Speaking of drone strikes, and Awlaki

[jimnyc]

This makes me even more happy that this scumbag was taken out in another country with a drone. Even from his grave he is showing his responsibility in terror acts. Unfortunately, we are seeing the hard way what happens when you leave some of these folks to their own devices. They are somewhere planning and trying to kill people, whether here on our soil, our men/women abroad, or on the soil of our allies. I have ZERO problems with these terrorist scum being killed by drones elsewhere. This particular story is mostly about his whoring, but also the fact that this guy helped set the stage for the recent attacks in France.

--------

JANUARY 11--In light of reports that the Charlie Hebdo gunmen were followers of Anwar al-Awlaki, here are a few highlights of the late radical Muslim cleric’s days as a whoremaster, courtesy of the FBI.

The American-born Awlaki, a spiritual adviser to a multitude of fellow terrorists, was killed in September 2011 by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, reportedly met that year in Yemen with Cherif and Said Kouachi, the two brothers who killed 12 people during the attack Wednesday in Paris.

Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, served as the imam at a small mosque in San Diego in the late-1990s. It was there that the purportedly pious cleric--a married father with a young child--first came to the attention of law enforcement for soliciting prostitutes.

Awlaki was first arrested trolling for hookers in 1996, and later sentenced to attend an AIDS education course and pay fines and restitution. He was busted again in 1997 on a prostitution charge and sentenced to probation, fined, and ordered to perform community service. Awlaki is pictured above in a mug shot snapped after his second San Diego collar.

After moving to Virginia in 2001, Awlaki continued consorting with hookers, according to FBI records.

Suspecting that Awlaki was somehow connected to the September 11 hijackers, FBI agents frequently interviewed the imam, surveilled him, and intercepted his electronic communications. That scrutiny revealed that Awlaki was a prodigious john, a fact that he concealed from mosque congregants.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/terrorists-inspired-by-whoremaster-awlaki-786452

[revelarts]

This makes me even more happy that this scumbag was taken out in another country with a drone. Even from his grave he is showing his responsibility in terror acts. Unfortunately, we are seeing the hard way what happens when you leave some of these folks to their own devices. They are somewhere planning and trying to kill people, whether here on our soil, our men/women abroad, or on the soil of our allies. I have ZERO problems with these terrorist scum being killed by drones elsewhere. This particular story is mostly about his whoring, but also the fact that this guy helped set the stage for the recent attacks in France.

--------

JANUARY 11--In light of reports that the Charlie Hebdo gunmen were followers of Anwar al-Awlaki, here are a few highlights of the late radical Muslim cleric’s days as a whoremaster, courtesy of the FBI.

The American-born Awlaki, a spiritual adviser to a multitude of fellow terrorists, was killed in September 2011 by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Awlaki, a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, reportedly met that year in Yemen with Cherif and Said Kouachi, the two brothers who killed 12 people during the attack Wednesday in Paris.

Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, served as the imam at a small mosque in San Diego in the late-1990s. It was there that the purportedly pious cleric--a married father with a young child--first came to the attention of law enforcement for soliciting prostitutes.

Awlaki was first arrested trolling for hookers in 1996, and later sentenced to attend an AIDS education course and pay fines and restitution. He was busted again in 1997 on a prostitution charge and sentenced to probation, fined, and ordered to perform community service. Awlaki is pictured above in a mug shot snapped after his second San Diego collar.

After moving to Virginia in 2001, Awlaki continued consorting with hookers, according to FBI records.

Suspecting that Awlaki was somehow connected to the September 11 hijackers, FBI agents frequently interviewed the imam, surveilled him, and intercepted his electronic communications. That scrutiny revealed that Awlaki was a prodigious john, a fact that he concealed from mosque congregants.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/terrorists-inspired-by-whoremaster-awlaki-786452

I still say as a citizen he should have had a trial just like Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, you or me.
it's not about him it's about our system of justice. To often exceptions are used to make the the rules far to often jim.

....

having said that, uh, Jim i notice you are linking to a site called "the smoking gun". not exactly Mainstream there.
i only mention it because you've pissed on my UNKNOWN sources on more than one occasion Jim.

The info may very well be exactly true, but some people... not me... might dismiss it out of hand if it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
you know... some people :poke:

[jimnyc]

I still say as a citizen he should have had a trial just like Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, you or me.
it's not about him it's about our system of justice. To often exceptions are used to make the the rules far to often jim.

....

having said that, uh, Jim i notice you are linking to a site called "the smoking gun". not exactly Mainstream there.
i only mention it because you've pissed on my UNKNOWN sources on more than one occasion Jim.

The info may very well be exactly true, but some people... not me... might dismiss it out of hand if it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
you know... some people :poke:

The Smoking Gun is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and most visited. They have been posting crime stuff for YEARS and are more than well known - and are mainstream, for the internet, as they are not a "real world" media company. You can look elsewhere and you'll find the same info.... Nevermind, I'll get it for you. There, that took me 3 seconds to type in "Awlaki Hedbo"...

--------

Charlie Hebdo attack: Anwar al-Awlaki - the al-Qaeda ideologue who may have inspired the massacre

Even beyond the grave, al-Qaeda’s most successful propagandist may have inspired more bloodshed.

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born preacher who specialised in radicalising Muslims in the West, appears to have met Said Kouachi in Yemen in 2011.

If so, Kouachi would have been among his last pupils: Awlaki was killed by an American drone in September 2011. Yet more than three years after his death, his preachings may still have helped to incite the murders of 12 people in Paris.

Awlaki’s brand of indoctrination has a remarkable history of encouraging terrorism. What made him different from other jihadist ideologues was that he concentrated his message almost entirely on Muslims in the West.

Awlaki's own background made him ideally suited for this task. He was an American citizen, born in New Mexico in 1971 to Yemeni parents and educated at Colorado State University.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11335327/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-Anwar-al-Awlaki-the-al-Qaeda-ideologue-who-may-have-inspired-the-massacre.html

[jimnyc]

And a second... if Reuters is acceptable...

http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-gunman-says-funded-by-al-q?videoId=361728389

[jimnyc]

And now Breitbart....

Hebdo Massacre Linked to Former San Diego Student Al-Awlaki

A deceased Al-Qaeda terrorist leader who once studied at San Diego State University, and was considered a “moderate Muslim” before leaving the U.S. for Yemen, has been linked to two terrorists who killed 12 in last week’s Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, France.

Al-Awlaki, reported as killed in a 2011 drone strike, has been linked to a myriad of successful and would-be terrorist attackers, including the Kouachi brothers that launched the wave of attacks in Paris.

Said Kouachi met weekly with al-Awlaki before the terrorist mastermind’s 2011 death. Reuters confirmed with a senior Yemeni intelligence source: “We do not have confirmed information that he was trained by al Qaeda but what was confirmed was that he has met with Awlaki in Shabwa,” the source said.

Cherif Kouachi told BFM-TV, in a segment aired after the massacre, “”I was sent, me, Cherif Kouachi, by Al Qaeda of Yemen. I went over there and it was Anwar al Awlaki who financed me,” according to a Reuters translation of the French language broadcast.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/11/hebdo-massacre-linked-to-former-san-diego-student-al-awlaki/

[jimnyc]

I still say as a citizen he should have had a trial just like Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, you or me.
it's not about him it's about our system of justice. To often exceptions are used to make the the rules far to often jim.

....

having said that, uh, Jim i notice you are linking to a site called "the smoking gun". not exactly Mainstream there.
i only mention it because you've pissed on my UNKNOWN sources on more than one occasion Jim.

The info may very well be exactly true, but some people... not me... might dismiss it out of hand if it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
you know... some people :poke:

A man that goes abroad and tries to kill people, joins a terror organization, recruits and wants to kill Americans - is a terrorist like EVERY OTHER TERRORIST and deserves identical treatment. If traveling abroad, literally, and with a known terror organization - then you are a target. If he was concerned about getting a trial he was welcome to stop hiding abroad trying to kill, and come back to a trial.

[jimnyc]

having said that, uh, Jim i notice you are linking to a site called "the smoking gun". not exactly Mainstream there.
i only mention it because you've pissed on my UNKNOWN sources on more than one occasion Jim.

Last, but not least... and I was wrong, they are owned in the real world. Just because you don't use the site or are unaware of it, doesn't mean it's not legit and "mainstream"

--------

The Smoking Gun is a website that posts legal documents, arrest records, and police mugshots on a daily basis. The intent is to bring to the public light information that is damning, shocking, outrageous, or amazing, yet also somewhat obscure or unreported by more mainstream media sources. Most of the site's content revolves around historical and current events, although it also features documents and photos relating to out-of-the-ordinary crimes and people. It is owned by truTV and is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment digital network.[2]

The name refers to the smoking gun metaphor, which is commonly used to describe an incriminating piece of evidence.

--------

The website was founded in 1997 by William Bastone and Daniel Green, former reporters for The Village Voice, and graphic designer Barbara Glauber. Most of The Smoking Gun's content is obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and from public records such as court documents. The site has used those requests to assemble a collection of mugshots of current and historical celebrities.

The cable network truTV, formerly Court TV purchased The Smoking Gun, as well as the website Crime Library, in 2000.[citation needed] A series of the same name premiered on Court TV in 2005. The series features some of the site's stories and assorted sketch humor using string puppets. This series was later moved and shown on Adult Swim.[citation needed] From March 2008 until January 2011 on truTV, The Smoking Gun sponsored a cable television series called The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest.... The series was originally known as World's Dumbest Criminals, but was retitled World's Dumbest... and began covering other topics. As of January 2011, the program was retitled again to truTV Presents: World's Dumbest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Gun

[revelarts]

Last, but not least... and I was wrong, they are owned in the real world. Just because you don't use the site or are unaware of it, doesn't mean it's not legit and "mainstream"

--------

The Smoking Gun is a website that posts legal documents, arrest records, and police mugshots on a daily basis. The intent is to bring to the public light information that is damning, shocking, outrageous, or amazing, yet also somewhat obscure or unreported by more mainstream media sources. Most of the site's content revolves around historical and current events, although it also features documents and photos relating to out-of-the-ordinary crimes and people. It is owned by truTV and is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment digital network.[2]

The name refers to the smoking gun metaphor, which is commonly used to describe an incriminating piece of evidence.

--------

The website was founded in 1997 by William Bastone and Daniel Green, former reporters for The Village Voice, and graphic designer Barbara Glauber. Most of The Smoking Gun's content is obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and from public records such as court documents. The site has used those requests to assemble a collection of mugshots of current and historical celebrities.

The cable network truTV, formerly Court TV purchased The Smoking Gun, as well as the website Crime Library, in 2000.[citation needed] A series of the same name premiered on Court TV in 2005. The series features some of the site's stories and assorted sketch humor using string puppets. This series was later moved and shown on Adult Swim.[citation needed] From March 2008 until January 2011 on truTV, The Smoking Gun sponsored a cable television series called The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest.... The series was originally known as World's Dumbest Criminals, but was retitled World's Dumbest... and began covering other topics. As of January 2011, the program was retitled again to truTV Presents: World's Dumbest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Gun


Jim, I'm pretty sure I've used them before as a reference here as well.
I know i've read items there before.

like i said I don't have a problem with Non-MSM sites .
the varsity of their info is based mainly on their sources NOT the label on the site IMO.

But it's rather frustrating to have to dig up other reference of the SAME info for others who don't take that position though isn't it.
And who BY DEFAULT assume a site is wrong or lying because it's smaller or LESS well known or even ...grasp... biased left or right wing.
Or worse those to seem to take the position that if "it's not in the MSM so it's NOT REAL"

that's all i'm saying on that front Jim.

but um wikipedia is who your quoting now... :poke:

[fj1200]

This makes me even more happy that this scumbag was taken out in another country with a drone. Even from his grave he is showing his responsibility in terror acts.

I can't think of anyone that is upset that he's dead but how the events came about are the problem as we've discussed in at least one other thread. The Executive branch should not have the power of all three. Nevertheless what if the very drone strikes that are hailed by so many are the actual cause of at least some terror?


Recently, strong evidence has begun to suggest that (http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2013/05/24/obamas-overdue-step-on-drones/) terrorists use drone strikes as a recruitment tool. Of course, the value of drones in the arena of intelligence-gathering and secret surveillance of foes (and even friends) is unmistakable. In warzones too, it can support ground operations in significant and even decisive ways. None of this is controversial, though the ones on the receiving end will certainly not like it. What is debatable is its use as a counter-terrorism instrument in theaters that are not declared war zones, or in cases where a sovereign state is not fully and publicly on board with this policy. Lack of transparency in regulations that govern this new type of warfare, the unverifiable nature of targets, and questions over the credibility of intelligence only complicates the matter.
...
The crux of my viewpoint is that drone attacks cannot be compared to "boots on ground" operations. They are two different methods of battling enemies. Wars are mainly about national interests -- resources, territory, the balance of power, and religion. Drone strikes directed at terrorists perform a comparable but different role. In battling terrorism, physical elimination of the enemy matters but is not decisive. Hitting at the mindset of the terrorist and discrediting the ideas that generate terrorism is the big prize. A law enforcement action that flows out of a "rule of law" paradigm, involving meticulous investigations and prosecution in courts, is likely to be far more damaging for the ideas that terrorists stand for. Limited and internationally regulated use of drones targeting the most wanted terrorists can be a part of this comprehensive approach -- it may take longer to deliver, but it will be more sustainable and the results will be more durable.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/

[revelarts]

Jim, I'm pretty sure I've used them before as a reference here as well.
I know i've read items there before.

like i said I don't have a problem with Non-MSM sites .
the varsity of their info is based mainly on their sources NOT the label on the site IMO.

But it's rather frustrating to have to dig up other reference of the SAME info for others who don't take that position though isn't it?
And who BY DEFAULT assume a site is wrong or lying because it's smaller or LESS well known or even ...grasp... biased left or right wing.
Or worse those to seem to take the position that if "it's not in the MSM so it's NOT REAL"

that's all i'm saying on that front Jim.

but um wikipedia is who your quoting now... :poke:

the "veracity" not "varsity"

"who seem" not "to seem"
geez:facepalm99:

bugs me more than you guys trust me.

[revelarts]

I can't think of anyone that is upset that he's dead but how the events came about are the problem as we've discussed in at least one other thread. The Executive branch should not have the power of all three. Nevertheless what if the very drone strikes that are hailed by so many are the actual cause of at least some terror?


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/


there you go with your LEFTY talk FJ.
Drone strikes are always good for killin'. even if it's the WRONG muzzie, at least it's a Muzzie. all will cut your head off as soon a look at you FJ wake up. they don't NEED any excuses. it's born in them just because they are koran reading animals.

at least that's what i've heard from some.

[jimnyc]

I can't think of anyone that is upset that he's dead but how the events came about are the problem as we've discussed in at least one other thread. The Executive branch should not have the power of all three. Nevertheless what if the very drone strikes that are hailed by so many are the actual cause of at least some terror?


http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/

That's a silly argument, IMO. One can argue that shooting them does the same, or hitting them with missiles from an F-16 or from missiles from a ship sitting in the sea. They can claim the same if Seals sneak in and take out leaders.

No, what they thought is that they could hide and continue their terrorist ways - until they were found and killed anyway, and now other terrorists will try to recruit based on those actions. These scum will try to recruit others based on the killing of Bin Laden. They do the same with pretty much any action the US takes over in that region.

And it would be unwise to back off of strategies that are killing the worst of the worst in the world. As far as I can see, the only wrong out there is that some other countries aren't as eager to rid the world of terrorism as others.

[jimnyc]

there you go with your LEFTY talk FJ.
Drone strikes are always good for killin'. even if it's the WRONG muzzie, at least it's a Muzzie. all will cut your head off as soon a look at you FJ wake up. they don't NEED any excuses. it's born in them just because they are koran reading animals.

at least that's what i've heard from some.

Try derailing the threads where things like that are actually stated.

[revelarts]

Try derailing the threads where things like that are actually stated.

you know Jim, i was actually going to put a disclaimer on it that you never said those things.
But i thought it'd be understood.

since i never quoted you, or mentioned you.

and i think you know where i've heard that kind of talk.
But i'm glad to see you think those type of comments are DERAILING of threads.
It's where some people live.... drummond... if i have to name names so everyones clear.

[NightTrain]

He was a clear and present danger, and needed to be iced as soon as possible.

Reading his long list of offenses against the USA and Americans, it undoubtedly saved many lives by killing him. He was a rabid dog that needed to be put down.

Who cares if it was a drone or a Fighter or a Tomahawk? It's not like these drones are autonomous; there are people flying it and people giving orders to kill when they've got the target in the crosshairs.

[revelarts]

He was a clear and present danger, and needed to be iced as soon as possible.

Reading his long list of offenses against the USA and Americans, it undoubtedly saved many lives by killing him. He was a rabid dog that needed to be put down.

Who cares if it was a drone or a Fighter or a Tomahawk? It's not like these drones are autonomous; there are people flying it and people giving orders to kill when they've got the target in the crosshairs.

Jeffery Dahmer had a long list of offenses. we took him to court. Dahmer actually killed people but there's no record that AlWalaki ever killed a single person. it sure hasn't been proven in court.

the terrorist Carlos the Jackel was arrested by the French in Sudan and is in Prison Today i believe. are the French police and military MORE capable than than the U.S.?

we've picked up dozens hundreds(?)of other foreign nationals in foreign countries and flown them to FORIGN prisons and CIA Black sites for torture. Al Walaki was in and out of the U.S. and WELL on the U.S. radar. He could have been picked up and taken to trial as easily than the over 100 terrorist now sitting in the U.S. prisons who the FBI have tracked and arrested.

He was not driving to Bomb anything when he was killed.
He was not an imminent threat to anyone but lizards trying to cross the road.
And the fact is it's ILLEGAL for the U.S. gov't to kill an american citizens without due process of law. period end of story.

as Jim and others have said many times,
"the law is the law"

we don't get to make up stories WHY we can break it.
If you have a problem wit the law go to congress and change the constitution. But we don't break the constitution just because we don't like it. or are really upset with some people.

[jimnyc]

He was a clear and present danger, and needed to be iced as soon as possible.

Reading his long list of offenses against the USA and Americans, it undoubtedly saved many lives by killing him. He was a rabid dog that needed to be put down.

Who cares if it was a drone or a Fighter or a Tomahawk? It's not like these drones are autonomous; there are people flying it and people giving orders to kill when they've got the target in the crosshairs.

I don't think they disagree that some of these folks deserve to be dead - but they believe we should bring them back to America and give them trials. And if they don't come willingly, or other countries don't help - I suppose we're supposed to allow them to plan attacks infinitely. It's that simple for the leaders these days then - simply go to certain countries to plan your attacks and be safe to plan all you like, forever, since no one is going to intervene in your mass murderous ways.

And you are 70,000% correct. These filth are going to be the rabid dogs they are whether their fellow filth is hit with a drone attack or a bullet, whether a tank shell or a Seal member, whether a tomahawk or a grenade. And what if they recruit based on all of the ways we kill them, are we supposed to stop using each successful method in order to appease terrorists?

Oh, and the masterminds behind other attacks over the past 20 years. If they never killed a single person themselves, and not currently a threat - from what I'm reading I suppose we should let them continue on their ways. So now terror leaders need only lead, just don't kill yourself and you're free to go, unless of course they all suddenly come to America for trials before they continue with their plans. :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I don't think they disagree that some of these folks deserve to be dead - but they believe we should bring them back to America and give them trials. And if they don't come willingly, or other countries don't help - I suppose we're supposed to allow them to plan attacks infinitely. It's that simple for the leaders these days then - simply go to certain countries to plan your attacks and be safe to plan all you like, forever, since no one is going to intervene in your mass murderous ways.

And you are 70,000% correct. These filth are going to be the rabid dogs they are whether their fellow filth is hit with a drone attack or a bullet, whether a tank shell or a Seal member, whether a tomahawk or a grenade. And what if they recruit based on all of the ways we kill them, are we supposed to stop using each successful method in order to appease terrorists?

Oh, and the masterminds behind other attacks over the past 20 years. If they never killed a single person themselves, and not currently a threat - from what I'm reading I suppose we should let them continue on their ways. So now terror leaders need only lead, just don't kill yourself and you're free to go, unless of course they all suddenly come to America for trials before they continue with their plans. :rolleyes:


I think some people want to live by the constitution and the law but then they at willing to kill people without trials -which is against the law- (it's called murder and assassination), spy on people with warrants -which is against the law-, torture people -which is against the law-, put in prison without trial -which is against the law-, blow the heads off friends and families in foreign countries based on less than thin evidence and without a declaration of war -which is against the law-.
because someone might be planing something one day maybe that might hurt us.

And they make up scenarios where we have NO other alternatives, But ignore the fact that there's a loooong history of other alternatives that have been used by the U.S., Israel, France and the U.K. for decades. So it seems to me they just want to "feel" safe and really get some Rambo like revenge and justify the gov'ts criminal acts somehow.

So they are willing to give the president the powers of a tyrant and not consider the cost of that.
And they are willing to piss on the constitution willy nilly, and all with a some imagined righteous indignation.
But the next day somehow cry bloody murder when someone on the left wants to abuse the Constitution on gun rights or freedom of religion.
Heck maybe even call for the arrest or at least condemn someone who disrupts a speech given at a tea party rally.

But they can't seem to fathom their own raw hypocrisy the when you point this out to them.

[fj1200]

That's a silly argument, IMO. One can argue that shooting them does the same, or hitting them with missiles from an F-16 or from missiles from a ship sitting in the sea. They can claim the same if Seals sneak in and take out leaders.

No, what they thought is that they could hide and continue their terrorist ways - until they were found and killed anyway, and now other terrorists will try to recruit based on those actions. These scum will try to recruit others based on the killing of Bin Laden. They do the same with pretty much any action the US takes over in that region.

And it would be unwise to back off of strategies that are killing the worst of the worst in the world. As far as I can see, the only wrong out there is that some other countries aren't as eager to rid the world of terrorism as others.

I think you overlooked the crux of the argument. It's not just that they're dead, it's how they become dead. And is just them being dead winning or are we missing the true goal of not creating more terrorism by our actions.


He was a clear and present danger, and needed to be iced as soon as possible.

Reading his long list of offenses against the USA and Americans, it undoubtedly saved many lives by killing him. He was a rabid dog that needed to be put down.

Who cares if it was a drone or a Fighter or a Tomahawk? It's not like these drones are autonomous; there are people flying it and people giving orders to kill when they've got the target in the crosshairs.

To Awlaki: There is needing to be iced and needing to be iced according to our Constitutional principles.

To the drones: Drones are not autonomous but those running the drones and making the decisions may not be making the best decisions because they have incomplete information. I saw something on drones last week that showed while the operators can zoom in on their targets they miss the larger picture of what they're seeing; new technology is addressing that however.

[fj1200]

I don't think they disagree that some of these folks deserve to be dead - but they believe we should bring them back to America and give them trials. And if they don't come willingly, or other countries don't help - I suppose we're supposed to allow them to plan attacks infinitely. It's that simple for the leaders these days then - simply go to certain countries to plan your attacks and be safe to plan all you like, forever, since no one is going to intervene in your mass murderous ways.

And you are 70,000% correct. These filth are going to be the rabid dogs they are whether their fellow filth is hit with a drone attack or a bullet, whether a tank shell or a Seal member, whether a tomahawk or a grenade. And what if they recruit based on all of the ways we kill them, are we supposed to stop using each successful method in order to appease terrorists?

Oh, and the masterminds behind other attacks over the past 20 years. If they never killed a single person themselves, and not currently a threat - from what I'm reading I suppose we should let them continue on their ways. So now terror leaders need only lead, just don't kill yourself and you're free to go, unless of course they all suddenly come to America for trials before they continue with their plans. :rolleyes:

http://profesorbaker.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/straw-man.jpg

:scared:

[jimnyc]

I think you overlooked the crux of the argument. It's not just that they're dead, it's how they become dead. And is just them being dead winning or are we missing the true goal of not creating more terrorism by our actions.

These people want to kill over pictures. It's NOT going to matter whether we kill them with a drone, or a bullet, or a fist to the head. Their propaganda for recruiting has a HUGE spectrum and they have tried everything but the kitchen sink to recruit. Look at Syria, and ISIS, and how many people from countries around the world are ending up recruited there. Was that the fault of drones in Yemen too?

[jimnyc]

http://profesorbaker.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/straw-man.jpg

:scared:

Don't run out the door, just make sure you post this for Rev sometimes too, who makes up strawmans usually about 3 times in every other post, the very posts you usually thank him for. :)

[fj1200]

These people want to kill over pictures. It's NOT going to matter whether we kill them with a drone, or a bullet, or a fist to the head. Their propaganda for recruiting has a HUGE spectrum and they have tried everything but the kitchen sink to recruit. Look at Syria, and ISIS, and how many people from countries around the world are ending up recruited there. Was that the fault of drones in Yemen too?

Right, they are going to use whatever they can to recruit; why should we hand them a few more reasons? But I'm interested in the net effect of our drone policy. Does it increase future terrorism or is it effective in reducing it?


Response to drone strikes comes in many varieties. First, revenge is targeted at those within the easy range of the insurgents and militants. The victims of those revenge terrorist attacks also consider the drone strikes responsible for all the mayhem. Consequently, terrorists and ordinary people are drawn closer to each other out of sympathy, whereas a critical function of any successful counter-terrorism policy is to win over public confidence so that they join in the campaign against the perpetrators of terror. Poor public awareness -- which is often a function of inadequate education -- about terrorist organizations indeed plays a role in building this perspective. Public outrage against drone strikes circuitously empowers terrorists. It allows them space to survive, move around, and maneuver. Pakistan is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Many in Pakistan now believe that drone strikes tend to motivate Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban to conduct terrorist attacks that target Pakistan's security forces as well as civilians. The duplicity of Pakistan's political and military elite in giving a green light to the U.S. drone policy proved to be counterproductive. The sponsors and supporters of drone strikes in U.S. policy circles apparently ignored the wider socio-political impact and indirect costs when evaluating its efficacy.

Supporters of drone strikes are only grudgingly acknowledging now that affiliates of Al-Qaeda are alive and kicking in various parts of the world, even though its founder is dead and its top layer of leadership is disabled and dysfunctional. Drone strikes that specifically target hardcore terrorists can work effectively provided they are supported by a parallel public relations endeavor that challenges the ideas projected by those terrorists.

Terrorists and their misguided sympathizers often expose and market civilian casualties -- particularly women and children -- quite effectively. Meanwhile, those who direct and authorize these strikes rarely provide any justification and rationale for it. This is simply seen as arrogance by those whom the U.S. expects to be on their side in this battle.


Don't run out the door, just make sure you post this for Rev sometimes too, who makes up strawmans usually about 3 times in every other post, the very posts you usually thank him for. :)

He's usually also responding to some strawman argument. But I shall give no quarter. :)

[jimnyc]

Right, they are going to use whatever they can to recruit; why should we hand them a few more reasons? But I'm interested in the net effect of our drone policy. Does it increase future terrorism or is it effective in reducing it?

Can you tell me the net effect of our policy from Iraq? And Afghanistan? What is the net effect from when we use an F18 hornet to shoot missiles at terrorists? And if its Seals doing so quietly? Net effect from just our foreign policies alone, like with Israel for example? Surely if we are curious about what increases and decreases based on how we kill terrorists - wouldn't we want a complete picture, not just centering in on one thing? Do you have anything that states unequivocally that drone strikes create more future terrorists than the many other ways we are involved and killing them?

[Jeff]

I don't think they disagree that some of these folks deserve to be dead - but they believe we should bring them back to America and give them trials. And if they don't come willingly, or other countries don't help - I suppose we're supposed to allow them to plan attacks infinitely. It's that simple for the leaders these days then - simply go to certain countries to plan your attacks and be safe to plan all you like, forever, since no one is going to intervene in your mass murderous ways.

And you are 70,000% correct. These filth are going to be the rabid dogs they are whether their fellow filth is hit with a drone attack or a bullet, whether a tank shell or a Seal member, whether a tomahawk or a grenade. And what if they recruit based on all of the ways we kill them, are we supposed to stop using each successful method in order to appease terrorists?

Oh, and the masterminds behind other attacks over the past 20 years. If they never killed a single person themselves, and not currently a threat - from what I'm reading I suppose we should let them continue on their ways. So now terror leaders need only lead, just don't kill yourself and you're free to go, unless of course they all suddenly come to America for trials before they continue with their plans. :rolleyes:

Yes let's bring them back so those that feel this is wrong can than go on crying about how they are treated and all that BS :rolleyes: It's simple don't be a terrorist.

[fj1200]

Can you tell me the net effect of our policy from Iraq? And Afghanistan? What is the net effect from when we use an F18 hornet to shoot missiles at terrorists? And if its Seals doing so quietly? Net effect from just our foreign policies alone, like with Israel for example? Surely if we are curious about what increases and decreases based on how we kill terrorists - wouldn't we want a complete picture, not just centering in on one thing? Do you have anything that states unequivocally that drone strikes create more future terrorists than the many other ways we are involved and killing them?

Drone strikes create more terrorists. (https://www.google.com/#q=drone+strikes+create+more+terrorists)

And of course counterpoint:

Drone strikes do not create more terrorists. (https://www.google.com/#q=drone+strikes+do+not+create+more+terrorists)

Those are all good questions. I'm interested in the answers, are you? Nobody around here complains when we point out that welfare policies and minimum wage welfare laws put in place by those who see government as infallible are counterproductive; why does every accept that a drone policy put in place by those who see government as infallible might also be wrong?

[jimnyc]

Those are all good questions. I'm interested in the answers, are you? Nobody around here complains when we point out that welfare policies and minimum wage welfare laws put in place by those who see government as infallible are counterproductive; why does every accept that a drone policy put in place by those who see government as infallible might also be wrong?

I'm of the belief that ANYTHING they perceive as negative to Islam will be used as a recruiting tool, whether that be occupation, jets, types of ammo or drones. And while I'd be interested to see COMPLETE answers to ALL of those questions, not just one... I think the NUMBER ONE priority is killing the terrorists when we can. If the terrorists leave an area that can only be hit by a drone, then go ahead and kill them differently. But leaving them alive is not an option.

[fj1200]

I'm of the belief that ANYTHING they perceive as negative to Islam will be used as a recruiting tool, whether that be occupation, jets, types of ammo or drones. And while I'd be interested to see COMPLETE answers to ALL of those questions, not just one... I think the NUMBER ONE priority is killing the terrorists when we can. If the terrorists leave an area that can only be hit by a drone, then go ahead and kill them differently. But leaving them alive is not an option.

And if our number of one priority of killing one terrorist results in 10 more? And did you accept the answer to one of those questions per the links?

And of course they'll use anything as a recruitment tool but how about we do our best to not provide stories of incinerated innocents.

[jimnyc]

And if our number of one priority of killing one terrorist results in 10 more? And did you accept the answer to one of those questions per the links?

And of course they'll use anything as a recruitment tool but how about we do our best to not provide stories of incinerated innocents.

So we should NOT kill terrorists, as more may be created? And you think missiles from a ship or from a F18, or even from a shoulder held RPG may not incinerate them? In fact, drones are a lot more accurate than other ways missiles are sent at targets.

The links, questions? I opened your most recent 2 links and they are nothing more than Google searches, I'm not doing homework for others, or going on goose chases.

How do we do our best? We gather intel, we ensure where the missile is going that the target is there, try and hit target when the least innocents are around. You know, pretty much the same thing they would do if they were targeting the exact same person with an F18. They can almost shoot identical missiles. I fail to see the difference between a drone dropping a missile, and a fighter jet dropping a missile.

And if vermin are going to become terrorists, because their terrorist buddies were killed, then they were radicals to begin with. The average person doesn't run out and become a crazed killer - because a crazed killer they know was killed. And if they do? Fuck 'em, kill them too. No different than if a murderer was killed by police here in the states - if a friend then becomes a murderer as a result, he too deserves death. We don't back off of a murderer and find "easier" ways to stop them, for fear that his friends may follow suit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you know Jim, i was actually going to put a disclaimer on it that you never said those things.
But i thought it'd be understood.

since i never quoted you, or mentioned you.

and i think you know where i've heard that kind of talk.
But i'm glad to see you think those type of comments are DERAILING of threads.
It's where some people live.... drummond... if i have to name names so everyones clear.

Falsely accusing my friend Drummond is not a good path to take Rev.
Drummond is no more guilty of derailing threads than any of us are.
And he actually makes a point to stay on topic . Also his thought to be derailing is refusal to admit the connections
He often makes to the topic at hand.
I am in the same boat as he is. Just because some refuse to admit the connection or relevance doesn't mean it is an actual attempt to derail a thread.
Some may call it that because they disagree with the author and his message. Tough shat on them says I..-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Yes let's bring them back so those that feel this is wrong can than go on crying about how they are treated and all that BS :rolleyes: It's simple don't be a terrorist.

I saw there was a video the other day of a woman in Arab dress being beheaded in the street like a dog. Oh, but I'm sure she had a fair trial first, right?

Look, I can certainly understand wanting due process, but it seems to me some here choose to focus on the worst sorts of people to defend, when there are thousands of others who actually deserve it. More. Why not expend your energy on people who warrant it? You can champion due process just the same. Honestly, it makes me wonder why. Are you really crying over the alleged mistreatment of the Awlaki's of the world, or just enjoying being contrary to some others here? Neither is very palatable.

[fj1200]

So we should NOT kill terrorists, as more may be created? And you think missiles from a ship or from a F18, or even from a shoulder held RPG may not incinerate them? In fact, drones are a lot more accurate than other ways missiles are sent at targets.

The links, questions? I opened your most recent 2 links and they are nothing more than Google searches, I'm not doing homework for others, or going on goose chases.

How do we do our best? We gather intel, we ensure where the missile is going that the target is there, try and hit target when the least innocents are around. You know, pretty much the same thing they would do if they were targeting the exact same person with an F18. They can almost shoot identical missiles. I fail to see the difference between a drone dropping a missile, and a fighter jet dropping a missile.

And if vermin are going to become terrorists, because their terrorist buddies were killed, then they were radicals to begin with. The average person doesn't run out and become a crazed killer - because a crazed killer they know was killed. And if they do? Fuck 'em, kill them too. No different than if a murderer was killed by police here in the states - if a friend then becomes a murderer as a result, he too deserves death. We don't back off of a murderer and find "easier" ways to stop them, for fear that his friends may follow suit.

We should understand the results of our actions rather than just thinking that killing terrorists is automatically making this better. And I don't think there would be much functional difference between drones and some of the other methods you listed except that most of our strikes are drone based.

And FWIW, of course I gave you a couple of searches, you didn't seem to pay to much attention to the actual link from which I posted. But the point of the article is that our actions are increasing those who would be against us. If our actions create more enemies then perhaps we need another strategy.

Also your friend analogy is off base. Friends don't become crazed murderers because their crazed murderer pal was killed, they become crazed when we kill the pal and 20 people hanging around... which of course doesn't happen so analogy is moot. :)

[fj1200]

Are you really crying over the alleged mistreatment of the Awlaki's of the world...

I assume he's really crying about the actual mistreatment of the Constitution. Apparently nobody cares about that until it hits home.

[jimnyc]

We should understand the results of our actions rather than just thinking that killing terrorists is automatically making this better. And I don't think there would be much functional difference between drones and some of the other methods you listed except that most of our strikes are drone based.

And FWIW, of course I gave you a couple of searches, you didn't seem to pay to much attention to the actual link from which I posted. But the point of the article is that our actions are increasing those who would be against us. If our actions create more enemies then perhaps we need another strategy.

Also your friend analogy is off base. Friends don't become crazed murderers because their crazed murderer pal was killed, they become crazed when we kill the pal and 20 people hanging around... which of course doesn't happen so analogy is moot. :)

So stop the drones. I'm all for sending F18 and F22 and drop missiles from that instead. That will solve the problem, won't it? If so, count me in!

[Abbey Marie]

I assume he's really crying about the actual mistreatment of the Constitution. Apparently nobody cares about that until it hits home.

Wasn't at all what I said, but hey, what the heck. A good sound bite, right?

[jimnyc]

So stop the drones. I'm all for sending F18 and F22 and drop missiles from that instead. That will solve the problem, won't it? If so, count me in!

So I'm assuming you guys agree - that since the problem is specified to be the use of drones, that it can simply be solved by using fighter jets, or tomahawks or similar from the ships at sea - correct?

[fj1200]

So stop the drones. I'm all for sending F18 and F22 and drop missiles from that instead. That will solve the problem, won't it? If so, count me in!

If you think that is functionally different. :dunno:


Wasn't at all what I said, but hey, what the heck. A good sound bite, right?

Not as good as your sound bite but I try. :) Nevertheless, the question with Awlaki specifically is the Constitution. The question with Awlaki generally is the effectiveness of our own policies. Do we smoke a few baddies only to create some more and have the local population suffer even moreso or do we ask actual questions on how we can win this thing. I'd rather win this thing.


So I'm assuming you guys agree - that since the problem is specified to be the use of drones, that it can simply be solved by using fighter jets, or tomahawks or similar from the ships at sea - correct?

We've been using drones, and apparently some Tomahawks, in Yemen and how is that going for us?

[revelarts]

I'm of the belief that ANYTHING they perceive as negative to Islam will be used as a recruiting tool, whether that be occupation, jets, types of ammo or drones. And while I'd be interested to see COMPLETE answers to ALL of those questions, not just one... I think the NUMBER ONE priority is killing the terrorists when we can. If the terrorists leave an area that can only be hit by a drone, then go ahead and kill them differently. But leaving them alive is not an option.

For those that believe ANY excuse is the same as a real excuse.

Please answer this question honestly? do you think 9/11 was "an excuse" to attack radical islam? was it "ANY" excuse or a legit excuse? was the pentagon? the attack in France? Or the attempts elsewhere?
Did they INSPIRE many young men to join the military to fight? YES OR NO?
Many here are ENRAGED at islam in general now but before 9/11 most barely gave a thought to muslims.
If you lived in YEMAN or the other 15+ nations where the US has drone strikes on your friends and neighbors would that give you "an excuse" to want to join a group that was against the U.S.? yes or no?
As strange as this is for us to believe many people in foreign countries don't live everyday thinking about the U.S.. But if bombs kills their nieces cousins and uncle at a funeral--then U.S. becomes TOP of mind in a negative way. do you think Reading Americans on boards like this saying things like "well they shouldn't have been at the funeral" "well they shouldn't be terrorist in that country PLANNING to attack america" will calm them down?
Is it EASIER or HARDER for the HARD core radicals to recuit these people at that point?
Will F15s make tat situation BETTER jim?

[revelarts]

Falsely accusing my friend Drummond is not a good path to take Rev.
Drummond is no more guilty of derailing threads than any of us are.
And he actually makes a point to stay on topic . Also his thought to be derailing is refusal to admit the connections
He often makes to the topic at hand.
I am in the same boat as he is. Just because some refuse to admit the connection or relevance doesn't mean it is an actual attempt to derail a thread.
Some may call it that because they disagree with the author and his message. Tough shat on them says I..-Tyr
Tyr, Jim accused me of attempts to derail here for questioning his source.
Jim has questioned or denied the veracity my sources several times.
Drummond has done so on more recently. specifically concerning the Guardian newspaper where he practically declared that anything prints could be considered true because they are "leftist". that's a blind religious belief not a honest critic of any specific articles facts.

I don't consider LEGITIMATE questioning of a source as derailing a thread, but knee jerk --i don't like what it says -or the POV- so it can't be true-- kind of questioning is dishonest and ummm.... unwise.

[jimnyc]

If you think that is functionally different. :dunno:



Not as good as your sound bite but I try. :) Nevertheless, the question with Awlaki specifically is the Constitution. The question with Awlaki generally is the effectiveness of our own policies. Do we smoke a few baddies only to create some more and have the local population suffer even moreso or do we ask actual questions on how we can win this thing. I'd rather win this thing.



We've been using drones, and apparently some Tomahawks, in Yemen and how is that going for us?

I was under the impression, based on this thread and others, that the issue was with the use of drones. Hell, even your article/s were about the use of drones. Your bold letters:


Recently, strong evidence has begun to suggest that (http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2013/05/24/obamas-overdue-step-on-drones/) terrorists use drone strikes as a recruitment tool.

And I asked many times about what was the difference between a drone killing someone, and an F16, an F22, a missile, a Seal and many others - no one ever stated the issue was "if we kill them they use it as a recruitment tool" - which is exactly what I've stated all along, that it DOES NOT MATTER if it's a drone or something else. So essentially, you're saying there never was an issue with the use of drones but rather killing of them in general with anything at all?

[jimnyc]

Also used as evidence and "thanked":


The crux of my viewpoint is that drone attacks cannot be compared to "boots on ground" operations. They are two different methods of battling enemies. Wars are mainly about national interests -- resources, territory, the balance of power, and religion. Drone strikes directed at terrorists perform a comparable but different role. In battling terrorism, physical elimination of the enemy matters but is not decisive.

So it IS about the method then. Is ONLY boots on the ground acceptable? It states physical elimination matters, so how do we kill them?

[revelarts]

I saw there was a video the other day of a woman in Arab dress being beheaded in the street like a dog. Oh, but I'm sure she had a fair trial first, right?

Look, I can certainly understand wanting due process, but it seems to me some here choose to focus on the worst sorts of people to defend, when there are thousands of others who actually deserve it. More. Why not expend your energy on people who warrant it? You can champion due process just the same. Honestly, it makes me wonder why. Are you really crying over the alleged mistreatment of the Awlaki's of the world, or just enjoying being contrary to some others here? Neither is very palatable.


OK so, Please show me in the constitution where it says it's only for those Americans that "deserve it" and i'll change my position.
Innocent until proven guilty, due process is the standard for EVERY american i've heard. EQUAL justice under the law is how i was taught the courts and executive are suppose to work by... am i wrong?

the justice is for ALL americans, if an exception is made for what someone willy-nilly labels "the worse" then you or friends could get the label as well Abby. I don't understand why people don't get that?

why do you think you're EXEMPT from THE SAME treatment as Awlaki and his son? the president MADE UP the rule for who deserves it, and Ignores the LAW. If some atheist becomes president he now has the EXACT same tool to use on Roman Catholics and Chrsitians who "bomb abortion clinics" or plan to or protest gay "right" or plan to. the PRESIDENT decides who DESERVES to be killed. there's NO rule, NO line Abbey.
NONE that says your standard of who "deserves it" will prevail. Frankly Obama doesn't care NOW about your opinion of who deserves it, you just happen to agree with him today.

[jimnyc]

Tyr, Jim accused me of attempts to derail here for questioning his source.
Jim has questioned or denied the veracity my sources several times.

I don't consider LEGITIMATE questioning of a source as derailing a thread, but knee jerk --i don't like what it says or the POV so it can't be true-- kind of questioning is dishonest and ummm.... unwise.

Shall we go down memory lane and see if you're talking like an idiot again? You say I accused you of derailing because you questioned the source of the smoking gun? Let's see...


having said that, uh, Jim i notice you are linking to a site called "the smoking gun". not exactly Mainstream there.
i only mention it because you've pissed on my UNKNOWN sources on more than one occasion Jim.

The info may very well be exactly true, but some people... not me... might dismiss it out of hand if it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
you know... some people :poke:


The Smoking Gun is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and most visited. They have been posting crime stuff for YEARS and are more than well known - and are mainstream, for the internet, as they are not a "real world" media company. You can look elsewhere and you'll find the same info.... Nevermind, I'll get it for you. There, that took me 3 seconds to type in "Awlaki Hedbo"...

--------

Charlie Hebdo attack: Anwar al-Awlaki - the al-Qaeda ideologue who may have inspired the massacre

***article snipped***


Hmmmm, nothing in there about what you claim....


And a second... if Reuters is acceptable...

http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-gunman-says-funded-by-al-q?videoId=361728389

Nope, nothing in that one either, let's keep looking...


And now Breitbart....

Hebdo Massacre Linked to Former San Diego Student Al-Awlaki

***article snipped***


Odd, was nothing in that reply other than an article...


Last, but not least... and I was wrong, they are owned in the real world. Just because you don't use the site or are unaware of it, doesn't mean it's not legit and "mainstream"

--------

The Smoking Gun is a website that posts legal documents, arrest records, and police mugshots on a daily basis. The intent is to bring to the public light information that is damning, shocking, outrageous, or amazing, yet also somewhat obscure or unreported by more mainstream media sources. Most of the site's content revolves around historical and current events, although it also features documents and photos relating to out-of-the-ordinary crimes and people. It is owned by truTV and is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment digital network.[2]

The name refers to the smoking gun metaphor, which is commonly used to describe an incriminating piece of evidence.

--------

The website was founded in 1997 by William Bastone and Daniel Green, former reporters for The Village Voice, and graphic designer Barbara Glauber. Most of The Smoking Gun's content is obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and from public records such as court documents. The site has used those requests to assemble a collection of mugshots of current and historical celebrities.

The cable network truTV, formerly Court TV purchased The Smoking Gun, as well as the website Crime Library, in 2000.[citation needed] A series of the same name premiered on Court TV in 2005. The series features some of the site's stories and assorted sketch humor using string puppets. This series was later moved and shown on Adult Swim.[citation needed] From March 2008 until January 2011 on truTV, The Smoking Gun sponsored a cable television series called The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest.... The series was originally known as World's Dumbest Criminals, but was retitled World's Dumbest... and began covering other topics. As of January 2011, the program was retitled again to truTV Presents: World's Dumbest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smoking_Gun

Once again was a few words and an article, all cool thus far...


Jim, I'm pretty sure I've used them before as a reference here as well.
I know i've read items there before.

like i said I don't have a problem with Non-MSM sites .
the varsity of their info is based mainly on their sources NOT the label on the site IMO.

But it's rather frustrating to have to dig up other reference of the SAME info for others who don't take that position though isn't it.
And who BY DEFAULT assume a site is wrong or lying because it's smaller or LESS well known or even ...grasp... biased left or right wing.
Or worse those to seem to take the position that if "it's not in the MSM so it's NOT REAL"

that's all i'm saying on that front Jim.

but um wikipedia is who your quoting now... :poke:

Blah, blah blah blah blah blah


there you go with your LEFTY talk FJ.
Drone strikes are always good for killin'. even if it's the WRONG muzzie, at least it's a Muzzie. all will cut your head off as soon a look at you FJ wake up. they don't NEED any excuses. it's born in them just because they are koran reading animals.

at least that's what i've heard from some.

What in the fuck did I just read? Oh, that's right, off topic crap that was obviously meant to mimick others and push buttons!!!


Try derailing the threads where things like that are actually stated.

Now, is THIS where you claim I blamed you of derailing a thread BECAUSE YOU QUESTIONED A SOURCE?? Is your memory really that bad, or do you just enjoy making shit up?

[fj1200]

I was under the impression, based on this thread and others, that the issue was with the use of drones. Hell, even your article/s were about the use of drones. Your bold letters:

And I asked many times about what was the difference between a drone killing someone, and an F16, an F22, a missile, a Seal and many others - no one ever stated the issue was "if we kill them they use it as a recruitment tool" - which is exactly what I've stated all along, that it DOES NOT MATTER if it's a drone or something else. So essentially, you're saying there never was an issue with the use of drones but rather killing of them in general with anything at all?

We're going to talk about drones when our primary method in some countries is drones. If they're using F-16s from 30,000 feet with a laser painted on the back of a terrorist then we're going to talk about that. If it's something else then we'll talk about that. If any method turns out to be counterproductive to our stated goals then what is your problem with questioning it?


Also used as evidence and "thanked":

So it IS about the method then. Is ONLY boots on the ground acceptable? It states physical elimination matters, so how do we kill them?

What should be acceptable is the best method to win. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. What you quoted also stated a clear difference between the role of drones and the role of boots-on-the-ground.

And I'm not sure why you're so butt-hurt about thanking a post. I can thank a useful post without agreeing with everything stated.

[jimnyc]

I think you overlooked the crux of the argument. It's not just that they're dead, it's how they become dead. And is just them being dead winning or are we missing the true goal of not creating more terrorism by our actions.

So it IS about "how". You guys should have never complained about the use of drones in Yemen as much - and maybe instead just stated you disagree with the killing of terrorists in general because it may create more?

Our choices are to eliminate them or not eliminate them - kill a known terrorist or leave him alive. If killing, how do we do it? If letting a known terrorist walk, why?

[fj1200]

What in the fuck did I just read? Oh, that's right, off topic crap that was obviously meant to mimick others and push buttons!!!

What's wrong with a satirical post that mimics what is clear in so many different threads. We should count how much that crap gets "thanked." :poke:

[revelarts]

Shall we go down memory lane and see if you're talking like an idiot again? You say I accused you of derailing because you questioned the source of the smoking gun? Let's see...

Hmmmm, nothing in there about what you claim....
Nope, nothing in that one either, let's keep looking...

Odd, was nothing in that reply other than an article...

Once again was a few words and an article, all cool thus far...

Blah, blah blah blah blah blah

What in the fuck did I just read? Oh, that's right, off topic crap that was obviously meant to mimick others and push buttons!!!

Now, is THIS where you claim I blamed you of derailing a thread BECAUSE YOU QUESTIONED A SOURCE?? Is your memory really that bad, or do you just enjoy making shit up?


Jim, in this case, it is in fact my mistake.

It's been a while since i read it and forgot the 2nd reason you where upset at my post.
my apologies.
I was wrong.

But I have to ask why is making a joke considered a Derail?
Can't people make jokes when they consider other opinions somewhat ridiculous?
seem you're just on my case over a lot of my post Jim and allow others to say what they want off color and otherwise without commentary.

[fj1200]

So it IS about "how". You guys should have never complained about the use of drones in Yemen as much - and maybe instead just stated you disagree with the killing of terrorists in general because it may create more?

Our choices are to eliminate them or not eliminate them - kill a known terrorist or leave him alive. If killing, how do we do it? If letting a known terrorist walk, why?

That particular quote was about an American citizen. An American citizen with Constitutional protections as much as we don't like it. We've had threads on that subject.

Should we be killing all terrorists? In any country? Where do you stop?

[jimnyc]

We're going to talk about drones when our primary method in some countries is drones. If they're using F-16s from 30,000 feet with a laser painted on the back of a terrorist then we're going to talk about that. If it's something else then we'll talk about that. If any method turns out to be counterproductive to our stated goals then what is your problem with questioning it?

So why even bother posting articles about how it's the use of drones that create more terrorists? And why would they bother doing a study, if knowing that so many other methods of killing them would have a similar result?


What should be acceptable is the best method to win. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. What you quoted also stated a clear difference between the role of drones and the role of boots-on-the-ground.

And I'm not sure why you're so butt-hurt about thanking a post. I can thank a useful post without agreeing with everything stated.

Then place boots on the ground, I'm all for that - and who will be the first few to find problems with that too? I'm willing to bet that you guys would pretty much disagree with ANY method used to kill them. And I'll restate what I said earlier - ANYTHING will be used to recruit. But I will understand for the future, it wasn't drones you guys took issue with at all, but rather how we fight in general and that it may create more terrorists?

And butt hurt? By simply pointing out that it was something you thanked, meaning you likely agreed with it? More like YOU are butt hurt because your argument got absolutely obliterated about the drones and now you must move the goal posts a tad.

[jimnyc]

What's wrong with a satirical post that mimics what is clear in so many different threads. We should count how much that crap gets "thanked." :poke:

Because this isn't other threads, I would rather the mimicking be left for those threads and the people stating things he is mimicking. In this thread it was nothing more than OT.

[jimnyc]

Jim, in this case, it is in fact my mistake.

It's been a while since i read it and forgot the 2nd reason you where upset at my post.
my apologies.
I was wrong.

But I have to ask why is making a joke considered a Derail?
Can't people make jokes when they consider other opinions somewhat ridiculous?
seem you're just on my case over a lot of my post Jim and allow others to say what they want off color and otherwise without commentary.

Thank you. And as to WHY, please read above. I would rather not this thread devolve instantly into a back and forth that evolved from endless other threads.

And you really need to read back, Rev. The places where I got on your case were places you started poking. Not once did I get on your case for the hell of it. You poke at me, I'll poke back with a bigger stick. I can go down memory lane with that too - but I would prefer to drop it here now that we resolved this thread and your last mistake. And I believe I have fairly explained my reasoning for the "off topic / derailing" comment.

[jimnyc]

That particular quote was about an American citizen. An American citizen with Constitutional protections as much as we don't like it. We've had threads on that subject.

Should we be killing all terrorists? In any country? Where do you stop?

Terrorists that have declared the USA as an enemy. Terrorists that are known to have been planning attacks against us. They absolutely go first. If it's a terrorist in Germany perhaps, and not declared us an enemy - then we should stay out of that and let them handle - unless they ask for assistance from other countries, of course.

[revelarts]

Thank you. And as to WHY, please read above. I would rather not this thread devolve instantly into a back and forth that evolved from endless other threads.

And you really need to read back, Rev. The places where I got on your case were places you started poking. Not once did I get on your case for the hell of it. You poke at me, I'll poke back with a bigger stick. I can go down memory lane with that too - but I would prefer to drop it here now that we resolved this thread and your last mistake. And I believe I have fairly explained my reasoning for the "off topic / derailing" comment.

JIm in this case I made a comment to FJ, using words that Drummond uses and YOU poked back... accusing of a "derail" when it's just a joke.
You take a look back see how many times i actually never address you or quote you but you weight in against me outta the blue.

Any answers to my latest ON TOPIC questions DIRECTED AT YOU BTW?

no,

[jimnyc]

JIm in this case I made a comment to FJ, using words that Drummond uses and YOU poked back... accusing of a "derail" when it's just a joke.
You take a look back see how many times i actually never address you or quote you but you weight in against me outta the blue.

Any answers to my latest ON TOPIC questions DIRECTED AT YOU BTW?

no,

Like I said, please tell your jokes in the threads where the comments you are mimicking are made. This only serves to take the thread OT and start a fight as soon as others read it.

[revelarts]

Like I said, please tell your jokes in the threads where the comments you are mimicking are made. This only serves to take the thread OT and start a fight as soon as others read it.
:rolleyes: Joke police,
and the only one complaining to my knowledge is you.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes: Joke police,
and the only one complaining to my knowledge is you.

Does someone need others in agreement to not want threads derailed? And I tried to let this die a few posts back, but you want to continue - and all it does is further take the thread off topic. You're angry because I don't want the petty bullshit fighting you are a part of within this thread. You wanted to take little shots at others that had nothing to do with this thread. Go find threads they are active in and play your little jokes and games in those threads, don't propagate it into new threads. But whatever, this one is obviously fucked now, which is what I was trying to avoid.

Enjoy another lonely thread.

[revelarts]

I'm still waiting for you to reply to my on topic post, you've now posted 2- 3 replies to me, none of them touch on it, but you've focused on the other so i'll addressed it too.

You say it's meant to push others "buttons",Ok so when Drummond calls FJ a lefty and questions weather he supports the terrorist? is that pushing buttons Jim? When AT chimes in and calls people names outta the clear blue with ref to nothing just heckling from the bleachers? where are you? AWOL.
check yourself Jim.
you say you want people to have free speech here. If i'm pushing buttons with Humor that's called free speech.

Sorry, if you can allow people to cuss at each other, make fun of races when they feel like it ...for fun, people can personally call Gabby every name in the book for pages until they get to nasty. But if i make fun of an idiotic political theme of some posters somehow THAT'S CROSSING THE LINE and has to be rained in?!
that seem like pure BS to me Jim.

[jimnyc]

I'm still waiting for you to reply to my on topic post, you've now posted 2- 3 replies to me, none of them touch on it, but you've focused on the other so i'll addressed it too.

You say it's meant to push others "buttons",Ok so when Drummond calls FJ a lefty and questions weather he supports the terrorist? is that pushing buttons Jim? When AT chimes in and calls people names outta the clear blue with ref to nothing just heckling from the bleachers? where are you? AWOL.
check yourself Jim.
you say you want people to have free speech here. If i'm pushing buttons with Humor that's called free speech.

Sorry, if you can allow people to cuss at each other, make fun of races when they feel like it ...for fun, people can personally call Gabby every name in the book for pages until they get to nasty. But if i make fun of an idiotic political theme of some posters somehow THAT'S CROSSING THE LINE and has to be rained in?!
that seem like pure BS to me Jim.

Are you really this fucking dense? This has NOTHING to do with others or the rules - this has to do with me in threads and not wanting them derailed as we are discussing/debating. If you have an issue when others do similarly in other threads, then mimick there, fight there or report the posts you have an issue with. If this was about me enforcing rules I would have simply thread banned you and moved on. This is me, as a member, not wanting to deal with the bullshit in a thread I am participating in.

And odd that so many of you idiots want to complain about how harsh I am with the rules, or unfair, or uneven - AND apparently AWOL too. If I don't read something, and I don't get a reported post - how am I AWOL? Idiot.

YOU derailed the thread on the first page. I asked you not to do so. You whine. I explain myself. You whine even more. I explain myself further. You whine more. I explain myself further and asked to drop it that it was resolved - you continued to whine. Hell, with all of your fucking lame whining you got confused and started blaming me for incorrect shit, first claiming I asked you to stop derailing over questioning a source. You don't even have a clue what the fuck you are whining about. Then you apologize. I accept and move on. Then you fucking continue whining! And then have the fucking audacity to ask me to answer your questions? You know where you can shove them, right?

And now you want to make a list of things you have an issue with? Odd that you never reported that stuff. If someone says something horrible, why not report it? It's enough to complain about down the road, but not enough to worry about at the time? Then quit your fucking whining.