to date y'all.

[LaCroix]

He's currently covering 2010... I believe the frequency will drop over time.

Any idea where he got the data from? Pakistani news or leaked docs?

[Spoonist]

There has been an app developed that does the same thing. But it has been blocked by Apple and Android market. You can probably google it and finds some articles on it.

[K. A. Pital]

There has been an app developed that does the same thing. But it has been blocked by Apple and Android market. You can probably google it and finds some articles on it.

That amounts to censorship, doesn't it? It's just a newsfeed centered around a topic.

[Thanas]

He's currently covering 2010... I believe the frequency will drop over time.

Any idea where he got the data from? Pakistani news or leaked docs?

The source is always named in the tweet, isn't it?

[Malagar]

He's currently covering 2010... I believe the frequency will drop over time.

Any idea where he got the data from? Pakistani news or leaked docs?

The source is always named in the tweet, isn't it?

It is, he is using a bunch of different news sites.

[Zirojtan]

Interesting...

This topic only got 5 posts, and the topic about shootings in the United States has how many pages?

This should tell us something.

[Terralthra]

Nice vagueposting. Care to explain what exactly it tells us?

[weemadando]

No one gives a shit when it's a presidentially sanctioned killing of brown schoolkids?

Or you know, no one really cares about what happens to brown people on the other side of the world full stop.

[Terralthra]

No one comments about the 160 (as of this post) gun deaths since Sandy Hook, either. Humans take ongoing smaller-scale tragedies in stride compared to larger-scale events, especially given the media coverage the latter receive.

[ryacko]

No one gives a shit when it's a presidentially sanctioned killing of brown schoolkids?

Or you know, no one really cares about what happens to brown people on the other side of the world full stop.

Those weren't kids. Those were militantsand dogs.

[weemadando]

From @brendlewhat on twitter the day of Sandy Hook:

"Mr. Obama, there was a tragedy at a school today."
"Drone strikes, despite collateral damage, are necessa..wait...here? In AMERICA? WHAT??"

[Zirojtan]

Well what I think it should tell us is, or at least indicate is the stranglehold that our sensationalist corporate media has on our minds.

Weemadando (interesting name...) said it very well. Nobody cares about a bunch of brown school kids dead in a drone strike, and nobody cares about all the brown school kids dead in Mexico, or even about all the brown school kids that die all the time in the inner city.

Point being, as a nation, Americans have been SOLD a story. Outside of Newtown and the surrounding area, no one would've cared at all or even known had the charismatic people on television not told them to. Now everyone's calling for tighter gun regulation by an administration that kills children over seas and sells exactly the kinds of guns that people want off the market to Mexican cartels, where they can kill more brown children...

It should be pretty clear that this whole thing is a political smoke screen from people with an agenda. Whether it was planned or not.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Yes, American political discourse is poisoned by corporate interests in the media. Beyond that, what agenda are we talking about and by what people? You weren't all that clear.

[Aaron MkII]

I think he's saying that Obama and the rest of the Dems (which control the media) are using the tragedy to push gun control. Like how the NRA is using it to push for the opposite.

Though as a Canuck who sees a lot of US media, it's obvious that the GOP is running things through the power of shouting.

[Simon_Jester]

No, it's pretty obvious from the other thread that he is actually accusing the government of staging the Newtown shooting to draw attention from... oh, whatever the embarrassment of the month turned out to be.

Yes, American political discourse is poisoned by corporate interests in the media. Beyond that, what agenda are we talking about and by what people? You weren't all that clear.

Conspiracy theorists usually aren't, because "Isn't it suspicious? Isn't it? Huh? HUH?" is a lot easier to lay out than "This is who, specifically, was involved in the conspiracy, here are their motives, here were their means for doing the dead, here is where they got the opportunity.

Being vague and shadowy about who did it is a great way to avoid ending up looking like a fool when your proposed conspiracy to rule the world turns out to include Colonel Sanders.

It's also a standard tactic of people who parody conspiracy theorists. Although I can expect such a one to come up with a hilarious whodunit soon if they like...

[Zirojtan]

Hahahaha I never accused anyone of anything, Simon, but good job for getting on the bandwagon of trying to divert attention away from the point.

My point is this. The corporate media controls public opinion. Period. Americans are calliced, Americans are lazy, and Americans just don't care until the media tells them to.

Because the media didn't tell anyone to care about kids getting shredded by our drone strikes in the Middle-East, nobody cares. Because the media didn't tell anyone to care about the children who die in Mexico from guns that this administration SOLD to the killers, nobody cares (they instead care about the ONE border patrol officer who died). Because the media hasn't told anyone in this country to care about kids who die ALL THE TIME in the inner-city, NOBODY CARES. The only time anyone cared is when every single news show ran the story for 4 days in a row, all day long.

Is the shooting a political smoke screen to get gun control legislation past? Maybe. I didn't say it was. What I AM saying, is that a problem is very visible in the disparity between the attention that this thread has received vs. threads directed at the Sandy Hook Massacre, and that problem is worth looking into.

The solution to that problem. Don't let the the television govern your opinion.

[xthetenth]

Would the Sandy Hook shooting have gotten all those posts if it weren't for the endless near perpetual motion machine of gun control debate? There's nothing to debate here because it's pretty much unambiguously bad as far as the folks here are concerned. If there's a consensus that this is terrible and something that makes a mockery of pretensions to a moral high ground greater in size than an anthill, then what is there to discuss? For gun control there's the question of what sort of agreement could we agree on and what would be the best (so we can complain about it when the popular discourse doesn't mention it because nuance doesn't fit in a fucking soundbyte, while woo ban the scary guns or it's all the vidjeogaemzes faults sure does and looks good doing it). For this it's pretty much, yeah, we're colossal hypocrites, we shouldn't be doing that because it's blatantly wrong. There's no nuance because it isn't a balance between freedom and safety, it's just unnecessary butchery that should be stopped. Any exceptions to not doing it are blindingly obvious, like confirmed military targets. Without disagreement, there isn't debate. Without debate there isn't discussion.

Interestingly, totally unrelated to this, I ran into a game that's really simple and just a pretty good job of covering some of what's so wrong about the whole situation. Maybe there are other people who pay attention without needing to arbitrarily inflate post counts posting the same exact thing people have been posting in that very thread on a forum that already agrees in large number.

http://www.saltgames.com/double-tap-ld25/

[Dr. Trainwreck]

My point is this. The corporate media controls public opinion. Period. Americans are calliced, Americans are lazy, and Americans just don't care until the media tells them to.

Wait, wait, wait waitwaitwait. Who told you to care, you sanctimonious prick? Americans and Greeks and Chinese and Brasilians don't care as well until someone, you know, informs them of shit. By informing, you indirectly tell people to care. By being informed, you are being told to care. By seeking out information, you crave to be told to care. I love that you've found a way to prove yourself superior to an entire ethnic group, I dig that too. But quit whining. And outline the grand scheme to me, because your ramblings about 'the system' aren't exactly Tyler Durden-worthy.

[Metahive]

My point is this. The corporate media controls public opinion. Period. Americans are calliced, Americans are lazy, and Americans just don't care until the media tells them to.

All other American's but not yours, of course. You have the perfectly objective insight into everything. WorldNetDaily tells you so after all. Go, lonesome hero, go!

Because the media didn't tell anyone to care about kids getting shredded by our drone strikes in the Middle-East, nobody cares. Because the media didn't tell anyone to care about the children who die in Mexico from guns that this administration SOLD to the killers, nobody cares (they instead care about the ONE border patrol officer who died). Because the media hasn't told anyone in this country to care about kids who die ALL THE TIME in the inner-city, NOBODY CARES. The only time anyone cared is when every single news show ran the story for 4 days in a row, all day long.

A little experiment. Imagine a child is raped and killed on the same street you live. Another child is raped and killed in Timbuktu. Would you care as much for the latter as the former (if you care at all that is)? Another one, did you care as much about all the thousands of people that were killed by the recent earthquakes in China as about the Americans that were killed on 9/11? Familiarity is a prime factor in how people perceive things. Foreign nations, filled with foreign people speaking foreign languages following foreign cultural customs simply do not register in the same way as the people in the immediate surroundings. That's a humanity-wide phenomenon.

Is the shooting a political smoke screen to get gun control legislation past? Maybe. I didn't say it was. What I AM saying, is that a problem is very visible in the disparity between the attention that this thread has received vs. threads directed at the Sandy Hook Massacre, and that problem is worth looking into.

The solution to that problem. Don't let the the television govern your opinion.

All it shows that you are a conspiracy nut and don't know how human beings work.

Also, apparently instead of television, people should listen to anonymous strangers on the internets. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

[PeZook]

Foreign nations, filled with foreign people speaking foreign languages following foreign cultural customs simply do not register in the same way as the people in the immediate surroundings. That's a humanity-wide phenomenon.

It's arguably a good thing, to some extent. Imagine if every stranger killed by a drone strike caused the same reaction as a friend who was shot right in front of you.

Pretty quickly, we'd live in a world full of insane emotional wrecks.

[Metahive]

It would, however, also ensure, that the powerful couldn't get away with the casual mistreatment of the weak. Heck, it would actually outright stop them from acting in a harmful way towards anyone if any killed or mistreated human would register as a dead or mistreated friend. It's interesting to say that the chinese philosopher Mozi recognized this 2500 years ago, that most evil in the world could be averted if only everyone treated everyone else like a family member.

Now what I have to question is if our friend macgobhain (MacGowan?) actually does feel compassion towards innocent drone-strike victims here or is just cynically using their corpses for his own self-aggrandizement.

[PeZook]

It would, however, also ensure, that the powerful couldn't get away with the casual mistreatment of the weak. Heck, it would actually outright stop them from acting in a harmful way towards anyone if any killed or mistreated human would register as a dead or mistreated friend. It's interesting to say that the chinese philosopher Mozi recognized this 2500 years ago, that most evil in the world could be averted if only everyone treated everyone else like a family member.

True ; But natural disasters and disease would still happen (a lot), so while the rulers would be unable to mistreat and abuse, you would still eventually end up with a world full of emotional wrecks just due to natural causes. Sociopathy would, incidentally, be promoted in such a world because sociopaths would both be able to mistreat and abuse and also manage to remain functional in a world full of natural death.

[Metahive]

Well, it could be argued that friends and family members get the stick, too, eventually if they act in a hurtful manner repeatedly, but eh, this is all quite an idealist pipe-dream anyway.