• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court orders U.S. to release memo on drones, al-Awlaki killing

jonny5 said:
And I said torture as well. I simply dont consider as torture the same things as you do. But it seems you agree with droning them, since its combating individuals, not countries.
Click to expand...

Consider implies there is a debate. I don't think there is. I think those seeking to excuse torture make excuses and redefine to fit their agenda. But at the end of the day those things are universally considered torture.

And no where did I say I condone drone strikes. You really should expand your view of what is possible.
 
jonny5 said:
Because their religion demands it :2dancing:
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure does. Why all Muslims are terrorists and attacking us.

:roll:
 
Henry David said:
I'm not insulting anybody. I am merely stating what is perhaps a minority opinion.

Are your posts really debate? Or just disproven government talking points? Sounds like a Sunday Morning Talking Heads show to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

I posted my opinion, supported by quoted sources, references to facts, logic and reasoning. You posted

"If you don't understand it 13 years in, I fear you will never understand it. "
 
Boo Radley said:
Consider implies there is a debate. I don't think there is. I think those seeking to excuse torture make excuses and redefine to fit their agenda. But at the end of the day those things are universally considered torture.

And no where did I say I condone drone strikes. You really should expand your view of what is possible.
Click to expand...

The fact that we are having a debate confirms that there is one. You said

I said to combat them as they are, individuals and groups, not countries.
Click to expand...

What is drone strikes but targeting individuals and groups? You should really expand your view of I have no idea what your talking about.
 
jonny5 said:
Because the Koran says convert everyone or kill them. :cone:
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I said, all Muslims are terrorists and attacking us. Even if they aren't attacking us and instead having a civil conversation, they're still attacking us and we need to defend ourselves!

:roll:
 
Ikari said:
Yes, and as I said, all Muslims are terrorists and attacking us. Even if they aren't attacking us and instead having a civil conversation, they're still attacking us and we need to defend ourselves!

:roll:
Click to expand...

And as I said. No wait, I never did say all muslims are terrorists.:poke
 
jonny5 said:
We arent targeting civilians though. They just happen to be nearby.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all
US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html

There has, on several occasions, been indiscriminate killing, which is reflected by Administration/drone policy and deaths on the ground.
 
jonny5 said:
The fact that we are having a debate confirms that there is one. You said



What is drone strikes but targeting individuals and groups? You should really expand your view of I have no idea what your talking about.
Click to expand...

No, addressing someone who is either misinformed or wanting to pretend doesn't make something actually debatable. There is no real or honest debate about the fact that we did torture.

Are you suggesting there us no other way to target individuals or groups? If so, you're wrong about that as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, addressing someone who is either misinformed or wanting to pretend doesn't make something actually debatable. There is no real or honest debate about the fact that we did torture.

Are you suggesting there us no other way to target individuals or groups? If so, you're wrong about that as well.
Click to expand...

No, im suggesting that you should support droning as its in line with your opinion that we should target groups. And calling me stupid isnt an argument. You said the opinion on what is torture is universal. I disagree, which disproves your point. I know that you know that thousands of others would not agree either. So why be intentionally dishonest?
 
 
jonny5 said:
No, im suggesting that you should support droning as its in line with your opinion that we should target groups. And calling me stupid isnt an argument. You said the opinion on what is torture is universal. I disagree, which disproves your point. I know that you know that thousands of others would not agree either. So why be intentionally dishonest?
Click to expand...

I don't. It's still too blunt, with the real possibility of killing innocent people.

And no, you, and I repeat this, being either misinformed or pretending in order to excuse these acts doesn't change what is universally accepted. The US itself has a history of calling these acts torture. As does the UN. There is no honest opinion to the contrary.
 
jonny5 said:
Because I dont want to read 5 separate articles to try and figure out what youre referencing. This is a debate forum, not a reading list.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then:

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” —and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.

But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

In 2010, when WikiLeaks published a video of the incident in which an Apache helicopter in Baghdad killed two Reuters journalists, what sparked the greatest outrage was not the initial attack, which the US army claimed was aimed at armed insurgents, but rather the follow-up attack on those who arrived at the scene to rescue the wounded.
…
But attacking rescuers (and arguably worse, bombing funerals of America's drone victims) is now a tactic routinely used by the US in Pakistan. In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that "the CIA's drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals." Specifically: "at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims." That initial TBIJ report detailed numerous civilians killed by such follow-up strikes on rescuers, and established precisely the terror effect which the US government has long warned are sown by such attacks:
…
Since that first bureau report, there have been numerous other documented cases of the use by the US of this tactic: "On [4 June], US drones attacked rescuers in Waziristan in western Pakistan minutes after an initial strike, killing 16 people in total according to the BBC. On 28 May, drones were also reported to have returned to the attack in Khassokhel near Mir Ali." Moreover, "between May 2009 and June 2011, at least 15 attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, ABC News and Al Jazeera."
Click to expand...

US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan

British and Pakistani journalists said Sunday that the C.I.A.’s drone strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan have repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.

The report, by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile. The bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals. The findings were published on the bureau’s Web site and in The Sunday Times of London.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?

An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html

Funerals and rescue workers have been targeted in past strikes.
Click to expand...

Everything you need to know about the drone debate, in one FAQ

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.
Click to expand...

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

Missiles fired by a U.S. drone slammed into a convoy of vehicles traveling to a wedding party in central Yemen on Thursday, killing at least 13 people, Yemeni security officials said.
Click to expand...

Official: U.S. drone attack in Yemen kills wedding guests - CBS News
 
jonny5 said:
Because I dont want to read 5 separate articles to try and figure out what youre referencing. This is a debate forum, not a reading list.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not suggesting that you are unable to read something and come to your own conclusion....:peace
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't. It's still too blunt, with the real possibility of killing innocent people.

And no, you, and I repeat this, being either misinformed or pretending in order to excuse these acts doesn't change what is universally accepted. The US itself has a history of calling these acts torture. As does the UN. There is no honest opinion to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that whatever defintion of torture you have is accepted by every single person on the planet (except me).
 
Jango said:
Alrighty then:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all



US drone strikes target rescuers in Pakistan



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html



Everything you need to know about the drone debate, in one FAQ



Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com



Official: U.S. drone attack in Yemen kills wedding guests - CBS News
Click to expand...

Ok, that lends credence to your argument thats its not discriminating enough, though much of the evidence is based on hearsay. And in each case, the intent by the US was to kill someone they thought to be an enemy. Rather than intentionally targeting someone they knew wasnt. Which may very well be morally wrong. Its a debate worth having.
 
jonny5 said:
Prove to me that whatever defintion of torture you have is accepted by every single person on the planet (except me).
Click to expand...

Waterboarding is a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1]

(Snip)

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[1][36][37] politicians, war veterans,[38][39] intelligence officials,[40] military judges,[41] and human rights organizations.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Boo Radley said:
Waterboarding is a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1]

(Snip)

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[1][36][37] politicians, war veterans,[38][39] intelligence officials,[40] military judges,[41] and human rights organizations.

Waterboarding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

That is just waterboarding and a public webpage. How does that prove that everyone in the world accepts YOUR definition of torture? Are you claiming wikipedia is pure truth?
 
jonny5 said:
That is just waterboarding and a public webpage. How does that prove that everyone in the world accepts YOUR definition of torture? Are you claiming wikipedia is pure truth?
Click to expand...

You can find this anywhere. This was just a survey site. What it reports us accurate.
 
jonny5 said:
That is just waterboarding and a public webpage. How does that prove that everyone in the world accepts YOUR definition of torture? Are you claiming wikipedia is pure truth?
Click to expand...

Any fool with half a brain can figure out that waterboarding is torture. Try it sometime and see how you feel about it.
 
jonny5 said:
That is just waterboarding and a public webpage. How does that prove that everyone in the world accepts YOUR definition of torture? Are you claiming wikipedia is pure truth?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the trials at Nuremberg?
 
Is the New York Times even a relevancy anymore? Slim is about to slam its doors. I can hardly wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom