Free pass? No one wants a free pass. Hell, we don't want to be there in the first place. Sometimes you don't really have a choice in the matter. I would much rather the fight taking place in your back yard as opposed to mine.
It doesn't work that way. The majority of major terrorist attacks outside the Arab-Persian world took place after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. 1993 - WTC 1 (Out) 1999 - Embassy Bombings (In) 2000 - USS Cole (In) 2001 - 9/11 (Out) 2002 - Bali (Out) 2004 - Madrid (Out) 2005 - London (Out) 2006-present - Pakistan (In) 2008 - Mumbai (Out) So of the major Al-Qaeda related terror attacks before Afghanistan invasion, 50% were outside the Arab world. After Afghanistan, 80% were. I'm not saying we didn't have to go to Afghanistan, but we cannot in any objectivity claim that it's to keep the fight contained. It just isn't true.
And I am glad we are using drones to kill people in his backyard and not mine. I don't know about you but I suck at MW on the Xbox I can't imagine I would be better at it in real life.
So, the killing of the American guy in Yemen, a place we're not at war in, was ok? Was killing his kid ok too? Because we also did that. How about killing people we don't even know the identities of? Is that ok?
But since we've started they're killing more people in our backyard than they did beforehand...I don't understand you...
Read the Salon article I posted above, and tell us how it's ok that Tariq was killed by the United States federal government.
We're not the only Western country, mate. Civilization doesn't exist solely between Long Island and Long Beach. Our actions have resulted in the deaths of hundreds to thousands of the citizens of our allies. We also got about 200,000 US troops in those areas. Backyard my ass.
Our allies are responsible for themselves and I have friends and family that are voluntarily in harms way. I am well aware of the world having traveled extensively and can still verify that I am glad that the drones are killing people somewhere other than here and they are unmanned. I also don't buy into the collective that somehow "we" are responsible simply by being citizens of the US. My actions have resulted in exactly 0 deaths. That's zero.
I voted for the current President - as my representative, he acts for me. Moreover, I voted for public officials in Kentucky who have put people to death, approved abortion/euthanasia laws, and so on and so forth. If we are a representative democracy (and indeed we are), we take responsibility for the crimes they commit in our names. I think Obama will kill fewer people than any of the Republicans, so I vote for him. But it doesn't make it any less a crime. I'm glad you can wash your hands of what the US does abroad, and while we're certainly better than the British or the French or the Germans or the Belgians or anybody else who held global influence, we're not angels. We do very bad things, often for no good reason. Mastershake is right - why did Tariq have to be killed?
It's unfortunate and unlucky for those involved. But you make it seem as if it's being done intentionally. It's not, at least in the case of the kid.
I have never voted for a presidential candidate that won so my hands are clean. The US military makes every effort to only kill when absolutely necessary. I know the vast majority will disagree with me on that but knowing more than a dozen people that have been involved in conflicts and situations going back to before Iraq 1 I know this to be true.
I know that the US military tries to do the best it can. Killing Osama bin Laden was still murder, mate. Killing Timothy McVeigh is still murder. Aborting a fetus to save the mother still kills a life - if you killed the mom to save the fetus it's murder too. We need to do better's all I'm saying.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24649553&postcount=17 Well what does "unlawful" mean to you umar? Time to man up umar and retract your statement or prove that drones are illegal, or "unlawful" I see when you can't argue you continue to throw insults. If you can't take being shown you are wrong then just stay out of the arguments.
Well abortion is a choice for the people involved to make, not for others to determine for them. Killing osama, mcveigh, is justifiable in my view. Call it what you want, but it was still the right thing to do.
Didn't Some Soldier shoot a bunch of fellow soldiers a few years back? I would count that as an attack.
If I say "Killing people with hammers is unlawful", you hear "Hammers are unlawful". There's no point arguing with you, you have difficulties following a line of reasoning. And it's not like you're gonna accept my reasoning anyways - from past discussions you don't strike me as a person who has an open view of the world. I don't take the time to support my arguments with research for people who don't approach a discussion in a bona fide manner.
Fuck that there is no right and wrong in war, it is all wrong, some actions are more "justifiable" than others, but it does not make them right. Many times it also depends on what side you are fighting on.
Well this is why what we do is fucked up, this is hard decisions to make, as AB puts it, and there are no right answers. I mean to MS29 killing an American citizen (even in rebellion) is a no for him. To AB killing his child in the process is a no. We all have different views about this, some pacifist people would not kill anyone even people that may cause them hurt. Some of us are more vengeful and will go after and hurt people that may cause us harm. Who is right? Who is wrong? Well regarding drones killing suspected terrorist, hopefully the Supreme court gets to hear some cases, I would love for the family of the Yemeni-American to sue the government for wrongful death and let the law sort that out. I personally do not see anything wrong with killing him and his family since he was in rebellion and declared war upon us. But I can understand why some other people may see that as unconstitutional.
Well Umar in all fairness you are also very unreasonable in two subjects, what you may perceive as the West attacking Islam and in Real Madrid being Barcelona’s little Bitch. You are passionate about those two topics and I have noticed unwilling to accept anything that goes against your opinions.
Because you can kill someone in self-defence, and the act would imo be legal and moral. But drones are generally offensive tools for assassination - I'd find it hard to believe the self-defence excuse in almost any drone case in Pakistan, for instance. I've no problem with drones on the battlefield, so long as military targets are properly identified and civilian casualties minimised (and by minimised I don't mean "Let's kill them, but make sure we send out a press release later regretting the loss of life"). But drones outside the battlefield are imo not an act of self-defence, so people should not be killed without due process. And the targeting still sucks - I don't believe the CIA claims that they hadn't killed a single civilian in drone strikes for 2 years.