Obama's Secret Kill List

Quag said:

I don`t like the idea of the President or ANY leader of ANY country having a kill list. The priority should be on capture, or does innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not count if an elected official doesn`t want it to?

Click to expand...

Yeah. I think you should go to Yemen and personally arrest those on the list. You might possibly get off the runway alive but I doubt it.

Quag said:

Even if you could destroy them all it wouldnt change the moral dilema.

Click to expand...

What moral dilemna? How is ordering the killing of an enemy leader (ie, "assassination) somehow different than a lieutenant ordering his platoon to fire upon and kill some enemy soldiers?

I've never understood why assassination is so taboo. As far as I'm concerned, assassinating some crackpot dictator is infinitely preferable to engaging him in an all out ground war that would result in many more deaths. It's silly.

As to your assertion that "ok, but you can't complain if someone assassinates obama". Bull****. I can and I will. Just because I don't consider assassination unacceptable in general doesn't mean I want Obama to be assassinated. There's no inconsistency in that statement.

Besides, this story can't possibly be true. Obama won a nobel peace prize, remember?

Quag said:

I don`t like the idea of the President or ANY leader of ANY country having a kill list. The priority should be on capture, or does innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not count if an elected official doesn`t want it to?

Click to expand...

Ok, YOU go arrest them then.
The fact is that drones are the only way to end this war. It is a uniquely effective weapon against this kind of enemy. If you want Alqeada to continue to plan attacks we could always do nothing.

VanceMack said:

I personally approve of this as I approved of Bush using similar tactics. It is also very refreshing to see Bubba and a few others A-acknowledge we are still at 'war' with terrorists and B- accepting the need to fight terrorists wherever they are hiding out. It is also not at all surprising to see the usual suspects lining up to condemn any and everything Obama does in the war on terror solely because he is a democrat. Kinda puts those folks in the same category as those who did the same thing with Bush...and will do so again when/if we ever have another republican president.

On the snarky side...its good to see Obama reducing the number of potential inmates at the black ops prisons around the world! No need worrying about those offered 'constitutional rights' and stateside trials when you can just nuke em!

Click to expand...

Bush used the "bring it on" tactic, sending 100's of thousands of GI's as targets for terrorist attacks. His invasion of Iraq more than doubled the # new Alqeada members who flocked to Iraq to get a piece of one of our soldiers. The beauty of the drone is that there are no targets to entice new recruits and there is no escape from their prying eyes.

iguanaman said:

Bush used the "bring it on" tactic, sending 100's of thousands of GI's as targets for terrorist attacks. His invasion of Iraq more than doubled the # new Alqeada members who flocked to Iraq to get a piece of one of our soldiers. The beauty of the drone is that there are no targets to entice new recruits and there is no escape from their prying eyes.

Click to expand...

Bush fought the war against terrorists and he fought it on the battlefield of the day> Obama is doing the same. Mad props to both and loud laughter at the partisan hacks that equivocate.

iguanaman said:

Ok, YOU go arrest them then.
The fact is that drones are the only way to end this war. It is a uniquely effective weapon against this kind of enemy. If you want Alqeada to continue to plan attacks we could always do nothing.

Click to expand...

Tell me again in 10 years how drones have ended the war. lol that is very very very optimistic thinking.

I have np with police shooting some guy who is holding a gun to someones head threatening to kill them. I do see a difference when you lob a missle through the guys home and kill him, his wife, kid etc because you believe he has or is plotting to kill someone. One is done when lives are on the line the other is done when no lives are in immediate danger.
What happens if they get the wrong person on the kill list? Can't happen? hmm kinda like the WMD in Iraq?
If we are talking a case by case situation where they go OK we found this guy "Bob" hes at X place, only chance we got to get him with no risk to us is a drone strike, then I can sorta understand. But to have a list where regardless if you can take them alive, you just go in and kill, I think a line has been crossed that should not be crossed.



You keep talking about drones etc. Yet OBL was killed not with drones but by people on the ground. They were ordered to KILL, to ASSASINATE. If Obama had said. Ok go in there and take him alive if you can, but don't risk your lives kill if necesssary, I'd understand, it is reasonable, He didn't he said KILL.

Quag said:

Tell me again in 10 years how drones have ended the war. lol that is very very very optimistic thinking.

I have np with police shooting some guy who is holding a gun to someones head threatening to kill them. I do see a difference when you lob a missle through the guys home and kill him, his wife, kid etc because you believe he has or is plotting to kill someone. One is done when lives are on the line the other is done when no lives are in immediate danger.
What happens if they get the wrong person on the kill list? Can't happen? hmm kinda like the WMD in Iraq?
If we are talking a case by case situation where they go OK we found this guy "Bob" hes at X place, only chance we got to get him with no risk to us is a drone strike, then I can sorta understand. But to have a list where regardless if you can take them alive, you just go in and kill, I think a line has been crossed that should not be crossed.



You keep talking about drones etc. Yet OBL was killed not with drones but by people on the ground. They were ordered to KILL, to ASSASINATE. If Obama had said. Ok go in there and take him alive if you can, but don't risk your lives kill if necesssary, I'd understand, it is reasonable, He didn't he said KILL.

Click to expand...

And my heart bleeds for him......You have no idea what a bad idea it would have been to take Bin Laden alive and make him a martyr. It would have been better to leave him alone, free and planning more attacks. Is that what you really think?

VanceMack said:

Bush fought the war against terrorists and he fought it on the battlefield of the day> Obama is doing the same. Mad props to both and loud laughter at the partisan hacks that equivocate.

Click to expand...

Bush lured terrorists into Iraq by sending targets for them to hunt. That's what I meant by the "bring it on" strategy and it did not work out too well.

...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.

Click to expand...

wow.......

iguanaman said:

And my heart bleeds for him......You have no idea what a bad idea it would have been to take Bin Laden alive and make him a martyr. It would have been better to leave him alone, free and planning more attacks. Is that what you really think?

Click to expand...

OBL was made a martyr when they killed him. I don't see how that makes a difference. Where in anything that I've said did i mention it would be better to leave him free to plan more attacks?
As to it being war, well what about the war on drugs? should we just shoot every drug dealer and suspected drug dealer? it is war after all!

From a purely pragmatic perspective we should really be questioning the effectiveness of these strikes. To do that we should answer the following question: Are we creating more terrorists than we are killing with these actions?

Quag said:

OBL was made a martyr when they killed him. I don't see how that makes a difference. Where in anything that I've said did i mention it would be better to leave him free to plan more attacks?
As to it being war, well what about the war on drugs? should we just shoot every drug dealer and suspected drug dealer? it is war after all!

Click to expand...

only if in our war on poverty our nation decides the right thing to do is to kill every poor man, woman and child

TheDemSocialist said:

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Wow... Well civil liberties i guess is just thrown out of the door. How has this not gone to the USSC? Is our country really taking this ****ing road?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Click to expand...

....Since long before Obama. This just adds to the joke of "Hope" and "Change." If Americans understood the world they live in and their nation's history, politicians wouldn't get away with all the BS that gets them elected. The finger pointing of dead civilians, disrespect to soveriegnty, and the promise of transparency on the campaign trail didn't amount to much once he got to the White House and got slapped in the face by reality. The slogan that "a vote for McCain is like a vote for Bush" gave us Bush anyway.

Quag said:

OBL was made a martyr when they killed him. I don't see how that makes a difference. ....snip....

Click to expand...

Nope, he was made into fish food, and removed from the view of anyone wishing to enshrine him...out of site, out of mind is quite accurate in this case. That you see no difference is not important, that THEY do is very important.

Quag said:

OBL was made a martyr when they killed him. I don't see how that makes a difference.

Click to expand...

That's because you don't understand the Islamic culture. Everyone in Islam is a martyr. The difference is that living martyrs are the dangerous ones. A living martyr becomes a "political prisoner." He is an ongoing martyr that becomes the object for enduring violence "until released." Munich, in 1972, was about "political prisoners." Even Osama Bin Laden used the words "starving children of Iraq" .........not "starved" (not that he really cared either way).

The reason for this is because of Islamic Sunni code. Because it is such a great offense to idol worship, Muhammad is not physically portrayed in painting or currency. The Sunni persecute the Shia over shrines to their "martyrs" because it offers an alternate source to worpship other than God. There are no "Marys" or "Saints" within Islam to commemorate events and invoke a measure of prayer and worship. Ali is as close a dead martyr you are going to get (within the Shia sect only). The Sunni hate the memory of Ali (90 percent of Islam report to be Sunni). The truth is for all of Islam's preaching about their dead, they move on quite quickly. He may become a martyr in local thought, but other than that he is forgotton. He is a gravestone. A shallow memory. Where are the attacks to avenge Osama Bin Laden's death? Even if a future terrorist attack develops, the event will simply use his death as an excuse (any excuse will do). An imprisoned Osama Bin Laden would give plenty of excuses to people who are always looking for one and they will always have their living "political prisoners."

Therefore, Osama Bin Laden is just another dead asshole in the long war against infidels and Western oppression. Tossing him in the ocean merely closed the book without the long drawn out media splashing that would have invoked angers.

tecoyah said:

Nope, he was made into fish food, and removed from the view of anyone wishing to enshrine him...out of site, out of mind is quite accurate in this case. That you see no difference is not important, that THEY do is very important.

Click to expand...

that move, to dump his body in the ocean, so that his burial site would not become a destination point, was inspired

Quag said:

So you consider it ok if Saddam had tried to assasinate the President?

Click to expand...

No. Not because it's an assination, but its trying to kill my President.

Just like I wouldn't want someone punching my mother even if they had a decent reason...but wouldn't have an issue with my mother punching someone for good reason.

It's not unrealistic or unusual for people to care more about their own interests than those of others, let alone of adversaries.

I think many of the notions of international laws and ethics regarding war are completely asinine and ridiculous...having an ounce of purpose ONLY in situations where the combatants on both sides are willfully and strictly remaining within those standards. I think attempting to adhere to such things on one side while the other side defies them openly and continually is akin to being dumb enough to enter into a fight with both arms tied behind your back. It's not ethical, it's not moral, it's retarded.

MSgt said:

....Since long before Obama. This just adds to the joke of "Hope" and "Change." If Americans understood the world they live in and their nation's history, politicians wouldn't get away with all the BS that gets them elected. The finger pointing of dead civilians, disrespect to soveriegnty, and the promise of transparency on the campaign trail didn't amount to much once he got to the White House and got slapped in the face by reality. The slogan that "a vote for McCain is like a vote for Bush" gave us Bush anyway.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough my issues with Obama in 08 wasn't largely based around his foreign policy stances regarding national defense because...to be frank...I trusted George W. Bush's statement to him that he should hold off on making promises until he see's the intel. Every bit of contacts I have within the various fields that touch the Intelligence world hint to a reality different than what a lot of average people think or assume. Obama following much of Bush's path, with natural evolutoins and with political camoflauge at times, didn't shock me in the least.

It's funny...Nicholson's speech in a Few Good Men was meant to be portrayed as a bad thing it seems, and yet in many ways it rings true. What's beyond that Wall is a nasty, nasty thing and people have the stomach to bitch about it only because they don't have to be the ones on that wall.

Zyphlin said:

Strangely enough my issues with Obama in 08 wasn't largely based around his foreign policy stances regarding national defense because...to be frank...I trusted George W. Bush's statement to him that he should hold off on making promises until he see's the intel. Every bit of contacts I have within the various fields that touch the Intelligence world hint to a reality different than what a lot of average people think or assume. Obama following much of Bush's path, with natural evolutoins and with political camoflauge at times, didn't shock me in the least.

It's funny...Nicholson's speech in a Few Good Men was meant to be portrayed as a bad thing it seems, and yet in many ways it rings true. What's beyond that Wall is a nasty, nasty thing and people have the stomach to bitch about it only because they don't have to be the ones on that wall.

Click to expand...

and we really can't handle the unvarnished truth

TheDemSocialist said:

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Wow... Well civil liberties i guess is just thrown out of the door. How has this not gone to the USSC? Is our country really taking this ****ing road?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Click to expand...

So? Why wouldn't we have strategic targets? Would you rather they carpet bombed Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan?

Politically, this will only effect Obama's base. The rest are probably for or apathetic to such a practice.

justabubba said:

and we really can't handle the unvarnished truth

Click to expand...

Like so many things, there's a clear sports analogy to me here....

It's with football and the bounty stuff and the Greg Williams audio. All the fans wanted to be outraged and disgusted and so upset about what a horrible mindset and speech that was. They get concerned about the concussions and lives of players after football. At the same time...are they stopping watching football? Nope, they're watching it more than ever. What plays on defense get the most fan attention...the youtube hits, the twitter comments, the ESPN highlights? The huge jaw breaking hits. Who are some of fan favorite defense players in the league? Many of your rush LB's/DE's whose entire job is to smash the quarterback or your hard hitting LB's and Safety's who lay the wood. You have players coming out saying that the type of statements being used aren't uncommon and been around for years upon years...it's the mentality, the mindset, the view point you have to possess as a Defensive player. You think LT, one of the most celebrated defensive players of all time, wasn't thinking he wanted to just absolutely destroy someone? As a Redskins fans, some of our fondest memories of old players come when they're telling stories about how they were lined up across from Dany White and told him they were going to put him out of the game...and did. Do we as fans want to see people get injured? No. But we want to see the massive big hits that could lead to injury. We want our Defensive players going at it with the mentality to get those hits. But we don't want to have to admit that we want the mindset off the field that facilitates that, we don't want to admit that the dark and gritty and unfortunate parts that lead to the things we love exist or at the very least we want to ignore them until we're forced to see them...at which point we poopoo them and act like we're so good and righteous but know come September we're going to be salivating to see our LB's crush the Rival QB.

Fights are nasty things...whether it's a one on one ally brawl or full scale war. There's nothing really pretty or sweet or clean about them. They are dirty, nasty, ugly things that sometimes are necessary despite that dirty, nasty, and ugliness. Those of us who don't have to be involved in those fights...we are lucky in that we get to mostly keep our hands clean and enjoy the benefits of those who don't. However, the more we attempt to convince ourselves that somehow our little bubble world is no different than the nasty, dirty, ugly one they live in and the more we try to tell them how they need to survive in that world of theirs then the closer and closer we get to a time where that nasty, dirty, ugly world is going to end up popping that bubble....and god help all those idiots who think they know how to handle the muck at that point in time.

Zyphlin said:

Obama following much of Bush's path, with natural evolutoins and with political camoflauge at times, didn't shock me in the least.

Click to expand...

Given the nation's interests, it is not surprising that continuity is a dominant theme in U.S. foreign policy regardless of who is President. Until changes take place in objective conditions, differences in approach typically are closer to cosmetic than substantive in nature. The Cold War with frequent changes between Democratic and Republican Presidents provides a good case in point. A central focus on U.S. foreign policy involved limiting the Soviet Union's influence/ability to shape a global evolution toward its interests, with smaller variations. Accommodation became possible only under President Reagan when fundamental changes in the Soviet Union, namely the accumulation of unfavorable domestic changes, dramatically impaired its capacity to sustain its ideological crusade. President Reagan's wisdom involved understanding the impact a growing contrast between the domestic evolution in the USSR and bolstered strength of the U.S. could have--putting national defense considerations ahead of fiscal ones to accelerate that contrast--and then seizing the moment to conclude agreements when the objective conditions had created a favorable opportunity.

if its possible, we should try to arrest these folks first.

but if its just going to end up getting our men killed, then just blow em' up.