• 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!

Obama Bombs Yemen Hours After Winning Reelection

Mr. Invisible said:
Really? That's your comeback? Just a dismissal of sources?
Click to expand...

Well, I thought Sherman 123 did a pretty effective job of detailing why the sources were so lame. When people post unbelievable garbage and cite wacked out far left - or far right - authorities as their source, it's all they deserve. It's like the 'Americans kill 1 million - or 2 million - or 10 million Iraqis ' posts that keep getting on this forum. They simple aren't worth the time necessary to refute their outrageous claims.
 
Luna Tick said:
For me this is one of the biggest frustrations about our "Democracy." These immoral and illegal attacks were going to continue regardless of whether Obama or Romney got in. There should be protests in the streets over this injustice and stupidity. Do you know of any organizations that plan to raise hell over this?
Click to expand...

Duh! I've been saying this whole time. Republocrats are the status quo. No difference between Obama and Romney. Bomb bomb bomb because forever war is necessary for authoritative fascism. Obama will continue the wars because it is good got Republocrat power and the corporations which supports them. No difference. To pretend so is an exercise in insanity.
 
Wiggen said:
No, an irrational fear would be one based on no history. And it's not fear - it's a practical concern which makes me heartily rejoice every time one of them is blown to bits by american technology.
Click to expand...

Do you similarly.cheer as.these wars excuse excessive growth of government power and debt while pour own liberties are whittled away to nothing? Short sighted, emotionally compromised arguments are not only dangerous, that serve no purpose and will never drive us to a better state.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, BIJ's numbers actually are good as their methodology is based on finding multiple sources for drone strike incidents. (Covert US strikes in Pakistan,Yemen and Somalia – our methodology: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism)



While they do use Pakistani, Yemeni, and Somali sources, their assertions are also backed up with evidence from "the New America Foundation, Critical Threats, Long War Journal, Jamestown Foundation, Jihadology, Empty Wheel, Wired, WikiLeaks, the UN and Amnesty International" and "CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox News, Reuters, the BBC, Associated Press, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, TIME, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, the Atlantic, Salon, Xinhua, Army Times, Navy Times, Bloomberg, AFP, NPR, Al Jazeera, and Al Arabiya." Thus, the sources are quite diverse and thus the possibility of bias decreases.

You say that both the Long War Journal and the New America Foundation "have estimates for militant lows and highs and civilian lows and highs, they break down as 1,600-2,800 and 150-190 respectively." However, I have to ask, in what month and year did you post this? The data changes frequently. Secondly, you rely mainly on LWJ and the NAF. Both of which are quite good sources, no doubt, but one cannot possibly get a full picture of the civilian casualties that drones have when focusing on only two sources.

In 2012, Columbia Law School's Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, in conjunction with the Center for Civilians in Conflict conducted a study in which they concluded that (http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/d.../files/Drones summary and recommendations.pdf)



The study (http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/d...itute/files/The Civilian Impact of Drones.pdf) itself states that US drone strikes actually hurt US interests in Pakistan.



It also notes that drone strikes can potentially create terrorists:
Click to expand...

1. I actually cited BIJ's civilian death toll numbers, which stand in fantastic contrast to the "1 terrorist for 50 dead" statistics since even their numbers acknowledge that vastly more militants than civilians have been killed.

2. I'm not sure what your litany of news outlets is referencing, statistical analysis of casualties in Pakistan from drone strikes has only been carried out by a few organizations. Confirmation or republishing stories is not research, and certainly Xinhua and Wired aren't conducting such research. Moreover I know for a fact that others like the Jamestown Foundation haven't published anything of the sort, and quite to the contrary as I've written for them in the past and I've spoken with Glenn Howard before on this subject. Two years ago Jamestown released a statistical and qualitative analysis piece on the drone war (The Jamestown Foundation: New Light on the Accuracy of the CIA’s Predator Drone Campaign in Pakistan) which stands in line with the casualty ratios that have been deduced from virtually every major research firm and think tank from RAND to the Eurasia Group. Almost uniformly Western sources castigate Pakistani media accounts and totals.

3. The months and years are current, you need only click the links. The LWJ is probably the most respected source on the subject, and Bill Roggio has a network of sources throughout AfPak and a team that works to analyze local media reports, open source intelligence, and deep ranks of former analysts to assist in the work. But both are up to date to the current year and drone strike.

4. The Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consists of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you heck I've probably contributed to one or two. The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts.

5. Yemen is a completely different environment, but again linking the problems in Yemen or the growth of Islamist groups to drone strikes is a classic example of Yemeni's both in the country and their expatriot writers scapegoating to avoid pointing culpability at Yemen itself.
 
Wiggen said:
You know, I've been posting on this forum for about two years or so, and have somewhere close to 2000 'likes', so apparently not everybody agrees with you. I'm willing to live with your disapproval, painful though it is.

Have a great day. I'd suggest the 'ignore' function on the forum for you with respect to my posts.
Click to expand...

Anyone can preach to a choir full of morlocks that agree with them. Doesn't translate to you posting anything of intellectual worth
 
Wiggen said:
You label yourself a 'Progressive', so I find it difficult to believe that you ever supported it. But since you don't believe in striking back at those who want to kill us, we really don't have much of a basis for discussion of the issue.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't always a progressive either. Hell, I voted for GW. My views have greatly changed as a result of my life experiences.
 
A celebratory bombing of a foreign country. LBJ would be so proud.

I love these threads where the "I'm more left than you are" Obama supporters cat fight each other. Thanks for the entertainment.

Don't you just hate it when you don't have W to kick around any more? Then you all agree again. :popcorn2:
 
Sarcogito said:
Well, I wasn't always a progressive either. Hell, I voted for GW. My views have greatly changed as a result of my life experiences.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mine too. I've become much more liberal on social issues and much more hard line on foreign policy.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I know d00d! I mean, it isn't like innocent people have been killed in drone strikes.

168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign - Telegraph

US Drones Are Killing Children, Terrorising Families And Turning Civilians Against America, Report Finds

Drone Strikes in Pakistan Kill One Terrorist for Every 50 Deaths
Click to expand...


Just wondered .... have you ever bothered to look up how many innocent woman and children are murdered by terrorist attacks ?? Didn't think so .. those nice people don't warrant your time ..
 
The Barbarian said:
Just wondered .... have you ever bothered to look up how many innocent woman and children are murdered by terrorist attacks ?? Didn't think so .. those nice people don't warrant your time ..
Click to expand...

Yet we're supposedly better than terrorists. But if any other nation did to us what we're doing to others, we would certainly call them a terrorist state.

You don't get it both ways. Either we stand for freedom and liberty and are a beacon to the world as to how free a people can be, or we stoop to their level.
 
The Barbarian said:
Just wondered .... have you ever bothered to look up how many innocent woman and children are murdered by terrorist attacks ?? Didn't think so .. those nice people don't warrant your time ..
Click to expand...

This is a BS argument and has nothing to do with what I have said at all. You are going to saying that I do not care about the innocents killed by terrorist attacks while I am arguing the fact the fact that drone strikes kill innocents and have never denied that terrorists have killed innocents. The very definition of terrorism (what ever definition one may look up), when involving non-state actors, consistently points at the killing of innocents.
 
Gardener said:
Try telling that to a family member of one of the victims.
Click to expand...

That rhetoric doesn't exactly apply to what i'm saying
Yes, people have died because of terrorism..
that doesn't mean we should have an irrational fear of terrorist..honestly, be more afraid of 2nd hand smoke
 
Ikari said:
Yet we're supposedly better than terrorists. But if any other nation did to us what we're doing to others, we would certainly call them a terrorist state.

You don't get it both ways. Either we stand for freedom and liberty and are a beacon to the world as to how free a people can be, or we stoop to their level.
Click to expand...

So whats your plan ?? Pretend that there are no terrorist? Gee maybe we weren't even attacked on 9/11 ...... Or is your plan to apologize to them some more ... and "hope" that will just start loving us .... and not be bent on the destruction of the Western world ?
 
The Barbarian said:
So whats your plan ?? Pretend that there are no terrorist? Gee maybe we weren't even attacked on 9/11 ...... Or is your plan to apologize to them some more ... and "hope" that will just start loving us .... and not be bent on the destruction of the Western world ?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of realistic measures we can take. But only an idiot believes that in a free society we'd ever be 100% safe. A chance of death at the hands of a terrorist is but one, and a rather small one at that, probability of being killed. Free is not safe. Free has never been safe. Free will never be safe. It's time that some of y'all understand that. I will take the probability of terrorist attack over the CERTAINTY of government force.

"Conservatives"! HA. You've forgotten what that once meant.
 
Ikari said:
There are plenty of realistic measures we can take. But only an idiot believes that in a free society we'd ever be 100% safe. A chance of death at the hands of a terrorist is but one, and a rather small one at that, probability of being killed. Free is not safe. Free has never been safe. Free will never be safe. It's time that some of y'all understand that. I will take the probability of terrorist attack over the CERTAINTY of government force.

"Conservatives"! HA. You've forgotten what that once meant.
Click to expand...

Realistic measures? What are they .. I would really be interested in what they are ?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
This is a BS argument and has nothing to do with what I have said at all. You are going to saying that I do not care about the innocents killed by terrorist attacks while I am arguing the fact the fact that drone strikes kill innocents and have never denied that terrorists have killed innocents. The very definition of terrorism (what ever definition one may look up), when involving non-state actors, consistently points at the killing of innocents.
Click to expand...

So again .. and honestly .. I'm really interested in what we should do .. how to we fight terrorist ...
 
The Barbarian said:
Realistic measures? What are they .. I would really be interested in what they are ?
Click to expand...

There were certainly efficiencies within interbureaucratic agencies so that the CIA talks to the FBI, blah blah blah. Certainly there were measures to take with air travel; but to the degrees to which it has gone...overboard.

In the end, I don't want to be 100% safe. 100% is anything but.
 
Ikari said:
There were certainly efficiencies within interbureaucratic agencies so that the CIA talks to the FBI, blah blah blah. Certainly there were measures to take with air travel; but to the degrees to which it has gone...overboard.

In the end, I don't want to be 100% safe. 100% is anything but.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge .. . so what you are saying .. is that you are just bitching about something .. that you have no alternate ideas on, you can't come up with a way to do it better .. . you just know (in your mind anyway) that there is a better way of doing it..... Remember the thread is on Drone attacks killing innocent people ... not what we have done to make things safer in the USA
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Nice dodge .. . so what you are saying .. is that you are just bitching about something .. that you have no alternate ideas on, you can't come up with a way to do it better .. . you just know (in your mind anyway) that there is a better way of doing :it
Click to expand...

It's a bit of bitching. But more so it is an acknowledgement that we will always be subjected to certain probabilities of crime and force which are inherent to a free state. Do you want to be free or.safe? That's what this comes down to.
 
Ikari said:
It's a bit of bitching. But more so it is an acknowledgement that we will always be subjected to certain probabilities of crime and force which are inherent to a free state. Do you want to be free or.safe? That's what this comes down to.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you think. Myself, I can’t see a single freedom I’ve lost. What I do know besides that is that I don’t want to see bombs going off in our neighborhoods, our schools, our malls. In my opinion let terrorism go on unchecked, and we could be looking at just such things.

I don’t think, or would hope, that anyone wants to see innocent civilians being killed, but I don’t have a ready answer on how to stop that , I mean you have terrorists that hide behind innocent civilians, they don’t have a uniform with a big red “T” on them. So until someone, anyone can come up with a better way of killing them, I’m not going to argue against the drone attacks, the alternative of just letting them go, isn’t acceptable to me.
 
I'm kind of not kidding. If we're cool with killing innocents, then it shouldn't matter how many we kill. Think of Iran as a vast glass wasteland for example....


imgres-2.jpeg
 
specklebang said:
I'm kind of not kidding. If we're cool with killing innocents, then it shouldn't matter how many we kill. Think of Iran as a vast glass wasteland for example....


View attachment 67137734
Click to expand...

I’m not to far behind you on this, I’ve said often enough, if we are going to go to war, then we go with the full might and weight of our country, to do anything less is a waste of time.

It’s my opinion that every since WWII we have sent out men and women of the armed forces in to be killed without the intent of winning. We need to stay out of others affairs, in the case of 9/11 it should have been said to any country, okay we have good sound intel that OBL is being harbored in your country, you have X number of days to tell us where he is or turn him over to us, after that you can expect The USA to do everything and anything deemed necessary to get him.

Show the world that when you attack the US on our soil, that we will utterly destroy you. If you have to do that once every 20 or 25 years, in my opinion it’s better then fighting an endless stream of wars with no intent on winning anything.
 
We actually did a great job of that in the past. The first Iraq war. The post-9/11 Afghanistan overthrow of Mullah Omar. But then it whets our appetite for the bloodlust and the money-lust and we enter decade long wars that eat away at our souls. That how we got baby Bush's Iraq war and his extension of the Afghanistan war. We never learn to sat goodbye.

Accomplish the mission and get the **** out. Use all necessary force.


The Barbarian said:
I’m not to far behind you on this, I’ve said often enough, if we are going to go to war, then we go with the full might and weight of our country, to do anything less is a waste of time.

It’s my opinion that every since WWII we have sent out men and women of the armed forces in to be killed without the intent of winning. We need to stay out of others affairs, in the case of 9/11 it should have been said to any country, okay we have good sound intel that OBL is being harbored in your country, you have X number of days to tell us where he is or turn him over to us, after that you can expect The USA to do everything and anything deemed necessary to get him.

Show the world that when you attack the US on our soil, that we will utterly destroy you. If you have to do that once every 20 or 25 years, in my opinion it’s better then fighting an endless stream of wars with no intent on winning anything.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom