Saturday, June 1, 2013

Jamie Kilstein makes a joke

Jamie Kilstein is once again sharing his insight, and his Tumblr fans are all about it:

"If the president was walking around stabbing innocent Muslim people? People would be like ‘Oh he’s a murderer’. But because you do it with fucking sky robots every day it’s ‘foreign policy’."
-Jamie Kilstein on today’s Citizen Radio

Ugh. "Progressive" "feminists".

As a comparison to how dumb this argument is:

"If the president a woman was walking around stabbing innocent people? People would be like ‘Oh he’s she's a murderer’. But because you do it with fucking sky robots Roe v. Wade every day it’s ‘foreign policy’women's rights’."
-A conservative version of Jamie Kilstein on today’s "Pro-Life" Radio

If you told a "progressive" this "joke", they'd be blue in the face trying to explain the difference.

Anyhow, since it seems to be required, what is the difference between the President's use of drones and the Woolwich attack?

Off the top of our heads here:

  1. Drone attacks actually target specific individuals as opposed to random innocent citizens
  2. Drone attacks typically happen in areas where you can't simply call 911 and have them arrest the bad guys
  3. Terrorists seem keen to use the most damaging weapon in their arsenal first. This approach is not used by the USA.
Etc, etc, etc.

To top it off, the "CitizenRadio" episode actually covered the news about "breadwinners":
"why some men freak out over female breadwinners"

This is the same card PZ played  - instead of talking about the real issue the piece (or at least the tagline) is just a cheap swipe at Fox News.

For those that need a refresher on how ridiculous Kilstein is, check out what he has to say to some women in his audience and what he has to say about Islam.


  1. Drone attacks actually target specific individuals as opposed to random innocent citizens

    They may target specific individuals, but they of course also kill many times that number of innocent bystanders. (See e.g. here)

    The US government now even admits as much.

    As for the “not specifically targeted” people, the US government just assumes, if they are “military-age males”, that they are “militants”. Very convenient, no?

    So, on that count, Kilstein – as ridiculous as he is on a number of other issues – is actually right.

    1. I agree.
      His equating killing via collateral damage in drone attacks.. to the killing via direct stabbing of innocents.. is just a lil bit of artistic license.

    2. That is a good point.

      The issue of "collateral damage" needs to be addressed.

      And it's also ridiculous to see every collection of males as fair game.

      At the same time, it still seems like Kilstein needs to expand upon his soundbites.

      A drone may take out a character like Osama Bin Laden. At the same time, it may kill his gardener.

      Presumably, when the choice is made to drop a bomb there is a calculation to be made. The US could send in the troops and end up killing more people. The US could give the situation a pass and basically allow OBL-like people to see human shields as an effective strategy.

      I'm reminded of the Chris Dorner incident. Police were basically dispatched to find this guy, and there were a few events in which it was absolutely amazing that no innocent people were killed.

      If Kilstein expects the neighborhood police of Waziristan to pick these guys up, it could end up being a much larger disaster for innocent civilians.

      Of course we could be using drones for targets we only care about not because there is a need, but because there is the capability. That would be quite disconcerting.

    3. The problem with the presidential kill orders is that it completely circumvents the judicial process. There is no trial, there is no one who speaks for the accused. It undermines the entire idea on how the Government and people relate to each other.

      This isn't about "defending" Kilstein, but his question is apt and just because he's generally an ass / wrong doesn't mean he can't be right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day after all.

    4. The problem seems to be that the drone strikes occur where the "government" is mostly imaginary. Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen seem to be borderline failed states.

      Of course, we're not doing what we should to allow these states to succeed. And drone attacks might be further undermining the credibility of these states.

      It's true that dropping a bomb on the bad guys skips a trial. However some would say that this is simply how a war works now, and that the crime itself for Americans like Anwar al-Awlaki is his reasons for being where he was.

      If you pick up a gun and run into a bank, you might get shot. If you pick up a gun and run off to Yemen... ?