• 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!

American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Luftwaffe said:
What legality issue? Like international law?
Click to expand...

Oh something called assassination. Killing an American before trial is considered assassination per law. No American can legally be killed in this manner (drone). Right now Obama has killed 6 Americans illegally.
 
JANFU said:
Takes just 1 preplanned Ops to go bad, and it can quite easily. Target may be in a populated town- well guarded, many enemy on the ground. Then from landing to the target has to be considered. Not all are like OBL landing in a large walled area, I would hazard a wild guess most are not.
So from landing, to move to the target. 1 person can sound an alarm. Then the target- killing, or extracting hostages.
Then they have to extract themselves.

I am sure many remember this one.
Battle of Mogadishu (1993) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Battle of Mogadishu was all kinds of **** ups. But US runs hundreds of Special Ops mission in Afghanistan and around the world each month.. and they go of with a hitch 99% of the time. Some times it actually requires humping it a few miles just to get on target. So be it. It's a helluva lot better then murdering people (Americans) because the American public is too stupid to realize it's illegal.
 
jet57 said:
Like the responsibility that Ronald Reagan took in '82 when 250 American servicemen were killed in one wack in Lebanon. Gee, I don't remember impeachment, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, or any of that coming down on him. In fact, he was re elected. So, yeah, I guess being president DOES give you a get out of jail free card: isn't that so.
Click to expand...

Reagan also ran from Lebanon with his tail between his legs saying it was one of the stupidest choices he ever made. Reagan policy became "neutral position and neutrality" after bombing of the Marine barracks.
 
Luftwaffe said:
That link isn't specific enough. It brings me to a newsroom with all sorts of stuff...

Anyways, which part of the constitution? The asking congress in regards to going to war? Which part?
Click to expand...

Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



No US citizen killed in the War of Terror has ever had two witnesses or open court declaration. I should add media declaration is not a court declaration. One is sworn testimony, then other is running your mouth as seen by MSM in the US.
 
this wasn't a targeted killing from what I know..There wasn't any particular AQ targeted, though 2 high level jihadist were killed
Is that a good kind of collateral damage?
Drones have there place--how could one send in special ops to the hindu kush?
Signature strikes should be banned, other then that there was no way of knowing the hostages were there
 
Sherman123 said:
With our drone war? This wouldn't have been any different if it was a bomb dropped from a warplane--except that more people would likely have been killed. We had intelligence that Adam Gadahn & Ahmed Farouq, among others, were there and the President made the decision to strike. Whether from a Predator or an F-16 the outcome would have been the same. Don't try and turn this into more drone hysteria.

Incidentally Gadahn and Farouq were there and were killed along with an undisclosed number of senior militants.
Click to expand...
according to NBC News Richard Engle we didn't have intelligence the American Taliban (AQ?) were there there..

Not to nit pick, but all I heard was it was going after an AQ facility -am I wrong?
 
annata said:
this wasn't a targeted killing from what I know..There wasn't any particular AQ targeted, though 2 high level jihadist were killed
Is that a good kind of collateral damage?
Drones have there place--how could one send in special ops to the hindu kush?
Signature strikes should be banned, other then that there was no way of knowing the hostages were there
Click to expand...

Hindu Kush is an area of operation for our Special Forces. Shok Valley is in the Hindu Kush. Don't get me wrong... Hindu Kush is where Empires go to die.. but the US has a good record there.
 
chromium said:
Yeah it will quite possibly become a real massive problem if groups like ISIS ever develop weapons like that and deploy them in this country in response. Although futuristic, i don't think it's far fetched. I mean, the so-called intelligence agencies can't even protect the capital from a bigass jet, a gyrocopter, or a fat guy running right into the white house.
Click to expand...

You can count on "unfriendlies" developing and deploying this technology. Every weapons system America ever develops eventually gets copied by its enemies. In this case, if they follow the practices of America, you may find Americans being targeted by drones all over the world - and not just politicians or leaders - average Americans on vacation or traveling. The same argument that many use against "torture" can also be used against drones. On the battlefield, perfectly acceptable - in sovereign countries, not at war with you, not acceptable.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Funny how the OP and the accompanying article place the blame at the feet of the CIA as opposed to the President who authorizes all of these drone strikes. If an American, just out doing their job or minding their own business, happens to kill a fellow American mistakenly or completely by accident, they're likely to be charged with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
I guess being an irresponsible President gives you a get our of jail free card.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



This guess, like most of your posts is totally wrong.

But don't let that stop you from spreading your BS.




:lamo
 
JANFU said:
Training a Soldier for these kind of operations is very expensive.
Click to expand...

austrianecon said:
Um no.. training a soldier is much more expensive. You are looking at $1m before they are actually deployed.
Click to expand...

In regards to just the production cost, yes, drones are cheaper. But they also cause much more collateral damage, are less flexible in how they can be used, incapable of adapting to changing situations (as someone stated earlier, the only real options available whenever something changes are continue mission or abort mission), and they are unpopular with a lot of people. Overall, they have a very high opportunity cost compared to just sending in soldiers.

edit: Oh, and soldiers don't burn thousands of dollars of revenue every hour they spend in the field, and recruit way fewer terrorists than the drones do.

The cost per flight hour varies by type of drone. Predator and Reaper drones cost about $2,500-3,500 per flight hour; larger armed systems such as the military’s Global Hawk cost about 10 times as much: approximately $30,000 per flight hour.
Click to expand...

Evidence suggests that the trauma of living under drones causes anti-American resentment and aids in the recruitment for violent extremism. According to a former State Department official, for every drone strike, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies. Such long term damage is known as “blowback” – incidents that arise in later years as an unintended consequence of actions taken today.

http://fcnl.org/issues/foreign_policy/understanding_drones/
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
In other words: "This discussion exceeds both my mental abilities and the strict boundaries of my ideology, so instead of actually being a part of a discussion, I'm just going spitball the smart people."
Click to expand...

Not really. I've long posted my opposition to drone warfare. Just moved by the "faithful servants" support of it! Typical.
 
PoS said:
So its okay to kill hostages to get after the terrorists now? :roll:
Click to expand...

Warmongers don't concern themselves with "collateral damage"!
 
PoS said:
Thats because not only is sending in a spec ops team more expensive, it also is more risky. Its cheaper and less risky just to drone strike targets because if something goes wrong, all you lose is the drone...
Click to expand...

And, in this case, the hostages...
 
shrubnose said:
This guess, like most of your posts is totally wrong.

But don't let that stop you from spreading your BS.




:lamo
Click to expand...

Nice to know you're following all of my posts. I'm honoured.

Unlike you, however, I have no problem accepting that different people have differing views and I can challenge those views without needing to insult those who hold the views. I don't always succeed in that goal, but I'll keep trying.
 
PoS said:
So its okay to kill hostages to get after the terrorists now? :roll:
Click to expand...

The responsibility for the hostages deaths is with the hostage takers, end of.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You can count on "unfriendlies" developing and deploying this technology. Every weapons system America ever develops eventually gets copied by its enemies. In this case, if they follow the practices of America, you may find Americans being targeted by drones all over the world - and not just politicians or leaders - average Americans on vacation or traveling. The same argument that many use against "torture" can also be used against drones. On the battlefield, perfectly acceptable - in sovereign countries, not at war with you, not acceptable.
Click to expand...

We are at war with AQ and ISIS and will fight and kill them anywhere in the world no place on earth will ever be safe from the reach of the US and if you don't like it to ****ing bad. The assertion that drones are somehow worse than using manned aircraft is nonsensical bull****.
 
Montecresto said:
Not really. I've long posted my opposition to drone warfare. Just moved by the "faithful servants" support of it! Typical.
Click to expand...

I stated that there times and places to use them and times and places not to use them. That's called "the intelligent approach". To simply state that they are bad all the time is "the not so intelligent approach".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Go drones! Man we love those things, though I find the use of them to be rather suspicious and it seems like we just use them as ways to expand our forever wars while funneling taxpayer dollars to government loved corporations for production.
 
I think some people in this thread have seen "Rambo" a few too many times.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nice to know you're following all of my posts. I'm honoured.

Unlike you, however, I have no problem accepting that different people have differing views and I can challenge those views without needing to insult those who hold the views. I don't always succeed in that goal, but I'll keep trying.
Click to expand...

I'm just surprised he forgot to use that eye-rolling smiley he seems to adore so much.
 
CanadaJohn said:
President Obama is directly responsible for the deaths of the American and Italian hostages noted in the OP and the attached article - he gave the order. Perhaps you can enlighten my on what order President Reagan gave that directly resulted in 250 American servicemen being killed in Lebanon.
Click to expand...

They were killed on Reagan's watch. He's directly responsible for sending them over there and not making sure that security was adequate.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nice to know you're following all of my posts. I'm honoured.

Unlike you, however, I have no problem accepting that different people have differing views and I can challenge those views without needing to insult those who hold the views.
I don't always succeed in that goal, but I'll keep trying.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Hang in there, when you hit the nail on the head I'll give you an attaboy. If you accumulate 1,000 attaboys that wipes out one Aw ****.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...



They are "obama drone strikes".


Can't have "bush's war of choice" without "obama's droning of choice"/./././. mirite?!?!?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom