If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Antiwar)   Obama administration commits act of terrorism just hours after being reelected   (antiwar.com) divider line 301
    More: Asinine, Obama administration, Bush Jr., Sanaa, American Living, Yemen  
•       •       •

28993 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 04:31:19 PM
Also, I'd point out that even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war, and those fighting for the south were treated as enemy combatants and not afforded the rights and protections of the constitution.
 
2012-11-08 04:32:17 PM

BigNumber12: JDAT: Vectron: JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.


I can't wait until the president unleashes this technology on DomesticTerrorists. The thought that tax cheats, speeders, preppers, gun hoarders will know they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

You equate tax cheats, speeders, preppers and gun hoarders with acts of Terror???


Which acts of terror did the people in that car commit?


The kind that brings the Drone!
 
2012-11-08 04:34:18 PM

imgod2u: Keizer_Ghidorah: Then it's a system that will never work, because we would need everyone to cooperate with each other, and that's an impossibility in the Middle East, which has been fighting with itself for the last 2,000 years and shows no sign of stopping.

Can we at least agree on what would be the right thing to do? I agree with you that, practically speaking, it's likely never going to happen. But if we can agree on what the ideal would be, we can strive to move closer to it anytime it's practically possible. Instead of throwing our arms in the air and say "fark it, shoot them all and let God sort it out".

I don't care for what we're doing over there, either, mostly for economic and our troops' safety reasons. But unless something incredible happens, there will be people who view us as enemies to be destroyed for religious, political, or moral reaons. If we leave, they'll be emboldened by our seeming "surrender", and if we stay we're gonna get more people angry. It's become a "damne dif we do, damne dif we don't" scenario.

There are many shades of grey in between those two extremes you know. The goal isn't to eliminate terrorism entirely -- that's probably never going to happen; but rather to reduce it. Every decision we make when it comes to policy needs to be guided by morality as well as practicality. No, you'll never convince the hardcore, religious nutjobs out there; but for every accurate drone strike, for every innocent civilian that isn't killed, and for every family that an American soldier helps and defends, one less otherwise rational young person will decide to join a terrorist organization.

I'm not against drone strikes in and of themselves; I'm worried that the ability to push a button and kill someone may be too attractive to not be abused without oversight.

/of course, we're also partly reaping what we sowed back in the 60's and 70's with our extreme anti-communism attitude that made us do some reprehensible things in places like the Middle ...


/LOL...they aren't interested in peace, they are religious fanatics, and they bring the derp and violence with them. They have shown constantly that they have 0 interest in talking things out, and only understand killing in name of their fake sky wizard. Since they wont talk...fark them. Make them take it deep. It's the only way to deal with them.
 
2012-11-08 04:36:29 PM

Kit Fister: manimal2878: Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.


Which is exactly analogus to dropping a bomb on a car driving down a road.
 
2012-11-08 04:39:04 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: manimal2878: Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.

Which is exactly analogus to dropping a bomb on a car driving down a road.


You say that like we never carpet bombed Germany or shelled/bombed german troops in the field, or did anything except on the front lines.
 
2012-11-08 04:41:39 PM

Kit Fister: Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: manimal2878: Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.

Which is exactly analogus to dropping a bomb on a car driving down a road.

You say that like we never carpet bombed Germany or shelled/bombed german troops in the field, or did anything except on the front lines.


You say that as though a mobalized nation stare is the same thing as a guy in a car.

Also, who the hell is "we"?
 
2012-11-08 04:43:39 PM

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.



"Terrorists" = anyone who the US government finds irritating or "inconvenient".
 
2012-11-08 04:45:24 PM

Amos Quito: Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.


"Terrorists" = anyone who the US government finds irritating or "inconvenient".


Including, but not limited to, U.S. citizens.
 
2012-11-08 04:46:39 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: manimal2878: Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.

Which is exactly analogus to dropping a bomb on a car driving down a road.

You say that like we never carpet bombed Germany or shelled/bombed german troops in the field, or did anything except on the front lines.

You say that as though a mobalized nation stare is the same thing as a guy in a car.

Also, who the hell is "we"?


So, if two nazis, or two civilians fighting on the side of the Nazis, jumped into a car and were driving down the road towards a local Nazi HQ or hidden telephone/radio station to report on allied troop movements, deliver intercepted communiques, or some other thing that is linked to the war effort, you'd say don't bomb the car if you have a chance?
 
2012-11-08 04:48:32 PM

GanjSmokr: Amos Quito: Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.


"Terrorists" = anyone who the US government finds irritating or "inconvenient".

Including, but not limited to, U.S. citizens.


I'd like to believe that there's more data that goes into it than simply saying "he's a terrorist". Since I believe they still have court approval, albeit in secret-session courts, they can't just say "hey, that guy's a terrorist!"
 
2012-11-08 04:52:06 PM

Kit Fister: Also, I'd point out that even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war, and those fighting for the south were treated as enemy combatants and not afforded the rights and protections of the constitution.



Yep, and its suspended again - but we're all potentially "enemy combatants" now!
 
2012-11-08 04:56:08 PM

MadMattressMack: MythDragon: piperTom: kriegsgeist: So vote republican?

I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.

I voted for John Jackson
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 571x287]
Because he's against those things that everybody hates.

I almost let their identical DNA fool me. Then i voted for Robot Nixon!

[1-media-cdn.foolz.us image 511x384]

\hot like the fires of robot hell


Of course when promised not to go on a murderous rage, like most politicians, he failed to follow through.
 
2012-11-08 05:11:00 PM

Nurglitch: BigNumber12: Vectron: BigNumber12: Biological Ali: This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.

Have you ever been to Toronto?


No. Substitute any other North American city if it makes you feel better.
 
2012-11-08 05:12:04 PM

Vectron: BigNumber12: JDAT: Vectron: JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.


I can't wait until the president unleashes this technology on DomesticTerrorists. The thought that tax cheats, speeders, preppers, gun hoarders will know they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

You equate tax cheats, speeders, preppers and gun hoarders with acts of Terror???


Which acts of terror did the people in that car commit?


Let's ask that about the people the government is killing overseas. What proof do we have that these people have harmed Americans or are planning too? They have created a "legal" (ironic quotes) definition for certain people they want to kill.

Why can't it happen here eventually?

 


Yes, that was my point.
 
2012-11-08 05:13:02 PM

Farking Canuck: I take it you don't make it to Toronto very often. A very multi-cultural city ... folks of all colours and persuasions. And restaurants serving food from all corners of the planet.



Yes, I'm gathering that. Refer to my response to Nurglitch.
 
2012-11-08 05:14:33 PM

Biological Ali: BigNumber12: Biological Ali: This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.


I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.

Never attempt to be clever again.



You can feel free to keep trying to be clever. Don't worry about addressing the point I'm making.
 
2012-11-08 05:15:39 PM
Hey, the man just got re-elected. Let him celebrate.....
 
2012-11-08 05:21:31 PM

imgod2u: Terrorism is like crime; not like war. Dealing with it requires a global police force -- or coalition of police forces -- that deals with such crime. And such a system only works -- and is morally defensible -- if there is a trial and jury system.


How does a civil law system apply to non-citizens not located on American soil?
 
BHK
2012-11-08 05:23:18 PM
Sadly, the apologists for government assume that this is an Obama vs. Romney debate. Both are sociopathic, totalitarian murderers. One has the job that allows him to exercise his tendencies and the other must make do with his limited private sector influence. Anti-war.com is not run by Republicans. Far from it. They were there when Bush was starting wars and killing people and the Democrats would have cried loudly over these sorts of bombings. Now that it's an authoritarian progressive of the left-wing flavor in office, the apologists for the state are quiet, demanding only that they get their free bennies.
 
2012-11-08 05:28:13 PM

BigNumber12: No. Substitute any other North American city if it makes you feel better.


Brampton??
 
BHK
2012-11-08 05:29:19 PM

JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than an invasion.

Way to get some Mr. Prez!


What do you mean by "exact location"? It's not terribly exact, and most of the people killed could hardly be labelled terrorist, even if they are male and over 16. But hey, they are brown, and foreign, your government tells you they are bad, bad people and you should feel grateful that they take out those bad bad turrists for you. Thank you for exemplifying Amerika: Land of the Sheep. Now go watch your football game and drink your corporate beer.
 
2012-11-08 05:30:01 PM

Kit Fister: Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: Holocaust Agnostic: Kit Fister: manimal2878: Fallout Boy: That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

Maybe you missed it in the early 2000's when everybody was telling you that is exactly what the patriot would allow, but you all hopped on that bandwagon because of the terrorists. Sorry the horse is out of the barn now. If you are labeled a terrorist, like Alwaki, the constitutions no longer applies.

This is nothing new. American Citizens who went to fight with the Nazis in WWII were treated as enemy combatants as well, up to and including killing them along with other enemy soldiers. I have no problem with this: if they fight along side the enemy, I'm not taking the time to check paperwork on the battlefield during combat to only shoot at the bad guys that aren't citizens.

Which is exactly analogus to dropping a bomb on a car driving down a road.

You say that like we never carpet bombed Germany or shelled/bombed german troops in the field, or did anything except on the front lines.

You say that as though a mobalized nation stare is the same thing as a guy in a car.

Also, who the hell is "we"?

So, if two nazis, or two civilians fighting on the side of the Nazis, jumped into a car and were driving down the road towards a local Nazi HQ or hidden telephone/radio station to report on allied troop movements, deliver intercepted communiques, or some other thing that is linked to the war effort, you'd say don't bomb the car if you have a chance?


Sure, but Yemen ain't Germany and al qaeda sure as shiat aren't the Maxis. Are you sniffing glue?
 
2012-11-08 05:34:32 PM

This text is now purple: imgod2u: Terrorism is like crime; not like war. Dealing with it requires a global police force -- or coalition of police forces -- that deals with such crime. And such a system only works -- and is morally defensible -- if there is a trial and jury system.

How does a civil law system apply to non-citizens not located on American soil?


There is such a thing as international law and international crime.
 
2012-11-08 05:57:58 PM
Gee, it's almost as if people were upset that Obama is continuing Bush's foreign policy...
 
2012-11-08 05:58:48 PM

Vectron: I don't know if this is bullshiat and or up-to-date but:

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to
1)drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia;
2)destroy Israel; and
3) topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East.

So, number 1 is easy. We have been helping with Number 3. Does it all come down to Israel?


Israel's a big part, mainly because everyone over there thinks they're God's chosen people and they claim the same piece of land as theirs. In the end, it all boils down to religion. Also prophecies of Jews and temples and God smiting things.

Personally I think you're being extremely arrogant if you think God cares that much about some short-lived creatures in a few square miles of desert on a speck of dust in an infinite universe.
 
2012-11-08 06:01:22 PM

BigNumber12: You can feel free to keep trying to be clever. Don't worry about addressing the point I'm making.


You had a point?
 
2012-11-08 06:04:21 PM

Amos Quito: Kit Fister: Also, I'd point out that even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war, and those fighting for the south were treated as enemy combatants and not afforded the rights and protections of the constitution.


Yep, and its suspended again - but we're all potentially "enemy combatants" now!


Hey, that's an easy situation to avoid. Don't do what the guy did and openly denounce America, declare yourself no longer a citizen, leave the country, and join the enemy.

You twits need to stop thinking that we're on the knife edge of "EVEN THINKING WRONG THOUGHTS WILL GET ME SENT INTO THE CORN FIELD!!".
 
2012-11-08 06:05:55 PM
the only way Islamic terrorism is going to stop to any large degree ( i can't for see it ever going away completely) is if the religious leaders of Islam initiate a campaign to remove radical Imams from their places of influence and agree to allow the desperation of state and mosque .

There will always be a few radical Islamic sects just as Christianity has its share of wackos, Honest i have serious began to wonder if true world piece is impossible as long as the major organized religions exist as we know them today.
 
2012-11-08 06:06:20 PM

mark12A: Hey, the man just got re-elected. Let him celebrate.....


Aisle seat? Smoking or Non?
 
2012-11-08 06:06:44 PM

BHK: JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than an invasion.

Way to get some Mr. Prez!

What do you mean by "exact location"? It's not terribly exact, and most of the people killed could hardly be labelled terrorist, even if they are male and over 16. But hey, they are brown, and foreign, your government tells you they are bad, bad people and you should feel grateful that they take out those bad bad turrists for you. Thank you for exemplifying Amerika: Land of the Sheep. Now go watch your football game and drink your corporate beer.




now now now, this is just silly.
We'd be perfectly happy to use these weapons on white foreign folks.
in fact that's the justification we used to build them in the first place.
however, until that team decides to play again, we need practice.
 
2012-11-08 06:08:13 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: Kit Fister: Also, I'd point out that even Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the civil war, and those fighting for the south were treated as enemy combatants and not afforded the rights and protections of the constitution.


Yep, and its suspended again - but we're all potentially "enemy combatants" now!

Hey, that's an easy situation to avoid. Don't do what the guy did and openly denounce America, declare yourself no longer a citizen, leave the country, and join the enemy.

You twits need to stop thinking that we're on the knife edge of "EVEN THINKING WRONG THOUGHTS WILL GET ME SENT INTO THE CORN FIELD!!".


yeah, we are at least 3 more super computers and 2 more data centers away from that.
 
2012-11-08 06:12:15 PM

Biological Ali: BigNumber12: You can feel free to keep trying to be clever. Don't worry about addressing the point I'm making.

You had a point?


Shh, don't trouble yourself with that. You were busy white knighting your President - just focus on that.
 
BHK
2012-11-08 06:19:50 PM

Sticky Hands: BHK: JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than an invasion.

Way to get some Mr. Prez!

What do you mean by "exact location"? It's not terribly exact, and most of the people killed could hardly be labelled terrorist, even if they are male and over 16. But hey, they are brown, and foreign, your government tells you they are bad, bad people and you should feel grateful that they take out those bad bad turrists for you. Thank you for exemplifying Amerika: Land of the Sheep. Now go watch your football game and drink your corporate beer.



now now now, this is just silly.
We'd be perfectly happy to use these weapons on white foreign folks.
in fact that's the justification we used to build them in the first place.
however, until that team decides to play again, we need practice.


That's true. The American "Greatest Generation" killed over a million Germans in concentration camps (not to mention nuking a few hundred thousand non-whites in Japan) after the war, and they are practically worshiped by a fawning public that ignores anything that does not glorify their majestic government. So, yeah, I concede to your point. Murder of innocent people to further American government interests is pretty much the chief export of the Land of the Brave
 
2012-11-08 06:22:51 PM

BigNumber12: Biological Ali: BigNumber12: You can feel free to keep trying to be clever. Don't worry about addressing the point I'm making.

You had a point?

Shh, don't trouble yourself with that. You were busy white knighting your President - just focus on that.


Ah, I get it now. You're just pulling my leg. Oh you troublemaker, you.
 
2012-11-08 06:46:34 PM

Farking Canuck: Brampton


I'm imagining the general from Canadian Bacon here: "They're white like us!"
 
2012-11-08 06:48:08 PM

skullkrusher: meanmutton: I don't understand people who refer to military action against a militant force as "terrorism". The USS Cole bombing wasn't terrorism, it was an act of asymmetrical war. This is no different.

it isn't - I don't think the US is trying to terrorize civilians to achieve its objectives. I also don't think it is possible to launch a terrorist attack on combatants


Representatives of the US government, congressmen and senators have explicitly stated that they want 'the enemy' to be afraid of the tactics the US uses.
 
2012-11-08 06:53:03 PM

Farking Canuck: Fallout Boy: You do know that drone strikes have been ordered specifically by Obama to kill American citizens in the past, right? That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

So in WW2 there were no soldiers fighting for the Axis that had American citizenship??

I am no historian, but I am pretty sure that if one of your own citizens takes up arms against you during wartime they are as legitimate target as any other enemy soldier.


The difference is they were actively engaged in warfare against the US and if killed were killed while they were very clearly engaged in warfare against the US.

You would be hard pressed to argue that someone 100 miles from the nearest US soldier armed with a rifle is engaged in warfare. You'd be really hard pressed to prove that the people standing within 20m of him and unarmed were also engaged in combat.
 
2012-11-08 06:56:44 PM

kim jong-un: Farking Canuck: Fallout Boy: You do know that drone strikes have been ordered specifically by Obama to kill American citizens in the past, right? That just because you are associated with terrorist organizations, it doesn't take away your right as an American to stand trail and have due process?

So in WW2 there were no soldiers fighting for the Axis that had American citizenship??

I am no historian, but I am pretty sure that if one of your own citizens takes up arms against you during wartime they are as legitimate target as any other enemy soldier.

The difference is they were actively engaged in warfare against the US and if killed were killed while they were very clearly engaged in warfare against the US.

You would be hard pressed to argue that someone 100 miles from the nearest US soldier armed with a rifle is engaged in warfare. You'd be really hard pressed to prove that the people standing within 20m of him and unarmed were also engaged in combat.


Plenty of the places bombed by Allied forces in WWII were, at the time of their bombing, hundreds of miles away from the nearest Allied soldier "armed with a rifle". There's no military convention, formal or otherwise, holding a target is only legitimate if there's an infantryman from the other side standing nearby.
 
2012-11-08 07:08:14 PM
The real problem here is the drone strikes. They aren't particularly effective.

Carpet bombing. That's how you make a point. That's how you end things.

/bonus: creates jobs for American bomb manufacturers.
//double bonus: creates jobs for the American companies that get hired to rebuild the stuff.
It's a win/win. No downside.
 
2012-11-08 07:16:39 PM
Terrorism involves the use of violence to further a political agenda, and specifically involves attacking noncombatants to spread terror.

Killing combatants with targeted strikes isn't terrorism. Killing noncombatants as collateral damage is not the desired effect, and there is a LOT of effort put into not doing that. As in this case, where Yemeni intel is used to attack the combatant targets when they aren't surrounded by innocents.

One could argue that drone strikes are war crimes, but they're not terrorism.
 
2012-11-08 07:29:44 PM

BHK: Sticky Hands: BHK: JDAT:

That's true. The American "Greatest Generation" killed over a million Germans in concentration camps (not to mention nuking a few hundred thousand non-whites in Japan) after the war, and they are practically worshiped by a fawning public that ignores anything that does not glorify their majestic government. So, yeah, I concede to your point. Murder of innocent people to further American government interests is pretty much the chief export of the Land of the Brave


So claims a Canadian novelist with no experience or training in historical research.

The real number was probably around 50,000, which was pretty good considering the utter famine that Europe experienced in 1945, and the fact that the western Allies had to deal with 5 million POWs.
 
2012-11-08 07:38:50 PM

Vectron:
And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.
You people are pathetic.


No, they were really a family of Republicans innocently vacationing in Yemen. And Obama wiped them out, that bastard!
Glad you're here to show us the truth!
 
2012-11-08 07:47:54 PM
This is the same antiwar.com that claimed both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were products of American foreign policy, that they're the product of poverty and injustice instead of the cause of it, claimed that attempts by Al-Qaeda to destroy Algerian society were not that but were instead an insurgency, that the murder of Sérgio de Mello by Al-Qaeda was an act of justice (for helping to liberate East Timor from Indonesia), they count themselves among the friends of Hamas, and on and on. These people are very open terrorist sympathizers, and though the name of their website might lead you to think that they are anti-war pacifists, that's just another lie that makes up the entirety of their reputation because they are in fact pro jihad.
 
2012-11-08 11:30:33 PM

Cpl.D: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cpl.D: The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

I've got a wingnut relative who's completely certain that the use of drones is somehow a war crime, and that within days 0bummer's going to go to trial for war crimes. I wish I were kidding. She's already saved up money for an expensive caterer for the party she intends to throw.

According to some, usually the older people, if you're not risking your life or the lives of others to fight, then it's evil and horrible and wrong and Satanic and blah blah. Apparently the idea of "minimize your own losses" is a foreign concept to these people.

Usually the same people who think there's some kind of honor in meeting your foe on open ground and killing them. The same knuckleheads who romanticize war and don't realize how completely freaking ugly it is.


I've watched your posts long enough to realize you're a good person posting in good faith. I ask you to read this book. Link If you like, I'll buy a copy for you and mail it to a safe address: not your home or work address. If you have a church or library or anyplace of that sort, where you could receive a small package; post back in this thread and put the desired address in your profile. I'll check this thread again tomorrow.
 
2012-11-08 11:38:41 PM

thunderbird8804: This is the same antiwar.com that claimed both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were products of American foreign policy, that they're the product of poverty and injustice instead of the cause of it, claimed that attempts by Al-Qaeda to destroy Algerian society were not that but were instead an insurgency, that the murder of Sérgio de Mello by Al-Qaeda was an act of justice (for helping to liberate East Timor from Indonesia), they count themselves among the friends of Hamas, and on and on. These people are very open terrorist sympathizers, and though the name of their website might lead you to think that they are anti-war pacifists, that's just another lie that makes up the entirety of their reputation because they are in fact pro jihad.


Its the same antiwar.com that predicted iraq would be a disaster. I don't know about the other things. I rarely read it now. I gave them money a couple of times. I think they do a good job. They first brought AIPAC to my attention. We should value them over "respected" media that just regurgitate government handouts.
 
2012-11-09 05:31:52 AM

Vectron: thunderbird8804: This is the same antiwar.com that claimed both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were products of American foreign policy, that they're the product of poverty and injustice instead of the cause of it, claimed that attempts by Al-Qaeda to destroy Algerian society were not that but were instead an insurgency, that the murder of Sérgio de Mello by Al-Qaeda was an act of justice (for helping to liberate East Timor from Indonesia), they count themselves among the friends of Hamas, and on and on. These people are very open terrorist sympathizers, and though the name of their website might lead you to think that they are anti-war pacifists, that's just another lie that makes up the entirety of their reputation because they are in fact pro jihad.

Its the same antiwar.com that predicted iraq would be a disaster. I don't know about the other things. I rarely read it now. I gave them money a couple of times. I think they do a good job. They first brought AIPAC to my attention. We should value them over "respected" media that just regurgitate government handouts.


I would subject antiwar.com to the same scrutiny and skepticism that I would use on the mainstream media. I for one detect a tendency there to be antiwar only if the authors of the war in question are the US or Israel. It is probably true that we killed three people in Yemen in a drone strike the other day, and this attack may have been terrorism under international law for all I know, but I can't find a single writer on antiwar.com who has one cross word to say about Bashar al-Assad, for instance, whose government has killed tens of thousands of people in the past year.
 
2012-11-09 06:13:04 AM
Q: Does the government of Yemen support these strikes?
A: Yes, apparently, which is why I have no particular beef over them.
 
2012-11-09 07:01:00 AM

imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: At least troops can capture a guy, question him and look at the evidence before executing him.

A couple of flaws with your plan:

- Troops are not supposed to be executing prisoners.

- Terrorists don't usually stop for interviews

So in the end you have put troops on the ground, in harms way, in a firefight, calling for air support to blow up the terrorists. How is this better?

Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).

Yes, there are still cases where air strikes are called in and someone is just blown to bits; the worry I have is that drone strikes become so increasingly easy and cost effective that they are the go-to solution instead of a "we gotta stop these people now and there isn't time for soldiers to diligently capture them" last resort.

Again, I'm not saying that this isn't an elegant solution nor that in many cases, the best solution to counter-terrorism. My worry is that it is being used in cases where it shouldn't be due to just how easy a drone strike is and that there isn't any checks and balances to ensure it isn't over-used. I like Obama and think he's probably being as diligent as he can about this but that doesn't mean things don't slip through the crack and some over-zealous General didn't pull the "fark it, just take that brown dude out" line.

Machines doing the killing takes away the face-to-face aspect; which for an innocent dude can mean the difference between life and death.


Yeah, tell that to the innocent non-combattants that those terrorists have blown up.
 
2012-11-09 07:07:16 AM

imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Erm, not in all cases? Soldiers in Afghanistan have taken in plenty Prisoners of War and either handed them off to a local government to be tried and executed (e.g. Saddam) or taken them out (e.g. bin Laden).

If Bin Laden had been captured alive it would have been illegal for the soldiers to then execute him.

Not saying that everything is always done by the book but this is what the book says. And we are discussing the legalities of things here.

We're discussing what's right. The case of bin Laden illustrates how things are not always clear-cut. In that particular case, the kill-order was given. But my point is that it takes a human being to be there, see the target, exercise judgement and make the call (or inform his superiors such that he/she can make the call).

My fear is that drones and other such remote killing machines takes away that staring-him-in-the-face human aspect and that would lead to a lot of trigger happiness; it's easy to push a button to kill someone you never have to look in the face.


So you're advocating the elimination of all missiles, military aircraft, artillery and firearms? Our armed forces should only be given sabers, knives and spears? Not even trebuchets or catapults?
 
2012-11-09 07:14:38 AM
I seriously don't get how the same right-wing coonts who were clamouring for war with Iraq ten years ago now have a problem with drone strikes or farking Benghazi.

Listen up you hypocritical assholes; your man Bush started an illegal war based on lies that killed over 100,000 people after 3,000 people (many of them not American) were killed on US soil during his watch. And you douchebags have a problem with four Americans being killed in Libya and targetted drone strikes?

Do you morons not remember "You're either with us or you're against us". "Axis of Evil" ring a farking bell?

And you sacks of crap wanted to elect a guy who wanted to start an even bigger war with Iran...
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report