Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 1,595 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

TheWhiteknife wrote:

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

The funny thing is that he could have gone for the easy cop-out "he wasn't the intended target" response, which is extremely problematic by itself. However, he apparently decided to show his true colors in a quite repulsive fashion.


Andrew R wrote:
I would like to see an answer that doesn't involve harming another.

Let's be clear: you're calling the act of making the job market slightly more competitive for white people "harming another". That's the harm you're talking about. Making it potentially just a little bit harder for a white person to earn a job. That's what you're saying, right? That's your version of "harm", right?

Quote:
Better to do nothing than cause more harm.

At least that's an honest conservative position. It's not a good position, but it's honest.

Quote:
Self hating is nothing new. "white guilt" is a mark of moral superiority now, especially among those not harmed by the racist policy they want to use to "even it out"

Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure you thought I hate white people. That means your argument is certifiably crazy, and can be safely ignored by just about everyone. Congratulations.


"Gitmo north"

Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit vs. the DoJ


Andrew R wrote:
I would like to see an answer that doesn't involve harming another. Better to do nothing than cause more harm.

You're speaking of the removal of privilege as "harm" here, but I'll bite.

I think in pragmatic, utilitarian ways most times, not absolutes. If a -1 to the 50% of the population that is white is balanced by a +2 to all non-whites, that seems like an overall boost. Ergo we should pursue it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
I just wanted to make sure you thought I hate white people.

I hate white people.

In that the category "white people" is a subset of the category "people" and I hate all people.


Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Every time I try to get back on-topic, some Obamabot objects.

As if things that happen "under Obama's presidency" must all be things that Obama personally signed off on.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
As if things that happen "under Obama's presidency" must all be things that Obama personally signed off on.

Because the thread has the distinct tone of blaming Obama for various crappy things. If the thread was "living today" that'd be apolitical. If I start a thread called "Life under King Bush II" and it's all whining about how much Nickelback sucks, it sure would seem like I'm blaming Nickelback on GWB.

Which I don't. They're Canadian!


How could a thread about anarchists being held for contempt of court for not ratting on their comrades ever be considered "apolitical?"


Government’s Laying Siege to Town Exposes West’s Indifference to Human Rights: Libya and the Human Rights Double Standard

And, yes, I believe Barack Obama did it.

The Taliban Aren't the Only Ones Who Shoot Young Girls in the Head: The Killing of Benafshah

Barack Obama is personally responsible for every citizen shot by Italian troops, too.

Codifying Murder: Obama’s Endless Kill List

I blame Putin.


How the Irish Became White

I didn't have time to vett this article, but I read the book years ago and despite not being a big proponent of white guilt race traitordom, it was pretty good.

I remember, in particular, a part from the prologue where Ignatiev talks about (from memory) watching a mother almost slam the car door on her child in the backseat. When she realizes what she's about to do, she starts crying and laughing and beating her child all at once.

Ignatiev goes on to say that that was his reaction while reading about the history of Irish-Black relationships in the United States.

This is all Obama's fault, by the way.


Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Yet the majority of the real problem is economic not race. life is not fair but more racism will not fix that.
Please explain to me how white offenders getting more jobs than black non-offenders is not racism. Because right now, you are saying that racism is better than something else with the expressed goal of trying to create equality.
It might very well be because of racism, yet more racism is not the answer

You need to provide a better answer than that. Also, your qualification of what is and is not racism is so questionable at this point. So you calling something racist doesn't really hold any water.

Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass. Because right now, your thoughts on policies regarding race are about maintaining the status quo.

If you don't think that blacks should be a permanent underclass, explain why you think it's a bad thing that they have equal opportunity to work to put food on the table for their families.


Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass.

Because it's the American way and has been since 1619.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass.
Because it's the American way and has been since 1619.

Could you rephrase that in the form of a musical interlude?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

The funny thing is that he could have gone for the easy cop-out "he wasn't the intended target" response, which is extremely problematic by itself. However, he apparently decided to show his true colors in a quite repulsive fashion.

My usual response to the "he wasnt the intended target" claptrap is thus: Prove it. Because no one can. Because these killings are done in secret with zero judicial oversight or due process. The new Democracy: where literally one man decides who lives or dies.


Kind of a different interpretation of the "one man, one vote", eh?

The Exchange

Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Yet the majority of the real problem is economic not race. life is not fair but more racism will not fix that.
Please explain to me how white offenders getting more jobs than black non-offenders is not racism. Because right now, you are saying that racism is better than something else with the expressed goal of trying to create equality.
It might very well be because of racism, yet more racism is not the answer

You need to provide a better answer than that. Also, your qualification of what is and is not racism is so questionable at this point. So you calling something racist doesn't really hold any water.

Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass. Because right now, your thoughts on policies regarding race are about maintaining the status quo.

If you don't think that blacks should be a permanent underclass, explain why you think it's a bad thing that they have equal opportunity to work to put food on the table for their families.

Because they are incapable of earning for themselves like damn near every white and asian group? WHY ARE hispanics and blacks so far behind, except for conspiracies about "the man" keeping them down? Compare them to asian and middle eastern, what is going on?


Andrew R wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You need to provide a better answer than that. Also, your qualification of what is and is not racism is so questionable at this point. So you calling something racist doesn't really hold any water.

Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass. Because right now, your thoughts on policies regarding race are about maintaining the status quo.

If you don't think that blacks should be a permanent underclass, explain why you think it's a bad thing that they have equal opportunity to work to put food on the table for their families.

Because they are incapable of earning for themselves like damn near every white and asian group? WHY ARE hispanics and blacks so far behind, except for conspiracies about "the man" keeping them down? Compare them to asian and middle eastern, what is going on?

That's a good question. We have an answer for it. Racism. Not a conspiracy by "the man", but general common discrimination.

What's your theory?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

I am reposting this.

I find the discussion of civil rights abuses by the American government a fascinating topic.

The affirmative action discussion is a trainwreck that needs its own thread so it can be quickly locked without shutting down the other more interesting conversation going on in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Samnell wrote:
And yes, there's no even theoretically decent choice but one. It's a somewhat less than warm and fuzzy. If only the Canadians would invade and take over, but who would be dumb enough to want a bunch of Americans?
Leave us out of this! Although you're welcome to visit anytime you like. We have maple syrup and poutine.

Aboot time you asked!

Invasion has been launched, all your bases are belong to us.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Every time I try to get back on-topic, some Obamabot objects.

As if things that happen "under Obama's presidency" must all be things that Obama personally signed off on.

It's what you've been implying, to be fair.


Celestial Healer wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

I am reposting this.

I find the discussion of civil rights abuses by the American government a fascinating topic.

The affirmative action discussion is a trainwreck that needs its own thread so it can be quickly locked without shutting down the other more interesting conversation going on in this thread.

I think we've already finished the affirmative action side discussion.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

How the Irish Became White

I thought the Irish were the Blacks of Europe?


Fabius Maximus wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

How the Irish Became White

I thought the Irish were the Blacks of Europe?

I think that's the point.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off about the Obama administration. It's monstrous. They're blowing people up without trial, killing innocent bystanders, and the Republican party are naturally cool with that so there's no one outside of the news media to call them out on it. What's worse is that none of the major news networks thinks this is news. If the tables were turned there's no doubt in my mind this would be classified as terrorism.

For the most part I do like Obama, but this is truly horrific stuff. Something people should be ashamed of now rather then twenty years down the road.

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would not be having this discussion. The fact that we got him before he led a group of jihadists to kill our people is what we call a good thing. In war you kill your enemy BEFORE he kills your people if you can manage it.

It's unfortunate, but yes. it's a fact of war that young people die in it.


Andrew R wrote:
Because they are incapable of earning for themselves like damn near every white and asian group? WHY ARE hispanics and blacks so far behind, except for conspiracies about "the man" keeping them down? Compare them to asian and middle eastern, what is going on?

Good question. You've rejected the possibility of systemic discrimination. You've scoffed at the contention that the causes are environmental (it's all personal choice, remember?). So please, enlighten us: Why are Hispanics and Blacks "incapable of earning for themselves?" Or are you actually claiming that people who walk hundreds of miles through the desert -- risking arrest and death -- in order to take agricultural jobs so difficult they otherwise go unclaimed are the ones with entitlement issues?


LazarX wrote:
If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would not be having this discussion.

Tell me -- when isn't that the case? Which killings, exactly, couldn't be justified by that criteria?

This wasn't self defense. This was the clinical decision to kill an American citizen without due process -- without a trial. Death penalty by fiat. If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.


I will say this about the one issue being discussed. I don't think anyone should feel happy or comfortable about making decisions on how individuals should be treated based on characteristics of some group they could be placed in. Perhaps doing so may be the least crappy way of dealing with a problem out of a lot of crappy ways, but that shouldn't make us feel glad we are using it. Ideally we shouldn't need to, sadly, we still have a lot of issues to address and need to work to find some way to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would not be having this discussion.

Tell me -- when isn't that the case? Which killings, exactly, couldn't be justified by that criteria?

This wasn't self defense. This was the clinical decision to kill an American citizen without due process -- without a trial. Death penalty by fiat. If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

Everyone keeps harping on the "American citizen" bit. Is there something I missed about due process that limits it to American citizens? Would it be perfectly acceptable for the US government to execute a foreign tourist without trial?

Of course, once you drop the "Oh my God, they executed an American citizen" part, you can realize that this is just a standard part of the war we're engaging in. No one ever applies due process to military targets. It doesn't make any sense. When we bomb an alleged Taliban target, no one talks about the death penalty by fiat. There's no difference.
The only difference being an American makes is that, if captured, you could also try him for treason. You can't do that to foreign nationals.

Nor, despite the rules of engagement, does the military operate on principles of self-defense. Their job, what they're good at, is going out and killing the enemy. That's the point.

All of this kind of abuse is the direct and natural result of going to war in the first place. That's the root crime. It doesn't make sense to talk about it in civilian justice terms.

Oppose the war if you want to. I do. I have from the beginning. But this line of argument makes no sense.

(Or using Military Force, if you want to be technical about not legally being "at war". Let's not go there. We're treating it as war. It looks like war to the people being killed.)


I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.


bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

They can't use it for justification for killing whomever they chose. They can use it for justification for killing people who take up arms against the US, which this citizen did.


bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

Are you saying governments shouldn't be able to go to war?

And is it really unilateral? Al Qaeda thought it was at war with us. As does AQAP.

Personally, I don't think we should have dignified them with a war response. They're much more akin to a particularly nasty gang of criminals than an real enemy, but that debate was 10 years ago.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

It wasn't unilateral. Al Quaeda declared war when they killed thousands of civillians on American soil. If you sign up under their banner, wear their uniforms, and march with their people... expect to die, plain and simple.

Having seen those thousands die right in front of me on a day I thought I was just heading to work, I'm not that inclined to sympathy.


Caineach wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I only say American citizen so I don't have to deal with people who do believe others should be treated differently. If anything, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker.

As for whether or not it is war, I'd say that either way it looks like murder to the people being killed.

If we can unilaterally decide that we're at war, and then use that as the justification for killing whomever we chose, then I repeat: If you're truly comfortable with the government having that power, then you deserve exactly what you'll get.

They can't use it for justification for killing whomever they chose. They can use it for justification for killing people who take up arms against the US, which this citizen did.

Well, it's not entirely clear that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki did. It also seems he wasn't on a kill list and it's not clear he was the target.

War sucks. That's why we should avoid it.


LazarX wrote:
It wasn't unilateral. Al Quaeda declared war when they killed thousands of civillians on American soil. If you sign up under their banner, wear their uniforms, and march with their people... expect to die, plain and simple.

Only it isn't. Al Quaeda isn't a country. They don't have uniforms and enlistments forms. They don't lives on clearly delimited bases. Someone, somewhere deciding that you're "on their side" is all it takes, and therein lies the problem. You'r pre-supposing everyone targeted is guilty. How is that OK?

Also -- how many did we lose on 9/11? How many civilians have lost their lives on both sides since then? When is it "enough?" Or are we going to be "at war" forever?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It wasn't unilateral. Al Quaeda declared war when they killed thousands of civillians on American soil. If you sign up under their banner, wear their uniforms, and march with their people... expect to die, plain and simple.

Only it isn't. Al Quaeda isn't a country. They don't have uniforms and enlistments forms. They don't lives on clearly delimited bases. Someone, somewhere deciding that you're "on their side" is all it takes, and therein lies the problem. You'r pre-supposing everyone targeted is guilty. How is that OK?

Also -- how many did we lose on 9/11? How many civilians have lost their lives on both sides since then? When is it "enough?" Or are we going to be "at war" forever?

Welcome to the face of war in the 21st century. Individual groups now have the armaments that were frequently only associated with national armies. Eventually, at least one of those groups is going to cook up and detonate a nuclear weapon on our soil. They aren't going to stop their operations even if every last American soldier and civilian packed up and left for home tomorrow. It's no longer formal declarations and great speeches before Congress. It's they kill us and our allies, and we kill them and their allies. And we now live on the same spectre of terror that Israel and Western Europe have had to deal with for decades.

It cuts both ways too... Unless you're taking the position that the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target.

And yes we are going to be at war for at least the span of my lifetime, and most likely your grand children's lifetimes, as long as nations, corporations and others play a geopolitical game based on resources that are growing more scarce. We've been walking into this situation for about six decades now. There's no easy out with anything less than the West totally washing it's hands of MidEast oil reserves. And the nations of the West would literally fall if they did that.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please explain to me why blacks need to be a permanent underclass.
Because it's the American way and has been since 1619.
Could you rephrase that in the form of a musical interlude?

Sure.


See the Jim Carey movie The Majestic. Similar stuff....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

Welcome to the face of war in the 21st century. Individual groups now have the armaments that were frequently only associated with national armies. Eventually, at least one of those groups is going to cook up and detonate a nuclear weapon on our soil. They aren't going to stop their operations even if every last American soldier and civilian packed up and left for home tomorrow. It's no longer formal declarations and great speeches before Congress. It's they kill us and our allies, and we kill them and their allies. And we now live on the same spectre of terror that Israel and Western Europe have had to deal with for decades.

It cuts both ways too... Unless you're taking the position that the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target.

And yes we are going to be at war for at least the span of my lifetime, and most likely your grand children's lifetimes, as long as nations, corporations and others play a geopolitical game based on resources that are growing more scarce. We've been walking into this situation for about six decades now. There's no easy out with anything less than the West totally washing it's hands of MidEast oil reserves. And the nations of the West would literally fall if they did that.

They could kill YOU tomorrow and declare you an Al Qaeda sympathizer, and no one could question it. No proof ever need be presented anywhere. Some anonymous bureaucrat somewhere deciding that you're "on their side" is all it takes.

I fundamentally reject the premise that this is simply the inescapable consequence of the age in which we live.

As for "it cuts both ways": We are not homicidal extremists -- if we let them drag us down to their level, then the terrorists really have won.


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Every time I try to get back on-topic, some Obamabot objects.

As if things that happen "under Obama's presidency" must all be things that Obama personally signed off on.

It's what you've been implying, to be fair.

Actually, it isn't.

Yes, I could just post these links in Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread, but then, like, only the same 5 people will look at it. Unlike this new, hopping thread, that gets 22 new posts before noon!


Freehold DM wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
I feel like I am reading two different threads that have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

I am reposting this.

I find the discussion of civil rights abuses by the American government a fascinating topic.

The affirmative action discussion is a trainwreck that needs its own thread so it can be quickly locked without shutting down the other more interesting conversation going on in this thread.

I think we've already finished the affirmative action side discussion.

Only until Citizen R. checks back in.


Yeah, I'm opposed to the War on Terror. It's all bullshiznit.


bugleyman wrote:

They could kill YOU tomorrow and declare you an Al Qaeda sympathizer, and no one could question it. No proof ever need be presented anywhere. Some anonymous bureaucrat somewhere deciding that you're "on their side" is all it takes.

I fundamentally reject the premise that this is simply the inescapable consequence of the age in which we live.

As for "it cuts both ways": We are not homicidal extremists -- if we let them drag us down to their level, then the terrorists really have won.

And this is where I lose it. I'm very sympathetic to the general argument against the war on terror. I'm against it. I was against it when it first started. I think it's done incredible harm to the country and the world.

But when you start the fear mongering of "It could happen to you", I lose any sympathy.
Yes, they could do that: If you are in a country with an active Al Qaeda presence and either no extradition treaty with the US or in a region without an effective government.
If you're sitting in your house in a US suburb, they're not going to send a drone after you, they'll have a couple of agents and/or a SWAT team pick you up.
If you're in another country where the local authorities will and can cooperate, you'll be arrested there and handed over.
That's the reality. Whatever the paranoid fantasies of Obama declaring you a sympathizer and having you killed, that's not reality.

I'm a lot more concerned about the FBI terrorism sting operations, but according to you, there's no need for them to even bother. Forget the trials, they'll just blow you up and no one will ever ask questions.

Unless I've missed a lot, the really scuzzy renditions of people captured in the US or in friendly countries (often with the technicality of taking them at the airport before customs so they weren't really in the country) have stopped. That was a real possibility. Not a paranoid fantasy.

So, what's the alternative? Do we just withdraw all our troops from everywhere? Concentrate on strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us? Hope the terrorist groups don't succeed at overthrowing any of our allies? Is there any way we can legitimately get at terrorists planning to attack us from Yemen or elsewhere?


thejeff wrote:
I'm a lot more concerned about the FBI terrorism sting operations, but according to you, there's no need for them to even bother. Forget the trials, they'll just blow you up and no one will ever ask questions.

Those concern me, too. That said, if they did just blow people up, sure, people would ask questions. Kinda like some of us are doing right now. And those people would probably get all the same arguments I'm getting right now.

thejeff wrote:
So, what's the alternative? Do we just withdraw all our troops from everywhere?

That's a false choice -- I am not advocating isolationism. No, we don't just withdraw our troops from everywhere, but we DO stop carrying out targeted assassinations that violate both human rights and the sovereignty of the nations in which the strikes occur.

Do I think the U.S. government is going to start carpet bombing domestic suburbs tomorrow? Of course not. Do I think people might get detained without due process on vague accusations of "aiding the terrorists?" I think that has already happened, and I'm very concerned that we seem to be going further down that path in the name of keeping us "safe" (whatever that is).

Also, none of that justifies characterizing my concern as a "paranoid fantasy," so I think I'm done with this particular line of discussion.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would not be having this discussion. The fact that we got him before he led a group of jihadists to kill our people is what we call a good thing. In war you kill your enemy BEFORE he kills your people if you can manage it.

It's unfortunate, but yes. it's a fact of war that young people die in it.

One slight caveat: war traditionally is between nations. Right now America is at war with civilians. It's a 'war' without end, without winners, and the only outcome we're creating is that people in third world villages and mud huts live in fear of US missiles, most without any understanding why they're being attacked.


Guy Humual wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would not be having this discussion. The fact that we got him before he led a group of jihadists to kill our people is what we call a good thing. In war you kill your enemy BEFORE he kills your people if you can manage it.

It's unfortunate, but yes. it's a fact of war that young people die in it.

One slight caveat: war traditionally is between nations. Right now America is at war with civilians. It's a 'war' without end, without winners, and the only outcome we're creating is that people in third world villages and mud huts live in fear of US missiles, most without any understanding why they're being attacked.

So what's the answer? Do we just withdraw all our troops from everywhere? Concentrate on strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us? Hope the terrorist groups don't succeed at overthrowing any of our allies? Is there any way we can legitimately get at terrorists planning to attack us from Yemen or elsewhere?

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

And this is where I lose it. I'm very sympathetic to the general argument against the war on terror. I'm against it. I was against it when it first started. I think it's done incredible harm to the country and the world.

But when you start the fear mongering of "It could happen to you", I lose any sympathy.
Yes, they could do that: If you are in a country with an active Al Qaeda presence and either no extradition treaty with the US or in a region without an effective government.
If you're sitting in your house in a US suburb, they're not going to send a drone after you, they'll have a couple of agents and/or a SWAT team pick you up.
If you're in another country where the local authorities will and can cooperate, you'll be arrested there and handed over.
That's the reality. Whatever the paranoid fantasies of Obama declaring you a sympathizer and having you killed, that's not reality.

Well you could end up like Mahar Arar a Canadian/ Syrian plucked out of an American airport and shipped off to Syria for torture. Never tried for anything. The Canadian government was forced to admit that he was "Completely innocent".

Granted he wasn't killed in a drone strike but he did have about a year of torture. Of course on the other hand I've never heard of any white people pulled off planes and sent off to some third world country for torture either. Maybe it can't really happen to all of us. Just some of us.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And this is where I lose it. I'm very sympathetic to the general argument against the war on terror. I'm against it. I was against it when it first started. I think it's done incredible harm to the country and the world.

But when you start the fear mongering of "It could happen to you", I lose any sympathy.
Yes, they could do that: If you are in a country with an active Al Qaeda presence and either no extradition treaty with the US or in a region without an effective government.
If you're sitting in your house in a US suburb, they're not going to send a drone after you, they'll have a couple of agents and/or a SWAT team pick you up.
If you're in another country where the local authorities will and can cooperate, you'll be arrested there and handed over.
That's the reality. Whatever the paranoid fantasies of Obama declaring you a sympathizer and having you killed, that's not reality.

Well you could end up like Mahar Arar a Canadian/ Syrian plucked out of an American airport and shipped off to Syria for torture. Never tried for anything. The Canadian government was forced to admit that he was "Completely innocent".

Granted he wasn't killed in a drone strike but he did have about a year of torture. Of course on the other hand I've never heard of any white people pulled off planes and sent off to some third world country for torture either. Maybe it can't really happen to all of us. Just some of us.

Yeah. As I said a bit later in that post:

Quote:
Unless I've missed a lot, the really scuzzy renditions of people captured in the US or in friendly countries (often with the technicality of taking them at the airport before customs so they weren't really in the country) have stopped. That was a real possibility. Not a paranoid fantasy.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
So what's the answer? Do we just withdraw all our troops from everywhere? Concentrate on strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us? Hope the terrorist groups don't succeed at overthrowing any of our allies? Is there any way we can legitimately get at terrorists planning to attack us from Yemen or elsewhere?

I wouldn't withdraw troops, they're making big inroads in some of those communities, but we need to stop looking at maps. Just because the area you're in is called Afghanistan doesn't mean the people you're fighting see themselves as Afghans. This is a tribal society and what we've been doing for the most part is go in and take sides, try to unify a country that maybe doesn't want to be unified, and blow up anyone that opposes that idea.

On the home front I absolutely believe that we should focus on "strictly defensive intelligence work, trying to stop attacks from reaching us". After the fact every single one of these terrorist attacks (successful or otherwise) had tons of credible intelligence that should have caused red flags. This airport security is a sham, not a single terrorist attack has been prevented by airport security.

As for terrorist groups overthrowing allies . . . quite honestly the US needs to start picking better allies. Granted it's pretty slim pickings in the middle east, but of the three dictators to be violently overthrown in the last ten years in Africa and the middle east all three were one time allies of the US government. I don't think any of us are sad to see them gone.

And lastly, no, there's no way to stop people from planning terrorist attacks. Blowing people up with drones doesn't prevent anything. It might actually cause the opposite effect as revenge and honor are big things over there.


LazarX wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off about the Obama administration. It's monstrous. They're blowing people up without trial, killing innocent bystanders, and the Republican party are naturally cool with that so there's no one outside of the news media to call them out on it. What's worse is that none of the major news networks thinks this is news. If the tables were turned there's no doubt in my mind this would be classified as terrorism.

For the most part I do like Obama, but this is truly horrific stuff. Something people should be ashamed of now rather then twenty years down the road.

Maybe you don't quite understand a simple basic fact. This nation has been on a war footing since Bush declared the War on Terror following Sept 11th. If you're around a high profile war target, you're a potential casualty. We are at war with Al Qaeda, so yes we are looking to KILL them. That's the nature of war. I definitely think that a targeted list of known enemies is a lot better than simply carpet bombing a location that a conventional war would be.

Also lets keep this in mind. This young man wasn't delivering papers next door. He'd enlisted as a soldier of the enemy, a group of people dedicated to killing American soldiers and civilians. If American soldiers had killed him defending themselves, we would...

Hmmm...no, Abdulrahman was not doing anything of the sort. No one has provided any information regarding his involvement in anything near this. You must be confusing him with his father. He was just a 16 year boy killed with death-by-flying-killer-robot as far as anyone knows.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

Yeah. As I said a bit later in that post:

Quote:
Unless I've missed a lot, the really scuzzy renditions of people captured in the US or in friendly countries (often with the technicality of taking them at the airport before customs so they weren't really in the country) have stopped. That was a real possibility. Not a paranoid fantasy.

Well we are on the same page then.

301 to 350 of 1,595 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards