No. 2 Al Qaeda leader dead from drone strike

#101
#101
One thing about these drone strike (apart from the whole state sovereignty/declaration of war issue) is they put another layer of insulation against accountability/responsibility.

So a drone pilot sitting thousands of miles away kills three dubious figures and five innocent civilians.

Oops?
 
#102
#102
OrangeEmpire said:
You know as well as I do that is nuclear.
Click to expand...

Maybe he needs a map to show him who his israels neighbors are.

Or Israel should just form a truce with all Muslim countries. All they need to do is talk. That will surely end the fighting that has been going on over there. After all, we all know the middle east has just recently become volatile.
 
#104
#104
YorkVol said:
There is a lot to be said for this. Unfortunately the State Department, the key partner in the national security policy process is woefully unprepared to handle any sort of crisis, and even worse at executing any long term program. Consequently DOD becomes the defacto tool for every problem.nnwhen all you have is a hammer...
Click to expand...

Yep. It's human nature too. 9/11 was so horrific that we were ready to do anything to prevent another but more objectively it was a single attack that killed about 3000 people. Nothing to sneeze at but none of us were thinking clearly afterwards.
 
#107
#107
therealUT said:
1. Diplomacy and negotiations with the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. The pervasive myth that if you negotiate with terrorists you will create more terrorists has never been proven; it is more than likely a fallacy.

2. If we do resort to fighting foreign wars, stop fighting counterinsurgencies. In order to even win counterinsurgencies one must place their own forces in much graver danger, and counterinsurgencies always entail greater danger for the local civilian populations. If we are going to fight foreign wars, we would be much better off just colonizing and instituting our own government, our own economy, and our own police forces. I view this as just as wrong, fundamentally, as fighting any other foreign wars; however, this would be a much less costly approach (in terms of capital, soldiers lost, and innocent individuals killed).

3. Get rid of our military presence in the Middle East. One of the few grievances that makes it onto each and every terrorist organization's list of grievances against the U.S. is the presence of an infidel army in Saudi Arabia.

4. Cut Israel loose; that seems to be the other grievance that makes it on to each and every list of grievances.
Click to expand...

1. It's amazing you don't find negotiating with a non-state entity troubling....especially one who manifests a worldwide islamic caliphate as one of its goals and DELIBERATELY targets civilians as opposed to legitimate military targets.

2. Interesting point, but I'm not entirely sure your method would prevent an insurgency or kill the need to fight one.

3. Agree

4. BIG Agree.
 
#109
#109
Gramps said:
I do not know you but I have been reading your posting for a while, solid poster.

i would think you are use to responsibility.

There are some very knowledgeable posters on this board.

Thank you for your service sir.
Click to expand...

:hi:

Back atcha.
 
#110
#110
volinbham said:
Yep. It's human nature too. 9/11 was so horrific that we were ready to do anything to prevent another but more objectively it was a single attack that killed about 3000 people. Nothing to sneeze at but none of us were thinking clearly afterwards.
Click to expand...

I was stationed in Japan on 9/11, a good friend was the head of counter terrorism for Pacific Command at Camp Smith, Hawaii. When the news broke, someone from the East Coast woke them up (about 2:30am). He took one look at the images on CNN and went back to bed, slept late, got up and had a full breakfast. The whole time his wife had been up and she couldn't believe how nonchalant he was being. On his way out the door she confronted him and asked how he could be so calm. His reply was simply "That was the last good night sleep and last breakfast that I'll get for the next 10 years." He was right, we ramped up to full on ridiculous levels on 9/12. Some of it was right, most of it was simply to appease our own sense of helplessness and fear. Did we really need to put a wall of jersey barriers around an American high school on an American base in Japan? Not really, but we did that and a whole lot more.
 
#111
#111
rjd970 said:
1. It's amazing you don't find negotiating with a non-state entity troubling....especially one who manifests a worldwide islamic caliphate as one of its goals and DELIBERATELY targets civilians as opposed to legitimate military targets.
Click to expand...

I find their actions troubling; however, I also think that you do not lose anything by negotiating. It is not as if negotiations would remove the option to resort to force later, if either side failed to uphold the agreement. bin Laden had a list of grievances prior to 9/11 and I honestly believe that the U.S. could have accepted most of them without detriment; do I believe that would have stopped bin Laden from attacking the U.S.? Maybe, maybe not; but, it would have been worth a shot.

rjd970 said:
2. Interesting point, but I'm not entirely sure your method would prevent an insurgency or kill the need to fight one.
Click to expand...

Fighting only wars of pure self-defense is the only way to absolutely ensure oneself against having to fight a counterinsurgency.
 
#112
#112
Velo Vol said:
Not sure what this means.
Click to expand...

Stop funding Israel; stop equipping their military; stop involving ourselves in their disputes; make it well known to them and to the world that if they go to war, we will not fight with them.
 
#113
#113
therealUT said:
Stop funding Israel; stop equipping their military; stop involving ourselves in their disputes; make it well known to them and to the world that if they go to war, we will not fight with them.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many Christians and Jews in the US would have the hides of our country's leaders if our government did that?? The biggest problem is Saudi Arabia. If we had not went in and given them protection for their oil resources in the early 1930s, we wouldn't even be over there, and we could support Israel from the Mediterranean Sea, if we chose to do so. We should pull out from all the Islamic countries though, just because they share no diplomatic similarities with any democracy.
 
#114
#114
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Do you know how many Christians and Jews in the US would have the hides of our country's leaders if our government did that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that it would be an unpopular decision. In my opinion, it would be the right decision, though.

The main issue between Israel and the Arab states centers around the Temple Mount. Currently, it is the site of the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest shrines in Islam. The Muslims are not about to let it be destroyed.

Of course, the Temple Mount is also the location on which the Jewish Temple was built and must be rebuilt. For Orthodox Jews, rebuilding the Temple is a religious duty. To do so, they must destroy the Dome of the Rock.

Now, both of these stances are, in my opinion, completely irrational (it is a damned piece of earth, just like every other piece of earth, and damned buildings, just like all other buildings), but they are the driving forces in this issue and those in the know, on both sides, understand that very well.

g8terh8ter_eric said:
The biggest problem is Saudi Arabia. If we had not went in and given them protection for their oil resources in the early 1930s, we wouldn't even be over there, and we could support Israel from the Mediterranean Sea, if we chose to do so. We should pull out from all the Islamic countries though, just because they share no diplomatic similarities with any democracy.
Click to expand...

I agree and, in addition, I think we should pull government military forces out of all other countries. I have no problem with private businesses making agreements with other countries in which they wish to operate; I do not think it is the job of the U.S. Military to protect those private businesses abroad. Moreover, I would have no problem with private businesses making agreements with other nations to provide their own private security forces (Triple Canopy, SOC, etc.) as a condition of doing business in that country.
 
Last edited:
#115
#115
therealUT said:
Stop funding Israel; stop equipping their military; stop involving ourselves in their disputes; make it well known to them and to the world that if they go to war, we will not fight with them.
Click to expand...

in addition to that, make it known to Iran and any other country that would attack Israel that the United States will not make any attempt to keep Israel from using every weapon it has at it's disposal.
 
#116
#116
MG1968 said:
in addition to that, make it known to Iran and any other country that would attack Israel that the United States will not make any attempt to keep Israel from using every weapon it has at it's disposal.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely fine with that.
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
I find their actions troubling; however, I also think that you do not lose anything by negotiating. It is not as if negotiations would remove the option to resort to force later, if either side failed to uphold the agreement. bin Laden had a list of grievances prior to 9/11 and I honestly believe that the U.S. could have accepted most of them without detriment; do I believe that would have stopped bin Laden from attacking the U.S.? Maybe, maybe not; but, it would have been worth a shot.



Fighting only wars of pure self-defense is the only way to absolutely ensure oneself against having to fight a counterinsurgency.
Click to expand...

Who would e have negotiated with? Bin laden? What makes you think any aggrement with OBL and AQ could be enforced?

Once you start talking and giving legitamacy to organizations such as AQ you just embolden then next guy or group to try the same. After we did nothing after the first WTC bombing, did nothing after our ship was bombed in Yemen, after we did nothing after our embasy in Kenya was bombed we showed AQ and OBL they can attack us without reprocussions.

When hit, you must hit back harder and with furry. That is the only negotiating tactic these people understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#118
#118
MG1968 said:
in addition to that, make it known to Iran and any other country that would attack Israel that the United States will not make any attempt to keep Israel from using every weapon it has at it's disposal.
Click to expand...

You do realize that means WWIII?
 
#120
#120
MG1968 said:
in addition to that, make it known to Iran and any other country that would attack Israel that the United States will not make any attempt to keep Israel from using every weapon it has at it's disposal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is a far better solution then meddling in every dispute.
 
#121
#121
therealUT said:
Stop funding Israel; stop equipping their military; stop involving ourselves in their disputes; make it well known to them and to the world that if they go to war, we will not fight with them.
Click to expand...

We do the same things for Egypt.
 
#122
#122
utvolpj said:
well if the US is taking a non-interventionist role then it wouldn't truly be a WW would it? Would China, Russia, etc also participate?
Click to expand...

Israel would go nuc before being wiped off the map. That would lead to a Pakistan retaliation or Iran (might have one or two) then it's a snowball effect.
 
#123
#123
hog88 said:
Who would e have negotiated with? Bin laden? What makes you think any aggrement with OBL and AQ could be enforced?
Click to expand...

The Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden in September and October 2001. We chose not to negotiate with the Taliban. What makes you think an agreement would not be enforced? Wouldn't you rather give someone the opportunity first and then if they break the agreement resort to force? War should be a last resort, not a first resort.

hog88 said:
Once you start talking and giving legitamacy to organizations such as AQ you just embolden then next guy or group to try the same.
Click to expand...

This is most likely a fallacy. It has never been proven correct. Further, we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban now...and, now they will not negotiate with us because they are so close to achieving what they have been trying to achieve for the past twenty years in Afghanistan (complete hegemony over Afghanistan). So, we are legitimizing the Taliban now and getting nothing in return for it; we could have legitimized them eleven years ago and maybe avoided a long drawn out war.

hog88 said:
After we did nothing after the first WTC bombing, did nothing after our ship was bombed in Yemen, after we did nothing after our embasy in Kenya was bombed we showed AQ and OBL they can attack us without reprocussions.
Click to expand...

You are right; we did nothing (to include failing to negotiate).

hog88 said:
When hit, you must hit back harder and with furry. That is the only negotiating tactic these people understand.
Click to expand...

It might be the only negotiating tactic "these people" understand; we do not know though, because we have not tried it.
 
#124
#124
hog88 said:
Israel would go nuc before being wiped off the map. That would lead to a Pakistan retaliation or Iran (might have one or two) then it's a snowball effect.
Click to expand...

Again, things we absolutely do not know. One can speculate in many ways, but one will never know what the future will bring.
 
#125
#125
therealUT said:
The Taliban was willing to hand over bin Laden in September and October 2001. We chose not to negotiate with the Taliban. What makes you think an agreement would not be enforced? Wouldn't you rather give someone the opportunity first and then if they break the agreement resort to force? War should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Agreed but the last option we had after the towers came down was war. Negotiation would have led to another attack. Plus when you are hit in the nose you do not talk about it you hit back. Innaction on the world stage equates to weekness, our innaction led to the 9/11 attacks.

This is most likely a fallacy. It has never been proven correct. Further, we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban now...and, now they will not negotiate with us because they are so close to achieving what they have been trying to achieve for the past twenty years in Afghanistan (complete hegemony over Afghanistan). So, we are legitimizing the Taliban now and getting nothing in return for it; we could have legitimized them eleven years ago and maybe avoided a long drawn out war.

Again you live in a fantasy world. Once we showed the world we will give terrorist rewards for not hitting us, it would be open season on Americans.

You are right; we did nothing (to include failing to negotiate).



It might be the only negotiating tactic "these people" understand; we do not know though, because we have not tried it.

It has been tried in the middle east for years, and has failed.
Click to expand...

.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top