Al Awlaki was providing support to an organization that has declared war against the people of this country and congress has declared military force can be used against said organization.
I'm fine with him eating a missile for lunch and i'd have given the order myself were i in Obama's position.
Al Awlaki was providing support to an organization that has declared war against the people of this country and congress has declared military force can be used against said organization.
I'm fine with him eating a missile for lunch and i'd have given the order myself were i in Obama's position.
Organizations within the domestic U.S. issue statements of violence / insurrection on a semi-regular basis, and criminal gangs get into dangerous stand-offs with the police, and yet you don't fly in drones and fire missiles at them because then you'd be damaging your own property and causing collateral damage on your own soil.
But when it's in Yemen, eh, whatever. Yemenese businessmen can't litigate and you don't have to look at the ruined homes, so whatever.
There's a real undercurrent of racism that I find disturbing.
EDIT: I'll also note, once again, that al-Qaeda is a creation you made. Perhaps you should've thought a little harder before giving guns, money and political support to Osama Bin Laden.
Well, the problem was not in helping him so much as abandoning him once he was no longer an asset. That's part of why he hates us. Still, what's done is done, and I don't see what difference it makes.
Well, the problem was not in helping him so much as abandoning him once he was no longer an asset. That's part of why he hates us. Still, what's done is done, and I don't see what difference it makes.
It wouldn't make any difference except that some Americans continually refer to al-Qaeda as some alien thing that just magically popped out of nowhere and began victimizing their country for no reason.
Al Awlaki was providing support to an organization that has declared war against the people of this country and congress has declared military force can be used against said organization.
I'm fine with him eating a missile for lunch and i'd have given the order myself were i in Obama's position.
Organizations within the domestic U.S. issue statements of violence / insurrection on a semi-regular basis, and criminal gangs get into dangerous stand-offs with the police, and yet you don't fly in drones and fire missiles at them because then you'd be damaging your own property and causing collateral damage on your own soil.
But when it's in Yemen, eh, whatever. Yemenese businessmen can't litigate and you don't have to look at the ruined homes, so whatever.
There's a real undercurrent of racism that I find disturbing.
EDIT: I'll also note, once again, that al-Qaeda is a creation you made. Perhaps you should've thought a little harder before giving guns, money and political support to Osama Bin Laden.
And?
Just because we created Al Qaeda, it doesn't mean we can't kill their operatives and material supporters when they threaten US citizens.
When members and material supporters of terrorist groups are on US soil they are within the purview of domestic law enforcement.
When they're in a country that can't or won't hand them over, send in the drones.
Somehow I don't think that makes any difference either, or that Americans are exceptionally ignorant of our country's history as opposed to Brits or Swedes or whomever.
What bother me about this particular case is that the administration's response, when pressed on it, amounted to a dollar figure: it was cheaper to fly in a drone and fire a missile than it would've been to fly in a helicopter and arrest him (or make the attempt).
Why arrest him and not any other enemy combatant? As far as I'm aware citizenship doesn't grant any legal protections.
When they're in a country that can't or won't hand them over, send in the drones.
So, suppose that another country felt it was threatened by the KKK, which your own government recognizes is a terrorist paramilitary organization operating within it's borders, so it sent over a drone and blew-up a building in Houston to kill some KKK members.
Would this seem acceptable to you?
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
When they're in a country that can't or won't hand them over, send in the drones.
So, suppose that another country felt it was threatened by the KKK, which your own government recognizes is a terrorist paramilitary organization operating within it's borders, so it sent over a drone and blew-up a building in Houston to kill some KKK members.
Would this seem acceptable to you?
When was the last time the KKK started blowing things up (in our country or in any other)?
Also, I'm not sure the KKK is classified that way, since they're allowed to hold rallies and the like. At the very least you're obviously missing some nuance there.
In reality, if an American terror group blew up a skyscraper in, let's say Shanghai, we'd round them up and either prosecute them ourselves or ship them overseas.
How about you let your Fuck America boner die down and return to rational discussion, Ender?
In reality, if an American terror group blew up a skyscraper in, let's say Shanghai, we'd round them up and either prosecute them ourselves or ship them overseas.
Humor me for a moment:
Say that your government was more dysfunctional than it is now, and that the KKK had shot-up an airport terminal in Zimbabwe, and the government refused requests to extradite those responsible.
Would you be fine with Zimbabwe taking matters into it's own hands and blowing-up a building in Houston in retaliation?
Or would that not really be okay, because this sort of tit-for-tat military aggression has been known to get out of hand rather quickly in the past?
I'm sorry, but al-Qaeda is not a legitimate military threat to the U.S. Blowing-up the World Trade Center was disgusting, but that nowhere approached what a 'war' is, and Americans like to pretend that it does.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, it's a stretch to say we can't send in drones here, so we shouldn't send them in anywhere. If Yemen or Afghanistan or Pakistan would step up and fulfill their responsibilities and arrest these guys and punish them or hand them over so we could, then all this would be a moot point. The problem arises because they have found foreign states that either can't touch them, or actively support them. In that case, sending in the FBI ro SWAT is not going to happen. And it falls to the military to do it.
As a former infantryman, I would much rather have watched drones streak overhead to go blow up the bad guy and anyone who was with him (children excepted) than be ordered to go do it myself and possibly die. Everyb ody demanding we arrest these human wastes seems to forget that doing so would require a living person who doesn't deserve getting killed to go in and do it and possibly get killed. Better them and their fanboiz than me.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
In reality, if an American terror group blew up a skyscraper in, let's say Shanghai, we'd round them up and either prosecute them ourselves or ship them overseas.
Humor me for a moment:
Say that your government was more dysfunctional than it is now, and that the KKK had shot-up an airport terminal in Zimbabwe, and the government refused requests to extradite those responsible.
Would you be fine with Zimbabwe taking matters into it's own hands and blowing-up a building in Houston in retaliation?
Or would that not really be okay, because this sort of tit-for-tat military aggression has been known to get out of hand rather quickly in the past?
I'm sorry, but al-Qaeda is not a legitimate military threat to the U.S. Blowing-up the World Trade Center was disgusting, but that nowhere approached what a 'war' is, and Americans like to pretend that it does.
No, I'm not going to "humor you" for a moment. In this scenario you've imagined I think I'd have much bigger problems in my life than what happens three thousand miles away from me.
You don't really know what you're talking about; you're generalizing about American reactions and opinions to the war and 9/11, you're creating false equivalencies like its going out of style, and you're frankly being quite naive about the way the world works.
Yeah, it's a stretch to say we can't send in drones here, so we shouldn't send them in anywhere. If Yemen or Afghanistan or Pakistan would step up and fulfill their responsibilities and arrest these guys and punish them or hand them over so we could, then all this would be a moot point. The problem arises because they have found foreign states that either can't touch them, or actively support them. In that case, sending in the FBI ro SWAT is not going to happen. And it falls to the military to do it.
As a former infantryman, I would much rather have watched drones streak overhead to go blow up the bad guy and anyone who was with him (children excepted) than be ordered to go do it myself and possibly die. Everyb ody demanding we arrest these human wastes seems to forget that doing so would require a living person who doesn't deserve getting killed to go in and do it and possibly get killed. Better them and their fanboiz than me.
Or, just perhaps, you could be the generation that finally manages to figure-out that America causes far more problems than it solves by dropping bombs in foreign states / assassinating leaders they do not like / funding radical groups out of convenience / etc. I mean, maybe you could do that.
Or, you can send in the drones and set-up another set of problems for another generation of Americans to go and bomb.
I'm sorry, but al-Qaeda is not a legitimate military threat to the U.S. Blowing-up the World Trade Center was disgusting, but that nowhere approached what a 'war' is, and Americans like to pretend that it does.
The USS Cole, the first World Trade Center Bombing, and the second one that actually destroyed them and damaged the Pentagon would say otherwise. Al Quada is certainly a threat, and even if they are not, they still inspire others to copy them like the bombings in Spain a few years ago.
And this using missles to kill gang members is a false equivalence. Gang members that commit violence in the US are arrested and given due process by law enforcement officers and the judicial branch, this dude was outside of the reach of US law enforcement. Furthermore, suppose such gang member had a gun and was swinging it around, threatening both the police trying to arrest him and the civilian population? There are laws that allow the police or federal officer to legally kill them if capturing is too much of a risk. Do you have a problem with police using deadly force to protect the public?
Sending in a capture team also isn't exactly a fair argument. One it's hard to capture someone. Look at Osama as an example, he was an old man on dialysis and the fucking SEAL team felt it was safer to kill him because of the threat they perceived at the time. It's not a matter of money when it comes to capture targets, it's weighing the risk vs reward. Risking the lives of the pilots and soldiers sent to capture him. Not to mention what would happen if said soldiers were somehow unable to get out accourding to plan. Battle of the Black Sea (Blackhawk Down) is a great example of that. The soldiers were forced to stay on the ground and as a result, up to two thousand people died that day. Rangers, combatants, and civilians alike.
So yes, killing him was the best option.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Personally, Ender, I. Don't. Care.
If they want to bomb the World Trade Center or any of the citizens I swore an oath to defend, I do not care what happens to them, the people who associate with them or the places that give them shelter.
We did not make a habit of dropping bombs everywhere in the world, and we still don't. The places we drop bombs are all a result of things that have been done to us, or things we've been asked to intervene in or decided we needed to intervene in for the greater good.
We dropped bombs on Serbia to prevent genocide in Bosnia. We had troops in Somalia to aid food shipments to the people there. We attacked Iraq to prevent their annexation of a neighboring, sovereign state (and you can argue it was due to oil.) We then sent troops into northern Iraq to protect Kurds who were rising up against Saddam. We sent in troops to restore the democratically elected government of Haiti after a coup by the military.
You can argue that the US uses its military to bring death and destruction to the world, and without a doubt, it does do that occassionally, but the reasons it does so are often for what could be argued are "good" reasons. We don't just willy-nilly send in troops to neighboring countries to annex them, or destroy the governments there. Those were things done in the past, but not lately.
The only war that I might argue was not for good reason, and would fit the criteria you seem to have for all of them, was the second Iraq war. And even that had the end result of getting rid of a dictator and allowing a people to create their own democratic country. We did not go in and set up a puppet government.
Your arguments might work if Rome were still around, but they would have had you crucified for saying such things. I'm personally glad we live in a world unlike that.
Shit talk my country all that you like. I'm not a patriot or nationalist and am aware that Canada engages in it's share of atrocities overseas.
I don't know why Americans get so defensive when it's pointed-out that their militaristic foreign policies are hypocritical, unethical and often lead to cycles of needless misery. I mean, BigJoeM literally said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword,"
Well, okay, then I guess any aggression against your own country is also okay, by that standard?
America props-up terrorists and then later decries them. America freely bombs civilians and then cries foul when it's own cities are attacked. America claims it's ridiculous 'force projection' is necessary for global stability even while it intentionally uses that force to destabilize other countries that do not share it's political stripes.
At it worst, America is a brutal imperial power with absolutely no qualms about exterminating whole populations. You're damn right I'll shit all over your country when it's at it's worst.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Anybody who thinks that we weren't justified going after Al Qaeda can frankly bite my shiny metal ass.
There are arguments to be made about mission creep and the actual conduct of the war, but the day we finally put a bullet in that beardy moron's face was one of the happiest days of my life.
Maybe I'm just a bloodthirsty, boneheaded American, but frankly I don't give half a shit about anyone's opinions on that one.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Shit talk my country all that you like. I'm not a patriot or nationalist and am aware that Canada engages in it's share of atrocities overseas.
I don't know why Americans get so defensive when it's pointed-out that their militaristic foreign policies are hypocritical, unethical and often lead to cycles of needless misery. I mean, BigJoeM literally said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword,"
Well, okay, then I guess any aggression against your own country is also okay, by that standard?
America props-up terrorists and then later decries them. America freely bombs civilians and then cries foul when it's own cities are attacked. America claims it's ridiculous 'force projection' is necessary for global stability even while it intentionally uses that force to destabilize other countries that do not share it's political stripes.
At it worst, America is a brutal imperial power with absolutely no qualms about exterminating whole populations. You're damn right I'll shit all over your country when it's at it's worst.
I don't even know how to respond to this screed. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Shit talk my country all that you like. I'm not a patriot or nationalist and am aware that Canada engages in it's share of atrocities overseas.
I don't know why Americans get so defensive when it's pointed-out that their militaristic foreign policies are hypocritical, unethical and often lead to cycles of needless misery. I mean, BigJoeM literally said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword,"
Well, okay, then I guess any aggression against your own country is also okay, by that standard?
America props-up terrorists and then later decries them. America freely bombs civilians and then cries foul when it's own cities are attacked. America claims it's ridiculous 'force projection' is necessary for global stability even while it intentionally uses that force to destabilize other countries that do not share it's political stripes.
At it worst, America is a brutal imperial power with absolutely no qualms about exterminating whole populations. You're damn right I'll shit all over your country when it's at it's worst.
I don't even know how to respond to this screed. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
That was him unable to put up a decent defense on the subject at hand and shifting to 'Amurica iz bad!' mode.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Anybody who thinks that we weren't justified going after Al Qaeda can frankly bite my shiny metal ass.
There are arguments to be made about mission creep and the actual conduct of the war, but the day we finally put a bullet in that beardy moron's face was one of the happiest days of my life.
I do not particularly care about Bin Laden. He essentially consented to his ultimate fate, and again, you went in with helicopters rather than drones & missiles. If you'd done the same in Yemen, I'd be okay with it.
I don't even know how to respond to this screed. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Which claim do you want me to back-up with citations? You don't think you've supported terrorists groups? You don't think you've bombed civilians? You don't think you've fomented coups against stable regimes?
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Anybody who thinks that we weren't justified going after Al Qaeda can frankly bite my shiny metal ass.
There are arguments to be made about mission creep and the actual conduct of the war, but the day we finally put a bullet in that beardy moron's face was one of the happiest days of my life.
I do not particularly care about Bin Laden. He essentially consented to his ultimate fate, and again, you went in with helicopters rather than drones & missiles. If you'd done the same in Yemen, I'd be okay with it.
I don't even know how to respond to this screed. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Which claim do you want me to back-up with citations? You don't think you've supported terrorists groups? You don't think you've bombed civilians? You don't think you've fomented coups against stable regimes?
I know for a fact we've done all of those things. I also know for a fact that you're ignoring a shitfuckton of context.
We're also not the only ones and that doesn't discount anything we've done in the world. We haven't gone around trying to exterminate entire populations. I've gone up against your bullshit before and I'm not really interesting in hearing your nonsense again.
Like I said a few posts ago, you're pretty naive about the way the world works.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
America props-up terrorists and then later decries them.
We have done this. In a way. We trained a guerrilla army to fight against a nation that had invaded it's country. I'm specifically referring to the mujahadeen fighting the invading Soviet army. An army that was doing it's level best to slaughter a people and take over a country it had no business being in. Of course, after helping those people defend themselves and ultimately drive out the invaders, we were quite surprised when they turned on us and decided to start killing us too. Even though we did not invade their country. Bad Americans. How dare we do such a horrible thing as help them defend their own country.
America freely bombs civilians and then cries foul when it's own cities are attacked.
Name one country we bombed civilians in indiscriminately. Name one place we gone into and and picked a building to destrroy specifically because there were only civilians there and we wanted to terrify our enemies the way al Qaeda wanted to.
America claims it's ridiculous 'force projection' is necessary for global stability even while it intentionally uses that force to destabilize other countries that do not share it's political stripes.
Name one global war we've had since WWII when we decided it was in our best interest to have a standing army and keep that force projection possible. For that matter, name some countries we've destabilized since the 70's. If you're referring to the 1950's and 1960's, then you're as bad as a race of people who hate the west because of the crusades and what happened 500 years ago. Granted, it wasn't as ling ago, but still history.
At it worst, America is a brutal imperial power with absolutely no qualms about exterminating whole populations. You're damn right I'll shit all over your country when it's at it's worst.
And right here, you're an idiot. Name one "population" we've "exterminated." Name one country our "imperialist" country has gone into and annexed. Hell, we've got territories we've acquired in previous wars that still aren't states, because they have decided they don't want to be yet. We haven't forced them.
You try to make us sound like Rome, or the Mongolians, and you're just flat out lying.
valhalla130 on
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
He was named by at least two men involved in either completed or attempted terrorist actions.
He was a propagandist and facilitator for Al Qaeda and was actively encouraging muslims in the US to commit terrorist attacks.
The man killed with him was the editor and publisher of an Al Qaeda magazine instructing muslims in the US on how to conduct terrorist attacks.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
So, do you also think that this is the appropriate approach for any other criminal? For example, if you have arrested a rapist, do you think the appropriate punishment is to have him or her raped by the state? If you catch a thief, is the appropriate response for the state to rob them in turn?
What bother me about this particular case is that the administration's response, when pressed on it, amounted to a dollar figure: it was cheaper to fly in a drone and fire a missile than it would've been to fly in a helicopter and arrest him (or make the attempt).
"Cheaper" in terms of human lives yes.
The state has two separate justifications for using force.
1- For enforcing the laws of the land. This can include defending the natural rights of those under its purview, requiring the laws and judicial decisions it has put in place be enforced and punishing those who violate the laws/rights of others.
2- For providing for national defense, which is an obligation rather than a prerogative.
Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
These roles are separate.
Article 2 Section 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ...
Article 2 Section 3
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Al-awari was not charged with a crime and killing him was not based on criminality. It was based on national defense. There seems little dispute that he is an agent of al Qaeda. He was residing in a country that the US does not have an extradition treaty with. We couldn't legally arrest him if we had wanted to. He was killed because he was working to recruit terrorists and facilitate attacks on the United States.
We have done this. In a way. We trained a guerrilla army to fight against a nation that had invaded it's country. I'm specifically referring to the mujahadeen fighting the invading Soviet army. An army that was doing it's level best to slaughter a people and take over a country it had no business being in. Of course, after helping those people defend themselves and ultimately drive out the invaders, we were quite surprised when they turned on us and decided to start killing us too. Even though we did not invade their country. Bad Americans. How dare we do such a horrible thing as help them defend their own country.
Actually, the mujahideen were not fighting the Soviets; it was a rather complex affair. The domestic Communist Party of Afghanistan engaged in a bloody coup against the standing theocracy, and found itself opposed on one side by secular academics and on the other by the fundamentalist paramilitary arm of the old theocracy (the mujahideen). With the government in a precarious position and fearing a counter-revolt, they reached-out to the Kremlin and requested military assistance, which was provided. The U.S. then decided that this represented an excellent opportunity to foment a bloodbath rather than, say, an opportunity to create a stable & prosperous Afghanistan, so it took the religious goons under it's wing, armed them to the teeth and set them loose on the streets of Kabul. The broken & impoverished Afghanistan of today is the legacy of that decision.
At any rate, it's not as if the mujahideen were your only beneficiaries. The contras in Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge, the Indonesian deaths squads that invaded East Timor, etc.
Name one country we bombed civilians in indiscriminately. Name one place we gone into and and picked a building to destrroy specifically because there were only civilians there and we wanted to terrify our enemies the way al Qaeda wanted to.
Right off of the top of my head: Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan and Sudan. Now doubt others could name a few more.
Name one global war we've had since WWII when we decided it was in our best interest ot have a standing army and keep that force projection possible.
WWII was not the result of a lack of force projection, I'm sorry to say. Look at France's standing forces at the time of the German invasion; they actually outnumbered Germany in almost every respect.
In any case, what you probably actually mean is national security. 'Global stability' is nonsense; again, you've used your military force to intentionally cause coups and prop-up unstable dictatorships. That would seem to me to be the opposite of creating stability.
Name one "population" we've "exterminated." Name one country our "imperialist" country has gone into and annexed.
The population of East Timor, which was massacred by Indonesian troops wearing American uniforms, supplied with American arms and transported by American ships & helicopters, after being given express permission to purge the unclean Fretalin communists by the American administration. The population of Cambodia, which endured a generationally long famine and years underneath the heels of the Khmer Rouge who rounded-up people into literal killing fields, having been supported by the USAF because the old monarchy of Cambodia displeased Nixon & Kissinger.
Al-awari was not charged with a crime and killing him was not based on criminality. It was based on national defense. There seems little dispute that he is an agent of al Qaeda. He was residing in a country that the US does not have an extradition treaty with. We couldn't legally arrest him if we had wanted to. He was killed because he was working to recruit terrorists and facilitate attacks on the United States.
I was specifically referring to the rhetoric, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
As thread creator I'm going to politely suggest we move back to discussing the Obama Administration.
Ender, if you want to make a "Fucking American Imperialist PigDogs thread" go do it on your own time. I don't need your out of context paranoia shitting up this one.
-the AUMF and using it to kill that terrorist (the AUMF was passed almost unanimously a few days after 9/11 and signed by GW Bush)
-not telling us their secret evidence that justified using the AUMF to kill that terrorist
-keeping Guantanamo open (guess who gave him no choice on that one?)
-signing the 2012 NDAA (guess who used our military bill for political ends? Obama also made a signing statement saying he wouldn't use this power)
-police powers used against the Occupy Wall Street movement (does this have anything to do with Obama?)
-the treatment of immigrants by ICE (this might be fair, but the article links to an isolated incident whose facts are unclear)
-the treatment of whistleblowers (this is fair criticism)
-the continued efforts of the NSA
The article also contains this hilarious passage:
To be fair, Obama has not kidnapped innocent people en masse in Afghanistan and warehoused them in Cuba, as Bush did. But he has launched drone strikes in numerous counties, where the victims include children.
Oh, so, Obama isn't as bad as Bush, despite being much worse? What?
If you take away the accusations that have nothing to do with Obama or were forced upon him by Republicans, you don't exactly end up with an unprecedented expansion of power or a trampled Constitution. For the most part it's Obama continuing some of Bush's policies, but with more internal oversight and due process. Disappointing? yes. Apocalyptic? Certainly not.
if you really want to ignore the fact this president has made more constitutional violations than any president in history. that's cool.
I've long since stopped caring about the bullshit you spout to smear Obama, much of which comes straight from the Paultards (or just sounds exactly like everything they say, perhaps), yes. It's good to know you accept your own complete ineffectiveness.
Posts
I'm fine with him eating a missile for lunch and i'd have given the order myself were i in Obama's position.
Organizations within the domestic U.S. issue statements of violence / insurrection on a semi-regular basis, and criminal gangs get into dangerous stand-offs with the police, and yet you don't fly in drones and fire missiles at them because then you'd be damaging your own property and causing collateral damage on your own soil.
But when it's in Yemen, eh, whatever. Yemenese businessmen can't litigate and you don't have to look at the ruined homes, so whatever.
There's a real undercurrent of racism that I find disturbing.
EDIT: I'll also note, once again, that al-Qaeda is a creation you made. Perhaps you should've thought a little harder before giving guns, money and political support to Osama Bin Laden.
It wouldn't make any difference except that some Americans continually refer to al-Qaeda as some alien thing that just magically popped out of nowhere and began victimizing their country for no reason.
And?
Just because we created Al Qaeda, it doesn't mean we can't kill their operatives and material supporters when they threaten US citizens.
When members and material supporters of terrorist groups are on US soil they are within the purview of domestic law enforcement.
When they're in a country that can't or won't hand them over, send in the drones.
Why arrest him and not any other enemy combatant? As far as I'm aware citizenship doesn't grant any legal protections.
So, suppose that another country felt it was threatened by the KKK, which your own government recognizes is a terrorist paramilitary organization operating within it's borders, so it sent over a drone and blew-up a building in Houston to kill some KKK members.
Would this seem acceptable to you?
When was the last time the KKK started blowing things up (in our country or in any other)?
Also, I'm not sure the KKK is classified that way, since they're allowed to hold rallies and the like. At the very least you're obviously missing some nuance there.
In reality, if an American terror group blew up a skyscraper in, let's say Shanghai, we'd round them up and either prosecute them ourselves or ship them overseas.
How about you let your Fuck America boner die down and return to rational discussion, Ender?
Humor me for a moment:
Say that your government was more dysfunctional than it is now, and that the KKK had shot-up an airport terminal in Zimbabwe, and the government refused requests to extradite those responsible.
Would you be fine with Zimbabwe taking matters into it's own hands and blowing-up a building in Houston in retaliation?
Or would that not really be okay, because this sort of tit-for-tat military aggression has been known to get out of hand rather quickly in the past?
I'm sorry, but al-Qaeda is not a legitimate military threat to the U.S. Blowing-up the World Trade Center was disgusting, but that nowhere approached what a 'war' is, and Americans like to pretend that it does.
As a former infantryman, I would much rather have watched drones streak overhead to go blow up the bad guy and anyone who was with him (children excepted) than be ordered to go do it myself and possibly die. Everyb ody demanding we arrest these human wastes seems to forget that doing so would require a living person who doesn't deserve getting killed to go in and do it and possibly get killed. Better them and their fanboiz than me.
No, I'm not going to "humor you" for a moment. In this scenario you've imagined I think I'd have much bigger problems in my life than what happens three thousand miles away from me.
You don't really know what you're talking about; you're generalizing about American reactions and opinions to the war and 9/11, you're creating false equivalencies like its going out of style, and you're frankly being quite naive about the way the world works.
Or, just perhaps, you could be the generation that finally manages to figure-out that America causes far more problems than it solves by dropping bombs in foreign states / assassinating leaders they do not like / funding radical groups out of convenience / etc. I mean, maybe you could do that.
Or, you can send in the drones and set-up another set of problems for another generation of Americans to go and bomb.
The USS Cole, the first World Trade Center Bombing, and the second one that actually destroyed them and damaged the Pentagon would say otherwise. Al Quada is certainly a threat, and even if they are not, they still inspire others to copy them like the bombings in Spain a few years ago.
And this using missles to kill gang members is a false equivalence. Gang members that commit violence in the US are arrested and given due process by law enforcement officers and the judicial branch, this dude was outside of the reach of US law enforcement. Furthermore, suppose such gang member had a gun and was swinging it around, threatening both the police trying to arrest him and the civilian population? There are laws that allow the police or federal officer to legally kill them if capturing is too much of a risk. Do you have a problem with police using deadly force to protect the public?
Sending in a capture team also isn't exactly a fair argument. One it's hard to capture someone. Look at Osama as an example, he was an old man on dialysis and the fucking SEAL team felt it was safer to kill him because of the threat they perceived at the time. It's not a matter of money when it comes to capture targets, it's weighing the risk vs reward. Risking the lives of the pilots and soldiers sent to capture him. Not to mention what would happen if said soldiers were somehow unable to get out accourding to plan. Battle of the Black Sea (Blackhawk Down) is a great example of that. The soldiers were forced to stay on the ground and as a result, up to two thousand people died that day. Rangers, combatants, and civilians alike.
So yes, killing him was the best option.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
If they want to bomb the World Trade Center or any of the citizens I swore an oath to defend, I do not care what happens to them, the people who associate with them or the places that give them shelter.
We did not make a habit of dropping bombs everywhere in the world, and we still don't. The places we drop bombs are all a result of things that have been done to us, or things we've been asked to intervene in or decided we needed to intervene in for the greater good.
We dropped bombs on Serbia to prevent genocide in Bosnia. We had troops in Somalia to aid food shipments to the people there. We attacked Iraq to prevent their annexation of a neighboring, sovereign state (and you can argue it was due to oil.) We then sent troops into northern Iraq to protect Kurds who were rising up against Saddam. We sent in troops to restore the democratically elected government of Haiti after a coup by the military.
You can argue that the US uses its military to bring death and destruction to the world, and without a doubt, it does do that occassionally, but the reasons it does so are often for what could be argued are "good" reasons. We don't just willy-nilly send in troops to neighboring countries to annex them, or destroy the governments there. Those were things done in the past, but not lately.
The only war that I might argue was not for good reason, and would fit the criteria you seem to have for all of them, was the second Iraq war. And even that had the end result of getting rid of a dictator and allowing a people to create their own democratic country. We did not go in and set up a puppet government.
Your arguments might work if Rome were still around, but they would have had you crucified for saying such things. I'm personally glad we live in a world unlike that.
I don't know why Americans get so defensive when it's pointed-out that their militaristic foreign policies are hypocritical, unethical and often lead to cycles of needless misery. I mean, BigJoeM literally said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword,"
Well, okay, then I guess any aggression against your own country is also okay, by that standard?
America props-up terrorists and then later decries them. America freely bombs civilians and then cries foul when it's own cities are attacked. America claims it's ridiculous 'force projection' is necessary for global stability even while it intentionally uses that force to destabilize other countries that do not share it's political stripes.
At it worst, America is a brutal imperial power with absolutely no qualms about exterminating whole populations. You're damn right I'll shit all over your country when it's at it's worst.
There are arguments to be made about mission creep and the actual conduct of the war, but the day we finally put a bullet in that beardy moron's face was one of the happiest days of my life.
Maybe I'm just a bloodthirsty, boneheaded American, but frankly I don't give half a shit about anyone's opinions on that one.
I don't even know how to respond to this screed. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
That was him unable to put up a decent defense on the subject at hand and shifting to 'Amurica iz bad!' mode.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I do not particularly care about Bin Laden. He essentially consented to his ultimate fate, and again, you went in with helicopters rather than drones & missiles. If you'd done the same in Yemen, I'd be okay with it.
Which claim do you want me to back-up with citations? You don't think you've supported terrorists groups? You don't think you've bombed civilians? You don't think you've fomented coups against stable regimes?
I know for a fact we've done all of those things. I also know for a fact that you're ignoring a shitfuckton of context.
We're also not the only ones and that doesn't discount anything we've done in the world. We haven't gone around trying to exterminate entire populations. I've gone up against your bullshit before and I'm not really interesting in hearing your nonsense again.
Like I said a few posts ago, you're pretty naive about the way the world works.
We have done this. In a way. We trained a guerrilla army to fight against a nation that had invaded it's country. I'm specifically referring to the mujahadeen fighting the invading Soviet army. An army that was doing it's level best to slaughter a people and take over a country it had no business being in. Of course, after helping those people defend themselves and ultimately drive out the invaders, we were quite surprised when they turned on us and decided to start killing us too. Even though we did not invade their country. Bad Americans. How dare we do such a horrible thing as help them defend their own country.
Name one country we bombed civilians in indiscriminately. Name one place we gone into and and picked a building to destrroy specifically because there were only civilians there and we wanted to terrify our enemies the way al Qaeda wanted to.
Name one global war we've had since WWII when we decided it was in our best interest to have a standing army and keep that force projection possible. For that matter, name some countries we've destabilized since the 70's. If you're referring to the 1950's and 1960's, then you're as bad as a race of people who hate the west because of the crusades and what happened 500 years ago. Granted, it wasn't as ling ago, but still history.
And right here, you're an idiot. Name one "population" we've "exterminated." Name one country our "imperialist" country has gone into and annexed. Hell, we've got territories we've acquired in previous wars that still aren't states, because they have decided they don't want to be yet. We haven't forced them.
You try to make us sound like Rome, or the Mongolians, and you're just flat out lying.
Maybe I should have just left it at this.
"Cheaper" in terms of human lives yes.
The state has two separate justifications for using force.
1- For enforcing the laws of the land. This can include defending the natural rights of those under its purview, requiring the laws and judicial decisions it has put in place be enforced and punishing those who violate the laws/rights of others.
2- For providing for national defense, which is an obligation rather than a prerogative.
Article IV Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
These roles are separate.
Article 2 Section 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ...
Article 2 Section 3
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Al-awari was not charged with a crime and killing him was not based on criminality. It was based on national defense. There seems little dispute that he is an agent of al Qaeda. He was residing in a country that the US does not have an extradition treaty with. We couldn't legally arrest him if we had wanted to. He was killed because he was working to recruit terrorists and facilitate attacks on the United States.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Actually, the mujahideen were not fighting the Soviets; it was a rather complex affair. The domestic Communist Party of Afghanistan engaged in a bloody coup against the standing theocracy, and found itself opposed on one side by secular academics and on the other by the fundamentalist paramilitary arm of the old theocracy (the mujahideen). With the government in a precarious position and fearing a counter-revolt, they reached-out to the Kremlin and requested military assistance, which was provided. The U.S. then decided that this represented an excellent opportunity to foment a bloodbath rather than, say, an opportunity to create a stable & prosperous Afghanistan, so it took the religious goons under it's wing, armed them to the teeth and set them loose on the streets of Kabul. The broken & impoverished Afghanistan of today is the legacy of that decision.
At any rate, it's not as if the mujahideen were your only beneficiaries. The contras in Nicaragua, the Khmer Rouge, the Indonesian deaths squads that invaded East Timor, etc.
Right off of the top of my head: Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan and Sudan. Now doubt others could name a few more.
WWII was not the result of a lack of force projection, I'm sorry to say. Look at France's standing forces at the time of the German invasion; they actually outnumbered Germany in almost every respect.
In any case, what you probably actually mean is national security. 'Global stability' is nonsense; again, you've used your military force to intentionally cause coups and prop-up unstable dictatorships. That would seem to me to be the opposite of creating stability.
The population of East Timor, which was massacred by Indonesian troops wearing American uniforms, supplied with American arms and transported by American ships & helicopters, after being given express permission to purge the unclean Fretalin communists by the American administration. The population of Cambodia, which endured a generationally long famine and years underneath the heels of the Khmer Rouge who rounded-up people into literal killing fields, having been supported by the USAF because the old monarchy of Cambodia displeased Nixon & Kissinger.
I was specifically referring to the rhetoric, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
Ender, if you want to make a "Fucking American Imperialist PigDogs thread" go do it on your own time. I don't need your out of context paranoia shitting up this one.
But let's move on.
You really like your non sequitors, don't you?
Not really.
Are we going to drop this or not? If not, I'm not just going to sit and be insulted without defending myself.
I'm hoping it was one of those little yappy dogs.
NSA whistleblower William Binney believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush
Things that article lists:
-the AUMF and using it to kill that terrorist (the AUMF was passed almost unanimously a few days after 9/11 and signed by GW Bush)
-not telling us their secret evidence that justified using the AUMF to kill that terrorist
-keeping Guantanamo open (guess who gave him no choice on that one?)
-signing the 2012 NDAA (guess who used our military bill for political ends? Obama also made a signing statement saying he wouldn't use this power)
-police powers used against the Occupy Wall Street movement (does this have anything to do with Obama?)
-the treatment of immigrants by ICE (this might be fair, but the article links to an isolated incident whose facts are unclear)
-the treatment of whistleblowers (this is fair criticism)
-the continued efforts of the NSA
The article also contains this hilarious passage:
Oh, so, Obama isn't as bad as Bush, despite being much worse? What?
If you take away the accusations that have nothing to do with Obama or were forced upon him by Republicans, you don't exactly end up with an unprecedented expansion of power or a trampled Constitution. For the most part it's Obama continuing some of Bush's policies, but with more internal oversight and due process. Disappointing? yes. Apocalyptic? Certainly not.
This is an interview with somebody talking about how the NSA has expanded by data mining commercially-held data. Again, disappointing, not dire.
I've long since stopped caring about the bullshit you spout to smear Obama, much of which comes straight from the Paultards (or just sounds exactly like everything they say, perhaps), yes. It's good to know you accept your own complete ineffectiveness.