So every time a cop shoots someone without taking them to court, it's an execution.
Got it.
Got it.
Bit like a sniper. You're dead before you know it.Macbeth wrote:
So how does the whole drone strike thing work. I mean do you have any idea it's coming? Do you hear the missile or hear the drone or are you just driving along listening to music when all of a sudden- boom fiery death?
Who cares where they were born? They're still terrorists.
They could've left the womb in the middle east or in the united states. That doesn't change what they're doing.
They could've left the womb in the middle east or in the united states. That doesn't change what they're doing.
Last edited by Roc18 (2011-10-01 13:59:12)
Depends, if its in a firefight then no, if he creeps into his house and shoots him while he's asleep on the say-so of a superior then thats an execution.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
So every time a cop shoots someone without taking them to court, it's an execution.
Got it.
Fuck Israel
my lack of caring about exploding al qaeda members is hard to put into words
In my opinion there is a serious debate about the legality and morality of drone strike in sovereign nations, but I don't think where the person was born is a factor at all.
I don't see why anyone should view a US born terrorist being killed any differently to a non-US born. No one would have a problem with a home-grown terrorist being killed trying to attack a target in the US. So again, I believe the debate is in the killing, not in the birthplace of the killed.
I don't see why anyone should view a US born terrorist being killed any differently to a non-US born. No one would have a problem with a home-grown terrorist being killed trying to attack a target in the US. So again, I believe the debate is in the killing, not in the birthplace of the killed.
Capturing high ranking terrorists is far more dangerous that just killing them. Unless they're held in secret, and then what's the point?
If i were a high ranking aq commander and one of my high ranking aq buddies was publically captured, I'd send a squad of underlings to take a pakistani school hostage. then I'd disembowel and decapitate every kid in that school when the US refuses to hand over my buddy. then I'd do it again; another school or a hospital. maybe I'm just a pessimist.
kill 'em and it's done. there may be retaliation, but that's nothing new.
If i were a high ranking aq commander and one of my high ranking aq buddies was publically captured, I'd send a squad of underlings to take a pakistani school hostage. then I'd disembowel and decapitate every kid in that school when the US refuses to hand over my buddy. then I'd do it again; another school or a hospital. maybe I'm just a pessimist.
kill 'em and it's done. there may be retaliation, but that's nothing new.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-10-02 00:51:24)
Even AQ haven't done that.Reciprocity wrote:
If i were a high ranking aq commander and one of my high ranking aq buddies was publically captured, I'd send a squad of underlings to take a pakistani school hostage. then I'd disembowel and decapitate every kid in that school when the US refuses to hand over my buddy. then I'd do it again; another school or a hospital. maybe I'm just a pessimist.
The coalition has killed a lot of of civilians in air strikes however.
Fuck Israel
So a jerk who had it coming finally had all his years of being a douche catch up to him.
CIA - 1
Jerk - 0
I really don't see what needs to be discussed here. A guy needed to die, it's been done, end of story.
CIA - 1
Jerk - 0
I really don't see what needs to be discussed here. A guy needed to die, it's been done, end of story.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
AQ has killed a lot of civilians and put them in harms way as well.Dilbert_X wrote:
Even AQ haven't done that.Reciprocity wrote:
If i were a high ranking aq commander and one of my high ranking aq buddies was publically captured, I'd send a squad of underlings to take a pakistani school hostage. then I'd disembowel and decapitate every kid in that school when the US refuses to hand over my buddy. then I'd do it again; another school or a hospital. maybe I'm just a pessimist.
The coalition has killed a lot of of civilians in air strikes however.
So why not abandon trials altogether and go straight to the lethal injection?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I really don't see what needs to be discussed here. A guy needed to die, it's been done, end of story.
Would save a lot of lawyer costs.
Fuck Israel
because they're different?
I bet the trick to avoiding a CIA drone assfucking is to not associate with terrorists and promote terrorist activity against a country with all-seeing, all-fucking drones. I understand your argument and your concern, dilbert, and I'm sure there's a slippery slope somewhere, but this cunt was not standing on the edge of it.Dilbert_X wrote:
So why not abandon trials altogether and go straight to the lethal injection?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I really don't see what needs to be discussed here. A guy needed to die, it's been done, end of story.
Would save a lot of lawyer costs.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-10-02 10:09:42)
Would this be the same CIA with its same all-seeing drones which said Saddam had WMDs and all the people in Guantanamo were the 'baddest of the bad'?Reciprocity wrote:
I bet the trick to avoiding a CIA drone assfucking is to not associate with terrorists and promote terrorist activity against a country with all-seeing, all-fucking drones.Dilbert_X wrote:
So why not abandon trials altogether and go straight to the lethal injection?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I really don't see what needs to be discussed here. A guy needed to die, it's been done, end of story.
Would save a lot of lawyer costs.
We know how both those turned out, I'm surprised you still swallow whatever they tell you.
Fuck Israel
when those countries are complicit, what's the debate?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
In my opinion there is a serious debate about the legality and morality of drone strike in sovereign nations, but I don't think where the person was born is a factor at all.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So, it looks like the President overstepped his authority. Should've been Congress to make the finding.US Constitution wrote:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason"
Pretty simple, really. Get two congresscritters and a judge to watch a few of Anwar al-Awlaki's videos inciting acts of war against the US.
Ta Da! "two witnesses to the same act", "confession in open court", and then "Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason"
But IANAL, YMMV, WWGWBD, etc
swallow what? both of these guys were known, self-proclaimed assholes.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm surprised you still swallow whatever they tell you.
was he convicted/declared of committing treasonous acts?rdx-fx wrote:
So, it looks like the President overstepped his authority. Should've been Congress to make the finding.US Constitution wrote:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason"
Pretty simple, really. Get two congresscritters and a judge to watch a few of Anwar al-Awlaki's videos inciting acts of war against the US.
Ta Da! "two witnesses to the same act", "confession in open court", and then "Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason"
But IANAL, YMMV, WWGWBD, etc
No idea if he was convicted.Cybargs wrote:
was he convicted/declared of committing treasonous acts?
Apparently, there are videos
of him committing treasonous acts.
Law of Land Warfare isn't something I keep up with, really.
I guess the rationale is something along the lines of "become a regional commander of Al Quaeda, the USA takes that as an invitation to drop bombs on your head"
CIA is not the FBI.
If they come knocking, it won't be the front door, they won't have a warrant, and nobody will be reading you your Miranda Rights...
Well those countries aren't always complicit, and even when they are it's not like it's exactly a popular decision or one made on a balanced power equation. I would say there is certainly a debate there. The US using its hegemonic power to use deadly force in countries whose people don't support the action. Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of the rights and freedoms that American's hold dear and claim to export?FEOS wrote:
when those countries are complicit, what's the debate?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
In my opinion there is a serious debate about the legality and morality of drone strike in sovereign nations, but I don't think where the person was born is a factor at all.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with drone strikes. But in my opinion you can't disagree with drone strikes against US born terrorists and agree with drone strikes against non-US born terrorists. Once you are in the country and committing terrorist acts, where you were born doesn't matter, but the method of your death is always going to be scrutinised and debated.
For all the bullshit they've pulled over the last few decades, Pakistan deserves to have the US declare war on them.
Including, for example;
Harboring the guy who stole nuclear bomb making secrets from the west to give to the middle east (AQ Khan)
Harboring Osama bin Laden next door to their army service college.
Horribly corrupt ISI essentially at war with the US since 1979
Funding Osama bin Laden, long after we declared him a bad guy
etc
etc
Yeah, fuck them
and if they want to bitch about a few drone strikes on their soil - fuck them harder.
Cut all US funding, wipe out their military, then let India have a go at their still bleeding asshole.
(Figuratively speaking, of course.)
Two particular allies make me doubt the sanity of those determining US policy.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
We are on the wrong side of the fence with those two nations,
as we were back in the day when we were backing Sodom Hussein's Iraq and Quadaffi Duck's Labia.
Including, for example;
Harboring the guy who stole nuclear bomb making secrets from the west to give to the middle east (AQ Khan)
Harboring Osama bin Laden next door to their army service college.
Horribly corrupt ISI essentially at war with the US since 1979
Funding Osama bin Laden, long after we declared him a bad guy
etc
etc
Yeah, fuck them
and if they want to bitch about a few drone strikes on their soil - fuck them harder.
Cut all US funding, wipe out their military, then let India have a go at their still bleeding asshole.
(Figuratively speaking, of course.)
Two particular allies make me doubt the sanity of those determining US policy.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
We are on the wrong side of the fence with those two nations,
as we were back in the day when we were backing Sodom Hussein's Iraq and Quadaffi Duck's Labia.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-10-02 14:49:51)
The governments of those countries agree. It's not like you're going to hold a fucking referendum before each operation to make sure the public OKs it. That's what the government's for.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Well those countries aren't always complicit, and even when they are it's not like it's exactly a popular decision or one made on a balanced power equation. I would say there is certainly a debate there. The US using its hegemonic power to use deadly force in countries whose people don't support the action. Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of the rights and freedoms that American's hold dear and claim to export?FEOS wrote:
when those countries are complicit, what's the debate?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
In my opinion there is a serious debate about the legality and morality of drone strike in sovereign nations, but I don't think where the person was born is a factor at all.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with drone strikes. But in my opinion you can't disagree with drone strikes against US born terrorists and agree with drone strikes against non-US born terrorists. Once you are in the country and committing terrorist acts, where you were born doesn't matter, but the method of your death is always going to be scrutinised and debated.
And if it's cooperative, all that "hegemonic" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think you're missing the point that a debate doesn't just have to consider technical political aspects. I didn't say there was a technical political debate over the issue, obviously the governments approved it, but why can there be no debate over the morality, effects and precedent for international law?FEOS wrote:
The governments of those countries agree. It's not like you're going to hold a fucking referendum before each operation to make sure the public OKs it. That's what the government's for.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Well those countries aren't always complicit, and even when they are it's not like it's exactly a popular decision or one made on a balanced power equation. I would say there is certainly a debate there. The US using its hegemonic power to use deadly force in countries whose people don't support the action. Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of the rights and freedoms that American's hold dear and claim to export?FEOS wrote:
when those countries are complicit, what's the debate?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with drone strikes. But in my opinion you can't disagree with drone strikes against US born terrorists and agree with drone strikes against non-US born terrorists. Once you are in the country and committing terrorist acts, where you were born doesn't matter, but the method of your death is always going to be scrutinised and debated.
And if it's cooperative, all that "hegemonic" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
Do you honestly think that there is absolutely zero debate in the world about US drone strikes? You don't think they influence the perception of the US in the Middle East at all? You honestly think that just because an autocrat says it's ok, that means there should be no debate about it, or that if won't have significant ramifications in the future?
While describing it as a hegemony may be going a little far, it is undeniable that the US is the dominant military, political and economic power in the world, and thus can exert considerable influence and pressure.
Of course they do. Do you think our government doesn't realize that beforehand and has made the decision that taking bout terrorist leadership is more important?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a debate doesn't just have to consider technical political aspects. I didn't say there was a technical political debate over the issue, obviously the governments approved it, but why can there be no debate over the morality, effects and precedent for international law?FEOS wrote:
The governments of those countries agree. It's not like you're going to hold a fucking referendum before each operation to make sure the public OKs it. That's what the government's for.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Well those countries aren't always complicit, and even when they are it's not like it's exactly a popular decision or one made on a balanced power equation. I would say there is certainly a debate there. The US using its hegemonic power to use deadly force in countries whose people don't support the action. Doesn't that sort of fly in the face of the rights and freedoms that American's hold dear and claim to export?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with drone strikes. But in my opinion you can't disagree with drone strikes against US born terrorists and agree with drone strikes against non-US born terrorists. Once you are in the country and committing terrorist acts, where you were born doesn't matter, but the method of your death is always going to be scrutinised and debated.
And if it's cooperative, all that "hegemonic" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
Do you honestly think that there is absolutely zero debate in the world about US drone strikes? You don't think they influence the perception of the US in the Middle East at all? You honestly think that just because an autocrat says it's ok, that means there should be no debate about it, or that if won't have significant ramifications in the future?
While describing it as a hegemony may be going a little far, it is undeniable that the US is the dominant military, political and economic power in the world, and thus can exert considerable influence and pressure.
Do you honestly think that the governments involved don't debate the issue before deciding whether or not to agree?
And we exert SOOOO much pressure that third-world backwaters like Uzbekistan and Kyrzygstan regularly give us the finger on counterterrorism cooperation. Sorry, but your argument falls apart when confronted with facts.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Except for the fact I never made an argument regarding the use of drone attacks. I said that if there was a debate it was in the use of drone attacks in sovereign states, not in the killing of a US born person in a drone attack. Then you piped up with your defence of drone attacks in response to me saying that there is simply a debate about it...FEOS wrote:
Of course they do. Do you think our government doesn't realize that beforehand and has made the decision that taking bout terrorist leadership is more important?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a debate doesn't just have to consider technical political aspects. I didn't say there was a technical political debate over the issue, obviously the governments approved it, but why can there be no debate over the morality, effects and precedent for international law?FEOS wrote:
The governments of those countries agree. It's not like you're going to hold a fucking referendum before each operation to make sure the public OKs it. That's what the government's for.
And if it's cooperative, all that "hegemonic" nonsense is just that: nonsense.
Do you honestly think that there is absolutely zero debate in the world about US drone strikes? You don't think they influence the perception of the US in the Middle East at all? You honestly think that just because an autocrat says it's ok, that means there should be no debate about it, or that if won't have significant ramifications in the future?
While describing it as a hegemony may be going a little far, it is undeniable that the US is the dominant military, political and economic power in the world, and thus can exert considerable influence and pressure.
Do you honestly think that the governments involved don't debate the issue before deciding whether or not to agree?
And we exert SOOOO much pressure that third-world backwaters like Uzbekistan and Kyrzygstan regularly give us the finger on counterterrorism cooperation. Sorry, but your argument falls apart when confronted with facts.
Again you aren't stating why there shouldn't be a debate about it, which was my point, you are simply stating why you think it is right.