Guest Peeves Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 The US tactic (Obama's?), in dealing with threats has seemingly gone from 'Thor's hammer' as the Bush government employed in Iraq to an Israeli like Curettage and Desiccation operation. I'm more in favor of surgical strikes, drones or targeted missiles and I think Obama has made a smart move in tactics. For one thing,it's much cheaper. I give Obama kudos for the change in tactics. I think the Republican's criticism of Obama's "leading from the rear" is phony baloney and misguided. It is apparent to me that unnecessary exposure is preferable to more deaths in foreign lands. Obama approved taking out Osama by the Seals, and the American Muslim turncoat Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone, both in my opinion good tactical moves. Some oppose the targeting of an American citizen without atrial, but really, al-Awlaki condemned himself publicly with his traitorous actions and fully deserved what he got. Obama's tactic is saving American lives. Using drones has caused a conflict with our erstwhile Pakistani allies, but the plus side is the ability to attack without putting foot soldiers at risk as in Libya where the US stayed in the air. Qaddafi was eliminated with no American loss of life. "The CIA drone strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and chief propagandist Samir Khan may also have taken out the terror organization's top bombmakerIbrahim al-Asiri." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-drone-strike-kills-awlaki-khan-possibly-bombmaker/story?id=14644132#.TwMOSVaz58E The Israelis have successfully employed such measures since the Munich massacre organized by Arafat and Fatah..PLO. Israel responded with a covert counter terrorist campaign, called “Wrath of God”. The Israeli cabinet’s top-secret ‘Committee-X’ authorized the assassination of any Black September terrorists involved in the Munich incident. The raid on Entebbe by the IDL also shows the effectiveness of a planned surgical strike rather than a wide spread and lengthy campaign. Quote
Post To The Left Posted January 3, 2012 Report Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) The drone strikes have definitely reduced to threat of Al Qaeda but have they destabilized the whole Pakistan frontier region? Also something I've come across is the the US's double strike policy where they hit a target and then hit again after people start to gather around the strike. This is done under the theory that the militant's friends and comrades will be the one digging the wounded out of the rubble, so the second strike will kill more enemies of the US. But often in more urban areas the second strike hits ambulance and emergency personal. Edited January 4, 2012 by Post To The Left Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 The drone strikes have definitely reduced to threat of Al Qaeda but have they destabilized the whole Pakistan frontier region. Also something I've come across is the the US's double strike policy where they hit a target and then hit again after people start to gather around the strike. This is done under the theory that the militant's friends and comrades will be the one digging the wounded out of the rubble, so the second strike will kill more enemies of the US. But often in more urban areas the second strike hits ambulance and emergency personal. Can you post a link detailing US drone strikes in urban areas and specifically the policy to take out ambulances in this double strike? Thanks. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Just from reading the news over the past decade, the US military has increasingly been relying on drone use, and it started with Bush, so I don't see how one can give Obama credit, unless there is some source saying he ordered or approved a ramp up of their use. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Can you post a link detailing US drone strikes in urban areas and specifically the policy to take out ambulances in this double strike? Thanks. Well, I guess the US will just have to go back to destroying entire cities instead. But no more "drone strikes"...no suh! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Well, I guess the US will just have to go back to destroying entire cities instead. But no more "drone strikes"...no suh! I hear Americans like to pull the wings off of flies. Pass it on. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Post To The Left Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Just from reading the news over the past decade, the US military has increasingly been relying on drone use, and it started with Bush, so I don't see how one can give Obama credit, unless there is some source saying he ordered or approved a ramp up of their use. It started with Bush but "President Obama has used more drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists than any other president. The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration has dramatically increased the drone program." Edited January 4, 2012 by Post To The Left Quote
dre Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Can you post a link detailing US drone strikes in urban areas and specifically the policy to take out ambulances in this double strike? He didnt say there was such a policy. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 He didnt say there was such a policy. Are you saying the Americans are unaware of what they are hitting with technology the way it is these days. Heck, your cell phone knows where YOU are. So essentially, the statement says they do it (if they infact do it) on purpose. Aim for ambulances... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Wild Bill Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Are you saying the Americans are unaware of what they are hitting with technology the way it is these days. Heck, your cell phone knows where YOU are. So essentially, the statement says they do it (if they infact do it) on purpose. Aim for ambulances... Yeah, those terrorists are all too stupid to ever use an ambulance as cover! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Post To The Left Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Are you saying the Americans are unaware of what they are hitting with technology the way it is these days. Heck, your cell phone knows where YOU are. So essentially, the statement says they do it (if they infact do it) on purpose. Aim for ambulances... I don't have the article in front of me, it was in a newspaper, talking about hitting the target once, twice, three times but I wasn't implying the Americans were purposely striking ambulances. Keep in mind that this is the FATA and I doubt there is what would we consider an ambulance anywhere in the entire FATA. The article I read talked about how American strategy with drone strikes was to hit the compound and then hit them again as they try and move the wounded militants out of the rubble. I doubt you'd be able to tell from the air that it is a FATA "ambulance" or a militant van. This article talks a little about it saying how they will strike twice with mulitple missiles but the article I read talked more about how first responders were getting hit by the drone strikes: The wrong house...There were actually two CIA drone strikes on August 23 last year in Waziristan. The attack on Danda Darpakhel involved three Hellfire missiles. Their target was a compound of five mud-brick houses, allegedly a militant camp run by the Haqqani Network. Of an estimated 20 people who died in the attack, many were reportedly militants. But some were civilians, including Bismullah and three of his family. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/07/18/the-cia-drone-strike-that-rewrote-the-rules/ Edited January 4, 2012 by Post To The Left Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 I don't have the article in front of me, it was in a newspaper, talking about hitting the target once, twice, three times but I wasn't implying the Americans were purposely striking ambulances. Keep in mind that this is the FATA and I doubt there is what would we consider an ambulance anywhere in the entire FATA. The article I read talked about how American strategy with drone strikes was to hit the compound and then hit them again as they try and move the wounded militants out of the rubble. I doubt you'd be able to tell from the air that it is a FATA "ambulance" or a militant van. This article talks a little about it saying how they will strike twice with mulitple missiles but the article I read talked more about how first responders were getting hit by the drone strikes: I think it's a sound policy from a winning a war point of view. But the West has no stomach to actually win a war these days...just fight one endlessly. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Manny Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 We progressive human beings have outgrown the concept of war, let alone the need for assassination by drones. The only reason such things continue to exist is that many people have not evolved to this point yet. They still live in "animal consciousness". But eventually they will. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 We progressive human beings have outgrown the concept of war, let alone the need for assassination by drones. The only reason such things continue to exist is that many people have not evolved to this point yet. They still live in "animal consciousness". But eventually they will. They called WW1 'The Great War' and the 'War to End All Wars' thinking along those lines. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
sharkman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 We progressive human beings have outgrown the concept of war, let alone the need for assassination by drones. The only reason such things continue to exist is that many people have not evolved to this point yet. They still live in "animal consciousness". But eventually they will. For having outgrown the concept of war, you 'progressives' sure act violently when protesting at an occupy or G20 event. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) We progressive human beings have outgrown the concept of war, let alone the need for assassination by drones. The only reason such things continue to exist is that many people have not evolved to this point yet. They still live in "animal consciousness". But eventually they will. Seems rather selectively posed? Assassination by a Jihadist bomb is hardly more morally acceptable than by a drone targeting declared enemies and militants. Perhaps "Go tell it on the mountain." Perhaps the particular(mountain) one that wouldn't come to Mohammad. "IF THE MOUNTAIN WILL NOT COME TO MOHAMMED, MOHAMMED WILL GO TO THE MOUNTAIN - "If one cannot get one's own way, one must adjust to the inevitable. The legend goes that when the founder of Islam was asked to give proofs of his teaching, he ordered Mount Safa to come to him. When the mountain did not comply, Mohammed raised his hands toward heaven and said, 'God is merciful. Had it obeyed my words, it would have fallen on us to our destruction. I will therefore go to the mountain and thank God that he has had mercy on a stiff-necked generation.'" I would like a mountain to fall on the likes of some despotic regimes in the Middle East perhaps a bunker buster on a Nuke site. They could call the attack, "Mountain Dropping." Edited January 4, 2012 by Peeves Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Seems rather selectively posed? Assassination by a Jihadist bomb is hardly more morally acceptable than by a drone targeting declared enemies and militants. I guess the message is as long as we keep attacking, the animal man will attack us right back, and so on. And sometimes animal men will not respond to reasoning (because they are animal men), and so only respond to violence. But every time we attack, we have to accept the fact that we too must become animal men, and by attacking others we must attack ourselves as well. That's why war is a tragedy for all. But unavoidable, as long as animal men live. And history is the memory of injustices passed, so that it perpetuates. That's why we must always try first to find a way to keep the dogs (within us) at bay. Break the chain! Quote
sharkman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 I guess the message is as long as we keep attacking, the animal man will attack us right back, and so on. And sometimes animal men will not respond to reasoning (because they are animal men), and so only respond to violence. But every time we attack, we have to accept the fact that we too must become animal men, and by attacking others we must attack ourselves as well. That's why war is a tragedy for all. But unavoidable, as long as animal men live. And history is the memory of injustices passed, so that it perpetuates. That's why we must always try first to find a way to keep the dogs (within us) at bay. Break the chain! Oh, were you saying that canada was progressive, sort of like we have evolved beyond war? Because by using the leftwing's favorite word to describe themselves these days(progressive) I thought you might have been referring to them only. At any rate, the idea that by not attacking anyone we can avoid the 'animal man' attacking us in return is incomplete. Animal man will continue to bully peaceful man and attack him whenever he wants something that peaceful man has. It has always been this way, and is one of the reasons that peaceful, or progressive man if you like, developed an army way back in the day. Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 At any rate, the idea that by not attacking anyone we can avoid the 'animal man' attacking us in return is incomplete. Animal man will continue to bully peaceful man and attack him whenever he wants something that peaceful man has. It has always been this way, and is one of the reasons that peaceful, or progressive man if you like, developed an army way back in the day. I remember watching "Billy Jack" movies in the theatre, back in the late 60's/early 70's. Oh those golden Hippy Times! Anyhow, every movie had the same plot, sorta like those today of George Segal. Hippy commune would face violent threats from local redneck townspeople. Billy Jack would beat the crap out of the rednecks and the hippy commune would be saved, to spread their teachings of non-violence! At that time, I was always struck by the fact that I seemed to be the only one in the audience who got the REAL message! Everyone else would cheer for the hippies and their philosophy. Me, I favoured hippy philosophy too but it seemed obvious that if it weren't for Billy Jack and his KungFooeyLooey violence those hippies would have been toast! They would have been dead and gone. No one would have ever heard their pacifist message again! Every generation seems just as blind as mine... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest Manny Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 At any rate, the idea that by not attacking anyone we can avoid the 'animal man' attacking us in return is incomplete. Animal man will continue to bully peaceful man and attack him whenever he wants something that peaceful man has. It has always been this way, and is one of the reasons that peaceful, or progressive man if you like, developed an army way back in the day. Right... I guess the message is as long as we keep attacking, the animal man will attack us right back, and so on. And sometimes animal men will not respond to reasoning (because they are animal men), and so only respond to violence. But every time we attack, we have to accept the fact that we too must become animal men, and by attacking others we must attack ourselves as well. That's why war is a tragedy for all. But unavoidable, as long as animal men live. And history is the memory of injustices passed, so that it perpetuates. That's why we must always try first to find a way to keep the dogs (within us) at bay. Break the chain! Quote
waldo Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Are you saying the Americans are unaware of what they are hitting with technology the way it is these days. Heck, your cell phone knows where YOU are. and yet... there's a steady stream of collateral damage impacts that continue to bring the apologetic generals forward - go figure! Quote
sharkman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 I guess the message is as long as we keep attacking, the animal man will attack us right back, and so on. And sometimes animal men will not respond to reasoning (because they are animal men), and so only respond to violence. But every time we attack, we have to accept the fact that we too must become animal men, and by attacking others we must attack ourselves as well. That's why war is a tragedy for all. But unavoidable, as long as animal men live. And history is the memory of injustices passed, so that it perpetuates. That's why we must always try first to find a way to keep the dogs (within us) at bay. Break the chain! Well my point was that we can't 'break the chain'. There is no chain, it's called evil. As long as one of the two parties wants what the other one has, sooner or later their will be an attack. And there are no dogs within us when we are just protecting our own. Becoming animal men has nothing to do with it. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 and yet... there's a steady stream of collateral damage impacts that continue to bring the apologetic generals forward - go figure! Generals apologizing is lame and a new phenomena. It's only because Islam is involved do they bother least the 'Muslim World' take offence. Like Islam doesn't take offence at the drop of a hat, anyways. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Manny Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Well my point was that we can't 'break the chain'. There is no chain, it's called evil. As long as one of the two parties wants what the other one has, sooner or later their will be an attack. And there are no dogs within us when we are just protecting our own. Becoming animal men has nothing to do with it. Evil is a force within us that can be overcome. We all have that side within us, as well as its opposite. But some people have developed one side more than the other. Animal men respond emotionally to their desires first and foremost, one of which is greed. To respond to base emotions is a primitive impulse. Hence "animal men". It's not a Canadian phenomenon. Rather its distributed throughout the world, everywhere, in small numbers. People who are able to control that response and see something greater. An important part of this is the ability to understand cause and effect. Animal men want what they want right now. Consequences have no meaning... there is no future. The idea of "future" is an abstraction... just like it is for little children. The evolution of mankind is like the growth of a person from childhood to adulthood. The child lives in animal consciousness. As they grow and learn, they experience errors, consequences, obligations, responsibility and finally, authority. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 ....But unavoidable, as long as animal men live. And history is the memory of injustices passed, so that it perpetuates. That's why we must always try first to find a way to keep the dogs (within us) at bay. Break the chain! Wow...so like the totally progressive and higher development solution would be to KILL all the "animal men"? What about "animal" women, or do progressives still support sexism? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.