No. 2 Al Qaeda leader dead from drone strike

#3
#3
Coolest video game around! I bet the trigger man is a pale white guy in his thirties with dorito breath. Lucky SOB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
#5
#5
therealUT said:
And, the world is a safer place...

Maybe next time, instead of killing eight to maybe get one (it is still not confirmed that Abu Yahya Al-Libi is among the dead) we can kill twenty to get one.

The amount of civilian deaths caused by the U.S. drone program is both astounding and shocking.
Click to expand...

You've been trolling hard lately. Is this a philosophy project on human emotion/reaction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
I'm all for this SoB's getting taken out but I'm curious about what the legal authorization is. Do we have a declared war with AQ or is this part of the enemy combatant loophole.

On a semi-related note - I thought we had an official "no assassination" policy yet Obama has a "kill list". Do we still have a policy like that and is it limited to leaders of other countries? (Interesting too that Axelrod participated in the creation of the kill list. Can only imagine the back lash if Rove helped W with a kill list)
 
#7
#7
Nader actually had an interesting blog on this a few days ago

edit: found link Obama At Large: Where Are The Lawyers? | The Nader Page

Take the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The conservative American Bar Association sent three white papers to President Bush describing his continual unconstitutional policies. Then and now civil liberties groups and a few law professors, such as the stalwart David Cole of Georgetown University and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, have distinguished themselves in calling out both presidents for such violations and the necessity for enforcing the rule of law.

Sadly, the bulk of our profession, as individuals and through their bar associations, has remained quietly on the sidelines.
Click to expand...
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
I'm all for this SoB's getting taken out but I'm curious about what the legal authorization is. Do we have a declared war with AQ or is this part of the enemy combatant loophole.

On a semi-related note - I thought we had an official "no assassination" policy yet Obama has a "kill list". Do we still have a policy like that and is it limited to leaders of other countries? (Interesting too that Axelrod participated in the creation of the kill list. Can only imagine the back lash if Rove helped W with a kill list)
Click to expand...

War on Terror?
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
I'm all for this SoB's getting taken out but I'm curious about what the legal authorization is. Do we have a declared war with AQ or is this part of the enemy combatant loophole.
Click to expand...

The Pakistan Government is still avidly against our use of drone strikes into Pakistan, yet we continually violate their sovereignty and kill their citizens (the data for civilian casualties resulted from drone strikes in Pakistan shows that anywhere between 6% and 98% (most settling around 50%) of those killed in our drone strikes are noncombatant civilians):

David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum reported in May 2009 that "over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders" in Pakistan. Kilcullen who served in the Australian armed forces and was an advisor to U.S. General Petraeus from 2006 to 2008, and Exum, who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, argued that the kills were not worth the costs: "according to Pakistani sources, they [the drone strikes] have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly 'precision.'" While Kilcullen and Exum conceded that their numbers may be less than precise, "Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased."
Click to expand...

Neither Exum nor Kilcullen are peacenik hippies; both have plenty of experience actually fighting the wars, albeit at different levels (Exum earned a Silver Star for his actions in Afghanistan).


volinbham said:
On a semi-related note - I thought we had an official "no assassination" policy yet Obama has a "kill list". Do we still have a policy like that and is it limited to leaders of other countries? (Interesting too that Axelrod participated in the creation of the kill list. Can only imagine the back lash if Rove helped W with a kill list)
Click to expand...

They have argued around the no assassination policy by stating that we are killing enemy combatants in combat zones; last time I checked, we were not at war with Pakistan or Yemen, though.
 
#14
#14
Velo Vol said:
For a decade the government has been making up the rules as it goes along, and obviously Americans don't care.
Click to expand...

The Pakistanis and Yemenis certainly care, and their interest will manifest itself in hate fueled attacks against the U.S.
 
#15
#15
One of the problems is you can't trust anything you read or hear for the first few minutes/hours after these strikes. Everyone is posturing at that point, either downplaying who got killed or high-fiving about who got killed. In the middle are the muck rakers who want to make us look bad at all costs.

Although mistakes have been made, these strikes have gotten more and more precise as time has passed. The level of detail and level of authority needed is very high, as is the coordination with other countries involved. The number of civilian casualties actually caused by drone strikes are a small percentage of what you see reported in the press. Don't believe everything you hear and only about 10% of what you read.
 
#16
#16
doesn't the Obama administration boast zero civilian casualties from their drone strikes? If I recall correctly, the administration classifies military aged men near the strike zone as enemy combatants, or man made disasters or [insert euphemism for terririst].
 
#17
#17
dreVol said:
doesn't the Obama administration boast zero civilian casualties from their drone strikes? If I recall correctly, the administration classifies military aged men near the strike zone as enemy combatants, or man made disasters or [insert euphemism for terririst].
Click to expand...

while I do think they are idiots I'm not sure they're dumb enough to make this claim
 
#18
#18
utvolpj said:
while I do think they are idiots I'm not sure they're dumb enough to make this claim
Click to expand...

remember that this is the same President who claimed that an omnibus spending bill that he signed contained zero earmarks when in reality it contained over 3000 earmarks.
 
#19
#19
YorkVol said:
One of the problems is you can't trust anything you read or hear for the first few minutes/hours after these strikes. Everyone is posturing at that point, either downplaying who got killed or high-fiving about who got killed. In the middle are the muck rakers who want to make us look bad at all costs.

Although mistakes have been made, these strikes have gotten more and more precise as time has passed. The level of detail and level of authority needed is very high, as is the coordination with other countries involved. The number of civilian casualties actually caused by drone strikes are a small percentage of what you see reported in the press. Don't believe everything you hear and only about 10% of what you read.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree with you. What our government reports is severely under-reported. These drone strikes often result in more civilians killed than militants, and often the DoD does not record the deaths.

CIVIC reported in 2010 that "Since 2009, over 120 strikes have killed between an estimated 804-1367 people. The U.S. government claims a civilian death toll of around 20 total, much lower than most other independent estimates." CIVIC found that, "One strike alone in June 2009 killed 45-60 people, including up to 18 civilians.
Click to expand...

Any U.S. Government figures on civilian casualties from drone strikes are going to be as completely low-balled as possible; and, they do not even match up with the reparations payments that the U.S. makes to the families of those killed that the U.S. officially recognizes as civilian noncombatants.
 
#20
#20
dreVol said:
doesn't the Obama administration boast zero civilian casualties from their drone strikes? If I recall correctly, the administration classifies military aged men near the strike zone as enemy combatants, or man made disasters or [insert euphemism for terririst].
Click to expand...

This is exactly what both the Bush and Obama Administration do; and, they also try to stonewall the Pakistani Government when it complains that the U.S. is killing civilians by asking the Pakistani Government to prove that they were not Taliban, Haqqani, or AQ combatants (the U.S. never offers proof that they were, though).

The drone program is murdering scores of individuals and the U.S. response (after these summary executions) is simply: prove they were innocent. It is disgusting.
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
This is exactly what both the Bush and Obama Administration do; and, they also try to stonewall the Pakistani Government when it complains that the U.S. is killing civilians by asking the Pakistani Government to prove that they were not Taliban, Haqqani, or AQ combatants (the U.S. never offers proof that they were, though).

The drone program is murdering scores of individuals and the U.S. response (after these summary executions) is simply: prove they were innocent. It is disgusting.
Click to expand...

it seems like the by-product of a society that is unwilling to stomach the "costs" of engaging in military campaigns. the nation thirsts for war until the collective gets bored. dropping hellfire missiles allows us to disengage from the on-going conflict so the nightly news can focus on whether kim kardashian and kanye are an item.
 
#22
#22
dreVol said:
it seems like the by-product of a society that is unwilling to stomach the "costs" of engaging in military campaigns. the nation thirsts for war until the collective gets bored. dropping hellfire missiles allows us to disengage from the on-going conflict so the nightly news can focus on whether kim kardashian and kanye are an item.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that some of the most vocal dissidents to the drone policy happen to be combat infantrymen who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan (I also find it interesting that so many combat veterans financially supported Ron Paul over all the other candidates and he was the only isolationist in the mix).

A couple tours and you realize that killing these people is just not worth it.
 
#23
#23
I don't agree with the drone strikes as well. We continue to violate a country's sovereignty not to mention kill a dozen or so civilians in a typical strike. Are we really "winning" when we kill one terrorist but also kill 12 other innocent people?
 
#24
#24
Civilians might not be combatants but if they are aware of these terrorist and ont do anything about it then **** em, they can go up in flames too
 
#25
#25
golfballs said:
Civilians might not be combatants but if they are aware of these terrorist and ont do anything about it then **** em, they can go up in flames too
Click to expand...

doesn't it really come down to your definition of who is the actual terrorist?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top