• 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!

C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

Keith Olberman is a Jackarse and he isn't a Real New's Reporter so this story is just another fancy ratings game by MSNBC.

Just like Sean Hanity and Bill O'Reilly are on Fox.

However can you honestly disprove or contest what he was saying or showing? His status as a liberal talking head only matters when you can directly discredit the story based upon his bias or prove he's twisting the context to suit his own end.

Can you do that in this case?
 
However can you honestly disprove or contest what he was saying or showing? His status as a liberal talking head only matters when you can directly discredit the story based upon his bias or prove he's twisting the context to suit his own end.

Can you do that in this case?

To be Honest i didn't watch the clip nor will I as I stated I don't considerhim a News Caster just another Talking and Head that Spin's things the way he wants. the same can be said of both Bill and Sean on Fox.
 
To be Honest i didn't watch the clip nor will I as I stated I don't considerhim a News Caster just another Talking and Head that Spin's things the way he wants. the same can be said of both Bill and Sean on Fox.

They dno't hav to be news casters in order to be considered worth listening to. Bill O'Reilly is no Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman however.

In the case of this video Olberman doesn't actually cross any lines. Is he a little snarky? Yeah. Does he act like Olberman? Sure. Does he try to distort anything here? Not that I can see. His guest however makes me want to punch him in the face.
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Easy:
As soon as the liberals caught wind of it, they would have blown the secret, destroyed the program, unnecessarily endangered Americans lives - all while happily making political hay.

Oh is that what happened? God you are priceless:doh

LOL... who was it that leaked the info that we were basing our drones out of Pakistan????.... Hmmmmm?

God, you are priceless. :mrgreen:
 
Oh yes! It MUST be incompetence. Cuz, you know, it's so easy to maintain long term clandestine operations against a hostile, decentralized force of extremists. Piece of cake! Barack Obama could work this out on the back of a napkin.

And it MUST be Bush/Cheney's fault because we know they are both personally responsible for the operational aspects of clandestine missions. I'm of the opinion that the Vice President should take point on every assassination raid we conduct.

Personally I'd rather see Barry take point... but he can take Joe with him if he likes.
 
They dno't hav to be news casters in order to be considered worth listening to. Bill O'Reilly is no Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman however.

:rofl:rofl:rofl
 
Classified information is on a "need to know basis". No exceptions. Moreover, simply being a congressman or senator doesn't mean one is capable of obtaining a security clearance. Congressman and senators are equally as likely if not greater to be the target of foreign espionage attempts. They are probably more susciptible to foreign espionage attempts such as blackmail and money laundering.

Not to mention bribery... they are the best money can buy.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

We would be justified in killing Al Quieda terrorists because they committed acts of terrorism against us. We would NOT be justified, nor has it ever been U.S. (KNOWN) policy to kill people who simply don't like us.

Do you think we would be justified to kill people we simply disagree with, who have never actually done anything but hate us? (I'll remind you that an Al Quieda supporter is not necessarily a terrorist himself/herself. Support is a thought process, not an overt act itself)
If you have never read George Orwell's "1984".......I suggest you do so because what you are espousing is the acceptance of real-life Orwell's "Thought Police"

Wrong. If you supply shelter, food, information, weapons, etc. to a terrorist or enemy of the US., you are fair game... or would you like to come fight me with both hands tied behind your back? (example only, not a threat)
 
Agreed Olbermann is not a news reporter, but his producers are, and his program relies on content from NBC News, which is real news.

So show us the "real news", not the unentertaining entertainer.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Wrong. If you supply shelter, food, information, weapons, etc. to a terrorist or enemy of the US., you are fair game... or would you like to come fight me with both hands tied behind your back? (example only, not a threat)

Once you "supply shelter, food, information, weapons, etc. to a terrorist or enemy of the US."......You are no longer a "Supporter"....You are an Al Quieda terrorist & thus a legitimate target.
My background is federal law enforcement & I apply the rules of federal Conspiracy law to situations like this:

Under federal law, to be guilty of Conspiracy, you must do 2 things:
1. Communicate intentions to do something illegal with at least one other person..
AND
2. Perform at least one overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.

My point is that simply being a supporter of Al Quieda would be like admiring a bank robber & thinking about robbing a bank yourself, & even telling your best friend about your intentions. (This is not a crime)

The crime comes if you actually DO something in furtherance of that crime. That's the "Overt Act:" necessary to complete the crime of conspiracy.(something as simple as driving by the bank to check security)


Merely supporting (mentally agreeing with) Al Quieda does not make you a terrorist, without an overt act. (doing any of the things you mentioned..supply shelter, food, information, weapons...would convert you from a mere supporter to a terrorist yourself)
It would appear that we targeted people who had comitted no overt acts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the Liar?

Is this thread still about the CIA?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Would it matter to you if any of these "Impressive" kills were on totally innocent men?

Of course it would. Got any proff that, "totally innocent", soft targets were terminated by this program?


I hope I'm not alone as a "non-right winger" in saying I'm damn glad we at least tried to do something like this.

Look, this is what our government should have been doing post-911. The invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake. But assembling teams of covert operators to go after our enemies wherever they were hiding...that was a damn good idea. Unfortunately the planning and execution seems to have been fairly poor, but in my mind I wish they would have been more successful, that they would have expanded the program, and that we would have never found out about it.

Sword of Gideon comes to mind.

I can't stand Cheney or Rumsfeld, not at all. But on this matter, the only thing I see they did wrong was trying to micro manage it. It should have been a joint CIA/Pentagon operation that drew upon resources from every corner. Had there been better logistical and operational planning this thing may have been a true success story that quietly protected our nation.

Far from beating Cheney up about this specific program, we ought to be quietly applauding him for at least trying. God I feel dirty saying that.

I'm far from being a, "non-Right Winger", but I am in total agreement with you. It's just common sense.




We would be justified in killing Al Quieda terrorists because they committed acts of terrorism against us. We would NOT be justified, nor has it ever been U.S. (KNOWN) policy to kill people who simply don't like us.

Do you think we would be justified to kill people we simply disagree with, who have never actually done anything but hate us? (I'll remind you that an Al Quieda supporter is not necessarily a terrorist himself/herself. Support is a thought process, not an overt act itself)
If you have never read George Orwell's "1984".......I suggest you do so because what you are espousing is the acceptance of real-life Orwell's "Thought Police"

During WW2, did we make a distinction between, "Nazis", and, "Germans"? Did we make a distinction between, "Bushidists", and, "Japanese"?

An, "al Qaeda supporter", is just as much of a terrorist as an, "al Qaeda suicide bomber".


That is the problem with drone attacks. The concept is awesome, execution is problematic. When you are trying to be precise there is no substitution for an operator on the ground with target confirmation. Logistically difficult to be sure, but the alternative often results in innocent casualties and other collateral damage.

Collateral damage is the nature of warfare. It's as old as warfare, itself. Collateral damage in American military history goes back as far as the Civil War. Maybe farther, but I know for sure as far back as the CW.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

The problem is the plan is now revealed.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

The problem is the plan is now revealed.

This is just one plan. Do you excuse our government for doing things that are not legal, and by that I mean ANYTHING the U.S. has done? And if so, how is that any different than Iran, or NK?

Or do you think that ANYTHING the U.S. does is good. Just curious.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

This is just one plan. Do you excuse our government for doing things that are not legal, and by that I mean ANYTHING the U.S. has done? And if so, how is that any different than Iran, or NK?

Or do you think that ANYTHING the U.S. does is good. Just curious.

How is killing the enemy illegal?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

How is killing the enemy illegal?

The "enemy" is defined by however the government wants it to be.

The fact that people don't have a say so in who the enemy should be without any oversight would scare the hell out of even me.

When the "enemy" is defined as anyone against Obama and should be killed, would you then feel there should be some oversight?

the requirement to just notify "certain" people of congress scares the hell out of me, doesn't it you?
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the Liar?

How is killing the enemy illegal?

Even warfare has rules & you can be executed for breaking them.
The Geneva conventions make many ways of killing the enemy illegal. (example: You can't kill an unarmed enemy trying to surrender, etc)

Only the Bush/Cheney regime felt it was above the law.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Collateral damage is the nature of warfare. It's as old as warfare, itself. Collateral damage in American military history goes back as far as the Civil War. Maybe farther, but I know for sure as far back as the CW.

This isn't necessarily "warfare." It's counter terrorist operations when we are talking about taking out specific Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

The problem is the plan is now revealed.

Not really. The plan has only been revealed on the most macro of levels. Nothing operational or organizational was revealed. Only the fact that we were trying to pull it off. Besides, I think most of us assumed we were doing this anyway. Nothing here was jeopardized.
 
Agreed Olbermann is not a news reporter, but his producers are, and his program relies on content from NBC News, which is real news.

lol, ****ing no. Keith Olbermann is literally a mirror image of O'Reilly, except probably a little stupider. Would you believe something that O'Reilly claimed that nobody else was reporting simply because he's under the umbrella of Fox news?

Provide a real link, or don't. I don't really care.

However can you honestly disprove or contest what he was saying or showing? His status as a liberal talking head only matters when you can directly discredit the story based upon his bias or prove he's twisting the context to suit his own end.

Can you do that in this case?

There is literally no other source than alex jones that I can find that backs this claim up.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Even warfare has rules & you can be executed for breaking them.
The Geneva conventions make many ways of killing the enemy illegal. (example: You can't kill an unarmed enemy trying to surrender, etc)

Only the Bush/Cheney regime felt it was above the law.

Killing enemy is the rule #1 of war. The rule #2 is to stay alive. the rule # 3 is to assure that your comrades stay alive and follow the rule#1. You can kill an unarmed enemy trying to surrender if not killing him treatens your task of following the rule #1, #2 and #3.

The rule #1 overrides all other rules. No country signed under the convention would argue.

Are you following the rule #1?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Even warfare has rules & you can be executed for breaking them.
The Geneva conventions make many ways of killing the enemy illegal. (example: You can't kill an unarmed enemy trying to surrender, etc)

Only the Bush/Cheney regime felt it was above the law.

Can you show me what part of the Geneva Convention was violated?

(This is always a fun game)
 
The "enemy" is defined by however the government wants it to be.

The fact that people don't have a say so in who the enemy should be without any oversight would scare the hell out of even me.

When the "enemy" is defined as anyone against Obama and should be killed, would you then feel there should be some oversight?

the requirement to just notify "certain" people of congress scares the hell out of me, doesn't it you?


What scares the hell out of me, is that some people want to actually sit around and allow politicians debate about who the bad guys really are.


Even warfare has rules & you can be executed for breaking them.
The Geneva conventions make many ways of killing the enemy illegal. (example: You can't kill an unarmed enemy trying to surrender, etc)

Only the Bush/Cheney regime felt it was above the law.


One, sniping isn't illegal. Two, making laws about how to kill someone is infinitely idotic. Three, it's not illegal to kill a surrendering enemy, if you believe that taking him prisoner will jeopardize your safety, the safety of your unit, or the mission. No one is expected to stop, in the middle of a firefight, to take an enemy fighter prisoner. The Geneva Convention only applies after the battle is over, in regard to the treatment of POW's.


This isn't necessarily "warfare." It's counter terrorist operations when we are talking about taking out specific Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives.


When you send the military out to hunt down and kill the enemy, it's warfare.
 
Back
Top Bottom