US drone strikes: Memo reveals case for killing Americans
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 15:52
VIEWED: 8996
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
The legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked justice department memo.
US officials can authorise the killing of Americans abroad if they are leaders of al-Qaeda or its allies, according to the document obtained by NBC News.
Lethal force is lawful if they are judged to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, it adds.
US drone strikes against militant suspects in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan are deeply controversial.
Under President Barack Obama the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects, arguing that it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.
Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.
Legal framework
The undated 16-page Department of Justice white paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.
It says sovereignty is not deemed to have been violated if the host nation gives its consent, or is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.
It also sets out a "legal framework" for the use of lethal force against US citizens in foreign countries.
It concludes that such killings do not violate the US Constitution as long as:
-An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US
-Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible
-The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles
The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21333570
And a direct link to the memo.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper
I notice that nowhere in this memo does it discuss the legality of killing innocent folk who just happen to be near the point where leathal force is 'legally' applied to the folks describen in the memo.
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?
One would hope for some outrage, yes.
... is it really in accordance with international law to assassinate people if the country has not given its consent but is merely deemed unable to take care of the threat?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer:
It does.
The problem is assuming that we haven't already guessed that this has been happening, or that we don't know this is going to leapfrog to killing non-Al Qaeda American dissenters.
Much like the torture. Anyone who can use their brain knows what's really going on behind the scenes in our military and intelligence community, and it isn't pretty. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?
One would hope for some outrage, yes.
... is it really in accordance with international law to assassinate people if the country has not given its consent but is merely deemed unable to take care of the threat?
No, it's not. Which is why our war with the Taliban in Afghanistan was also pretty unjustifiable.
Horrible theocracy none-the-less collectively sees a steamroller coming their way and offers to capture a high priority terrorism target and try and execute them for their crimes. In response we attack the theocracy and destabilize the region further. Good logic America!
I'm sure America won't use 9-11 for other questionable activities or as an excuse for unnecessary invasive security measures that violate constitutional rights of Americans. I'm sure the War in Afghanistan wasn't just a smokescreen so Americans would feel like the leadership was being proactive instead of screwing them over.
America isn't at war with muslim terrorists. It's at war with Americans. And anyone who hasn't seen both political parties laying the groundwork, chipping away at the protections that the average American citizen has against the political-industrial-military complex, they haven't been paying attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
POTUS, both RED and Blue POTUS, have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...............
For those who think the black copters are coming.............
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another article.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/legal-basis-killing-americans/
This has been talked about for years, and going on for years more. I think only now is the admin brazen enough to explain it in a memo.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I notice that nowhere in this memo does it discuss the legality of killing innocent folk who just happen to be near the point where leathal force is 'legally' applied to the folks describen in the memo.
Your talking about collateral damage. The reason its not in this memo is because its been the subject of numerous other memos. The generally accepted standard is that when you do anything (drone strike, pizza delivery) try not to kill anybody or damage any property unless its absolutely necessary.
What is or is not necessary is the subject of lots of other memos.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.
I guess that makes me a Moderate on this issue...I want them killed, but I also want it to be justified.
For example, I think we should make every effort to capture American citizens who are in the act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy or bearing arms against us. I want them captured so we can sit down and chat with them in a friendly setting (like Gitmo or a friendly foriegn power) and ask them questions about the things they know and the bad people they are helping. This way they can redeem themselves for their wrongs by willingly giving us the information we want. In the alternative they can unwillingly give us the information we want after a period of moderate to severe discomfort. Either way they will have the opportunity to realize the error of their ways and seek redemption in the form of confession and make their peace with the nation they betrayed.
Then we kill them.
Just dropping a bomb on them is such a waste. And my method would limit the collateral damage that the Left is so upset about. We can even power our cattle prods with Windmills and use recycled water for the 'wet' work. Then its just win-win for everyone.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.
I'll just assume you are because I don't like being all alone in my fluffy humanitarian corner with my little human rights collection. *hugs Sophie Scholl action figure*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.
Or so-called conservatives trying to pretend that people should be just as "outraged" by this as they were about the torturing of people - when those same so-called conservatives insist to this day that nobody was ever tortured and nothing wrong was done.
So we're supposed to be just as outraged as... you *weren't*?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.
They're not joking. And they both claim to be "pro-life".
Just as long as it's AMERICAN life. Anyone else, they could give a fuck about.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.
This I agree with wholeheartedly.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
POTUS, both RED and Blue POTUS, have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...............
For those who think the black copters are coming.............
SGG
They're doing a great job.
Phhpppbbbt Phhpppbbbt Phhpppbbbt
The best part about helicopters is on the internet helicopter noises also sound like a raspberry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One can know these things are going on, but until concrete evidence is leaked etc. lots of people don't believe it for real, they want to believe that secret stuff doesn't happen, or if they do believe it happens they don't want to know in detail. This is the time when Wikileaks etc. is a good thing. Sometimes I don't like it, but in some cases its just what is needed.
That being said I kind of agree with Jong and Nick, I don't like this persay, because I don't like people fighting and being mean to each other and not getting along, but that's reality and I'd rather people die this way than us sending our people over there to do it. The thing that concerns me is that there doesn't have to be proof of an attack in the works, that means that people might not be correct in who they kill. But I guess that happens. :(
Sophie Scholl is cool!
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The thing that concerns me is that there doesn't have to be proof of an attack in the works, that means that people might not be correct in who they kill. But I guess that happens. :(
The thing that concerns me is how cavalier we've become with the killing of innocents. We act like we can just shrug it off - "Meh... shit happens, whattaya gonna do?"
Did anyone think that maybe there SHOULD be serious costs to war, and that maybe that would make us think twice about engaging in it in the first place?
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?
How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.
This I agree with wholeheartedly.
I'm fairly stunned by that reply. Definitely not what I would have expected from you. I appreciate your honesty on this issue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."
Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The first problem I have with the whole concept is there is an assumption of guilt without that assumption ever being tested at trial. There was an assumption Iraq had WMDs too - and how did that work out? The second problem I have is the erosion of rights - not just US constitutional rights but human rights. The third problem I have is the death of innocents. The fourth is the blowback we'll face that's already building. Way to go to recruit for the other side guys! Lastly, it doesn't work. Simply eliminating an individual or five here or there won't stop terrorism or terrorists. A 'war' - with guns and bombs - on terrorism is the wrong model to use to eliminate terrorism.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The first problem I have with the whole concept is there is an assumption of guilt without that assumption ever being tested at trial. There was an assumption Iraq had WMDs too - and how did that work out? The second problem I have is the erosion of rights - not just US constitutional rights but human rights. The third problem I have is the death of innocents. The fourth is the blowback we'll face that's already building. Way to go to recruit for the other side guys! Lastly, it doesn't work. Simply eliminating an individual or five here or there won't stop terrorism or terrorists. A 'war' on terrorism is the wrong model to use.
Bingo. We're told that these people have been vetted and are an "imminent threat". By who? A star chamber?
This stuff is a direct result of shit like the Patriot Act and the torture policies and the idea that the GOP has, this notion that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a really good point about how we might not be so eager to go to war if it was right there in our face, like in WWII, I think people bqack then understood more than people do now how a war really is. Everyone at home was involved, whereas wars now are going on _out _there and we don't think about it as much as we should. I think that's a really valid point Quicko. Why though do you dislike me more about my post than Jong or Nick about theirs? At least I'm a little hesitant.
And I definitely agree that the Patriot Act has a lot of crappy stuff in it.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
That's a really good point about how we might not be so eager to go to war if it was right there in our face, like in WWII, I think people bqack then understood more than people do now how a war really is. Everyone at home was involved, whereas wars now are going on _out _there and we don't think about it as much as we should. I think that's a really valid point Quicko. Why though do you dislike me more about my post than Jong or Nick about theirs? At least I'm a little hesitant.
And I definitely agree that the Patriot Act has a lot of crappy stuff in it.
I definitely do not dislike you more - or even at all - for your post, Riona. You've shown more willingness to think about issues when given new information, whereas Jongsie is quite calcified in his beliefs, it seems.
And yes, we absolutely should be faced with the true costs of war. We should see the coffins coming back. We should see the pictures of the dead soldiers and civilians. The people who came back the most changed from WWII were the ones who liberated the concentration camps. Nothing on Earth could ever make them unsee what they'd witnessed there.
And leaders should be given pictures of every victim of every strike. Killing shouldn't come easy. It's never supposed to get easy. Ask yourself if you could stand face to face with Bin Laden and then stick a knife in his eye with your own hand. Could you cut his throat and watch while he gasps for air and drowns in his own blood? If not, why condone your government doing it? Paying a hit man to pull the trigger is still murder.
Drones make life cheaper. They make killing cheaper, and it should never be cheap to murder someone.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Could I kill someone? The answer is yes. I've thought about it and I know I could do it if I needed to. It isn't something I ever hope to do, its not something that I would enjoy at all, it would be really scary. But I think I could do it if I deemed it necessary.
Others? Could you do it? I've actually been thinking of putting up a thread about this very question.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."
Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.
You're simply on "the other side" now.... just like I was during the GWB admin....
I HATED Bush Jr. and, at the time, thought he was the worst president we ever had.
Those justifications and parsed explanations you're being expected to spit out are the exact ones the other side couldn't hope to cop to 8 years ago....
Bottom line is this....
GWB got two terms from the "Wag the Dog" mentality..... when it looked like he might not be re-elected, he made two promises he didn't uphold....
1) Ban gay marriage constitutionally (thank god it didn't happen because we didn't need another scar on our Constitution when Obama made it his first mission to repeal it).
2) Social Security reform..... (sounds good on paper..... I was wall street kid for a while and made thousands on my thousands until the bottom fell out...... in the end, I made money, most people wouldn't be able to say the same.... SS is BS and anybody over 40 who's paying into it today probably won't get squat.... but put indivduals in charge of that money like it's "VEGAS" and you'll find a lot more Americans out on their ass a lot quicker...
GWB was the WORST PRESIDENT WE EVER HAD.....
If for no other reason than he invigorated a counter-culture so anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-American that we'd vote the first well spoken Black man into office, even if he was born and raised in the most politically corrupt county of the most politically corrupt state of the union....
We might have well have voted in Mayor Dayle's son in for two terms......
I'm all about voting a black man in... but not this way.....
3 years from now, and beyond, there is zero chance a black man is getting in again in our generation.......
We'll easily see a Mexican or Indian president 2 or 3 times before we see another black president..... Half of them women......
Jimmy Carter, as bloody and dripping as his liberal heart is, is sitting back laughing now.... at least before he dies, he knows that America won't think he was the worst president we've ever had.....
Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Goddamn Richard Nixon......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Could I kill someone? The answer is yes. I've thought about it and I know I could do it if I needed to. It isn't something I ever hope to do, its not something that I would enjoy at all, it would be really scary. But I think I could do it if I deemed it necessary.
Others? Could you do it? I've actually been thinking of putting up a thread about this very question.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
Make the thread Riona...
Even if you do, the answers would be false for the most part....
As you know, I have a gun, although I've NEVER fired it....
I've also choked somebody in jr. high to the point the passed out and onlookers had to pull me off of him....
He survived, and never bothered me or my friends or brothers again.....
But I often wondered.... would I have killed him if nobody from the outside had pulled me away?
Killing somebody.... whether out of anger or malice, or even just out of self defense is a tall order....
In general, I dislike 90% of the people I've ever met face-to-face...
That doesn't mean I want them dead....
If I had my way, I'd be there at every "Batman shooting" to tackle the shooter and make him suffer every life he took with the loss of an appendage, starting with both of his eyes and ears.....
I'd think first, of every mother and father that could never see their beautiful child smile again, and then how they could never hear their laughter with friends again after that night....
After having burned out their eyes and eardums, I'd move on to the other senses.....
I'd first, remove their trigger fingers from both of their hands with an axe..... making sure they'd never be able to do that to anyone again.
Then I would insert both of those fingers, along with any shell casings they used in the shooting so far up their ass they'd be drooling bullets and fingers....
Then I'd fire my gun, for the first time, and blow off every single finger and toe they had.....
And then I'd show them mercy, and let them "roam"..........
Knowing, with every beat of their heart, they're on borrowed time......
Make ONE WRONG MOVE and you're dead.......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?
How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."
Hello slippery slope argument.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is it unreasonable of me to think that if no war has been declared on a country, that country's civilians should be even more off-limits than in a traditional war where bombs falling on civilians would be at least expected and grounds for evacuation efforts?
I mean, why are American soldiers, who signed up for the duty and are prepared to take risks more valuable than, say, Pakistani civilians who just happen to live near a potential terrorist hide-out? Is the national distinction more important than the civilian distinction?
I mean, is there a limit on the term "collateral damage" when all risk assessment places their lives as less important than that of actual professional soldiers?
I just honestly don't get the value system at work here. Maybe I'm lacking the "Rah rah, go [insert country]!" element?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sending in soldiers does not end the threat of collateral damage. Plus you have the fact that in Pakistan the government has allowed drone strikes but not boots on the ground.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, every time you eat beefsteak, it's the equivalent of eating something with the mind of a two year old child.
You people have all already been killing. That's simply part of life, it's just in society and "civilization" the killing is all indirect. You can splatter the father of a family of Pakistanis with a targetted strike and pat yourselves on the back that you got a terrorist in the mix, while his daughters and wife starve because they can't get work and eventually get forced into prostitution.
Moral high ground? There's no such thing. Blood's already on all of your hands.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?
How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."
Hello slippery slope argument.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Slippery slope argument?
Quote:
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
....
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_Slope_Argument
No, actually, it wasn't. They're killing American citizens without trial. That's pretty bad. The question we're asking is that if there is now precedence for this, will the department of defense bother making a distinction between terrorists and political dissenters (side note: they don't. See http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf), and therefore apply similar measures to people here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
In the Battle of Blair Mountain that Frem's always talking about, the US actually threatened to bombard the resistance from the air, and some contend that there was in fact air support for the national guard and pro-corporate forces during the fight.
Each part of the chain is a valid supportable premise, because it's already happened in the past.
I call fallacy fallacy on you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.
You and I see a difference. The department of defense doesn't.
But, very well, I won't argue with you. I hope you get all the predator strikes you want and then some. For your own security of course.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."
Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.
Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amazing how Hero just listed a bunch of people I hate. Could it be coinky-dince?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."
Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.
Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.
Listening to Eric Holder's speech justifying targeting Americans for drone kills reminded me of the Senator Long line in 'JFK'...."like pickin' gnat shit out of pepper"
And watching Jay Carney do the Tennessee two-step dance around reporters' questions about the drone memo was a real hoot.
Joe Biden, a vocal opponent of EITs, just fine with drone kills. Same with new Sec. of State John Kerry.
NBC, ABC, & CBS, relentless against Bush for EITs, silent on drone policy for years.
Democratic Senators and Congressmen against EITs mostly silent on drone policy for years.
And on and on.....there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you. And it's all to cover and protect Barack Obama. Now, are Republicans and their phony outrage gonna find a way to muck it up for merely a percieved political advantage?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Now, are Republicans and their phony outrage gonna find a way to muck it up for merely a percieved political advantage?
...Well, there goes my moral everything.
Recommended bleach and a steel wire scrubber.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
They are killing American citizens. That's the key point, and the one you seem determined to miss. Once you've cleared the killing of American citizens without due process, or through a star chamber without oversight or transparency, the matter of "where" is nothing more than a Google Map away.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."
Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.
Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.
Listening to Eric Holder's speech justifying targeting Americans for drone kills reminded me of the Senator Long line in 'JFK'...."like pickin' gnat shit out of pepper"
And watching Jay Carney do the Tennessee two-step dance around reporters' questions about the drone memo was a real hoot.
Joe Biden, a vocal opponent of EITs, just fine with drone kills. Same with new Sec. of State John Kerry.
NBC, ABC, & CBS, relentless against Bush for EITs, silent on drone policy for years.
Democratic Senators and Congressmen against EITs mostly silent on drone policy for years.
And on and on.....there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you. And it's all to cover and protect Barack Obama.
Of course, the point could also be made that Republicans, who have remained silent (or loudly supported) such tactics for years, suddenly have a problem with them NOW, and it's all so they can use it to attack President Obama.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What scares me is that an argument even exists about the moral justification of killing people extrajudicially.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:What scares me is that an argument even exists about the moral justification of killing people extrajudicially.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".
Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
They are killing American citizens. That's the key point, and the one you seem determined to miss. Once you've cleared the killing of American citizens without due process, or through a star chamber without oversight or transparency, the matter of "where" is nothing more than a Google Map away.
The "where" mean a hell of a lot. Do you really think that the use of drone strikes on US soil would go over with people like the current drone strikes do? I think most people will see the where as a better line than the who.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".
Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.
I don't seem to remember the Jews working to destroy Germany or planning terrorist attack. I must have missed that history lesson.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.
Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.
You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.
So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.
Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.
You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.
So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".
Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.
I don't seem to remember the Jews working to destroy Germany or planning terrorist attack. I must have missed that history lesson.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
You probably missed all your history lessons, going by the stuff you post.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.
Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.
You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.
So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?
The US is not tageting the civilians that is the difference.
As for what makes them more valuable, the US government is tasked with protecting US citizens and this country first, not others.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.
So that is why they did in on a weekend to limit casualties....oh wait.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You probably missed all your history lessons, going by the stuff you post.
Nice! Taking a page from the Rappy playbook of non-responces.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.
So that is why they did in on a weekend to limit casualties....oh wait.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
No, but they did attack in the morning, before most people had arrived at work. If they attacked later in the day they could have quadrupled the count, and if they were really concerned about having as high a casualty count as possible, they could have chosen targets besides the white house and the pentagon. The 9-11 attacks were intended to be symbolic more than anything else.
The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."
In short:
trololol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."
In short:
trololol
Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?
There is a difference between being okay with ollateral damage and understanding that it is a part of war. Plus at this point the strikes are not retaliation, but an effort to limit the capabilties of a group that has in the past and will kill US and other Western citizens if it gets the chance.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."
In short:
trololol
Pretty much.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.
In short:
lol
Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?
Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.
Coming from you that means...nothing.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.
In short:
lol
Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?
Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.
It's so pleasant when we're all in agreement.
Their actions constitute terrorism, our actions constitute terrorism, any military/militia based action that kills civilians and fosters fear in the local population is terrorism.
Using the same justifications as terrorists for said killing really does your PR no favours.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Their actions constitute terrorism, our actions constitute terrorism, any military/militia based action that kills civilians and fosters fear in the local population is terrorism.
Using the same justifications as terrorists for said killing really does your PR no favours.
I really don't give a shit about PR.
Blowing up a coffee shop in a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Blowing up a house with rebel fighters is a military strike. There are differences but if you want to call them both terrorist acts fine. I'm not going to argue the semantics with you. Thing is just because they are called the same thing does not make them the same.
Than you have the fact that drone strikes in Yemen have been praised by that government and while the Pakistani government outwardly condemns them they prove the US intelligence to execute them.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them
WASHINGTON — Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process.
“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil.
“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”
While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.
Obama White House: No more information about drone killings will be released to public
http://12160.org/page/white-house-no-more-information-about-drone-kill
ings-will-be-rele
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I'm damaging your calm. TERRORISM!
Quote:
Blowing up a coffee shop in a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Blowing up a house with rebel fighters is a military strike. There are differences but if you want to call them both terrorist acts fine.
Interesting, so whether or not there are civilians hit doesn't really matter to you. We hit military targets, so it's legitimate. Like how they targetted the Pentagon and white house on 9-11.
Quote:
Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
"Collateral damage" you say? So... I guess disregarding the safety of civilians is permissible in the pursuit of an ideological GOAL, is it? Such as a War on Terrorism, perhaps?
Quote:
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).
Quote:
"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[12] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Quote:
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word "terrorism".[6][7] Many scholars believe that the actions of governments can be labeled "terrorism"; however others, including governments, international organizations, private institutions and scholars, believe that the term is only applicable to the actions of non-state actors. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of civilians as part of a strategy directed against governments.[8] Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror.”[9] While states may accuse other states of state-sponsored terrorism when they support insurgencies, individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are seen as radicals, because actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate. Academic writing tends to follow the definitions accepted by states.
Kind of a double standard, considering how state terrorism was the original definition. Now it's all legitimate I suppose. Anything goes so long as you're a recognized state and a member of the UN, and so long as it's directed against non-member states. Hey, think maybe that's why Iran wanted in the club?
Civilians as collateral damage, jokes about target rich environments by soldiers... Tell me, Nick, do you think there is broad scale dehumanization in military forces? Do you think that some Americans hold the same dehumanizing attitudes about violence in the middle east? Do you believe that if the US acts in violation of International Rule of Law that it agreed to and even helped implement, that the US has been acting illegitimately, perhaps... Roguishly, in according to definitions that the US invented about rogue states?
Quote:
Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, so I'm still sort of okay with drone strikes in places we're engaged inif we _know the target is going to cause imminant harm. Currently the guidelines for when we drone strike aren't strict enough for me, so I'm not okay with it under the current vague circumstances. But just because I'm sort of okay with it doesn't mean I like it. Which leads me to propose my own solution. In the United States of Riona, we have a secret organization, termed the Quadruple S until I think of a better name for it. They are top secret assassins who can kill people in a conveluted way to which the finger won't point back at them, because they don't officially exist. The United States of Riona tries not to get involved in a lot of world affairs, because that's _their problem. But we do every once in a while work behind the scenes sometimes to influence the turn of things if it seems very important.
Why can't our government invent a super secret organization (obviously not the CIA or the NSA because they seem not to do well a lot of the time) that can just sneak in and kill "badguys" old school without expensive and damage-causing drones?
As for Quicko's slippery slope argument (because that is most definitely what he proposes) I'm not opposed to the slippery slope argument myself, because I really do believe in it. And so does Frem, as in if we do stuff to kids and get away with it we'll start doing it to adults. Frem can argue against me but that _is definitely a slippery slope argument, one which probably has some merrit.
That being said this conversation has been quite helpful because next time they slag on me for my slippery slope annalogies I'm going to remind them of theirs.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you can plainly outline both 1) a reasonable and logical progression of events, and/or 2) can provide supporting evidence that something similar has historical precedence.
So long as they aren't fallacious some slippery slope arguments are logically valid. That was why I posted what I did. People sometimes miss that there's a valid form of them - that you agree with some slippery slope arguments (as do I) is indicative that they're not all bad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My definition of terrorism: When you kill civilians intentionally for some political or ideological purpose. If you're intending to hit military sites or personel, or someone who has actually slighted you or whom you know intends to then I don't consider it terrorism. My problem with our current behavior is that I don't feel we're careful enough regarding who we hit, we don't have strict enough rules about who is and who isn't apropriate to drone, and we aren't trying hard enough to not kill extras. That's why my super secret covert contingent of super assassins would be more effective, less prone to screw ups and just over all better. I'm not joking either, I seriously think this would be better than drone strikes for many reasons.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think I like the United States of Riona. :(
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Triple post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double Post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The concept came from Chris, when he posted his US of Chrisisall thread regarding who he will grant the right to own firearms. The concept has also previously been vaguely suggested by CTS regarding the idea that everyone would run things a little differently than everyone else if they had CTSland or Signeland etc.
Its a fun excercise because then people can say exactly what they would do.
You have only been posting regularly just lately (I suspect you have posted frequently at other times in your life though). New people are fun. Time will tell if I would like the United States of Rouka. :)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rouka's a good friend. Riona and Rouka. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I recall reading a story of hers once, as I recall I liked it. I know you and her are friends so I bet she's a nice person.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"They are killing American civilians ..."
Without constitutionally guaranteed due process.
"... who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations."
Who they CLAIM are helping terrorist organizations.
"That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described."
AFAIK drones are approved for use in border security and surveillance within the US. Militant groups have historically had armed army/ FBI operations mounted against them. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see the logical next step.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you."
But they're not 'the left'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For those who are OK with killing people extra-judicially... the only justification for deadly force is deadly threat.
The other thing is... don't forget, WE are over THERE, not the other way around. IMHO, that makes us the aggressor.
Finally, yes, it's coming here too.
Not to get too all PNish about things, but haven't I been posting about universal surveillance?? The thing about our gubmint is... if it can, it will. Morality is not part of the equation. They'll do whatever it is they think they can get away with, whether it is covering up nuclear accidents/ contamination (done), experimenting on people without their knowledge (done), or making trillion-dollar secret loans to banks and insurances (done).
GEEZER- Who said this?
Functionally corrupted it, yes. You know, we’re told that corporations are people, that money is speech and that might makes right. And we know all of [these] things are contrary to what the United States of America is all about. But because our elected representatives now have to spend most of their time begging rich people to give them money, begging corporations and special interests to give them money, they spend more time worry about the effect of their actions, votes and speeches on these big donors, some of them anonymous, than the time they should be spending thinking about how to serve the interests of the publics they represent.
Do you suppose it was a Republican or a Democrat?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They are killing American civilians ..."
Without constitutionally guaranteed due process.
"... who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations."
Who they CLAIM are helping terrorist organizations.
Bingo. No charges were filed, no evidence ever admitted, no court of law ever swore out a warrant.
Quote:
"That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described."
AFAIK drones are approved for use in border security and surveillance within the US. Militant groups have historically had armed army/ FBI operations mounted against them. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see the logical next step.
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
You have only been posting regularly just lately (I suspect you have posted frequently at other times in your life though). New people are fun. Time will tell if I would like the United States of Rouka. :)
Hey Riona,
The US of Rouka would likely be taken over quickly by more competent states, so you'd have to visit early.
I'm not really comfortable with the idea of secret assassins sent out to meddle with another country, which is mainly why I posted my comment. It's really the same with the real life issue of drone attacks and extrajudicial killings, those things I find deeply disturbing, too.
I'm sure other aspects of USRiona would be great. I hear there's fairies!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think I'm damaging your calm. TERRORISM!
Not at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Interesting, so whether or not there are civilians hit doesn't really matter to you. We hit military targets, so it's legitimate. Like how they targetted the Pentagon and white house on 9-11.
Yes the Pentagon and the White House are legitimate military targets for them. There is no doubt about that. I also care about civilian, but understand that civilians will die in any type of war.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:"Collateral damage" you say? So... I guess disregarding the safety of civilians is permissible in the pursuit of an ideological GOAL, is it? Such as a War on Terrorism, perhaps?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Kind of a double standard, considering how state terrorism was the original definition. Now it's all legitimate I suppose. Anything goes so long as you're a recognized state and a member of the UN, and so long as it's directed against non-member states. Hey, think maybe that's why Iran wanted in the club?
What, did you think the world was fair?
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Civilians as collateral damage, jokes about target rich environments by soldiers... Tell me, Nick, do you think there is broad scale dehumanization in military forces? Do you think that some Americans hold the same dehumanizing attitudes about violence in the middle east? Do you believe that if the US acts in violation of International Rule of Law that it agreed to and even helped implement, that the US has been acting illegitimately, perhaps... Roguishly, in according to definitions that the US invented about rogue states?
Yes, yes, and no.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Hmm! Which still-functioning state in the world has killed the most foreign citizens since the term rogue state was defined in the 1980s? Which country has the most nukes? Which country has the most involvement in proxy wars fought through insurgency fighters? Which country has such incredibly dysfunctional and irresponsible infighting that its leadership rarely if ever acts in the interests of its population and that infighting directly threatens the state of the global economy?
There are a lot more dysfunctional governments on the planet than the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Then there's indefinite detainment, acknowledged torture, unwarranted surveillance, search, and seizure, brutality that doesn't differentiate between protesters and low-level terrorism. And targeted assassinations via predator drones of foreign targets that also kill civilians and rile their local population against us, thus recruiting more terrorists. All in the name of fighting terrorism. Wow! Don't you feel SAFE?
I do. I like that fact that the US has the largest most powerful military in the world. I also know that there is not a lot of evidence that our actions are increasing recruitment. Poverty is the largest factor. Of course it is hard to get a stable country and get people out of poverty when you have Radical Islamist groups trying to take over part of countries.
...but hey giver them a nice shiny party and everything will be all right!
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And here's something really lol-worthy: even the TALIBAN wouldn't put naked body scanners in airports.
No, they just take women who commit adultery out and shoot them. Or throw acid in the faces of girls just trying to go to school.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.
Well, wake me when that happens.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your other comments speak for themselves, so:
Quote:
Of course it is hard to get a stable country and get people out of poverty when you have Radical Islamist groups trying to take over part of countries.
Hard to get a stable country... Where? Where we funnel the poor into our cannon fodder ranks and send them off to some desert hole completely unrelated to us because FUCK 'EM, they aren't rich and that's unamerican?
Or do you actually think that 9-11 is an ongoing thing and Muslim extremists are here now, trying to take over THIS country?
We'll pay a couple billion for the next jet or bomb but can't be bothered to spend an equivalent amount of money on schools or infrastructure? I'm sure spending more money on predator drones will fix that.
Quote:
...but hey giver them a nice shiny party and everything will be all right!
Strawman.
Quote:
No, they just take women who commit adultery out and shoot them. Or throw acid in the faces of girls just trying to go to school.
Appeal to worse problems. OUR government is violating rights HERE, you're just too arsed to care. So long as you're living in your comfortable little world, it doesn't matter to you what happens outside it.
And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.
As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.
As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.
Nick is one of those whose only real concern is how to justify the killing of more and more people. He doesn't care about the "why", nor about who dies, just as long as it justifies in his mind the U.S. spending ever more money to make more dead bodies.
And as he's said, he's not the least bit concerned about who dies here, either.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hard to get a stable country... Where? Where we funnel the poor into our cannon fodder ranks and send them off to some desert hole completely unrelated to us because FUCK 'EM, they aren't rich and that's unamerican?
Or do you actually think that 9-11 is an ongoing thing and Muslim extremists are here now, trying to take over THIS country?
We'll pay a couple billion for the next jet or bomb but can't be bothered to spend an equivalent amount of money on schools or infrastructure? I'm sure spending more money on predator drones will fix that.
I'm talking about countries like Afghanistan or Yemen.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Strawman.
No more than your I worse than the Taliban BS.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Appeal to worse problems. OUR government is violating rights HERE, you're just too arsed to care. So long as you're living in your comfortable little world, it doesn't matter to you what happens outside it.
Violating our rights here? Good thing we have ways of addressing that, its called the court system.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.
If you think women don't have it better in Afghanistan now than when the Taliban was in control you have your head in your ass.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.
I wonder in your infinite wisdom how you would deal with Islamist Extremist and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nick is one of those whose only real concern is how to justify the killing of more and more people. He doesn't care about the "why", nor about who dies, just as long as it justifies in his mind the U.S. spending ever more money to make more dead bodies.
And as he's said, he's not the least bit concerned about who dies here, either.
...and your a delusional leftist that think if the US military goes away the world will suddenly be full of rainbows farting unicorns.
Wow it is fun to falsely paint people!
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.
How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.
If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking... 
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No more than your I worse than the Taliban BS.
Uh, no. That wasn't a strawman. Deliberate red herring and flawed analogy for the lulz, possibly. I'm not even trying to take this argument seriously.
Quote:
If you think women don't have it better in Afghanistan now than when the Taliban was in control you have your head in your ass.
Only in the urban areas. In the outlying areas it's worse than ever, because now you have warlords and the taliban doing their business there. And they're regaining ground in the cities, because our military couldn't find a coherent strategy if it bit them on the nose.
None the less, you've represented that your primary goal in going into Afghanistan was your security. You wanted to go into Afghanistan for your own interests. It wasn't about the women for you. It's not about the women now. You know it, I know it, and so this whole side argument is you trying to divert attention from what your confirmed stance is.
Quote:
I wonder in your infinite wisdom how you would deal with Islamist Extremist and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
To help the women of Afghanistan, I would have focused on humanitarian aid and support groups. To stabilize the middle east, I'd elevate the concerns of Gaza strip and Palestine up with Israel and stop playing favourites. The Taliban and Al Qaeda go all the way back to American and Russian involvement in Kashmir and the immediate aftermath, and historically the two groups haven't exactly been friends. We probably could have pitted them against each other - though considering our success rate over there that probably would've led to yet more political bungling.
Frankly the only reason Al Qaeda and the Taliban are problems is because our foreign policy in the middle east has been terrible and exploitative since the 1960s, maybe even since WWI.
Besides, the best that Al Qaeda has managed towards the US since 9-11 has been an underwear bomber and a shoe box bomber that our amazingly secure post-9-11 changes in security didn't even catch. The guys managed to get on the planes and their bombs didn't even work. You expect me to believe these guys are a threat? Considering how competent these guys seem, I have to start to wonder if 9-11 wasn't just a fluke.
And that's without looking at the history of Al Qaeda and it's involvement with our own intelligence agencies during the Russian-Afghanistan war and asking some serious questions.
I think y'all are chasing spooks. Either literally or figuratively.
What is this all about anyway? Revenge? Security? None of that justifies our wars over there, and we've really fueled self-perpetuating cycles with both of those agendas. if we just want to make the middle east a nicer more stable place (considering the results, I doubt it), there are much better ways to do that.
We do still have a lot of work to do in the middle east and a RESPONSIBILITY, because we have been a guiding hand in how backwards a lot of the middle east countries have become. But that work shouldn't be war. Humanitarian aid and focusing on helping the women in the middle east will change the culture against theocratic groups like the Taliban far more than occupation and bombs ever would. The middle east needs to figure itself out, and we can't force them to do that at gunpoint.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.
How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.
If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.
How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.
If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!
The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.
Politics is just whacked over there and we barely understand the lay of the land. Dictatorships and rigging the vote is a way of life, and feature prominently in any "democracy" we might try to establish. Ally with one group and another group declares a vendetta against you. It's like Europe pre-WWI, with everyone secretly hoping for a massive fight to break out and wipe out everyone else, leaving them on top, and deliberately shenaniganing behind the scenes to cause that.
The term "quagmire" has been suggested, and it's apt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Only in the urban areas. In the outlying areas it's worse than ever, because now you have warlords and the taliban doing their business there. And they're regaining ground in the cities, because our military couldn't find a coherent strategy if it bit them on the nose.
The Taliban and the Warlords had control over the whole country before we invaded, including the outlying areas.
The US strategy has been hampered by insurgence hiding next door in Pakistan. It is also never been realistic to thing we could control the whole country without the Afghanis help. Something that they are starting to step up to and do.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:None the less, you've represented that your primary goal in going into Afghanistan was your security. You wanted to go into Afghanistan for your own interests. It wasn't about the women for you. It's not about the women now. You know it, I know it, and so this whole side argument is you trying to divert attention from what your confirmed stance is.
You right going in after 911 was not about the women of Afghanistan. Thing is you can't argue that getting rid of groups like the Taliban is not a good thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:To help the women of Afghanistan, I would have focused on humanitarian aid and support groups. To stabilize the middle east, I'd elevate the concerns of Gaza strip and Palestine up with Israel and stop playing favourites. The Taliban and Al Qaeda go all the way back to American and Russian involvement in Kashmir and the immediate aftermath, and historically the two groups haven't exactly been friends. We probably could have pitted them against each other - though considering our success rate over there that probably would've led to yet more political bungling.
How would support and aid get the Taliban to change their harsh rule? How do not play favorites between two factions claiming the same land as their own? Those are nice thoughts, but how do they work out?
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Frankly the only reason Al Qaeda and the Taliban are problems is because our foreign policy in the middle east has been terrible and exploitative since the 1960s, maybe even since WWI.
Besides, the best that Al Qaeda has managed towards the US since 9-11 has been an underwear bomber and a shoe box bomber that our amazingly secure post-9-11 changes in security didn't even catch. The guys managed to get on the planes and their bombs didn't even work. You expect me to believe these guys are a threat? Considering how competent these guys seem, I have to start to wonder if 9-11 wasn't just a fluke.
And that's without looking at the history of Al Qaeda and it's involvement with our own intelligence agencies during the Russian-Afghanistan war and asking some serious questions.
I think y'all are chasing spooks. Either literally or figuratively.
Could it be that Al Qaeda has not been able to do anything else because we have continually taken out their leadership and strongholds? I think so.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:What is this all about anyway? Revenge? Security? None of that justifies our wars over there, and we've really fueled self-perpetuating cycles with both of those agendas. if we just want to make the middle east a nicer more stable place (considering the results, I doubt it), there are much better ways to do that.
We do still have a lot of work to do in the middle east and a RESPONSIBILITY, because we have been a guiding hand in how backwards a lot of the middle east countries have become. But that work shouldn't be war. Humanitarian aid and focusing on helping the women in the middle east will change the culture against theocratic groups like the Taliban far more than occupation and bombs ever would. The middle east needs to figure itself out, and we can't force them to do that at gunpoint.
No
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.
How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.
If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.
How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MAC52
Quote:Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!
The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.
The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a safe haven. No one took the Taliban's offer seriously because these are the same type of radicals think it is okay to kill non-Muslims.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.
How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?
Rappy are you going to make an argument or...oh Kwicko I got you confused for a minute.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52Quote:Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.
How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?
Rappy are you going to make an argument or...oh Kwicko I got you confused for a minute.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
You seem to spend a lot of your time here being confused.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52Quote:Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.
The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?
Your getting as bad as Rappy. That is why it is so easy to confuse the two of you.
You could try some type of argument but that maybe beyond you at the moment.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!
The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.
The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a safe haven. No one took the Taliban's offer seriously because these are the same type of radicals think it is okay to kill non-Muslims.
They didn't have laws about killing non-Muslims, though yes, it happened. They did have a law about forcing Shia Muslims to convert or be killed, but they just had discrimination laws against non-Muslims. Sumptuary laws, stuff like that. Non-Muslim killings were technically extra-legal.
However, your analogy about the nazis and the gold triangles would be pretty applicable to the Taliban, they had laws that Hindus had to wear an identifying badge, though the Taliban never really got around to rounding them up into concentration camps and gassing them.
Yes, the Taliban is terrible, yes they kill people, yes they have terrible oppressive laws for minority groups and women. But ultimately no, we didn't attack the Taliban because they killed non-Muslims. And we didn't attack them because they had anything to do with 9-11.
Listen, we were expecting a bunch of backwards luddites with a hatred for western technology to not only be able to locate Al Qaeda in the difficult mountainous cave-ridden topography of northern Afghanistan and west Pakistan and turn them over to us, but we also just assumed they knew where Al Qaeda really was, because as we all know, every Muslim knows the location of every other Muslim at all times even when they're in hiding.
Seriously, man, Al Qaeda was just in Afghanistan, it's not like the Taliban was hosting banquets for them. They were also just in Pakistan, and Pakistan didn't really know where they were at the beginning - though when we started acting like assholes and they found out where Osama was, surprise surprise, they didn't tell us. Yet we never went to war with Pakistan, and Pakistan isn't exactly a progressive western democracy either.
We didn't go to war with Pakistan, because we'd installed our own preferred government officials in Pakistan. We went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan because we hadn't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just heard on the news: the estimate of civilians killed in predator drone strikes is between 2000+ and 3000+ people. On the upper end of the estimate, we've killed as many people as those who died in the 9-11 attacks, to hit what the CIA largely acknowledges to be low priority low threat targets. And that's not counting the hundreds of thousands who died in the war from on the ground activity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?
Your getting as bad as Rappy. That is why it is so easy to confuse the two of you.
You could try some type of argument but that maybe beyond you at the moment.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Actually, it's proven to be beyond you. Byte has already shown you for what you are.
If you aren't being kept ignorant by force, are you ignorant by choice?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hard to fight ignorance by bombing people.
Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
How about starting by helping to build schools, wells, houses, and roads. How about staffing medical clinics? Once there is something worth defending, people will defend it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.
Well, wake me when that happens.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Wakey, wakey, eggs and bakey...
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil
Quote:
It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Hard to fight ignorance by bombing people.
Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
How about starting by helping to build schools, wells, houses, and roads. How about staffing medical clinics? Once there is something worth defending, people will defend it.
Because nobody wants to see the movie where Rambo builds a school; they want to see the movies where shit gets blowed up real good. And these are the people who think that life is a Rambo movie.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME