[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
And this is the only difference between AQ and the U.S., yes?[/quote]
This is a serious question ?
[/quote]
Perhaps I misread you?
Ok, so let me clarify :
There is an enormous difference between AQ and the US.
If you think in those terms, then it’s indeed pretty easy to determine who is the good guy and the bad guy.
But we are not making comparisons between AQ and the US here.
We are making comparisons between the executive branch of the US government and AQ.
That’s not the same thing.
An executive power is not “the good guy”. By definition.
Your executive power is not “better”, morally speaking, than any other executive power in the history of the world.
If it seems to be “better” that’s only because you, as a nation, have been good at limiting its power.
Now, if you cease to be good at limiting its power because of your fear of terrorism, you will ultimately lose.
On both the material and spiritual lines of this war.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Did anyone have a chance to watch John Brennan’s confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today?[/quote]
Been watching this guy for a while. Speaks a little too highly of Islam for my taste. I watched an interview of him a while back where he was talking about the ‘majesty of the hajj’ and said his favorite city in the world is ‘Al Quds’.
Also, for some reason, strikes me as a little on the “sweet” side. NTTAWWT.[/quote]
Speaks a little too highly of Islam? Probably because he understands it better than the vast majority of Americans, considering his experience in the region and being fluent in Arabic. FWIW, the chief of the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center is a convert to Islam.
Now, should your State use drone attacks to kill people like Anwar al-Aulaqi.
Yes, definetely.
the old school way : illegal, secret assassinations.
Making it legal (but uncontrollable) set a dangerous precedent.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
'-)[/quote]
Gee, this comic strip argument sure is right on target. You are in the wrong line of work friend. YOU should be our counter-terror chief given your educational credentials, decades of experience in the field, and unparalleled knowledge of the subject, not this idiot John Brennan 
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
'-)[/quote]
Gee, this comic strip argument sure is right on target. You are in the wrong line of work friend. YOU should be our counter-terror chief given your educational credentials, decades of experience in the field, and unparalleled knowledge of the subject, not this idiot John Brennan ;)[/quote]
“[I’d] rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.”
William F. Buckley
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
'-)[/quote]
Gee, this comic strip argument sure is right on target. You are in the wrong line of work friend. YOU should be our counter-terror chief given your educational credentials, decades of experience in the field, and unparalleled knowledge of the subject, not this idiot John Brennan ;)[/quote]
“[I’d] rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 members of the Harvard faculty.” [/quote]
I sure as hell wouldn’t. Btw, his graduate degree was completed at the University of Texas, a public school. One of the best schools in the nation, yes, but not even beginning to approach the exclusivity you see in the Ivy League system. No disrespect to Ivy’s of course.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.[/quote]
Wow, that’s one heck of a statement.
So, taking out Bin Laden was wrong, too?
You really think it’s feasible – hell, even realistic – to give every high level member of a terrorist organization a trial???
The whole concept of “war” has changed dramatically. Play by the old rules and defeat is certain. [/quote]
Precisely. Play by JP’s misguided set of “rules” and AQ is still thriving. But on the upshot, we wouldn’t have violated the civil liberties of foreign-born enemy combatants who behead our citizens on camera, right?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.[/quote]
Wow, that’s one heck of a statement.
So, taking out Bin Laden was wrong, too?
You really think it’s feasible – hell, even realistic – to give every high level member of a terrorist organization a trial???
The whole concept of “war” has changed dramatically. Play by the old rules and defeat is certain. [/quote]
They cannot “defeat” the US in any meaningful sense of the word.
A few goatherders here and there do not matter much in the grand scheme of things, unless of course they manage to give the US the final push into an Executivocracy with an elected dictator.
The price of “winning” is simply too high.
Does anyone have any reliable source for the number of “civilians” vs. “terrorists” killed by drones? This link states its around 50 to 1 in the wrong direction. I don’t know if this is a reliable source (I just googled), but I’d like to know the answer to this question if its not.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Does anyone have any reliable source for the number of “civilians” vs. “terrorists” killed by drones? This link states its around 50 to 1 in the wrong direction. I don’t know if this is a reliable source (I just googled), but I’d like to know the answer to this question if its not.
Estimates vary wildly, as far as I can tell. Here is one that focuses only on Pakistan:
“Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks – most of them militants.” Also children, though.
Edit: and 300-780 civilians, a number which I’ve encountered before.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Does anyone have any reliable source for the number of “civilians” vs. “terrorists” killed by drones? This link states its around 50 to 1 in the wrong direction. I don’t know if this is a reliable source (I just googled), but I’d like to know the answer to this question if its not.
Estimates vary wildly, as far as I can tell. Here is one that focuses only on Pakistan:
“Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks – most of them militants.” Also children, though.
Edit: and 300-780 civilians, a number which I’ve encountered before.[/quote]
The Bureauâ??s key findings:
305 CIA attacks have taken place in Pakistan â?? 8% more than previously reported. Under President Obama alone there have been 253 strikes â?? one every four days.
Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks â?? most of them militants
The minimum number of reported deaths is far higher than previously believed â?? with 40% more recorded casualties. Most of those killed are likely to be low-ranking militants.
Up to 150 named militants have so far been killed.
The Bureau has collated credible news reports of 392-781 civilians being killed in the attacks.
The Bureau has identified credible reports of 175 children killed in the drone strikes. Under President Bush, one in three of all attacks is reported to have killed a child.
For the first time the Bureau has compiled accurate details of recorded injuries in drone strikes, revealing that at least 1,158 people have been wounded.
These numbers strongly suggest to me that they are not merely targeting al Queda leadership.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Does anyone have any reliable source for the number of “civilians” vs. “terrorists” killed by drones? This link states its around 50 to 1 in the wrong direction. I don’t know if this is a reliable source (I just googled), but I’d like to know the answer to this question if its not.
I think in asymetrical warfare the rule of thumb is about 7 to 8 out of ten killed are civilians.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.[/quote]
Wow, that’s one heck of a statement.
So, taking out Bin Laden was wrong, too?
You really think it’s feasible – hell, even realistic – to give every high level member of a terrorist organization a trial???
The whole concept of “war” has changed dramatically. Play by the old rules and defeat is certain. [/quote]
They cannot “defeat” the US in any meaningful sense of the word.
A few goatherders here and there do not matter much in the grand scheme of things, unless of course they manage to give the US the final push into an Executivocracy with an elected dictator.
The price of “winning” is simply too high. [/quote]
Right, and extremist Islam in no way threatens the US and the rest of the West’s way of life.
So, you are arguing for trials, too, or simply writing them a mean note telling them how bad they are?[/quote]
No, it really does not.
That, we do on our own.
If we were strong we would not have to worry about vultures.
I would not argue for trials, because US forces should not be over there.
If the US is supposed to be self sufficent in oil and natural gas by 2030, get the fuck out of there and make it 2020 with the money you saved.
Fuck those bastards, let them sort it out on their own.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Does anyone have any reliable source for the number of “civilians” vs. “terrorists” killed by drones? This link states its around 50 to 1 in the wrong direction. I don’t know if this is a reliable source (I just googled), but I’d like to know the answer to this question if its not.
Estimates vary wildly, as far as I can tell. Here is one that focuses only on Pakistan:
“Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks – most of them militants.” Also children, though.
Edit: and 300-780 civilians, a number which I’ve encountered before.[/quote]
The Bureauâ??s key findings:
305 CIA attacks have taken place in Pakistan â?? 8% more than previously reported. Under President Obama alone there have been 253 strikes â?? one every four days.
Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks â?? most of them militants
The minimum number of reported deaths is far higher than previously believed â?? with 40% more recorded casualties. Most of those killed are likely to be low-ranking militants.
Up to 150 named militants have so far been killed.
The Bureau has collated credible news reports of 392-781 civilians being killed in the attacks.
The Bureau has identified credible reports of 175 children killed in the drone strikes. Under President Bush, one in three of all attacks is reported to have killed a child.
For the first time the Bureau has compiled accurate details of recorded injuries in drone strikes, revealing that at least 1,158 people have been wounded.
These numbers strongly suggest to me that they are not merely targeting al Queda leadership. [/quote]
Drone strikes are never going to be totally reliable. It’s a sensor operator seeing a potential target and having to make a decision, the decision is to tell the pilot to send the missile or not to. There’s an inherent margin of error when relying on humans making decisions with no possible way of having absolute certainty. That’s why I don’t care for them very much, there shouldn’t be such a willingness to pull the trigger. One child killed in tribal Pakistan can do more for AQ’s recruiting than the death of a HVT will do for our efforts in the GWOT, the problem is the emphasis placed on being able to say “we’ve eliminated X amount of HVTs” rather than “we’ve put the time and effort into these wars to have a lasting positive effect on the region”. Short term goals get short term results.