About them doggone drones.

[ARMCX1]

There is tension between the notions of the right to self-defense and the recognized human right to life that is not extrajudicially or arbitrarily terminated. Both are recognized rights under international law.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

There is tension between the notions of the right to self-defense and the recognized human right to life that is not extrajudicially or arbitrarily terminated. Both are recognized rights under international law.

Well, now you're getting closer to the truth. But Anwar Al-Awlaki issued fatwas----death sentences----against many American citizens, for doing nothing more than exercising their free speech rights. Quite evidently, Anwar thought all your talk of a "recognized human right to life" was just so much rot. He would have laughed in your face.

 

[CatsEye]

(3) Your 'suspicion' is idiotic. If Obama were to order the execution of a suspected terrorist in our custody, here in the United States, without a trial, then he would indeed be guilty of murder, and should not only be impeached and removed from office, but actually prosecuted for murder. But he hasn't done that, has he?

It's sad that the goodness of an idea or principle is a function of geography.

Change latitude and longitude, once was murder is now okie dokie. Just saying.

 

[ARMCX1]

Although you might not realize it, I am not defending Awlaki. I am expressing a preference for clarification of the policy of targeted killings to bring these killings into conformity (should they not already be) with US and international laws.

I didn't think Arkady was correct when he posted that most Democrats appear to have switched sides on the issue. This thread suggests he was correct if these same posters condemned the policy under Bush. Few replies registered concerns about the program. Most justified it as a unavoidable consequence of wartime and evolving weapons technology.

 

[Saladin2]

The dear sweet kind Pilgrim Fathers live ..................

How dare you call yourself صلاح الدين ( Saladin) ....Yeah...and you are the "Queen"...of What???....LOL...Please tell us all more about places you have never been and people you've never met

 

[middleview]

the one that destroyed the World Trade Center on 911.

 

[JackDallas]

I approved of such business when Bush was president so it would be hupicritical and disingenuous of me to oppose same from the current moron-in-chief. I'd rather he kill them than put them on food stamps.

We are at war. At least that's the deal for years now.

War is nasty business. The side with the best of everything customarily wins. That means the best of everything from equipment to armament to vehicles and sea-worthy ships and aircraft capable of out performing the enemies planes. It's about inventiveism and mindsets to come up with whatever one needs to get the job done; I leave the atomic bomb as proof of how well it works.

Terrorists have invaded our homeland and destroyed structures along with lives to make a point and in some cases got away with it. We have had a few turncoats who've opted to switch sides and have undertaken the role of subversives against their own nation to carry out assignments given them by our enemies. They are traitors.

Now, those simple explanations said, what is the problem with some who think we are wrong to send drones to do the work that human beings once had to do; like do you think we should go back to war horses and cannon and musketry or should we do as every nation engaged in war has done since the dawn of records -- go with out best in order to put the biggest hurt on our enemy.

Collateral damage is a Johnnie-come-lately in the scheme of things. Hell, under the title of unfortunate incidents innocent people have been dying by millions in every war ever fought. It would be impossible to curtail offenses with guidelines to protect everyone outside of the military participants. Forget it. It's sad, really sad for those afflicted and their loved ones BUT that is not going to change.

About turncoats. Get them. They made a decision and now it is our obligation to make one too. The penalty for such crimes in time of war is death. It's a bummer, hu? Did you know that the Articles of War which set standards for our own military personnel almost all end with the brunt statement that says if you violate those rules "the penalty is death or as the courts-martial' determine. That's our people, the good guys so why is there any question about the rights of turncoats to a fair trial? Oh, courts-martials are not always fair either, but they are a fact of life.

These are my feelings as a veteran of the United States Army in time of war who served in combat areas and did his duty. "Take no prisoners" might sound awful to those far behind the lines but the purpose for such a command usually outweighs the morality of the call. Situations reversed might be once reason. Cruelty to prisoners is also not a new conception by any means. I give you Andersonville as an example or the Bataan death march. How about the Nazi ovens in concentration camps? Yeah! War is hell.

There was a time when wars were won based strictly on numbers. Not so today. The Charge of the Light Brigade was a folly then and today would be total madness when the availability of today's technology is right at hand.

It's war. Who started it? Hell, who knows. Maybe this war is just another splinter from the Crusades, for all I know or a result of the peace terms of WWI as some people claim. But, unlike previous wars fought to take and hold territory this one snuck up on us -- it's a war on terrorist whereever they are or whereever they opt to strike and it behooves us to use whatever means available to prevail. We owe that to our good citizens, you know, the ones who keep their loyalties intact.

Sorry.

Gramps

 

[middleview]

Lol Blimy whilst I was sleeping, you have been busy, writing a whole book of nonsense ..............

In answer to your post, I do know btw and it would have said so in the link I thought I had posted and it says so in many articles ................. not so difficult to find the answers to the questions 'people' insist others must answer for them eh ?
I have no time for your book of nonsense now .........maybe later. so you had better put me on ignore, just in case you don't like my answers. if I can be bothered to answer that is.

You do have lot's of time to regurgitate the most recent nonsense you've read on some anti-US blog, but no time to do research...got it. Clearly you don't like it when I do research on your allegations and find them to be, well, nonsense....

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Although you might not realize it, I am not defending Awlaki. I am expressing a preference for clarification of the policy of targeted killings to bring these killings into conformity (should they not already be) with US and international laws.

I didn't think Arkady was correct when he posted that most Democrats appear to have switched sides on the issue. This thread suggests he was correct if these same posters condemned the policy under Bush. Few replies registered concerns about the program. Most justified it as a unavoidable consequence of wartime and evolving weapons technology.

I was FERVENTLY opposed to George W. Bush's policies of torturing our prisoners, of maintaining secret prisons in other countries, and of rendering suspected terrorists in our custody to other countries where we knew they would be tortured. I NEVER criticized George W. Bush for using drone strikes to eliminate terrorists. NEVER.

 

[middleview]

Ground troupes against the Tribes in their terrain ? Lol

No, I am not naive .........you are just blindly Patriotic

The Taliban are Outlaws in Pakistan, the Gov reluctantly agreed to the Drones to help oust the Taliban. Fighting in Tribal Lands has been tried so many times, the idea was not relished..

Obama has overstepped that mark as all of those who have any love for and connection with Pakistan are saying ............

He will go down as a Tyrant, The US is now being compared to the Mongolian raiders of old.

The Taliban are a Saudi/USA invention, most were taken from refugee camps and indoctenated, As Al Qaeda is CIAs baby

The Taliban, regardless of who "invented them" were in control of most of Afghanistan in 2001. They were at war with the Northern Alliance (I'm sure the US invented them too)....Mullah Omar made a deal with Bin Laden....Kill Ahmed Shah Massoud (leader of the Northern Alliance) and in return, I'll protect you from the Americans when your attack happens on 911.

The people responsible for 911 fled to those tribal lands you are so fond of. Killing them is hardly tyranical. If anything it is justice.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

It's sad that the goodness of an idea or principle is a function of geography.

Change latitude and longitude, once was murder is now okie dokie. Just saying.

I think you may be missing my point, CatsEye. If we have a suspected terrorist in custody, OF COURSE we should give them a trial. That is in keeping with American values. If we CAN capture a suspected terrorist in another country, then we should do so, and bring them to the United States, and give them a trial. We could NOT capture Anwar Al-Awlaki. The Pentagon looked at that, and looked at it, and looked at it again, and concluded that it was simply 'infeasible'. That was the word they used. Dozens of lawyers at the State Department spent MONTHS pondering our options, since Awlaki was indeed an American citizen. Only after such very careful consideration was the recommendation made to the President that we target Awlaki with a drone strike. There was simply no other solution.

 

[MaryAnne]

Thank you Gramps for telling the unvarnished truth!

Oh,you will have your silly,little arm chair generals come in with a sob story! Tough!

 

[middleview]

1. The targets of the predator attacks are all Al Qaeda and Taliban. It took me five minutes to identify (from Pakistani newspapers) the target of the first attack after Obama was inaugurated. He was hosting five "foreign" Arabs (according to the story)....meaning they were Al Qaeda. Taliban fighters surrounded the house and removed the bodies after the strike.
2. Who says the people of Pakistan or Afghanistan can't move around? If we wanted to slaughter people the B52 would be the better weapon...if we wanted them all dead we have nukes for that. The predator drones are only good for destroying specific and small targets....
3. What, in your view, would have been an appropriate response to 911? Forget the bullshit version that the CIA did it...It is beyond debate that Al Qaeda was responsible. So go from there. What would President Titania have done? You have 3,000 people dead at the hands of a terrorist group whose leader has declared war on your country. Now what?

 

[NightSwimmer]

Allies ? ........ Moral ? ethical ? The Tribals are not the Taliban btw except in Oboma speak, wherein all males between the age of 15 and 50 ( I think it is ) is automatically counted asTaliban and or Al Qaeda fighter.

But even so what you are saying to me is, these people must die because we think they might not like us and do something though we know not what and because they do not have the moralities or ethics that we think correct, you should thank us for killing them ......Do you know we honored them ............... we fought them and lost and we honored them. You you make 'bug splats' out of them and you call morality and ethics ................. I prefer honor, they have it you don't.

And you lecture me over my past Empire ...................

Not really. I'm merely informing you that you don't know what the hell you're taking about.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

1. The targets of the predator attacks are all Al Qaeda and Taliban. It took me five minutes to identify (from Pakistani newspapers) the target of the first attack after Obama was inaugurated. He was hosting five "foreign" Arabs (according to the story)....meaning they were Al Qaeda. Taliban fighters surrounded the house and removed the bodies after the strike.
2. Who says the people of Pakistan or Afghanistan can't move around? If we wanted to slaughter people the B52 would be the better weapon...if we wanted them all dead we have nukes for that. The predator drones are only good for destroying specific and small targets....
3. What, in your view, would have been an appropriate response to 911? Forget the bullshit version that the CIA did it...It is beyond debate that Al Qaeda was responsible. So go from there. What would President Titania have done? You have 3,000 people dead at the hands of a terrorist group whose leader has declared war on your country. Now what?

If you look back through the entire thread, Middleview, you will find that Titania disputes that any planes flew into the Twin Towers, despite the tens of thousands of witnesses in Manhattan who saw it with their own eyes.......Just sayin'......

 

[MaryAnne]

The wars of the 21st century will be very different from the past...The days of Tank Brigades and Generals leading battalions of troops...are over...

WW amd WW2 Were as different as daylight and dark.There was no comparision.They used horses in WW1,Jeeps and tanks in WW2.
We have now progressed to drones that cut down on the losses.Too bad tiny minds do not see that!

 

[middleview]

Who is at War with you ? No one. You are talking about the resistance against US Occupation ? Well so would we all resist a brutal foreign Occupation of our Lands.

So 911 didn't happen. Forget the silly allegation that the CIA did it. Bin Laden even took credit. Zawahiri was one of those who planned the attack. He is in the "tribal areas" of Pakistan. Mullah Omar was complicit in the crime. He also is hiding out in the tribal areas. We have killed about 50 top Al Qaeda leaders.

If you were really concerned about innocent civilians being killed you'd call for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to quit using those civilians as sheilds. They should quit hiding behind their women and children.....and no women or children would be hurt.

 

[CatsEye]

I think you may be missing my point, CatsEye. If we have a suspected terrorist in custody, OF COURSE we should give them a trial. That is in keeping with American values. If we CAN capture a suspected terrorist in another country, then we should do so, and bring them to the United States, and give them a trial. We could NOT capture Anwar Al-Awlaki. The Pentagon looked at that, and looked at it, and looked at it again, and concluded that it was simply 'infeasible'. That was the word they used. Dozens of lawyers at the State Department spent MONTHS pondering our options, since Awlaki was indeed an American citizen. Only after such very careful consideration was the recommendation made to the President that we target Awlaki with a drone strike. There was simply no other solution.

So accessibility (along with lat. and long.) determine if it's murder or not?

If we killed Awlaki in the U.S it would have been murder.
If we killed Awlaki in Yemen (which we did), it's not murder because of location and accessibility.

Coming from a land of "innocent until proven guilty", this seems a bit shakey to me. And yes, I'm being an idealist here.

 

[middleview]

If you look back through the entire thread, Middleview, you will find that Titania disputes that any planes flew into the Twin Towers, despite the tens of thousands of witnesses in Manhattan who saw it with their own eyes.......Just sayin'......

I think we should adopt her logic. The people in the "tribal areas" of Pakistan aren't being killed by US Predator drones. It is an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by Al Qaeda and the Taliban to kill people who disagree with them. They just blow up people's homes and cars, point at the sky and say "Predator"!!!!

Who knows, maybe Zawahiri and Mullah Omar are hoping to make a fortune selling real estate once all the tribal folks move out in fear of the "predators".

 

[Queen Titania]

I think you may be missing my point, CatsEye. If we have a suspected terrorist in custody, OF COURSE we should give them a trial. That is in keeping with American values. If we CAN capture a suspected terrorist in another country, then we should do so, and bring them to the United States, and give them a trial. We could NOT capture Anwar Al-Awlaki. The Pentagon looked at that, and looked at it, and looked at it again, and concluded that it was simply 'infeasible'. That was the word they used. Dozens of lawyers at the State Department spent MONTHS pondering our options, since Awlaki was indeed an American citizen. Only after such very careful consideration was the recommendation made to the President that we target Awlaki with a drone strike. There was simply no other solution.

' ...................bring them to them United States and put them on trial'

[video=youtube_share;lkbJw5oyKlw]http://youtu.be/lkbJw5oyKlw[/video]