So Rick Santorum setup http://www.patriotvoices.com/ in order to help remove that Kenyan muslim Barack Osama Bin Obama has a poll on the front page that doesn't require log in to the site and the poll got tumblr bombed.
So Rick Santorum setup http://www.patriotvoices.com/ in order to help remove that Kenyan muslim Barack Osama Bin Obama has a poll on the front page that doesn't require log in to the site and the poll got tumblr bombed
Last edited by ElweSingollo; June 9 2012 at 10:56:11 PM.
So while I was banned, and while you guys were enjoying yourselves hurf blurfing about Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, and Wisconsin; the NYT published a pretty interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...aeda.html?_r=1
I guess you already knew, or don't care about this? Obama personally presides over deciding who to kill via drone strikes, if the collateral damage is acceptable and so on. He is answerable to no-one in that process and there is no accountability and no due process. The suspicion by some of the intelligence committee is that he has decided to avoid the complications of detention, to in effect, take no prisoners alive. They've killed hundreds of civilians, yet reduced their quoted casualty numbers by doing things like including any military-age adult male caught in the blast as a combatant.
Fifth Amendment? The right to a trial for any US citizen? Mr Obama has decided that he can decide not to allow you that right. Does that not worry anyone else? I guess not. Enjoy your election year puppet show.The very first strike under his watch in Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, offered a stark example of the difficulties of operating in what General Jones described as an “embryonic theater that we weren’t really familiar with.”
It killed not only its intended target, but also two neighboring families, and left behind a trail of cluster bombs that subsequently killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind of precise operation that Mr. Obama favored. Videos of children’s bodies and angry tribesmen holding up American missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a ferocious backlash that Yemeni officials said bolstered Al Qaeda.
The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. Brennan, officials said, and once again they tried to impose some discipline.
In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only “personality” strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but “signature” strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants.
But some State Department officials have complained to the White House that the criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a terrorist “signature” were too lax. The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp, said one senior official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer could be bombmakers — but they might also be farmers, skeptics argued.
Now, in the wake of the bad first strike in Yemen, Mr. Obama overruled military and intelligence commanders who were pushing to use signature strikes there as well.
“We are not going to war with Yemen,” he admonished in one meeting, according to participants.
His guidance was formalized in a memo by General Jones, who called it a “governor, if you will, on the throttle,” intended to remind everyone that “one should not assume that it’s just O.K. to do these things because we spot a bad guy somewhere in the world.”
Mr. Obama had drawn a line. But within two years, he stepped across it. Signature strikes in Pakistan were killing a large number of terrorist suspects, even when C.I.A. analysts were not certain beforehand of their presence. And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was seizing territory.
Today, the Defense Department can target suspects in Yemen whose names they do not know. Officials say the criteria are tighter than those for signature strikes, requiring evidence of a threat to the United States, and they have even given them a new name — TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption Strikes. But the details are a closely guarded secret — part of a pattern for a president who came into office promising transparency.
On that front, perhaps no case would test Mr. Obama’s principles as starkly as that of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric and Qaeda propagandist hiding in Yemen, who had recently risen to prominence and had taunted the president by name in some of his online screeds.
The president “was very interested in obviously trying to understand how a guy like Awlaki developed,” said General Jones. The cleric’s fiery sermons had helped inspire a dozen plots, including the shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone “operational,” plotting with Mr. Abdulmutallab and coaching him to ignite his explosives only after the airliner was over the United States.
That record, and Mr. Awlaki’s calls for more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an urgent question: Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.
Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.
Some more reading:
http://www.alternet.org/world/155735...ef?page=entire
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/08/medi...nda/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obam...ers/singleton/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1565441.html
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/the_...d_2/singleton/
Also, this is kind of ridiculous:
Leave it to Al guys ...
Al Simmons everybody. Making paultards look reasonable since 2011.
I know, right? There goes crazy Al Simmons, babbling on about how it's wrong to murder innocent civilians
The problem with constantly being a nonsensical extremist is that even if you ever did have anything true to say, nobody wants to hear it and everyone will just laugh at you. You give absolutely no leeway for reasonable discussion and constantly respond to people with off the wall gibberish... So why would anyone discuss the article you cited here with you?Originally Posted by Al Simmons
I know, right? There goes crazy Al Simmons, babbling on about how it's wrong to murder innocent civilians
I'm tempted to, but it's you.
Al, I had literally NO IDEA that you, just like Jon Stewart, also won two Peabody Awards. My apologies. I assume the first one was for starting the thread "My PC fan is really loud". What was the other one for?I know, right? There goes crazy Al Simmons, babbling on about how it's wrong to murder innocent civilians
I don't see how i'm a "nonsensical extremist". I think I make important points and you guys shoot down the messenger because you're uncomfortable discussing them. I do have a tendency to be too snarky and so on, but that's me.
I think the point that people are barely discussing this extraordinary foreign policy of Obama's in the MSM but are instead going on about other domestic issues is a good one. Obama will probably get re-elected because he isn't attacking women's health and civil rights etc like the Republicans are, and he talks a better game of it than Romney. But yet his probably illegal, at least highly dubious foreign policy is swept under the rug. Romney would probably like to attack Obama on it, if only he could find some daylight between their stances on FP. And the only person offering any alternative to that status quo is laughed out of town by you guys because he also holds some unorthodox and slightly kooky views on the Fed and the gold standard. But everything he says on FP is completely spot on.
Where is the outrage? Where is the anything? Bush doing this shit would have been all over the news, yet it's excused because Obama is their guy. It's fucking ridiculous. If my choices were between Obama and Romney, I would not choose either.
Mull over this.
Also Don Rumata, you are fucking awful. I could explain my little joke, but then i'm sure you'd use that to derail any other discussion.
Hmmm I find the notion that FHC is uncomfortable discussing ANYTHING kind of ridiculous. I have no idea why people "shoot you down", but I doubt it's because of your positions on things.
It's pretty clear that Obama's base DOESN'T excuse him on this shit, they just put up with it because Romney is worse.
Well surely that is excusing him? A vote for someone is a binary yes/no thing. You don't get to vote for half a person, his policy of bombing the fuck out of the middle east is a thing that you are implicitly agreeing to by voting for him.
I really don't see much condemnation of him on the issue, outside of the usual people either.
Last edited by Al Simmons; June 10 2012 at 02:45:11 AM.
I really think you should be able to vote against someone instead of for.
Al, just out of curiosity, do you get upset when you go see an action movie and one of the protagonists uses a gun to kill the bad guy? Do you run away from the theatre, tears running down your face, screaming: "why they couldn't just talk to each other, like normal people?!?"
Also, do you think Barney the Pink Dinosaur would make a good US Special Envoy to the Middle East?
Democracy is full of imperfect choices. There is rarely (never) a candidate who you will agree with all their positions and actions over, but part of making a rational choice is weighing up what you agree and disagree with a candidate on and deciding on whether you can support them or not. Part of this process is also comparing the candidates positions to the alternatives. In the case of US politics you only have two choices, in this circumstance I don't really see how you confusing that Obama receives support. Its not unconditional or unqualified, people criticise him in all sorts of areas whilst still voting for him because hes the best choice avaliable.
The policy of drone strikes just demonstrates that in the real world there are no perfect solutions, most decisions are imperfect. Drone strikes are imperfect but they're probably the best option to achieve the nearest thing to acceptable outcomes. Unless you propose a total pullback but you know thats not a politically realistic option.
Do you giggle with glee when the protagonist shoots indiscriminately and kills a few kids alongside someone he figured was "the bad guy", but later it turned out it was just some random schmoe going about his business?
That's the disconnect. You say "bad guy" and ignore the "collateral damage" and ignore that it may not have been "the bad guy".
And what about Stewart before he won those awards, was he full of shit then? Was it those awards that made his comedy show make legitimate points?
Last edited by Qui Shon; June 10 2012 at 07:14:03 AM.
WoT: Mike_Hammer
Tanks are like Pokemon, gotta collect 'em all.....
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Actually the read the book twice, I like lots of graphs and tables in my bedtime reading. Pretty good case imo.
Nice video, I got about 30mins through before I had to stop. Its just too depressing
Barney is in fact purple.Al, just out of curiosity, do you get upset when you go see an action movie and one of the protagonists uses a gun to kill the bad guy? Do you run away from the theatre, tears running down your face, screaming: "why they couldn't just talk to each other, like normal people?!?"
Also, do you think Barney the Pink Dinosaur would make a good US Special Envoy to the Middle East?
"But the vast majority of this forum is European and/or highly urbanized and quite liberal in their firearms views. Take this discussion to ih8mud.com (Toyota Land Cruiser forum) or even knifeforums.com and you'd see the opposite."
-OrangeAfroMan
I bet if you took that same article and just replaced "Obama" with "Bush" and backdated it to 2007 you'd have a viral web sensation on your hands. I can just see the legions of angry twitters, facebook posts and blogs.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks