Comments on: U.S. Drones Have al Qaeda On the Run
Strikes by CIA Drones to al Qaeda Sanctuaries in Pakistan Are Working
Add a Comment See all 107 Comments
- Knighthood went out of style a long time ago. The bottom line in war is to kill your enemy before he kills you.
- Reply to this comment
- I guess the CBS flunky that set up the filters needs a lesson in the English language. The word after paddy in my comment is defined as "an earthen mound to retain water". They seem to have confused it with the word that is defined as "an aggressive lesbian"
- Reply to this comment
- GO OBAMA!!!
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SIX YEARS AGO! - Reply to this comment
-
- Obama invented CIA drones.
It is Obama's watch.
Obama deserves the credit.
If anything good happens while a Democrat is president, the Democrats take the credit.
If anything bad happens while a Democrat is president, it's a lingering effect of the previous Republican.
- No doubt at all Obama inherited a plethora of flaming disasters from Bush. The economic four-alarm fire on Wall Street is certainly one created by GOP DEregulatory religion, direct from the GOP high priesthood. It took eight years to fan into an inferno of negligence, criminal fraud and massive overleverage, and it will take at least as many years to put out and stabilize financial structures the GOP damaged.
-------------------
LOL! So what's your solution? More FREE TRADE? More GLOBALIZATION? More H1b visas and illegal workers to take our jobs out from under our noses?
Well, that's the solution of your MESSIAH, THE ALMIGHTY OBAMA.
Face it, Obama is your enemy and mine.
It is July now. It is now Obama's watch.
Obama is to blame.
It's time to stop blaming Reagan. Obama is the president now.
It's time to start holding Obama accountable for his utter failure.
Just look at this topic - drones. The only things he's doing right are the things that are just a continuation of Bush policies.
Obama keeps making Bush look good.
- Obama invented CIA drones.
- "U.S. Drones Have al Qaeda On the Run"
Gee that's great to hear. And when these soulless tools are used on Americans, will WE have anywhere to run? We invented a tool of great utility. Tools of great utility get USED, by us AND our enemies. At the end of the day, a drone is a glorified model airplane. Don't think for a SECOND its utility is unnoticed by those who caused 9-11, or by our REAL enemies in Russia and China.
People used to understand the honor of combat. Now, we deploy methods that are no more honorable than those of Al Qaeda (OK, slightly more honorable). We better HOPE these actions are necessary, because they are abominable. They place humankind at the as*-end of a machine. Talk about falling to the level of an Al-Qaeda agent. - Reply to this comment
-
- Knighthood went out of style a long time ago. The bottom line in war is to kill your enemy before he kills you.
- Ubrew...absolutely silly!! Taking your post to its logical conclusion, we shouldnt even use a gun then...and only fight with our bare hands!
Wars are not nice things. I was a soldier for 21 years (and still consider myself one)...and honor can come both in winning and in losing.
But what a nation cannot afford to do is to lose.
"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. " General Robert E. Lee (To Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870))
- The Nazis used drones - their V-1 Buzzbomb is the same thing.
We did not invent drones.
Sorry, your hate for the USA will have to find some other target.
- hankvreeland said: "Knighthood went out of style a long time ago"
In defense of knighthood, it was the Predator of its day. Roam above the crowd, unassailable, until you dealt death from the sky. (then the English had to go ahead and invent the longbow...)
- You might argue that in a way the airliners used to blow up the twin towers for 911 were drones.
I doubt Al-Queda would ever be able to field drones. They are too technologically sophisticated. You need a large technological infrastructure behind you to produce a drone. Can you imagine for a second Al-Queda building a computer CPU processor plant? You need one of those to make the chips that go into the drone.
Al-Queda's genius was that they found that if they fielded a low-tech army against a high-tech enemy, if they went for the enemy's soft spots they could make some wins. And the soft spots are things like armed convoys suceptable to roadside bombs, or women wired up with suicide bombs that are sent to walk into a barracks.
When the sophisticated army tried responding, it tried playing the game by Al-queda's rules, which was to send in the troops - a low-tech response to a low-tech attack. That is no way to win because your engaging the enemy where they are the strongest.
Finally you can see now that the high-tech army, ours, has decided to change the rules of the game with the drones. We are now playing war by our rules - the rules of technology, and we are attacking Al-Queda in their weaknesses. And their weaknesss are things like since they have no communications infrastructure, they have to hand-carry every message everywhere. I'd bet that spy sattellite survelliance of the land areas Al-Queda is in was more than enough to establish where all their little hideouts are. And if Al-Queda tries using technology, such as cell phones and suchlike, I'm sure that we have all of that stuff tapped. Since, ultimately, they have to get the cell phones from us, since we make them.
If AlQueda ever tried fielding a drone - perhaps stealing one of ours and trying to target us with it - I'd bet that within a moment our programmers would have accessed encrypted back doors in the drone programming and had it reverse course and blow up the Al-Queda operative who tried launching it.
It's pretty clear that when the US army finally pulled it's head out and started using the younger crowd, instead of all the elderly generals who were still fighting war the way their grandpappys were, that we started winning.
- Sounds like we should double up on the drones and their support. Lets hope the politicians don't blow it as they did in Viet Nam. Prior to the start of bombing the Air Force recommended striking the NV rice paddy ***** just as the the plants began to mature. This would cut their food supply to the point that they could not sustain an offensive. The politicians scotched it. We just might be able to win a war again when we accept the fact that no army can be effective without civilian support. There is no such thing as collateral damage. A civilian population is just as much a part of a war effort as the combat forces.
- Reply to this comment
-
- I guess the CBS flunky that set up the filters needs a lesson in the English language. The word after paddy in my comment is defined as "an earthen mound to retain water". They seem to have confused it with the word that is defined as "an aggressive lesbian"
- 'there is no such thing as collateral damage.'
Civilians killed in WWI: 10%
Civilians killed in WWII: 50%
Civilians killed in Vietnam: 70%
Civilians killed in Iraq: 90%
Your point of view is certainly winning. Would you admit that, for Al-Qaeda, the fraction would be 100%? What does that make us? Al-Qaeda wannabees? And please don't bloviate on about our superior morality: stupid is as stupid does. People who kill civilians are a*sholes, pure and simple. That goes for Al-Qaeda. That goes for you.
- Ubrew:
Humbling stats to say the least. I did not realize the innocent count was so high. I would hope the message for EVERY PERSON world wide is this: If you are hanging with people who are bent on the destruction of others, you stand a good chance of going out with them.
If the US continues to wage war on everyone, than everyone is going to be our enemy. If we step back and allow them to come to us, or watch what their developments are; we do not necessarily have to be waiting on their doorsteps for them to make a move. With the technology and intelligence we have, and we share with our friends, than our job is made easier.
I believe that everyone, everywhere on the landscape of this earth should be given notice. If 'they' are part of a network that is part of destroying people, and if others want to mingle and partake of their endeavors; they are all going down. That includes any country or sect of people that are hell-bent on destroying something they have no right to judge nor destroy.
That is why we have laws. Laws have been part of societies from the beginning of man. That is 'their' way of life, and if their people cannot live within their systems; those people either need to abide or move. If that means they have to ask for amnesty in another country, than that should be allowed, with some restrictions.
In other words, just because I may want to live in Switzerland does that mean they have to take me? No. I have to be able to contribute to their way of life, society and people and should not be a burden to them in any way. In turn, I will abide by their laws and they can accept me or turn me away.
As it is we have way to many laws not being enforced or applied effectively. But yet, we continue to create more laws. Even God presented Moses only 10 Commandments (not wishes or wants) for the people to follow. If you will note those ten (10) rules consist of love, honor and respect. These three tenets if followed accordingly equals obedience. And guess who benefits if followed according? All of society.
If you were to look at each commandment in its entirety, it represents everything that man could follow to a 'T' and their home, neighborhood and society would be better as a whole.
Anyway, we have all created laws inherently representative only to us, and no others. To do anything contrary is tantamount to treason against God. Ten things is all He asked the Jewish people. And I believe, if it is good for the Jews, it is good enough for me. Because they are no better than I, or you, for that matter.
Sign me: As a once great American said "Can't we all just get along?"
- John_Merritt said: "If 'they' are part of a network that is part of destroying people, and if others want to mingle and partake of their endeavors; they are all going down."
I don't want to seem ungrateful of what's being done in the GWOT. To be fair, Obama went with this option for political purposes (lower soldier deaths) that have at best a glancing relationship to the concept of military honor. It may be hard to believe, but military honor is EXACTLY what we are serving up in the Middle East, NOT kills. Anyone can see who the new Caesar is, what they want to see is if he's as corrupt as Caesar.
Anyway, I just responded emotionally to the concept of 'there is no such thing as collateral damage'. Like h8ll there ain't.
- by hankvreeland July 10, 2009 5:27 PM PDT
I guess the CBS flunky that set up the filters needs a lesson in the English language. The word after paddy in my comment is defined as "an earthen mound to retain water". They seem to have confused it with the word that is defined as "an aggressive lesbian"
------------
Didn't they ever hear the story of the Dutch boy with his finger in the earthen mound to retain water?
- Armed drones failed in 1944. The Allies virtually suspended the program in early 1945. The American Army Air Corps angered the Nazis into deadly recriminations against Civilians. Why antagonize a defeated enemy?
- Reply to this comment
-
- The American Army Air Corps angered the Nazis into deadly recriminations against Civilians.
----------------
The Germans used drones with their V-1 Buzzbomb.
Your anti-American agenda is showing.
- Underground resistance by residents of the invaded countries caused far more "deadly recriminations" from the Nazis. The point was to stop that resistance. I guess you feel that once invaded and terrorised you should just give up.
- by sean58z July 10, 2009 5:04 PM PDT
Armed drones failed in 1944. The Allies virtually suspended the program in early 1945.
---------------
I'm STILL wondering - what Allied drones are you referring to???
If the Allies used armed drones in Germany in 1944, this is the first I heard of it.
Please post references to document this claim.
- The American Army Air Corps angered the Nazis into deadly recriminations against Civilians.
- "The predator strikes do cause civilian casualties, but one senior official claimed more innocent people have been executed by al Qaeda as suspected spies than killed by CIA drones."
Obviously, that justifies the murder of innocent people. - Reply to this comment
-
- Obviously, that justifies the murder of innocent people.
--------------
So, is Obama to blame for that because it's happening on his watch?
Or is Bush to blame because he's the one who started using drones against al Qaeda?
Or, as other liberal posters have written, if drones are good then Obama deserves the credit for using them.
Even though Bush is the one who started using them.
This is so confusing for liberals.
- by darthcheney345 July 10, 2009 7:01 PM PDT
Obviously, that justifies the murder of innocent people.
--------------
So, is Obama to blame for that because it's happening on his watch?
Or is Bush to blame because he's the one who started using drones against al Qaeda?
Or, as other liberal posters have written, if drones are good then Obama deserves the credit for using them.
Even though Bush is the one who started using them.
This is so confusing for liberals
If the shrub had let the agents do their job and get Bin Laden then "NOT" invade Iraq, this whole mess would have been avoided.
Remember, Saddam Hated Bin Lade and Alky aida......
- Wow, our State Run Media is actually posting good news about our military in Pakistan?
Well, they must prop up their Messiah no matter what.
- Why do you think fighting is justified? Why does any thing connected to this mess have to be justified? Oh thats right, we deserved what we got on 9/11. Just once I would like to see folks say, good maybe we are reaching a turning point, Sooner rather than later, maybe the fighting will be over and our people can come home, with the problem solved so people don't have to kill each other!!!!
- by ToolMangler1 July 10, 2009 7:34 PM PDT
If the shrub had let the agents do their job and get Bin Laden then "NOT" invade Iraq, this whole mess would have been avoided.
------------
Hey, confused guy. Guess what - this story is about PAKISTAN, not Iraq.
Pakistan is next to AFGHANISTAN.
Are you saying we were wrong to remove the government of Afghanistan after 9/11??????
Helooooooo....
- In that same year, Karzai himself, suffered minor injuries when a B52 dropped a bomb near Khandahar, killing three US troops, and seven Afghan troops.
------------------
So, are you so desperate to attack me that you're calling a B-52 bomber a "drone?????" LOL!
Friendly fire and civilian casualties have occurred in all major wars. It is a tragic and unavoidable part of war. The ones to blame are not the ones waging war, it is the ones who launched the initial attack that started the war.
9/11 was the attack that started our war in Afghanistan, which has spread to Pakistan when the terrorist cowards fled and sought refuge there. Much like the way our Vietnam war spread to Laos and Cambodia when the cowardly enemy sought to evade our military by operating there.
So if anyone objects to civilian casualties, blame the terrorists.
If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be there, and disputes over imperfect rules of engagement would be moot.
- cont.
Very few voters are aware of Mr. Addington?s existence, much less what he stands for. But he was the legal linchpin of the administration?s Marquis de Sade approach to battling terrorism. In the view of Mr. Addington and his acolytes, anything and everything that the president authorized in the fight against terror ? regardless of what the Constitution or Congress or the Geneva Conventions might say ? was all right. That included torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, you name it.
This is the mind-set that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the C.I.A.?s secret prisons, known as ?black sites.?
Ms. Mayer wrote: ?The legal doctrine that Addington espoused ? that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries if national security demanded it ? rested on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars shared.?
When the constraints of the law are unlocked by the men and women in suits at the pinnacle of power, terrible things happen in the real world. You end up with detainees being physically and psychologically tormented day after day, month after month, until they beg to be allowed to commit suicide. You have prisoners beaten until they are on the verge of death, or hooked to overhead manacles like something out of the Inquisition, or forced to defecate on themselves, or sexually humiliated, or driven crazy by days on end of sleep deprivation and blinding lights and blaring noises, or water-boarded.
To get a sense of the heights of madness scaled in this anything-goes atmosphere, consider a brainstorming meeting held by military officials at Guantánamo. Ms. Mayer said the meeting was called to come up with ways to crack through the resistance of detainees.
?One source of ideas,? she wrote, ?was the popular television show ?24.? On that show as Ms. Mayer noted, ?torture always worked. It saved America on a weekly basis.?
I felt as if I was in Never-Never Land as I read: ?In conversation with British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands, the top military lawyer in Guantánamo, Diane Beaver, said quite earnestly that Jack Bauer ?gave people lots of ideas? as they sought for interrogation models.?
Donald Rumsfeld described the detainees at Guantánamo as ?the worst of the worst.? A more sober assessment has since been reached by many respected observers. Ms. Mayer mentioned a study conducted by attorneys and law students at the Seton Hall University Law School.
?After reviewing 517 of the Guantánamo detainees? cases in depth,? she said, ?they concluded that only 8 percent were alleged to have associated with Al Qaeda. Fifty-five percent were not alleged to have engaged in any hostile act against the United States at all, and the remainder were charged with dubious wrongdoing, including having tried to flee U.S. bombs. The overwhelming majority ? all but 5 percent ? had been captured by non-U.S. players, many of whom were bounty hunters.?
(cont)
The U.S. shamed itself on George W. Bush?s and Dick Cheney?s watch, and David Addington and others like him were willing to manipulate the law like Silly Putty to give them the legal cover they desired. Ms. Mayer noted that Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the late historian, believed that ?the Bush administration?s extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history.?
After reflecting on major breakdowns of law that occurred in prior administrations, including the Watergate disaster, Mr. Schlesinger told Ms. Mayer: ?No position taken has done more damage to the American reputation in the world ? ever.?
Americans still have not come to grips with this disastrous stain on the nation?s soul. It?s important that the whole truth eventually come out, and as many of the wrongs as possible be rectified.
Ms. Mayer, as much as anyone, is doing her part to pull back the curtain on the awful reality. ?The Dark Side? is essential reading for those who think they can stand the truth.
- I love the democratic propaganda that the US simply invaded Iraq for the oil...stupid liberals don't seem to understand that if we had ONLY wanted the Iraqi oil, we'd have it, period. Especially since almost every democrat in Congress voted to go to Iraq, including the democratic MAJORITY held in the Senate in 2001...LMAO! They couldn't NOT vote to go to Iraq, when they had been screeching for 8 years that Saddam needed to be removed because he was training terrorists, paying terrorists to strap on bombs and blow people up, and shopping for nuclear materials...
IThoughtItWasFunnyNaw
Proof you can lead a far right wing-nut to the truth but you can't make them think.
They are people who are so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds.
Madness and Shame
By BOB HERBERT
You want a scary thought? Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney but without the vice president?s sense of humor.
In her important new book, ?The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,? Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney?s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration?s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror.
She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: ?No one stood to his right.? Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: ?He doesn?t believe in the Constitution.?
cont.
- Whether debating drone attacks or target acquisition by conventional aircraft, the issue is precision of target identification and munitions delivery.
--------------
No, that is off topic.
The issue here is drones. Just drones.
mljohns00 raised the objection that Obama is continuing the Bush policy of using drones in Pakistan, now that Obama's weakness has emboldened the terrorists and Obama has now unwon the war in Afghanistan, which has now spread to Pakistan because of Obama's weakness.
The objection is that drones cause civilian casualties.
So who is to blame? Obama, because he's the one in charge of ordering these civilian casualties?
Or will they blame Bush because he "started it," as if Obama is powerless to stop the use of drones???
I notice that the usual liberal posters are curiously silent on the culpability of Obama, who continues getting Pakistani blood on his hands as he has since Week 1.
And here you are desperately trying to change the subject.
LOL! What an obvious attempt to divert attention from the fact that Obama is a total failure and a clueless incompetent.
Obama is looking more and more like Bush every day. Every time he does something right, it's because he agrees with Bush about something.
- Its curious that you took the negative aspect, mljohns00, to comment on. Are we a bit sympathetic towards the Al Qaeda ? Or just hate the CIA when it gets something right.
Fact is, no one wanted to have to take out Al Qaeda until it was obvious they decided to kill 3000 innocents in New York City.
The Al Qaeda chose the location for the war where the current innocents are being killed.
And when innocents are killed by us, it is always a mistake or a very unfortunate choice that requires some to die to save others.
With Al Qaeda, it is their way, or die. That you aren't a combatant doesn't matter to them. If you don't support them, and their warped, religious based inbreeding you die.
Got a rebuttal ?
- Obviously, that justifies the murder of innocent people.
