Afghanistan Terrorism And Hypocrisy

[Westside Steve]

sorry if this makes me sound like a liberal.

I was watching a clip from Bill O'Reilly in which a Muslim woman was questioning the Presidents mouthpiece about whether or not drone strikes that kill women and children are also acts of terrorism.

O'Reilly went ballistic stating the huge difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. Sure, I guess so. But I could not help but think that if, say, my neighbor was a crack dealer or a pornographer or a Muslim terrorist supervisor or whatever and somebody from: miles and miles away sent in a drone that killed my wife while taking him out that I personally wouldn't be glad to fly an airplane into the tallest building in whatever passes for a city in his country.

I know personally sometimes I've held my nose while we participate in wars if I think maybe there's some profit for us.I see absolutely no profit, no reason and no good way out of this years we have wasted in Afghanistan.

the people who pimp be President can't even use bin laden as an excuse anymore and since he's been hanging out in Pakistan for years before.

 

I forget the author's name, I will look it up after this, of a book called dirty wars.I'm not shocked, just disgustedby the fact that so many of those Democrats who screamed bloody murder about Bush and Cheney and how they should be executed at The Hague have completely bent over for what Obama has been doing all over the world. Of course that is with a few exceptions but still...

 

to this day I get choked up after the ABC Sunday show when I read the names of the kids that were killed overseas, I did it during your rack and I do it now.

 

pretty damn reprehensible, says I.

 

and if the lefties don't give a rats ass about that how about this?

what is it, like two billion dollars a week down the toilet there?

maybe you could find a use for that money instead of crying about the fucking sequester.

sorry for the rant boys, this is one of the few times I got a little bit upset.

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

It's horseshit, and if the Chinese were using drones to address the drug conflict in Juarez, you'd bet your ass we'd be pissed about it. The White House PR guy's response to her question was such a crock of shit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's Jeremy Scahill. I've met him a few times. Never been that impressed, but he does have balls.

 

Mostly, I share Steve's disgust, even while he's lost. (The war is against Al Qaeda, not one guy named Bin Laden.)

[Westside Steve]

That's Jeremy Scahill. I've met him a few times. Never been that impressed, but he does have balls.

 

Mostly, I share Steve's disgust, even while he's lost. (The war is against Al Qaeda, not one guy named Bin Laden.)

I think if you're completely honest we have to admit that this was sold to us as a mission to get bin Laden as well as the Taliban who made it all happen. 911 that is.no doubt you recall the accusations flying back and forth about Tora Bora and who missed him and who didn't. Anyway I think I remember you and I agreeing quite a while ago that this could have just as easily planned in, and I quote, a hotel room in Munich. But I haven'thaven't been a fan of this war ever. I always thought it was a rat hole.

it would be great if there were a country al Qaeda called their own that we could just go in and blow the living shit out of.

 

and while I'm far from being a peacenick I can certainly understand why human beings would hate other human beings that did things that we have done.

 

for some reason I was thinking of the sting song; the Russians love their children too.

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I have to be honest, it doesn't bother me at all.

[calfoxwc]

Drone strikes? Terrorism?

 

Drone strikes are self defense, taking out of terrorists. Wars don't come with

any guarantee that innocents won't be accidently killed..

 

Terrorist is the intentional murder of as many innocents as terrorists can manage.

 

Big difference.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think if you're completely honest we have to admit that this was sold to us as a mission to get bin Laden as well as the Taliban who made it all happen. 911 that is.no doubt you recall the accusations flying back and forth about Tora Bora and who missed him and who didn't. Anyway I think I remember you and I agreeing quite a while ago that this could have just as easily planned in, and I quote, a hotel room in Munich. But I haven'thaven't been a fan of this war ever. I always thought it was a rat hole.

it would be great if there were a country al Qaeda called their own that we could just go in and blow the living shit out of.

 

and while I'm far from being a peacenick I can certainly understand why human beings would hate other human beings that did things that we have done.

 

for some reason I was thinking of the sting song; the Russians love their children too.

 

WSS

 

Well, we know you're the only honest man, a pillar of wisdom and truth, and the rest of us are all hacks and liars who can't handle your genius, so I appreciate the directive to be more honest. I'll give it my very best. Luckily, I have you as my inspiration.

 

Honesty is not the same thing as agreeing with you.

 

However, no part of what you wrote suggests that you're making sense. The war we declared is on Al Qaeda, and groups that support Al Qaeda. (You can look it up.) Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Mali, Indonesia, and many other countries. And that's why we keep attacking them. You can disagree with this approach, and many do. However, you keep saying that this war was limited to getting Bin Laden and the Taliban, and then it should have been over. But it wasn't limited to that. Nor have we gotten rid of the Taliban.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But back to your original point, I do think that there's a difference between drone strikes aimed at terrorist suspects and terrorist attacks aimed at civilians. O'Reilly is correct about that. However, when you're talking about the effect on the ground, the reality of what these strikes do, often to innocent people, women, children, it's not all that different, and no one affected is going to parse the legal distinctions or care. They just know that their family has been blown to pieces, from the sky, by the most powerful country in the world. When you approve of these wars, or these drone strikes, this is what you're going to get. We get the wrong house. Or we get the right house and it blows up the neighborhood along with it. It happens quite often. The numbers are estimated to be in the hundreds, if not more. And that's just from drone strikes.

 

And there's a special place in hell for people who kill children.

[Westside Steve]

Well, we know you're the only honest man, a pillar of wisdom and truth, and the rest of us are all hacks and liars who can't handle your genius, so I appreciate the directive to be more honest. I'll give it my very best. Luckily, I have you as my inspiration.

Well, sincere thanks for the props, but frankly you dont set the bar very high.

 

However, no part of what you wrote suggests that you're making sense. The war we declared is on Al Qaeda, and groups that support Al Qaeda. (You can look it up.) Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Mali, Indonesia, and many other countries. And that's why we keep attacking them. You can disagree with this approach, and many do. However, you keep saying that this war was limited to getting Bin Laden and the Taliban, and then it should have been over. But it wasn't limited to that. Nor have we gotten rid of the Taliban.

There's that honesty glich again. You see I never said it was limited solely to catching bin laden you made that up.

That was, however, a selling point.

Also you've apparently forgotten AQ is also active in Western countries including right here at home.

 

But of course we were talking about Afghanistan.

Which, in my humble opinion, has been a waste of time energy money lives and reputation.

 

And like you say you might disagree many do.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And no indeed we have not gotten rid of the Taliban.

( Did someone say we did?)

And we probably won't.

Your point?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

But back to your original point, I do think that there's a difference between drone strikes aimed at terrorist suspects and terrorist attacks aimed at civilians.

 

Yes. Like I said.

 

O'Reilly is correct about that. However, when you're talking about the effect on the ground, the reality of what these strikes do, often to innocent people, women, children, it's not all that different, and no one affected is going to parse the legal distinctions or care. They just know that their family has been blown to pieces, from the sky, by the most powerful country in the world. When you approve of these wars, or these drone strikes, this is what you're going to get. We get the wrong house. Or we get the right house and it blows up the neighborhood along with it. It happens quite often. The numbers are estimated to be in the hundreds, if not more. And that's just from drone strikes.

 

And there's a special place in hell for people who kill children.

 

Also like I said.

It's hard for you to agree even when you agree...

Wss

[heckofajobbrownie]

There's that honesty glich again. You see I never said it was limited solely to catching bin laden you made that up.

That was, however, a selling point.

Also you've apparently forgotten AQ is also active in Western countries including right here at home.

 

But of course we were talking about Afghanistan.

Which, in my humble opinion, has been a waste of time energy money lives and reputation.

 

And like you say you might disagree many do.

WSS

 

I don't think AQ has a presence here at home. I think the best they can hope for is a knockoff attack like the Borat Brothers.

 

If that was Al Qaeda you'd be talking 50-100 dead and 200-300 wounded, or worse. If there's a silver lining in that attack it's that they could only put something crude together, mostly taking off people's legs.

 

As for Afghanistan, I don't have a problem with the initial decision to invade, or the continued efforts to eliminate high value targets, which requires some presence on the ground. But we've long since overstayed the point where our overall presence achieves any sort of national security objective that justifies the cost.

 

Yes, when we pull out it will be a mess, just like Iraq is a mess. It will be horrific, especially for women and girls. But that country is not salvageable. And the whole idea for the war - to deny Al Qaeda a base of operations - is somewhat flawed. You don't need a country to plan an attack or a bombing. You need an apartment.

[Westside Steve]

I'd say that strategy is a lot more than just some what flawed.

the number one reason is that you don't need a training camp like you said just a room.

and there are rooms everywhere, even here.

 

and even if they did need a facility I'm sure those would be abundant in any of the aforementioned countries.

 

Pakistan in particular, it seems we've got very little idea what's going on there.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It may be somewhat flawed in terms of occupying a country to prevent it from happening. I'd agree. But it's not an argument against having the CIA follow them around the world and killing them one by one, and I tend to think this is where the administration is trying to take it.

 

There are arguments against doing that, too, but "We shouldn't be occupying Afghanistan" isn't one of them.

[Westside Steve]

It may be somewhat flawed in terms of occupying a country to prevent it from happening. I'd agree. But it's not an argument against having the CIA follow them around the world and killing them one by one, and I tend to think this is where the administration is trying to take it.

 

There are arguments against doing that, too, but "We shouldn't be occupying Afghanistan" isn't one of them.

of course those are two completely different things. Occupying Afghanistan really does nothing except piss off the people who live there. And sooner or later whatever we're doing will be over and we will be forgotton, except in hatred. But as to trailing and assassinating al Qaeda leaders, okay,its always fun to kill bad guys but let me ask you this: if a q went around the United States picking of our politicians one by one do you think it would make our resolve stronger or weaker?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

But that's not really a good analogy. Though I commend you for your Jesus-like approach. It's more moral than mine.

 

Two things: in terms of actual members of Al Qaeda, the ones who are or would be planning attacks on Americans, those people need to be killed or captured. Since capture is often difficult and would put our soldiers and intelligence people at risk, we often blow them up from the sky.

 

Second, if we had decent estimate of the numbers of jihadists in that region, greatly reducing their numbers lowers the threat to the United States so long as you don't create more jihadists by the way in which you reduce their numbers. And I don't know how that plays out, and which side wins the day.

 

I'm not for staying in Afghanistan any longer, the additional troops did not advance the objectives we set out, and I'm glad we're leaving. I wish we'd do it quicker.

 

Which isn't to say that I don't imagine that Afghanistan is going to be, well, Afghanistan. But like with Iraq, at least it won't cost us a few billion a week and result in the death/maiming of American soldiers and personnel.

 

 

And fun's got nothing to do with it, unless you're a psychopath.

[Westside Steve]

not really morals, amigo, I'd call it pragmatic.for example let's say when Saddam Hussein wanted to invade Kuwait. We let him know we wouldn't get in the way if he played ball. Might that have been a better solution than taking him out for the ungrateful United Nations? Who knows.

 

unfortunately al Qaeda doesn't seem to have a country, or citizens, or buildings or anything that they care to protect that we might blow the shit out of in retaliation.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

not really morals, amigo, I'd call it pragmatic.for example let's say when Saddam Hussein wanted to invade Kuwait. We let him know we wouldn't get in the way if he played ball. Might that have been a better solution than taking him out for the ungrateful United Nations? Who knows.

 

...Huh? You're saying we should have ...what are you saying??

[heckofajobbrownie]

unfortunately al Qaeda doesn't seem to have a country, or citizens, or buildings or anything that they care to protect that we might blow the shit out of in retaliation.

WSS

 

Which is why we blow them up instead.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve Coll:

 

 

Drone strikes have surely thinned Al Qaeda’s ranks on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and reduced pressure on American forces fighting the Taliban. But has the program made America safer? Political relations between the United States and Pakistan, a nation of nearly a hundred and eighty million people, with a fast-growing nuclear arsenal, have collapsed. Today, the United States has surpassed India as the most hated nation in Pakistan. There are many causes, but drones are a major one. Just as Eisenhower failed to think through the consequences of his push-button interventionism, Obama seems unwilling to confront the possibility that drone strikes may be creating more enemies than they’re eliminating.

America’s drone campaign is also creating an ominous global precedent. Ten years or less from now, China will likely be able to field armed drones. How might its Politburo apply Obama’s doctrines to Tibetan activists holding meetings in Nepal?