Dave, my guess is that since she was a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Obama pulled out his Peace prize and showed her saying that what he was doing was not as it appeared and that the Nobel showed he had the "creds" to back it up.
So far 218 sick people condone murdering innocent people. They must have been in their glory a few weeks ago when the US leader's decided is was necessary to drone to death 13 children in Yemen.
last count is 238 blood thirsty yes voters..... wow ......appears to me that some people have NO conscience.........remember sandy hook? all the children murdered?...didn't bother the yes voters.....just another day, i'm alive, my kids are alive, so piss on everyone else...what kind of a people have we become?
Bob: You wrote, "It's my position that no matter where in the world it happens, taking the lives of innocent bystanders by any means is not acceptable, ever.".
A noble thought, to be sure, but I find it to be, at the very least, naive', and probably closer to assinine.
Yes, it would be great if no innocent 'bystanders' were injured or killed. But, sometimes it will happen. I truly believe that the U.S. tries (TRIES) in most cases, to minimalize innocent bystanders being killed. That being said, how does one GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen?
By your statement (.. is not acceptable, ever), let me refer you to just one part of WW2.
Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
So, by your (position), am I to believe that Mr. Churchill should've ordered his generals to not fight the enemy IF there was ANY chance that an innocent bystander might be amongst the enemy? Should his words have been, "So, gentlemen, if you can't 100% GUARANTEE me that no civilians will be killed, then we cannot attack the enemy. Until that time, we'll just have to 'suck it up'?"
Until we develop 'smart weapons' that will seek out and kill only those it was intended for, there will be innocents injured or killed. I doubt there are very many (there's always a few deranged people) who would wish that ANY innocents are hurt.
I don't know if you've ever been to war. I have, and there's probably many on this website who also have been. It ain't pretty. And it isn't EXACT. When an enemy is in a cave, firing at and KILLING anything outside that moves, you hope that hand grenade somebody throws in eliminates the threat. And, maybe in the back of your mind, you may also hope nobody in the cave was an 'innocent'. But, trust me, you don't send someone in to ask if everyone in there is a 'bad guy'. To think that it should be done that way is unrealistic.
My only question is where did REAL American morals disappear to? I mean this question shouldn't even have to be asked. There was a time that if civilians were in danger then the f'n strike did not happen. I understand that casulties happen but they were once avoided like the plague.
For our Govt to consider attacking despite the presence of civilians shows how our Govt's corruption has filtered down again. Time for ethics or people in the future are gonna look down at our Govt today like we do at the Govt that slaughtered Native Americans during our westward expansion.
The end is not worth the means if this is the kind of things we are beginning to find acceptable.
Ed you are right, however it doesnt seem the politicians have the ethics to decide not to risk civilian lives. If I am not mistaken we also bombed the hell out of key strategic citites in Germany, as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. I am truly shocked at the number of yes votes, myself because as I see it the implication is that our Govt chooses to disregard the innocent life to get their man. That makes us no better than those we are fighting. Especially since there are several others to step into that target's place when he dies. We killed Osama, yet has anything really abated in this conflict? I dont think so.
No, Ed isn't anywhere close to being right. He's comparing WW2 where all sides took heavy casualties, not excluding civilians / genocide mind you, to the US chasing a few boogymen around in the Middle East in a fantasy war on terrorism with model airplanes, where we have no business being to begin with.
Sorry, Bob, but you can't squirm that easily out of this. You can try, of course. But, I STILL refer you to your earlier post - "It's my position that no matter where in the world it happens, taking the lives of innocent bystanders by any means is not acceptable, ever."
My statement was in direct reference to YOUR words - that '.. by any means is not acceptable, ever."
It's THAT word - EVER - where I take exception. And, to be fair, nowhere in YOUR post, earlier, did you say anything about "the US chasing a few boogymen around in the Middle East in a fantasy war on terrorism with model airplanes, where we have no business being to begin with."
No, Bob, you distinctly said "is not acceptable, ever". Well, you may find it quite hard to believe that WW2 falls in the 'ever' category, but, guess what? It does. Now, if you'd like to adjust your earlier post to say 'usually', then I might tend to agree. But, when you make a statement with the word 'ever' as a qualifier, that encompasses a whole hell of a lot of time. EONS!!
It's all in what certain words mean. And, ever means ever.
WW II should always carry an asterisk as the war always used to justify U.S. actions.
As in WW II*
Yes, there were a lot of US actions that can be justified because of Hitler and Pearl Harbor, but there never would have been a Hitler or Pearl Harbor if not for decades and decades of U.S. interventions and foreign entanglements and provocations prior to WW II*.
Kyle, it has changed because war is distant to most Americans there is no draft, it is happening in a weird country that is totally different from ours. They don't look like us, talk like us or even have the same god. Little Jimmy is in no danger of being drafted, so it can be justified by saying the people in the military want to be there, so it's OK to have them kill civilians. Then cluck their tongues when the guy comes back with PTSD and doesn't fit in anymore or can't seem to care about the stupid little everyday things. Now, we can blow up buildings from New Mexico instead of deploying a bomber squadron that can get shot down, so it's OK, the drone pilots can go off watch and go bowling or watch TV with their families and come back tomorrow and do it again. They've made war easy and distant, so it's OK, besides Miley Cyrus's new tatoo or what actor is getting divorced is way more fun to pay attention to than this icky war business. It's sad and it is part of this county's moral demise.
Edit because I want to add also that the President, Vice President and about 80% of congress has never served in the military, so it's all academic to those toads as well.
that's right Howard, including a lot of the trouble in the middle east. After the Versailles Treaty, the british and french wanted to punish the ottomans for backing the wrong side, so the made up boundaries and gave over whole chinks of land and people to warlords who helped them. I'm not saying the Ottoman Empire should have been left intact, just that the middle east should have formed into nations naturally, but then how do you control the oil that way?
Ed, since this government hasn't declared a war since 1942 the comparison is flawed. These leaders feel its fine to fly remote controlled weapons into any country (including the US i.e NDAA ) based on suspicion only.
Did the terrorists we are fighting give a damn about civilian casualties on 9/11? Hell they TARGETED civilians and still do. Those that say it is because we "meddle" in others' affairs, I would partially agree. Let's stop providing millions in tax dollars to regimes that hate us and vow to kill us. Let's stop all humanitarian aid to 3rd world nations - the money is stolen and never reaches the people it is designed to help anyhow,
If the chance of civilian casualties trumps all, we would still be colony of England.
Dave, you say that war is more distant in the past?!?! It's never been closer and "in our face"! From weeks old news reels of Vietnam to real time video brings it closer IMHO.
Can anyone give me an example of any war, conflict, skirmish, or any type of physical confrontation between nations NOT resulteing in harm to innocents?
The only alternative to such actions is to live the Monroe doctrine 100% and more
Close the borders, halt all trade, stop trying to help people find their own form of freedom, and withdraw from the "world community".
Oops. We need oil and are not allowed to utilize our own resources.
Darn it, that pesky United Nations (you know, those folks that constantly "dis" us) would fold without our financial support.
Drat. We need Chinese money to support the bloated government we have allowed to trample its way into every facet of our daily lives.
I consider many of the above comments to be borne of naivete at best, progressive liberalism at worst.
Progressive liberalism supports intervention and war and doesn't give a damn about civilian causalilties. Always been that way. Don't believe me, read an honest biography of I ne of the fathers of progressivism, Teddy Roosevrlt. True conservatives -- that is to say of the paleo type and libertarians -- stand with the father of the country and oppose foreign entanglements.
you can argue all you want, bottom line is the united states is killing people on the other side of the world with a remote controlled machine.....a lot of americans think that's nice....I think killing people is wrong...(old school)
the blood thirsties can look forward to the day the other side of the world adopts the DRONE program and starts flying their machines over the united states.....only a matter of time and all the money in the world can't stop it........dog eat dog
1) <snark> It depends on whether my favorite progressive leader is in control of the government or not. </snark>
2) Read Ender's War. Draw your own conclusions.
3) Only someone who lives in a first world country (where the closest encounter to an existential threat they usually have ever faced is crossing a busy street) can be so naive as to think that threats to the existence of their lives or their nation can be removed "surgically".
4) The reason that the Law of War and the Geneva Convention exist is because civilized people who understood what war means were able to codify rules to minimize civilian casualties. Minimize; because there is no way to fight an enemy without jeopardizing the environment around the fight, to include innocent human beings.
5) The blatant misreporting and misrepresenting of the requirements of the Law of War and The Geneva Convention by the press and the democrat party for the last 13 years is only one reason I have developed a visceral distaste for both of them.
The real question might probably have been, 'Are we at war"
In war civilian casualties are inevitable, you can try to minimize them, but they still are inevitable. A drone strike in Afghanistan or on the tribal areas of Pakistan is one thing, we are at war there. People forget that Afghanistan was not Iraq, the 9/11 bombings originated there and the enemy fled into those border hills, so there is argument for the use of drone attacks.
Yemen on the other hand, was not at war with us, we are there supporting the government and at the same time striking at potential enemies pre-emptively, that is an intervention, and there is a tremendous difference.
One could argue that the 9/11 attacks were a result of interventionism, that is an argument for another day.
The bigger question still remains, should we be conducting strikes all over the world, or confining them to the battle areas across the Persian gulf?
should we be conducting strikes all over the world, or confining them to the battle areas across the Persian gulf?
NO the US needs to get out of the business of policing the world when our young men & women are Murdered needleessly in some rat hole country that they would never have been in had they NOT joined the military!! And all because of some dweebs in Washington DC that saw another way to get rich off another war. The ones that really profit from a war should have to go there & collect their blood money and hope that they didn't get caught up in the killings.. That would settle that really quick!! . I enlisted in the military when I was 17 because I wanted to have a choice of where i was stationed. I went to Vietnam anyway, My first choice was the Med, 2nd choice was NOT Vietnam but I went because i thought we were doing something righteous & when I came home with all sorts of crap on my mind, I realized that I was wrong for believeing the higher ups that now control all life in the UNITED STATES & they all lied then & are lying again. They are all assholes as far as I am concerned and especially the one sitting in the catbird seat in MY WHITE HOUSE!! Let him take up arms & show US what to do, But He won't because he is nothing more than just chicken shit!!! baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk..
The bleeding hearts in this country are going to get all of us killed. These animals strap bombs on women and children, just to get at us. Why are we the only ones that have to have morals? Unleash the drones, the one's that die today, won't be around to hate us tomorrow.
Unfortunately Bob, terrorist use civilians as a shield for multiple reasons. One is to make them a less attractive target due to collateral damage. Second, to gain public support and recruit more to their cause. Third but, not last, uses the media to show how horrible the USA is. Terrorist are not as stupid as you may think. History has shown that, others can use our actions against us. Great example is the Vietnam War. North Vietnamese and VC used the media to show horrors (AKA. Collateral Damage) to the world that, the USA and South Vietnamese killed innocents. Yes, we had some of our soldiers do wrong but, the North Vietnamese and VC inflicted many deaths on their own and blame the USA.
BTW Bob, tell me the last drone attack on a terrorist that, took place in America?
No one is okay with collateral damage. Someone would have to be heartless and detached from society to be okay with such. However, terrorist do not care about using the innocents as a shield or manipulate a person to do their will. They target children and the less fortunate.
Bob, if I had a terrorist living next door to me and I did not know about it. That probably means, I am pretty much oblivious of what’s around me. Also, some of the so called innocent civilians may not take arms up against the USA but, may provide support to the terrorist. Look at the Muslims around the world during 9-11, they cheered and applauded the attacks on New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Yet, when the USA shown their military might, most of them denounced the attacks to ensure the USA did not target them.
Your, lol @ all the yes voters, just shows me how uninformed you are from what is really going on. Funny thing is I am willing to wager that, if we did not target these terrorist and another 9-11 took place on our soil. You probably be in arms about why we did not take action.
David and whomever else it may concern. Imagine what the damage would be without surgical strikes and we just used WWII carpet bombings tactics. I do agree that, we need to stop interfering with others’ affairs but, unfortunately others rely on our help. I am not saying this is right. There are those who are unable to fight their own fight and look at the USA to be their hero but, some look at us as a villain too. Not to mention some use the USA as a mercenary to fight their battles so, they are not suffering causalities of war. Whether you like drones or not, I for one am happy of their existence. It means one less of my Brothers in Arms faces death or injury. War sucks but, until we as a world society learn to accept one another as an equal regardless of race, religion, beliefs, ethnics, etc… War will always exist. Greed and Power influences many to take and take and take. Also, too much hate in the world and for what reason? Just because, we do not agree? How arrogant and childish!
I have to agree Dave.... That statement reminds me of a quote.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
If you step back and really look at it some of the things we complain about with our Govt could be the signs of the US becoming the monster it was born fighting against. Look at just our country's tax policies.
If I am not mistaken taxation without representation was the spark that started our revolution against Great Britan. I wonder how disgusted our founding fathers would be with THAT full circle circumstance on it's own.
If you truly ask why we should have morals, then no amount of explaining will ever make you understand. Until you stand on the precipice of a truly destructive downfall, then you will suddenly understand and demand a "moral" response from those you made the "why should we have" statement to begin with.
Drop a bomb on a compound from which my troops are taking heavy fire? Yep. People in the adjoining compounds may or may not be endangered. It sucks. That is the real world.
What? Am I supposed to let my troops die so that there is not a chance of the poor folks next door to the people shooting at us getting hurt? F and U come to mind.
The difference with drones is that the threat is not so immediate and the killing is done on the time line of the drone operator. Killing some people is a good and proper thing. The where and when is sometimes up to your choosing. Other times it is not.
At the end of the day, I worry more about what world view the people with the ability to kill have than what technology they have to do it with. History shows that hubristic asses, such as those who occupy the current administration, are poor choices for such responsibility.
I was not talking about your made up scenario. As a former soldier, I would help my team as well, so thanks for proving a point to something that was never in question.
I was asking my question in direct regards to the drone program. It is still operated by humans. Soldiers who are being directed to commit those atrocities. Events that they have to live with while all of those who voted yes get to live with a clean conscious.
If those who are so morally ambiguous as to not consider these things, then I suggest they relieve those in these posts and have at it.
I still say that what happens in Afghanistan and drone attack or not, is not at all the same as what happens in Yemen or Libya.
The question is really not as simple as whether or not we use a drone as a weapon of war, rather is it moral and just to use a weapon of war That dilemma has been with us since this very say in 1983. Yes, I said 1983.
A very good friend and colleague of mine named SSGT Ron Garcia was killed on this date in 1983 in Beirut along with 240 other Brother Marines of mine. The bombing which caused their death by many is being dubbed as the first shot of the War on Terror. The unique nature of this war, is that it fly's in the face of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war designed to prevent civilian casualty.
Over the decades we as a nation have attempted to deal with acts of this nature as a criminal act, as an act of war, and now a mixed bag of criminal act and simultaneously an act of war.
And there lies the dilemma, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are NOT policemen, their mission is to kill people and break things in order to protect American Lives.
Just today, it was disclosed that the Libyan Government is paying for the defense of Abu Anas al-Libi. Why? because in their opinion we didn't capture him, we kidnapped him in defiance of international law.
It ties with this thread just as the Beirut Bombing does. Back in 1983 I was so angry that I personally wanted to to Lebanon and start killing people and breaking things, fortunately we did not, that would have exploded quite possibly into a World War, We entered a country that not only were we not at war with, but whose Government we helped prop up to grab al-Libi it made many of us feel good, but it was in fact an act of war to enter a nation with military personnel without the knowledge or permission of that government and sieze the man to bring home for trial.
Now drone strikes in Yemen, ok we have the permission of the Yemeni Government to conduct those operations, but are we conducting a military operation or an assignation when we do so, and worse is assassination any criminal worth the killing of women and children to achieve or even morally correct.
There are those who cite the murders of 9/11 as due cause, sorry that worked for attacking the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the Al Queda that they protected, but I see no way that it justifies killing innocents a matter of facilitating an assassination, make no mistake, that is exactly what strikes in Yemen are.
I believe in a strong Military, I believe that we should spare no expense to maintain the most powerful military in the world. I believe that when it is time that we must throw a punch it should be so violent, unrelenting and destructive that our enemy should be unable to recover. But I REJECT that we should use our brave young men and women to carry out blatant assassination.
Unless of course, we are willing to become our enemy to achieve that end.
If we refuse to act against evil because evil acts evil, we surrender to those who are evil. If we refuse to kill those planning to kill us because they are surrounded by their friends and family we are surrendering to them.
Only a truly naive person thinks that it is possible to catch the bad guy out in the wilderness alone. It ain't TV, it ain't the movies. Sorry, but real life evil people don't die to order in less than an hour or hour and a half, depending on format.
Once upon a time grown people ruled our world. They were able to make rational decisions about the use of force and the evaluation of risk. Today we are ruled by children worried more about minuscule risks than existential risks. If you doubt me, observe an Afghan getting his goat to market.
If you don't get the lesson, oh, well. I'm sure there is some show about the Kardashians or some other raw fish on the TV.
Just like you, I have spent a large portion of my life in the service of this nation. Most often I strongly agree with you when other do not because I see many things in the same way as you.
Let me clarify my position.
1) The use of drones in Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan is in my opinion not only warranted, but necessary as a Drone does not in anyway cost more than an American Life. While I hate the thought of collateral civilian casualties there, that area directly impacts the field of battle. I was initially and am now in full support of our troops there, the original purpose of the invasion and the pursuit and/or kill or capture of Al Queda members and Taliban who continue to operate there. (Although I seriously question the clarity of the mission of late,}
2) As far as Yemen is concerned, I do not see that as the same scenario. Yes we all know operatives are hiding there. Yes we all know that they wish to do us harm. That all said, we are not bombing there to stave off an immediate threat and clearly away from the field of battle. It is clearly an operation meant to assassinate. That goes against the ethos that I was taught and lived by during my time in service.
What we are doing in Yemen is the dirty work of an ally unless of course Yemen is now a province of Afghanistan. All that I am saying there, is that if they are so much a threat to us in Yemen, we should not be striking remotely with limited intelligence without boots on the ground. If the cause is not clear enough to go to war, than the cause is not strong enough continually strike from afar.
I fully understand war and it's implications, and unlike many on here I fully recognize the collateral risk in Afghanistan and the bordering provinces of Pakistan along with the necessity to take that risk. I just do not see it as the same balance in Yemen. There is no immediate threat to our troops there, there is no due process so there is no other way to call it but remote control assassination
Please remember Ron Garcia and his 240 fellow marines that were murdered as they slept in 1983. They were sent to a hostile shore and ordered not to chamber their weapons or lock their magazines in order not to be viewed as threatening. They followed their orders, and paid with their lives..
I am amazed by the amount of ignorance and naïve comments I am seeing. It also amazing on how many individuals live in a fantasy world where there is no evil if, we just leave them alone. Hatred of this country has been well established before 1983. I am not for war and I would love to see our military not being used as a mercenary force and getting involved with conflicts that do not have any effect on our nation’s security.
Now if, I had to choose between putting boots on the ground, to capture a known terrorist or have a drone take out that terrorist. Damn sure I am going to have the drone do the work instead of risking my fellow comrades’ life. Even boots on the ground are going to cause collateral damage. It is inevitable and unfortunate. Human error is a factor no matter how you look at this. Terrorist have no issue neither using people as a shield nor using children to do their dirty work. Heck, terrorist have been known to pay $2000 to the individual’s family and inform the individual that, they will receive virgins and riches from allah for their acts. To say this is not true, just show one blindness to reality.
The Yemen's government is weak compare to the radicals who operate there. In my eyes the Yemen government is using the USA to help them hold on the little power they actually have on their own country. There is still a threat to us since, our military still uses their ports, our embassy and we conduct operations to help their government. I am not saying we could not just leave. However, that would just create more hatred of the USA. How would you like to be involved in a fight against a few and your friends decided to abandon you? Assassinations have been conducted since, the beginning of man. This is not new and sometimes an necessary evil to prevent evil. Why should the USA wait for someone to attack us when we receive intelligence of the attack prior to? Why wait for another 9-11, if you have the ability to prevent such?
Terrorist know the capabilities of the USA. They know that, where ever they go, they are a target. So, why put their families in harm’s way? Simply put, Deterrence! They know western society views life differently. Collateral damage is not just happening because, a drone drops ordinance on a compound. It is also because, terrorist and radicals do not view life as most and do not look at death as an “atrocities.”
Rich, I do not think morals are at question here. To me it is the right of our country to prevent and protect against attacks on our people and our beliefs.
If the civilians are in danger, why do they choose to be holed up with terrorists? In the interests of national security, collateral damage is a price I would be willing to pay if it saved American lives. I would make that trade off every time.
I remember that day in 1983 well, Mark. A dark day to be sure and many of us wanted to know why we weren't dropping bombs on Lebanon until they gave up the dirtbags who did it. It would not have been the right response, it would have been emotional. You and I are mostly on the same page, believe it or not, the Taliban knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the ones who attacked us on 9-11, no question. We had to remove the Taliban and remove their ability to hide terrorists who may have been plotting other attacks and most likely were. Iraq and all the other countries we have been meddling with and bombing under the same reasoning is not valid. I believe in a strong defense but not an offense. This "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality is the moral dilemma I am concerned with.
Frank, your statement is ignorant. Sorry pal, but it is. Does the same apply to good people who live in a housing complex with armed drug dealers? If they are killing innocent people in the course of their street wars, and selling poison to children then holing up and threatening their neighbors is it OK for us to just bomb a section of the complex to get them? That would save American lives.
Frank....seriously? You think these terrorists ask these innocent civilians for their permission? You think they make a choice. I really cant believe you actually made that statement. These civilians are victims either way.
Sorry Kyle, but I don't think they are as innocent as they would have us beleive. When is the last time the muslim community came out and denounced terrorism, and terrorists acts?
And I really don't give a damn how many of them get killed, they hate us across the board, that is the sad reality Kyle.
Frank....we dont know that for sure. However we are aware of one fact. Terrorists specifically islamic terrorists are a very vocal minority (or) majority. Ask anyone that has done a few tours of duty, basically civilians that are used as shields and such are either conned or threatened and the way islamic law works, women and children that speak out (even men for that matter) are killed to bring the rest under control.
THATS the reality. Talk to someone that has had boots on the ground. Maybe Kyle Slocum might have had some exp with this and can weigh in. But your generalization is really pretty unfair and part of the underside of this conflict cause I used to be of the same viewpoint til I spoke w a few friends back from there.
I must be, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I have served my country, lost friends, and have seen plenty. I am not ignorant to protecting our own, but for all of those who are so willing to engage in war, send drones over to kill "suspected" terrorists, like the poll question asks, without regard to innocent life, I think they (you? If you said yes?) should be the ones to do it then.
I have buddies who are mentally gone from the things that they saw/did. Maybe you're fine with that responsibility? Good. Take it, and enjoy, but if those who are so brave as to vote yes in this poll, are not brave enough to carry out that mission, then I say maybe they should think a little.
For the record, Kyle. I don't know you or what you did for our nation, and you don't know me. I respect your service and your opinion, I just have seen a lot more colors than black and white on this topic.
Kyle, my viewpoint will never change. I have read enough of the koran to make me sick to my stomach, enough said.
This isn't just about Americans, its about any religion outside of islam, you know, all the infidels, or as it states in the Hadiths, (The traditions of Muhammed) "Christians and Jews are the worst of creatures", kill them where ever you find them.
I'm supposed to care if any of these muslims get killed, no, not today, not tommorow, not ever.
The rest of the world had better wake up and stop these murderers before they have the numbers to carry out their duties as good muslims should.
The only fact I find unfair is that muslims look down on non muslims, as directed by the koran.
Phil.... I didnt vote because my feeling is it needs to be adressed on a case by case basis, I was navy myself, saw some service in Gulf during desert storm one but wasn't on land so saw nothing horrific.
I too have many buddies that suffer with the recent conflicts but the point I am trying to make is that Frank's broad stroked assessment is as fair as comparing fundamentalist Christians to all of Christianity. Yes terrorists and some sects of muslims are truly very bad. But not all are and if you TRULY read the Koran, (Not the writings of Mohammed) You will see a parallel. These people that terrorists hide behind dont CHOOSE to be shields but are forced by con man and bully tactics. This is the reality not that skewed reality that Frank spouts.
Frank the haddiths are separate from the Koran and are not part of it's teachings.... maybe this will help.
Hadith
A hadith is a saying of Muhammad or a report about something he did. Over time, during the first few centuries of Islam, it became obvious that many so-called hadith were in fact spurious sayings that had been fabricated for various motives, at best to encourage believers to act righteously and at worse to corrupt believers' understanding of Islam and to lead them astray. Since Islamic legal scholars were utilizing hadith as an adjunct to the Qur'an in their development of the Islamic legal system, it became critically important to have reliable collections of hadith. While the early collections of hadith often contained hadith that were of questionable origin, gradually collections of authenticated hadith called sahih (lit. true, correct) were compiled. Such collections were made possible by the development of the science of hadith criticism, a science at the basis of which was a critical analysis of the chain of (oral) transmission (isnad) of the hadith going all the way back to Muhammad. The two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. In addition to these, four other collections came to be well-respected, although not to the degree of Bukhari and Muslim's sahih collections. These four other collections are the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Abu Da'ud. Together these four and the two sahih collections are called the "six books" (al-kutub al-sitta). Two other important collections, in particular, are the Muwatta of Ibn Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of law, and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law. http://islam.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html
While the common factor between the hadith qudsi and the Qur’an is that both contain words from Allah that were revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), they are, nevertheless, distinct from each other as pointed out here:
1. The Qur’an contains the verbatim words of Allah, while a hadith qudsi contains the message of Allah conveyed to the people by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Prophet’s own words.
2. The Qur’an is inimitable and unique, but such is not the case with a hadith qudsi. This is so because the latter is not the verbatim word of Allah.
3. The Qur’an is recited in every Prayer but a hadith qudsi cannot be recited in any Prayer.
So the haddiths you refer to are NOT the Koran Frank, so that very basis alone makes the so-called facts you base your opinion on very questionable.
I do not support the form of islam that these terrorists subscribe to any more than I as a christian subscribe to westboro baptist church's form of christianity. Or the christianity that was prevalent during the inquisition. Too much corruption in these fundamentalist versions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but sometimes the life of non combatants is in jepordy when conflicts like this arise. I'm sure there were many innocents and civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as many peaceful native american tribes that were wiped out just because.
I just was disgusted at Franks implication that civilian shields have a choice. My first hand info is that they more often than not.....they dont.
Also Frank there have been many condemnations from the muslim community on acts of islamic terrorism, however they dont make good copy for the media and so go largely ignored.... Another reference
Kyle, I have heard some of the sermons delivered by muslim clerics throughout the world, and the shit they're preaching doesn't come from any of the books you're referencing. Throw all that crap out the window, the jihadist, or fanatics, radicals, or fundamentalist or whatever flavor
they portray, hate Americans, hate jews, and hate christians, and they have but one goal, world domination.
I'll give Obama some credit for having the nads to take them out with drones.
I hate when westboro is mentioned as being terrorist, they are a small band of misguided fools, islamist terrorist are well financed and world wide, there is no comparison.
Never mentioned Westboro as a terrorist org. I mentioned them as being as valid example of christianty as fundamental islamists are of islam. The is a big distinction there.
Islamic terrorists arent really that well funded most of the time and they fight amongst themselves almost as much as they do with non islamic groups.
Kyle, what we are forgetting is that, usually the civilians around the terrorist are more likely their kin, other terrorist cell members plus their families and numerous supporters. In the Arabic/Islamic Culture, family is a big part of their belief. You will have several generations living under the same roof / building. Let’s also remember that, Arabic nations allow their men to have multiple wives, no more than four. Americans have a hard time envisioning that, another country’s social network is so different from ours’. Drone operators are able to do surgical strikes and cause very little collateral damage. Those who get caught in the cross fire are usually associated with the terrorist whether they are spotters, suppliers and/or prospects for future endeavors. Look at the alleged Osama raid in Pakistan. Apparently, some of the local military leaders kept Osama informed about American movements and plans. I do not believe that, Obama got Osama, too many unanswer questions and whether or not you believe other reports. I for one believe Obama has once again lied to the American People. I have to find the interview and link but, there is a report that, Osama past away in 2007.
I will agree that, when terrorist operate some where the local population supports western ideals or beliefs, they will operate amongs them. This may cause some collateral damage. I can assure you that, Libya is not a support of our ideals, they believe in a religious state not a free state.
Ahh but in one aspect I do agree with you Frank. When you said.....
"the jihadist, or fanatics, radicals, or fundamentalist or whatever flavor
they portray, hate Americans, hate jews, and hate christians, and they have but one goal, world domination."
You didnt use the generic label of muslim. And in the above statement you Made I do agree with everthing you said with one additional thought to add. Having this one goal of world domination is what dooms their goal to fail because they want to drag the modern world back to what it was like when Mohammed walked the earth. Time progresses it doesnt go backwards, so having such a goal is as futile as having a goal to move Mt. Everest 40 miles south of it's current position. Just not gonna happen.
And THAT is the beauty of the Batavian as well...because even our perpetual disagreement isnt absolute LOL
It's actually the beauty of debating like adults. The Batavian promotes this. We participants do as well, openly encouraging others to make their positions and points.
lol @ all the yes
lol @ all the yes voters!
When .gov decides you're living next door to a terrorist and sends a drone to address the situation, you're A-OK with being collateral damage?
WTF, people?!
I didn't read it as drone
I didn't read it as drone strikes on US soil...
I suppose that would change my answer.
It's my position that no
It's my position that no matter where in the world it happens, taking the lives of innocent bystanders by any means is not acceptable, ever.
american civilians are far
american civilians are far superior to any other civilian. duh
My guess is as soon as she
My guess is as soon as she said this, Barry stood up and said, "Well OK then, thanks for stopping by, got lots to do, come again, good luck"
http://gawker.com/malala-yousafzai-meets-president-obama-asks-him-to-st…
Dave, my guess is that since
Dave, my guess is that since she was a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Obama pulled out his Peace prize and showed her saying that what he was doing was not as it appeared and that the Nobel showed he had the "creds" to back it up.
So far 218 sick people
So far 218 sick people condone murdering innocent people. They must have been in their glory a few weeks ago when the US leader's decided is was necessary to drone to death 13 children in Yemen.
http://i.imgur.com/v7sdLPD.jp
http://i.imgur.com/v7sdLPD.jpg
last count is 238 blood
last count is 238 blood thirsty yes voters..... wow ......appears to me that some people have NO conscience.........remember sandy hook? all the children murdered?...didn't bother the yes voters.....just another day, i'm alive, my kids are alive, so piss on everyone else...what kind of a people have we become?
Bob: You wrote, "It's my
Bob: You wrote, "It's my position that no matter where in the world it happens, taking the lives of innocent bystanders by any means is not acceptable, ever.".
A noble thought, to be sure, but I find it to be, at the very least, naive', and probably closer to assinine.
Yes, it would be great if no innocent 'bystanders' were injured or killed. But, sometimes it will happen. I truly believe that the U.S. tries (TRIES) in most cases, to minimalize innocent bystanders being killed. That being said, how does one GUARANTEE that it doesn't happen?
By your statement (.. is not acceptable, ever), let me refer you to just one part of WW2.
Starting on 7 September 1940, London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 57 consecutive nights.[7] More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
So, by your (position), am I to believe that Mr. Churchill should've ordered his generals to not fight the enemy IF there was ANY chance that an innocent bystander might be amongst the enemy? Should his words have been, "So, gentlemen, if you can't 100% GUARANTEE me that no civilians will be killed, then we cannot attack the enemy. Until that time, we'll just have to 'suck it up'?"
Until we develop 'smart weapons' that will seek out and kill only those it was intended for, there will be innocents injured or killed. I doubt there are very many (there's always a few deranged people) who would wish that ANY innocents are hurt.
I don't know if you've ever been to war. I have, and there's probably many on this website who also have been. It ain't pretty. And it isn't EXACT. When an enemy is in a cave, firing at and KILLING anything outside that moves, you hope that hand grenade somebody throws in eliminates the threat. And, maybe in the back of your mind, you may also hope nobody in the cave was an 'innocent'. But, trust me, you don't send someone in to ask if everyone in there is a 'bad guy'. To think that it should be done that way is unrealistic.
My only question is where did
My only question is where did REAL American morals disappear to? I mean this question shouldn't even have to be asked. There was a time that if civilians were in danger then the f'n strike did not happen. I understand that casulties happen but they were once avoided like the plague.
For our Govt to consider attacking despite the presence of civilians shows how our Govt's corruption has filtered down again. Time for ethics or people in the future are gonna look down at our Govt today like we do at the Govt that slaughtered Native Americans during our westward expansion.
The end is not worth the means if this is the kind of things we are beginning to find acceptable.
Ed you are right, however it
Ed you are right, however it doesnt seem the politicians have the ethics to decide not to risk civilian lives. If I am not mistaken we also bombed the hell out of key strategic citites in Germany, as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. I am truly shocked at the number of yes votes, myself because as I see it the implication is that our Govt chooses to disregard the innocent life to get their man. That makes us no better than those we are fighting. Especially since there are several others to step into that target's place when he dies. We killed Osama, yet has anything really abated in this conflict? I dont think so.
No, Ed isn't anywhere close
No, Ed isn't anywhere close to being right. He's comparing WW2 where all sides took heavy casualties, not excluding civilians / genocide mind you, to the US chasing a few boogymen around in the Middle East in a fantasy war on terrorism with model airplanes, where we have no business being to begin with.
Apples are not Oranges.
Sorry, Bob, but you can't
Sorry, Bob, but you can't squirm that easily out of this. You can try, of course. But, I STILL refer you to your earlier post - "It's my position that no matter where in the world it happens, taking the lives of innocent bystanders by any means is not acceptable, ever."
My statement was in direct reference to YOUR words - that '.. by any means is not acceptable, ever."
It's THAT word - EVER - where I take exception. And, to be fair, nowhere in YOUR post, earlier, did you say anything about "the US chasing a few boogymen around in the Middle East in a fantasy war on terrorism with model airplanes, where we have no business being to begin with."
No, Bob, you distinctly said "is not acceptable, ever". Well, you may find it quite hard to believe that WW2 falls in the 'ever' category, but, guess what? It does. Now, if you'd like to adjust your earlier post to say 'usually', then I might tend to agree. But, when you make a statement with the word 'ever' as a qualifier, that encompasses a whole hell of a lot of time. EONS!!
It's all in what certain words mean. And, ever means ever.
WW II should always carry an
WW II should always carry an asterisk as the war always used to justify U.S. actions.
As in WW II*
Yes, there were a lot of US actions that can be justified because of Hitler and Pearl Harbor, but there never would have been a Hitler or Pearl Harbor if not for decades and decades of U.S. interventions and foreign entanglements and provocations prior to WW II*.
There is absolutely no
There is absolutely no comparison Ed, between this bogus "war on terror" and World War 2. None nada zilch
Kyle, it has changed because
Kyle, it has changed because war is distant to most Americans there is no draft, it is happening in a weird country that is totally different from ours. They don't look like us, talk like us or even have the same god. Little Jimmy is in no danger of being drafted, so it can be justified by saying the people in the military want to be there, so it's OK to have them kill civilians. Then cluck their tongues when the guy comes back with PTSD and doesn't fit in anymore or can't seem to care about the stupid little everyday things. Now, we can blow up buildings from New Mexico instead of deploying a bomber squadron that can get shot down, so it's OK, the drone pilots can go off watch and go bowling or watch TV with their families and come back tomorrow and do it again. They've made war easy and distant, so it's OK, besides Miley Cyrus's new tatoo or what actor is getting divorced is way more fun to pay attention to than this icky war business. It's sad and it is part of this county's moral demise.
Edit because I want to add also that the President, Vice President and about 80% of congress has never served in the military, so it's all academic to those toads as well.
that's right Howard,
that's right Howard, including a lot of the trouble in the middle east. After the Versailles Treaty, the british and french wanted to punish the ottomans for backing the wrong side, so the made up boundaries and gave over whole chinks of land and people to warlords who helped them. I'm not saying the Ottoman Empire should have been left intact, just that the middle east should have formed into nations naturally, but then how do you control the oil that way?
Ed, since this government
Ed, since this government hasn't declared a war since 1942 the comparison is flawed. These leaders feel its fine to fly remote controlled weapons into any country (including the US i.e NDAA ) based on suspicion only.
Did the terrorists we are
Did the terrorists we are fighting give a damn about civilian casualties on 9/11? Hell they TARGETED civilians and still do. Those that say it is because we "meddle" in others' affairs, I would partially agree. Let's stop providing millions in tax dollars to regimes that hate us and vow to kill us. Let's stop all humanitarian aid to 3rd world nations - the money is stolen and never reaches the people it is designed to help anyhow,
If the chance of civilian casualties trumps all, we would still be colony of England.
Dave, you say that war is more distant in the past?!?! It's never been closer and "in our face"! From weeks old news reels of Vietnam to real time video brings it closer IMHO.
Can anyone give me an example of any war, conflict, skirmish, or any type of physical confrontation between nations NOT resulteing in harm to innocents?
The only alternative to such actions is to live the Monroe doctrine 100% and more
Close the borders, halt all trade, stop trying to help people find their own form of freedom, and withdraw from the "world community".
Oops. We need oil and are not allowed to utilize our own resources.
Darn it, that pesky United Nations (you know, those folks that constantly "dis" us) would fold without our financial support.
Drat. We need Chinese money to support the bloated government we have allowed to trample its way into every facet of our daily lives.
I consider many of the above comments to be borne of naivete at best, progressive liberalism at worst.
Progressive liberalism
Progressive liberalism supports intervention and war and doesn't give a damn about civilian causalilties. Always been that way. Don't believe me, read an honest biography of I ne of the fathers of progressivism, Teddy Roosevrlt. True conservatives -- that is to say of the paleo type and libertarians -- stand with the father of the country and oppose foreign entanglements.
you can argue all you want,
you can argue all you want, bottom line is the united states is killing people on the other side of the world with a remote controlled machine.....a lot of americans think that's nice....I think killing people is wrong...(old school)
the blood thirsties can look forward to the day the other side of the world adopts the DRONE program and starts flying their machines over the united states.....only a matter of time and all the money in the world can't stop it........dog eat dog
I'm sure hoping Bob H.
I'm sure hoping Bob H. figured out a way to vote YES 370 times. I'd hate to think 53% of the people I encounter support murder.
Howard's correct, progressive liberals are an equally violent group.
Ed, thank you for your
Ed, thank you for your service to our country during time of war.
By distant Bob, I mean that
By distant Bob, I mean that it doesn't affect the average persons daily life much.
1) It depends on whether my
1) <snark> It depends on whether my favorite progressive leader is in control of the government or not. </snark>
2) Read Ender's War. Draw your own conclusions.
3) Only someone who lives in a first world country (where the closest encounter to an existential threat they usually have ever faced is crossing a busy street) can be so naive as to think that threats to the existence of their lives or their nation can be removed "surgically".
4) The reason that the Law of War and the Geneva Convention exist is because civilized people who understood what war means were able to codify rules to minimize civilian casualties. Minimize; because there is no way to fight an enemy without jeopardizing the environment around the fight, to include innocent human beings.
5) The blatant misreporting and misrepresenting of the requirements of the Law of War and The Geneva Convention by the press and the democrat party for the last 13 years is only one reason I have developed a visceral distaste for both of them.
The real question might
The real question might probably have been, 'Are we at war"
In war civilian casualties are inevitable, you can try to minimize them, but they still are inevitable. A drone strike in Afghanistan or on the tribal areas of Pakistan is one thing, we are at war there. People forget that Afghanistan was not Iraq, the 9/11 bombings originated there and the enemy fled into those border hills, so there is argument for the use of drone attacks.
Yemen on the other hand, was not at war with us, we are there supporting the government and at the same time striking at potential enemies pre-emptively, that is an intervention, and there is a tremendous difference.
One could argue that the 9/11 attacks were a result of interventionism, that is an argument for another day.
The bigger question still remains, should we be conducting strikes all over the world, or confining them to the battle areas across the Persian gulf?
should we be conducting
should we be conducting strikes all over the world, or confining them to the battle areas across the Persian gulf?
NO the US needs to get out of the business of policing the world when our young men & women are Murdered needleessly in some rat hole country that they would never have been in had they NOT joined the military!! And all because of some dweebs in Washington DC that saw another way to get rich off another war. The ones that really profit from a war should have to go there & collect their blood money and hope that they didn't get caught up in the killings.. That would settle that really quick!! . I enlisted in the military when I was 17 because I wanted to have a choice of where i was stationed. I went to Vietnam anyway, My first choice was the Med, 2nd choice was NOT Vietnam but I went because i thought we were doing something righteous & when I came home with all sorts of crap on my mind, I realized that I was wrong for believeing the higher ups that now control all life in the UNITED STATES & they all lied then & are lying again. They are all assholes as far as I am concerned and especially the one sitting in the catbird seat in MY WHITE HOUSE!! Let him take up arms & show US what to do, But He won't because he is nothing more than just chicken shit!!! baulk Baulk Baulk Baulk..
The bleeding hearts in this
The bleeding hearts in this country are going to get all of us killed. These animals strap bombs on women and children, just to get at us. Why are we the only ones that have to have morals? Unleash the drones, the one's that die today, won't be around to hate us tomorrow.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice John S.
Unfortunately Bob, terrorist
Unfortunately Bob, terrorist use civilians as a shield for multiple reasons. One is to make them a less attractive target due to collateral damage. Second, to gain public support and recruit more to their cause. Third but, not last, uses the media to show how horrible the USA is. Terrorist are not as stupid as you may think. History has shown that, others can use our actions against us. Great example is the Vietnam War. North Vietnamese and VC used the media to show horrors (AKA. Collateral Damage) to the world that, the USA and South Vietnamese killed innocents. Yes, we had some of our soldiers do wrong but, the North Vietnamese and VC inflicted many deaths on their own and blame the USA.
BTW Bob, tell me the last drone attack on a terrorist that, took place in America?
No one is okay with collateral damage. Someone would have to be heartless and detached from society to be okay with such. However, terrorist do not care about using the innocents as a shield or manipulate a person to do their will. They target children and the less fortunate.
Bob, if I had a terrorist living next door to me and I did not know about it. That probably means, I am pretty much oblivious of what’s around me. Also, some of the so called innocent civilians may not take arms up against the USA but, may provide support to the terrorist. Look at the Muslims around the world during 9-11, they cheered and applauded the attacks on New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Yet, when the USA shown their military might, most of them denounced the attacks to ensure the USA did not target them.
Your, lol @ all the yes voters, just shows me how uninformed you are from what is really going on. Funny thing is I am willing to wager that, if we did not target these terrorist and another 9-11 took place on our soil. You probably be in arms about why we did not take action.
David and whomever else it
David and whomever else it may concern. Imagine what the damage would be without surgical strikes and we just used WWII carpet bombings tactics. I do agree that, we need to stop interfering with others’ affairs but, unfortunately others rely on our help. I am not saying this is right. There are those who are unable to fight their own fight and look at the USA to be their hero but, some look at us as a villain too. Not to mention some use the USA as a mercenary to fight their battles so, they are not suffering causalities of war. Whether you like drones or not, I for one am happy of their existence. It means one less of my Brothers in Arms faces death or injury. War sucks but, until we as a world society learn to accept one another as an equal regardless of race, religion, beliefs, ethnics, etc… War will always exist. Greed and Power influences many to take and take and take. Also, too much hate in the world and for what reason? Just because, we do not agree? How arrogant and childish!
"Why are we the only ones
"Why are we the only ones that have to have morals?"
If you have to ask, then anything I say is wasted
I have to agree Dave....
I have to agree Dave.... That statement reminds me of a quote.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
If you step back and really look at it some of the things we complain about with our Govt could be the signs of the US becoming the monster it was born fighting against. Look at just our country's tax policies.
If I am not mistaken taxation without representation was the spark that started our revolution against Great Britan. I wonder how disgusted our founding fathers would be with THAT full circle circumstance on it's own.
If you truly ask why we should have morals, then no amount of explaining will ever make you understand. Until you stand on the precipice of a truly destructive downfall, then you will suddenly understand and demand a "moral" response from those you made the "why should we have" statement to begin with.
All I want to know from this
All I want to know from this majority of people who believe in the murdering of innocent life is...Would YOU press the button?
If so, why aren't you doing it then?
If you're not willing to, or aren't seriously considering a career change, then you're convictions are weak.
All I want to know from this
All I want to know from this majority of people who believe in the murdering of innocent life is...Would YOU press the button?
If so, why aren't you doing it then?
If you're not willing to, or aren't seriously considering a career change, then you're convictions are weak.
Phil, Drop a bomb on a
Phil,
Drop a bomb on a compound from which my troops are taking heavy fire? Yep. People in the adjoining compounds may or may not be endangered. It sucks. That is the real world.
What? Am I supposed to let my troops die so that there is not a chance of the poor folks next door to the people shooting at us getting hurt? F and U come to mind.
The difference with drones is that the threat is not so immediate and the killing is done on the time line of the drone operator. Killing some people is a good and proper thing. The where and when is sometimes up to your choosing. Other times it is not.
At the end of the day, I worry more about what world view the people with the ability to kill have than what technology they have to do it with. History shows that hubristic asses, such as those who occupy the current administration, are poor choices for such responsibility.
Dave? Are you saying we are
Dave? Are you saying we are superior to other peoples???!!! You? Saying that???
Kyle, I was not talking about
Kyle,
I was not talking about your made up scenario. As a former soldier, I would help my team as well, so thanks for proving a point to something that was never in question.
I was asking my question in direct regards to the drone program. It is still operated by humans. Soldiers who are being directed to commit those atrocities. Events that they have to live with while all of those who voted yes get to live with a clean conscious.
If those who are so morally ambiguous as to not consider these things, then I suggest they relieve those in these posts and have at it.
War was declared in WWII.
War was declared in WWII.
Phil, What made up scenario?
Phil,
What made up scenario? What atrocity? I'm sorry, you are arguing from a position of ignorance. It is an embarrassing place to argue from.
Sorry again.
No, I am saying that we
No, I am saying that we should follow our own moral compass. Not react to what some terrorist does
I still say that what happens
I still say that what happens in Afghanistan and drone attack or not, is not at all the same as what happens in Yemen or Libya.
The question is really not as simple as whether or not we use a drone as a weapon of war, rather is it moral and just to use a weapon of war That dilemma has been with us since this very say in 1983. Yes, I said 1983.
A very good friend and colleague of mine named SSGT Ron Garcia was killed on this date in 1983 in Beirut along with 240 other Brother Marines of mine. The bombing which caused their death by many is being dubbed as the first shot of the War on Terror. The unique nature of this war, is that it fly's in the face of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war designed to prevent civilian casualty.
Over the decades we as a nation have attempted to deal with acts of this nature as a criminal act, as an act of war, and now a mixed bag of criminal act and simultaneously an act of war.
And there lies the dilemma, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are NOT policemen, their mission is to kill people and break things in order to protect American Lives.
Just today, it was disclosed that the Libyan Government is paying for the defense of Abu Anas al-Libi. Why? because in their opinion we didn't capture him, we kidnapped him in defiance of international law.
It ties with this thread just as the Beirut Bombing does. Back in 1983 I was so angry that I personally wanted to to Lebanon and start killing people and breaking things, fortunately we did not, that would have exploded quite possibly into a World War, We entered a country that not only were we not at war with, but whose Government we helped prop up to grab al-Libi it made many of us feel good, but it was in fact an act of war to enter a nation with military personnel without the knowledge or permission of that government and sieze the man to bring home for trial.
Now drone strikes in Yemen, ok we have the permission of the Yemeni Government to conduct those operations, but are we conducting a military operation or an assignation when we do so, and worse is assassination any criminal worth the killing of women and children to achieve or even morally correct.
There are those who cite the murders of 9/11 as due cause, sorry that worked for attacking the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and the Al Queda that they protected, but I see no way that it justifies killing innocents a matter of facilitating an assassination, make no mistake, that is exactly what strikes in Yemen are.
I believe in a strong Military, I believe that we should spare no expense to maintain the most powerful military in the world. I believe that when it is time that we must throw a punch it should be so violent, unrelenting and destructive that our enemy should be unable to recover. But I REJECT that we should use our brave young men and women to carry out blatant assassination.
Unless of course, we are willing to become our enemy to achieve that end.
Mark, If we refuse to act
Mark,
If we refuse to act against evil because evil acts evil, we surrender to those who are evil. If we refuse to kill those planning to kill us because they are surrounded by their friends and family we are surrendering to them.
Only a truly naive person thinks that it is possible to catch the bad guy out in the wilderness alone. It ain't TV, it ain't the movies. Sorry, but real life evil people don't die to order in less than an hour or hour and a half, depending on format.
Once upon a time grown people ruled our world. They were able to make rational decisions about the use of force and the evaluation of risk. Today we are ruled by children worried more about minuscule risks than existential risks. If you doubt me, observe an Afghan getting his goat to market.
If you don't get the lesson, oh, well. I'm sure there is some show about the Kardashians or some other raw fish on the TV.
Kyle, Just like you, I have
Kyle,
Just like you, I have spent a large portion of my life in the service of this nation. Most often I strongly agree with you when other do not because I see many things in the same way as you.
Let me clarify my position.
1) The use of drones in Afghanistan and the Tribal areas of Pakistan is in my opinion not only warranted, but necessary as a Drone does not in anyway cost more than an American Life. While I hate the thought of collateral civilian casualties there, that area directly impacts the field of battle. I was initially and am now in full support of our troops there, the original purpose of the invasion and the pursuit and/or kill or capture of Al Queda members and Taliban who continue to operate there. (Although I seriously question the clarity of the mission of late,}
2) As far as Yemen is concerned, I do not see that as the same scenario. Yes we all know operatives are hiding there. Yes we all know that they wish to do us harm. That all said, we are not bombing there to stave off an immediate threat and clearly away from the field of battle. It is clearly an operation meant to assassinate. That goes against the ethos that I was taught and lived by during my time in service.
What we are doing in Yemen is the dirty work of an ally unless of course Yemen is now a province of Afghanistan. All that I am saying there, is that if they are so much a threat to us in Yemen, we should not be striking remotely with limited intelligence without boots on the ground. If the cause is not clear enough to go to war, than the cause is not strong enough continually strike from afar.
I fully understand war and it's implications, and unlike many on here I fully recognize the collateral risk in Afghanistan and the bordering provinces of Pakistan along with the necessity to take that risk. I just do not see it as the same balance in Yemen. There is no immediate threat to our troops there, there is no due process so there is no other way to call it but remote control assassination
Please remember Ron Garcia and his 240 fellow marines that were murdered as they slept in 1983. They were sent to a hostile shore and ordered not to chamber their weapons or lock their magazines in order not to be viewed as threatening. They followed their orders, and paid with their lives..
I am amazed by the amount of
I am amazed by the amount of ignorance and naïve comments I am seeing. It also amazing on how many individuals live in a fantasy world where there is no evil if, we just leave them alone. Hatred of this country has been well established before 1983. I am not for war and I would love to see our military not being used as a mercenary force and getting involved with conflicts that do not have any effect on our nation’s security.
Now if, I had to choose between putting boots on the ground, to capture a known terrorist or have a drone take out that terrorist. Damn sure I am going to have the drone do the work instead of risking my fellow comrades’ life. Even boots on the ground are going to cause collateral damage. It is inevitable and unfortunate. Human error is a factor no matter how you look at this. Terrorist have no issue neither using people as a shield nor using children to do their dirty work. Heck, terrorist have been known to pay $2000 to the individual’s family and inform the individual that, they will receive virgins and riches from allah for their acts. To say this is not true, just show one blindness to reality.
The Yemen's government is weak compare to the radicals who operate there. In my eyes the Yemen government is using the USA to help them hold on the little power they actually have on their own country. There is still a threat to us since, our military still uses their ports, our embassy and we conduct operations to help their government. I am not saying we could not just leave. However, that would just create more hatred of the USA. How would you like to be involved in a fight against a few and your friends decided to abandon you? Assassinations have been conducted since, the beginning of man. This is not new and sometimes an necessary evil to prevent evil. Why should the USA wait for someone to attack us when we receive intelligence of the attack prior to? Why wait for another 9-11, if you have the ability to prevent such?
Terrorist know the capabilities of the USA. They know that, where ever they go, they are a target. So, why put their families in harm’s way? Simply put, Deterrence! They know western society views life differently. Collateral damage is not just happening because, a drone drops ordinance on a compound. It is also because, terrorist and radicals do not view life as most and do not look at death as an “atrocities.”
Rich, I do not think morals
Rich, I do not think morals are at question here. To me it is the right of our country to prevent and protect against attacks on our people and our beliefs.
If the civilians are in
If the civilians are in danger, why do they choose to be holed up with terrorists? In the interests of national security, collateral damage is a price I would be willing to pay if it saved American lives. I would make that trade off every time.
I remember that day in 1983
I remember that day in 1983 well, Mark. A dark day to be sure and many of us wanted to know why we weren't dropping bombs on Lebanon until they gave up the dirtbags who did it. It would not have been the right response, it would have been emotional. You and I are mostly on the same page, believe it or not, the Taliban knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the ones who attacked us on 9-11, no question. We had to remove the Taliban and remove their ability to hide terrorists who may have been plotting other attacks and most likely were. Iraq and all the other countries we have been meddling with and bombing under the same reasoning is not valid. I believe in a strong defense but not an offense. This "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality is the moral dilemma I am concerned with.
Frank, your statement is ignorant. Sorry pal, but it is. Does the same apply to good people who live in a housing complex with armed drug dealers? If they are killing innocent people in the course of their street wars, and selling poison to children then holing up and threatening their neighbors is it OK for us to just bomb a section of the complex to get them? That would save American lives.
The ends do NOT ever justify the means.
Frank....seriously? You think
Frank....seriously? You think these terrorists ask these innocent civilians for their permission? You think they make a choice. I really cant believe you actually made that statement. These civilians are victims either way.
Sorry Kyle, but I don't think
Sorry Kyle, but I don't think they are as innocent as they would have us beleive. When is the last time the muslim community came out and denounced terrorism, and terrorists acts?
And I really don't give a damn how many of them get killed, they hate us across the board, that is the sad reality Kyle.
Frank....we dont know that
Frank....we dont know that for sure. However we are aware of one fact. Terrorists specifically islamic terrorists are a very vocal minority (or) majority. Ask anyone that has done a few tours of duty, basically civilians that are used as shields and such are either conned or threatened and the way islamic law works, women and children that speak out (even men for that matter) are killed to bring the rest under control.
THATS the reality. Talk to someone that has had boots on the ground. Maybe Kyle Slocum might have had some exp with this and can weigh in. But your generalization is really pretty unfair and part of the underside of this conflict cause I used to be of the same viewpoint til I spoke w a few friends back from there.
Kyle, I must be, because I
Kyle,
I must be, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I have served my country, lost friends, and have seen plenty. I am not ignorant to protecting our own, but for all of those who are so willing to engage in war, send drones over to kill "suspected" terrorists, like the poll question asks, without regard to innocent life, I think they (you? If you said yes?) should be the ones to do it then.
I have buddies who are mentally gone from the things that they saw/did. Maybe you're fine with that responsibility? Good. Take it, and enjoy, but if those who are so brave as to vote yes in this poll, are not brave enough to carry out that mission, then I say maybe they should think a little.
For the record, Kyle. I don't know you or what you did for our nation, and you don't know me. I respect your service and your opinion, I just have seen a lot more colors than black and white on this topic.
Kyle, my viewpoint will never
Kyle, my viewpoint will never change. I have read enough of the koran to make me sick to my stomach, enough said.
This isn't just about Americans, its about any religion outside of islam, you know, all the infidels, or as it states in the Hadiths, (The traditions of Muhammed) "Christians and Jews are the worst of creatures", kill them where ever you find them.
I'm supposed to care if any of these muslims get killed, no, not today, not tommorow, not ever.
The rest of the world had better wake up and stop these murderers before they have the numbers to carry out their duties as good muslims should.
The only fact I find unfair is that muslims look down on non muslims, as directed by the koran.
Phil.... I didnt vote because
Phil.... I didnt vote because my feeling is it needs to be adressed on a case by case basis, I was navy myself, saw some service in Gulf during desert storm one but wasn't on land so saw nothing horrific.
I too have many buddies that suffer with the recent conflicts but the point I am trying to make is that Frank's broad stroked assessment is as fair as comparing fundamentalist Christians to all of Christianity. Yes terrorists and some sects of muslims are truly very bad. But not all are and if you TRULY read the Koran, (Not the writings of Mohammed) You will see a parallel. These people that terrorists hide behind dont CHOOSE to be shields but are forced by con man and bully tactics. This is the reality not that skewed reality that Frank spouts.
Frank the haddiths are separate from the Koran and are not part of it's teachings.... maybe this will help.
Hadith
A hadith is a saying of Muhammad or a report about something he did. Over time, during the first few centuries of Islam, it became obvious that many so-called hadith were in fact spurious sayings that had been fabricated for various motives, at best to encourage believers to act righteously and at worse to corrupt believers' understanding of Islam and to lead them astray. Since Islamic legal scholars were utilizing hadith as an adjunct to the Qur'an in their development of the Islamic legal system, it became critically important to have reliable collections of hadith. While the early collections of hadith often contained hadith that were of questionable origin, gradually collections of authenticated hadith called sahih (lit. true, correct) were compiled. Such collections were made possible by the development of the science of hadith criticism, a science at the basis of which was a critical analysis of the chain of (oral) transmission (isnad) of the hadith going all the way back to Muhammad. The two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. In addition to these, four other collections came to be well-respected, although not to the degree of Bukhari and Muslim's sahih collections. These four other collections are the Sunan of Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and Abu Da'ud. Together these four and the two sahih collections are called the "six books" (al-kutub al-sitta). Two other important collections, in particular, are the Muwatta of Ibn Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of law, and the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of law. http://islam.uga.edu/primsourcisl.html
While the common factor between the hadith qudsi and the Qur’an is that both contain words from Allah that were revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), they are, nevertheless, distinct from each other as pointed out here:
1. The Qur’an contains the verbatim words of Allah, while a hadith qudsi contains the message of Allah conveyed to the people by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Prophet’s own words.
2. The Qur’an is inimitable and unique, but such is not the case with a hadith qudsi. This is so because the latter is not the verbatim word of Allah.
3. The Qur’an is recited in every Prayer but a hadith qudsi cannot be recited in any Prayer.
So the haddiths you refer to are NOT the Koran Frank, so that very basis alone makes the so-called facts you base your opinion on very questionable.
I do not support the form of islam that these terrorists subscribe to any more than I as a christian subscribe to westboro baptist church's form of christianity. Or the christianity that was prevalent during the inquisition. Too much corruption in these fundamentalist versions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but sometimes the life of non combatants is in jepordy when conflicts like this arise. I'm sure there were many innocents and civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as many peaceful native american tribes that were wiped out just because.
I just was disgusted at Franks implication that civilian shields have a choice. My first hand info is that they more often than not.....they dont.
Also Frank there have been
Also Frank there have been many condemnations from the muslim community on acts of islamic terrorism, however they dont make good copy for the media and so go largely ignored.... Another reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
Kyle, I have heard some of
Kyle, I have heard some of the sermons delivered by muslim clerics throughout the world, and the shit they're preaching doesn't come from any of the books you're referencing. Throw all that crap out the window, the jihadist, or fanatics, radicals, or fundamentalist or whatever flavor
they portray, hate Americans, hate jews, and hate christians, and they have but one goal, world domination.
I'll give Obama some credit for having the nads to take them out with drones.
I hate when westboro is mentioned as being terrorist, they are a small band of misguided fools, islamist terrorist are well financed and world wide, there is no comparison.
Never mentioned Westboro as a
Never mentioned Westboro as a terrorist org. I mentioned them as being as valid example of christianty as fundamental islamists are of islam. The is a big distinction there.
Islamic terrorists arent really that well funded most of the time and they fight amongst themselves almost as much as they do with non islamic groups.
Kyle, what we are forgetting
Kyle, what we are forgetting is that, usually the civilians around the terrorist are more likely their kin, other terrorist cell members plus their families and numerous supporters. In the Arabic/Islamic Culture, family is a big part of their belief. You will have several generations living under the same roof / building. Let’s also remember that, Arabic nations allow their men to have multiple wives, no more than four. Americans have a hard time envisioning that, another country’s social network is so different from ours’. Drone operators are able to do surgical strikes and cause very little collateral damage. Those who get caught in the cross fire are usually associated with the terrorist whether they are spotters, suppliers and/or prospects for future endeavors. Look at the alleged Osama raid in Pakistan. Apparently, some of the local military leaders kept Osama informed about American movements and plans. I do not believe that, Obama got Osama, too many unanswer questions and whether or not you believe other reports. I for one believe Obama has once again lied to the American People. I have to find the interview and link but, there is a report that, Osama past away in 2007.
I will agree that, when terrorist operate some where the local population supports western ideals or beliefs, they will operate amongs them. This may cause some collateral damage. I can assure you that, Libya is not a support of our ideals, they believe in a religious state not a free state.
Thank you John, I guess I
Thank you John, I guess I didn't spell it out clear enough in my post.
Kyle, you and I will never agree, and that is the beauty of the Batavian.
Ahh but in one aspect I do
Ahh but in one aspect I do agree with you Frank. When you said.....
"the jihadist, or fanatics, radicals, or fundamentalist or whatever flavor
they portray, hate Americans, hate jews, and hate christians, and they have but one goal, world domination."
You didnt use the generic label of muslim. And in the above statement you Made I do agree with everthing you said with one additional thought to add. Having this one goal of world domination is what dooms their goal to fail because they want to drag the modern world back to what it was like when Mohammed walked the earth. Time progresses it doesnt go backwards, so having such a goal is as futile as having a goal to move Mt. Everest 40 miles south of it's current position. Just not gonna happen.
And THAT is the beauty of the Batavian as well...because even our perpetual disagreement isnt absolute LOL
It's actually the beauty of
It's actually the beauty of debating like adults. The Batavian promotes this. We participants do as well, openly encouraging others to make their positions and points.
It is really a beautiful thing.