Are US drone strikes in Pakistan a war crime?

[Fraggle Rocker]

Meanwhile, I suggest you read the two scholarly articles on the nature of terrorism I posted previously in this thread, which explicitly reject the inclusion of rational strategic calculus from the phenomenon of terrorism.

Okay, I read them. First, as a Moderator, I strongly suggest that next time you encounter some good reading material, you provide our members with an abstract--like those book reports they taught you to do in high school. I could write a one-page summary of the Abrahms and a two-page summary of the Harris that would distill out 90% of their points with enough supporting information to make sense out of them. That would save the next person half an hour of reading while giving him most of the information he's looking for. We're not here to master a subject and pass an exam on it, we just want to increase our knowledge.

That said, onward to my comments.

Harris

I'd quibble over a few details. Engineers have said that the planners of 9/11 were striving to bring the towers down. They clearly had studied the architecture and knew its key weakness: that New York City outlawed asbestos halfway through the construction so above the 50th floor the structures were more vulnerable. They knew the 20-story zone in which the impact of an airliner would have the maximum probability of crushing the building to the ground, and they hit precisely in that zone, each at a different end.

I also think he fails to distinguish between the leaders and the troops in a terrorist organization. They have different psychologies, different reasons for being there and different needs.

I think his analysis shows a decided bias toward a Western perspective. It is very unflattering to Islam and the ideologies it has spawned. I immediately confess that I am too, but I would try to balance my perspective before trying for publication to a wider audience that SciForums.

Abrahms

I found his discourse well-crafted and his reasoning solid. His points were well-taken and I found it unnecessary to read through his complete expansion of each one.

All in all I was very encouraged by this paper. It makes the point (more strongly than Harris, at least to me) that the cognition of terrorists is not rational. That is a colossal weakness, and enemies with colossal weaknesses are usually defeated.

In closing, as a skillful and persuasive professional writer I can easily recognize the work of other skillful and persuasive professional writers, and both of these fall into that category. After reading these my first remark to myself was, "Okay, that was good. Now let's see the rebuttals so I can get a balanced view."

Have you got any rebuttals handy?

In summary, thanks for the good read, but please take my critical comments under advisement next time.

 

[spidergoat]

I never suggested killing all Muslims. Only the extremists that would harm us. Yes, there are people that are motivated by Christianity to do bad things, I blame religion in general. I'm not a Christian or anything else.

Cowardice has nothing to do with war. War is not about proving your bravery, it's about eliminating a deadly threat.

 

[pywakit]

And by the way, the only country to ever use nukes was ours. And many scientists, military commandeers, politicians, and just good old americans were dead set against it.

It was completely unecessary. We had already beaten Japan. Go to the National Archives webpage, and read what the principles involved at the time had to say.

We MURDERED 500,000 Japanese civilians. Men, women, children, BABIES. NON-militants. And our president knew they were non-militants.

Before that we fire-bombed virtually every city over 50,000 pop. Civillians. Women, children, BABIES.

How many american cities did the Japanese bomb? How many american babies did they slaughter? How many did they burn to death, or kill from radiation sickness .... a truly horrifying and excrutiating death.

Learn your history. You don't know 'jack'.

Our country wants to rule the world. It has since the Monroe Doctrine.

You can take your moral superiority and ..... well, you know what I mean.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't know about WWII? What are you babbling about? The fucking Japanese declared war on us, and it took a hell of a lot of American lives to defeat them. What does that have to do with the subject?

 

[pywakit]

I never suggested killing all Muslims. Only the extremists that would harm us. Yes, there are people that are motivated by Christianity to do bad things, I blame religion in general. I'm not a Christian or anything else.

Cowardice has nothing to do with war. War is not about proving your bravery, it's about eliminating a deadly threat.

Is that a fact? Well, when they attack us, we should defend ourselves. Premptive attacks are sick, and immoral.

We should be striving to make peace. But you would prefer we go kill anyone we PERCEIVE as a threat.

Yes, we risk losing a few good people this way. But how many good people have we lost, and maimed, and otherwise ruined their lives ... and how many good people ... innocents, children, women, have we slaughtered in this insane quest for 'safety'?

Like I said, you would do yourself some good in reading some history.

Again .... WE started this insanity. THEY didn't.

 

[pywakit]

I don't know about WWII? What are you babbling about? The fucking Japanese declared war on us, and it took a hell of a lot of American lives to defeat them. What does that have to do with the subject?

And WHY did they declare war on us?

Don't you know?

Do you know what the Monroe Doctrine is? Manifest Destiny?

Ever occur to you that WE might have started that, too?

Of course not. Cuz we don't do shit like that.

We are the good guys.

Read Japanese history. Then read ours. There seems to be a few minor discrepancies.

When you don't know 'jack' about history, it is a simple thing to make statements like you did.

They ARE connected. But you lack the facts to make that connection.

Maybe they declared war on us because we gave them no choice. Maybe our expansionist policies threatened them.

Maybe they were starting to feel boxed in.

Maybe they needed a little more space. Maybe they didn't like our warships hanging around.

Maybe they didn't like us building military bases all over the freaking world.

Maybe they were AFRAID of us. Maybe they didn't like being called 'heathen barbarians'.

Maybe you don't know a thing about the subject matter.

 

[pywakit]

So I ask again.

How many american babies did the Japanese slaughter? How many american civilian populations?

They could have. They had the ships. The firepower. The bombs. The manpower.

That would be .... essentially ZERO. They never attacked an american city. Other than a few balloons that did zero damage. If they actually even sent those ....

Those rabid monsters never got around to it, I guess.

History PROVES we are the REAL monsters on the world stage. Few come even close.

We ... the 'morally superior' Christian nation. Totally insane. Just insane.

 

[quadraphonics]

They knew the 20-story zone in which the impact of an airliner would have the maximum probability of crushing the building to the ground, and they hit precisely in that zone, each at a different end.

I don't think the question of whether they intended for the towers to collapse is terribly important (and I think Harris is somewhat mistaken to focus on it), but I'd note that said zones also just happen to be the same ones that would be easy to crash a jetliner into. Lower down and you have other buildings to contend with, higher up and you risk grazing the targets. So I don't see that as particularly telling.

I also think he fails to distinguish between the leaders and the troops in a terrorist organization. They have different psychologies, different reasons for being there and different needs.

True enough, but I'm not seeing a fundamental difference between them in terms of overall strategic calculus (or the lack thereof). They all seem to be in the same ideological boat, here. And let's recall that today's leaders are typically yesterday's troops - often literally, given the high attrition rates that organizations like AQ are subjected to.

I think his analysis shows a decided bias toward a Western perspective. It is very unflattering to Islam and the ideologies it has spawned.

Yeah, I think the biggest weakness of that article is the turn it takes into endorsement of Bush ideation, etc. But, then, it's a product of its time...

All in all I was very encouraged by this paper. It makes the point (more strongly than Harris, at least to me) that the cognition of terrorists is not rational. That is a colossal weakness, and enemies with colossal weaknesses are usually defeated.

Yes and no. It certainly hamstrings their effectiveness, and so puts them in positions where they cannot advance their stated platform. But on the other hand, irrational actors don't concede defeat where a rational actor would, and if we accept the supposition that the political platform is ancillary to their actual purposes, this makes a lot of sense. As Harris notes, you don't "defeat" an irrational opponent; you have to eradicate him. And this means that terrorist movements don't get defeated by their political ineffectuality: so long as the organizational core remains alive and committed, they will continue the battle. It's an end in itself, from their perspective, and so terminating the conflict does not interest them, regardless of how much sense it would make from a rational, strategic perspective. As Abrahms notes, they don't even stop when their stated platforms are achieved - they just switch platforms.

After reading these my first remark to myself was, "Okay, that was good. Now let's see the rebuttals so I can get a balanced view."

Have you got any rebuttals handy?

Unfortunately, that conversation doesn't seem to be happening. Most scholars who discuss terrorism are actually scholars of some other field - developmental economics, foreign policy, military studies, religious studies, etc. - who are only interested in the subject of terrorism to the extent that it aligns with their existing agendas. And so most seem content to skip right over the question of the nature of terrorism, and instead substitute a definition that advances their pre-conceived agenda in their own field. Developmental economists insist that terrorism is a response to poverty or misgovernance, the military types insist that it's an asymmetric struggle for geopolitical power, etc. What all these dys-interested scholars have in common is that they must assume a rational strategic calculus drives terrorism in order for it to have anything to do with their actual areas of interest. Absent such an assumption, they have literally nothing to say on the topic. And so there is a noted disinterest in asking these sorts of questions in most quarters.

Hence the muddle of incompatible definitions and contradictory analyses. To date, I don't know of anyone who's tried to dispute this stuff as such, which is troubling - the purported experts on the subject appear to be using it in a craven way to advance unrelated agendas, without any serious concern for critical validity. If they took the bases of their positions seriously, you'd expect them to respond to serious, well-publicized articles like the ones I linked.

But I'll let you know if I encounter anything.

 

[pywakit]

War is not about proving your bravery, it's about eliminating a deadly threat.

And this ....

It only shows how ignorant, naive, and one-dimensional your thought processes are.

I don't mean to stomp on you, but posting that link. Outragious.

War is about MONEY. POWER. CONTROL. DOMINANCE. RESOURCES. ENTITLEMENT. RELIGION.

As the nice German general said, before he was hanged by the war crimes tribunal ..... when he was asked, "How did you get the German people to go along with this insanity?"

"It's too easy" he said. "Just convince the masses that the 'other' people pose a grave and deadly threat. Just add a whole lot of propaganda, and the ignorant masses ( conditioned to believe in authority ) will go along with the program willingly."

Kind of like the propaganda we were inundated with regarding Iraq. Oh there was a brave and honorable act.

"Saddam refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I don't have any. Look anywhere you want. ANYWHERE!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I told you. There AREN'T any. Your international weapons inspectors have scoured the country!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and we can't afford to let the 'smoking gun' come in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!!"

"I'M TELLING YOU IDIOTS! THERE AREN'T ANY! I CAN'T GIVE YOU WEAPONS THAT DON'T EXIST!"

F'ing insane. Our country is f'ing insane.

 

[TW Scott]

And this ....

It only shows how ignorant, naive, and one-dimensional your thought processes are.

I don't mean to stomp on you, but posting that link. Outragious.

War is about MONEY. POWER. CONTROL. DOMINANCE. RESOURCES. ENTITLEMENT. RELIGION.

As the nice German general said, before he was hanged by the war crimes tribunal ..... when he was asked, "How did you get the German people to go along with this insanity?"

"It's too easy" he said. "Just convince the masses that the 'other' people pose a grave and deadly threat. Just add a whole lot of propaganda, and the ignorant masses ( conditioned to believe in authority ) will go along with the program willingly."

Kind of like the propaganda we were inundated with regarding Iraq. Oh there was a brave and honorable act.

"Saddam refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I don't have any. Look anywhere you want. ANYWHERE!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I told you. There AREN'T any. Your international weapons inspectors have scoured the country!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and we can't afford to let the 'smoking gun' come in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!!"

"I'M TELLING YOU IDIOTS! THERE AREN'T ANY! I CAN'T GIVE YOU WEAPONS THAT DON'T EXIST!"

F'ing insane. Our country is f'ing insane.

Yeah I agree it is, if ANY of the citizens of this country actually believe what your spouting there are obviously too many insane (and stupid) people in this country.

Yes, the Bush administration pushed the WMD button, but then again the WHOLE WORLD was thinking the same damn thing. And yes Saddam was statiing he had no WMD but would only allow inspectors in designated areas. We had plenty of other reasons to invade Iraq. It's just that the majority of Americans do not understand the intricacies or those reasons and fall back to our tertiary concern of WMD.

 

[S.A.M.]

And this ....

It only shows how ignorant, naive, and one-dimensional your thought processes are.

I don't mean to stomp on you, but posting that link. Outragious.

War is about MONEY. POWER. CONTROL. DOMINANCE. RESOURCES. ENTITLEMENT. RELIGION.

As the nice German general said, before he was hanged by the war crimes tribunal ..... when he was asked, "How did you get the German people to go along with this insanity?"

"It's too easy" he said. "Just convince the masses that the 'other' people pose a grave and deadly threat. Just add a whole lot of propaganda, and the ignorant masses ( conditioned to believe in authority ) will go along with the program willingly."

Kind of like the propaganda we were inundated with regarding Iraq. Oh there was a brave and honorable act.

"Saddam refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I don't have any. Look anywhere you want. ANYWHERE!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I told you. There AREN'T any. Your international weapons inspectors have scoured the country!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and we can't afford to let the 'smoking gun' come in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!!"

"I'M TELLING YOU IDIOTS! THERE AREN'T ANY! I CAN'T GIVE YOU WEAPONS THAT DON'T EXIST!"

F'ing insane. Our country is f'ing insane.

Amen. But insanity has a short life. So its not long before delusions of grandeur become nothing more than just delusions with no grandeur left/

All this killing around the world, killing, killing, killing with no respite. Ultimately it will come home to roost

 

[pywakit]

only allow inspectors in designated areas.

An absolute lie. Pure propaganda. You are so unbelievable. We had constant flyovers by our aircraft. We photgraphed every f'ing square inch of their country. Daily! We had satellites that could read license plates on cars.

The inspectors were allowed FULL access including all the palaces.

Colin Powell was reduced to using a CARTOON of a mobile weapons lab. A f'ing CARTOON in his address to the UN.

God I get sick of ignorant people.

Tell me .... how was Saddam going to successfully attack a country with 330 million people, a half a world away?

Was he going to shower us with thousands of ICBMs? Bring in thousands of suitcases with 'dirty bombs' inside?

Don't you think think even attempting such nonsense would have been committing SUICIDE?

Can't you think the simplest things through?

Where was their big navy? Their airforce? All their ground equipent that they had no way to get here?

It's the spreading of ignorant propaganda like you just did, that makes we want to throw up.

We attacked a country that we were already controlling you .... you .... I can't even say what I think of you.

How can you be so ill-informed?

 

[pywakit]

S.A.M.writes :

Amen. But insanity has a short life. So its not long before delusions of grandeur become nothing more than just delusions with no grandeur left/

All this killing around the world, killing, killing, killing with no respite. Ultimately it will come home to roost

Thank you for a voice of reason.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thank you for a voice of reason.

The King is Dead! Long live the King!

An air strike last month by a U.S. robot plane killed Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud, Pakistani officials confirmed this week, in a bit of good news. A notoriously brutal extremist, Mehsud played a key role in the killing of seven CIA operatives by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan Dec. 30.
But there was bad news, too: Mehsud has been replaced by an even more dangerous and unpredictable terrorist named Maulvi Noor Jamal.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/12/obama-s-drone-war-does-the-killing-pay-off/

 

[pywakit]

TW writes :

We had plenty of other reasons to invade Iraq

Oh really. That wouldn't be getting the oil back that Saddam took from the foreigners, would it? Have you bothered to check out who controlled the oil before Saddam came into power?

Know who just got it back?

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. Just by virtue of us attacking Iraq, the oil comapanies had a 'justifacation' for jacking up the price of oil, reaping a few TRILLION dollars in excess profits. I'm sure that was one of the 'intricities' you were referring to.

No, you must be right. I just don't understand.

It's way over my head. Please explain it to me daddy.

Tell me how he gassed the Kurds, because they were attempting to overthrow his regime. Tell me how we supplied those chemicals, wanting Saddam to use them on Iran.

Tell me how we overthrew the Iranian government and installed the Shah. Who was VERY friendly to american interests. Know how much money we gave him?

My father-in-law was a VP for Boeing. He was one of the guys actually carrying buckets of cash to the Shah. A little 'incentive money' to encourage Iran to buy Boeing jets. Boeing got caught, but my father-in law was given immunity.

Yep. I clearly don't understand what our country has been, and is up to.

Tell me about our 700 plus military installations in over 100 countries.

Tell me how we have a RIGHT to protect 'american interests' the world over. Tell me just what those 'interests' are. I'm too stupid to figure it out.

Tell me how we have the right to attack any country we deem a 'threat'. Even if they are not attacking anybody.

Tell me why we have the right to impose our will on any country as we see fit?

Lol. As long as they aren't big enough to fight back .....

Did you know we started plans to make NUCLEAR bunker-busters? Fuck, we were going to use nukes again!

For all I know we went ahead and built them anyway!

And now we are trying to start a war with Iran. It doesn't occur to you that they feel threatened by us. BECAUSE we have threatened to use nukes on them. WOW! Can't imagine why they would want nukes to defend themselves.

They must be INSANE!

Well, somebody is ....

Yes, keep spreading the propaganda TW. There will never be a shortage of ignorant, hate-filled people willing to believe whatever crap you spew out. You can count on them never bothering to verify anything you say. They will just take your word for it, because it fits their belief systems .... and their cowardice.

 

[pywakit]

By the way, TW. Ever think of trying to make PEACE with these people? Lol.

No, of course not. That's IMPOSSIBLE as they are sworn to eradicate us from the face of the earth.

EVEN THEIR OWN QURAN DEMANDS IT!! IT'S US OR THEM!!!!

So explain to me once more why 5-8 million muslims are not adhereing to their SWORN DUTY.

Hmmmm?

Virtually every major problem on this planet was instigated by US. America!

If it weren't for the money we throw to the leaders, we would already be dead.

Hope that isn't too intricate for you.

 

[pywakit]

BTW, TW ....

The population of Turkey is over 70 million. Show me all the tens of thousands of examples of these barbarians stoning women to death. Why the internet must be STUFFED with examples.

Funny. I can't seem to find more than a sprinking.

Oh, and which country has the highest murder rate in the world?????

And the most murders, too?

Oh my gosh. It's us. By far. The 90% Christian country.

Isn't that an interesting statistic ......

(excluding internal strife/wars)

I'd love for you to explain the 'intricities' on that little problem.

It's just so far over my comprehension ...

(edit) Since the statistics are subject to so many variables, my claim ( regarding USA murder rate ) may be impossible to verify.

So I retract the claim. My apology for that.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're arguing with zionists, republicans and ex-servicemen here. Even the liberals are warmongerers who think its bigoted to only sympathise with the victims rather than "balance" it with a justification of the civilian slaughter [exporting democracy with missiles]

In other words, don't waste your breath.

 

[spidergoat]

Is that a fact? Well, when they attack us, we should defend ourselves. Premptive attacks are sick, and immoral.

We should be striving to make peace. But you would prefer we go kill anyone we PERCEIVE as a threat.

Yes, we risk losing a few good people this way. But how many good people have we lost, and maimed, and otherwise ruined their lives ... and how many good people ... innocents, children, women, have we slaughtered in this insane quest for 'safety'?

Like I said, you would do yourself some good in reading some history.

Again .... WE started this insanity. THEY didn't.

I tend to agree that preemptive war is wrong. However, we were attacked, and the Taliban were a part of that. They provided material support and refuge to Al Quida, and they continue to pursue jihad against the good people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They started it, and we are finishing it.

And WHY did they declare war on us?

Don't you know?

Do you know what the Monroe Doctrine is? Manifest Destiny?

Ever occur to you that WE might have started that, too?

Of course not. Cuz we don't do shit like that.

We are the good guys.

Read Japanese history. Then read ours. There seems to be a few minor discrepancies.

When you don't know 'jack' about history, it is a simple thing to make statements like you did.

They ARE connected. But you lack the facts to make that connection.

Maybe they declared war on us because we gave them no choice. Maybe our expansionist policies threatened them.

Maybe they were starting to feel boxed in.

Maybe they needed a little more space. Maybe they didn't like our warships hanging around.

Maybe they didn't like us building military bases all over the freaking world.

Maybe they were AFRAID of us. Maybe they didn't like being called 'heathen barbarians'.

Maybe you don't know a thing about the subject matter.

We threatened the exclusivity of the Japanese empire's power in Asia. They wanted to subjugate Asia, and that wrong. I may be wrong in that Japan did not actually declare war against us, but they did attack us, and they did horrible things to the Chinese people. And they were aligned with the fascist Nazis. The Japanese cannot stand outsiders. My brother is married to a Japanese woman, and her family can't even be seen with him in Japan, because they don't want people to know she's married to a foreigner. They had a sense of superiority just like the Nazis, that made it OK in their eyes to treat us (and the Chinese) like animals.

So I ask again.

How many american babies did the Japanese slaughter? How many american civilian populations?

They could have. They had the ships. The firepower. The bombs. The manpower.

That would be .... essentially ZERO. They never attacked an american city. Other than a few balloons that did zero damage. If they actually even sent those ....

Those rabid monsters never got around to it, I guess.

History PROVES we are the REAL monsters on the world stage. Few come even close.

We ... the 'morally superior' Christian nation. Totally insane. Just insane.

There was an entire ocean between us, but they killed thousands of our people. They were mostly military personnel, to be sure, but we don't measure our response in proportion to the number of people killed. The Japanese were taking control of the Pacific, which put every American in grave danger.

If someone poked me in the eye with a sharp stick, on purpose, I would not weigh my response proportionally, I would kill the fucker.

And this ....

It only shows how ignorant, naive, and one-dimensional your thought processes are.

I don't mean to stomp on you, but posting that link. Outragious.

War is about MONEY. POWER. CONTROL. DOMINANCE. RESOURCES. ENTITLEMENT. RELIGION.

As the nice German general said, before he was hanged by the war crimes tribunal ..... when he was asked, "How did you get the German people to go along with this insanity?"

"It's too easy" he said. "Just convince the masses that the 'other' people pose a grave and deadly threat. Just add a whole lot of propaganda, and the ignorant masses ( conditioned to believe in authority ) will go along with the program willingly."

Kind of like the propaganda we were inundated with regarding Iraq. Oh there was a brave and honorable act.

"Saddam refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I don't have any. Look anywhere you want. ANYWHERE!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction!!"

"I told you. There AREN'T any. Your international weapons inspectors have scoured the country!"

""Saddam still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction, and we can't afford to let the 'smoking gun' come in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!!"

"I'M TELLING YOU IDIOTS! THERE AREN'T ANY! I CAN'T GIVE YOU WEAPONS THAT DON'T EXIST!"

F'ing insane. Our country is f'ing insane.

Yes, Bush was insane. Invading Iraq was wrong. They were no threat to us. We should have continued to support regime change in Iraq, but not invaded. We should have supported the uprising against Saddam after the first Gulf War, like we said we would, but Bush Sr. failed in that regard. But, just because Bush was wrong about Iraq doesn't mean that there aren't bad people out there trying to do harm to our nation. Islamic extremism is a threat to our nation, and to all European nations. It's a war, and targeted assassination doesn't compare to the bombing of Hiroshima. If Mohammad were alive today, he would call us a bunch of pansies for not killing all the men, raping the women, and stealing everything they own. How many Pakistanis die in suicide bombs every year? More in one incident than die in a year worth of drone attacks. We are saving lives over there, this is a highly successful strategy against the leadership of the Taliban. Leaving them alone is not an option, and a full scale invasion of Waziristan would be far more deadly to the innocent.

I am sure our invasion of occupied France also killed some innocent people. It's an unfortunate aspect of war. The Taliban should have thought about it before they helped people attack us. In fact, I think this is the exact result they were hoping for. Islam declares all these dead to be martyrs. It's a cult of martyrdom, of death. They want to die for God, they think they are on God's side. They think the afterlife awaits them. That is why such people cannot get WMDs, because they don't give a fuck about what happens in this life, it's just a placement test for paradise.

By the way, TW. Ever think of trying to make PEACE with these people? Lol.

No, of course not. That's IMPOSSIBLE as they are sworn to eradicate us from the face of the earth.

EVEN THEIR OWN QURAN DEMANDS IT!! IT'S US OR THEM!!!!

So explain to me once more why 5-8 million muslims are not adhereing to their SWORN DUTY.

Hmmmm?

Virtually every major problem on this planet was instigated by US. America!

If it weren't for the money we throw to the leaders, we would already be dead.

Hope that isn't too intricate for you.

No we didn't. You are in denial.

 

[James R]

SAM:

So are the American people culpable for the execution of school children by US Special Forces?

Which school children were executed by US Special Forces, specifically?

Execution: (n.) killing as form of socially-sanctioned punishment.

You're arguing with zionists, republicans and ex-servicemen here. Even the liberals are warmongerers who think its bigoted to only sympathise with the victims rather than "balance" it with a justification of the civilian slaughter [exporting democracy with missiles]

You greatly weaken your case every time you slap silly labels on people like this.


Fraggle:

The laws of the United States require a declaration of war by Congress before our forces may be committed to fight a war, and no such declaration has been issued. ....

Obama had the misfortune to enter the White House when an illegal war was already underway. ....If he would simply ask Congress to declare war first, then he would be acting legally.

Who would he declare war on? That's the problem with the whole idea of a "war on terror".

Personally, I think it is wrong to characterise the fight against Al Qaeda as a war at all. The fight against the Taliban is closer to being a war, but the Taliban represents no State so it's still problematic.

And if these conflicts are not regarded as wars, the next question is: how far does the President's authority to authorise such actions extend? My impression is that the general feeling in the US is that the President has a wide discretion in such things.

A drone that can kill a house full of people is not a weapon of mass destruction. Please watch your language.

This is another example of silly trolling by SAM that diminishes her argument. It's quite deliberate.

The drone attacks in Pakistan carefully target identified terrorists, and have been rather successful. The collateral damage--killing civilians who fraternize with people even WE know are terrorists!--may or may not be a war crime, but it is not terrorism.

The problem for SAM is that your "carefully identified terrorist" is not a terrorist at all in her eyes. She doesn't trust the US government's labelling of these targets as terrorists. Probably, in her increasingly radicalised state of mind, she regards anybody fighting the US as a freedom fighter.