Drone policy

[Ibrahim]

What about your false accusation that I exposed? No apology for that? It's obvious who is avoiding things and talking in circles.

What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.

Now you are just lying Ibrahim.

I'm afraid that you are rather obviously wrong here. I will reproduce my original statement on this detail, from several posts above this one. Anyone can verify that I am telling the truth and you are not:

Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.

[Doc]

What about your false accusation that I exposed?

We can agree that you certainly exposed something

No apology for that?

No need to apologize Ibrahim. I forgive you.

It's obvious who is avoiding things and talking in circles.

Yes that is what I said.

What I said initially, and which you have obfuscated and run from ever since, is that the US military has killed more civilians since 9/11 than Osama Bin Laden killed in his entire career. You have never seriously challenged this, nor will you ever be able to.

Now you are just lying Ibrahim.

I'm afraid that you are rather obviously wrong here. I will reproduce my original statement on this detail, from several posts above this one. Anyone can verify that I am telling the truth and you are not:

Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.

I already addressed this. However you still have not answered this (Though you have tried hard to talk around it):

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really widh to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria? Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure (from Kuwait)lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really wish to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria?

But of course again you will try to answer square questions by talking in circles.

[Ibrahim]

I already addressed this.

No. You falsely accused me of lying, and were rebutted with evidence.

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians

This claim was unrelated to your false personal accusations, but I've already addressed it as well:

Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors. Classic MIC.

The administration and senior military leadership know they can get away with this because half of the population will actively make excuses for their killing of civilians, as you are here.

You're making this a little too easy.

[Doc]

I already addressed this.

No. You falsely accused me of lying, and were rebutted with evidence.

Sure you did Ibrahim. Its ok. As I said I forgive you.

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians

This claim was unrelated to your false personal accusations, but I've already addressed it as well:

Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors. Classic MIC.

The administration and senior military leadership know they can get away with this because half of the population will actively make excuses for their killing of civilians, as you are here.

You're making this a little too easy.

Yeap. You've got square questions, Ibrahim has circular answers.

[Ibrahim]

Your various proven falsehoods aside, this is the part most related to drone warfare and your apologism for the killing of civilians. Your other arguments are based on this faulty premise.

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians

Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors.

[Enki]

America has killed more civilians than Al Qaeda, just sayin'.

[Doc]

Your various proven falsehoods aside, this is the part most related to drone warfare and your apologism for the killing of civilians. Your other arguments are based on this faulty premise.

See there you go again. If anything I am against killing of civilians where ever possible. I have stated that several times. When I ask you about whether or not you would have preferred the tyrants of the ME, who have killed magnitudes more civilians, to still be in power you refuse to answer. Or answer circularly about how it is not the same thing. War is Hell Ibrahim. People die is war. But people also die when their local bad guy is in control Thus:"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians

Except that the US continues to knowingly kill civilians with drone strikes on a regular basis. If they truly wished to stop killing civilians they would stop the drone strikes. And, as the drone program is a strategic failure, we know that there isn't even any good reason to continue the strikes except to kill civilians and benefit defense contractors.

[Doc]

deleted

[Doc]

America has killed more civilians than Al Qaeda, just sayin'.

OK Tinker Since when has American killed more civilians than Al Qaeda? . And Who exactly is "Al Qaeda" Just askin

[Ibrahim]

Your various proven falsehoods aside, this is the part most related to drone warfare and your apologism for the killing of civilians. Your other arguments are based on this faulty premise.

See there you go again. If anything I am against killing of civilians where ever possible. I have stated that several times.

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

When I ask you about whether or not you would have preferred the tyrants of the ME

A false choice and a distraction. Your other method of justifying the US killing civilians is pointing out that other people (e.g. Assad) kill civilians, but this is simply not relevant.

The details of the other conflicts you mentioned, aside from being unrelated to your defense of US drone killings, are also already under discussion elsewhere.

[Ibrahim]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/world ... ander.html

U.S. Drone Strike Kills a Commander for Al Qaeda in Pakistan

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A senior commander for Al Qaeda has been killed in an American drone strike in North Waziristan, the restive tribal area along the border with Afghanistan, Pakistani security officials said Sunday.

The commander, Abdel Rehman al-Hussainan, died after a drone fired several missiles late last week into a house near Mir Ali, a notorious hub of Islamist militancy, one senior official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.

“We can now confirm his death,” he said.

...

Mr. Hussainan’s wife and daughter were wounded in the drone strike, and his wife later died while being treated at a hospital and was buried near Mir Ali.

Originally from Kuwait, the militant leader had appeared in several videos released by Al Qaeda’s media wing, As Sahab. But his name did not appear on the State Department’s list of most wanted militants, and his role and stature inside Al Qaeda was not clear.

[Doc]

Your various proven falsehoods aside, this is the part most related to drone warfare and your apologism for the killing of civilians. Your other arguments are based on this faulty premise.

See there you go again. If anything I am against killing of civilians where ever possible. I have stated that several times.

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

Actually I said it is possible to be sure you are killing members of Al Qaeda on the first strike. On the second strike you don't know who you are going to kill. That is not to say civilians will never be killed. Just that civilian deaths are something to be avoided as much as possible. For example in British night time raid on Germany only like 1% of the bombs dropped landed within one mile of their target. The British did not have enough planes to do day time raids after short period of time. So civilians were killed. Do you feel the British should have given up at that point?

When I ask you about whether or not you would have preferred the tyrants of the ME

A false choice and a distraction. Your other method of justifying the US killing civilians is pointing out that other people (e.g. Assad) kill civilians, but this is simply not relevant.

The details of the other conflicts you mentioned, aside from being unrelated to your defense of US drone killings, are also already under discussion elsewhere.[/quote]

It is if the idea is to put a stop to the killing once and for all then it is completely relevant and not a false choice. Even if it were a false choice not answering simply lengthens the diversion. In that case your argument is the one that is disconnected from reality. But perhaps that is what you want as you still have not answered my question on whether the ME would be better off with the tyrants that have been deposed, and you really don't have an excuse for not answering.

[Ibrahim]

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

Actually I said it is possible to be sure you are killing members of Al Qaeda on the first strike. On the second strike you don't know who you are going to kill.

Civilians can be, and are, killed in the initial strike. You also haven't addressed the issue of how the government determines who the primary target is in the first place. Even if you assume that the overwhelming majority are legitimate targets, there is still room for error and there is no oversight or consequences for mistakes. The government is still going to kill some number of civilians even if they only hit intended targets %100 of the time (which is almost never the case).

That is not to say civilians will never be killed. Just that civilian deaths are something to be avoided as much as possible.

There is no imperative whatsoever to continue the drone campaign. It is not a desperate "kill or be killed scenario" that one could cite historically or hypothesize. There would be no negative, or possibly even positive, consequences for stopping the drone campaigns in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan entirely.

The details of the other conflicts you mentioned, aside from being unrelated to your defense of US drone killings, are also already under discussion elsewhere.

It is if the idea is to put a stop to the killing once and for all then it is completely relevant and not a false choice.

No, it is not relevant at all unless the drone strikes are specifically in service of preventing more civilian casualties. In e.g. Libya NATO air power destroyed Gaddafi's aircraft and artillery, preventing his promised revenge against civilians, and there were surely some civilian casualties in the process yet we have an example of not doing this in Syria and the civilian casualties are enormous. However, there is nothing about the US killing civilians in Yemen or Pakistan than does anything to prevent a massacre anywhere. It is simply more dead civilians for no purpose.

[Doc]

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

Actually I said it is possible to be sure you are killing members of Al Qaeda on the first strike. On the second strike you don't know who you are going to kill.

Civilians can be, and are, killed in the initial strike. You also haven't addressed the issue of how the government determines who the primary target is in the first place. Even if you assume that the overwhelming majority are legitimate targets, there is still room for error and there is no oversight or consequences for mistakes. The government is still going to kill some number of civilians even if they only hit intended targets %100 of the time (which is almost never the case).

I never said no civilians would ever die. I never said I know in every case how targets are determined. You have not addressed how you can make the claim that the intended target is almost never hit. That is a big claim you left hanging there. Hint: you might start with Benghazi.

That is not to say civilians will never be killed. Just that civilian deaths are something to be avoided as much as possible.

There is no imperative whatsoever to continue the drone campaign. It is not a desperate "kill or be killed scenario" that one could cite historically or hypothesize. There would be no negative, or possibly even positive, consequences for stopping the drone campaigns in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan entirely.

Obama has decided he wants to wipe out Al Qaeda with drone strikes. It has been reported that it has been effective in killing high ranking members of AL Qaeda. Probably the Pakistani Taliban as well. However the more civilians that get killed under Obama's drone policy or just the perception of civilians being killed will indeed make it a negative in the big picture.

The details of the other conflicts you mentioned, aside from being unrelated to your defense of US drone killings, are also already under discussion elsewhere.

It is if the idea is to put a stop to the killing once and for all then it is completely relevant and not a false choice.

No, it is not relevant at all unless the drone strikes are specifically in service of preventing more civilian casualties. In e.g. Libya NATO air power destroyed Gaddafi's aircraft and artillery, preventing his promised revenge against civilians, and there were surely some civilian casualties in the process yet we have an example of not doing this in Syria and the civilian casualties are enormous. However, there is nothing about the US killing civilians in Yemen or Pakistan than does anything to prevent a massacre anywhere. It is simply more dead civilians for no purpose.

OK do think there is any case where civilian deaths are unavoidable that is acceptable?

[Ibrahim]

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

Actually I said it is possible to be sure you are killing members of Al Qaeda on the first strike. On the second strike you don't know who you are going to kill.

Civilians can be, and are, killed in the initial strike. You also haven't addressed the issue of how the government determines who the primary target is in the first place. Even if you assume that the overwhelming majority are legitimate targets, there is still room for error and there is no oversight or consequences for mistakes. The government is still going to kill some number of civilians even if they only hit intended targets %100 of the time (which is almost never the case).

I never said no civilians would ever die. I never said I know in every case how targets are determined.

I know.

You have not addressed how you can make the claim that the intended target is almost never hit.

I never said this. I said that civilian casualties are an inevitability of the drone campaign. To excuse or defend the campaign is to excuse or defend the killing of civilians.

That is not to say civilians will never be killed. Just that civilian deaths are something to be avoided as much as possible.

There is no imperative whatsoever to continue the drone campaign. It is not a desperate "kill or be killed scenario" that one could cite historically or hypothesize. There would be no negative, or possibly even positive, consequences for stopping the drone campaigns in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan entirely.

Obama has decided he wants to wipe out Al Qaeda with drone strikes. It has been reported that it has been effective in killing high ranking members of AL Qaeda. Probably the Pakistani Taliban as well. However the more civilians that get killed under Obama's drone policy or just the perception of civilians being killed will indeed make it a negative in the big picture.

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

In any case there have been reports that it is counterproductive and kills more civilians than "militants," so I guess it depends which reports you prefer. AQAP seems to be benefiting from this policy, the alienation of Pakistan as an ally was caused by a combination of US actions and the nature of the Pakistani government, drones are only the icing on the cake in that case. In Afghanistan they are perceived as a petty parting gesture from a defeated enemy. Despite their stone-age social conservatism the Pashtun do have a style about them...

No, it is not relevant at all unless the drone strikes are specifically in service of preventing more civilian casualties. In e.g. Libya NATO air power destroyed Gaddafi's aircraft and artillery, preventing his promised revenge against civilians, and there were surely some civilian casualties in the process yet we have an example of not doing this in Syria and the civilian casualties are enormous. However, there is nothing about the US killing civilians in Yemen or Pakistan than does anything to prevent a massacre anywhere. It is simply more dead civilians for no purpose.

OK do think there is any case where civilian deaths are unavoidable that is acceptable?

Only in cases when they occur accidentally as part of a military operation that prevents the mass killing of civilians. I.e. you kill dozens to same tens of thousands, as in my contrast between Libya and Syria above.

There is no evidence that drone strikes protect anyone or help with anything except the bottom line of suppliers.

[Doc]

Then why are you excusing civilians killed in drone strikes, so long as they are killed in the initial strike and not a subsequent attack ("double tap")?

Actually I said it is possible to be sure you are killing members of Al Qaeda on the first strike. On the second strike you don't know who you are going to kill.

Civilians can be, and are, killed in the initial strike. You also haven't addressed the issue of how the government determines who the primary target is in the first place. Even if you assume that the overwhelming majority are legitimate targets, there is still room for error and there is no oversight or consequences for mistakes. The government is still going to kill some number of civilians even if they only hit intended targets %100 of the time (which is almost never the case).

I never said no civilians would ever die. I never said I know in every case how targets are determined.

I know.

You have not addressed how you can make the claim that the intended target is almost never hit.

I never said this. I said that civilian casualties are an inevitability of the drone campaign. To excuse or defend the campaign is to excuse or defend the killing of civilians.

That is not to say civilians will never be killed. Just that civilian deaths are something to be avoided as much as possible.

There is no imperative whatsoever to continue the drone campaign. It is not a desperate "kill or be killed scenario" that one could cite historically or hypothesize. There would be no negative, or possibly even positive, consequences for stopping the drone campaigns in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan entirely.

Obama has decided he wants to wipe out Al Qaeda with drone strikes. It has been reported that it has been effective in killing high ranking members of AL Qaeda. Probably the Pakistani Taliban as well. However the more civilians that get killed under Obama's drone policy or just the perception of civilians being killed will indeed make it a negative in the big picture.

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

I am saying that a drone campaign is only effective in a target rich environment. If there aren't a lot of bad guy to kill then it is not worth the risk that civilians could be killed. The Pakistan drone campaign seems to be a one trick pony. Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he doesn't want to look like he lost. He has to leave the impression that he defeated Al Qaeda. He says he has already. He says he is killing Al Qaeda members with drones there. But in a city that had more CIA than all other Americans combined That had terror attacks against foreigners. That had members of the US government beg for better security and warn of a coming attack. Obama could not bring himself to say that Benghazi was a terror attack. Could not bring himself to say that the first American ammbassador since Jimmy Carter's presidency was killed by terrorists.

In any case there have been reports that it is counterproductive and kills more civilians than "militants," so I guess it depends which reports you prefer. AQAP seems to be benefiting from this policy, the alienation of Pakistan as an ally was caused by a combination of US actions and the nature of the Pakistani government, drones are only the icing on the cake in that case. In Afghanistan they are perceived as a petty parting gesture from a defeated enemy. Despite their stone-age social conservatism the Pashtun do have a style about them...

When exactly was Pakistan actually an ally? The Afghan Taliban, from everything I have seen, are simply providing public services Even though they are brutal in doing so it seems the people see it as better than complete lawlessness.

No, it is not relevant at all unless the drone strikes are specifically in service of preventing more civilian casualties. In e.g. Libya NATO air power destroyed Gaddafi's aircraft and artillery, preventing his promised revenge against civilians, and there were surely some civilian casualties in the process yet we have an example of not doing this in Syria and the civilian casualties are enormous. However, there is nothing about the US killing civilians in Yemen or Pakistan than does anything to prevent a massacre anywhere. It is simply more dead civilians for no purpose.

OK do think there is any case where civilian deaths are unavoidable that is acceptable?

Only in cases when they occur accidentally as part of a military operation that prevents the mass killing of civilians. I.e. you kill dozens to same tens of thousands, as in my contrast between Libya and Syria above.

I am of the opinion that millions have died because no one would take the risk of looking bad because some civilians would die in preventing the millions from dying.

How is it possible that James Baker could order the US troops in southern Iraq to stand down and watch Saddam kill 100,000 civilians? They could have stopped it by simple not given the order for those troops to do nothing. Afterwards the Establishment in Washington -- Both parties claimed they thought Saddam would fall and be replaced by someone somewhat better. That was BS. They -- Bush Senior and even Clinton wanted Saddam in power as a counter to Iran.

There is no evidence that drone strikes protect anyone or help with anything except the bottom line of suppliers.

There is enough evidence that drone strikes have killed many members of AL Qaeda in Pakistan. But that is getting to be an over used tool.

Right after 911 a reporter went to western Pakistan and visited a school there. He talked to the kids through the teacher in the school and asked them if what happened on 911 was terrorism. The kids told said no. Then he played the video(they of course rarely see video of anything) of the planes hitting the buildings. The people committing suicide by jumping 1000 feet rather than burn to death in the fires. Then the kids said whoever had made that attack were certainly terrorists.

It struck me when I saw that that the way to ultimately al QAEDA at least in that part of the world was to make sure that everyone saw that video. But of course when there was that large earthquake in the tribal areas of Pakistan the Pakistan government refused help from the US. Where as in Indonesia after the Tsunami the Indonesian people's positive views of the US went up considerably.

ON the other hand a few hours of Western Television is likely all mist have seen of the West.

[Ibrahim]

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

I am saying that a drone campaign is only effective in a target rich environment. If there aren't a lot of bad guy to kill then it is not worth the risk that civilians could be killed. The Pakistan drone campaign seems to be a one trick pony.

I don't follow you. If you are assassinating people, and you think you are hitting the right targets, then you are accepting the nearby civilian casualties. The more of these targets are at the same place, the more civilians are as well (strikes on weddings, funerals) so whats the difference? You're still accepting a ratio of more civilians to targets. You are saying that killing this bearded guy is more important than the lives of women and children standing nearby.

Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he doesn't want to look like he lost. He has to leave the impression that he defeated Al Qaeda. He says he has already. He says he is killing Al Qaeda members with drones there.

Actually you're incorrect here. Drones in Afghanistan are used against Taliban leaders, not al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially wiped out in Afghanistan by 2002. When the US leaves Afghanistan it will be lost to the Taliban, not al Qaeda. All of the statements I have seen about drone use in Afghanistan reference the Taliban.

In any case there have been reports that it is counterproductive and kills more civilians than "militants," so I guess it depends which reports you prefer. AQAP seems to be benefiting from this policy, the alienation of Pakistan as an ally was caused by a combination of US actions and the nature of the Pakistani government, drones are only the icing on the cake in that case. In Afghanistan they are perceived as a petty parting gesture from a defeated enemy. Despite their stone-age social conservatism the Pashtun do have a style about them...

When exactly was Pakistan actually an ally?

During the Cold War and until the mid 2000s. Your government has been calling them an ally and giving them billions and billions of dollars over several decades.

OK do think there is any case where civilian deaths are unavoidable that is acceptable?

Only in cases when they occur accidentally as part of a military operation that prevents the mass killing of civilians. I.e. you kill dozens to same tens of thousands, as in my contrast between Libya and Syria above.

I am of the opinion that millions have died because no one would take the risk of looking bad because some civilians would die in preventing the millions from dying.

It depends on the circumstance, but there is certainly no mass-killing of civilians that drone strikes in e.g. Yemen is preventing. Name a single active theater in which drone strikes are preventing the death of thousands, let alone millions.

There is no evidence that drone strikes protect anyone or help with anything except the bottom line of suppliers.

There is enough evidence that drone strikes have killed many members of AL Qaeda in Pakistan.

At the cost of even more civilian lives, a loss of US prestige in the region and worldwide, and potentially actually benefiting AQ recruiting worldwide and especially in the regions where those civilians were killed. Assuming that these "al Qaeda commanders" were both legitimate targets and the right targets. The case of Anwar al-Awlaki is an interesting one. What did he do but talk? Why can a US citizen be killed by the US government without any kind of due process just for talking?

ON the other hand a few hours of Western Television is likely all mist have seen of the West.

Television is widespread in Pakistan, most people are well aware of what life is like in wealthier nations, and it is already like that now in parts of Islamabad. The isolation you are talking about only effects the most remote places in this (or any) country. Ironically, the only contact some of those people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen will have had with Americans or American technology is when they are killed by a drone. People in Islamabad or Sanaa will of course watch a news story about it on TV, like we do.

[Doc]

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

I am saying that a drone campaign is only effective in a target rich environment. If there aren't a lot of bad guy to kill then it is not worth the risk that civilians could be killed. The Pakistan drone campaign seems to be a one trick pony.

I don't follow you. If you are assassinating people, and you think you are hitting the right targets, then you are accepting the nearby civilian casualties. The more of these targets are at the same place, the more civilians are as well (strikes on weddings, funerals) so whats the difference? You're still accepting a ratio of more civilians to targets. You are saying that killing this bearded guy is more important than the lives of women and children standing nearby.

Intentional strikes on weddings a funerals are intolerable. They have had some strikes that did hit weddings but they were called mistakes.

When i say target rich environment I am meaning the where abouts of a major Al Qaeda figure is known and therefore can be targeted. Drone campaigns are not about taking the ground obviously. No Air campaign is by itself.

But if you are only planning a campaign by air of any type, sooner or later, you run out of high value targets. If the campaign has not succeeded because the definition of success was to large then many times targets of lessor value are hit because there is no option of taking territory by a ground assault. Therefore anything less than success as it was defined looks like failure whether it really is or not.

Obama wants out of Afghanistan but he doesn't want to look like he lost. He has to leave the impression that he defeated Al Qaeda. He says he has already. He says he is killing Al Qaeda members with drones there.

Actually you're incorrect here. Drones in Afghanistan are used against Taliban leaders, not al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially wiped out in Afghanistan by 2002. When the US leaves Afghanistan it will be lost to the Taliban, not al Qaeda. All of the statements I have seen about drone use in Afghanistan reference the Taliban.

So Obama says. So does Panetta. I haven't heard anyone else make that claim independently. Have you?

In any case there have been reports that it is counterproductive and kills more civilians than "militants," so I guess it depends which reports you prefer. AQAP seems to be benefiting from this policy, the alienation of Pakistan as an ally was caused by a combination of US actions and the nature of the Pakistani government, drones are only the icing on the cake in that case. In Afghanistan they are perceived as a petty parting gesture from a defeated enemy. Despite their stone-age social conservatism the Pashtun do have a style about them...

When exactly was Pakistan actually an ally?

During the Cold War and until the mid 2000s. Your government has been calling them an ally and giving them billions and billions of dollars over several decades.

Understood but not since sometime in the 1990's Even if the US government was saying it. The Pakistan government never gave the US access to Khan to find out exactly what nuclear tech he sold to who. IF Pakistan were an ally there was no reason not to let the US talk to Khan. None.

OK do think there is any case where civilian deaths are unavoidable that is acceptable?

Only in cases when they occur accidentally as part of a military operation that prevents the mass killing of civilians. I.e. you kill dozens to same tens of thousands, as in my contrast between Libya and Syria above.

I am of the opinion that millions have died because no one would take the risk of looking bad because some civilians would die in preventing the millions from dying.

It depends on the circumstance, but there is certainly no mass-killing of civilians that drone strikes in e.g. Yemen is preventing. Name a single active theater in which drone strikes are preventing the death of thousands, let alone millions.

I am not particularly defending drone strikes Ibrahim. But As I recall at least one major Al Qaeda Bomb maker was the secondary target of the drone strike in Yemen that killed al-Awlaki

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04 ... rwear-bomb

Al Qaeda bomb maker back from the dead: U.S.
Friday, April 27, 2012

WASHINGTON -- When a drone strike killed one of the leaders of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen last year, U.S. intelligence officials thought they also had wiped out the terrorist group's top bomb maker.

Soon it became apparent that Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, the brains behind sophisticated bombs that have been used in attempts to attack the U.S., was still alive. A hunted al-Asiri went underground, knowing the U.S. was after him, particularly after the U.S. killed Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the Yemen group's top leaders. It would not be just those killed by Al Asiri built bombs by also bombs built by his students. So there is a drone target that would be acceptable in at least some cases.

There is no evidence that drone strikes protect anyone or help with anything except the bottom line of suppliers.

There is enough evidence that drone strikes have killed many members of AL Qaeda in Pakistan.

At the cost of even more civilian lives, a loss of US prestige in the region and worldwide, and potentially actually benefiting AQ recruiting worldwide and especially in the regions where those civilians were killed. Assuming that these "al Qaeda commanders" were both legitimate targets and the right targets. The case of Anwar al-Awlaki is an interesting one. What did he do but talk? Why can a US citizen be killed by the US government without any kind of due process just for talking?

And perhaps Obama was just talking when he said Al Awlaki should die. Though to my chagrin Obama did twice win an election making him president of the US. What election did Al Awklaki win?

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional. It is a slippery slope when a leader deems it acceptable to kill his own citizens (which at least in theory he answers to)extra judicially based on the judgement of a secret panel. After that happens it is only a matter of perception on who it is acceptable to kill. Even if that citizenship was nothing more than an accident of birth. In al-Awlaki's case there was no reason for him to be a target rather than Al Asiri.(unless of course you are looking for headlines) If al-Awlaki happened to be killed by the same drone as was originally thought then i would not shed any tears over it. Not that I would any way. al-Awlaki was alleged to be a co-conspirator in the Fort Hood shootings. Alleged to be head of Al Qaeda in the Saudi Peninsula. Alledged to be riding in a vehicle with a notorious bomber. Alledged to be a rabid porno-phile. Why is it that so many really screwed up individuals become members of Al Qaeda anyway?

Had Al Asiri been the target as would have happened in past Administrations the simple pretence that al-Awlaki was not the target would have been enough to make moot questions that have arisen.

ON the other hand a few hours of Western Television is likely all most have seen of the West.

Television is widespread in Pakistan, most people are well aware of what life is like in wealthier nations, and it is already like that now in parts of Islamabad. The isolation you are talking about only effects the most remote places in this (or any) country. Ironically, the only contact some of those people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen will have had with Americans or American technology is when they are killed by a drone. People in Islamabad or Sanaa will of course watch a news story about it on TV, like we do.

Yeah that is exactly what I am meaning. People live their lives and make judgements by the self rationalized perception of their experiences. IE if they only get one side of the story then they only will believe that which they know how to rationalize into something they can understand based on that one side.

[Ibrahim]

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

I am saying that a drone campaign is only effective in a target rich environment. If there aren't a lot of bad guy to kill then it is not worth the risk that civilians could be killed. The Pakistan drone campaign seems to be a one trick pony.

I don't follow you. If you are assassinating people, and you think you are hitting the right targets, then you are accepting the nearby civilian casualties. The more of these targets are at the same place, the more civilians are as well (strikes on weddings, funerals) so whats the difference? You're still accepting a ratio of more civilians to targets. You are saying that killing this bearded guy is more important than the lives of women and children standing nearby.

Intentional strikes on weddings a funerals are intolerable. They have had some strikes that did hit weddings but they were called mistakes.

When i say target rich environment I am meaning the where abouts of a major Al Qaeda figure is known and therefore can be targeted. Drone campaigns are not about taking the ground obviously. No Air campaign is by itself.

But if you are only planning a campaign by air of any type, sooner or later, you run out of high value targets. If the campaign has not succeeded because the definition of success was to large then many times targets of lessor value are hit because there is no option of taking territory by a ground assault. Therefore anything less than success as it was defined looks like failure whether it really is or not.

So what is the purpose of the present drone campaigns and why are the civilian casualties incurred acceptable or worth sacrificing?

Actually you're incorrect here. Drones in Afghanistan are used against Taliban leaders, not al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially wiped out in Afghanistan by 2002. When the US leaves Afghanistan it will be lost to the Taliban, not al Qaeda. All of the statements I have seen about drone use in Afghanistan reference the Taliban.

So Obama says. So does Panetta. I haven't heard anyone else make that claim independently. Have you?

Not sure what you are saying here.

During the Cold War and until the mid 2000s. Your government has been calling them an ally and giving them billions and billions of dollars over several decades.

Understood but not since sometime in the 1990's Even if the US government was saying it. The Pakistan government never gave the US access to Khan to find out exactly what nuclear tech he sold to who. IF Pakistan were an ally there was no reason not to let the US talk to Khan. None.

But you kept paying them billions. I'm not saying there were a good ally. In fact I think they played you pretty badly, but they were treated like an ally until the US failure in Afghanistan destabilized the Pakistani government to the point that it is almost unrecognizable from how it looked in the 90's. But we are straying from the subject.

It depends on the circumstance, but there is certainly no mass-killing of civilians that drone strikes in e.g. Yemen is preventing. Name a single active theater in which drone strikes are preventing the death of thousands, let alone millions.

I am not particularly defending drone strikes Ibrahim. But As I recall at least one major Al Qaeda Bomb maker was the secondary target of the drone strike in Yemen that killed al-Awlaki

Except they didn't get him, and al-Awlaki was the main target. The other "get" in the attack was his 16-year-old son, who was presumed to also be a militant.

At the cost of even more civilian lives, a loss of US prestige in the region and worldwide, and potentially actually benefiting AQ recruiting worldwide and especially in the regions where those civilians were killed. Assuming that these "al Qaeda commanders" were both legitimate targets and the right targets. The case of Anwar al-Awlaki is an interesting one. What did he do but talk? Why can a US citizen be killed by the US government without any kind of due process just for talking?

And perhaps Obama was just talking when he said Al Awlaki should die. Though to my chagrin Obama did twice win an election making him president of the US. What election did Al Awklaki win?

Not sure what you mean. A President wins the right to murder whoever he wants when he win an election? Awlaki didn't win an election, and he has a beard, so his rights as a US citizen don't rate?

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional. It is a slippery slope when a leader deems it acceptable to kill his own citizens (which at least in theory he answers to)extra judicially based on the judgement of a secret panel. After that happens it is only a matter of perception on who it is acceptable to kill. Even if that citizenship was nothing more than an accident of birth. In al-Awlaki's case there was no reason for him to be a target rather than Al Asiri.(unless of course you are looking for headlines) If al-Awlaki happened to be killed by the same drone as was originally thought then i would not shed any tears over it. Not that I would any way. al-Awlaki was alleged to be a co-conspirator in the Fort Hood shootings. Alleged to be head of Al Qaeda in the Saudi Peninsula. Alledged to be riding in a vehicle with a notorious bomber. Alledged to be a rabid porno-phile. Why is it that so many really screwed up individuals become members of Al Qaeda anyway?

So you agree that the drone campaign is unconstitutional but you support the strike on al-Awlaki because of unsubstantiated claims and accusations the US military/CIA made and because he may have been a porn junkie? Better call strikes on half the cubicles in America then.

Television is widespread in Pakistan, most people are well aware of what life is like in wealthier nations, and it is already like that now in parts of Islamabad. The isolation you are talking about only effects the most remote places in this (or any) country. Ironically, the only contact some of those people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen will have had with Americans or American technology is when they are killed by a drone. People in Islamabad or Sanaa will of course watch a news story about it on TV, like we do.

Yeah that is exactly what I am meaning. People live their lives and make judgements by the self rationalized perception of their experiences. IE if they only get one side of the story then they only will believe that which they know how to rationalize into something they can understand based on that one side.

Not sure what "side of the story" makes drones strikes look like a good idea. The people with murdered family members in rural Yemen aren't lacking some insight that would justify it to them. People all over the world with access to the Internet and other media know all the details and can clearly see this campaign for what it is.

[Azrael]

Pros: Kills terrorists

Cons: Kills innocent people, including innocent people who have been wrongly labeled terrorists

What's the ratio?

What's an acceptable ratio?

[Doc]

So you're agreeing with me that there is no imperative to continue the drone campaign?

I am saying that a drone campaign is only effective in a target rich environment. If there aren't a lot of bad guy to kill then it is not worth the risk that civilians could be killed. The Pakistan drone campaign seems to be a one trick pony.

I don't follow you. If you are assassinating people, and you think you are hitting the right targets, then you are accepting the nearby civilian casualties. The more of these targets are at the same place, the more civilians are as well (strikes on weddings, funerals) so whats the difference? You're still accepting a ratio of more civilians to targets. You are saying that killing this bearded guy is more important than the lives of women and children standing nearby.

Intentional strikes on weddings a funerals are intolerable. They have had some strikes that did hit weddings but they were called mistakes.

When i say target rich environment I am meaning the where abouts of a major Al Qaeda figure is known and therefore can be targeted. Drone campaigns are not about taking the ground obviously. No Air campaign is by itself.

But if you are only planning a campaign by air of any type, sooner or later, you run out of high value targets. If the campaign has not succeeded because the definition of success was to large then many times targets of lessor value are hit because there is no option of taking territory by a ground assault. Therefore anything less than success as it was defined looks like failure whether it really is or not.

So what is the purpose of the present drone campaigns and why are the civilian casualties incurred acceptable or worth sacrificing?

Subjective judgement call. Neither you nor I know the answer since we don't have all the information. However as I pointed out to people prior to the 2008 election Obama is more of a war hawk than Bush ever dreamt to be. He said he would invade Pakistan if he thought it necessary. The drones strikes are his alternate plan. Whether or not I the civilians causalities are acceptable or worth sacrificing neither of us can say since it is technically a secret war and we do not have all the information. I think it probably the civilians being killed are not an acceptable sacrifice That the drone strikes are likely becoming counter productive if not already counter productive in Pakistan. In Yemem they managed to kill al AWlaki in the middle of the desert far from civilians.

Actually you're incorrect here. Drones in Afghanistan are used against Taliban leaders, not al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was essentially wiped out in Afghanistan by 2002. When the US leaves Afghanistan it will be lost to the Taliban, not al Qaeda. All of the statements I have seen about drone use in Afghanistan reference the Taliban.

So Obama says. So does Panetta. I haven't heard anyone else make that claim independently. Have you?

Not sure what you are saying here.

Who is says there are no Al Qeada in Afghanistan? So far just people with a vested political interest in saying so.

During the Cold War and until the mid 2000s. Your government has been calling them an ally and giving them billions and billions of dollars over several decades.

Understood but not since sometime in the 1990's Even if the US government was saying it. The Pakistan government never gave the US access to Khan to find out exactly what nuclear tech he sold to who. IF Pakistan were an ally there was no reason not to let the US talk to Khan. None.

But you kept paying them billions. I'm not saying there were a good ally. In fact I think they played you pretty badly, but they were treated like an ally until the US failure in Afghanistan destabilized the Pakistani government to the point that it is almost unrecognizable from how it looked in the 90's. But we are straying from the subject.

Obama's failure in Afghanistan. He wanted to ramp up the troops presence. The billions were to keep the supply lines open. Bush's failure was trying to bring order to Afghanistan. He could likely have defeated Al Qaeda there in 6 months to a year.

It depends on the circumstance, but there is certainly no mass-killing of civilians that drone strikes in e.g. Yemen is preventing. Name a single active theater in which drone strikes are preventing the death of thousands, let alone millions.

I am not particularly defending drone strikes Ibrahim. But As I recall at least one major Al Qaeda Bomb maker was the secondary target of the drone strike in Yemen that killed al-Awlaki [/quote]

Except they didn't get him, and al-Awlaki was the main target. The other "get" in the attack was his 16-year-old son, who was presumed to also be a militant.

So why did he have his 16 year old son there in harm's way?

At the cost of even more civilian lives, a loss of US prestige in the region and worldwide, and potentially actually benefiting AQ recruiting worldwide and especially in the regions where those civilians were killed. Assuming that these "al Qaeda commanders" were both legitimate targets and the right targets. The case of Anwar al-Awlaki is an interesting one. What did he do but talk? Why can a US citizen be killed by the US government without any kind of due process just for talking?

And perhaps Obama was just talking when he said Al Awlaki should die. Though to my chagrin Obama did twice win an election making him president of the US. What election did Al Awklaki win?

Not sure what you mean. A President wins the right to murder whoever he wants when he win an election? Awlaki didn't win an election, and he has a beard, so his rights as a US citizen don't rate?

al awlaki was a terrorist. No one elected him. He was not the leader of a nation. He is not responsible for the defense and general welfare of anyone. The evidence for that is overwhelming That he died is rough justice. He was denied his day in court like he would deny the right to life of anyone he felt would benefit his bigoted persecution of anyone he believed different than he did. In other words Al Awlaki was a intolerant terrorist pig . Trying to claim he was somehow discriminated against is a travesty of justice. AN insult to the families of those he strove to deny the lives of.

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional. It is a slippery slope when a leader deems it acceptable to kill his own citizens (which at least in theory he answers to)extra judicially based on the judgement of a secret panel. After that happens it is only a matter of perception on who it is acceptable to kill. Even if that citizenship was nothing more than an accident of birth. In al-Awlaki's case there was no reason for him to be a target rather than Al Asiri.(unless of course you are looking for headlines) If al-Awlaki happened to be killed by the same drone as was originally thought then i would not shed any tears over it. Not that I would any way. al-Awlaki was alleged to be a co-conspirator in the Fort Hood shootings. Alleged to be head of Al Qaeda in the Saudi Peninsula. Alledged to be riding in a vehicle with a notorious bomber. Alledged to be a rabid porno-phile. Why is it that so many really screwed up individuals become members of Al Qaeda anyway?

So you agree that the drone campaign is unconstitutional but you support the strike on al-Awlaki because of unsubstantiated claims and accusations the US military/CIA made and because he may have been a porn junkie? Better call strikes on half the cubicles in America then.

unconstitutional? Are you freaking for real? I did not come close to saying the drone campaign is unconstitutional outside of killing al Awlaki Was a terrorist was a porn junkie did encourage people to kill others. Just try doing that yourself sometimes and see if you don't get charged with intent to murder.

Television is widespread in Pakistan, most people are well aware of what life is like in wealthier nations, and it is already like that now in parts of Islamabad. The isolation you are talking about only effects the most remote places in this (or any) country. Ironically, the only contact some of those people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen will have had with Americans or American technology is when they are killed by a drone. People in Islamabad or Sanaa will of course watch a news story about it on TV, like we do.

Yeah that is exactly what I am meaning. People live their lives and make judgements by the self rationalized perception of their experiences. IE if they only get one side of the story then they only will believe that which they know how to rationalize into something they can understand based on that one side.

Not sure what "side of the story" makes drones strikes look like a good idea.[/quote]

Not sure how you could in any possible way interpret what I said in that manner without the intention to do so.

The people with murdered family members in rural Yemen aren't lacking some insight that would justify it to them. People all over the world with access to the Internet and other media know all the details and can clearly see this campaign for what it is.

I in general have not been talking at all about Yemen other than its relation to al Awlaki. That country is full of Al Qaeda and those that support Al Qaeda. It is the definition of a target rich environment.

[Ibrahim]

Doc you screwed up the quotes again.

So what is the purpose of the present drone campaigns and why are the civilian casualties incurred acceptable or worth sacrificing?

Subjective judgement call. Neither you nor I know the answer since we don't have all the information.

What information do you need that you lack? Its obvious to me that the whole thing is a civilian-murdering waste of time.

[Obama] said he would invade Pakistan if he thought it necessary. The drones strikes are his alternate plan.

The US will never invade Pakistan, and this is a false choice anyway. You can do neither, you don't have to do one or the other.

In Yemem they managed to kill al AWlaki in the middle of the desert far from civilians.

Your best-case scenario is the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen and his minor child?

Who is says there are no Al Qeada in Afghanistan? So far just people with a vested political interest in saying so.

Well that and journalists, historians writing about the early phase of the Afghan war, etc.

Obama's failure in Afghanistan. He wanted to ramp up the troops presence. The billions were to keep the supply lines open. Bush's failure was trying to bring order to Afghanistan. He could likely have defeated Al Qaeda there in 6 months to a year.

I just told you that al Qaeda was wiped out in Afghanistan in about a year. Anyway the Bush and Obama strategies were the same, which is to say they were the American strategy, and it failed, and the US military failed, and the NATO allies failed. Trying to narrow this down to your party biases is too small-picture.

Except they didn't get him, and al-Awlaki was the main target. The other "get" in the attack was his 16-year-old son, who was presumed to also be a militant.
So why did he have his 16 year old son there in harm's way?

They were diving to a wedding. The drone campaign kills people in their homes, at civilian gatherings, on roads. How can you also complain about people "being in harm's way" when you kill them in this manner? He didn't bring him to a trench to shoot at US soldiers.

Not sure what you mean. A President wins the right to murder whoever he wants when he win an election? Awlaki didn't win an election, and he has a beard, so his rights as a US citizen don't rate?

al awlaki was a terrorist. No one elected him. He was not the leader of a nation. He is not responsible for the defense and general welfare of anyone. The evidence for that is overwhelming

They evidence that he was not the leader of a nation? What are you even talking about? I have no idea why you introduced this comparison. Also, if there is so much evidence that he is a terrorist why not try and convict him? What evidence have you really seen? This applies to any of the targets killed by drones (excluding the additional civilian casualties)

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional.

unconstitutional? Are you freaking for real? I did not come close to saying the drone campaign is unconstitutional outside of killing al Awlaki

Oh. Kay.

I in general have not been talking at all about Yemen other than its relation to al Awlaki. That country is full of Al Qaeda and those that support Al Qaeda. It is the definition of a target rich environment.

So killing civilians in Yemen - in order to kill people that the CIA claims are terrorists in Yemen - is somehow more acceptable to you than doing it somewhere else? Your definition of "target rich" makes no sense when you have no idea who is actually being killed or on what basis. You just trust that they are the right victims, and that the women and children also killed are acceptable sacrifices, based on.... what?

[Hans Bulvai]

. You just trust that they are the right victims, and that the women and children also killed are acceptable sacrifices, based on.... what?

Their religion of course.

[Doc]

Doc you screwed up the quotes again.

I apologize for that. My eye sight is not as good as it once was.

So what is the purpose of the present drone campaigns and why are the civilian casualties incurred acceptable or worth sacrificing?

Subjective judgement call. Neither you nor I know the answer since we don't have all the information.

What information do you need that you lack? Its obvious to me that the whole thing is a civilian-murdering waste of time.

The Intelligence we will not see for years.

[Obama] said he would invade Pakistan if he thought it necessary. The drones strikes are his alternate plan.

The US will never invade Pakistan, and this is a false choice anyway. You can do neither, you don't have to do one or the other.[/quote]

Just the same that was what Obama said he would do.

In Yemem they managed to kill al AWlaki in the middle of the desert far from civilians.

Your best-case scenario is the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen and his minor child?[/quote]

Again why was his child there?

Who is says there are no Al Qeada in Afghanistan? So far just people with a vested political interest in saying so.

Well that and journalists, historians writing about the early phase of the Afghan war, etc.

What has the early phase of the Afghan war have to do with the lack of Al qaeda there now? A) Nothing.

Obama's failure in Afghanistan. He wanted to ramp up the troops presence. The billions were to keep the supply lines open. Bush's failure was trying to bring order to Afghanistan. He could likely have defeated Al Qaeda there in 6 months to a year.

I just told you that al Qaeda was wiped out in Afghanistan in about a year.

I just told you that we only have the word of the Obama Admin. How convenient that you are so willing to take their word on that but so not willing to take their word on drone attacks.

Anyway the Bush and Obama strategies were the same, which is to say they were the American strategy, and it failed, and the US military failed, and the NATO allies failed. Trying to narrow this down to your party biases is too small-picture.

Bush and Obama strategies were not the same not even close. The Bush Strategy was to treat Afghanistan as empty space over a long term occupation. The Obama surge strategy was to confront the Taliban throughout the country. It was Obama's "good War" Remember?

Except they didn't get him, and al-Awlaki was the main target. The other "get" in the attack was his 16-year-old son, who was presumed to also be a militant.
So why did he have his 16 year old son there in harm's way?

They were diving to a wedding.

On what basis do you make that claim? Were you there?

The drone campaign kills people in their homes, at civilian gatherings, on roads. How can you also complain about people "being in harm's way" when you kill them in this manner? He didn't bring him to a trench to shoot at US soldiers.

Awlaki choose the life he lead.

Not sure what you mean. A President wins the right to murder whoever he wants when he win an election? Awlaki didn't win an election, and he has a beard, so his rights as a US citizen don't rate?

al awlaki was a terrorist. No one elected him. He was not the leader of a nation. He is not responsible for the defense and general welfare of anyone. The evidence for that is overwhelming

They evidence that he was not the leader of a nation? What are you even talking about? I have no idea why you introduced this comparison. Also, if there is so much evidence that he is a terrorist why not try and convict him? What evidence have you really seen? This applies to any of the targets killed by drones (excluding the additional civilian casualties)

Presidents are elected. They have some moral authority based on their election. Again Who elected Awlaki? Who did he speak for other than himself? God? Was he then a profit? Were the murderers of 911 speaking for God? Were they forgiven their murders of Women and children and make civilians by God? Were they forgiven their time spent in strip clubs before they committed those 3000 murders of civilians, women and children included?

All for the "right" to sleep with 72 virgins?

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional.

unconstitutional? Are you freaking for real? I did not come close to saying the drone campaign is unconstitutional outside of killing al Awlaki

Oh. Kay.

I in general have not been talking at all about Yemen other than its relation to al Awlaki. That country is full of Al Qaeda and those that support Al Qaeda. It is the definition of a target rich environment.

So killing civilians in Yemen - in order to kill people that the CIA claims are terrorists in Yemen - is somehow more acceptable to you than doing it somewhere else? Your definition of "target rich" makes no sense when you have no idea who is actually being killed or on what basis. You just trust that they are the right victims, and that the women and children also killed are acceptable sacrifices, based on.... what?[/quote]

Regardless of any wrongs the Islamist world feels it has to except that their are civilians that die at the hands of Islamic terrorists AND deal with those terrorists. What have you personally done Ibrahim to deal with the butchers?

The Islamic world brought war to America. Now the Islamic world complains that it is not fair that weapons of war fall on Islamic countries? If you have done nothing Ibrahim. Even so much as complained about the books being sold at Friday prayers enumerating exclusively all the victimization of Muslims. If you have done nothing you have no moral grounds in which to complain about what's happened.

[Ibrahim]

Subjective judgement call. Neither you nor I know the answer since we don't have all the information.

What information do you need that you lack? Its obvious to me that the whole thing is a civilian-murdering waste of time.

The Intelligence we will not see for years.

Oh, like when we learned about all the CIA failures in Central America years after the fact? Or when we learned the extend of Soviet spying in the US after the fact? Or when we learned that Saddam was deliberately kept in power after Gulf War 1 and allowed to butcher Kurdish and other elements who had been encouraged to rise up and ally with the US after the fact?

We don't learn about great successes years later, we learn about failures. It will be the same in this case, and history will look back on the entire US response to 9/11 as a brutal, stupid, self-destructive failure. If you're waiting for these murders to be vindicated by secret records then don't hold your breath.

In Yemem they managed to kill al AWlaki in the middle of the desert far from civilians.

Your best-case scenario is the extra-judicial killing of a US citizen and his minor child?

Again why was his child there?

You mean why was the child driving to a wedding with his father?

What has the early phase of the Afghan war have to do with the lack of Al qaeda there now? A) Nothing.

What does the fact that they were all killed have anything to do with why there aren't any there now? Look, if you can't even tell the difference between al Qaeda and the Taliban then you need to do some serious reading.

I just told you that al Qaeda was wiped out in Afghanistan in about a year.

I just told you that we only have the word of the Obama Admin. How convenient that you are so willing to take their word on that but so not willing to take their word on drone attacks.

That is false. Numerous journalists, historians, and experts corroborate the accounts of the Afghan war vis. al Qaeda. In contrast, there is no independent verification of the targets of the drone program, although we do have verification than civilians are also murdered along with the intended targets.

Anyway the Bush and Obama strategies were the same, which is to say they were the American strategy, and it failed, and the US military failed, and the NATO allies failed. Trying to narrow this down to your party biases is too small-picture.

Bush and Obama strategies were not the same not even close.

The tactics changed, the strategies were are the same. Other than the initial success hitting AQ bases in the first year, everything else has been failure. That's 6 years of Bush failure, and four years of Obama failure so far. Defeated by Pashtun hillbillies with nothing but murdered civilians in your wake. Obama kills them with drones, Bush had to use old fashioned means at the start.

They were diving to a wedding.

On what basis do you make that claim? Were you there?

This is what all reports indicate. Have you read anything at all about it? What on Earth are you basing your claims on anyway? The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times both reported that he (and his son) were struck in or near their vehicle when they stopped to eat while traveling through Northern Yemen.

The drone campaign kills people in their homes, at civilian gatherings, on roads. How can you also complain about people "being in harm's way" when you kill them in this manner? He didn't bring him to a trench to shoot at US soldiers.

Awlaki choose the life he lead.

What life was that? What crimes do you have evidence that he committed, except for saying things on YouTube? You'd condemn a man to death based on nothing but hearsay.

Presidents are elected. They have some moral authority based on their election. Again Who elected Awlaki? Who did he speak for other than himself? God? Was he then a profit?

I don't. Know what. You mean. Presidents are allowed to kill whoever they want? You're not elected to anything, is Obama allowed to murder you because he doesn't like your face?

before they committed those 3000 murders of civilians, women and children included?

I don't know. What gives the US military to murder far more than 3000 civilians since 9/11? At least 9200 in Iraq alone, according to the most conservative estimates by the IBC Project. Why is it ok for US soldiers to commit three 9/11s in Iraq alone? For what?

I would agree that Obama's hit list is not constitutional.

unconstitutional? Are you freaking for real? I did not come close to saying the drone campaign is unconstitutional outside of killing al Awlaki

The Islamic world brought war to America.

False. Al-Qaeda attacked America.

Now the Islamic world complains that it is not fair that weapons of war fall on Islamic countries?

False, people in various countries are complaining that the US military is murdering women and children.

If you have done nothing Ibrahim.

You don't know what I've done or haven't done, but we do know what you've done. You've paid the taxes that bought the weapons and paid the killers to murder civilians. And you're defending those murders now. That's your contribution. You support and defend the murder of women and children for reasons you can't even explain.