General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWell hey, at least he isn't torturing people like Bush did.
Nope, instead he is assassinating them instead, men, women, young, old, American citizens or otherwise.
"It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=1
Now really, would we have tolerated such an assassination list under Bush? No, we wouldn't, we would, justifiably be screaming to the high heavens. So why do we tolerate it from Obama? Because he is "our guy". If that is the case, I can't go there with you, I cannot condone a president who personally decides who lives or who dies, be they American or Yemen, or from somewhere else. There was a time when decent people would condemn such an outrage as UnAmerican, and they would be in the right. Americans don't torture, nor do they assassinate, shooting down people like dogs in the street. Yet this is exactly what this administration has done. What's next, an assassination list for Americans in this country?
Oh, and about that whole not torturing people, well, it looks like I might be wrong about that.
But hey, it's all good right, torture, assassination, as long as it's a Dem doing these things.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
Bake
(21,977 posts)Just sayin' ...
Bake
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Do I even NEED the sarcasm tag for this?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Not a presidential election year, and even now that still isn't an excuse for continuing to create kill lists.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I guess dying at the hands of a Democrat isn't as painful as dying at the hands of a Republican. It certainly is excusable by the born-again-hawks here.
CrispyQ
(40,879 posts)Now there's some fucking truth in advertising! The longest reprieve we have from campaigning is right after a presidential election, but even then, it's only a few months. After the mid-term, there is basically no reprieve - just a few weeks vacation & then back into full campaign mode. It's sickening & one of the reasons our government gets nothing done.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Then we should all be happy. The HCRV doesn't discriminate based on political persuasion; as long as people are suffering and dying and the right pockets are being lined, then it's all good. And after another day of national wargasm, in which anyone declining to use the word "hero" was publicly and ritually flogged, it's time for a good smoke and a sigh of satisfaction at a continuing job well done.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
PufPuf23
(9,785 posts)OBL and Mullah Omar, head of Taliban, were GWB's stated targets for invading Afghanistan.
Now we never hear of Mullah Omar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just so long as a Democrat is the one in the WH?
But didn't you abhor such things under Bush? What's changed, the letter behind the President's name?
Sorry, but I can't join you in such hypocrisy.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
sudopod
(5,019 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
Its easy when you have no skin in the game.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Comedy gold.
Sid
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts).
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Glad you are finally able to admit it.
rug
(82,333 posts)
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)
Mairead
(9,557 posts)
Aviation Pro
(15,469 posts)...Lurch the Fucking Stiff TM.
Really?
You do understand that whatever troubles you under the President will be manifested by
[font size=36]A BILLION FUCKING TIMES[/font]
under this walking wad of fucking asscrack, don't you?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)don't watch out
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Since this is the first time that it has been confirmed that Obama personally draws up these kill lists.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)At least not as bad as multiple OP's, I guess. Right?
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts) 
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)As much as I agree with the sentiment of the article, my first thoughts were of all of the great people who tried to keep the peace. And how many of them were murdered.
Not only those people, but those like Bradley Manning who just wanted to expose the nightmare.
Maybe JFK was killed for reasons other than what I am assuming here. But I'd bet money it was the military wanting their wars. And that Martin Luther King was causing so much trouble with his angry peace making speeches. He had to go. Once again, I'm guessing. But who would have killed these people in the name of peace?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)So, if this is the issue that you care most about, you are shit outta luck.
One of Romney or Obama will be President on January 21, 2012.
You get to pick one. If you stay home or vote third party, you are effectively voting for your lest favorite of those two since you are taking a vote away from your preferred among them.
Your choice. One of those two will be president. Which one do you prefer?
rug
(82,333 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Which in effect takes this issue off the table for the general election.
If this is your most important issue, you are SOL.
Time to look at your next most important issue for a delineation.
rug
(82,333 posts)Elections don't mean stop thinking until Thanksgiving.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)You are voting for more drone attacks no matter who you vote for.
Therefore, you can't impact this issue with your vote this november.
Even staying home is a vote for more drone attacks, because your least favored candidate benefits from your non participation.
rug
(82,333 posts)You have a pretty blunt view of citizenship.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Don't you know, in this political system, you have to either take it or leave it.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)What is the goal of your OP?
To raise awareness? Ok. Awareness raised.
Now what are you going to do about it?
With respect to the presidency, there is nothing you CAN do about it in 2012. A pro drone attack person will be the next President.
All you can accomplish now is to drive turnout down among those that agree with you. And the end result of that is to have the least favored of the pro drone attack candidates win.
You can have pro drone attack Romney or pro drone attack Obama.
No other choices are available to you.
I know which one I prefer.
rug
(82,333 posts)And it's not my OP.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DISCLAIMER: I have *SERIOUS* reservations about labelling President Obama's actions as murderer. I reject the term.
However, if we take your argument at its face value you're asking us if we would condone murder so long as we get healthcare and green energy policies. Well, what the hell is the difference between us and RWers who would condone murder to get private health spending accounts and cheap oil? Murder is murder is murder and if we stay mum just because we get what we want we profit from that murder.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Death, torture and war, or death, torture and war. That's really a great way way to sell your president.
And you see, that is the big problem with our current electoral system, we are forced to choose between the lesser, even if only slightly lesser, of two evils.
So, let me ask you this, do you approve of this kill list? If not, what are you doing about it?
Another question, how bad does it have to get before you stop being the solid Democratic backer that you are? After all, this president is continuing to conduct an illegal, immoral war, violating the sovereignty of various nations to perform acts of war, continuing to torture prisoners, making up and following through on kill lists, these are all actions that you condemned under Bush, how bad does it have to get under Obama before you condemn this unconscionable acts of his?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)The primary season is the time to hash these things out.
Once you get into the general election, you pick the better of the two choices for the issues you care about most.
The general election is not the time for stomping your feet and protesting. That's for the primary season.
It just so happens that this go around, obama was way too popular to be primaried.
Oh well... Your issue lost. Time to work for the next election.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And the next, and the next, and the next ad infinitum. A great grand system we have now, where war and death and torture take the poll position, and simple decent humanity loses.
You know, the fact that you reduce death and torture to an "issue" that "lost" reveals a lot about your humanity and mindset, none of it good.
I noticed you didn't answer my question, why not?
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)I don't have to like it.. And I support changing it.
In the meantime, I have no choice but to vote for the least objectionable candidate.
That happens to be Obama this year.
No matter who I vote for, a pro-drone attack President will be elected.
Stomping my feet on DU like you are won't change that.
This go around, a pro drone attack candidate WILL win. Can't do anything about it.
Neither can you.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)fundamental level, so it bothers me to hear Obama called the "least objectionable" candidate. I don't wretch when I hear Obama's name or think about him. Romney, otoh: 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No? So that means you accepted Obama as is because he's "our guy". So what happens in 2016 when "our guy" endorses the next "our guy"?
Hell, the Tea Party dislodged a 36 year incumbent for being too moderate. Apparently all some are prepared to do is moderate their definitions of murder.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They know what's at stake.
Thank you. And you're not alone.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Don't you realize the Big Game is coming up???
..and disclosing the Coach's pedophilia is NOT good for Team Spirit?
Can't you keep your mouth closed until after the Big Game??!!!
I mean, how many children's lives can the Coach ruin between NOW and the Big Game?
The TRUTH just isn't important.
There is a Time & a Place for everything,
and the Time for the Truth is LATER...
...always LATER!
I'm going to have to report your disloyalty to the Student Spirit Committee!
You could RUIN the Homecoming Dance for everybody!!
DEATH to the other team!
It was ALL Joe Lieberman's fault!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts) And we all know your a Hillaryette.MadHound
(34,179 posts)Tell you what, DU2 is still open, I suggest that you go there and search the archives there and find one, just one post where I stated that I supported Hillary for the nomination. Hell, I'm willing to bet big money that you won't find such a post, you know why? Because I never, ever supported Hillary, not after what her train wreck of a husband did to this country.
What you will find is that I supported Kucinich, the only true liberal and Democrat on the ticket. Sadly, after this year, even he is going to be gone.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)So you said.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Prove it! I'm rather well known for being a Kucinich fan around here, one of those way left people. So, as they say, amazing claims are going to require amazing proof. So a link to such a post is required, otherwise it looks like you're just spewing hot air, either that or you have me seriously confused with some other poster.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)If so, I believe I have the right name. But I'll check on old post to make sure. Then, I'll apologize if so.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Why?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The one I was thinking of was from Florida I believe. Or they had a hard time over Hillary and the Florida primaries. Something about the dates and Hillary not getting in on time on something.
Whatever.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Yeah, really on subject there. Geez, I'm doing about three things at once besides posting here, and I'm staying on topic better than you are. Get your shit straight or give this thread up as a real bad performance on your part.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What does Clinton have to do with the op.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your claim that the reason for the op is directly related to the ops support for Hillary.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You aren't even making any sense.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Shocking and Awful when it was politically risky to do so. Hillary, otoh, voted for Operation Shocking and Awful. Shows what I get for trying to be a realpolitiker.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Oh, yeah, not only spoke out about it, but actively tried to stop it. Sadly, there weren't enough Dems with spines to help him.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)was right about everything and those who ridiculed him were wrong about everything.
It makes me despair sometimes, it really does.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts) DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
K&R
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
Muskypundit
(717 posts)Doesn't make much difference in the end, but we don't target children. Flame on I guess.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But our counter-terrorism strategies need to be much more transparent and less susceptible to becoming the tools of personal agendas.
Is a drone strike the equivalent of declaring war?
Because if it is, then our Constitution gives the authority to declare war to Congress.
Some very specific guidelines are needed.
The definitions in the Patriot Act and other laws about what is and is not terrorism are very vague in my view. A lot of acts that really are terrorism could easily be ignored, and a lot that aren't terrorism could be avenged -- through deadly means.
Obama has pretty good judgment. He is essentially a kind, thoughtful man. But we've had some less sensible, less steady, less sane, less qualified presidents. So the decision as to who gets picked off like a hunted animal should not be left up to the president and whatever sycophants -- sorry -- advisers he chooses to consult.
The Constitution is set up so as to limit the powers of each branch of government and make that body most responsive to and closest to the people primarily responsible for setting policy. The whole drone warfare thing needs to be carefully reviewed and not by some secret committees. The theory can be discussed in public and the decision as to what policies should apply to using drones should be set after a great deal of national and perhaps international review.
It's too much power and too much responsibility to give to a small circle of people.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Begin and Ariel Sharon were both members of the Irgun before 1947.
The U.S. referred to the National Liberation Front in Vietnam as 'terrorists' during the 1950s and early 1960s.
Ronald Reagan called the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela 'terrorists' until the mid-1980s and even thereafter.
Terrorism, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.
I'll bet the Brits back in 1776 called George Washington a 'terrorist.'
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)foreground of the NY Times pic? Our very own Eichmann, John O. Brennan, who served as Tenet's Deputy CIA Chief in the run-up to Operation Shocking and Awful and made sure all the trains were running on time.
If Brennan is one of that 'small circle of people,' then we are in serious trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan
morningfog
(18,115 posts)by Obama. There is a lot of innocent blood on Obama's hands. He has accelerated the use of drone assassinations and dead civilians and dead children have been one product of that acceleration.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Thank you President Obama for protecting us from TERRORIST!
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Besides, this thread is about the President ordering the assassination of terrorists. It's about the death of civilians. If you give him credit for the deaths of the guilty, then you must hold him accountable for the innocent people he's gotten killed as well.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)How many of the dead civilians were a threat to the US?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)zero have been a threat to the US. How many civilian do terrorist kill? Try 300 to our one civilian killed.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And you are okay with that?
Is that how you justify killing kids? They might one day grow up to be a terrorist, easier to kill them now? Sick shit.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You are goading and baiting to get a reaction. Enjoy your game that makes light of killing civilians. It never ceased to amaze me at the level some will sink to here.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)the 1980s. That's gone down the memory hole.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Isn't that the scream first uttered by Bush, and rightfully despised here and by Democrats in general. Hated because of the multitude of sins that such an attitude excused?
And yet here you are, terra, Terra, TERRA!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Terrorists kill about 200-300 civilians for every civilian killed by US forces.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Do you really think we can assassinate our way out of this terrorist problem you seem so afraid of?
I don't. We create more terrorists when we kill civilians as routine.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Kill a terrorist and save 299 civilians. The math is against you.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It doesn't even make sense. But, hey, I can do it, too.
Kill 1 civilian, create 50 terrorists. The math is against you.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)That's a joke right? Anyway, just the more terrorist to kill!!!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Do you have one of those "Terrorist Hunting Permit" stickers on your truck?
I was not joking. We have radicalized a generation against us. Take a look at Pakistan. Read up on it.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I loathe the right, have every day of my adult life. At least I don't repeat the right's sloganeering!
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Lifelong dem here. I don't care what the right says on terrorist.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Seriously, "just one more terrorist to kill." You can't actually believe the shit you say. Do you have any clue how childish you sound?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)a Dem or not.
Some of us take the due process clause seriously.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)And are you talking about citizens worldwide, or US citizens?
frylock
(34,825 posts)or did you just pull it from out your ass?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Shocking and Awful.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts) white_wolf
(6,257 posts)You keep calling the OP a Hillary fan, but you have never posted a single shred of evidence to prove it. So either prove your claim or stop making it. Search DU and show me posts where the OP supported Hillary. You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Prove it or be quiet about it.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Guilt right there
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Why do you need to know that? You have their user name, search it. You made the claim, so prove it or drop it.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)in the Florida primary. If it's not a match then I'm wrong.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)In fact a quick search of "Florida.Madhound.Hillary" proves you are wrong. Here is one post where they Madhound OP where Madhound is rather critical of Hillary in the primaries and even argues with someone who says she was cheated in Florida. This took me all of about 5 minutes to find: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5682162&mesg_id=5682162
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)But if I'm wrong so be it. Whatever. Death to all terrorist. 300 to one is acceptable to me.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)You have to be the most conservative poster I've seen on this forum in a while. I bet you support Blue Dogs.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Why the need to attack me over terrorist? Funny you would apply this, and not call yourself a right winger.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)I'll attack anyone who glorifies killing and death as you seem to do. Your positions are very right-wing, the mantra of "kill all terrorists" is a chant of the right-wing. Now, I challenge you to point out exactly which of my views are right-wing.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Terrorists kill about 200-300 civilians for every civilian killed by US forces.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Furthermore, that doesn't matter. If you want to discuss ethics than it is unethical to punish an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty. Going by your logic we should arrest and execute the families or associates of murderers simply because they knew the guilty part.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)One innocent person is subjected to punishment to put the guilty away. One in 300 is a payoff I'm willing to accept if it saves 299 civilians from a terrorist act. The 300 to one is what I would estimate. Maybe there is a study on it, I don't know. Also the best answer here.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110516153325AAVvhyo
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)That guy didn't offer any evidence for his statement.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Terrorist kill civilians, and your complaining about one civilian killed to all the deaths caused by terrorist.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Killing civilians only creates more terrorists. If a young kid comes home from school and finds his house blown up and his family dead and founds out the U.S. did it, he is rightly going to be angry. Then when a Mullah comes along and tells him that he can fight back against the oppressor, he will join the Mullah, because from his point of view the U.S. is clearly the oppressor. You solution doesn't solve anything.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)If that's what they want to face then good luck being a terrorist. That's the word killing terrorist sends.
Pretty much the same as laws mean to people in the US. It is a deterrent to crime in any country. If you don't think death says that then you are just spinning this around to fit you.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Even if you kill one terrorist you simply make more. Here's a suggestion. How about the U.S. stops doing things that make the rest of the world hate it. Perhaps if we hadn't supported so many dictators in the Middle-East and South America we would be a bit more liked in those parts of the world.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many terrorists still around? When will we succeed? Will we have to keep killing them, and all the innocents who die along with them (you know that for ever one terrorist we kill ten innocent men, women and children are also killed) So how long will have to kill people before we succeed?
Seems to me that killing people has failed, otherwise we would not have to still be doing it.
Btw, this was George Bush's rationale. Kill them all, let God sort them out. Did you support him? I'm asking because airc, no one here ever supported those failed policies.
If we want to end terrorism, we sure have failed so far. Maybe it's time to end those Bush policies and try something that works for a change.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Bush created this mess, and Obama needs to protect us from the terrorist. However long this takes to settle things down. I believe there will be an end. But Bush sure as hell stirred up this mess.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We're killing an awful lot of people, but here are a few photos of terrorists we've killing for over a decade now. Fierce little terrorists aren't they?:
An Iraqi child injured in Najaf, as a result of US Shelling (Alhayat Aljadeeda, 4/1/03).
This was a lucky little terrorist, he survived, as far as we know. Unless we got him later. Gotta make sure they don't get away:
Another Iraqi child who was injured during the US missile attacks on Baghdad yesterday (Al-Ayyam, 4/1/03).
Nasty little devils, of course that was the wrong country. Did you think that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. We were told these were 'terrorists' or 'collateral' damage, but we had to kill them because of terror.
How about the family of 15, a mother and her children killed by drone this week, it's hard to keep track as we are killing them every day it seems, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. Innocent children.
Does this make you 1)proud or 2)feel safer, what exactly do you think this has done for the US? Do you know how many have been killed so far? Over a million, and counting. Mostly innocent men women and children. I can't believe I am seeing any of this phony war on terror being defended anywhere. Well, it isn't, just in some parts of the US.
What would you do if a foreign government sent in weapons and killed your whole family in your own country for no reason at all?
By your own statement above, you would have just accept it quietly or be called a 'terrorist'.
frylock
(34,825 posts)youikeep citing a "stat" as gospel and it's really just a gut feeling? fucking rich.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Curious where it comes from.
Is is ALL "terrorists" worldwide? Who defines "terrorist". What years are the numbers from? Are the same years used for the terrorist rate and the US rate?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)About being abused and used in satanic rituals. Guess what, they were wrong, so are you.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)But still don't feel I was too wrong.
frylock
(34,825 posts)RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!1
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Really now, put up or shut up. If you can't provide a link showing that I supported Hillary, then guess what, you're wrong, and worse yet, looking foolish and stupid for continuing to post an unsubstantiated claim. So again, put up or shut up, provide a link.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)After a search that took all of 5 minutes I found this post where you directly attack Hilary and even challenge someone who claims the primary was stolen. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5682162&mesg_id=5682162
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)board for his slanders directed against you re: your supposed support for Hillary. Doesn't seem to be something we can alert on to the Jury System. But I think slander should be grounds for some kind of sanction.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I find it hilarious that a "life long dem" somehow would think it would be an insult to call somebody a Hillary supporter. I mean, after all, last time I checked Hillary was a Dem as well
Furthermore, I'm amused that the poster simply can't back up his claims, yet keeps making them. I mean seriously, if you're going to make such a claim, be able to back it up.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)obnoxious. Rather than criticize your ideas, he insinuates character flaws about you based on falsehoods. That's what is deserving of censure.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)Alert was sent.
frylock
(34,825 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they all fight precisely AGAINST this sort of tyranny in the world?
I know that my uncle, who was a prisoner of the Japanese Imperial Army for three years after the fall of Corregidor, could not have imagined that the U.S. would not repudiate the torture, the imperialism, the killing, the secret assassination plans that we saw in fascist and axis countries.
On this week of all weeks, when we honor those who have died for the preservtion of peace, how can we tolerate this stuff?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Death to all terrorist!
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)It's clearly not English. So, if you're a life long Dem, what did "Dem" mean in your home country? Demagogue maybe?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Do you get into bullying much? Or are you pretending to be peaceful?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And you sound just like what some drunk moron at the bar would be spouting.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Um... I'm drunk now. My political reasoning is still intact.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Opposed to what? Letting them kill us?
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)If we knew what language you're fluent in and perhaps something about your country's history, we could make more sense of your remarks.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)and learn some elementary grammar rules? I suggest you start with singular versus plural for which you've shown an egregious disrespect:
apple, apples
terrorist, terrorists
then move on to more complicated stuff like:
man, men
I suggest leaving the more complicated stuff like:
goose, geese
for the end.
If you insist on posting bullshit, at least make a slight effort.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Better?
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)bighart
(1,565 posts)From April 2009
"When London was being bombed to smithereens, (the British) had 200 or so detainees and Churchill said, 'we don't torture'," President Obama told a press conference to mark 100 days since he became US president.
"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts and, over time, that corrodes what's best in people. It corrodes the best of the country."
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)and I can't say that I am fully comfortable with this, however the question for me is: What's a reasonable and humane alternative strategy for getting these guys out of commission- to where they're at least not able to threaten people?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)A lot of people labeled "terrorists" are as has been noted before, "chickens coming home to roost". Our policies have radicalized a generation in Pakistan.
Many of those we target and kill try to harm US personnel who have put themselves into their country or region. They fight us because we are there.
How many on this kill list have actually attempted or succeeded in carrying out an attack on US soil? Why should we feel the right to target and kill those who have not actually engaged the US in the US?
I prefer the intelligence/police work to prevent attacks rather than create more reasons to hate the US.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Not to mention, it's our militarism that makes us a target in the first place.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)This is something relatively new (20-30 years) that we've had to deal with as a country.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)to kill Americans or to disrupt the government. "This is brand new" is an excuse to funnel tax money into the pockets of the 1% and make us cheer it on as it happens.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You'll find that terrorism has been common throughout history. Hell, the American Revolutionaries were deemed terrorists by the British back in the day.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)not on a worldwide scale like what we have today and now today's terrorists don't even need to be HERE in the US to plot/orchestrate terrorist attacks and they are not always right where we can simply kick down the doors and grab would-be terrorists. I'm not entirely certain what the comparison is between American revolutionaries and Al-Queda.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Isn't comparable to what we have today. Whatever.
Oh, and do you have a link for your claim that we've killed 300 terrorist for every innocent we've killed? Any kind of facts to back up that claim? Because I've found that in the last year alone, drone attacks have killed at least 2,800 innocents, and I'm pretty certain that we haven't killed 840,000 terrorists.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)I believe you've been at the ruling-class's koolaid.
There is very little terrorism going on today, apart from that performed by the US et al.
The Bader-Meinhof Gang were terrorists. The Weather Underground were terrorists. The poor bastards fighting the US invaders in Iraq or Afghanistan are not terrorists except in the US lexicon.
For heaven's sake!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)and they HAVE conducted terrorist attacks all over the world. They haven't been very successful in recent years and they're not quite as strong as they once were but they are still out there plotting. Terrorist groups like Al-Queda- that have a global reach- aren't really something that most Presidents- other than the last three have had to deal with.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)Really? How do you know that? Where does your information come from?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)country's history. They did not have the means or technology today's irregular forces have, but they were a pretty significant threat in their day.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)I would bet that some were captured and tried but that some were probably eliminated via other means too.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)may not have been entirely a propos to your point, as the pirates acted for the benefit of the Barbary States (Algeria, Morocco, Tunis and Tripoli), so were not 'stateless' in the way I think your post used the term. IOW, the four BC states could and did sign treaties with the U.S. that proscribed such piracy upon American vessels in the Mediterranean.
I'm not an expert in the period, but the U.S. Congress authorized military action (primarily naval and marines). There were several pitched battles on land and at sea. The line in the Marine Corps hymn -- 'to the shores of Tripoli' -- refers to an operation mounted by the USMC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Apologies for the unintentional mis-direction. Most sailors captured by the BC pirates probably felt terrorized during their subsequent captivity and enslavement, but the BC pirates were not 'terrorists' as we use the term today.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The populace wants the government to be doing something to take them out - not wait for them to act, kill, and then get caught and tried. That would just allow terrorism free reign. Because the Bushies overdid it and used it as an excuse to do what they wanted doesn't mean terrorism doesn't exist either.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)I'm sensitive to people's concerns about our methods but I would just like to hear some possible alternatives to drone strikes when the perps (or would-be perps) are otherwise out of our immediate reach- or how people can feel better that we are getting the bad guys instead of innocents and/or that we have a transparent process for determining whom to pursue. I imagine most of these guys ought to be starting to get more nervous about traveling around knowing that they could get hit by a drone strike.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)The ones being programmed and then "uncovered" by the FBI?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Maybe the FBI should not be creating them, but where they do, they at least were part of a sting on people who were planning them.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)There is no evidence at all that any of those people ever had it together enough to do anything on their own. And the word "sting" is inappropriate. The correct word is "frame-up".
SunSeeker
(58,149 posts)Obama is doing exactly what he said in 2008 he'd do: targeted surgical attacks against confirmed terrorist targets. You voted for him (I assume). Besides, it sure beats an all-out war like Bush did with Iraq and Afghanistan. And what Romney would do, i.e. with Iran. This is just self-destructive Obama bashing. What the hell else do you propose he do when we identify a dangerous terrorist determined to murder Americans? It doesn't make sense to go through the Congressional motions of declaring war against a terrorist. He's not a country. He's not a head of a country. It's no different than cops picking off a sniper shooting at people.
If Bush had done this instead of going into Afghanistan and Iraq, we'd have saved trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Your analogy about the police and a sniper is only apt if it's about the police taking out someone who once was, one day could be, or is rumoured to be a sniper at a time when that person is not engaged in criminal activity. We have laws. We can arrest people and charge them. If they are criminals, they can be imprisoned. We don't have to do this alone. There are many countries which would be happy to be involved in the capture and prosecution of criminals. Assassination is not the answer.
SunSeeker
(58,149 posts)From the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp
"Mr. Obama was taking a drubbing from Republicans over the government’s decision to read the suspect his rights, a prerequisite for bringing criminal charges against him in civilian court."
Every state in the union locked their gates to the Guantanamo detainees--they would not let Obama put them in their jails nor try them in their courts. The states argued, not entirely without basis, that keeping them here creates a target for further attacks on American soil. I didn't see anyone from the left picketing their state houses over the refusal to accept terror detainees/trial defendants.
Plus, to arrest terrorists, none of whom will go willingly, and ferrying back to the U.S. from far flung spots on the globe is incredibly dangerous to our soldiers.
Obama has to choose his battles. He can only do so much. I'd much rather Obama expend his political capital on protecting women's access to healthcare, withdrawing from Afghanistan, and creating jobs.
I think he has chosen the least bad out of what are all bad options. He will get my vote in November, with enthusiasm.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)But, in reality it is. A sniper shooting at people it causing immediate and ongoing harm to others. When did the thousand or so killed in drone strikes shoot at people in the US?
SunSeeker
(58,149 posts)Instead of guns, they use underwear bombs, exploding ink-jet cartridges, or kids strapped with explosives.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is the problem. Fear is ginned up from a few failed and lame attempts. Or attempts created with the support and guidance of the CIA and FBI.
Then, anyone can be labeled a terrorist and assassinated. "Plotting" attacks against us is not enough to assassinate, imo. I am most concerned with the drone strikes in Pakistan, where no attack in the US has originated from.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Instead they've been innocents.
As far as invading whole countries, well, we're still in Afghanistan, and the way we're ramping up attacks in Yemen, we might as well be invading that country. Not to mention Libya, Pakistan, and other such actions.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Make that 'terrorists disguised as children.'
SunSeeker
(58,149 posts)Obama is obviously trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. The Bin Laden raid was an incredible example of that. But when the terrorists hide among the civilians, civilians will get hurt. Obama's actions in Libya, which easily saved thousands of lives, and Pakistan, that netted Bin Laden, are examples of successes, not actions that went awry. There is a world of difference--in terms of lives lost and monetary cost--with the drone strikes in Yemen compared to going to war. It is gratuitous Obama bashing to say "we might as well be invading that country."
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)If US authorities had figured out the plot, how many US citizens would it have been ok to kill to ensure that the terrorists were knocked out before they could carry out their plan? 20? 200? 2,000?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Thousands of innocents disagree with you.
Is it worth killing thousands to get one single man?
And really now, how many terrorists were hiding in that wedding party we blew away? Or that group of school kids? Or that other wedding party(for some reason I don't think that Obama likes wedding parties, he keeps blowing them away). On and on, entire groups of people wiped off the face of the Earth, and guess what, not a single terrorist among them. That isn't collateral damage, that is murder.
I would suggest that you go back and check your definition of war. It is generally accepted that if you invade a foreign country, violate their sovereignty with men, machine, or both, and kill people, you are at a state of war with that country. We have repeatedly violated the sovereignty of Yemen, Pakistan, and elsewhere, killing people. Tell me that isn't war.
This is simply the new face of war, a new face designed to make war more palatable to Americans. The fiction that drones are somehow neater, cleaner, more surgical is the same sort of cosmetic coverup that Bush the elder used about so called smart bombs. That bullshit wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)What does it matter what country we're committing these crimes in, they are still happening, under Obama's watch, in our name.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)which is hyperbole at it's finest.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It's unintentionally hilarious, this one.
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)I can see right through the hilarious
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Libya for a while. Sudan possibly. More to come, no doubt. The practice is just more routine, now.
Response to MadHound (Reply #105)
SunsetDreams This message was self-deleted by its author.
soccer1
(343 posts)Would much prefer peace throughout the world....live and let live....but until we reach that utopian state, surgical attacks seem to make more sense in terms of saving more civilian lives.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)soccer1
(343 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Prevention rather than radicalization. Stop killing innocent civilians in our hunt for would-be enemies. Many hate us because we are there killing their neighbors and family-members.
We need to remove ourselves as targets.
uponit7771
(93,524 posts)soccer1
(343 posts)If the nation harboring those individuals and/or groups will not "get them off the streets", then I'm not against going after them with drones. The way I see it, if the nation(s) harboring these people are interested in not seeing civilian casualties from our drones, then maybe they ought to make an all out effort to find, capture and do whatever with the people in their nation who threaten world stability. I realize it's more complicated than that and I hate to see our nation responsible for killing any civilians, anywhere. But, as I've said, it's better than invading a nation, in my opinion. Strange as this may sound, maybe many civilians are glad to be rid of the radicals who live among them. Maybe.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)How do you know which is really which? Other than a biased media?
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)That logic is the same logic terrorists use.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,942 posts)that we're getting the wrong people and/or intentionally killing innocent civilians instead? I can understand your discomfort about the drones and/or media coverage in general but that doesn't mean everything that we are being told is necessarily incorrect or wrong. Also, people believed to be plotting terrorist attacks on us and/or our allies are not innocent civilians whom merely happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I will pull some up tomorrow. I am no suggesting they are intentional targeted, but hundred have been killed.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Did you go to the George W. Bush language school?!?!
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Not according to "more than 250 top doctors from seven countries - the UK, the US, Ireland, Germany, Australia, Italy and the Netherlands" who signed a 2006 letter condeming the practice of having doctors assist the military at Gitmo by inserting force-feeding tubes in the noses of hunger-striking Gitmo prisioners after being strapped into chairs.
...
Dr David Nicholl, a UK neurologist who initiated the Lancet letter, told the BBC's World Today programme that US doctors going to Guantanamo Bay were being screened to ensure they agreed with the policy of force-feeding
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Famericas%2F4790742.stm&date=2010-01-21
soccer1
(343 posts)Certainly they're not strapped to chairs while being tube-fed....but they are fed against their will.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just so weak.
soccer1
(343 posts)If a prisoner is on a hunger strike, I imagine he is told he must eat or will be force fed. Should they be left to die? Should civilian prisoners or hospitalized anorexics be allowed to starve themselves to death?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Just shows that you know nothing about how either process is performed.
soccer1
(343 posts)So, you agree that prisoners and hospitalized anorexics should not be allowed to starve themselves to death but you disagree with the methods used at Gitmo?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Through your esophagus and into your stomach, then funnel gruel and mash through that? Naw, it will only hurt a little, just like the therapeutic feedings that they give to anorexics(usually through small tubes or IV's). Like I said, you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
soccer1
(343 posts)Show me articles that explain how Gitmo prisoners are force fed vs anorexic patients.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If you don't believe me, go out and educate yourself. I always find that tends to be the best policy anyway.
soccer1
(343 posts)I have read about forced tube feeding and I haven't read anything about Gitmo procedures that deviate from the norm other than being strapped to a chair. Sometimes force fed patients have to be restrained or they will rip the tubes out. Look, I'm not in favor of torture of any kind.....but I don't believe force feeding by physicians, to prevent death, is torture. I'm sure there are those who believe if a person wants to starve themselves to death, let them do it. And if a Gitmo prisoner starved himself to death then the US would be accused of not properly seeing to the medical needs of the prisoner.
SunSeeker
(58,149 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)But judging how force feeding for purposes of torture has been conducted by other, so called civilized countries, it bears no relation to therapeutic feeding done for health reasons. I suggest that you read up on how Great Britain force fed Irish prisoners, read how American penal authorities have done it here.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
Broderick
(4,578 posts)I invested in some real keen rose colored glasses when President Obama took office.
I suggest you invest in some too. It's a beautiful life with these on. I see nothing.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)The difference between the two candidates is immense.
Again, sorry about the primaries and every second of every day since the inauguration.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Nor did I ever say, or imply, that the difference between Romney and Obama is small.
What I am saying is that drawing up kill lists, whether they be of American citizens or otherwise, is not a moral or ethical action, and Obama needs to put an end to it.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Unlike you and the OP I took the time to do a 5 minute search and come up with a thread where the OP was attacking Hillary during the primary and directly argued with a poster who claimed Florida was stolen from Hillary. I can post the link if you want, the OP made a couple of threads that were critical of Hillary.
bighart
(1,565 posts)BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Most sad and most shameful.
bighart
(1,565 posts)The president is a Noble Peace Prize winner and yet the drone war has become a favorite tool of his despite the very real cost of innocent civilian lives.
War is peace.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I think that the only reason he got it was because he was Notbush. Sadly, given the circumstances of the past three years, Obama has proven that Notbush can kill just as effectively as Bush. I'm sure that Nobel committee who awarded him the prize are having serious second and third thoughts about it now.
bighart
(1,565 posts)it has been increased exponentially in the last 3 plus years.
bupkus
(1,981 posts)The President "nominating" and "designating" children for a kill list, whether U.S. citizens or non-citizens, sort of puts us into a "whole different phase" too, wouldn't you say?
This nation has lost its mind and its soul.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Well hey, at least he isn't torturing people like Bush did."
...necessary to trivialize torture.
"Nope, instead he is assassinating them instead, men, women, young, old, American citizens or otherwise."
So is the logic that the drone program is worse than condoning torture? On the whole, the drone program is worse than Bush's policies that included Iraq, torture, extraordinary renditioning, etc.?
In any case, here is a good read:
A Rational Analysis of Drone Policy
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/30/1095772/-A-Rational-Analysis-of-Drone-Policy
MadHound
(34,179 posts)A sane, peaceful, rational country. With every innocent killed by a drone, we make ten more "terrorists", people who are pissed off that we've killed their friends and/or family. That is not the sane or logical way to end terrorism, that's just continuing to cut off the hydra's head in order to let new ones grow.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)This is one of many reasons why I reluctantly voted for him under the "lesser of two evils" standard, and rejected Hillary Clinton from the start, feeling she was already corrupted http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hillary%20clinton%20cluster%20bombs&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2011%2F04%2F16%2Fhillary-clintons-cluster-bomb-hypocrisy.html&ei=BTrGT7mPKYnu2gWo_ozcAQ&usg=AFQjCNFzQ0pZ5bGeReMUOG4WCgP5vmwP0A
Let's face it -- foreign policy is where most of the agreement is found in our faux duopoly in DC, and I'd argue that the "give the dogs a bone" domestic issues dems champion (that are inadequate in results) serve to both obscure that agreement and to set up the good cop/bad cop distinction http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29335.htm that underlies the "lesser of two evils" choice. I found HC scariest because of http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics that threatened to whittle away at the distinctions between the modern rightwingnut holy warriors and the dems on many domestic issues.
While of course, BHO has long had skeletons of like kind in his closet http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000867.html http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
at least he isn't a closeted religious fundie, or has a past as one. He's a player like many http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2012/05/rhodes-scholar-champion-of-neoliberal.html that has been chipping away at a different constituency he shares skin color with.
You're entirely correct -- this is just another example of the "our guy (country), righty or wrong" mentality that has permeated both sides, which facilitates and underlies the criminality they know they can get away with as a result. I considered not voting for him because I was convinced very early on, he'd not pursue justice for the war criminals Bush and Cheney. And it remains true, that "if you're not part of the solutions...."
This is why I think the primary if not ONLY ideological justification for the truly liberal or progressive for voting for him is the SCOTUS picks -- an increasingly political branch of gov -- so that at least the rightward march of DC politics he's been a contributor to in some ways that matter, can at least be slowed down there.
The last thing this country needs is another Roberts or Scalito like the Mutt would nominate. The idea that the court can grant habeas corpus rights to accused terrorists but there's nothing standing in the way of an extra-judicial killing of them, is a bit mind boggling, no?
keep up the good work
ecstatic
(35,044 posts)over full scale war. Small missions with a specific target in mind, like the one they did to get OBL. I'll think about it some more during my long ride home.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)you should probably factor in three facts:
1. There is no evidence that the 9/11 attack was committed by those blamed. But there is a fair bit of evidence that it was a false-flag operation designed to do exactly what it did.
2. There have been any number of demonstrations that the TSA operates a sieve through which weapons easily pass, yet there have been no weapons brought in and used.
3. The only "terrorist plots uncovered" by the FBI were pantomimes invented by the FBI
ecstatic
(35,044 posts)I'm against all war, including the so called war on terror. Just saying if I was *forced* to choose an approach, I'd go with kill lists over nukes/bombs. It's a horrible choice to have to make though.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)attack was committed by those blamed for it. But that evidence is highly disputed and no Commission chaired by an Eichmann like Philip Zelikow is going to remove those disputes.
Even the official narrative of 9/11 posits a 'conspiracy' though, for anyone who pays attention to and cares about language and its uses and abuses. So it really pisses me off when skeptics are dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists.'
Bucky
(55,334 posts)But the election, not just the voting but the entire process including my financial participation in it, comes down to a guy with a terrible economic plan that will help billionaires loot the country and a guy who is more honest and acts in the nation's long term interests more often than not and who is at least a little more open and honest about the foreign policy things that I disapprove of. Whoever's president is going to be in change of maintaining the Empire. If I want to work against their being an Empire in the first place, I need to put the pressure somewhere else where it might do some good.