Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: More good news in the war on terror..

  1. #1
    Senior Member il Padrino Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Murray, Utah
    Posts
    19,204

    Default More good news in the war on terror..

    "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


    "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute View Post
    Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

    I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

  3. #3
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    14,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

    I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.
    At least we have our principles.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    At least we have our principles.
    Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.

  5. #5
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    26,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.
    What does the fact that they're american citizens have to do with it? These guys are actively at war with America.
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  6. #6
    Dolphins Rape Hipsters oxcoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Split time between SF and NYC
    Posts
    5,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
    Even people like me who aren't fans of Obama have to admit that he at least seems to enjoy kicking Al Qaeda's ass and he doesn't seem to care where it happens either. The interesting thing about it is that Obama doesn't seem to have an issue hunting these guys down and killing them in countries that either we haven't yet formally invaded or haven't gotten their permission to enter, but finding these guys and waterboarding them for information is somehow way out of bounds.

    I'm not complaining mind you, but I find that dichotomy a little strange.

    Oh man it's a totally indefensible disconnect in the "morality" of the left -

    Atomizing a dude w/ a hellfire missile or shooting him in the face in front of his kids = OK.

    Enhanced interrogation techniques that we use in training our own soldiers and are known to have no lasting physical effects = not only not OK, but a total betrayal of everything the West stands for! (the latter being the actual sort of rhetoric that was used about waterboarding).

    I get being opposed to both waterboarding / EITs and also being opposed to drone attacks. There is simply no defensible consistency between opposing targeted EITs for the extraction of life-saving information from known terrorists but supporting drone attacks which routinely inflict civilian casualties or get the wrong guys all together.
    Ute-ī sunt fīmī differtī

    It can't all be wedding cake.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Clark Addison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Beautiful South
    Posts
    7,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oxcoug View Post
    Oh man it's a totally indefensible disconnect in the "morality" of the left -

    Atomizing a dude w/ a hellfire missile or shooting him in the face in front of his kids = OK.

    Enhanced interrogation techniques that we use in training our own soldiers and are known to have no lasting physical effects = not only not OK, but a total betrayal of everything the West stands for! (the latter being the actual sort of rhetoric that was used about waterboarding).

    I get being opposed to both waterboarding / EITs and also being opposed to drone attacks. There is simply no defensible consistency between opposing targeted EITs for the extraction of life-saving information from known terrorists but supporting drone attacks which routinely inflict civilian casualties or get the wrong guys all together.
    I don't think that's true. In war, there has always been a distinction between how you treat enemy combatants in the field, and how you treat them in your custody. If you accept that this is a war, then I think you can make a reasonable argument that killing people with drones is an acceptable tactic in that war, but that a "higher" standard is needed with captured enemies. It's one thing to use a sniper on the battlefield, it would quite different to bring a sniper into a POW camp and start picking people off.

    I'm not saying that I buy what we are doing, I'm just saying that there is logic in the point of view.

  8. #8

    Default

    Obama hasn't been a dove in the war on terror that is for sure
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    What does the fact that they're american citizens have to do with it? These guys are actively at war with America.
    Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.

  10. #10
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.
    What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

    It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    Have you read about what they haves actually done? Both of them are primarily responsible for inspiring violent acts. This makes them truly evil people, but there is no way that a US criminal court would give them a death sentence. They may be serious criminals, but I haven't read a shred of evidence that they were anything more than cheerleaders for violent jihad. So the government has crossed a line here.
    I think the question is whether they are just talking or whether they are also plotting and planning violence. If the former only, then I agree that is very troubling. But if the latter, they have made themselves the equivalent of a soldier on a battlefield with arms in hand against us, IMO. I will be curious to learn more. Obviously is someone went to the UK and advocated jihad we would not assassinate them. I suspect it was more than just that.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

    It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.
    It is a line where the US government seeks out, targets and kills specific citizens for their speech without the benefit of a trial to determine the extent to which the speech was criminal.

  13. #13
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    It is a line where the US government seeks out, targets and kills specific citizens for their speech without the benefit of a trial to determine the extent to which the speech was criminal.
    Well if you eliminate all other factors involved except those you state, you might be correct. But as it is much more complex than your oversimplified description, and as his culpable behavior extends much farther, you are wildly incorrect. All just IMO, of course.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Well if you eliminate all other factors involved except those you state, you might be correct. But as it is much more complex than your oversimplified description, and as his culpable behavior extends much farther, you are wildly incorrect. All just IMO, of course.
    I really didn't know much about them, except that I have heard their names in the news. So I've tried to read about them since they were killed, and I haven't seen any evidence of material support. They were definitely in contact with terrorists, and were encouraging terrorist behavior. I'm not saying that these are innocent people, and I'm not upset with their getting whacked. They had it coming. But it seems like government overreach, and that should be a cause of concern.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    I really didn't know much about them, except that I have heard their names in the news. So I've tried to read about them since they were killed, and I haven't seen any evidence of material support. They were definitely in contact with terrorists, and were encouraging terrorist behavior. I'm not saying that these are innocent people, and I'm not upset with their getting whacked. They had it coming. But it seems like government overreach, and that should be a cause of concern.
    al-awlaki had blood on his hands. he was not a cheerleader; a large body of evidence linking him to planning (not just inspiring) several terror plots exists.
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camleish View Post
    al-awlaki had blood on his hands. he was not a cheerleader; a large body of evidence linking him to planning (not just inspiring) several terror plots exists.
    My understanding is that none of this evidence has been presented in a court. I keep hearing 'linked to...' not 'planned by...' And what would constitute planning? He was definitely encouraging attacks. If someone comes to him seeking spiritual advice on how to wage jihad, and in the course of the conversation the person identified a target, and al-awlaki agrees that it would be a good target, is that 'planning?'

    Hopefully links to the evidence will be produced in the coming days.

  17. #17
    Faith crisis consultant SeattleUte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinFinderson View Post
    Which now include killing American civilians without a trial.
    Not the same thing as what you suggest.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift

  18. #18
    אלוף NorthwestUteFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    What line is that? Is it a constitutional line? a statute? A moral line? What line, exactly, do you mean?

    It all depends on how you define war and how you define opposing combatants.
    What war? I don't recall having an official declaration by Congress, so it would seem to be very difficult to get a Treason charge to stick. This, along with bin Laden, is more 'frontier justice ' than anything else. Perhaps he was guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes or murders, or even having done the deed personally. Even still that should be presented in court, whether open, closed, or military tribunal.

    I don't doubt for a second that these guys were bad, and perhaps horrifically so. But to simply push a button and take them out while claiming to have sufficient 'evidence', without actually proving said evidence, is disingenuous at best.

    God help us all if we are somehow linked by hidden evidence to some crime. Or if we get caught without 'ze paperz', ja? Land of the Free, my ass.

  19. #19

    Default

    Last edited by creekster; 10-05-2011 at 05:05 PM. Reason: You kids need to learn how to link these things

  20. #20
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    20,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    What war? I don't recall having an official declaration by Congress, so it would seem to be very difficult to get a Treason charge to stick. This, along with bin Laden, is more 'frontier justice ' than anything else. Perhaps he was guilty of conspiracy to commit crimes or murders, or even having done the deed personally. Even still that should be presented in court, whether open, closed, or military tribunal.

    I don't doubt for a second that these guys were bad, and perhaps horrifically so. But to simply push a button and take them out while claiming to have sufficient 'evidence', without actually proving said evidence, is disingenuous at best.

    God help us all if we are somehow linked by hidden evidence to some crime. Or if we get caught without 'ze paperz', ja? Land of the Free, my ass.
    Well then, under your defintion, one might argue it was wrong (although even then it may not be dispositive). But if he is seen as a combatant, then there is no problem.

    Imagine an american in a machine gun nest with other soldiers of a foreign state known to want to kill americans in a current conflcit and he is manning a gun aiming at you. Would you insist on due process before allwoing the air force to blow the hell out of him? Not a perfect analogy, I agree, but it is possible to easily define this conflict in a way that makes the strike perfectly permissible.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  21. #21
    אלוף NorthwestUteFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Thank you for the rebuttal my friend. This is a situation entirely without absolutes, and I appreciate your argument. There is a difference between somebody with a finger on a trigger and one who was accused of fomenting acts of terror, but I can understand your point.

    I did a bit more research on the matter. This person allegedly convinced Maj. Hassan to shoot up the army base in Texas, and also planned/controlled the underwear bombing, among many other things.

    My problem with the whole situation is apparently the AG presented the evidence of links to the above acts to a grand jury, who then failed to return an indictment. You and I both know that a skilled DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so who knows how solid the evidence truly is? Then the Press Secretary yesterday effectively stated, "He is dead, so what good is there in discussing the evidence?"

    They may have done the world a HUGE service by taking out this dude. And it may very well have been impossible to pull off a snatch-and-grab operation. But I would prefer to capture the guy and perhaps figure out how he coordinated all of these attacks from a remote hideout.

    It still feels like a cross between frontier justice and a mob hit to me.

  22. #22
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    27,787

    Default

    2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)

    “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
    In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)



    In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.
    It's crazy to think about this. It seems so long ago.

    The one not batshit crazy thing about the libertarians is Paul's view of the AUMF. It can't continued to be used as it was in the early years after 9/11. It seems like everyone is content on keeping it in perpetuity.

  24. #24
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    14,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    2001 Authorized Use of Military Force (AUMF)



    In a year or so, we will have people in the armed forces who were not alive when the September 11th attacks happened.



    I guess that means I'm an old-ass.
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  25. #25
    Adventurer Walter Sobchak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West of House
    Posts
    2,165

    Default

    Remember when (then-candidate iirc) Obama promised to repeal the AUMF?

    Last edited by Walter Sobchak; 01-11-2018 at 10:20 PM.
    You're actually pretty funny when you aren't being a complete a-hole....so basically like 5% of the time. --Art Vandelay

    Y'all hear that? We're using code names. --Evelle Snoats

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •