- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 28,824
- Reaction score
- 20,497
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They were killed on Reagan's watch. He's directly responsible for sending them over there and not making sure that security was adequate.
Hang in there, when you hit the nail on the head I'll give you an attaboy. If you accumulate 1,000 attaboys that wipes out one Aw ****.
So in your special world, when terrorists attack troops, the President didn't provide sufficient security and he's directly responsible - I guess Obama failed in Fort Hood, etc. - that's the same as a President giving a direct order for a drone strike on an American citizen. What other special views are held in this wonderful land you live in?
Oh something called assassination. Killing an American before trial is considered assassination per law. No American can legally be killed in this manner (drone). Right now Obama has killed 6 Americans illegally.
Um, youre saying that American hostage who was killed was an enemy combatant?Dood gave up his American rights when he took up arms against the country and declared allegiance elsewhere. These were enemy combatants. I like the 'were' part. They are now dead parrots.
Um, youre saying that American hostage who was killed was an enemy combatant?
Is it any wonder groups like ISIS believe they can beat us? In a thread where the president killed terrorists, people are bemoaning the poor Americans loss of constitutional rights and ****ing arguing about Reagan and Truman.
Horse****. Some dirtbag decides to take up with terrorists on foreign soil they arent US Citizens covered by the Constitution...they are terrorists and they are targets. Thats logic regardless of who is sitting in the WH.I don't know what ISIS believes - but there was a time when America and Americans stood for certain principles and the rule of law was one of them. We've seen that eaten away over the past number of decades, with Iran/Contra - with Clinton/Lewinski - with waterboarding - and now with drone assassinations, the NSA, and a President who believes he alone should determine which laws should be enforced and which ones not.
Holding onto the moral high ground takes work.
In regards to just the production cost, yes, drones are cheaper. But they also cause much more collateral damage, are less flexible in how they can be used, incapable of adapting to changing situations (as someone stated earlier, the only real options available whenever something changes are continue mission or abort mission), and they are unpopular with a lot of people. Overall, they have a very high opportunity cost compared to just sending in soldiers.
edit: Oh, and soldiers don't burn thousands of dollars of revenue every hour they spend in the field, and recruit way fewer terrorists than the drones do.
Evidence suggests that the trauma of living under drones causes anti-American resentment and aids in the recruitment for violent extremism. According to a former State Department official, for every drone strike, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies. Such long term damage is known as “blowback” – incidents that arise in later years as an unintended consequence of actions taken today.
FCNL: Understanding Drones
Horse****. Some dirtbag decides to take up with terrorists on foreign soil they arent US Citizens covered by the Constitution...they are terrorists and they are targets. Thats logic regardless of who is sitting in the WH.
Dont make stupid analogies. Thats just....beyond the pale stupid. How do you even BEGIN to equate the scenarios? The intel had no indication of civilians or hostages. It DID have (confirmed) actionable intel of the presence of terrorists.Let's for arguments sake say that a couple of ISIS elements breached the White House and held the Obama family hostage. According to your argument, it would be perfectly reasonable to send a drone to bomb the White House in order to kill the couple of terrorists even though the hostages, in this case the First Family, would also be killed in the process. I'm guessing the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you.
Dont make stupid analogies. Thats just....beyond the pale stupid. How do you even BEGIN to equate the scenarios? The intel had no indication of civilians or hostages. It DID have (confirmed) actionable intel of the presence of terrorists.
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.So, in your view, civilian and/or hostage casualties are irrelevant to the goal of killing a couple of terrorists. As such, why is my analogy/scenario stupid? Is it because aid workers' lives aren't worth worrying about?
Dood gave up his American rights when he took up arms against the country and declared allegiance elsewhere. These were enemy combatants. I like the 'were' part. They are now dead parrots.
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.
Oh something called assassination. Killing an American before trial is considered assassination per law. No American can legally be killed in this manner (drone). Right now Obama has killed 6 Americans illegally.
I hadn't realized the US was at war with Pakistan.
A state of warfare isn't limited to nations alone but to all kinds of factions.
A terror organization for example can be in an open state of war with a nation, plenty of examples to this both in history and in present time.
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.
Would you condone the US sending a drone over Israeli territory to bomb a couple of terrorists hiding out in say Haifa - maybe a couple of Israeli citizens get vaporized in the process? No big deal, right?
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January
Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
That's not true. An American who joins enemy forces and fights a war against the United States can be killed without a trial. Rules of warfare.
Educate yourself.
Do not engage in hyperbole. The situation you've described is unrealistic due to so many reasons, the most obvious one being that Israel unlike Pakistan would have been able to easily control the situation and a US airstrike would have been clearly uncalled for. An Israeli police (not even IDF) counter-terror unit can easily operate in such case and bring the situation to an end with minimal casualties.
Do not engage in hyperbole. The situation you've described is unrealistic due to so many reasons, the most obvious one being that Israel unlike Pakistan would have been able to easily control the situation and a US airstrike would have been clearly uncalled for. An Israeli police (not even IDF) counter-terror unit can easily operate in such case and bring the situation to an end with minimal casualties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?