Drone attacks

[QueEx]

Im jus sayin!

When did we start a war with Pakistan?

You raise a very good point.

What if there was this local gang that has attacked your home and injured/killed one/more of your relatives/household and members of that gang are being harboured by your next door neighbor, Neighbor X. Assume further that you have satisfactory evidence that the gang is planning, training and recruiting members on Neighbor X's property for another attack on you/your property/family. You're in your yard or another neighbor's yard and you see one or more of those gang members in Neighbor X's yard meeting, training, planning & recruiting. You, I assume, like me would probably raise issue with Neighbor X and if that doesn't work, call the local authorities. But, if neither responds, what do you do?

Leave them be? Or do what you have to?

How long will it be before those same drones are monitoring our neighborhoods here at home?

Another very good point.

I would think that if left unregulated, unpoliced, unbridled, unchecked -- we could assume an encroachment upon constitutionally protected civil liberties. So, do we absolutely forbid "drone" type operations not only inside but in situations outside of the US as well, or, do we permit them under guidelines, regulation, rules of engagement and constitutional constraint???


`

 

[Lamarr]

You raise a very good point.

What if there was this local gang that has attacked your home and injured/killed one/more of your relatives/household and members of that gang are being harboured by your next door neighbor, Neighbor X. Assume further that you have satisfactory evidence that the gang is planning, training and recruiting members on Neighbor X's property for another attack on you/your property/family. You're in your yard or another neighbor's yard and you see one or more of those gang members in Neighbor X's yard meeting, training, planning & recruiting. You, I assume, like me would probably raise issue with Neighbor X and if that doesn't work, call the local authorities. But, if neither responds, what do you do?

Leave them be? Or do what you have to?

since this is a hypothetical situation, I'll go along. The first issue I would have with this scenario is "satisfactory evidence". The second issue would be adopting a policy of a pre-emptive 'strike' (for lack of a better term) to prevent harm from coming your way. Issue three, An individual has to ask the question "Why am I being targeted" & have an honest response.

At the end of the day, since I try to live by certain principles, I'd have to have honest dialog with my neighbors to prevent the situation from escalating. Now, in terms of foreign policy, if an nation, or nation harboring enemies attacks the U.S., I wouldn't hesitate to release the entire might of the US military. And I aint cleaning nothin up afterwards.

Another very good point.

I would think that if left unregulated, unpoliced, unbridled, unchecked -- we could assume an encroachment upon constitutionally protected civil liberties. So, do we absolutely forbid "drone" type operations not only inside but in situations outside of the US as well, or, do we permit them under guidelines, regulation, rules of engagement and constitutional constraint???

I guess my issues are not with the drones, but rather who is controlling the drones. So if there is a possibility for our civil liberties to be abused, they will be (A brotha like me has no confidence in "the authorities"). So to me, it's just another step towards the "surveillance state" and justifying it by laws, after the fact.

We’re spending a lot of money over there is with drones killing people and I don’t think that’s making any less war, if anything it’s making more.

Now I’m not saying we don’t have to kill our enemies sometimes. What I’m saying is a perpetual drone war on Pakistan makes those people more angry not less angry. I don’t think were getting anywhere.

 

[thoughtone]

Who said I had blind loyalty?

I'll answer this question when you answer my question about 1983, and 1984.

So we are going to ignore this post?

 

[QueEx]

since this is a hypothetical situation, I'll go along. The first issue I would have with this scenario is "satisfactory evidence". The second issue would be adopting a policy of a pre-emptive 'strike' (for lack of a better term) to prevent harm from coming your way. Issue three, An individual has to ask the question "Why am I being targeted" & have an honest response.

I can certainly understand the need for satisfactory evidence -- though I believe there are practical reasons why there will be doubts within the populace as to whether such evidence actually exists. Foremost among those reasons is the great possibility of compromising sensitive means and methods involved in developing that "evidence" in the first place - if too much is divulged. Of course, there has to be a way of not spillling all of the beans with an appropriately security-cleared "Checking Mechanism" (that has the confidence of the public) to make sure it is what they say it is.

Am I reading you correctly? - YOU agreeing that there should be a "Pre-emptive Strike Policy" ???? LOL. Surely, you jest?

What do you propose as the honest answer to your question: "Why am I being targeted" ? ? ?

At the end of the day, since I try to live by certain principles, I'd have to have honest dialog with my neighbors to prevent the situation from escalating.

Interesting. I believe the President was trying to move in that direction with his address to the Muslim nations back toward the beginning of his term. Some have called that an Apology -- do you ?

With respect to AQ, with whom do you suggest we talk ???

Now, in terms of foreign policy, if an nation, or nation harboring enemies attacks the U.S., I wouldn't hesitate to release the entire might of the US military.

Hmmm. You would attack the harboring nation, if IT ATTACKS; But you would NOT ATTACK within the harboring nation, although the harbored IS attacking ????

I guess my issues are not with the drones, but rather who is controlling the drones. So if there is a possibility for our civil liberties to be abused, they will be (A brotha like me has no confidence in "the authorities"). So to me, it's just another step towards the "surveillance state" and justifying it by laws, after the fact.

Actually, I feel you with respects to Big Brother -- but there are always trade-offs -- that have to be regulated as well as possible to balance our liberty interest with the need-to-know in order to protect that liberty interest. I think regulation, checks, balances -- being the keywords.

Now I’m not saying we don’t have to kill our enemies sometimes. What I’m saying is a perpetual drone war on Pakistan makes those people more angry not less angry. I don’t think were getting anywhere.

This one just goes back to one up above. I don't think you can honestly say there is a "Drone War on Pakistan". There are drone strikes "IN" Pakistan, but thats significantly different. Here again, you would attack Pakistan, which (assumingly for this discussion) harbors AQ fundamentalist who has/will attack, but only if Pakistan itself attacks; but not attack within Pakistan which harbors those attackers ? ? ?

.

 

[sharkbait28]

Obama's drone policy is heinous and immoral but I find the op's fake concern fascinating.

Let's not pretend that the GOP aren't 10,000 times more belligerent on foreign policy (and certainly less concerned about international law).

 

[actinanass]

Obama's drone policy is heinous and immoral but I find the op's fake concern fascinating.

Let's not pretend that the GOP aren't 10,000 times more belligerent on foreign policy (and certainly less concerned about international law).

How many wars have a republican started as president?

I'll answer it for ya, four wars.

Civil War, Spanish- American war, Desert Storm, and War on Terror.

Every other war has been started by a democrat. Go look it up.

 

[sharkbait28]

How many wars have a republican started as president?

I'll answer it for ya, four wars.

Civil War, Spanish- American war, Desert Storm, and War on Terror.

Every other war has been started by a democrat. Go look it up.

Are you going to make the case the current iteration of the Republican party is less militaristic and belligerent than the Democratic party? Because that's an argument you'll lose.... in embarrassing fashion.

Using a simple tally of wars started by Dem vs Repubs would be incomplete given how the parties have changed roles over the course of this country's history. It's more honest to speak in terms of recent history. If you look at my own posting history... you'll see that I'm critical of the foreign policy aims of both parties (as they are both essentially imperialistic and fanatically committed to American Primacy in the world). Having said that there is no arguing or debating which party is currently more bombastic.

My biggest grievance with your posts here is the cynicism of criticizing the Dems for something the Repubs do with more wild abandon. It's really pretty silly.

Don't argue for argument's sake.

 

[Lamarr]

What do you propose as the honest answer to your question: "Why am I being targeted" ? ? ?

 

[Lamarr]

Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection

Not even a full day had passed before newly reelected President Obama ordered another drone strike in Yemen.

A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of al-Qaida militants on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three terrorists, government officials said.

Huffington Post:

A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. If it were a American strike, of course, it would have to have been authorized by Obama.

The drone war violates both domestic and international law, and the Obama administration’s vehement disdain for transparency in government is the only thing keeping it from public and legal scrutiny. Beyond the law, it’s terrorism.

 

[QueEx]

You think it would help if Pakistan didn't literally provide unfettered haven ?

 

[Lamarr]

You think it would help if Pakistan didn't literally provide unfettered haven ?

Not trying to dodge the question, nor am I being sarcastic but:

Are we really afraid of a few guys living in caves, halfway around the world, Really?

 

[QueEx]

Not trying to dodge the question, nor am I being sarcastic but:

Are we really afraid of a few guys living in caves, halfway around the world, Really?

No. They have no way of ramming commercial jetliners into tall buildings -- or setting-off some crude nuclear device capable killing untold.

 

[sharkbait28]

I agree 110% with Lamarr here.... our drone policy (including the strikes on our allied sovereign nation, Pakistan) are short-sighted, incredibly immoral and unjust, likely ineffective and DEFINITELY counter-productive.

There have been numerous studies, papers and analysis done on the failure of this policy and I would invite any supporters of this bs to please do some research on it.

 

[thoughtone]

How many wars have a republican started as president?

I'll answer it for ya, four wars.

Civil War, Spanish- American war, Desert Storm, and War on Terror.

Every other war has been started by a democrat. Go look it up.

How about the drug war and the war on women?

 

[Lamarr]

No. They have no way of ramming commercial jetliners into tall buildings -- or setting-off some crude nuclear device capable killing untold.

There you go again; I just don't buy the fear tactics from DC, regardless of the party in charge. Look at the story & assess the "appropriate" level of concern for the citizens of the nation

According to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad.

Sorry QueEx, there is either a lack of diplomacy, utter incompetence by those in charge, or the politicians have completely sold us out to those who profit from this war on "terror".

 

[Upgrade Dave]

There you go again; I just don't buy the fear tactics from DC, regardless of the party in charge. Look at the story & assess the "appropriate" level of concern for the citizens of the nation

According to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad.

Sorry QueEx, there is either a lack of diplomacy, utter incompetence by those in charge, or the politicians have completely sold us out to those who profit from this war on "terror".

I always saw it as this one.

utter incompetence by those in charge

 

[QueEx]

There you go again; I just don't buy the fear tactics from DC, regardless of the party in charge. Look at the story & assess the "appropriate" level of concern for the citizens of the nation

According to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad.

Sorry QueEx, there is either a lack of diplomacy, utter incompetence by those in charge, or the politicians have completely sold us out to those who profit from this war on "terror".

Frankly, I don't which. My own experience, however, tells me that there were probably degrees of it all, including something as simple as inter-agency/service jealousy, competition, turf-protection, etc. Its been well documented that each agency and branch of the military jealously guards its turf and of those with intelligence services/tasking, there is uncanny desire to be more or know more than your rival/counterpart -- which means, in many instances, sharing and working together goes lacking.

I also believe that TV and the movies have distorted reality and glamorized a lot of our capability a bit beyond its actual capability -- such to the point that us ordinary citizens "without-the-need-to-know" believe that the 'they' - know what we're thinking, know what we are about to do, and see us at all times. The Omniscient. The truth, however, is that the intel agencies can't see-all and even that which it does see, hear & know, due to shear volume, is difficult to process in real-enough-time.

Is it possible for actors as you described to have out-witted the system, I believe so. Was there incompetence, afraid so. Perfect storm, maybe.

 

[QueEx]

. . . I just don't buy the fear tactics from DC . . .

P.S.

My knowledge of the intel business doesn't come from the fear tactics from DC

 

[Greed]

Military Drones Prowl US Skies

Military Drones Prowl US Skies
By TechNewsDaily Staff | LiveScience.com – 4 hrs ago

Military drones used to track terrorists or insurgents in Afghanistan have also been flying across the U.S. homeland. Newly released documents show U.S. drone flights by the Air Force, Marine Corps and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for the first time.

The Air Force has tested drones in U.S. skies ranging from hand-launched Ravens to the larger Reaper drones responsible for targeting and killing people overseas — all recorded through the Federal Aviation Administration licenses required to fly in national airspace. That information became public through a Freedom of Information Act request from the nonprofit digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

"The FAA recently announced it wants to slow down drone integration into U.S. skies due to privacy concerns," the EFF said. "We are hopeful this indicates the agency is finally changing its views."

But the advocacy organization noted that the FAA documents don't show any oversight of how drone flights could affect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.

The advocates run a U.S. drone census that aims to track drone flights made in the homeland by the U.S. military, law enforcement agencies, local police departments and universities. Part of that effort has involved requesting the FAA to release documents showing what agencies and organizations applied for licenses to fly drones in U.S. national airspace.

Drones flown by the Air Force near places such as Virginia Beach, Va., have the cameras and sensors to track moving ground targets for hours at a time. The Reaper drone capable of both spying on people and firing missiles at them has spent much of its time prowling the skies above Nevada, California and Utah.

Some Air Force operators have even practiced surveillance missions they might carry out in Afghanistan by tracking civilian cars on the highways, according to a New York Times report.

The Air Force proved the most accommodating by allowing the related FAA records to go public. The Marine Corps chose to redact so much material from the records that the EFF had a difficult time figuring out the Marines' drone programs.

On the civilian side, the drone records show how many U.S. law enforcement agencies want to use drones for spying on drug activities in the war on drugs. But some police departments — specifically the Orange County, Fla., sheriff's department and Mesa County, Colo., sheriff — chose to withhold some or most of the information about drone flights by claiming that public information could threaten their police work.

The FAA released the new batch of documents more than a year and a half after the EFF filed its Freedom of Information Act request, but has yet to release more than half of the available drone records. The EFF called that "unacceptable."

"Before the public can properly assess privacy issues raised by drone flights, it must have access to the FAA's records as a whole," the EFF said.

http://news.yahoo.com/military-drones-prowl-us-skies-204238872.html

 

[Lamarr]

Drones Have Killed at Least 176 Children in Pakistan Alone

Twenty children and six adults were killed this past week in Newtown, Connecticut, by a deranged individual. These children are not the only ones to have been killed.

On Sept. 25, a study was published by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law entitled, "Living under Drones," which reported that, contrary to Obama and his top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, civilian deaths are not "exceedingly rare" in drone attacks. (See EIR, Oct. 12, 2012)

...

Obama has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.

...

Every Tuesday, the President of the United States attends a kill meeting in the White House, in which he selects targets and gives approval to drone attacks, which have already killed up to 176 innocent children and a total of approximately 1,000 civilians in Pakistan alone

 

[QueEx]

Drones Have Killed at Least 176 Children in Pakistan Alone


[UR L="http://[b][color=red][size="4"]larouchepac.com[/size][/b][/color]/node/24860"]Drones Have Killed at Least 176 Children in Pakistan Alone[/URL

So, you associate yourself with the racist (among other things) Lyndon Larouche

I've often wondered about the origins of some of your thoughts.

. . . starting to show your colors.

 

[thoughtone]

So, you associate yourself with the racist (among other things) Lyndon Larouche

I've often wondered about the origins of some of your thoughts.

. . . starting to show your colors.

Starting?

 

[Lamarr]

So, you associate yourself with the racist (among other things) Lyndon Larouche

I've often wondered about the origins of some of your thoughts.

. . . starting to show your colors.

Is he racist?

All I saw was drone attacks killed a bunch of kids

 

[QueEx]

w e a k


and you didn't even attempt to deny it



thats called a tacit admission



​

 

[Lamarr]

w e a k


and you didn't even attempt to deny it



thats called a tacit admission



​

now I see where Thought gets it from

Attack the messenger, elude the message

Ok, I'll say it, Can't call me a racist to deflect attention elsewhere! Drones, authorized by the US govt, have killed up to 176 innocent children in Pakistan.

 

[QueEx]

now I see where Thought gets it from

Attack the messenger, elude the message

Wrong. I attacked not the messenger, but the credibility of the message. Big ass difference. In my opinion your credibility sucked when drug in Lyndon Larouche. My opinion.

Ok, I'll say it, Can't call me a racist to deflect attention elsewhere! Drones, authorized by the US govt, have killed up to 176 innocent children in Pakistan.

I didn't call you a racist -- I noted that you appear to be associating your ideas with those of a racist, Lyndon LaRouche. AND, you didn't deny it. If you're not a follower of LaRouche, why didn't you just deny it
Failure to deny that which any reasonable person would, under the circumstances, is a tacit admission that its true.

And, speaking of "deflecting" -- YOU attempted to deflect attention from U.S. gun violence (Apples) by interjecting children being killed in a foreign war (Oranges). Hell, there's nothing wrong with your desire to debate drones -- just do it in a thread relevant to drones. Trying to introduce Pakistan into U.S. domestic violence was, weak.

 

[QueEx]

Is he racist?

All I saw was drone attacks killed a bunch of kids

Oh, my bad. Sorry.

You just find shit from any ole place and through it in if it sounds like it might support your argument

 

[Lamarr]

Oh, my bad. Sorry.

You just find shit from any ole place and through it in if it sounds like it might support your argument

When I present a fact that 176 children in Pakistan have been killed by drone attacks, I'm not arguing!

 

[QueEx]

When I present a fact that 176 children in Pakistan have been killed by drone attacks, I'm not arguing!

In the "Those Damn Guns Again" thread, thats exactly what "I" believe you were doing -- drones in Pakistan has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence in America. Nothing.

 

[Lamarr]

Drones strikes on Christmas Eve hit Yemen

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dx6JerQcbgk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Lamarr]

Christopher Dorner Becomes First Human Target For Drones On US Soil

The slippery slope.

"It was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil.

A senior police source said: “The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him. On the ground, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.”

Asked directly if drones have already been deployed, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz, who is jointly leading the task force, said: “We are using all the tools at our disposal.”

 

[QueEx]

So, Lamar; does that mean drones should never be used - or its about time we drop the politics and "sides" and come up with sensible policy guidelines under which they might be used, and by whom? Personally, I am against them being used domestically by the military, but what about law enforcement and under what rules or policy considerations ???









.

 

[COINTELPRO]

The government position that belonging to or supporting Al Qaeda is grounds for assassination should be reexamined. I can support or belong to the NRA, yet disagree with their positions on assault weapons.

1. Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and Americans would not tolerate or want Muslim/African troops in their country. I believe individuals in these countries would be inspired to commit terrorist acts if that occurred. Therefore, Bin Laden behavior is really not that much out of the norm with what the citizens of these countries would do in a similar circumstance.

I agree with Bin Laden that the U.S. military should not be in Saudi Arabia or any other countries in Africa or the world. Saddam Hussein was reacquiring territory that was apart of Iraq prior to colonialism. This is no different than China reacquiring Hong Kong; however, nobody messed with China because of nuclear weapons. However, I disagree with using terrorism to get that result.

Therefore, I could belong to Al Qaeda, support a position that is reasonable, not support terrorism, yet be targeted for assassination by the U.S. The killing of Anwar just because he supported or belonged to Al Qaeda is not ground for assassination. He would also have to engage in activity to support terrorism such as building bombs, training suicide bombers, or openly espousing the use of terrorism.


hmm:

 

[QueEx]

The government position that belonging to or supporting Al Qaeda is grounds for assassination should be reexamined. I can support or belong to the NRA, yet disagree with their positions on assault weapons.

I agree. The policy considerations need to be examined and, where deficient, reformed.

Not to be presumptive, I just don't know that mere "supporting Al Qaeda is grounds for assassination" though. Is that all takes ???

1. Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and Americans would not tolerate or want Muslim/African troops in their country. I believe individuals in these countries would be inspired to commit terrorist acts if that occurred.

Does it make any difference whether the troop presence is at the invitation of the host government ??? Or, is the objection of any group or people within the country sufficient justification to deny that presence ???

Do the KKK, Skinheads, Black Panthers, SLA, etc., et al., have that same say ???

Therefore, Bin Laden behavior is really not that much out of the norm with what the citizens of these countries would do in a similar circumstance.

Didn't know that Bin Laden had ascended to the head of state of any Muslim country, elected or by strong-arm.

I agree with Bin Laden that the U.S. military should not be in Saudi Arabia or any other countries in Africa or the world. Saddam Hussein was reacquiring territory that was apart of Iraq prior to colonialism. This is no different than China reacquiring Hong Kong; however, nobody messed with China because of nuclear weapons. However, I disagree with using terrorism to get that result.

So long as your agreement is a mere belief; I think you're free to have it -- and the First Amendment supports it. But if your conduct moves beyond a mere belief, to some active assistance in furthering the goals of Al Qaeda, would you be on steady ground ???

Therefore, I could belong to Al Qaeda, support a position that is reasonable, not support terrorism, yet be targeted for assassination by the U.S.

Is this really true though ???

Aside from someone who may have met their own demise because of their proximity to someone else who had been targeted presumably because of his/her "active" support of those at war with the U.S., who do you know of that was "targeted" for mere belief ???

If that has happened, I condemn it. But, you seem to be saying people are targeted for "mere belief" -- and I'm saying I am not aware of that.

Do you have something along the lines of proof that is the case; something more than just speculation ???

The killing of Anwar just because he supported or belonged to Al Qaeda is not ground for assassination.

He would also have to engage in activity to support terrorism such as building bombs, training suicide bombers, or openly espousing the use of terrorism.

And you know that ("just because he supported or belonged") how ???

Is that just opinion or do you have some kind of proof ???

Again, if you're right; if he just held such beliefs but no action towards causing his beliefs to materialize, I'm with you.

But how do YOU know that was the extent of his activity ??? If its based upon "skepticism" -- do you have something that at least smells like smoke, i.e., that says al-Awlaki was not engaged in building bombs, training suicide bombers, or openly espousing the use of terrorism ???




,

 

[actinanass]

Are you going to make the case the current iteration of the Republican party is less militaristic and belligerent than the Democratic party? Because that's an argument you'll lose.... in embarrassing fashion.

Using a simple tally of wars started by Dem vs Repubs would be incomplete given how the parties have changed roles over the course of this country's history. It's more honest to speak in terms of recent history. If you look at my own posting history... you'll see that I'm critical of the foreign policy aims of both parties (as they are both essentially imperialistic and fanatically committed to American Primacy in the world). Having said that there is no arguing or debating which party is currently more bombastic.

My biggest grievance with your posts here is the cynicism of criticizing the Dems for something the Repubs do with more wild abandon. It's really pretty silly.

Don't argue for argument's sake.

A lot of the folks the left idolized *FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton* were all in conflicts. Right now, in all honesty, President Obama wants to become the next FDR. You can tell that by his inauguration speech. History repeats itself Mr. Shark. There's nothing that much different in the ideology. It's just different people running it.