Tigerace117:
Dude, you really need to learn how to use the quote function. Nobody sees your posts unless you do so.
I click on either the "Reply" or the "Replay with Quote" tabs and then type my response into the Quick Reply text box which appears. What am I doing wrong? I followed the instructions from the FAQ instructions on the forum. How is what I am doing stopping folks from seeing my posts? If there is a problem with what I am doing, then thank you for pointing that out.:newhere: (somewhat).
You were very clearly referring to ISIS and it's ilk in your post, so don't try to play dumb.
No, I wasn't. That is inference on your part. I was referring to all terrorists and other victims of US drone strikes around the globe. Not ISIS in particular.
No, they make the decision to strike the terrorist leader, and they avoid harming civilians if at all possible---which sometimes, thanks to the deliberate actions of the terrorists, it is not. And that's unfortunate, but it's part of life, and again has nothing to do with mass shootings.
That sounds good but it is far from the truth, and most people know that. If I burst into a room to kill an enemy and I have a sub-machine gun with which I kill my target and several other bystanders, I will be held legally liable for the deaths of all I kill. If I choose to blow up the room instead of shooting I will be also liable for all the deaths I cause. The intention to not kill is a false defence when one has a choice not to kill. The same principle applies to states, their militaries and their more covert arms (if they are caught).
And many times those surrounding a terrorist are in fact terrorists themselves, or sympathetic to the terrorist group. If they didn't to run the risk they shouldn't have decided to aid those who make a habit of shooting little girls for going to school.
Utter B.S. That is an absurd justification. Should the United Kingdom have targeted and killed Bostonians in America who supported violent Irish nationalists/terrorists during the worst of the troubles and also felt entitled to take out other Bostonians in close proximity because they could assume that those around the IRA fund-raisers in America were terrorists too? How do old men, women and children at a Pakistani funeral, at an Afghani wedding, sitting outside a Yemeni cafe or who are sleeping in the huts of a remote Yemeni village qualify as terrorists? They don't and yet your government and its agents routinely kill them. That is pathological delusion and you know it. That is the defensive-violence paradigm at work. Be it a first Nations village in California 150 years ago, a Filipino village a century ago, a Latin American village 65 years ago, a Laotian village 50 years ago or a Somali village just recently, it is murder, pure and simple and it is criminal behaviour.
The only thing that has protected your Armed Forces and covert operators from criminal liability and prosecution to date is the US threat of force against anyone or any institution which threatens realistically to prosecute Americans alleged to have engaged in such activities. The drone pilots and special operations operators, the helicopter pilots and the airstrike pilots are all culpable for the deaths which they cause as are their commanders or supervisors who ordered them to do it. This is even more true when said attacks occur in states with which the US is not at war or engaged in formal hostilities.
The U.S. has been accused of war crimes, so here's what will happen ? nothing: Neil Macdonald - CBC News | Opinion
What the US planners in the 1940s thought is totally irrelevant in more ways than one; that was more than sixty years ago. Time and the uncertainty principle makes it totally meaningless to evoke plans from decades ago----it's the equivalent of bringing up the Schlieffen Plan to declare Germany is about to head through Belgium.
B.S. again. The Grand Area strategy is still in effect as an active strategy from Sub-Saharan Africa to the South China Sea to the heart of Venezuela. It is no Schlieffen Plan or Fall Gelb of the past but is a policy and strategy which is very much in effect right now.
Conspiracy theory websites are generally not accepted on this website, no. One random dude's opinion does not an empire make.
You're calling the US Army War College, Andrew Bacevich and the Harvard Review and an independently funded research and news/opinion site CT sites? How bold of you, and some might say what brazen denial.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
