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
 
2012-11-08 11:54:22 AM
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.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-08 12:02:04 PM
Fark off.
 
2012-11-08 12:29:10 PM

Walker: 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.

[img.photobucket.com image 450x352]


Should have gotten more of them.
 
2012-11-08 12:31:32 PM
Mr Nobel peace prize brings his peace bombs to make the world peacely

/Kidding, dont take this as serious
 
2012-11-08 01:24:44 PM
Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?
 
2012-11-08 01:33:26 PM
Obamabots: "Nothing to see here citizen."
 
2012-11-08 01:33:29 PM
heh killbots.
:)
 
2012-11-08 01:33:47 PM
They see me trolling, they hating.
 
2012-11-08 01:33:54 PM
Brown people. Nobody cares.
 
2012-11-08 01:34:49 PM
Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.
 
2012-11-08 01:35:18 PM
I Love the picture on TFA of Obama laughing. LOVE it. Makes me totally sympathetic for the Al Qaeda terrorists that were killed.
 
2012-11-08 01:35:40 PM
That's why we love him.
 
2012-11-08 01:35:49 PM
I think republicans are just angry we have a huge stockpile of aging nuclear weapons that we haven't used.

They would be much happier with these strikes if we destroyed whole cities with them.
 
2012-11-08 01:36:20 PM
I remember another president that did similar things; all of you guys say he should be tried as a war criminal; what makes this any different?

On a serious note; BOOM, headshot
 
2012-11-08 01:36:38 PM
Non-story, just Obama supporters firing in the air

amidoingitrite?
 
2012-11-08 01:36:59 PM
Basically, the current exchange rate is roughly a 1000 third world foreign lives for each American one.

Meh.
 
2012-11-08 01:37:15 PM

Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.


Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.
 
2012-11-08 01:37:18 PM
Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:03 PM
third world, foreign.... I guess that was redundant.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:11 PM
Bush made him do it
 
2012-11-08 01:38:40 PM

ShawnDoc: Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?


Yes. George Bush waited almost a year before he attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and some field in the middle of nowhere.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:41 PM
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.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:42 PM

Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.


yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:49 PM
In other words, he still had to be president despite elections going on. Go figure.
 
2012-11-08 01:38:51 PM
This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.
 
2012-11-08 01:39:13 PM
Apparently in order to avoid the stupidity of the article my computer is refusing to load the site. Good computer.
 
2012-11-08 01:39:41 PM
We've been doing this for years. It's sneaky and underhanded, but involves loss of fewer of our personnel, and more dead persons of interest. If terrorists want to face a trial before they get executed, they'll have to join a formal state and declare war.
 
2012-11-08 01:39:55 PM
It reassures me that, like myself, you bastards are so un-central to our society that you have nothing better to do than this all day. Obama's gangsta foreign policy is disgusting to a moral mind. Many children have been killed by drones. Weddings and funerals have been attacked. First responders have been targeted in follow-up attacks. Reminds one of the IRA.
 
2012-11-08 01:40:05 PM
images.sodahead.com

/hot like the Yemini capital
 
2012-11-08 01:40:20 PM

ShawnDoc: Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?


I think their premise is that he shouldn't be authorizing this sort of strike against them at any point in time.
 
2012-11-08 01:40:25 PM

skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.


I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.
 
2012-11-08 01:40:32 PM
You know, not all use of force by a government is terrorism. That's a loaded term.
 
2012-11-08 01:41:19 PM

Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.


*handwaving to avoid asking yourself the hard questions!*
 
2012-11-08 01:41:19 PM
 
2012-11-08 01:41:20 PM
[I'mOkWithThis.jpg]
 
2012-11-08 01:41:30 PM
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!
 
2012-11-08 01:41:56 PM
Now all of the sudden The AdultsTM are outraged about clandestine military operations?
 
2012-11-08 01:43:17 PM
Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.
 
2012-11-08 01:43:39 PM
SirEattonHogg
third world, foreign.... I guess that was redundant.

For now.
 
2012-11-08 01:44:38 PM
I refuse to take this seriously until a drum circle is involved.
 
2012-11-08 01:45:27 PM
[Obamamadcalleditsforyou.jpg]
 
2012-11-08 01:45:29 PM
Oh noes, President Obama is trying to win a war he didn't even start... doesn't he know the rules of enderpemant?
 
2012-11-08 01:45:41 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


It is a proven fact that being held without trial on a tropical island is far worse than being blown to mushy red bits without trial in the middle of the desert. Suck it, conservatroll
 
2012-11-08 01:45:52 PM
Strange all the concern muslim-hatin' anti-terror Republicans have over actually attacking the muslim terrorists they are scared sh*tless over.
 
2012-11-08 01:47:09 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


I know you're just joking around there, but there do seem to be quite a few people ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the fact that when "libs were biatching about Bush's war", it wasn't the war against al-Qaeda that they were referring to.
 
2012-11-08 01:47:29 PM

morlinge: Apparently in order to avoid the stupidity of the article my computer is refusing to load the site. Good computer.


Antiwar.com should channel some of the resources they spend being total farking idiots into upgrading their server.
 
2012-11-08 01:47:53 PM

skullkrusher: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.

*handwaving to avoid asking yourself the hard questions!*


Sure I was. We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil. We get them with a drone strike. Drone strike isn't popular. What's the most common alternative we've exercised in this situation? I'm way sure it wasn't giving them five dollar gift cards to Hot Topic.
 
2012-11-08 01:48:11 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.



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.
 
2012-11-08 01:48:17 PM
GodDAMMIT! I am sick and tired of people biatching about "drones" (they're UAVs, not drones--drones are what you use for target practice). We go to all the trouble and expense to develop these things to schwack just the right people, and minimize collateral damage, and you STILL aren't happy about it. Hey, you know what's a lot farking cheaper than drones? Saturation bombing. Great big dumb bombs that make the huge booms are a hell of a lot cheaper than the little bitty precision guided missiles and UAVs. I say fark it, let's just go back to turning shiat into parking lots if we're not going to get any credit for trying to minimize casualties.

Also, don't like shiat getting blown up by UAVs in your country? How about you get rid of the terrorists? It's an amazingly simple solution. You do it, or we do it for you. Fark Yemen.
 
2012-11-08 01:48:50 PM

Biological Ali: Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.


You must have been in a coma during Bush's presidency.

neenerist: An anti-war blog cites a Chinese source citing a local security official in Sanaa who reports three terrosists "were confirmed killed Wednesday night in a Yemeni-U.S. joint airstrike operation which targeted the militants' vehicle......The United States has escalated its drone strikes since Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi took office in February, as part of the anti-terror cooperation to help crush the resurgent militants who had taken advantage of Yemen's political upheaval last year."

Ben Ghazi!


Well, since it was authorized by the Yeman government, it can't be classified as a terrorist act. Had he done it without their authorization it would have been considered an act of war - like what we've been doing in Pakistan, but fark Pakistan.
 
2012-11-08 01:49:18 PM

Vectron: Obamabots: "Nothing to see here citizen."


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.


So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.
 
2012-11-08 01:49:34 PM

signaljammer: It reassures me that, like myself, you bastards are so un-central to our society that you have nothing better to do than this all day. Obama's gangsta foreign policy is disgusting to a moral mind. Many children have been killed by drones. Weddings and funerals have been attacked. First responders have been targeted in follow-up attacks. Reminds one of the IRA.


Obama is the worst thing to happen to weddings and funerals since that Lou Grant movie.
 
2012-11-08 01:49:43 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


Liberals don't actually mind imperialism, war crime, and atrocity, but by God it had damned well better be efficient!

Obama gets thousands killed for pennies on the dollar and the pale:brown ratio is far more acceptable.
 
2012-11-08 01:49:50 PM
But remember folks, despite being responsible for all these drone strikes, Obama had nothign to do with killing Bin Laden. The seals acted on their own and he was never, in anyway, involved. so says the right wing vets on my facebook at least.
 
2012-11-08 01:50:04 PM
So he did want anyone in his position would do?

What kind of emotion should I be feeling here
 
2012-11-08 01:50:20 PM
Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.
 
2012-11-08 01:50:39 PM

Biological Ali: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

I know you're just joking around there, but there do seem to be quite a few people ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the fact that when "libs were biatching about Bush's war", it wasn't the war against al-Qaeda that they were referring to.


well, they were biatching about how that war was prosecuted. We got rid of torture, that's a good thing. We even made a pretty show of pretending we wanted to try major terror suspects in civilian courts in downtown Manhattan. Gitmo is still open, we've thrown away that silly "terrorism is a law enforcement issue for civilian courts to handle like embezzlement or jaywalking" idea and kept with our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent. Little has changed except who is cheerleading for what now
 
2012-11-08 01:51:18 PM
Not outraged about killing terrorists, just outrage at the hypocricy. Peace prize, yeah right.
 
2012-11-08 01:51:20 PM

naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.


*pats naturalbornposer on head*

Of course, little buddy.
 
2012-11-08 01:51:40 PM

Cpl.D: Sure I was. We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil. We get them with a drone strike. Drone strike isn't popular. What's the most common alternative we've exercised in this situation? I'm way sure it wasn't giving them five dollar gift cards to Hot Topic.


I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.
 
2012-11-08 01:51:54 PM

Cpl.D: We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil.


Enemy?
 
2012-11-08 01:52:17 PM
Yumping Yemini!
 
2012-11-08 01:52:19 PM

OgreMagi: Biological Ali: Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.

You must have been in a coma during Bush's presidency.


Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.
 
2012-11-08 01:53:06 PM

kriegsgeist: Vectron: Obamabots: "Nothing to see here citizen."

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.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.



That's why i didn't vote.
 
2012-11-08 01:53:25 PM

Metetron: Not outraged about killing terrorists, just outrage at the hypocricy. Peace prize, yeah right.


meh, hypocrisy is far too commonplace to get outraged by it. It sure is fun to watch them self-sort themselves into groups of principled liberals and cheerleading jackholes though, isn't it?
 
2012-11-08 01:53:52 PM

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.


100,000 federal workers are behind on their taxes, including 700 congressional employees. These workers owed more than $1 billion in unpaid taxes 2010, up from just under $600 million in 2004, according to the Internal Revenue Service - So, no, that's not gonna happen
 
2012-11-08 01:53:52 PM
(DNRTFA)

I have no problem with this. Allows us to kill terrorists without ever having to step foot in a god-forsaken hellhole like Yemen, and somewhat reduces al-quedas ability to hide there. Keep it up.
 
2012-11-08 01:53:55 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.


Like no-knock warrants?
 
2012-11-08 01:54:07 PM
Ooooo. Some of the troll accounts have gotten over their election result trolldepressions.
 
2012-11-08 01:54:18 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Liberals don't actually mind imperialism, war crime, and atrocity, but by God it had damned well better be efficient!

Obama gets thousands killed for pennies on the dollar and the pale:brown ratio is far more acceptable.


Or maybe it's that extremists don't drive the democratic party's agenda. Or dictate administration policy. Another way to look at it is that blanket stereotypes are stupid and are just used to keep you ignorant.
 
2012-11-08 01:54:36 PM

Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.


Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.
Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?
 
2012-11-08 01:54:38 PM
It isn't terrorism when governments do it. It's an act of war.

Unless it is done with the permission of the other nation. Then it is just business as usual.
 
2012-11-08 01:54:48 PM
Thanks for keeping us safe President Obama!
 
2012-11-08 01:55:02 PM

imgod2u: This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.


Less accountability and more secrecy makes for a successful war.

In this respect, Obama has proven far more capable than Bush, because he can keep up the attacks while taking few losses.
Since reporters get pulitzers for covering soldiers rather than robots, the process can continue with minimal criticism.

/I think most Americans agree with winning so long as they don't know how the hamburger is made.
 
2012-11-08 01:56:10 PM

Biological Ali: Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.


George W Bush, World's Leading Terrorist

MSNBC - Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world

Noam Chomskey, writing during the Bush Administration, that the US is a leading terrorist state

Then there are these via Google image search:

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

www.truthdig.com

whitehouser.com 

Are you really, really young or completely clueless or have Alzheimer's or lying?
 
2012-11-08 01:56:32 PM
mlkshk.com 

/hotlink
 
2012-11-08 01:56:51 PM

Metetron: Not outraged about killing terrorists, just outrage at the hypocricy. Peace prize, yeah right.


Arafat got the Peace Prize. It's never been anything more that a popularity prize. The Prom Queen of the international relations world.
 
2012-11-08 01:57:15 PM

skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.


The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.
 
2012-11-08 01:57:16 PM

SirEattonHogg: Basically, the current exchange rate is roughly a 1000 third world foreign lives for each American one.

Meh.


I think the correct terminology for that is "one-thousand-fold".
 
2012-11-08 01:57:48 PM

meanmutton: George W Bush, World's Leading Terrorist

MSNBC - Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world

Noam Chomskey, writing during the Bush Administration, that the US is a leading terrorist state

Then there are these via Google image search:


Not sure if you purposefully set out to prove my point or did so by accident, but thanks either way.
 
2012-11-08 01:58:10 PM

Vectron: kriegsgeist: Vectron: Obamabots: "Nothing to see here citizen."

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.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.


That's why i didn't vote.


Well I can't fault you for that if you don't like any of the options, although I would recommend checking out some of the minority parties - there has to be someone there with a platform that is at least close to what you believe. And it would help get a third party on the ticket and in the debates and maybe break us out of this extremist deadlock.
 
2012-11-08 01:58:10 PM

meanmutton: Biological Ali: Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.

George W Bush, World's Leading Terrorist

MSNBC - Bush is the greatest terrorist in the world

Noam Chomskey, writing during the Bush Administration, that the US is a leading terrorist state

Then there are these via Google image search:

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 188x268]

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 246x316]

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 122x193]

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 225x224]

[www.truthdig.com image 277x284]

[whitehouser.com image 219x450] 

Are you really, really young or completely clueless or have Alzheimer's or lying?


Are you sure those were because he went after al-Qaeda... really?
 
2012-11-08 01:58:44 PM

Biological Ali: Lernaeus: Silly subby; it's only terrorism if Republicans do it.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-11-08 01:59:24 PM

Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.


Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.
 
2012-11-08 01:59:51 PM
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.
 
2012-11-08 02:00:41 PM
So many now believe we have always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2012-11-08 02:01:16 PM

ShawnDoc: Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?


Terrorists? What terrorists?!

The only evidence that the victims were terrorists is that those who killed them say so.

But it's all good. Americans only want economic justice (other people's money), evidence and junk like open trials are for nerds.
 
2012-11-08 02:01:44 PM
Yemeni like it when we Obomba you.

/bored
 
2012-11-08 02:02:01 PM

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
 
2012-11-08 02:02:40 PM

aspAddict: Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.
Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?


0/10 - too obvious.
 
2012-11-08 02:04:29 PM

aspAddict: Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.
Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?


OK,
Bush is criticised for his war in Iraq because Iraq was not involved in 9-11.
There has been no proven link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.
Obama, on the other hand, is attacking Al-Qaida, wherever they may be.

Incidentally, those calling Bush a terrorist are just as wrong as those calling Obama a terrorist.
It is not terrorism when governments do it, it is war.
Terrorism is war fought by NGOs and private citizens.
It is legally an odd area.
Are terrorists enemy combatants or criminals?
The Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions apply only to wars between nations.
Their creators did not envision the modern situation.

The worst Bush did was declare war without a legitimate Cassus Belli.
Oh, and make us look like idiots in front of all the other nations.
But since stupidity is not a crime, he was never impeached.
 
2012-11-08 02:05:04 PM

piperTom: The only evidence that the victims were terrorists is that those who killed them say so.


Nazis? What Nazis?!

The only evidence that the victims were Nazis is that those that killed them say so.
 
2012-11-08 02:05:20 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.


Do you warm up before doing that kind of stretch?
 
2012-11-08 02:06:07 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
/maximum trolling
 
2012-11-08 02:06:27 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


Bush went after the wrong guys. Obama didn't.
 
2012-11-08 02:06:59 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.


Well I am sure they double check the naughty/nice list before handing over the xbox remote... my unwanted opinion is war needs to be bloody or everyone will start doing it....

/star trek teachings....
 
2012-11-08 02:07:11 PM
We could bring the troops home tomorrow and close down the empire's bases over there.
 
2012-11-08 02:07:17 PM
*yawn*
 
2012-11-08 02:07:59 PM
Maybe the explosion was due to a terrorist trying out his latest creation.
 
2012-11-08 02:08:00 PM

protectyourlimbs: President Obama is trying to win a war he didn't even start...


First, it's not a war. Also, the "other people are bad, too" defense is out of style.
 
2012-11-08 02:08:05 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


Actually, when you consider that "Bush's war" and "Fartbongo's war" are being conducted in completely different manners, and that the former was largely ineffective, but the latter is proving to be much more effective, its not all that funny. It actually makes perfect sense.
 
2012-11-08 02:08:22 PM

skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent


A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.
 
2012-11-08 02:08:57 PM

Cpl.D: Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.

Do you warm up before doing that kind of stretch?


What stretch? You said it right there.
 
2012-11-08 02:10:06 PM
That wasn't terrorism. That was appeasement.
 
2012-11-08 02:10:08 PM

aspAddict: Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.
Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?


If by shiny stuff you mean food and housing, then yes, yay.
 
2012-11-08 02:10:24 PM

Wayne 985: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Bush went after the wrong guys. Obama didn't.


The men that brought down the towers are dead. Everthing since then smells like bullshiat.
 
2012-11-08 02:10:29 PM
If only people were as worried about collateral damage from indiscriminate drone strikes like they were when there was a republican in the oval office.

But as long as noones calling Obama out over his choice of arugala or dijon.....you know...the important criticisms to be outraged about.
 
2012-11-08 02:10:34 PM

piperTom: protectyourlimbs: President Obama is trying to win a war he didn't even start...

First, it's not a war. Also, the "other people are bad, too" defense is out of style.


ok, then the conflict on terror...
 
2012-11-08 02:10:47 PM

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.


that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.
 
2012-11-08 02:11:57 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.

 
2012-11-08 02:12:08 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


I can't speak for every liberal but I for 1 was outraged when W invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq that had no known ties to Al Kaida. I always thought the war in Afghanistan was justified and was in fact where we should have sent all of our troops . maybe you should talk to a liberal about their political views instead of just assuming what they are
 
2012-11-08 02:12:20 PM
Ha Ha!

Gimme every teaparty dork who thinks Obama is a muslim Kenyan or women don't get pregnant when they're raped over these left wing nut jobs who think it's terrorism to kill Al Qaeda wherever they're found. Our whackos are infinitely smarter than the liebutturds.
 
2012-11-08 02:12:37 PM

Metetron: Not outraged about killing terrorists, just outrage at the hypocricy. Peace prize, yeah right.


I might be confused about Nobel's selection process, but I'm pretty sure Obama didn't nominate himself for that.
 
2012-11-08 02:12:50 PM

piperTom: protectyourlimbs: President Obama is trying to win a war he didn't even start...

First, it's not a war. Also, the "other people are bad, too" defense is out of style.


forgot your "also", so you're saying the "everyone in prison is innocent" defense is coming back?

/you hipster you...
 
2012-11-08 02:13:06 PM

bottsicus: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Actually, when you consider that "Bush's war" and "Fartbongo's war" are being conducted in completely different manners, and that the former was largely ineffective, but the latter is proving to be much more effective, its not all that funny. It actually makes perfect sense.


Yes, efficiency is valued. There never really was a liberal objection to kicking the shiat out of random countries for fun and profit. They were just mad about scuffing Americas boots on someones face.
 
2012-11-08 02:13:25 PM

kriegsgeist: So vote republican?


I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.
 
2012-11-08 02:14:14 PM

OscarTamerz: Ha Ha!

Gimme every teaparty dork who thinks Obama is a muslim Kenyan or women don't get pregnant when they're raped over these left wing nut jobs who think it's terrorism to kill Al Qaeda wherever they're found. Our whackos are infinitely smarter than the liebutturds.


Actually now its Obama doing the killing, its the right wing on both...
 
2012-11-08 02:14:32 PM
This is totally like that one time Bush went to a war everyone opposed in a country that never attacked the US for fraudulent reasons without ever being asked to.
 
2012-11-08 02:15:09 PM

piperTom: kriegsgeist: So vote republican?

I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.


me too - I got to scoff at some LaRouchebags set up outside the Plaza today this AM on the way to work so I finally can feel superior to someone again.
 
2012-11-08 02:15:40 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.

Do you warm up before doing that kind of stretch?

What stretch? You said it right there.


Allow me to rephrase my statement in the manner to which you are accustomed.

i301.photobucket.com
"Drones BAD!"

i301.photobucket.com
"Drones bad, but other thing worse!"

i301.photobucket.com
"But drones BAD!"

i301.photobucket.com
"Best thing no fight at all. But if fight, drones better than other thing."
 
2012-11-08 02:17:20 PM
Parley? LOLZ
 
2012-11-08 02:17:36 PM
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.
 
2012-11-08 02:18:01 PM

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.


When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"? 

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:19:09 PM

imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.


wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?
no?
then WTF are you talking about?
 
2012-11-08 02:19:11 PM

meanmutton: The USS Cole bombing wasn't terrorism, it was an act of asymmetrical war. This is no different.


It's different in one important way: US committed this act. Whatever happened to the idea that we wanted to be (seen as) the good guys?
 
2012-11-08 02:19:19 PM

piperTom: kriegsgeist: So vote republican?

I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.


www.moltz.net
 
2012-11-08 02:20:02 PM
What destoys more lives, Heroin or Al Qaida?

www.rawa.org
 
2012-11-08 02:21:24 PM
More al-Qaida blown up by drone strike?

Must be a Thursday...

/tough on terror
//tough on the causes of terror
 
2012-11-08 02:21:36 PM

Mr To Stiller: This is totally like that one time Bush went to a war everyone opposed in a country that never attacked the US for fraudulent reasons without ever being asked to.


The Bush administration tried to link Iraq and AQ but they were going in regardless due to the various UN resolutions Iraq violated....the AQ link if it materialized would have just been icing on the cake.

It was like banging a pregnant chick without a condom....it's not like she was gonna get extra pregnant.
 
2012-11-08 02:22:16 PM

Vectron: What destoys more lives, Heroin or Al Qaida?

[www.rawa.org image 450x314]


I don't know about 'lives', but it sure destroys my wallet.

/what?
 
2012-11-08 02:22:19 PM

Cpl.D: Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: I'm not really all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. Then again, I've never been all that opposed to the judicious use of drone strikes. More than I can say for some around these parts.

The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Until that time, I'm very glad we have wise people like you to decide who is to childish to be allowed to live.

Do you warm up before doing that kind of stretch?

What stretch? You said it right there.

Allow me to rephrase my statement in the manner to which you are accustomed.


"Drones BAD!"


"Drones bad, but other thing worse!"


"But drones BAD!"


"Best thing no fight at all. But if fight, drones better than other thing."


...And fighting of course being unquestionably nessecary. Because people aren't "grown up" enough and need to be killed until the are. You and the politicians you support naturally being wholly fit to make the call of who gets bombed or no.


Yeah, I had you the first time dude. Cool puppets though.
 
2012-11-08 02:22:28 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:22:45 PM

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.

When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"? 

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.

This isn't war, this is pest control.
blastr.com
 
2012-11-08 02:23:13 PM

SirEattonHogg: third world, foreign.... I guess that was redundant.


For now.
 
2012-11-08 02:25:36 PM
So, it's a joint Yemini-US operation, authorized by the Yemini, that took out several terrorists without injury or loss of life to any of our people. And Republicans are STILL trying the "unprovoked act of terror" card.

And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us (is this because of the traitor that was taken out a couple of years ago over in the Middle East? Get over it, people who publicly denounce their citizenship, flee the country and join the group they support in active violence against their former home country are no longer citizens). Obama relaxed gun laws across the board and you're still pissing yourselves over the idea that he's gonna suddenly swoop down and carry off your precious boomsticks. Bush spent ten years, an obscene amount of money, and thousands of American lives attacking innocent countries with absolutely nothing to show for it. Obama authorized the successful takedown of bin Laden, helped remove Ghadaffi, and got our troops out of Iraq, all with minimal injury and death to our people, and our foreign relations have strengthened. Apparently that's unacceptable to you people, for whatever reason only you and God know.

You proved you were unhinged and psychotic the previous four years. Stop yourselves before you slip into complete insanity.
 
2012-11-08 02:25:56 PM

Mr To Stiller: This is totally like that one time Bush went to a war everyone opposed...


Please check your facts. When the Iraq conflict started, it was popular.

Still wrong, but popular.
 
2012-11-08 02:26:38 PM

Biological Ali: When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"?

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.


first of all, we are far removed from the carpet bombing cities mindset of WWII. Secondly, no, it wasn't "executing people without trial", it was killing the uniformed enemy. However, as we were told many times before BO took office, this is different. Irregular enemy, Geneva Conventions, etc etc etc. I didn't make up the new rules, I am just wondering why we suddenly don't need to follow them anymore
 
2012-11-08 02:26:56 PM
I'm 100% sure that the people killed were terrorists, because a Democrat ordered it. If a Republican ordered it, I would be outraged about military operations without a declaration of war, civilian casualties, the millions of dollars spent, increased outrage by people in the Middle East, involvement in a long-running civil war that's none of our goddamn business, and imperialism in general. Thank goodness none of those things are a problem, because a Democrat is president.
 
2012-11-08 02:27:21 PM
Killing people is not torturing them.

We can either fight terrorists on their soil or our soil, choose one.
 
2012-11-08 02:28:30 PM
p.twimg.com

12/10
 
2012-11-08 02:30:48 PM

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???

Who prescribed that medication for you?
 
2012-11-08 02:30:56 PM

morlinge: Apparently in order to avoid the stupidity of the article my computer is refusing to load the site. Good computer.


Considering the site is just a sucky blog of Republican concern trolls masquerading as liberal hippies, yes, your computer is good.

/I got all that from the fact that my "libertarian" brother in law already sent me the "article" on Facebook.
 
2012-11-08 02:31:02 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?
 
2012-11-08 02:31:52 PM

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"?

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.

first of all, we are far removed from the carpet bombing cities mindset of WWII. Secondly, no, it wasn't "executing people without trial", it was killing the uniformed enemy. However, as we were told many times before BO took office, this is different. Irregular enemy, Geneva Conventions, etc etc etc. I didn't make up the new rules, I am just wondering why we suddenly don't need to follow them anymore


What "rules" do you think aren't being followed here?
 
2012-11-08 02:32:22 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:33:45 PM
The link is explodicated already
 
2012-11-08 02:33:58 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:34:16 PM
We can leave tomorrow. Nothing will change. We can't afford these never ending wars with people that want us off their soil.

Channeling George Carlin: War is the only thing we're good at anymore.
 
2012-11-08 02:35:15 PM

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?
 
2012-11-08 02:35:18 PM
What a surprise. The PotUS, who would have still been PotUS even had he lost the election, continued doing something he's been doing all term.

At least the extremely biased site doesn't pretend to be neutral.
 
2012-11-08 02:35:18 PM
B- B- B- but it's ourwar on terror!

Nothing worse than a whiny conservative biatching about morality. Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. Man up, you f*cking nancies. You started this.

BOOM! HEADSHOT!
 
2012-11-08 02:35:42 PM

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?
 
2012-11-08 02:36:32 PM

sodomizer: We've been doing this for years. It's sneaky and underhanded, but involves loss of fewer of our personnel, and more dead persons of interest. If terrorists want to face a trial before they get executed, they'll have to join a formal state and declare war.


How do you know they're terrorists and not actual members of a formal state that hasn't even declared war?
 
2012-11-08 02:36:55 PM
OK, look, this bugs me some. If we're gonna go all Ender's Game on the terrorists, I think there should be a law stating that within 48 hours after the strike, ALL information used to make the call gets posted on a public website. That way we can see, at least in hindsight, if it was a legitimate call. If we start seeing bullshiat info used to legitimate blowing people up, it makes legislation banning it that much easier.

But all things considered, I guess I prefer drone strikes to US servicepeople being put in crosshairs. Barely.
 
2012-11-08 02:37:37 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:38:38 PM
You can't play checkers against someone who is playing chess. Al Qaeda operates without borders, or even a central leadership. New tactics require new responses.

Until they are pointing the drones back at us.
 
2012-11-08 02:39:11 PM
Was the person authorizing the attack a Republican? No? Then it's okay.
 
2012-11-08 02:39:15 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:39:38 PM

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.


Since they're over here, you could just call the police and have them arrested. It's a little hard to do that in a country a few thousand miles away, unless you plan to gather all of our police forces together, send them over there, have them scour all the countries, and ship everyone they arrest back to America for trials.
 
2012-11-08 02:41:00 PM

BigNumber12: I heard those guys in that house right there in Toronto are Al Qaeda. Better blow it up - it'll weaken Al Qaeda.


Actually we did have a small group doing some terror training in the bush near Toronto.

If a drone would have blown them up I would have been the first to write a strongly worded letter thanking you for saving us millions in court and incarceration costs.
 
2012-11-08 02:43:04 PM

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?
 
2012-11-08 02:43:30 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?



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?
 
2012-11-08 02:43:35 PM

way south: imgod2u: This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

Less accountability and more secrecy makes for a successful war.

In this respect, Obama has proven far more capable than Bush, because he can keep up the attacks while taking few losses.
Since reporters get pulitzers for covering soldiers rather than robots, the process can continue with minimal criticism.

/I think most Americans agree with winning so long as they don't know how the hamburger is made.


I think that's more of a problem than anything else -- because there's no press coverage, this kind of shiat can just keep going on. At least an unpopular war will come to an end because the public has a sentiment against it.

Again, I understand the motivation here and it's a hell of a lot more effective than sending troops and occupying a country. But it's a slippery slope from precision targeting of known terrorist and "hey, that guy looks like a terrorist from 6000 ft in the air, take him out".

At least troops can capture a guy, question him and look at the evidence before executing him. It's morally disgusting to think about some dude just taking a stroll with his family and getting zapped before he knew wtf happened.
 
2012-11-08 02:43:39 PM

BigNumber12: Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.


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.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:25 PM

Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.

*handwaving to avoid asking yourself the hard questions!*

Sure I was. We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil. We get them with a drone strike. Drone strike isn't popular. What's the most common alternative we've exercised in this situation? I'm way sure it wasn't giving them five dollar gift cards to Hot Topic.


Have you considered not bombing them as an option? That drone strikes have undoubtly killed civilians, and that creates even more Anti-Americanism that breeds terrorism?

Or is it because we have to bomb them, because we have "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" I remember Fark hating the last guy who tried that.

Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:35 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.


You'd admit to applauding the invasion of Iraq?
 
2012-11-08 02:44:52 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:57 PM

Vectron: We can leave tomorrow. Nothing will change. We can't afford these never ending wars with people that want us off their soil.

Channeling George Carlin: War is the only thing we're good at anymore.


The needs of Yemeni outweigh the needs of the Jew.
 
2012-11-08 02:45:09 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.


Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012
 
2012-11-08 02:45:40 PM

Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.


Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.
 
2012-11-08 02:45:51 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.


Exactly. War isn't glamorous or awesome, it's a messy, terrible business that many prefer not to happen, and if it does to do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. If using remote-control drones keeps our people safe, by all means send an armada of the things up. Robot tanks? Make sure you give them the ability to say "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!" every time they fire. As long as our men and women are safe, who cares about the fact that drones and robots are doing the dirty work?
 
2012-11-08 02:45:56 PM
ITT: a bunch of Republicans still butthurt over the election trying to soothe their anuses (anii?) by falsely equalizing Obama's efficient campaign against al-Qaeda with Bush's blundering and irrational occupation of Iraq.
 
2012-11-08 02:47:02 PM

Farking Canuck: BigNumber12: Toronto? Isn't that a little extreme?


That's true, most people there are white.

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.



If they're brown, they must go down.

Johnny Cochran spins in grave
 
2012-11-08 02:47:11 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the bozos at Antiwar.com are the "violence never solved anything" type of bozo, and not the "it's okay when a Republican is Commander In Chief" type of bozo.

/bozo
 
2012-11-08 02:48:32 PM

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?
 
2012-11-08 02:48:54 PM

cleek: imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?
no?
then WTF are you talking about?


Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?
 
2012-11-08 02:48:55 PM

piperTom: kriegsgeist: So vote republican?

I voted for Johnson; my conscience is clear.


I voted for John Jackson
2.bp.blogspot.com
Because he's against those things that everybody hates.
 
2012-11-08 02:49:55 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.


Which previous troll are you that changed their name in shame?
 
2012-11-08 02:50:23 PM

Baumli: 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.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012



I used to be like you.
 
2012-11-08 02:50:53 PM

Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.


The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.
 
2012-11-08 02:50:59 PM

Raven Darke: The worst Bush did was declare war without a legitimate Cassus Belli.
Oh, and make us look like idiots in front of all the other nations.
But since stupidity is not a crime, he was never impeached.


Fark you and your cassus belli, if I frickin want to rule Pomerania from my seat in Poland you better believe I'm going to just hire the largest army I can to beat the ever loving crap out of you, you heathen bastards.

... Whew. Been playing way too much Crusader Kings II.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:02 PM
Well on the bright side, there was a link to a couple of pics of Yingluck Shinawatra at TFA.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:08 PM

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.


There's a fundamental concept, going back hundreds of years or more, that the other side deserves to be able to fight back. In the middle ages, it was concern about crossbowmen and archers being able to take out knights from a safe distance. When guns were first introduced to Japan, it was considered terrible that one man with a gun could shoot a samurai off his horse before he could close. During the early years of the American revolution, American tactics of hiding behind trees and using an early form of camouflage were thought of as despicable by the British, who were still marching in straight lines while wearing brightly-colored uniforms. (At least that's how the story goes; it appears to be more myth than fact).

At least with a manned aircraft you can hope to capture or kill the pilot by shooting down the plane. With an unmanned drone, even blowing it completely up doesn't incapacitate an enemy. You've just cost them money. It just seems unfair that you can't really fight back in any meaningful way to that particular attack.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about people's feelings. I'm not trying to argue the logic of the position.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:34 PM

Giltric: The Bush administration tried to link Iraq and AQ but they were going in regardless due to the various UN resolutions Iraq violated....the AQ link if it materialized would have just been icing on the cake.


Yeah no, Kofi Annan said so.

But please, let's not go back there. It is a silly place.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:50 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


So what?
 
2012-11-08 02:52:31 PM

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.

When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"? 

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.


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? That what Obama has done would give even Bush and Cheney raging boners? That you give liberals a bad name?
 
2012-11-08 02:54:00 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


They're just mad that a drone strike is a surgical strike that is relatively cheap in comparison to ramping up the war machine and all of it's related cronies in order to get a few dudes living in dirt hut.
 
2012-11-08 02:54:35 PM
Don't know if this has been covered and I don't have time to read the whole thread but I'm wondering if anyone knows whether the activity of using the drone strikes as part of the war on terrorism isn't covered by the authorization of force by Congress back in the Bush administration. I would think it would be.
 
2012-11-08 02:55:06 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Cpl.D: Allow me to rephrase my statement in the manner to which you are accustomed.


"Drones BAD!"


"Drones bad, but other thing worse!"


"But drones BAD!"


"Best thing no fight at all. But if fight, drones better than other thing."

...And fighting of course being unquestionably nessecary. Because people aren't "grown up" enough and need to be killed until the are. You and the politicians you support naturally being wholly fit to make the call of who gets bombed or no.


Yeah, I had you the first time dude. Cool puppets though.


Evidently you STILL don't have him. He's arguing "IF drones, then war" and you're still arguing "But not war!" You're speaking at completely cross purposes.

And yes, sadly, breaking it down into sentences of no more than 4 words seems to be necessary. 

You can talk about the need for war or the role of drones IN war but please stop confusing the two.
 
2012-11-08 02:56:04 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


Well how is killing innocent civilians still a good thing?

If we're going to go to war we need to go full out. None of that hearts and minds, you have to completely destroy everything. We wouldn't be bogged down for a decade but we sure as hell would think awhile before going to war.

Just dropping bombs from drones in a sovereign nation is not the answer.
 
2012-11-08 02:56:40 PM
Were they Americans?
 
2012-11-08 02:56:41 PM

imgod2u: cleek: imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?
no?
then WTF are you talking about?

Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?


That's on the same level as "if we allow gays to marry, then we're gonna have people marrying turtles".

And you people do know we have intelligence over there? Spy drones? Informants? We're not shooting willy-nilly at random people because they look terroristy. We also have the permission and assistance of the Yemeni.
 
2012-11-08 02:57:03 PM

imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?


Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

This is a new type of war and the rules are not well defined but I for one would argue it is a war. And I am one of those socialist Canadian lefties!!
 
2012-11-08 02:57:08 PM
Also could all you hand wringers blabbering about the WARRIORS HONOR you imagine your opponents to idolize throw down some citations of people being against drones but not other tools of the trade?
 
2012-11-08 02:57:37 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: So, it's a joint Yemini-US operation, authorized by the Yemini, that took out several terrorists without injury or loss of life to any of our people. And Republicans are STILL trying the "unprovoked act of terror" card.

And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us (is this because of the traitor that was taken out a couple of years ago over in the Middle East? Get over it, people who publicly denounce their citizenship, flee the country and join the group they support in active violence against their former home country are no longer citizens). Obama relaxed gun laws across the board and you're still pissing yourselves over the idea that he's gonna suddenly swoop down and carry off your precious boomsticks. Bush spent ten years, an obscene amount of money, and thousands of American lives attacking innocent countries with absolutely nothing to show for it. Obama authorized the successful takedown of bin Laden, helped remove Ghadaffi, and got our troops out of Iraq, all with minimal injury and death to our people, and our foreign relations have strengthened. Apparently that's unacceptable to you people, for whatever reason only you and God know.

You proved you were unhinged and psychotic the previous four years. Stop yourselves before you slip into complete insanity.

 
2012-11-08 02:59:23 PM
Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?


Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.
 
2012-11-08 02:59:27 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:00:16 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:00:16 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:01:14 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.


(he's talking about Al Qaeda, not Bush; they also indiscriminately kill civilians of "the other side")
 
2012-11-08 03:01:14 PM

naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.


Okay, I'll bite.

I worked in national defense and counter-terrorism for nearly a decade. You're talking utter nonsense when you equate domestic rhetoric and politics with a long-established campaign of terror.

Drone strikes suck; they suck less than leveling cities, which is what we did to put a stop to things in prior wars. They're an imperfect attempt to surgically target real terrorists, and intent DOES matter in this case. As long as using innocents as shields is a tool in the terrorist arsenal, we'll have to find a way to get past that with minimum bloodshed and human suffering.

I agree it would be best in the long run to get the hell out of there. It would be safer for us in the short run, too, but it what it emphatically would NOT be is smart policy, tactically sound, or morally right.

By and large, the US military responds, when using force, with a strong emphasis on avoiding collateral damage like mosques and innocent civilians. We generally use it carefully and with precision unmatched in the history of the world. We failed that standard under Bush; we've done better under Obama. Three-plus years of more sensible policy cannot instantly overcome 8+ years of misery, but our goals are clearer and the mission better defined than ever before.

We also make mistakes, and we have some real idiots and asshats that manage to make it into decision-making positions from time to time. For the most part, we fess up and apologize and try to make it right.

If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

If we leave gradually, there's more chance of something stable existing there when we've gone -- and far LESS chance of terrorists regaining a foothold. We overstay our welcome, we create more terrorists. We're on track, for the first time in a decade, to leave war behind in the next two years.

We won't convert the true haters; we will annoy many people who live where we've intruded.

I'm certainly not pro-war, but once begun it needs to be managed carefully.
 
2012-11-08 03:01:39 PM

ciberido: 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.

There's a fundamental concept, going back hundreds of years or more, that the other side deserves to be able to fight back. In the middle ages, it was concern about crossbowmen and archers being able to take out knights from a safe distance. When guns were first introduced to Japan, it was considered terrible that one man with a gun could shoot a samurai off his horse before he could close. During the early years of the American revolution, American tactics of hiding behind trees and using an early form of camouflage were thought of as despicable by the British, who were still marching in straight lines while wearing brightly-colored uniforms. (At least that's how the story goes; it appears to be more myth than fact).

At least with a manned aircraft you can hope to capture or kill the pilot by shooting down the plane. With an unmanned drone, even blowing it completely up doesn't incapacitate an enemy. You've just cost them money. It just seems unfair that you can't really fight back in any meaningful way to that particular attack.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about people's feelings. I'm not trying to argue the logic of the position.


The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.

I'm not opposed to kilbots, I make killbots. However, since the political repercussions of using killbots appear to be damn near zero... I do worry about their abuse just a bit.
 
2012-11-08 03:02:03 PM

Fallout Boy: Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.


I consider myself a liberal. I voted for Obama. I admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is. And I'm glad to have made your day.
 
2012-11-08 03:02:28 PM

iheartscotch: I remember another president that did similar things; all of you guys say he should be tried as a war criminal; what makes this any different?

On a serious note; BOOM, headshot


Really? I don't. I remember one that invaded foreign countries and killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians, though. So there's that.
 
2012-11-08 03:03:01 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:03:20 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.

So what?


So it's like comparing a team of liscened demolitionists to a guy ramming a pickup against a building to knock it down. Bush attacked an innocent Iraq on flase premises while declaring bin Laden unimportant, then it spread to other countries, and it accomplished nothing. Under Obama we have bin Laden dead, Ghadaffi dead, our troops out of Iraq, and surgical strikes as opposed to troops in harm's way.

And as I said in a previous response, we're not shooting and bombing willy-nilly. We do have spy drones, informants, and other intelligence over there, along with the assistance of the Yemeni. Civilian casualties are bad, unfortunately they're expected in wartime, but we're not deliberately aiming ar random civilians like you people seem to think.
 
2012-11-08 03:04:26 PM

ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.


If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.
 
2012-11-08 03:04:46 PM

Baumli: 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.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people.
/nice tinfoil hat sir
/Obama 2012


Patriotism?
Look, AIPAC runs congress and has a great deal of influence in foreign policy decisions. That organization wants to make sure that American actions benefit Israel. Then you have the military industry. Do you think those people want to see an end to wars? You are putting a lot of faith in little people when huge interests are at work.

We keep getting back to who sets the definition of people that pose a risk to America. I don't think those people over there pose a risk to me. And if they do, they would be a lot less likely to if American troops weren't over there.

Also the US has enough military power to act however it wants around the world. If there is blowback though someday don't be surprised.
 
2012-11-08 03:06:58 PM

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? That what Obama has done would give even Bush and Cheney raging boners? That you give liberals a bad name?


Could you type that again, but slightly less crazy this time?
 
2012-11-08 03:08:10 PM

Sticky Hands: The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.


breakfastwithspock.files.wordpress.com

What too sanitized and "too easy" killing might look like.
 
2012-11-08 03:08:52 PM
I don't have a problem with this and don't know why anybody would.

Kill them all and let god sort them out
 
2012-11-08 03:11:29 PM

jvowles: If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.


What? We've just dumped a bunch of people under the bus over there. Mubarak, Gadaffi, Saddam. We have no friends and allies over there. Nobody should trust us.

And regarding the rest of the post, it is quite possible that all of you smart guys are just flat out wrong. The middle east is what it is. I am afraid we have spent a lot of money and killed a bunch of people for not alot in return.
 
2012-11-08 03:13:26 PM

imgod2u: Keizer_Ghidorah: Tat'dGreaser: Cpl.D: The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Yea not so much

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

The other side did it by invading the wrong country on false charges and spending eight years accomplishing nothing.

(he's talking about Al Qaeda, not Bush; they also indiscriminately kill civilians of "the other side")


Bleh, sometimes it's hard to figure out who someone is yelling about.
 
2012-11-08 03:14:01 PM
Well his list of death wasn't going to finish itself.
 
2012-11-08 03:14:10 PM

Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.


What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??


Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:
1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.
2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.
3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed enough about the current state of the world to perform an act of terror. Treating this like a war where one side can surrender and it'd all be over is farcical on its face.

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:14:58 PM

corronchilejano: Giltric: The Bush administration tried to link Iraq and AQ but they were going in regardless due to the various UN resolutions Iraq violated....the AQ link if it materialized would have just been icing on the cake.

Yeah no, Kofi Annan said so.

But please, let's not go back there. It is a silly place.


1441 was a response to Iraq violating other UN resolutions...and your smoking gun is Kofi Annan wanting to write another resolution in response to Iraq violating 1441.....sounds like Kofi Annan was an incompetent leader....or was trying to keep the oil for food scandal money flowing.....
 
2012-11-08 03:17:38 PM

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.
 
2012-11-08 03:18:10 PM

give me doughnuts: Metetron: Not outraged about killing terrorists, just outrage at the hypocricy. Peace prize, yeah right.

Arafat got the Peace Prize. It's never been anything more that a popularity prize. The Prom Queen of the international relations world.


And it still doesn't beat the Nobel big penis prize.
 
2012-11-08 03:19:07 PM

imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:
1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.
2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.
3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed eno ...



What are the goals of the Al Queda ( too lazy to research)?
What are they fighting for?
 
2012-11-08 03:20:22 PM

kriegsgeist: Holocaust Agnostic: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Liberals don't actually mind imperialism, war crime, and atrocity, but by God it had damned well better be efficient!

Obama gets thousands killed for pennies on the dollar and the pale:brown ratio is far more acceptable.

Or maybe it's that extremists don't drive the democratic party's agenda. Or dictate administration policy. Another way to look at it is that blanket stereotypes are stupid and are just used to keep you ignorant.


there is so much derp in such a small place

well done indeed
8/10
 
2012-11-08 03:20:29 PM

Vectron: imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:
1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.
2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.
3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be p ...


I'm guessing it's something about religious fundamentaism and the downfall of Western civilization
 
2012-11-08 03:20:35 PM

Vectron: What are the goals of the Al Queda ( too lazy to research)?
What are they fighting for?


Depends on who in Al Qaeda you ask. If they're even working for Al Qaeda.
 
2012-11-08 03:22:04 PM

Smeggy Smurf: ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.


I just feel like you're not even trying...just mailing it in.
 
2012-11-08 03:22:09 PM

imgod2u: Farking Canuck: imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:
1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.
2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.
3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed eno ...


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.

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.

/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 East
 
2012-11-08 03:23:49 PM

Vectron: kriegsgeist: Vectron: Obamabots: "Nothing to see here citizen."

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.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.


That's why i didn't voteam part of the problem.


A write-in is better than a no-show. and to be honest a democrat is better than a write-in, but only because of the current political climate.
 
2012-11-08 03:26:06 PM

imgod2u: Vectron: What are the goals of the Al Queda ( too lazy to research)?
What are they fighting for?

Depends on who in Al Qaeda you ask. If they're even working for Al Qaeda.


BeerGraduate: Vectron: imgod2u: I'm guessing it's something about religious fundamentaism and the downfall of Western civilization
" ...


It seems like we should find out. Maybe it will turn out to be all a big misunderstanding.

"All you wanted was Florida? FUUUUUUUU why didn't you say so?"

Seriously. We should have an idea. Nobody fights for no reason.
 
2012-11-08 03:26:48 PM

lakrfool: Smeggy Smurf: ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.

I just feel like you're not even trying...just mailing it in.


GOODBYE

Presidential Canduhdate Mitt "The Shiat" Romney, Romneyhood, Ritz Cracka, Willard the Republitard, El Jefe Acartonado, Mitt-Hit-The-Fan, Milli Vanilli Romni, Papaya Vagina, Romman & Roybin, R-Money, Bain in the Ass, Weather Vane, Mitt and the Magic Tones, Nacho Romney, Fancy Cheesebag, Mighty Mormon Power Ranger, Romneygeddon, Oven Mitt, Mitt-Or-Get-Off-The-Pot, MITTLER!, Retch-A-Sketch, Counterfeit Bits, Willardo "Mitones" Romniguez, Comrade Romnev, MegaRom, Mitt-Outta-Luck, The Knights Who Say Rom NE, White Lightning, Mittriffic, Robama Obamney, Multiple Choice Mitt, Roof Doggy Dog, The Job Cremator, Dim Mitt, Rich "Uncle" Pennybags, Romnobongo, Class MITT-3 Model B9 General Utility Non-Theorizing Environmental Control Romneybot,


4 MOAR YEARZ!!
"President" Ballrog, HUSSEIN, Sombrero, Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, al-Chicago, Chocolate Jesus, B-Rock the Islamic Shock, Barky McTeleprompter, Wizard of Uhhs, BoBo the Clown, Oblahbla, Jug Ears, Saunas breach akimbo, Waffles The Clown, Borborygmos Hammerhiem, The Rainbow King, Bukkake O'Bunga, OBIGOT, El Jefe Chocholate, "Jace the Mindsculpter", Hopey McChangeypants, Oyobi, Bonzo the Time Traveler, La Bamba yo' Mamma, Samurai Kebab Nachos, Barackabeedoobeedoobeedo, Hussein-In-The-Membrane, Black Thunder, Dr. Utopia, Rainbow King, Obamarambo, Fartbongo, II"

/THAT is how it's done.
 
2012-11-08 03:27:07 PM

OgreMagi: Well, since it was authorized by the Yeman government, it can't be classified as a terrorist act. Had he done it without their authorization it would have been considered an act of war - like what we've been doing in Pakistan, but fark Pakistan.


You seem very, very confused about the definitions of bilateral action and host nation authorization. The differences with Pakistan are so obvious the only logical conclusion is butthurt.
 
2012-11-08 03:27:19 PM

bottsicus: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

Actually, when you consider that "Bush's war" and "Fartbongo's war" are being conducted in completely different manners, and that the former was largely ineffective, but the latter is proving to be much more effective, its not all that funny. It actually makes perfect sense.



[citation please]
 
2012-11-08 03:28:00 PM

Walker: 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.

[img.photobucket.com image 450x352]


Because no one is ever falsely labeled a terrorist, and international laws don't apply whatsoever.

/Goddamnitsomuch, Obama, don't do this shiat.
 
2012-11-08 03:28:34 PM

piperTom: ShawnDoc: Was he supposed to give the terrorists a few days off just because he won re-election?

Terrorists? What terrorists?!

The only evidence that the victims were terrorists is that those who killed them say so.

But it's all good. Americans only want economic justice (other people's money), evidence and junk like open trials are for nerds
I'm an "independent" who is very loudly upset that Romney lost but will pretend I didn't vote for him.


Good is not the enemy of perfect, at least we're working with Yemen for this.
 
2012-11-08 03:29:32 PM

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 East

And you don't think zapping people (sometimes innocent people) of a foreign, sovereign nation isn't going to sow more hatred 30 years down the line?
 
2012-11-08 03:30:27 PM

Vectron: imgod2u: Vectron: What are the goals of the Al Queda ( too lazy to research)?
What are they fighting for?

Depends on who in Al Qaeda you ask. If they're even working for Al Qaeda.

BeerGraduate: Vectron: imgod2u: I'm guessing it's something about religious fundamentaism and the downfall of Western civilization
" ...

It seems like we should find out. Maybe it will turn out to be all a big misunderstanding.

"All you wanted was Florida? FUUUUUUUU why didn't you say so?"

Seriously. We should have an idea. Nobody fights for no reason.


No, but it's possible for people to fight for different reasons. Again, we're not fighting another nation.
 
2012-11-08 03:31:16 PM
So is it an act of war when a pair of iranian su-25s fire on a predator drone in international waters?

Do we not count it cause there are no pilots on board a drone?

/go to cnn security blog
//cant link via mobile
 
2012-11-08 03:31:51 PM

lakrfool: Smeggy Smurf: ciberido: Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence

lakrfool: Fartbongo?!?

Really?!?!?

Yeah, well, that's Smeggy Smurf for you. It's not exactly the first time. 

There's an ignore button if you tire of his shenanigans.

If ChimpyMcFlightsuit was good enough for your side then Fartbongo is good enough.

I just feel like you're not even trying...just mailing it in.


Trying too hard is like bleeding. Ain't got time to do it
 
2012-11-08 03:32:03 PM
I'm grateful we are powerful enough to be able to do this and get away with it. If some smaller nation tried to violate international law and disregard the sovereignty of all other nations they might suffer reprisals. But not us. This behavior will never catch up with us. We are bulletproof.
 
2012-11-08 03:33:32 PM

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

\hot like the fires of robot hell
 
2012-11-08 03:34:05 PM

ChipNASA: [p.twimg.com image 462x350]

12/10


I notice none of those are crossed off.
 
2012-11-08 03:36:25 PM
.... and ironically when he won in 2008/2012 Republicans continue to berate and mock him for being a softy on terrorism, a wimp and muslim lover. LOL
 
2012-11-08 03:36:50 PM

Marine1: naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

*pats naturalbornposer on head*

Of course, little buddy.


Let's talk after your home town is occupied for a decade.
 
2012-11-08 03:37:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us


It's not the terror so much as the hope. They are scared, but they also WANT to be scared, and they WANT to be attacked because it validates them and makes them feel important. It gives them an unamibiguous enemy to fight and in their illogical subconscious it gives them a fantasy of claiming the glory and heroism they've always wanted but never gotten in their fairly plain and unambitious life. Red Dawn, Wolverines.
 
2012-11-08 03:38:05 PM
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?
 
2012-11-08 03:41:31 PM
I read there may only be about 300 people left in alquada.

Against a nation of 350 million? I mean come on! They pose minimal risk.

We're spending so much money there, it will break us like the USSR.
 
2012-11-08 03:46:19 PM

jvowles: naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Okay, I'll bite.

I worked in national defense and counter-terrorism for nearly a decade. You're talking utter nonsense when you equate domestic rhetoric and politics with a long-established campaign of terror.

Drone strikes suck; they suck less than leveling cities, which is what we did to put a stop to things in prior wars. They're an imperfect attempt to surgically target real terrorists, and intent DOES matter in this case. As long as using innocents as shields is a tool in the terrorist arsenal, we'll have to find a way to get past that with minimum bloodshed and human suffering.

I agree it would be best in the long run to get the hell out of there. It would be safer for us in the short run, too, but it what it emphatically would NOT be is smart policy, tactically sound, or morally right.

By and large, the US military responds, when using force, with a strong emphasis on avoiding collateral damage like mosques and innocent civilians. We generally use it carefully and with precision unmatched in the history of the world. We failed that standard under Bush; we've done better under Obama. Three-plus years of more sensible policy cannot instantly overcome 8+ years of misery, but our goals are clearer and the mission better defined than ever before.

We also make mistakes, and we have some real idiots and asshats that manage to make it into decision-making positions from time to time. For the most part, we fess up and apologize and try to make it right.

If we cut and run with no plan, which is what one set of our home-grown extremists want, we're saying that our word as a nation is worthless, that we won't honor obligations, and that our commitments to friends and allies amount to little more than air.

If we leave gradually, there's more chance of something stable existing there when we've gone -- and far LESS chance of terrorists regaining a foothold. We overstay our welcome, we create more terrorists. We're on track, for the first time in a decade, to leave war behind in the next two years.

We won't convert the true haters; we will annoy many people who live where we've intruded.

I'm certainly not pro-war, but once begun it needs to be managed carefully.


Typically I would agree with the "finish what you start" path. Afghanistan is (I believe) our longest military commitment in history and progress is not too apparent. I think as a nation or "word" is beginning to translate as "we'll invade and set up shop and stay until the local populous turns into an enemy".

I supported Afghanistan and Iraq when Bush invaded. Then nothing happened except more fighting. We installed a new regime and then what? Wait for them all to go turn white and vote republican? Oil prices didn't even go down (I realize that's not how it works).
 
2012-11-08 03:55:32 PM
I hate tourists as much as anyone, but I think declaring war against them is going too far.
 
2012-11-08 04:01:22 PM
I like the drones. I like my terrorists 'well-done.' I like Obama for providing me with both.I like alllll these things.

Thumbs up.

What I don't like is someone trying to tell me that this was anything short of 'good' because Obama was the one who did it. I don't like that one bit.
 
2012-11-08 04:15:51 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: aspAddict: Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.
Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?

If by shiny stuff you mean food and housing, then yes, yay.


Food stamps, section 8, and an unemployment check. can I get a woot woot!

/troll-a-troll?
 
2012-11-08 04:22:50 PM
 
2012-11-08 04:27:58 PM
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.

Good..keep going until they are all dog meat. Gives the snackbar zealots the finger. Shows them the bottom of his shoe, eats a juicy delicious pork barbeque sammich, watches pron, and sings the national anthem while having a nice cold brew.
 
2012-11-08 04:29:49 PM

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.
 
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...
 
2012-11-09 07:56:32 AM

Trapper439: 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...


As previously mentioned up-thread, antiwar.com offers criticism from the left. They were also highly critical of Bush. They consider Obama too pro-war and too right wing. Although I voted for Obama, I agree with them.

As I see it, one hundred years from now, Obama could well be deemed by historians to be one of the greatest American presidents ever. I think, if that comes about, it will be in part due to organizations like antiwar.com as well as other organizations that advocate less war, but better care of our veterans, pro-universal health care organizations, organizations like Occupy Wall Street that promote financial regulations and reform of the real estate market, and other like minded groups.
 
Displayed 301 of 301 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report