Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

BluegrassPreps.com

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

President Kill List and The Use of Drones.

Featured Replies

cancel....sounds like fox news

 

On American citizens on American soil, yes.

  • Replies 71
  • Views 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Anwar Al-Awlaki. American citizen. Was killed intentionally. He was with other suspected Al-Qaeda members.

 

His 16 year old boy Abdulrahman Al -Awlaki was targeted in a separate attack. He is from Denver, Colorado. Collateral damage included his 17 year old cousin. If you can find a good reasoning behind it with evidence supporting he was an imminent threat that needed to be assassinated by his own country, please share.

 

When news got out that children and teenagers were becoming part of the 'collateral damage' those that measure the statistics fixed that. They changed the 'classification' of any teens killed during a strike. Any 'military age' collateral damage victims were classified as 'enemy combatants' instead of innocents.

 

It was played as test of Obama and Brennan's resolve.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

"His first term has seen private warnings from top officials about a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to counterterrorism; the invention of a new category of aerial attack following complaints of careless targeting; and presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers.

 

...

 

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. "

 

Emphasis added.

 

So now they just count all teens as combatants - unless they are shown not to be...AFTER they are dead.

I'm speaking in the terms of terrorism.

 

You are obviosly an intelligent person, so you know that leaving it up to the executive to decide who and who is not terrorist is a recipe for tyranny.

  • Author
cancel....sounds like fox news

 

You sound like a talking head for Fox News given your neocon, hawkish, war-mongering rhetoric.

Even in traditional war - personally targeted killing or assassination by name was rare. Yamamoto was specifically targeted in WWII as the architect of Pearl Harbor. But it was kept very quiet for years. Officially, he was shot down by some lucky P-38s. Of course part of that was to protect the fact that the US had broken the Japan's encrypted code.

 

I did like Donal Rumsfeld briefings during the Gulf Wars. But in retrospect the 'shock and awe' and attempt to 'decapitate' the Iraqi government at the outset set a new precedent. The intent was to take Iraq's top leadership - specifically Hussein. But it failed - and resulted in a lot of 'collateral damage' without yielding the desired results.

 

The goal of a war is, or should be, to eliminate the enemy's will to fight. These targeted killings - Americans or foreigners has not seemed to produce that result. You have to question their true effectiveness.

You sound like a talking head for Fox News given your neocon, hawkish, war-mongering rhetoric.

 

That's the first time I have been accused of being a fox talking head..

  • Author
The goal of a war is, or should be, to eliminate the enemy's will to fight. These targeted killings - Americans or foreigners has not seemed to produce that result. You have to question their true effectiveness.

 

I agree.

 

Certainly with the technological innovations we have seen with helicopters, drones, satellites, ect, going to war using 'more precise' tactics is appealing both for policy and political capital, but it doesn't seem to hurting the moral of the enemy, and often, seems to make it worse.

I agree.

 

Certainly with the technological innovations we have seen with helicopters, drones, satellites, ect, going to war using 'more precise' tactics is appealing both for policy and political capital, but it doesn't seem to hurting the moral of the enemy, and often, seems to make it worse.

 

Total warfare hasn't been one of our military policies since WWII.

Citizens abroad who have taken up arms Vs the US and or joins Al Qaeda? Yes! Any citizen within the boundaries of the US for any reason? NO!

 

So waterboarding is deemed against the law but blowing someone to pieces with no trial is considered ok? Really?

 

What about the 16 year old boy who was killed by a drone attack along with his father? he took up no arms against the US.

When the GOP was in the White House, everyone wanted to kill the terrorist, take the fight to them. Now, it's capture and question. You can't have it both ways, or maybe it's because Obama is ordering the stikes. If he wasn't actually doing something about it, the people on the right would say, "Oh, we knew he would be weak on foreign policy and keeping American safe".

Actually when the GOP was in the whitehouse they were bashed by the Dems about waterboarding etc. Now that same party who is in the white house now seems it's ok to blow someone up into a millions pieces including innocent bystanders. Classic

 

I think that is the definition of Hypocrisy

Actually when the GOP was in the whitehouse they were bashed by the Dems about waterboarding etc. Now that same party who is in the white house now seems it's ok to blow someone up into a millions pieces including innocent bystanders. Classic

 

I think that is the definition of Hypocrisy

 

I agree, there is Hypocrisy on both sides. Both party changes their views according to who is in the White House.

  • Author
I agree, there is Hypocrisy on both sides. Both party changes their views according to who is in the White House.

 

Agreed.

 

What would your ideal candidate be like on foreign policy?

Obama's drone program is a mere reflection of the policies implemented by the Bush Admin.

 

First U.S. citizen killed by drone strike:

 

November 5, 2002, an American citizen named Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA drone strike inside Yemen.

 

Kamal Derwish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama's drone program is a mere reflection of the policies implemented by the Bush Admin.

 

First U.S. citizen killed by drone strike:

 

November 5, 2002, an American citizen named Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA drone strike inside Yemen.

 

Kamal Derwish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There was no out-cry then, not even from human rights NPOs.

Agreed.

 

What would your ideal candidate be like on foreign policy?

 

That's a good question. I have to think about that one.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.