REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

US drone strikes: Memo reveals case for killing Americans

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 05:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5525
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:51 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.



So that is why they did in on a weekend to limit casualties....oh wait.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



No, but they did attack in the morning, before most people had arrived at work. If they attacked later in the day they could have quadrupled the count, and if they were really concerned about having as high a casualty count as possible, they could have chosen targets besides the white house and the pentagon. The 9-11 attacks were intended to be symbolic more than anything else.

The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."

In short:

trololol

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:56 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."

In short:

trololol



Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?

There is a difference between being okay with ollateral damage and understanding that it is a part of war. Plus at this point the strikes are not retaliation, but an effort to limit the capabilties of a group that has in the past and will kill US and other Western citizens if it gets the chance.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:56 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."

In short:

trololol




Pretty much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.

In short:

lol



Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?




Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.



Coming from you that means...nothing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:02 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.

In short:

lol



Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?




Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.




It's so pleasant when we're all in agreement.

Their actions constitute terrorism, our actions constitute terrorism, any military/militia based action that kills civilians and fosters fear in the local population is terrorism.

Using the same justifications as terrorists for said killing really does your PR no favours.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:20 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Their actions constitute terrorism, our actions constitute terrorism, any military/militia based action that kills civilians and fosters fear in the local population is terrorism.

Using the same justifications as terrorists for said killing really does your PR no favours.



I really don't give a shit about PR.

Blowing up a coffee shop in a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Blowing up a house with rebel fighters is a military strike. There are differences but if you want to call them both terrorist acts fine. I'm not going to argue the semantics with you. Thing is just because they are called the same thing does not make them the same.

Than you have the fact that drone strikes in Yemen have been praised by that government and while the Pakistani government outwardly condemns them they prove the US intelligence to execute them.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:38 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




Quote:

American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

WASHINGTON — Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process.

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil.

“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.



Obama White House: No more information about drone killings will be released to public
http://12160.org/page/white-house-no-more-information-about-drone-kill
ings-will-be-rele








NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:42 PM

BYTEMITE


I think I'm damaging your calm. TERRORISM!

Quote:

Blowing up a coffee shop in a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Blowing up a house with rebel fighters is a military strike. There are differences but if you want to call them both terrorist acts fine.


Interesting, so whether or not there are civilians hit doesn't really matter to you. We hit military targets, so it's legitimate. Like how they targetted the Pentagon and white house on 9-11.

Quote:

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).


"Collateral damage" you say? So... I guess disregarding the safety of civilians is permissible in the pursuit of an ideological GOAL, is it? Such as a War on Terrorism, perhaps?

Quote:

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).


Quote:

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[12] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Quote:

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word "terrorism".[6][7] Many scholars believe that the actions of governments can be labeled "terrorism"; however others, including governments, international organizations, private institutions and scholars, believe that the term is only applicable to the actions of non-state actors. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of civilians as part of a strategy directed against governments.[8] Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror.”[9] While states may accuse other states of state-sponsored terrorism when they support insurgencies, individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are seen as radicals, because actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate. Academic writing tends to follow the definitions accepted by states.


Kind of a double standard, considering how state terrorism was the original definition. Now it's all legitimate I suppose. Anything goes so long as you're a recognized state and a member of the UN, and so long as it's directed against non-member states. Hey, think maybe that's why Iran wanted in the club?

Civilians as collateral damage, jokes about target rich environments by soldiers... Tell me, Nick, do you think there is broad scale dehumanization in military forces? Do you think that some Americans hold the same dehumanizing attitudes about violence in the middle east? Do you believe that if the US acts in violation of International Rule of Law that it agreed to and even helped implement, that the US has been acting illegitimately, perhaps... Roguishly, in according to definitions that the US invented about rogue states?

Quote:

Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.


Hmm! Which still-functioning state in the world has killed the most foreign citizens since the term rogue state was defined in the 1980s? Which country has the most nukes? Which country has the most involvement in proxy wars fought through insurgency fighters? Which country has such incredibly dysfunctional and irresponsible infighting that its leadership rarely if ever acts in the interests of its population and that infighting directly threatens the state of the global economy?

Then there's indefinite detainment, acknowledged torture, unwarranted surveillance, search, and seizure, brutality that doesn't differentiate between protesters and low-level terrorism. And targeted assassinations via predator drones of foreign targets that also kill civilians and rile their local population against us, thus recruiting more terrorists. All in the name of fighting terrorism. Wow! Don't you feel SAFE?

And here's something really lol-worthy: even the TALIBAN wouldn't put naked body scanners in airports.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:42 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Okay, so I'm still sort of okay with drone strikes in places we're engaged inif we _know the target is going to cause imminant harm. Currently the guidelines for when we drone strike aren't strict enough for me, so I'm not okay with it under the current vague circumstances. But just because I'm sort of okay with it doesn't mean I like it. Which leads me to propose my own solution. In the United States of Riona, we have a secret organization, termed the Quadruple S until I think of a better name for it. They are top secret assassins who can kill people in a conveluted way to which the finger won't point back at them, because they don't officially exist. The United States of Riona tries not to get involved in a lot of world affairs, because that's _their problem. But we do every once in a while work behind the scenes sometimes to influence the turn of things if it seems very important.

Why can't our government invent a super secret organization (obviously not the CIA or the NSA because they seem not to do well a lot of the time) that can just sneak in and kill "badguys" old school without expensive and damage-causing drones?

As for Quicko's slippery slope argument (because that is most definitely what he proposes) I'm not opposed to the slippery slope argument myself, because I really do believe in it. And so does Frem, as in if we do stuff to kids and get away with it we'll start doing it to adults. Frem can argue against me but that _is definitely a slippery slope argument, one which probably has some merrit.

That being said this conversation has been quite helpful because next time they slag on me for my slippery slope annalogies I'm going to remind them of theirs.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:47 PM

BYTEMITE


It's not a slippery slope fallacy if you can plainly outline both 1) a reasonable and logical progression of events, and/or 2) can provide supporting evidence that something similar has historical precedence.

So long as they aren't fallacious some slippery slope arguments are logically valid. That was why I posted what I did. People sometimes miss that there's a valid form of them - that you agree with some slippery slope arguments (as do I) is indicative that they're not all bad.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:06 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


My definition of terrorism: When you kill civilians intentionally for some political or ideological purpose. If you're intending to hit military sites or personel, or someone who has actually slighted you or whom you know intends to then I don't consider it terrorism. My problem with our current behavior is that I don't feel we're careful enough regarding who we hit, we don't have strict enough rules about who is and who isn't apropriate to drone, and we aren't trying hard enough to not kill extras. That's why my super secret covert contingent of super assassins would be more effective, less prone to screw ups and just over all better. I'm not joking either, I seriously think this would be better than drone strikes for many reasons.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:08 PM

AGENTROUKA


I don't think I like the United States of Riona. :(

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:08 PM

AGENTROUKA


Triple post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:08 PM

AGENTROUKA


Double Post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:13 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


The concept came from Chris, when he posted his US of Chrisisall thread regarding who he will grant the right to own firearms. The concept has also previously been vaguely suggested by CTS regarding the idea that everyone would run things a little differently than everyone else if they had CTSland or Signeland etc.

Its a fun excercise because then people can say exactly what they would do.

You have only been posting regularly just lately (I suspect you have posted frequently at other times in your life though). New people are fun. Time will tell if I would like the United States of Rouka. :)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:32 PM

BYTEMITE


Rouka's a good friend. Riona and Rouka. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 4:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I recall reading a story of hers once, as I recall I liked it. I know you and her are friends so I bet she's a nice person.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"They are killing American civilians ..."

Without constitutionally guaranteed due process.

"... who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations."

Who they CLAIM are helping terrorist organizations.

"That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described."

AFAIK drones are approved for use in border security and surveillance within the US. Militant groups have historically had armed army/ FBI operations mounted against them. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see the logical next step.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you."

But they're not 'the left'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:12 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!











NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For those who are OK with killing people extra-judicially... the only justification for deadly force is deadly threat.

The other thing is... don't forget, WE are over THERE, not the other way around. IMHO, that makes us the aggressor.

Finally, yes, it's coming here too.

Not to get too all PNish about things, but haven't I been posting about universal surveillance?? The thing about our gubmint is... if it can, it will. Morality is not part of the equation. They'll do whatever it is they think they can get away with, whether it is covering up nuclear accidents/ contamination (done), experimenting on people without their knowledge (done), or making trillion-dollar secret loans to banks and insurances (done).

GEEZER- Who said this?

Functionally corrupted it, yes. You know, we’re told that corporations are people, that money is speech and that might makes right. And we know all of [these] things are contrary to what the United States of America is all about. But because our elected representatives now have to spend most of their time begging rich people to give them money, begging corporations and special interests to give them money, they spend more time worry about the effect of their actions, votes and speeches on these big donors, some of them anonymous, than the time they should be spending thinking about how to serve the interests of the publics they represent.

Do you suppose it was a Republican or a Democrat?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:42 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They are killing American civilians ..."

Without constitutionally guaranteed due process.

"... who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations."

Who they CLAIM are helping terrorist organizations.



Bingo. No charges were filed, no evidence ever admitted, no court of law ever swore out a warrant.

Quote:


"That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described."

AFAIK drones are approved for use in border security and surveillance within the US. Militant groups have historically had armed army/ FBI operations mounted against them. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see the logical next step.




It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2013 12:24 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
You have only been posting regularly just lately (I suspect you have posted frequently at other times in your life though). New people are fun. Time will tell if I would like the United States of Rouka. :)



Hey Riona,
The US of Rouka would likely be taken over quickly by more competent states, so you'd have to visit early.


I'm not really comfortable with the idea of secret assassins sent out to meddle with another country, which is mainly why I posted my comment. It's really the same with the real life issue of drone attacks and extrajudicial killings, those things I find deeply disturbing, too.

I'm sure other aspects of USRiona would be great. I hear there's fairies!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2013 1:54 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think I'm damaging your calm. TERRORISM!



Not at all.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Interesting, so whether or not there are civilians hit doesn't really matter to you. We hit military targets, so it's legitimate. Like how they targetted the Pentagon and white house on 9-11.


Yes the Pentagon and the White House are legitimate military targets for them. There is no doubt about that. I also care about civilian, but understand that civilians will die in any type of war.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:"Collateral damage" you say? So... I guess disregarding the safety of civilians is permissible in the pursuit of an ideological GOAL, is it? Such as a War on Terrorism, perhaps?


Yes.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Kind of a double standard, considering how state terrorism was the original definition. Now it's all legitimate I suppose. Anything goes so long as you're a recognized state and a member of the UN, and so long as it's directed against non-member states. Hey, think maybe that's why Iran wanted in the club?


What, did you think the world was fair?

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Civilians as collateral damage, jokes about target rich environments by soldiers... Tell me, Nick, do you think there is broad scale dehumanization in military forces? Do you think that some Americans hold the same dehumanizing attitudes about violence in the middle east? Do you believe that if the US acts in violation of International Rule of Law that it agreed to and even helped implement, that the US has been acting illegitimately, perhaps... Roguishly, in according to definitions that the US invented about rogue states?


Yes, yes, and no.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Hmm! Which still-functioning state in the world has killed the most foreign citizens since the term rogue state was defined in the 1980s? Which country has the most nukes? Which country has the most involvement in proxy wars fought through insurgency fighters? Which country has such incredibly dysfunctional and irresponsible infighting that its leadership rarely if ever acts in the interests of its population and that infighting directly threatens the state of the global economy?


There are a lot more dysfunctional governments on the planet than the US.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Then there's indefinite detainment, acknowledged torture, unwarranted surveillance, search, and seizure, brutality that doesn't differentiate between protesters and low-level terrorism. And targeted assassinations via predator drones of foreign targets that also kill civilians and rile their local population against us, thus recruiting more terrorists. All in the name of fighting terrorism. Wow! Don't you feel SAFE?


I do. I like that fact that the US has the largest most powerful military in the world. I also know that there is not a lot of evidence that our actions are increasing recruitment. Poverty is the largest factor. Of course it is hard to get a stable country and get people out of poverty when you have Radical Islamist groups trying to take over part of countries.

...but hey giver them a nice shiny party and everything will be all right!

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And here's something really lol-worthy: even the TALIBAN wouldn't put naked body scanners in airports.


No, they just take women who commit adultery out and shoot them. Or throw acid in the faces of girls just trying to go to school.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2013 1:55 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.



Well, wake me when that happens.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2013 3:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Your other comments speak for themselves, so:

Quote:

Of course it is hard to get a stable country and get people out of poverty when you have Radical Islamist groups trying to take over part of countries.



Hard to get a stable country... Where? Where we funnel the poor into our cannon fodder ranks and send them off to some desert hole completely unrelated to us because FUCK 'EM, they aren't rich and that's unamerican?

Or do you actually think that 9-11 is an ongoing thing and Muslim extremists are here now, trying to take over THIS country?

We'll pay a couple billion for the next jet or bomb but can't be bothered to spend an equivalent amount of money on schools or infrastructure? I'm sure spending more money on predator drones will fix that.

Quote:



...but hey giver them a nice shiny party and everything will be all right!



Strawman.

Quote:


No, they just take women who commit adultery out and shoot them. Or throw acid in the faces of girls just trying to go to school.



Appeal to worse problems. OUR government is violating rights HERE, you're just too arsed to care. So long as you're living in your comfortable little world, it doesn't matter to you what happens outside it.

And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.

As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2013 3:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.

As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.




Nick is one of those whose only real concern is how to justify the killing of more and more people. He doesn't care about the "why", nor about who dies, just as long as it justifies in his mind the U.S. spending ever more money to make more dead bodies.

And as he's said, he's not the least bit concerned about who dies here, either.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 4:45 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hard to get a stable country... Where? Where we funnel the poor into our cannon fodder ranks and send them off to some desert hole completely unrelated to us because FUCK 'EM, they aren't rich and that's unamerican?

Or do you actually think that 9-11 is an ongoing thing and Muslim extremists are here now, trying to take over THIS country?

We'll pay a couple billion for the next jet or bomb but can't be bothered to spend an equivalent amount of money on schools or infrastructure? I'm sure spending more money on predator drones will fix that.



I'm talking about countries like Afghanistan or Yemen.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Strawman.


No more than your I worse than the Taliban BS.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Appeal to worse problems. OUR government is violating rights HERE, you're just too arsed to care. So long as you're living in your comfortable little world, it doesn't matter to you what happens outside it.


Violating our rights here? Good thing we have ways of addressing that, its called the court system.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.


If you think women don't have it better in Afghanistan now than when the Taliban was in control you have your head in your ass.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.


I wonder in your infinite wisdom how you would deal with Islamist Extremist and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 4:48 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nick is one of those whose only real concern is how to justify the killing of more and more people. He doesn't care about the "why", nor about who dies, just as long as it justifies in his mind the U.S. spending ever more money to make more dead bodies.

And as he's said, he's not the least bit concerned about who dies here, either.



...and your a delusional leftist that think if the US military goes away the world will suddenly be full of rainbows farting unicorns.

Wow it is fun to falsely paint people!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:09 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

No more than your I worse than the Taliban BS.


Uh, no. That wasn't a strawman. Deliberate red herring and flawed analogy for the lulz, possibly. I'm not even trying to take this argument seriously.

Quote:

If you think women don't have it better in Afghanistan now than when the Taliban was in control you have your head in your ass.



Only in the urban areas. In the outlying areas it's worse than ever, because now you have warlords and the taliban doing their business there. And they're regaining ground in the cities, because our military couldn't find a coherent strategy if it bit them on the nose.

None the less, you've represented that your primary goal in going into Afghanistan was your security. You wanted to go into Afghanistan for your own interests. It wasn't about the women for you. It's not about the women now. You know it, I know it, and so this whole side argument is you trying to divert attention from what your confirmed stance is.

Quote:

I wonder in your infinite wisdom how you would deal with Islamist Extremist and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?


To help the women of Afghanistan, I would have focused on humanitarian aid and support groups. To stabilize the middle east, I'd elevate the concerns of Gaza strip and Palestine up with Israel and stop playing favourites. The Taliban and Al Qaeda go all the way back to American and Russian involvement in Kashmir and the immediate aftermath, and historically the two groups haven't exactly been friends. We probably could have pitted them against each other - though considering our success rate over there that probably would've led to yet more political bungling.

Frankly the only reason Al Qaeda and the Taliban are problems is because our foreign policy in the middle east has been terrible and exploitative since the 1960s, maybe even since WWI.

Besides, the best that Al Qaeda has managed towards the US since 9-11 has been an underwear bomber and a shoe box bomber that our amazingly secure post-9-11 changes in security didn't even catch. The guys managed to get on the planes and their bombs didn't even work. You expect me to believe these guys are a threat? Considering how competent these guys seem, I have to start to wonder if 9-11 wasn't just a fluke.

And that's without looking at the history of Al Qaeda and it's involvement with our own intelligence agencies during the Russian-Afghanistan war and asking some serious questions.

I think y'all are chasing spooks. Either literally or figuratively.

What is this all about anyway? Revenge? Security? None of that justifies our wars over there, and we've really fueled self-perpetuating cycles with both of those agendas. if we just want to make the middle east a nicer more stable place (considering the results, I doubt it), there are much better ways to do that.

We do still have a lot of work to do in the middle east and a RESPONSIBILITY, because we have been a guiding hand in how backwards a lot of the middle east countries have become. But that work shouldn't be war. Humanitarian aid and focusing on helping the women in the middle east will change the culture against theocratic groups like the Taliban far more than occupation and bombs ever would. The middle east needs to figure itself out, and we can't force them to do that at gunpoint.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:05 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...



The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:21 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...



The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.




They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!

The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.

Politics is just whacked over there and we barely understand the lay of the land. Dictatorships and rigging the vote is a way of life, and feature prominently in any "democracy" we might try to establish. Ally with one group and another group declares a vendetta against you. It's like Europe pre-WWI, with everyone secretly hoping for a massive fight to break out and wipe out everyone else, leaving them on top, and deliberately shenaniganing behind the scenes to cause that.

The term "quagmire" has been suggested, and it's apt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 12:29 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Only in the urban areas. In the outlying areas it's worse than ever, because now you have warlords and the taliban doing their business there. And they're regaining ground in the cities, because our military couldn't find a coherent strategy if it bit them on the nose.



The Taliban and the Warlords had control over the whole country before we invaded, including the outlying areas.

The US strategy has been hampered by insurgence hiding next door in Pakistan. It is also never been realistic to thing we could control the whole country without the Afghanis help. Something that they are starting to step up to and do.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:None the less, you've represented that your primary goal in going into Afghanistan was your security. You wanted to go into Afghanistan for your own interests. It wasn't about the women for you. It's not about the women now. You know it, I know it, and so this whole side argument is you trying to divert attention from what your confirmed stance is.


You right going in after 911 was not about the women of Afghanistan. Thing is you can't argue that getting rid of groups like the Taliban is not a good thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:To help the women of Afghanistan, I would have focused on humanitarian aid and support groups. To stabilize the middle east, I'd elevate the concerns of Gaza strip and Palestine up with Israel and stop playing favourites. The Taliban and Al Qaeda go all the way back to American and Russian involvement in Kashmir and the immediate aftermath, and historically the two groups haven't exactly been friends. We probably could have pitted them against each other - though considering our success rate over there that probably would've led to yet more political bungling.


How would support and aid get the Taliban to change their harsh rule? How do not play favorites between two factions claiming the same land as their own? Those are nice thoughts, but how do they work out?

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Frankly the only reason Al Qaeda and the Taliban are problems is because our foreign policy in the middle east has been terrible and exploitative since the 1960s, maybe even since WWI.

Besides, the best that Al Qaeda has managed towards the US since 9-11 has been an underwear bomber and a shoe box bomber that our amazingly secure post-9-11 changes in security didn't even catch. The guys managed to get on the planes and their bombs didn't even work. You expect me to believe these guys are a threat? Considering how competent these guys seem, I have to start to wonder if 9-11 wasn't just a fluke.

And that's without looking at the history of Al Qaeda and it's involvement with our own intelligence agencies during the Russian-Afghanistan war and asking some serious questions.

I think y'all are chasing spooks. Either literally or figuratively.



Could it be that Al Qaeda has not been able to do anything else because we have continually taken out their leadership and strongholds? I think so.

Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:What is this all about anyway? Revenge? Security? None of that justifies our wars over there, and we've really fueled self-perpetuating cycles with both of those agendas. if we just want to make the middle east a nicer more stable place (considering the results, I doubt it), there are much better ways to do that.

We do still have a lot of work to do in the middle east and a RESPONSIBILITY, because we have been a guiding hand in how backwards a lot of the middle east countries have become. But that work shouldn't be war. Humanitarian aid and focusing on helping the women in the middle east will change the culture against theocratic groups like the Taliban far more than occupation and bombs ever would. The middle east needs to figure itself out, and we can't force them to do that at gunpoint.



No we can't force the whole of the middle east and we have not tried. We have said the we will go after groups that seek to take power by force.

Recently when French troops Timbuktu back from radical Islamists the the population cheered. Sometimes there really are good guys and bad guys.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:29 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 5:06 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...



The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.

How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


MAC52
Quote:

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:48 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!

The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.



The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a safe haven. No one took the Taliban's offer seriously because these are the same type of radicals think it is okay to kill non-Muslims.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:50 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.

How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?



Rappy are you going to make an argument or...oh Kwicko I got you confused for a minute.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:52 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52
Quote:

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.



Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:22 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.

How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?



Rappy are you going to make an argument or...oh Kwicko I got you confused for a minute.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




You seem to spend a lot of your time here being confused.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52
Quote:

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.
Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.



Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.





You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:26 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?



Your getting as bad as Rappy. That is why it is so easy to confuse the two of you.

You could try some type of argument but that maybe beyond you at the moment.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:31 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!

The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.



The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a safe haven. No one took the Taliban's offer seriously because these are the same type of radicals think it is okay to kill non-Muslims.



They didn't have laws about killing non-Muslims, though yes, it happened. They did have a law about forcing Shia Muslims to convert or be killed, but they just had discrimination laws against non-Muslims. Sumptuary laws, stuff like that. Non-Muslim killings were technically extra-legal.

However, your analogy about the nazis and the gold triangles would be pretty applicable to the Taliban, they had laws that Hindus had to wear an identifying badge, though the Taliban never really got around to rounding them up into concentration camps and gassing them.

Yes, the Taliban is terrible, yes they kill people, yes they have terrible oppressive laws for minority groups and women. But ultimately no, we didn't attack the Taliban because they killed non-Muslims. And we didn't attack them because they had anything to do with 9-11.

Listen, we were expecting a bunch of backwards luddites with a hatred for western technology to not only be able to locate Al Qaeda in the difficult mountainous cave-ridden topography of northern Afghanistan and west Pakistan and turn them over to us, but we also just assumed they knew where Al Qaeda really was, because as we all know, every Muslim knows the location of every other Muslim at all times even when they're in hiding.

Seriously, man, Al Qaeda was just in Afghanistan, it's not like the Taliban was hosting banquets for them. They were also just in Pakistan, and Pakistan didn't really know where they were at the beginning - though when we started acting like assholes and they found out where Osama was, surprise surprise, they didn't tell us. Yet we never went to war with Pakistan, and Pakistan isn't exactly a progressive western democracy either.

We didn't go to war with Pakistan, because we'd installed our own preferred government officials in Pakistan. We went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan because we hadn't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:53 AM

BYTEMITE


Just heard on the news: the estimate of civilians killed in predator drone strikes is between 2000+ and 3000+ people. On the upper end of the estimate, we've killed as many people as those who died in the 9-11 attacks, to hit what the CIA largely acknowledges to be low priority low threat targets. And that's not counting the hundreds of thousands who died in the war from on the ground activity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 8:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?



Your getting as bad as Rappy. That is why it is so easy to confuse the two of you.

You could try some type of argument but that maybe beyond you at the moment.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




Actually, it's proven to be beyond you. Byte has already shown you for what you are.

If you aren't being kept ignorant by force, are you ignorant by choice?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
Hard to fight ignorance by bombing people.

How about starting by helping to build schools, wells, houses, and roads. How about staffing medical clinics? Once there is something worth defending, people will defend it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.



Well, wake me when that happens.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




Wakey, wakey, eggs and bakey...

http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil

Quote:

It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2013 7:15 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.
Hard to fight ignorance by bombing people.

How about starting by helping to build schools, wells, houses, and roads. How about staffing medical clinics? Once there is something worth defending, people will defend it.





Because nobody wants to see the movie where Rambo builds a school; they want to see the movies where shit gets blowed up real good. And these are the people who think that life is a Rambo movie.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL