|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
" Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Beirut, Somalia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Haiti" - not a damned one of these fit that bill.
Afghanistan is a prime example.
We used 9/11 and the Taliban as an excuse to occupy the country while gas pipelines are built and minerals are harvested.
If there weren't trillions with a 'T' in that dump, we'd have never gone there.
Dropped a storm of bombs, sure. But occupation? That's all in the name of money.
Quote:
Grenada? Are you bleeping kidding me? Do you not recall the part where medical student were being held?
The ones who were hanging out and talking to Ted Koppel?
You're a smart guy -- do you really think we'd invade a country over that?
Rebels overthrew the government, and the Soviet poked their noses in. A lot Cold War skirmishes in small countries were essentially goaded by the other. We practically walked them into Afghanistan. We wanted to give them "our Vietnam".
And it ain't anything new.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
- Major General Smedley Butler
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Afghanistan is a prime example.
We used 9/11 and the Taliban as an excuse to occupy the country while gas pipelines are built and minerals are harvested.
I'm pretty sure with Afghanistan, who was ruled by the Taliban at the time, that we used the fact they were harboring the terrorist group and allowing them to train there as the reason. Any connection to gas, oil or pipelines is completely secondary to the reasons we are in Afghanistan.
You are trying to pin Afghanistan as an evil corporation hit job, like the people who hate/dislike America tries to bring up. They are trying find reasons to give the US a blackeye.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 05/06/11 09:49 PM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
But what, exactly, are the moral, legal or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes? We went into a foreign country to kill, not capture, bin Laden. Was that killing permissible since a firefight preceded it or because he was a terrorist rather than a head of state?
Getting back to the article that Saintdawg posted...What are rules on killing bad guys?
I must say, I find it odd that some would question the rules the Navy SEALs were following when they decided to kill bin laden, rather than capture him.
Though the writer was not faced with the real world situation facing the SEALs, he claims to know exactly what the mission was..a kill mission. He seems to be upset that the SEALs did not capture bin laden.
Looking into the background of the author of this article, Victor Davis Hanson, I found out he was big supporter of the Iraq War and GW Bush. I must say, after reading the author's wiki bio, I find it ironic that someone who supported the Iraq WMD War, is concerned about "the moral, legal or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes".
To Mr Hanson, concerning "the moral, legal or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes"...I ASK...What were the moral, legal or practical rules that bin laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists followed when they attacked the United States on 9/11?
Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists changed the rules of war from the day they chose to attack the USA on 9/11. After the USA kicked Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, they scattered like roaches, to hide in other countries. That is when it became necessary for the USA to change tactics, developing drones that were armed to kill the terrorists, wherever they were hiding.
I find it odd that this writer never questioned the moral, legal or practical rules being used by the USA before bin laden was killed. Matter of fact, he has never questioned the moral, legal or practical rules used by bin laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Obviously, this writer is struggling with the killing of bin laden...make me wonder who's side this writer is on...
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
But what, exactly, are the moral, legal or practical rules in going after terrorist leaders or the savage dictators of rogue regimes? We went into a foreign country to kill, not capture, bin Laden. Was that killing permissible since a firefight preceded it or because he was a terrorist rather than a head of state?
Getting back to the article that Saintdawg posted...What are rules on killing bad guys?
Exactly. We followed the same rules that he did. Tit for tat and yippe ki yay!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,342
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,342 |
I don't see what could be morally troubling about taking out bin Laden.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
I don't see what could be morally troubling about taking out bin Laden.
Actually I could see it being quite inspiring.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Any connection to gas, oil or pipelines is completely secondary to the reasons we are in Afghanistan.
If the country didn't have anything of value, or interests to protect/harvest, we would've merely carpet bombed the place relentlessly. The result would've been similar - a shift to Pakistan.
Occupation is/was completely unnecessary.
Quote:
They are trying find reasons to give the US a blackeye.
The U.S. government does a fine job of giving itself black eyes. No need to search for reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 998 |
We ought to just kick our liberal (as in liberalism, not political affiliation Liberal) agenda to the side and get back to the roots of realism and listen to Thucydides: "The powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must." 
Wise words spoken by sages
From SkyTel to BlackBerry pagers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
Any connection to gas, oil or pipelines is completely secondary to the reasons we are in Afghanistan.
If the country didn't have anything of value, or interests to protect/harvest, we would've merely carpet bombed the place relentlessly. The result would've been similar - a shift to Pakistan.
Occupation is/was completely unnecessary.
Quote:
They are trying find reasons to give the US a blackeye.
The U.S. government does a fine job of giving itself black eyes. No need to search for reasons.
Yet another "Anti-Government" guru...U guys grow on trees for some insane reason...Is there anything that people like u DO LIKE about our Country???...Yeah...That same Country that gives u the FREEDOM to do virtually anything u want...
Whatever.............. 
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Lol, really? Do you have anything to back these claims up?
Tin foil hat time...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
Quote:
What are rules on killing bad guys?
I guess it would depend upon how you define "bad guys." I think it is a far gone conclusion that Bin Laden deserved that ten times over but the question really becomes less of --is it legal, ethical, moral to take out someone like Osama, and more along the lines of what if you extend that to someone perhaps every bit his ilk MINUS actually committing the act.
For example, what if we launch a missile from a predator drone at someone who has never been charged with, much less convicted, of ANY crime? And we do so because the president of the US deems the person a threat to the nation.
Obama has recently tried to take out an American citizen, a radical cleric named Awlaki in Yemen. Awlaki is a radical, he is allegedly recruiting Islamists with the plan to carry out attacks, and he appears to be an Osama in the making so a question is raised within certain circles. Do we take him out now before another 9/11 occurs and he is involved, or do we wait?
Awlaki may be an unsavory, dangerous person, but being a citizen you would think he would be entitled to due process. Apparently, to avoid being incarcerated he, heads to Yemen and does his dirty work there.
I can see where the legal issue can come into play and I can see where our president, irregardless of who that person is, authorizing the killing of citizens based on what could happen, not on what did can provide certain folks with legal hand wringing.
This may sound odd, but what some people are now talking about is that the Obama had his JCS compile hit lists that contain U.S. citizens. Bush had not done this. The problem is not whether Obama would take out a U.S. citizen stateside, the problem is that it would be explicitly unconstitutional and an extreme abuse of executive power.
I am not sure yet how I feel about all of it, I am glad Osama is gone, could care less if this Awlaki character is taken out either but I have a feeling you will be hearing more and more about this subject both with liberals who are uncomfortable with the concept and from conservatives uncomfortable with Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
The U.S. government does a fine job of giving itself black eyes. No need to search for reasons.
The U.S. government has done a bit to give itself a black eye, although a lot of people don't go around trying to find and dig something up that is not really the whole truth to give the US a black eye. They give plausible reasons, even if those reasons are far from the truth. We didn't go into Afghanistan for the oil or gas, and we are not staying there for the same reason. What would you like the US to do? Go in to a place, wreck their government and then leave a vacuum for some other despot to take its place that might actually be worse? or even have the same people take back control.
You are trying to turn Afghanistan into a bad quagmire since Iraq is not in the news anymore. Once Iraq lost its attention as a quagmire, the quagmire shifted to Afghanistan, even though most were silent on Afghanistan or even supported it full-throttle.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
Matter of fact, he has never questioned the moral, legal or practical rules used by bin laden and his Al Qaeda terrorists.
Obviously, this writer is struggling with the killing of bin laden...make me wonder who's side this writer is on...
Well of course he doesn't question the moral, legal, or practical rules used by al Qaeda--they're quite obviously morally reprehensible under any rational ethical system.
He's questioning our rules because as a nation founded on democratic republican values (small "r" republican, mind you) we try to aim a bit higher than being compared with the bin Ladens of the world. Or at least we used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
Obviously, this writer is struggling with the killing of bin laden...make me wonder who's side this writer is on...
IMO, therein lies the problem with the state of things today. "Who's side this writer is on"? So if he questions things, maybe disagrees with things, that means he's un-American? On Al Qaeda's side?
C'mon man. One of the best things about this country (IMO, at least) is that we are allowed to have widely divergent views of things and shouldn't be questioned about our patriotism.
It should be ok for me to come out against the war in Iraq and not have my commitment to this country questioned. It should be ok for people to say we should have just captured Bin Laden instead of killing him and not have their patriotism questioned. That's what makes this country great....or used to.
Nowadays, as soon as person A disagrees with something person B says, person A is now un-American, a traitor. Instead of just agreeing to disagree and realizing the other person has some valid points, albeit ones you disagree with, we demonize the other person, try to bully them. Because, after all, if they say you're wrong, that means they're saying you're stupid, and therefore you have to fight back vigorously.
This writer might have a different take on things. This writer might criticize the actions of our government. But that doesn't mean he's "on the other side." It just means he disagrees. And he's allowed to do that, and, heck, we should ENCOURAGE it!
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
I guess it would depend upon how you define "bad guys."
blue...In the context of this article...who would you guess I'm describing as "the bad guys"?
...to the rest of your comment...I ask this...You tell me, are there "good" al qaeda?
For many years, the USA underestimated al qaeda and individual terrorist groups, as well as those who would ally with and support al qaeda and other terrorist groups. After 9/11, our government, military and the many intell services began a transformation of sorts, to better define, go after and eliminate terrorist groups committed to doing harm to the USA and our citizens.
Our government has stated from the days after 9/11, that we understand there are good muslims and bad muslims....but our government has never said there are good terrorist groups and bad terrorist groups.
Members of terrorist groups who have pledged to do harm to the USA and our citizens, are now taken as a serious threat and as we saw last Sunday, the USA is determined to use all means necessary to eliminate the threats, wherever they may be hiding.
...and I see that as all "good".
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
I know exactly what you are saying. I am not telling you there are good al qaeda. I am telling you that I can see how the legal implications can arise whether we agree on the implications or disagree.
For the president, irregardless of who occupies the oval office, to summarily decide which citizen of ANY country including ours gets a missile death sentence can become very troubling. Guilt by association does not hold in a court of law. You are not a criminal until you commit a crime, and you really are not a terrorist until you commit a terrorist act.
What we are doing, in the case of Awlaki, is preemptive and for those who adhere to the rule of law . . . borderline illegal.
Me? Again, Bin Laden deserved it ten times over and you're right, Clinton took Al Qaeda easily, but brace yourself Mac, we will see more of these articles the more Obama continues to authorize Predator drone attacks. Like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,007 |
I just realized last night, everyone says Bush started the war on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Well not really it was actually Clinton who got the ball rolling after the first trade center attack.
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Yeah, but all Clinton really did was lob cruise missles blindly .... and hope he hit something. We probably blew up some camels, and a few tents.  Then he claimed victory and moved on.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
We didn't go into Afghanistan for the oil or gas, and we are not staying there for the same reason. What would you like the US to do? Go in to a place, wreck their government and then leave a vacuum for some other despot to take its place that might actually be worse? or even have the same people take back control.
I would prefer that they don't invade countries they have no real reason to invade.
And in case you've forgotten, the vacuum you speak of came about because we goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan, and trained and funded the despots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
We didn't go into Afghanistan for the oil or gas, and we are not staying there for the same reason. What would you like the US to do? Go in to a place, wreck their government and then leave a vacuum for some other despot to take its place that might actually be worse? or even have the same people take back control.
I would prefer that they don't invade countries they have no real reason to invade.
And in case you've forgotten, the vacuum you speak of came about because we goaded the Soviets into Afghanistan, and trained and funded the despots.
so, as you see it, it would be a bad thing that we learned our lesson from that episode and are trying to ensure we do not have a repeat?
also, we spent alot of money on these wars and are hopefully solidifying the country of Afghanistan for the future. see Nigeria for what happens when a mineral/oil rich country is left to despots to run. is it bad that we might stay there and enhance our interests on that front while helping their country on the political/stabilization front?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
so, as you see it, it would be a bad thing that we learned our lesson from that episode and are trying to ensure we do not have a repeat?
We haven't learned any lessons, nor are we doing anything to ensure that we don't repeat them.
We're pretty much just repeating them.
Quote:
also, we spent alot of money on these wars and are hopefully solidifying the country of Afghanistan for the future. see Nigeria for what happens when a mineral/oil rich country is left to despots to run. is it bad that we might stay there and enhance our interests on that front while helping their country on the political/stabilization front?
We'll actually most likely hope for a despotic regime to take over -- iron fist Hussein type. Once all of the good are divvied up and everything is secure on the business front, we're going to need someone over there to keep order.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Yeah, our foreign policy is sometimes unethical- except when you compare it to the foreign policy of every other country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Quote:
Yeah, our foreign policy is sometimes unethical- except when you compare it to the foreign policy of every other country.
Exactly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Yeah, our foreign policy is sometimes unethical- except when you compare it to the foreign policy of every other country.
 What really fries my arse is that despite this fact, we get criticized in the world press and the UN more than every other country.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
What we are doing, in the case of Awlaki, is preemptive and for those who adhere to the rule of law . . . borderline illegal.
blue...this would be your opinion based on what you read from news sources.
Very few have access to the intell our Government uses to act upon so we are left with the crumbs..the opinions of those talking heads who also speak out based on news reports rather than the raw intell our Government uses to determine which terrorists are targeted.
Let us not forget, this is "a war"...declared on the USA by Al Qaeda. After 9/11, our Gov. joined the war on terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and like terrorist groups, who have declared their intentions to attack and kill Americans in the USA and overseas.
In the case of Awlaki, the American muslim...he made his choice to join the side of the terrorist's war against the USA, calling for jihad against America.
The USA takes such threats seriously now, after being attacked on 9/11...thus Awlaki made himself the enemy of the USA. Those who want to defend Awlaki, good luck.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Very few have access to the intell our Government uses to act upon so we are left with the crumbs..
Yet based on those crumbs you were 100% certain that George Bush lied.. and that you knew the truth... you are amazing mac. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Quote:
Very few have access to the intell our Government uses to act upon so we are left with the crumbs..
Yet based on those crumbs you were 100% certain that George Bush lied.. and that you knew the truth... you are amazing mac.
DC...so you woke up itching for a fight?
There are good reasons GW Bush is seen as one the worst Presidents in America's history...and I did not get a vote.
You need learn to deal with it.
This thread is supposed to be about "Bin Laden killed".
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Sucks getting hoisted with your own petard ...... doesn't it? 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
Let us not forget, this is "a war"...declared on the USA by Al Qaeda. After 9/11, our Gov. joined the war on terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and like terrorist groups, who have declared their intentions to attack and kill Americans in the USA and overseas.
Is that not part of the "murkiness" issue though? What does it mean to declare "war" on a group that is not a legally recognized state? What makes them military targets and not criminal ones? If we can declare war on them, does that mean they should be given rights under international treaties like the Geneva Conventions?
I'm not necessarily saying that they should be treated exactly the same way as criminals, but to pretend this isn't an area with plenty of vaguely-defined concepts and murky legal ramifications is to ignore the issue at hand. I don't see how more knowledge of government intelligence would somehow answer the questions Blue raised. Even if we had Awlaki murdering people on tape, until we formally change the rules he's still entitled to the due process of law under our Constitution. You and I may not think he deserves it, but that's the thing about "inalienable rights": they're inalienable no matter how despicable someone might be. Nobody here's defending Awlaki, they're defending the legal traditions that separate us from people like him.
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Very few have access to the intell our Government uses to act upon so we are left with the crumbs..
Yet based on those crumbs you were 100% certain that George Bush lied.. and that you knew the truth... you are amazing mac.
DC...so you woke up itching for a fight?
There are good reasons GW Bush is seen as one the worst Presidents in America's history...and I did not get a vote.
You need learn to deal with it.
This thread is supposed to be about "Bin Laden killed".
I wasn't commenting on George Bush, I was commenting on your hypocrisy... and your unending ability to bend and twist to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for a lot of the exact same things you skewered Bush for..
And I never look for a fight..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Yeah, our foreign policy is sometimes unethical- except when you compare it to the foreign policy of every other country.
First of all, that's blatant rationalization.
It's "But, Mom, everybody's doing it." / "If everybody jumped off a bridge would you?"
We've all heard or been a part of that flimsy logic.
Not that there isn't validity to you point (though I could probably list about two dozen or more countries that I would consider more 'ethical' than ours) ... but the real reasoning behind that isn't so much a moral crux as the lack of opportunity -- absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As far as us being signaled out by so many others, as another poster mentioned ... it's to be expected when you go around waving around the big foam finger like we do.
And I would say that our foreign policy is almost always unethical, rather than sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,524
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,524 |
To all those "little countries" and the bleeding hearts;
life sucks,you don't like our policies,too bad.
Indecision may,or maynot,be my problem
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
To all those "little countries" and the bleeding hearts;
life sucks,you don't like our policies,too bad.
I can live with that ideology, so long as it's consistent.
No whining like a 'bleeding heart' about 9/11 or the 3,000 bodies. Cost of doing business, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Do you really think that if we didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and if we didn't prove that we are willing to protect our interests, that foreign countries wouldn't take every shot they could at overthrowing our government and colonizing the US?
When I note "protect our interests" I mean not giving extreme dictators (like those all over the Middle East) an opportunity to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Do you think Canada and Mexico would be buddy-buddy with us if we didn't have a superior military?
It's kill or be killed man. - Sad but true.
Ideally, we could sit back and take care of internal affairs. But in reality, if we trust other countries, we end up getting destroyed. - Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
When I note "protect our interests" I mean not giving extreme dictators (like those all over the Middle East) an opportunity to develop weapons of mass destruction.
We give extreme dictators all over the Middle East opportunities to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Hell, often times we pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Quote:
Let us not forget, this is "a war"...declared on the USA by Al Qaeda. After 9/11, our Gov. joined the war on terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Taliban and like terrorist groups, who have declared their intentions to attack and kill Americans in the USA and overseas.
Is that not part of the "murkiness" issue though?
What does it mean to declare "war" on a group that is not a legally recognized state?
What makes them military targets and not criminal ones?
If we can declare war on them, does that mean they should be given rights under international treaties like the Geneva Conventions?
comic...While scholars, law professors, lawyers and military jags, politicians and caring Americans discuss the questions above, there is a real threat against America and it's citizens from Al Qaeda terrorists and like organizations.
I suppose these questions have been discussed by past administrations dating back to Ronald Reagan's war on terrorism (1984)....then again, maybe not !
But while some are more concerned about the legalities of killing our terrorist enemies, there is real work to be done by those men and women who are charged with the duty of defending this country and it's citizens.
BTW, the USA has not declared war on Al Qaeda...not officially. But we have joined the fight against terrorists and their organizations, who would do harm to America and our citizens, if they could.
The fact that the terrorists have no country to call their own does not mean that they are any less of a threat than if they were a country that declared war on the USA.
While some seem to be concerned about the terrorists legal rights...there is a real war going on that this nation's government takes very seriously. The legal discussions will continue while our military and our federal, state and local law enforcement agencies continue their effort to defend this country and it's citizens against those terrorist groups who would do us harm.
Myself...I'm not the least bit concerned about the legal rights of terrorists.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
For a smart gut Phil you sure seem to like to bang your head don't ya ?  Some see your argument and don't like the truth and some don't and never will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
j/c Quote:
SHABQADAR, Pakistan — A pair of suicide bombers attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center in Pakistan on Friday, killing 80 people in a strike that the Pakistani Taliban claimed it carried out to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The blasts in the northwest were a reminder of the savagery of al-Qaida-linked militants in Pakistan. They occurred even as the country faces international suspicion that elements within its security forces may have been harboring bin Laden, who was killed in a raid in Abbottabad, about a three hours' drive from the scene of the bombing.
"We have done this to avenge the Abbottabad incident," Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call.
The Pakistani Taliban, close allies of al-Qaida, are fighting to bring down the nuclear-armed state and impose their vision of Islamist rule. They launched their war in earnest in 2007, after security forces cleared militant gunmen from a radical mosque in the capital, killing about 100 people.
However, the New York Times reported that senior police officials doubted the attack was actually carried out by the Pakistan Taliban, or that it was in revenge for bin Laden’s death.
Instead, they told the paper, the attack was most likely the work of a splinter group of the Taliban, headed by Umar Khalid, that is fighting the Pakistani Army in the nearby mountainous region of Mohmand.
The bombers blew themselves up at the main gate of the facility for the Frontier Constabulary, a poorly equipped but front-line force in the battle against al-Qaida and groups like the Pakistani Taliban close to the Afghan border. Like other branches of Pakistan security forces, it has received U.S. funding.
Sixty-six of the dead were recruits, police officer Liaqat Ali Khan said.
The scene of the blast was littered with shards of glass mixed with blood and human flesh. The explosions destroyed at least 10 vans the recruits were boarding to go home for a break at the end of a recent training session.
Khan said at least 80 people died in the attack, while around 120 were wounded.
"I was sitting in a van waiting for my colleagues. We were in plainclothes and we were happy we were going to see our families," Ahmad Ali, a wounded paramilitary policeman, told AFP by telephone from a hospital.
"I heard someone shouting 'Allahu Akbar' [Arabic for 'God is great'] and then I heard a huge blast. I was hit by something in my back shoulder. In the meantime I heard another blast and I jumped out of the van. I felt that I was injured and bleeding."
"As we were sitting in the buses there was a small blast. Within moments there was a second, big blast. I fell on the road and became unconscious," added soldier Shafeeq-ur-Rehman, whose leg was wounded in the blast.
As he spoke from a bed at Lady Reading hospital in the city of Peshawar, tearful people brought in dead and wounded relatives to the facility that has treated thousands of victims of the struggle between the army and militant groups.
"Why are we being killed? Whose war is this? What is our sin," asked an elderly man with a gray beard as the body of his teenage son was carried in on a stretcher.
It was the first major militant attack in Pakistan since bin Laden's death in a May 2 U.S. raid in the city of Abbottabad, and one of the deadliest to hit the country ever.
Militants had pledged to avenge the killing and launch reprisal strikes in Pakistan.
Nationalist anger
Ahsan, the Taliban spokesman, suggested the attack was aimed as punishment against Pakistani authorities for failing to stop the unilateral U.S. raid that killed bin Laden, something that has sparked popular nationalist anger.
"Also, the Pakistani army has failed to protect its land," he said
The explosive vests were packed with ball bearings and nails, police said.
A vegetable vendor at the site said some recruits were seated in white minivans and others were loading luggage atop the vehicles.
"There was a big blast," he said. "I saw smoke, blood and body pieces all around."
"The first blast occurred in the middle of the road, and after that there was a huge blast that was more powerful than the first," said Abdul Wahid, a 25-year-old recruit whose legs were wounded in the blasts.
He said he was knocked to the ground by the force of the explosions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43017005/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 359
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 359 |
well at least now we know what he did with his free time before he died Extensive Porn Stash Found in Bin Laden Compound A stash of pornography was found in the Pakistani compound of Usama bin Laden raided last week by Navy SEALs, U.S. officials told Fox News. The pornography taken from the compound, first reported by Reuters, is said to have included modern, electronically recorded video and is described as fairly extensive. But officials told Reuters they did not know if the terror leader acquired the porn himself or even viewed it. Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound did not have Internet connection or other hard-wired communication networks. But the compound was equipped with televisions after the U.S. government released videos taken from the raid showing the Al Qaeda leader watching himself on TV. U.S. officials said materials taken during the raid were the largest cache of intelligence taken from one source. The discovery of pornography taken during raids on Islamic militants is not uncommon, officials told Reuters. U.S. authorities also are using interviews with Usama bin Laden's wives and video of the assault on his Pakistan compound to piece together details of the raid that killed the terrorist leader. After days of wrangling with Pakistani leaders, U.S. intelligence officials were finally given access to bin Laden's three wives and were allowed to question them in an effort to gather more information about life in the compound, Pentagon officials said. The three bin Laden widows who survived the raid were taken into Pakistani custody. The White House has said it was important that the U.S. be allowed to interview them as they could provide information about bin Laden's life in his compound. But the Islamic practice of segregating women from men means the wives probably would not have been present for meetings or discussions about Al Qaeda operations. Still, with bin Laden's trusted couriers dead, the women could offer rare details about bin Laden, particularly his life over the past few years as the manhunt for him wore on. U.S. intelligence and military analysts have also been examining footage from cameras mounted in the helmets of the Navy SEALs, capturing a minute-by-minute account of the operation. The video will provide a more detailed and accurate picture of the raid, compared to early information that relied on the first reports from members of the elite team, both during the operation and interviews with them afterward. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/13/...test=latestnews
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
I guess you have to have something to do when you're trying to put up with 3 ugly wives ...... in the middle of hell ....... while planning mass murder in the name of God.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Bin Laden killed (Part 2)
|
|
