…And how about that crappy food served on Extraordinary Rendition airlines, huh?
Why do you hate brown people, man? (“brown people,” much like “privilege,” is rapidly becoming one of the key tells of the uniformed fashion liberal…)
Wait, we get uniforms now?! How come I haven’t gotten mine yet?
I mean, if you think about it, who knows whether the Boston Marathon bombing even really happened at all. Maybe we’re all just in the Matrix, man… And besides, we don’t even know why they did, if it in fact happened. Maybe they had good reasons!
We can’t investigate the incident until we already know what happened, and we can’t know what happened without an investigation. FREE MUMIA!!!
What guy? What the hell are you talking about? I’m talking about the two guys (I’m assuming it’s two) suspected in the marathon bombings. They’re definitely a threat because they killed three people and maimed scores.
You know. That theoretical guy. The one we ordered a drone strike on. Lives in or near Boston. Because Obama and all Americans are totes cool with killing other American civilians and causing massive explosive damage on US soil to get some guy who may or may not be involved in the bombing and not like we’d want to investigate or interrogate him ('cause obviously it’s just as hard to arrest a guy on US soil than a random village halfway across the world).
Also may be made of straw.
Your grey jumpsuit is in the mail. We march on the TSX next Tuesday. Be there.
Nah. Neo-Nazis find you creepy, they voted you out.
Well, now we know:
No drone strikes. No neighbors or apartments bombed. One of the suspects dead (to be fair here, there was a shootout and they did injure a cop). The other fleeing on foot and what appears to be every intention to capture if possible. Any civilian casualties and property damage will be the up close and personal sort not a big red button pressed by a guy out in Nevada.
So, any more hyperbolic diatribes about abuse of power, drones, civilian casualties or the like?
So you guys actually think that my point was that I thought they would use attack drones on these guys?
I was trying to raise awareness of how we handle the same situation elsewhere, BECAUSE it’s elsewhere, so who cares if innocent people die. They aren’t Americans.
Christ on a pogo stick, you are making many of us who oppose such strikes defend them!
Do you know the difference between “elsewhere” and “lawless areas with no effective government control”? It has nothing to do with them being brown or non-Americans. When was the last time we did this anywhere but those areas that are not under the control of some governmental authority?
And there’s an active thread in GD on this subject if your goal is to debate it. Your dumb-ass analogy fails in the Pit.
Well, yes, because that’s pretty much what you wrote.
Maybe you should spend, I don’t know, 5 minutes thinking about what you post so that it conveys your actual meaning to somebody reading the English language.
Really? So, if a guy masterminds an explosion on US soil, we don’t undertake a dangerous mission that specifically targets just him and his compound? Or that maybe, just maybe we DO suffer innocent civilian casualties via police raids in the US when we go in guns blazing? And that maybe people still don’t care?
See, this is what I mean by “conveying your meaning”. Because, what you mean by “same situation” appears to be different than the reality.
Missed the edit window, but I guess I should be on the record here. I’m against the drone strikes. They’re indiscriminate and come with a high price to innocents. But so do police raids in the US. And law enforcement in the US is increasingly using unmanned drones domestically, even if only for surveillance (for now).
The point is where to draw the line on cost. We need some kind of law enforcement in the US. And we need to seek out criminals in other countries. But we want to limit the involvement of innocents to the bare minimum.
I disagree with our current methods via drones but the idea we’re doing something we would not fundamentally do in the US bogus. It’s only a matter of time before an innocent bystander is accidentally hurt due to drone use by US law enforcement.
I support the drone strikes and they’re not used indiscriminately. I will cease to support them if they are used as a tactic outside the goal of eliminating al-Qaeda.
I will also celebrate my ability to make decisions based on information and rational thought processes. I feel sorry for the OP, he reads like Rand Paul-lite.
The drones aren’t used indiscriminately, but the weapons platforms they employ are indiscriminate in who they kill. It’s a fact that we’ve killed hundreds of innocent civilians in those attacks. It may cost us more in material and personnel, but we can do better.
But Kin is still an idiot.
You blew it, your timing was crass, and your objection was stupid and uninformed. There’s no reason to use a drone if you have suspects in the U.S., where there is an effective government and law enforcement and it’s fairly easy to get to the actual subjects. So you know, Boston and suburban Massachusetts are just a little different than jerkwater Pakistan. That has nothing to do with not caring about innocent people if they’re not Americans. Think you can process that this time?
What’s the alternative? Publish all the government’s classified intelligence in the paper and hold public hearings, Q&A sessions, and a referendum on every security decision the federal government makes? I think you’ll agree that’s not a viable course. Both the scale of protecting 310 million Americans from those with ill intent, and the sensitivity of the things that are done about them and how the information is acquired and decisions are made, requires that certain people make these decisions on behalf of John Q. Public.
If you don’t think the people in power can be trusted to make those decisions, then you’re free to write in your own name next November.
When everyone “misses your point”, then the rational response is to look in the mirror and figure out what you did wrong. And always remember the first rule of holes.
[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
Or will we hold him in prison without ever filing charges against him indefinitely… no wait that’s wrong, make that until the “War on terror” is over.
[/QUOTE]
Of course we are still holding new detainees indefinitely without charge. If they fall under the AUMF, that’s legal. There is a war ongoing - we take prisoners.
There’s no indication whatsoever these Boston guys fall under the AUMF.
Yabbut, Dennis Rodman, is there anyone that thinks Dennis Rodman couldn’t use a couple of months in Guantanamo? Friends with Kim Jong-un, Axis of Evil, all that crap. I can’t believe there isn’t some provision of the Patriot Act that would allow us to stick a bag over his head and take him to Guantanamo. We’d let him out after a while, probably.